The FCC Is Full Again, With Three Republicans and Two Democrats (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The U.S. Senate today confirmed the nominations of Republican Brendan Carr and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel to fill the two empty seats on the Federal Communications Commission. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai congratulated the commissioners in a statement. "As I know from working with each of them for years, they have distinguished records of public service and will be valuable assets to the FCC in the years to come," Pai said. "Their experience at the FCC makes them particularly well-suited to hit the ground running. I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations."

Carr served as Pai's Wireless, Public Safety and International Legal Advisor for three years. After President Trump elevated Pai to the chairmanship in January, Pai appointed Carr to become the FCC's general counsel. Rosenworcel had to leave the commission at the end of last year when the Republican-led US Senate refused to re-confirm her for a second five-year term. But Democrats pushed Trump to re-nominate Rosenworcel to fill the empty Democratic spot and he obliged. FCC commissioners are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. esides Pai, Carr, and Rosenworcel, the five-member commission includes Republican Michael O'Rielly and Democrat Mignon Clyburn.

Comments

He does not mean it actually

[ZorroXXX]

Pai said .. protect consumers, ..

But in his mind, FCC's customers to serve are corporations.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Maritz]

He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[NicknameUnavailable]

He's protecting consumers from high quality internet access.

You seem to have a strong opinion on "net neutrality" without knowing what it was.

In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.

In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.

As a rule of thumb: consumers and vendors aren't on the same side. If you see every or nearly every major player voicing their support for something it is bad for consumers. When you see consumers in a fit over something demanding it happen at the same time it is very much worth looking into what the Hell is actually in the regulation, because if everyone on all sides wanted it then it would already be reality and chances are someone is at the least misrepresenting things if not outright lying.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[JohnFen]

In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services.

No, that's not the idea at all. The idea is to ensure that ISPs wouldn't interfere or impede packets based on who was sending or receiving them.

was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.

If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[chill]

No, it isn't. You are flat out lying.

Here is an earlier article from the EFF that was carried on Slashdot titled More Than 40 ISPs Across the Country Tell Chairman Pai to NOT Repeal Network Neutrality

Here's one showing who is really supporting the repeal of net neutrality -- with the bulk of all lobbying money ($572 million) being spent by just four companies: AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The simple truth is the big telecom companies want to have the benefits of common carrier legal protection, without the limitations. They ALREADY have the rights, and abilities, to provide quality of service based on type of traffic. There is NOTHING stopping them from prioritizing VoIP traffic over e-mail because of the real-time nature of the service.

That is what they try and claim they can't do, but that isn't what they really want.

What they want is the ability to shape traffic based on DESTINATION. That is, Comcast will prioritize *THEIR* VoIP traffic but not competitors, like Vonage, unless they pay a premium for it.

That immediately sets up a protection-like racket where major ISPs can force non-ISP content providers to pay extra or their traffic gets degraded.

They've already tried to do this with Netflix and Vonage, to name a couple.

Net neutrality requires that any QoS or throttling that is done for bandwidth management be done UNIFORMLY, and not selectively.

What the hell, more links just because it is so easy:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/comcast-blocks-some-internet-traffic/

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/google-fiber-netflix/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346

https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/28/5662580/netflix-signs-traffic-deal-with-verizon

How about Comcast astroturfing the FCC with bot-generated comments attacking net neutrality?

Comcast injecting packets to slow or disable traffic? Sure!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Comcast#Net_neutrality

Hey, how about Municipal Broadband? Guess who opposes it tooth-and-nail even in areas they have no presence in? That's right, the Big ISPs.

Net Neutrality is by far and away in the best interests of both consumers and small ISPs.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[dgatwood]

In concept, net neutrality was designed to ensure carriers wouldn't charge different amounts for different types of services. That's a great concept.

That definition is utterly wrong and would be a terrible concept if anyone attempted to implement it. The intent of net neutrality was never to prevent companies from charging different amounts of money for users that use different types of services, because different types of services have different needs. If someone uses a type of service that uses a lot of bandwidth (e.g. 4K video streaming), it's okay for the ISP to charge more money to that user, because he/she needs a faster average data rate and a higher data cap. No net neutrality proposal has ever tried to prevent service tiers based on performance or other evenly applied, concrete metrics.

