Slashdot Mirror

He brought the Green New Deal up for a vote.... and the vote to limit the national emergency powers of the President.

they were specifically created to lean towards the copyright owner's benefit because it was assumed (rightfully I would say) that if they followed current fair use laws the major copyright lobbies would just buy new, stricter laws.

What I'm saying is, don't blame YouTube. Fix your bloody corrupt government and that "money is speech" bullshit. You can start with Liz Warren's bill. Hell, go elect her or Bernie (or both maybe?) to the presidency.

As an added bonus when the Notorious RBG steps down you won't get a third pro-corporate / anti-consumer SCOTUS nominee (go look up Gorsuch and the Frat Boy's actual record, they're crazy pro-corporate).

to hold upper management accountable for privacy violations. Fines AND jail time. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/n...

I expect my purchase data to be used by companies were I buy things. I don't expect my browsing for items to be used - internet browsing or physically walking inside a store, ever.

You never go full retard. You're not going to get many nibbles for this bait. Go back to Trolling 101.

You should understand, the notion of abolishing the senate is nothing new. It was attempted in 1911 and it led to direct-election of senators. If you want reform, you have to push reform.

https://www.senate.gov/artandh...

So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.

I would say Democrats want money for things like single payer and green energy (or big pharma and the entertainment industry, if you're more of a cynic), but it turns out that you're somewhat right -- "sensible immigration reform that keeps America’s promise" is the third point listed on the DNC's page itemizing their self-professed beliefs. Digging a bit deeper about what specific actions that might entail, I find this, but the closest reference to anything you describe may be "strengthening in-country... processing", which is quite a far cry from the explicit points you make. As such, I'm not sure if your claim about what Democrats want money for is entirely accurate. I don't doubt that some Democrats have wanted money for some of these policies in the past, or want money for them presently, and I also wouldn't be surprised if Democrats as a party were willing to support policies like this as part of a broader compromise with Republicans, but you're making a much stronger claim for which there doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence.

First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.

Presumably you're referring to H.R. 6061, 2006's Secure Fence Act, which both parties supported, but which was primarily opposed by Democrats (it's not clear why you'd think it was most accurate to describe this piece of legislation as "the wall Democrats voted for" and not "the wall Republicans voted for", since it enjoyed much greater support on the Republican side of the aisle). Note, the Secure Fence Act only included $1.4B in appropriations funding for the eponymous "Secure Fence" which it authorized, so it's not clear how you can cite the tepid support Democrats offered this earlier legislation (13 years ago, mind you) as evidence of Democrats' willingness to spend larger amounts on border security, whether $5.7B or $25B. At best, it's evidence that Democrats are willing to tolerate a certain nonzero level of spending increases when it comes to border security, which is consistent with what we're seeing today -- Democrats have offered some $1.3B-$1.6B in increased border funding in the last month or so.

Guess who voted for the AUMF to invade Afghanistan in 2001. Hillary Clinton. Yes she did.

AUMF 2001 roll call Senate vote

Clinton: yea

This abomination has been used to justify US military action for nearly 18 years. Bush, Obama, and Trump all used it. Clinton voted for it.

Fuck Repubicans and Democrats.

I included a link to the Heritage foundation refuting your statements. In contrast, all you've provided is your own bare assertions.

Dr. Rand Paul (elected official), has proposed a specific alternative bill or two (which won the support of Trump and most GOP members of Congress) which was not "over 90% identical to the ACA". Just the provision of using State-level block grants alone instead of Federal mandates removed the vast majority of the rules, regulations and restrictions within the ACA, not to mention the rest of the replacement. In the meantime, after McCain's betrayal, they've done what they can via the portions determined by executive order, which alone make up more than 10% of the ACA's original effect under Obama.

Once you're ready to start citing some facts (how about a link to the Heritage Foundation "plan" you say the ACA was based on?), then maybe come back.

As Dr. Roy Spencer said (at 3:23:10), "evolutionary theory is mostly religion."

Is the US Senate a good enough source for you? https://www.lgraham.senate.gov...

It is amazing this article and summary spends so much time talking about what two Democrats said, as opposed to what's happened and what the Republicans have done, which is more than Warner or Warren ever did. It's almost like to Techcrunch, Republicans don't exist except as targets to attack.

Funny how this very topically relevant information didn't make the "article", but the current Congress passed and Trump signed a bill taking effect 9/21 which according to the FTC includes provides for:

Free credit freezes
What is it? A credit freeze restricts access to your credit file, making it harder for identity thieves to open new accounts in your name. Usually you get a PIN to use each time you want to freeze and unfreeze your account to apply for new credit.
What’s new? Currently, credit freezes may involve fees, based on state law. Starting this fall, it will be free to freeze and unfreeze your credit file throughout the country.

Free child credit freezes
What is it? A child credit freeze allows you to freeze a child’s credit file until the child is old enough to use credit.
What’s new? Currently, some state laws allow you to freeze a child’s credit file. Starting September 21st, no matter where you live, you’ll be able to get a free credit freeze for children under age 16.

Year-long fraud alerts
What is it? A fraud alert will tell any business that runs your credit that they should check with you before opening a new account.
What’s new? Currently, fraud alerts last 90 days. Starting this fall, an initial fraud alert will last for one year. It will still be free and identity theft victims can still get an extended fraud alert for seven years.

The article makes much about a letter Warren sent, but doesn't mention what the committee Chair, Hatch sent:

Provide the Committee a detailed timeline of the breach, including when it began, its discovery, the investigation of its scope and source, notification of authorities, efforts to notify customers and consumers, notification to the Equifax board of directors, and notification of Equifax senior executives – including, but not limited to, John Gamble Jr., Rodolfo Ploder, and Joseph Loughran.

Please describe Equifax’s efforts to identify the scope of affected consumers and breadth of information compromised.

What steps has Equifax taken to identify and limit potential consumer harm associated with this breach?

Does Equifax plan to provide notice to each affected consumer, or will it rely on the consumer-initiated checks found at “equifaxsecurity2017.com” to inform them?

Your firm set up a website, “equifaxsecurity2017.com,” in the wake of this announcement.

The Deporter in Chief's (Obama) policy resulted in kids being handed back to human traffickers to be sold as slave labor.

Maybe it's time for Congress to actually fix the fucking problem instead of calling ICE nazis?

Here's the very first google result for https://www.google.com/search?... .

Please attempt an attack line next time which takes more than 5 seconds to totally disprove.

I believe 1 Republican voted for it.

Well, you are hallucinating.

House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)

Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Check Arlen Specter - he changed parties to support the bill. So technically you're correct, no standing Republicans supported the bill. His support also prevented a filibuster in 2009.

Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.

When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.

What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.

You keep asserting this - document the lies and misrepresentations.

There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this.

Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.

Let's see, no law vs a flawed law that actually does some good and can be amended. Except no one counted on the party of no (ideas) to act as a block to prevent all fixes that would make ACA better. So yes, I still blame Republicans across the board, and even more so with their lame-ass repeal & replace effort and subsequent sabotaging actions.

I believe 1 Republican voted for it.

Well, you are hallucinating.

House vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201... (note that 34 Democrats voted against it)

Senate vote: https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Because of this, some of the flaws of ACA can be laid at the feet of Republicans.

When you buy a car, the price you pay and the car you get are determined by the contract you sign; how that contract was written is irrelevant. It's the same with a bill: only the people who vote to pass a bill are responsible for it.

What does matter, of course, is lies and misrepresentations, like when Gruber and Obama deliberately lied to the American people about the consequences of the bill.

There's many ways to be obstructionist, and the party of no (ideas) was exceptionally good at this.

Obviously they are not good enough at obstructionism to keep a bad bill from passing.

In both cases Obama's subsequent 4 year terms beat the targets that McCain and Romney ran on.

McCain was utterly incompetent (and a psychopath to boot), so who knows why he said what he said.

But Obama has a serious problem in terms of claiming credit for the unemployment rate. See, the actual unemployment rate was even worse than what Obama predicted would have happened without his stimulus plan (you can find the same data on many other sites if you don't believe someone with an "R" in front of his name). That is, his stimulus plan had the opposite effect of what he predicted (which isn't surprising to many economists).

And that red line is only the official unemployment rate; the actual level of unemployment was even higher than that, because a lot of people just gave up and dropped out of the labor force. You can easily add several percent on top of that red line.

Obama's stimulus plan was a miserable failure based on his own models.

This following site is indecent. It's about a two-faced politician who willfully disregards the oath he pledged to protect the constitution of the United States of America.

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/

But is he Russian?

According to Fire Marshall Bill, it was Nate Romanoff, an 11 year old transgendered Russian ballet dancer and trained assassin...

Here's the official record of Congressional CRA actions rolling back Obama's last-minute regulations:
https://www.rpc.senate.gov/cra...

And an article from about 70 into Trump's term:

https://www.theatlantic.com/po...

$6.8m in tax payer money given to NFL for changes like having players come onto the field during the anthem.

Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 gives NFL special priviledges in negotiation that other "private" organizations do not have.

The NFL does not pay taxes, because it is registered as a non-profit. Funny how many millions you can make running a non-profit. I guess having powerful friends to keep the IRS off your back helps. IRS code 501(c)6 makes special exemption for "professional football leagues".

So, did we forget that a ton of people, including a LOT of Democrats, opposed this deal from the beginning? In case you've forgotten, here's a refresher.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY):

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) (via the Hill):

"The deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold nuclear state," Menendez, who stepped down as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year amid corruption charges, said on MSNBCs "The Rundown." "The deal doesnt end Irans nuclear program, it preserves it."

The New Jersey senator, a long-time critic of the negotiations, refuted President Obamas claim that the deal allows for 24/7 access to inspect any site believed to be violating the deal.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) (via Charleston Gazette-Mail):

Sen. Joe Manchin will vote to oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran, joining every other member of West Virginia’s congressional delegation in opposition.

Manchin announced his decision one week after Democrats secured the votes necessary to make sure the deal goes into effect, downplaying, somewhat, the significance of his announcement.

The deal, which gives Iran relief from international economic sanctions in return for limits on and inspections of the country’s nuclear program, is all but sure to be put into place, despite the objections of West Virginia’s representatives.

Now-former Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) all opposed the deal as well. Yet, not enough were able to cross the aisle with Republicans to override a veto threat by Obama over the resolution to reject the agreement. From the September 10, 2015 edition of The New York Times:

Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when they blocked a Republican resolution to reject a six-nation nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday, ensuring the landmark deal will take effect without a veto showdown between Congress and the White House.

A procedural vote fell two short of the 60 needed to break a Democratic filibuster. It culminated hours of debate in

We really need more heroes in Congress, like Senator Ron Wyden who both voted against FOSTA/SESTA (because it's stupid and makes the problem worse) and lost his shit at Christopher Wray for asking for backdoored encryption. Representatives with the integrity to stand for what's right even if it's a losing battle and politically unfavorable.

I'm hoping to see Rikki Vaughn replace Cardin this term; and I'm going for Elijah's seat, so there's that. We need legislation putting a stop to the overuse of powers in secret against our own citizens.

Executive Order 13526 was an important step for government transparency; and at some point, we have to work toward accepting manageable risk--allowing for that it may be slightly more-difficult to achieve a national security end goal, yet still not likely that an adversary will advance its campaign against the Nation--in order to protect the rights of our people. Yes, restricting what the NSA can pull from Facebook in total darkness and restricting the use of national security gag orders to clear and present dangers might telegraph things a bit and keep some enemies of the state circling at distance instead of sitting around while we purportedly close in on them; that's better than the State becoming the shadowed enemy of the people.

Like with FOSTA that was co-sponsored by 27 Democratic and Republican senators, but more Republicans voted against it than we did.

The final vote on FOSTA was 97-2, and the two votes against it were Wyden (D-OR) and Paul (R-KY), so how does that work out to "more Republicans voted against it than we did"?

However, you could say that there were more Republicans than Democrats voting FOR the bill, and you'd actually be correct.

https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Yes, after being told by everyone in the freaking world--police, investigators, sex trafficking experts--that it will actually cause more harm to victims of sex trafficking and make it harder for police to find them and intervene.

There are a ton of proposals out there that actually do things like put more funding up for investigation resources. FOSTA covers up the problem so we don't have to look at it, and causes it to fester even worse. People will die for this. 15-year-old hookers will be pimped and beaten with no hope of rescue.

I intend to engage as many experts as I can find to craft something actually useful, and repeal and replace this stupid and broken piece of legislation. Notice that Ron Wyden is again the only sane man in the room. I like Elizabeth Warren, but this is facepalm.

My State senator is Barbara Robinson. She is fucking phenomenal. When criminal-justice-related stuff hits the Senate, she always votes the right way. Ron Wyden looks to be that in the US Senate, but for Internet- and technology-related things. The man actually blew up on an FBI director for claiming that encryption backdoors would be absolutely safe and viable.

Trump didn't act unilaterally this time. The bill passed in the Senate 97-2: https://www.democrats.senate.g...

