Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Renominates Ajit Pai For Five More Years at the FCC (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the milking-the-clock dept.

According to Axios, Bloomberg, and several other publications, President Trump has nominated FCC chairman Ajit Pai for a second five-year term at the commission. "Pai's current term ended last June, though he's been able to stick around through the end of the year even without reconfirmation," reports The Verge. From the report: The nomination comes just days after Pai sat down with the president for a meeting, during which they're said to have "reconnected" but without actually discussing anything the commission is actively considering. Pai will need confirmation from the Senate for the nomination to be approved. He was first nominated in 2012 to fill the slot of a commissioner. With approval, he'll be able to stick around through at least the entirety of Trump's current term. The question now is when Trump will nominate people to fill the two slots still vacant at the commission. The FCC remains short staffed, with only three out of five seated leaders, which somewhat limits how quickly Pai is able to get through his agenda.

57 comments

  1. We need communism now! by For+a+Free+Internet · · Score: -1

    LABOR MUST DEFEND IMMIGRANTS AND MUSLIMS! For worker and immigrant action to stop deportations!!!!!

    --
    UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
    1. Re:We need communism now! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know? Oppressing communists is an American tradition.

      Good luck with that.

    2. Re: We need communism now! by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      all i can say is that pai must be good for the US.

    3. Re:We need communism now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, U.S. labor got outsourced to China and given away to H-1B's from India. If you want to unionize them, you'll need to learn Chinese or Hindi.

    4. Re:We need communism now! by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Not anymore it isn't. Didn't you know? We're basically like bro's now with Russia!

      If 1950's Republicans saw what was happening now in their party they'd have another heart attack.

    5. Re:We need communism now! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Bad joke is bad.

      If 1950's Republicans saw what was happening now in their party they'd have another heart attack.

      You're right in that that applies to any party from the 50's compared to the modern party. Not sure the point of that statement when it applies to everyone.

    6. Re:We need communism now! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The 80's called. They want their anti-Soviet meme back!

      Translation: Soviet != Russian

    7. Re:We need communism now! by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You'd actually have a more accurate picture if you said "If 1950's democrats saw what was being done in their party, the republicans, today".

      Considering that after the civil rights act was passed all the dixiecrats joined the republican party, the Southern Blue states all went redder than Lord Dampnut's spraytan and all the liberal republicans joined the democrats (contrary to a popular myth though - this did not include MLK - who never supported or joined EITHER party).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    8. Re:We need communism now! by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      You do realize that Putin is not a Marxist or Communist.

      You do realize that the USSR has been dead and buried for over 25 years,

      For years US Conservatives were saying that they had no issue with the Russian people - they had a problem with a philosophy that negated individual rights and promoted group values instead.

      1950s Republicans (and Democrats) would be appalled at the contempt that the progressive left has for individual liberty.

      Russia is just another country acting in what they think is their best interest. No different than France, Argentina or China (yup China ain't Maoist any more).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    9. Re: We need communism now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must protect Americans. Everyone legally residing in America. Nobody else has a right to be protected.

  2. Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    The Ajit Pai who is a son of immigrants (per Wikipedia)?
    An Indian-American, the first Indian-American to hold an FCC chairmanship?

    That Ajit Pai?

    Wasn't Trump supposed to be a racist who hates all non-whites and wants to deport all immigrants?
    Why would he meet with and re-nominate an Indian-American son of immigrants if that is so?

    1. Re:Ajit Pai? by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    2. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to feed the trolls

    3. Re:Ajit Pai? by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think the argument is that Trump is himself a racist, it's that he is an amoral narcissistic demagogue who caters to and encourages the worst in his constituency, including racists, sexists, chauvinists, xenophobes, and anti-intellectuals.

      Besides, racists tolerate 'lesser races' so long as they occupy lower rungs on the social ladder. Only when racists have to compete with or serve their 'racial inferiors' does the bile start to flow.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    4. Re:Ajit Pai? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between being racist for racism's sake and being racist to make racists vote for you. And yes, plenty of his voters don't like Indians.

      Also it's a straw man argument to say he wants to deport all immigrants. The right wing is largely okay with approved immigration. If you paid your fees, filled out your paperwork, waited in line, and won the lottery, they won't try to kick you out. If not, their just world fallacy makes them believe you're evil and should be jailed. You're too poor to afford the application fee but still want to do jobs legal citizens are unwilling to do? You must have believed in socialism or something.

    5. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right wing is largely okay with approved immigration.

      The right wing likes to win and does whatever they think will help them win. Immigration generally doesn't help them win, so they don't particularly support it that much.

      Now they will say they are "protecting the rule of law", but in practice it is just going to be their control. It is the exact same reason they invent all these identification requirements to vote, including sometimes requiring. Here are some links.

      link1
      link2

      Here is one that was struck down. link3

      Basically in person voting fraud isn't really a problem. There are very few cases and the penalties are stiff. By targeting how they create the laws they can disproportionately benefit their candidates. They do the same thing by selectively purging voting roles and such.

      So, In summary, just because the right says they are in favor of legal immigration, does not mean they really are. Sometimes you need to look deeper. In this case it is probably just a way of pretending to have the moral high ground while being as evil as ever.

    6. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. He has one argument strategy: Ad Hominen. He attacks people not problems, and if he can't find a person to attack he'll invent a target (e.g. Obama).

      2. He has one goal, attack his perceived top dog. Knock out the top dog to be top dog. So he's attacking everything Obama did, copying Obama's inauguration cake, pretending to have bigger inauguration, pretending everything Obama did was a disaster etc.

      Obama isn't president anymore, but Trump is still fighting him and still can't understand why he's losing. And many of the things Obama did were good and popular with the majority of Americans, so Trump doesn't have individuals to attack, and ends up trying ad-hominen on masses of people.

      It's not racism, or religion or whatever, these are simply attack vectors for Trump. He wants to attack Bob, how is bob different from the crowd? Perhaps he's disabled, perhaps he's Jewish, perhaps he's black, whatever separates Bob from the audience he's aiming at, is his attack vector.

    7. Re:Ajit Pai? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 2

      And yet most of the organized, conscious violence (if you don't count the deranged shooter who killed the Garmin engineer) has come from people who oppose Trump.

    8. Re:Ajit Pai? by ckatko · · Score: 0

      This is like... the instant-karma-from-liberals copy-pasta and the funniest thing is they don't even see it.

    9. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      "racists tolerate 'lesser races' so long as they occupy lower rungs on their social ladder."

      Very true and would explain Ben Carson's Oreo colored balls in stating publicly: that captured and abducted negros from africa, brought to the US to be slaves, were indeed immigrants escaping africa in the hope for a better life in amerika. What a great nation!
      Trump isn't the only delusional asshole ruining things there. He has surrounded himself with the world's GREATEST fat-juicy assholes to ever have lived. Now isn't that Great? I think it's Great. Just fucking Great!

    10. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't think the argument is that Trump is himself a racist" - Well, that argument also has solid roots in reality, unlike anything Trump or his supporters seem to think.

    11. Re:Ajit Pai? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Which enemy?

    12. Re:Ajit Pai? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You're right, "relatively okay" would be the way to put it and it would still be charitable. They do appear to be taking steps to limit legal immigration as well to only the rich. I was not under the impression they were FOR immigration so long as it was legal, I doubt anyone falls for their line on that.

    13. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A simplistic and worn out platitude. It doesn't allow for all the subtleties and grey areas of reality. I think Sandy Mitchell's variation fits here best: "My enemy's enemy is a problem for later. In the meantime, they might be useful."

      Believe me, if Ajit Pai were to suddenly grow a conscience, he'd be gone in a shot.

    14. Re:Ajit Pai? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Ajit Pai is his token immigrant from a country with a large Muslim population.

      Just like Carson is his token black guy.

      You using Pai as evidence of Trump not holding the views he keeps telling us he holds - does NOT prove us wrong, it just proves that you know tokenism is bullshit and you think we are all idiotic enough to NOT know that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:Ajit Pai? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Obama isn't president anymore, but Trump is still fighting him and still can't understand why he's losing.

      The answer, of course, is because he is basically shadowboxing the specter of Obama and not smart enough to know that the only thing you may achieve if you do punch your shadow is a broken fist.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Ajit Pai? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nice little qualifier there 'organised' so you can include violence during organised protests - but exclude the THOUSANDS of hate crimes that happened since November 8 (and you only name the on Garmin engineer case as if that's a rare exception - it was merely the deadliest in a pattern that's been playing out across America daily).

      Not to mention you seemingly ignoring that in Berkeley it turns out the people who did the violence were not even part of the protests. They were outsiders who came in, as a group, specifically to cause harm - and probably Trump supporters or anarchists, they had nothing to do with the organised protest. In fact, the people arrested for violence at Berkeley - do you know know what they all have in common ? Not ONE Of them was a student there.

      Remember when Trump claimed (falsely) that Hillary was sending people to his rallies to pick fights ? There is actually EVIDENCE that people were sent to liberal protests to pick fights and get the protestors blamed for it. I'm not saying Trump or even a Trump supporter sent them... but somebody did and I rather doubt it was a liberal - we don't make a habit out of deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Ajit Pai? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And there is absolutely no doubt that his daddy was one. Hell Fred Trump once got arrested for public violence at a KKK riot !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:Ajit Pai? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the argument is that Trump is himself a racist, it's that he is an amoral narcissistic demagogue who caters to and encourages the worst in his constituency, including racists, sexists, chauvinists, xenophobes, and anti-intellectuals.

      Besides, racists tolerate 'lesser races' so long as they occupy lower rungs on the social ladder. Only when racists have to compete with or serve their 'racial inferiors' does the bile start to flow.

      So, exactly like Hillary!, only minus the blatant corruption and lying?

      Or exactly like Obama, minus the race-baiting "intersectional" bullshit?

    19. Re:Ajit Pai? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      As far as I know most (if not all?) of those hate crimes turned out to be hoaxes -- Trump supporters attacking girl on the subway who made it up, black church vandalized or burned by a liberal member and so on. As for fights at Trump rallies, I guess you haven't seen the video recordings of Dems discussing and approving them?

      As for Berkeley I agree, when I saw those masked people moving I could tell they were not students -- it was clear they've done it before. But if they are not genuine Trump haters and/or if we are to speculate who paid them, I think George Soros would be a far closer bet.

    20. Re:Ajit Pai? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >As far as I know most (if not all?) of those hate crimes turned out to be hoaxes
      Nope.

      > I guess you haven't seen the video recordings of Dems discussing and approving them?
      So wait... you think there were thousands of hoax hate crimes in the USA... but you think that video is real ?

      >I think George Soros would be a far closer bet
      Right... conspiracy nut. You get all your news from infowars and breitbart do you ? There's no point debating. You can't have a rational discussion with irrational people. If Soros wants to achieve something, he doesn't hide, He doesn't use subterfuge. He doesn't engage in conspiracy. He just goes out and does it and says "fuck you". Ask the bank of England. Soros basically brought it to it's knees - and he didn't do anything secret, or pay anybody to do anything on his behalf - he just outsmarted them by understanding and predicting the market better than they did.
      You want to worry about rich people who engage in conspiracies to destroy your freedom and, indeed, kill you for profit -worry about the Koch brothers. Now THEY like to work in the shadows and use conspiracies. Soros doesn't - he doesn't need to - he is capable of achieving his aims in the light because what they mostly are, are things people tend to be glad about.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. He's in the pocket of industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... so, of course, Trump wants him to stay. He's *destroying* net neutrality.

    1. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by gweilo8888 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yup. Literally the only thing Trump cares about is removing all barriers to the rich gobbling up even more of the pie for themselves, and leaving the middle class and poor with even less to share between them.

    2. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But at least he asked manufacturers to include FM radio support in phones.
      He even said pretty please!
      That's how you know he's really a big supporter of consumer rights!

    3. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet, the guy was already there.. so .. was Obama doing the same?

    4. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Obama even nominated him. Albeit for the republican post at the request of McConnell. Presumably before McConnell said "No, Obama shouldn't get to fill the supreme court seat."

      Let no one say Obama played unfair. Especially not when it was really really stupid to play fair.

    5. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yet, the guy was already there.. so .. was Obama doing the same?

      He was just a commissioner at the FCC before Trump. Now Trump made him head of the FCC, so he gets to set policy directions (e.g., "kill net neutrality").

    6. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first they scapegoated the immigrants and Muslims. I didn't do anything since I'm not either of them. Then they scapegoated political opposition and people with different values and lives. I didn't do anything since I wasn't one of them. Then they scapegoated the middle class. I didn't do anything since I wasn't in the middle class. Then all I saw was the Green Zone, Red Zone and the wilderness.

    7. Re:He's in the pocket of industry by guruevi · · Score: 2

      WTF do you think a commissioner does? Just because Obama called it net neutrality, doesn't mean it had anything to do with actual neutrality of the ISP's. The current "net neutrality" rules only legalized common carriers to zero-rate and throttle services.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. Hey, look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    With America going down the shitter under Trump, the rest of the world can catch up a bit.

    1. Re: Hey, look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Mod down, troll

  5. And of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The SJWs whine...again...

    The real story of the day is the CIA docs. Hillary should be in a orange pantsuit. Why is she still walking the street? Now this is news!

    1. Re:And of course by D00MSlayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're still whining about Clinton?

      Please, find something more relevant to complain about, trumpbots.

    2. Re:And of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hillary should be in orange.. while the white house *is* orange. ya ya what she wasn't that smart, not technically illegal at the time, but still not that smart. pence is guilty of the same damn thing, you know. trump? guilty of far worse... what he's doing *right now* is far worse than anything hillary could have come up with.

    3. Re:And of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the Clinton supporters whining about how she really won.

    4. Re:And of course by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      If you feel like continuing a circle jerk, sure.

  6. What's his position in Qualcomm lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will he support Qualcomm?

  7. Ad Hominen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The majority of people in the world oppose Trump. The majority of Americans do too. He's not popular with voters, allies, homo sapiens.

    You can say the same about "the most burgers eaten by people who oppose Trump" and pretend Trump is a healthy eater with that form of argument. However the burgers eaten have nothing to do with Trump.

  8. Ad hominen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't dispute his description of Trump, you attack him as liberal copy-pasta man.

    The funniest thing is you don't even see it.

  9. Two unfilled posts? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    I should get one of those postings at the FCC!
    Under this administration I'm totally the perfect candidate!

    [1] I have no idea what the job is
    [2] I will likely be incompetent.
    [3] I own a sledgehammer.

    See, complete and total qualifications!

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    1. Re:Two unfilled posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, i wouldn't want to find out if he spray-tans his ass, too. but if you want to, go for it.

    2. Re:Two unfilled posts? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's a good start Mister Psycho - but a job in our administration does require a few other qualifications. Let me just verify these:

      Do you have a record of saying flagrantly racist or white-supremacist things in public ? Any kind of formal proof ? An endorsement from a neo-nazi leader or a letter of condemnation from a civil rights leader maybe ?

      Are you opposed to the taste of an old man's rectum ? Would you be unwilling to participate in the daily one-hour ass-kissing ceremony with the president ?

      How are you at telling bald-faced lies to people who can literally SEE the proof of your lie as you tell it ?

      When it's your turn to blow Putin - spit or swallow ? Please note there is only one right answer.

      Any history of involvement with notoriously corrupt multi-nationals ? We're especially keen on Goldman-Sachs graduates.

      How are you at wildly inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric ?

      Any past history of actively trying to undermine or destroy the very office you are now seeking to represent ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:Two unfilled posts? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Dammit.
      I knew I overlooked something.
      I guess the post will have to go to Ethanol Fueled.
      I was so hoping for a cushy job with great healthcare.

      And I so wanted to use my brand new sledgehammer.
      Guess I'll have to wait....

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  10. As long as he doesn't visit Kansas . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should make it through Trump's entire term, but he probably shouldn't personally visit any Red states.

  11. uninformed idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think the argument is that Trump is himself a racist,

    Well DUH, in the eyes of the federal government, he is very much a racist. Trump has paid more in fines for his racist behavior than any other US citizen in history.

    racists tolerate 'lesser races' so long as they occupy lower rungs on the social ladder. Only when racists have to compete with or serve their 'racial inferiors' does the bile start to flow.

    oh yes EXACTLY, slave owners were NICE to slaves, they said kind things to them and treated them like fellow human beings.

    WTF???

  12. Gotta by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Interesting

    fuck over them godless liberal elitists with their internets and their immoral netflix and chill. Do you really think the typical rustbelt, bible-thumper who voted for Trump cares if the internet gets destroyed ?
    Trump could tell them that destroying the internet would make it harder for companies to open factories in other countries and they'll come running into your local starbux tomorrow with a pair of wire-cutters trying to sabotage the wifi.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:Gotta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partisan complaining is absurd here, the guy was appointed 5 years ago - under Obama. Do you really think the typical rustbelt, bible-thumper who voted for Obama cares if the internet gets destroyed ?

      I get it, meet the new boss, same as the old boss isn't as much fun as The 5 Minute Hate, but whitewashing your own memory in favor of that hate allows you to ignore problems by concentrating on a target person rather than the ongoing multi-party issue that creates the problem.