[flagged]
Political topics can obviously be far more important than anything else on HN's frontpage, but that doesn't make the flamewar style of discussion ok on this site. It's repetitive and indignant, and those are the two qualities which most destroy what we're trying for, i.e. gratifying curiosity and facilitating curious exchange.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I am familiar with the site. My approach was intended to be from a non-partisan intellectual standpoint showing how examples from one party can have similar examples in the other party. I can see how looking at my comment alone, it could appear that it was partisan, but I had hoped that the context and the last section would have controlled for that. Thanks for moderating these!
The documents do. However Clinton did not invite Epstein to his wedding, or buy Epsteins jet after his suicide because he liked flying it in so much.
More importantly, Clinton was asked about the release of the files last year, in court. He did not object then and he has recently stated that he does not now. Meanwhile, republicans actually dismissed Congress early, stopping the business of governing, to prevent it.
> redistricting in response to TX
It is "in response". They're trying to STOP the gerrymandering, not make it worse. Gerrymandering should be illegal in all cases. It's not, but I think we can all agree that it does not serve democracy and should be.
> Who set the precedent?
Are you seriously defending concentration camps because someone else has done it in the past? Take a look at yourself in the mirror and really think about this one.
"It is "in response". They're trying to STOP the gerrymandering, not make it worse."
You would legitimately spread its harms if you enacted it in additional places. This is the sort of win at all cost mindset that's driving this in the first place. Neither side is proposing a real solution. If you want it to away, you need to use pre-established boundaries (counties/cities) and assign a proportional number of electoral votes by population for whatever the election is for. Don't allow redrawing counties. Then there will be no more gaming the boundaries. Neither party actually wants this because they know there is power in controlling the districting, even if one group abuses it more than the other.
"Are you seriously defending concentration camps because someone else has done it in the past? Take a look at yourself in the mirror and really think about this one."
What a red herring. Did I say I supported them? I'm saying this isn't new, and it's not even as bad as it was for the Japanese Americans. Do you not think the Obama admin built similar ICE detention facilities with "cages"? The point is, each side points fingers at the other and conveniently forgets their own parties contributions to how we arrived at where we are at today.
Except that Democrats introduced bills in 2021 and 2024 to stop partisan gerrymandering [0][1]. They also introduced a joint resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to stop the spread of money into politics [2].
Guess which party didn't support the bills. The Democrats would be fools to unilaterally stop things like raising money and gerrymandering without legislation that would also stop Republicans. Based on those actions, we can assume one party does want it and has introduced the "real solutions" you are searching.
Were you aware of these actions?
[0] 2021: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/267...
[1] 2024: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/u-s-senate-democ...
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-joint-re...
You did not say you supported it. However, you used minimizing language to describe it, and whattaboutism to distract from it. That's the same thing as defending it.
Other people having also done bad things in the past is not sufficient justification to continue doing bad things now.
Trumps cages were built with cruelty in mind. Obama's had air conditioning and showers. Trumps were intentionally built in broiling hot swamps without AC or enough showers. Obama's also housed families together, rather than ripping children from their parents. Trumps cruelty was part of the point and very much intentional.
I'm in favor of enforcing existing laws, although I do believe they should start from the top down by arresting those who hire illegals rather than the illegals themselves. They'll stop coming once the jobs dry up.
To accept that the conduct of the Biden administration was in any way equivalent to that of Trump is to avoid any critical thinking or consideration of the facts in my opinion.
Biden was a very mediocre president who had troubling tendencies of his own. There is no question about that.
But he did not run a crypto pump and dump scheme. He did not degrade US institutions to the extent that trump has. He did not perform the same level of partisan, punitive pettiness that trump has.
It's very clear, in my opinion.