net neutrality up date sort of

chaelk · December 2017

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364833-18-attorneys-general-ask-fcc-to-delay-net-neutrality-vote-for-fake-comments
if you think the article is bad read the comments.
and a bit more, looking for others
http://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--politics/state-attorneys-general-ask-fcc-delay-net-neutrality-vote/40G2WouasGdlvcqytMjx9O/

markhawkman · December 2017

Ugh.. this is one of those bad or worse things. do I trust politicians to regulate it? no. Do I trust businesses to do the right thing? no.

aesica · December 2017

markhawkman wrote: »

Ugh.. this is one of those bad or worse things. do I trust politicians to regulate it? no. Do I trust businesses to do the right thing? no.

I'm not sure how to respond to this without coming across as condescending, so I won't even try to sugar coat it.

To say government regulation vs private control of the internet is "bad or worse" is quite possibly the dumbest, most misinformed thing I've seen anyone say all day. It's literally "good" as it is now vs "utterly terrible" which is what it will become when Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc are all given the green light to take a meat axe to it before they serve it to you. They've been wanting to set up overpriced subscription packages for internet access just like they do with cable TV for a loooong time now, and repealing the regulation that keeps net neutrality in place will make them very happy and very wealthy over the backs of their subscribers. And because oligopolies are a thing with them, you don't have a choice but to plug your nose and dig into whatever they give you if you want internet at all.

On the other hand, "politicians" (from the Obama era, anyway) regulating the internet is good because we have at least some sort of sway with them. Right now, the government regulation of the internet is why net neutrality exists in the first place. They are the ones keeping the internet open for you!

"We're pleased to bring you our brand new family of eGamer packages! Available in both Casual and Hardcore plans, choose the one that's just right for your gaming needs and get connected today!"

"Youtube and Twitch running too slow for you? Upgrade now to the STREAMium package for an additional $49.95 and get all your favorite streaming services at blazing fast speeds!"

"Netflix slow or down again? Don't waste your money on inferior services. Here at Comcast, we offer a competitive entertainment package that is lightning fast and reliable as long as you're willing to pay FAAAR out the **** for them!"

"Our affordable Starter Surfer package gives you access to several popular social media sites (just not much of anything else, rofl!), making it a perfect way to begin your internet adventure!"

This kind of thing is literally the future of the internet if the people currently in power and the ISPs throwing motivational wads of money at them get their way. I know it's popular for some circles to FEEEEEAAAR the government having control over anything, but when the choice is "an organization that exists to serve the public and which I can hold accountable for bad behavior with my vote" vs "an organization that exists for the sole purpose of making money for its shareholders, none of which I have any control over whatsoever," could the good vs bad choice really be more blatantly obvious?

spinnytop · December 2017

aesica has a lot of faith in the Republicans. Admirable.

nevyn34 · December 2017

We're all doomed.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

This could play out in a lot of ways, but my faith in the big ISPs disappeared back in 2002 or so.

jonsills · December 2017

No, Spinny, Aesica has a lot of faith in the fact that politicians can be voted out of office if the electorate becomes sufficiently displeased. Election results from Alabama suggest that people are beginning to realize that.

Meanwhile, due to existing regulations that the corporations have no interest in overturning, most of the United States lives in areas where any given ISP has a monopoly. Where I am, for instance, if I want anything but (shudder) DSL, I'm dealing with Comcast/Xfinity. (And if I did lose all sense and went for DSL, the only service in this area is CenturyLink. I've dealt with them before. I think I'd rather go without than do so again.) I'm already paying extra for the highest-speed connection they offer (three adults and one ADHD kid who are really into gaming, plus an autistic who requires her YouTube connection for Disney video clips); should we be subject to the same "freedom" of Internet access as some other countries, I can look forward to having to pay even more to provide access to XBox Live and YouTube.

