Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Stays Quiet As Washington Implodes
dcblogs writes "In a better time, circa 1998, Cypress Semiconductor founder and CEO T.J. Rodgers gave a provocative speech, titled 'Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington D.C.' This speech is still important to understanding the conflict that tech leaders have with Congress, and their relative silence during the shutdown. 'The metric that differentiates Silicon Valley from Washington does not fall along conventional political lines: Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal, right versus left,' Rogers said. 'It falls between freedom and control. It is a metric that separates individual freedom to speak from tap-ready telephones; local reinvestment of profit from taxes that go to Washington; encryption to protect privacy from government eavesdropping; success in the marketplace from government subsidies; and a free, untaxed Internet from a regulated, overtaxed Internet.'"
Defund the government. It's the only way.
The only difference is which rich assholes get richer.
The tech companies want to be given the ability to do anything to make a profit. The government wants to be given the ability to do anything to spy on us.
It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.
Sorry but the computer whizzes in Silicon Valley may know a lot about technology, that doesn't mean they know politics. They have very privileged, sheltered lives, where the American people do not all have been so lucky.
Everyone there may be all hippie libertarians but the truth is they are so far from the mainstream of American politics, they have no business sticking their noses in this and should just stay with what they know- tech.
We've got your back. Don't negotiate with the Republican terrorists.
It's an interesting attitude that I wish more companies would take. I think many of our laws would be better designed to protect "we the people".
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I find that most people can agree on what goals we admire and hope for. What they tend to disagree upon, particularly politically, is how to achieve them. When it comes to protecting freedoms and liberties, the goals generally necesitate preventing the government from getting a foot in the door in the first place. Once the government is in, they refuse to get out.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
You know why the NSA was able to search social graphs and emails so easily? Because all of those pro-freedom Silicon Valley companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and so on) had already built infrastructure for doing so for the purpose of selling adverts. The NSA just piggybacked on existing system to look for other information. If Silicon Valley had really cared about individual freedom, Google would have been pushing federated, decentralised services with no single point where you can insert a tap. Instead, what has happened since we've learned about the NSA's involvement? Google has replaced federated XMPP in GTalk with non-federated XMPP in Google Hangouts.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
But the folks in Silicon Valley have the means to at least complain about how bad things are. The rest of the country can't or won't speak up.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
They'll stay silent until America's reputation, and the NSA spying specifically, starts to impact sales. Until then, Silicon Valley's lobbying policy seems to be "pray they don't affect us".
Since TFS doesn't list it, here's Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations With Washington, D.C. from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute.
about. I wouldnt expect that silicon valley would be fighting against their own profits.
You fell for the Pelosi/Reid/Obama hype. Congratulations, you are as dumb as the next guy.
It's not terrorism to practice politics.
When you have power, you use it to affect change. If you sit on your hands and say "well, the president was elected, so we have to do as he says", then you are a double idiot because (a) the president doesn't get to tell congress what to do (b) congress is allowed to do anything that's within the rules of the constitution and it's just how politics are done.
You're very much a person who just wants a government subsidy of what sort or another, and you think anybody who stands between you and your check is evil.
Get over yourself. You're not entitled to anything.
There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants". It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon. But, that's beside the point. He basically makes it sound as if everybody there is libertarian without mentioning the word, but it is far from the truth. People who matter are involved with the government up to their necks, including all the things he says silicon valley is against: eavesdropping, subsidies, protectionism, non-free internet. All major tech companies maintain nice and expensive lobbyists in Washington. Not that I blame them, they have to live in real world and deal with the biggest and most powerful gorilla in the jungle and that is the government. And it's getting bigger.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
This shutdown has been a long time coming lets face it. Congress has been mostly broken for years. It seems someone is always ready to throw a wrench into the gears no matter what the issue is (Except war and surveillance, because hey no one wants to be that guy that gets blamed for a terrorist attack). Its good that things have come to a head because the whole world needs to see that the US government is broken.
We've seen it over and over again. Once a few large successful companies develop an entrenched market position, they drop all of their pretenses of ideals and form a sort of symbiosis with the government.
The difference between now and 1998 is probably that internet companies at the time saw government control of the net as an impediment to their growth, where now they see it as an opportunity to make more money and protect their position from competitors.
