All house republicans except 8, vote against codifying access to birth control

[Foxi4]

How are these studies defining their left/right terms? Is it USA or worldwide? If worldwide, then both American parties are far right and there is no significant left-wing presence. Thus, a supposedly "left-leaning" American news outlet, would be, by worldwide standards, right-leaning. Biden, by worldwide standards, is by no means a leftist, and may actually be closer to Reagan. But what is far more important is factual reliability, and that's where most right-wing sources fail.

See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

You’re operating from the position of “the rest of the world” being balanced and the American spectrum being skewed right. The opposite is true - the Overton Window has been shifted so far leftwards on the Old Continent that there’s no coming back from it. The U.S. was shielded from this for the most part, Europe was heavily influenced by various socialist ideas seeping through the Iron Curtain like a disease. Spilled milk, I suppose. In any case, both sources describe their methodology on their respective websites.

 

[Xzi]

How are these studies defining their left/right terms? Is it USA or worldwide? If worldwide, then both American parties are far right and there is no significant left-wing presence. Thus, a supposedly "left-leaning" American news outlet, would be, by worldwide standards, right-leaning. Biden, by worldwide standards, is by no means a leftist, and may actually be closer to Reagan. But what is far more important is factual reliability, and that's where most right-wing sources fail.

See here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020

Dems are more center-right, but you're correct. Save a select few, members of both parties are capitalists first, everything else second. So long as they're busy trying to sell us shit, they're incapable of properly representing the interests of the working class. And nowhere is that dynamic more evident than on cable news, which is little more than a marathon of commercials these days.

 

[RetroGen]

You’re operating from the position of “the rest of the world” being balanced and the American spectrum being skewed right. The opposite is true - the Overton Window has been shifted so far leftwards on the Old Continent that there’s no coming back from it. The U.S. was shielded from this for the most part, Europe was heavily influenced by various socialist ideas seeping through the Iron Curtain like a disease. Spilled milk, I suppose. In any case, both sources describe their methodology on their respective websites.

That's false. The Overton window has actually shifted rightward since Reagan/Thatcher. Read up on it. The suggestion of the opposite of reality is a clear and ironic demonstration of bias. But I'm not going to debate this further, as truth is obviously not the goal here.

 

[Foxi4]

Dems are more center-right, but you're correct. Save a select few, members of both parties are capitalists first, everything else second. So long as they're busy trying to sell us shit, they're incapable of properly representing the interests of the working class. And nowhere is that dynamic more evident than on cable news, which is little more than a marathon of commercials these days.

The issue of the uniparty is both well-known and self-inflicted. American politics are a team sport, you’re either blue or red if you want to have a chance at winning. The only way an independent could have a chance these days is to temporarily align with one of the big two - Sanders has been running this scam for years, Trump pulled the same trick on the right, just successfully.

That's false. The Overton window has actually shifted rightward since Reagan/Thatcher. Read up on it. The suggestion of the opposite of reality is a clear and ironic demonstration of bias. But I'm not going to debate this further, as truth is obviously not the goal here.

Just the premise of what you’re saying is hilarious, and you’re very specific regarding the time period in question, possibly because you’re well-aware that if you took a few steps back to get a bigger picture, you’d notice the actual trend. Even within your narrow confines Margaret Thatcher was a union buster. There’s an entire political ideology based on her style of governance called Thatcherism which entails the reversal of the post-war order and the dismantling of the welfare state. Half of the crap she’s pulled over the years *wouldn’t fly* in today’s climate, and the suggestion that Tories are “more conservative” now than they were in the days of Thatcher is *ridiculous*, you’d have to be myopic to actually believe that.

As far as America is concerned, the median Democrat shifted left hard, while the median Republican initially followed, then shifted back to the right. Polarisation is increasing and the center is dead - Pew researched this a few years back.

 

[Xzi]

The issue of the uni party is both well-known and self-inflicted. American politics are a team sport, you’re either blue or red if you want to have a chance at winning. The only way an independent could have a chance these days is to temporarily align with one of the big two - Sanders has been running this scam for years, Trump pulled the same trick on the right, just successfully.

