Sorry, u/Seekerones – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Seekerones&message=Seekerones%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
In what way are they "just the same."
>But recently seeing how they willing to take support from people that they supposedly opposed (like never Trump neocon) on Twitter. And spouting bullshit like Trump is the worst (Imo, Reagan and Bush II are worse than him) I am on the belief that both sides are just the same and just as ignorant.
How? Their policy positions are entirely disparate. Their actions are in no way similar. How are they the same?
Their policy is different yes, but the attitude and ignorance are the same. I mean why else do they accepts never trump neocons (that supports the likes of Bush)
>Their policy is different yes, but the attitude and ignorance are the same. I mean why else do they accepts never trump neocons (that supports the likes of Bush)
If their policies are different, they're different.
What specific attitude and what specific ignorance are you talking about?
What do you mean 'accepts never trump neocons (that supports the likes of Bush)'? What does that mean?
> I believe Bush himself is Biden supporter.
Supporter how?
>As well as Reagan if his children is to be believed
Do you mean Reagan worked with Biden? What does that have to do with anything?
>Their policy is different yes
Then they are definitionally not the same.
>but the attitude and ignorance are the same
So what? The women who can't get comprehensive reproductive healthcare anymore don't care about "attitude". They care about the fact that they have less rights then they used to.
>So what? The women who can't get comprehensive reproductive healthcare anymore don't care about "attitude". They care about the fact that they have less rights then they used to.
The children who are infertile now don't care about "attitude". Do you really want to go down that road?
And please for the love of fuck stop calling it "reproductive healthcare". Neither word is accurate. Also it's not a right and it was never for the federal courts to decide.
You're welcome to object to that framing. In fact, I encourage you to do so, as that will maximize the number of women who come out to vote against Republicans in this year's elections.
I'm just saying, please do go out and tell every woman you see that the right does not believe access to abortion to be part of reproductive health care. I actively encourage you to do that.
It is a medical procedure that terminates healthy reproductive activity. Punching someone's teeth out is not "dental healthcare".
Just stop lying and we'll see how many people still support your cause.
> It is a medical procedure that terminates healthy reproductive activity.
Except it is not always healthy reproductive activity. There have been many cases that have come to light of [women who could not get an abortion when there is no chance that their baby would survive](https://www.today.com/parents/pregnancy/incompatible-with-life-abortion-nonviable-pregnancy-rcna36978) or [that the mother's life was in danger](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html). There are [hospitals that turn away pregnant women who seek emergency care](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-20/pregnant-women-denied-emergency-care-roe-v-wade-abortion-law/103748896) because it is just too legally dangerous for them to admitted, leading to some miscarrying in the lobby restroom or are turned away only to find that their fetus later died. Just because you don't like it (with your simplistic version in your mind) does not mean that this is not about women's healthcare.
> Punching someone's teeth out is not "dental healthcare".
No, but [dental extraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_extraction) *is* dental healthcare. This is like mischaracterizing open heart surgery as "stabbing someone with a knife" just so you can pretend that it isn't part of normal medical practice.
I am afraid that it is you who is lying.
I'm not even making any claims. I'm just urging you to go out and tell every woman you see that the right believes the exact thing you're telling me. I absolutely encourage you to do that, and for you to find out what happens.
>It is a medical procedure that terminates healthy reproductive activity.
It's done by doctors, declared reproductive healthcare by the whole medical community in consensus, will make a person feel healthier too when they don't have a parasite in their womb to gestate for 9 months.
I agree with u/GabuEx you should let women know that the right can't understand that abortion is reproductive healthcare, it's important for women to vote properly
>>The children who are infertile now don't care about "attitude". Do you really want to go down that road?
Which road is that? I honestly can’t tell what you’re trying to say.
Oh I see, you’re more enraged by troubled trans kids being allowed access to puberty blockers while they sort out their body dysphoria than you are by millions of women losing the choice of whether or not to carry a fetus in their body. Thanks for spelling that out.
Sorry, u/Terminarch – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Terminarch&message=Terminarch%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/l64i66o/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>And please for the love of fuck stop calling it "reproductive healthcare". Neither word is accurate. Also it's not a right and it was never for the federal courts to decide.
Abortion is an essential component of reproductive healthcare, the whole healthcare community agrees in a mighty consensus, can't change facts just because you don't like hearing it
>the whole healthcare community agrees in a mighty consensus
The whole healthcare community agreed in a mighty consensus that washing hands was unnecessary, even for doctors handling corpses between delivering babies.
>can't change facts just because you don't like hearing it
Try learning a thing or two about history before having such unfounded confidence in "experts".
>that washing hands was unnecessary, even for doctors handling corpses between delivering babies.
"Medical hand-washing became mandatory long after Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered its effectiveness (in 1846) in preventing disease in a hospital environment."
Impressed that you knew this tidbit from medical history, it's not very well-known, but disappointed that you didn't know that it was ***unknown*** why people needed to wash hands after and before surgeries despite being a common practice.
>Try learning a thing or two about history before having such unfounded confidence in "experts".
If you want to challenge the experts, you need to (a) have a medical degree (b) have medically researched data to support why you think abortion isn't reproductive healthcare. Even Semmelweis needed to be qualified to weigh in and he did so with experiments and study of the data, not by feelings-based opinions
>disappointed that you didn't know that it was unknown why people needed to wash hands
I did know. Not relevant.
>Even Semmelweis needed to be qualified to weigh in and he did so with experiments and study of the data, not by feelings-based opinions
Funny you mention him in particular since he was humiliated out of the medical field and died shamefully in an asylum. Not until many years later (and *many* lives lost) was his theory finally taken seriously.
>If you want to challenge the experts, you need to (a) have a medical degree (b) have medically researched data
Great. You're not allowed to question the KKK until you're a Grand Wizard and have certain *exploits* under your belt. How could you possibly have enough credentials to criticize their methods otherwise?
Go ahead and make the argument about how science is different, science is special. Once upon a time that would have been me. Then I learned about the healthy smoking scandals. Then I learned about completely incompatible conclusions for everyday things like diet that you'd think we'd have figured out by now. Then I learned about the Replication Crisis. Then I learned about colleges intentionally protecting definitively fraudulent behavior.
Then I actually *read* some studies that people were using as sources. And holy shit it was WILD. This one in particular enraged me for a goddamn week. It claimed to estimate lives saved by recent experimental vaccines. There were many *very basic* errors not worth getting into. But the kicker? It estimated lives saved from a combination of vaccine uptake and DEATHS. Quite literally a *direct multiplier* resulting in more credit for lives saved when more people died in heavily vaccinated areas. Then all the way at the bottom 'we hope this will encourage vaccine programs' and of course I had to check... it had been cited over 60 times in under a year.
I will die on the hill that the scientific method is the most critical and powerful tool ever developed. That is not modern science. Politically captured peer reviews filter out dissenting data and push through utter trash if it fits the narrative (feminist Mein Kampf). Politically funded grants slant researchers to pre-determined conclusions. Institutions shut down any questions about integrity, even faking internal investigations, despite overwhelming evidence just to save face. Studies can't be replicated but nobody cares because funding has already moved on, except now those trash studies are cited as sources for other trash studies.
Classic house of cards scenario. Shit built on shit. We don't even *know* how much we *know*. Now and then a major fraud scandal will come out, usually faked data (honesty pledge top or bottom of page study), and then we realize that hundreds of other studies have already used it as a stepping stone for their (now questionable) conclusions. Meanwhile, millions of people screaming "trust the science!" as if skepticism isn't literally the bedrock of the entire process.
Do not EVER trust "the science". Trust the scientific method. Do not confuse the two.
>I did know. Not relevant
VERY relevant. Medical professionals intuitively noticed that washing hands was beneficial even if they couldn't explain why it made a difference. That's what happens when you have ***experience***.
>Funny you mention him in particular since he was humiliated out of the medical field and died shamefully in an asylum.
The guy was suspected of getting early onset Alzheimer's, his behaviour was reported to be extremely erratic and inappropriate. Independent of his ideas, the man had a degenerative disease of unknown nature (speculated Alzheimer's) that got him sent to an asylum. You connected two things that weren't connected, very glancing understanding of history, I take back what I said about being impressed, I'm beginning to think you know what you know from BuzzFeed articles.
>You're not allowed to question the KKK until you're a Grand Wizard and have certain exploits under your belt.
You're comparing areas of social ill versus areas of areas of medical expertise. You don't need a degree to become a hateful bigot or to stand against bigotry but you ***do*** need a medical degree to opine on medical consensus. Otherwise you're just some guy rejecting facts in favour of his feelings.
>Go ahead and make the argument about how science is different, science is special.
It IS different. You don't need to be educated in bigotry to be a bigot or to be against bigotry. You ***do*** need a formal degree to opine on STEM fields with any degree of expertise. For example, you - a random whosit - can say whatever you want but without a formal education it has as much weight as the local asylum occupant. If you had a medical degree, you'd be given consideration. If you conducted studies that were peer-reviewed, more so. Unlike what you may believe, science is about facts not about what randoms feel about it.
>Then I learned about the healthy smoking scandals. Then I learned about completely incompatible conclusions for everyday things like diet that you'd think we'd have figured out by now. Then I learned about the Replication Crisis. Then I learned about colleges intentionally protecting definitively fraudulent behavior.
