The Dem position on voting rights is based 100% on whether or not they benefit from voting rights being extended to the groups they want to help.
-
-
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox @todayslies
Obamacare is the same as Romneycare, and was conceptualized by the Heritage Foundation. That’s a conservative think tank. And as for abortion (and one more point on healthcare) see below:pic.twitter.com/BdRRrKatq7
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox @todayslies
The two parties represent nuanced differences designed to make you believe they’re actually different. They’re not. They’re both corporate, Wall Street parties paid by the same interests. The only genuine difference is the logo. As I said.pic.twitter.com/1074w57Ke0
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox
You oversimplify literally everything about politics. If one party did better in one area than the other, you cherrypick some evidence to give credit to the other party instead. If one party failed to succeed, you insist they never meant to anyway. It's way too simple, Steve.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @todayslies
No, it’s accurate. Your partisanship is getting the best of you. Regardless of which party controls Congress and/or the White House, the people do not get what we want, and corporate interests do get what they want. Been this way for at least 38 years. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf …pic.twitter.com/LrjXnA73Pu
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox
Don't confuse partisanship with ideology. I'm highly ideological, not partisan at all. A party is simply a collection of varied ideological interests, grouped together to obtain political power in order to achieve their goals.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @todayslies @RealSteveCox
But going around telling the world that the fact that the parties fail at their aims not because they need reform, or because this country is too ideologically divided to enact purely one-sided solutions, but in fact because the parties don't actually want to achieve those aims..
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @todayslies @RealSteveCox
Well, I know that is a comforting, simplifying idea to a lot of frustrated people. But it's simplicity is frankly unhelpful, because it ignores a much messier, more difficult reality. Until people grapple with the reality that politics is hard and always will be...
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @todayslies @RealSteveCox
Meaningful change will continue to be out of our grasp. That's because our politics needs MORE participation, not less. Telling everyone the system is hopelessly broken just convinces them to stay home and rot.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych -
W odpowiedzi do @todayslies
Your mistake, then, is believing the two major parties are ideological entities. They aren’t. Since those two parties became the dominant pair, they have switched sides - conservative and progressive - at least 3 times. Now, they’re both conservative.
2 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych
The parties exist to gain and maintain power and money. The ideologies they choose is based completely on what they think will help them win, not what’s right or wrong.
-
-
W odpowiedzi do @RealSteveCox
And that's called politics. Voters aren't so naive. There is a phrase called "street heat". The voters must apply constant pressure to keep their politicians true to their word, or throw them out. That means real, informed engagement, not "they're all the same, so f*ck it".
0 odpowiedzi 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionychDziękujemy. Twitter skorzysta z tych informacji, aby Twoja oś czasu bardziej Ci odpowiadała. CofnijCofnij
-
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.