Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com) 390
An anonymous reader writes: Presidential hopefuls Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have joined six other Senators in pushing the new Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would dismantle the rules, walk-back the FCC's Title II reclassification of ISPs as common carriers, and prevent the FCC from trying to pass net neutrality rules in the future. In a statement posted to the Rubio website, the presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment. "Through burdensome regulations and tight control like the net neutrality rule, the government only hinders accessibility and the diversity of content," said Rubio. "Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So those radical left wing professors egging students to the brink of chaos over 'racism' and 'sexism' aren't also chicken littles? Hillary Clinton isn't backed by big business? Bernie Sanders doesn't want to sacrifice liberties/raise taxes on the middle class in return for more government nannying?
There're plenty of problems with both parties.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good point - absolutely true. However this article is about Cruz and Rubio. Two people whose personal philosophies seem to hinge on be on the wrong side of every issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but the gp post was generalizing the party as a whole, not just cruz and rubio.
Re: (Score:3)
He is also on the wrong side... just further along. He's the guy who said he wants to have government effectively curate the internet remember - great firewall of china style.
Because literally the only thing worse than ISPs deciding what internet services do or do not work well for you (based on double-pay kickbacks) is having government decide which services you can access.
Re: (Score:2)
They're Republicans. Evidence isn't necessary, only hand-waving and dire predictions. The Chicken Little Party is entirely in the pockets of big business, and will do and say whatever is necessary to please their corporate overlords, even if it directly contradicts all available evidence.
And everything always seems related to freedom, even thought it usually means most people will be worse off. Why? Because freedom!
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Informative)
Global megacorps aren't those people. You're thinking of local businesses that employ the majority of people, pay taxes and generally provide a useful service to the community. Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Global megacorps dodge taxes, destroy local businesses and move employment to the places where people are more easily exploited.
In short, they do whatever maximizes profits and which we permit them to do.
Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations are wonderfully flexible machines; they adapt whatever way they have to to maximize profits. That's why the notion that regulation will destroy profit and wealth generation is practically superstitious.
Depends on the kind of regulations, of course. Contract enforcement? Preventing fraud? Standardizing weights and measures? Preventing abuse of monopoly? All of that is straight-up beneficial.
Most other things are a trade-off. Some trade-offs are worth it, some aren't. Any new regulation in this environment, where all the low-hanging fruit is long gone, is likely to have a real cost in creation of jobs and wealth. Still might be worth it, of course, but it's nonsense to take an extreme stance in either direction.
If we actually had a competitive free market for ISPs, I'd be right there with Cruz and Rubio on this. If consumer choice was a real thing in the ISP market, net neutrality would be a terrible trade off. But of course, monopolies created and enforced by local governments are the norm, which is of course the root problem here, so the trade-off looks very different.
Vastly better to fix the root problem, and make last-mile service a utility like any other, but until that glorious day, Cruz and Rubio are smoking crack on this one. Clinton's biggest donors after the investment backs are the cable companies, so we know where she'll come down on this. I'm sure Trump has a comically entertaining position here - anyone know what it is?
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you stipulate "over" regulation it's logically impossible to disagree that that would be too much. But that doesn't actually tell you anything; it's just a tautology.
Too much/too little regulation seems a simplistic way of framing the problem. I think it makes more sense to start with does a regulation serve a legitimate purpose; then you proceed to whether it is likely to accomplish that purpose, and whether it's costs and unintended consequences are reasonable, what the alternatives are for accomplishing the same thing, etc Many regulations are clearly poorly conceived or can't justify their costs. You could call that "too much- but really what's going on is that such a regulation accomplishes too little for its costs or distributes costs unseasonably.
Re: (Score:3)
That and "too much regulation" is entirely subjective. Let's suppose a company wants to dump its waste into a local river. Doing this is cheap and they don't need to worry about any cleanup. Unfortunately, people get sick due to the waste dump and regulations are written about proper waste disposal. This will cost the company money, which eats into profits. Of course the company will call these regulations "too much." To the people who are getting sick, though, the regulations might even be not enough
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they will still make a profit. It's just that most of it will be realized without us.
It already is you dumass. You're defending Comcast...
What the over regulation will end up doing is destroying the possibilities for competition to start up
Again, this is Comcast. They HAVE no competition because of policies pushed by the GOP.
