Slashdot Mirror


Trump Pushes To Expand High-Speed Internet In Rural America (reuters.com)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to make it easier for the private sector to locate broadband infrastructure on federal land and buildings, part of a push to expand high-speed internet in rural America. Reuters reports: "We need to get rural America more connected. We need it for our tractors, we need it for our schools, we need it for our home-based businesses," a White House official told reporters ahead of Trump's speech at the annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "We're not moving mountains but we're certainly getting started," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview Trump's actions. The White House described the moves as an incremental step to help spur private development while the administration figures out what it can do to help with funding, something that could become part of Trump's plan to invest in infrastructure. "We know that funding is really the key thing to actually changing rural broadband," a second White House official said. Reuters cites a 2016 report from the Federal Communications Commission, noting that 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speed internet service.

52 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. He knows rural by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is very familiar with rural people and their needs. He grew up in the small town of Manhattan. Upper West Side. He is one of US!

    1. Re:He knows rural by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They could live as far away as Russia and still fully participate.

    2. Re:He knows rural by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Democrats quake with the knowledge that people will be able to live away from the big cities, draining their tax revenue, while still fully participating in the information workforce.

      I suspect most people come to populated areas for career reasons, not necessarily because they prefer crowds and density.

      It seems outsourcing and technology have shifted the jobs to more populated areas for some reason, good or bad. Rural areas recovered slower from the slump, and this is partly why T was elected: they felt slighted.

      I believe the shift is partly due to farming automation, and partly due to the fact if your job is easy to do remotely, it's also easy to outsource to a cheap-labor country. Those jobs left here tend to require heavier teamwork and personal interaction. In the late 90's I thought telecommuting would take off and relieve population density. I was wrong.

    3. Re:He knows rural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      what the living fuck is wrong with you people? i LOVE the idea of people living outside of big cities. more small communities would be GREAT. im a democrat. we dont need the tax revenue from living in the city, we need happy, productive citizens living where they want to. stop name calling, you motherfucker. stop it!

    4. Re:He knows rural by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are definitely democrats/leftists that hate the idea that people can move out of the big cities, taking their tax revenue with them. I've talked with them. They don't consider it "fair" that people can move to suburbs and not support the inner city schools anymore.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:He knows rural by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Trumpers quake with the knowledge that those successful Dems will retire with their stock portfolios into their underpopulated economically devastated wastelands, create boutique little shops that tolerate LGBTQ people and hire them or their kids (who might learn it's acceptable to be LGBTQ! or to tolerate people who are different!) and then how will they be able to be dicks to them then?

      So, your idea is that rich leftists will move into poor rural areas where the rich leftists will open funny little shops, offend the locals, and you're wondering what the local's reaction will be? . . . . I'm guessing the locals won't buy much from the "funny" and pretentious little shops owned by the rich leftists. And then the next question is. . . will be rich leftists be able to stay rich with nobody buying from their "funny" and pretentious little shops?

      By the way . . . I heard today that the White House has confirmed that Trump plans to run again in 2020. Do you want more Trump? Because you seem to be a natural booster for his reelection.

      In Oregon and elsewhere, rural residents increasingly balk at Democrats’ progressive governance.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:He knows rural by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      There are definitely democrats/leftists that hate the idea that people can move out of the big cities, taking their tax revenue with them. I've talked with them. They don't consider it "fair" that people can move to suburbs and not support the inner city schools anymore.

      Some of the more extreme Bill Ayers types spew loads over the idea of turning the US and the world into a bad remake of Logan's Run and/or Demolition Man.

      They want a human ant-farm.

      It's freaking depressing...hold on....

      [turns to booth]

      "You are an incredibly sensitive man, who inspires joy-joy feelings in all those around you."

      [turns back]

      OK, I'm good. What seems to be your boggle, citizen?

      Be well!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:He knows rural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe the shift is partly due to farming automation,

      That should read "corporate farming" -- ED

      ... and partly due to the fact if your job is easy to do remotely, it's also easy to outsource to a cheap-labor country.

      That should read "click farming" -- ED

      Those jobs left here tend to require heavier teamwork and personal interaction.

      That should read "cube farming" -- ED

      In the late 90's I thought telecommuting would take off and relieve population density. I was wrong.

      That should read "idiot farming" because only an idiot back in the '90s would believe the corporations would EVER allow workers out of their sight (or site). -- ED

  2. Broadband? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't the FCC just change the definition of broadband to 10 mbps down 1 mbps up? I don't think I understand what's happening in this administration.

    1. Re:Broadband? by guruevi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, they just changed it to 25/3 up from 4/1 during the Obama administration.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Broadband? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Didn't the FCC just change the definition of broadband to 10 mbps down 1 mbps up? I don't think I understand what's happening in this administration.

      Thereby massively expanding the number of rural broadband connections? Wow, results!

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Broadband? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's talked about here...the 10/1 is a proposed standard for "mobile broadband".

      Page 6, paragraph 14:Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? and in the footnotes: The 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark was established in the 2015 Report and maintained in the 2016 Report. Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1403 -08, paras. 45 -55 (2015) (2015 Report ); 2016 Report , 31 FCC Rcd at 722, paras. 51 -52.

      Page 7, paragraph 18: The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark...We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services.

      IMHO, 10/1 is probably "good enough" for "mobile broadband", but only as long as that isn't your ONLY choice. Most people aren't hotspoting multiple devices off a single cell phone.

    4. Re:Broadband? by harrkev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Up until 2-1/2 years ago, I lived in a rural area 13 miles from the closest gas station. I only had 5 Mbps, and was lucky to have that. It was actually quite livable. I could easily stream a Netflix show while doing other things. I even did a little bit of telecommuting (chip design) over a VPN, using tools like SOC Encounter (very graphics based). Not ideal, but livable.

      So, double that? Yeah, enough to support 2 or 3 streaming movies at the same time. More is always better, but 10 Mbps is definitely nothing to complain about. Yeah, if you are downloading a 10 GB video game, it might take more than 1/2 hour.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Broadband? by pots · · Score: 2

      over the previous broadband figure (10Mbps, IIRC)

      No it was 4 Mbps, as the parent said. (link) He was right about that part.

    6. Re:Broadband? by Berkyjay · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was more curious about this:

      up from 4/1 during the Obama administration.

    7. Re:Broadband? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Of course, people playing online games or watching videos online might disagree.

      Videos, yes, if you want more than 1080p or more than one stream. Games, on the other hand, aren't typically very bandwidth-intensive. Low latency is far more important for most multiplayer gaming.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re:Broadband? by erice · · Score: 2

      IMHO, 10/1 is probably "good enough" for "mobile broadband", but only as long as that isn't your ONLY choice. Most people aren't hotspoting multiple devices off a single cell phone.

      People in rural areas do. Can't get cable. Can't get DSL. Satellite is awful. My brother's family runs all the computers in the house off of one mobile hotspot.

    9. Re:Broadband? by amacide · · Score: 2

      This allows me to both stream whatever I want, on multiple devices as I like

      I simply can't fathom how the US can be so behind in such an important aspect of society.

      Not everyone considers consuming more entertainment / toys / bandwidth / energy / etc "an important aspect of society".....

  3. Red-State Favoritism? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some suspect he's rewarding those who voted for him and punishing blue states and their infrastructure projects.

    He's known to personally reward loyalty and punish non-loyalty above personal doctrine or dogma. Even though he's pro-infrastructure, he still may avoid blue-state infrastructure as punishment for not voting for him and/or giving him poor ratings.

    The recent tax bill also tilts toward red states in that state and local taxes cannot be deducted as much as before from the total taxed. (Some may claim this is "more fair", but blue states already pay a disproportionate amount of money to the Federal Gov't, per population.)

    1. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The recent tax bill also tilts toward red states in that state and local taxes cannot be deducted as much as before from the total taxed.

      The only reason you can say it "tilts" is because the state and local taxes are tilted by state color, too. Fascinating correlation there, yes?

    2. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're not being "punished" anymore than the red states were "punished" by Obama.

      Please clarify with specifics. What O economic policies tilted blue?

      I can't give you specifics of things that don't happen.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and the states with low taxes have to be subsidized by the ones with higher taxes for exactly that reason, because they don't tax their own residents enough to cover their costs. I believe it's called 'redistribution of wealth'.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    4. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama didn't do this, Bush didn't do it, Clinton didn't do it.

