"Collusion isn't even illegal, so what if he colluded?"
Some kinds of collusion is most certainly illegal... But the illegal versions of this activity usually involves having competitors discussing how to price their products amongst themselves in an effort to avoid having to compete or agreeing to some legal action in order to take advantage of a third party. At most other times, the crime called conspiracy is what most folks are talking about when they discuss collusion.
Collusion (private agreements between parties unknown to a third) are actually common and legal in many situations. Often this is true for commissioned sales and many service industries. One that may surprise you is Health Insurance, where the agreements between your insurance company and your doctor are not yours to see.
If you ask then if the world is flat or if UFO's exist, you will get the same answer. It's the standard party line for any questions of substance.
The whole point of this is to not provide any information, including information about the existence or non-existence of information. So this answer means literally nothing....
Actually, most of them get wrapped around what's possible and forget to consider what's practical. If wrapping tinfoil around their heads helps them keep it all in, so be it.
However, this might actually help them get those hats off because tinfoil makes a great RF reflector and makes it easier to track their movements behind that wall. Be sure to mention that to the next one you meet..;)
Really? He just passes off stuff to local authorities if they are outside his mandate?
So, if his mandate has "Russian collusion in the 2016 campaign" at it's core, why in God's name is Manafort facing tax evasion charges for stuff that happened 10 years ago, long before 2016 election season got started and well before his short stint as Trump's campaign manager? Then there is Flynn, who didn't have a conversation with the Russians until after the election, as heir apparent to his National security adviser position... How's that related to the original mandate?
I'm just guessing, but it does seem Muller is pushing an obstruction of justice angle for stuff that happened AFTER the campaign was over, which *might* be within his mandate, but only if he actually found crimes within his mandate and could prove an effort to cover them up.
I'm afraid that Muller has obviously pushed the boundaries of his initial mandate and It sure doesn't seem justified from up here in the cheep seats.... But Rosenstein will have to justify this eventually and I look forward to that bit of spin...
Didn't we have a story last week about how Intel was on death's door because they couldn't get their yield on the new chips high enough? Wasn't AMD ready to pounce? Now this?
Let me guess, you thought Star was doing right by Clinton the whole time?
I'd like to point out that it is the excesses of the past that caused congress to revise the laws regarding Special Councils to make them much more targeted and less open ended. This investigation shouldn't last nearly as long as Star's... Personally, I think Star knew the basic facts within a year and could have wrapped up the whole process in two. I also think the Lewinsky affair was a huge mistake by all involved, including Star and that Clinton should have never been impeached for perjury.
But my question remains... How long is reasonable? Is a year, two years, eight? What's reasonable here from your perspective?
If you think it was firing the FBI director, you are crazy. Firing the FBI director didn't stop anything did it and it's totally within the rights of the president to let the director of the FBI go if he wants. If you think it was the "let the Flynn thing go" comment, again you are nuts. This statement started with "I hope you can..." which means it was an expression of a wish not an order. Comey felt free to not obey this request, and Flynn was NOT let go. You may wish to claim "Attempted obstruction" but Trump merely claims it wasn't an order, Comey cannot prove it was an order, so your case falls apart as there is no proof.
You know.. I have one question.... What is Muller looking for? What was the reason for his appointment?
This was supposed to be a slam dunk, 6 moths at most. Democrats where talking IMPEACHMENT for Pete's sake. Now, over a year in, we still don't have any evidence that implicates anybody in Trump's campaign with anything approaching a crime during the campaign.... Now you are telling me this will take years? Right...
I'm just guessing here, but Muller isn't going to stop looking until Trump leaves office. I'm also guessing that will be January 20th 2025 around noon. Muller will retire after this. We will get a report, but it's going to say Trump's campaign didn't do anything wrong, even though individuals involved in the campaign got caught in unrelated crimes.
How long do you suppose it would take to find out?
Couldn't say for certain but given the results thus far, Mueller and his team have been moving at lightning speed.
How long will it take was the question, not how fast you think Muller is going. How long do we give him? One year, two? Eight? Muller's been busy, but for all the looking we have what? Nothing that has any direct relation to crimes by the president's campaign has been disclosed yet....
Muller has pretty much a blank check and authorization to investigate pretty much any leads he finds into pretty much anything.
