Slashdot Mirror


Trump Picks Republican To Fill Empty Commissioner Seat At FCC (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission's empty slots are about to be filled. President Donald Trump will nominate Republican Brendan Carr to the FCC's fifth and final commissioner position, the White House announced last night. Carr served as FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai's Wireless, Public Safety, and International Legal Advisor for three years. After Trump elevated Pai to the chairmanship in January, Pai appointed Carr to become the FCC's general counsel. "Brendan has a distinguished record of public service, having worked at the agency for over five years, including most recently as the FCC's General Counsel," Pai said after the White House announcement. "In particular, Brendan's expertise on wireless policy and public safety will be a tremendous asset to the Commission."

71 comments

  1. Melania by Hognoxious · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hear Melania's slot is empty these days.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re: Melania by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      you mean carr is not a billionaire ?

    2. Re: Melania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > that that

      Southernness confirmed.

    3. Re: Melania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Southernness confirmed.

      Yeah, those damned backwards, misogynistic, raping, criminals like Bill Clinton and that lying, corrupt harridan that attached herself to him for power's sake.

    4. Re:Melania by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the irony.

  2. Short-circuit the discussion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why bother wasting emotional energy on this? At this point the FCC, much like the EPA, is just a political sham rubber-stamping anything big business wants, and there aint shit anyone can do about it.

    1. Re:Short-circuit the discussion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there aint shit anyone can do about it.

      Nonsense. We can reduce the reelection rates in congress every two years. We can completely clean the house of democrats AND republicans IF we want to. The government is us... So shut the fuck up, and vote them out!

    2. Re: Short-circuit the discussion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just checked; US House reelection rate has never dipped below 85%, since 1964. The two party system is working better than any oligarch could have dreamed of.

    3. Re:Short-circuit the discussion. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. We can reduce the reelection rates in congress every two years.

      I'll put this in the good-luck-with-that dept. Even though congress has approval rating that extremely low (I'd say with ratings like this congress and govt are becoming unsustainable), just about everyone is re-elected (go figure).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    4. Re:Short-circuit the discussion. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Even though congress has approval rating that extremely low (I'd say with ratings like this congress and govt are becoming unsustainable), just about everyone is re-elected (go figure).

      And this is surprising to you? All it means is that people generally like THEIR Rep and Senators. The ones they vote for.

      Just because I like the guy I vote for doesn't mean I like the 431 people that the rest of you clowns voted for....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Short-circuit the discussion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it proves that the real corruption comes from the voters that are really just looking for handouts (bring home the bacon). Of course the winning politicians are going to reflect that.

    6. Re:Short-circuit the discussion. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It could also be interpreted as most people voting based purely on party affiliation, rather than the individual representative.

    7. Re:Short-circuit the discussion. by gtall · · Score: 1

      Well, that and they refuse to move election day to a SATURDAY when people can actually make it to the polls.

    8. Re: Short-circuit the discussion. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      It's a racket. Longevity gets you on influential committees. Influential committees mean that you get better chances of shipping pork home to the voters. And that's just the official clubs that you can get on when you've been around a while.

      This is the dirty reason why the Pelosis and McConnells, the McCains and Rubios, Conyers, Grahams, Kennedys, DeLays and so forth keep their jobs forever. Because of that sweet, sweet bacon.

      Maybe that's why the Muslims extremists hate us so much!

  3. This should not surprise anyone.... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Is there any surprise here, except perhaps from people who don't know how FCC commissioners are chosen?

    Commissioners

    The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Communications_Commission&oldid=785668648#Commissioners

    1. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party.

      Two would be better.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    2. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two would be better.

      But then we'd have to admit that there are more than two political parties. Can't let the voters discover that!

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"But then we'd have to admit that there are more than two political parties. Can't let the voters discover that!"

      Really, they never will with the electoral college in place and the lack of some form of instant runoff voting. But we really need that to change. I won't hold my breath...

    4. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Keeping third parties from influence is one of the areas on which democrats and republicans are happy to cooperate.

    5. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really? They don't seem to be cooperating on Russian influence. The Republicans in the White House have their fingers in their years...Na, Na, Na...I can't hear you....

    6. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It should be well-known by now that there are thee parties: the Republicans, the Opposition, and the Democrats. The Opposition is also known as the mainstream media. The Democrats are pretty much irrelevant by now and the three shrieking crazy old ladies and one profanity-prone man who are their spokespeople are helping to bury them for good.

    7. Re:This should not surprise anyone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most cities in Russia Internet better than in States.
      Makes you think, who is backward country?

  4. Now as much as I hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now as much as I hate Trump, I can't single him out for this. He's republican, therefore he will make republican nominations. ALL presidents, republican or democrat, do this. Yes, it's sad, yes, it's pathetic, but it's the nature of politics which are, by their very nature, discusting.