Here are the lists of the people who voted for it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

BS on your BS, read this:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf

I don't think I am wrong or lying. I've been reading up on Backpage and found things like this

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

And this

https://www.portman.senate.gov...

So you've got a company whose whole business model was ads for underage hookers. And they used CDA S 230 against anyone who impeded that model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

* Backpage.com v. McKenna, et al., CASE NO. C12-954-RSM
* Backpage.com LLC v Cooper, Case #: 12-cv-00654[SS1]
* Backpage.com LLC v Hoffman et al., Civil Action No. 13-cv-03952 (DMC) (JAD)

The court upheld immunity for Backpage in contesting a state of Washington law (SB6251) that would have made providers of third-party content online liable for any crimes related to a minor in Washington State. The states of Tennessee and New Jersey later passed similar legislation. Backpage argued that the laws violated Section 230, the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and the First and Fifth Amendments. In all three cases the courts granted Backpage permanent injunctive relief and awarded them attorney's fees.

Backpage.com v. Dart., CASE NO. 15-3047

The court ruled in favor of Backpage after Sheriff Tom Dart of Cook County IL, a frequent critic of Backpage and its adult postings section, sent a letter on his official stationary to Visa and MasterCard demanding that these firms "immediately cease and desist..." allowing the use of their credit cards to purchase ads on Backpage. Within two days both companies withdrew their services from Backpage. Backpage filed a lawsuit asking for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Dart granting Backpage relief and return to the status quo prior to Dart sending the letter. Backpage alleged that Dart's actions were unconstitutional violating the First and Fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution as well as Section 230 of the CDA. Backpage asked for Dart to retract his "cease and desist" letters. After initially being denied the injunctive relief by a lower court, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that decision and directed that a permanent injunction be issued enjoining Dart and his office from taking any actions "...to coerce or threaten credit card companies...with sanctions intended to ban credit card or other financial services from being provided to Backpage.com." The court cited section 230 as part of its decision.

At which point Congress passed SESTA which stops people doing that.

And this thread is full people criticizing the notion of the age of consent, pointing out that pedophile != ephebophile and so on.

Senator Burr has released the some of the specific ads identified by Facebook as Russian in origin. The House Democrats have also released a wider sample of ads flagged by Facebook as Russian fakes.

I'd say calling your group "Heart of Texas", or "United Muslims of America" is representing yourself as American. SO is calling your group "Being Patriotic" and using crossed American flags as your emblem. Calling yourself "Donald Trump America" is pretending to be American.

this guy's a hoot! look at the list - calling out the bullshit on so many topics, including pointing out the nonsense on industrial hemp being classified as a schedule 1 drug when there's BELOW 0.3% THC in it! i like this guy :) https://www.wyden.senate.gov/n...

I don't know anything about this Senator; but on this one topic alone, he would have my vote!

I'd suggest we all write him and thank him for his courage and intelligence...

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/c...

Anyway if anyone want to read that US Senate minority report quoted above it is freely available here, with plenty of info on "PUTIN’S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY", i.e. it's title. https://www.foreign.senate.gov...

Wire harnesses are a critical component to vehicle safety. Wires that can degrade during the normal service life of a vehicle can be deadly. Think about a wire harness with insulation that's been eaten that controls the ABS, fuel injection or an airflow sensor, and you hit a bump in the road and it shorts. Now you lose power or braking. Are we willing to have someone's vehicle fail and the people seriously hurt or dead because of a fundamental design flaw?

I've worked on my own cars for years and seen some really stupid compromises and designs that make regular service difficult or results in failures just outside the warranty period. This, however, takes the cake, and we need to stand up to this by declaring the insulation issue a fundamental safety issue. I'm now thinking about mitigation strategies beyond my standard maintenance that neither I nor anyone else shouldn't have to think about, like underhood blinking lights, sprays, capsaicin tapes, etc..

I would encourage anyone with one of these vehicles to file a NHTSA complaint stating that soy wire harnesses should be banned and recalls instituted to remedy the problem by either (a) replacing the harnesses with standard synthetic non-edible polymers as appropriate to the specific application, or (b) providing coatings that provably prevent rodents from consuming the insulation over the lifespan of the vehicle. We should also inform our congresscritters about this issue.

NHTSA complaint form: https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/... Congresscritters: https://www.house.gov/represen... and https://www.senate.gov/senator...

If NN is going to come back the Dems have to take the House and Senate by a wide enough margin to overturn a veto.

There are time limits associated with the CRA. I expect the time limits will expire before the 2018 elections.