There are those who have fallen for the false, artificially created dichotomy of Republican-Democrat and those who have realized that the real problem is politics as an industry.
What really needs to be done is to wipe out the concept of two parties both of which are so ossified in untenable positions that the combination is destroying the Republic.
1. Term limits for Congress. 12 years.
2. Campaign Finance Limits. 100 dollars per candidate/person.
3. Eliminate Gerrymandering. Districts must be drawn that are representative of the state's demographics.
4. Eliminate the electoral college.
Stage management. Drama. Theatrics.
In the end? The powerful will be more so - you will pay more, and get less.
Mission accomplished, and your expectations diminished, as planned.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What's currently happening in Washington doesn't fundamentally impact most people day to day. If anything, it's probably a good thing because spending has been curtailed somewhat. The fact that certain high profile programs have seen funding cut is nothing but a political ploy to make citizens feel some of the pain. We're supposed to believe that the sky is falling but meanwhile all of Congress continues enjoying it's countless benefits. Nor has it prevented our vice-president from going on vacation.
The problem is that while Americas are playing tic-tac-toe the powers that be are playing chess. To this day people continue to argue in defense of their political parties of choice while we continued to be screwed by everyone. Both sides of the aisle are clearly pandering for influence and power, usually playing to different constituencies and except when they're trying to appease the same corporate masters. When when they're pandering to regular systems they inevitably screw everyone else in favor of their particular constituency. It's all garbage.
And meanwhile people seem generally okay with the fact that we're being spied on. That's the most troubling thing here, that people continue to be so fiercely loyal to Obama despite the fact that he's proven himself to be no different than Bush. There's that obnoxious "thanks Obama" meme going around that continues the theme of making fun of anyone who criticizes the president. Where were all these people when Bush was being criticized for something as ridiculous as the weather?
The problem isn't that people criticized Bush, it's the double-standard being applied to Obama. Case in point: Ann Romney wears a $10k outfit and she's out-of-touch; Michelle Obama wears an equally expensive outfit and she's so stylish, adorning the cover of countless magazines. As long as people continue this mentality of my guy is better than yours we're screwed.
I see the Ayn Rand science fiction book club are quite busy today.
Yawn. As always. Nothing to see here. Move on.
.
I'm glad someone else noticed this. And dissapointed to have to wade through 30 post of government hate, Google hate, and NSA hate just to find the one person who understood the subtext.
There is no such thing as what "silicon valley wants". .
This is true. Also, technology is generally a party neutral topic, and technology companies want to keep it that way. They must retain the ability to lobby both sides. Plus, these days, company leaders that express political opinions are often crucified in the press, calls for boycotts and such often follow.
Washington imploding my ass. The Republicans and Democrats each feel strongly about how the health care system in America should be run. The Democrats have been pushing for something stronger than the ACA for decades. Ted Kennedy considered the lack of health care reform prior to the ACA as his unfinished work. In 2008, Iraq propelled Democrats into power of the House, Senate and Presidency. They took action, and a weaker health care bill, ACA, got through. The Republicans have been fighting it ever since. This shutdown is about the ACA, and nothing more.
Actually, I'm sure that silicon makes up about 30% of the land in Silicon Valley (just like it does everywhere else), and San Francisco Bay was a valley until the end of the last ice age (when it filled up with ocean).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Given how overwhelmingly the entire counties of San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara - not just San Francisco - vote Democrat in every election, thereby making the entire state of CA a 'blue' state, it's ridiculous to claim that Silicon Valley wants the sort of things that Libertarians or even Conservatives champion. TJ, Scott McNealy, John Chambers are really exceptions in an industry that leans overwhelmingly LEFT.
You just need lotsa untraceable lobby money to hear them.
-Congress
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
"Liberty", Individualism are all tenents of Libertarianism or simple Right wing ideology, so it is no surprise that Silicon Valley is against (or indiferent) to the Government or the State.
There is this idea, that there are choices that go beyond "left or right", choices that are not subjective but objective and universal.
Anytime that someone tells me that he has "no ideology" or "no political stance" I suspect he is a closeted right winger.