No, net neutrality is actually intended to prevent ISPs from discriminating between different services of the same type. Specifically, net neutrality is intended to ensure that carriers don't abuse their monopolies to restrict consumer choice by:

• throttling third-party services that compete with their own, in-house services
• throttling third-party services unless those third-party services give them kickbacks

Both of those two behaviors have been reported frequently in the past, and are clear abuses of ISPs' monopoly power over consumers.

In reality net neutrality (at least the Obama/FCC version on paper, not what it was marketed as) was designed to wrap the entire ISP industry in so much legislation that upstarts couldn't get started and small-mid sized ISPs couldn't compete with the larger ISPs.

In reality, there's no such thing as a small ISP anymore. Those went extinct when modems went out of style. What we have now—even in small, rural communities—are giant cable conglomerates that span multiple states and giant telephone conglomerates that span multiple states. Occasionally, you have medium-sized CLECs for DSL, but even those are too slow to be practically usable these days, and are dying off as phone companies roll out fiber (which they aren't required to share).

The overwhelming majority of Americans have access to no more than one ISP that meets the 25/4 Mbps federal minimum standard for calling something broadband. (Just less than half have exactly one, but about a third don't even have one.) The notion of a free market where companies compete is fanciful and naïve. In reality, usable broadband is almost always a monopoly in the United States.

Even in the short term, it doesn't matter what we do to prop up the token number of small ISPs that still exist. They're done. They can't compete, because they can't provide viable broadband speeds without fiber, and the companies putting down the fiber don't share access to their lines, leading to a natural monopoly. In ten years, none of those small companies will still exist no matter what the FCC does, unless they require ILECs and cable companies that own fiber to lease access at cost to other ISPs (which there's no way a Republican-controlled FCC would even consider).

As a rule of thumb: consumers and vendors aren't on the same side. If you see every or nearly every major player voicing their support for something it is bad for consumers.

You'll never see every major player voicing their support for something, in practice. Instead, what you see are ISPs railing against net neutrality because they want to throttle Netflix if they don't pay protection money, and all the content providers screaming because the ISPs are abusing consumers.

I'm pretty sure the folks arguing in favor of net neutrality are on the right side of this, and I see nothing in the regulations to make me believe that these regulations do not achieve their stated goals. If you can point to concrete problems with the regulations that affect real-world companies that aren't doomed anyway, feel free to say what they are, though, and perhaps we can get those changes made while still leaving the fundamental foundation of the regulations intact.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

no, I still believe that net neutrality was SMALL PROVIDER protection.
Because, you know, nothing gained for Comcast if every indie filmaker can deliver for the same prices as Comcast.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

Lie. The regulations forbade the existing infrastructure, which is ALREADY a working monopoly, from exploiting the customer base.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong.
The great empires, including Rameses, were all Nubian (black)

Re:He does not mean it actually

[kqs]

If that was the goal, it failed. Nearly all small and mid-sized ISPs want net neutrality. It helps them, too, and outside if a handful of small ISPs who are taking a political, rather than business, stance, they all see that.

This is false.

If that were true, it seems easy to prove. What small ISPs are against Net Neutrality? Because most of them really seem to want it. It's mostly huge ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, etc) who are against Net Neutrality.

Which makes sense. Small ISPs cannot leverage their power to extort money from Netflix, Youtube, and other (media) competitors. So NN is not a big burden to them. Large ISPs can and do, so NN will make them less money. As always, follow the money.

When big ISPs extort money from media competitors, those competitors have to raise prices to cover the difference. So consumers pay more. Also, when big ISPs have media competitors the free market makes prices fall. NN means less monopoly power and more free market, so lower prices.

Not sure why you want less free market, but to each their own.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[kqs]

Google, Comcast, Spectrum, etc want it. Those guys are "Big Telco."

What is "it" in this context?

Google wants NN. It does not count as "Big Telco" in any way shape or form. Fi and Fiber are tiny, and Google Voice is not big either (and not useful without an actual Telco).

Comcast and Spectrum are "Big Cable", but the difference between Big Cable and Big Telco is rather academic now since both offer the same services. And they don't want NN.

