Democrats Are Just One Vote Shy of Restoring Net Neutrality (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer now says Democrats in the Senate are a single vote away from restoring net neutrality. According to the senator from New York, they now have a total of 50 votes for a Senate resolution of disapproval that would restore the Open Internet Order of 2015 and deliver a stiff rebuke to Ajit Pai and other Republican members of the FCC. It would also prevent the agency from passing a similar measure in the future, all but guaranteeing Net Neutrality is permanently preserved. Right now the resolution has the support of all 49 Democrats in the Senate and one Republican, Susan Collins of Maine. But Schumer and the rest of the caucus will have to win over one more Republican vote to prevent Vice President Mike Pence from breaking tie and allowing the repeal to stand. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate has 60 days to challenge a decision by an independent agency like the FCC. Democrats have less than 30 days to convince a "moderate" like John McCain or Lindsey Graham to buck their party. Further reading: The Washington Post (paywalled)

Comments

Re:scare quotes

[Mashiki]

Why would they write a new bill from the ground up and start fresh building support for it?

Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to support a bill which has the backing of organizations that are actively censoring."

Also, do you not see the irony of complaining about people screeching "nazi" and the immediately, in the very same sentence, screeching "nazi" yourself?

No, because I'm using the left's definition of "nazi." If the left wants to screech that Richard Spencer is a nazi for being an ethnonationalist, and the democrats vote in a person who's an ethonationalist. They are by their own definition a nazi.

Re:scare quotes

[jedidiah]

> I don't even think you have a clue where and how the term "states rights" originated.

It originated with the fact that the original colonies viewed themselves as independent nations. Even now, individual states run their own affairs. The national government was never meant to micromanage things. It's supposed to be inherently limited. Even the Constitution is supposed to be limits on government (rather than an enumeration individual rights).

The original colonies were so wary of a national government that they tried and failed to set up the US as a loose confederacy.

Re:Purity tests

[skam240]

Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant. The modern poor shape of the economy is irrelevant.

The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)

Re:Purity tests

[Solandri]

Only if you have a ridiculously far right notion of what it means to be a republican (which you clearly do). RINO is a pathetic attempt to apply a purity test to a member of the party. By today's standards Reagan would be called a RINO. Heaven forbid someone attempt to have a fruitful negotiation with someone they don't agree with complete. Or *gasp* actually compromise about anything.

For decades the Washington Post kept a database of votes by Congresscritters. If you go to the 113th Senate (the last one before they shut the project down), and click on "Votes with party" it'll sort the Senators by what percentage of the time they vote with their party. You'll find that contrary to what the media has spun for years, it's actually Republicans who are more likely to cross the party aisle and vote with Democrats, not the other way around. I mean sure there are a few blues scattered in there, but the majority of the top of the list of low faithfulness to their party are Republicans. You have to go all the way back to Bush's first term to get a Senate where Democrats were more likely to vote against their own party.

Likewise, if you click it again to sort it by Senators most likely to toe the party line, you end up with a veritable sea of blue. So hate to break it to you but the media has been feeding you fake news. For the last decade and half, most of the moderates have been Republicans. It's Republicans who've been the ones more willing to compromise, Democrats the extremists who always vote with their party. In the Senate at least. The House is more of a mixed bag, but it's a straight majority vote there. The Senate is the one with (until recently) the funny rules where a minority could stall legislation if they got everyone in their party to vote together. Now, consider that Republican Senators got a reputation for doing that all the time, when their voting record clearly shows they didn't (or only did on a few issues they cared deeply about, which is exactly what the fillibuster rules were there for). That sort of deviation between perception and reality usually comes about when the media disproportionately focuses on one or a few rare incidents which are not representative of and contradictory to the whole.

I was wondering how much longer the Washington Post would keep the database running since the data so clearly contradicted the stories they typically ran.

Um... no. That's not true

[rsilvergun]

Who told you that? They're lying. Most of the research going on is done in Europe because it's tough to get America businesses to pay for it. The rest is done in public Universities with government grants. America is all about privatizing profits and socializing costs. I've had a few relatives lives saved by medicine, and even in the States it was by socialized medicine. They ran out of money long before they ran out of illness and the drugs that saved them were developed in Europe. One of their doctors left the States because she couldn't get her cancer research funded. It wasn't profitable enough.