4 ms·

No. Give me a candidate worth voting for, and I will vote. The current "pick the lesser of two shitheads" is ridiculous. Both parties in the US are to blame. T

No. Give me a candidate worth voting for, and I will vote. The current "pick the lesser of two shitheads" is ridiculous. Both parties in the US are to blame. The two party system in the US today means that voting for anyone that is not a Democrat or Republican is a complete waste of time.

SEJeff 9y ago
You could have voted for Evan McMullin, a CIA officer for over 10 years and all around stand up dude. There were plenty of other candidates. If you threw your hands up and did not vote, you're part of the problem. Period.
- 282883392 9y ago
  Voting for a 3rd party candidate is next to worthless. The mathematics of first past the post voting guarantee a two party system.
  - SEJeff 9y ago
    You're obviously trolling, but if enough people did this, we would in fact be a three (or more) party system, hence breaking the stranglehold the two current parties currently have over us.
nxsynonym 9y ago
Give yourself a candidate worth voting for. Abstaining from voting is cowardly and non-committal. Your silent protest is worthless.
eanzenberg 9y ago
Interestingly, the 3rd party candidates last time around were absolutely worse than Trump and Clinton.
Sangermaine 9y ago
However you feel about the system, it's the system that exists. Refusing to make a choice in the system also has consequences, whether you like or want them. This action by the FCC is one of them.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > Refusing to make a choice in the system also has consequences, whether you like or want them. Continuing to support a broken system has consequences, whether you like or want them. This action by the FCC is one of them.
  - Sangermaine 9y ago
    Cute but demonstrably false. If Trump weren't President, this action would not have happened. Your failure to oppose Trump contributed to that. Vague discussion of "a broken system" obscures the concrete reality and the results of your choices, which is likely why you choose to discuss the matter in this way.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      > If Trump weren't President, this action would not have happened. Source? Because you likely don't have some magical crystal ball, which means you're just 'hoping' that whoever won the election in Sangermaine's alternate universe would have let this ride. No one in the previous administration had the spine to make Net Neutrality permanent, and you can't hide that no mattery how much gloss you throw at it. Keep dreaming, buddy!
      - Sangermaine 9y ago
        > Source? Because you likely don't have some magical crystal ball We don't need a crystal ball, we have the statements of the candidates during the election. Trump was, from the beginning, anti-Net Neutrality. As for Clinton: 2015: >Hillary Clinton is vowing to enforce strong net neutrality rules if she is elected president.... “Closing these loopholes and protecting other standards of free and fair competition — like enforcing strong net neutrality rules and preempting state laws that unfairly protect incumbent businesses — will keep more money in consumers’ wallets, enable startups to challenge the status quo, and allow small businesses to thrive,” she wrote in an op-ed in Quartz. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/257569-clinton-touts-net-neutrality-and-city-owned-internet http://thehill.com/policy/technology/257569-clinton-touts-ne... 2016, during the election: >Hillary Clinton has indicated support for net neutrality. She gave two thumbs up to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal for strong net neutrality rules, though admitted it was only a “foot in the door.” Clinton has expressed concern that regulations could mean stagnant competition among service providers, saying “we’ve got to do more about how we incentivize competition in broadband.” And she’s committed to fighting broadband monopolies, citing Google Fiber in Kansas City as a perfect example of what she wants to see everywhere in the US. https://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-on-net-neutralit-1760829072 https://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-o... 2016, after the election: >Hillary Clinton gave a shout-out to a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission for her rallying call to "raise a ruckus" to save net neutrality, which the Republican-led FCC is poised to dismantle next month. >"Time to call foul. Time to raise a ruckus. Time to save #NetNeutrality," Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the five-commissioner FCC, tweeted Wednesday. >In response, Clinton tweeted: "You go girl! This is important; costs will go up, & powerful companies will get more powerful. We can’t let it slip through the cracks".... >Net neutrality was not a major issue often brought up during the 2016 campaign. However, Clinton, who served as former President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, has shown support for net neutrality in the past. She said she would vote for it back in 2015, calling it a "foot in the door," and characterizing it as a starting point in the broader Internet regulation discussion. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-we-cant-let-net-neutrality-slip-through-the-cracks/article/2641575 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-we-cant-le... It's simply a statement of fact that the FCC would not be repealing Net Neutrality right now, or ever, under a Clinton administration. You can argue about the nature of Clinton's support for NN, but she has always consistently voiced support for the policy. You've so committed to your fantasy of both sides being the same that you've become unhinged from reality.
purplezooey 9y ago
This is how democracy crumbles. No, both parties are not to blame.
rkuykendall-com 9y ago
> Both parties in the US are to blame. This thread is about Net Neutrality. The rules being rolled back by the current Republican administration were put in place by the previous Democratic administration. Not voting is just a vote for whoever wins. You voted through inaction for the candidate that supported removing these protections.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  You're totally ignoring the fact that the previous administration had the power to make Net Neutrality permanent... but did not. They took the 'easy' FCC route, just as the current administration is doing right now. A half-assed effort, at best from your 'good guys'
dkonofalski 9y ago
While I mostly agree, it's not about picking a perfect candidate... It's about moving the bar of acceptance over a little bit at a time. You elect the people that represent your values and, eventually, those values become the norm. I fear that America just doesn't agree with the same values as I do.
dashundchen 9y ago
The "both sides are the same" argument is false at the congressional level. Take a look at some of these votes: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbdc https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbd...