    1. Re:Now as much as I hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the nature of politics which are, by their very nature, discusting.

      Whaddya expect? 98% of the voters vote for disgusting people.

    2. Re:Now as much as I hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now as much as I hate Trump, I can't single him out for this.

      He is perpetuating the status-quo by promoting an entrenched Washington insider. That is plainly hypocritical.

    3. Re: Now as much as I hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Shrillery's Uranium One deal?

    4. Re: Now as much as I hate Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is not appointing normal people. Most of them are successful in the fields he is appointing them to which makes them out of touch.

  5. What a crock! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Brendan has a distinguished record of public service, having worked at the agency for over five years, including most recently as the FCC's General Counsel"

    So, Washington business as usual then?

  6. Dumb title by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Obvious Trump nominated a Republican. Democrats nominate Democrats. During a GOP presidency, there are 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats, and during a Democrat presidency, there are 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Why no civics?

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re: Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will end him.

    2. Re: Dumb title by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Been hearing that since January now.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rarely do liberals, left wingers, or members of the Democratic Party refer to themselves as Democrats. That's actually a Republican and conservative term.

      So, you've been outed.

    4. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rarely do liberals, left wingers, or members of the Democratic Party refer to themselves as Democrats.

      You must not be from the South. I ran for a local position in my hometown and was backed by the DNC, and I use the term Democrat. I didn't even know until I moved to the Seattle area that that term wasn't universal.

    5. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was true, then why did Bush Jr use the term Republics? Both sides use shortened versions of their own names.

    6. Re:Dumb title by guises · · Score: 1

      It's not entirely obvious: the president nominates all of the commissioners, and only three are allowed to be from the president's own party. Ajit Pai was originally nominated by Obama, in order to fill one of the two opposition seats during his presidency.

    7. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rarely do liberals, left wingers, or members of the Democratic Party refer to themselves as Democrats. That's actually a Republican and conservative term.

      So, you've been outed.

      This isn't true as far as I know. Its common for members of the Democratic Party to refer to themselves as "Democrats".

      The RWNJ tell is when someone refers to the "Democrat Party". When referring the party, or to a politician, "Democratic" is the description used by most Democrats.

    8. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was true, then why did Bush Jr use the term Republics?

      I don't think that is common parlance. Bush Jr may have said it, but he said a lot of wacky nonsense that was completely out of step with English as it is commonly spoken.

    9. Re:Dumb title by Yurka · · Score: 0

      Yeah. The "Pope chooses a Catholic to be appointed cardinal" kind of news. But hey, that's apparently "stuff that matters" these days.

      --
      I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    10. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WE'RE DOOMED!!!

      I'm tewwefied!!!!

      Won't someone think of the children?

      Obama farted?! #SWOOON!

    11. Re:Dumb title by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      You people are nucking futs. Politicians are meant to be party players to get elected, what ever the party that elects them but once elected they are meant to represent all the people in their district not just their party, that is a corruption of the representative ideal. People are meant voting for who they think will best represent them and demonstrate honesty, integrity and honour in office. The political party is meant to be just an election machine and not the means by which the government is run.

      All people appointed to public office should be those who will best serve that office and those jobs should be advertised just like all others and those seeking appointment should be forced to supply a complete and detailed resume and undergo a public interview with the government required to publicly justify the reason for their appointment with regard to normal practices. So experience, knowledge, training, psychological suitability and a track record in the industry, not because they are corrupt buddies who helped get some lying douche bag politician elected. Criminal penalties should be applied, should politicians attempt to appoint inappropriate people to office.

      Public offering of the position. Receive applications. Publicly review applications. Publicly interview the best applicants. Select one and than provide validation and proof of why they were the best candidate for the job, fail and be kicked from office to a prison cell. What the fuck accept blatant in your face corruption. All public offices should be filled by the best applicant for the job, after the job was publicly offered.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. The "Pope chooses a Catholic to be appointed cardinal" kind of news. But hey, that's apparently "stuff that matters" these days.

      The word "Trump" is part of the story, so now we have to have 30 comments on why this specific news is bad no matter how banal.

      Another 60 comments will be why America is bad and doomed in general.

      Maybe 20 comments will be worth reading, but they will have no overlap with the other 90.

    13. Re:Dumb title by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Not really true, but whatever:

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

    14. Re: Dumb title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two scoops!

      REEEE!

    15. Re:Dumb title by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Obvious Trump nominated a Republican. Democrats nominate Democrats

      This,

      I dislike Trump as much as the next person with more than one brain cell to share amongst their 17 brother and/or cousins, but seriously, there is no surprise or overt foul-doing here.

