7 ms·

the crass disregard for the democratic process on display in NC is a model coming soon to a state near you :( It's not just the democratic process, but more ge

by e40 9y ago

the crass disregard for the democratic process on display in NC is a model coming soon to a state near you :( It's not just the democratic process, but more generally the rule of law. The GOP has gone into crazy territory with their "ends justify the means" strategies. Look at the support of Roy Moore. Party over everything. Disgusting.

fortythirteen 9y ago
That is seriously the pot calling the kettle black. What is event the Democratic party platform anymore other than remove Trump at any cost?
AndrewUnmuted 9y ago
I don’t see how any rational individual could limit this criticism to only the Democratic party.
craftyguy 9y ago
Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. Here in Oregon both parties are telling me, who is non registered with either party, to vote for or against Measure 101 because the "other party doesn't want me to". You saw it too in the last presidential election, where people rallied behind either giant douche or turd sandwich because they would never vote against their team.
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  > Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. This is false and a lazy attempt to justify GOP behavior.
- untog 9y ago
  > You saw it too in the last presidential election, where people rallied behind either giant douche or turd sandwich because they would never vote against their team. I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal. Simply put, if you opposed Trump (or Clinton) your only sensible option was to vote Clinton (or Trump). The sooner we escape this two-party hell the better, but it won't happen any time soon.
  - Retric 9y ago
    If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Remember core supporters are pandered to, but voters up for grabs are what shift elections. PS: When you try to game the system, the system owns your ass.
    - untog 9y ago
      > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't think Clinton was a particularly good candidate, but I was extremely concerned about the prospect of Trump being President. In that situation, my most sensible path is to vote for Clinton, despite my reservations. A vote for a third party would be a waste unless the system was changed in a way that would make it meaningful. All that said, I live in New York, so my vote doesn't make a damn difference anyway.
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        >> > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. > Oh, certainly. but then you said: > A vote for a third party would be a waste So, which is it?
        untog 9y ago
        Your citation missed my very next word after "certainly", which was "but". My clarification was that few people oppose both equally. If you oppose them equally then a third party vote is your best option. If you consider one to be a lesser evil, your best option is to vote for them. Just my opinion, of course, and one that is heavily biased as a result of the 2016 election.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    > I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal Why did the democratic process fail? Because people are being tribal. No one seriouly considered whether there might be other, better, candidates in other parties besides the big two. Given that we've done absolutely nothing to 'fix' the democratic process, I suspect we'll get to relive this again and again, and again.
- factotum 9y ago
  False equivalency. Look more closely at the kinds of things being done by both parties and you will see a major effort to concentrate wealth, destroy government, and institute a more theocratic and plutocratic society on one side, while there are more relatively minor infractions on the other. The left, by and large, is the reasonable side at present. It has its problems, but at least they aren’t cancerous.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    >false equivalency This. What-aboutism is rampant these days, but frequently involves conflating things of such vastly different degree as to be of an altogether distinct quality. The strange thing about the supposed "insurgent" party invoking it so frequently is that they are justifying their own behavior by equating it to that of those they so vehemently oppose and demand to be repudiated.
    - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
      Pointing fingers at "the other guy" helps us not fix ourselves. That way, if we use underhanded tactics "to compete", we can play it off as "it's only fair", because someone else does it as well. If anyone wants true change in the world, that change starts by changing ourselves. every truly great leader has regurgitated this, ad nauseam.
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        To play devil's advocate: what's the point in changing ourselves when 99.9% of the voting populace, with the help of every media outlet ever, views major elections like a major sporting event?
        UnpossibleJim 9y ago
        Because leading by example woks better than putting the whip to someone else and screaming for them to change, while you stay the same. That only leads to revolution.
- kadenshep 9y ago
