Personally, I don't pay much attention to any story accusation that involves a source that is not known.. The press is going to need to come up with *something* beyond that or I'm going to pretty much ignore their conclusions.
How can you tell either way without an investigation?
You do realize that the biggest net gain for the Russians is the PR here right? They may not have changed even one vote cast, but all this consternation about how they "hacked" the election undermines the electorate's confidence in the process.
Putin is sitting back chuckling about how a little bit of hacking has placed his name and image in front of the world and inflated his image which increases his ability to stay in office.... Then, the gift that keeps on giving, pits Americans vrs Americans which only makes the USA weaker. Apart from achieving some military victory of the USA there is nothing better for him...
LOL.. The sum total of the efforts from the left since November 9, 2016... Keep repeating it... Keep the investigations going.. Because it's not the "nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charges" that matters when you play the political game well.
How very partisan of you... Do a bit of critical thinking about this whole mess and you will realize that Obama is the one who gets the blame for this, it happened on HIS watch. As I recall, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration were acting all huffy about Trump refusing to accept the election results in advance (remember that?). Remember all the assurances that it would be a fair election then? Oh sure, Clinton was a shoe in right? All this was going on right up to the last debate... About the same time as the "Access Hollywood" tapes that should have done in Trump's campaign... He was going to lose, and lose badly, and everybody knew it so the election was going to be FAIR and the Russians where NOT an issue.
What changed?
Do some critical thinking and think about the history of this, don't just fall for the sound bite news coverage of all this... I know it's hard to ignore the shrill voices on both sides of this at times, but do try..
Not really... This was on Obama's watch.. What was HE doing about this? (hint.. He told the Russians to "stop it!") Was this effective? About as effective as the "red line" in Syria..
You still are going to require a valid SIM card and/or the carrier's encryption keys to get on their network....
But this is not in any way new...
1. Cloning a phone/SIM has been done for decades and is a common way of "stealing" services.
2. Messing with the SS7 ISUP portion of a call setup allows the spoofing of callerID information, again a technique that's been used nearly as long as SS7 has.
3. Remember those "Stinger" devices the government uses to intercept phone calls? Everything you need to spoof a call is in there, and you are not foolish enough to think only the government has them right?
So how's this news? It's like somebody trying to protect a patent for a rectangular handheld computing device with rounded corners.... Well Duh? How's that innovative or new?
Technical knowledge, sure, you get to take that with you as long as it doesn't specifically belong to your original company.... Business plans, practices, procedures and clients? You better not "take" that stuff with you or use what you know about a company's business to your advantage.
However, this would normally be covered by a Non-Disclosure and not a Non-Compete agreement, though often they are the same contract.
Depends on the state you live in. In some states non-competes have basically been rendered unenforceable for the vary reason you state. Other state courts have not arrived at the same conclusion and have varying rules for what make a non-compete enforceable or not.
As in ALL legal matters about which you have questions, I strongly recommend you pay a lawyer for advice before you sign anything.
In my personal experience, I've been sued over a non-compete issue that I considered frivolous. I can tell you that the experience is incredibly frustrating and expensive, even if you don't lose. I recommend you don't go though the mess if you can help it. You may be 100% right, but having to pay the legal expenses necessary to prove that is not fun, especially like me, when you are unemployed. (Yea, let that sink in, I was not employed when I got sued for violating a non-compete. How's that even possible?)
So you don't think it's possible that Comey misunderstood Trump?
If Comey thought Trump was asking for him to do something unethical or illegal should he not have at least attempted to verify the instruction at some point? Shouldn't he have confirmed the order? "Mr. President, are you telling me to stop the FBI from investigating this Flynn issue? Yes, can I get that in writing please?" Or, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot stop the FBI investigation into Flynn." Why all the cloak and dagger, Memo writing and leaking instead?
Comey didn't confirm the order, communicate his concerns to his superior or anything. In fact, he didn't say or do anything until AFTER he got canned....
Tell me Comey's actions are all above board here.... You can not do so because Comey made some serious mistakes in all this too.
The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president.
Actually, the whole executive branch of the government is under the direct authority of the president which includes the DOJ, the FBI and just about every other "department" you can imagine.
Where firing the director of the FBI might not be a good idea for a president to do, the president DOES have the right to do this..