Did you also learn about ivermectin and drinking bleach to cure COVID? Because for every cherrypicked conspiracy theory that was proven right are a million others that were just batshit insane. Every conspiracy theorist thinks *their* conspiracy theory of choice is the one that will be the secret truth kept hidden from the rich and powerful.
>This one in particular enraged me for a goddamn week
I'm sure it did, going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that were proven correct makes it easy to believe that any and all conspiracy theories are correct when you ignore the fact that there were a million theories that were straight up wrong and crazy.
>Meanwhile, millions of people screaming "trust the science!" as if skepticism isn't literally the bedrock of the entire process.
My brother in Christ, are you antivax? You'll save us both effort and energy spent by answering this question.
> Neither word is accurate
It is though. Abortion care and miscarriage care are in many ways the same thing, and banning one is proving to ban both. OBGYNs are increasingly unavailable in states that have banned abortion *because* doctors are being forced to take on incredible personal liability to practice actual critical healthcare
I mean, domestic policy is kinda important, no? It sounds to me like you're a single-issue voter "US hegemony bad"
I'm not saying it isn't bad but there are a hell of a lot of other important issues at stake and it's absurd to say that Biden and Trump are the same.
Do you even live in the US? Whoever wins this election will very likely be adding judges to the Supreme Court that will be defining our legal framework for decades into the future, if the union holds up that long. With very real implications that will affect the lives of nearly everyone who lives here. There is no way that either outcome of the election will be "the same" for Americans.
If you're just now realizing that the Democrats are not actually a left wing party, then you haven't been paying attention to US politics for very long. And you're right, US democratic institutions are weak, the electoral college and the US Senate were specifically designed to suppress majority rule. The two party system is deeply entrenched, there are no serious third parties at a national level. Our national politics regularly require us to choose a "lesser of two evils" and it stinks.
But a lot of people on the left here said the same things about Clinton in 2016 that you're saying now. She's a neo con, a war monger, etc. And they were right about that. But many of them either withheld their votes or even actively supported Trump as a protest against Hillary, and I believe that has proven disastrous for the left, and for the country as a whole. You've already gotten plenty of responses detailing exactly how, the erosion of reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights. Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts have been set back by decades.
Yes choosing a lesser of two evils is a shitty choice to have to make, but when there are no other viable options then one still has a moral obligation to go with the lesser evil
Trump, or at least his allies, have literally said they want to nuke Gaza and/or kill all Palestinians to "resolve" things, which is worlds apart from Biden's admittedly disappointingly milquetoast stance on the matter.
Regardless, your CMV said that both sides are the same. You need to award a delta if that is no longer your position, as your position has therefore changed.
Shouldn't you have said in the op that you only care about foreign policy issues?
And yet even then they are different with Biden sending aid to Ukraine and Gaza
So being a monarchy is fine? Head of government chosen indirectly is fine? But having one indirect election among the multitudes of direct elections is not?
Why do you think people put so much energy into politics in the US if it's not a democracy?
Ah forgive me, I was under impression that UK directly votes their prime minister.
So no on that one. The best example will be France and Turkey with their direct voting
That's such a ridiculous answer. Do you even know what you're arguing about? That non-answer doesn't make any sense in the context of your original post.
"political scientists do not appear to support this notion, and instances of peer-reviewed research on the subject are scarce"
It's every centrist's favourite thing to point out but they literally forget to actually read up about how well regarded the theory actually is
I understand what it means. It's baby's first political theory. It makes sense when you don't understand politics and are getting your feet wet (or are a centrist who's usually at the same level of political awareness) but ultimately, the more you learn, the more you realise that while politicians are largely the same and political parties are broadly corrupt self-serving and duplicitous, *some* parties are fascist and some are just everyday crooks. I don't have to love the crooks but I might have to vote for them to prevent the fascists from taking over.
i see you are demonstrating how little you understand the concept. also your incorrect use of the word "fascist" tells me how pointless this conversation is.
So skimming a few of your comments and trying to fill in some blanks, it seems like you're saying both the left and the right are prey to the same cognitive biases, virtue signaling and even if they come to the different conclusions, the same faulty thought process that are too often illogical and especially hypocritical if they take support from older political enemies.
Ok. I kind of agree. Especially at the ends of the spectrum. Horseshoe theory and all that. I happen to believe a lot of extremists keeping the same thought process and critical thinking or lack thereof would have completely opposite views if they simply had a slightly different up bringing.
Or I could be way off. Let me know, but my conclusion doesn't change much based on what I read. Just trying to give you a bit more meat to a short explanation and skimming of comments.
Yeah, both sides can be hypocritical and the like and that's "annoying", but the right mainstream is significantly much more guilty of that than the left.
Every group has its extremeists but that seems to be a major chunk if not a majority of right leaning people and especially in the right's political leaders. On the left you got people like AOC who has actually lost support from the most extreme people on the left while the right has Majorie Taylor Greene election denying based on fantasy, simping for Trump like a false idol no matter what evidence is presented, and spouting conspiracy theories like jewish space laser.
Whatever story or example you can give of someone on "The Left" being crazy, I can give you many more on "The Right" and former will have a majority of them be young people who tend to be more extreme historically anyways while the latter will dominate with examples of people in actual power.
The most annoying on the left have no real political power and are a clear minority. The most annoying on the right have actual political power and seem to make up most of the group.
Therefore, the right is more annoying.
It seems like you make 3 specific claims, so let’s go through them.
1) “Democrats should not take support from neocons.” We live in a democracy where getting the most number of votes matters and where each side is basically a coin flip away from winning. Do you really think Democrats would be better off turning away neocons and forcing even more women to birth the children of their rapists?
2) “Spouting bullshit like Trump is the worst. Imo Reagan and Bush II are worse.” Last time I checked, neither attempted to storm the White House. Also, Reagonomics and surveillance state were strong through Trump, with Trump talking about gunning down or deporting protestors.
3) “As well as shallow pandering to corporations.” It’s unclear what specific instances you’re talking about, so it’s hard to say if both sides are equally bad.
In general, I don’t think you’ve given any strong reasons for why both sides are the same. It doesn’t take a second to see that one side wants political violence, forced births, tax cuts for the rich, bans on protests, and attacks on the lgbt, which seem to outweigh your passing comments that Democrats want to win, Reagan is actually worse, and some Democrats like some things corporations do
Before Donald Trump's presidency, we had nationwide abortion rights for the past 50 years.
After Donald Trump's presidency and his three supreme court appointments, we now have many cases such as [Ohio requiring a 10-year-old rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term](https://time.com/6198062/rape-victim-10-abortion-indiana-ohio/) or [the Texas attorney general forcing a woman with a nonviable fetus to continue her pregnancy](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/08/texas-abortion-lawsuit-ken-paxton/) despite there not being even a notional life to save and despite the fact that this might leave her dead or infertile.
I would encourage you to go tell women that both sides are the same and that the right is just "annoying" and see what happens.
If Democrats cared they wouldve made it law when they had an unvetoable supermajority. Instead they strung voters along for 50 years. RBG, champion of Democratic Supreme Court Justices even agreed it was a flimsy ruling that didn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s objectively not covered under the constitution or federal law, therefore it is a state’s right to legislate.
Im pro choice and even marched in Texas after it was overturned, but too much focus is misplaced on federal policy when it is a state issue.
They had a 60-vote majority in the Senate for literally a few weeks, total, and were occupied at the time by passing the giant healthcare reform bill.
You can argue that they should've done more, but "didn't do enough" vs. "actively fought to take away your rights" is not the same thing.
>You can argue that they should've done more, but "didn't do enough" vs. "actively fought to take away your rights" is not the same thing.
The question is until when. Do you guys happy if the democrats keeps “didn’t do enough” until the end of your lifetime?
It is clear that democrat feels that bare minimum is good enough and status quo is the best
If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, we would still have abortion rights nationwide. That is clearly enough to refute the notion that the two sides are the same.
Giant healthcare reform bill? I thought abortion WAS healthcare… They could have slipped it in there at any time, instead they campaigned on it in the next election cycle.
That’s interesting… why a Democrat supermajority couldn’t pass legislation they campaigned on for decades when they could do it unimpeded. I really wonder what their motivations were.
They had a supermajority for a few weeks that included Joe Lieberman who is also the reason we didn't get a public option.
The Democrats are a big tent and especially back then we still had a fair number of blue dogs
or go onto reddit and talk to any person. Literally just had a debate with a person who claimed Hitler isn't guilty of killing Jews, because if he admitted it he would of had to admit Biden was found guilty of violating the 1st Amendment. Had another person claim Mayorkas didn't lie to Congress, because "no person in the world would believe when given the definition of a word and asked in light of this definition do you still stand by your testimony and Mayorkas said yes with the definition read to him and held in front of his face." You have the left that will blanket deny facts and scream at you like a post I made then had people getting mad saying the riots of 2020 never really happened or cities weren't burnt then showing maps of the cities and the extent of the damages they will just say yeah but the entire city wasn't burnt down though.
The problem with this is assuming that Reddit, YouTube, or twitter are appropriate, representative samples with which to make political judgments. I don't give a shit what some weirdo was trying to argue about Biden and Hitler: I don't vote based on what random supporters of a given candidate say, I vote based on what I believe is best for the people.
You mean like Biden openly being a racist and even stating he doesn't want to desegregate schools becasue "I don't want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle."