  >Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. No it isn't.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    How do you explain both parties gerrymandering for decades across the US?
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      You dismiss it because "one party isn't as bad as the other" (paraphrasing): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16116176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16116176
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        > You dismiss it because "one party isn't as bad as the other" (paraphrasing) Your comment is a perfect example of someone ignoring the other person and trying to win an argument at all costs. You completely restated what I wrote into an unrecognizable and false statement. That is commonly called a strawman logical fallacy. Are you aware that both parties gerrymander their districts?
        craftyguy 9y ago
        > Are you aware that both parties gerrymander their districts? Yes, and I agree with you. > Your comment is a perfect example of someone ignoring the other person and trying to win an argument at all costs Oh yea, gotta win all those fake internet points. /s
        IncRnd 9y ago
        > Oh yea, gotta win all those fake internet points. /s As the 1,001st visitor, you have just won the entire Internet!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- geofft 9y ago
  > Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. Here in Oregon both parties are telling me, who is non registered with either party, to vote for or against Measure 101 because the "other party doesn't want me to". I think those are two separate things - having your team win at all costs, and opposing the other team regardless of what they do. The latter can be a rational response to an opposing team who is willing to win at all costs (and I would currently agree that this is justified). The Democrats have determined that the Republicans are untrustworthy, insisting on rules when they help and suspending them when they don't, pushing all of the gerrymandering they can get away with, etc. The Democrats themselves do not engage in this behavior - they just want the behavior to end. And in turn they get accused of organized voter fraud and all sorts of other allegations that have no basis in reality. I would actually say that one of the persistent problems with the Democrats is continuing to extend the presumption of good faith to their Republican colleagues who have shown a history of acting in bad faith. The right response is to oppose everything Republicans do, simply because they are Republicans, until they show themselves willing to work in good faith. You can absolutely believe certain things and disagree with your political opponents and still act in good faith. (As someone who believes in Christian morality and disagrees with a lot of policies of Democrats, notably their warlike tendencies, this situation combined with the two-party system is a problem for me, because it is now the case that I simply cannot vote for any Republican in good conscience, whether or not I think their Democratic opponent is reasonable.)
cat199 9y ago
> The GOP really? Bernie's primary & the Clintons, for starters... And speaking of election data, I'm sure Seth Rich has something to say about this.. oh wait. Perhaps one party might be slightly more extreme than the other but hardly to the point of singling anyone out..
- untog 9y ago
  > Perhaps one party might be slightly more extreme than the other but hardly to the point of singling anyone out.. I'd point out that you're equating accusations of sexually assaulting teenage girls with internal (and legal) party political intrigue, but then, you cited Seth Rich, so I already know you are immune to reason and sensible discussion. I just feel for Seth's poor family, having to put up with nonsense conspiracy theorists every day.
ihsw2 9y ago
The same can be said for Democrats, down to the letter.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  The DNC did not put up known pedophile as a candidate and continued to support him after highly credible accusations were made. Not. The same. Thing.
  - ihsw2 9y ago
    Bill Clinton's predatory sexual escapades spanned decades with Hillary Clinton being totally complicit, as a matter of fact early in her legal career she worked tirelessly to provide legal defense to a vicious pedophile that preyed on elementary schoolgirls.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      I'm not sure how many people conflate adultery with pedophelia but, in any case, we will never know if WJC would have won a third term. We do know that it was HRC running for the presidency in 2016. >early in her legal career she worked tirelessly to provide legal defense She was a defense attorney. Even "bad" people are entitled to earnest counsel. It's how our legal system works, otherwise it doesn't work. An attorney defending her client is not an endorsement of his behavior. Obviously. Suggesting otherwise means you are ignorant WRT the U.S. legal system, willfully spreading Cosmic Pizza type conspiracy theories, or both.
dang 9y ago
Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. This whole topic is politicized, of course, but there are circles of hell and the idea here is to stay out of the inner ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by e40 9y ago