      Is there something wrong with the nominee? If not this is business as usual.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:Dumb title by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      Good point. I was operating under the assumption that the current make-up of the board was already known.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    17. Re:Dumb title by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

      What "best" serving in an office means is subjective. Technocracy doesn't work, or at least not as its largely progressive supporters argue, because it ignores the fundamental questions of means and ends of government.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  7. Fuck the poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL the internets are for taking people's money to make the rich richer and fuck the poor, we don't need no 'net neutrality'

    That's the New FCC. Right up there with Kellyanne Conway's most recent 'let them eat cake' comment to the press.

    If you're not already in the 1%, you're fucked! Just hand over your money and then kill yourself. Dasvidaniya, comrades!

  8. Wouldn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd just get a token aligned party to fill any majority slots they needed.

    For republicans, libertarian party.
    For democrats, green party.

    With their token seats filled, it would go back to business as usual, only with a slightly more complex cabal.

    1. Re: Wouldn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't do that on purpose, just as they don't do the even easier thing of putting on two Republicans that have dropped party momentarily, etc. The one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on is, fuck everyone who isn't a Republican or a Democrat.

  9. I'd let her take a seat on my face. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd let her take a seat on my face.

    Don't forget Moscow Donald wants to bang his daughter.

  10. Get some lady, some BLEEDING lady by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    already. TRUMP needs to show them he can take a joke. And the constant ridicule. And having small hands. And the attention span on a toddler.

    Halright! Republicans!

    You know, Roy Rogers' serials were always on Republic pictures. Why can't The Donald be cool like Roy Rogers? You know, that would be nice. It would be okay if he's not. But it would be better if he were.

  11. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Have we ever had such a whinny little bitch in the White House before? If that fat, orange piece of shit spent half the time learning the details of the policies heâ(TM)s advocating for as he does watching cable news and attacking his critics maybe heâ(TM)d have signed some legislation that actually does something to improve the lives of those who voted for him. Iâ(TM)ll be laughing hysterically as he continually signs legislation to screw the working class whites who voted for him. Iâ(TM)m particularly looking forward to the Medicad cuts. The quicker his base dies from lack of proper medical care the better off the country will be gforward.

    1. Re:Trump by Highdude702 · · Score: 0

      THIS! LoL! Best burn I've seen on this site. Wish I could mod this +5 Funny.

    2. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS! LoL! Best burn I've seen on this site. Wish I could mod this +5 Funny.

      If you love wicked burns, check Twitter https://twitter.com/morningmika/status/880415526371176448.

    3. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you fucking retards will do great in the knowledge economy.

      Won't be long before robots are driving your trucks and fucking your wives...

    4. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Wish I could mod this +5 Funny. I think you just did. You may have offended the mods though. Also, good news about the new FCC commissioner. I was hoping Trump would do something about that.

  12. He coulda nominated an "I" by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    coulda being the operative word.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  13. The President is the leader of the GOP by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who really cares what this giant tub of frosting does any more? He is now the face of the GOP from coast to coast and his opposition only has to stand back and watch. His kind of stink does not wash out.

    http://static.deathandtaxesmag...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:The President is the leader of the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I loathe the man, but show me your tennis game at that age. Fuck, now I need to wash my mouth out with thermite....

    2. Re:The President is the leader of the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      opposition only has to stand back and watch

      5-0, 9-0, 2-0.

      It's sad the right hasn't managed to come up with a healthcare plan that includes proper mental health coverage, though, I'll give you that - the remnants of an entire political party need it right now.

    3. Re:The President is the leader of the GOP by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Because he still has more than three years left in office, and that's enough time to do a lot of damage.

    4. Re:The President is the leader of the GOP by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I loathe the man, but show me your tennis game at that age.

      Remember, Donald Trump is 2 years younger than Mick Jagger.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. INTRODUCING "PopeRatzo", alias Fredo... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A George Soros' paid SOROS LOSER spirit cooker satanist is a stink that never goes away. Your kind, point-blank = a disgrace to this nation & if you don't like it?? Leave (please).

    If you can't deal w/ losing (which I find surprising, it's all "your kind" every does in life, you'd think you'd be used to it by now, lol) & it's obvious you can't, leave!

    &

    IF you can't support our nation's rightfully elected President ("The RUSSIANS" lol, even CNN's supervising producer John Bonifield said it is)??? LEAVE!

    (FAKE NAME online for your FAKE LIFE, get THIS straight, because it's truth: "Don't Ever Take Sides Against the Family Fredo" to quote the character Michael Corleone)

    E.G. - I didn't like Bush/Cheney (especially these 2) or Barack Obama (To quote Christ? "I saw LIGHTNING FALLING FROM HEAVEN" as to my thoughts about him) but I dealt with it since they WERE our nation's presidents etc. on the grounds of what fictional character quote I used above from Mario Puzo's novels.

    APK

    P.S.=> That 'family' is our nation (I am of course, assuming you're a United States citizen)... apk

    1. Re:INTRODUCING "PopeRatzo", alias Fredo... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pope FATZO's photo. A welfare waste of life fat disintegrated drugged out loser no dick https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QqA...