Well if you haven't noticed, there are a bunch of guilty pleas and a boatload of indictments. It's not like the investigation isn't going anywhere.
Again, guilty pleas for crimes that happened when? AFTER the election and for what? Lying to the FBI? Give me a break...
He's been going over a year now and the FBI 9 months before that.
The Watergate investigation took longer. Also, I think "conservatives" have lost the right to complain after screaming about Benghazi in 17 investigations that found no wrongdoing over the span of four years.
No wrongdoing found? Well.. I know you don't like it, but the Hillary E-mail thing was found (and that was evidence of a crime) though it and a whole bunch of lying to the US public was proven too. Was Susan Rice's "it was a video" Sunday show lies wrong? Well it wasn't a crime, but I thought it was wrong. As was Clinton's lying about the same thing, that was wrong too, just not illegal... But hey...
Are you sure we don't already know enough to be reasonably sure?
Mueller isn't one to waste time or resources. The president is refusing to be interviewed which is holding up the process.
That is a convenient excuse and nothing more. If Muller has the goods, he doesn't need to interview Trump, just write the report and be done. If he doesn't, then why would Trump talk to Muller? There is zero upside for talking to Muller. How about this? Why doesn't Muller put his questions in writing and send them over the Whitehouse for answers? Yea, not going to happen. Hard to set a trap that way.
You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened.
The 20 people and three companies that have indicted prove that something happened.
Twenty charges? Oh yea, foreign nationals and companies who never where directly involved in either campaign. Folks who will never stand trial unless they are stupid enough to travel though the USA and get arrested because they are Russians who are not on US soil anyway. Twenty trials for which Muller doesn't have to prove one blooming thing because they will never go to court and 20 Russians for which we have zero evidence of contact with Trump's campaign, much less Trump, but SOMETHING happened. Yea, go with that.
Nothing about what justified Muller's appointment has been found.
Crimes from 10 years ago (before anybody including Trump knew he was running for president) for a guy that served on the campaign mean what? A conspirator in these crimes who DIDN'T participate in the campaign? Meaningless to the campaign...
A couple of "Lying to the FBI" charges mean what to Muller exactly? Leverage maybe for Muller, but again, nothing a all to do with the campaign as all these happened AFTER the election was over.
Charging Russian companies and foreign nationals with illegal election participation (for both parties candidates) means what? The Russians where meddling? And how's that have anything to do with Trump's campaign?
I'm tired of the IMPLIED guilt here. Nothing that implicates the Trump Campaign has been found and disclosed, no crimes related to Trump's campaign have been charged. Even after a year...
That may be true, and I like you laser pointer illustration.. But do you actually THINK that some investigative reporter wouldn't love to expose Trump if they could? Or do you think they are all just too busy chasing their tails to miss a real live story hitting them in the face?
Trump may be enjoying the attention from the press, but you really have to think the press is stupid enough to just ignore a story that could scuttle a guy they obviously loath? Yea, I'm not buying that idea. The press isn't that stupid. They play along with the president because it's good for ratings, they chase that red dot because they know it sells advertising. I don't think they would give up the ratings bonanza that covering a story that legitimately made Trump look bad and either not see it or willingly ignore it. I think they'd jump at the chance to obliterate Trump, if they could...
Look close at what all the supposed "crimes" actually are... I think you will find they don't have anything close to the "Russian Collusion" that started the whole Special Council thing and by all appearances Muller is off chasing some obstruction idea now.
Someday I'm going to make and post a list of these "crimes" so we can dispense with this "Well Muller charged some folks! Surely there was wrongdoing in the campaign!" canard that's a mis-representation of what's actually been happening here that gets twisted into something it's not.
Wow, nobody is safe from getting rolled under that democrat impeachment bus... But all is fair in war and if you can nail Trump with something, the collateral damage is fine, even if Al Franken and WJ Clinton get tread marks on their backs...Muller better produce something, or under he goes too.
Because the republicans turn on him or because the democrats intend to commit suicide if they manage to eek out control of the house?
The last time a president was impeached and not convicted over things that where not "high crimes and misdemeanors" it didn't go well for the party that let it happen. There is not a chance the senate convicts and less of a chance Trump choses to resign. So what will you accomplish?