The USA did OK without a secret ballot for 100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Sure, there may be voter intimidation and vote buying and so on without a secret ballot. But will the consequences really be worse than widespread electronic election fraud?

And the fact is, you can find out who many people probably voted for by looking at campaign donation records anyway.
http://classic.fec.gov/finance...

We expect elected representatives to generally vote in a recorded way and to defend their votes. Why do we think that can work but doing the same for individuals won't?

Otherwise, use paper ballots -- ideally counted by a group of humans from different political affiliations like is done in many other countries.

Some bigger issues than technology for the USA:

We could return to the original constitutional number of Representatives so that each vote for one counts 10X more -- which might reduce the role of money in such elections.
https://economix.blogs.nytimes...

And maybe go back to having Senators appointed by State Legislatures.
https://www.senate.gov/artandh...

And also consider a Parliamentary system where Congress selects a Prime Minister instead of a direct election of the President (given what a money-driven circus such elections have become):
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-...

For those of us, like me, who were confused how Democrats could force a vote when bills could only be brought to the floor for a vote by the House Majority Leader. It turns out that the congressional review act specifically allows a vote to be schedule by 30 senators sponsoring a bill, bypassing the House Majority Leader.

To be fair "these days" was referring to 2011, when that article by Sanders was written. A time when the Venezuelan economy was rebounding. Two years before Maduro was even sworn in.

To be really fair, when someone predicts something and their prediction turns out accurate, then their hypothesis is *probably* correct.

Like if, for example, someone in 2011 said "Socialist policies don't really work, mostly", and Sanders points to Venezuela as an argument that they do indeed work, the future collapse of Venezuela provides support for the statement "Socialist policies don't really work, mostly", not for whatever counter-argument Sanders was attempting to make.

Another example to clarify: if I were to say, right now, that BTC is not really a currency and you point to its use by $fraction of retailers as proof that it is a currency, any future decline in BTC acceptance by retailers adds support for my assertion, not for your counter-argument. A future rise in % BTC acceptance by retailers may provide the support for your counter-argument, but current cherry-picked examples do not.

Predictive power beats single-data-point examples when proving or disproving a hypothesis. Pointing to a single example only works when the assertion is an existentialist one ("All $FOO are unworkable" needs only a single counter-example to disprove, while "$FOO is not long-term viable" cannot be disproved with a single counter-example).

The FUBAR otherwise known as the Venezuelan economy is what happens when you over-leverage your economy and bet on oil prices permanently remaining at an all time high. Conflating Bernie's brand of social democracy with Chavista style socialism and then pointing at Vesezuela as an example that Bernie's ideas don't work is simplistic to say the least.

Except that in this case Bernie was the one one conflating his ideas with Venezuela.

To be fair "these days" was referring to 2011, when that article by Sanders was written. A time when the Venezuelan economy was rebounding. Two years before Maduro was even sworn in.

To be really fair, when someone predicts something and their prediction turns out accurate, then their hypothesis is *probably* correct.

Like if, for example, someone in 2011 said "Socialist policies don't really work, mostly", and Sanders points to Venezuela as an argument that they do indeed work, the future collapse of Venezuela provides support for the statement "Socialist policies don't really work, mostly", not for whatever counter-argument Sanders was attempting to make.

Another example to clarify: if I were to say, right now, that BTC is not really a currency and you point to its use by $fraction of retailers as proof that it is a currency, any future decline in BTC acceptance by retailers adds support for my assertion, not for your counter-argument. A future rise in % BTC acceptance by retailers may provide the support for your counter-argument, but current cherry-picked examples do not.

Predictive power beats single-data-point examples when proving or disproving a hypothesis. Pointing to a single example only works when the assertion is an existentialist one ("All $FOO are unworkable" needs only a single counter-example to disprove, while "$FOO is not long-term viable" cannot be disproved with a single counter-example).

The FUBAR otherwise known as the Venezuelan economy is what happens when you over-leverage your economy and bet on oil prices permanently remaining at an all time high. Conflating Bernie's brand of social democracy with Chavista style socialism and then pointing at Vesezuela as an example that Bernie's ideas don't work is simplistic to say the least.

"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?" - Senator Bernie Sanders

https://www.sanders.senate.gov...

So Bernie's utopia is where everyone is broke and starving?

Hey, incomes are "equal" then, aren't they?

Why is "incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger" even a goal? Who CARES what the top end makes if the poor are better off?

Sure seems like the politics of envy.

