[yellowcherry]

I'd take this concern seriously if we weren't 50 years or more into carefully chosen and promoted intentionally divisive issues shaping what everyone thinks of politics.

[duxup]

What does that mean?

[Retric]

Abortion is exactly the kind of issue that has zero impact on those in power, who can always go to another country, but influences elections.

In terms of shaping views, welfare was designed to allow single mothers to stay home and raise their kids. Yet by twisting the issue people no longer support the idea.

Unions are no longer seen as something that helps 'you', they now help 'other' people.

[duxup]

Are you saying they don't actually care about the issue?

[Retric]

Clearly some people care about the issue and many say they care about it. But in terms of overall importance the tax bill for example got vastly more support. So, I suspect actual support is rather low.

In other words people might vote yes, yet at the same time prefer it not come up for a vote.

[duxup]

I'm not sure I get where you are going. It might be a divisive issue but saying that simply because it comes up and you think something else is more important doesn't mean it is being used just to be divisive.

[Retric]

My point is actions speak louder than words and their actions paint a very clear picture.

Really, it's more than just being divisive that's at issue. At core you need to consider two factors.

  1. Strong minority support vs general but weak opposition
  2. Minimal direct impact
  

Assault Weapons Ban is a similar thing. Something people really care about, but can go months or years without thinking about it.

The point is these things both provide support and distractions. But, when one side gets into power they don't actually try and change much.

[yellowcherry]

It doesn't "simply come up"

Tens of millions of dollars keep it in the forefront of your brain. There is no accident here. There is no "simply comes up"