it's not a republican/democratic split. Both parties are working together to screw over you and your loved ones.
Its a "has power" vs "doesn't have power" split.
The Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans. Don't give either party a pass.
Its a "has power" vs "doesn't have power" split.
The Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans. Don't give either party a pass.
The vote count sure looked like it to me.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/115-2017/h202#admin_p...
Yea 215 (Republican 215, Democrat 0) Nay 205 (Republican 15, Democrat 190)
On actually contentious issues, like CISPA and the like, the votes split almost exactly down donation lines as opposed to party lines.
Regardless, even if the split is supposedly true what do you think is the real problem? The current republican gang or the influence and power the rich wield? Even if you replaced every single politician you hated with the wave of a magic wand the powers that be would still find ways to influence the new group.
We should tackle the systemic problems first as a whole nation, then hopefully the issue of removing those that wish themselves our master will be much easier.
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2016...
Congress is completely corrupt. They don't write legislation, k-street does. They don't read legislation they pass. When confronted, they waffle about benefits to corporations being beneficial to their constituents. Almost all are in violation of their oath.
After much deliberation I think reprent.us has it right, the only way for us to take of this issue is for a new rallying cry to elect third-parties and indepedents to take away the majorities of both parties. (which is also how we get an independent or third-party elected president by taking the 270 votes away from both parties and the vote goes to the house).
We need to stop letting people push the farcicle duverger's law as if it's irrefutable fact, because it's not.
But combined, their views represent only a narrow slice of the political spectrum.
Both parties have their own flavor of expanding the powers of the government, while no one in office is advocating reduction of government power.
Sure, the republicans occasionally give lip service to the idea, but they're all the same as the dems.
I guess I'm a bit fed up being told "pick a party that represents you" and finding absolutely zero options who don't make me feel dirty or stupid.
I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change. (A perfect example is the last US presidential election. Trump and Hillary? FFS.)
Not everyone is interested in across-the-board reduction of government power. I understand it appears to be your view, but you need to be careful to treat that as another political position, not as a global constant.
>I maintain that both parties are the same, neither is capable of delivering real change
I think it's a naive fallacy to have the base goal being some nebulous thing called "real change". When things like Obamacare and gay marriage and raising the minimum wage and protecting the environment, like Obama did and Clinton would have worked for, can't be called "real change" because they aren't the perfect solution some liberals/libertarians would want belies a privilege in not being a member of the classes that these things really affect, which coincidentally are not classes often represented well in the tech industry or on tech boards like this one.
I am too quick to elevate my political _opinion_ to that of fact, and in doing so, commit the exact same mistake that drives me bonkers when other people do it.
Also, my own use of "real change", as soon as I read your comment, made me hang my head in shame. "Real Change(TM)" is just a stand in for "something that I think should be done, and until it's done, nothing else matters!"
It's related, I suspect, to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
So, you're right. I worded that entire comment poorly.
This is one of the reasons I enjoy dipping into the HN comments now and again - I sometimes get really high-value feedback like this.
So thank you, /u/mejari, for taking the time to comment what you did. It's a good gift. :)
It kinda depends on what you mean by "across-the-board reduction of government power." I do believe that everyone is interested in peace. And justice. And creativity. And hope. And being able to relax and do what they want.
And even if government isn't in opposition to these things in every case, empire certainly is. And people recognize that.
So yes, deprecating the American Empire is something that enjoys very broad support; certain aspects enjoy consensus.
While 'No Empire' seems to be a Good Thing, in general, if the question was instead, "Which country should lead the global Empire if not America?" I wonder what the survey results would be.
That is (by way of the Median Voter Theorem) a consequence of the two-party system, which is (by way of Duverger's law) a consequence of winner-takes-all or first-past-the-post (and not proportional) voting, I'd say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
A Democratic president put these protections in place.
He expanded the powers of the NSA because he could, or had to, or whatever. I struggle to imagine that he then turned around and used the FCC to push meaningful reform along for his citizens.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that his track record with government spying should be ignored when thinking about his track record with FCC/consumer protections.
It is in their interests for us to think there is meaningful difference between them, and I'm confident that many dems and republicans do earnestly believe there are differences between them and the other party.
But the differences are _so small_.
If one party wants to pass legislation that does X, and the other wants legislation that does Y, there is _no one_ advocating for all the myriad unspoken options.
My wife used to be a kindergarten teacher. One of her classroom management strategies was to try to give her students options. She'd say "would you like to do X or Y right now?"
Of course, she only gave options that she already approved.
So, for the "powers that be", the real power is deciding what bills go up for a vote. What happens in the actual vote is trivial compared to the power that comes with killing a bill before it hits the floor, or passing other legislation in omnibus spending bills.
I maintain that they work together to screw us all over for their own benefit, and to keep the corporate spigot flowing.