Will you at least allow for the possibility that Trump intended nothing improper even if Comey perceived otherwise?
You have to understand that in the long run, it doesn't really matter. Based on what we know as fact, there is no proof of an obstruction charge here. Sure, Comey may think that was being attempted, but the undisputed facts make this impossible to prove. Trump can just claim he didn't say or intend to convey the message Comey claims and in the absence of something to prove otherwise Trump walks. Also Trump can claim he actually has the legal authority to actually issue the order that Comey claims was made (Which is backed up by Comey's previous statements before congress). Think about it, he could just pardon Flynn outright and end this whole thing anyway....
I think you are driven by your perceptions too... Unless you admit that it's possible Comey didn't correctly understand Trump's statements.
You do realize that how you see this is more about perceptions than actual hard facts. Comey's issues look to be more about his personal feelings about Trump than what was actually said or did. Comey, a lawyer and persecutor has nearly zero experience with brash New York real-estate developers, they don't run in the same circles. Such differences make misunderstandings and distrust more likely. Comey describes this as being "uncomfortable" with Trump, as having an upset stomach in Trump's presence.
I'm not saying Trump's behavior wasn't ill-advised, but I am saying that given the vast differences in style and experiences make it likely Comey misunderstood what Trump intended. That Comey admits to being uncomfortable around Trump only adds to the likelihood that he'd misunderstand Trump's intent and meaning.
Good communication requires that we abandon our preconceived notions and seeing this situation in light of what both sides may have been thinking requires the same thing. I get what Comey was thinking and why he felt the way he did, but I also see why this could easily be that Comey was missing the real intent in all his discomfort.
But the question is intent. How do you prove intent? Assuming you can establish intent (and I don't think you can)....
Then you have to answer another question. How is it a problem if Trump DID intend to stop the investigation into Flynn? It may not be a good thing, but Trump IS the head of the administrative branch and the FBI is under his authority.
I'm saying Trump has two ways to defend himself on your "obstruction" charge. 1. What Comey thought he heard wasn't what Trump intended and intent is required for something to be obstruction. 2. Trump could claim he had the authority to issue the order had that been his intent. It's Trump's word verses Comey's here on what was intended, and Comey's version of what Trump said doesn't clearly establish intent, regardless of what Comey's interpretation of the exchange was.
You can think what you want, but an obstruction charge isn't going to stick based on the hard evidence we have in the public domain. It will do PR damage to Trump, which I believe is the whole point here and why Trump's political opponents won't let it go anytime soon... Just like the Russian collusion nonsense that Comey put to death yesterday has for the last 6+ months..
Wanting Comey to stop investigating Flynn and ORDERING him to stop are two very different things. The question here is if Trump's was attempting to give Comey an order when he said "I hope you can let this go", the words are NOT a command, there was no "or I'll fire you" or anything else that firmly makes it an order.... From Comey's recollection of this single private conversations about Flynn, the evidence is far from clear that Trump was giving Comey an order and unless there is some recording of this conversation Trump can deny it took place as Comey recalls.
Remember, this conversation took place in JANUARY and Comey wasn't apparently persuaded to stop the investigation, nor was the subject of Flynn brought up again until after Comey was fired, FIVE months later..
Now if Flynn will be charged remains to be seen, but he WON'T be charged for talking to the Russians. Comey clearly indicated that this activity was not illegal or improper. What's got Flynn in a wringer is his failure to fill out all the necessary disclosure forms, dot the I's and cross the T's (He only filed one set of paperwork, when two sets of different paperwork was required). Trump fired him for not telling Pence the whole truth of what was said and making the administration look bad...
Actually, you have connected a couple of dots that don't go together. What Trump said about Flynn was specifically limited to Flynn (according to Comey's testimony today) AND Comey clearly understood that Trump was supportive of the Russian investigation, even if it implicated those around Trump. All Trump was asking Comey to do was to make a public announcement that Trump wasn't being investigated because of this "Russian thing" what ever that is.
What do you think "the Russian thing" means to Trump? I recommend you read the memo firing Comey and listen to the hearing, all of it. Why do you think Trump keeps saying "I'm not being investigated!". But clearly Comey didn't think the conversation about Flynn (the only remotely possible obstruction case you have) had anything to do with the actual "Russian investigation".
