You spin the facts your way pretty well there sir.
Where I don't agree with your conclusions in most cases, you do seem to have a coherent argument for most of this.
Only a couple of "facts" that I'd debate with you, which are key to your conclusion...
1. The Dossier thing wasn't a republican thing, really it wasn't. Sure the idea came up over here, but the development of it was totally HRC and the DNC funded. It also doesn't excuse the use of a fictitious and slanderous document's use. Republicans didn't do this. HRC et all did.
2. I recall Trump being castigated for claiming he'd not commit to accepting the election results. Why do we now allow HRC to do this?
3. You claimed Muller was going to be careful to appear unbiased because he knew he'd be under the microscope. I'm saying that he wasn't very careful about this when he picked his staff. Surely you don't believe that ALL qualified FBI agents only give to democratic candidates? Note that I'm not claiming Muller's team was/is biased in their actions, only that Mueller was not very careful with his choices for his team and opened himself up to charges of bias by picking a team that was arguably all from one political persuasion. Face it, Mueller isn't all that concerned about this or he would have realized this was an issue.
4. White house interviews are over, as reported by: LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-white-house-interviews-finished-in-1513110618-htmlstory.html) and Politico: (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/mueller-interviews-white-house-293753)
Yes this is a lawyer saying this on behalf of the Whitehouse and may or may not be true. However, if it IS true, it does suggest the end of Mueller's work is nearly here.
5. The election wasn't affected in any meaningful way by the Russians and nobody has any evidence that suggests they did. Sure, they would have tried if they could, but there wasn't any real way for them to do this. Do you know of anything they did or is this all just theory? And I'd like to point out that if there was anything that benefits the Russians here it is all the fear and uncertainty about the fairness of the election being sewn into the "useful idiots" minds out there. All this accrues to the benefit of the Russians. So I ask you, WHO is obsessing over this whole question?
Well... Nice analysis there, not sure I can argue too much with it.
Problem here is that the reason for this investigation has 100% democrat support with only a handful of republicans. Trump really tweaked off some of the more entrenched republicans, blasting their presumptive heir to the throne to pieces before Jeb could get his campaign out of first gear. Then he handed the rest their heads, with only Cruz having a credible chance about half way though the primaries. He ticked a bunch of folks off. Trump takes no prisoners and isn't afraid to mix it up in the mud pit, in fact seems to quite enjoy keeping a bucket of mud at the ready. Cross him by saying something bad and you get a face full before you can get your mouth shut.
The investigation, in fact the whole idea of Russian Collusion, is a democrat invention to explain Hillary's loss. It's partisan, with just enough republicans willing to let the democrats stay in the line of Trump's fire, so they don't have to take the muddy attack. So they let the "impeach 45" chants go on, enjoy the show, knowing full well that if push came to shove they'd vote to keep Trump, the presumptive hot head interloper who kept Jeb out of the Whitehouse.
Now Mueller's investigation is absolutely partisan. Mueller and *every* member of his team are obviously from a single political perspective, so, on the surface at least, it sure looks partisan. Recently we find out that he actually fired one of the investigators for texting some seriously partisan stuff to a girl friend. One can argue that personal political views doesn't imply bias in the investigative work being done, but I don't think the public would see it that way. At the very least Mueller opened himself up to criticism for hiring biased investigators, which was an unforced error on his part. Surely he KNEW anything he did was going to be strictly scrutinized, yet he hired who he did? You know the argument will be the whole investigation is biased.
One more thing, you don't seem to be aware of. It's being reported that the interviews at the Whitehouse by Mueller's team are done. If this is true, Mueller is nearly done with his work. You interview the targets of your investigation last, after you know what happened from other sources. If this rumor is true, then a couple of weeks to take evidence to a grand jury if you think a crime is there and this is over....
First, the "You are a common carrier" but not really status the FCC tries to define. They are cutting the legislative baby in half, when it's not necessary, in an attempt to appease all sides. They keep in place an ISP's responsibility to filter specific types of traffic (things like child porn and such) while trying to claim that the ISP may not filter or throttle speeds for specific services. Such compromises don't help anybody.
Second, the exception of VPN services might be assumed to exempt VPN providers from the non-filtering of content rules. Thus the FCC gave an easy out for ISP's who which to packet filter.
Third, "providers" of data services will have higher costs to meet all the requirements newly levied on them. Such costs will be passed on to customers.
Fourth, the grievance process, where complaints about violations of the NN rules is hugely complex for the FCC. The FCC doesn't have the staff or infrastructure for this, so I figure the complaint process will be pretty much non-existent. Sure, you can file a complaint, but good luck getting the FCC to look at it, much less deal with it.
My favorite saying that makes the Greenies mad is when I tell them that my used Ford F-150 is more environmentally friendly than that Tesla... Not because it doesn't pollute, but because at this point, we don't have to build a new car, just run the old one...
Wow, that's news to me... When can I expect my rubles comrade? Yes, Western Union is fine... Heck, BitCoin will work if you think that's less risky for you...
Politically impartial? Muller? Now that's a laughable contention. This whole investigation is politically motivated, from day one.
Please sir, tell me another!
I realize that a lot of the critique of Muller and his staff is politically motivated, but this whole mess was an invented story, invented it seems by the DNC and Hillary's campaign -- In league with Russian informants none the less. I'll believe that Muller is impartial if, when this is all over, it's clear that he investigated all that with the same vigor as he investigated the RNC and the Trump Campaign.
So far though, Muller doesn't seem to be impartial to me.. He seems very partisan, just like his friend Comey was partisan...
Are you not hearing what I'm saying then? Yes, congress did this, they abrogated their responsibility, by delegating to these government agencies.
You may not like my choice of words or my implication that Congress *shouldn't* have done this in my view, but that doesn't change what they did.
Abrogation is an act where an entity gives up their authority by choice. Or... Where an entity evades their responsibility. Congress did both of these when they created these laws that allow the FCC (and other federal entities) create rules that carry the weight and force of law, without actually creating a specific law in the constitutionally prescribed way. Net Neutrality *should* have been made into law by being a bill passed by both houses of congress that was signed by the president, not a rule created by the politically appointed commissioners over at the FCC.
And I don't agree that congress cannot directly manage the law making. Sure, you'd be slower to get laws in place, but you'd also be more likely to have a more limited and understandable set of rules for everybody if our elected representatives where actually doing what the constitution says they should be doing. I recall why this country got started, it wasn't just about taxation or throwing tea into Boston harbor. I think we've forgotten from where we came and why our republic was designed as it was. But I wax poetic now..
Net Neutrality is not what the name implies... It was passed along partisan lines and will be repealed on partisan lines.
I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. But that's just my opinion based on my reading of the rules.
But the political debate here is how the rule making of federal agencies is done, outside of the constitutional mandated legislative process, bypassing Congress and the president's responsibility. This legal construct created by Congress and the President does two things. First it makes creating rules easy and quick. Congress doesn't have to act, pass a bill for the president to sign anymore, the agency just publishes the rules and they become the law of the land without any congressional review or presidential signature. Second, anything that can be quickly done, can be quickly undone. This leads to uncertainty and confusion where the population finds it hard to know and understand what the law of the land actually is.
I also realize that while my political views are currently benefitting from the current political power structure, days will come when this isn't true. I believe that we *should* get this fixed; that we should return to having congress writing bills and the president agreeing or not to sign them. We should slow this whole process down, make congress actually do their job and I think the country and both parties will benefit. I also realize that few see it this way.
I've said before I am a ham radio operator. I am actively involved in storm spotting in my area so I'm likely to know before the national weather service issues the warning that there is a possible tornado coming my way.
I'm just not naïve enough to not understand that what goes around, comes around. Someday the shoe will be on the other party who can have it their way too. I want this fixed, permanently, and that takes congressional action, so this is fixed and takes more than another party appointing new commissioners to get their way again.
This is not a miscarriage of what congress wanted them to do, this is exactly what congress wanted them to do. That is the point.
Yes, that's my point. Congress abrogated their responsibility to make laws. They got lazy. Now we have a process that side steps the founders intent and it's resulting in a mess of regulations which are oppressive and unnecessarily complex.
Congress needs to undo this and clean up their mess.... Eventually the states may take care this if congress doesn't, but I don't think having to use the article 5 constitutional amendment process is the best way to fix this.