The only difference is which rich assholes get richer....It's douchebags on both sides fighting for their piece of the pie -- we all get fucked over in the end.
I sympathize with your frustration but, no you're wrong.
Look at *policy*...Dem's and Repub's are very, very different. One party has a coordinated effort to end all abortion (including fertitlity tests in Louisiana) and teach young-earth creationism.
That's Repbublicans, that's "libertarians"...don't kid yourself....you want to criticize money in politics? welcome to the fucking club...the rich get richer **in any situation** fact is, even the best case scenario, with two functional, representative parties, money in politics will still be just as much of a problem...
no....the fact that humans can be corrupt does not validate your argument
In the end, the defeatist "Bah...it's all bullshit...meh" is immature and reductive. It's not an intellectual conclusion....it's the opposite...the refusal to engage a complex situation...something that requires mental effort to dig below the rhetoric.
Your position reminds me of Dr. Zeus in Planet of the Apes...covering his ears and screaming so he doesn't hear the human speak.
Democrats are the only people trying to do anything resembling professional governance right now. **accept and deal with that fact** if you think about it, the Chinese idea of 'crisis/opportunity' applies...
I'm surprised at Republicans...for 'free market' people their party is remarkable bereft of any new ideas.
trolls: if you want to express your hate for what I've said, please use blockquote to specify which part of my post you are criticizing
Thank you Dave Raggett
Population as well the reape8 In a Not going to play Is busy infighting
Intelligent educated people have a duty to speak, especially about science and technology issues. It's this whole "democracy" idea that only works when people participate.
Apparently Steve Jobs , HP and Microsoft didn't get the memo.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Would you like a Palantir with your Siri, or just plain Narus and Amdocs?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
So Silicon Valley and DC politicians do have some common ground.
Why do you keep electing a privileged elite to represent you in DC, but you shy away from a privileged tech elite that have a track record for economic growth?
Something doesn't add up here, and I suspect it's your own personal bias. Try take a more anti-establishment stance, at least when the world is crumbling around us.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The voting for democrats in CA is picking the lesser of 2 evils.
Give me candidates who:
1. Don't care about religion and don't care either way about Abortion.
2. Aren't crazy to think global warming is not real.
3. Don't want to subsidize either Big Oil or Big Green.
4. Does not want to interfere in what is taught in schools.
5. Doesn't support the Military Industrial complex.
To sum it up someone who cares about the important things that I care about and won't fuck up the rest and they will get my vote even if they are republicans.
Unfortunately I like republican Fiscal policy but that's where it stops. They are just plain nuts when it comes to religion, distrust of science, gun craziness, Support for Big Businesses at social cost which ought weighs the fiscal goodness.
And I like the Democrats views on personal freedoms, Climate & belief in Science. But can't take their dysfunction.
And unlike some other countries we don't have a real third or fourth or fifth party to choose from.
Boy, do IAWTP.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"Silicon Valley CEOs should withdraw from Technet, the hightech lobbying association; oppose corporate welfare programs; and stand together to vigorously defend companies like Microsoft, Intel, and other high-tech firms when they are under assault by the government."
-T.J. Rodgers
The problem is that "companies like Microsoft, Intel, and other high-tech firms" sign vendor contracts with the government which allow the government to dictate how these companies operate. They chase sales, incur higher-than-estimated costs, and then beg for corporate welfare.
A few points.
1) It was written 15 years ago. Since then we've had 9/11, the Patriot Act, Wikileaks and the NSA invasion of privacy just to mention a few interesting events. So many actors have changed their stripes (Google seems to be a prime example) since this was written. Yet his points are still relevant! If we had paid attention to Dr. Rodgers points then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
2) It IS a valley idiot. I stand outside and see two mountain ranges, one on either side... a valley!
3) Since the 1960s this place has been the center of the Semiconductor industry. In the last decade the place has lost most of its manufacturing. Yet calling Silicon Valley 15 years ago was an accurate portrayal.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
trying not to freak out here...but you *did* make a coherent point and used blockquotes as requested...so here goes:
this is Ayn Rand revisionism...Paul Ryan type stuff...people who understand economic theory through the lense of **ONE** theorist only...that's your mistake.
the 'free market' is a heuristic of human behavior....it is independent of political/social systems (ex: the huge black market in Soviet Russia, street vendors, etc)
the 'free market' applied to government means a competition of ideas...
