Slashdot Mirror
Senate Democrats Force a Vote To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and 32 other Democrats have submitted a new discharge petition under the Congressional Review Act, setting the stage for a full congressional vote to restore net neutrality. Because of the unique CRA process, the petition has the power to force a Senate vote on the resolution, which leaders say is expected next week. The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to roll back regulations within 60 legislative days of introduction, a process that today's resolution would apply to the internet rules introduced by FCC chairman Ajit Pai in December. Pai's rules reversed the 2015 Open Internet Order, which had explicitly banned blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization by internet providers. To successfully undo the Pai order and restore the 2015 rules, today's resolution would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature.
This is how you win votes.
Your bill will go up anyway.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government.
your federal paper insulated wireline monopoly ...
How is going back to a NN protected monopoly going to move community broadband forward?
Consider the federal rules that protected monopoly paper insulated wireline for years.
That did not to result in competition, new network, faster networks.
With federal NN rules the existing monopoly networks got protection.
Time to start allowing some completion and new innovate services.
Using new federal rules to protect networks using NN will not result in innovate new services.
Open networking up to the free market and some real competition.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
They know it will fail - that's the point. They want it to fail, so they can make it an issue.
as well as the president's signature.
Good luck with that.
No that's not quite right.
if it fails, they can use it as an issue against the whole Trump party.
If it succeeds, they can use that as a selling point for the Dems.
But it it fails OR if it succeeds, in every race, they can use a vote against network neutrality against the candidate. And any Republican who votes FOR this will lose money from big donors in the form of AT&T and Comcast.
Win, win, win.
This is not a pointless vote. This is good chess while being helpful for the country at the same time.
are you going to watch the vote and throw out anybody who votes 'nay'? If not, this is a waste of time. Heck, is there even anybody on this forum who is gonna change their voting behavior in response to Net Neutrality? And if not, what are the odds there's anybody anywhere who will?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Even if it passes, it won't be signed by Trump.
"The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority."
(a joint resolution follows the same procedure as a bill, at least for this case)
We have a stupid, petty, transparent president. As the poop hits the fan about how he took what looks a LOT like illegal money from AT&T, he will sign to show he's not being bought, provided the Dems push the AT&T connection hard.
It's nothing more than politics as usual.. Is basically what you are saying..
Um, just in case you haven't noticed, the guy in the Whitehouse right now doesn't play "politics as usual". In fact, that's pretty much what he campaigned with and won and how he's governing and yet still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating ( https://www.realclearpolitics.... ) Also note that Bernie Sanders was running as an outsider (though not as convincingly) on the left and made a good showing.
I'd be careful with this "politics as usual" play. I suspect it isn't as effective as it once was.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
WTF? Trump did not take any illegal money from AT&T. You need to read/watch news from somewhere other than CNN. None of your liberal "poop hits the fan" schemes have panned out yet and this won't either because it is fake news.
They are ignoring 2 referrals for charging McCabe for lying to FBI during Trump investigation.
2 FBI agents fired from Muller probe for unethical behaviour, possibly illegal behaviour.
A couple prosecutors being bashed by a judge and will be held in contempt of court for not producing what the judge ordered.
Charging Flynn of lying to FBI, then redacting the part where the FBI says he didn't lie for "security reasons"
Failing to comply with MULTIPLE Congressional subpoenas about scope of investigation.
Failure to be ready to try case where they charged Russians with interfering with election and telling them they don't have a right to see evidence they are charged with.
All info based on a FISA warrant illegally obtained by Comey, Lynch, Roseinstein, and Yates lying on the FISA application to the judge.
Thats quite a LOT of illegal activity for a group of 20 people on a SINGLE investigation. Of the charges they have come up with, Flynn appears to have been charged illegally, the 13 Russians appear to have been charged without evidence, Manifort appears to be charged illegally. Not sure why Gates and Popadapoulous pled out, I bet their charges were also illegal.
Its pretty bad when the investigators have committed more in number and seriousness crimes than those they have charged.
Um, just in case you haven't noticed, the guy in the Whitehouse right now doesn't play "politics as usual". In fact, that's pretty much what he campaigned with and won and how he's governing and yet still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating.
Actually, according to Trump, he's the most popular president ever, he's accomplished tons of miracles, and he's so great and wonderful and kind and brave that we should not look behind the curtain to realize he's actually the kind of empty-headed, big-talking, noise-tooting politician that has been derided as the usual for a work of satirical political fiction for the past couple of decades. Even the Japanese got into it, mocking Trump.
Really, he is entirely like Reagan, except not as accomplished, because Reagan managed to get some things done in between senior nap time. Trump's managed to lose track of 2 aircraft carriers and get a third to spin around in circles due to a broken propeller shaft. Oh, and his wall? It'll be made of cardboard and newspapers, not a real matter of substance. His campaign promises? Failures everywhere. But he sure blows a lot of smoke. To conceal the spiraling debt from his tax cut. The escalating injustices from his rampant "war" on imaginary crimes. The seething poverty from diverting social services to the wealthy. Look at his lies about "clawbacks" for example. Nothing to them. Look at his diplomacy. Temper tantrum missile strikes and torn up agreements over feigned outrage. Look at his pardon. For a convicted felon who cost taxpayers in Arizona tens of millions of dollars.
I can't wait till Land of Delusion from DysGenesis is the next big hit.
You'll sing his praises in the chorus.
So did they actually go and write a decent technical bill and address the issues or did they just copy the sloppy one that the FCC was smart in getting rid of?
Congress never voted on Net Neutrality. It was handed down as a regulatory fiat.
This one is better. And you can compare it to other presidents.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
because THIS congress would never pass pro-network neutrality legislation, criticize the administration or trump's fcc, or overturn ashit pile's ramrod of anti-obama actions... this isn't some lame duck legislation (too early for that) that'll cruise through; it's fucking dead-on-arrival.
once it fails, and it will; the administration and congressional leaders (i.e. republican establishment), can bury the issue:
"see? nobody wanted it, so fuck off while i go cash this check from comcast."
I'd be careful with this "politics as usual" play. I suspect it isn't as effective as it once was.
"Sweep the corrupt blokers out of office!" has been effective for decades, if not centuries. It's just politics as usual, and so is Trump.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's nothing more than politics as usual.. Is basically what you are saying..
This is awfully dismissive. The parent laid out why this move is particularly effective, and how the opposition party is acting against public sentiment. It certainly is politics, and it's not unique, but it's a little different from the usual.
I'm struggling to understand the argument that you're making here. You seem to be saying that people aren't rational anymore, and so we should just give up on that whole, outdated, "appealing to reason" business that people are used to.
"To successfully undo the Pai order and restore the 2015 rules, today's resolution would need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature."
I can't see Trump seeing the outside of his own ass long enough to sign off on this even if the house and senate agree to roll them back.
And given that the republicans are in majority here, I can't see it even getting to the president's desk.
And what did you get? A fib to congress BECAUSE he was called up and a big fat fuck all for the other. Yet what were you all chanting? Lock her up,wasn't it?
What the hell are you babbling on about the 2nd being nearly dead you fucking idiot???
With some states passing Net Neutrality Laws, Republicans will be able to argue for States Rights and Low Regulations in voting against a Net Neutrality repeal.
It's about telling the ISPs that they can't route IP based on source or destination, thereby double dipping or using monopoly power to screw over the customers. There is a huge limit: it costs a shitload. And the big players can see it's better not to break into someone else's turf because they will break into yours, and it's more profitable to keep it that way because without any choice, the customer gets screwed.
Congress told FCC to do this, and so they have the right to do it as given by congress. Just like congress don't have to pick up guns and shoot, nor tell the armed forces where to go and what to do in each battlefield, they tell the head of the armed forces to get the hell on with it and then every "regulation" done to the army is done by the head of the armed forces.
You are just repeating a fox script.
To say it's not nearly dead compared to its original meaning ad purpose is willful misrepresentation. The original purpose was equipping the population (all able-bodied adults were automatically members of the militia, it wasn't like the Guard) for military battle; against foreign invaders or a tyrannical government. 'Arms' were all weapons the military possessed. While it's eminently reasonable to restrict weapon types now, that's severely narrowing the right. Now we're seeing that slippery slope going even further with "assault weapon" bans. Reasonable? An honest debate. Further killing the 2nd? Undoubtedly.
The other major point, what other civil right can be taken away permanently as punishment? You can't lose your right to free speech. Nor your 4A rights. The idea that you can strip someone of an entire right would be intolerable to the founders and has no basis in the constitution. To make a civil right something taken away permanently as punishment is driving a stake straight through the heart of it. However reasonable it is for violent felons, there's no rational connection to taking it away from someone convicted of something like insider trading.
That's being taken even further now, taking the right away from people who have not even committed a crime, just on a judges finding, not even a jury.
No matter how reasonable and necessary some of that is, the fact is limiting it to a tiny subset of weapons and taking it away from people as a punishment and without a conviction makes it nearly dead. It's tiring seeing people who try and claim the 2nd only actually meant whatever ultra-narrow meaning they like so they can do end-runs around it instead of just owning up and saying 'this amendment needs to be changed'.
Heh, Trump is less popular than Jimmy Carter after the botched mission to rescue those hostages the Iranians were holding.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Democrats vote keep, Republicans vote repeal. Party lines. Every time.
This is just a smart way for democrats to get votes on record to campaign against the republicans.
I'm struggling to understand the argument that you're making here.
Republicans Good. Democrats Bad.
Haven't you noticed his factionalism?
This isn't an appeal to reason. This is a politically driven action designed to elicit political results, not an appeal to reason designed to actually get something done. This move is about political division, not a debate on the merits of an idea.
Politics has long ago left the realm of reasonable debate, or haven't you noticed? Listen to the rhetoric being used sometime. Ever wonder why the term "Nazi" and such keeps coming up on one side? It's not that the other side are actually "Nazis", but that it has (or at least used to have) an emotional effect on the hearers. Politics has become, in large part, a game focused on making the other side look bad, not a profession where differing views are aired, discussed and understood with solutions crafted with understanding, but where "success" is measured by ramming though YOUR ideas over any and all objections.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Well.. I cannot disagree totally with that. However, Trump is pretty much the opposite of politically correct who has actually upended a bunch of apple carts on both sides of the isle... In this way, he's pretty unique, even if his appeal and rhetoric is from history.
He clearly ran anti-establishment on BOTH sides of the isle and has governed this way too. So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The flaw is that most American's don't care about this.
wonkavader is right about how the democrats see it. The thing is, it's too transparent. Anyone that is pro-Trump will see right through it. Anyone that is against Trump will see this as buisness as usual. The people on the fence will either stay on the fence or see it as more pointless grandstanding politics.
This might be a critical or moving issue if we didn't have the Iran, Korea, Healthcare, tax, and job stuff in the news but we do.
That's not particularly respectable...especially if you look at the spread. Compared to other Presidents he's way down there
Really? He's above Obama for this point in his term, if but barely. Plus, he's been trending up since April started.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.realclearpolitics....
I think you are a bit misinformed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
still commands a very respectable 43.2% approval rating ( https://www.realclearpolitics.... )
Ok, I recognize the need to do mental gymnastics and stretch truths to justify actions after the fact. But in what world is having the lowest consistent approval rating of any president in over 50 years "very respectable"?! May I remind you that even according to the graph you linked, that 43.2% is one of his HIGHEST approval ratings since he was elected?
Depends on the poll you look at. He's definitely within the margin of error for *maybe* being slightly ahead in approval percentage. But the point still stands. Why is being almost as popular as the president he despised respectable? If he's so much better, shouldn't it be obvious to more people?
It's not going to get a majority in the house and a presidential signature in an election year. So the devil is in the details as they say. "need a bare majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as the president's signature." Buh-bye.
This move is certainly not a debate on the merits of an idea, it is definitely an action designed to elicit political results. As all political actions are. In this case those results are, in the long term, the preservation of network neutrality, and in the short term, holding those people accountable who are trying to kill network neutrality.
None of what people do in the actual halls of congress is debate: that goes on outside. Politicians show up with an already-formed notion of what legislation they want to support. There's nothing wrong with this, it doesn't mean that debate doesn't take place it just means that it doesn't take place in those particular rooms.
As for your comment about Nazis: the reason why the term Nazi keeps coming up is because there are Nazis who have been holding political rallies recently and have been getting a lot of attention. It's not coincidence or hyperbole, that is something which is actually happening.
What do you mean by "it's too transparent"? This move isn't trying to be subtle, there's nothing to see through here. The point is to force congressmen to be on the record about whether they are for or against network neutrality. That's it. The democrats who are pushing for this haven't claimed it's anything else, it doesn't look like it's anything else. That is clearly what it is.
Those two articles say very different things. The first one puts him at 50% a month ago (compared to Obama at 49% from the same poll). The second looks at more polls and puts him at 43% (compared to 49% with the same method). Plus he's been trending equal or negative since April (according to The poll you cited).
As for your comment about Nazis: the reason why the term Nazi keeps coming up is because there are Nazis who have been holding political rallies recently and have been getting a lot of attention. It's not coincidence or hyperbole, that is something which is actually happening.
Really? And one party has been actively SUPPORTING such activity as is regularly alleged? I don't think so.
The number of people claiming to be Nazis in this country represent maybe a couple thousand. They have zero political power with their votes and as such NOBODY cares about them or supports their ideology both because it is offensive as well as contrary to the vast majority of people's principles, even on the right.
Why are we discussing these idiots or showing up at their rallies? It's not the right that keeps bringing them up or comparing their political opponents to them or their name sake, no that's the left. You do understand that these idiots crave attention and that the LEFT is giving it to them not the right. I think this is by design myself, it's just a dangerous political game played by the left.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It's a show vote that has no point of passing and doesn't really do much. They ackwoldge it doesn't have a chance of passing.
It's being done just to force people to go on record for an issue that ranks very low on most people's list of concerns.
I might end up getting worse resolution on Netflix? Well I guess that outweighs my concerns on Health Care, Korea, Iran, taxes, jobs, etc... Most people outside of a small subset of people on tech sites do not think this way.
Honestly, would you vote for an pro-life, pro reduction of illegal immigration, pro gun republican because he was for net neutrality and the democrat was against it?
Trump is pretty much the opposite of politically correct who has actually upended a bunch of apple carts on both sides of the isle... In this way, he's pretty unique
He clearly ran anti-establishment on BOTH sides
That's a distinction without a difference. Notice GP's generalized statement didn't specify which party or side of the aisle the "corrupt blokers" belong to, and it doesn't need to.
In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding
Telling people "our guy's different this time" and "he's actually trying and succeeding!" is also business as usual.
Every politician worth their salt exaggerates their accomplishments while down playing set backs (and they can always blame set backs on the obstructive opposition obviously obstructing)
Whether you buy into their narrative says more about your own preferences and biases than what actually happens.
Look at the data.. I use RCP's combined number as an actual because it's an average of all the polls and gives us 43.2% approval.
The WE article is pointing out that in ONE specific poll Trump is ABOVE Obama for the same date.
I'm objecting to the "Compared to other Presidents he's way down there" comment, saying that it's not so. He compares favorably to Obama's numbers, exceeding them in some polls.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Single-issue voting is irresponsible. There are people who do that, it's true, but the fact that a politician's stance on network neutrality doesn't completely determine my vote doesn't mean that it doesn't factor into my vote. It is one issue, of many, that I care about and how a politician acts on this issue certainly effects how likely I am to vote for that politician.
There are many people who care about network neutrality, all of the protests and the news coverage should have convinced you of that. There are few people who care about network neutrality above all other issues, that is true, but this does not mean that people don't care and that this will have no effect on how they vote.
Really? He's above Obama for this point in his term, if but barely. Plus, he's been trending up since April started.
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.realclearpolitics....
I think you are a bit misinformed.
The fact that one cherry-picked poll, Rasmussen, has a favourable number doesn't mean much. There are many other polls that have Trump as low as 39 percent.
An article talking about some nuance in these types of numbers:
* https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/presidential-approval-numbers/
As usually, 538 has some good data with their weighted average:
* https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Scroll down a bit and you can get comparisons with previous presidents: on Day 476, Obama had a weighted average approval of 49.5% to Trump's 42%.
Sure, in one poll run by a conservative organization, he's up by 1% or equal to Obama at the same time, but the Rasmussen Reports poll consistently rates him more favorably than others as you can see. The RCP average (and all polls apart from the one cherry picked in the WE article) put him a good deal below Obama at the same time.
You didn't answer my question. Would that issue make you vote for a republican candidate that was pro-net neutrality (and lets say pro immigration?)
Are you really saying there is no single issue that would cause you not to vote for a person?
You keep wondering further and further off-topic. I'm here to discuss a vote on network neutrality, not answer rhetorical questions about nothing. You know the reasons for all this shit: Why Nazis? Trump. Why Trump? Because Republicans keep supporting him. Thus it goes: Republicans support Trump, Trump supports Nazis, hence Republicans support Nazis. It's a tenuous link, it certainly doesn't fully characterize Trump or Republicans or Nazis, but it's a thing that exists. So people talk about it.
Yes, of course it's the left bringing up the Nazis. Most of the people on the right would prefer that they didn't exist and that no-one talked about them. The Nazis are firmly right-wing, and so they're an embarrassment. Thus it's politically useful to remind people on the right that they are allied with Nazis, and the principle reason for why that has suddenly become relevant (Trump). This applies whether those people on the right want that alliance or not. This is true, of course, with any embarrassing group. The left has most of the anti-vaxxers, for example, and would prefer that people on the right didn't talk about them so much.
Again: this is all really obvious. You know all this shit, I shouldn't have to tell you this.
To make an attempt to bring this back on topic: I guess you're saying that you don't like the fact that politicians spend most of their time grandstanding? Speechifying? And you don't like this vote on net neutrality because that's what this is? Fine, you don't have to like anything you don't want to. All of this talking though, this is how democracy functions. You need to know how politicians are likely to act on issues that you care about in order to make an informed decision when it comes time to vote. Thus the function of this particular vote is not to preserve net neutrality directly because, as you say, this vote is likely to fail. The function of this vote is to inform you and everyone else about the character of this group of politicians. It's one more data point to consider when it comes time for voters to make their decision. For this reason, this vote may help to preserve network neutrality in the long term even though it won't accomplish that in the short term.
The decisive action against the Second actually dates to 1986, when owning an automatic firearm made after that date became illegal. Because of that bill, civilians can't buy modern infantry rifles. The Second mentions militia, which is military, so if it had any intent it was to allow people in general to own military weapons.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, "vote the bastards out" isn't all that effective. Have you looked at the number of incumbents who lose elections for Congress?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Depends. If it carries, like maybe eighty percent of the population prefers, it gets something done. If it fails, it still has a political effect which will make it more likely to restore NN in the future.
This is politics. The way to accomplish things in politics is to do political things. You don't have to practice politics, but unless you're involved to some extent (perhaps by contributing money and voting) you've got no influence on what's going to happen.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There's lots of issues that would cause me not to vote for a candidate, sure. If neither candidate fails on that account, I have to make a decision on smaller things. It's an inexpensive political maneuver that might pay off in a small way.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, I'm calling this politics as usual, in a era where the usual politics has been falling out of favor.
I'm calling this a circus side show act, with all the same implications. It may be entertaining, but it only serves to wrangle the rubes out of their money and time but produces no helpful result for those who watch and everybody on the stage knows it's all an act, an illusion, and/or a gimmick.
I'm also saying that the democrats are obviously in trouble if they think that this little side show on NN will have any discernible effect on the vote counts in November. You may find it important, but I will almost guarantee that the only people who care about this are already voting democratic anyway, which makes this a general waste of time... Something that makes congress look bad and strengthens the "anti-establishment" sentiments and increases the appeal of candidates with "Trump like" campaigns. Things like this cut both ways, the question is if it will be a net gain or loss for democrats. I think there is a significant risk this turns out to be a loss with the middle where elections are won and lost.
Power to the democrats though, if this is how they want to play the game, so be it.
BTW, I look forward to the budget fight coming up before the election. I think THAT's going to be where November is won or lost.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I believe that I exactly answered your question: single issue voting is irresponsible. Did you need me to say that I strive to be responsible with my voting?
Of course I am saying that there is no single issue that would cause me not to vote for a person. There are some issues which would make it an unpleasant decision, but some elections are like that. There was an election in Louisiana not that long ago that came down to a choice between an individual who was obviously very corrupt, and another person who was a self-declared white supremacist.
You may find it important, but I will almost guarantee that the only people who care about this are already voting democratic anyway
Your guarantee is unfounded, network neutrality enjoys broad bipartisan support among voters. Once again you repeat this odd comment about this being "politics as usual." It is politics, yes, but it's unusual (not unheard of) for congress to act against something which has such broad public support. And, yadda yadda... We already had that discussion. It didn't make sense when you said it before, it doesn't make sense now. It's an odd phrase to pull out here, there's nothing particularly common about this situation if not what I said above.
You are missing the point on purpose I think.
I'm saying there is little difference between Trump's approval rating and Obama's for the same period while others are trying to say Trump is substantially below historical presidents, that people just don't like what he's doing. This is a misrepresentation at best and at most a lie. If Obama was typical, Trump is typical too. Trump enjoys about the same level of support as he did on his first day in office.
Now that Rasmussen has him pegged at 50% or so approval and THAT is higher than Obama's rating for most of his two terms is NOT what I'm basing this claim on. Rasmussen is OBVIOUSLY an outlier with the rest of the polling industry about 5% below them. However, to their credit, they where the ONLY organization claiming Trump had a reasonable chance of winning the presidency in the days leading up to the election while the rest where saying he'd already lost. They were the closest to actual results. This doesn't mean they are right now, only that I'd not be too quick to just dismiss them as an outlier.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm saying there is little difference between Trump's approval rating and Obama's for the same period while others are trying to say Trump is substantially below historical presidents
But there is a YUUUGE difference. You're looking at a Republican heavy poll, Obama was very hated by Republicans, so that among Republicans Trump is only as popular as Obama is a big deal. When you actually look at the country as a whole Trump is far below Obama.
Whoops. Looks like I replied to myself there.
According to all but 1 poll, Trump is substantially below historical presidents. There is a big difference between approval ratings of the two.
Trump didn't win because he was more popular, he won because Clinton was less popular and people that were expected to vote for her didn't vote. Since Rasmussen always skews right, they "predicted" the surprise in this case. That doesn't make them more accurate.
I believe that I exactly answered your question: single issue voting is irresponsible. Did you need me to also say that I strive to be responsible with my voting?
Of course I am saying that there is no single issue that would cause me not to vote for a person. There are some issues which would make it an unpleasant decision, but some elections are like that. There was an election in Louisiana not that long ago that came down to a choice between an individual who was obviously very corrupt, and another person who was a self-declared white supremacist.
The crook won that election, even though he was deeply unpopular. So not only am I not a single issue voter, but that election suggests that most other people (at least in Louisiana) are also not single issue voters - they knew about his corruption, and disliked it, but ultimately made their decision based on a combination of factors (at least one other factor) and not his corruption alone.
Unless being a "self-declared white supremacist" was the single issue that made enough people vote for the crook.
You just had another election where the possible under-age allegations against a candidature was enough to get someone not elected even though his party has a larger share of the vote
Unless being a "self-declared white supremacist" was the single issue that made enough people vote for the crook.
That's awfully twisted logic. I gave you a case where people considered a minimum of two factors, and obviously cared about both of those factors, and then made a decision.
As for your example: that's not the only reason why he lost, but it's the primary reason. However, it does nothing to support what you were suggesting above. Let me refresh your memory: You implied that people are all, or almost all, single issue voters. And since network neutrality is less important than other big issues, a voting record on network neutrality will have no / almost no impact at election time. I, disagreeing with you, said that I think a record on network neutrality will factor into how many people vote, even though it probably won't determine their decision by itself. And, therefore, this vote in the senate that we're talking about is not useless.
I did not make the claim that single-issue voters don't exist, nor do I make the claim now that big issues (like child molesting) can't potentially override smaller issues.
Worked fine for Obama. Maybe more challengers should try it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
All of that could be said about Obama, too. Hope and Change.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Thanks for at least somewhat caring; if anything, it shows the govt. officials that actually seem to care about the issue.
Even if this ends up passing, I wonder if there is any technical solution to this? It'd be nice if there was a way to keep this kind of problem from being able to adversely affect users of the internet without having to rely on constantly making sure that our civil liberties are not being eroded; I guess that is political participation and democracy for you-and what the ACLU, EFF, and the friends are for ðY.
And issues I have read in a while.
We can't stave this off though because the majority of the public doesn't care enough to become educated about their rights, why they are important, or why they need to defend them now, because unlike when our forefathers rebelled, boots won't be required on the ground to purge the insurgents, and unless a huge quantity of the populace rebel, quashing them will be easy to cover up or rebrand in the media, as has been carefully cultivated in foreign campaigns for going on 200 years now.
So where his campaign theme may seem familiar, is management style and personality are anything but politics as usual. In short, he not only ran promising change, he's actually TRYING to fulfill his promises and in some ways succeeding. I believe this is what keeps his supporters on board and why the overwhelming assault on Trump's character has been largely ineffective at reducing his approval ratings.
All of that could be said about Obama, too. Hope and Change.
Except for one thing.. Obama wasn't being savaged in the press and hounded by 90% unfavorable coverage by the major news outlets. Quite the opposite, he was handled with kit gloves and given every benefit of the doubt imaginable while they turned a blind eye to some obvious ideological issues in his past. Not that they mattered, but they just never came up. Trump is getting an anal exam where every jot and tittle of his past is put under the microscope while a pile of talking heads try to "connect the dots" to some scandal which, here to fore, has proven to be based on scant facts and the suppositions of his political opponents.
All that, and his job approval numbers are respectable.... Eventually the voters will tire (if they haven't already) of this and if nothing comes out of the Special Council's investigation pretty soon that hits close to Trump, it's going the way of the Valarie Plame issue under Bush and nobody will care.. I think his approval rating will climb as the media runs out of reality room for ever important "bomb shells" that are really important this time...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Russian investigation looks like it's going to turn up nothing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Um, how did it work for Obama? Bush could not run again, so he wasn't running against an incumbent. The bastard was being thrown out on January 20, 2009 no matter what.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Change we can believe in"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."