6 ms·

[citation needed]. You're going to need some high octane evidence to compare adding new regulations that disproportionally help one industry, verses destroying

[citation needed]. You're going to need some high octane evidence to compare adding new regulations that disproportionally help one industry, verses destroying the established works of the FCC, EPA, NOAA, the Bureau of Land Management/National Parks, the Department of Education... the list is literally too long for me to keep enumerating here, so take a look at articles like this one: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/05/23/here-list-agencies-and-programs-trump-budget-would-defund-entirely/DMRzbdY4lwB0XEGA13Y6PP/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/05/23/here-li... I understand being upset at the Dems for stuff like the TPP, basically rolling over to Hollywood any time they ask for a copyright extension or more copyright enforcement powers, or even being soft on enforcement of any given regulation... but in general there's one party in America that wants regulation and structure and enforcement of existing laws... and one party in America that's currently actively working to remove as many government agencies and regulations that exist to protect the nation from Captialism Gone Wild, and as a staunch independent it's quite easy to see the difference. I'm sorry, but this shit needs to end. This statement might have been closer to true in the earlier 2000's, but it couldn't be further from the truth in 2018. This "both sides" equivocation needs to be put to death.

wooter 9y ago
is this a joke? Look at Chicago and Detroit. Democrat corruption is rampant. It is well known that Obama massively increased the amount of illegal domestic surveillance and use of unconstitutional FISA courts. To say nothing of his attempt to subvert the First and Fourth Amendments to the point where Apple had to act in outright defiance with an open letter to the People. To say nothing of how he handled the Snowden revelations or the bombing of 4 additional countries all the way up to 2017 based on a 2001 authorization.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  Why are you lot so dishonest and so disingenuous? "Look at Chicago and Detroit!" -- let's ignore the fact that these places really aren't that bad, but what about every single other democratic city in the U.S. that's the backbone of this country (Hint: By and large cities vote blue, consistently).
- untog 9y ago
  Is this a joke? Your pivot to corruption is probably the strongest example of whataboutism I've seen on HN in a while. It has absolutely nothing to do with the OPs point, which is that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favour of removing government regulations in preference to big business, and the Democrats are not. (and do you really believe a Republican president would have been easier on Edward Snowden than Obama was?)
  - cmurf 9y ago
    Case in point, Trump suggests killing the traitor, it's what we used to do in the good old days after all. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump...
    - wooter 9y ago
      and Obama droned a 15 year-old American citizen without due process.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - cmurf 9y ago
        The 16 year old was not explicitly targeted. And I find the response by Gibbs in this piece to be unconvincing and also idiotic. But the more convincing argument isn't appeals about a 16 year old, it's about the negative efficacy of that program. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-tea...
- dashundchen 9y ago
  This excellent Reddit comment shows that when it comes to the voting record, no, both sides are not the same. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbdc https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbd...
  - wooter 9y ago
    I see plenty of things in that list where i find the democrat position abhorrable. same of some Republican positions. and a lot of positions where both parties switch as soon as they're in power
pdonis 9y ago
> I understand being upset at the Dems for stuff like the TPP, basically rolling over to Hollywood any time they ask for a copyright extension or more copyright enforcement powers I am, but those are relatively minor compared to the real issue, which you are ignoring. > or even being soft on enforcement of any given regulation You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that regulations in general are good, and the only issue is proper enforcement. But that's the real issue: regulations in general are not good. One obvious reason is regulatory capture: regulations end up benefiting the industries being regulated, not the public as a whole. The history of regulation of the Internet is a good example: we don't have the current dysfunctional structure of huge ISPs with monopoly powers and no easy way to dislodge them because of lack of regulation, we have it because of too much regulation, bought and paid for by those same ISPs to insulate them from actual competition. I understand that we can't just dismantle the existing regulatory structure cold turkey, because, for better or worse, it's the status quo and everyone has made long term plans in good faith based on it. In that sense, the agenda Trump is currently pushing is not a good idea. But that does not mean that pushing for less regulation over the long term, and more recognition of the limits of government regulation as a tool for social improvement, is not a good idea. Unfortunately I don't see either major party in the US recognizing this (or, for that matter, any major party in any developed country). The Republicans are pushing to repeal regulations they don't like, but they will gladly put in place other regulations that they do like--for example, the various travel bans and restrictions that everyone was up in arms about early in the Trump administration, or laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, or...you get the idea.
- root_axis 9y ago
  I feel like our entire mechanism of discourse on this topic is broken. It is not useful to regard regulations in general terms because the factors that underpin whether or not a regulation is good or bad is entirely dependent on the details of the regulation and the context in which it is applied. > But that's the real issue: regulations in general are not good This is akin to saying "laws in general are not good", when they are simply a tool. Of course, overzealous regulation is a stifling obstacle for small businesses, but this is something we can all agree on, the disagreements always come down to the details. > regulatory capture: regulations end up benefiting the industries being regulated Yes, this is a negative side effect of regulation, but there are also positive side effects from regulation and we have to evaluate the spread on a case by case basis (or at the very least, differentiate the ramifications of specific kinds of regulations per a given industry). At the end of the day, regulations are society's response to a sordid and well-documented history of abuse by corporations; that doesn't mean regulations should be punitive, but they are a necessary tool.

