Slashdot Mirror
House Democrats Tell Ajit Pai: Stop Screwing Over the Public (arstechnica.com)
slack_justyb shares a report from Ars Technica: The House Commerce Committee is "reassuming its traditional role of oversight to ensure the agency is acting in the best interest of the public and consistent with its legislative authority," Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) said in an announcement yesterday. Pallone, Jr. and Doyle wrote a letter to Pai, saying that he has made the FCC too secretive and has repeatedly advanced the interests of corporations over consumers. They wrote: "Not only have you have failed on numerous occasions to provide Democratic members of this committee with responses to their inquiries, you have also repeatedly denied or delayed responding to legitimate information requests from the public about agency operations. These actions have denied the public of a full and fair understanding of how the FCC under your leadership has arrived at public policy decisions that impact Americans every day in communities across the country. Under your leadership, the FCC has failed repeatedly to act in the public interest and placed the interest of corporations over consumers. The FCC should be working to advance the goals of public safety, consumer protection, affordable access, and connectivity across the United States. To that end, it is incumbent upon the Committee's leadership and its members to oversee the activities of the FCC."
On Thursday this week, the Communications Subcommittee will hold a hearing about the impact of Pai's net neutrality repeal on consumers, small businesses, and free speech. Witnesses who have been invited to testify at the hearing include former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, cable industry chief lobbyist Michael Powell (who is also a former FCC chairman), and representatives of Mozilla, Free Press, and Eastern Oregon Telecom.
On Thursday this week, the Communications Subcommittee will hold a hearing about the impact of Pai's net neutrality repeal on consumers, small businesses, and free speech. Witnesses who have been invited to testify at the hearing include former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, cable industry chief lobbyist Michael Powell (who is also a former FCC chairman), and representatives of Mozilla, Free Press, and Eastern Oregon Telecom.
Wait, if that is your "traditional role", where have you been? On vacation? Too busy?
about time but what did you expect when you put a former verizon executive in charge.
att and verizon shold be broken up and stay broken up.
Shilling? I have never read a positive post or comment regarding Ajit Pai on slashdot. He is universally hated by anyone who is aware of his professional existence.
Will Slashdot ever again bother to pretend to be impartial journalists?
Dude, I've been here 20 years, this place has never been impartial. Always a strong left-lean with healthy doses of unixlove, windowshate and appledisdain.
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.. and I fully suspect they are paid trolls. Whoever is doing the paying... get a refund, we see right through you.
You must come from some imaginary site.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
+1 for use of the word "boors."
Since you asked, a few more of these high caliber comments (found a few comments down at the time of my posting):
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13354260&cid=58076268
Pai to Congress: Pound sand
Congress to Pai: That's a nice budget allocation you have there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it. Perhaps you could get us copies of this list of documents, and while we're at it, here are a few subpoenas. Did we mention that we're looking into some Congressional Reviews of your major actions.
Actually, I'm glad the politicians are through with me after I vote. I'd hate to see that level of idiotic political advertising year round.
That is all.
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
So yes, Federal Regulations on Communications is most definitely constitutional the question is just how much of it would be. Example, they can definitely regulate the amount of power your equipment can produce so you cannot use it as a weapon against others and disrupt their lives, but they cannot regulate what you say, because of the 1st. Yes that means public decency laws are often not constitutional, but like I said... people really don't give a shit about the Constitution and there is a good chance you don't either so give it a rest.
This is why it's *better* to not fix NN so Dems can visibly fight the righteous fight.
Back in the mid 2000s looking at the CNN vs Fox news anchors I thought the only difference between liberal and conservative news anchors is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
Over time I began to think that it's true for liberals and conservatives in general, at least the prominent ones.
In 2016 I understood that the difference was more important than I had thought, and that I'd rather deal with assholes who at least don't smell of hypocrisy.
Once he's finally booted out of the FCC he's got several cushy jobs with lots more $$$ at any of the several companies he's helped. The consumer once again is fucked, over and over and over, while the fucker is well compensated.
I felt the same way. I've been coming here for over a 12+ years and it sure seems that right wing opinions have crept up in the past several years.
sure seems that right wing opinions have crept up in the past several years.
I don't have a problem with civilized opinions from any side. What gets tiresome is what this very thread is full of, should you read it at -1 (which I do, because I'm a sucker for punishment I guess)
It's the incessant, schoolyard name-calling and stick-hurling that makes me want to line them up against the wall and give them a taste of true jack-booted, foot-stomping authoritarian firing-squad.
Seriously. If all that AC drivel name calling truly reflects America today.. we're so fucked it ain't even funny. It's not even smh funny... it's just... ugh. No intelligence. Just parroting and namecalling.
But y'know? I used to think the same of forums. This place here, this is the last that I visit. I gave up on all others. Pointless exercise.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
he is universally hated by those both living and dead*
(*) republicans exempted, because...reasons
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
been more like 10 years that the right wingers came here to 'balance' (cough) things out a bit.
a few posters are real, but most are turfers and bots. very annoying.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Most liberals and conservatives are not assholes. The new problem is that the left and right are being mislabeled as liberal/conservative. All of these terms have been turned on their heads.
The origin of the word Liberal is from Liberty... and today's liberals are anti-liberty to the core. Suppression of free speech, public vilification to ruin people, anti-gun rights, pro-heavy regulation... none of which sounds like liberty.
The origin of the word Conservative is "generally" to preserve what is currently already present and to not change that. Desire to change government institutions, shrink government, repeal laws, and facilitate a police states... none of which sounds like conservatism.
That said... Liberals and Conservatives can get along... if you find out that you cannot get along... then it is more likely that you belong to either the extreme right or extreme left... and there is low chance that being extreme is healthy for either you or your enemies!
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
I think it goes back further than that. My sense is that it crept up steadily post-9/11, but spiked after Barack Obama was first elected. The target shifted from him to Hillary Clinton (his presumptive successor) over the next 8 years, with "Benghazi", "but her e-mails", and "lock her up" calls from the right-wing chorus. And it spiked yet again during the lead-up to the 2016 POTUS election, I suspect with help from Russian troll-farms.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
TIL accurately portraying someone's statement is "bias".
I've been reading since the 90s. I've never seen any /. editor or employee openly threatening people in the comments. I don't agree with him either, but you look like the jack ass here.
Captcha: intrepid
Not too many politicians/political appointees are as blatantly overt as Pai. Typically they just try to screw us over behind closed doors. Pai just doesn't give a shit, he'll do it in broad daylight.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Really? Snopes? That's your rebuttal?
Well, it's quicker than citing every single history book written on the subject.
