People buy a house with an implicit expectation that zoning regulations and building code will be relatively stable. Even if those laws are unnecessarily restrictive or nonsensical, I don’t think the NIMBYs are crazy for being upset about changes to those laws that will lower their property values. They may even want to change them but the fact of the matter is they have a financial incentive to protect the value of their property.
Successful areas change: you get a few people, then you need a store, then you get more people and all of sudden there's nowhere to walk, so you make a park and some avenues, then people like those and move in, then you need a school and a hardware store and a power plant even if the OGs were homeschoolers with donkey power and hate your guts.
Don't like it? Hold on to the land.
Dire Straits' Telegraph Road is a good documentary on the subject.
You’re right, the “both sides” claim really doesn’t work here.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness would have amounted to a gift of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to his most ardent supporters: young, college educated, poor people.
Trump’s proposal is a fraction of that, and all Americans would be eligible. If he’s trying to buy votes, he’s going to need to try a lot harder. This proposal is nothing like Biden’s vote buying scheme.
Funny that you wake up and rise only now. Where was you righteous indignation when Republicans promises tax cuts? Can you point me to your contemporary reaction to "no tax on tips"? What made you react only now?
Have you missed where Trump himself and many of the wealthiest people in the U.S. have had integer multiples of their wealth over just the past couple of years?
> young, college educated, poor people
Oh yea, you're correct, who needs those? Let's feed the 0.01%.
I think GP is right: this place has become an echo chamber. Even if someone posted a thoughtful rebuttal, it would not be seriously considered, or worse, flagged. And why would anyone waste their time when they know their efforts will be immediately dismissed and memory holed?
You could easily test this by posting a thoughtful rebuttal.
I've been posting actively on this thread and I haven't yet seen a thoughtful rebuttal, although there have been several comments in favor of the current administration's approach to voter enforcement via the USPS. Unfortunately, literally all of those comments were based on misinformation or make sweeping assertions, unsupported by evidence, about voter fraud in the US.
In this thread you said "...they are doing this to inject chaos into the election results, giving them cover to claim any result they want or even to just throw out the results entirely. Catastrophic problems are the means to that end." Try to imagine how that would read to somebody who wasn't already sharply biased in the same direction as yourself. What would you assume?
It reads as the exact sort of evidence free, misinformation driven, conspiratorial and sweeping assertion that you're now complaining about. The reality is that most political discussion online has been trending towards sewer level content, and I think a huge part of it is the echo chamber issue. You don't get any pushback from stuff like this online when the only people engaging with you are themselves already heavily biased in a similar direction. Oh sorry, you actually did get several people pushing back, including one merely asking for evidence. Perhaps you didn't see that because those comments were all flagged and buried.
> It reads as the exact sort of evidence free misinformation driven conspiratorial sweeping assertion that you're now complaining about.
It reads that way only if you are intentionally ignoring evidence.
We're talking about an Executive Branch in the hands of a man who has shown historic contempt for election outcomes and little moral qualms with altering them to suit his agenda.
* Conspiracy after the 2020 election to float fake electors
* Massive and ongoing campaign of lies about the illegitimacy of the 2020 election, in absence of any evidence
* Demanding states perform mid-decade redistricting, in contravention of longstanding custom
* Repeated calls to "cancel" upcoming election
* Repeated allusions to running for a third presidential term, in violation of the Constitution
Needless to say, these kind of actions and pronouncements are unprecedented in this country. When a person tells you they don't care about accurate elections, believe them.
It's incredibly hard to think that this person is deeply concerned about election integrity when he has shown such little regard for existing election laws and customs. Your willingness to overlook this evidence speaks of your own partisan bias. Oh wait, are going to say he's "joking" and I don't have a sense of humor?
You certainly already know what you're doing or you wouldn't have added your joke disclaimer. Here [1] is a clip of Trump "alluding to a third presidential term." You 'not knowing' he's joking has nothing to do with not having a sense of humor, as any human alive would know he's joking. So your rather wild conspiracies are based on jokes and a very broad extrapolation from 2020.
So you have, in your own post - misinformation, sweeping assertations, and claims unsupported by evidence. Of course this is the contemporary state of political discourse and so I'm not at all implying there's anything particularly egregious about you in particular. This sort of stuff is ubiquitous, and I think echo chambers are a big part of the reason why. Who cares about making viable or relevant comments when it's largely just a mixture of a signaling circle jerk paired alongside bias confirmation.
You are perfectly demonstrating the lack of engagement I was referring to. You would have to ignore the entire history of his political career to think he is doing anything other than testing the waters here.