What you are doing is stringing sound bites together that are unrelated and making assertions about what they mean when taken together.
Given the amount of the sky you can cover with a digital camera and a program that can do differential comparisons, unless you have a fairly large rocket stage it's going to be pretty hard to hide in space, even from the armature back yard guys. Even then, you are not going to hide for very long. My guess is that the goal isn't stealth anyway.
No, he said that this was how he interpreted what Trump said. However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way. Plus Comey made it clear this was discussed only ONE time directly with Trump.
Obstruction requires intent by statute. So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events. Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction.
I'm willing to stipulate that Trump said some ill-advised things to Comey in that private meeting, but we are a long way from having a provable obstruction charge here. What we have is a inexperienced President who is unfamiliar with the vagaries of how lawyers talk and phrase things who chose a direct way to express himself that Comey thought was fraught with legal peril that should have been avoided. I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time. What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired.
This is why Comey leaked this memo, in order to get the special council in place (Yes Comey SAID that was why). He's just angry, looking to cause trouble for a man he doesn't respect, doesn't like and whom he has the ability to harm in some way.
No actually the press reports that make the claim Comey implicated the president or anybody other than Flynn in his testimony are what he's going to call fake news... And he will be RIGHT... How do I know? I just listened to the whole open session first hand on CSPAN radio, I heard every question asked and every answer given. There was nothing new here, except that Comey is the one who leaked his own memo...
IF you hear that Comey's words somehow implicate anybody in the Trump administration or campaign beyond Flynn (for failing to file the proper paperwork and/or lying about his finances), they are feeding you fake news.
mr Musk should leak all the details of the X37B cuz hes a computer person
Apart from how much it weighs and the details of what orbit it's heading into, I doubt anybody at SpaceX actually knows what the X37B actually does, including Musk. One could speculate I suppose, but I'm sure the USAF is keeping the actual mission details to themselves...
It's a contract launch that says... Here are the launch specifications, weight, center of gravity, size and on pad environmental requirements, here is the orbit we want and when we want it launched. Finally, here is the schedule of payments and the initial check for you to get started...
True.. The TSA is about creating the appearance of security. Actual security would be too hard and invasive to make happen, so we get stuck with the public face of the TSA where grannies in wheelchairs an 6 year olds get full cavity searches in public while you have to unpack that carryon into their grey bins so they can X-Ray the contents while you get virtually strip searched...
All this is more about appearances than actually making you more secure. Sure, it catches the idiot who accidently left that revolver in their carry on, but I'm pretty sure a determined attacker could get something on board. Heck, airlines routinely catch unauthorized drug shipments on their aircraft so one can assume there are a bunch that don't get caught. How's TAS not catching this stuff?
I assume the TSA will now be assuming liability for every laptop now put into checked luggage.
No, but the airline will, up to the limits specified in the contract.. Which amounts to barely enough to pay for the luggage required to pack the laptop in.
This whole thing is more about the selection of a catchy name and less about the actual rules than most people know. I'm guessing the polled people don't really understand what "Net Neutrality" is. Heck, even the FCC commissioners don't fully understand what a mess "Net Neutrality" actually is and how it's neither good networking nor Neutral as written. Oh no, it's really just a lobbyist written set if rules designed to protect carriers and not making the internet Neutral in any way.
So, shame on the pollsters for just how they poll this. Who's going to say "NO!" to "Do you like "Net Neutrality"?
It's like calling an EPA funding law the "Clean Air Act" or adding education funding by calling it "No Child Left Behind"... It's all in the name, the marketing the PR value of what you call it, not so much in what it actually accomplishes. Which is going to be the down fall of our democracy if we don't stop doing this kind of thing, putting labels on things that describe political goals instead of what the legislation actually does.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah the glory of "Anonymous sources say".
Personally, I don't pay much attention to any story accusation that involves a source that is not known.. The press is going to need to come up with *something* beyond that or I'm going to pretty much ignore their conclusions.
How can you tell either way without an investigation?
You do realize that the biggest net gain for the Russians is the PR here right? They may not have changed even one vote cast, but all this consternation about how they "hacked" the election undermines the electorate's confidence in the process.