LOL.. It proves nothing, except that Trump is obviously taking protective actions for the government's IT infrastructure.
Muller is trying to find proof of the Russian Collusion thing. Apparently it's not as obvious as some thought going in or we'd be seeing actual collusion charges by now. I guess "impeach 45" will have to wait on something better from Muller. Good luck fellas..
In the mean time, Trump holds the launch codes and keeps going as do the Russian collusion questions which will never end...
I actually think there is good reason for this. Trump isn't saying YOU cannot use these products, he's just saying the federal government is not allowed to use it. Just like they don't use network hardware developed by the Chinese for good reasons.
In this case it makes sense to not willingly install something that could be easily be used by a global geopolitical adversary to compromise your government infrastructure. Sure, it's not currently compromised, but given the location of where the development takes place, compromise could happen with little notice and rapidly be propagated though the government's IT infrastructure.
It's a risk avoidance issue and on this Trump is debatably correct.
I just assume ALL news I hear is fake until I can verify it myself and/or a couple of days have passed without it being withdrawn or changed..
I also distrust ANY story that happens during a political campaign where the timing is suspiciously of benefit to one candidate over the other and involves some recently "discovered" evidence/witness of something that is alleged to have happened years ago, but only now was discovered.
Come to think of it.. I don't really believe much of what passes as "news" for most sheeple..
But this puts the cart before the horse. Congress shouldn't have to intervene to avert the miscarriage of regulation by the likes of the FCC. Congress should have to actually pass laws that the FCC is tasked with administrating. Sure the FCC can write prospective bills for Congress to pass and serve as the subject matter experts for congress and the executive branch to consult with, but congress should be passing these as laws using the constitutional prescribed means.
What happened is Congress got lazy and to full of themselves. They turned the likes of the FCC from administrators of the rules to the writers of the rules so congress didn't have to bother. All the FCC does now is publish in the federal register and voilà, it's the law of the land in 90 or 180 days. What SHOULD happen is the FCC should be tasked with maybe authoring and serving as technical advisers on bills, which congress debates and passes or not and the president signs into law or not.
At least that's how it USED to work, back in the days the constitution was taking seriously.
Everybody's tired of this, it's not just you. A lot of the outrage here stems from the fact that most of us thought this bullshit was over two years ago.
Ah quite... So you are now realizing that a government that rules though this kind of regulation is a danger to all. Rules should not be made this way, with faceless nameless "administrators" who are not elected make (or unmake) such significant rules.
Only NOW you are upset? Yea, cry me a river. It was good enough when you where getting your way, but now it's a corrupt system? Please.
This is the "I have a phone and a pen" legacy, which is getting rolled back the very way it was created, behind the scenes by unnamed unelected bureaucrats that are accountable to their appointers, but not the people. This kind of government and the rules it has created should go away. Congress should undo this mess they have made.
It's nothing but mindless rhetoric on both sides here... Seriously, I'm getting tired of this.
On one side we have the scare tactics and "Oh my God it won't be fair with out NN!" and the other we have the "Oh my God, Government is always a mess!"
Now it's plain as the nose on my face.... Um.. You cannot see me... Well, Trust me, it's there.. It's plain as the nose on my face that *somebody* is going bonkers here. One side is pulling out all the stops to justify their perspective, regardless of how many figures or lies they have to tell to make it happen. This is a matter of life and death for the internet and any means is justified to win.
I'll leave it for you to decide which side the pro's or con's is going nuts here.. But I'm going to add that usually the desperate ones are desperate because they are discovering they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why exactly is dangerous and stupid?
You think this idea is wrong, but I believe there to be evidence that this *could* be at least partially right on some points.
I need another drink to deal with this!
Heck.. Just give me a bigger glass next time!
You spin the facts your way pretty well there sir.
Where I don't agree with your conclusions in most cases, you do seem to have a coherent argument for most of this.
Only a couple of "facts" that I'd debate with you, which are key to your conclusion...
1. The Dossier thing wasn't a republican thing, really it wasn't. Sure the idea came up over here, but the development of it was totally HRC and the DNC funded. It also doesn't excuse the use of a fictitious and slanderous document's use. Republicans didn't do this. HRC et all did.
