Supression of the Black vote is well documented, and doesn't particularly concern the race of the Black people, but the fact that they tend to vote Democratic and are an easy target for suppression because they are already disenfranchised and poverty-stricken.
If the Republicans suppress someone's vote, they can not shield themselves by saying that anyone who fights it is accusing them of racism. They have to face the well-documented evidence that those votes have been suppressed, and continue to be suppressed.
I guess it's one of the post-truth "facts" of alt-reality that Democrats stir up black hatred toward whites. Doesn't seem to be much evidence of that in the real world, though.
No, I am not being intentionally obtuse. I just don't believe you.
The thing I don't believe is that a non-voter is a rational actor who would have gladly gone to the polls except that somehow they felt their vote didn't matter. Nope. They're apathetic or lazy.
I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules. I'm still trying to figure out why a state would ever deny an internet provider permission to be a lifeline provider. It can't be a profit-maker for those internet providers. It can't be that there aren't poor people who need service in the provider's area, or there would be no lifeline business. It can only be that the state did not wish for there to be broadband at all under the universal lifeline rules.
Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.
You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.
What, like they're going to ditch the internet provider privacy rules?
Someone doesn't seem to understand the difference between what Google can see and what your internet provider can see. Lots of adds for VPNs and Proxies tonight, I noticed.
No, the founders who raped their slaves were not Democrats. The founders had a "Democratic-Republican" party, which is also referred to as "Jeffersonian Republicans" or "The First Republican Party" and isn't the Democratic party, and the other party at the time was the Federalist party.
Each of the amendments started out with the decision that the intent of the founders wasn't going to matter any longer. Any future amendment must do so as well.
Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.
Well, that's really bad. But the Democrats wisely decided to stop doing those things. In the years that the Democrats cut their ties with the segregationist portion of Southern voters, spanning from the Goldwater to the Nixon campaigns, the Republicans took them up. So we're now in the position that the Republicans are the political heirs of the 1964 Democrats. So having taken over the bad stuff the Democrats used to do, you are not in a good position to revile us for our past sins.
We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules.
Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.
If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".
But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.
If you'd like to crow about the achievements of the Republican party, be sure to include this one: The decision in Rowe v. Wade was written by a Republican, Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon. He was seated on a Republican panel with appointees going back to Roosevelt who all agreed with him, with the exception of Rhenquist. The two Democrats seated nullified each other.
One could rightfully wonder why the Republican party ever turned from that decision.
What radicalized the Republican party? I think the Southern Strategy was the start. Having been so radicalized, what even gives them the right to call themselves "The party of Lincoln" any longer?
I think you can go on to the article without arguing with me about the summary. The issue at hand is that 12 states challenged FCC because those states did not approve a set of companies to be lifeline broadband providers, and then FCC went ahead and approved them. Unlike Chairman Pal, I believe this is indeed a Federal responsibility due to the Postal Clause of the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.
I am at the moment lacking information regarding what other internet providers those states approved, whether they approved any at all, and what the grounds for not approving a company to provide lifeline service (which can't be a profit-maker) could be except to deny access to the potential customers. In other words, I'm really suspicious of the states in question.
The statement I took issue with was about "the people" voting for him. This is a separate issue from the rules of the electoral college and who won the electoral college. The electoral college is used to choose the winner of an election, but is at best a distorted rendering of the will of the people.
What about the people who didn't vote? Are you trying to say that the decision might have been conclusive for Trump except that a lot of presumptive Trump supporters did not vote because they knew their vote would not count? I find it difficult to believe, and can't say I have much sympathy for folks who don't vote anyway.
If you want to be more concrete than "President Cookie Monster", it would be the Bush v. Gore contest of 2000.
It seems that not everybody knows about the Communications Act of 1934. That is when Congress gave the regulation of communications to the FCC as a Federal responsibility. In the Constitution, we have Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, the "Postal Clause", empowering Congress to establish post offices and post roads for carriage of mail between post offices. Logically this extends to other forms of communications, and justifies the action of Congress in 1934.
