Anytime either side is pushing something the other side disagrees with, they claim the opposition is being partisan. Then there are the flip flops, like claiming the debt ceiling is a big deal, then ignoring the issue once you're the one in power. Complain about heavy handed tactics when dealing with protests or "legal" pot, but not about guns. Have the IRS audit groups you don't like. Etcetera
Can we stop claiming “both-sides” every time there is a blatantly anti-democratic move by the current administration?
One party is trying to change their electoral map mid-cycle, one party is covering for pedophiles, one party is strong arming universities and news channels to toe the line, one party has federalized the national guard to help disappear people, one party is currently building concentration camps, one party is calling for states to take control of cities to stamp out political enemies, one party is accepting bribes from other countries, etc., etc.
Democrats aren’t great, they aren’t even good, but the “both sides” rhetoric is severely misplaced.
Please don't start or perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor.
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.
Edit: your account has unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines, such as by arguing aggressively with other users. We eventually have to ban accounts that do this. From a quick look I don't think you're quite over that line yet, but it could easily get there, so it would be good if you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and recalibrate.
Thank you. I feel this frustration about the 'both sides'ing of every political argument. There is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of the basic political/social norms (and laws) being broken under this administration compared with previous administrations. Bush, Clinton, Obama and Biden had faults, but none were so blatant about power, control, retribution and self-enrichment, and none had surrounding supporters so eager to push a self-serving agenda. It's not even a close comparison.
People got riled up when Biden was 'violating the Constitution' with multiple attempts at loan forgiveness. Some of the same people who hated Biden for this 'unconstitutional' behaviour voted for Trump because he promised to get rid of the Department of Education, in the misguided hope that their own student loans would be eliminated with the department. I don't quite know how we got to this level of stupid in the US - it may have always been there, just easier to see via social media?
> There is a huge difference in the quality and quantity of the basic political/social norms (and laws) being broken under this administration compared with previous administrations.
Indeed, but it's not just the administration that has issues whenever Republicans control it.
I distinctly 'member McConnell filibustering his own bill, the Republicans sabotaging ACA (aided, of course, by Democrats trying to achieve bipartisan ownership even though they had a majority at the time [1]), or worst of all the Republicans refusing the appointment of Merrick Garland (citing that Obama was a lame-duck outgoing President) [3], only to do just the same thing with Barrett at the end of 2020, right before the elections [4].
Republicans, when in power, demand that Democrats cooperate with them (and Democrats are spineless enough to always play ball) - and when Democrats are in power, even if they have majorities, they obstruct in all ways possible. It's madness.
Please don't perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor.
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.
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!
> Didn't the documentary show possible ties President Clinton?
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 seems like the only way to settle the issue is the release the files. That information does seem to show a difference between how each side is treating it. I'm not familiar with the whole history, so I'm not sure why previous admins didn't release it if they supported it.
"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.
==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.==
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.
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.
Neither party is perfect or even close to it. But there is an enormous difference between the conduct of this administration and all of those before it.
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.
Yeah, I wasnt comparing a single admin to another for scope. My main point was that thinking only one party does these things isn't representative of the situation. A big problem is that virtually every prior administration did one or more things similar which set a precedent. And it was usually done in an low key way. Now this administration is doing them all at the same time and loudly. So I do believe the scale now is larger than in most prior admins, and that they aren't trying to hid what they are doing too.
I legitimately wasn't sure at first. I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about.
"The key phrase here is "in response to TX" which proves it is not literally the same thing. Just like if someone hits you in the face and you respond by hitting back, it is called self-defense and is treated differently than assault or battery."
What you are overlooking is proportionality and continuing threat. Calling on additional states to do this is like telling someone to keep hitting someone after a single punch, which would be an escalation and result in charges in many cases. Frankly, it's a dumb comparison because doing something illegal just because someone else did it doesn't absolve you of any illegality and doesnt directly negate any harms from the first occurrence, only leading to the creation of additional harms in other states.
"Threatening to do something is different than doing it and demanding payments."
True. There can be other examples of both parties pulling funding for programs and organizations they don't like.
"Going back 80 years to find your "counter argument" kind of proves my point."
Or proves your cognitive bias.
"It's in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation has spoken about it plenty."
Wasn't your prior argument that threats and actually doing it are two different things? Wouldn't that make this a moot point until it occurs? Sounds like this plan is basically just withholding federal funds if the states or cities don't comply with conditions. The feds do this with highways funds, schools funds, etc. Again, not really news if you've been paying attention.
"This explains how Hegseth signed the deal with Qatar that allows him to keep a $400 million free plane even after his Presidency."
