Hacker News

points by Larrikin 2 days ago | 0 comments

I love the both siding argument springing up right before election day.

You know what I love? We have spent over 100 years going back and forth on party politics. It has done nothing to move the bar on justice. The democrats silently allow the same things under the radar while the republicans do things out in the open. Its the carrot and the stick approach. Populism isn't working. We need to focus on systemic change. Both parties are filled with institutionalists that will do nothing to stop the real abuses because they gain significantly by keeping things they way they are..

[–] thinkcontext 2 days ago

> We have spent over 100 years going back and forth on party politics. It has done nothing to move the bar on justice.

You think there have been no advancements in "justice" since 1926? Either you are being hyperbolic, have no knowledge of history or you have a very idiosyncratic definition of justice.

[–] vkou 2 days ago

People who see the world in black and white are incapable of telling the difference between a shade of dark gray and light gray.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

What are the advancements?

[–] mrbombastic 2 days ago

for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement but if you have no knowledge of American history not sure a hn thread is right place to start

[–] Larrikin 2 days ago

There are people alive today who lived under Jim Crow laws. Is there any argument you would like to make that getting rid of them and enacting the other associated legislation in the 60s was not an advancement?

[–] Larrikin 2 days ago

State an actual solution, you're just making a covert both sides argument under the guise of a longer rant.

[–] pessimizer 2 days ago

Weird you don't feel the same obligation. Recommending more of the same is always safe somehow, even when it continually fails. The ability of certain people to implicitly trust the system that is now headed by a wrestling valet game show host is infinite.

Will you still believe in it when he gets a third term?

> covert both sides argument

As if somebody should be embarrassed about this. Extreme partisans think "both sides are doing it" is a logical fallacy, because of course their side isn't doing whatever you're talking about, if it's bad.

[–] themaninthedark 2 days ago

Not sure why they have to provide a solution in order to talk about the issue.

The only solution is to elect better people. I know some people who hoped that Trump would be that in 2016 but he is just more of the same.

I do disagree with grandparent that nothing has changed; the Supreme Court has shored up the First Amendment rights over the last 50 years and with Chatrie v. United States it looks like they are expanding Fourth Amendment protection.

Now if the Executive and/or Legislative ignore those protections then not much can be done.

Similar to Denver, city votes out Flock, Mayor does a backdoor. Unless they elect someone new and/or bring the Mayor up on procedural charges or something then nothing will change.

[–] trinsic2 2 days ago

> The only solution is to elect better people. I know some people who hoped that Trump would be that in 2016 but he is just more of the same.

The system is rigged in such a way where that isn't a possibility. Look at the history of our country. ITS NOT WORKING.

The system has to change before we can elect better people. I cant believe I have to point this out with all thats going on... Every election the same arguments and the same responses.

[–] Larrikin 2 days ago

So to fix the system, people should throw up their hands, not vote and just complain about it in the comments instead?

I'll vote in primaries for the candidate that most represents my views and continue to not let perfect be the enemy of good on election day. Lip service and small improvement officials are always much better than officials that negatively target me or my community.

[–] trinsic2 2 days ago

No. We have to direct our energy to a different way of doing things. Voting inside of a corrupt system not working. Its like going into a mafia controlled city and voting for criminals expecting different results. How many decades need to elapse for this to be clear to you?

[–] timschmidt 2 days ago

Hey I found the person who's the reason there's a fully equipped contingent of the National Guard in every major city.

[–] pbhjpbhj 2 days ago

>Trump would be that in 2016 but he is just more of the same.

Trump is not more of the same. He actually changed my stance on people being evil and beyond redemption.

[–] klaff 2 days ago

> I know some people who hoped that Trump would be that in 2016 but he is just more of the same.

Trump's corruption is on such a different scale that calling him "more of the same" reads as a both sides argument.

[–] themaninthedark 2 days ago

Saying that calling out Trump's corruption while also calling out everyone else's corruption is a both sides argument reads as a my side doesn't have problems argument.

Trump sucks. So does Pelosi, so does Bush and Clinton. What, we need to rank how much they suck?

JFC man, if it's important to you to know how much each of them screwed you, then build a table or something. To me the degree doesn't matter because a little is bad enough.