What about your family? This is in theory, because I don't know anything about your family and don't want to insult your family. If you grew up in a bad family situation and achieved all of that, that would be an achievement indeed. If you didn't, you might not have been in the same situation as a lot of the poor.
We do have the issue that Congress granted the responsibility to regulate communications to the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934. So, this is not really a state issue at all. I also question that all 50 states are uniformly set up to make this approval, or are interested in taking it on.
Uh, I'm not sure you actually got what is going on. FCC is going to cave on it's previously-ongoing legal defense of an extension to include broadband in the lifeline communications subsidy. FCC will stop approving broadband providers who wish to participate in the program and will instead allow states to make this decision. States don't actually have the constitutional responsibility to govern communications, that is given to the Federal government by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. States are unlikely to have a program to approve broadband lifeline subsidies in place at present because it's a Federal responsibility, and even given the FCC Chairman's odd justification states aren't necessarily going to be eager to take this on.
Internet is also necessary for children to do their homework and any sort of research these days. It does seem that broadband has become basic connectivity. Would you like to show me how long you can get along without it?
Where I live, there is an organization that takes old computers, puts Linux and Chrome on them, and gives them to poor people along with continuing technical support. I do hear of such things elsewhere. I don't think it's actually all that difficult for a poor person to get an old laptop.
Democratic discourse is more than just directing schoolyard words at people. I looked over your words and didn't find a political argument, just abuse aimed at "the left" and at me.
Try to come up with a cogent political argument. Play with the grown-ups instead of sounding like a kid.
The problem I'm having with your argument is that I can't come up with a natural reason for this to be a State rather than Federal issue. What I've heard before is reference to intents of the founders or the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment argument generally takes an originalist view of the Constitution. Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
If we look back to when social policies like this were enacted in the Federal context, it's when we've had the problem that some states have been dragging their feet about racial equality (and essentially any other social issue of the last century). The Federal government thus saw a need to step in.
At this point I do feel the need to remind you that "the people" actually did not vote for Trump. The "people" voted for Clinton. A rather odd statistical pattern based on states voted for Trump.
Actually, you haven't yet given me any evidence that you're a racist. I haven't looked at your previous postings here or elsewhere on the net, and you didn't say enough in this one. But I certainly would say you were a racist if you convinced me that you were, and the last time I checked the constitution, it gave me the right to do so. This is a Slashdot discussion, and Slashdot is not actually obligated to provide a podium for my first amendment speech, but they generally have done so.
Regarding whether I can tell you that you have to pay the telephone lifeline subsidy fee, the fact is that it's still required, the money is just not going to pay for internet any longer. It still pays for phones for poor people. So, yes, I factually state that you have to pay it.
Now, I understand that you're just trying to express a vague tax-revolt sort of sentiment. I get that, even though I obviously don't agree with it. But IMO you need to put more thought into it. If you can express it better, it might be worth arguing about. That's what democratic discourse is.
The lifeline subsidy does not come from your income taxes, but from a fee charged to telephone subscribers. This is used to make sure that poor people can call 911 and can participate in our society sufficiently so that they can get a job, go to school, and make use of government services that were formerly only available by phone or personal visit.
These days, getting a job requires use of the internet and you can't really hang around the library for the entire time you're trying to get work. So, it makes sense to give poor people some basic connectivity.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
Scientists determined that those people who made use of machine washing rather than hand washing had diminished hand strength and neurological motor communication necessary for fine motor control. Seamstresses who bought thread rather than using the spinning jenny were similarly impaired. But worst off were teamsters who used the internal combustion trucks rather than teams of horses and used forklifts and other mechanical devices rather than loading their vehicles by hand. Their overall body strength was much reduced.
Slashdot Mirror
Supression of the Black vote is well documented, and doesn't particularly concern the race of the Black people, but the fact that they tend to vote Democratic and are an easy target for suppression because they are already disenfranchised and poverty-stricken.