So I have no idea what "it" you have in mind that Google and Comcast both want? Money? Customers? But not NN and not "charge for the type of data traffic as well as the amount of data traffic".

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Guess again.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

And when was the 18th Dynasty?
Hmm? I take it you can't do dates, or you would be aware the last of the Nubian kingdoms was circa 1860 bce, WELL BEFORE the dating on your "nature.com" post
Stupid really does spread on the right.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

1) I'm not on the right, and 2) you said the great empires, not just the 18th Dynasty. Way to move the goalposts.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I'm curious: what, specifically, did I say in this thread that makes you think you know me so well? Saying that not all ancient Egyptians were black - and citing actual evidence - certainly isn't racist. It would be racist if I then implied or said that this means black people are worse than other races, but of course I didn't - and wouldn't say that.

What race(s) ancient Egyptians were has no impact on how we should treat people today. It's interesting historical information, certainly, but anyone trying to use it as evidence for racial superiority or inferiority is just dumb.

I'm part of an "out-group". Swing and a miss there, bud. I'd also argue that you, the person making a lot of wrong assumptions about me in order to attack me and call me names, is the pathetic one. How bad does your life have to be that you go on the internet and pretend someone is racist and far-right in order to have a target?

Re:He does not mean it actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

I said Rameses. 18th Dynasty. You said "Not black"
Loser

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

You said, and this is a direct quote:

The great empires, including Rameses, were all Nubian (black)

It's a much better look to admit that you mis-typed in the first place than to keep lying about what you said, when anyone can clearly see it.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[AutodidactLabrat]

Did I not say 18th Dynasty?
Who were the great emperors of the 18th Dynasty?
Hint: Think Moses.

Re:He does not mean it actually

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Not originally, no, and you certainly didn't limit it to the 18th Dynasty originally. In fact, both Ramses I and II were part of the 19th Dynasty, not the 18th, and even the Wikipedia page for Ramses II says he was a light-skinned redhead. Obviously, that could be wrong, but it's certainly true that your original claim "the great empires, including Rameses, were all Nubian (black)" is false.

Full of ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard about their statements regarding the alleged DDOS attack, they were already full of something one way or the other...

Trust issues

[TimothyHollins]

"I'm pleased that the FCC will once again be at full strength and look forward to collaborating to close the digital divide, promote innovation, protect consumers, and improve the agency's operations" he said, while the holy cross on the wall burst into flames.

Re:Trust issues

[interkin3tic]

He IS working to close the digital divide. By making sure those of us in the city have only one ISP to choose from at dialup speeds for insane prices, there will no longer be any divisions between us and people who choose to live a hundred miles from the nearest town.

He IS looking to protect consumers from the evils of watching too much porn. If we're allowed to download more than a gigabyte of data a month, it will just be unrealistic porn which will warp our sexuality.

He IS hoping to improving the agencies operations. There will be more people to collect bribes. Plus, what if Pai is on vacation when comcast calls and says they want this or that regulation eliminated? This way someone will be there to answer the phone.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[Applehu Akbar]

Or didn't vote, or kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results...

Evil kidding-myself Johnson voter weighing in. Our prescription for monopoly in any area, whether it be pharma or Internet service, is to let in competition. This includes letting communities decide for themselves to form a cable-laying district.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[Chris Mattern]

I voted third-party since I couldn't stomach either of the candidates, but Clinton actually took my state. So it didn't make much difference.

Josh Lyman learned this lesson

[magusxxx]

"One Democrat and One Republican. It's the only way to keep the piece" - The West Wing Translation: It's the only way to keep the status quo.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[Nidi62]

kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results. I didn't like Hillary either but the alternative was obviously worse.

To paraphrase a famous quote: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil.

Many people who voted third party this election, myself included, were hoping that 2016 would finally loosen the grips that the Republican/Democrat divide has on the political system. instead it seems to have only strengthened it.

The FCC is full of something, all right

[JohnFen]

And under the leadership of Ajit Pai, that something is shit.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[bobbied]

Or didn't vote, or kidded yourselves and voted third party are about to see the results. I didn't like Hillary either but the alternative was obviously worse.