2. I recall Trump being castigated for claiming he'd not commit to accepting the election results. Why do we now allow HRC to do this?
3. You claimed Muller was going to be careful to appear unbiased because he knew he'd be under the microscope. I'm saying that he wasn't very careful about this when he picked his staff. Surely you don't believe that ALL qualified FBI agents only give to democratic candidates? Note that I'm not claiming Muller's team was/is biased in their actions, only that Mueller was not very careful with his choices for his team and opened himself up to charges of bias by picking a team that was arguably all from one political persuasion. Face it, Mueller isn't all that concerned about this or he would have realized this was an issue.
4. White house interviews are over, as reported by: LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-white-house-interviews-finished-in-1513110618-htmlstory.html) and Politico: (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/mueller-interviews-white-house-293753)
Yes this is a lawyer saying this on behalf of the Whitehouse and may or may not be true. However, if it IS true, it does suggest the end of Mueller's work is nearly here.
5. The election wasn't affected in any meaningful way by the Russians and nobody has any evidence that suggests they did. Sure, they would have tried if they could, but there wasn't any real way for them to do this. Do you know of anything they did or is this all just theory? And I'd like to point out that if there was anything that benefits the Russians here it is all the fear and uncertainty about the fairness of the election being sewn into the "useful idiots" minds out there. All this accrues to the benefit of the Russians. So I ask you, WHO is obsessing over this whole question?
No you describe "Faith" not belief.. Fine point I know but the difference is relevant to this..
Pray I don't alter it further...
Well... Nice analysis there, not sure I can argue too much with it.
Problem here is that the reason for this investigation has 100% democrat support with only a handful of republicans. Trump really tweaked off some of the more entrenched republicans, blasting their presumptive heir to the throne to pieces before Jeb could get his campaign out of first gear. Then he handed the rest their heads, with only Cruz having a credible chance about half way though the primaries. He ticked a bunch of folks off. Trump takes no prisoners and isn't afraid to mix it up in the mud pit, in fact seems to quite enjoy keeping a bucket of mud at the ready. Cross him by saying something bad and you get a face full before you can get your mouth shut.
The investigation, in fact the whole idea of Russian Collusion, is a democrat invention to explain Hillary's loss. It's partisan, with just enough republicans willing to let the democrats stay in the line of Trump's fire, so they don't have to take the muddy attack. So they let the "impeach 45" chants go on, enjoy the show, knowing full well that if push came to shove they'd vote to keep Trump, the presumptive hot head interloper who kept Jeb out of the Whitehouse.
Now Mueller's investigation is absolutely partisan. Mueller and *every* member of his team are obviously from a single political perspective, so, on the surface at least, it sure looks partisan. Recently we find out that he actually fired one of the investigators for texting some seriously partisan stuff to a girl friend. One can argue that personal political views doesn't imply bias in the investigative work being done, but I don't think the public would see it that way. At the very least Mueller opened himself up to criticism for hiring biased investigators, which was an unforced error on his part. Surely he KNEW anything he did was going to be strictly scrutinized, yet he hired who he did? You know the argument will be the whole investigation is biased.
One more thing, you don't seem to be aware of. It's being reported that the interviews at the Whitehouse by Mueller's team are done. If this is true, Mueller is nearly done with his work. You interview the targets of your investigation last, after you know what happened from other sources. If this rumor is true, then a couple of weeks to take evidence to a grand jury if you think a crime is there and this is over....
First, the "You are a common carrier" but not really status the FCC tries to define. They are cutting the legislative baby in half, when it's not necessary, in an attempt to appease all sides. They keep in place an ISP's responsibility to filter specific types of traffic (things like child porn and such) while trying to claim that the ISP may not filter or throttle speeds for specific services. Such compromises don't help anybody.
Second, the exception of VPN services might be assumed to exempt VPN providers from the non-filtering of content rules. Thus the FCC gave an easy out for ISP's who which to packet filter.
Third, "providers" of data services will have higher costs to meet all the requirements newly levied on them. Such costs will be passed on to customers.
