You are not logged in. Please register or login.

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

Really? Everything I’ve read is that his polling has remained virtually unaffected.

slcpunk wrote:

He was down by 8 last week, which I felt was a story in itself. He should be down by 38 IMO. The last poll had them virtually even.  If he wins,  the GOP will be handcuffed to dead hooker and will need to do something.

Oh, that must explain it then. Once the waters settled & it seemed possible for a win, Trump stepped in & spoke up. How thoughtful of him. And to make such an argument with his own 13 yr old son 20 feet away in the background shows good judgement of his own.

Problem is now he's gotta stay active on this & fight this battle the next 2 weeks. Trump hates to be a loser, as we all know.

mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
bigbri wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Two of you have said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. What was broke before 2015 that needed fixed?

As I understand it, the 2015 ruling locked in place the current practices.

Removing those restrictions allows ISPs a lot more freedom.

Do you really think Comcast is going to turn down an opportunity to charge you more for Internet?

Nothing is stopping them from doing that now. That’s my problem with all of this, the pro net neutrality side has just created random nightmare scenarios that could happen. Might as well be claiming Mexicans and Muslims will rape your wives and daughters at this point.

We already have done that...that's why we elected this pompous wind bag with no leadership skills....he promised us a wall to keep us safe from the rapist Mexicans and a travel ban to protect us from the terrible Muslims (except for a few countries that Trump has business with).

TheMole
 Rep: 77 

Re: US Politics Thread

TheMole wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

I'm still trying to formulate an opinion, and all the doom and gloom pretending the FCC saved the internet under Obama isn't helping.  There was no "net neutrality" (which I've found is really a buzzword and has no actual definition) prior to 2015 and the internet was just fine.  Like I said, Canada lacks a net neutrality law, and they don't have any issues.  Same with the Netherlands.

The Netherlands was the first European country to enact a net neutrality law. It's only recently that this legislation has been challenged due to a new EU directive that might prohibit The Netherlands from enforcing some of the stricter parts of their legislation. But in practice, today, The Netherlands still has Net Neutrality legislation.

Randall Flagg wrote:

Capitalism and competition is what forced Verizon and AT&T to start offering unlimited data plans at a fair rate in order to compete with Sprint and T-Mobile.

Yes. But unfortunately, there is no real competition in fixed broadband internet in the US. You typically only have one cable provider and one dominant DSL provider per area, making it so the forces of capitalism can't really work as they should. That's why in the US, you pay nearly twice as much for broadband internet service than in most of Europe.

Randall Flagg wrote:

I think I'm in favor of net neutrality, but the scare tactics and nonsense populating the dialogue turns me off.  I'd much rather see the feds break up the major ISPs and treat the cable lines like we do the electric and water companies.

That's effectively what the FCC did under Tom Wheeler: regulate internet as a Title II communications service. It's not entirely the same as regulating it as a utility, but it's the closest thing that was feasible back then. Now, even title II seems a pipe dream.

Net neutrality is needed because there is just not enough competition, and the cost of entry for new players is staggeringly high (prohibitively so), and often hampered by building permits, zoning regulations and other publicly managed resources. There's just no real chance for new competitors to come up and disrupt things.
Net Neutrality legislation has become a necessity due to the recent consolidation in the industry (comcast/time warner/cox, at&t/directv, ...). There are other ways to achieve similar results, but net neutrality is a simple principle: just like PG&E does not get to charge different rates depending on what you do with your electricity, your internet provider should not charge you depending on what you do with your bytes. You pay for throughput and volume, not the contents of your internet packets.

misterID
 Rep: 468 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

^^ awesome post

slcpunk
 Rep: 149 

Re: US Politics Thread

slcpunk wrote:

Big news:

A Split From Trump Indicates That Flynn Is Moving to Cooperate With Mueller

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/p … ss&emc=rss

And an interesting critique of that article by an attorney


PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

Off subject - I'm not very Twitter savvy, but why do people post 40 different twitter posts instead of just making a blog & linking to that in 1 post?

slcpunk
 Rep: 149 

Re: US Politics Thread

slcpunk wrote:
PaSnow wrote:

Off subject - I'm not very Twitter savvy, but why do people post 40 different twitter posts instead of just making a blog & linking to that in 1 post?

I know right? Maybe try another format for your posts???

PaSnow
 Rep: 205 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

ap7bxs.jpg

mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:

What’s even more gross are the people who think this is cool.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB