Slashdot Mirror
Rubio, Cruz Try To Kill Neutrality On 1-Year Rule Anniversary (dslreports.com)
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."
"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
Marco Rubio and Rafael Cruz are a couple of worthless Cuban anchor babies who don't understand the ideals of a free and civilised society. That's why they are constantly trying to kill liberty and support the violation of the constitution. They and their families should be deported back to their hispanic hellhole of origin. Let's Raul and Fidel deal with them.
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.
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.
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 ?
You can tell a politician is lying because their lips are moving.
Their job isn't to do the right thing, or anything at all.
It's just to get elected.
Then start sucking cash out of our wallets.
That's it.
Take a trip to DC and you'll see for yourself.
They are. And it's reflected in the corrupt politicians they vote for and reelect.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Let's restore internet freedom by preventing government regulatory authorities from guaranteeing it. Perfect doublespeak.
don't elect trump president. If you do, you're not welcome anymore in europe.
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...
You are welcome on my lawn.
They're actually showing up in the Senate to vote on something?
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).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"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.
The last time a Clinton was in the White House, the majority of the Internet had to be painted black.
Hope is a fool's dream.
nt
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?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
let's all comment on slashdot! that'll make everything better! :D
FSCKING WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!
or just laugh at americans, if you don't happen to be one.
RIVA = Revoking Internet Freedom Act
"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.
Even in the presidential race, only one potential candidate out of seven doesn't have friendly ties with the cable and phone industries. Good luck having better odds on the federal legislative level. I'm wondering who all you expect people to vote for on this issue when their choices are shit, since you seem so convinced that it's the voters who are the problem.
Snouts in the trough boys, there you go, tuck in. Makes me proud to be not American.
The Internet needs P2P encryption at the link-layer. When more than the sender and receiver can read a message in a network it creates a financially exploitable imbalance of power in routing. Major routers can inspect content and shape traffic in IPv4. The fact that AT&T can look at what I look at on the Internet and prevent me from seeing things their CEOs disagree with is absolutely terrifying and a relic of IPv4. The Internet may very well need legal regulation in areas (e.g., FCC could enforce business licenses for Internet business), but it shouldn't be regulated at the transmission. Regulate where the content is stored, who sent it, those who access it, those who promulgate it, etc.
It looks like your related stories section cut off the full titles of those articles. Here you go:
10 Confirmed Dead In Shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College...After Net Neutrality Implemented on Campus Network
Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour...Due to Rising Costs from New Net Neutrality Rules
Yelp Employee Posts Open Letter About Cost Of Living And Low Wages, Gets Fired...For Demanding Net Neutral Comments Section
How To Execute People In the 21st Century...By Taking Away Their Bandwidth with Net Neutrality
Writer: "Why I Defaulted On My Student Loans"...Because Net Neutrality Stopped My Bank Payments
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?
#DeleteChrome
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 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".
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.
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.
I hate politics on slashdot, but legislative action on Net Neutrality is a legit topic....
Where's your proof that all the new government "net neutrality" regs have had ANY positive impact? Sure, you imagined all sorts of badness that would happen without those regs, and now might claim the absence of the badness as evidence.... but I could as easily prove I stopped the moon crashing into the Earth last month by eating a ham sandwich. i.e. Predicting doom if X is not done, then doing X and not experiencing the doom, is no proof whatsoever that doom and X are in any way connected.
The simple fact is that the internet arose and grew to what it is WITHOUT inviting the federal government in to hyper-regulate it. It was NOT under any "net neutrality" rules as it became the net we all embraced. Now that the left got its way and injected the federal government (and therefore, by definition, partisan politics) into the control of the internet, politicians across the political spectrum will free to impose their particular preferences on it in every election cycle and those in power will feel free to use their pens and phones to assert whatever control they and their campaign contributors like. You all are gonna love the regulations a president Trump or president Cruz puts in place right??? Oh, I see... you just assume you will ALWAYS have a president you like.... good luck with that.
"Net neutrality" is a political slogan, like "universal healthcare" and "comprehensive immigration reform" that is meant to convey to a broad spectrum of stupid, ignorant and foolish people everything good they imagine it means while actually being a front for the things certain political activists and lobbyists actually want. It's very much like "universal healthcare" convinced stupid idiots to support the so-called affordable care act which stripped millions of people of their health insurance and forced everybody (by federal law) in the country to buy a commercial product from the companies who lobbied for the legislation (the richer-than-ever health insurance mega corps) in addition to doing something never before done in the US: making it illegal to buy health insurance in the summer months unless you can prove certain changes in your life.
With every new Lawrence-Lessig/Robert Reich style "reform" the people of the United States lose more freedom and economic growth slows further. We have just completed 10 years without ANY period of > 3% growth. Fore reference: after President Reagan's first budget kicked-in, growth was nearly 8% and it never dropped back below 3% the entire time he was in office - and HE inherited a FAR worse economy than Obama did (Reagan inherited double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and at that time all the mainstream press were echoing the Jimmy Carter line that the world had become too complex for any one person to manage as President).
None of the candidates represent you, and for good reason: you can't do anything to help them win. Sure you can vote, but your solitary vote is a tiny drop in an enormous bucket. Your vote isn't worth their effort.
Their corporate backers, however, can hugely further their political agenda (and their get-rich agenda), and can also use their influence to help the candidate win lots of votes.
So, they represent the people who can do something for them. You will never be in that group. If you ever feel like there is a candidate that is actually promising what you want (and has a prayer of winning) your alarm bells should go off: somehow that candidate managed to get his lies past your bullshit detector.
That's reality for ya.
I don't understand why most people seem to think the FCC is the savior of the internet. For years they've been fucking with Telecoms, effectively regulating them out of business. Years after regulating the Telecoms, they are still heavily monopolized by a few companies. This is the same agency that routinely sensors television and has on multiple occasions attempted to sensor political speech. Since they "saved the internet" last year, they have done nothing. They have officially stated that they don't know what they are doing and are going to take a "wait-and-see" approach. Nothing is better for an economy than hanging a blade over it's neck, and introducing massive amounts of unpredictability. Let's not forget that if the FCC were to fully implement Title II, it would come with massive new taxes on ISPs. The internet managed to do pretty damn well without government meddling for years. The FCC is creating needless cost and bureaucracy which will discourage and prevent new start-ups from trying to get into the industry. All of this is coming at a time when our internet back-bone is getting rebuilt and satellite, cellphone data, and wimax are about to create real options and competition with the more incumbent providers. The government needs to stay the fuck out of the way. ISP's already starting to cope with the FCC control by creating shitty general offering that don't do proper packet shaping, and then creating highly expensive "Business" tier classes for people who need real internet.
Holy shit, that newspeak.
You would not CARE who was elected president if the federal government was obeying the intent of the founders and was not involved in 90% of what affected your life. A federal government only worried about [1] international diplomacy, [2] national defense, [3] keeping the flow of trade between the states regular, and [4] running the federal courts, patents, copyrights, and trademarks systems is a government that mostly leaves you alone to live you life, and innovate in your business activities. When you put the government into everything, you put politicians into everything, and then they become a critical element of your life (and THEY and particularly their FUNDERS love you and thank you for foolishly doing it and making them rich and powerful)
Next time you are tempted to tune in to see what those crazy kardashians are up to, try READING at least a smidgen of what our founders risked their lives and "sacred honor" to achieve and bequeath to you as a precious inheritance - something called FREEDOM and LIBERTY.
Lets ask Chris Stevens what he thinks of her. Thats right, he is dead after asking for increased security over 600 times and being ignored. On top of that she lied to his family about why he was killed blaming it on a YouTube video.
What you claim is false. She lies when things get tough and ignores real problems that require real work to solve.
.. and let the market decide.. I know which way I'd be going... to a neutral internet.
I do not think it means what you think it means. (nod to Inigo Montoya)
Contrary to what some unionized Democrat activist high school teacher, or drug-addled former hippie college professor taught you, a "Fascist" is NOT "anybody who disagrees with me".
Fascism arose under Benito Mussolini, the Italian Socialist dictator and then-leader of the Italian Socialist party. It was later adopted by Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's party. These are the sort of dude Bernie Sanders would happily hang-out with if that whole World War II thing had not happened and tarnished their names. Unlike the more-pure Marxist ideologies of Communism and Socialism which sought varying levels of public ownership and/or control of everything, the fascists were perfectly happy to leave private citizens and businesses pretend to own stuff. Fascists simply seek to control these things with one layer of indirection by controlling the people and companies who think of themselves as the owners. It's indirect socialism with a veneer of private property.... and thus the modern progressives on the Left like Hillary are more precisely Fascists than anybody on the Right in the US has ever been. There's nothing surprising in the idea that Socialism, Communism and Mutant/Indirect Socialism (Fascism) are all leftist ideologies. Obama, Bernie, and Hillary are ALL committed to the idea of government having a heavy-handed influence over individuals and industry and redistributing wealth - ALL three are fascist pigs and it makes little difference which of these warped and evil people are in power.
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 not a successful businessman, but a successful promoter starting with inherited wealth; his companies have gone bankrupt four times. He has, of course, firewalled himself and his personal wealth from those bankruptcies. As a businessman, his record is piss poor: A recent issue of The Economist compared his NYC real estate record with the NYC average; he did much worse.
Consumers should be driving the market
Little consumers like AT&T?
Most people LOVE everything devolving into partisan political mud-slinging brawls, otherwise they'd stop foolishly voting for evil politicians who inject the government, and thus partisan political arguments, into everything.
Small government needs to spend its limited power and resources on the few things it must do (like national defense), and cannot get into everything else (like how the internet runs, what sort of light bulbs you can buy, and how much sugar or alcohol is in what you choose to drink). The citizens notice when small government fails to do something or does something bad.
Big government involved in everything can easily manipulate the public by figuring out complex sets of issues that they can use to motivate/de-motivate blocks of voters toward various political ends. Big government is able to manipulate millions of things in subtle or large ways to benefit the backers of the political class, and be involved in so much that large swaths of corruption and/or incompetence slide by hardly noticed among the flurry of other activities. Big government loves to fool people into accepting new laws that are over a thousand pages long and which were written by lobbyists, while pretending that the very lawmakers who pretend to have written such monstrocities are somehow blameless because no sane person could be expected to read such a thing before voting on it.
When the public stops being foolish, it will gradually stop being fooled/manipulated/agitated politically and for the political gain of special interests. Pied pipers who promise to end the hyper-politicization by injecting even more of it into even more of our lives are just counting on the public doubling-down on the foolishness.
If this is their stance, they are clearly in Comcast's pocket, period. Not voting for either of these clowns. :/
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, and track record to do this job.
Remember that it's FTC, not FCC, the broke up Bell (as it broke up Standard Oil) and forced "foreign attachments" onto IBM.
The FTC doesn't strike often. But when it does it has a DAMN big hammer.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
All balls deep in the pocket, why neither of them are fit to run America.
Watch out
Finally a sensible proposal form the R team of psychopaths!
"Consumers should be driving the market, and we can help by encouraging innovation, incentivizing investment, and promoting the competitive environment this industry needs."
"Consumers" are we the people. Beware of politicians using this verbiage. "Consumers" are citizens, and voters. This is fucking new-speak from the shills of industry.
If all the shit put into law required popular support i.e. full democracy, how would thing be different?
Citizens are at severe disadvantage visa-vi the corporate world. Rubio and Cruz should take long jump off a short pier.
Net neutrality is not my biggest concern. #NeverTrump
The middle class is going extinct. Going by ratios, the rich are less rich than they were 100 years ago. The problem is that middle class jobs have to compete with cheap labor in other countries. If you want a middle class, restore the tariffs that protect the middle class. If you ignore tariffs, let more trade agreements go into effect, such as the TPP, and just play with tax levels, the middle class will disappear. Make sure that you have accurately identified the problem! The us vs. them game that the 2 party system plays is distracting you from the real issues that the corporate donors have created. Look up inverted totalitarianism & managed democracy.
Killing net neutrality will give well established businesses an edge over the new entrants thus leading to anti-competitive practices. An obnoxious form of monopoly is sure to follow the death of neutrality. Does it require a PhD to understand that?
You are expecting a rich guy which profited from the system to turn coat ? What is this ? Fairyland ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I have always thought that true revolt won't come to the US until they actually screw with peoples' TV, and it looks like these guys are looking to do just that! I actually welcome this move as perhaps the pivot point that will cause some Americans to get off the couch, pay attention and vote based upon something other than just who has the most yard signs.
Yeah thanks for your opinion but there is one gaping flaw in your rant, I'm not a Democrat. In fact, I'm not affiliated with any political gang because the world isn't black and white and I can think for myself.
I bet you feel pretty stupid now.
Worth remembering that except for a few highly suspect examples, there isn't much evidence to prove that ISPs are favoring one content provider over another. It also glosses over sticky subjects such as transit traffic and peering between providers. It's also worth remembering that the internet has gotten to where it is today with essentially kid gloves when it comes to regulation.
