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.
