Hey, dang, where are you, man? Gonna ban this guy for "ideological flamewar"?
Nah, this Dan is a founder, a YC alum with 11,000 karma points. He can say whatever he wants. At worst, he'd get a "Well, yeah, you're right, they are religious bigots, but please be more subtle about it." But he won't even get that, because no HN user with >=500 karma's going to flag his comment.
Of course, weberc2's comment is downvoted.
Nah, HN isn't biased to the left at all, dang. After all, people on both sides complain, therefore it must be perfectly balanced, right?
I replied to that comment as soon as I saw it, which was before I saw your comment here. Also, plenty of users flagged it—it plainly breaks the site guidelines.
Containers have little value as ends in and of themselves. Containers' purpose is to contain something of value.
Of what value is wrongness?
Thanks, Dan. It's nice to have a concise statement on record to the effect that HN would rather be wrong than be right and risk offending anyone. Truth is not a goal here.
That is a distinction without a difference in this context, which is about the Senate abdicating their constitutional responsibilities. They didn't hold public hearings before 1916, that is true (the history of why they even started holding public hearings is pretty controversial in itself.) However, they still held yay/nay votes on the floor for the nominees, in order to fulfill their advise and consent role. McConnell refused to hold a vote, therefore he failed in upholding the Senate's constitutional role on the SCOTUS confirmation process.
That's not how the Senate works. They are not required to hold a vote in order to declare "nay" on a nominee. Declining to vote is effectively a "nay". It's no different than declining to hold a vote on a bill which they know will not pass.
This is how Congress and the co-equal branches of government are designed to work. Congress and the President often don't get along. It's a feature, not a bug.