**competition of ideas**
my point was/is, that of the two, the Repubs and their supporters talk often and loudly about their love of the 'free market'
if you apply 'free market' ideas to politics, logically you would expect a lively debate of new ideas and old ideas adapted in interesting ways...
also, what is the difference if Robert Oppenheimer makes the A-bomb for Boening or for the DoD? does it really matter who signed his paycheck? he went in and did his work...
the 'free market' isn't any better or worse than the 'government' at doing any one project...that's comparing apples and oranges...b/c the 'free market' isn't an economic system its a heuristic of human behavior
that is a drastically reductive idea of what government does...based on Ayn Rand...a bad reading of Rand even...
The US Constitution spells out why our government exists, and it makes alot of sense.
I certainly agree that **YES** you are right, one function of government (of many, many functions) is to protect the 'idea people' from unfair competition!!!
I really want you to know that you're right on there...but I think your premise is wrong...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Your view of Republican party seems to be influenced more by the (unfortunately very successful) efforts by the left and their media to discredit it, than by reality. Yes, there are nuts on the right but there are also nuts on the left, it's a matter of whom the media chooses to emphasize or hide in the corner. Fox News plays the same game by constantly mentioning one or other leftist politician/activist/professor who says particularly nutty things and then presents them as views of the entire left. As for the things you say matter to you:
1) I support abortion (in libertarian way though - the right to life does not apply when you live inside another person's body) but I would never vote for a candidate who doesn't care either way about it. It shows how far you are gone to the other side of the religious right, that you don't apparently even recognize the moral issue involved.
2) Hardly anybody claims that. There are genuine differences in what the causes of it are and what the response should be. I would equally call it crazy to automatically support something like carbon tax, or sign up to various treaties (which invariably tax the developed countries disproportionately) without having any idea (since nobody does) whether this will have any impact on global warming.
3) Agree with that one.
4) Are you kidding? Apart from the fringe of the right which has been trying (unsuccessfully) to introduce something like intelligent design or whatever, it is the left that interferes FAR more with what is thought in schools and how. Political correctness alone has introduced far more deliberate falsities into the curriculum than religion. Not to mention that politically, left want more uniformity in what is thought (right would leave more of it to states and local), supports teachers unions which honest people can plainly see negatively impacts the "how" part.
5) This is one area where there is a PERFECT bi-partisan agreement. Show me how Democrats are not supporting Military-Industrial complex?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
In common usage, yes they sure as hell are ;) this is measurable...
However I agree that using proper definitions, yes Libertarian ideas are wholly independent (and in conflict with) most of what Republicans do.
I always liked the Political Compass
It identifies 'authoritarian/libertarian' and 'left/right' dichotomies on a two axis scale (instead of just a binary)
Sure it has its weaknesses, but its a great converstation fixer when things go off the rails over definitions...
I'm a 'left-leaning libertarian' according to academic definitions...
Your problem: You have bought into Republican/Tea Party propaganda that to be "libertarian" means to oppose whatever Democrats do
All libertarians...except strongly totalitarian leaning...should logically support the Democrats right now on a ***POLICY basis***
policy basis...look at what the GOP actually proposes as law...go ahead...on virtually every issue voted upon, the Democrat side is the more rational side of the two
I would love to reclaim the word "libertarian" from the maw of the GOP/Fox brainwash machine...
Thank you Dave Raggett
Ted Kennedy already had his health care reform heyday back in the 70s. The dreaded HMOs were supposed to be the answer to healthcare back then, so Ted Kennedy introduced and pushed through the Health Maintenance Organization Act.
By the 2000s his main push for "healthcare reform" consisted of condemning the very creature he created.
Until both parties are abolished under penalty of death, there will never be an improvement in government.
Republicants - Grab money from Oil and control from the masses.
Democraps - Grab money from the *AA mafias and steal money from middle class to give to the poor or stupid.
Neither party is about actually helping their constituents as much as it is to gain/retain power, influence and wealth.
The party system needs to be abolished, and people, not collegiate, voting for or against issues should determine who goes into office.