SEJeff 9y ago

You could have voted for Evan McMullin, a CIA officer for over 10 years and all around stand up dude. There were plenty of other candidates. If you threw your hands up and did not vote, you're part of the problem. Period.

282883392 9y ago
Voting for a 3rd party candidate is next to worthless. The mathematics of first past the post voting guarantee a two party system.
- SEJeff 9y ago
  You're obviously trolling, but if enough people did this, we would in fact be a three (or more) party system, hence breaking the stranglehold the two current parties currently have over us.

nxsynonym 9y ago

Give yourself a candidate worth voting for. Abstaining from voting is cowardly and non-committal. Your silent protest is worthless.

eanzenberg 9y ago

Interestingly, the 3rd party candidates last time around were absolutely worse than Trump and Clinton.

Sangermaine 9y ago

However you feel about the system, it's the system that exists. Refusing to make a choice in the system also has consequences, whether you like or want them. This action by the FCC is one of them.

craftyguy 9y ago
> Refusing to make a choice in the system also has consequences, whether you like or want them. Continuing to support a broken system has consequences, whether you like or want them. This action by the FCC is one of them.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  Cute but demonstrably false. If Trump weren't President, this action would not have happened. Your failure to oppose Trump contributed to that. Vague discussion of "a broken system" obscures the concrete reality and the results of your choices, which is likely why you choose to discuss the matter in this way.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    > If Trump weren't President, this action would not have happened. Source? Because you likely don't have some magical crystal ball, which means you're just 'hoping' that whoever won the election in Sangermaine's alternate universe would have let this ride. No one in the previous administration had the spine to make Net Neutrality permanent, and you can't hide that no mattery how much gloss you throw at it. Keep dreaming, buddy!
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      > Source? Because you likely don't have some magical crystal ball We don't need a crystal ball, we have the statements of the candidates during the election. Trump was, from the beginning, anti-Net Neutrality. As for Clinton: 2015: >Hillary Clinton is vowing to enforce strong net neutrality rules if she is elected president.... “Closing these loopholes and protecting other standards of free and fair competition — like enforcing strong net neutrality rules and preempting state laws that unfairly protect incumbent businesses — will keep more money in consumers’ wallets, enable startups to challenge the status quo, and allow small businesses to thrive,” she wrote in an op-ed in Quartz. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/257569-clinton-touts-net-neutrality-and-city-owned-internet http://thehill.com/policy/technology/257569-clinton-touts-ne... 2016, during the election: >Hillary Clinton has indicated support for net neutrality. She gave two thumbs up to FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal for strong net neutrality rules, though admitted it was only a “foot in the door.” Clinton has expressed concern that regulations could mean stagnant competition among service providers, saying “we’ve got to do more about how we incentivize competition in broadband.” And she’s committed to fighting broadband monopolies, citing Google Fiber in Kansas City as a perfect example of what she wants to see everywhere in the US. https://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-on-net-neutralit-1760829072 https://gizmodo.com/the-2016-presidential-candidates-views-o... 2016, after the election: >Hillary Clinton gave a shout-out to a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission for her rallying call to "raise a ruckus" to save net neutrality, which the Republican-led FCC is poised to dismantle next month. >"Time to call foul. Time to raise a ruckus. Time to save #NetNeutrality," Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the five-commissioner FCC, tweeted Wednesday. >In response, Clinton tweeted: "You go girl! This is important; costs will go up, & powerful companies will get more powerful. We can’t let it slip through the cracks".... >Net neutrality was not a major issue often brought up during the 2016 campaign. However, Clinton, who served as former President Barack Obama's first secretary of state, has shown support for net neutrality in the past. She said she would vote for it back in 2015, calling it a "foot in the door," and characterizing it as a starting point in the broader Internet regulation discussion. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-we-cant-let-net-neutrality-slip-through-the-cracks/article/2641575 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-we-cant-le... It's simply a statement of fact that the FCC would not be repealing Net Neutrality right now, or ever, under a Clinton administration. You can argue about the nature of Clinton's support for NN, but she has always consistently voiced support for the policy. You've so committed to your fantasy of both sides being the same that you've become unhinged from reality.

purplezooey 9y ago

This is how democracy crumbles. No, both parties are not to blame.

rkuykendall-com 9y ago

> Both parties in the US are to blame. This thread is about Net Neutrality. The rules being rolled back by the current Republican administration were put in place by the previous Democratic administration. Not voting is just a vote for whoever wins. You voted through inaction for the candidate that supported removing these protections.

craftyguy 9y ago
You're totally ignoring the fact that the previous administration had the power to make Net Neutrality permanent... but did not. They took the 'easy' FCC route, just as the current administration is doing right now. A half-assed effort, at best from your 'good guys'

dkonofalski 9y ago

While I mostly agree, it's not about picking a perfect candidate... It's about moving the bar of acceptance over a little bit at a time. You elect the people that represent your values and, eventually, those values become the norm. I fear that America just doesn't agree with the same values as I do.

dashundchen 9y ago

The "both sides are the same" argument is false at the congressional level. Take a look at some of these votes: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbdc https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbd...