Ajit Pai Gives Carriers Free Pass on Privacy Violations During FCC Shutdown (arstechnica.com)

How is this false? by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the carriers are doing is horrible, no doubt. They should be stopped from selling location data to anyone, full stop.

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re: How is this false? by msrnash · 2019-01-15 07:30 · Score: -1

Ajit Pai be hanged for these crimes once TRUMP impeached and the rest of trial begin.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
It very well could be a threat to life. A cost of $300 is small change for a stalker or killer to track someone.
Re:How is this false? by ZoomieDood · 2019-01-15 07:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, perhaps it would be more apparent if someone were to track Mr. Pai's phone, and map it, and ask him if he felt threatened by it's disclosure of his travel patterns, or if the location of his whereabouts might indicate when his vehicle or home is empty for his property to be accessed by others who don't belong there.
I can't help but think lobbyists or ordinary citizens might be interested in knowing whether he really IS busy in meetings elsewhere or if his staff is really just blowing people off. Because I'd love to be able to bump into him in a grocery store to share our respective points of view on various items before the commission.
I'm also thinking of those people who have had their investment portfolios cleaned out as they were on a long flight and inaccessible to see the accounts being drained.
Am I wrong in seeing a threat to high value targets in gaining executives' locations to those who want to kidnap them?
Anyone? Anyone?
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:42 · Score: 0

Translation: Ajit Pai is giving a free pass to trusted associates. So corrupt!!!!
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:48 · Score: -1

Wow you're fucking dumb.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:03 · Score: -1

How dare you swim against the ORANGE MAN BAD current?
Re:How is this false? by EndlessNameless · 2019-01-15 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.
Screw that. Pass a bill to restart the government, then debate the wall like adults. Holding the government hostage is not acceptable.
Plus... why wasn't this $5b funded when Republicans held both houses? Presumably, they could have worked with Trump earlier. They funded the DoD and a few other agencies through Oct 1 (start of the government's next fiscal year).
Stupid manufactured crisis.

--

---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

trump rejected the *REPUBLICAN* budget bills late last year (ya know, when he had the fucking majority in both houses), ones that did include *some* 'wall' funding.
now he and mcconnell (who is doing trump's dirty work, not even letting a bill get a fucking vote to pass; which would force trump to veto.. which would cause a shitstorm, even among his sheeple), and their russian puppetmaster, are holding the entire country hostage for the 'full' amount (and it's not even the 'full' amount, but rather what some estimate would be barely five percent of the final cost after it's all built.. and most of which would end up in republican "donor" pockets). never mind the fact the fucking wall should be debated and funded independently of any other appropriations and legislation, which is what the sane members of congress want.
we do not negotiate with terrorists. trump is owned by russia. he is an enemy asset. HE IS A FUCKING TERRORIST. his allies in the senate are co-conspirators. DO NOT GIVE IN. EVER.
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:09 · Score: 0

The revolution hasn't started here comrade... In America, we don't do the evil just to prove it could be done. But yes I'd say he's being retarded about this if there weren't already a better explanation about him being in bed with the telecoms he's supposedly supervising.
Re:How is this false? by slack_justyb · 2019-01-15 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
No arguments here. This totally can wait till the government is reopened.

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already
No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way. If we were literally talking about any other piece of legislation outside of a CR, maybe. But refusing to sign a CR (or in the Congressional sense vote for a CR) makes a person(s) look like an asshat. That applies to anyone and everyone regardless of political party.

authorized by previous government bills
Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it. Nah, he got his chance in March when the first pieces of his wall were addressed in the 2018 Omnibus spending. He shot it down, at this point he can kick rocks. The President wanted his cake and to eat it as well. I'll continue sending care packages to the local TSA agents and helping out friends who are furloughed till the 2020 election if need be. The President blew his one chance, he ought not get another. If you get three inches in anything government, you take that small bit and roll with it. The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better. Doing that in anything government is call being a greedy fool.
Re:How is this false? by WaffleMonster · 2019-01-15 08:46 · Score: 1

But it's also not wrong to say - this is not threat to life. It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
Given the insane numbers of restraining orders issued in this country and the thousand women actually killed each year by their husbands alone it is easy to draw the opposite conclusion.
Where is my sandwich? Where did that bitch run off to? I swear I'm going to cut her.
(Gets location data from shady broker)
Oh she's at her sisters.
News at 10: Two sisters killed by deranged husband.
Re:How is this false? by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-15 08:51 · Score: 0

And yet - we continue to vote in arsewipes on both sides of the isle.... this is our fault. voters, citizens. We've earned this.
Re:How is this false? by penandpaper · 2019-01-15 08:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait

why wasn't this $5b funded when Republicans held both houses?

The Republican House did pass the funding in December but there were not enough Democrat senators to support it and it died.
The lack of democratic senators is the same reason why it didn't happen earlier. You can't do much in the senate with a simple majority.
Re:How is this false? by Obfuscant · 2019-01-15 09:10 · Score: 1

No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way.

Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions", but instead a real budget with real plans and real numbers.
And maybe we should remember that "failing to sign a bill" is called a "pocket veto", and Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes.
If Congress has the will, they could end this. Not today, but they have the power.

Which if you might remember Trump was going to veto. First President I've known of who had exactly what they wanted and then threaten to veto it.
As if every bill passed by Congress contained only one thing and dealt with only one issue. It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill, some of which they want but the President doesn't, expecting the President to sign the whole thing so he gets the things he wants. You must be very young indeed not to have seen this before Trump.
But sometimes this backfires on Congress when the President stands up to them and vetoes the bill. The standard response is then to claim the President vetoed the bill because of something he himself wanted, when the truth is he vetoed it because of all the extra crap that Congress stuffed into it.
The solution to this is called "line item veto", where the President can veto certain things in a bill while keeping the rest. This is a HIGHLY partisan option, however, and one of the places where reasonable people realize that giving one President that option when they like the guy means the guys they don't like also have that option. The version that we did have in the US was ruled unconstitutional and a legal replacement has yet to be enacted.

in the 2018 Omnibus spending
The word "omnibus" is a dead giveaway that the bill was a "lump everything into one bill and hope it gets signed" attempt. You blame the current President for not signing the lumped together concoctions, why not blame Congress for lumping everything together?
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

The President looked at that small concession, wasn't happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and decided he'd pass and wait for something better.
I think it's even simpler than that.
The Democrats won the house. So, Trump shut down the government.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:16 · Score: 0

Tell that to the voters in WI and NC and see how far that gets you.
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:23 · Score: -1

False. We didn't vote for him, but 45% and the electoral college wanted him as president. We saw this coming. You have NOBODY but yourself to blame.
You reap what you sow.
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:24 · Score: 0

Bold face lies. Citation please.
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:26 · Score: 0

This.
Re:How is this false? by Obfuscant · 2019-01-15 09:27 · Score: 0

What the carriers are doing is horrible, no doubt. They should be stopped from selling location data to anyone, full stop.
I think it is kinda rare when we agree, but this. They should be stopped. But the summary is blaming Pai for not ending unauthorized sales. The FCC cannot end the sales. They can make them unauthorized (illegal), and then they can levy fines. That's all. They can't shoot the people who are about to hand over the data. If they are already unauthorized, then the rules already exist. Now they need STAFF to start the NAL (notice of apparent liability) process.