Network management is hard, and expensive, to do right. IMO, the right way to fix the problem is to: split content providers from service providers, and break the exclusive franchise agreements that grant monopoly access to one provider in municipalities. Then the market can decide.
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.
Corporate profits over the rights of the individual, just another monday in the land of the brave.
Absolutely - are you trying to interfere with every 'Net CEO's God (tm) given right to screw all the rest of us to the wall, and charge more than the market can bear?
All these complaints about regulation... first, why were they passed originally? Just *possibly* because the wealthy and companies were so busy screwing us that we, the people, decided to do something about it?
And how is that different than some mob boss, complaining, as he's arrested and led away, about government regulation interfering with an "honest" businessman?
mark "there are two kinds of Republicans and Libertarians: millionaires, and suckers"
Net neutrality was the first step towards the TPP.
Which the TPP has very little to do with trade, and more to do with copyright laws after the TPP was introduced by Hollywood.
Hollywood want the US government and other governments that don't have control of the Internet to stop copyright in-figment.
But what they didn't tell you that anyone can use the TPP agreement to stop your 1st amendment right(if you live in the US) at anytime, and you would have to go through a UN court to get them back(good luck with that).
That is why Hollywood wanted net neutrality, and even made commercials saying how net neutrality pooped rainbows.
Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Big Brother loves us!
In what universe is Donald Trump considered an "eloquent speaker"? Please provide some evidence, in the form of transcript or links to video, that shows Donald Trump speaking eloquently.
Adam Carolla --- who, Slashdotters will remember, fought against the patent troll Personal Audio ("Adam Carolla Joins Fight Against Podcast Patent Troll" March 25, 2014, at http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/03/25/1222210/adam-carolla-joins-fight-against-podcast-patent-troll ) -- has an interesting conversation with Dr. Drew regarding Donald Trump about this very issue:
{
Title: "Adam Carolla & Dr. Drew: Donald Trump"
Published on: November 15, 2015
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8QX5SEtMU
View Count: 20, 938
(More specifically at 4 minutes and 16 seconds (https://youtu.be/HG8QX5SEtMU?t=4m16s ) Carolla specifically addresses the "eloquence" issue, but the entire video post is interesting)
}
Likewise, an interesting clip from 1988 (twenty eight years ago) with talk show host Oprah Winfrey:
{
Title: "Donald Tump Teases 1988 oprah Show | The Oprah Winfrey Show|OWN"
Published on: June 25, 2015
Posted by: OWN
LInk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
View Count: 1,381,174
}
Compare with Trump sitting with the Chicago Tribune editorial board:
{
Title: Donald Tump discuses Presidential run with Tribune editorial board
Published: June 29, 2015
Posted by : Chicago Tribune
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m91vEm9kAsY
View Count:: 201,764
Oh, and "News for Nerds": There's eye candy in that video at 4 minutes and 20 seconds (https://youtu.be/m91vEm9kAsY?t=4m20s).
}
Those View Counts look low. Maybe the "Slashdot effect" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect) is impotent ?
does slashdot continue to delete comments.. the previous one had no swearing and was a thoughtful post on this issue. IM completely gobsmacked at how shit this forum has become. the fucking mods are absolute cunts. fuck you.
People who are for net neutrality are usually also into green energy/global warming/carbon paranoia.
Tell me: If you think people who generate more carbon should pay more (with things like carbon taxes, cap & trade schemes, added taxes and regulations on things like coal, etc) the precisely what could possibly be wrong with people who use more internet bandwidth and demand quicker data transport paying more? And furthermore, these people using more internet-related resources also just happen to be consuming more electricity.
Luckily, neither one seems to be likely to become President.
The GOP did NOT absorb the racists of the south. I am sure the Democrats who taught you in high school shoved that down your noodle and hoped you would not think it through.... nearly all school teachers in the USA are require to join the Democrat-run national teachers' unions as a condition of their employment.
Do you REALLY believe that those racist hicks were so angry over the passage of the civil rights and voting acts of the LBJ administration that they joined the Republican party (the one that slaughtered all their grandpappies and "stole" their slaves) and the party that had just provided the votes needed in congress to pass those laws, given that not enough Democrats in congress had been willing to provide the votes needed???????? Nixon's "southern strategy" took advantage of the fact that in the late 1960's young democrats were rioting across the country, spitting on soldiers, publicly flaunting laws about drug use and public sexual activity, burning American flags, bombing and burning government buildings, etc and many decent southerners were repelled by what was happening on the Democrat side.
