Hacker News

People who responded as "very conservative/conservative" was 36% in 1992 and 37% in 2024. https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-histor...

"Very liberal/liberal" has increased though (at the expense of moderates).

> It should come as no surprise that the moment they were handed the power, they began to push the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to censoring media they see as a threat.

To be clear, they were “handed power” by decisively winning a national election, which sort of undercuts your opening statement about how unpopular they are.

While I agree with much of what you say, there are a lot of urban, educated, socially left, economically right people (including myself) who complicate some of this analysis. Many economically right-wing people believe a free market is the most effective and helpful path to improve the standard of living for the working class and the poor. ("Progressive neoliberal social democracy", one might call it.)

The issues with Republicans right now go far, far, far beyond "they care more about the wealthy than the poor" (though that is definitely one of their core problems). They're basically destroying the rule of law, the country's internal and international reputation and credibility, all of our most important institutions, our ability to discern what is true, our sense of decency, our civil liberties, our basic respect of human rights... The class stuff is secondary or tertiary to the bigger issues, in my opinion.

The GOP won the popular vote, all the swing states, and control of both houses of congress and the White House in the last election.

Hard to do that on just rural townships.

Conservatism is a set of political principles and values, which somebody like Trump overtly does not possess, and never did. The whole Republican party feels like a country wide gaslighting operation at this point. They claim to be conservative and Christian, but are clearly neither.

Well the problem I see with this is that the population means very little in terms of national politics in comparison to most modern democratic nations.

So you can be California which in terms of population and GDP will surpass most of central America combined and it still just gets two representatives. Now I get that the idea here was to avoid a dictatorship of the majority that can just ignore smaller states, but the way it is now it is a dictatorship of the minority, even if you ignore all the blatant ways of voter disenfranchisement.

Sorry to all Republicans on here, but if your party needs to prevent people from voting to win, that also hurts you. Ideally you'd want a party to have to listen to their voters. Gerrymandering, predicting voter behavior and throwing out the ones who might not vote for you are all the shameful behavior of traitors to democracy.

This has to be stopped and punished on every political level, as long as you still have a say.

> I think it’s funny that while GOP supporters are investing tens of $billions to take over popular broadcast and social media brands to privilege their point of view, Brendan Carr threatens to invoke the equal time rule, which would completely negate their structural advantage.

Why assume the rule would be applied fairly? Carr said they would not enforce it against right wing radio.

Fox News is doesn't use airwaves, so it's not subject to this requirement.

You copy pasted this comment[0] then when I clicked reply it was slightly edited. What exactly are you doing?

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47050245

This. We are in very serious trouble people.

Dems haven't even had their primary yet. He'd have had to been open to all the other Dems, before even getting to the Republicans.

It just says they have to give equal time, not prevent someone from coming on the show completely. But the other candidates have to make a request to be included and no-one made any requests.

Don’t act like this FCC’s actions should be taken in good faith.

Alright, then apply the rule to talk radio as well.

They just now changed how they enforce the rules. Of course they have a legal pretense for their action; everyone has a legal pretense.

These rules have generally not been enforced this broadly because the expectation is that they wouldn't actually stand up to First Amendment scrutiny, should it make it to the Supreme Court. Of course, CBS is at no risk of suing the administration if Paramount wants any chance of buying Warner, so in this case they can restrict as they please.

This is obviously true. The real challenge here is that this rule is only going to applied to one party.

Doesn't apply to late night shows.

I think you were downvoted for tone, but I think your general point is valid.

I am sure, however, that we have some lawyer folks on HN. Hopefully one of them can weigh in on whether or not this is accurate interpretation of the law as it is currently written.

I'm not sure this is a fair comparison.

The radicals on the far-right control three branches of the federal government. The George Floyd protestors were barely able to influence their local boards.

> It's like how the minority of Left-leaning people who burn cars and shoot public speakers are what most on the Right see the entire democrat party as.

That's the result of well known disinformation tactics by certain media in concert with police forces: wait or provoke a violent outburst in a otherwise peaceful protest, often triggered by carefully planned repetitive police charges, then be ready to film when protesters discharge their frustration against what they have nearby like shops windows and cars, make a enraging video out of it and show only that in prime time to families dining.