Fourth, the grievance process, where complaints about violations of the NN rules is hugely complex for the FCC. The FCC doesn't have the staff or infrastructure for this, so I figure the complaint process will be pretty much non-existent. Sure, you can file a complaint, but good luck getting the FCC to look at it, much less deal with it.
That's just a start of a few specifics. Go read the 400 pages here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Oh the long knives are coming out for you sir.
My favorite saying that makes the Greenies mad is when I tell them that my used Ford F-150 is more environmentally friendly than that Tesla... Not because it doesn't pollute, but because at this point, we don't have to build a new car, just run the old one...
The same as the poundage from accidently discarded BitCoins..
How else do you inflate the poundage in your numbers.... Ever tried to move a fridge? All that foam insulation is heavy..
Sure, but maybe he thinks it is a good idea and doesn't care about any of this Russian Collusion nonsense...
Of course, if you simply MUST ascribe malice and stupidity to this action because it's Trump doing it, enjoy your partisan dreams as long as you can.
Wow, that's news to me... When can I expect my rubles comrade? Yes, Western Union is fine... Heck, BitCoin will work if you think that's less risky for you...
Politically impartial? Muller? Now that's a laughable contention. This whole investigation is politically motivated, from day one.
Please sir, tell me another!
I realize that a lot of the critique of Muller and his staff is politically motivated, but this whole mess was an invented story, invented it seems by the DNC and Hillary's campaign -- In league with Russian informants none the less. I'll believe that Muller is impartial if, when this is all over, it's clear that he investigated all that with the same vigor as he investigated the RNC and the Trump Campaign.
So far though, Muller doesn't seem to be impartial to me.. He seems very partisan, just like his friend Comey was partisan...
Are you not hearing what I'm saying then? Yes, congress did this, they abrogated their responsibility, by delegating to these government agencies.
You may not like my choice of words or my implication that Congress *shouldn't* have done this in my view, but that doesn't change what they did.
Abrogation is an act where an entity gives up their authority by choice. Or... Where an entity evades their responsibility. Congress did both of these when they created these laws that allow the FCC (and other federal entities) create rules that carry the weight and force of law, without actually creating a specific law in the constitutionally prescribed way. Net Neutrality *should* have been made into law by being a bill passed by both houses of congress that was signed by the president, not a rule created by the politically appointed commissioners over at the FCC.
And I don't agree that congress cannot directly manage the law making. Sure, you'd be slower to get laws in place, but you'd also be more likely to have a more limited and understandable set of rules for everybody if our elected representatives where actually doing what the constitution says they should be doing. I recall why this country got started, it wasn't just about taxation or throwing tea into Boston harbor. I think we've forgotten from where we came and why our republic was designed as it was. But I wax poetic now..
Net Neutrality is not what the name implies... It was passed along partisan lines and will be repealed on partisan lines.
I don't think the rule was necessary, it is certainly not effective and it would be very disruptive to innovation in some ways so I'm glad to see it go. But that's just my opinion based on my reading of the rules.
But the political debate here is how the rule making of federal agencies is done, outside of the constitutional mandated legislative process, bypassing Congress and the president's responsibility. This legal construct created by Congress and the President does two things. First it makes creating rules easy and quick. Congress doesn't have to act, pass a bill for the president to sign anymore, the agency just publishes the rules and they become the law of the land without any congressional review or presidential signature. Second, anything that can be quickly done, can be quickly undone. This leads to uncertainty and confusion where the population finds it hard to know and understand what the law of the land actually is.
I also realize that while my political views are currently benefitting from the current political power structure, days will come when this isn't true. I believe that we *should* get this fixed; that we should return to having congress writing bills and the president agreeing or not to sign them. We should slow this whole process down, make congress actually do their job and I think the country and both parties will benefit. I also realize that few see it this way.
I've said before I am a ham radio operator. I am actively involved in storm spotting in my area so I'm likely to know before the national weather service issues the warning that there is a possible tornado coming my way.
Try again?
Who's crying.. I'm getting my way here.. ;)
I'm just not naïve enough to not understand that what goes around, comes around. Someday the shoe will be on the other party who can have it their way too. I want this fixed, permanently, and that takes congressional action, so this is fixed and takes more than another party appointing new commissioners to get their way again.
