4 ms·

bi-partisan? Pretty sure the vast majority of Republican candidates came out against it last November. People knew what they were voting for.

tspike 9y ago
Republican legislators are pretty uniformly against net neutrality. The Republican public is not, with one recent poll showing 3 out of 4 Republicans familiar with the issue voicing opposition to the rollback of regulations. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
- knz 9y ago
  And yet they still vote for candidates with known public positions that are contrary to their own!
  - vkou 9y ago
    That's because they prioritize fighting a culture war... Over a minor issue like NN.
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    Would you suggest they not vote? There is no candidate that does not hold policy positions contrary to at least some my own. What they've done is decided that this issue is less important than others, and based their votes on that.
    - knz 9y ago
      > Would you suggest they not vote? Of course not. As you say, it's clearly not a significant issue for most Republican voters. However, I think a lot of voters assume that the party reflects the values of the voters though - clearly that is not always true.
  - pmyteh 9y ago
    That's because you don't get to choose your issues one at a time. You get to choose a basket of issue positions at the same time as a legislator's personality. Normally from a choice of two.
    - loeg 9y ago
      > You get to choose a basket of issue positions at the same time as a legislator's personality. And this is at best -- it assumes your elected representative even holds their campaign promises, which is maybe a long shot.
    - knz 9y ago
      Indeed. However, most politicians take their election as a mandate for all of their public positions.
      - pmyteh 9y ago
        Yes. Mandate theory is a convenient fiction with basically no basis.
c-cube 9y ago
Because people voted for someone, doesn't mean they fully agree with the elected person's whole program. In an election you have only a few candidates for a large number of possible combinations of positions. If you mostly agree with republicans except on a few things, you're probably still going to vote republican.
- the_trapper 9y ago
  Exactly. For example, if you believe very strongly in Second Amendment rights, most Democratic candidates are not an option on election day. Additionally, Hillary Clinton was a very polarizing candidate even among registered Democrats.
  - komali2 9y ago
    As a prolific (and I mean prolific) gun owner, I've yet to see evidence of mass-Democrat candidate opposition to the 2nd amendment in general. "Gun Grabbing" hasn't been a party-wide concept despite Republican propaganda otherwise. Stupid gun rules, like magazine size limitations, sure, but they almost never "come for my guns." Often the suggestions are perfectly reasonable in my mind - national gun registry, for example.
    - the_trapper 9y ago
      What purpose would a national gun registry serve other than to set the stage for eventual confiscation? I'm genuinely curious, because I can't think of any crime it would prevent, while being a big affront to privacy.
      - komali2 9y ago
        Considering that guns keep being sold to people they absolutely should not be, a registry makes it easy for the FBI or ATF to get flagged when an "unallowed purchaser" attempts or succeeds to make a purchase. Then they can know to either confiscate (because of an illegal purchase) or start monitoring heavily. Previous mass shootings were by people who should not have been able to purchase, but lack of a registry allowed them to "slip through the cracks." Another scenario - the FBI is monitoring radicalization in a small community. They check the gun registry to see which of the people in the community becoming radicalized are actual potential threats and zero in their investigation on those individuals, to prevent a shooting. Etc. Basically just makes law enforcement's jobs more feasible. The government doesn't have the resources to "confiscate" every registered gun owners' guns at the same time, and so we would be well aware if a confiscation by a tyrannical government is coming, and all of us weirdo militia folk and preppers would already be putting the sandbags out. Trust me, some of these guys are practically wishing for it.
grasshopperpurp 9y ago
I believe he was referring to constituents, rather than politicians.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  If an opinion isn't important enough to affect what politicians you vote for, you shouldn't be surprised that the government you elect doesn't represent your view on that issue.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    I agree.
    - dang 9y ago
      Please don't post like this here. Maybe you don't owe better to a political party but you do owe better to the community you're participating in. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        I've edited the post.
        dang 9y ago
        Thanks!
        grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        Thank you :^)

tspike 9y ago

Republican legislators are pretty uniformly against net neutrality. The Republican public is not, with one recent poll showing 3 out of 4 Republicans familiar with the issue voicing opposition to the rollback of regulations. [1] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...