Then the people who go into office have to follow what the "majority" chose, not what others pay them to.
In this way, money and elitism gets you nothing. What the "people" want goes, period.
Laws can't be bought.
People can't vote against the populace's wishes (for any reason, or they lose their office).
Corporations would have no vote or say in government as it should be.
All current problems solved in one fell swoop.
It's not even a valley and it is definitely not made of silicon.
Huh? There are mountain ranges east and west of me, a big chunk of flat land running north/south in the middle. Ground mostly made of silicon dioxide (with bonus toxins from the closed silicon fabs). Have you ever actually been here? Do come, it's lovely.
The problem with that argument is that nothing convinces me the GOP is packed with nuts faster than watching Fox News. Even when they put their best face forward the nuts show through.
That's not to say that I'm thrilled with the Democrats either. Just that Democrat brand (TM, pat pending) nutsery is less likely to starve people out and will take longer to blow our society apart.
I'd still prefer a 3rd party to have an actual chance of winning.
Washington hasn't imploded.
If only it would then maybe we could make a little progress.
The problem with this approach is that the "people" are idiots and are easily swaye. by politicians telling the crowd exactly what they want to hear and then not following through when it comes time to vote on legislation. I'm not sure anything would really change.
Really? Freedom vs. control?
How about the Libertarian "political line"?
...I like republican Fiscal policy...
The problem with Republican fiscal policy is that it's hypocritical. They're all for cutting any and all spending on social programs, but they end up spending just as much money as the Democrats do thanks to their hard-on for military and corporate handouts. And while both may result in massive government boondoggles, at least spending for social programs stimulates the economy. A very small percentage of the money spent on war and corporate bailouts gets circulated beyond the initial purchase. Contrast that with Social Security which also hands out a ton of money, but hands it out to people who pretty much spend the entire amount every month. There's a productive economic "echo" when money the government spends is re-spent by the recipients that just isn't there for military spending or spending that ends up in the pockets of people who are already millionaires.
If there were a party that was advocating true fiscal responsibility (i.e. not spending as much money across the board), I'd vote for them without any reservations. Unfortunately, all we have are parties that want to overspend.
That's not "the" problem with the GP's idiotic idea. It's only one of many problems. Larger ones include the fact that it banning political parties is a gross violation of free assembly.
That's the real battle for everyone whether they understand it yet or not. The whole Rep/Dem, Lib/Con argument is just a facade. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." The real battle all comes down to right vs wrong, freedom vs captivity.
Today's battle rages between Marxist revolutionaries (in both political parties and the general population) that intend to take the country down the rabbit-hole of Communism & Fascism vs those who wish to return to full Constitutional Liberty. Fence sitting time is over. Everyone is going to have to choose a side. Do you want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or do you want to be controlled and forced into a cradle-to-grave centrally dictated plan? Well?
Just that Democrat brand (TM, pat pending) nutsery is less likely to starve people out and will take longer to blow our society apart.
Nope. They are the ones who are pushing for every sort of subsidy/entitlement for individuals that one could think of that is unsustainable on the national and state level. Who fought to keep the state of Wisconsin from trying to reign in it's out of control pension liabilities? Democrats. They were the ones that put the state on the hook for those liabilities in the first places. California has the most disfunctional state govt in the US due in part to it basically being a single party state and the voter referendum initiatives which took a good idea from the Swiss and screwed it up.
The problem with that argument is that nothing convinces me the GOP is packed with nuts faster than watching Fox News.
And yet I bet you're perfectly fine with the fucking retards on MSNBC. Your brand of douche baggery is beyond pathetic.
As to the rest of your ignorant statement I really have nothing to give other than my middle finger. That was the dumbest fucking post I have ever seen on Slashdot.
You just lost your bet. The Democrats aren't exactly batting 1000 in my book either. They seem less batshit insane than the GOP and less hateful but I wouldn't call them brilliant or resolute. Some of them are pretty damned nutty as well, especially in California where even the warning labels need warning labels. UI am certainly not happy that the Dems have completely failed to do away with gitmo and NSA spying and I find Obamacare a far cry from a proper healthcare system.
It is amusing watching your batshit insane attack on the person you imagined me to be just because I said there are nuts in the GOP.