LOL. Trump wasn't my first choice, but he's hands down a better choice than Hillary "Keep towing the same policies" & "I cannot run a successful campaign, even as a shoe in" Clinton. Personally, I voted for the lessor of two evils in the general.

We can argue the details all day, but I'm guessing that your objection to Trump is more partisan than it is about policy. Truly Trump is more centrist than his republican rivals and down right progressive in the social issues of the day and you'd know that if you actually listened to HIM instead of what is being reported about him.

But, as it sits, democrats are not about to assist Trump in any way, regardless of it would serve their own policy objectives. Why? Because it's not about policy, it's about politics, not about getting stuff done but about getting back into power... Eventually the voting public will catch on to this, at least I hope they do.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[stinerman]

We really need all the minor parties to join a coalition that strictly advocates for getting rid of FPTP voting and nothing else. Trying to break up the duopoly by chipping away piecemeal isn't going to work. We need to start there if there is going to be any real change.

Blind hatred of of regulations

[Dorianny]

The GOP's belief in free market competition is only outweight by their blind hatred of regulations. Unless you want to suspend all resonable thought and actually consider 3Mbs ADSL a real alternative to 50+Mbs Cable for Internet access then there just isn't enough competition in the telecom field for free market competition to suceed. Removing regulations simply hands more power to the Cable monopolies in most of the United States

What is going on?

[zkiwi34]

First it was a 90+ senate vote in favour of the nominee for FBI Director, now it's an easy ride for FCC nominees. I thought it was public policy not to approve anyone Trump nominates unless it's after a huge drama complete with a portrait of the evil the nominee must be for the crime of being nominated by Trump.

Re:What is going on?

[imidan]

Yeah, how about that, when Trump nominates people who aren't cartoonishly inappropriate for their positions, the confirmations are pretty straightforward.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[Applehu Akbar]

"That left me with voting for a Tolkienesque troll, wondering what's an aleppo, can you eats it?"

Actually this improved my opinion of Johnson. Now that we are on the cusp of energy independence, we have no business fiddling with the Middle East. Seal it off and forget about it while it solves its own problems. Don't sell it any more weapons, don't import any more of its oil, and most especially don't import any more of its "refugees."

We're nerds. Our short-term priority should be burning our own oil and gas, and our long-term policy should be replacing fossil fuels entirely.

If completion worked

[rsilvergun]

We wouldn't be having this conversation. Big companies buy out their competitors, consolidate and eliminate competition. If you step in to regulate then sooner or later you turn your back on libertarian policies.

Re:If completion worked

[Applehu Akbar]

A powerful company can huff and puff all it wants, but it can't enforce a monopoly unless it get laws passed that forbid others from competing. That's why our pharma prices stay far above world market and why you can't escape crappy domestic airline service by taking Etihad.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[vux984]

, but he's hands down a better choice than Hillary

Stop deluding yourself. More of the same was "bad". Trump is "worse".

Im guessing that your objection to Trump is more partisan than it is about policy.

Nope. I can't object to his policy because he doesn't have any. I have no objection to him based on partisan grounds... i don't even think he IS a republican. My objection to Trump is that he is incompetent, petty, easily distracted, easily triggered, extremely narcissist, incapable of humility or honesty, incapable of performing his duties, unethical, and corrupt.

I would take McCain over Trump. I would take Romney over Trump. They'd each be far better presidents.

I would take Pence over Trump. I would even take Palin over Trump. And I think both are horrible candidates both with policy and competency issues... but at least they are trying to serve the country in good faith. I may disagree with them vehemently and think they are idiots, but I believe them to be sincere in their desire to better America.

Trump... has no plan, he has no place in the presidency, he's just ad-libbing it while telling himself he's doing a great job, mostly by telling us he's doing a great job -- and not just a great job, but really the best job ever... of any president... except maybe lincoln... maybe. WTFBBQ -- this orange ass-clown is no Lincoln. Even Nixon and Ford are towering giants over him. We'll see if history judges him better than James Buchanan; I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump take the spot of infamy at the bottom of the list.

https://www.c-span.org/preside...

