Both sides are guilty of this, anyone who believe one party is less in it for fame, power, and money, than the other is just as naive as those that voted in our current president.
This republican excuse for poor government is so tired. Further, from the third paragraph in the article:
> But during the Obama administration, the FCC determined repeatedly that broadband isn't reaching Americans fast enough, pointing in particular to lagging deployment in rural areas.
So no, it's not really both sides here. There is very clearly one side doing a shit job.
It's a false equivalency. One party's appointee fought for net neutrality and tried to regulated the ISPs as a utility; the other's is now actively dismantling everything his predecessor had accomplished, not even trying to pretend it's not in the ISPs' interests.
I'm speaking in a broader sense. Both parties have agendas, many of which behind closed doors equate to self improvement and consolidation of power. They just wrap the turd up in a red or blue bow.
>Both sides are guilty of this, anyone who believe one party is less in it for fame, power, and money, than the other is just as naive as those that voted in our current president.
This idea is not only false but also poisonous to democracy. If it becomes dominant then the US will be vulnerable to revolution. While I think an overhaul of the constitution is about time, a revolution is usually highly unpleasant.
If all democratic choices are equally bad, then you have two choices left: Resignation or revolution. This is kind of what Trump is about, I think: A lot of angry people wanted to see if they could vote for something else than the traditional two ideologies that they regarded as equally bad.
Have you worked for the government, have you been behind closed doors with representatives of both parties? I have and you're foolish if you don't think they have similar agendas with fringe conflicts.
No. This both-sidesism is laughably wrong. There are extremely clear distinctions between the two parties. Anyone claiming they are the same is either intellectually lazy or corrupt.
Well, ok, fair point. You're forcing me to better articulate myself (I'm not the GP, but still...).
It's not that they're "the same," but they've come to reach a homeostasis that protects each side while not truly fixing hard problems. They may not have sought that out intentionally, but now that they're in it, they're intentionally, happily, staying in it.
The end result is, we're watching a play, where each side has some powerful dramatic lines full of tense conflict, but it's all fake and they're really cooperating to keep everything pretty much the same.
The end result is, we're watching a play, where each side has some powerful dramatic lines full of tense conflict, but it's all fake and they're really cooperating to keep everything pretty much the same.
I used to believe that, but I no longer do. The Trump administration, in particular the leaks associated with it, has given us a perspective that we've never had before as private citizens.
There really is a good side and a bad side here, and they are not secretly in bed with each other. No one would make themselves look this incompetent if they were reading from a prewritten script.
I'm surprised that people don't note again and again that the fearmongering and bitching about things like the ACA that the Republicans have done for this entire decade has led them into power... and yet they've got nothing to offer. They've been complaining about the ACA for 7 years now, and have had that long to develop a workable alternative, and they have nothing serious. You know, something that a white-haired conservative who claims to be good at management should actually have. Why are the Republicans not having their feet held to the same fire that they demanded when they were in opposition? Media pundits are too busy laughing at Trump to really bother.
We had the same thing happen here in Australia a few years previous; the opposition party just said "No!" to everything that the incumbent government was trying. They got into power, and then realised that that trick only works when you're in opposition... and when that's the only muscle you've exercised, you're now lost at sea with no idea what to do. They had nothing but poorly-planned destruction on the cards; nothing constructive has come from their tenure.
But one possible explanation -- Trump is a "Washington outsider." If both sides are cooperating to keep up the farce while not damaging the status quo, then _both sides_ would need to resist Trump ... because he is unaware of the game and hasn't committed to playing it.
Could be a great opportunity to send a message to the voters, "Hey, don't try putting outsiders in here."
(None of that is meant to take away from the crazy mistakes the Trump administration has been making. The Mooch!)
This isn't true either. As instance, whether or not you believe O-care was a good thing, the Democrats were ready to sacrifice their majority for it. On the reverse, the Republicans promised repeals for six years before cowardly running away from it to save their hides.
Idk why you're being downvoted. Even if the parties have a disagreement it is usually just superficial. Both are still in favor of things like bombing, for example, both wanted TPP (and Trump killed it, funny enough) and a myriad of other things. They aren't exactly the same, but they are on a lot of matters.