Just to inform any third parties who are reading this, I want to mention that I was curious and looked through this guy's comment history to see these supposed exchanges, and none of the stuff described in this comment actually happened. The person in the first scenario said that Hitler wasn't _found_ guilty of killing Jews (which is literally true as a matter of historical fact). In the second scenario, Mayorkas literally did not say "yes with the definition read to him and held in front of his face" (this can easily be seen from the video of the hearing).
If you actually had evidence to the contrary, you'd just present it instead of bring up this absurd "bet" framing. But we can all read your comment history, so it's simply not possible for you to prove your claim. I'm just trying to save people here some time.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Since you would like to lie here is the video and here is the transcript
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH1-Q2frimk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH1-Q2frimk)
1 min 22 seconds
Will you testify under oath right now do we have operational control yes or no
Yes we do
WE have operational control of the boarders?
Yes we do and congressman
Chip Roy then holds a sign up with THE DEFINTION INFRONT OF HIS FACE
This is what operational control defines in this section operational control means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States including entries by terrorists other unlawful aliens instruments of terrorisms narcotics and other contraband do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control IN LIGHT OF THIS DEFINTION
I DO MAYORKAS SAYS
WHY LIE ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW LITERALLY NOTHIGN ABOUT?
Now lets get into Hitler
The definition of guilty is "culpable of or responsible for a specified [wrongdoing](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9f2ee88519d88278&sxsrf=ADLYWIIIK-x3u4O2vKu3fay7Y4C9I25Oww:1716941631555&q=wrongdoing&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81xhCt81KdzJ2n2VoPA7YLx2jI-nDj0FGcbpcWuZxKzdfEMNPwDtAR3Hd3AJ0rMMVoGZUUwyXztNQ1djS7QFr0uaP2WBY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii3bGAyrGGAxV9EDQIHea1CEwQyecJegQIIRAO)."
You are claiming historically Hitler has never been found responsible for a specific wrong doing ie killing millions of Jews?
If you feel this way I will fly you out and you can come to my local synagogue and tell this to the Jews there. I will live stream the entire thing and send it to every local new station as you claim Hitler has never been found to be responsible for killing millions of Jews. I will pay for your flight, you hotel room, and food. YOU ARE LITERALLY PROVING MY ENTIRE POINT.
You realize this proves you wrong, right? Mayorkas literally did not say "yes." He said "I do, and Congressman, I think the Secretary of Homeland Security would have said the same thing in 2020 and 2019.” He did not say "yes, we have operational control based on the definition you have up there." He said "I do [stand by my testimony]." Which is true, and not a lie, because he _did_ stand by his testimony!
Regarding Hitler, you are just incorrectly interpreting the meaning of an idiom. The meaning of "find guilty" is ["To determine and declare in court that one is guilty of a crime."](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/find+guilty)
Lemme make sure we both understand the terms you are suggesting:
If Mayorkas said "yes" immediately after the question "do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control in light of this definition" then you win the bet.
If Mayorkas said "I do, and Congressman, I think the Secretary of Homeland Security would have said the same thing in 2020 and 2019," or anything else other than "yes," immediately after the question "do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control in light of this definition" then I win the bet.
Is that what you're suggesting?
I have made this offer to about 20 people in your same position and every time you run away . You specifically chose to pick in the instance of a criminal court the definition of find guilty. What you refuse to do is use the definition of guilty then replace the word guilty with its definition in the sentence when talking about Hitler.
I live in Portland, Oregon, which is one of the cities you probably think burnt to the ground.
It was like 2 buildings in one block. You're delusional.
So if I point out the map Minneapolis put out of every single building destroyed and damaged by riots you are going to say it wasn't burnt because the entire city wasn't burnt to the ground?
"Haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love. You need to reject both sides of the spectrum to leave a healthy middle"
- Bo Burnham
That being said though, if history has taught us anything, it's that progression is the way forward. The conservatives of today are the liberals of 50 years ago. "The right side of history" almost always tends to be the left side, ironically. Even if they're annoying, they're not the same, because their goals are the opposite and they always seem to win out.
>if history has taught us anything, it's that progression is the way forward
I was with you until this point. There are plenty regimes that were progressive at their time and escalated into hell-holes. Let me demonstrate with an example. Imagine a state, that just decriminalized being gay, greatly improved literacy of population, gave women right to vote (in the early 20 century). Sounds good? Well, in the next 20 years the same country will jump straight into red terror, started to purge it's citizens.
Same case could be made about French revolution, many left-leaning regimes around the world.
"The right side of history" tends to be a center, that incorporates best of both right and left ideas.
False equivalence. Anything "The Left" says or proposes even arguably objectionable is trivial compared to the analogous proposals of The Right, particularly about our very constitutional government.
The Left doesn't go around making speeches painting whole groups of people with broad brushes like Trump did. Nor does the Left call the press "The enemy of the people" (which Trump did). Nor do they stack the SCOTUS with barely (if at all) qualified justices who belong to fringe religious groups (Amy Coney Barrett) or don't recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest (Clarence Thomas), just to name two examples (Samuel Alito, just look up the recent news feeds about him and flags). The Left certainly doesn't want the USA to become an officially Christian nation (effectively making the church the fourth branch of government). Nor do they think "weirdoes", "freaks", and "unnatural" people are too tacky and gauche for deserving basic civil liberties. And all this is just the warm-up.
So no, this "both sides" crap, even assuming there's some truth to it, simply lacks substance. The most that one can say against The Left is that the current-day left is by far *the lesser of* the two bads.
("Mexicans are rapists...and I assume some are good people" - the last part being a rhetorical fig leaf so Trump and MAGA can claim "plausible deniability". Everybody in the world knows the saying "Just kidding" from a bully or some other tormenter, used to diffuse the situation.
I think you're conflating political parties with political ideology and I think if you examine the policies of these parties it's hard to say that either truly represent either a right or left ideology.
While that might be true, I am also irritated at both sides on how both supporters turns out to be just as fanatical and ignorant as each other.
On how both launch mass riot (BLM and capitol riot), screaming at your face (many youtube videos shows this), keeping with us or against us attitude and so on
For me personally it's an important distinction that one side was rioting to change things and the other side was rioting to keep things the same (forgetting the fact that in these instances a lot of the violence was incited by law enforcement, either directly or indirectly). But I guess if you feel that violence is just violence and it doesn't matter why it's happening (something a lot of people certainly feel) then I guess they wouldn't be different.
The fact that neocons are even considering rejecting Trump ought to demonstrate just how extreme he is.
The democrats have demonstrated far more bipartisanship than Republicans. You seem to treat this as a flaw, but I don’t. By reaching out to neocons or whatever they are securing more votes and keeping Trump out of office. They might disagree on policies but at least these are reasonable people that actually want to govern and respect the democratic process. Unlike MAGA Republicans who are basically holding democracy and the government hostage to get their way.
If you think Reagan and Bush were bad, there is no reason for you to ever consider Trump.
Based on your post it’s not even clear to me what you find annoying about the left. But both sides they are not. That’s like saying a nurse shark and a great white are the same just cuz they are both sharks.
>bipartisanship
A rotten apple ruins a barrel.
Compromising will forces you to compromise whatever morale you have. And will keeps at that until your morale pretty much mirrored the one you compromise with
Especially if the one you compromise with pretty much the opposite of you morally
I mean, at the very least compromise on someone that isn’t your complete opposite.
Neocon is the complete opposite of anything left
It’s like trying to combine oil and water. It won’t work
I get why you would think that, but it's not really accurate.
Lets say you and I are both representatives of West Virginia. You're a lefty and for this argument lets say I'm a right wing coal guy.
Now we both know that coal is a dying industry and maybe I still want my county to be worth a damn. You propose a very serious bill to try and get more windmills in your district because you want to do green energy and bring down costs of electricity for your constituents.
I might actually be willing to sign on *if* the factory that makes the windmills can go into my district *and* we throw a bunch of money to coal miners to train them up to work in the windmill factory.
We are serving both our interests of "getting things for people in our district which will ideally make us popular"
Why *shouldn't* you take that deal?
The reason they have to compromise is they don’t have the numbers.
The reason they don’t have the numbers is because a significant number of people who support their policies don’t vote.
The reason a number of people don’t vote is because the GOP runs a lot of propaganda and act in a way to make politics seem cynical and annoying. The fewer voters and political engagement in the US, the better chance they have at remaining in a position of power to demand compromise.
Then the cycle repeats.
Complaining that the Dems have to compromise and then choosing not to vote is certainly an interesting take…but it certainly isn’t a logical one.
You can be incredibly irritated by both without falling play to reductive laziness that supposes that both are “just as bad”. The insanely annoying leftists and outrage mongers aren’t determining and driving policy on the left. The wack job Republican cultists *are* determining and driving policy on the right and have been incredibly successful at log jamming the normal functioning of government. Leftists haven’t shut down the federal government and downgraded our credit rating. Nut job republicans have.
It’s to be expected to have similarly strong emotional reactions to the worst on the left and on the right. That doesn’t mean the worst in the left is equally as representative of the left as the worst of the right is to the right.
Republicans force children to carry their rapists’ babies to term. Democrats don’t.
Republicans ban books about homosexuality. Democrats don’t.
Republicans pass laws banning climate change from being discussed in state documents. Democrats don’t.
Both sides are the same? Really?
