5 ms·

> Democrats are nearly as bad. I mean, after supporting the reversal of a fair and free election, leading to a violent insurrection, anyone who still engages i

> Democrats are nearly as bad. I mean, after supporting the reversal of a fair and free election, leading to a violent insurrection, anyone who still engages in this 'both sider-ism' is basically a lost cause at this point. I far respect people who at least pick a side than continue the 'both sides are equally bad' argument

theluketaylor 6y ago
One side is filled with anti-democratic monsters and captured by corporate interests. The other side is just captured by corporate interests. For sure not equally bad, but that doesn't make one a paragon of virtue.
- duxup 6y ago
  Nobody is a paragon of virtue.
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  You are always going to have crazy extremists on both sides: be it Trump-truthers or socialist “China did nothing wrong in the last 50 years and Venezuela is good for poor people” leftists. Majority of people tend to be more centrist, but that doesn’t get as many clicks / ad dollars.
theNYTlies 6y ago
Ah yes, the insurrection which involved no military, no firearms, and involved only the deaths of the rioters by State forces (we learned yesterday that Sicknick was not killed with a fire extinguisher and the New York Times just made that up) Yes yes, that was an insurrection, but the ongoing movement detailed in Andy Ngo's new book is "just an idea" Give me a break
- theNYTlies 6y ago
  Here's another comment so you can downvote me twice you Coastal Elite shitheads, won't make me wrong! Fuck you very much :D You can kick all the people you hate offline and censor us but don't be surprised to see more outbursts in real life when you've silenced all dissent online
  - dang 6y ago
    I've banned this account, not because of whatever your political views are, but because you're breaking the site guidelines egregiously. Please don't create accounts to do that on HN. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
It seems to me that parent was referring specifically to serving corporate interests, where indeed there is relatively little difference between the parties.
btilly 6y ago
It is clear from context that the comment is about how they are on states' rights and telecoms. Unrelated differences, no matter how stark they are, are not relevant.
bityard 6y ago
Sorry, but there's no way I will ever believe it's just a crazy fluke that given the broad spectrum of political beliefs in the US, two parties each have roughly 49% of public support in terms of issues and voting power for decades on end, and that they regularly swap positions of power every few years. The US is the only developed nation where you have no hope of getting elected to political office at _any_ level of government unless you pledge to align yourself with either Red Team or Blue Team. Campaign platforms and public opinion always boil down to some variant of, "if you think we're bad, you should see the other guys!" as your comment confirms. To the extent that both parties engage in creating and retaining laws that further ensconce the practical existence of only two parties (see gerrymandering), yes, both sides are equally bad.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  >Sorry, but there's no way I will ever believe it's just a crazy fluke that given the broad spectrum of political beliefs in the US, two parties each have roughly 49% of public support in terms of issues and voting power for decades on end, and that they regularly swap positions of power every few years. ~50/50 party split is one of three natural equilibrium points of a first-past-the-post election heirarchy. If I'm a party manager allocating resources (or platform positions) to win elections in that system I would be a fool (and get fired) if I overspent to get 60% of the vote when 51% would do the trick (and I/my organization could potentially use the rest of those resources to get over the margin in a different race). At the same time, a party that is losing and can't raise more money to spend in a race will naturally shift their positions to appeal to a larger number of people to gain margin that way. In the long and wide term, things will tend to balance there (absent structural reform or the collapse of one party or the other). >The US is the only developed nation where you have no hope of getting elected to political office at _any_ level of government unless you pledge to align yourself with either Red Team or Blue Team. It could be worse: in some developed countries you can't get elected unless you align with the single party.
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into generic partisan battle. I know the GP contained a provocation, but part of the art of being a good commenter here is learning to resist the temptation to take the bait and respond generically/indignantly to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

theluketaylor 6y ago

One side is filled with anti-democratic monsters and captured by corporate interests. The other side is just captured by corporate interests. For sure not equally bad, but that doesn't make one a paragon of virtue.

duxup 6y ago
Nobody is a paragon of virtue.
s3r3nity 6y ago
You are always going to have crazy extremists on both sides: be it Trump-truthers or socialist “China did nothing wrong in the last 50 years and Venezuela is good for poor people” leftists. Majority of people tend to be more centrist, but that doesn’t get as many clicks / ad dollars.

theNYTlies 6y ago

Ah yes, the insurrection which involved no military, no firearms, and involved only the deaths of the rioters by State forces (we learned yesterday that Sicknick was not killed with a fire extinguisher and the New York Times just made that up) Yes yes, that was an insurrection, but the ongoing movement detailed in Andy Ngo's new book is "just an idea" Give me a break

theNYTlies 6y ago
Here's another comment so you can downvote me twice you Coastal Elite shitheads, won't make me wrong! Fuck you very much :D You can kick all the people you hate offline and censor us but don't be surprised to see more outbursts in real life when you've silenced all dissent online
- dang 6y ago
  I've banned this account, not because of whatever your political views are, but because you're breaking the site guidelines egregiously. Please don't create accounts to do that on HN. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

It seems to me that parent was referring specifically to serving corporate interests, where indeed there is relatively little difference between the parties.

btilly 6y ago

It is clear from context that the comment is about how they are on states' rights and telecoms. Unrelated differences, no matter how stark they are, are not relevant.

bityard 6y ago

Sorry, but there's no way I will ever believe it's just a crazy fluke that given the broad spectrum of political beliefs in the US, two parties each have roughly 49% of public support in terms of issues and voting power for decades on end, and that they regularly swap positions of power every few years. The US is the only developed nation where you have no hope of getting elected to political office at _any_ level of government unless you pledge to align yourself with either Red Team or Blue Team. Campaign platforms and public opinion always boil down to some variant of, "if you think we're bad, you should see the other guys!" as your comment confirms. To the extent that both parties engage in creating and retaining laws that further ensconce the practical existence of only two parties (see gerrymandering), yes, both sides are equally bad.

InitialLastName 6y ago
>Sorry, but there's no way I will ever believe it's just a crazy fluke that given the broad spectrum of political beliefs in the US, two parties each have roughly 49% of public support in terms of issues and voting power for decades on end, and that they regularly swap positions of power every few years. ~50/50 party split is one of three natural equilibrium points of a first-past-the-post election heirarchy. If I'm a party manager allocating resources (or platform positions) to win elections in that system I would be a fool (and get fired) if I overspent to get 60% of the vote when 51% would do the trick (and I/my organization could potentially use the rest of those resources to get over the margin in a different race). At the same time, a party that is losing and can't raise more money to spend in a race will naturally shift their positions to appeal to a larger number of people to gain margin that way. In the long and wide term, things will tend to balance there (absent structural reform or the collapse of one party or the other). >The US is the only developed nation where you have no hope of getting elected to political office at _any_ level of government unless you pledge to align yourself with either Red Team or Blue Team. It could be worse: in some developed countries you can't get elected unless you align with the single party.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into generic partisan battle. I know the GP contained a provocation, but part of the art of being a good commenter here is learning to resist the temptation to take the bait and respond generically/indignantly to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html