Oh, and if you actually bother reading the Snopes article, they all but admit that yes, the Nazis were left-wing socialists
You really need to work on your literacy. The only parts that make this claim are the ones being debunked, as well as the things the NAZIs promised early in the party's history, but failed to deliver once they were actually in power. Who'd have thunk you couldn't trust NAZIs to deliver on campaign promises. (That last sentence is sarcasm BTW. Just making sure to label it since you're having trouble understanding simple English).
But since it's not written in your native language, I suppose we should give you some leeway in your inability to understand it.
It's one of the reasons why they're no longer considered a trusted fact checker by Facebook.
You got the direction backwards there. They left Facebook, not the other way around.
Trump didn't even get the majority of votes cast, much less have a majority of the people vote for him.
He squeaked by because of quirks in the electoral system.
90% marginal tax rates?
You mean like the 1950s?
Remind me again....that was a massive economic wasteland for the US, right? It must have been from that tax rate. Why, if something else happened it might indicate a particular school of economics isn't actually based in reality.....
Legalized post-birth abortion?
Nah, that's you folks and your gun fetish. So many dead, but it'll be worth it when you get to re-enact Red Dawn. Any day now. Any day. Real soon now....
Geez, you'd think the Democrats would be forced to call their opponents "Hitler!" and "Nazis", those ideas are so fucking lame.
You need to catch up on your talking points. You're supposed to pretend the NAZIs were left-wing. Remembering that they were a right-wing party is double plus ungood.
I'm not sure they're pretending. I've met many in person, including a few fairly intelligent and well educated I really thought would know better. I think a lot of them really are that gullible and/or stupid. Or at least angry and desperate enough to believe anyone who says they'll make things better. Tell them the government is corrupt (which I think we all know), and that you're going to do something about it, you get a lot of people's attention. Then start feeding them increasingly unhinged conspiracy theories, and giving them permission to be ever-larger assholes to... basically anyone whoisn't 100% on board with your agenda... some get turned off, but the ones that stick around, they get more committed to the cause than ever, and increasing lose connection with reality. I've met some who, when confronted with video of Trump's more obviously heinous or stupid statements or actions, simply dismiss them as fakes. And once someone is convinced that the propaganda office is the only source of real news, I really don't know how you can possibly shake their faith.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
We OVERWHELMINGLY voted for the Republicans
2% is not OVERWHELMINGLY.
who gained a LOT of seats in the senate
Pre-election polls had you gaining 6 seats. You gained 4. And those 4 were quite close instead of the forecasted blow-out. The Democrats were defending twice as many seats, and many in "red" states, so we lost some. But good news! That flips in 2020, and Republicans will be defending far more seats, many in "blue" states.
Also, you seem to have forgotten that the House had the largest swing since Watergate. How'd that happen if the public OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Republicans?
Almost like it wasn't actually a Republican wave election.....
just refuse to vote for politicians who accept corporate PAC money. Look, right here's a wing of the Democratic party that does just that. They're looking to primary the corporate, Clintonion Democrats next election too.
I'm open to hearing a GOP equivalent but, well, I don't know any. Maybe folks like that jump ship to the libertarian party, IDK. Doesn't matter.
Refuse to vote for anyone who takes corporate PAC money. And vote in your primary. Your vote has orders of magnitude more power in a primary. Politicians don't fear being reelected. They _do_ fear being primaried. Show up and give'em something to be scared of again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The "General Welfare" clause only permits the exercise of authority granted in the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government.
Hamilton was wrong - Madison was right.
It makes no logical sense to allow the federal government to tax and spend on anything it likes, while at the same time constricting its authority to 18 enumerated powers.
"General welfare" does not permit the federal government to do anything it wants - it can only see to the general welfare of the country within the bounds of the enumerated powers.
The FCC as it exists today far exceeds those bounds.
As long as they aren't boers...
Additionally, there have been more than enough Democrats in power over time to have solved this problem as well.
You seem to not understand the basics of our system of government. Congress has to pass legislation through both houses of Congress. And thanks to filibuster abuse, not a whole lot passed through the Senate while the Democrats had control.
The problems could have been fixed a long time ago.
Ok, describe how. And remember, you have to get McConnell to agree to your fix.
We have nearly had almost a Century of Telecom regulations and guess what... the monopolies are still here and there is an endless supply of ignorant apologist's to defend these morons.
Hmmm....I wonder if there was some famous president in the 1980s who massively rolled back regulations and enforcement.....followed by his vice president.....followed by a DLC "we love deregulation" who couldn't keep his dick in his pants.....followed by another president that massively cut those regulations again......followed by one party in Congress stopping any efforts at regulation.
It's almost like you haven't actually paid much attention to politics.
And don't forget, NN still has loopholes called Zerorating
No, it was converting Internet service to a Title II service.
and I still saw Netflix and several services throttled anyways while NN was in effect
Good news! As a Title II service, you could have filed a complaint and made that stop. And gotten paid from the fine. You did file a complaint, right? Or was that up to someone else to do for you?
Honestly I think it's high time we put anonymous coward to rest. The ideal behind it is irrelevant. I can't remember a single time AC was used for legitimate whistle blowing, it's just a plaything for trolls and assholes
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Are you seriously attempting to argue that telecommunications does not cross state lines?
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up
No way. They've always* been here. They've just been emboldened by cheeto mussolini, and made louder. I've been arguing with them all along.
* At least since high five digit days, when I started reading.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are more than enough Democrats on the take with ISP's as well. Additionally, there have been more than enough Democrats in power over time to have solved this problem as well. They were also bitched at for not taking Ajit to task over the cyberattack BS.
This is the same old long game of do nothing but blame the other side for things being bad.
Pure straw man argument. Tom Wheeler passed the net neutrality rules and seemed to be actually working for the benefit of the consumers and the American people. How is that "do nothing but blame the other side?"
Clearly you didn't follow the link did you?
It does not matter if opinions are "right" or "left".
It only matters if they are stupid or not. Or scientific wrong.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Americans are the same way now. Politics is about name calling these days, pure and simple. No politician is presenting any ideas on what is a good way to govern, instead they only speak in order to bash the opposing but highly similar party.
Go into a bar and watch two drunks debating a topic. Those guys make much better arguments for their side than you will see in politics. Stupidity is inherent in politics based upon an overwhelming amount of evidence.
I didn't leave the left. It left me.
I barely comment here now and I've been here with one username or another since almost the beginning.
I only occasionally bother reading the comments because most threads are so heavily loaded with right wing (hopefully) trolls that I feel like I'm reading Fox News.