Sanders should've remained independent too, as it's clear the Democratic establishment is willing to keep spitting in his eye time after time, even after his acquiescence. Trump was never "independent" in any sense of the word, that's just another lie he was only able to sell to stupid people.

Regardless, it's shit like citizens' united that ensures we'll never have any more than two parties. You can hardly call our problems "self-inflicted" when nobody except boomers appointed by corporations have ever had the chance to shape the mold. The path this country would take was decided for us long before we were born.

 

[Foxi4]

Sanders should've remained independent too, as it's clear the Democratic establishment is willing to keep spitting in his eye time after time, even after his acquiescence. Trump was never "independent" in any sense of the word, that's just another lie he was only able to sell to stupid people.

Regardless, it's shit like citizens' united that ensures we'll never have any more than two parties. You can hardly call our problems "self-inflicted" when nobody except boomers appointed by corporations have ever had the chance to shape the mold. The path this country would take was decided for us long before we were born.

It’s 100% self-inflicted - the population can reject the uniparty at any time. It just won’t because it’s “the devil they know”. American politics are characterised by fear of the unknown.

 

[Xzi]

the population can reject the uniparty at any time.

We can attempt a revolution, that doesn't mean it would be successful. Especially given that 30% to 40% of the population would fight against us on behalf of the boot they so love to lick.

American politics are characterised by fear of the unknown.

Nonsense, we know for a fact that what most European countries are doing works, and works well. We don't adapt it because that would mean cutting back on corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget. American politics are characterized by the exploitation of cheap labor, wherever and however it can be found.

 

[Foxi4]

We can attempt a revolution, that doesn't mean it would be successful. Especially given that 30% to 40% of the population would fight against us on behalf of the boot they so love to lick.

Nonsense, we know for a fact that what most European countries are doing works, and works well. We don't adapt it because that would mean cutting back on corporate welfare and/or our bloated military budget. American politics are characterized by the exploitation of cheap labor, wherever and however it can be found.

Naivety is comfortable, I suppose. I like how the first solution that comes to your mind is putting a brick through a window instead of just opening the door (and there a built-in systems for doing just that), Americans truly are a nation of revolutionaries. I’m sorry that your independents suck at marketing. On the bright side American conservatives have a long history of bending the knee, so you’ll eventually get to fix what ain’t broke if you’re patient enough. They’re pretty toothless overall, with brief flash fires of passion every now and then.

 

[AleronIves]

The whole "corporations are people and money is speech" thing kinda cut off any third-party movements at the knees. Unless the US gets publicly funded elections, it's hard to see any third-party candidate doing anything but siphoning support from one of the two establishment candidates ever again.

 

[Xzi]

Naivety is comfortable, I suppose. I like how the first solution that comes to your mind is putting a brick through a window instead of just opening the door (and there a built-in systems for doing just that)

Rofl, what "built-in systems?" I just gave you an example of a SCOTUS ruling which ensures we'll never break free of the extremely flawed two-party system, citizens' united. The entrenchment of the elites is beyond complete by now, we've regressed to unelected authoritarians handing down decrees from on high, like kings or gods. It won't be too long until they drop the facade that is democracy in this country altogether.

I’m sorry that your independents suck at marketing.

You unintentionally hit the nail on the head here, if a candidate wants to win they have to market themselves specifically to corporate interests. Which should never be the case in a properly functioning political system. If Sanders was half the Reaganite that Biden is, the Democratic establishment would've had no problem making him the candidate in either 2016 or 2020. His push for universal healthcare meant he was always going to have the rug pulled out from under him, as the party has far too many healthcare insurance and big pharma sponsors.

On the bright side American conservatives have a long history of bending the knee, so you’ll eventually get to fix what ain’t broke if you’re patient enough. They’re pretty toothless overall, with brief flash fires of passion every now and then.