But by all means, keep talking about it. It can only increase republican turn out when you do.
How long do you suppose it would take to find out? Muller has pretty much a blank check and authorization to investigate pretty much any leads he finds into pretty much anything. He's been going over a year now and the FBI 9 months before that.
Are you sure we don't already know enough to be reasonably sure? You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened. Of course, you can keep looking until you find something or the target leaves office... Historically, That's what special councils do anyway, but how much time does it take before we can assume there is no there there? A year, two years? Eight years?
So.... You are saying Trump, who is supposed to be the stupidest man to ever serve as president, is smart enough to actually arrange for this kind of diversionary tactic, but the American public is stupid enough to fall for it, but the press is willing to overlook it? (Not likely, perhaps, no way in HE double tooth picks.)
Who's off in the weeds here?
Could it just possibly be the government working as it is currently implmented? That the Russians have been hacking and we are dealing with it in the standard bureaucratic way and the administration has little to do with this?
The interent was under defacto net neutrality since its inception. (Under telecommunications laws, the telecom companies cannot discriminate traffic.) The only thing that happened in 2015 was that the FCC created a guideline. Now that guideline is repealed, we've ALSO repealed the defacto net neutrality that previously existed. We're in a whole new world, where the cable companies are protected from competition by the massive barriers to entry (the cost of laying cable.) To add insult to injury, the tax payer paid for most of the cable that the internet service providers own.
Simple game theory and basic economics predict that the cable companies will abuse their position at about the level of the cost for competitors to enter the market. That's a MASSIVE amount of abuse. And experience from around the world shows that this is indeed the case.
And you don't think the FCC can effectively regulate this as it happens then? I think they can. NN was a pre-emptive, everything including the kitchen sink, approach to a set of real and imaginary problems. One would be naive to think it wouldn't have caused issues with unintended consequences. NN was like dropping a total OS rewrite into a new language on existing hardware without being able to test and debug it first.
Remember, the FCC still has the ability to regulate the internet and fix issues as they arise and come to their attention. The public is free to bring any issues to their attention. They receive such complaints online, on the phone and in person. Feel free to report any issues you see to the FCC...
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.
I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.
Citation please...
Oh, wait, you are being sarcastic...
So, your reasons for thinking that the FCC cannot deal with any issues that arise? Remember, I'm not saying providers won't misbehave, I'm saying the FCC is free to fix any issue that come up with a smaller set of targeted regulations. I'm also saying that if you have any complaints about your ISP, you are free to bring the issues to the FCC's attention either online, by phone or in person.
Understand what I am trying to say. I'm not saying providers don't do bad/stupid/immoral things, they do and will, what I'm saying is the FCC can deal with these issues as they arise.
By the way.. The MAJOR issue with internet providers is they have no competition on that critical last mile. How'd that happen? Oh, we have a bunch of government regulations that grant them a local monopoly. You have no choice but to put up with their garbage because you don't have any option. If everybody had options, the market would regulate itself and limit these issues. So, the solution you propose is MORE regulations? Um.. Just a thought, why don't we try LESS and see what happens... Regulate away that last mile monopoly, give competition a chance.
They wont start actually acting on the repeal until after the 2018 elections. So we got time before everything goes to hell.
Is that a joke? I mean everything was fine until 2015 when this whole concept took root, so you expect that it will rock along fine until November 2018 and then we are all dead?
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then. Where I expect to see a problem or two that NN would have prevented, I don't see how they won't be effectively dealt with by the FCC as necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Let us stop calling Uber "ride charing". Let us call it what it is: "an illegal taxi service app powered by Neural Network Deep Learning AI".
Um.. It's really "an illegal taxi service" the rest of that is as much hype as my stereo enhanced "motor sounds" in my F-150....
Like Lyft is better... LOL.. Who's paying more?
"Collusion isn't even illegal, so what if he colluded?"
Some kinds of collusion is most certainly illegal... But the illegal versions of this activity usually involves having competitors discussing how to price their products amongst themselves in an effort to avoid having to compete or agreeing to some legal action in order to take advantage of a third party. At most other times, the crime called conspiracy is what most folks are talking about when they discuss collusion.