It's going to the presidential library foundation. He might be able to use it, but he can't personally own it. Guess where ethe other gifts go? That's right, to the presidential libraries through the national archives. You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.
You're trying really hard to play a game of 'gotcha', but you just aren't looking at all the facts or examining your own biases.
==I had to look up many of the recent examples to assume who they were talking about.==
Seems you are only paying attention to one side if you had to look up the examples, as they are all quite recent. It doesn't seem like we are going to see eye-to-eye on things, as you completely dismiss facts, like the Democrats introducing actual legislation (multiple times) to stop gerrymandering, in order to lecture me about my own biases.
==You might want to look into his other politicians use their charities, such as the Clintons.==
Trump doesn't have a charity anymore because he was found guilty of stealing money from kids. This is your party, accept it.
Enjoy your day.
There were plenty of explanations from the White House why Tesla wasn't invited: because it was an UAW event. Tesla is notoriously anti-union and its employees are not represented by the UAW.
Sure, that's why Biden was introduced by an UAW member at a press conference that day, in which he first thanked the UAW, then the CEOs employing them, and then signed an executive order which offered additional tax credits on union-made EVs.
Not that it matters anymore as Trump undid all of that, so there's no longer a pledge to switch to EVs, nor is there any sort of federal tax credit for purchasing EVs (technically there still is, but only until September).
I'm sure this is a much better deal for Musk overall than not being invited to an event.
I mean, when the press secretary was asked why tesla wasnt invited, he said they invited the 3 largest employers of UAW. it sounds like a UAW event called 'Electric Vehicle Summit'?
What led you to belive it wasnt about the UAW? just the name of the event?
== The Democratic White House chose to not invite Tesla to their EV Summit. That was not political?==
I never said they weren’t political, but if you want to compare disappearing Americans to not inviting someone to a summit go-ahead. It kind of proves my point.
Have you entertained the idea that those people may have committed crimes? Can you explain the fake electors plot to me? Why did they send fraudulent electoral certificates from 7 different states?
Some of the people you mention were already known criminals (D’Souza, Cohen, Manafort, etc.). You can defend them, but that is your choice.
I can't reply to the previous post now, but the 'bailout' to Central States Pension Fund. $36b to deal with a pension fund serving 350k people. Yes, seems high. Yes, was an 'unusual' move, done during 2021 - height of covid. Why did CSPF need assistance? It never quite recovered from 2008 financial crisis - banks and other companies got 'bailouts' but not CSPF. Massive economic turmoil during 2020/2021 because of covid impacted the fund further.
Might have been other or better ways of trying to address this (and many other covid issues). But we got what we got.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
1) Trying someone for a crime in front of a jury is not a "presumption of guilt." It's quite literally the opposite?
If the DA is playing judge and jury... then why was there a judge and a jury? I cannot parse what you're saying.
2) Now here you're actually presuming guilt. What evidence do you have that "everyone in Washington DC is a felon?"
3) There literally were massive legal challenges. And no, the 5th Amendment is not an absurd legal standard on its face. Yes, it is in fact designed to make some types of government behavior very difficult if not impossible. That's what the Constitution does.
4) Correct, due process is merely showing in a court (potentially an administrative court) they do not have legal residence. That has not happened 100% of the time. SCOTUS agreed 9 to 0 this has not happened 100% of the time, as is required and guaranteed by the US Constitution.
6) Not sure what you're referring to
7) I mean... you're welcome to your opinion. My opinion (and the opinion of many Americans) is that we should try to welcome people who have fallen on hard times and that those people should have representation in our government given that they pay taxes. You know, just basic tenets of American society. That's why "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore" is engraved on the Statue of Liberty and why "No taxation without representation" is a slogan upon which our country was literally founded.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I mean yeah one party is way, way worse but Democrats have funded all of the above, confirmed the appointments that are doing this, and pushed the conflation of policy protest with antisemitism. It’s really bleak at the national level!
Please don't perpetuate political flamewars on HN, regardless of what politics you favor or disfavor.
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.
The Big Beautiful Bill passed without any Democrats voting for it. Democrats are not great (or good) by any measure, but they did not confirm all the appointments that are doing this.
==Six nominees received no supporting votes from any Democratic senators or independent senators who caucus with Democrats: Hegseth, Russell Vought for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Gabbard, Kennedy, Howard Lutnick for secretary of commerce, and Linda McMahon for secretary of education. ==
Anytime either side is pushing something the other side disagrees with, they claim the opposition is being partisan. Then there are the flip flops, like claiming the debt ceiling is a big deal, then ignoring the issue once you're the one in power. Complain about heavy handed tactics when dealing with protests or "legal" pot, but not about guns. Have the IRS audit groups you don't like. Etcetera