Truly Sum Dum Ass.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Over regulation will and has destroy profit and wealth generation in the areas.
You mean like regulations that mean they can't force you to work 18 hour days? Or the regulations that force them to offer safety equipment in dangerous work environments? Or maybe the regulations that ensure you get paid at the end of the week?
I know the right like to throw around 'regulations' as some bogeyman, but all those rules came about because without them, the little guy was getting fucked over in some way. And unless you are the 1%, you are also the little guy. So be thankful those regulations exist.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, hers a real simple point, we in Australia had good bank regulations, that prevented to behaviour that caused your economic meltdown not so long ago, and we even avoided recession.
Surprisingly, complex industries that sail as close as possible to the edge of legality, need complex laws to control their behaviour.
I'm constantly surprised at your need to have the bleeding obvious explained to you.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really think complex regulation allows corporations to not sail as close as possible to legalities?
If anything it allows them to avoid the spirit of laws and exploit the complexities in ways largely unavailable to firms not already entrenched. Regulation should be succinct and clear as possible to not create undue burdens while still achieving the goals intended.
Oh, I'm not against regulation, I'm against over regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
Over regulation may cost somebody a paycheck in a few years.
Under regulation WILL kill a thousand people tomorrow. It has never failed to do so.
And whom it doesn't kill - it enslaves.
One of the last bastions of bona-fide "grabbed from their homes and chained up" slavery in the world is the cocoa bean farms of the DRC - staffed almost entirely by kidnapped child slaves. They are a source of nearly all the chocolate that Hershey's, Cadburrys and Nestle sell. This was first exposed in 2000. All three companies
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Destroy ing innovation" (Score:4, Insightful)
Aaah yes, the classic libertarian fairy tale.
In the real world, it's bullshit. You could possibly argue that consumer demand created them, but there's a point where it ceases to be a factor because choosing NOT to buy no longer has any actual impact on the corporation - in fact even killing it would have zero impact on the founders. A point where punishing it for doing wrong is almost useless because the people who actually have the authority to be responsible for the wrongdoing feel no pain - they just respond to the fines by cutting wages and salaries so you end up punishing a bunch of people who had no power or authority to prevent the bad behavior.
You end up in a scenario where they are the largest employer so everybody HAS to keep them happy, or face a major unemployment issue, they biggest bank account so they can buy more political influence in a minute than you can get with a decade's worth of campaigning. More money than almost any government. And the ability to shuffle themselves around the world picking the laws they like - so instead of competing for our demand - our elected governments are competing for the privilege of letting them be the most lawless.
Corporations are what happens when you take all the worst evils humans are capable off - and remove the fucking leash.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:5, Insightful)
Failing campaigns gotta get that Telco money
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would actually say, on the side of the GOP, the most moderate and sane one in that group, is Kasich. He would be willing to work with a Congress that's not from his political party, and his ideals line up to that of the Republicans, rather than the Tea Party [so they are far less right-wing].
I don't vote Repub, but if I had to recommend someone for that side, he would get my recommendation and vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Kasich (and Carson) need to get out of the race. Super Tuesday ballots should not have their names. As much as I don't like the side Cruz and Rubio take on this issue, one of them really really needs to beat Trump. I'm sure his ideals are probably worse... it's like he always takes the dumbest idea and goes with it. Kasich and Carson being in the running are causing too much of a split vote on the no-Trump side, that Trump could win the nomination even though most Republicans would prefer anyone else.
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:4, Informative)
Carson won't because of what the Cruz camp did to him. It's the only thing I agree with Trump on - in Iowa, before the polls closed, the Cruz camp told people Carson had dropped out, and many of Carson's supporters therefore voted for Cruz. Making those comments before the polls closed is against the rules, and Trump was not happy.
Neither was Carson, who vowed to stay in it as long as Cruz was in it, to take as many votes away from Cruz as he could.
Kinda feels like 3rd grade recess out there...
Re: "Destroy ing innovation" (Score:4, Informative)
Out of the folks on the right, he was (still is) the most sane one on offer.
Which is why his campaign is failing. The Right loves Trump because he eschews the dog whistle Republicans have using to lure the racist, the lunatic, and the paranoid into their party, the party of the rich. Instead, he's saying it out loud. The Republicans have long been throwing sops to these people, as they worked on their true agenda, but these people are not sitting quietly anymore. We, on the left, ought to take a cue from them.