wooter 9y ago

is this a joke? Look at Chicago and Detroit. Democrat corruption is rampant. It is well known that Obama massively increased the amount of illegal domestic surveillance and use of unconstitutional FISA courts. To say nothing of his attempt to subvert the First and Fourth Amendments to the point where Apple had to act in outright defiance with an open letter to the People. To say nothing of how he handled the Snowden revelations or the bombing of 4 additional countries all the way up to 2017 based on a 2001 authorization.

kadenshep 9y ago
Why are you lot so dishonest and so disingenuous? "Look at Chicago and Detroit!" -- let's ignore the fact that these places really aren't that bad, but what about every single other democratic city in the U.S. that's the backbone of this country (Hint: By and large cities vote blue, consistently).
untog 9y ago
Is this a joke? Your pivot to corruption is probably the strongest example of whataboutism I've seen on HN in a while. It has absolutely nothing to do with the OPs point, which is that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favour of removing government regulations in preference to big business, and the Democrats are not. (and do you really believe a Republican president would have been easier on Edward Snowden than Obama was?)
- cmurf 9y ago
  Case in point, Trump suggests killing the traitor, it's what we used to do in the good old days after all. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump...
  - wooter 9y ago
    and Obama droned a 15 year-old American citizen without due process.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - cmurf 9y ago
      The 16 year old was not explicitly targeted. And I find the response by Gibbs in this piece to be unconvincing and also idiotic. But the more convincing argument isn't appeals about a 16 year old, it's about the negative efficacy of that program. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-tea...
dashundchen 9y ago
This excellent Reddit comment shows that when it comes to the voting record, no, both sides are not the same. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbdc https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6brytw/comment/dhpcbd...
- wooter 9y ago
  I see plenty of things in that list where i find the democrat position abhorrable. same of some Republican positions. and a lot of positions where both parties switch as soon as they're in power

pdonis 9y ago

> I understand being upset at the Dems for stuff like the TPP, basically rolling over to Hollywood any time they ask for a copyright extension or more copyright enforcement powers I am, but those are relatively minor compared to the real issue, which you are ignoring. > or even being soft on enforcement of any given regulation You appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that regulations in general are good, and the only issue is proper enforcement. But that's the real issue: regulations in general are not good. One obvious reason is regulatory capture: regulations end up benefiting the industries being regulated, not the public as a whole. The history of regulation of the Internet is a good example: we don't have the current dysfunctional structure of huge ISPs with monopoly powers and no easy way to dislodge them because of lack of regulation, we have it because of too much regulation, bought and paid for by those same ISPs to insulate them from actual competition. I understand that we can't just dismantle the existing regulatory structure cold turkey, because, for better or worse, it's the status quo and everyone has made long term plans in good faith based on it. In that sense, the agenda Trump is currently pushing is not a good idea. But that does not mean that pushing for less regulation over the long term, and more recognition of the limits of government regulation as a tool for social improvement, is not a good idea. Unfortunately I don't see either major party in the US recognizing this (or, for that matter, any major party in any developed country). The Republicans are pushing to repeal regulations they don't like, but they will gladly put in place other regulations that they do like--for example, the various travel bans and restrictions that everyone was up in arms about early in the Trump administration, or laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, or...you get the idea.

root_axis 9y ago
I feel like our entire mechanism of discourse on this topic is broken. It is not useful to regard regulations in general terms because the factors that underpin whether or not a regulation is good or bad is entirely dependent on the details of the regulation and the context in which it is applied. > But that's the real issue: regulations in general are not good This is akin to saying "laws in general are not good", when they are simply a tool. Of course, overzealous regulation is a stifling obstacle for small businesses, but this is something we can all agree on, the disagreements always come down to the details. > regulatory capture: regulations end up benefiting the industries being regulated Yes, this is a negative side effect of regulation, but there are also positive side effects from regulation and we have to evaluate the spread on a case by case basis (or at the very least, differentiate the ramifications of specific kinds of regulations per a given industry). At the end of the day, regulations are society's response to a sordid and well-documented history of abuse by corporations; that doesn't mean regulations should be punitive, but they are a necessary tool.