Putin is sitting back chuckling about how a little bit of hacking has placed his name and image in front of the world and inflated his image which increases his ability to stay in office.... Then, the gift that keeps on giving, pits Americans vrs Americans which only makes the USA weaker. Apart from achieving some military victory of the USA there is nothing better for him...
If you repeat it enough, it will become truth.
LOL.. The sum total of the efforts from the left since November 9, 2016... Keep repeating it... Keep the investigations going.. Because it's not the "nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charges" that matters when you play the political game well.
How very partisan of you... Do a bit of critical thinking about this whole mess and you will realize that Obama is the one who gets the blame for this, it happened on HIS watch. As I recall, the Clinton Campaign and the Obama administration were acting all huffy about Trump refusing to accept the election results in advance (remember that?). Remember all the assurances that it would be a fair election then? Oh sure, Clinton was a shoe in right? All this was going on right up to the last debate... About the same time as the "Access Hollywood" tapes that should have done in Trump's campaign... He was going to lose, and lose badly, and everybody knew it so the election was going to be FAIR and the Russians where NOT an issue.
What changed?
Do some critical thinking and think about the history of this, don't just fall for the sound bite news coverage of all this... I know it's hard to ignore the shrill voices on both sides of this at times, but do try..
The plot thickens...
Not really... This was on Obama's watch.. What was HE doing about this? (hint.. He told the Russians to "stop it!") Was this effective? About as effective as the "red line" in Syria..
You still are going to require a valid SIM card and/or the carrier's encryption keys to get on their network....
But this is not in any way new...
1. Cloning a phone/SIM has been done for decades and is a common way of "stealing" services.
2. Messing with the SS7 ISUP portion of a call setup allows the spoofing of callerID information, again a technique that's been used nearly as long as SS7 has.
3. Remember those "Stinger" devices the government uses to intercept phone calls? Everything you need to spoof a call is in there, and you are not foolish enough to think only the government has them right?
So how's this news? It's like somebody trying to protect a patent for a rectangular handheld computing device with rounded corners.... Well Duh? How's that innovative or new?
Technical knowledge, sure, you get to take that with you as long as it doesn't specifically belong to your original company.... Business plans, practices, procedures and clients? You better not "take" that stuff with you or use what you know about a company's business to your advantage.
However, this would normally be covered by a Non-Disclosure and not a Non-Compete agreement, though often they are the same contract.
Depends on the state you live in. In some states non-competes have basically been rendered unenforceable for the vary reason you state. Other state courts have not arrived at the same conclusion and have varying rules for what make a non-compete enforceable or not.
As in ALL legal matters about which you have questions, I strongly recommend you pay a lawyer for advice before you sign anything.
In my personal experience, I've been sued over a non-compete issue that I considered frivolous. I can tell you that the experience is incredibly frustrating and expensive, even if you don't lose. I recommend you don't go though the mess if you can help it. You may be 100% right, but having to pay the legal expenses necessary to prove that is not fun, especially like me, when you are unemployed. (Yea, let that sink in, I was not employed when I got sued for violating a non-compete. How's that even possible?)
I believe that is true. He could have pardoned Flynn pre-emptively too.
So you don't think it's possible that Comey misunderstood Trump?
If Comey thought Trump was asking for him to do something unethical or illegal should he not have at least attempted to verify the instruction at some point? Shouldn't he have confirmed the order? "Mr. President, are you telling me to stop the FBI from investigating this Flynn issue? Yes, can I get that in writing please?" Or, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot stop the FBI investigation into Flynn." Why all the cloak and dagger, Memo writing and leaking instead?
Comey didn't confirm the order, communicate his concerns to his superior or anything. In fact, he didn't say or do anything until AFTER he got canned....
Tell me Comey's actions are all above board here.... You can not do so because Comey made some serious mistakes in all this too.
The director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the president.
Actually, the whole executive branch of the government is under the direct authority of the president which includes the DOJ, the FBI and just about every other "department" you can imagine.
Where firing the director of the FBI might not be a good idea for a president to do, the president DOES have the right to do this..
Will you at least allow for the possibility that Trump intended nothing improper even if Comey perceived otherwise?