Incidentally, I love how all these bills are given doublespeak titles: "Restoring Internet Freedom Act", "Right to Work", "Defense of Marriage", etc. It would be hilarious in a novel.
Drinking Water (Score:2, Funny)
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.
Re: (Score:2)
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
They just realize the market will sort itself out better if utilities are unregulated and the Republicans are able to Bribe ISPs to load Democratic content slower.
So this was rated troll (perhaps because it seemed to demonize the party whose members are suggesting this), but actually points out the fundamental problem with deregulation--information pipes *are* common carriers and should have obligations to serve the public without discriminating on the basis of who wants to use them, just like bus companies have to treat passengers similarly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
I wonder what size campaign contribution that took?
Re:"Destroy ing innovation" (Score:4, Informative)
"the Presidential hopeful states the new law is necessary because the FCC's "burdensome" net neutrality rules are destroying innovation, diversity, and network investment."
Examples plz
There seem to be some problems.
Net Neutrality - Issues [cisco.com]
Strict Net neutrality legislation would limit the terms, conditions, and potentially prices set by broadband Internet service providers. This could restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs.
Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers.
Net neutrality for dummies [humanevents.com]
Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. The reader has probably not encountered much difficulty accessing even the smallest web sites. Big sites that deliver huge amounts of multimedia content with blistering speed pay extra for their performance, but this happily leaves ISPs with plenty of lower-cost extra bandwidth to sell. Net Neutrality would be movement, at gunpoint, away from efficient Internet capitalism, and into dreary online socialism. Imagine what would happen to Internet traffic if ISPs were required to treat obscure cat blogs the same way they handle Fox News, CNN and Netflix.
Net Neutrality would foul things up on the user end of the Internet experience, too. Most basic Internet services have some sort of usage cap, beyond which performance is automatically slowed down. The caps are very high, so average users are perfectly happy with this arrangement. Even cell phone users, with more aggressive usage caps than household cable or DSL access, rarely encounter their service limits. Those who desire more bandwidthâ"most commonly for downloading large amounts of multimedia content, like high-definition moviesâ"can pay extra to raise or remove their usage limits.
This kind of multi-tiered service is the reason cheaper, "lower-tiered" service exists at all. It would be silly to charge the same rate to an average home user who fiddles with email and Facebook for a couple of hours each day, versus a movie fanatic who wants to download a hundred high-def movies a month.
At worst, Net Neutrality would "redistribute" bandwidth, so that network hogs have no reason not to download everything in creation, at all hours. Meanwhile, those average users would be reduced to hammering their keyboards in frustration, and wondering why even simple everyday websites took several minutes to load. The past would become a bygone age of wonders.
Net Neutrality waivers
As always, vast power would accrue to those who control the "redistribution" of Internet bandwidth. It wouldn't be long before the first Net Neutrality waivers appeared, the same way ObamaCare is riddled with special exemptions for the politically connected. Like so much else in our centrally planned economy, Internet access would become a boon granted by politicians, rather than a commodity sold by businesses.
The proponents of Net Neutrality sell their agenda by inverting the language of freedom, warning darkly of evil ISPs "blocking" content from website proprietors if they don't pay a ransom. This is true in precisely the same sense that motorists who drive a Chevy Volt are "blocked' from driving as fast as a Porsche can. Net Neutrality "solves" this "problem" by outlawing Porsches . . . and spending taxpayer money on an army of regulators to ensure that every car dealership sells nothing but Volts.
Net Neutrality shares many attributes of the Left's other favored causes. It's steeped in anti-capitalist rhetoric, and d
Re: (Score:2)
"Consumers should be driving the market" (Score:5, Insightful)
How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection? There's no choice, and no transparency, that's the whole fucking problem. If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.
Re:"Consumers should be driving the market" (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention the passing of the rules was based on numerous consumer complaints.
Re: (Score:2)
How can consumers drive the market when not only are most ISPs local monopolies, but there are so many stealthy ways for ISPs to fuck with your connection?
Well gee! They can start by not reelecting the politicians who grant and enforce those monopolies. It's pretty easy to be informed these days.
Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The voters make the choices between the small selection of dimwits and psychopaths that they're offered. I understand that is not what your high school civics class taught you. Of course, the government probably funded that school.
