6 ms·

it's not a republican/democratic split. Both parties are working together to screw over you and your loved ones. Its a "has power" vs "doesn't have power" spli

it's not a republican/democratic split. Both parties are working together to screw over you and your loved ones. Its a "has power" vs "doesn't have power" split. The Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans. Don't give either party a pass.

eduren 10y ago
>The Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans A Democratic president put these protections in place.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  Ah, yes, president obama, advocate of the privacy rights of individuals world-wide. He expanded the powers of the NSA because he could, or had to, or whatever. I struggle to imagine that he then turned around and used the FCC to push meaningful reform along for his citizens. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that his track record with government spying should be ignored when thinking about his track record with FCC/consumer protections.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    I think the more important person here is Tom Wheeler, who led the FCC during the period.
  - lcfcjs 10y ago
    This isn't about expansion of the NSA, it's about this bill in particular.
  - funkymike 10y ago
    Both of those are consistent in one respect, that they both expand executive power. A group with power consistently seeks to increase that power. The FCC wants power, the NSA wants power.
jish 10y ago
> "it's not a republican/democratic split." The vote count sure looked like it to me. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202#admin_panel https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202#admin_p... Yea 215 (Republican 215, Democrat 0) Nay 205 (Republican 15, Democrat 190)
- pdeuchler 10y ago
  Telecoms give about 6% more to Democrats than Republicans[0] (and more than 20% more in 2010, in fact they've received just as much funding or more than republicans ever since Obama was elected). Voting against this bill because of some personal stand seems like a weird time to suddenly find a moral compass. The Democrats didn't vote yes because they didn't have to, so they get a chance to grandstand and rack up brownie points with their base while their bosses still get what they want. It's a win/win for everyone! On actually contentious issues, like CISPA and the like, the votes split almost exactly down donation lines as opposed to party lines. Regardless, even if the split is supposedly true what do you think is the real problem? The current republican gang or the influence and power the rich wield? Even if you replaced every single politician you hated with the wave of a magic wand the powers that be would still find ways to influence the new group. We should tackle the systemic problems first as a whole nation, then hopefully the issue of removing those that wish themselves our master will be much easier. [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016&ind=B09 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016...
mejari 10y ago
Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The Democrats certainly have their own problems, but this "both sides are the same" shtick is really getting old when they very clearly aren't.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  You're right, both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum. Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems. I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid. I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)
  - mejari 10y ago
    >Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant. >I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.
    - wonder_er 10y ago
      You're completely right on both points. I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it. Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!" It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly. This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this. So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)
arca_vorago 10y ago
Yet people will cry "whataboutism" while ignoring the fact that just because no D's voted for this, it's just one of many pendulums in which they both take fucking turns doing the same thing. On that next peice of legislation, all D's vote yay and no R's, so it's obviously the D's fault! Congress is completely corrupt. They don't write legislation, k-street does. They don't read legislation they pass. When confronted, they waffle about benefits to corporations being beneficial to their constituents. Almost all are in violation of their oath. After much deliberation I think reprent.us has it right, the only way for us to take of this issue is for a new rallying cry to elect third-parties and indepedents to take away the majorities of both parties. (which is also how we get an independent or third-party elected president by taking the 270 votes away from both parties and the vote goes to the house). We need to stop letting people push the farcicle duverger's law as if it's irrefutable fact, because it's not.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  It is fact. Feel free to disprove it if you can.
- matt_kantor 10y ago
  I think you meant https://represent.us https://represent.us.
pkulak 10y ago
Really? Because every Republican voted for this and every Dem voted against. I get so sick of the false equivalency BS people spout off to sound smart and edgy.
- wonder_er 10y ago
  And yet when an opportunity for real change happens, both parties dig in and fight back. It is in their interests for us to think there is meaningful difference between them, and I'm confident that many dems and republicans do earnestly believe there are differences between them and the other party. But the differences are _so small_. If one party wants to pass legislation that does X, and the other wants legislation that does Y, there is _no one_ advocating for all the myriad unspoken options. My wife used to be a kindergarten teacher. One of her classroom management strategies was to try to give her students options. She'd say "would you like to do X or Y right now?" Of course, she only gave options that she already approved. So, for the "powers that be", the real power is deciding what bills go up for a vote. What happens in the actual vote is trivial compared to the power that comes with killing a bill before it hits the floor, or passing other legislation in omnibus spending bills. I maintain that they work together to screw us all over for their own benefit, and to keep the corporate spigot flowing.
lcfcjs 10y ago
This vote was completely Republican, it was ALL GOP. You really should read about it if you honestly don't know this. However, it's of my opinion that you are knowingly spreading false information. http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/3/28/15089396/house-republican-privacy-bill http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/3/28/15089396/house-republ...
st3v3r 10y ago
Wrong. This argument is intellectually lazy, and serves only to let you feel smugly superior to others. I suggest that such comments be flagged in the future.