I for one have absolutely no faith in the good intentions of corporations. They are, by design, accountable to no one but their shareholders, except insofar as government regulations require anything else. (Check out, for instance, how long the automobile industry fought against the idea of being required to install seatbelts in every car, or the more recent fight of investment corporations against the idea that they might have to certify that their advice is always in the client's best interest.) My faith in politicians may be limited, but at least it exists.

flyingfinn · December 2017

Good luck, America. Hopefully we still see you in 2018.

nevyn34 · December 2017

You may be able to see us, it's a tosser if we get to see you.

scildtruma · December 2017

Providers force people into subscription packages instead of just charging a reasonable price for just straight internet access. Buy TV PHONE AND NET in a bargain bundle!!! pfffft .... I don't need the TV or Phone. Greed rules the American market place.

rhymere · December 2017

Repealing net neutrality to up and coming voters who survived since birth on internet? That's a bold strategy, cotton, let's see how it plays out for them.

spinnytop · December 2017

jonsills said:
No, Spinny, Aesica has a lot of faith in the fact that politicians can be voted out of office if the electorate becomes sufficiently displeased. Election results from Alabama suggest that people are beginning to realize that.

Meanwhile, due to existing regulations that the corporations have no interest in overturning, most of the United States lives in areas where any given ISP has a monopoly. Where I am, for instance, if I want anything but (shudder) DSL, I'm dealing with Comcast/Xfinity. (And if I did lose all sense and went for DSL, the only service in this area is CenturyLink. I've dealt with them before. I think I'd rather go without than do so again.) I'm already paying extra for the highest-speed connection they offer (three adults and one ADHD kid who are really into gaming, plus an autistic who requires her YouTube connection for Disney video clips); should we be subject to the same "freedom" of Internet access as some other countries, I can look forward to having to pay even more to provide access to XBox Live and YouTube.

I for one have absolutely no faith in the good intentions of corporations. They are, by design, accountable to no one but their shareholders, except insofar as government regulations require anything else. (Check out, for instance, how long the automobile industry fought against the idea of being required to install seatbelts in every car, or the more recent fight of investment corporations against the idea that they might have to certify that their advice is always in the client's best interest.) My faith in politicians may be limited, but at least it exists.

Is this whole thing a response to me? o3o

sterga · December 2017

If Net Neutrality gets axed, it shows that the government doesn't care about the people they supposedly serve any more than corporations do and they aren't afraid of getting voted out of office for it. The U.S. has been going down the path to irrelevancy for awhile now and this is just one more leap in that direction.

aesica · December 2017

spinnytop wrote: »

aesica has a lot of faith in the Republicans. Admirable.

LOL what? Did you even read what I posted?

See Jonsills's post for more info.

sterga wrote: »

If Net Neutrality gets axed, it shows that the government doesn't care about the people they supposedly serve any more than corporations do and they aren't afraid of getting voted out of office for it. The U.S. has been going down the path to irrelevancy for awhile now and this is just one more leap in that direction.

-Government +Republicans. It's critically important that people not become disenfranchised with the machine as a whole and instead, focus on replacing and fixing the parts of it that aren't working correctly.

- - -

Anyway, that said, it looks like they just killed it. Not only that, but it looks like the sack of dicks heading the FCC is shitposting, too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg

It's the Republicans who brought this upon us. Remember this when it next comes time to vote.

Edit: Added news source.

spinnytop · December 2017

aesica said:
See Jonsills's post for more info.

Still waiting for him to get back to me on that. For me personally, I don't want the current politicians regulating anything, I'd prefer if they just stopped doing things altogether. You may feel otherwise.

themightyzenith · December 2017

Well, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US has just voted to kill off net neutrality.

The FCC board voted 3-2 in favour of repealing the Obama-era protections.

Republican commissioners Ajit Pai, Michael O’Rielly and Brendan Carr voted in favour of repealing the net neutrality rules, while Democratic commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn voted to keep the rules in place.

aesica · December 2017

spinnytop wrote: »

Still waiting for him to get back to me on that. For me personally, I don't want the current politicians regulating anything, I'd prefer if they just stopped doing things altogether. You may feel otherwise.

Then you don't really understand what regulation is or how it works. Even though the current in-power politicians are clearly garbage, regulations from past administrations are still in effect until changed. Today, the regulations involving the internet have been changed and those big, bad politicians are no longer regulating it, so in a sense, you got your wish.

Now, brace yourself for some pretty moronic price plans and service blocking/throttling, not unlike the examples in one of my previous posts.

biffsmackwell · December 2017

spinnytop said:
For me personally, I don't want the current politicians regulating anything, I'd prefer if they just stopped doing things altogether. You may feel otherwise.

If it wasn't for them "evil politicians" I'd have to pay extra to use FaceTime to talk to my son. That's the thing that happens when you let the providers make the rules without the government stepping in. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine what else the companies can dream up to monetize. They can basically make any free internet service feel like a paid subscription service. You don't pay, you don't get YouTube.