You have to understand that in the long run, it doesn't really matter. Based on what we know as fact, there is no proof of an obstruction charge here. Sure, Comey may think that was being attempted, but the undisputed facts make this impossible to prove. Trump can just claim he didn't say or intend to convey the message Comey claims and in the absence of something to prove otherwise Trump walks. Also Trump can claim he actually has the legal authority to actually issue the order that Comey claims was made (Which is backed up by Comey's previous statements before congress). Think about it, he could just pardon Flynn outright and end this whole thing anyway....
I think you are driven by your perceptions too... Unless you admit that it's possible Comey didn't correctly understand Trump's statements.
You do realize that how you see this is more about perceptions than actual hard facts. Comey's issues look to be more about his personal feelings about Trump than what was actually said or did. Comey, a lawyer and persecutor has nearly zero experience with brash New York real-estate developers, they don't run in the same circles. Such differences make misunderstandings and distrust more likely. Comey describes this as being "uncomfortable" with Trump, as having an upset stomach in Trump's presence.
I'm not saying Trump's behavior wasn't ill-advised, but I am saying that given the vast differences in style and experiences make it likely Comey misunderstood what Trump intended. That Comey admits to being uncomfortable around Trump only adds to the likelihood that he'd misunderstand Trump's intent and meaning.
Good communication requires that we abandon our preconceived notions and seeing this situation in light of what both sides may have been thinking requires the same thing. I get what Comey was thinking and why he felt the way he did, but I also see why this could easily be that Comey was missing the real intent in all his discomfort.
But the question is intent. How do you prove intent? Assuming you can establish intent (and I don't think you can)....
Then you have to answer another question. How is it a problem if Trump DID intend to stop the investigation into Flynn? It may not be a good thing, but Trump IS the head of the administrative branch and the FBI is under his authority.
I'm saying Trump has two ways to defend himself on your "obstruction" charge. 1. What Comey thought he heard wasn't what Trump intended and intent is required for something to be obstruction. 2. Trump could claim he had the authority to issue the order had that been his intent. It's Trump's word verses Comey's here on what was intended, and Comey's version of what Trump said doesn't clearly establish intent, regardless of what Comey's interpretation of the exchange was.
You can think what you want, but an obstruction charge isn't going to stick based on the hard evidence we have in the public domain. It will do PR damage to Trump, which I believe is the whole point here and why Trump's political opponents won't let it go anytime soon... Just like the Russian collusion nonsense that Comey put to death yesterday has for the last 6+ months..
Wanting Comey to stop investigating Flynn and ORDERING him to stop are two very different things. The question here is if Trump's was attempting to give Comey an order when he said "I hope you can let this go", the words are NOT a command, there was no "or I'll fire you" or anything else that firmly makes it an order.... From Comey's recollection of this single private conversations about Flynn, the evidence is far from clear that Trump was giving Comey an order and unless there is some recording of this conversation Trump can deny it took place as Comey recalls.
Remember, this conversation took place in JANUARY and Comey wasn't apparently persuaded to stop the investigation, nor was the subject of Flynn brought up again until after Comey was fired, FIVE months later..
Now if Flynn will be charged remains to be seen, but he WON'T be charged for talking to the Russians. Comey clearly indicated that this activity was not illegal or improper. What's got Flynn in a wringer is his failure to fill out all the necessary disclosure forms, dot the I's and cross the T's (He only filed one set of paperwork, when two sets of different paperwork was required). Trump fired him for not telling Pence the whole truth of what was said and making the administration look bad...
Um... Wasn't it FOUR times? We are, we aren't, OH, We are again, We finished again....
Actually, you have connected a couple of dots that don't go together. What Trump said about Flynn was specifically limited to Flynn (according to Comey's testimony today) AND Comey clearly understood that Trump was supportive of the Russian investigation, even if it implicated those around Trump. All Trump was asking Comey to do was to make a public announcement that Trump wasn't being investigated because of this "Russian thing" what ever that is.
What do you think "the Russian thing" means to Trump? I recommend you read the memo firing Comey and listen to the hearing, all of it. Why do you think Trump keeps saying "I'm not being investigated!". But clearly Comey didn't think the conversation about Flynn (the only remotely possible obstruction case you have) had anything to do with the actual "Russian investigation".
What you are doing is stringing sound bites together that are unrelated and making assertions about what they mean when taken together.