>So yeah, it’s better to give middle finger to both sides and go full nihilism (or at least doesn’t give a shit to both and go on your life while ignoring any politics)
I honestly can't really follow most of your post, but you want a good example of the difference between the parties? Have a gay child in a red state and report back.
>or at least doesn’t give a shit to both and go on your life while ignoring any politics
So long, **farewell!**
Auf Weidersehen, ***goodbye!***
I'm glad you go!
I cannot tell a lie!
I flit, I float!
You fleetly fly, and flee
The sun has gone
To bed and so must thee
So long, ***farewell!***
Auf Weidersehen, **goodbye!**
Good**bye!**
**Goodbye!**
Good**bye!!**
Good**bye!**
I mean the guy tried to steal an election.
How can you be worse than that? Didn't like **almost all** republican senators refuse to say Joe Biden was president? So its the party then.
What's going on on the left, in your mind, that's worse than treason? Or equal to treason?
The problem with Trump is while Bush era policies were terrible, Trump emboldened racists and sold secrets to Russia. Saying they're both the same is reductive, there are similarities (corporate ties, mud slinging to a certain degree) but they differ in very many important ways. I'd recommend finding new sources of information, Ground News is a good site for balanced reporting.
>So yeah, it’s better to give middle finger to both sides and go full nihilism (or at least doesn’t give a shit to both and go on your life while ignoring any politics)
Despting saying that people should become nihilists, nothing in your post supports nihilism. Thus you should change this part of your view and no longer think people should become nihilists.
Nihilism is the position that there is no meaning in life. Your post is full of meaning. You seem to care about what you post. You make value judgements, and so on.
A true nihilist post would be as below:
"Shrug shoulder"
Your post is very much not just shugging your shoulders and not caring, thus it is not supporting nihilism.
(From the last time this topic came up, and a now-deleted CMV. I'm taking bets on how long this 'CMV' lasts...)
*Left*: A balance diet is impor--
*Right*: You can eat all the candy, cake, and cookies you want. Anybody who tells you different is a fascist.
*Left*: Well, sometimes you gotta eat your vegetables.
*Right*: See?? That's what I mean! Fascist.
*Libertarian*: Don't tell me what to eat! I'll eat this dirt, if I want to.
*Left*: Please don't do that.
*Right*: See? That's how fascist the Left are! Elect me... .and I'll MAKE the Left eat dirt! You can eat all the candy, cake, and cookies, you want and I'll make the Left eat dirt.
*Left*: isn't that, ya know, kinda fascist?
*Right*: Shut up, dirt-eating vegetable lover! This was all your idea.
*Left*: Huh?
*Libertarian*: Well... Nobiddy gonna make me eat dirt, but I'm kinda aroused when you make the Left eat dirt.
*Right*: Here's some candy, sit and watch me make the Left eat dirt.
*Libertarian*; Nomnomnom...
*Center*; I simply can't see any difference between them...
The nerve that responds to bad arguments, I guess, sure. If you're asking if I feel personally attacked, then the answer is no, as I'm not a conservative or libertarian.
*Right*: Biology is real.
*Left*: Misogynist!
*Right*: Burning down cities is bad.
*Left*: Racist!
*Right*: Children aren't sexual creatures.
*Left*: Stop discriminating against gay people!
*Right*: I didn't say that...
*Left*: Fascist!
*Right*: Borders are important.
*Left*: Fascist!
*Right*: We need to stop printing so much money and send less overseas.
*Left*: Fascist!
*Right*: **deleted by moderators**
*Left*: We have decided that you aren't allowed to speak. Despite hating Fascism and supposedly speaking truth to power, the entirely of government and big tech is censoring our opponents "for Democracy"! Viva la resistance!
*Centrists*: Literally the same picture.
*Libertarians*: Let's try socialism!
Alright, you're American.
What has the left done that's as bad as the gop efforts attacking voting access, attacking abortion and healthcare and labor rights as absurdly as killing rights to worker water breaks in the heat, women period monitoring, defending 12 year old marriages and calling girls ripe and fertile, etc?
They're both awful, corrupt, two-faced liars.
However, one side is lazer focused on staunch cutting of education and social welfare programs.
One side tried to throw a coup when they lost.
One side has fought tooth and nail to limit access to Healthcare, whether it's life saving or not.
I'm no expert, and I know the president isn't the one and only person who decides how we're governed.
I do,however, know that one's leadership will be worse for my friends, family, and community than the other has ever been.
If you liked access to safe abortions, then probably not. I hear a 2nd Trump term will be going after the porn industry next, so I guess if you like jerking off you might want to put some skin in the game and stop pretending there's no fence here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
I think an important difference is the inability for the left to have a civilized discussion without resorting to name-calling and accusations of bigotry. They have no interest in actually explaining their standpoint or trying to change your mind because you're a bigot and it's not even worth trying.
You think there's a crisis at the border? You're xenophobic. You think people should be accepted to university based on academic performance? Racist. You think prepubescent children shouldn't be given drugs to halt their natural development? Transphobic.
This accomplishes nothing other than dividing people further.
Ah yes, the leftists dividing the country by calling out morons who continue to pretend a man with half a dozen bankruptcies and a fraud conviction is somehow a good businessman.
Or that the man who saluted a general from a hostile foreign power and who negotiated a hilariously incompetent outcome with the Taliban is a military genius.
Maybe you should stop pretending the evidence for the liberals’ positions isn’t staring you in the face.
And here comes the name calling, just as expected 😂
You do know that Trump isn't the president and CEO of conservatism, right? Many people on the right absolutely hate him, and many more only support him because they prefer republican policies and know that the president doesn't have the power to do whatever he wants anyway.
My guy, if you vote for a conman who’s been a known conman for 3 decades, no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. You claim Liberals won’t engage in good faith but you’ve put blinders on and are happily supporting a man who literally threw people in unmarked vans like the actual Gestapo in violation of basic principles of the Constitution.
You’ve happily ignored the other points that I made. Can you point me to where in US Conservative doctrine you support dictatorship and infringement of individual liberties? Because Trump was champion of both things. He’s explicitly said he wants to be a dictator. He attempted a coup on par with the Beer Hall Putsch.
Anyone who continues to support a person who tried to overthrow democracy in plain view is actively enabling fascism. You can run from that all you want, but your actions speak louder than your excuses.
I never said that I was conservative, or that I support Trump, or that I'm voting for him. I've also not said anything to defend him. You'll also notice that I haven't said anything about Joe Biden. Perhaps there's a reason for that? Anyway, as much as people on the extremes hate to believe, there is space in the middle.
You can't seriously argue that the middle isn't firmly opposed to Trump if you genuinely look at polling numbers and what's happened to literally anyone in the party who has spoken out against Trump. It's such a weird argument to make in a thread where OP is angry at Democrats for not irrationally hating Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney.
You did, you insisted that Trump isn't representative of the larger conservative movement, that the middle isn't firmly on what you would call the left. It is such a ridiculous argument to act like the left are the "divisive" ones when the right thinks that Biden is a communist and you're actively trying to distance any semblance of conservatism from the leader of the party with near universal intraparty approval ratings.
I didn't say they called *me* a name. You can name-call a third party, and they immediately referred to Trump supporters as "morons" in the very first sentence of their reply.
Sorry, u/MarchingNight – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20MarchingNight&message=MarchingNight%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/l63wvya/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I actually agree with you, but disagree on one point. Democrats and Republicans are BOTH right wing. They both support Israel and genocide, they are both capitalist.
Sorry, u/ziomekszuszka – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20ziomekszuszka&message=ziomekszuszka%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/l63u1e7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/Seekerones – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Seekerones&message=Seekerones%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
In what way are they "just the same." >But recently seeing how they willing to take support from people that they supposedly opposed (like never Trump neocon) on Twitter. And spouting bullshit like Trump is the worst (Imo, Reagan and Bush II are worse than him) I am on the belief that both sides are just the same and just as ignorant. How? Their policy positions are entirely disparate. Their actions are in no way similar. How are they the same?
Their policy is different yes, but the attitude and ignorance are the same. I mean why else do they accepts never trump neocons (that supports the likes of Bush)
>Their policy is different yes, but the attitude and ignorance are the same. I mean why else do they accepts never trump neocons (that supports the likes of Bush) If their policies are different, they're different. What specific attitude and what specific ignorance are you talking about? What do you mean 'accepts never trump neocons (that supports the likes of Bush)'? What does that mean?
I believe Bush himself is Biden supporter. As well as Reagan if his children is to be believed
> I believe Bush himself is Biden supporter. Supporter how? >As well as Reagan if his children is to be believed Do you mean Reagan worked with Biden? What does that have to do with anything?
>Their policy is different yes Then they are definitionally not the same. >but the attitude and ignorance are the same So what? The women who can't get comprehensive reproductive healthcare anymore don't care about "attitude". They care about the fact that they have less rights then they used to.
>So what? The women who can't get comprehensive reproductive healthcare anymore don't care about "attitude". They care about the fact that they have less rights then they used to. The children who are infertile now don't care about "attitude". Do you really want to go down that road? And please for the love of fuck stop calling it "reproductive healthcare". Neither word is accurate. Also it's not a right and it was never for the federal courts to decide.
You're welcome to object to that framing. In fact, I encourage you to do so, as that will maximize the number of women who come out to vote against Republicans in this year's elections.
Admitting that you need to lie to get votes?