Have you ever subscribed to cable tv? You know how you can get basic cable, add on a sports package for another 10 bucks a month, add a movie package for another 20 on top of that? That's how the Internet could work without net neutrality. The Internet will now be a privilege, not a right.

But hey, "evil politicians!", right?

beezeeze · December 2017

Welp not much left to do now but cross my fingers and hope that the GOP keeps on screwing up enough for them to lose majority of the senate in 2018.

sapphiechu · December 2017

themightyzenith said:
The FCC board voted 3-2 in favour of repealing the Obama-era protections.

Well… [insert profanity here]!

aesica · December 2017

I should add that the battle isn't technically over yet. There's a very good chance this will end up going to court and/or congress. If it does, get ready to call your senators!

spinnytop · December 2017

aesica said:

Then you don't really understand what regulation is or how it works. Even though the current in-power politicians are clearly garbage, regulations from past administrations are still in effect until changed. Today, the regulations involving the internet have been changed and those big, bad politicians are no longer regulating it, so in a sense, you got your wish.

The regulations from past administrations were in effect until today, when the current in-power politicians repealed them. I would prefer they hadn't done that. You may feel otherwise.

spinnytop · December 2017

biffsmackwell said:
If it wasn't for them "evil politicians" I'd have to pay extra to use FaceTime to talk to my son. That's the thing that happens when you let the providers make the rules without the government stepping in. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine what else the companies can dream up to monetize. They can basically make any free internet service feel like a paid subscription service. You don't pay, you don't get YouTube.

Have you ever subscribed to cable tv? You know how you can get basic cable, add on a sports package for another 10 bucks a month, add a movie package for another 20 on top of that? That's how the Internet could work without net neutrality. The Internet will now be a privilege, not a right.

But hey, "evil politicians!", right?

The current politicians are the ones making it so you might have to pay extra. I'm not big on concepts like good and evil, I'd just prefer they stop their anti-regulatory crusade that thus far has had no positive effects. I also didn't make any statement like "evil politicians", so that'd be a strawman. I didn't say anything about "all politicians" and in fact, I was very specific about whom I was referring to.

aesica · December 2017

A little comedy to cheer people up:

spinnytop wrote: »

The regulations from past administrations were in effect until today, when the current in-power politicians repealed them. I would prefer they hadn't done that. You may feel otherwise.

Okay, so you're just trolling. Got it.

jonsills · December 2017

Well, spinny, I don't know why you're waiting on me in particular, but if you want an example of what things are like without Net Neutrality regulations, you can look at, say, Comcast throttling access to Bittorrent in 2007, or their extortion of Netflix for broadband access to Comcast customers in 2014, the event that led to the passing of those regulations in the first place.

Or you can think back to when Cogent Communications was trying to wangle more money from Level 3, a Verizon subsidiary, for all high-speed traffic moving through Level 3 nodes into their network - and we all felt the crunch, as Cogent happens to be the ISP for Cryptic's server farm.

Then there's the current example of how it sneaks in, currently ongoing in New Zealand.

(Oh, if you're looking for ego stroking, maybe you should have actually read what I typed. The opening paragraph was directed at you. It may surprise you to know that there are several people involved in this conversation.)

sterga · December 2017

aesica wrote: »

sterga wrote: »

If Net Neutrality gets axed, it shows that the government doesn't care about the people they supposedly serve any more than corporations do and they aren't afraid of getting voted out of office for it. The U.S. has been going down the path to irrelevancy for awhile now and this is just one more leap in that direction.

-Government +Republicans. It's critically important that people not become disenfranchised with the machine as a whole and instead, focus on replacing and fixing the parts of it that aren't working correctly.

Uh, no. The U.S. government is way behind the times in many issues and needs to be modernized with a whole hell of a lot more diversity. Trying to claim it's a Republican's in office issue doesn't help. Bending over to corporations is a feature of both parties.

baelogventure · December 2017

Just going to leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA

beezeeze · December 2017

So this guy in the video above says the internet was never neutral to begin with and it still isn't so nothing has changed probably? Except before there were regulations on what the isps could do and now the isps are free to regulate themselves and that is somehow going to be better because all government is bad. I don't know it was kind of hard to keep up but his opinion was pretty much "meh" about the whole thing. Anyway, let's wait and see how this all turns out.

biffsmackwell · December 2017

spinnytop said:
The current politicians are the ones making it so you might have to pay extra. I'm not big on concepts like good and evil, I'd just prefer they stop their anti-regulatory crusade that thus far has had no positive effects. I also didn't make any statement like "evil politicians", so that'd be a strawman. I didn't say anything about "all politicians" and in fact, I was very specific about whom I was referring to.