It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
Pai is pointing out, in a very direct manner, that as a government employee, he is legally prohibited from volunteering his time, even if that time is at the request of the congress. And his staff is legally prohibited from volunteering their time to prepare a report for him to deliver, even if the report is at the request of congress. Providing a report to congress is, as Pai claims, hardly a matter of life and death.
As for the claim the he is "giv[ing] carriers free pass", that's just stupid. He's unable to do anything about it right now, but they'll still be liable for their actions once staff is back at work, even actions that take place "during FCC shutdown".
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:33 · Score: 0

It wasn't funded by the Republican Congress because they used the reconciliation process to pass tax cuts, which they consider to be much more important than Trump's wall fantasy.
A demagogue made stupid people afraid of undocumented immigrants, even though in the real world they're more likely to be the victims of crimes than to commit them, and then assuaged the fears he'd instilled in them by offering a simple, and stupid, fix for the irrational fears he exploited.
Stupid people claimed they were tired of being lied to, so they voted for a pathologically-lying demagogue. It only makes sense if you're stupid.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:36 · Score: 0

Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions", but instead a real budget with real plans and real numbers.
We haven't had a real budget since Reagan sold the voters on tinkle down economics. Slick Willie made some attempts, including the single biggest blunder ever in scrapping the SSCC and finally with the anti-science culture today,(anti-vax and anti-climate to start), are we seeing the real fallout from that.
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:05 · Score: -1

Trump will hang for treason, his son and daughter will be raped in prison for what he's sown. Traitors hang.
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:13 · Score: 0

do you need to be led to water?
https://www.businessinsider.co...
http://www.winknews.com/2018/1...
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:14 · Score: 0

Screw that. Pass a bill to restart the government
Screw that. Pass a bill to remove the president, so we can begin his trial for treason.
FTFY.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:46 · Score: 0

No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way.

You know there is a way for congress to bypass a presidential veto? No new standard would be set. Amazing, right?
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 11:08 · Score: 1

Or, the USA could save a billion or two and PAY Mexico to build the wall...
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 12:22 · Score: 0

If you are really really keen on this moving forward, add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.
Go fuck yourself and everyone like you. I'm tired of you assholes holding the government hostage over a goddamned wall. If that thing ever does get built, I'll be one of the people helping to tear it the fuck down and giving the Mexicans on the other side the demolition equipment to do it with. WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS, BELIEVE ME.
"Mr. Trump, tear down this wall." -- Every sane American.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 12:30 · Score: 0

Are you trying to claim that a funding bill requires a supermajority in the Senate? That would be news to - well, just about everyone.
If the GOP cared a fig about the wall, they could have passed it any time these two years. It would have been a tiny fraction of the price of their unfunded tax cuts. But they didn't care about it - and still don't.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 13:00 · Score: 0

Hillary's e-mail server had also been hacked by the Russians; Putin personally released them to Trump for prosecution. You're playing yourself with that argument.
I find it funny before the election, 2\3rds of the public supported a border wall, and now the polls all reversed. Then again, I've gotten to the point where trying to find a real poll through all the obviously fake ones is a real pain in the butt. There's an old addage; you believe whatever you want to believe. It's a Son of a bitch.
In my opinion, someone's got to force the issue on 1-2 million immigrants a year coming into the country. You have fertility rates declining badly enough (even amongst migrants!!!!) you're going to end up with somewhere around 60 to 100 million men who will never marry or have kids; those men have no purpose in life, they have no interest in government, religion, glory, politics, your beliefs, your personal safety or their own. There's a damn good reason why we outlawed polygamy; when men don't have families they get restless. Women too. That problem needs to be solved civilly and amicably before the public begins solving it with lead, which I assure you if history is any teacher, they will with absolute certainty. Remember, we 19 of 20 revolutions you don't get George Washington. You get someone else.
Just look at all the people on SNAP; you're 3 hots and a cot away from anarchy.
I'm Perfectly fine with the shutdown going all year long over just the border wall. Sounds good to me. I want to see all the big media monopolists, CNN, CBS, Fox, NBC, all of them crying 24/7 over the government shutdown, showing faces of government workers crying because hell they're out of a job for a change. I want to see them bash trump like they did in 2016 24/7. This all reminds me about the gnashing of teeth in the movie screen in 1984. To be frank, free news is fake news, and anyone who televises a tantrum like they did before isn't worth your time.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 13:01 · Score: 1

No, We didn't.
Put the blame where it belongs: The greedy assholes and powermongers in Washington.
They've done and continue to do every thing they can to to keep an ever tightening grip on their power.
Funneling money to political parties? Check.
Delegitimizing political opinions of the constituency? Check.
Delegitimizing the media? Check.
Election fraud? Check.
Corrupting the judicial system? Check.
Diluting the power of the voters? Check.
Revoking voting rights of individual groups? Check.
Limiting access to the polls? Check.
Declaring entire swaths of voter registrations invalid? Check.
Passing legislation for the sole purpose of denying choice to the voters? Check.
Outright ignoring the results of ballot measures? Check.
Manufacturing crisis to distract voters from real issues? Check.
Outright disrespecting voters? Check.
Preventing popular candidates from getting past their primaries by pulling strings? Check.
Handicapping themselves to create excuses for why popular legislation cannot be passed? Check.
Blaming everyone except themselves for the dysfunction in government? Check.
We've seen all of this and more in the last decade. None of this is caused by voters. It's caused by the assholes in Washington. Stop blaming the victims for the state of things. They wanted the choice of leadership at the polls, and in some cases successfully produced candidates. What they actually got was a turd sandwich and a douche bag.
Re:How is this false? by slack_justyb · 2019-01-15 13:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Perhaps you are too young to remember that the government budget isn't supposed to be a string of "continuing resolutions"
Well into my fifties actually. As someone already pointed out, been a hot minute since we've had a comprehensive budget lock, stock, and barrel. But you're confusing the point I'm making about a CR. If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you. Yes, make a budget, make it balanced too, but should all else fail, at least agree that status quo is good enough until a compromise can be had. Not even agreeing to that is a pretty shitty attitude to have.

Congress can overturn a veto if they have enough votes
And that is what some are banking on, but at the moment the Senate Majority leader is preventing anything that will be vetoed from being brought to the floor. That's called favoring party over country, because it is very clear that a Republican held Senate overriding their own President would been seen as an indication that the Republican platform is not united behind their standard barer. If you're attempting to do "the right thing" (and of course that's objective, hence quotes), you tend to ignore how something will look party-wise and just go ahead and do it. Typically, the party can play an override without too many ramifications, but the current President has played the RINO card a lot. Additionally, those who shunned him and lost their bid, the President has made too much of a big deal about that. So the President has, by his own hand, amped the loyalty aspect way too much. So no matter how you slice it, with how it is within the Republican party at the moment, any override by the Senate would be seen as a fracture in the Republican platform and that would make a handy plank in the Democrats platform. Whatever the "right thing" is defined as aside, the Senate overriding the President at this point would create a schism between hard-core Trump supporters and traditional Republicans.

If Congress has the will, they could end this
I feel there is enough moderate Republicans that if they wanted to they would but I'm sure the Whip is keeping folks toeing the line. If there is no break in the Democrat stance, it will only be when enough hurt befalls the moderate Republicans to out power the Whips influence, will there be any breakthrough.

It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.

some of which they want but the President doesn't
Yeah, because we don't live in a Monarchy. No single person gets what they want, it's kind of a collective, you get yours and I get mine kind of deal.

expecting the President to sign the whole thing so he gets the things he wants
Yeah that's called compromise. The President get's the start of his wall. The Democrats would have gotten what they needed for DACA.

You must be very young indeed not to have seen this before Trump
You are assuming a whole lot.

The standard response is then to claim the President vetoed the bill because of something he himself wanted, when the truth is he vetoed it because of all the extra crap that Congress stuffed into it
Well typically, what happens is the President indicates to his party within Congress what line items they would like to see changed. A whole lot of debating goes on and eventually line items before it even gets out of committee are changed etc. If a President vetos a budget because of some random line item, then the President has been asleep at the wheel here. There are several points during the process for the President to speak up and have his/her party object, table motion, refer to committee, filibuster, etc, etc, etc... any particular line item. That's why Congress ki
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 13:16 · Score: 0

Wait, remember the deregulation of debt databases?
Basically it lets to anyone with 15 bucks geht access to some Excel spreadsheets with sensible info of people filled with errors and unverified accuracy, and gives them the power to do a lot of cruel and illegal things to people that sometimes do not own
Re: How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 13:44 · Score: 0

Dude this shit has been going on forever. You think all this crap is new??? Where the hell have you been? Get a fricking grip. The media is whipping you up and leading you by the nose...it is great to be infored but hell...study up before you run your trap like a moron...
Re: How is this false? by BadJasper · 2019-01-15 14:36 · Score: 1

'once TRUMP impeached and the rest of trial begin' Keep dreaming.
Re:How is this false? by Darinbob · 2019-01-15 15:00 · Score: 2

In the past when this happened the senators would come to a compromise, like rational adults. Compromise is good, it prevents big radical ideas from being implemented just because of a small majority. It maintains stability. But today compromise has become a bad word. The true believer partisans will curse and scream when the opposite side takes any action unilaterally but when their side is in power they demand fast action without any consultation with the opponents.
In the grand experiment of American democracy, take notes because we're seeing the roots of a systemic failure start to appear. And what is the cause of this; does the system promote intransigent partisanship by rewarding those who campaign on negativity?
Re:How is this false? by Darinbob · 2019-01-15 15:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

If Congress has the will, they could end this.
And don't forget that if the president has the will, he could end this too. When there is an impasse the fault never lies solely with one side.
Re:How is this false? by rtb61 · 2019-01-15 17:17 · Score: 1

I thought Russia was fighting the terrorists. Hey propagandist when ever you mod up anonymous you waste your mod, if you work for the government that post is an electoral crime, so be very, very careful. Do not make political posts or mods on the government dime, that is a criminal act, electoral fraud, don't you know. Governments are not allowed to use tax payer funds for electioneering purposes either for or against.
Besides seppos rolled over decades ago and the 1% have been screwing them over ever since, the political theatre, so amusing, tax cuts for the rich and tarrifs for the poor (basically Wallmart taxes), all the screaming and shouting an illusion, a lie, to hide the government deep state and corporate shadow government, note this is the exact some rubbish paraded about during Uncle Tom Obamas reign as cover for making the rich richer and the poor poorer, exact same political party just with different names and different political camouflage all pumped up by corporate main stream media.
You know a record is kept of mods and all those modders should lose their mod privileges, don't worry they will sign up again under other identities, it's what they are paid to do. Still should not do it on the tax payer dime though, that is criminal.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 21:00 · Score: 0

It's something that should be addressed when the government is re-opened.
Should, but won't.
Ajit didn't place himself in the position he is in now, and without the support of Michael O'Rielly and Brendan Carr he couldn't do jack shit.
Ajit is getting well paid to dismantle FCC and then take the blame.
The problems that have been caused are not going to be addressed until we get a non-malicious President.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 21:26 · Score: 0

why wasn't this $5b funded when Republicans held both houses?
The Republican House did pass the funding in December but there were not enough Democrat senators to support it and it died.
Shouldn't have been needed. With wall funding in it Trump shouldn't have vetoed it so it should have passed.
Problem is that the bill wasn't racist enough for Miller so he made Trump veto it anyway.

The lack of democratic senators is the same reason why it didn't happen earlier. You can't do much in the senate with a simple majority.
How do you figure? The Republicans doesn't want to pay for a wall, it's only Trumps put project.
The Democrats in congress even tried pushing a budget that was originally drafted by Republicans.
It should be able to get unvetoable support in the Senate, but McConnell doesn't even let it get to a vote.
It is pretty obvious that McConnell wants the shutdown to continue for whatever reason. (I have my suspicions to why, but since it is only speculation at this point I won't go into it.)
The Republicans could easily replace McConnell if they wanted to since no Democrat would ever vote against replacing him, but it appears as if the majority of the Republicans in the senate wants the shutdowns to continue.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 21:38 · Score: 0

I thought Russia was fighting the terrorists.
It is easy to think that since they label anyone they fight as terrorists.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 00:31 · Score: 0

>add to the support to fund the wall already authorized by previous government bills, and move on.
your attempts at this coming across as a rational and honest argument are laughable.
the wall is political not functional. fuck off.
Re:How is this false? by Rhipf · 2019-01-16 05:30 · Score: 1

[Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, Fox and Friends, etc.] looked at that small concession, [weren't] happy it wasn't a "BIG WIN", and [Trump] decided he'd pass and wait for something better.
Sorry had to fix that for you. ;-)
The president was fine with the previous Republican bill until his friends at Fox News told him it was a bad deal. Why should he listen to the public or his advisors when he can just turn to Fox News to see what he should do?
Re:How is this false? by Obfuscant · 2019-01-16 08:11 · Score: 1

If you cannot at the very least sign a CR, then screw you.

So then you think the Congress can put whatever they want into, and leave out things that they've already approved, for a CR and the President is just supposed to rubber stamp it? Is that what you think the President's authority is limited to? Shame shame.

It is quite common, in fact a standard practice these days, for Congress to put multiple things in a single bill
Yeah, that's what a comprehensive budget is for.
Nice way to pull a quote out of context to help your straw man. That quote was referring NOT to a "comprehensive budget", but to the common practice of Congress stuffing lots of unrelated things into a normal bill, hiding behind something the President has asked for, and then claiming the President was vetoing the bill because it contained what he asked for, when the truth is that it was vetoed because of the things he did not.

and a legal replacement has yet to be enacted
By which you mean a Constitutional Amendment is needed.
No, that is not what I mean. Because you've now started putting words in my mouth, you can go debate all by yourself. You might even win that way, although I have my doubts.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 08:24 · Score: 0

There were not enough Republicans to vote without any Democrat support. THAT is why.
Re:How is this false? by slack_justyb · 2019-01-16 11:00 · Score: 1

So then you think the Congress can put whatever they want into, and leave out things that they've already approved, for a CR
One, name a CR where that has been done, because most CR written this side of the aughties and the decade before hand have been "status quo" resolutions with minor tweaks to reach majority. Two, you're correct in that nothing legally prevents them from doing what you've said, but that is not the CR in question that was tabled by the Senate recently. Three, even if they did do that, that's the House's prerogative. They hold the purse of the nation per Article one. While I'm not advocating rubber stamps from the President, what I am advocating is that if a CR presents to the President that has passed both chambers, then there was plenty of time before hand for the President to act on the matter. Vetoing a CR is either lazy, dumb, or being an asshat take your pick. There's tons of time for a President to hammer out a budget before we even get to the point of a veto CR. The current President had two years, two flipping years to build a budget before we even got to CR time. So again, I'm not advocating rubber stamps, but c'mon, the Administration isn't even attempting compromise on agreeing that our government should continue to run status quo. And in more general terms, yeah I still stand by the screw you if you can't agree to continue status quo. If CRs started turning into agenda hand grenades, I might change my position on that, but as it stands, Congress isn't in the mood to start doing that as they know as soon as the tables turn the others would start doing it too and bring literally everything to a grinding halt every time someone didn't get their way. So I guess that's to take your question and flip it around, "Do you think the hand brake on the government needs to be pulled every time a budget line item isn't in agreeance with everyone involved?" I totally get what you're saying, in that if Congress is weaponizing CRs then yeah you'd like a check to that. But that's where I'm left rubbing my head here wondering what CR are you thinking about where that was the case? And I understand that's a subjective thing because some previous CRs have had to drop items from spending to get it through, and for some you might have felt that line item is near and dear to them, yeah, that can feel like a weaponized CR, but that's not how I see it. So I am trying to give you some benefit of the doubt here buddy, but I'm going to need some clarification on your end on what you are thinking.

the common practice of Congress stuffing lots of unrelated things into a normal bill, hiding behind something the President has asked for
Okay, my bad, I'm not trying to pull it out of context, but even still. That's how it works. You get yours and I get mine. That's compromise The President, Republicans, Democrats, Freedom Caucus, Problem Solvers Caucus, Representative from Texas, Representative from California, none of them walk away from a bill with what they wanted without also giving something to the other. As a former Governor of my state once said, "You know you've done your job well when everyone walks away with something, but nobody leaves completely happy." So yeah, fuck that idea that bills should be presented pristine. I guess you and I will just need to agree to disagree on that.

No, that is not what I mean. Because you've now started putting words in my mouth
I might have, but those are the obvious next words as only a Constitutional Amendment can bring back line-item veto as indicated in Clinton v. City of New York which was the case that killed Clinton's line item veto. So you might not have said it and of course that would be me stuffing words in your mouth, but that is indeed what SCOTUS said would be needed to bring back line item vetos. So you said enacted, I took that as perhaps a minor error on your part and was simply correcting you, and I take it that you felt tha
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 15:50 · Score: 0

More Americans would benefit if the requested funds were spent on fixing the deplorable infrastructure and working towards smart traffic control. The asking amount wouldn't even full build the American version of the Berlin Wall nor is Trump stating how much it will fully cost along with expected maintenance cost.
Trump should be held to his statement that Mexico will pay for the wall.
And if it does get built, it will be a graffiti magnet requiring constant cleaning or painting.
Re:How is this false? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 19:46 · Score: 0

The debate over the wall was already over... Donald J. Trump won the presidency. However, it took too long to build those initial prototype designs for his approval in San Diego County, CA and even then, he expressed a desire to make the wall see-through. The administration simply works too slowly and not aggressively enough, seeing as how it took an approaching caravan to call the military to assist with border security... although this Government Shutdown is a good lesson even for Trump that the wall is a mandate. Still, those who wish to deny the US Constitution Article II Section 1, Amendment XII, and Amendment XXIII relevant to the Electoral College and insist on a "per-individual summed state national popular vote" maintained by the media were likely part of the 10 days of obstruction, vandalism, and riots when Donald J. Trump won the presidency by per-state popular votes that won state-apportioned Electoral Votes. State Electoral Votes DO sum to win a Presidential Election by a minimum of 270. Thus, THE MAJORITY PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES MANDATE IS BUILD THE WALL, and the Democrats stand as obstructionists with a history of violently protesting Presidential Election results. If Donald J. Trump gives in and cuts any deal with the Democrats to avoid actually building a wall, he can be IMPEACHED, should Articles of Impeachment be brought forward against him, for multiple failures to protect and defend Constitution of the United States Article IV Section 4.

Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

The entire Trump Presidency is encapsulated in this : Moron shuts down the government on a tantrum-whim, consequently his "regulators" use that excuse to not do their jobs, as he obviously picked them not to.

Get a rope.

Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by mysidia · 2019-01-15 08:28 · Score: 0, Troll

Moron shuts down the government on a tantrum-whim, consequently his "regulators" use that excuse to not do their jobs
No.... Shutting down the government - or the president refusing to sign a budget missing something he wants that the voters elected him to do has become standard. Obama did an equal shutdown, when congress wasn't giving him funds for the ACA --- now the shoe just happens to be on the other foot.
Either you blame Obama for the prior shutdown and Trump for this one, Or you blame Republicans in the house for the prior shutdown and Democrats in the house for the current shutdown: Those are your only two consistent options.
By the way: The shutdown is primarily congress' responsibility. They don't need the president's
approval to proceed --- they just need to make a budget that 2/3 of the House members and 2/3 of the Senate members can agree to, so I'd say the president is blameless for saying he won't approve a budget that doesn't provide what the president promised to provide that the voters approved him into office for: that he had put on the national agenda, which has only not been put into place yet due to Congress' failings and incompetence.
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by Cyberax · 2019-01-15 08:41 · Score: 1

Obama did an equal shutdown, when congress wasn't giving him funds for the ACA --- now the shoe just happens to be on the other foot.
That's not true. ACA had been fully funded from the start and doesn't need reauthorizations. Ted Cruz shut down the government because he wanted to force Obama to "address the deficit" (not kidding) and cancel the ACA. This is exactly what Trump is doing now.
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-15 08:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bullshit. 2 months ago the GOP had the House , Senate and Oval Office - yet couldn't get a budget done. The GOP refused to give Lord Trumpkin his silly wall. He was ready to sign a budget deal without the wall till FoxNews made fun of him and he threw a tantrum... You like having a Commander if Chief taking marching orders from a propaganda organization? It doesn't bother you he idols are Putin and Kim Jong-un
And, BTW, this shutdown is the longest in history, so there's comparison with Obama or anyone else.
Trump is a spoiled brat petulant child in the White House.
People are sick and tired of politicians owned by corporations raiding the Treasury for corporate benefit... In 2018 the GOP increased the deficit by $1.06T dollars in massive corporate tax cut under the guise of "it would spur the economy"... Corporations took their new found windfall and used it on record setting stock buy backs... a $1T dollars worth (seen that number before?)
We have the GOP who continually scream about the deficit when there's a Democrat in charge, instantly toll armloads of payola on corporate oligarchy as soon as they get the chance.
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:52 · Score: 0

...Ironically creating massive financial liabilities both for government and private sector alike, not to mention DHS legal proceedings and immigration courts are affected... "Make it safe, until then let's let it burn!"
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by penandpaper · 2019-01-15 09:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Budgets in the senate require 60 votes. They needed democrat support then just as they need it now.
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by mysidia · 2019-01-15 09:17 · Score: 1

Bullshit. 2 months ago the GOP had the House , Senate and Oval Office - yet couldn't get a budget done.
The democrats obstructed using the senate. Part of the problem is over the past two years, even when the
republicans had a majority in the Senate they have been "playing nice" --- As in, they've held to old traditions and didn't change the rules of the Senate to
prevent the minority party from using filibusters to obstruct business.
Although the dems have been the ones to push the line and next time they get the majority - rewrite the rules, so
there's no such thing as a filibuster - the fact is, 2 months ago it was Dems in the senate obstructing business.
Re: Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:28 · Score: 0

You had the majority and the dems ready to sign off on it. Trump said no. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
You reap what you sow trumptard. It's funny how often you guys change stances.
Re: Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:30 · Score: 0

LOLOL you people are such fucking liars.
The same shit happen to Obama and you cucks said "it's politics, live with it.". Now you guys aren't getting your stupid wall
And somehow it's the Democrats fault still? Fuck off troll.
Re: Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 13:50 · Score: 0

Your counterargument is weak.
Re: Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by mysidia · 2019-01-16 06:44 · Score: 1

Well, its mostly the Democrats' fault. Every member of congress has a part in it ---
personally, I think to dissuade this behavior, the law ought to be written so that in the event of a funding deficiency -
current congress members' pay and funding of their future benefits will be the very first things that become unfunded:
following that, all congressional office funding and allowances will be suspended - further office supply expenses will be paid for out of pocket with no reimbursement, next suspension of government funding for congressional aides, personal secretaries, office managers, press secretaries, legislative assistants, legislative correspondents, Pages, and other employees caring for the legislators, and the legislative chambers; in that order -- they will be paid for out of pocket by the member they work for, Or be re-assigned away from congress to more critical duties during the shortfall.
Next, the congress will be convened with mandatory attendance of all members - members of congress will be restrained to the house chambers; exiting the building is an automatic resignation from office - Security should confine members of congress to the premises, and confiscate portable communications devices such as cell phones - providing each member an opportunity to use their cell phone for 2 hours a day, with the ability to leave or communicate outside in general withdrawn until the government is no longer unfunded ---- Basic needs such as 2 Basic Meals a day and Water, Bathroom, Bedding, and Clean clothes are to be provided, but nothing luxurious.
Re:Dereliction of duty in a treason adminitration by sdinfoserv · 2019-01-16 12:58 · Score: 2

The Reichwing blocked every single thing Obama did in his last 1-1/2 years. TurtleMan McConnell refused to even do his job and put a SCOTUS replacement on the floor.

Mekes sense for Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:28 · Score: 0

Why would he start protecting the public trust now?

Re:Mekes sense for Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:50 · Score: 1

NORAD has their Santa Tracker. Maybe there should be an official Pai Tracker that would empower the citizens to express their measured and careful opinions on the issues to Pai personally.

THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:30 · Score: -1

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE BITCH

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

America is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

It was a nice run but it's time to admit the experiment our founders put in motion all those years ago has failed. Undone by ignorance, complacency, and unfettered capitalism.

It was nice while it lasted. It's all over but the shouting now.

Re:America is dead by Narcocide · 2019-01-15 07:38 · Score: 1

I honestly wish I could disagree to this, but I don't see any evidence he's wrong. And I've been looking hard for it.
Re:America is dead by 110010001000 · 2019-01-15 07:43 · Score: 2

Not sure what you guys are talking about. America is pretty awesome.
Re:America is dead by Narcocide · 2019-01-15 07:45 · Score: 2

Shut up you fucking Russian. Once this country implodes into civil war, the money for your job dries up too. Consider that.
Re:America is dead by 110010001000 · 2019-01-15 07:47 · Score: 1

Not true. They pay me in rubles.
Re:America is dead by 110010001000 · 2019-01-15 07:47 · Score: 1

Oh crap. Anyone know how to delete posts here
Re:America is dead by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 07:59 · Score: 1

Not true. They pay me in rubles.
I need to learn how to negotiate, I'm just getting paid in signed pictures of shirtless Putin wrestling bears!

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:America is dead by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 12:04 · Score: 0

its good to be an American, cause if you were "in Soviet Russia, you pay Putin"

Too bad the Democrats care more about Mexico by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:31 · Score: -1, Troll

Than America. Can you believe one of the political parties is this corrupt and dependent on illegal border crossings that they will shut down the government to keep it going?

"AND MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:34 · Score: 0

When you get lied to, do you enjoy it? Do Republicans enjoy being lied to? If you want to believe, here's a magic feather. Now jump into that 75 billion dollar hole. Go on. Obama spent 1.2 bailing us out, blow that away. #Fiscal GOP.

Re:"AND MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT" by guruevi · 2019-01-15 07:54 · Score: 0, Troll

Us? Obama bailed out big business and banks. I never got a check, matter of fact, my taxes went up because I was poor, now Trump makes my taxes go down.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:"AND MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:45 · Score: -1

Trump made the debt go up at record rates, the China trade imbalance is at record levels, and he'll leave a legacy of treason and deficit spending. You're a moron and and admitted pedo, get murdered please.
Re: "AND MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:33 · Score: 0

So you are saying trump is lowering taxes for the poor? Is that what you are going with now? Citation fucking needed. Because every single thing this guy does is to benefit rich people. So please show me a citation where trump is helping the poor and another citation showing me where trump lowered taxes for the poor. I'll fucking wait.
Re:"AND MEXICO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:37 · Score: 1

Your taxes have only gone down temporarily if you're poor. They'll go up to close the budget gap created by corporate tax cuts. It's disturbing how corrupt so many Americans are. They can easily be bought. The Soviets were right when they said Americans would sell you the rope to hang them with.

Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit Card by rsilvergun · 2019-01-15 07:35 · Score: -1, Troll

sooner or later an angry ex-spouse is going to get this data and use it to kill someone. It's a wonder it hasn't happened already.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Narcocide · 2019-01-15 07:36 · Score: 1

It has happened already.

Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:37 · Score: -1

Note, though, that budget bills originate in the House, and Pelosi has not allowed a vote on a FY2019 budget. This is Pelosi's shutdown, not Trumps. He blusters, he threatens, whatever. Pelosi has the first move and she's stonewalling.

Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-01-15 07:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Day one, they passed a set of micro-budgets. 7 of them. So the Senate could start turning on some parts of the federal government while still letting a shutdown affect one department (for face saving). The Senate never voted on them.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by guruevi · 2019-01-15 07:52 · Score: 0

Because that's not how government works. You can't just pass budgets for the things you like and never pass a proper budget.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:00 · Score: 0

You are profoundly fucking stupid.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:13 · Score: 0

Not how it's supposed to work, but it does - regularly. Not even at the FED level... local gov'ts do this all the time (US at least).
Regardless how the house/senate vote it will get vetoed without full wall spending, so without 2/3rds majority (lol) then it doesn't really matter what the senate does/votes on.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by CohibaVancouver · 2019-01-15 09:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Note, though, that budget bills originate in the House, and Pelosi has not allowed a vote on a FY2019 budget. This is Pelosi's shutdown, not Trumps. He blusters, he threatens, whatever. Pelosi has the first move and she's stonewalling.
Incorrect, Anonymous Coward.

The House has passed numerous budgets. The Speaker of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, refuses to take any of them to the floor of the senate.

McConnell has the next move and he's stonewalling.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:11 · Score: 0

Except that the Senate DID pass those 7, as one bill in the last session. Unanimously no less.
The senate considered it a "proper budget", until partisanship took hold.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-01-15 09:12 · Score: 2

Of course that's how it works. 80% of the US government isn't shut down. The military, HHS, VA, Education Department, etc. are all full funded. So is the USPS, Social Security and Medicare (although that's because of alternate funding.)
There's no "pass a budget" item. It's a "fund X bill". Sometimes X is the whole governments. Sometimes, it's a special allotment to establish a specific bridge or project.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Obfuscant · 2019-01-15 09:14 · Score: 1

The House has passed numerous budgets. The Speaker of the Senate, Mitch McConnell,

There is no "Speaker of the Senate". There is a President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the US, Mike Pence. There is a majority leader, who is Mitch McConnell.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by penandpaper · 2019-01-15 09:15 · Score: -1

McConnell said he will only vote on bills that has the support of Trump. Pelosi is not doing anything that has Trumps support.
It takes two to fight.
Re: Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:21 · Score: 0

No, trump said fund the wall or shut down the government.
So it's one side wanting a wall or burn the country. That's their only two bargaining positions. Give me what I want or I will cry like a child. Trump had 2 years of partisanship to get this passed. He chose to wait until the dems took over.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:29 · Score: 0

In 2018, the House, under the Republicans, passed several budget bills as well.
Those bills were filibustered by the Senate Democrats.
There are two to blame for this shutdown.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:42 · Score: 0

The legislature is given pretty much carte-blanche with respect to what it can pass in terms of laws, at least in the form they take. The constitution just says laws are passed in this way, not laws must take the form of a comprehensive thing.
Basically, if you can get the house and senate to agree to it, get the president to sign off (or ignore it, or get the house and senate to override a veto) and it isn't forbidden by the constitution (or is specifically allowed by the constitution, depending on your interpretation), it is all good.
Re:Because Republicans are Bad!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 12:02 · Score: 0

FTFY
"until Oragaturd took hold"

This is BAU for Pai by rsilvergun · 2019-01-15 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

he sides with the corporation over consumers almost every single time (he did some stuff for rural communities that you can chalk up to his party needing that voting block).

We all know this by now. The question I keep asking is, is this going to change how anybody votes in 2020? So far I haven't got a single answer of "yes". As such, I would expect him to continue this behavior since it seems to be working out just fine for him.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:This is BAU for Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:49 · Score: 0

It doesn't change my vote because I already voted against him. I will continue to vote against him.
Re:This is BAU for Pai by alvinrod · 2019-01-15 07:52 · Score: 0

No one here voted to elect Pai. Regardless of how he acts, the real crime is that there's anyone at all in government that can make laws without being an elected representative of the people.
Re:This is BAU for Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:52 · Score: 0

The question you should be asking is. Will who you vote for in 2020 change this? Sure Obama's FCC is real cool and all but in the end of the day it only affects WHO profits off of your data not whether it will be stolen or not. It has always been an issue of whether large tech companies get the prize or whether ISPs do. The plebeians have never been invited to share in the profits of their own data.
Re:This is BAU for Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:22 · Score: 0

For one, he cannot make laws only Congress can do that. Even the President can't make laws. That being said, congress gave the FCC more power than they should have because congress doesn't like to do it's job and pawns off policy on Bureaucrats. Congress can make a law that would prevent this form being legal but they don't, they are lazy shills looking to get re-elected.
Re:This is BAU for Pai by strikethree · 2019-01-15 10:39 · Score: -1, Troll

We all know this by now. The question I keep asking is, is this going to change how anybody votes in 2020? So far I haven't got a single answer of "yes". As such, I would expect him to continue this behavior since it seems to be working out just fine for him.
Really? You think voting Democrat will prevent someone like Ajit Pai being appointed to an important position?
LOL. Your naivety is adorable.
What is worse is that you expect people to change their vote based on just ONE appointment. "Ajit Pai sucks, vote Democrat next time".
Ummm. That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works. You are utterly deluded if you think the root of the problem is voting for one party over the other. They are both as corrupt as could possibly be. We have seen evidence of Republican corruption and evidence of Democrat corruption. We have seen Republicans show a complete lack of respect towards common citizens. We have seen Democrats show a complete lack of respect towards common citizens.
Sure, the Democrats offer a DIFFERENT shitshow than the Republicans do, but both parties only offer shit shows.
So how is "changing a vote" a thing here? You will get corruption no matter what you vote. Corruption is the only thing offered on the ballot. If it weren't, then we could vote for non-corrupt people. But we can't. The only choice is: Do I prefer to get fucked this way (copyrights forever, wasted tax money etc) or do I want to get fucked that way (corps getting away with murder, huge tax increases).
Well? How would I change my vote in a way that matters? Go ahead and say vote Democrat and I will laugh at your fantasy version of reality. It is getting harder to not just write Mickey Mouse in as a candidate.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Too bad you can't stay on topic by Narcocide · 2019-01-15 07:39 · Score: 1

Cheap Mexican labor is fucking carrying our economy you stupid shill.

Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:58 · Score: 0

t. Pablo
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 08:05 · Score: 0

Cheap Mexican labor is fucking carrying our economy you stupid shill.
If true, why do you support such economic slavery? Would it not be better to reveal real costs of doing things rather than by exploiting poor Mexicans?
I guess you just prefer to see them suffer. Sad.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:21 · Score: 1

Or maybe business owners could exercise some of that "personal responsibility" and only hire legal workers instead of wasting taxes on a useless wall.
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Rockoon · 2019-01-15 09:33 · Score: 1

Found the Californian!

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:42 · Score: 0

You're as disingenuous as a 2019 Republican. It's impossible to have a conversation with people who dishonestly frame every issue. All you can do is marginalize people who intentionally mislead.
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:56 · Score: 0

Found the treasonous Republican faggot of no value or consequence!
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Rockoon · 2019-01-15 13:19 · Score: 2

Found the treasonous Republican faggot of no value or consequence!
Logic: Its treason to want to stop the exploitation of desperate minorities by rich liberals in California.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:Too bad you can't stay on topic by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 03:54 · Score: 0

Cheap Mexican labor is fucking carrying our economy you stupid shill.
If true, why do you support such economic slavery?
Where did the OP say that he/she supported it? I must have missed that.
Or are you one of those intellectually disingenuous people who just assume the worst of anyone who says something in a way that you disapprove of?
If so, then sad.

Code-Please Respond with Correct Passcode by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:40 · Score: -1

Awwww smell my tube,
Awwww ain't that cute.

Since when does Slashdot delete comments? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:43 · Score: 0

I thought moderation was supposed to take care of this?
Man, this place is a shell of its former self.
Sad.

In other news by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:44 · Score: 0

Google, Apple, and Microsoft still don't pay a fraction of the taxes they owe because of loopholes. If old uncle Bob tries to take advantage of the same loopholes he will be prosecuted for operating a shell corporation for tax evasion. Relevance you may ask? Nothing will come of this because unless a big corporation steps on another big corporation any lawsuit will amount to less than a slap on the wrist (probably equivalent to a pat on the back). I wish I could say there are two sets of laws in this country but there are not. Its just that the law is enforced differently on two sets of people. Though if you feel your constitutional rights are being infringed you are welcome to buy the $1 million lottery ticket to SCOTUS. Just know that their decision will be conveniently ignored by all lower courts so you will only be helping yourself.

you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" by raymorris · 2019-01-15 07:45 · Score: 0

And by you mean "he's not going to unlawfully force his staff to do unpaid work in order to make Congress happy while Congress fails to do their job and pay the staff".

The House wants the FCC employees to come to work and create a report for them about this. The House hasn't passed a spending bill authorizing that the employees get paid. I very well might not keep showing up to work weeks after I was no longer getting paid. (Unless I owned the company - I've done that).

Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" by meglon · 2019-01-15 08:17 · Score: 1

You are a liar.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/h...

--
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:17 · Score: 0

Why pay them anyway? There's no perceivable difference.
Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" by MasseKid · 2019-01-15 08:54 · Score: 1

The house did pass a bill. It was never taken up for a vote with the senate. As far as the emergency nature of this, it does seem like this has immediate life threatening implications as the Streisand effect of this capability will likely lead to an ex boyfriend/girlfriend/whomever finding where someone is hiding and assaulting them.
Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" by jittles · 2019-01-15 09:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

The house did pass a bill. It was never taken up for a vote with the senate. As far as the emergency nature of this, it does seem like this has immediate life threatening implications as the Streisand effect of this capability will likely lead to an ex boyfriend/girlfriend/whomever finding where someone is hiding and assaulting them.
Everyone time someone says that the meta data the government collects isn’t that important or, in this case, that allowing anyone to get real time location info on anyone else in the nation isn’t that important, I wish they would give me carte blanche to prove to them that it is not the case. Ajit had to hire a bunch of security guards because nobody likes him (outside of corporate board rooms). I would love to show him how dangerous this info is. But of course, doing something like that is illegal and I would get prosecuted for it without it actually fixing anything. I wish he’d just put his money where his mouth is and let someone prove him wrong.
Re:you mean "illegally make his staff work unpaid" by Darinbob · 2019-01-15 15:07 · Score: 1

Well, Pai should have said "I can't respond to your enquiries because I am not being paid." Or did he somehow get classified as an essential worker who's allowed to go politicking?

Links please? by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 07:47 · Score: 1

I'm not saying it's not impossible, but for that kind of accusation you need to provide some proof - I have not read of anything like that happening.

The location data is not as easy to got, nor as accurate as you and many other seem to think - and here they are saying most people would be asked via text if it was OK to hand out location data.

Again, I still don't think carriers should even be allowed to sell this data. Wouldn't that then make the perfect case to pass an actual LAW banning it - you know, the thing Congress DOES? Why should the FCC even be involved if the problem is truly serious?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by alvinrod · 2019-01-15 07:50 · Score: 4, Informative

People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.

It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.

THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:54 · Score: -1

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE BITCH TRAITOR

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

America has never been more alive by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 07:56 · Score: -1, Troll

With the Deep State finally on ice for a while during the shutdown, America is a humming machine of growth now...

If you want to say, the experiment of massive government has obviously failed - well then, right there with you friend. But that was never what America was about, that is Europe.

Something I don't think many Democrats are really thinking about here, the longer the shutdown goes on the more people see how little government is really necessary or useful. If someone just came along and funded the national parks and TSA fully how many would notice the shutdown was ongoing? Very few.

My dream though is that with the TSA faltering they are all replaced by private security which at least might be a bit more effective, or better yet scrapped altogether out of practicality.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:America has never been more alive by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:26 · Score: 0

> America is a humming machine of growth now
Directly from Fox news to an open brain without resistance.
I've seen no numbers to classify anything as a, "humming machine of growth." Any benefit has already been part of a longer term pattern from the recession a few years and administrations back.
But Fox-a-ganda is a strong force for those that want to believe what they spew.
Re:America has never been more alive by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:29 · Score: 0

Oooh, look Superkunt is ranting his deep state delusions again. Sad.
Re:America has never been more alive by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:32 · Score: 0

With the Deep State finally on ice for a while during the shutdown
Deep State is there to protect the lives and fight the error of terrorism. That part of the government never could have went on ice, or lives would be at risk.

If you want to say, the experiment of massive government has obviously failed
US government is still massive and the bureaucracy heavy.

If someone just came along and funded the national parks and TSA fully how many would notice the shutdown was ongoing?

Or people could be encouraged and educated to practice some personal responsibility and take away all their garbage with them as they exist national parks..in the perfect world. TSA issues can't be solved with privatization alone. Any private security company would have to be authorized to perform the searches and enforcement actions that are normally only allowed to the police. Also their hiring practices and training will end up under scrutiny as soon as something undesirable happens. A good company culture and oversight would be still needed.

The Law is the Law by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:57 · Score: 0

The Law is the Law, and the Law does not provide for such things without the money to pay for them.

If there is no imminent threat to life or propery, or to national security, the FCC can't do squat.

There is no imminent threat to life or property, or to national security, as the result of sharing data that has been shared for YEARS with not one single injury or death attributed to it.

Justify or Delete. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 07:58 · Score: 0

Ajit Pai is another Trump hassle. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:04 · Score: 0

More about Trump hassles: In 710 days, President Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading claims

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:05 · Score: 0

People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.

It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.

Probably more common in organized crime than spousal murders, but I wouldn't rule out the latter.

Title of the post is too long by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:07 · Score: 0

Should simply read "Ajit Pai Gives Carriers Free Pass on Privacy Violations".

You will be brutally murdered for your propaganda. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:09 · Score: -1

You will be brutally murdered for your propaganda.

Re: THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:12 · Score: 1, Informative

*smirk* No there won't. No one has seen any "consequences", and no one ever will.

What are these consequences? Are they imaginary consequences? Are they the consequences of what happens to your mind from inhaling the smoke that you constantly seem to be blowing out your ass?

Geez. Find a new unhealthy obsession and move on already. Your nazi-faggot-too-many-caps-consequences posts are ready for the nursing home.

THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:13 · Score: -1

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE TRAITOR

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:15 · Score: 0

sooner or later an angry ex-spouse is going to get this data and use it to kill someone. It's a wonder it hasn't happened already.

Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark as a threat to life. You want something that is vital that is not working the way it is supposed to be right now? Look at the FDA. Food inspections, drug approvals... not the things you want to be stopped or even measurably slowed.

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:19 · Score: -1

AS long as the dead-perp is a Trotsky-slut progressive the killing is just fine. Does lots of good for the political ecology ... like wrapping shit in teflon. But ... why limit the slaughter vis' husband/wife ?

Re: Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit by TimMD909 · 2019-01-15 08:23 · Score: 1

Wait 5 years, then check out this series: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:24 · Score: 0

angry ex-spouses spying on, stalking and killing each other isn't some new phenomena created by the interwebs

WaPo fact check is Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:26 · Score: 0

They fact checked his hosting a college basketball team yesterday.

Trump "We had hamburgers a mile high"
WaPo " At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high"

Did I just make that up? or can I provide a Link to WaPo stating this?

Is that the kind of lies they fact check at WaPo? Thanks, I'll pass on fake news.

Re: WaPo fact check is Fake News by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:38 · Score: 0

Umm he lied. He only had 300 sandwiches. A lie is a lie. You don't get to classify what is a lie and isn't a lie.
Bury your head in the sand, and shout fake news. You posted a citation PROVING trump lied. It might not have been a ground breaking lie, but none the less, it's a lie.
You proved his point, that's how stupid you people are lol.

THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:27 · Score: -1

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE BITCH TRAITOR

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by I+kan+Spl · 2019-01-15 08:37 · Score: 1

Do you have a source for this? I have not heard of such a thing.

--
My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.

Most support Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:41 · Score: -1

Most americans support Pai and are aganst imposing HUGE goverment regulatins on top of vital industry's like communications. Bravo Chairman Pai! You saved us from the libtards who wanted to impose nut nutrality on us and now you are keeping our markets free of BIG GOVERMENT again. He's a hero and a patriot, something you cannot say about democrat party.

Re: Most support Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:39 · Score: 0

Meanwhile, your party and president is responsible for the biggest shutdown ever in the US government history. All over a fucking monitment wall. Keep pointing fingers. You fags will be gone in 2020.
That's a bet, we are fed up with your lies.
Yet we are the enemies. LUL.
Re: Most support Pai by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:58 · Score: 0

your party and president is responsible for the biggest shutdown ever
Nancy Pelosi is not my president.

Nazi faggot propagandist RAY MORRIS caught dead! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 08:48 · Score: -1

Nazi homosexual recruiter RAY MORRIS pushing debunked Nazi propaganda even after corrected, #ROPE

Nothing has changed by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:12 · Score: 0

So nothing has changed.

How Do I Moderate by BECoole · 2019-01-15 09:16 · Score: 2

an entire post as "Troll"?

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by WaffleMonster · 2019-01-15 09:21 · Score: 1

People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.

Stalker apps to spy on significant others have been installed on MILLIONS of devices. The universe of deranged control freaks and jealous spouses are well aware of what's available to them.

It's normal people who lack this knowledge and think you need to have a functioning brain to use tools like this that are the problem.

It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about.

What else should the FCC be far more worried about in this area? Spectrum policy? Decency standards?

The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.

FFS what effort? How much does it cost to levy fines against companies for breaking existing regulations? Fuck just hire me... I'll do it for free if I get to keep the proceeds.

Another Theory by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 09:29 · Score: 1

Perhaps Trump actually wants to shut down the U.S. Federal government. The wall is simply an excuse. If the government is shut down, perhaps the Muller probe will run out of funds.

Instead of playing his game, it is time for democrats and republicans from both the house and senate to strongly consider the 25th amendment.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Re:Another Theory by sarren1901 · 2019-01-15 12:23 · Score: 1

Get real. Congress needs to just pass a budget and then force trump to sign it with however many votes it needs to be. At this point, this is Majority Leaders fault for not bringing a bill up for a vote.
If he would hold a vote, Trump can veto it. Then everyone needs to vote on it again and it won't matter what Trump says.
If Congress can't get that done, what makes you possibly think they will invoke the 25th?
To be on topic, this issue can actually wait for the government to reopen, but it definitely should be made illegal for the carriers to sell this data. Only reason the data should go to anyone is with a warrant from the government. Better would be if the carrier didn't save the data at all, but who we are kidding.

Get the paychecks flowing by jasenj1 · 2019-01-15 10:02 · Score: 0

Congress should be doing one thing, and one thing only: working to end the shutdown. Those 800,000 employees need their paychecks to live their lives. Even if Congress wants to keep a "stop work" in place to show the President who's boss, the employees should not suffer.
Imagine if GM or Walmart decided not to pay their employees because the CEO & BOD were having a spat.
It's an utter embarrassment that the federal government isn't paying its employees.

That's OK by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:06 · Score: 0

We know where you are, Ajit.

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:07 · Score: 0

People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent. The number of people who are aware that they can access this data, intelligent enough to be able to gather and put it to use, but also willing to kill someone is incredibly small.

And that's why we don't have Secret Service for the President. Because we're all about not worrying about fandom, anti-fandom, or jealous ex-husbands. Also, restraining orders aren't a thing, stalkers don't exist, and it's all just peaches and rainbows.

It's not that this can't happen, it's just a lot less likely. If we're interested in preventing spousal murders (or just violence in general) there are plenty of other things that we should be far more worried about. The sad thing is that something like this would get sensationalized and focus and effort that could be better spent elsewhere for better overall outcomes will instead be pointlessly squandered.

You mean like Secret Service for Spouses? Well, 14% of homicides in the US in 2007 were caused by intimate partner violence. That doesn't include, AFAIK, violence against "the other man/woman". According to a 2010 CDC Survey, 1 in 6 women are stalked in their lifetime (vs 1 in 19 for men). It's unclear what the overlap is between those two numbers are, but I imagine a larger percentage of homicides occur while still with said intimate partner and not after the relationship ends. So, what would be your recommendation for those 14% who would be killed? What's your master plan for the other 86% killed mostly unrelated to domestic violence?

PS - I really do wonder where your information comes that most murders are hot blooded, not cold blooded. Considering what little information I just found, it'd seem the opposite would be very true. If anything, kidnapping and/or murdering high value targets (like Ajit Pai and family) would be much more of a worry than some ex-lover. The sort of people willing to do such things are "intelligent" enough if greed is involved. Being able to pick from many, many targets casts a very wide net and possibly very easy access. It makes me wonder if you've really thought this through.

Where's irony when you need it? by Miles_O'Toole · 2019-01-15 10:13 · Score: 0

I have to admit, if somebody jumped through the financial hoops, got Pai's location and murdered him, I wouldn't be terribly upset. In fact, I'd probably have a good laugh and a fun beer discussion with friends about whether such an event would actually constitute irony, or merely incongruous coincidence.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Re:THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN D by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:22 · Score: 0

Good job proving his point. A mild annoyance of replying is not "consequences" and I bet there will never be anything else.

THERE ARE ALWAYS CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:38 · Score: 0

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES AND PROPAGANDA NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL UNTIL YOU DIE BITCH TRAITOR

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Execute by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 10:48 · Score: -1

Execute this curry eater and then send the dead body back to India.

Ever heard of the Unibomber? by rsilvergun · 2019-01-15 10:55 · Score: 1

There's lots of methodical, well thought out murders out there. The folks who planned 9/11 seemed pretty well prepared. And probability won't matter if somebody's dead.

The point is Pai is delaying action on this hoping it'll blow over and the ISPs can keep right on doing it. Again, he's sided with them on absolutely everything. Even the rural expansions are something they want since they're financed by fees paid by city subscribers and are basically free money for the ISPs & telcos.

Odds are Pai will eventually be forced to act, but it'll be somebody from Congress who makes him, not anything he did of his own accord. And I know it's not popular to say this, but it'll probably be a Democrat (unless Rand Paul gets involved).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

You could just jail Pai by WillAffleckUW · 2019-01-15 11:20 · Score: 2

Refusing to respond means they can send the Capitol police to arrest him, and drag him to the hearing.

Just do it.

If he refuses to speak,, lock him up until he does.

It's within the power of Congress.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Color me surprised by Opportunist · 2019-01-15 11:37 · Score: 2

Whore lets John get his way while the cops are in the donut shop.

Where's the news?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

"During the Trump Shutdown" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 11:44 · Score: 0

Nah, can't possibly be politically biased...

Also remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 12:13 · Score: 0

Bringing it back to the OP, remember who put Ajit Pai on the FCC Board of Commissioners in the first place: Barack Hussein Obama II.

That's what he said, but staff by raymorris · 2019-01-15 15:23 · Score: 2

That's essentially what he said. By law, the unfunded agencies, including the FCC, can only have staff do things for which waiting until next week would be "a threat to the safety of human life or property". Preparing a report for this Congresscritter is "not a threat to the safety of human life or property", he said, and therefore he can't legally have staff doing that when Congress hasn't authorized paying any staff.

Re:That's what he said, but staff by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 17:00 · Score: 0

Except that he did reply, if the staff can't reply then he shouldn't either. And he replied in a manner that indicates he spent time thinking on it and wanted to inject some politics.

Umm, actually it does... 60 votes required. by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 15:57 · Score: 2

Are you trying to claim that a funding bill requires a supermajority in the Senate? That would be news to - well, just about everyone.

No, it would be the facts.

The whole reason the original House bill could not be passed was that it required 60 votes.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Merely stating the ground truth here by SuperKendall · 2019-01-15 16:11 · Score: 1

No. That just sets a new standard that if the President refuses to sign a CR then eventually they will get their way.

Note that I did not say "pass the wall" from the standpoint of saying if that is good or bad.

I said that from the standpoint of tactics only - Trump is not going to back down, and is actually helped the longer the shutdown goes on.

So the only way to move forward is to fund the wall to some degree (Trump would be willing to bargain downward somewhat).

How does the sound of the government being shut down for an entire year sound? Because I can easily see that being the case. This with the full support of almost all Trump's base that sees a lot of benefit of the government cracking up and many employees leaving government as the shutdown wears on... that would truly be some fundamental change that many Trump voters were after, done the hard way.

It's not like I don't have some connection to this and these are all just abstract thoughts, my wife works in the federal government and would probably be affected. So believe me when I say, I am just reporting what I think will happen, not what I would prefer happen.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Merely stating the ground truth here by slack_justyb · 2019-01-16 05:13 · Score: 2

Note that I did not say "pass the wall" from the standpoint of saying if that is good or bad
Sorry if it came off that way, neither am I pointing to some moral dilemma that steams from the wall. I'm just saying however that if Congress does cave in to the $5.7B figure, that emboldens the administration and does set a new bar for brinkmanship in government shutdowns. It will indicate that 26-days (or how ever long this shutdown does go on for) is a fine time frame for a shutdown. Congress has every motive to ensure that long shutdowns equate to diminished returns on demands. If they do not covey that, it will signal that long shutdowns only equate to loss GDP and potential loss of government employees, but political agenda and hard line stance goes with zero punitive repercussions. I don't think Congress and more especially the House wants to convey to the President now or in the future, that long term shutdowns equate to eventually getting what you want. However, there is the chance that those in the House currently or to short sighted to see that, in that case, there is a good chance that the President might very well get what he wants. I've seen dumber things play out like the nuclear option on judges, but not much.

I said that from the standpoint of tactics only - Trump is not going to back down, and is actually helped the longer the shutdown goes on
Eeehh... That's a pretty subjective point. It does indeed help those who would like to see Federal workers replaced with contract help that the Trump base would like to see. However, I wouldn't pin that on helping the process of the wall. Trump's administration was bleeding workers before the shutdown, so literally Trump just simply being in office helps that, the shutdown is just extrapolating that process onto a larger domain. However, government workers leaving isn't a zero sum thing. That's something folks tend to remember and government employees getting a sour mood may opt to disrupt Trump strong supporters in the Republican party to drive a new schism in the Republican party to oust the hard liners. But that's speculating. Point being, while drive government employees out is indeed something that helps short term in the Trump base, leaving government employees tend to have more ramifications for political change within a party. I think the long position is that Trump's government will have lasting effects within the Republican party itself. The Democrats are just going to be more embolden in their stance so, pretty much a day that ends with "Y".

So the only way to move forward is to fund the wall to some degree (Trump would be willing to bargain downward somewhat)
I totally do not see that happening. I just don't see it. Trump is incredibly firm at the $5.7B figure and the $5.7B figure is a non-starter for the House. The only way I see this moving forward is either a veto override (which I put slim to none) or a State of Emergency (which I think has the higher chance here). I'm pretty sure that Democrats will be more than happy to see Trump declare a state of emergency because that will give them the options to wipe hands clean of the matter, indicate that it appears the President will build the wall himself, fund the military, and then when Trump signs a general appropriations military funding bill, promptly sue him and his plan to build a wall with the military and lock it in the court system until the heat death of the universe. It also has the upshot of being something to sling around in 2020 with "Dictator Trump" building walls and giving Congress and the checks and balance system a middle finger. I'm pretty sure that advisors are indicating to the President to only pull the trigger on the state of emergency lightly, because oh boy will that trigger more litigation than you can shake a stick at. But again, that said, veto override or state of emergency are the only two ways I see out of this before the election.

Re:Um... they're selling to anyone with a Credit C by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-15 21:10 · Score: 0

People who kill other people tend to be more impulsive than they are intelligent.

When dealing with a dozen people up to maybe a thousand you can rely on this tendency and consider deviations to be extraordinary.

With a population of millions you know that there are going to be a fair amount of people that are both intelligent and capable of committing murder. (Hans Reiser comes to mind.)

So, I would say the "sooner or later" applies.
We can safely say that it is going to happen when we are dealing with such a large number of affected people.

This is always what happens... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-16 13:39 · Score: 0

...when repugs are in charge. Remember that when you vote.

Slashdot Mirror

Ajit Pai Gives Carriers Free Pass on Privacy Violations During FCC Shutdown (arstechnica.com)

169 comments