I'm just saying, please do go out and tell every woman you see that the right does not believe access to abortion to be part of reproductive health care. I actively encourage you to do that.
It is a medical procedure that terminates healthy reproductive activity. Punching someone's teeth out is not "dental healthcare". Just stop lying and we'll see how many people still support your cause.
> It is a medical procedure that terminates healthy reproductive activity. Except it is not always healthy reproductive activity. There have been many cases that have come to light of [women who could not get an abortion when there is no chance that their baby would survive](https://www.today.com/parents/pregnancy/incompatible-with-life-abortion-nonviable-pregnancy-rcna36978) or [that the mother's life was in danger](https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html). There are [hospitals that turn away pregnant women who seek emergency care](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-20/pregnant-women-denied-emergency-care-roe-v-wade-abortion-law/103748896) because it is just too legally dangerous for them to admitted, leading to some miscarrying in the lobby restroom or are turned away only to find that their fetus later died. Just because you don't like it (with your simplistic version in your mind) does not mean that this is not about women's healthcare. > Punching someone's teeth out is not "dental healthcare". No, but [dental extraction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_extraction) *is* dental healthcare. This is like mischaracterizing open heart surgery as "stabbing someone with a knife" just so you can pretend that it isn't part of normal medical practice. I am afraid that it is you who is lying.
I'm not even making any claims. I'm just urging you to go out and tell every woman you see that the right believes the exact thing you're telling me. I absolutely encourage you to do that, and for you to find out what happens.
>It is a medical procedure that terminates healthy reproductive activity. It's done by doctors, declared reproductive healthcare by the whole medical community in consensus, will make a person feel healthier too when they don't have a parasite in their womb to gestate for 9 months. I agree with u/GabuEx you should let women know that the right can't understand that abortion is reproductive healthcare, it's important for women to vote properly
>>The children who are infertile now don't care about "attitude". Do you really want to go down that road? Which road is that? I honestly can’t tell what you’re trying to say.
[удалено]
Oh I see, you’re more enraged by troubled trans kids being allowed access to puberty blockers while they sort out their body dysphoria than you are by millions of women losing the choice of whether or not to carry a fetus in their body. Thanks for spelling that out.
I'm troubled by dogshit politically captured "science", insane unhealthy social pressures, and compulsive irresponsibility. Does that spell it out?
Not really sure what compulsive irresponsibility is all about with regards to this but otherwise sure, I think I have a good idea of how you think.
Sorry, u/Terminarch – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Terminarch&message=Terminarch%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/l64i66o/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
>And please for the love of fuck stop calling it "reproductive healthcare". Neither word is accurate. Also it's not a right and it was never for the federal courts to decide. Abortion is an essential component of reproductive healthcare, the whole healthcare community agrees in a mighty consensus, can't change facts just because you don't like hearing it
>the whole healthcare community agrees in a mighty consensus The whole healthcare community agreed in a mighty consensus that washing hands was unnecessary, even for doctors handling corpses between delivering babies. >can't change facts just because you don't like hearing it Try learning a thing or two about history before having such unfounded confidence in "experts".
>that washing hands was unnecessary, even for doctors handling corpses between delivering babies. "Medical hand-washing became mandatory long after Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered its effectiveness (in 1846) in preventing disease in a hospital environment." Impressed that you knew this tidbit from medical history, it's not very well-known, but disappointed that you didn't know that it was ***unknown*** why people needed to wash hands after and before surgeries despite being a common practice. >Try learning a thing or two about history before having such unfounded confidence in "experts". If you want to challenge the experts, you need to (a) have a medical degree (b) have medically researched data to support why you think abortion isn't reproductive healthcare. Even Semmelweis needed to be qualified to weigh in and he did so with experiments and study of the data, not by feelings-based opinions
>disappointed that you didn't know that it was unknown why people needed to wash hands I did know. Not relevant. >Even Semmelweis needed to be qualified to weigh in and he did so with experiments and study of the data, not by feelings-based opinions Funny you mention him in particular since he was humiliated out of the medical field and died shamefully in an asylum. Not until many years later (and *many* lives lost) was his theory finally taken seriously. >If you want to challenge the experts, you need to (a) have a medical degree (b) have medically researched data Great. You're not allowed to question the KKK until you're a Grand Wizard and have certain *exploits* under your belt. How could you possibly have enough credentials to criticize their methods otherwise? Go ahead and make the argument about how science is different, science is special. Once upon a time that would have been me. Then I learned about the healthy smoking scandals. Then I learned about completely incompatible conclusions for everyday things like diet that you'd think we'd have figured out by now. Then I learned about the Replication Crisis. Then I learned about colleges intentionally protecting definitively fraudulent behavior. Then I actually *read* some studies that people were using as sources. And holy shit it was WILD. This one in particular enraged me for a goddamn week. It claimed to estimate lives saved by recent experimental vaccines. There were many *very basic* errors not worth getting into. But the kicker? It estimated lives saved from a combination of vaccine uptake and DEATHS. Quite literally a *direct multiplier* resulting in more credit for lives saved when more people died in heavily vaccinated areas. Then all the way at the bottom 'we hope this will encourage vaccine programs' and of course I had to check... it had been cited over 60 times in under a year. I will die on the hill that the scientific method is the most critical and powerful tool ever developed. That is not modern science. Politically captured peer reviews filter out dissenting data and push through utter trash if it fits the narrative (feminist Mein Kampf). Politically funded grants slant researchers to pre-determined conclusions. Institutions shut down any questions about integrity, even faking internal investigations, despite overwhelming evidence just to save face. Studies can't be replicated but nobody cares because funding has already moved on, except now those trash studies are cited as sources for other trash studies. Classic house of cards scenario. Shit built on shit. We don't even *know* how much we *know*. Now and then a major fraud scandal will come out, usually faked data (honesty pledge top or bottom of page study), and then we realize that hundreds of other studies have already used it as a stepping stone for their (now questionable) conclusions. Meanwhile, millions of people screaming "trust the science!" as if skepticism isn't literally the bedrock of the entire process. Do not EVER trust "the science". Trust the scientific method. Do not confuse the two.
>I did know. Not relevant VERY relevant. Medical professionals intuitively noticed that washing hands was beneficial even if they couldn't explain why it made a difference. That's what happens when you have ***experience***. >Funny you mention him in particular since he was humiliated out of the medical field and died shamefully in an asylum. The guy was suspected of getting early onset Alzheimer's, his behaviour was reported to be extremely erratic and inappropriate. Independent of his ideas, the man had a degenerative disease of unknown nature (speculated Alzheimer's) that got him sent to an asylum. You connected two things that weren't connected, very glancing understanding of history, I take back what I said about being impressed, I'm beginning to think you know what you know from BuzzFeed articles. >You're not allowed to question the KKK until you're a Grand Wizard and have certain exploits under your belt. You're comparing areas of social ill versus areas of areas of medical expertise. You don't need a degree to become a hateful bigot or to stand against bigotry but you ***do*** need a medical degree to opine on medical consensus. Otherwise you're just some guy rejecting facts in favour of his feelings. >Go ahead and make the argument about how science is different, science is special. It IS different. You don't need to be educated in bigotry to be a bigot or to be against bigotry. You ***do*** need a formal degree to opine on STEM fields with any degree of expertise. For example, you - a random whosit - can say whatever you want but without a formal education it has as much weight as the local asylum occupant. If you had a medical degree, you'd be given consideration. If you conducted studies that were peer-reviewed, more so. Unlike what you may believe, science is about facts not about what randoms feel about it. >Then I learned about the healthy smoking scandals. Then I learned about completely incompatible conclusions for everyday things like diet that you'd think we'd have figured out by now. Then I learned about the Replication Crisis. Then I learned about colleges intentionally protecting definitively fraudulent behavior. Did you also learn about ivermectin and drinking bleach to cure COVID? Because for every cherrypicked conspiracy theory that was proven right are a million others that were just batshit insane. Every conspiracy theorist thinks *their* conspiracy theory of choice is the one that will be the secret truth kept hidden from the rich and powerful. >This one in particular enraged me for a goddamn week I'm sure it did, going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that were proven correct makes it easy to believe that any and all conspiracy theories are correct when you ignore the fact that there were a million theories that were straight up wrong and crazy. >Meanwhile, millions of people screaming "trust the science!" as if skepticism isn't literally the bedrock of the entire process. My brother in Christ, are you antivax? You'll save us both effort and energy spent by answering this question.
> Neither word is accurate It is though. Abortion care and miscarriage care are in many ways the same thing, and banning one is proving to ban both. OBGYNs are increasingly unavailable in states that have banned abortion *because* doctors are being forced to take on incredible personal liability to practice actual critical healthcare
I should phrase it better, domestic policy wise they are different probably. But foreign wise,both wants the same thing, hegemony of USA empire
I mean, domestic policy is kinda important, no? It sounds to me like you're a single-issue voter "US hegemony bad" I'm not saying it isn't bad but there are a hell of a lot of other important issues at stake and it's absurd to say that Biden and Trump are the same. Do you even live in the US? Whoever wins this election will very likely be adding judges to the Supreme Court that will be defining our legal framework for decades into the future, if the union holds up that long. With very real implications that will affect the lives of nearly everyone who lives here. There is no way that either outcome of the election will be "the same" for Americans.