Look at the criteria --

"Public Persuasion" -- well he did get himself elected so there's that, but lacked the popular vote, and he was running against the highly unlikable, arrogant, Hillary, that even her own party was extremely divided about. And that was his peak.

"Crisis Leadership" -- I'd rate him "counter productive".

"Economic Management" -- is he even participating in the budget in a meaningful way. does tax cuts for himself count?

"Moral authority" -- not from pathological pussy-grabbing liar

"International Relations" - few world leaders want anything to do with him. Nobody is going to go out on a limb for Trump.

"Administrative Skills" -- BWAHAHAHAHAHA; the whitehouse is a revolving door circus and he's the biggest clown there; twitter is official policy now and half the time runs counter to the press secretary.

"Relations with Congress" -- his own party routinely criticises him; he routinely undermines his own party.

"Vision - setting an agenda" -- the ridiculous wall & muslim ban; his only agenda is pandering (badly) for re-election.

"Pursued Equal Justice for All" -- muslim ban, enough said; transgender out of the military, a homophobic VP pick; and he got an official endorsement by the white supremecists... need i go on?

"Performance within Context of Times" -- im not 100% sure what this means, but I'm pretty sure having his staff pepper lots of pictures his own name into reports in the hopes that he might actually read them counts against him here.

I object to Trump because he is not fit to be president, I would object to him running a business I hold shares in, let alone put him at the helm of the United States of America.

Re:Shameful

[imidan]

My state votes 2:1 in favor of the Republican candidate, regardless of who he is. My vote does not matter. I could have voted third party. Johnson and Stein were both unqualified candidates, though slightly better than the rest of the field. Johnson was apparently so ignorant of world events that he didn't know what Aleppo was--how could that guy run foreign policy? Stein, a medical doctor, mired herself in the anti-vax controversy by hedging on the issue--what other facts would she demur on?

Should I have voted for the male stripper who advocated for solving obesity through dance? Or the candidate who believes she is a victim of 'brain and body science' that 'listens to [her] private thoughts, allows for communication directly into and out of [her] brain, controls [her] body movements through human logistics, ...'? The guy who presents as his primary qualifications his high school GPA (4.0!) and an IQ test from 1976, who wants to remove fluoride from drinking water and end the use of chemtrails?

What would that have accomplished? I guess if we'd all done it, we could have had even more of a clown show in office than we have now?

Re:Why politics?

[LynnwoodRooster]

The only way to get that is to massively reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. As long as DC has the ability to control everything it will always represent itself. Decentralize as much as possible - and you'll get closer to representation of the people.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[Applehu Akbar]

Pipeline transportation of freight has been discussed for many more years than Hyperloop has been on the table. If all else fails, we will probably still end up with containers being shot through pipes.

what about tech info and databases?

[k6mfw]

I frequently use FCC databases to review freq, certifications (Type Acceptance) on radios, etc. But these days much of what FCC does is all business, there are a few (and soon to be extinct) people that have technical knowledge. There was a symposium of sorts I found a online video of some years ago FCC panel of people talking about new information platforms and concepts. It seemed all talk of business, I couldn't figure out what types of systems or how does it all interconnect (RF, fiber, cable, ?). How the airwaves doesn't become a big tangled mess... then there is the internet but with few major players controlling so maybe that's why it doesn't become totally disorganized as if it did then those major companies would go broke.

Re:Why politics?

[BlueStrat]

Why do we have to identify people as R or D? I would love to live in a world where govt. represents us, We The People.

The only way to get that is to massively reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. As long as DC has the ability to control everything it will always represent itself. Decentralize as much as possible - and you'll get closer to representation of the people.

Precisely spot-on.

People must come to once again understand that there exists an "inverse-square law" of government; That every increase in power, size, and scope of government results in creating a reduction in freedom, liberty, and wealth of the population at roughly the squared amount/importance/size of the increase in government.

Power is a zero-sum game. The people start out with 100% but then grant government a portion of their power in order to govern. If government increases in power and wealth, people necessarily *must* lose power and wealth, and with it rights, freedoms, and liberty in general to live their lives as they see fit.

Strat

On the right track

[jenningsthecat]

The FCC Is Full Again, With Three Republicans and Two Democrats...

If the FCC keeps eating politicians, our problems will be solved!