The stories are still pretty good, but the conversation is shit.
Combine that with the lack of voting ability and there's really nothing left here to draw you into the comments section.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
In the 50's you were able to deduct all kinds of things.
Having just completed my Schedule A, I can assure you that you can still deduct all kinds of things.
Almost nobody EVER paid those rates.
That is always true of the top marginal rate.
Repealed two-earner deduction
Married filing separately
long-term capital gains exclusion
Instead, we now have a different rate.
state and local sales tax deduction
Was repealed last year.
income averaging
Instead, you can carry expenses forward via an easy-to-create shell company.
income averaging
Very few extremely rich people made wildly different incomes year-to-year.
and exclusion of unemployment benefits
.....you really think the top 10% of the income distribution was collecting unemployment? And that it was a significant part of their income?
Limited IRA eligibility
...still exists, in that there's a rather low cap on IRA contributions. That's why the 401k was invented.
medical expenses deductions
Is the first section of the 2018 Schedule A.
Got bored here.
Seriously, it's almost like you get tax advice from idiots on the radio and TV instead of accountants.
You mean like the 1950s?
It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).
Now when talking about taxes, what percentage should the 1% represent in government revenue? From that FreeBeacon link, "New York has the second highest combined state and local tax rate for high-income earners, and nearly half of the state's income tax revenue comes from the top 1 percent.". I think the same is true for federal taxes. The rich, right now, represent roughly half of all revenue for government. Why is that not enough? Taxing more doesn't solve problems like a magic bullet. The 1% do not face usually low tax burden by historical standards.
Also, the average tax paid for the top 1 percent in the 1950's was 42% not 90.
Aaaaand my point gets made for me.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I just figured you just forgot to remove the sig.
The whole point of the Slashdot moderation system was to deal with trolls or just unhelpful/off topic noise that plagued forums pre-Slashdot.
I remember there was just less political talk early. Then more vocal liberals, but I'm not sure that actually indicates the population of the forum.
Wow in my decades, now, of slashdot I’ve never...
Beau has shattered all my confidence /. will ever recover.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Nope, sorry. Not buying it. Just because it isn't your use case doesn't make it not someone else's.
What do you have against Dutch farmers?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Yep. And a 'I got mine' tax that taxes really productive people who aren't rich yet but might get rich so much they can never get rich, while hardly taxing the already rich sounds like the sort of thing people with multiple houses and such would do. Right Bernie?
(Here I'm talking about taxing income, which is
not where the rich earn their money, while not taxing places where they do. And not, say, taking away the insider trading exemption for congress. They don't leave office poor for a reason.)
That said, there is lots to validly complain about both parties as they're governing for the competing groups of the very wealthy's benefit not ours. When they seem to, it's to misdirect.
Always a strong left-lean
Slashdot is, and has been for a long time, the place I come to learn about the latest right-wing talking points from people who believe them and are willing to defend them, at least a little bit. It depends on the story, but the Slashdot userbase does not fit into a single political category. Slashdot users usually deride gun control, and are quite a bit more libertarian than the general populace. These positions are not consistent with a strong left-lean.
I always find it interesting to see how certain topics interact with Slashdot's technically-minded population. Climate change denial, for example, conflicts with a science-positive outlook, and even those people here who are strongly right wing have pretty well rejected certain talking points along those lines. I've seen people elsewhere repeating claims that climate scientists are living the high life, and that climate change is really all about pulling in that sweet sweet research money. That's a real claim that some deniers make, but it's so ridiculous that when I've seen it here it's never gotten much traction. Likewise claims that nebulous unspecified "jobs" are more important than droughts / hurricanes / loss of coastline / etc. The only denier claims that have legs here are ones which give the appearance of being science-positive.
But they do have legs, because Slashdot does not have a strong left-lean. I'm sure there are trolls, but there's a fair share of true believers as well.
You mean it's not a left-wing echo chamber like you're used to, and people with diverse opinions can be heard? Gosh, how awful. And you try to delegitimatize such opinions by calling them trolls. This kind of shit is how we got Trump. Go back to your safe space. You can't compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
and I fully suspect they are paid trolls. Whoever is doing the paying... get a refund, we see right through you.
What an absurd suspicion. Do you honestly think anyone in the world gives enough of a crap about us to pay someone to post something on Slashdot? ... wrong opinions, but then opinions nonetheless. You said it yourself, Slashdot has never been impartial so it stands to reason there are people out there impartial in a different direction.
A far more realistic suspicion: People have different opinions
If all that AC drivel name calling truly reflects America today.. we're so fucked
He have always been this fucked. The difference is that platforms which provide anonymity as well as exposure have become more popular allowing people to unleash their inner arsehole.
General welfare is what an FCC is supposed to be shoring up (but is not under Pai).
Show me in the constitution where it says you can own guns and NOT be in a militia? Heck show me where it says you should have public roads (if you want to whine about "general welfare" being incorrect). And I take it you demand that the armed forces be disbanded and their stuff thrown out, yes? After all, you have a gun and that is to be part of a well regulated militia. So there's no need for a standing army.
The thing is, you have to convince people that you can change the corruption without becoming or already being corrupt. That is hard enough and very unlikely.
Then, to make real change, you have to convince people that you can make the lives better for the Poor's without making the lives of everyone else not any less than it is now. Probably impossible.
Nobody who has made it to being 'not poor' will give that up. But the money needs to come from somewhere. So we either reduce the military or become super efficient or redistribute wealth from the public. All equally unlikely things. It's going to be real fun when automation really kicks in as that primarily targets low income jobs. The future better get really comfortable with socialism or we will see many revolutions as it is guaranteed that the poor will vastly outnumber those who are not.
You absolutely do vote. I vote almost daily. Voting on Slashdot is based on (and always has been based on) the quality of your posts. That's what makes it work so (relatively) well for unmoderated discussions online.
I don't respond to AC's.
It coincided with the arrival of the alt-right. Not saying that the people here are necessarily alt-right, just that the alt-right popularized a lot of techniques that are used by everyone on the right now.
Essentially they updated populism for the social media age. Previously it was harder for populists because the media was the primary way that politicians could reach voters, and journalists had seen it all before and didn't let the bullshit slide. Then social media pushed them aside, people started getting their news from each other, and politicians with a small army of followers could speak to the electorate directly.
Ordinary users adopted techniques like framing, alternative facts, whataboutism and never playing defence. Often not even consciously, just copying what they saw working for other people. And the progressives, the left were too proud to do it, too hung up on principals and bogged down trying to use the truth as their sword when politics had already moved to the post-truth world.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No slashdotter nor non-corporate shill is against Net Neutrality. No candidate did run nor will run on an anti-NN stance because it is completely anti consumer to do so. All of these AC puppets are transparent. Go buy some real accounts... and then look at the post history before you delete it.
I do hope you are paid well enough to weather the shit storm your actions are brewing.
Ok Cartman calm down, it was a joke.
pro-heavy regulation... none of which sounds like liberty.
While you may disagree you should at least accept that they think it is liberty. As in there is a massive power imbalance between individuals and corporations, so regulation is needed to maintain individual liberty. After all if you need protection from the government due to a power imbalance, it follows that other large organizations, often multinational in scale, are also a threat.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The modern origin of this myth is kinda interesting too. The far right realized that the 1940s Nazis were tarnishing their image. The optics of Hitler and the Holocaust were not good. First they tried pretending that while they shared the same basic goals as the Nazis they planned to reach them through a non-violent, peaceful ethnic cleansing of the United States. When that failed they tried the opposite - "we are far right identarians, you are confusing us with those left-wing Nazis!"
Of course it doesn't help that they continue to use Nazi imagery and rhetoric, continue to praise historical Nazi figures and have basically the same views, philosophy and desire for a racially pure ethnostate.
Still, apparently some people fell for it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%, and liberals have since been regularly stating that "the overwhelming majority of Americans" voted against Trump. So I guess if it was one tenth of a percent more you would consider it overwhelming? It is almost like both sides aren't actually full of crap.....
Eastern Oregon Telecom are going to be there, or the outcome could be very different.
How about putting a signature on that ascii diarrhea, you AC faggot?
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
yep.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Trump should be given the Nobel Peace prize. He's done just as much as Obama to deserve one (i.e. nothing).
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Serously? I can't read a single fucking article without the standard ORANGE MAN BAD off topic bullshit AT THE TOP OF EVERY PAGE.....
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
I've been here just as long as you and it's my observation that Slashdot became more left wing after the founders sold out.
I was conservative then, I'm conservative now and I *wish* I was getting paid to read this left wing drivel.
Since you asked, a few more of these high caliber comments (found a few comments down at the time of my posting): https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13354260&cid=58076268
I can appreciate that. There has definitely been an increase in stupid responses like that. But Slashdot has always been that way to an extent. There's that guy, or guys, who used to keep posting about anal sex with black people, and we used to have lots of sneaky goatse links. I kind of like that Slashdot takes all comers, even the stupid ones.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.
I think it goes back further than that. My sense is that it crept up steadily post-9/11, but spiked after Barack Obama was first elected. The target shifted from him to Hillary Clinton (his presumptive successor) over the next 8 years, with "Benghazi", "but her e-mails", and "lock her up" calls from the right-wing chorus. And it spiked yet again during the lead-up to the 2016 POTUS election, I suspect with help from Russian troll-farms.
I think they've always been here. Slashdot has a large population of Libertarians, both the nutbar total anarchist kind and the less nutty "anrachy for rich people (but police protection from the poor)" kind, we've always had a fair share of right leaners, its the rise of the far right that is the issue, the far right-wing has always been here but they've always been too scared to spew their bile. The problem with /. is the same with almost everywhere. The rebranding of white supremacists rebranded themselves as "Alt-Right" to fool people into thinking they aren't bigoted arseholes, this largely worked and so every bigoted arsehole is emboldened and claiming victim status whenever they are rightfully called a bigoted arsehole.
/.
I relish the day when the worst we had were GNAA and Swichuer trolls combined with the odd troll linking to goatse. They were good times.
Also, the GP forgot that there has always been a large population of Apple fanboys on
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Someone with a low uid would be smart enough to know that there is means of resetting a password that is lost/otherwise unavailable. Here you go
The difference is that platforms which provide anonymity
Yup. That's the issue with social media, and the precursor forums/comment sections/chat rooms/etc, they remove the threat of getting punched in the mouth when you cock off to the wrong person.
It's not a "quirk", it's the way the system works. We're a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
If you go by state vote/electoral votes, which is how the country was wisely designed, than Hillary got squashed.
Each individual state maintains a degree of sovereignty, thus we don't go by general population, we're too large a country for that to work in the best interests of everyone.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You are aware that right now you're basically sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming LALALALALALA about the whole 90% marginal tax rate thing, right? As another poster already pointed out, the effective tax rate for those in the 90% income bracket in the 50s was 42%.
You do realize that "effective tax rate" is over someone's entire income, right? And that a 90% top marginal rate does not mean that all of their income is taxed at 90%, right?
But I bet your effective tax rate isn't less than half of your income tax bracket.
You lost that bet, quite badly. Again, effective tax rate is over the entire income, "income tax bracket" is only determined by the last $1.
You might be able to convince a bunch of low information idiots, but when you make arguments like you did in your above post, you just make those of us familiar with history think you're a blithering idiot.
You appear to not understand how marginal tax rates work. Best be careful when claiming others are uninformed.
And a study of ultra high tax rates in Europe showed that typically for every 1% increase in income tax rate, a 3% decrease in taxable assets was shown among those who were effective.
And assets are the same thing as income, right? Oh wait....
Also, perhaps one of the points of massive top marginal tax rates is to reduce the assets held by the 0.1%......
Do you honestly think anyone in the world gives enough of a crap about us to pay someone to post something on Slashdot?
Yes, yes I do think that. But only as a grain of sand in a larger beach.
In other words: No one's targeting /. specifically, alone, in a vacuum. But you can't deny there is a campaign to further split this country, and it seems /. is caught in it indirectly, as part of a larger effort.
It can't be coincidence that ALL comments section, from youtube to /. to newspapers all across the country have the same language, the same namecalling, the same unwillingness to listen, and it all started at the same time. Either someone is looking to make bank on our divisiveness, or.... we are truly this divided for reals. If the latter, then we're a cunt hair away from civil war.
Maybe the preppers aren't crazy. Maybe I should invest in an underground food, medicine and arms cache in some undisclosed location.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
He follows the law the way the head of the Mafia does. By hiring other people and then claiming that he never asked them to do what they did.
Then you're missing the number of ACs (and named accounts but mostly ACs) also posting extreme left wing rhetoric. It's gone way up on both counts.
I've been here about 18 years, and while I agree slashdot was usually left leaning, I think the way the left is now tilting extremely to the left (AOC, Ilhan Omar, open borders, abolish the electoral college, 90% taxes, everything is racist and sexist, etc.) has gotten more people to move more center or even right.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
they only speak in order to bash the opposing but highly similar party.
It's almost like they're using the fighting as a front to hide all the corporatist things they are doing that they all agree on.
I agree with your comments on the biases of Slashdot generally (although I've only been here about 12 years).
But I highly doubt the right-wing trolls are being paid, I've seen paid trolls at work and they usually do a half decent job, most people wouldn't even label them as trolls, they employ things like subtlety, nuance, cunning and long-term strategic thinking. I've seen none of those qualities on Slashdot (apart from a few notable exceptions) for a long time. If someone is paying them, damn straight they should get a refund, my pre-teen nephew could do a better job.
And another +1 for correct use of "boors".
Stupidity is inherent in politics based upon an overwhelming amount of evidence.
I don't think that lack of intellect is rampant in politics. I'm not saying there aren't dumb people, but it'd be pretty hard to get into the upper echelons if they were truly dumb. What I'd say there IS a ton of: elitism, posturing, manipulating, back stabbing, sociopathy, ignorance, etc. The majority of the politicians' only true goal is to get re-elected, the only way to do that is keep the people with the money happy. It seems like it would take a pretty intelligent person to be able to do that, while still finding ways to appear to be working for the people that vote.
Also, the GP forgot that there has always been a large population of Apple fanboys on /.
Apple shilling has gone way down now that anyone who forgets to turn off smart quotes shamefully vomits "Sent from my iPhone" unicode all over their posts.
If failing to deliver automatically makes one right wing, then no far left regime qualifies as far left. They don't get off that easily
When you have absolute power over a country, you get to "deliver" the policies that you actually want. Failure to deliver on those early promises indicates the NAZIs didn't actually want those policies.
I don't mind ACs, sometimes they do add some intelligence to the conversation. It would be nice if the site required you to be logged in to post, even as AC. And it should affect the users Karma/etc. (Maybe it does that, idk. Very rarely post under AC)
Do you know how marginal brackets work? You're only taxed the higher rate on the income above the previous bracket. And anyone making 10s of millions is making it off the backs of other Americans anyway. I don't have sympathy for that. Nobody needs to make that much profit.
It is much easier for capital to move around than in the 1950's. Even the SPLC [washingtontimes.com] moved millions to offshore tax havens. Money moves faster (hello bitcoin). Faster than a government can tax. Even if a government taxes more doesn't mean increase revenue [freebeacon.com]. It's a great talking point to hear about when we had a higher tax rate but many things have changed since then but many things are still the same (raising taxes doesn't mean raising revenue).
So, in Chicago economic theory, high marginal tax rates are massively destructive to an economy, while low marginal tax rates are supposed to create an economic boom.
The fact that it was harder to escape the high marginal tax rates in the 1950s, yet the economy was not crippled by those tax rates, indicates the Chicago school has a wee bit of a problem with their theories. But we already knew that since their theories claimed the 2008 collapse couldn't happen.
The fact that tax avoidance is easier today doesn't actually say anything about the failure of supply-side economics to fit with reality.
The rich, right now, represent roughly half of all revenue for government. Why is that not enough?
Because the top 0.1% own more than the bottom 50% combined. Income taxes aren't the best way to deal with wealth and income inequality, but they're a tool we actually have.
The 1% do not face usually low tax burden by historical standards.
....we were just talking about a 90% top marginal rate. The top marginal rate right now is what, 39%?
Also, the average tax paid for the top 1 percent in the 1950's was 42% not 90.
So, you appear to not understand how marginal tax rates work, and have found an article designed to exploit that. The "tax rate" is based on total income. The top marginal tax bracket is defined by their last dollar of income.
If we take the current 70% for over $10M proposal, that doesn't mean they pay 70% of their first dollar of income. They pay 0% on their first dollar, just like everyone else. 70% is only paid on the income over $10M. Which means their tax rate is going to be way below 70%.
That article was written to exploit you not understanding this.
The rich, right now, own 50% of the world's weath.
Sure - but for the average American that's the difference between "Someone I'm doing business with is a crook", versus "My employees are stealing from me"
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Will Slashdot ever again bother to pretend to be impartial journalists?
Dude, I've been here 20 years, this place has never been impartial. Always a strong left-lean with healthy doses of unixlove, windowshate and appledisdain.
It's only recently -- the past 5 or so years -- that a certain cadre of very loud right-wingnut boors have shown up.. and I fully suspect they are paid trolls. Whoever is doing the paying... get a refund, we see right through you.
You must come from some imaginary site.
I think you're forgetting the inexorable pull of time. Over those 20 years, many of us doe-eyed recent college grads have learned about hard work and discipline. We've experienced government overreach and more closely identify with the founding fathers of the U.S.A. than the founding fathers of the U.S.S.R., because it seems a lot of the overreaching comes from the "liberal" side of the aisle, which is ironic given the meaning of the term.
All that said, Ajit Pai is an idjit, and we all hate him.
marginal tax
I quoted an average. Because as the article pointed out that few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors. High marginal tax claims decreased when the rate was increased which was my point in the ability for capital to move. They are not paying unusually low taxes by historical standards. Meaning, we have record highs of tax collections.
Because the top 0.1% own more than the bottom 50% combined.
And? Amazon is worth a lot of money that has no bearing on a poor persons house being worth 50k. Wealth is created and that means Amazon and the person who started it get really rich. That doesn't mean poor people have it worse because Amazon is successful or that somehow Amazon scammed the poor person.Using that as the basis to decide how healthy society is or if rich should pay more in taxes isn't convincing IMO. The 1% represent ~50% of tax revenue. You say that isn't enough because they own a lot compared to poor.
wealth and income inequality
Why does it matter if the rich are doing better if the poor are doing better as well? I don't find the argument of wealth inequality convincing when the poor in the US continually have better standards of living. Venezuela lowered their wealth inequality and everyone is poor except Maduro.
I could agree the poor and middle class could use some help but that doesn't mean tax the rich is the answer or that the rich are the problem. It sounds like class warfare type rhetoric.
And? See my other comment.
If I were on the plane with Mao Zedong, Hitler and Ajit Pai with two bullets, I would shoot shitpai twice.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You are a typical left wing troll
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
That is one stupid overgeneralizing crap of bull.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors
No, the total effective tax paid is lower than the marginal rate, because it's marginal. It only applies to the income above the threshold, not all of your income.
Wealth is created and that means Amazon and the person who started it get really rich. That doesn't mean poor people have it worse because Amazon is successful or that somehow Amazon scammed the poor person.
Wealth is not created. It is taken. There should be societal limits to greed or it all breaks down and returns to feudalism if we aren't there already. If you want capitalism instead, you have to keep the money flowing at all levels and not let it concentrate at the top to stay.
Exactly. I got tired from being banned fro reddit subs for calling idiots for what they are, so I retreated to the place where I have been for 20 years.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
And likely close to 50% of the income. So paying less than 50% of the taxes to run the country that makes them rich makes no sense. And really, it should be a little more than that because taxes should only come off above and beyond the amount required for basic food/clothing/shelter. And if they're directly benefiting from low wages to the poorest, then they should understand and get over the fact that the poorest might only be paying an effective 10% tax rate or less.
Back in the mid 2000s looking at the CNN vs Fox news anchors I thought the only difference between liberal and conservative news anchors is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
TV news is more sensationalist than just about anything in writing. Both take extreme views to pump up viewership, while i just want to get my news and get out - TV doesn't work for me in that regard.
I am not going to respond to everything because it is too crazy (wealth is taken!!!! Tell that to Amazon the next time you choose to use their service) or you didn't read my comment or the article.
not let it concentrate at the top to stay.
Sure. That alone doesn't convince me that we need to raise taxes. It's a platitude that has no insight on proper tax levels or justification on why current levels are not "fair".
Wow in my decades, now, of slashdot I’ve never...
Beau has shattered all my confidence /. will ever recover.
Is that even the real BeauHD? It looks like his username is actually something like "BeauHD++(5555555)" which somehow doesn't link to an actual user profile: https://slashdot.org/~BeauHD++...
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Slashdot has always been more right wing libertarian with a socialist commenter community 20 years ago when we were poor and young.
5 years ago some of us got rich old and started caring more about keeping their money and having the government fuck off as we hit 40. I am a Democrat still but if I made $180K and 1 million in savings I could see myself being right wing.
People grow up as demographics change. Cute mellinials aren't on here and are on mobile cell phone oriented places.
http://saveie6.com/
In the case of Pai the courts have struck down many of his decisions not purely on political grounds but on procedural and legal ones. For example the last court decision regarding tribal Internet subsidies. The court struck them down for 2 main reasons:
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
When the system was set up, news traveled at the speed of horse when it traveled at all. Most people went their entire lives without a single interaction with the federal government. The bulk of commerce was INTRAstate. The electoral college made good sense under those conditions.
Then times changed, We invented telegraph and interstate commerce became much more common. Now, it's practically impossible to avoid interaction with the federal government. Recognizing that and popular sentiment, all 50 states either by law or by striong convention cast their electoral votes based on the popular vote. It was a quick way to implement a popular vote for the president without re-engineering the whole thing and passing a Constitutional amendment. It was widely seen as close enough. So close, in fact, that no president in the 20th century was elected after losing the popular vote. The possibility was seen as more theoretical than practical and so was considered a "quirk".
Meanwhile, when did 55% become a squashing?
And the progressives, the left were too proud to do it, too hung up on principals and bogged down trying to use the truth as their sword when politics had already moved to the post-truth world.
A couple hundred years ago this was already noted:
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.
If you've made the determination that facts are no longer relevant to the position you hold, you have literally decided to disengage from reality. It's not really possible to use reality to deal with that. (How a sizable fraction of the country managed to all come down with the same mental health problem at the same time is baffling to me.)
However, the answer to people trying to create a post-factual political system isn't to fight fantasy with fantasy either. It's sticking to what's true and offering them the mental health services they need to be able to re-engage with reality.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I completely disagree.
What it's time for is logged in users to stop feeding the trolls. And checking my watch, it's been that time for about 20 years around here.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
we're too large a country for that to work in the best interests of everyone.
...so instead we go with a system that has evolved to work in the best interests of the minority of citizens. Given that no system will work in the best interests of *everyone*, wouldn't it be better if it worked in the best interests of the majority who are currently underrepresented by virtue of living in populous States, as opposed to the minority in sparsely-populated ones?
It's not the Electoral College per se that's the problem. It's the fact that our states' boundaries form a de-facto gerrymander in favor of sparsely populated regions. That was less true back in the days of the 13 original states - and when rural concerns were not so diametrically opposed to (sub)urban ones. But it's on the verge of becoming untenable.today.
The Senate, of course, is wildly undemocratic - and maybe that's by design, but the Electoral College was never intended to be undemocratic - it was just a practical way of counting the vote in a low-tech time. You could say that it worked up until recently, because if nothing else, the popular and Electoral College results always used to pick the same President. But not any more, and it should be fixed. There's no practical reason to give states 2 extra electoral votes, based on their Senators. Of course, it's in the Constitution - but show me where the drafters intended the E.C. to be undemocratic...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It is both hilarious and sad that the American left is so far up is own ass they don't realize they pioneered all these techniques.
Remember Atheism+ and Donglegate? Remember SomethingAwful's Helldump? Remember Shankey Kane and her MVC psychodrama? Remember "it's not my job to educate you" twitter sanctimony, and the "brogrammer" sniping?
Online harrassment and doxing was called online activism and reporting, right up until the progressive left got a taste of its own medicine. Then suddenly it was only "misogynists" and "racists" who did it, even as women and minorities kept telling the progressive left they don't speak for them.
I'm still left, just not progressive, because that's just an excuse to declare oneself on the right side of history but axiom.
I quoted an average. Because as the article pointed out that few people do pay the top marginal rate because of avoidance and other factors.
No, you are wrong on how marginal rates work.
Let's make a simple example. One tax bracket at $100,000, where you pay 50%, no deductions or credits.
Someone makes $50,000. They pay $0 in taxes, 0/50000 = 0% tax rate.
Someone makes $99,999. They pay $0 in taxes, 0/99999 = 0% tax rate.
Someone makes $100,000. How much do they pay? 50 cents. Because the tax rate on dollar 1 through dollar 99,999 is 0. The tax rate on dollar 100,000 is 50%. This means their tax rate is 0.5/100000 or 0.0005%.
Someone makes $10,000,000. They pay (10,000,000 - 99,999) * 0.5 in taxes. Or $4,950,000.5. Yielding a tax rate of 4,950,000.5/10,000,000 or ~49.5%.
Marginal tax rates mean no one ever pays the same tax rate as their tax bracket. Everyone pays less than their tax bracket. The author of that article is exploiting you not understanding this to make their argument.
Amazon is worth a lot of money that has no bearing on a poor persons house being worth 50k
Income and wealth inequality lead to massive societal problems. Those societal problems lead to unrest. That unrest leads to revolution, violent or otherwise. The currently level of wealth inequality is above the inequality that lead to the French revolution, all communist revolutions, and the rise of fascist governments in Spain, Germany and Italy.
It would be good to avoid that.
In addition, we as a society advance technologically and economically much faster with a lower level of income and wealth inequality. It would be good to have that.
Why does it matter if the rich are doing better if the poor are doing better as well?
The poor aren't doing better. That's the point.
The frequently tossed out metrics like "they have refrigerators!!!" demonstrate just how caustic inequality can be to a society - you see it as an improvement over the past while I'm aware landlords are legally required to provide one (in most states). "They have a cell phone!!!!" implying it's the latest iPhone with your pricey unlimited plan when it's actually a cheap-ass used phone with a cheap prepaid plan, and they have it because that is less expensive than a land-line.
You are so removed from the people you are talking about that you have a fundamentally different experience in life. Which means you will not understand their problems. Which means you shove your fingers into your ears and say "everything is great" right up until you're surprised by the appearance of guillotines.
It would be good to avoid that.
It sounds like class warfare type rhetoric.
You're already spouting class warfare rhetoric. Just on behalf of the upper class. The current war has been going on since the late 1970s, you just only notice when the rhetoric goes in one direction.
and other forms of new media. The Internet's made telecom so cheap I don't need the AP to tell me what to think anymore. Trump did it. Alexandria Ocassio Cortez is doing it now (it's why the mega corps are so scared of her).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
didn't spend a dime of his own money and got through the primary. The key is:
a. use New Media (Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, etc).
b. Rely on old media's insatiable need for content.
c. Never, never, _never_ apologize for _anything_. On the Internet if you back peddle for second they eat you alive.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://www.businessinsider.co...
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
If not anymore, it used to. There's a reason that there was the term "Slashdot Effect" and people would say a site was "slashdotted." It spawned by the fact that if a website was featured in an article on this site, it often couldn't handle the influx of traffic from /. users and would wind up effectively DDOSed by the traffic. I remember times when ArseTechnica and Wired were even brought down by a major /. feature that lured users by the thousands.
Now... not so much. Now even the hottest topics only get a few hundred comments at best. Out of context I don't think the current numbers would warrant the interest of a troll network. If you take the historical influence that /. has had on the web just by considering the aforementioned /. effect into account though, I can see where it would be worth posting a few permanent trolls to gauge the current political temperature of the site's users.
While it is true that the Constitution is generally shat upon by both sides with zero hesitation, the "General Welfare" clause does actually pass muster to allow Government to regulate telecom to a "certain degree". What that "certain degree" is is the real argument.
If I was going to make a legal argument about the constitutionality of federal regulations of the Internet, I would argue that the Internet is simply the modern equivalent of the post road.
No, what I am saying is that any claim that Trump has a mandate from the majority of the people is unfounded. I was specifically responding to a claim that the majority of the people supported Trump's policies. A claim that is easily falsified and made even more ludicrous given that he couldn't even rally enough legislators in his own party to avoid the first single party government shutdown in the history of the United States.
They said in a statement.
you are wrong on how marginal rates work.
How is it wrong to use an average to compare two different time periods with different marginal tax rates for the 1%?
I understand how marginal tax rates work. Perhaps you don't understand averages and effective tax rate. Using the highest tax bracket isn't useful in determining what the rich paid then and now. Nor does it help you understand what is a good tax rate or the behaviors that are associated with raising taxes (avoidance).
The poor aren't doing better.
I am not convinced by this. There has been stagnation but by nearly every measure the poor are doing fine or better. Even if I was convinced by it the problems that are facing the poor are not going to be solved by raising taxes. Raising taxes doesn't solve every problem. You can say that increased income inequality will lead to guillotines. I can say that raising taxes will lead to Yellow Vests. I am not sure you have a basis to predict any revolution in the US based on income inequality. If so you can tell me exactly what % of income equality will lead to revolution and when that threshold will be reached. I don't think it's that simple and I don't think income inequality is a good predictor of revolutions.
You are so removed from the people you are talking about that you have a fundamentally different experience in life. Which means you will not understand their problems
Projection much? You have no idea what my life is or has been.
None of that counters the well documented FACT that Trump did not capture the majority of the popular vote. Grumpy claims of "well he coulda if he really wanted to" don't change that. I can just as easily claim that if the Dems had run ANYBODY other than Clinton (not even that well liked in the Dem's own rank and file), Trump wouldn't have even come close. Alas, that doesn't change anything either. Likewise in the primaries had the GOP come up with anything but a rogue's gallery of the unelectable to go against Trump...
All that said, Ajit Pai is an idjit, and we all hate him.
He is not an idiot. If he were an idiot, he'd be ineffectual. He's perfectly intelligent, and thoroughly malevolent to public interest.
It can't be coincidence that ALL comments section, from youtube to /. to newspapers all across the country have the same language, the same namecalling, the same unwillingness to listen, and it all started at the same time. Either someone is looking to make bank on our divisiveness, or.... we are truly this divided for reals. If the latter, then we're a cunt hair away from civil war.
It's both. There's been a concerted effort to troll America, and the right-wing American trolls have adopted its methods because they can see that they work. And those people have been emboldened by Trump's words and actions, and become louder. They learned the lesson that if they can divide liberals, they can make us less effective.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That is one stupid overgeneralizing crap of bull.
Name one time when an AC post protected someone from something other than being recognized as a troll. Just one will do as a counterexample.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Using the highest tax bracket isn't useful in determining what the rich paid then and now
So, you were aware that you were lying when you did that above? And used as evidence an article that used the same lie?
I am not convinced by this.
You don't have to believe in reality. But it exists regardless of what you believe.
Even if I was convinced by it the problems that are facing the poor are not going to be solved by raising taxes.
As I said above, it's one tool we have that is available. The money can be used to fund programs that do make a massive improvement in the lives of the poor. Such as expanding Medicaid.
I can say that raising taxes will lead to Yellow Vests.
The proposal for raising taxes on incomes greater than $10M will affect 1500 people. I would be very, very interested to watch that particular 1500 people riot. It would be fucking hilarious.
I am not sure you have a basis to predict any revolution in the US based on income inequality.
Based on what? Our entirely peaceful history? Or how it nearly happened during the depression, and was stopped by the New Deal (which raised taxes and *gasp* gave money to those people).
I don't think it's that simple and I don't think income inequality is a good predictor of revolutions.
History demonstrates otherwise. But again, you do not have to believe in reality. It's going to happen anyway.
Projection much? You have no idea what my life is or has been.
I know exactly what your life has been. It shows in your writing.
in the end, but their supporters at the beginning all were.
[Citation Required]
only a conservative is less likely to believe the lie
Conservatives literally believe a wall must be built on the southern border to stem a massive wave of violence that does not exist. Violent crime has not been this low since the 1940s. And undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes at a rate far below the native population.
Conservatives literally believe that immigrants are simultaneously going to steal their jobs, and so incredibly lazy that they will not do any work.
Conservatives appear to believe the people of Latin America do not know what a ladder is. Or an abrasive cut-off saw. Or a boat.
Conservatives literally believe that many women are very interested in aborting in the 8th month of a pregnancy. Pointing out things like Oregon has no laws restricting abortion but also has no significant number of 3rd trimester abortions does not dissuade this belief.
Conservatives literally believe that there are millions of people voting illegally in the US, despite the fact that no one has been able to actually find more than a handful. Including Republican politicians and law enforcement that have dedicated their career to finding one of these millions. And they keep lying about this, most recently in TX where they managed to forget people can become US citizens in order to maintain their belief in voter fraud.
Conservatives literally believe that the deficit is going to destroy the Republic....unless the deficit was caused by tax cuts for rich people. Despite the fact that in the 80 years since supply-side economics was formalized, it has never successfully predicted any real-world result.
Conservatives literally believe that children are being trafficked out of a non-existent basement at a pizza parlor by people who have so much wealth and power they have no reason to use such a public and easily found place for their nefarious crimes......and that they still use this non-existent basement even after this story became widely-known.
Conservatives literally believe that Trump is going to mass-arrest people any day now because someone on the Internet claimed to have a "Q" security clearance and thus knew about it because of all that level of clearance reveals. Despite the fact that a "Q" security clearance is a DoE clearance involving the knowledge of how nuclear weapons work....and that's it. Also, they literally believe that this massive cabal is somehow not able to read public messages on the Internet where they talk about this.
Conservatives literally believe that one billionaire is more powerful than all the world's governments (when he's a liberal), while simultaneously believing other billionaires that have far more money are utterly helpless in the face of government (when they're conservative).
Conservatives literally believe the bible literally telling you to feed the poor and heal the sick means you must shun the poor and sick while shoveling money at a preacher with two private jets and 4 mansions to "receive God's blessing".
Conservatives believe many, many, many lies. And it is so very, very easy to add more lies. For example, that NAZIs were leftists.
If you actually believe what you wrote here, you have absolutely no idea what a Liberal is. Your idea of a Liberal is a caricature that has been illustrated for you by the media.
Every prior president has been elected via the same system. If we had a popular vote system, both candidates would have ran a different campaign, so you can't even make the popular vote claim. Campaigns are ran to win, not to win the popular vote. There was no whining about the rules before the election, and I guarantee that had the shoe been on the other foot, the left wouldn't be complaining about it...maybe the right would, but then they'd be full of shit too.
Just another day in Paradise
You wouldn't be here crying about it if Trump had lost but "won" the "popular vote".
Just another day in Paradise
Since I typically vote republican, let me just say I hate him too. I thought the left didn't like stereotyping.
Just another day in Paradise
Why waste a bullet?...line them up and do all three with one.
Just another day in Paradise
We voted for Republicans to OPPOSE so-called "net nutrality" and the market destroying laws
Yes the lack of regulation promotes an open and free market. Now hurry up and sign up to the one overpriced internet company you can access, two if you're really lucky. Don't forget to add your youtube, facebook and slashdot passes for only 5 bucks each.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It's not a "quirk", it's the way the system works. We're a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If you go by state vote/electoral votes, which is how the country was wisely designed, than Hillary got squashed.
Each individual state maintains a degree of sovereignty, thus we don't go by general population, we're too large a country for that to work in the best interests of everyone.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. https://twitter.com/realdonald...
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That doesn't change the fact that Trump and his supporters have no basis to claim the existence of a popular mandate for Trump or his policies. There isn't one. Most of the people didn't want him to be president.
You might as well claim that you could have beaten Usain Bolt in the Olympics if you had trained for that.
That doesn't change the facts one iota. He has no popular mandate at all.
What the actual eff?
Someone actually typed that in!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
And that is a good thing. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The sarcasm is lame when you consider that your access is limited to one provider because of regulation. But, you just keep swimming in your willful ignorance.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
You were wrong. The left LOVES stereotyping. They always have. What they don't like is BEING STEREOTYPE. Especially, if the stereotype is correct.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The EC is not the popular vote. Nothing about the EC is a basis for any claims about the popular mandate. Trump lost the popular vote (so no popular mandate). The non-voters can't be said to have wanted Trump.
Obama won the popular vote as well as the EC. So did every president in the 20th century. W. won the popular vote for one term, but only won in the EC for the other term. How large the margin of victory in the popular vote needs to be to constitute a mandate is up for debate, but I don't think there's much controversy in the claim that it must be a positive number at least.
The non-voters are an amalgam of people who genuinely don't care, people who don't like any of the choices, people who feel that because of the EC their vote won't matter, people who remain undecided, people who can't get to the polling place, people whop forgot what day it is, and people who are not eligible to vote for various reasons.
"Most people" doesn't matter. Win/lose by the rules at the time, and stop whining. Your comparison to Bolt is completely baseless.
Just another day in Paradise
Get it through your skull. Had the election been on popular vote, the vote tally would not have been the same because the candidates would have campaigned with different methodologies. That's not to say that HRC may not have won, only that Trump could have.
Just another day in Paradise
He won by the rules, making it a mandate. It's not called a "popular mandate".
Just another day in Paradise
They constantly complain about profiling, which is why we have to search grandma in a wheelchair as she goes through TSA, as well as your toddler.
Reminds me of when I was 20 and had a new '78 TransAm. I was pulled over about ten times in the one year that I owned it. I'd argue that only three of those were valid traffic stops, but I'm sure I fit a profile.
Just another day in Paradise
There is this thing called a popular mandate (sometimes public mandate or voter mandate, please look it up before replying). He don't got it. Sophistry won't help. Please join us back here in realityland.
I'm not arguing who got elected. I am refuting claims that Trump enjoys a majority of public support.
Get it through YOUR skull. He didn't win the popular vote PERIOD. That means he has no popular mandate PERIOD. You can coulda, woulda, shoulda all you want but he DIDN'T. The majority of people voting for President voted for someone else. That is not even in controversy. They heard him speak, they heard his platform and ideas, and they said NO! Not just no, they were adamant enough to hold their noses and vote for Hillary instead.
Umm, no I live in the UK where we have shitloads of choice of high speed, unlimited connections for a fraction of what the US pays. Thanks to regulation.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u