fortythirteen 9y ago

That is seriously the pot calling the kettle black. What is event the Democratic party platform anymore other than remove Trump at any cost?

AndrewUnmuted 9y ago

I don’t see how any rational individual could limit this criticism to only the Democratic party.

craftyguy 9y ago

Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. Here in Oregon both parties are telling me, who is non registered with either party, to vote for or against Measure 101 because the "other party doesn't want me to". You saw it too in the last presidential election, where people rallied behind either giant douche or turd sandwich because they would never vote against their team.

1_2__4 9y ago
> Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. This is false and a lazy attempt to justify GOP behavior.
untog 9y ago
> You saw it too in the last presidential election, where people rallied behind either giant douche or turd sandwich because they would never vote against their team. I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal. Simply put, if you opposed Trump (or Clinton) your only sensible option was to vote Clinton (or Trump). The sooner we escape this two-party hell the better, but it won't happen any time soon.
- Retric 9y ago
  If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Remember core supporters are pandered to, but voters up for grabs are what shift elections. PS: When you try to game the system, the system owns your ass.
  - untog 9y ago
    > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. Oh, certainly. But very few people dislike both candidates equally. I didn't think Clinton was a particularly good candidate, but I was extremely concerned about the prospect of Trump being President. In that situation, my most sensible path is to vote for Clinton, despite my reservations. A vote for a third party would be a waste unless the system was changed in a way that would make it meaningful. All that said, I live in New York, so my vote doesn't make a damn difference anyway.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      >> > If you oppose both then voting 3rd party is sill more useful than staying home. > Oh, certainly. but then you said: > A vote for a third party would be a waste So, which is it?
      - untog 9y ago
        Your citation missed my very next word after "certainly", which was "but". My clarification was that few people oppose both equally. If you oppose them equally then a third party vote is your best option. If you consider one to be a lesser evil, your best option is to vote for them. Just my opinion, of course, and one that is heavily biased as a result of the 2016 election.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  > I see that as more of a failing of the democratic process than people being tribal Why did the democratic process fail? Because people are being tribal. No one seriouly considered whether there might be other, better, candidates in other parties besides the big two. Given that we've done absolutely nothing to 'fix' the democratic process, I suspect we'll get to relive this again and again, and again.
factotum 9y ago
False equivalency. Look more closely at the kinds of things being done by both parties and you will see a major effort to concentrate wealth, destroy government, and institute a more theocratic and plutocratic society on one side, while there are more relatively minor infractions on the other. The left, by and large, is the reasonable side at present. It has its problems, but at least they aren’t cancerous.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >false equivalency This. What-aboutism is rampant these days, but frequently involves conflating things of such vastly different degree as to be of an altogether distinct quality. The strange thing about the supposed "insurgent" party invoking it so frequently is that they are justifying their own behavior by equating it to that of those they so vehemently oppose and demand to be repudiated.
  - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
    Pointing fingers at "the other guy" helps us not fix ourselves. That way, if we use underhanded tactics "to compete", we can play it off as "it's only fair", because someone else does it as well. If anyone wants true change in the world, that change starts by changing ourselves. every truly great leader has regurgitated this, ad nauseam.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      To play devil's advocate: what's the point in changing ourselves when 99.9% of the voting populace, with the help of every media outlet ever, views major elections like a major sporting event?
      - UnpossibleJim 9y ago
        Because leading by example woks better than putting the whip to someone else and screaming for them to change, while you stay the same. That only leads to revolution.
kadenshep 9y ago
>Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. No it isn't.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  How do you explain both parties gerrymandering for decades across the US?
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    You dismiss it because "one party isn't as bad as the other" (paraphrasing): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16116176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16116176
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      > You dismiss it because "one party isn't as bad as the other" (paraphrasing) Your comment is a perfect example of someone ignoring the other person and trying to win an argument at all costs. You completely restated what I wrote into an unrecognizable and false statement. That is commonly called a strawman logical fallacy. Are you aware that both parties gerrymander their districts?
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        > Are you aware that both parties gerrymander their districts? Yes, and I agree with you. > Your comment is a perfect example of someone ignoring the other person and trying to win an argument at all costs Oh yea, gotta win all those fake internet points. /s
        IncRnd 9y ago
        > Oh yea, gotta win all those fake internet points. /s As the 1,001st visitor, you have just won the entire Internet!
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
geofft 9y ago
> Having your 'team' win at all costs is a problem both parties share. Here in Oregon both parties are telling me, who is non registered with either party, to vote for or against Measure 101 because the "other party doesn't want me to". I think those are two separate things - having your team win at all costs, and opposing the other team regardless of what they do. The latter can be a rational response to an opposing team who is willing to win at all costs (and I would currently agree that this is justified). The Democrats have determined that the Republicans are untrustworthy, insisting on rules when they help and suspending them when they don't, pushing all of the gerrymandering they can get away with, etc. The Democrats themselves do not engage in this behavior - they just want the behavior to end. And in turn they get accused of organized voter fraud and all sorts of other allegations that have no basis in reality. I would actually say that one of the persistent problems with the Democrats is continuing to extend the presumption of good faith to their Republican colleagues who have shown a history of acting in bad faith. The right response is to oppose everything Republicans do, simply because they are Republicans, until they show themselves willing to work in good faith. You can absolutely believe certain things and disagree with your political opponents and still act in good faith. (As someone who believes in Christian morality and disagrees with a lot of policies of Democrats, notably their warlike tendencies, this situation combined with the two-party system is a problem for me, because it is now the case that I simply cannot vote for any Republican in good conscience, whether or not I think their Democratic opponent is reasonable.)

cat199 9y ago

> The GOP really? Bernie's primary & the Clintons, for starters... And speaking of election data, I'm sure Seth Rich has something to say about this.. oh wait. Perhaps one party might be slightly more extreme than the other but hardly to the point of singling anyone out..

untog 9y ago
> Perhaps one party might be slightly more extreme than the other but hardly to the point of singling anyone out.. I'd point out that you're equating accusations of sexually assaulting teenage girls with internal (and legal) party political intrigue, but then, you cited Seth Rich, so I already know you are immune to reason and sensible discussion. I just feel for Seth's poor family, having to put up with nonsense conspiracy theorists every day.

ihsw2 9y ago

The same can be said for Democrats, down to the letter.

Daishiman 9y ago
The DNC did not put up known pedophile as a candidate and continued to support him after highly credible accusations were made. Not. The same. Thing.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  Bill Clinton's predatory sexual escapades spanned decades with Hillary Clinton being totally complicit, as a matter of fact early in her legal career she worked tirelessly to provide legal defense to a vicious pedophile that preyed on elementary schoolgirls.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    I'm not sure how many people conflate adultery with pedophelia but, in any case, we will never know if WJC would have won a third term. We do know that it was HRC running for the presidency in 2016. >early in her legal career she worked tirelessly to provide legal defense She was a defense attorney. Even "bad" people are entitled to earnest counsel. It's how our legal system works, otherwise it doesn't work. An attorney defending her client is not an endorsement of his behavior. Obviously. Suggesting otherwise means you are ignorant WRT the U.S. legal system, willfully spreading Cosmic Pizza type conspiracy theories, or both.

dang 9y ago

Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. This whole topic is politicized, of course, but there are circles of hell and the idea here is to stay out of the inner ones. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html