Except if they did nothing, those regulations would still be in place and the Internet protected from scummery. They've stripped the protection, so thanks to them, they're not regulating anything. I guess you're good with that? Or maybe it's just crazy backpedaling.

Also it's not "the current politicians". The vote was not unanimous.

And what anti-regulatory crusade that hasn't had any positive effects are you talking about?

chaelk · December 2017

nd there it goes.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/fcc-reverses-open-internet-order-governing-net-neutrality.html
----------
well one regulation being removed, is the one which requires investment brokers to act in their clients best interest. Instead of whatever gives them the biggest commission.

jennymachx · December 2017

spinnytop said:
For me personally, I don't want the current politicians regulating anything, I'd prefer if they just stopped doing things altogether. You may feel otherwise.

The way net neutrality was regulated previously was in favor of the consumers and to protect them from service providers wanting to put artificial chokeholds on bandwith speeds with the sole purpose of forcing the consumer to pay more and more money to get over such unnecessary barriers. It had a lot to do with government regulation, particularly when the Obama administration was still around, because if open opportunities exist for ISPs to do shady crap like throttle their consumers' internet speeds and forcing them to pay for stupidly expensive subscription packages to get over the throttling, it's expected that the service providers will exploit those opportunities.

I guess now since the current law is being repealled, hooray I guess?

chaelk · December 2017

beezeeze said:
Welp not much left to do now but cross my fingers and hope that the GOP keeps on screwing up enough for them to lose majority of the senate in 2018.

here you go ;
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/12/gop-plan-would-stick-millions-with-bigger-tax-bills-this-chart-shows-your-odds-of-getting-hit.html?recirc=taboolainternal

pick a state and pick an income

spinnytop · December 2017

biffsmackwell said:
Except if they did nothing, those regulations would still be in place and the Internet protected from scummery. They've stripped the protection, so thanks to them, they're not regulating anything. I guess you're good with that? Or maybe it's just crazy backpedaling.

Also it's not "the current politicians". The vote was not unanimous.

And what anti-regulatory crusade that hasn't had any positive effects are you talking about?

They've been trashing regulations left and right. Important stuff like water quality and other environmental protections, pesticides that have been shown to cause brain damage in children, and making sure the mentally ill don't get guns. They're trying to get rid of regulations on credit bureaus and banks ( you know the stuff that was put in place after that last huge financial disaster that effected the whole world? )Also for an example of how they would "regulate" the internet, just look at their fabulous tax plan, and that amazing attempt at health care. After those I'm not sure how anyone could have any faith in these people.

Here's some more info on those regulations they've either trashed or are trying to trash. If you can find something positive in there lemme know since I would love some good news.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/02/climate/environmental-rules-reversed-trump-100-days.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/republicans-congress-want-roll-back-regulations-credit-bureaus-n800471
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/08/house-to-vote-on-sweeping-rollback-of-banking-rules/?utm_term=.40de71ec510f

jennymachx said:
The way net neutrality was regulated previously was in favor of the consumers and to protect them from service providers wanting to put artificial chokeholds on bandwith speeds with the sole purpose of forcing the consumer to pay more and more money to get over such unnecessary barriers. It had a lot to do with government regulation, particularly when the Obama administration was still around, because if open opportunities exist for ISPs to do shady crap like throttle their consumers' internet speeds and forcing them to pay for stupidly expensive subscription packages to get over the throttling, it's expected that the service providers will exploit those opportunities.

I guess now since the current law is being repealled, hooray I guess?

I disagree, absolutely not good no question about it.

biffsmackwell · December 2017

Seems like a better fix would be to have more democratic votes instead of just throwing away the politicians and letting the corporations run everything, no?

aesica · December 2017

sterga wrote: »

Uh, no. The U.S. government is way behind the times in many issues and needs to be modernized with a whole hell of a lot more diversity. Trying to claim it's a Republican's in office issue doesn't help. Bending over to corporations is a feature of both parties.