      Obama -- Obamacare (a gold mine for insurance companies)
      Bush -- war in Iraq (a gold mine for defense contractors)
      Clinton -- repeal of Glass-Steagall act (a gold mine for wall street)

      Get real dude

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    5. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blue states are already bigger net-contributors to the federal coffers before the tax "reform." This makes it more lopsided.

    6. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by careysub · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama didn't do this, Bush didn't do it, Clinton didn't do it.

      Clinton -- repeal of Glass-Steagall act (a gold mine for wall street)

      Get real dude

      Indeed, get real.

      The repeal of Glass-Steagall was accomplished by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) authored by three hard right Republicans. it passed both Houses of Congress with veto proof majorities (Senate 90–8, House 362–57). Although it got majority support among Democrats, support was nearly unanimous from Republicans.

      Clinton could have vetoed it, but it would have done no good, the veto would have been over-ridden.

      Assigning blame to Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagall is torturing the facts beyond all recognition.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    7. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Because single payer works so well in the UK

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      Every hospital in the country has been ordered to cancel all non-urgent surgery until at least February in an unprecedented step by NHS officials.

      The instructions on Tuesday night - which will see result in around 50,000 operations being axed - followed claims by senior doctors that patients were being treated in "third world" conditions, as hospital chief executives warned of the worst winter crisis for three decades.

      Hospitals are reporting growing chaos, with a spike in winter flu leaving frail patients facing 12-hour waits, and some units running out of corridor space.

      Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS medical director, on Tuesday ordered NHS trusts to stop taking all but the most urgent cases, closing outpatients clinics for weeks as well as cancelling around 50,000 planned operations.

      Trusts have also been told they can abandon efforts to house male and female patients in separate wards, in an effort to protect basic safety, as services become overwhelmed.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by dinfinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It does, but an ageing population (especially problematic is the wave of baby boomers, called that for a reason) puts a lot of extra strain on all European countries. It's a struggle to find solutions that work and considering that the conservative approach in the UK has been "You're not getting more money, deal with it", the story you mentioned is the result:
      - http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
      - http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      See also:
      - https://www.ineteconomics.org/...
      - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    9. Re: Red-State Favoritism? by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blue states were getting their own subsidization, via federal deductions on state and local taxes, letting blue states raise their taxes (and therefore revenue) and offsetting the difference to the federal government. Now, as for entitlements that go predominantly to red states: why do you think red states vote that way? They're sick of that shit. Cut off the spigot.

    10. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clinton could have vetoed it, but it would have done no good, the veto would have been over-ridden.

      Clinton could have vetoed it if he didn't support repeal. Removing his support from the bill and forcing proponents to override his veto may have eroded enough Democrat support to sustain his veto. Your theories deny the history and basic politics.

      Instead, Clinton supported repeal of Glass-Steagal, signed it into law, and continues to defend repeal to this day. Please read the following quote that obliterates your fantasy.

      Bill Clinton:

      On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.

      Republicans forced nothing on Clinton. He signed the law of his own free will.

      Assigning blame to Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagall is torturing the facts beyond all recognition.

      You wouldn't recognize a fact if it tortured you. Project much?

    11. Re: Red-State Favoritism? by Bartles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he said no thanks to an infrastructure project that would primarily benefit rich liberal commuters, and cost the state an enormous fortune. You fucking brainwashed idiot.

  4. Re:Ahhh, there's the grift. by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But this is just gonna be a gimme to the fine people at Comcast and AT&T.

    And everyone else who already does or wants to do broadband.

    You know that "easier" doesn't mean "free", it means "it can happen". As in, previously forbidden access to federal buildings or sites can now be granted."

  5. So let's see... by Daemonik · · Score: 2, Insightful
    • ..kickback to private businesses, check..
    • ..subsidies, check..
    • ..tacking even more debt onto the national budget, check..
    • ..Puerto Rico continues to suffer through a blackout, check..
    • ..no mention of municipal broadband, because that's commie socialism, check..
    • ..makes the effort right after his FCC Chairman kneecaps net neutrality and lowers the definition of broadband, check..

    Whelp.. the Trump trainwreck just keeps on a rollin'!

  6. Isn't this contradictory? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought the FCC was in the process of relaxing the definition of broadband so the established players could pretend they were doing more than they are?

    1. Re:Isn't this contradictory? by harrkev · · Score: 2

      Huh? Making it EASIER is not a guarantee that it will happen.

      I used to live in a rural area. It takes money to bury miles of cable, and money to install the DSLAM. If your expected payments over the next 10 years do not even cover the cost of installation, what do you suggest the ISPs do? Operate at a loss? Most companies don't intentionally set out to loose money.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:Isn't this contradictory? by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hows that wireline paper insulated monopoly network been under the years of NN rules?
      With rule changes some of the better funded states, cities, towns might just have a chance to build a network, community broadband if they so want.
      No more NN rules to keep giving the protected monopoly court wins to block any new networks.
      Some parts of the USA might just get better networks. Gated communities can find a new, better quality ISP.
      Resorts, hotels, small business that employ local people might just attract more business and offer better internet to their guests with NN rule changes as they can expand their own new networks.
      Some areas will stay the same due to local politics, tax rates, funding, taxes been spent on welfare. Not much can be done in such areas and they will stay on their paper insulated wireline.
      Other sates, cities will see the new freedoms that have and invite in innovative and new telco, ISP products and services. Now they have they freedom to build their networks without federal NN monopoly rules blocking new network investment and growth.
      The better, smarter, more imaginative, more industrious parts of the USA have just got the ability to plan new networks. They with do great with the new network building freedoms. Cities, states, towns, communities, business and the private sector with the ability, skills and people to build networks can now invest and grow without federal rules blocking them.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Isn't this contradictory? by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You assume Trump is not going to pretend he is doing more than he is?

      If anything, any (not yet decided on) funding will be funneled to monopolistic underdelivering price-gouging 'friendly' ISPs whilst loudly proclaiming having connected rural America to broadband.

  7. This is a good thing, right? by magzteel · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can't tell by some of the comments.

    At this point if the executive order provided free high speed internet to all Americans the headline would probably be
    "Trump signs order making it easier to spy on all Americans".

    1. Re:This is a good thing, right? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      We don't know. The text of the orders hasn't been published. However, there are some details on the White House website:

      The first of these two orders instructs the Department of Interior to dedicate a portion of its assets for rural broadband installation. The second order will streamline the installation process by requiring agencies to use standardized forms and contracts for installing antennas on federal buildings, thus improving process efficiency.

      According to the White House, it certainly sounds positive. However, there is still room for speculation, and certainly cause to be concerned.

      The first order could be anything, from allocating funding for connection projects to forcing the DoI to sell off chunks of land for corporate use. There's so little detail in the descriptions I've seen that it's very difficult to determine exactly what the President is doing.

      The second order seems benign enough as described, but the devil's usually in the details. Standardized forms that are too detailed actually become a barrier for those without dedicated resources to handle them. A small ISP may not be able to afford the manpower to fill out every detail of the request form, effectively shutting them out of the opportunity presented to larger companies. On the other hand, documents that are not specific enough can hide uncertainty in a design, which leads to increased costs as problems arise.

      As amazed as I am at Slashdot's timely reporting, we seem to have jumped the gun to actually have an insightful conversation.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  8. Re:Trump is a traitor by lucm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least he didn't threaten rape victims. Or got them fired and then sent the IRS after them the same day, claiming that they had surprisingly nice cars for unemployed people.

    (^ Yes, Clinton did all that)

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  9. Re:Ahhh, there's the grift. by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The key part is this: "We know that funding is really the key thing to actually changing rural broadband," a second White House official said.

    In other words, more Federal government spending. Those guys really like to spend taxpayers money.

  10. Re:Heard this line a few times ;~) by lucm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just write a check to your cronies

    You got it all wrong. The cronies are the one sending checks... Congress then pass appropriation bills and spending packages based purely on their conscience and on what they think is best for the country.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  11. Re:We need it for our tractors by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Informative

    The 'right to repair' movement is using tractors as an example of manufacturers being evil - restricting the rights of people who have purchased tangible devices to repair them.

    If they're not already full of computers (much like a car is these days), they soon will be. With wireless diagnostics and controls. And with that will come the 'option' for firmware updates, which will then become mandatory with a periodic phone-home requirement or they'll shut down the tractors.

    So yes, tractors have managed without Internet (at all!) until fairly recently... but the people making the tractors don't want that to continue any longer than they can help.

  12. At least he's not literally Hitler any more by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can't tell by some of the comments.

