Re:US Senate votes to undo FCC internet privacy rules
by colmvp on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:45PM
(#13943488)
If one party says, "hey, let's try to work on this bill together" and essentially appropriates a lot of the ideas from one of the opposing members (Romney), and is able to create a compromised, conservative approach to at least helping millions of Americans get health insurance (the ACA), and other side says, "let's undo this right now, not because we have a better solution, but because politically we have to" and tries to expedite the process because they know their bill wouldn't survive a rigorous and lengthy review, which is predicted to give substantial savings to the richest people in America while leaving millions without healthcare, then yes, I would say one side is 'less bad.'
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:US Senate votes to undo FCC internet privacy rules
by MrZongle2 on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:55PM
(#13943606)
You can cherry-pick this all day long. Partisans from both sides can point to specific cases of the opposing party behaving badly and/or biting an outstretched hand.
Both parties are self-serving.
Both parties have supported the surveillance state.
Both parties ignore their constituents when convenient.
Both parties have promoted legislation that they themselves are exempt from.
"Less bad" is a red herring. What's better, a shit sandwich or a sandwich with 90% less shit in it? Partisans will try to convince you that any sandwich will have shit in it, and their particular sandwich's shit is barely noticeable and actually good for you if you were smart enough to realize it.
Re:US Senate votes to undo FCC internet privacy rules
by jjbiotech on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:03PM
(#13943700)
Bottom line: We're all in a prison, and shit sandwiches are for dinner. I'll take the one with 90% less shit until (hopefully someday) we're all released from the prison that is American democracy.
Re:US Senate votes to undo FCC internet privacy rules
by ebspelman on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:17PM
(#13943834)
It sounds like your critiques are more system-related than ideology-related. That's fine. Systemically, it's a tricky question. What's the best way to ensure that 300 million people have access to the most complicated global networking system ever created? Is our capitalist republic equipped to handle it?
But your systemic critique bypasses the obvious point that ideologically, there are great differences between the major American political parties on this issue.
Denouncing the system as "all shit" does nothing to change this fact.