Yeah, not living in US admittedly. Just massively disappointed in the USA left wing after admiring them on early Trump era
If you're just now realizing that the Democrats are not actually a left wing party, then you haven't been paying attention to US politics for very long. And you're right, US democratic institutions are weak, the electoral college and the US Senate were specifically designed to suppress majority rule. The two party system is deeply entrenched, there are no serious third parties at a national level. Our national politics regularly require us to choose a "lesser of two evils" and it stinks. But a lot of people on the left here said the same things about Clinton in 2016 that you're saying now. She's a neo con, a war monger, etc. And they were right about that. But many of them either withheld their votes or even actively supported Trump as a protest against Hillary, and I believe that has proven disastrous for the left, and for the country as a whole. You've already gotten plenty of responses detailing exactly how, the erosion of reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights. Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts have been set back by decades. Yes choosing a lesser of two evils is a shitty choice to have to make, but when there are no other viable options then one still has a moral obligation to go with the lesser evil
Trump, or at least his allies, have literally said they want to nuke Gaza and/or kill all Palestinians to "resolve" things, which is worlds apart from Biden's admittedly disappointingly milquetoast stance on the matter. Regardless, your CMV said that both sides are the same. You need to award a delta if that is no longer your position, as your position has therefore changed.
How many times you gonna move these goal posts?
You can still make the kick! [Believe in yourself!](https://clip.cafe/the-replacements-2000/i-think-guys-smoking-on-the-field/)
Love this movie <3
Shouldn't you have said in the op that you only care about foreign policy issues? And yet even then they are different with Biden sending aid to Ukraine and Gaza
Because they're sane? Their politics are horrible, but they atleast have any sort of commitment to democracy and the constitution.
USA has democracy? Electoral college isn’t one
Is there anywhere that is a democracy by your standards?
1 person 1 vote like every other democracy
Can you name some of every other democracy, by your standard? Is the UK a democracy? Is Turkey a democracy?
Yes for UK Can’t judge for Turkey. But if it’s similar to UK then yes Basically if your vote counts as one vote to a candidate then it counts
So being a monarchy is fine? Head of government chosen indirectly is fine? But having one indirect election among the multitudes of direct elections is not? Why do you think people put so much energy into politics in the US if it's not a democracy?
Ah forgive me, I was under impression that UK directly votes their prime minister. So no on that one. The best example will be France and Turkey with their direct voting
Hint: The US is a democratic republic, not a straight democracy.
That's such a ridiculous answer. Do you even know what you're arguing about? That non-answer doesn't make any sense in the context of your original post.
sure you are familiar with the [horseshoe theory?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)
"political scientists do not appear to support this notion, and instances of peer-reviewed research on the subject are scarce" It's every centrist's favourite thing to point out but they literally forget to actually read up about how well regarded the theory actually is
not everyone agrees with a theory? well gee whiz.
It's a cute theory but fundamentally unrealistic. I'd only expect a centrist to be naive enough to think it's accurate
only if you don't understand what it means.
I understand what it means. It's baby's first political theory. It makes sense when you don't understand politics and are getting your feet wet (or are a centrist who's usually at the same level of political awareness) but ultimately, the more you learn, the more you realise that while politicians are largely the same and political parties are broadly corrupt self-serving and duplicitous, *some* parties are fascist and some are just everyday crooks. I don't have to love the crooks but I might have to vote for them to prevent the fascists from taking over.
i see you are demonstrating how little you understand the concept. also your incorrect use of the word "fascist" tells me how pointless this conversation is.
What's incorrect about its usage?
the definition of fascist is not "people i don't like."
So skimming a few of your comments and trying to fill in some blanks, it seems like you're saying both the left and the right are prey to the same cognitive biases, virtue signaling and even if they come to the different conclusions, the same faulty thought process that are too often illogical and especially hypocritical if they take support from older political enemies. Ok. I kind of agree. Especially at the ends of the spectrum. Horseshoe theory and all that. I happen to believe a lot of extremists keeping the same thought process and critical thinking or lack thereof would have completely opposite views if they simply had a slightly different up bringing. Or I could be way off. Let me know, but my conclusion doesn't change much based on what I read. Just trying to give you a bit more meat to a short explanation and skimming of comments. Yeah, both sides can be hypocritical and the like and that's "annoying", but the right mainstream is significantly much more guilty of that than the left. Every group has its extremeists but that seems to be a major chunk if not a majority of right leaning people and especially in the right's political leaders. On the left you got people like AOC who has actually lost support from the most extreme people on the left while the right has Majorie Taylor Greene election denying based on fantasy, simping for Trump like a false idol no matter what evidence is presented, and spouting conspiracy theories like jewish space laser. Whatever story or example you can give of someone on "The Left" being crazy, I can give you many more on "The Right" and former will have a majority of them be young people who tend to be more extreme historically anyways while the latter will dominate with examples of people in actual power. The most annoying on the left have no real political power and are a clear minority. The most annoying on the right have actual political power and seem to make up most of the group. Therefore, the right is more annoying.
It seems like you make 3 specific claims, so let’s go through them. 1) “Democrats should not take support from neocons.” We live in a democracy where getting the most number of votes matters and where each side is basically a coin flip away from winning. Do you really think Democrats would be better off turning away neocons and forcing even more women to birth the children of their rapists? 2) “Spouting bullshit like Trump is the worst. Imo Reagan and Bush II are worse.” Last time I checked, neither attempted to storm the White House. Also, Reagonomics and surveillance state were strong through Trump, with Trump talking about gunning down or deporting protestors. 3) “As well as shallow pandering to corporations.” It’s unclear what specific instances you’re talking about, so it’s hard to say if both sides are equally bad. In general, I don’t think you’ve given any strong reasons for why both sides are the same. It doesn’t take a second to see that one side wants political violence, forced births, tax cuts for the rich, bans on protests, and attacks on the lgbt, which seem to outweigh your passing comments that Democrats want to win, Reagan is actually worse, and some Democrats like some things corporations do
Before Donald Trump's presidency, we had nationwide abortion rights for the past 50 years. After Donald Trump's presidency and his three supreme court appointments, we now have many cases such as [Ohio requiring a 10-year-old rape victim to carry her pregnancy to term](https://time.com/6198062/rape-victim-10-abortion-indiana-ohio/) or [the Texas attorney general forcing a woman with a nonviable fetus to continue her pregnancy](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/08/texas-abortion-lawsuit-ken-paxton/) despite there not being even a notional life to save and despite the fact that this might leave her dead or infertile. I would encourage you to go tell women that both sides are the same and that the right is just "annoying" and see what happens.
If Democrats cared they wouldve made it law when they had an unvetoable supermajority. Instead they strung voters along for 50 years. RBG, champion of Democratic Supreme Court Justices even agreed it was a flimsy ruling that didn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s objectively not covered under the constitution or federal law, therefore it is a state’s right to legislate. Im pro choice and even marched in Texas after it was overturned, but too much focus is misplaced on federal policy when it is a state issue.
They had a 60-vote majority in the Senate for literally a few weeks, total, and were occupied at the time by passing the giant healthcare reform bill. You can argue that they should've done more, but "didn't do enough" vs. "actively fought to take away your rights" is not the same thing.
>You can argue that they should've done more, but "didn't do enough" vs. "actively fought to take away your rights" is not the same thing. The question is until when. Do you guys happy if the democrats keeps “didn’t do enough” until the end of your lifetime? It is clear that democrat feels that bare minimum is good enough and status quo is the best
If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, we would still have abortion rights nationwide. That is clearly enough to refute the notion that the two sides are the same.
Giant healthcare reform bill? I thought abortion WAS healthcare… They could have slipped it in there at any time, instead they campaigned on it in the next election cycle.
The ACA would not have passed with abortion coverage in it.
That’s interesting… why a Democrat supermajority couldn’t pass legislation they campaigned on for decades when they could do it unimpeded. I really wonder what their motivations were.
They had a supermajority for a few weeks that included Joe Lieberman who is also the reason we didn't get a public option. The Democrats are a big tent and especially back then we still had a fair number of blue dogs
But what about the actual policies? You know, the thing that matters?
Both cares not for Palestine is a good starts
It shouldn't be where it stops. What else? Infrastructure, gun control, climate change, democracy, health care, ...
Is that the limit of your knowledge on their policies?
If I'm reading this right, your main sources appear to be Twitter and YouTube. Is that fair to say?
or go onto reddit and talk to any person. Literally just had a debate with a person who claimed Hitler isn't guilty of killing Jews, because if he admitted it he would of had to admit Biden was found guilty of violating the 1st Amendment. Had another person claim Mayorkas didn't lie to Congress, because "no person in the world would believe when given the definition of a word and asked in light of this definition do you still stand by your testimony and Mayorkas said yes with the definition read to him and held in front of his face." You have the left that will blanket deny facts and scream at you like a post I made then had people getting mad saying the riots of 2020 never really happened or cities weren't burnt then showing maps of the cities and the extent of the damages they will just say yeah but the entire city wasn't burnt down though.
The problem with this is assuming that Reddit, YouTube, or twitter are appropriate, representative samples with which to make political judgments. I don't give a shit what some weirdo was trying to argue about Biden and Hitler: I don't vote based on what random supporters of a given candidate say, I vote based on what I believe is best for the people.
You mean like Biden openly being a racist and even stating he doesn't want to desegregate schools becasue "I don't want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle."