The problem is that they bend the knee to fascists and religious extremists in particular who, once in power, are far from toothless. They're also willing to go to any lengths, cheating or resorting to violence, to put those people in power. The Republican party can see the writing on the wall, their last remaining policy platform of "harm the other" is not popular, which is why they're in the process of rejecting democracy wholesale. And as long as Democrats believe they can "compromise" with that viewpoint, they're complacent in allowing the collapse of this nation.

I won't say everything rides on Merrick Garland deciding to prosecute Trump, but I do believe it's a tipping point. Bad enough that the Obama admin didn't go after the war criminals Bush and Cheney to prevent the executive branch being used as a safe haven for criminality in the first place.

 

[AleronIves]

I won't say everything rides on Merrick Garland deciding to prosecute Trump, but I do believe it's a tipping point.

I frequently read assessments that the DOJ going after a former president is unprecedented, but the POTUS trying to reverse the results of an election is also unprecedented, and it cannot be allowed to go unpunished, at least if America's constitutional framework is going to survive.

 

[ZeroT21]

It baffles me that such laws don't even exist in autocratic nations, as to why there's even a need for so many non-sensical laws speaks volumes on how corrupted their world view is.

 

[Foxi4]

Rofl, what "built-in systems?" I just gave you an example of a SCOTUS ruling which ensures we'll never break free of the extremely flawed two-party system, citizens' united. The entrenchment of the elites is beyond complete by now, we've regressed to unelected authoritarians handing down decrees from on high, like kings or gods. It won't be too long until they drop the facade that is democracy in this country altogether.

You unintentionally hit the nail on the head here, if a candidate wants to win they have to market themselves specifically to corporate interests. Which should never be the case in a properly functioning political system. If Sanders was half the Reaganite that Biden is, the Democratic establishment would've had no problem making him the candidate in either 2016 or 2020. His push for universal healthcare meant he was always going to have the rug pulled out from under him, as the party has far too many healthcare insurance and big pharma sponsors.

The problem is that they bend the knee to fascists and religious extremists in particular who, once in power, are far from toothless. They're also willing to go to any lengths, cheating or resorting to violence, to put those people in power. The Republican party can see the writing on the wall, their last remaining policy platform of "harm the other" is not popular, which is why they're in the process of rejecting democracy wholesale. And as long as Democrats believe they can "compromise" with that viewpoint, they're complacent in allowing the collapse of this nation.

I won't say everything rides on Merrick Garland deciding to prosecute Trump, but I do believe it's a tipping point. Bad enough that the Obama admin didn't go after the war criminals Bush and Cheney to prevent the executive branch being used as a safe haven for criminality in the first place.

Citizens United does not prevent independents from successfully running for office. The rest of your post is babble, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. If you’re implying that political violence is uniquely right-wing, I disagree - we had a whole Summer of Peace that shows otherwise. In fact, your first idea was revolution, so you’re undercutting your own point. As for Trump, we’ll see what happens after the sham proceedings end.

 

[Xzi]

Citizens United does not prevent independents from successfully running for office.

It requires any candidate who wants to be taken seriously secure corporate funding first, and corporations do not provide funding to any candidate that won't fall in line to support their interests. In other words, yes, it does keep actual independents out of office, and absolutely guarantees that no third party can gain a majority in government. Thus we don't have anybody even attempting to form new parties any more, everybody knows it's a lost cause.

If you’re implying that political violence is uniquely right-wing, I disagree - we had a whole Summer of Peace that shows otherwise.

A disingenuous comparison at best, as protesting murder is not inherently political but more a matter of basic human rights and dignity. It's also something that plenty of non-voters and leftists without representation in government were a part of. Attempting insurrection because your shitty candidate lost an election, now that's undeniably violence with a political motive, aka terrorism.

In fact, your first idea was revolution, so you’re undercutting your own point.

Indeed, to rid ourselves of the two-party sham. Predictably, the system will not allow itself to be voted out of existence. To pretend otherwise is beyond naive.

 

[AleronIves]

Attempting insurrection because your shitty candidate lost an election

I think there's an important distinction to be made here: they didn't attack the capitol because their candidate lost an election.