Furthermore, he has done more than a single joke about this. Over multiple interviews, he has laid out specific methods he could use to functionally seek a third term, including running as a VP to Vance and forcing him aside. Is it really a joke if you're talking about it over dozens of rallies and interviews, and how you would seriously do it?
Will it materialize in anything? He is so fickle and unfocused that he will float every possibility under the sun and then go with his gut. It depends more on how his base reacts
I think he genuinely believes that the 2020 election was likely stolen and that his extreme actions were a response to that. I also think he enjoys trolling the media, probably in part because its his personality but also probably because it's the best way to take on yellow journalism. By overtly feeding the media stuff that he knows will be taken out of context, he lets them destroy themselves. When the media run sensationalist stories framing jokes as legitimate positions, they make partisans rejoice, but they make everybody else look at the lot of the partisans and media alike and mostly just laugh. There's a reason confidence in the media is now in the 20s. 'Why aren't you taking these jokes seriously!?' isn't the most compelling call to action.
You're also, probably unintentionally, spreading misinformation here. Trump never laid out the idea of running as Vance's VP and forcing him aside. Rather, a journalist proposed that scenario (though it was "passing the baton" rather than forcing him out) and he said 'yeah that's one way [to have a third term]'. You can see the media tiptoe around this slightly inconvenient fact when running their stories. For instance here's [1] AP recently talking about third term stuff where they state "[Trump] acknowledged that one method was to be the running mate to Vice President JD Vance in 2028 — then have Vance step aside if the pair won."
That's accurate, but the implication to somebody who only relies on the media, instead of first party sources, is that Trump proposed it. Exactly like you're doing here. They feed you misinformation, you repeat it, and then believe other people who don't believe the same are themselves misinformed, because why would 'your' media lie to you. And that's a good question actually - it's not like there aren't endless completely genuine problems with Trump. The war with Iran is about as popular as AIDS, but for some reason the media didn't milk it anywhere near as much as they could have. How odd.
In any case, none of this would be news to you if you posted this in a place with more open discussion. Once again echo chambers are just so dumb, for everybody.
> I think he genuinely believes that the 2020 election was likely stolen
There are more-or-less two possibilities: either he believes that the election was stolen despite the total absence of evidence to that effect, in which case he is a fool; or he cynically pretends to believe that for the purpose of personal gain, in which case he is a liar and a con-man. Based on what we've all seen of his psychology, though, I think the more likely case is that he's simply unconnected to reality: he's spent his whole life in a billionaire bubble where everyone tells him what he wants to hear, and he's able to to convince himself that he won in 2020 because he wants to believe that.
> because it's the best way to take on yellow journalism.
What part of the reporting the fact that Biden won the 2020 election is "yellow journalism"?
> 'Why aren't you taking these jokes seriously!?' isn't the most compelling call to action.
Except, as I've already pointed out, people have been excusing behavior as a "joke" since 2016, and at every opportunity he proves that it's not a joke. People thought "Mexico will pay for a wall" was a joke; it wasn't, it was just a lie.
> Trump never laid out the idea of running as Vance's VP and forcing him aside.
I never he said he did. I did say that he said that he's "looking into ways that he can run," an idea supported by other people in Trump's orbit, such as Steven Bannon. It's not misinformation to say that Trump is considering running again, it's plainly stated in the record.
So your position is that: Trump said he's looking into running (but it's a joke), he's selling 2028 hats (but he's trolling), close advisers say he's running again (but that doesn't count). Do you understand why people think MAGA denies reality? Is there any possible evidence that would make you think he's thinking of running again? (For the record, I don't think he'll run again, because I think he will die or become gravely ill: were it not for that, he definitely would try.)
> That's accurate, but the implication to somebody who only relies on the media, instead of first party sources,
Oh, you have first party sources? Great, please tell me what Donald Trump has personally told you, that has not been publicly revealed.
> In any case, none of this would be news to you if you posted this in a place with more open discussion.
Nothing you've told me is new. I've heard all this before. The entire country has spent a decade hearing people like spout nonsense like "Trump isn't a politiician, he tells it like it is" and "Trump is already rich so he has no need to make money from the presidency" and "Trump may lack expertise, but he'll hire great advisers" and other provably incorrect statements. You mistakenly believe that we disagree because we haven't heard your side. The truth is that we've all heard your side incessantly and we just think you are dumb and/or crazy.
It's unclear to me whether you are incapable of following a thread, or are having trouble keeping your sock puppets in order. I'm not talking to you, or at least this account here - and you responded multiple times to another post under the same account, all while referring to yourself as we.