What IS true is that the "Party of Lincoln" has been awful since 1989 when the Bush family handed it over to their friends on Wall Street and converted it into the old Whig party of the 1850's which Lincoln's Republican party had replaced. Under Reagan, the GOP was for a very strong military AS A DETERRENT and not in favor of international "nation building" wars. Under Reagan, the GOP was for a strong middle class and Reagan even won support of several large labor unions (though obviously NOT the air traffic controllers who he fired after they waged an illegal strike). Reagan was for a strong border and only signed a bill providing amnesty to approx 4 million illegal aliens as part of a one-time-only deal with Democrats to solve the problem of the illegals already here in exchange for sealing the border permanently - a deal Democrats broke. Under the Bush-family era ALL of these Reagan-era GOP positions were flipped. THAT is why there is a civil war under way in the GOP today. The Bushie "establishment" Republicans are cravenly-dedicated to doing every bad thing wall street and a couple of globalist think tanks tell them to do, in exchange for campaign cash. They are as happy to import cheap illegal alien workers as the Democrats are to import easy illegal immigrant future-Democrat-voters. The base of the party is disgusted by them and their broken promises and delusional foreign policy and trade preferences.
Every item I listed was true and you can easily verity it.
As for that all being in the past:
1. KKK Klansman (and total dirt-bag) Robert Byrd was top Senate Majority leader (elected to that role by all the Democrats in the Senate) until 2010. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders voted for him to have that role and power. (Bernie likes to claim to be "not a Democrat" but he always provides his vote for them when they need his vote to have control as they did at that time). As always for Democrats, "the ends justify the means". It may seem odd that Obama would have supported a Klansman, but remember: his American mom descended from white slave OWNERS and his dad was an African - there is NO black American slave history in his family tree.
2. The Democrats allocate tickets to their conventions using a racial quota system, which they have often bragged about, to make sure that on the television coverage in presidential years their party "looks like America"
3. The Democrats of the 1700s tried to have cheap, largely illiterate imported workers AND tried to count them as voters for the purpose of poltitcal power in congress while not actually providing those workers and political power. THAT is why the Constitution counts slaves as 3/5ths of a person (and ONLY for computing seats in Congress). Today's Democrats are still at it: They are importing cheap third-world and largely-illiterate workers into the country to help their rich slave owner class, and also trying to use those imported populations for political power. There is no change. Oh, and for clarity:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." - The U.S. Constitution. Note: it NEVER says "blacks" count as only 3/5ths...the clause only applied to slaves OF ANY COLOR and NEVER applied to free blacks in the non-slave states.
Donkeys never change, they just fool younger generations particularly when they are taught history by Democrat teachers.
The Republicans get MANY things wrong, but they have NEVER from their founding at the time of Lincoln until now had racial quotas. Indeed, they are continually attacked for not doing a better job of "reaching out" to various "groups" based on skin color. The GOP has difficulty playing the skin color game precisely because so many conservatives find the notion of grouping people by skin color repulsive. I for one find the concept disgusting and would never vote for the GOP candidate if he followed the DNC candidate down that path.
you smug, superior Euros who are always scolding us for "simplistically" thinking there are such things as "good" and evil" and for having a "cowboy" attitude come begging us to send millions of our soldiers and huge pules of our national resources to hit the beach in Europe and save you from another of your massively-evil tyrants - whose rise your intellectuals and peaceniks often are guilty of cultivating.
My family donated more than our quota of blood in the 20th century on the beaches, in the fields, and over the cities of Europe doing for you and yours what you should have done for yourselves. Next time you guys let some German leader go crazy (actually, something you seem to be doing again right now with a civilized veneer on an East German haus frau) try asking the French to save you.... oh, wait, they're just experts at waving a white flag and then demanding to lead the victory parades later after the Americans, Canadians, and Brits save their bacon
The commie government in Cuba has improved NOTHING. They're still jailing people for thinking or saying the wrong things. They have not released the political prisoners they promised to release. They have not handed-over any of the American criminal fugitives they have harbored for decades. They are not allowing private business - any business activity flows through the Castro government which harvests the hard cash.
The only "thawing" that has occurred is between the ears of president Obama, where the result has clearly become mush
at least 'little marco' hasn't [yet] said that net neutrality "wet it's pants".