Is it? The Affordable Care Act was a palliative. It served its purpose of pretending to solve a problem, but making it worse. Life expectancy is declining, housing is becoming unaffordable, college tuition continues to rise, there’s a mental health epidemic. Even when Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency, nothing substantial changes. Maybe next time, right?
Yes, the US should’ve also passed a public option. That would’ve made the US system very similar to those in Scandinavian countries (who don’t have single payer btw). But again the reason we didn’t get it is not because we had too many Democrats! Remember: that’s the extreme thesis you’re defending and providing no evidence for.
How do Scandinavian countries get their progressive policies? It’s not by voting for the right leaning party!
Thank you so much for your patient and clear defense of reason. The person you’re arguing with is certainly not arguing in good faith – they are constantly throwing out partial truths and never once addressing your actual point. You’re adding a lot of value in the way you’re commenting, and I salute you.
That is not my thesis. My thesis is that it doesn’t matter if it is Republicans, or Democrats. You are never getting ranked choice voting. It is a threat to DNC control. The government is captured by corporations through special interests and lobbying. It’s never getting better with voting. Only with a social movement will things change.
You explicitly said you endorsed Nimitz, who said voting for the lesser evil leads to right leaning policies. Now you’re defending the much more modest thesis that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. You never said this before. Even this less crazy thesis is extremely dubious. I’ve given dozens of examples of how voting matters.
Other countries have changed voting systems. How did they do it, despite it threatening control by the ruling parties? Voting, actually. I agree that it will take a social movement, but it’s utterly bizarre that you seem to think that’s somehow orthogonal to voting. Trump had historically low favorability even amongst Republicans until he won. His winning an election caused a social movement to take root.
“It’s a mistake to think you’re exercising political power [by voting]. What you’re doing is registering a preference,” said August Nimtz, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota. Nimtz was clear that a vote does not directly impose one’s will upon the political system as many believe it does. Nimtz also argued that the action of voting is the opposite of most meaningful political action: it is one taken alone, and is often over in a matter of minutes. Real political change stems from sustained collective action. Source
Is it? The Affordable Care Act was a palliative. It served its purpose of pretending to solve a problem, but making it worse. Life expectancy is declining, housing is becoming unaffordable, college tuition continues to rise, there’s a mental health epidemic. Even when Democrats have had control of Congress and the Presidency, nothing substantial changes. Maybe next time, right?
Yes, the US should’ve also passed a public option. That would’ve made the US system very similar to those in Scandinavian countries (who don’t have single payer btw). But again the reason we didn’t get it is not because we had too many Democrats! Remember: that’s the extreme thesis you’re defending and providing no evidence for.
How do Scandinavian countries get their progressive policies? It’s not by voting for the right leaning party!
Thank you so much for your patient and clear defense of reason. The person you’re arguing with is certainly not arguing in good faith – they are constantly throwing out partial truths and never once addressing your actual point. You’re adding a lot of value in the way you’re commenting, and I salute you.
Lol. TIL: Good faith means you have to agree with me.
That is not my thesis. My thesis is that it doesn’t matter if it is Republicans, or Democrats. You are never getting ranked choice voting. It is a threat to DNC control. The government is captured by corporations through special interests and lobbying. It’s never getting better with voting. Only with a social movement will things change.
You explicitly said you endorsed Nimitz, who said voting for the lesser evil leads to right leaning policies. Now you’re defending the much more modest thesis that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. You never said this before. Even this less crazy thesis is extremely dubious. I’ve given dozens of examples of how voting matters.
Other countries have changed voting systems. How did they do it, despite it threatening control by the ruling parties? Voting, actually. I agree that it will take a social movement, but it’s utterly bizarre that you seem to think that’s somehow orthogonal to voting. Trump had historically low favorability even amongst Republicans until he won. His winning an election caused a social movement to take root.