In any case, I'm not going to respond to poorly constructed straw men. If you want to speak like an adult I'll happily continue the discussion, if you want to keep ranting like a partisan - then perhaps it's genuinely impossible for you to discuss things outside of echo chambers.
> It's unclear to me whether you are incapable of following a thread, or are having trouble keeping your sock puppets in order.
I don't use sock puppets. Believe it or not, the structure of HN comments allows conversations between > 2 people. If you prefer a private conversation, use email. You've already responded to my comment [1]; I can respond to whatever comment I want. If you don't like what I say, you can write back appropriately or ignore it. Accusing me of not following the rules, however, is a very weird response.
> In any case, I'm not going to respond to poorly constructed straw men.
Please be specific: what straw man?
> if you want to keep ranting like a partisan -
Oh, the irony.
> then perhaps it's genuinely impossible for you to discuss things outside of echo chambers.
Let me get this straight: we have differing views, we're in an environment where we can freely discuss them, and yet you call it an "echo chamber" in the same breath that you refuse to continue a conversation. No one here is being censored, the only obstacle to communication is your attitude. Maybe you would feel more comfortable in /r/conservative (i.e. an actual echo chamber that aggressively censors opposing views)?
On the contrary, I know that he's not joking. He doesn't think he's joking. This isn't a one-off comment: he's selling hats about running in 2028. He wasn't joking about "building the wall," about mass deportations, about tear-gassing peaceful protesters [1], or about trying to steal the 2020 election. Every time his supporters downplay his ridiculous rhetoric as "trolling," he doubles down. Trump's followers certainly think he's serious about running again, including Steve Bannon. When has he ever admitted to joking?
> So you have, in your own post - misinformation, sweeping assertations, and claims unsupported by evidence.
I've given you evidence of Trump being utterly serious in his utterly ridiculous claims and plenty of historical evidence of contempt for elections in my previous comment, which you have failed to address. So I don't take your accusation of "claimed unsupported by evidence" to be accurate.
When has he ever admitted to joking? More or less always if we speak of implicitness, but quite often explicitly as well. He knows that part will get snipped out by partisans which makes them look even more absurd. In the context I linked above he says, "I'm only kidding" literally immediately following his joke about a third term.
You haven't given any evidence. You've instead spread misinformation, relied heavily on broad sweeping assertions based primarily on such, and then combined that all into elaborate conspiracy theories. And then you complain about the quality of others' posts.
Partisanship just blinds people, and is something that should be avoided like the plague.
> When has he ever admitted to joking? More or less always if we speak of implicitness,
Sorry, but I have to laugh at the idea of an "implicit admission." Also known as "not an admission." I feel like you have a parasocial relationship with the man, and that you are projecting your own emotions on him.
> You haven't given any evidence.
The evidence I've given is the man's own words. But you don't want to believe that, because you're too deep in the cult. You're at a point where no amount of evidence could possibly reach you because your emotional defense systems won't allow you to accept that you've been conned.
> Partisanship just blinds people, and is something that should be avoided like the plague.
The thread is about general echo chamber / liberal bias though, not specifically on USPS/voter fraud.
Any/Every discussion that makes the top page on HN about politics will flood out most of the conservative discussion, further most of the comments are echo chamber 'me too, Trump fascist' that adds very little to the conversation.
> Any/Every discussion that makes the top page on HN about politics will flood out most of the conservative discussion, further most of the comments are echo chamber 'me too,
I keep waiting for all these well-thought-out, factually-based, good-faith arguments offered by conservatives but for some reason they never appear. It seems that the only comments written by conservatives are knee-jerk, xenophobic, semi-literate arguments based in half-truths and GOP talking points. Maybe we scared off all the "good" conservatives?
> Trump fascist' that adds very little to the conversation.
I agree that it adds little to the conversation, but it's not clear to me what else you'd like to hear. If you think that a federal takeover of state elections in absence of any real election crisis is not fascist behavior, feel free to make that argument here and I will respond in a temperate and measured tone.
> Are you able to say one positive change current administration has purposefully done?
Not sure what kind of test this is supposed to be, but okay, I'll bite. He's done some things that could be good, but because of his unique pathology, he makes even good things bad. Look at the Trump Accounts. Creating a savings account for children is potentially a good thing. Here are the problems with it: during his presidency, he has single-handedly doubled the national debt, so this isn't a great opportunity to give away money; the move is ideological incoherent, coming from a guy who thinks that wealth redistribution is un-American; and of course he's a narcissist, so he's incapable of doing anything with stamping his name on it. It's hilarious that MAGAs decry "partisanship" but for some reason love obviously partisan, and likely Hatch Act-violating, nonense like this.