Re: (Score:2)
The voters make the choices between the small selection of dimwits and psychopaths that they're offered.
Exactly! That's the problem. They wait for the first clown with the flashy suit to be shot out of the cannon. It's the result of strategically voting for the 'lesser evil' side of a monolith. The voters choose the most charming psychopath. The selection is larger than it appears on mass media.
Re: (Score:3)
The voters make the choices in the primaries*
* well the voters in Iowa, NH, and SC anyway. How many candidates have already dropped out and over 90% of the country hasn't voted yet...
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, then what? Tear out all the publicly-funded infrastructure those monopolists have been using? Or force the incumbents to subsidize their competitors so they can catch up?
After all, if you think regulation is wrong then all the existing infrastructure is ill-gotten gains and that illegal advantage must be eliminated. At least, if you're going to be ideologically consistent it does. Otherwise, if you think society should just pick one winning corporation to steal public funds and then allow it to fuck o
Re:"Consumers should be driving the market" (Score:4, Interesting)
If customers actually had real choice for their ISP, and could make informed decisions, then they would gravitate to the one who doesn't fuck with their connection.
Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. Nerds like us don't want ISPs to fuck with our connections but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
...but I'm sure many people will take say 5GB internet + free Netflix over unlimited internet but you have to buy your own Netflix subscription.
That's because many people can't do math.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, it's not worth it for me to save $8, but it might be for some people. I know a few people from the old BBS scene who were still using dial-up well into 2010. I guess it was enough for them; who am I to judge?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.
The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.
Re:The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are you rooting for then?
Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?
Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.
Re:The only hope (Score:5, Informative)
Bernie. He's the only one who has a sane plan and who seemingly gives a shit about liberty. The rest of them outright want to strip you of privacy and rewrite the constitution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Higher taxes and more government spending != liberty
Re:The only hope (Score:5, Interesting)
We're always going to get higher taxes and more government spending. Cruz's tax plan gives huge cuts to the wealthy and increases taxes on the poor. But his plan doesn't give me anything. It gives the rich plenty. I'm not out "to get" the rich, but why should I vote for someone who tells me he's going to support them and hope I see some benefits? At least with Sanders wants to give me, a member of the middle class, something. I'll take increased taxes as long as I know what I am getting in return and not what the RICH are getting in return. The rich can handle themselves; it's about time the middle class voted for themselves instead of worrying about how much money we give to the already wealthy.
And if you don't like Sanders or the other candidates there is always Gov Johnson the Libertarian candidate. I like some of Sanders' stuff and some of Johnson's stuff. Don't much care for the rest.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bernie's policies don't just require "higher taxes" or "more government spending", they would require a PROFOUND increase in both. There's simply no free lunch, even in societies that believe in that sort of thing. The piper is paid.
Americans have this strange idea that they can have things both ways, spend like drunken sailors, and never have to pick up the tab.
The idea that you can "cut waste" or "cut fraud" just leads to the degredation of whatever program you're trying to gut.
Re:The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no real stake in this contest, but I'm curious as I see this point often trumpeted. I don't think anyone believes that increased government services are free, obviously they require an increase in taxes - isn't a moderate increase in taxes for healthcare better than the current system you have now? Every other first world country has this and their systems are leagues ahead in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. A good healthcare system that runs on your taxes would lower private insurance costs too (if you decide you need it).
You're trading a social healthcare system (among other things, but this is the big one) for a false image of 'liberty' that you don't really have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The only hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Bernie. He seems to be the only one with the genuine goal of improving the country. Everyone else seems to be more interested in the power, money, prestige, money, and money that come with a successful campaign.
Case in point: this article. Dollars to donuts says Cruz and Rubio don't sincerely hold the beliefs espoused in the proposed bill. Hell, I'd be honestly surprised if either of them could explain the basic concepts of net neutrality and the ramifications of gaining/losing it.
That's not to say that I fully agree with Sanders' plan. Not even remotely. But I'll vote for sincere optimism instead of cynical money-grabbing any day. And twice on Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you rooting for then?
Hillary "Vote for me because I have a vagina" Clinton, or Bernie "Let's raise taxes and give everyone Totally Free Stuff*" Sanders?
Not that I think the R's are any better. I just don't see any good choice available.
Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit. Yes, we will pay a slightly higher tax under Bernie, but we will NOT have to pay for healthcare, and that makes it so even with a higher tax, we are paying less a month then currently.
Let's do some math.
Let's say you currently pay $200 a month taxed and 400 a month for healthcare. $600 a month is what you are paying. Except under Bernie, taxes might be $300 but then you don't for healthcare. So what are you total cost under Bernie
Re:The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Look Hillary, you and I both know this "raise the taxes" is bullshit.
I never understood why everyone just accepts 'raise the taxes' as a bad option?
Sure no-one likes to spend more money than they have to, but at some point if you want better services, you have to pay more for them.
I would quite happily accept a modest rise in taxes, if they were reasonably even across the board, and they offered a benefit to society.
How about instead of spending $1trillion on a war, we spend $1trillion on education? Can you imagine how much stronger the country would be if the education budget was boosted by $1trillion? You could almost argue the cost of it would almost pay itself back, but that would create too many arguments. Much easier to blow stuff up and keep throwing people in jail. It's so much easier to sell...
Re:The only hope (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Trump makes lots of facist noise in order to appeal for the republican voters so that he gets the candidacy. Once he is candidate he will talk more about his other topics, which are mostly left from popular republican positions. Think of obamacare, he does want a system like that (with small adjustments, which probably even make sense), while rubio and cruz don't.
But the danger in voting for Trump is that it would promote and introduce more facist talk into the political business.
Hillary is establishment. Bernie says that evil evil word "socialism" but he also calls europe socialist, and as an european I pretty much like the systems we have, so I'd probably vote for Bernie if I were american and must chose between all candidates in the race.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to defend him (he's racist), but:
* He is not stupid. Its almost impossible to be stupid and a successful business owner the same time.
* Trump wants to get an ordered immigration system. America had this before the war, when most immigrants came from europe (either because of their religion or because of poverty), you were really privileged with having the atlantic in between. Now the immigrants come from mexico, and mexico is a country which is in a very bad shape. Building a wall is not a solu
Extreme rhetoric = clickbait (Score:2)
Trump is the worst possible president you could possibly imagine, [...]
It sounds like you are exaggerating. Was that your intent?
One thing many people have learned is that extreme rhetoric is baseless - it's clickbait to get people to read a particular news story.
While a newspaper can be excused for trying to attract readership, when "some random dude on the internet" does it it's 'kind of meaningless.
You know?
Instead, why don't you pick one of his positions and explain why it is a bad idea? Enforcing immigration law, or revamping the tax code for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democrat Team has a big dilemma at the moment.
They have to consider the very real possibility of the DOJ bringing the hammer down on their favorite candidate. It is no surprise it hasn't happened yet, they're waiting to see if she gets the nomination or not.
If she does, then you bring the inditement and watch the Democrat hopes for the Presidency go down like a ship who just tangled with an iceberg.
They KNOW this is a very good possibility so they have a difficult decision to make. Their favorite candidate ( Hillary ) comes with a lot of risk. Their secondary ( Bernie ) may not be able to overcome Trump.
My guess is Hillary will get the nod, the DOJ will play their ace and it will get real stupid real fast.
Ultimately, it will probably be Bernie vs Trump in the end. Bernie has some great ideas but:
Without congressional support they'll never come to pass and I really don't want to pay more taxes than I already do to fund them. If they can find other ways to pay for them then great. ( back off that defence budget a bit would be a great start )
Pushing me into paying 1/3 of my salary into a bloated and inefficient system without some serious oversight on their wasteful spending isn't going to win a vote from me anytime soon.
As it stands, I might have enough to retire on. Maybe. Voting for someone who wants to take even more money from me makes no sense at all as I prefer not to work until I die.
The only hope (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy to fall into hoping that that the fascist buffoon Trump doesn't win the candidacy. But then when you get reminded of the policies of the rest of them, you realise there is no good alternative there.
The only real hope is that the Democrats win the presidency again.
Let's recall the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped [techcrunch.com] on telecom immunity, got more campaign contributions from the telecoms, was able to spend more on campaigning, and was able to win the presidency.
If the leader of your party can be that blatant, why should *anyone* vote for them?
You are falling into the false dilemma of R versus D. The real dilemma is "us" versus "them", or "people" versus the "elites".