This is not a miscarriage of what congress wanted them to do, this is exactly what congress wanted them to do. That is the point.
Yes, that's my point. Congress abrogated their responsibility to make laws. They got lazy. Now we have a process that side steps the founders intent and it's resulting in a mess of regulations which are oppressive and unnecessarily complex.
Congress needs to undo this and clean up their mess.... Eventually the states may take care this if congress doesn't, but I don't think having to use the article 5 constitutional amendment process is the best way to fix this.
LOL.. It proves nothing, except that Trump is obviously taking protective actions for the government's IT infrastructure.
Muller is trying to find proof of the Russian Collusion thing. Apparently it's not as obvious as some thought going in or we'd be seeing actual collusion charges by now. I guess "impeach 45" will have to wait on something better from Muller. Good luck fellas..
In the mean time, Trump holds the launch codes and keeps going as do the Russian collusion questions which will never end...
I actually think there is good reason for this. Trump isn't saying YOU cannot use these products, he's just saying the federal government is not allowed to use it. Just like they don't use network hardware developed by the Chinese for good reasons.
In this case it makes sense to not willingly install something that could be easily be used by a global geopolitical adversary to compromise your government infrastructure. Sure, it's not currently compromised, but given the location of where the development takes place, compromise could happen with little notice and rapidly be propagated though the government's IT infrastructure.
It's a risk avoidance issue and on this Trump is debatably correct.
I just assume ALL news I hear is fake until I can verify it myself and/or a couple of days have passed without it being withdrawn or changed..
I also distrust ANY story that happens during a political campaign where the timing is suspiciously of benefit to one candidate over the other and involves some recently "discovered" evidence/witness of something that is alleged to have happened years ago, but only now was discovered.
Come to think of it.. I don't really believe much of what passes as "news" for most sheeple..
But this puts the cart before the horse. Congress shouldn't have to intervene to avert the miscarriage of regulation by the likes of the FCC. Congress should have to actually pass laws that the FCC is tasked with administrating. Sure the FCC can write prospective bills for Congress to pass and serve as the subject matter experts for congress and the executive branch to consult with, but congress should be passing these as laws using the constitutional prescribed means.
What happened is Congress got lazy and to full of themselves. They turned the likes of the FCC from administrators of the rules to the writers of the rules so congress didn't have to bother. All the FCC does now is publish in the federal register and voilà, it's the law of the land in 90 or 180 days. What SHOULD happen is the FCC should be tasked with maybe authoring and serving as technical advisers on bills, which congress debates and passes or not and the president signs into law or not.
At least that's how it USED to work, back in the days the constitution was taking seriously.
Everybody's tired of this, it's not just you. A lot of the outrage here stems from the fact that most of us thought this bullshit was over two years ago.
Ah quite... So you are now realizing that a government that rules though this kind of regulation is a danger to all. Rules should not be made this way, with faceless nameless "administrators" who are not elected make (or unmake) such significant rules.
Only NOW you are upset? Yea, cry me a river. It was good enough when you where getting your way, but now it's a corrupt system? Please.
This is the "I have a phone and a pen" legacy, which is getting rolled back the very way it was created, behind the scenes by unnamed unelected bureaucrats that are accountable to their appointers, but not the people. This kind of government and the rules it has created should go away. Congress should undo this mess they have made.
I'm definitely on one side of the fence bashing those on the other. You obviously either don't understand what I said, or don't like getting bashed.
It's nothing but mindless rhetoric on both sides here... Seriously, I'm getting tired of this.
On one side we have the scare tactics and "Oh my God it won't be fair with out NN!" and the other we have the "Oh my God, Government is always a mess!"
Now it's plain as the nose on my face.... Um.. You cannot see me... Well, Trust me, it's there.. It's plain as the nose on my face that *somebody* is going bonkers here. One side is pulling out all the stops to justify their perspective, regardless of how many figures or lies they have to tell to make it happen. This is a matter of life and death for the internet and any means is justified to win.
I'll leave it for you to decide which side the pro's or con's is going nuts here.. But I'm going to add that usually the desperate ones are desperate because they are discovering they are wrong and that they are losing the fight because of it.