> Do you think those comments should be flagged and [deleted] or they add value here and should be kept around?
Some of those comments are flagged because they express non-constructive, hyper-partisan, anti-immigrant sentiment. They deserve to be flagged. Some are flagged because they are just unpopular on HN; those should not be flagged. I'd never claim that HN doesn't lean left, and it's always hard to be a minority in a community. The appropriate response from conservatives like you, in order to prevent your comments from being flagged, is to comment better: use factual evidence, logical arguments, and non-partisan language. Unfortunately, the few HN conservatives around here aren't doing that.
> It’s not that uncommon for an adult to not have an ID
It’s extremely uncommon.
You need an ID to buy beer, open a bank account, prove you are eligible for employment, pick up a prescription at the pharmacy, book a hotel room, the list is very long. You cannot function in society without some form of ID.
The idea that a large number of Americans are being disenfranchised because they don’t have ID is farcical.
34 million people [1] or about 10 percent of the US population lack a form of ID that would be required under a voter ID law.
The fact that you assert otherwise, without evide, shows that you live in a privilege bubble. None of your friends lack an ID, so you conclude it's rare.
Anonymous speech separates ideas from the reputation of the person stating them. It forces the reader to consider the ideas themselves openly, without using the heuristic of “which party does this person belong to” or “do I like this person”. There are some ideas that are not popular but need to be heard, and anonymous speech allows those ideas to be heard without the speaker being tarred and feathered for their supposed wrongthink. Anyone who seeks to erode anonymous speech is no friend of liberty.
Thats the amazing part of a diverse society, there is a variety of opinions and world views that you can come across that that might even be completely outside your current understanding. As by being curious and trying to understand something surprising you might just gain a new and deeper understanding of the world.
Most folks don’t want their minds opened to new and surprising views and opinions. They want a good job in the town they grew up in so they can take care of their family and raise their kids in the culture they were raised in.
Globalism has ruined that entirely, and there’s no amount of implying these people are closed minded or incurious that will make them change their mind on this issue.
Congress authorized a study, not a full blown system, or even a working prototype. No taxpayers should have ever been allowed to use it to file a tax return.
Despite Congress appropriating only $15M to do the study, the program managed to blow through at least $41M, likely more.[1] This included advertising costs in some states to encourage taxpayers to use the system.
This would be like your boss asking you to send him an email about the pros and cons of adding a feature, and you going and implementing the feature, pushing it to production, and then asking customers for feedback on it.
Whether or not the feature was a success is 100% irrelevant. That’s not how things should be done. We are a nation of laws, and even if the program was a smashing success, there needs to be accountability.
> No taxpayers should have ever been allowed to use it to file a tax return.
I see why blowing too much money on the study is a problem. Though this needs to be compared against the norms around this kind of thing. If we wanted these limits to be strict, we would make it actually impossible to spend more.
But I do not understand why creating a system and letting people use it would be a problem.
"We believe the best way to get this information would be to build a prototype and see how popular it will be" makes perfect sense to me.
> this needs to be compared against the norms around this kind of thing
Because other government programs waste money, it must be okay that this one did too?
Congress put $15M in the Inflation Reduction Act for the purpose of a study. If they wanted to spend $41M or $400M, don't you think they would have written that number into the law instead?
> But I do not understand why creating a system and letting people use it would be a problem
I don't know how to say this in any other way: it's because it was not authorized by law. That reason alone is sufficient.
This attitude of "well it was for a good cause, I suppose we can just ignore the law in this instance" is the root of many of our problems in this country. At its root it's really just "the ends justify the means" thinking.
Today it may be something you support. But tomorrow it's deportations or illegal recess appointments or unlawful searches and seizures. When you allow certain laws to be enforced and others to be ignored you set the stage for tyranny.
In many ways we are reaping the harvest of this lax attitude toward how laws are executed in this country. I hope this program serves as an object lesson in why complying with the law may seem tedious but is actually the bedrock of our constitutional order.
> Because other government programs waste money, it must be okay that this one did too?
No, but it's unfair to single out one program when they all do that.
> This attitude of "well it was for a good cause [...]"
That is not my argument. I don't see why a study cannot include a product being built and used by the public. Unless there's a legal argument where "study" is a specific legal term, not "we'll do things to learn about this topic".
Yeah sorry but to be out here defending the actions of this administration while trotting out that phrase, you either have no self awareness or are a craven liar. Nation of laws SMH…
reply