    At this point if the executive order provided free high speed internet to all Americans the headline would probably be
    "Trump signs order making it easier to spy on all Americans".

    Damn!

    Just checking the early comments, and it's all "he's only rewarding the red states for voting him in", "it's encroachment on public lands - will end with offshore drilling and commercialization of public lands", "write a check to your cronies".

    They left out "he's only doing it to watch liberal heads explode".

    Even though I disliked Obama and [president] Clinton, at least I accepted that they were duly elected, and note that they did some things that were actually good for the country. Notably, Clinton reduced regulations and reduced the deficit (and national debt) for awhile.

    Is there *nothing* good that will come from this president?

    At least he's no longer literally Hitler. That's progress.

    1. Re:At least he's not literally Hitler any more by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Not only that but he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!
      ONLY HITLER WOULD DO THAT! TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER!

      I don't have to be specifically worried for the Jews to be worried about Trump. Enough of his policies and attitudes are Naziesque to be chilling. That makes sense, because his daddy was a racist and maybe a Klansman. Ironically, his grandfather was deported for illegal immigration. Trump is a shining example of exactly the kind of person he wants to keep out of America: he's a rapist, no less. Wasn't rape one of the things he was worried about illegal immigration bringing to our country? I guess he'd know.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Funding? by quonset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A) Broadband companies have received well over a billion taxpayer dollars in both direct and indirect subsidies since the Clinton administration. How can providing them with more taxpayer money possibly do any good?

    B) With the massive tax cut just implemented, these companies should be rolling in dough and not need taxpayer help.

    C) Why is it when we hear about subsidies for wind or solar we're told those companies should either stand on their own or die on the vine, yet for established, multi-billion dollar companies no amount of taxpayer funds is ever enough?

    1. Re:Funding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      $400 billion to be more precise:

      https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/11/27/americans-fiber-optic-internet/

  14. Spin this into a bad idea in 3, 2, 1 by Jarwulf · · Score: 2

    Cue post after post spinning this into something nefarious in some way even though up until now everybody here was screaming for this.

  15. Re:Chris Farley by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah - that was awesome!

    (Remember when you said it was OK to do that?)

    Executive orders in the face of a Congress & Senate that outright refuse to even talk about the issues you want heard is one thing. Writing more than all other presidents in the last 50 years because you really wish you were a dictator and not bothering to even ask the legislature who is your own party and holds majorities in both Congress and the Senate is quite another.

    Also, taking something you hated when the other guy did it and going completely wild with it when you're in power, is not winning. It's just being a ginormous hypocrite.

  16. Re:Trump is a traitor by admin7087 · · Score: 2

    Just in case you have forgotten, the election is long over and Clinton will not run again. It's the current president of the United States the people are rightly worried about.

  17. Tractors? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    We need it for our tractors

    That's an odd thing to say. Perhaps the driver for this is the desire of tractor makers to limit use. Sorry Mr Farmer, you need to pay for this broadband since your tractor will not work unless it can phone home over wifi every five minutes.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  18. Re:Chris Farley by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Executive orders in the face of a Congress & Senate that outright refuse to even talk about the issues you want heard is one thing. Writing more than all other presidents in the last 50 years because you really wish you were a dictator and not bothering to even ask the legislature who is your own party and holds majorities in both Congress and the Senate is quite another.

    Amusingly, Wikipedia has a list of executive orders per year. Trump's 12-month executive order total equals Obama's last 15 months in office. Not 50 years. And Carter (37 years ago) was the last President to issue executive orders at a higher rate than Trump. If you're going to badmouth him, at least get your facts right.

    Also, taking something you hated when the other guy did it and going completely wild with it when you're in power, is not winning. It's just being a ginormous hypocrite.

    I suspect Trump's rate is high just because this was his first year, and many of his executive orders were rolling back or modifying Obama's executive orders. Nothing hypocritical about that. As much as Democrats would've loved it if Trump had kept all of Obama's executive orders in force, we all knew that simply wasn't realistic. The next 3 years will tell if he's a hypocrite about executive orders.

  19. Re:Chris Farley by nickersonm · · Score: 2

    You need to look at the numbers of "presidential memorandum" as well - calling an executive action with the force of law something different doesn't mean it really is. Memoranda have the added bonus of not even needing to be published!