If the Republicans suppress someone's vote, they can not shield themselves by saying that anyone who fights it is accusing them of racism. They have to face the well-documented evidence that those votes have been suppressed, and continue to be suppressed.
I guess it's one of the post-truth "facts" of alt-reality that Democrats stir up black hatred toward whites. Doesn't seem to be much evidence of that in the real world, though.
A typical propoganda video with facts cherry-picked to make things appear the opposite of what they actually are.
No, I am not being intentionally obtuse. I just don't believe you.
The thing I don't believe is that a non-voter is a rational actor who would have gladly gone to the polls except that somehow they felt their vote didn't matter. Nope. They're apathetic or lazy.
I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules. I'm still trying to figure out why a state would ever deny an internet provider permission to be a lifeline provider. It can't be a profit-maker for those internet providers. It can't be that there aren't poor people who need service in the provider's area, or there would be no lifeline business. It can only be that the state did not wish for there to be broadband at all under the universal lifeline rules.
You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.
What, like they're going to ditch the internet provider privacy rules?
Someone doesn't seem to understand the difference between what Google can see and what your internet provider can see. Lots of adds for VPNs and Proxies tonight, I noticed.
No, the founders who raped their slaves were not Democrats. The founders had a "Democratic-Republican" party, which is also referred to as "Jeffersonian Republicans" or "The First Republican Party" and isn't the Democratic party, and the other party at the time was the Federalist party.
Each of the amendments started out with the decision that the intent of the founders wasn't going to matter any longer. Any future amendment must do so as well.
Well, that's really bad. But the Democrats wisely decided to stop doing those things. In the years that the Democrats cut their ties with the segregationist portion of Southern voters, spanning from the Goldwater to the Nixon campaigns, the Republicans took them up. So we're now in the position that the Republicans are the political heirs of the 1964 Democrats. So having taken over the bad stuff the Democrats used to do, you are not in a good position to revile us for our past sins.
Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.
If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".
But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.
You cited the 19th amendment.
The originalist reading of the constitution would be a reading of the intent of the founders. Who raped their slaves and kept their women at home.
If you'd like to crow about the achievements of the Republican party, be sure to include this one: The decision in Rowe v. Wade was written by a Republican, Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon. He was seated on a Republican panel with appointees going back to Roosevelt who all agreed with him, with the exception of Rhenquist. The two Democrats seated nullified each other.
One could rightfully wonder why the Republican party ever turned from that decision.
What radicalized the Republican party? I think the Southern Strategy was the start. Having been so radicalized, what even gives them the right to call themselves "The party of Lincoln" any longer?
I think you can go on to the article without arguing with me about the summary. The issue at hand is that 12 states challenged FCC because those states did not approve a set of companies to be lifeline broadband providers, and then FCC went ahead and approved them. Unlike Chairman Pal, I believe this is indeed a Federal responsibility due to the Postal Clause of the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.
I am at the moment lacking information regarding what other internet providers those states approved, whether they approved any at all, and what the grounds for not approving a company to provide lifeline service (which can't be a profit-maker) could be except to deny access to the potential customers. In other words, I'm really suspicious of the states in question.
The statement I took issue with was about "the people" voting for him. This is a separate issue from the rules of the electoral college and who won the electoral college. The electoral college is used to choose the winner of an election, but is at best a distorted rendering of the will of the people.
What about the people who didn't vote? Are you trying to say that the decision might have been conclusive for Trump except that a lot of presumptive Trump supporters did not vote because they knew their vote would not count? I find it difficult to believe, and can't say I have much sympathy for folks who don't vote anyway.
If you want to be more concrete than "President Cookie Monster", it would be the Bush v. Gore contest of 2000.
It seems that not everybody knows about the Communications Act of 1934. That is when Congress gave the regulation of communications to the FCC as a Federal responsibility. In the Constitution, we have Article I, Section 8, Clause 7, the "Postal Clause", empowering Congress to establish post offices and post roads for carriage of mail between post offices. Logically this extends to other forms of communications, and justifies the action of Congress in 1934.