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[bobbied]

He won, Hillary lost, you need to learn to live with that. I lived though 8 years of Obummer without complaining about his "qualifications" though I did oppose his policies and bald face lying. Your laundry list of complaints are pointless.

The "Qualifications" for the job of president are set out in the US Constitution and boils down to three things. 1. A Natural Born US citizen. 2. Over 35 years old. 3. Winner of the electoral college vote. Nothing else matters. Constitutionally Trump is qualified.

You can complain that you don't LIKE him personally, or you don't like what he's doing and you can eve REFUSE to work with him in any way, but you CANNOT keep up this pretense that he's not qualified.

QED

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[vux984]

The "Qualifications" for the job of president are set out in the US Constitution and boils down to three things. 1. A Natural Born US citizen. 2. Over 35 years old. 3. Winner of the electoral college vote. Nothing else matters. Constitutionally Trump is qualified.

You want me to admit he meets the constitutional eligibility requirements? Sure. You want a trophy?

That doesn't make him qualified.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[bobbied]

LOL... You just don't like him and are looking for data to confirm why you are right. It's called "confirmation bias" in this case, of a partisan nature. You obviously disagree with nearly HALF of voters out there so I'd not get up on that high horse so readily if I were you. Lots of people disagree with you...

I'll offer the following advice. If you are trying to convince folks that Trump is not a good president, I would recommend that you focus on accomplishments (or lack there of) and actual actions he's taken and forget the laundry list of personal reasons you don't like him. It won't likely be effective, but it has a better chance.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[vux984]

"You just don't like him"

LOL... I don't think I could like any politician less than Dick Cheney; or disagree with any politician more -- but I still recognize and respect Cheney's intelligence, competence, and effectiveness.

"It's called "confirmation bias" in this case, of a partisan nature. "

BWAHAHAHAHA. Nope.

Dick Cheney - don't like, hated his policies, highly respect him as a policitian
John McCain - like him as a person, disagree with a lot of his policy, highly respect him as a politician
Lyndsey Graham - like him as a person, disagree with most of his policy, highly respect him a a politician
Hillary Clinton - don't like her as a person, agreed with a lot of her policy, highly respect her as a politician
G.W. Bush - like him has a person, disagreed with most policy, thought he was an average policitian
G. Bush - didn't like him as person, disagreed with most policy, highly respect as a politician
Mitch McConnel - don't like, disagree with, highly respect as a politician
Jeff Sessions - like as a person, disagree with, respect as a politician
Dianne Feinstein - dislike as a person, agree with some policy (disagree with her more high profile initiatives - 'e.g. assault weapons bill'), respect as a politician
Elizabeth Warren - like as a person, generally agree with policy, respect
etc

Who I "like" and "just don't like" crosses partisan lines.

And I respect the competency of LOTS of people on both sides, even of people I really don't like. Quite simply, most of the high ranking policitians are competent and good at their jobs on both sides of the aisle. The few I find unfit other than Trump... I don't know Anthony Wiener comes to mind as being incompetent thanks to his inability to stop sending dick pics.

Trump is almost unique in being a high ranking (the highest ranked) politician that I feel has virtually no ability to competently do the job. Evidently he's good at getting elected by the mob, but that is not a proxy for experience in governance, team building, effectiveness, or intelligence.

So, no, you are way off base calling this "confirmation bias of a partisan nature".
Try again.

Re:Welp, all you folks who voted Trump

[bobbied]

Have it your way. I'm not trying to talk you out of your bias.

Trump is president at least until January of 2021 and by the looks of things in the democrat party right now is likely to be president until 2025 unless they come up with a viable candidate which isn't looking too likely for 2020. The leading contender is Hillary, who's lost the presidency twice now (once to the likes of Trump) and I don't think she'd make the primary and everybody else losses the general to Trump hands down. Things could change after the midterms next year I suppose, but somehow I doubt they will..

In short, You need to learn to live with Trump, or the next 3.5 - 7.5 years. You don't need to like him, but you do need to live with him because he's not going anywhere.

And before you start into quoting polls... Remember this line "Trump has no path to 270" was based on these very same polls! I remember that was widely thought to be true, until about 8 PM on election night 2016.