knz 9y ago
And yet they still vote for candidates with known public positions that are contrary to their own!
- vkou 9y ago
  That's because they prioritize fighting a culture war... Over a minor issue like NN.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  Would you suggest they not vote? There is no candidate that does not hold policy positions contrary to at least some my own. What they've done is decided that this issue is less important than others, and based their votes on that.
  - knz 9y ago
    > Would you suggest they not vote? Of course not. As you say, it's clearly not a significant issue for most Republican voters. However, I think a lot of voters assume that the party reflects the values of the voters though - clearly that is not always true.
- pmyteh 9y ago
  That's because you don't get to choose your issues one at a time. You get to choose a basket of issue positions at the same time as a legislator's personality. Normally from a choice of two.
  - loeg 9y ago
    > You get to choose a basket of issue positions at the same time as a legislator's personality. And this is at best -- it assumes your elected representative even holds their campaign promises, which is maybe a long shot.
  - knz 9y ago
    Indeed. However, most politicians take their election as a mandate for all of their public positions.
    - pmyteh 9y ago
      Yes. Mandate theory is a convenient fiction with basically no basis.

c-cube 9y ago

Because people voted for someone, doesn't mean they fully agree with the elected person's whole program. In an election you have only a few candidates for a large number of possible combinations of positions. If you mostly agree with republicans except on a few things, you're probably still going to vote republican.

the_trapper 9y ago
Exactly. For example, if you believe very strongly in Second Amendment rights, most Democratic candidates are not an option on election day. Additionally, Hillary Clinton was a very polarizing candidate even among registered Democrats.
- komali2 9y ago
  As a prolific (and I mean prolific) gun owner, I've yet to see evidence of mass-Democrat candidate opposition to the 2nd amendment in general. "Gun Grabbing" hasn't been a party-wide concept despite Republican propaganda otherwise. Stupid gun rules, like magazine size limitations, sure, but they almost never "come for my guns." Often the suggestions are perfectly reasonable in my mind - national gun registry, for example.
  - the_trapper 9y ago
    What purpose would a national gun registry serve other than to set the stage for eventual confiscation? I'm genuinely curious, because I can't think of any crime it would prevent, while being a big affront to privacy.
    - komali2 9y ago
      Considering that guns keep being sold to people they absolutely should not be, a registry makes it easy for the FBI or ATF to get flagged when an "unallowed purchaser" attempts or succeeds to make a purchase. Then they can know to either confiscate (because of an illegal purchase) or start monitoring heavily. Previous mass shootings were by people who should not have been able to purchase, but lack of a registry allowed them to "slip through the cracks." Another scenario - the FBI is monitoring radicalization in a small community. They check the gun registry to see which of the people in the community becoming radicalized are actual potential threats and zero in their investigation on those individuals, to prevent a shooting. Etc. Basically just makes law enforcement's jobs more feasible. The government doesn't have the resources to "confiscate" every registered gun owners' guns at the same time, and so we would be well aware if a confiscation by a tyrannical government is coming, and all of us weirdo militia folk and preppers would already be putting the sandbags out. Trust me, some of these guys are practically wishing for it.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago

I believe he was referring to constituents, rather than politicians.

dragonwriter 9y ago
If an opinion isn't important enough to affect what politicians you vote for, you shouldn't be surprised that the government you elect doesn't represent your view on that issue.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  I agree.
  - dang 9y ago
    Please don't post like this here. Maybe you don't owe better to a political party but you do owe better to the community you're participating in. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      I've edited the post.
      - dang 9y ago
        Thanks!
        grasshopperpurp 9y ago
        Thank you :^)