Hacker News Reader

Comment by resu_nimda | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of idealists here. They know that's how the system works. They're not complaining because they think this partisanship will be ineffective, they're complaining because it's depressing and inhibits meaningful social progress.

Even though in this particular instance the partisanship is aligned with (y)our goals, it's rather frustrating to know that this guy doesn't actually give a shit about the matter like we do, he just wants to score points in this BS game.

View on HN

"...it's rather frustrating to know that this guy doesn't actually give a shit about the matter like we do, he just wants to score points in this BS game."

Wait. How do you know that? Isn't it possible and actually likely that he gives a shit AND wants to score political points? After all, what good is supporting a cause if you don't use it to score political points?

Well, I live in his district, and while that doesn't give me a perfect insight into his motivations, I would be pretty surprised if has undergone a conversion from hardcore conservative to civil-liberties advocate. Opportunistic partisan point-scoring would be a lot more consistent with past behavior: antagonizing "liberals" (always pronounced in a sneering way) is probably one of his top-3 political positions, along with supporting guns and opposing immigration. I would, however, welcome it if this is signalling that he's going to take a more cautious line on police powers going forward, and drop some of his more over-the-top proposals for how to fight illegal immigration.

Here's a taste of his usual style: https://twitter.com/SteveWorks4You

There go some more IQ points. This is a shining example of why I don't use Twitter.

Isn't it possible and actually likely that he gives a shit AND wants to score political points?

Possible? Absolutely. Likely? That's impossible to know without knowing him and his motivations, and I would not call it a reasonable assumption given the generally self-serving state of US politicians (most others as well, but in this case they're the most relevant).

Metaphorically speaking, it sounds like you're convicting the guy without even giving him a trial. The political system is by-and-large a big bowl of FUBAR, but I'd rather see a politician give the other side a dose of their own medicine when something as clandestine as this Datagate (Yes I used the -gate postfix, sue me) scandal happens. Especially given one critical notion very few people seem to be talking about: Why are phone records made by the citizenry deemed worthy of being 'classified' unless the government has some sort of interest other than fighting terrorism that would prevent them from disclosing on their own what they do on our behalf or even the results? If this is so critical to fighting terrorism, show me what you've thwarted.

Oh wait, that's classified too.

Seeing the trend/problem here? I'm absolutely fine with what this Congressman did.

Let me introduce some circularity: if he personally cared about the issue, then it might be self-serving of him to request the subpoena.

But why would he give a shit? Perhaps he's one of the Americans (a rather interesting one, to boot) with something to hide.

The point is that many people don't have the political clout to use the Whitehouse/NSA's own arguments against them. This guy does - who cares what he's using it for if it achieves what each of you would dearly love to do yourself.

... the enemy of your enemy ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com