I totally agree about it being behind the times and needing to modernize on a number of issues, however if you ignore what politicians/pundits/etc all say, and instead, watch what the politicians actually do, you'll see things as they are. Republicans on one side, voting near-unanimously in favor of toxic garbage like healthcare repeal and wasteful tax breaks to rich people, while the other side has democrats unanimously voting (sometimes in futility) to prevent those awful things from happening. In an example posted above, the FCC had 3 republicans vote to kill net neutrality and 2 democrats who voted to keep it in place.

As for politicians and corporations, it's important to dwell less about that and more on what those corporations are trying to accomplish with their lobbying efforts. I actually don't care that both sides get big money donations because I know that not all corporations and rich people are equally evil. What I do care about is which side is trying to rip away my healthcare, screw over my internet, suppress votes for its own gain, roll back human rights, shift the tax burden to favor the rich even more than it already does, etc vs which side is standing firmly against those things.

So yeah, right now, it's very much a problem with republicans being in power. The party's been hijacked by the wealthy elite and special interests and it's been that way for some time. People really need to stop being so tribal with their party loyalties and instead, come to terms with what's happened to their party.

sterga · December 2017

Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc did not become massive juggernauts that pay a pittance in taxes since Trump came into office. It's something that has gone on for the entire time those companies have existed. That would be decades. Our previous president was a Democrat, who was in office for almost a decade and did nothing about that.

The aging infrastructure of the U.S. Internet did not magically happen because a Republican was in office. The video game industry being unregulated to the point of blatantly exploiting players did not happen overnight. Those really garbage PISA score where Vietnam kicks our **** in math and science didn't happen in a day.

Take your own advice and stop being tribal about blaming the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around. Especially since just having Trump in power is polarizing and in the best interest of Democrats to oppose basically everything he does to appeal to the public for more votes. Democrats have shown to also be totally OK with corporations being scum.

PS: Free health care existed before ObamaCare (and still does) here in the U.S. Instead of choosing to expand that free health care, they chose to shove a 2000 page monstrosity through to look like they care about the American people instead of addressing the actual issues with big pharma and health care. Oh, hey, that sounds like leaving corporations to act like piles of crap during a Democratic presidency. Golly.

flyingfinn · December 2017

In other news. Finland gets stronger beers in grocery stores. Yayyy!

spinnytop · December 2017

biffsmackwell said:
Seems like a better fix would be to have more democratic votes instead of just throwing away the politicians and letting the corporations run everything, no?

Yes, and until that happens I want them to stop doing anything. It's not like we can swap them out until the next elections.

aesica · December 2017

sterga wrote: »

Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc did not become massive juggernauts that pay a pittance in taxes since Trump came into office. It's something that has gone on for the entire time those companies have existed. That would be decades. Our previous president was a Democrat, who was in office for almost a decade and did nothing about that.

The aging infrastructure of the U.S. Internet did not magically happen because a Republican was in office. The video game industry being unregulated to the point of blatantly exploiting players did not happen overnight. Those really garbage PISA score where Vietnam kicks our **** in math and science didn't happen in a day.

Take your own advice and stop being tribal about blaming the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around. Especially since just having Trump in power is polarizing and in the best interest of Democrats to oppose basically everything he does to appeal to the public for more votes. Democrats have shown to also be totally OK with corporations being scum.

PS: Free health care existed before ObamaCare (and still does) here in the U.S. Instead of choosing to expand that free health care, they chose to shove a 2000 page monstrosity through to look like they care about the American people instead of addressing the actual issues with big pharma and health care. Oh, hey, that sounds like leaving corporations to act like piles of crap during a Democratic presidency. Golly.

1) I think you're worried too much about what Obama didn't do vs what he did do as well as the obstacles he faced while in office. He really only had 2 years where the democrats controlled both the house and the senate, and I'd say brilliantly mitigating what could've been a pretty devastating recession is pretty impressive on its own. After that, the gop conquered the house, followed by the senate 2 years later and it's been that way ever since.

Love it or hate it, the ACA was also a significant improvement although sure, I'd rather see us on a less-toxic single payer system with all those predatory, for-profit insurance companies getting hauled back behind the woodshed. Thanks to the ACA, my mother (a cancer survivor) cannot be thrown off her insurance for a preexisting condition. Thanks Obama, even if the ACA is far from perfect.

