As opposed to the current system in the US where the greedy leeches in the rural areas suck the cities dry while simultaneously voting for politicians that are doing their level best to destroy the cities and any possibility of prosperity.
Rural areas suck cities dry? How does that work. Especially when those rural areas pay out more then what they receive back in any form of equalization. I think you mean most cities are so badly mismanaged, with in some cases decades of corruption and neglect by specific parties that it will take something significant to fix it. The massive-corruption scandals in Detroit are a good example.
Ultimately, if there aren't the necessary votes in rural areas, they shouldn't be getting anywhere near as much representation as they currently are. We wouldn't have had Bush or Trump as Presidents if not for the disproportionate influence that rural voters and small state voters have on the process.
And there's the reason why the president gains the reason that they do. Because in your world, you'd say "fuck the people who feed us" and then be wondering why you've got a nice civil war on your hands. FYI Trump wasn't elected because of rural voters, he was elected because democrats decided to piss on their base, the DNC selected the worst possible candidate and rigged their own primary, and "everyone else but the city elites" are pissed off at the whole state of "well screw the border, what do you mean we should arrest illegals? We should give them sanctuary because letting our own citizens suffer is more fair."
Look at it this way, the DNC has it's chance to actually fix their party from the current state of identity politics driven policy. So far? They're not doing shit hot. Ask yourself what do the democrats stand for? Who are the people running? What policies do they want to enact? What are the benefits of people voting for them? The only answer you're going to hear from most people is: "I don't know, but I'm sure tired of them screeching 'impeach fotay-fivah!' and won't vote for them."
EC does very little to avoid such, they still can only vote for 1 or 2 candidates.
You mean, other people don't actually care to run or can't run for various reasons. Remember Ross Perot? Right. If he hadn't pulled the BS he did, he'd likely have won.
Democracies don't put nearly all power in one function like the US president, but has a parliament with representatives from all over the country that is the legislative.
The US has decentralized power compared to most democracies. Each branch is clearly defined by the constitution. Most countries with parliaments where the leader is selected, not elected have higher concentrations of power. In most of those parliaments, the senate is also not elected but selected by the PMO's office, this can create long-term "one-sided" senates that simply rubber-stamp legislation because they're beholden not to the voter, but to the party that gave them that seat -- in many cases for life. The PMO's office has far greater reach in terms of "what can be done" then the presidents office for example because when the leader is selected in nearly every case their party also holds the majority of seats in parliament. That means the only way that "things don't happen" is by having an opposition that's close to breaking their majority hold, or the government in question has some other fail back that allows the minority party(s) in question cause the government to collapse.
The actual government should have only one task, to enact the laws passed by that parliament. An independent legal system should oversee the parliament and government for following the laws of the land.
And this is where the US shines, because not only is there the house. There is the senate. And then there is the president. Each one creates it's own layers and obstacles to get something done, this "stalls" legislation that otherwise could be pushed through by a majority government. Let's look at recent examples in Canada where the "trans-rights" bill was passed, it was rammed through the senate and pushed into law despite the numerous legal problems that it's created. In another case, but with a motion(m106), where the government pushed the motion through against all minority parties with specific language for only one religion(islam). Where the minority parties wanted "all religions." This has already been used as the basis to try and create islam-specific blasphemy laws. Or the UK which just passed censorship legislation restricting freedoms further.
Yeah, in Canada it's so cut-throat for used clothing that there's been incidences of "box poaching" by companies. In most cities there's a booming business in thrift stores, and before someone brings up the "but the Goodwill in Toronto..." the people who were running it literally ran it into the ground, took money, pilfered the poor, and the board paid themselves extravagant amounts of money while the workers worked either for minimum wage, or donated their time. Then tried to scrub all the financial information that they could to cover up the fact that they had pilfered money.
I suspect the fibers will be used for something even cheaper. Insulation?
Partially, it's mixed in with newspaper fiber already for blown insulation because some fire retardant chemicals stick to it easier. The fibers can also be added to a lot of the new laminate framing/beams to add extra strength or be reduced and used as a binder when the laminate is compressed. There's also the possibility that it could be rendered down and reprocessed into partial new-fill, or mixed in with fertilizer. Something that's common with cotton already.
You mean mostly EPA regulations which were ruled unconstitutional by the court and didn't have anything to do with drinking water. But was an "overreach of federal power" in restricting what a state can do with it's own resources. Such as mining, forestry, and so on. Because the EPA at the behest of Obama was writing regulations like laws, and the courts ruled that regulations aren't laws, and in doing so the government was not only violating the constitution but the executive branch was exceeding it's constitutional mandate.
So your suggestion is 'hey, let's give power instead to this even smaller group of people, after all, a smaller group of people cannot possibly fall victim to groupthink' . It just makes no sense, from the perspective of equality and the western democratic principles. If indeed you hold, as many Americans so proudly proclaim 'that all Men are created equal', then this system is the very antithesis of that statement and should be done away with.
Let's fix this. The suggestion is to "give those areas of the country who can't muster a vote against major urban areas a chance to get their own issues laid out." That's why you vote for the house, senate, president in the US. The US doesn't have a FPTP system for electing who leads the country. On top of that, it ensures that the other sections of the government have a check against their own powers. Since you live in Europe, you can see all the problems that have arisen out of governments where there is consolidated power and you're not voting on a leader of a party. The UK is probably the best example of how these abuses can happen over a length of time.
You have no idea what it's like living in that system, you've basically described Canada. Trust me, living in Canada? You don't want this system. Because it's exactly what you'd have without the EC. The EC is the only thing that stops "large urban areas" from crushing rural areas for their own requirements. If you want to see this in action, look at Ontario. Where the government does not care about those of us outside of Toronto, Ottawa, or London which is where the concentration of votes are. Federal elections are very often close to the same.
If I vote in my riding, sure I can get my MPP elected. But there are so many votes because of that "proportional representation" in Toronto that one they don't need to visit, two, don't even have to pay lip service to the issues. That's the response you get from the government, whether it be roads or hospitals. Your entire system was designed to give a more fair representation balancing those "wealthy cities" vs "rural areas." It's about as fair as you can make it.
You need some low-income housing, or job training in your rural county/city? Fuck you. It's going into the city, and you're going to like it. Need that 70 year old bridge replaced that spans a major highway and has been raining down concrete onto cars for a decade? Fuck you. Wasn't until it became such a serious hazard that it became an issue, and even then all the money came from federal coffers to replace it. Need a new hospital to replace the one that was built in 1951 and can't carry the load of patients? Raise the money yourself.
I suggest you use a reliable source instead of vox, which cherry picks from one state. And take a look at the total grid picture, since you're good at searching it shouldn't take you long to find the actual sellers price. FYI vox's article is *bid* price, not what you actually pay which is *buyer price* aka the cost when it hits your home.
Considering your anti-free speech, and support against free association it sure doesn't look like you oppose that. Especially when the government(s) that have been in power over the last decade have directly echo'd that. Why don't you try looking back over your own posts and maybe you'll figure out why people besides myself see you as a far-left authoritarian.
The ACA was directly responsible for that. The bill was a piece of stinking garbage, with a pile of streaming shit on top that should never have been passed in the first place. The ACA itself *priced* insurance companies directly out of the exchanges, and as it stands right now? Nearly every exchange is bankrupt.
FYI as someone who lives under "single payer" it's damn terrible. Unless you have an absolute life or death situation, you're going to be waiting. And waiting, and waiting some more. And maybe, possibly, with a bit of luck? When you've got stage 4 cancer, you might actually get in for treatment before it metastasizes. Worst case? You'll still be waiting another 60 days before treatment starts. Even with that single payer system that I live under, I still *need* private health insurance otherwise I'd go bankrupt. Why don't you take a look and get a feel how 43% taxes are, and then dropping another $200-300/mo or so for private insurance to cover things in the single payer system.
Really, Sanders plan would have been just as disastrous. Take it from those of us that already live under it. By the way, here's the average wait times in Ontario. I hope you're ready to wait 50-90 days for a CT, and 70-140 days for a MRI. Go on, search, look, read how long you'll wait. Let me recommend the following "major hospitals" LHSC(London Health Sciences) that also includes "sick kids london" service area around 500k-700k people. Toronto(approx 6.7m) and then Ottawa(~1m).
In America a liberal is some one associated with the political Left.
Only in the last 20 years or so, most people don't actually use that bastardization in that sense in political circles even *in* the US.
Furthermore, your claim that a self declared Libertarian would vote for a strong federal government program that helped people get health care if only it were simpler is rediculous.
Think you've got your people mixed up on that one. That's Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul.
Uh, I think you mean Jimmy Carter. It's pretty obvious that you've got little to no understanding of the political history of your own country. Those "Justice democrats" are nothing more then the progressives who weren't "progressive enough" for the DNC when they started their purity spiral.
You know that I don't actually like the UK or the UK parliamentary system, right? I guess not, as you keep arguing against this imaginary version of me.