To be fair "these days" was referring to 2011, when that article by Sanders was written. A time when the Venezuelan economy was rebounding. Two years before Maduro was even sworn in.

To be really fair, when someone predicts something and their prediction turns out accurate, then their hypothesis is *probably* correct.

Like if, for example, someone in 2011 said "Socialist policies don't really work, mostly", and Sanders points to Venezuela as an argument that they do indeed work, the future collapse of Venezuela provides support for the statement "Socialist policies don't really work, mostly", not for whatever counter-argument Sanders was attempting to make.

Another example to clarify: if I were to say, right now, that BTC is not really a currency and you point to its use by $fraction of retailers as proof that it is a currency, any future decline in BTC acceptance by retailers adds support for my assertion, not for your counter-argument. A future rise in % BTC acceptance by retailers may provide the support for your counter-argument, but current cherry-picked examples do not.

Predictive power beats single-data-point examples when proving or disproving a hypothesis. Pointing to a single example only works when the assertion is an existentialist one ("All $FOO are unworkable" needs only a single counter-example to disprove, while "$FOO is not long-term viable" cannot be disproved with a single counter-example).

To be fair "these days" was referring to 2011, when that article by Sanders was written. A time when the Venezuelan economy was rebounding. Two years before Maduro was even sworn in.

"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?" - Senator Bernie Sanders

https://www.sanders.senate.gov...

Yay for less freedom!

Awesome thing is, reducing domestic freedom and funding more war have huge bipartisan support:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Soviet Union, we're catching up! Soon we'll be just as unfree as you were. Fuck yeah, go America!

Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Both chambers had a Republican majority.

https://www.senate.gov/referen...

To pass a bill over the president's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber.

That should be plenty of information to help you understand why your comment probably looks pretty damn stupid to anyone who actually knows anything about government.

Oh, flamebait is it? Here's something else to consider: Compared to the candidate that admittedly had no issue in maintaining private and public positions, there is every reason to believe that Sanders would have protected net neutrality.The guy that consistently polled ahead of Trump.

But it just had to be her turn, by any means necessary too. So you want to thank Trump voters, you really ought to be thanking yourself.

If people want to actually get results start by:

1. Writing (hardcopy and sent by "snailmail") letters to public officials with formal-language grammar expressing displeasure and politely offering solution of law to override: district representatives for the House, state representatives for the Senate, and President
https://www.senate.gov/senator...
https://www.house.gov/represen...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/con...

2. It does not hurt to submit or virtually sign a petition here: https://petitions.whitehouse.g...

3. Make attempt to contact state level officials to make laws to override: States, under 10th Amendment are not without sovereignty in spite of Article I, Section 8. The FCC would need to take legal action against the state in order to invalidate such laws. It may be to note that Tom Wheeler lost a battle against Tennessee a few years back.

4. Where not restricted by legalized monopolies, either have local governments, or if not possible organized co-ops for internet access (a can of worms in and of itself, but then the customers and the owners will be the same).

5. If still wishing to do protests, make sure a reasonably large crowd also shows up at the the House of Representative local offices. Prominent is good, but keep everything peaceful and non-disruptive at whatever location and invite the local press.

6. If one suspects the FCC to be in the pockets of ISPs, simple discontinue all services of those providers

From Twitter's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (page 11):

With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions.

It seems to me that Twitter is a much bigger threat to our election process than Russia.

Shouldn't speech about the election be somehow... I don't know... protected or something?

https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea

So called "moderate Democrats".
Two of whom are a part of something called "The ModSquad", one is "ranked exactly 50th on its scale of the 100 senators, from most-liberal to most-conservative" and one is just a tad more to the left of her.

According to https://www.senate.gov/legisla..., it was Joe Manchin (D-WV), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Gary Peters (D-MI), and Jon Tester (D-MT).

Nothing. Submarines are typically kept around 8000 ppm without issue. Yes, that's 20 TIMES current atmospheric levels and 8 times that of a CO2-enriched greenhouse. So many people think CO2 is a "boogieman" and really don't understand it at all... You probably also believe that "global warming" is regulated by CO2, when in fact water vapor is up to 8 times stronger in terms of any climate changes. CO2 is about an order of magnitude lower, and would need to increase well past submarine levels to be an issue...

Whichever hardware Target standardises on, I would bet they make sure it's robust and comes with assurance of future upgrades. If necessary. Remember, these things are built into a closed retail ecosystem.

Oh, okay then. What could possibly go wrong?