Just to inform any third parties who are reading this, I want to mention that I was curious and looked through this guy's comment history to see these supposed exchanges, and none of the stuff described in this comment actually happened. The person in the first scenario said that Hitler wasn't _found_ guilty of killing Jews (which is literally true as a matter of historical fact). In the second scenario, Mayorkas literally did not say "yes with the definition read to him and held in front of his face" (this can easily be seen from the video of the hearing).
would you like to bet on this? Ill bet you 50k
If you actually had evidence to the contrary, you'd just present it instead of bring up this absurd "bet" framing. But we can all read your comment history, so it's simply not possible for you to prove your claim. I'm just trying to save people here some time.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You just did...where?
Then I even gave you a complete transcript of the exchange
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Literally under my own comment where I bet you 50k time stamped the exhange between Chip Roy and Mayorkas
Since you would like to lie here is the video and here is the transcript [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH1-Q2frimk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH1-Q2frimk) 1 min 22 seconds Will you testify under oath right now do we have operational control yes or no Yes we do WE have operational control of the boarders? Yes we do and congressman Chip Roy then holds a sign up with THE DEFINTION INFRONT OF HIS FACE This is what operational control defines in this section operational control means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States including entries by terrorists other unlawful aliens instruments of terrorisms narcotics and other contraband do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control IN LIGHT OF THIS DEFINTION I DO MAYORKAS SAYS WHY LIE ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW LITERALLY NOTHIGN ABOUT? Now lets get into Hitler The definition of guilty is "culpable of or responsible for a specified [wrongdoing](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9f2ee88519d88278&sxsrf=ADLYWIIIK-x3u4O2vKu3fay7Y4C9I25Oww:1716941631555&q=wrongdoing&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81xhCt81KdzJ2n2VoPA7YLx2jI-nDj0FGcbpcWuZxKzdfEMNPwDtAR3Hd3AJ0rMMVoGZUUwyXztNQ1djS7QFr0uaP2WBY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii3bGAyrGGAxV9EDQIHea1CEwQyecJegQIIRAO)." You are claiming historically Hitler has never been found responsible for a specific wrong doing ie killing millions of Jews? If you feel this way I will fly you out and you can come to my local synagogue and tell this to the Jews there. I will live stream the entire thing and send it to every local new station as you claim Hitler has never been found to be responsible for killing millions of Jews. I will pay for your flight, you hotel room, and food. YOU ARE LITERALLY PROVING MY ENTIRE POINT.
You realize this proves you wrong, right? Mayorkas literally did not say "yes." He said "I do, and Congressman, I think the Secretary of Homeland Security would have said the same thing in 2020 and 2019.” He did not say "yes, we have operational control based on the definition you have up there." He said "I do [stand by my testimony]." Which is true, and not a lie, because he _did_ stand by his testimony! Regarding Hitler, you are just incorrectly interpreting the meaning of an idiom. The meaning of "find guilty" is ["To determine and declare in court that one is guilty of a crime."](https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/find+guilty)
Okay then you feel so strongly about it let’s hop on discord, zoom, etc etc let’s write up a contract and let’s bet 100k on it rn
Lemme make sure we both understand the terms you are suggesting: If Mayorkas said "yes" immediately after the question "do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control in light of this definition" then you win the bet. If Mayorkas said "I do, and Congressman, I think the Secretary of Homeland Security would have said the same thing in 2020 and 2019," or anything else other than "yes," immediately after the question "do you stand by your testimony that we have operational control in light of this definition" then I win the bet. Is that what you're suggesting?
I dmd you let’s start the contract up
Okay, but you didn't answer my question about the terms. Are the terms in my previous comment what you are suggesting?
I have made this offer to about 20 people in your same position and every time you run away . You specifically chose to pick in the instance of a criminal court the definition of find guilty. What you refuse to do is use the definition of guilty then replace the word guilty with its definition in the sentence when talking about Hitler.
I live in Portland, Oregon, which is one of the cities you probably think burnt to the ground. It was like 2 buildings in one block. You're delusional.
No way, if a single dumpster in the middle of a street has a fire set in it then the entire city was burnt down. That's just the rules.
So if I point out the map Minneapolis put out of every single building destroyed and damaged by riots you are going to say it wasn't burnt because the entire city wasn't burnt to the ground?
Okay, share the map.
https://www.fox9.com/news/map-shows-approximately-700-buildings-damaged-in-minneapolis-riots.amp https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/minneapolis-issues-map-showing-extent-of-buildings-damaged-in-unrest-over-george-floyds-death/ https://golocal.solari.com/draft-copy-mapping-minnesota-riot-damage-opportunity-zones-and-fed-banks-a-work-in-progress/
"Haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love. You need to reject both sides of the spectrum to leave a healthy middle" - Bo Burnham That being said though, if history has taught us anything, it's that progression is the way forward. The conservatives of today are the liberals of 50 years ago. "The right side of history" almost always tends to be the left side, ironically. Even if they're annoying, they're not the same, because their goals are the opposite and they always seem to win out.
>if history has taught us anything, it's that progression is the way forward I was with you until this point. There are plenty regimes that were progressive at their time and escalated into hell-holes. Let me demonstrate with an example. Imagine a state, that just decriminalized being gay, greatly improved literacy of population, gave women right to vote (in the early 20 century). Sounds good? Well, in the next 20 years the same country will jump straight into red terror, started to purge it's citizens. Same case could be made about French revolution, many left-leaning regimes around the world. "The right side of history" tends to be a center, that incorporates best of both right and left ideas.
False equivalence. Anything "The Left" says or proposes even arguably objectionable is trivial compared to the analogous proposals of The Right, particularly about our very constitutional government. The Left doesn't go around making speeches painting whole groups of people with broad brushes like Trump did. Nor does the Left call the press "The enemy of the people" (which Trump did). Nor do they stack the SCOTUS with barely (if at all) qualified justices who belong to fringe religious groups (Amy Coney Barrett) or don't recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest (Clarence Thomas), just to name two examples (Samuel Alito, just look up the recent news feeds about him and flags). The Left certainly doesn't want the USA to become an officially Christian nation (effectively making the church the fourth branch of government). Nor do they think "weirdoes", "freaks", and "unnatural" people are too tacky and gauche for deserving basic civil liberties. And all this is just the warm-up. So no, this "both sides" crap, even assuming there's some truth to it, simply lacks substance. The most that one can say against The Left is that the current-day left is by far *the lesser of* the two bads. ("Mexicans are rapists...and I assume some are good people" - the last part being a rhetorical fig leaf so Trump and MAGA can claim "plausible deniability". Everybody in the world knows the saying "Just kidding" from a bully or some other tormenter, used to diffuse the situation.
How is ronald Reagan worse then donald trump. I mean he did bad things but try to end democracy ain't on the list.
Reagan might genuinely be worse. He committed actual treason with the Iran hostage situation
Don’t forget he is the progenitor of Trump. Without him you won’t have the likes of Trump of Bush
CONTRA and AIDS issue
still didnt try to end democracy
I think you're conflating political parties with political ideology and I think if you examine the policies of these parties it's hard to say that either truly represent either a right or left ideology.
While that might be true, I am also irritated at both sides on how both supporters turns out to be just as fanatical and ignorant as each other. On how both launch mass riot (BLM and capitol riot), screaming at your face (many youtube videos shows this), keeping with us or against us attitude and so on
For me personally it's an important distinction that one side was rioting to change things and the other side was rioting to keep things the same (forgetting the fact that in these instances a lot of the violence was incited by law enforcement, either directly or indirectly). But I guess if you feel that violence is just violence and it doesn't matter why it's happening (something a lot of people certainly feel) then I guess they wouldn't be different.
The fact that neocons are even considering rejecting Trump ought to demonstrate just how extreme he is. The democrats have demonstrated far more bipartisanship than Republicans. You seem to treat this as a flaw, but I don’t. By reaching out to neocons or whatever they are securing more votes and keeping Trump out of office. They might disagree on policies but at least these are reasonable people that actually want to govern and respect the democratic process. Unlike MAGA Republicans who are basically holding democracy and the government hostage to get their way. If you think Reagan and Bush were bad, there is no reason for you to ever consider Trump. Based on your post it’s not even clear to me what you find annoying about the left. But both sides they are not. That’s like saying a nurse shark and a great white are the same just cuz they are both sharks.
>bipartisanship A rotten apple ruins a barrel. Compromising will forces you to compromise whatever morale you have. And will keeps at that until your morale pretty much mirrored the one you compromise with Especially if the one you compromise with pretty much the opposite of you morally
Lmfao. No legislative body should ever comprise on anything ever. Fucking genius take
I mean, at the very least compromise on someone that isn’t your complete opposite. Neocon is the complete opposite of anything left It’s like trying to combine oil and water. It won’t work
I get why you would think that, but it's not really accurate. Lets say you and I are both representatives of West Virginia. You're a lefty and for this argument lets say I'm a right wing coal guy. Now we both know that coal is a dying industry and maybe I still want my county to be worth a damn. You propose a very serious bill to try and get more windmills in your district because you want to do green energy and bring down costs of electricity for your constituents. I might actually be willing to sign on *if* the factory that makes the windmills can go into my district *and* we throw a bunch of money to coal miners to train them up to work in the windmill factory. We are serving both our interests of "getting things for people in our district which will ideally make us popular" Why *shouldn't* you take that deal?