They're being downvoted because their point, and yours, is absolutely bunk. You pick one or two token things on which they agree, and ignore an entire host of issues on which they have significant differences.
You missed what I wrote. Of course they disagree on things, but those things are largely superficial. They don't disagree, for example, on foreign policy. They don't disagree on the NSA collecting bulk data, they don't disagree on promoting corporate welfare. They disagree on some important things too, like environmental policy, but that's just a matter of who is paying who.
Calling this "absolute bunk" just demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I got exactly what you wrote. I don't buy it, and I incredibly do not buy this bunk idea that the disagreements are entirely superficial. To those millions who would have lost health coverage under the GOP plan, do you think that difference was "entirely superficial"? To the transgender people who are having their ability to exist in public spaces assaulted by the GOP, do you think those differences are "entirely superficial"? To the masses of people being deported solely for committing the crime of wanting a better life for them and their family, do you think the differences are "entirely superficial"?
And saying that people who disagree with you just "don't know what they're talking about" is incredibly intellectually lazy.
Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?
Immigration is a loaded topic. We can't afford to let every single person on the planet who wants a better life to move here. Maybe they should work on improving their own countries instead? Mass immigration is unsustainable with growing populations.
And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself.
You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people. They are both in bed with corporations and they both need to be rooted out and removed from office. If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans.
> you don't know what you're talking about [...] You're delusional
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and repeatedly ignoring our requests to stop. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
"Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?"
Like the end to discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Like the end to yearly and lifetime caps on coverage. Like the end to insurance companies just being able to drop you the minute you get sick.
"Immigration is a loaded topic."
No, it's not.
"And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself."
No, it's not. It's pointing out the faults in your argument.
"You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people."
And you're far too cynical if you think they don't, or if you think that they're the same.
"If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans."
Wrong. No matter how much you hope that they're the same, they are not. Again, all it takes is looking at the various issues facing people today. Healthcare. Immigration. Minority rights. Voting rights. For you to say they are equally as bad is for you to say you have never actually looked at anything, and want an excuse not to.
I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you who don't even bother to look at the issues, and just choose the easy way out. Do not bother responding back with another easily disproven and shot down argument.
> I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines as well as for using it primarily for ideological battle (an abuse of the site, as I've explained many times) and ignoring our requests to stop. We'd be happy to unban you if you'd actually like to use the site as intended, but alas that seems not to be the case.
I have never ignored your requests. I would like to point out that you do have it out for several people, and very unfairly issue warnings and bans to those people while ignoring far more grievous violations of your TOS, including ones against me.
The out of context snippet you quoted is no more a violation than most other things on this site. For you to go after certain viewpoints like you do, not out of any notion of preserving civility, but to silence certain viewpoints, smacks of censorship.
I hear this complaint a lot, so perhaps it's inevitable that HN moderation comes across to ideologically committed users as a secret censorship of their views, and/or that it feels like we must be lying when we say it's about your conduct on the site, and/or that we have it in for you personally.
However, the people holding the opposite views say exactly the same thing (including yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14984601). And there are plenty of users arguing for the same positions as you who respect HN's rules and consequently don't get moderated or banned. So from my perspective, your posts have more in common with those from the opposite extreme (i.e. posts by users whom you would regard as your enemies) than with the majority of community members who share your views.
I can appreciate that, due to the news of the week, you've had a harder than normal job, and I can safely say that I'm glad I'm not in your place. But I still can't help but feel the moderation is applied inconsistently. Not necessarily by any particular ideology, but simply by content that people just disagree with. I was dinged not long ago simply for posting a calm, fairly innocuous post, with no vitriol or malice. Those replying were more uncivil, yet I was dinged. And, because I was dinged, I could not reply to appeal.
I do not wish to draw this out further than I have already. I know you have a hard job, and I am sorry for losing my cool at the tail end of the above discussion.
Only if you're intellectually dishonest, or you've not been paying attention. For instance, how many parties are actively trying to suppress minority voters?
Or thank Democrats for advancing pork-laden public-private partnership regional cable monopolies that gave rise to the copper behemoths of today. Don't try to make this partisan.