The people are on one end of a long spectrum of political issues, and both the Republicans and Democrats are on the other. Arguing that D is better than R is pointless, neither represents the interests of the people.
Extreme rhetoric, which is what you're using (viz: fascist buffoon), is only relevant to that distant end of the spectrum. The elites make more or less contributions, depending on how much extreme rhetoric gets aimed at any candidate.
It's a game that only mainstream politicians play.
Both Donald and Bernie have populist views, their political positions would benefit the people.
Bernie is a mainstream politician, and is somewhat dependent on contributions from the elites. If he can overcome that burden and win the nomination, then he'd be one candidate to back.
Donald needs *no* contributions from the elites, so he's free to promise benefits to the people.
Right now Donald is our best hope for getting government on our side. He's not the only hope, Bernie is still in the game, but there's no hope in any of the other choices.
Or, to quote Charles Koch: "You’d Think We Could Have More Influence’ on 2016 Race". [talkingpointsmemo.com]
Re: The only hope (Score:2)
Trump is the only candidate who wants to force 40% tax on h1b1 candidates to encourage American employment. Just saying
Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:5, Funny)
Trump is likely the GOP nominee #RIP_PartyOfLincoln
Hillary is almost certainly the Dem nominee after SC, hopefully someone will douse her with a bucket of water. #WhatAWorld
Does anyone think Net Neutrality is going to survive past November no matter what ?
Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:4, Informative)
Yes.
"Hillary Backs Strongest Net Neutrality Rules"
http://time.com/3721452/hillar... [time.com]
Re:Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:4, Insightful)
And You believe her ?
Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:2)
More than I believe any Republican, any time, anywhere. But please, feel free to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell if it makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
13,900,000 results (0.44 seconds)
Say what you want about the GOP they are at least willing to give the middle finger to their leadership.
Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:4, Interesting)
You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself. Or that anything she does for others is ancillary to getting hers in the process.
Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you included change positions? It is anybody that isn't willing to change positions if given new/better data one should avoid!
Re: (Score:2)
Nah.. I don't like the fact that she is seen by some as flawless when she clearly is not. It's like people are brainwashed or deliberately obtuse on the subject but willing to spout such strong sentiments they know nothing about.
If we seriously have idiots like those deciding the future of our country, we have lost all hope of having a future. The same can be said about Trump supporters. Maybe it is a sign of the times and I'm old enough to just tell everyone to get off my damn lawn.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not have to believe that Hillary Clinton is pure evil from the lowest depths of hell. Just that she is a self centered liar looking out only for herself.
Actually, both are true. She's both pure evil of worst kind, and a lying bitch. If the primaries go as they're likely to go, you Americans won't be able to choose between lesser of two evils -- but only between two equally bad mindboggling evils.
On par with our current government in Poland.
Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure where this comes from. All evidence from people who have worked with her points to her being an incredibly caring and selfless person.
Yes, for her family and inner circle - she "selflessly" lets them in on the Clinton machine's heaps of money, power, and access (as long as they stay loyal, or don't have a fling with her husband, in which case they are publicly ruined or end up killing themselves or going to jail).
She has a long list of accomplishments that meaningfully have helped people.
Yes, she has a long list of events at which she used her position of power as Secretary of State in order to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for her family business from foreign governments that are notoriously abusive when it comes to "the people."
Seriously, on the level of politicians, who almost universally have suspect motivations, she's got to be one of the better ones.
No, not really. She's a corrupt serial liar, a poll-driven drive-by policy position holder with completely contradictory underlying philosophical premises, and would appear to be incredibly negligent if not outright criminally abusive in her handling of more-than-top-secret information while working her personal money making operation at the State Department. She looks you in the eye at public events, picks a phony accent out of her hat depending on what color your skin is, and then lies to you completely obvious ways that don't even pass the smell test. And that's who you are defending.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not to rub salt in anyones wounds (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary tells the truth about 25% of the time.
Citation:
http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]
Actually, your link claims Hillary Clinton's statements are true or mostly true 51% of the time. You're ignoring the graded nuance in the ratings.