Imagine for a moment that you're a MAGA Republican, securely nestled in the bosom of Fox "News" and such, and you hear that the election was stolen, and the POTUS (who is still currently in office) is asking you to stop the fraudulently elected candidate from being falsely certified as the election winner. As a patriotic American, you would want to heed the call to save American democracy from destruction.

The scary thing isn't that Trump supporters tried to stop the certification of a legitimate election. The scary thing is that they were so easily fooled into believing it was illegitimate. The Republican rhetoric about Democrats being out to destroy the country and "our way of life" has gotten so pervasive, and the reality distortion field that shuts out any evidence to the contrary has gotten so strong, that all these people were fooled into thinking that they were saving American democracy, when in fact they came dangerously close to destroying a fundamental pillar of it (the peaceful transfer of power). If so many people can so easily and so completely be fooled into believing that, what else can they be fooled into believing in the future? These are dark times for American democracy.

 

[tabzer]

I wonder why the most reliable news outlets "skew left." Maybe it's because reality has a leftist bias.

"It's not propaganda because I believe it."

 

[smf]

Can you even say where in the Constitution the Congress is granted the power to enact such a law??

https://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp

 

[smf]

I think there's an important distinction to be made here: they didn't attack the capitol because their candidate lost an election.

Most people think of themselves as a hero in their own movie, even criminals.

So yeah, they thought they were doing the right thing. Should that mean they get away with it?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

EDIT: I forgot to mention that The Guardian is a rag and presented the results of the study dishonestly. I quote:

LOL yes, a rag. I trust the guardian more than any billionaire-owned paper like, say, the Daily Mail. Or Express. Or any murdoch press really. but yes, hate on the Guardian LMAO.

tl;dr Right-wing sources are boosted about as much, and sometimes more than left-wing sources. Party affiliation has no impact on amplification of politicians and extreme content isn’t amplified. Strong bias in the content seems to have a direct result on amplification. In other words, biased content that appeals to users is boosted more, and right-wingers are marginally better at curating their own feeds. Marginally. People listen to whatever reinforces their views the most. This isn’t a scathing indictment, it’s a defense against accusations in regards to deboosting at best (that’s the reason why the study was conducted in the first place, as a defense, and that makes it questionable from the get-go). The results are entirely explainable.

Actually the paper says "as much and more" and talks about "party membership", not ideology. So the point still stands.

Algorithmic boosting has a strong preference towards popular tweets - it’s designed to do that. The left needs to learn how to tweet better.

The graph was made by Ad Fontes, the exact same source of data used for your Twitter analysis.

Not at all what I meant.

 

[Foxi4]

LOL yes, a rag. I trust the guardian more than any billionaire-owned paper like, say, the Daily Mail. Or Express. Or any murdoch press really. but yes, hate on the Guardian LMAO.

It’s a biased rag, but you can read it if you want.

Actually the paper says "as much and more" and talks about "party membership", not ideology. So the point still stands.

It says what I quoted.

Not at all what I meant.

It doesn’t matter what you meant, it’s the same datasets.

It requires any candidate who wants to be taken seriously secure corporate funding first, and corporations do not provide funding to any candidate that won't fall in line to support their interests. In other words, yes, it does keep actual independents out of office, and absolutely guarantees that no third party can gain a majority in government. Thus we don't have anybody even attempting to form new parties any more, everybody knows it's a lost cause.

If anything, having that option makes it easier to run, not harder.

A disingenuous comparison at best, as protesting murder is not inherently political but more a matter of basic human rights and dignity. It's also something that plenty of non-voters and leftists without representation in government were a part of. Attempting insurrection because your shitty candidate lost an election, now that's undeniably violence with a political motive, aka terrorism.

There was no insurrection, as per the FBI report regarding Jan 6th, and protesting doesn’t require rioting.

Indeed, to rid ourselves of the two-party sham. Predictably, the system will not allow itself to be voted out of existence. To pretend otherwise is beyond naive.

In the same post you’re arguing for and against revolutions, both imaginary. It’s kind of amusing.