Unfortunately, there's always someone to blindly inject party politics into HN threads.

So, is what you're saying, is that if the "other party" had a majority, this wouldn't happen? Or.. what are you trying to convey? You don't like republicans and find them hypocritical?

▲

jubilanti an hour ago | parent | next [-]

#1 this is literally a thread about laws in the US Congress, how is this not about party politics?

#2 they are alluding to how, historically, Republicans have advocated against so many regulations and social services, under the rationale of "State's Rights." But the new Republican party under Trump has repeatedly been enforcing nationwide conservative policies that completely trample on the states and give so much centralized power to the federal government.

▲

themafia an hour ago | parent [-]

Laws can have bipartisan support or disapproval. So just because a law was passed does not mean "party politics" were involved, or that fealty to a president was the motivation. If you automatically think these things I think you're depriving yourself of the deeper understanding that _money_ controls politics.

The Republican party under Trump is not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It's the same tired old story since the 1990s. Which I guess is my real complaint. You're just throwing out a 30 year old party line to get votes, not to derive any insight, or to engage with any plan to _fight_ this insanity. I mean, what would the solution be, just end the Republican party and move to a one party state?

That it was at the top of the thread I found rather cheap and frivolous.

	▲	sanktanglia 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Trump's gop has been extreme to levels not seen for generations so yes it is quite new. Previously Republicans attempted to pretend they cared about a number of things, now if they hate gays and Democrats and foreigners enough publicly, that's the only thing they need to be elected

▲

bdangubic an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

the last one. states rights only when convenient :)