One problem I did have with the democrats during Obama's period is they tried too hard to be bipartisan with a group of selfish aholes who had no desire to reciprocate. "Let's reach across the aisle to our republican colleagues, blah blah" was always met by solid obstructionism at every turn. That, and the fact that republicans actually did have a hand in crafting parts of the ACA (only to vote against it in the end, of course) via amendments and such is why it's the imperfect mess that it is.

Source: NY Times

Note: This is for a previous republican plan, not the current one. The patterns between that one and the current attempt are certainly the same, though.

2) You're assuming a bit about my take on politics. Yes, there is a lot of blame to go around, however it's important to be aware of the fact that there are different levels of blame for varying degrees and severity of offenses. Not improving infrastructure and failing to regulate predatory practices in the video game industry is certainly not good, but it's really just an example of progress stagnating due to inaction. The current republicans, on the other hand, are taking active steps to not just stagnate on these same issues, but to throw progress in reverse for other issues. They're not just sitting back while big corporations get bigger, they're actively saying, "here's a crap ton of tax break money (served on the backs of poor people, of course) designed just for you, so please get even bigger. While we're at it, let's get rid of all those pesky regulations that are holding you back. Merry Christmas, 1%ers!"

So yeah, it's like comparing someone who stole a candy bar to a serial killer. Both are certainly committing crimes, but when it all comes down to doing the right thing, I will gladly side with the candy bar thief if it means bringing down the serial killer. This should really be a non-choice for most people, but I've long since abandoned the idea that most people are capable of making logical decisions.

spinnytop · December 2017

aesica said:

Yes, there is a lot of blame to go around, however it's important to be aware of the fact that there are different levels of blame for varying degrees and severity of offenses. Not improving infrastructure and failing to regulate predatory practices in the video game industry is certainly not good, but it's really just an example of progress stagnating due to inaction. The current republicans, on the other hand, are taking active steps to not just stagnate on these same issues, but to throw progress in reverse for other issues. They're not just sitting back while big corporations get bigger, they're actively saying, "here's a crap ton of tax break money (served on the backs of poor people, of course) designed just for you, so please get even bigger. While we're at it, let's get rid of all those pesky regulations that are holding you back. Merry Christmas, 1%ers!"

^^^^^^^^^^^ this right here. Let's not be blind in our attempts to seem unbiased. The word biased gets thrown around a lot nowadays as if it's an attribute of the immoral - well I think it's perfectly fine to be biased against somebody that's doing terrible things and has a track record of doing terrible things, and to be biased in favor of people who have needs that won't be met because some rich guy needed gold plating on his private jet. Yeah, I'm super biased in favor of my parents who get to keep living without having to sell their house cause of the ACA, and I'm super biased against the politicians who currently seem hell bent on making sure they lose it simply because they're old people who don't own a corporation ( even though they did have a business in the past ). The Democrats didn't try to remove the program keeping a bunch of sick kids alive so rich people wouldn't have to pay taxes on their super totally earned inheritence, so yeah I'm pretty biased, and I think that bias has been earned both by the people it favors and by the people it doesn't. Saying everyone is equally at fault is just another flavor of "whataboutism", the endgame of which is a world in which nothing matters because everything is terrible.

markhawkman · December 2017

aesica said:
1) I think you're worried too much about what Obama didn't do vs what he did do as well as the obstacles he faced while in office. He really only had 2 years where the democrats controlled both the house and the senate, and I'd say brilliantly mitigating what could've been a pretty devastating recession is pretty impressive on its own.

You mean the thing kicked off by the "sub-prime" mortgage fiasco Pres. Bill Clinton caused? That mostly got taken care of when Pres. Bush was in office.

aesica said:
After that, the gop conquered the house, followed by the senate 2 years later and it's been that way ever since.

Because people didn't like the results of the Dems in charge.

spinnytop · December 2017

markhawkman said:
You mean the thing kicked off by the "sub-prime" mortgage fiasco Pres. Bill Clinton caused? That mostly got taken care of when Pres. Bush was in office.