Furthermore, compared the the ratings of the other major candidates on the same website, Hillary Clinton doesn't look so bad:
http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]
http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]
http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]
http://www.politifact.com/pers... [politifact.com]
I believe her WAY more than I believe you. (Score:2)
nt
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that there is also a content/service industry lobby of Netflix, YouTube, iTunes, Spotify, Steam, Skype etc. that don't want ISPs to get creative. I doubt it's enough of a voter issue to matter, so her position probably means she's received campaign contributions from the "right" lobbying group. Which means she might actually remember after the election too, unlike much the other fluff they say to get elected. While I think there's a few cases where there's actual ideology involved like Ted Cruz and
Re: (Score:2)
Could be. If you are an incumbent though being able to buy your spot could look mighty nice.
If you're Google, no new search engine competition, nothing to compete with youtube.
Twitter ? People don't want to use your service anymore, so what nothing can arise to replace you.
I am sure you see the picture.
Consumers should be driving the market (Score:4, Insightful)
They are. And it's reflected in the corrupt politicians they vote for and reelect.
More doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's restore internet freedom by preventing government regulatory authorities from guaranteeing it. Perfect doublespeak.
It Follows (Score:5, Funny)
Of course Ted Cruz is trying to kill the net neutrality rules. He's the fucking Zodiac Killer.
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/20... [upi.com]
Comma comma comma comma comma chameleon (Score:5, Funny)
Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary
Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).
Re: (Score:2)
Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1 Year Rule Anniversary
Slashdot, using commas in place of the word "and" is a stupid, pointless tradition, and in this case it looks like you're tweeting Rubio to warn him about Cruz's plan (in bad English).
It's called "headline punctuation". Not only does is save 3 letters, but it makes the headline harder to parse, so you have to read it a second time or click it to see what it really means.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why that would be harder to read, it isn't for me. But then I find: int xyl(int x, int y) { .. easier to read than: int xyl(int x and int y) { ...
So these guys are experts on Inet innvoation (Score:2)
can they in their own words states what will be destroyed by net neutrality? I bet they don't have a clue unless is simpleton words followed by large money donations.
Any politician wanting to make huge changes to an industry should be an expert on that industry, other wise WTF are you trying to interferer with it?
Re: (Score:2)
can they in their own words states what will be destroyed by net neutrality? I bet they don't have a clue unless is simpleton words followed by large money donations.
Any politician wanting to make huge changes to an industry should be an expert on that industry, other wise WTF are you trying to interferer with it?
Their argument is simple - "It has the word 'Freedom' in it - you aren't against freedom, are you, citizen?"
does not work (Score:2)
"consumers should be driving the market"
In a country where a limited number of internet providers have a virtual monopoly? How well did it work when it was tried with the phone companies in last century? I'm all for free market, when it works, but in this case it clearly does not. Just look at the prices and compare them with any country with a real internet provider competition if you don't believe.
Wake me when 2016 is over (Score:3)
Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?
Extreme rhetoric = clickbait (Score:2)
Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest. I realize this story is about what a couple Republican senators did; but can't you guys manage to discuss any issue without turning your brains completely off?
Extreme rhetoric is the new clickbait.
Re: (Score:2)
Without regard to that, this story was a political submission, so OF COURSE there is political discussion in the comments. Now, it is a truism that one man's discussion is another man's bash-fest.
More to the point, this is a year evenly divisible by 4. I would have thought you would grasp by now that reasoning runs way behind rage on years that are evenly divisible by 4.
Restoring Internet Freedom Act (Score:5, Insightful)
any bill with Freedom in the name (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing net neutrality is anti-competitive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rubio and Cruz (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry - soon Trump will send them home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Democrats owned all the black slaves, started the KKK, racially segregated the government [etc]
The first part of your rant might all be true. I'm too lazy to review my US history, so let's assume that it is. But you should be aware that the Democratic party of Lincoln's time is a different donkey from the Democratic party of today. Parties aren't static entities, especially those with a longer apparent history than the parties of Lenin and Mao. They're made of people, and their ideological orientation could flip-flop like the poles or a bisexual in search of love.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah... not Northern Islamistan.
Northern Burkastan.
Been to Paris lately?
FCC is the wrong agency. Give it to the FTC. (Score:3)
The correct agency for handling Net Neutrality issues is not the FCC. FCC is welcome to set standards on technological issues. But it's subject to regulatory capture and neither empowered, nor competent to handle, issues related to monopolization, bundling, throttling, fast-lane-service, preferential treatment of partners' content, and on and on and on.
It's the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), under antitrust, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and similar doctrines, that has the mandate, cluefullness, an