What about your family? This is in theory, because I don't know anything about your family and don't want to insult your family. If you grew up in a bad family situation and achieved all of that, that would be an achievement indeed. If you didn't, you might not have been in the same situation as a lot of the poor.
There is still the legal responsibility to provide telephones to poor people, even if the money isn't used in part to provide them with broadband.
We do have the issue that Congress granted the responsibility to regulate communications to the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934. So, this is not really a state issue at all. I also question that all 50 states are uniformly set up to make this approval, or are interested in taking it on.
Uh, I'm not sure you actually got what is going on. FCC is going to cave on it's previously-ongoing legal defense of an extension to include broadband in the lifeline communications subsidy. FCC will stop approving broadband providers who wish to participate in the program and will instead allow states to make this decision. States don't actually have the constitutional responsibility to govern communications, that is given to the Federal government by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. States are unlikely to have a program to approve broadband lifeline subsidies in place at present because it's a Federal responsibility, and even given the FCC Chairman's odd justification states aren't necessarily going to be eager to take this on.
Internet is also necessary for children to do their homework and any sort of research these days. It does seem that broadband has become basic connectivity. Would you like to show me how long you can get along without it?
Where I live, there is an organization that takes old computers, puts Linux and Chrome on them, and gives them to poor people along with continuing technical support. I do hear of such things elsewhere. I don't think it's actually all that difficult for a poor person to get an old laptop.
Democratic discourse is more than just directing schoolyard words at people. I looked over your words and didn't find a political argument, just abuse aimed at "the left" and at me.
Try to come up with a cogent political argument. Play with the grown-ups instead of sounding like a kid.
The problem I'm having with your argument is that I can't come up with a natural reason for this to be a State rather than Federal issue. What I've heard before is reference to intents of the founders or the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment argument generally takes an originalist view of the Constitution. Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
If we look back to when social policies like this were enacted in the Federal context, it's when we've had the problem that some states have been dragging their feet about racial equality (and essentially any other social issue of the last century). The Federal government thus saw a need to step in.
At this point I do feel the need to remind you that "the people" actually did not vote for Trump. The "people" voted for Clinton. A rather odd statistical pattern based on states voted for Trump.
Actually, you haven't yet given me any evidence that you're a racist. I haven't looked at your previous postings here or elsewhere on the net, and you didn't say enough in this one. But I certainly would say you were a racist if you convinced me that you were, and the last time I checked the constitution, it gave me the right to do so. This is a Slashdot discussion, and Slashdot is not actually obligated to provide a podium for my first amendment speech, but they generally have done so.
Regarding whether I can tell you that you have to pay the telephone lifeline subsidy fee, the fact is that it's still required, the money is just not going to pay for internet any longer. It still pays for phones for poor people. So, yes, I factually state that you have to pay it.
Now, I understand that you're just trying to express a vague tax-revolt sort of sentiment. I get that, even though I obviously don't agree with it. But IMO you need to put more thought into it. If you can express it better, it might be worth arguing about. That's what democratic discourse is.
The lifeline subsidy does not come from your income taxes, but from a fee charged to telephone subscribers. This is used to make sure that poor people can call 911 and can participate in our society sufficiently so that they can get a job, go to school, and make use of government services that were formerly only available by phone or personal visit.
These days, getting a job requires use of the internet and you can't really hang around the library for the entire time you're trying to get work. So, it makes sense to give poor people some basic connectivity.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
Scientists determined that those people who made use of machine washing rather than hand washing had diminished hand strength and neurological motor communication necessary for fine motor control. Seamstresses who bought thread rather than using the spinning jenny were similarly impaired. But worst off were teamsters who used the internal combustion trucks rather than teams of horses and used forklifts and other mechanical devices rather than loading their vehicles by hand. Their overall body strength was much reduced.