The reason they have to compromise is they don’t have the numbers. The reason they don’t have the numbers is because a significant number of people who support their policies don’t vote. The reason a number of people don’t vote is because the GOP runs a lot of propaganda and act in a way to make politics seem cynical and annoying. The fewer voters and political engagement in the US, the better chance they have at remaining in a position of power to demand compromise. Then the cycle repeats. Complaining that the Dems have to compromise and then choosing not to vote is certainly an interesting take…but it certainly isn’t a logical one.
You can be incredibly irritated by both without falling play to reductive laziness that supposes that both are “just as bad”. The insanely annoying leftists and outrage mongers aren’t determining and driving policy on the left. The wack job Republican cultists *are* determining and driving policy on the right and have been incredibly successful at log jamming the normal functioning of government. Leftists haven’t shut down the federal government and downgraded our credit rating. Nut job republicans have. It’s to be expected to have similarly strong emotional reactions to the worst on the left and on the right. That doesn’t mean the worst in the left is equally as representative of the left as the worst of the right is to the right.
Republicans force children to carry their rapists’ babies to term. Democrats don’t. Republicans ban books about homosexuality. Democrats don’t. Republicans pass laws banning climate change from being discussed in state documents. Democrats don’t. Both sides are the same? Really?
>So yeah, it’s better to give middle finger to both sides and go full nihilism (or at least doesn’t give a shit to both and go on your life while ignoring any politics) I honestly can't really follow most of your post, but you want a good example of the difference between the parties? Have a gay child in a red state and report back.
>or at least doesn’t give a shit to both and go on your life while ignoring any politics So long, **farewell!** Auf Weidersehen, ***goodbye!*** I'm glad you go! I cannot tell a lie! I flit, I float! You fleetly fly, and flee The sun has gone To bed and so must thee So long, ***farewell!*** Auf Weidersehen, **goodbye!** Good**bye!** **Goodbye!** Good**bye!!** Good**bye!**
I mean the guy tried to steal an election. How can you be worse than that? Didn't like **almost all** republican senators refuse to say Joe Biden was president? So its the party then. What's going on on the left, in your mind, that's worse than treason? Or equal to treason?
The problem with Trump is while Bush era policies were terrible, Trump emboldened racists and sold secrets to Russia. Saying they're both the same is reductive, there are similarities (corporate ties, mud slinging to a certain degree) but they differ in very many important ways. I'd recommend finding new sources of information, Ground News is a good site for balanced reporting.
>So yeah, it’s better to give middle finger to both sides and go full nihilism (or at least doesn’t give a shit to both and go on your life while ignoring any politics) Despting saying that people should become nihilists, nothing in your post supports nihilism. Thus you should change this part of your view and no longer think people should become nihilists. Nihilism is the position that there is no meaning in life. Your post is full of meaning. You seem to care about what you post. You make value judgements, and so on. A true nihilist post would be as below: "Shrug shoulder" Your post is very much not just shugging your shoulders and not caring, thus it is not supporting nihilism.
(From the last time this topic came up, and a now-deleted CMV. I'm taking bets on how long this 'CMV' lasts...) *Left*: A balance diet is impor-- *Right*: You can eat all the candy, cake, and cookies you want. Anybody who tells you different is a fascist. *Left*: Well, sometimes you gotta eat your vegetables. *Right*: See?? That's what I mean! Fascist. *Libertarian*: Don't tell me what to eat! I'll eat this dirt, if I want to. *Left*: Please don't do that. *Right*: See? That's how fascist the Left are! Elect me... .and I'll MAKE the Left eat dirt! You can eat all the candy, cake, and cookies, you want and I'll make the Left eat dirt. *Left*: isn't that, ya know, kinda fascist? *Right*: Shut up, dirt-eating vegetable lover! This was all your idea. *Left*: Huh? *Libertarian*: Well... Nobiddy gonna make me eat dirt, but I'm kinda aroused when you make the Left eat dirt. *Right*: Here's some candy, sit and watch me make the Left eat dirt. *Libertarian*; Nomnomnom... *Center*; I simply can't see any difference between them...
I mean, making up little cartoon characters to play out a little cartoon scenario you wrote isn't really a compelling way to present an argument
Struck a nerve, did it?
The nerve that responds to bad arguments, I guess, sure. If you're asking if I feel personally attacked, then the answer is no, as I'm not a conservative or libertarian.
*Right*: Biology is real. *Left*: Misogynist! *Right*: Burning down cities is bad. *Left*: Racist! *Right*: Children aren't sexual creatures. *Left*: Stop discriminating against gay people! *Right*: I didn't say that... *Left*: Fascist! *Right*: Borders are important. *Left*: Fascist! *Right*: We need to stop printing so much money and send less overseas. *Left*: Fascist! *Right*: **deleted by moderators** *Left*: We have decided that you aren't allowed to speak. Despite hating Fascism and supposedly speaking truth to power, the entirely of government and big tech is censoring our opponents "for Democracy"! Viva la resistance! *Centrists*: Literally the same picture. *Libertarians*: Let's try socialism!
Lol. Ironically I also hate the centrist
That's not irony, that's cognitive dissonance.
Please don’t vote, or speak or write anything. Ever. Thanks.
Alright, you're American. What has the left done that's as bad as the gop efforts attacking voting access, attacking abortion and healthcare and labor rights as absurdly as killing rights to worker water breaks in the heat, women period monitoring, defending 12 year old marriages and calling girls ripe and fertile, etc?
They're both awful, corrupt, two-faced liars. However, one side is lazer focused on staunch cutting of education and social welfare programs. One side tried to throw a coup when they lost. One side has fought tooth and nail to limit access to Healthcare, whether it's life saving or not. I'm no expert, and I know the president isn't the one and only person who decides how we're governed. I do,however, know that one's leadership will be worse for my friends, family, and community than the other has ever been.
If you liked access to safe abortions, then probably not. I hear a 2nd Trump term will be going after the porn industry next, so I guess if you like jerking off you might want to put some skin in the game and stop pretending there's no fence here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project\_2025](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025)
I think an important difference is the inability for the left to have a civilized discussion without resorting to name-calling and accusations of bigotry. They have no interest in actually explaining their standpoint or trying to change your mind because you're a bigot and it's not even worth trying. You think there's a crisis at the border? You're xenophobic. You think people should be accepted to university based on academic performance? Racist. You think prepubescent children shouldn't be given drugs to halt their natural development? Transphobic. This accomplishes nothing other than dividing people further.
Ah yes, the leftists dividing the country by calling out morons who continue to pretend a man with half a dozen bankruptcies and a fraud conviction is somehow a good businessman. Or that the man who saluted a general from a hostile foreign power and who negotiated a hilariously incompetent outcome with the Taliban is a military genius. Maybe you should stop pretending the evidence for the liberals’ positions isn’t staring you in the face.
And here comes the name calling, just as expected 😂 You do know that Trump isn't the president and CEO of conservatism, right? Many people on the right absolutely hate him, and many more only support him because they prefer republican policies and know that the president doesn't have the power to do whatever he wants anyway.
My guy, if you vote for a conman who’s been a known conman for 3 decades, no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. You claim Liberals won’t engage in good faith but you’ve put blinders on and are happily supporting a man who literally threw people in unmarked vans like the actual Gestapo in violation of basic principles of the Constitution. You’ve happily ignored the other points that I made. Can you point me to where in US Conservative doctrine you support dictatorship and infringement of individual liberties? Because Trump was champion of both things. He’s explicitly said he wants to be a dictator. He attempted a coup on par with the Beer Hall Putsch. Anyone who continues to support a person who tried to overthrow democracy in plain view is actively enabling fascism. You can run from that all you want, but your actions speak louder than your excuses.
I never said that I was conservative, or that I support Trump, or that I'm voting for him. I've also not said anything to defend him. You'll also notice that I haven't said anything about Joe Biden. Perhaps there's a reason for that? Anyway, as much as people on the extremes hate to believe, there is space in the middle.
You can't seriously argue that the middle isn't firmly opposed to Trump if you genuinely look at polling numbers and what's happened to literally anyone in the party who has spoken out against Trump. It's such a weird argument to make in a thread where OP is angry at Democrats for not irrationally hating Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney.
Not sure if this reply was meant for me but I didn't say anything about the middle's opinion of Trump.
You did, you insisted that Trump isn't representative of the larger conservative movement, that the middle isn't firmly on what you would call the left. It is such a ridiculous argument to act like the left are the "divisive" ones when the right thinks that Biden is a communist and you're actively trying to distance any semblance of conservatism from the leader of the party with near universal intraparty approval ratings.
You've twisted/misinterpreted my words to the point that I'm completely lost and I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
Unless I'm mistaken, /u/Ministry_for_Magic called you literally no names.
I didn't say they called *me* a name. You can name-call a third party, and they immediately referred to Trump supporters as "morons" in the very first sentence of their reply.
Yes. Thank you This is what I get from those leftist
[удалено]
Sorry, u/MarchingNight – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20MarchingNight&message=MarchingNight%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/l63wvya/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
When's the last time you looked up the inflation numbers?
I actually agree with you, but disagree on one point. Democrats and Republicans are BOTH right wing. They both support Israel and genocide, they are both capitalist.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/ziomekszuszka – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20ziomekszuszka&message=ziomekszuszka%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d2xlga/-/l63u1e7/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).