Collusion (private agreements between parties unknown to a third) are actually common and legal in many situations. Often this is true for commissioned sales and many service industries. One that may surprise you is Health Insurance, where the agreements between your insurance company and your doctor are not yours to see.
If you ask then if the world is flat or if UFO's exist, you will get the same answer. It's the standard party line for any questions of substance.
The whole point of this is to not provide any information, including information about the existence or non-existence of information. So this answer means literally nothing....
Obviously we just need to build a bunch of 6" stilts to raise all buildings along the coast. Done.
Now I'm off to disprove this globe earth thing with my lawn chair and 45 helium balloons.
Don't forget the BB gun.
He didn't, but dropped it after the first shot..
Cute... You don't believe they are not doing this now... LOL
I'm pretty sure they use IR and millimeter wave X-Ray technology now....
Just use a radiant barrier as the moisture barrier and save energy too. As a bonus, you can take off the tinfoil underwear inside your home.
Because they ARE.... Less crazy that is..
Actually, most of them get wrapped around what's possible and forget to consider what's practical. If wrapping tinfoil around their heads helps them keep it all in, so be it.
However, this might actually help them get those hats off because tinfoil makes a great RF reflector and makes it easier to track their movements behind that wall. Be sure to mention that to the next one you meet.. ;)
Really? He just passes off stuff to local authorities if they are outside his mandate?
So, if his mandate has "Russian collusion in the 2016 campaign" at it's core, why in God's name is Manafort facing tax evasion charges for stuff that happened 10 years ago, long before 2016 election season got started and well before his short stint as Trump's campaign manager? Then there is Flynn, who didn't have a conversation with the Russians until after the election, as heir apparent to his National security adviser position... How's that related to the original mandate?
I'm just guessing, but it does seem Muller is pushing an obstruction of justice angle for stuff that happened AFTER the campaign was over, which *might* be within his mandate, but only if he actually found crimes within his mandate and could prove an effort to cover them up.
I'm afraid that Muller has obviously pushed the boundaries of his initial mandate and It sure doesn't seem justified from up here in the cheep seats.... But Rosenstein will have to justify this eventually and I look forward to that bit of spin...
Didn't we have a story last week about how Intel was on death's door because they couldn't get their yield on the new chips high enough? Wasn't AMD ready to pounce? Now this?
Let me guess, you thought Star was doing right by Clinton the whole time?
I'd like to point out that it is the excesses of the past that caused congress to revise the laws regarding Special Councils to make them much more targeted and less open ended. This investigation shouldn't last nearly as long as Star's... Personally, I think Star knew the basic facts within a year and could have wrapped up the whole process in two. I also think the Lewinsky affair was a huge mistake by all involved, including Star and that Clinton should have never been impeached for perjury.
But my question remains... How long is reasonable? Is a year, two years, eight? What's reasonable here from your perspective?
I have to ask.. How did Trump obstruct?
If you think it was firing the FBI director, you are crazy. Firing the FBI director didn't stop anything did it and it's totally within the rights of the president to let the director of the FBI go if he wants. If you think it was the "let the Flynn thing go" comment, again you are nuts. This statement started with "I hope you can..." which means it was an expression of a wish not an order. Comey felt free to not obey this request, and Flynn was NOT let go. You may wish to claim "Attempted obstruction" but Trump merely claims it wasn't an order, Comey cannot prove it was an order, so your case falls apart as there is no proof.
Do you Have something, ANYTHING else?
You know.. I have one question.... What is Muller looking for? What was the reason for his appointment?
This was supposed to be a slam dunk, 6 moths at most. Democrats where talking IMPEACHMENT for Pete's sake. Now, over a year in, we still don't have any evidence that implicates anybody in Trump's campaign with anything approaching a crime during the campaign.... Now you are telling me this will take years? Right...
I'm just guessing here, but Muller isn't going to stop looking until Trump leaves office. I'm also guessing that will be January 20th 2025 around noon. Muller will retire after this. We will get a report, but it's going to say Trump's campaign didn't do anything wrong, even though individuals involved in the campaign got caught in unrelated crimes.
How long do you suppose it would take to find out?
Couldn't say for certain but given the results thus far, Mueller and his team have been moving at lightning speed.
