5 ms·

> Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her Republicans have confirmed Democratic suprem

> Refused to hold a vote on a supreme court justice indefinitely as long as a Democrat president nominated him/her Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1] > Want to make coal and fossil fuels win over clean energy, are angry about investment in green energy Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy > Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality > Are angry about universal healthcare even though rest of the developed world has it and has cheaper better outcomes Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right. > I realize they say they want personal freedom and smaller government. But then they want to expand the army Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government. Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically correct groupthink present on the left. But the anti-science crictism of Republicans is valid. They need to do better. But it is surprising to me how much Republican bashing goes on in this site. I am not American, but still I find it annoying. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/0731-sotomayor-vote.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/07...

jasonjayr 10y ago
> > Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality > They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality See, this is annoying. Because of telecom regulation, there is no 'market' so to speak. Lets roll back the regulations and allow some actual, legit last-mile competition, and then this might make sense. As it stands now, in most markets, there is no choice of a high-speed ISP that isn't drooling over the collection of internet usage data.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  I think people on HN over-estimate the consumer demand for privacy. One need only look at how many people use Facebook or other social networks to know this really just isn't important to them. So the market for people who care enough about usage data collection in order to actually speak with their wallets is incredibly small. If the market does demand it, then WIFI routers will start to advertise easy VPN setup with various vendors as a feature. Or maybe some other solution will arise. The market will provide one way or another.
drjesusphd 10y ago
> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality > They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality Bullshit propaganda. They are not interested at all I solving these problems. To them, "market based solutions" means doing nothing and let the market do its thing. If they were serious, they'd be in favor of cap and trade for carbon emissions, like they were for sulfur in the 1990s.
EGreg 10y ago
Wait, let's be fair here. > Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1] That doesn't disprove what I said. Just because you've been not killing people for 10 years, and suddenly you kill someone, that doesn't make it OK. Both parties had been holding votes to confirm the other's nominees to the Supreme Court, until the Republicans didn't. That was my point – they are the first to break a rule, that until now has been observed. It seems they have no qualms about it. Please list the same about Democrats, in the same amount – I actually want to see it. > Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy A fine line coming from the guys who have been historically giving 10x as many subsidies to fossil fuels as to clean energy? In essence propping up this industry? We are talking many billions of dollars in market distortion. We could have had a lot of clean energy by now if they hadn't been picking winners and losers. Is that why Donald Trump just made sure that environmental considerations won't be a factor in funding new coal plants? All the experts say this won't bring back coal jobs, yet DT and the Republicans really try. If they are for market based solutions, why do the subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of billions? > They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality Fair enough, but it's not market based when telcos can sue cities to prevent them from using their own infrastructure to provide broadband for their citizens. The telcos are corporations, which are basically getting free handouts from the government. Is that purely market based? But anyway, as you know most people on this board are against having net neutrality gutted in favor of purely market-based solutions. > Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right. Well then they shouldn't have voted for the CORBA bill of 1985. Prior to this, patients would be turned away from hospitals for inability to pay, and would die on the way to the next hospital. That law requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. So individual responsibility is, in fact, making sure people pay before they need it, instead of freeriding on society's money. That's their individual responsibility. In fact the individual mandate is the conclusion of the Heritage Foundation, which was implemented in RomneyCare by Romney, an establishment Republican. And resulted in everyone in Massachussets being able to afford healthcare. But as soon as Obama did the same thing, it suddenly became evil and slavery. Well, that would mean that Republicans' own ideas are evil and slavery, according to Republicans. This is an example of the hypocrisy. Where am I being unfair? It's their own words and standard, before and after. > Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government. And other things are not, such as interstate commerce or the welfare clause, or regulating banks? And frankly, which government? State governments have much more ability to do those things and more. The Federal government may be more restricted. So anyway, because the army is "in the purview of government" they can take unlimited amounts from people's paychecks to fund an ever expanding top-down centrally planned project to build 800 bases around the world (over 30x the rest of the world combined) and feed all the soldiers free food etc on our dime? And we can't say anything? This is their idea of small government and taxes? When is enough enough? > Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. > So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it > is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically > correct groupthink present on the left. Yes, the left has various SJWs who also care more about their ideology than facts, etc. But the Republican party has denial of evolution, global warming, distrust of college education, etc. I realize that's probably because college-educated people are more likely to be on the left, having been exposed to more viewpoints and having their ideas critically examined. And when you are on the right, you want your ideas to be Simple and Feel True, whereas nuance and data is the province of liberal nerds. That is also why all fact-checkers are called "liberal biased" but there don't seem to be any "conservative biased" fact checkers. That's what I usually ask, where are the fact-checkers on the right? But again, it's one thing to be on the right and have your views. It's another for statesmen to be hypocritical and unfair in your dealings. That's what bugs me the most about the Republican party. They break the rules first, and they act hypocritically. (Just as one example of thousands: they attempt to block funds to NY/NJ after Hurricane Sandy, but then claim that the Federal government isn't fulfilling their obligations to Texas when they need help there.)

jasonjayr 10y ago

> > Want to roll back privacy and net neutrality > They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality See, this is annoying. Because of telecom regulation, there is no 'market' so to speak. Lets roll back the regulations and allow some actual, legit last-mile competition, and then this might make sense. As it stands now, in most markets, there is no choice of a high-speed ISP that isn't drooling over the collection of internet usage data.

Consultant32452 10y ago
I think people on HN over-estimate the consumer demand for privacy. One need only look at how many people use Facebook or other social networks to know this really just isn't important to them. So the market for people who care enough about usage data collection in order to actually speak with their wallets is incredibly small. If the market does demand it, then WIFI routers will start to advertise easy VPN setup with various vendors as a feature. Or maybe some other solution will arise. The market will provide one way or another.

drjesusphd 10y ago

> They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality > They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality Bullshit propaganda. They are not interested at all I solving these problems. To them, "market based solutions" means doing nothing and let the market do its thing. If they were serious, they'd be in favor of cap and trade for carbon emissions, like they were for sulfur in the 1990s.

EGreg 10y ago

Wait, let's be fair here. > Republicans have confirmed Democratic supreme court nominees before [1] That doesn't disprove what I said. Just because you've been not killing people for 10 years, and suddenly you kill someone, that doesn't make it OK. Both parties had been holding votes to confirm the other's nominees to the Supreme Court, until the Republicans didn't. That was my point – they are the first to break a rule, that until now has been observed. It seems they have no qualms about it. Please list the same about Democrats, in the same amount – I actually want to see it. > Not true, they want a market based solution to clean energy A fine line coming from the guys who have been historically giving 10x as many subsidies to fossil fuels as to clean energy? In essence propping up this industry? We are talking many billions of dollars in market distortion. We could have had a lot of clean energy by now if they hadn't been picking winners and losers. Is that why Donald Trump just made sure that environmental considerations won't be a factor in funding new coal plants? All the experts say this won't bring back coal jobs, yet DT and the Republicans really try. If they are for market based solutions, why do the subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of billions? > They want a market based solution to privacy and net neutrality Fair enough, but it's not market based when telcos can sue cities to prevent them from using their own infrastructure to provide broadband for their citizens. The telcos are corporations, which are basically getting free handouts from the government. Is that purely market based? But anyway, as you know most people on this board are against having net neutrality gutted in favor of purely market-based solutions. > Republicans believe in individual liberty and individual responsibilty and that healthcare is an earned right. Well then they shouldn't have voted for the CORBA bill of 1985. Prior to this, patients would be turned away from hospitals for inability to pay, and would die on the way to the next hospital. That law requires hospitals to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. So individual responsibility is, in fact, making sure people pay before they need it, instead of freeriding on society's money. That's their individual responsibility. In fact the individual mandate is the conclusion of the Heritage Foundation, which was implemented in RomneyCare by Romney, an establishment Republican. And resulted in everyone in Massachussets being able to afford healthcare. But as soon as Obama did the same thing, it suddenly became evil and slavery. Well, that would mean that Republicans' own ideas are evil and slavery, according to Republicans. This is an example of the hypocrisy. Where am I being unfair? It's their own words and standard, before and after. > Republicans believe that defense is within the purview of government. And other things are not, such as interstate commerce or the welfare clause, or regulating banks? And frankly, which government? State governments have much more ability to do those things and more. The Federal government may be more restricted. So anyway, because the army is "in the purview of government" they can take unlimited amounts from people's paychecks to fund an ever expanding top-down centrally planned project to build 800 bases around the world (over 30x the rest of the world combined) and feed all the soldiers free food etc on our dime? And we can't say anything? This is their idea of small government and taxes? When is enough enough? > Also, note that if you give people freedom they will use it. > So you will see some crazy people among Republicans, but it > is preferrable ( atleast to some people ) to the politically > correct groupthink present on the left. Yes, the left has various SJWs who also care more about their ideology than facts, etc. But the Republican party has denial of evolution, global warming, distrust of college education, etc. I realize that's probably because college-educated people are more likely to be on the left, having been exposed to more viewpoints and having their ideas critically examined. And when you are on the right, you want your ideas to be Simple and Feel True, whereas nuance and data is the province of liberal nerds. That is also why all fact-checkers are called "liberal biased" but there don't seem to be any "conservative biased" fact checkers. That's what I usually ask, where are the fact-checkers on the right? But again, it's one thing to be on the right and have your views. It's another for statesmen to be hypocritical and unfair in your dealings. That's what bugs me the most about the Republican party. They break the rules first, and they act hypocritically. (Just as one example of thousands: they attempt to block funds to NY/NJ after Hurricane Sandy, but then claim that the Federal government isn't fulfilling their obligations to Texas when they need help there.)