I have to see what makes you think this is even remotely true. Considering the sub-prime mortgage crisis happened on the tail end of Bush's term and continued after, it seems bizarre that someone would say it was "mostly taken care of". Would seem more accurate to say that it was just another mess republicans left behind for democrats to clean up ( and then get blamed for ).

gradii said:
both parties are corrupt, nobody likes either of em

I would ask you to provide proof of that, but we both know there isn't any.

aesica · December 2017

markhawkman wrote: »

You mean the thing kicked off by the "sub-prime" mortgage fiasco Pres. Bill Clinton caused? That mostly got taken care of when Pres. Bush was in office.

LOL if by "got taken care of when Bush was in office" refers to the recession crashing it in the ground, then sure! That's not a good way to fix it, though. The big surge in sub-prime mortgages started during 2004 and spun out of control until the bubble popped and we got our recession. That was on Bush's watch--not Clinton's and not Obama's.

gradii wrote: »

Exactly what markhawkman said. Sterga is correct both parties are corrupt, nobody likes either of em, but are sadly forced to choose one, hence the seesawing between the parties in power we have now.

It's unfortunate that people have become disenfranchised like that, that they believe all parties are corrupt and thus check out of the whole political process. The corruption is far from equal, and until the massively-corrupt party can be brought to heel, purifying the less-corrupt party will remain next to impossible.

That said, yeah, the "seesawing" is a result of the aforementioned disenfranchising of voters, but a lot of that can be blamed on biased propaganda from certain, less-savory news networks. What do you do when you want to stay in power, but your party stinks and all your guys are crooks? Obviously, you try your hardest to bring your opponents down to your level in the eyes of as many people as you can. If you can make the other guys look bad enough, maybe enough people will throw enough votes your way or not vote at all instead of voting for your obviously-better opponent. The worse you can make the other guy look, the more votes you'll get.

This is why campaign ads (especially negative ones) and talking heads who rely on emotionally charged rhetoric and shock over facts and figures should be largely ignored when trying to decide. Instead, people should research their candidates--what they've done or tried to do in the past especially.

To see how powerful the whole smear-your-opponents and disenfranchise-the-voters effects can be, just look at how the Alabama election went. Given the choice between Roy Moore (a pedophile) and Doug Jones (an attorney and not a pedophile) you'd think the choice would be obvious. Yet because it's apparently so easy to brainwash and mislead voters, Jones only won by a small margin, no thanks at all to the white populations of that state:

I mean really, how can anyone justify voting for a pedophile over, well really anyone else? Jones should have utterly destroyed Moore, and probably would've had they both lacked political labels. However, even though Jones won, the margin was quite narrow: 49.5% vs Moore's 48.8% (and 1.7% for write-ins)

markhawkman · December 2017

aesica said:

markhawkman said:

You mean the thing kicked off by the "sub-prime" mortgage fiasco Pres. Bill Clinton caused? That mostly got taken care of when Pres. Bush was in office.
LOL if by "got taken care of when Bush was in office" refers to the recession crashing it in the ground, then sure! That's not a good way to fix it, though. The big surge in sub-prime mortgages started during 2004 and spun out of control until the bubble popped and we got our recession. That was on Bush's watch--not Clinton's and not Obama's.

You didn't ask why... or look apparently. One of the changes made late in Clinton's presidency encouraged sub-prime mortgages. But they're called "sub-prime" because banks find it dubious that the people borrowing the money CAN pay it back.

Why did it take years for it to be a problem? well... banks don't like lending to people like that and it took years for them to start doing it in large enough numbers. Then it took several more years for the mountain of debt to fall over.

aesica said:
Given the choice between Roy Moore (a pedophile) and

I'm pretty sure this meets the legal definition of slander.

aesica said:
Doug Jones (an attorney and not a pedophile)

If your campaign is based on falsely accusing your opponent of being a pedophile, yeah, it's easy to see why people would think you're scum.... even if you have a good stance on policies.

legendarylycan · December 2017

statutory rape != pedophilia...and he STILL hasn't been CONVICTED, so i would suggest you can the slander

whether he is guilty or not, that for a court and jury to decide after ALL the evidence has presented and examined, not some random joe schmoe on the internet

themightyzenith · December 2017

Well, this has gone well.

Let's go off-road, what can go wrong?

jonsills · December 2017

Much heat, little light. Frankly, the only place I've discussed politics online where more light than heat was generated has been David Brin's blog. (Well, locumranch and Treebeard tend to generate heat only, but they're largely ignored, so...)

net neutrality up date sort of

Comments