[alphapapa]

"The lesser of two evils" is an important consideration in who to support politically, but the "absolute values" are even moreso--otherwise you're merely being blown about by trends, only ever getting closer to good policy by chance, rather than actively pursuing good policy. If neither party's policies are good, that absolutely matters.

[warlox]

In the previous election we had a milquetoast liberal running against a ur-fascist demagogue. It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils, and now we are seeing the effects of America's choice in this bill and others.

If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed.

[alphapapa]

> It is clear which one was the lesser of two evils

Obviously there is significant disagreement on that issue.

> If Hillary Clinton was president or if the Democrats had control of one chamber of Congress, this bill never would have passed.

Yes, because the left is happy for government agencies run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to continually enlarge their regulatory domain. Other people consider that a bad idea in general.

And if that had happened, FCC regulations would control our privacy--after they would have taken effect, over a year from now--regulations which are not law and can be changed by unelected FCC bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the people.

I'm no fan of Congress, but it's definitely better for this to be controlled by federal law rather than an agency regulation.

[warlox]

Sometimes the outcomes are better when appointed technocrats to decide things, particularly when the people are manifestly incapable of making good decisions.

Of course, there is something to be said for allowing people to screw up their own government irreparably and be forced to suffer the consequences.