[–] klaff 2 days ago

I think you hit the nail on the head. It IS important to know how much each one screwed you. A quick search shows various outlets saying Trump has enriched himself to the tune of between $1.6B and $4B during his presidencies. Doing the same search on Biden gets estimates of $15M from books and speaking, and a Republican-led House influence peddling page alleges as much as $20M having been received by "the Bidens and their associates".

Using that scale as a proxy Trump is two orders of magnitude more corrupt than Biden.

[–] trinsic2 1 day ago

I think we can all agree that Trump is the most corrupt we have seen for a long time. but It doesnt change that carrot and the stick problem. There are people operating to destroy freedom using these people as figureheads to push an authoritarian agenda, on both sides of the isle. Until people wake up to that, we have no chance to change this.

[–] NDlurker 2 days ago

It is both sides. Republicans accelerate it, but Democrats don't shut it down when they have the chance. Obama and Biden had 12 years to fix it.

[–] buellerbueller 2 days ago

Obama certainly was for this; he didn't shy away from extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen in a foreign land, executed by our military.

It is both sides. Wyden is a (welcome) aberration (on this topic).

[–] deaux 2 days ago

You're right, but bringing up the assassination of a terrorist just isn't convincing to a lot of people, regardless of it should be.

Luckily there are other things that all reasonable people will find it hard to disagree with: The Obama government crackdown of Occupy Wall Street and his appointment of one of the fathers of the CIA torture program as NatSec Advisor, who promptly went on to jail whistleblowers of torture with Obama vouching for it.

[–] autoexec 2 days ago

Obama wasn't always pro-surveillance though. He campaigned on ending the NSAs domestic spying program. Only after he was elected did he suddenly praise the NSA publicly and greatly expand their spying powers.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

Sounds more like he was pro-surveillance but knew how unpopular it was.

[–] autoexec 2 days ago

Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He spoke passionately about the dangers of domestic spying programs and against the Patriot Act. Maybe he was lying the entire time just to be elected, but he was extremely convincing.

Personally, I suspect that once in office he was either shown something that scared him so much that it genuinely made him believe that violating the rights of every American citizen was necessary, or he was strong armed into supporting what they were doing and expanding their abuses. I imagine the NSA had no shortage of dirt on him and his family just as they must have on every politician, CEO, parent, and child in the country.

[–] NDlurker 2 days ago

Yes, just another lying or compromised politician.

[–] NDlurker 2 days ago

Yep, Obama is a mass murderer just like the rest of them. People tend to not care until the oppression comes home and is in plain view.

[–] aetch 2 days ago

What? The guy who was killed was actively committing violence and had done so multiple times before. Continuing to evade capture isn’t a get out of jail free card to keep evading the US and keep making bombs.

The guy got more chances than the average US resident who would get shot by the cops for less

[–] pessimizer 2 days ago

The guy who was killed was a propagandist. Also his children were killed.

> The guy got more chances than the average US resident who would get shot by the cops for less

Using violations of rights to justify more violations of rights. This makes a lot of sense!

[–] NDlurker 2 days ago

I was reading his Wikipedia page and it makes me want to seek out some of his writings to get an idea of the thought process of his followers. I won't be doing that though because I'll probably be put on a watchlist. It's the same fascination I have about traditional cults and really anyone who has extreme/fringe beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[–] buellerbueller 2 days ago

The constitution is clear: he had a right to a trial by jury.

[–] b3ing 2 days ago

How can you change anything when the system is built with a fundamental flaw, the constitution never incorporated ethics, it was supposed to be up to the people to vote in ethical people, but that failed. The ones that benefit are corrupt and won’t change it, and good luck on getting enough people voted in power with a conscience to change it and not be swayed by power and money.

[–] autoexec 2 days ago

Part of the solution is to make bribery illegal so that people are less likely to be swayed by money. It'll be hard to get the people who have been stuffing their pockets with cash in exchange for selling out the American people to agree to limit their ability to do that now. Instead we're going in the opposite direction with the recent Supreme Court ruling making bribery legal as long as you call it a "tip" or "gift" after the public official gave you what you wanted.

[–] edot 2 days ago

It literally is both sides though. Congress, courts, and executive all love spying, have for decades. Do you have evidence that the Democrats have tried to curtail anything?

[–] StanislavPetrov 2 days ago

It's all one side as far as I'm concerned and always has been.