Given the amount of the sky you can cover with a digital camera and a program that can do differential comparisons, unless you have a fairly large rocket stage it's going to be pretty hard to hide in space, even from the armature back yard guys. Even then, you are not going to hide for very long. My guess is that the goal isn't stealth anyway.
No, he said that this was how he interpreted what Trump said. However, Comey made it abundantly clear that he cannot know what was intended by Trump and that Trump nor his staff took ANY action that obstructed the Flynn investigation in any way. Plus Comey made it clear this was discussed only ONE time directly with Trump.
Obstruction requires intent by statute. So Comey's testimony would not be enough to establish intent for two reasons. 1. The words recorded by Comey do NOT clearly establish intent AND 2. The conversation was private so Trump is free to deny Comey's version of events. Then, given the fact that Comey admits it didn't impact the investigation in any way, there is no way this really rises to obstruction.
I'm willing to stipulate that Trump said some ill-advised things to Comey in that private meeting, but we are a long way from having a provable obstruction charge here. What we have is a inexperienced President who is unfamiliar with the vagaries of how lawyers talk and phrase things who chose a direct way to express himself that Comey thought was fraught with legal peril that should have been avoided. I think Comey fully understood what Trump intended, that it wasn't obstructive and knew so at the time. What's happened is Comey feels betrayed and disrespected by a man he doesn't like who fired him in a rough way. He's just angry, so he's doing what he can to get revenge for being fired.
This is why Comey leaked this memo, in order to get the special council in place (Yes Comey SAID that was why). He's just angry, looking to cause trouble for a man he doesn't respect, doesn't like and whom he has the ability to harm in some way.
No actually the press reports that make the claim Comey implicated the president or anybody other than Flynn in his testimony are what he's going to call fake news... And he will be RIGHT... How do I know? I just listened to the whole open session first hand on CSPAN radio, I heard every question asked and every answer given. There was nothing new here, except that Comey is the one who leaked his own memo...
IF you hear that Comey's words somehow implicate anybody in the Trump administration or campaign beyond Flynn (for failing to file the proper paperwork and/or lying about his finances), they are feeding you fake news.
mr Musk should leak all the details of the X37B cuz hes a computer person
Apart from how much it weighs and the details of what orbit it's heading into, I doubt anybody at SpaceX actually knows what the X37B actually does, including Musk. One could speculate I suppose, but I'm sure the USAF is keeping the actual mission details to themselves...
It's a contract launch that says... Here are the launch specifications, weight, center of gravity, size and on pad environmental requirements, here is the orbit we want and when we want it launched. Finally, here is the schedule of payments and the initial check for you to get started...
True.. The TSA is about creating the appearance of security. Actual security would be too hard and invasive to make happen, so we get stuck with the public face of the TSA where grannies in wheelchairs an 6 year olds get full cavity searches in public while you have to unpack that carryon into their grey bins so they can X-Ray the contents while you get virtually strip searched...
All this is more about appearances than actually making you more secure. Sure, it catches the idiot who accidently left that revolver in their carry on, but I'm pretty sure a determined attacker could get something on board. Heck, airlines routinely catch unauthorized drug shipments on their aircraft so one can assume there are a bunch that don't get caught. How's TAS not catching this stuff?
I assume the TSA will now be assuming liability for every laptop now put into checked luggage.
No, but the airline will, up to the limits specified in the contract.. Which amounts to barely enough to pay for the luggage required to pack the laptop in.
This whole thing is more about the selection of a catchy name and less about the actual rules than most people know. I'm guessing the polled people don't really understand what "Net Neutrality" is. Heck, even the FCC commissioners don't fully understand what a mess "Net Neutrality" actually is and how it's neither good networking nor Neutral as written. Oh no, it's really just a lobbyist written set if rules designed to protect carriers and not making the internet Neutral in any way.
So, shame on the pollsters for just how they poll this. Who's going to say "NO!" to "Do you like "Net Neutrality"?
It's like calling an EPA funding law the "Clean Air Act" or adding education funding by calling it "No Child Left Behind"... It's all in the name, the marketing the PR value of what you call it, not so much in what it actually accomplishes. Which is going to be the down fall of our democracy if we don't stop doing this kind of thing, putting labels on things that describe political goals instead of what the legislation actually does.
Welcome to mindless Management sir! Here is an office with a door, now get that program back on schedule.. How are you going to do it?