Hacker News Reader

Comment by noobermin | Hacker News Reader

>How could anyone in good conscience think this is good for the people?

You assume these people care about "what is good for the people." Like CNN and MSNBC, claiming "R's say this, D's say this, I can't tell what the truth is!"

There is the record, there is history. One party is aligned with their corporate donors more than the other. While both have issues, on issues involving corporate power and influence, R's are clearly on the side of corporations and wealthy donors who keep them in power.

EDIT: there is no need for being fair because everyone else does this, but many times, D's end up being "republican-lite" because they believe it will appeal to R's and also appeal to their (the D's) donors; but there is no question as to which side the R's lie on.

View on HN

I was an elected Democratic National Committee member and I can assure you corporate influence has infiltrated the D party too. I was part of a group of a few hundred people to receive a private Dave Matthews concert in the mountains, paid for by a mountain top removal company.

I disagree. The political elites in both parties serve the interests of the capital holders. It's just that each party targets their propaganda efforts to appear as if they don't serve those interests at different audiences.

They've each done a very good job at convincing people the other team is pure evil, though.

Propaganda efforts are one thing, results are another.

Really? Huh. If it's all propaganda, then why did Democrats enact the legislation that protected our privacy? Why did the FCC implement Net Neutrality under Democrats? Why are the Republicans undoing that? Pretending there's no difference between the two parties may give you a way to feel superior to both sides, but it does little else.

I'm not saying both parties don't have issues, but if people consistently voted for the person or party that was less evil, we'd eventually end up with good candidates. However, people like you throw up their hands and say "Oh, well, both sides are bad." Yeah, they are. Like too much salt and too much arsenic are both bad. But there are matters of degree here.

The Republicans that want to sell us all out to multinationals, ban religious minorities, and deny science are in power right now. The Democrats aren't perfect. If that's the bar they have to meet before people like you will stop saying "Well, both sides are bad, whaa, whaa, whaa" then whatever. But don't feel like you're smart because you see yourself as above the petty fray. Quite the opposite is true.

In the real world, one party is doing the right thing and protecting our privacy and one party isn't. It's not all propaganda.

  why did Democrats enact the legislation that protected our privacy?

They didn't. In fact, it was the Obama administration that reclassified broadband carriers such that they are no longer under FTC jurisdiction (see DannyBee's comment, current top comment), making a new (FCC) rule necessary.

This pending rule change is not in effect at all yet; it was only put through 3 weeks after the 2016 election and wouldn't have taken effect until next December.

Had the Obama administration cared about privacy, they could have timed the rule change and the FTC authority removal to take effect at the same time.

[EDIT]: changed "a week before the 2016 election" (a different, significant rule change) to 3 weeks after.

> Really? Huh. If it's all propaganda, then why did Democrats enact the legislation that protected our privacy?

Because it serves the interests of the tech companies that support democrats. Ask yourself why the FCC didn't make it illegal for everyone to profit off customers' private information.

Two videos that are (IMO) relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bryXdyv8lOA

I think the better term analysis from my PoV:

* Republican prefers smaller government and prefers more conservative approach by eliminating regulations

* Democrats actually had all the major corporations' support during the 2016 election, but they try to appeal both sides, with more liberal agenda and mixing the corporation interest.

Don't forget each party is divided into:

* extreme conservative

* liberal

* conservative

of their own party's ideology.

They should get rid of the regulations that prevent customers of these ISPs from banding together and suing them.

Hah!

What's weird to me is Republicans say regulation is bad - and don't get hurt by a _lack_ of regulation. How can people in that party be so gung-ho to make themselves vulnerable? They're not all part of the 1%. Surely they know someone who suffers by undoing regulation.

These people can't all live in the same bubble.

> What's weird to me is Republicans say regulation is bad

What's really weird is that Republicans love markets and hate regulation, but don't seem to realize that every market is created by regulation. There's a complete lack of nuance among vocal Republicans.

Markets are definitely not created by regulation. Markets exist even in the absence of a functional government at all.

Any definition of "market" relevant to this discussion necessitates property rights, which require a functional government and a bare minimum level of regulations. We're talking about the Republican party, not prehistoric tribes, so a nebulous theoretical definition of "markets" that is easily satisfied by two people trading seashells is entirely unhelpful.

Open markets require standards, property rights, fair and impartial judicial system, currency, etc.

Without government, there can be no open markets.

Perhaps you're thinking of black markets.

> Republican prefers smaller government and prefers more conservative approach by eliminating regulations

No, they don't. They prefer consolidated power.

Don't over think this.

Electeds care about being reelected.

Voters vote based on identity.

"Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government"

http://amzn.to/2nsPnsP

If you want change, then you have to organize.

> Republican prefers smaller government and prefers more conservative approach by eliminating regulations

This is a claim, but rarely actually seen. More money is thrown at "defense", while less is put into supporting the American people.

What if we instead of building new fighter jets, we spent that money on fixing out infrastructure, getting faster internet to everyone's homes, better education for our children?

The military industrial complex in the US is structured such that every state and by extension Senator and Congressperson, wants to vote for things like new tanks and planes, because it creates/preserves jobs in their districts. But this has little long term benefit to their districts. Wouldn't it be better to invest that money into the future of their districts to improve the lives of the people there?

It's disingenuous to say the least the R's prefer smaller government. What they prefer is less regulation and redirection of tax money into corporations.

> This is a claim, but rarely actually seen. More money is thrown at "defense", while less is put into supporting the American people.

It's not even thrown well at defense. The army wanted to close certain bases and centralize others here in the U.S. It's not like the the army is entirely clueless about importance of operations. They figured they would be able to have the same capabilities, but lower staff and operation count. But you know what congressman/senator is going to allow job / industry to ship away from their district?

You get the same story in weapons and tech. They want to have fewer but more focused efforts when it comes to next-gen development. Same thing, but this time it's corp jobs in the district vs local army jobs.

Its the "good cop, bad cop" routine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com