How long will it take was the question, not how fast you think Muller is going. How long do we give him? One year, two? Eight? Muller's been busy, but for all the looking we have what? Nothing that has any direct relation to crimes by the president's campaign has been disclosed yet....
Muller has pretty much a blank check and authorization to investigate pretty much any leads he finds into pretty much anything.
Well if you haven't noticed, there are a bunch of guilty pleas and a boatload of indictments. It's not like the investigation isn't going anywhere.
Again, guilty pleas for crimes that happened when? AFTER the election and for what? Lying to the FBI? Give me a break...
He's been going over a year now and the FBI 9 months before that.
The Watergate investigation took longer. Also, I think "conservatives" have lost the right to complain after screaming about Benghazi in 17 investigations that found no wrongdoing over the span of four years.
No wrongdoing found? Well.. I know you don't like it, but the Hillary E-mail thing was found (and that was evidence of a crime) though it and a whole bunch of lying to the US public was proven too. Was Susan Rice's "it was a video" Sunday show lies wrong? Well it wasn't a crime, but I thought it was wrong. As was Clinton's lying about the same thing, that was wrong too, just not illegal... But hey...
Are you sure we don't already know enough to be reasonably sure?
Mueller isn't one to waste time or resources. The president is refusing to be interviewed which is holding up the process.
That is a convenient excuse and nothing more. If Muller has the goods, he doesn't need to interview Trump, just write the report and be done. If he doesn't, then why would Trump talk to Muller? There is zero upside for talking to Muller. How about this? Why doesn't Muller put his questions in writing and send them over the Whitehouse for answers? Yea, not going to happen. Hard to set a trap that way.
You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened.
The 20 people and three companies that have indicted prove that something happened.
Twenty charges? Oh yea, foreign nationals and companies who never where directly involved in either campaign. Folks who will never stand trial unless they are stupid enough to travel though the USA and get arrested because they are Russians who are not on US soil anyway. Twenty trials for which Muller doesn't have to prove one blooming thing because they will never go to court and 20 Russians for which we have zero evidence of contact with Trump's campaign, much less Trump, but SOMETHING happened. Yea, go with that.
Nothing about what justified Muller's appointment has been found.
Crimes from 10 years ago (before anybody including Trump knew he was running for president) for a guy that served on the campaign mean what? A conspirator in these crimes who DIDN'T participate in the campaign? Meaningless to the campaign...
A couple of "Lying to the FBI" charges mean what to Muller exactly? Leverage maybe for Muller, but again, nothing a all to do with the campaign as all these happened AFTER the election was over.
Charging Russian companies and foreign nationals with illegal election participation (for both parties candidates) means what? The Russians where meddling? And how's that have anything to do with Trump's campaign?
I'm tired of the IMPLIED guilt here. Nothing that implicates the Trump Campaign has been found and disclosed, no crimes related to Trump's campaign have been charged. Even after a year...
That may be true, and I like you laser pointer illustration.. But do you actually THINK that some investigative reporter wouldn't love to expose Trump if they could? Or do you think they are all just too busy chasing their tails to miss a real live story hitting them in the face?
Trump may be enjoying the attention from the press, but you really have to think the press is stupid enough to just ignore a story that could scuttle a guy they obviously loath? Yea, I'm not buying that idea. The press isn't that stupid. They play along with the president because it's good for ratings, they chase that red dot because they know it sells advertising. I don't think they would give up the ratings bonanza that covering a story that legitimately made Trump look bad and either not see it or willingly ignore it. I think they'd jump at the chance to obliterate Trump, if they could...
Look close at what all the supposed "crimes" actually are... I think you will find they don't have anything close to the "Russian Collusion" that started the whole Special Council thing and by all appearances Muller is off chasing some obstruction idea now.
Someday I'm going to make and post a list of these "crimes" so we can dispense with this "Well Muller charged some folks! Surely there was wrongdoing in the campaign!" canard that's a mis-representation of what's actually been happening here that gets twisted into something it's not.
So.. Muller is working for the republicans now?
Wow, nobody is safe from getting rolled under that democrat impeachment bus... But all is fair in war and if you can nail Trump with something, the collateral damage is fine, even if Al Franken and WJ Clinton get tread marks on their backs...Muller better produce something, or under he goes too.