Personally, I prefer the Daily Show to MSNBC. It may lack journalistic integrity (or, indeed any pretense of being actual journalism) but it is far more likely to tell things like they are.
Wisconsin, that's where the governor (AKA the grinch) is actually ordering the arrest of anyone who dares to sing around the capitol building? That's where a deal is a deal unless a peon stands to benefit and then we just tear the contract up after they did their part? Hint: pensions are NOT entitlements, they're part of your pay when you're employed. Not paying the pension is no different than retroactively demanding a dollar an hour back from your employees.
California seems to be doing OKish (though I think they go way overboard on a lot of things) now that the deregulation related blackouts have stopped.
If it all comes down to "freedom vs. Control", well, TJ Rodgers is a huge control freak - just ask anyone who has ever worked at Cypress Semiconductor.
Its the south right?
I think you're hung up on this point, but whatever...you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders so let's just agree to disagree on this point?
Thank you Dave Raggett
trolling is a form of bullying...IMHO, for reasons I stated, I believe 'libertarians' (read: GOP'ers) are purposefully sabotaging our system...they 'bully' anyone who wants to make a constructive point...("it's all bullshit"..."privacy is dead"...."both parties suck")
I wasn't being smug...I was being **mean**
I'm trying to (within the bounds of /.'s norms) shake some cognitive dissonance into this psycological moebius strip of a discussion!!!!
Thank you Dave Raggett
right
if you check my original comment about the Political Compass, I said it is "has its problems" but is useful...
the answer to your question is not A or B because the Politcal Compass isn't calibrated properly. specifically, it was calibrated for US politics using **International** political norms...
the language is mind-numbingly confusing, for example: the 'conservative' analog of the Republican party in England supports things like abortion that the US conservatives would kill themselves over...
so, that's why IMHO the Political Compass is a bit skewed for US politicians
when I took it I was strongly libertarian and weakly 'left' (but well over the line)
I felt like I should have landed squarely in the 'strongly left, strongly libertarian' quadrant
I haven't answered your question, but I hope this explanation helps
Again, plz don't let the fact that the Political Compass is a nice, **quantifiable** graph for politics lead you into using it as a "Rosetta Stone" for each issue...it is virtually impossilbe to calibrate haha!
More to your point, having personally worked long ago in the military and in GOP politics (briefly as a staffer in DC) and now of course, 'leftist-libertarian' is how I define myself...so I've seen some changes...
'Democrats' are flawed but there is a core of people (probably 1/3-40% of the electorate) that are essentially like Gene Roddenberry types!
Honestly!
They are reasonable, patriotic to a point, willing to share, support the free market, not afraid of 'big business' when proper checks are in place, socially liberal (legal pot, gay marriage), pro net-neutrality...
Seriously...that's what the **people** who make up the Democratic party are like...they are the good guys.
The DNC and Washington politicians are, of course, not exactly the same...but many are trying....and there is an active effort in the Democratic party machine to weed out old-school out of touch people (like Pelosi)
Lastly, look at GOP obstructionism...historic!...if the GOP wasn't such sore losers Obama's policies wouldn't have had do endure so much bargaining. Ex: We'd have a 'public option' for Obamacare at least...that'd change things
So that's a long answer to a short question...
tl;dr you're confusing 'democrats' as in the citizenry who support that side with the way the current elected leaders are behaving
Thank you Dave Raggett
here's the crux of your issue, IMHO:
voting for the best of two options doesn't mean you approve of **everything** the option you chose does, nor does it mean that you are 'one of them'...no politician out there thinks that everyone who voted for them agrees with them on everything...
you're being naive and you need to stop....just stop forever and change
you just can't accept that in politics, depending on how you look at it, YOU ARE ALWAYS PICKING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS
you are never, ever, ever ever ever ever going to get any candidate or party that lines up w/ what you want
you're being naive to expect it
Thank you Dave Raggett
if this was about 3rd parties, then you'd have said that 5 comments ago...
there are two parties in the US...the other ones **caucus** with one side or the other
look at Bernie Sanders from Vermont...he's an 'independent' but is a total Democrat by voting record
Thank you Dave Raggett