People reflect their government in many cases, you just happen to reflect the general craziness that your authoritarian leaders keep pushing.
What has been said that there any many players in the Republican trying to push it towards the fringes who would call him a RHINO if he were some how an active player in today's politics.
The people who would call him a RINO(at least get the term right), would be the same people who think that McCain is a stalwart Republican. The fact that you don't get this means that you understand far less about US politics then someone who only lives there part of the year.
That's not a loss. He got hit with a privacy violation because the law required "notification of recording" failing to do that meant that they were guilty of a privacy violation. It doesn't disprove the videos as being true.
Switzerland and Singapore both have pretty harsh taxation, especially by US standards. I don't think you would like living in those countries.
Tax rates don't determine the ability for citizens to actually have control. I realize that this might be difficult for you, but systems of government outside of a westminister parliament exist, and a system of hereditary senate which isn't elected doesn't exist in most places.
Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant.
No? Maybe you missed a few things. By the way, do you define a "moderatly sized economic boom" as -18% growth tailing out at the end of 1980 to a +18% economic growth by 1989? Or is moderate defined as the US economy expanded by 1/3 under his term as president? You can try rewriting this as much as you want, but reality is fundamentally different. And I realize that progressive professors really like going out of their way to try and rewrite history on this. Just like they do with Thatcher and Churchill in the UK. And in Canada with the literal fawning of the media over Trudeau Sr.
The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)
No he was conservative. I'm going to remind you that those tax hikes came in time to cover the expenditures caused by cutting. If you're going to try saying "he's not a conservative" because of one thing, then that would make Obama a dictator right? Because his idea of law and order was to simply issue edicts by pen, which is exactly what happens in a dictatorship.
You are conflating two completely different issues. Net Neutrality isn't about censorship, it's about charging more for access to some services or giving preferential treatment to some services.
No, I'm actually not. Go read all the regulations and get back to me, you'll figure out the ones that allow organizations to censor fairly quickly if you've studied law at all.
you get to pay $49.95/month extra for "HD video services" on your broadband bill.
Funny thing, that was already happening under that set of regulations. Including restricting traffic, and traffic shaping.
Yeah and the democrats also lied when they said that "if we allow amnesty just this one time, it'll never happen again. We swear!" Then again Reagan also presided over one of the greatest economic booms in US history, those tax raises didn't hurt anyone because people had plenty of money rolling in. Compare today to then, the average American is 1mo away from insolvency, has less then $1k in the bank and has no backup in-case of an emergency. That's the exact opposite of that time where most people had 4-6mo, and at least $900(non-adjusted) in the bank.
The trouble with the ACA repeal was that the electorate figured out it meant losing access to healthcare and billions of dollars in insurance subsidies. That's what shut it down.
Maybe you can tell that to the millions of americans who had their healthcare premiums go up by 400%(to 500-600/mo) with a $6000 deductible. To the point where the penalty for not having ACA insurance was cheaper then having insurance in the first place, or the millions who lost health insurance because of it. Because I'll tell ya something, there were a lot of seniors in FL(Zephyrhills) where I stay for part of the winter who couldn't afford insurance anymore.
Ever been to Switzerland? How about Singapore? No, I'm guessing not. How about before China started cracking down on Hong Kong. How about you should grow the fuck up and realize that *smaller government* doesn't mean no government? The only thing you're doing is showing everyone that your range and understanding of politics could fill a teaspoon.
Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to block a bill that will prevent organizations that are actively censoring having an even greater financial interest in censorship?"
So in other words you have nothing? That bill doesn't prevent organizations from censoring anything, if you actually read it? It's far more useless then anything else with so many loopholes that it actually allows censorship via regulations to exist at the behest of the ISP.
Then again, for a Brit that has serious problems in their own country censoring speech and the police acting as modern day censors? I'd say look to your own damn mess before commenting on things on this side of the pond.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to the current system in the US where the greedy leeches in the rural areas suck the cities dry while simultaneously voting for politicians that are doing their level best to destroy the cities and any possibility of prosperity.
Rural areas suck cities dry? How does that work. Especially when those rural areas pay out more then what they receive back in any form of equalization. I think you mean most cities are so badly mismanaged, with in some cases decades of corruption and neglect by specific parties that it will take something significant to fix it. The massive-corruption scandals in Detroit are a good example.
Ultimately, if there aren't the necessary votes in rural areas, they shouldn't be getting anywhere near as much representation as they currently are. We wouldn't have had Bush or Trump as Presidents if not for the disproportionate influence that rural voters and small state voters have on the process.
And there's the reason why the president gains the reason that they do. Because in your world, you'd say "fuck the people who feed us" and then be wondering why you've got a nice civil war on your hands. FYI Trump wasn't elected because of rural voters, he was elected because democrats decided to piss on their base, the DNC selected the worst possible candidate and rigged their own primary, and "everyone else but the city elites" are pissed off at the whole state of "well screw the border, what do you mean we should arrest illegals? We should give them sanctuary because letting our own citizens suffer is more fair."
Look at it this way, the DNC has it's chance to actually fix their party from the current state of identity politics driven policy. So far? They're not doing shit hot. Ask yourself what do the democrats stand for? Who are the people running? What policies do they want to enact? What are the benefits of people voting for them? The only answer you're going to hear from most people is: "I don't know, but I'm sure tired of them screeching 'impeach fotay-fivah!' and won't vote for them."
EC does very little to avoid such, they still can only vote for 1 or 2 candidates.
You mean, other people don't actually care to run or can't run for various reasons. Remember Ross Perot? Right. If he hadn't pulled the BS he did, he'd likely have won.
Democracies don't put nearly all power in one function like the US president, but has a parliament with representatives from all over the country that is the legislative.
The US has decentralized power compared to most democracies. Each branch is clearly defined by the constitution. Most countries with parliaments where the leader is selected, not elected have higher concentrations of power. In most of those parliaments, the senate is also not elected but selected by the PMO's office, this can create long-term "one-sided" senates that simply rubber-stamp legislation because they're beholden not to the voter, but to the party that gave them that seat -- in many cases for life. The PMO's office has far greater reach in terms of "what can be done" then the presidents office for example because when the leader is selected in nearly every case their party also holds the majority of seats in parliament. That means the only way that "things don't happen" is by having an opposition that's close to breaking their majority hold, or the government in question has some other fail back that allows the minority party(s) in question cause the government to collapse.
The actual government should have only one task, to enact the laws passed by that parliament.
An independent legal system should oversee the parliament and government for following the laws of the land.
And this is where the US shines, because not only is there the house. There is the senate. And then there is the president. Each one creates it's own layers and obstacles to get something done, this "stalls" legislation that otherwise could be pushed through by a majority government. Let's look at recent examples in Canada where the "trans-rights" bill was passed, it was rammed through the senate and pushed into law despite the numerous legal problems that it's created. In another case, but with a motion(m106), where the government pushed the motion through against all minority parties with specific language for only one religion(islam). Where the minority parties wanted "all religions." This has already been used as the basis to try and create islam-specific blasphemy laws. Or the UK which just passed censorship legislation restricting freedoms further.
All three favor rural areas over urban areas.
Your own sentence invalidates this.
Yeah, it does. Not exclusively, as that's up to each state, but it's more common than not.
So which FPTP states determined the president again? Keeping in mind that the president is selected by the EC in the vast majority of states.
We can do that by eliminating the electoral college, or by switching the House to some form of proportional representation.
Again - Canada. Doesn't work, does the exact opposite and let's cities crush rural voters.
Landmark is a scam to fleece the yahoos. Unfortunately, that's what the entire conservative movement has become.
I guess that means that the entire progressive movement has become the new moral authoritarians displacing the fundamentalist christians then right?
Yeah, in Canada it's so cut-throat for used clothing that there's been incidences of "box poaching" by companies. In most cities there's a booming business in thrift stores, and before someone brings up the "but the Goodwill in Toronto..." the people who were running it literally ran it into the ground, took money, pilfered the poor, and the board paid themselves extravagant amounts of money while the workers worked either for minimum wage, or donated their time. Then tried to scrub all the financial information that they could to cover up the fact that they had pilfered money.
I suspect the fibers will be used for something even cheaper. Insulation?
Partially, it's mixed in with newspaper fiber already for blown insulation because some fire retardant chemicals stick to it easier. The fibers can also be added to a lot of the new laminate framing/beams to add extra strength or be reduced and used as a binder when the laminate is compressed. There's also the possibility that it could be rendered down and reprocessed into partial new-fill, or mixed in with fertilizer. Something that's common with cotton already.
There is more then one video. You can watch all the unedited videos right there. You sure you want to argue that it was bullshit again? Those are the words of their own people.
You mean mostly EPA regulations which were ruled unconstitutional by the court and didn't have anything to do with drinking water. But was an "overreach of federal power" in restricting what a state can do with it's own resources. Such as mining, forestry, and so on. Because the EPA at the behest of Obama was writing regulations like laws, and the courts ruled that regulations aren't laws, and in doing so the government was not only violating the constitution but the executive branch was exceeding it's constitutional mandate.
So your suggestion is 'hey, let's give power instead to this even smaller group of people, after all, a smaller group of people cannot possibly fall victim to groupthink' . It just makes no sense, from the perspective of equality and the western democratic principles. If indeed you hold, as many Americans so proudly proclaim 'that all Men are created equal', then this system is the very antithesis of that statement and should be done away with.
Let's fix this. The suggestion is to "give those areas of the country who can't muster a vote against major urban areas a chance to get their own issues laid out." That's why you vote for the house, senate, president in the US. The US doesn't have a FPTP system for electing who leads the country. On top of that, it ensures that the other sections of the government have a check against their own powers. Since you live in Europe, you can see all the problems that have arisen out of governments where there is consolidated power and you're not voting on a leader of a party. The UK is probably the best example of how these abuses can happen over a length of time.
You have no idea what it's like living in that system, you've basically described Canada. Trust me, living in Canada? You don't want this system. Because it's exactly what you'd have without the EC. The EC is the only thing that stops "large urban areas" from crushing rural areas for their own requirements. If you want to see this in action, look at Ontario. Where the government does not care about those of us outside of Toronto, Ottawa, or London which is where the concentration of votes are. Federal elections are very often close to the same.
If I vote in my riding, sure I can get my MPP elected. But there are so many votes because of that "proportional representation" in Toronto that one they don't need to visit, two, don't even have to pay lip service to the issues. That's the response you get from the government, whether it be roads or hospitals. Your entire system was designed to give a more fair representation balancing those "wealthy cities" vs "rural areas." It's about as fair as you can make it.
You need some low-income housing, or job training in your rural county/city? Fuck you. It's going into the city, and you're going to like it. Need that 70 year old bridge replaced that spans a major highway and has been raining down concrete onto cars for a decade? Fuck you. Wasn't until it became such a serious hazard that it became an issue, and even then all the money came from federal coffers to replace it. Need a new hospital to replace the one that was built in 1951 and can't carry the load of patients? Raise the money yourself.
I suggest you use a reliable source instead of vox, which cherry picks from one state. And take a look at the total grid picture, since you're good at searching it shouldn't take you long to find the actual sellers price. FYI vox's article is *bid* price, not what you actually pay which is *buyer price* aka the cost when it hits your home.
Considering your anti-free speech, and support against free association it sure doesn't look like you oppose that. Especially when the government(s) that have been in power over the last decade have directly echo'd that. Why don't you try looking back over your own posts and maybe you'll figure out why people besides myself see you as a far-left authoritarian.
The ACA was directly responsible for that. The bill was a piece of stinking garbage, with a pile of streaming shit on top that should never have been passed in the first place. The ACA itself *priced* insurance companies directly out of the exchanges, and as it stands right now? Nearly every exchange is bankrupt.
FYI as someone who lives under "single payer" it's damn terrible. Unless you have an absolute life or death situation, you're going to be waiting. And waiting, and waiting some more. And maybe, possibly, with a bit of luck? When you've got stage 4 cancer, you might actually get in for treatment before it metastasizes. Worst case? You'll still be waiting another 60 days before treatment starts. Even with that single payer system that I live under, I still *need* private health insurance otherwise I'd go bankrupt. Why don't you take a look and get a feel how 43% taxes are, and then dropping another $200-300/mo or so for private insurance to cover things in the single payer system.
Really, Sanders plan would have been just as disastrous. Take it from those of us that already live under it. By the way, here's the average wait times in Ontario. I hope you're ready to wait 50-90 days for a CT, and 70-140 days for a MRI. Go on, search, look, read how long you'll wait. Let me recommend the following "major hospitals" LHSC(London Health Sciences) that also includes "sick kids london" service area around 500k-700k people. Toronto(approx 6.7m) and then Ottawa(~1m).
In America a liberal is some one associated with the political Left.
Only in the last 20 years or so, most people don't actually use that bastardization in that sense in political circles even *in* the US.
Furthermore, your claim that a self declared Libertarian would vote for a strong federal government program that helped people get health care if only it were simpler is rediculous.
Think you've got your people mixed up on that one. That's Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul.
Uh, I think you mean Jimmy Carter. It's pretty obvious that you've got little to no understanding of the political history of your own country. Those "Justice democrats" are nothing more then the progressives who weren't "progressive enough" for the DNC when they started their purity spiral.
You know that I don't actually like the UK or the UK parliamentary system, right? I guess not, as you keep arguing against this imaginary version of me.
People reflect their government in many cases, you just happen to reflect the general craziness that your authoritarian leaders keep pushing.
Your own post said he "wasn't very conservative."
What has been said that there any many players in the Republican trying to push it towards the fringes who would call him a RHINO if he were some how an active player in today's politics.
The people who would call him a RINO(at least get the term right), would be the same people who think that McCain is a stalwart Republican. The fact that you don't get this means that you understand far less about US politics then someone who only lives there part of the year.
That's not a loss. He got hit with a privacy violation because the law required "notification of recording" failing to do that meant that they were guilty of a privacy violation. It doesn't disprove the videos as being true.
Switzerland and Singapore both have pretty harsh taxation, especially by US standards. I don't think you would like living in those countries.
Tax rates don't determine the ability for citizens to actually have control. I realize that this might be difficult for you, but systems of government outside of a westminister parliament exist, and a system of hereditary senate which isn't elected doesn't exist in most places.
Not a single thing you said challenged what the above post said. What Democrats did in any context is irrelevant. The fact that he prosided over a moderatly sized economic boom is irrelevant.
No? Maybe you missed a few things. By the way, do you define a "moderatly sized economic boom" as -18% growth tailing out at the end of 1980 to a +18% economic growth by 1989? Or is moderate defined as the US economy expanded by 1/3 under his term as president? You can try rewriting this as much as you want, but reality is fundamentally different. And I realize that progressive professors really like going out of their way to try and rewrite history on this. Just like they do with Thatcher and Churchill in the UK. And in Canada with the literal fawning of the media over Trudeau Sr.
The point is that Reagan certainly wasn't very conservative by the standards many want to put on the party today and that is clearly demomstrated by his 11 tax hikes (amoung a lot of other things, like say negotiating with Democrats)
No he was conservative. I'm going to remind you that those tax hikes came in time to cover the expenditures caused by cutting. If you're going to try saying "he's not a conservative" because of one thing, then that would make Obama a dictator right? Because his idea of law and order was to simply issue edicts by pen, which is exactly what happens in a dictatorship.
You are conflating two completely different issues. Net Neutrality isn't about censorship, it's about charging more for access to some services or giving preferential treatment to some services.
No, I'm actually not. Go read all the regulations and get back to me, you'll figure out the ones that allow organizations to censor fairly quickly if you've studied law at all.
you get to pay $49.95/month extra for "HD video services" on your broadband bill.
Funny thing, that was already happening under that set of regulations. Including restricting traffic, and traffic shaping.
Yeah and the democrats also lied when they said that "if we allow amnesty just this one time, it'll never happen again. We swear!" Then again Reagan also presided over one of the greatest economic booms in US history, those tax raises didn't hurt anyone because people had plenty of money rolling in. Compare today to then, the average American is 1mo away from insolvency, has less then $1k in the bank and has no backup in-case of an emergency. That's the exact opposite of that time where most people had 4-6mo, and at least $900(non-adjusted) in the bank.
The trouble with the ACA repeal was that the electorate figured out it meant losing access to healthcare and billions of dollars in insurance subsidies. That's what shut it down.
Maybe you can tell that to the millions of americans who had their healthcare premiums go up by 400%(to 500-600/mo) with a $6000 deductible. To the point where the penalty for not having ACA insurance was cheaper then having insurance in the first place, or the millions who lost health insurance because of it. Because I'll tell ya something, there were a lot of seniors in FL(Zephyrhills) where I stay for part of the winter who couldn't afford insurance anymore.
Ever been to Switzerland? How about Singapore? No, I'm guessing not. How about before China started cracking down on Hong Kong. How about you should grow the fuck up and realize that *smaller government* doesn't mean no government? The only thing you're doing is showing everyone that your range and understanding of politics could fill a teaspoon.
Democrats changed the rules so they only need 50 votes. That was back when they held majority in the senate FYI.
Ask yourself the question: "Why do I want to block a bill that will prevent organizations that are actively censoring having an even greater financial interest in censorship?"
So in other words you have nothing? That bill doesn't prevent organizations from censoring anything, if you actually read it? It's far more useless then anything else with so many loopholes that it actually allows censorship via regulations to exist at the behest of the ISP.
Then again, for a Brit that has serious problems in their own country censoring speech and the police acting as modern day censors? I'd say look to your own damn mess before commenting on things on this side of the pond.