Because the republicans turn on him or because the democrats intend to commit suicide if they manage to eek out control of the house?
The last time a president was impeached and not convicted over things that where not "high crimes and misdemeanors" it didn't go well for the party that let it happen. There is not a chance the senate convicts and less of a chance Trump choses to resign. So what will you accomplish?
But by all means, keep talking about it. It can only increase republican turn out when you do.
How long do you suppose it would take to find out? Muller has pretty much a blank check and authorization to investigate pretty much any leads he finds into pretty much anything. He's been going over a year now and the FBI 9 months before that.
Are you sure we don't already know enough to be reasonably sure? You cannot prove a negative, but if you cannot come up with some kind of prove of the positive after a year, it's starting to look like nothing happened. Of course, you can keep looking until you find something or the target leaves office... Historically, That's what special councils do anyway, but how much time does it take before we can assume there is no there there? A year, two years? Eight years?
So.... You are saying Trump, who is supposed to be the stupidest man to ever serve as president, is smart enough to actually arrange for this kind of diversionary tactic, but the American public is stupid enough to fall for it, but the press is willing to overlook it? (Not likely, perhaps, no way in HE double tooth picks.)
Who's off in the weeds here?
Could it just possibly be the government working as it is currently implmented? That the Russians have been hacking and we are dealing with it in the standard bureaucratic way and the administration has little to do with this?
The interent was under defacto net neutrality since its inception. (Under telecommunications laws, the telecom companies cannot discriminate traffic.) The only thing that happened in 2015 was that the FCC created a guideline. Now that guideline is repealed, we've ALSO repealed the defacto net neutrality that previously existed. We're in a whole new world, where the cable companies are protected from competition by the massive barriers to entry (the cost of laying cable.) To add insult to injury, the tax payer paid for most of the cable that the internet service providers own. Simple game theory and basic economics predict that the cable companies will abuse their position at about the level of the cost for competitors to enter the market. That's a MASSIVE amount of abuse. And experience from around the world shows that this is indeed the case.
And you don't think the FCC can effectively regulate this as it happens then? I think they can. NN was a pre-emptive, everything including the kitchen sink, approach to a set of real and imaginary problems. One would be naive to think it wouldn't have caused issues with unintended consequences. NN was like dropping a total OS rewrite into a new language on existing hardware without being able to test and debug it first.
Remember, the FCC still has the ability to regulate the internet and fix issues as they arise and come to their attention. The public is free to bring any issues to their attention. They receive such complaints online, on the phone and in person. Feel free to report any issues you see to the FCC...
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then.
I'm sure companies like AT&T and Comcast are fighting hard against Net Neutrality with no further goals and only the most altruistic of intentions. I'm sure that Comcast will be thrilled to compete fairly against Netflix and Google and countless tiny companies.
Citation please...
Oh, wait, you are being sarcastic...
So, your reasons for thinking that the FCC cannot deal with any issues that arise? Remember, I'm not saying providers won't misbehave, I'm saying the FCC is free to fix any issue that come up with a smaller set of targeted regulations. I'm also saying that if you have any complaints about your ISP, you are free to bring the issues to the FCC's attention either online, by phone or in person.
None of this says "we need NN" to me.
Understand what I am trying to say. I'm not saying providers don't do bad/stupid/immoral things, they do and will, what I'm saying is the FCC can deal with these issues as they arise.
By the way.. The MAJOR issue with internet providers is they have no competition on that critical last mile. How'd that happen? Oh, we have a bunch of government regulations that grant them a local monopoly. You have no choice but to put up with their garbage because you don't have any option. If everybody had options, the market would regulate itself and limit these issues. So, the solution you propose is MORE regulations? Um.. Just a thought, why don't we try LESS and see what happens... Regulate away that last mile monopoly, give competition a chance.
They wont start actually acting on the repeal until after the 2018 elections. So we got time before everything goes to hell.
Is that a joke? I mean everything was fine until 2015 when this whole concept took root, so you expect that it will rock along fine until November 2018 and then we are all dead?
I'm just guessing here.. But it seems to me that returning to a pre-NN regulation environment won't be a huge issue even then. Where I expect to see a problem or two that NN would have prevented, I don't see how they won't be effectively dealt with by the FCC as necessary.