eduren 10y ago

>The Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans A Democratic president put these protections in place.

wonder_er 10y ago
Ah, yes, president obama, advocate of the privacy rights of individuals world-wide. He expanded the powers of the NSA because he could, or had to, or whatever. I struggle to imagine that he then turned around and used the FCC to push meaningful reform along for his citizens. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that his track record with government spying should be ignored when thinking about his track record with FCC/consumer protections.
- yuhong 10y ago
  I think the more important person here is Tom Wheeler, who led the FCC during the period.
- lcfcjs 10y ago
  This isn't about expansion of the NSA, it's about this bill in particular.
- funkymike 10y ago
  Both of those are consistent in one respect, that they both expand executive power. A group with power consistently seeks to increase that power. The FCC wants power, the NSA wants power.

jish 10y ago

> "it's not a republican/democratic split." The vote count sure looked like it to me. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202#admin_panel https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202#admin_p... Yea 215 (Republican 215, Democrat 0) Nay 205 (Republican 15, Democrat 190)

pdeuchler 10y ago
Telecoms give about 6% more to Democrats than Republicans[0] (and more than 20% more in 2010, in fact they've received just as much funding or more than republicans ever since Obama was elected). Voting against this bill because of some personal stand seems like a weird time to suddenly find a moral compass. The Democrats didn't vote yes because they didn't have to, so they get a chance to grandstand and rack up brownie points with their base while their bosses still get what they want. It's a win/win for everyone! On actually contentious issues, like CISPA and the like, the votes split almost exactly down donation lines as opposed to party lines. Regardless, even if the split is supposedly true what do you think is the real problem? The current republican gang or the influence and power the rich wield? Even if you replaced every single politician you hated with the wave of a magic wand the powers that be would still find ways to influence the new group. We should tackle the systemic problems first as a whole nation, then hopefully the issue of removing those that wish themselves our master will be much easier. [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016&ind=B09 https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016...

mejari 10y ago

Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The Democrats certainly have their own problems, but this "both sides are the same" shtick is really getting old when they very clearly aren't.

wonder_er 10y ago
You're right, both parties are different. But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum. Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems. I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid. I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)
- mejari 10y ago
  >Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power. Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant. >I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.
  - wonder_er 10y ago
    You're completely right on both points. I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it. Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!" It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy. So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly. This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this. So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)

arca_vorago 10y ago

Yet people will cry "whataboutism" while ignoring the fact that just because no D's voted for this, it's just one of many pendulums in which they both take fucking turns doing the same thing. On that next peice of legislation, all D's vote yay and no R's, so it's obviously the D's fault! Congress is completely corrupt. They don't write legislation, k-street does. They don't read legislation they pass. When confronted, they waffle about benefits to corporations being beneficial to their constituents. Almost all are in violation of their oath. After much deliberation I think reprent.us has it right, the only way for us to take of this issue is for a new rallying cry to elect third-parties and indepedents to take away the majorities of both parties. (which is also how we get an independent or third-party elected president by taking the 270 votes away from both parties and the vote goes to the house). We need to stop letting people push the farcicle duverger's law as if it's irrefutable fact, because it's not.

st3v3r 10y ago
It is fact. Feel free to disprove it if you can.
matt_kantor 10y ago
I think you meant https://represent.us https://represent.us.

pkulak 10y ago

Really? Because every Republican voted for this and every Dem voted against. I get so sick of the false equivalency BS people spout off to sound smart and edgy.

wonder_er 10y ago
And yet when an opportunity for real change happens, both parties dig in and fight back. It is in their interests for us to think there is meaningful difference between them, and I'm confident that many dems and republicans do earnestly believe there are differences between them and the other party. But the differences are _so small_. If one party wants to pass legislation that does X, and the other wants legislation that does Y, there is _no one_ advocating for all the myriad unspoken options. My wife used to be a kindergarten teacher. One of her classroom management strategies was to try to give her students options. She'd say "would you like to do X or Y right now?" Of course, she only gave options that she already approved. So, for the "powers that be", the real power is deciding what bills go up for a vote. What happens in the actual vote is trivial compared to the power that comes with killing a bill before it hits the floor, or passing other legislation in omnibus spending bills. I maintain that they work together to screw us all over for their own benefit, and to keep the corporate spigot flowing.

lcfcjs 10y ago

This vote was completely Republican, it was ALL GOP. You really should read about it if you honestly don't know this. However, it's of my opinion that you are knowingly spreading false information. http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/3/28/15089396/house-republican-privacy-bill http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/3/28/15089396/house-republ...

st3v3r 10y ago

Wrong. This argument is intellectually lazy, and serves only to let you feel smugly superior to others. I suggest that such comments be flagged in the future.