Dotcom was accused of doing things that are illegal in both the US and New Zealand (and around 200 other countries...). That's why New Zealand cooperated with the US's extradition request, including raiding Dotcom for the US.

Kim should have chosen a different country. One that isn't so keen on letting the US raid their citizens.

Dunno, IPFS?

> currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle

You mean since about 1790? There have always been two parties in congress (minus the era of good feelings) and they have always had opposing ideology, and have almost always blocked one another's proposals.

It is very naive to think the current Republican congress is anything different or new. Their inaction is intentional - they need to pass their anti-citizen legislation they were appointed for when people are not watching them.

It is also somewhat inaccurate to blame it on "deadlocked parties". The factions within them to varying degrees stifle them. The parties aren't monoliths of ideology that uniformly vote the way the chair swings.

If congress isn't passing good legislation, its because the constituent members of that congress aren't a majority good actors. Regardless of color. Regardless of excuses given.

Politicians always act in the interest of someone. Sometimes its themselves. It used to sometimes be for their constituents (because they had to appease them for votes). Today it is mostly for corporate campaign donors. And those donors want the status quo. They don't want the changes average Americans want. The whole point of their buying and owning of politicians is to impede change. Of course a congress filled with men told to maintain gridlock and prevent reform by their masters will do so, and they do it in a way optimized for themselves - by always blaming someone else and taking no responsibility for the gridlock you cause, your base can just keep reelecting you despite hating congress in general. As long as the voters remain ignorant to this con, the business interests get what they paid for - usually corporate welfare.

Do you have some good examples of what people would consider obstructionism coming from the Democrats? Its easy to find over Obama's 8 years, but how much consistent obstructionism have the Democrats engaged in? Every single minor thing under Obama was an absolute catastrophe, every budget every debt ceiling, pretty much no matter what. For some reason both parties get equal "credit" for the lack of progress but I can't personally see it that way though I try to have an open mind.

When having a discussion with someone about obstructionism I like to point to instances on both sides, and if it seems one side has twice as many that make a difference to me and I refuse do acknowledge that they are truly the same, numbers matter.

They never forgot why they were there, it's just that the reason (self enrichment, both financially and in terms of power) isn't the one US citizens believe it's supposed to be.

also, few (if any) have the understanding of technology to affect appropriate reforms, which leads to industry lobbyists crafting legislation.

Libertarian here-- what makes you think that the two parties working together will increase our liberty in regards to the internet?

The logjam keeps the parties from working together to create new inefficient programs, expand others, increase spending. The logjam is _great_ and frankly I hope it continues.