How the fuck do people forget that A) The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 9 months, B) the GOP demonstrated a willingness to filibuster any and every proposal, and C) even with the filibuster-proof majority, the Democratic party is not a monolithic entity that demands every member toe the line like the GOP does? For example, the Democrats had to keep the votes of blue dogs to pass anything, and they nixed the Public Option, which would have been the primary mechanism to force private insurance to compete throughout the country. Without it, many places - particularly rural areas - didn't have competition between insurance companies, thus completely undermining the power of the market to provide a better product.
As much as it pains me to defend her, Clinton didn't hire a foreign spy. She hired an American research company. Trump, on the other hand, accepted something of value provided by a foreign government. The former didn't leave Clinton beholden to a foreign power. The latter did exactly that with Trump.
Strong words for an anonymous coward. Baseless accusations and personal attacks, too. But the claims of proof without any actual, you know, proof are what really make this a top-notch troll.
4.5 stars out of 5.0 - Would definitely laugh at again.
4.7 million adults seeing a benefit at the expense of 230.5 million other adults doesn't seem like a very good thing from where I sit. Especially when you consider that the people most likely to benefit are already very wealthy and the people most likely to lose out are not.
8 years is kind of a bullshit number, but there's a grain of truth there. It does take time for policies to have an impact on the economy. Of course, you have to actually implement those policies first for the to have an impact - something Trump hasn't been able to do, other than a pointless tax cut that has only very recently gone into effect.
More telling, though, is the trendline. And the trend has been a steadily growing economy since about 2010. There's still the matter that the benefit of that growth has been going disproportionately to the wealthiest, and specifically to capital rather than labor. But THAT trendline has been going on since the early 1980s, and will only be accelerated by the Trump tax cut.
There are also plenty of right wingers - like David Frum, Evan McMullin, William Kristol, etc. - who won't shut up about Russia. With good reason, too. Putin is doing his damnedest to undermine liberal democracies and export authoritarianism using very sophisticated propaganda techniques. It's kind of a big deal.
The problem is that many (probably most) users never learned the skills necessary to hash it out for themselves, or if they did, they willfully refuse to apply them. Confirmation bias is a powerful force.
Nice straw man you've knocked down there. How about we look at the actual issues cited by the Mayor?
1) "Over the holiday break, despite nine months of deliberations, a single industry representative completely rewrote a draft municipal code at the 11th hour, leaving municipal representatives scrambling with insufficient time to vet the hundreds of changes. That rewritten version closely resembled legislation that the industry pushed in 20 states across the country."
2) "The BDAC has focused on reducing municipal fees, and eliminating local control and discretion over where and how broadband infrastructure is deployed in the public right-of-way.
3) "The industry’s claim that reducing municipal lease rates on public infrastructure will help it better serve the 34 million Americans without broadband access bears little resemblance to patterns of industry investment in low-income neighborhoods and rural areas."
4) "[the industry] has sought to create a set of rules that will provide it with easy access to publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayer-subsidized rates, without any obligation to provide broadband access to underserved residents."
5) "Below market rates and by-right access to public infrastructure also strip cities of the ability to hold companies accountable for building out networks to serve all areas of a city."
From where I sit, it sure looks like Liccardo has some valid points - points that are highly unlikely to be addressed at the state level.
There is no legal basis for the bolded. The FCC is authorized to regulate communications companies. They are in no way authorized to regulate states. Simply put, that sentence is worth less than the electrons needed to display it on your screen.
It's also highly dubious that the FCC has the power to ban states from implementing their own versions of Net Neutrality. If they don't have the power to institute Net Neutrality themselves (not an argument I buy, but an argument presented by Pai's defenders), then they certainly don't have the power to dictate what states can or cannot regulate themselves.
The commerce clause gives the federal government the ability to regulate business that crosses state lines. It doesn't forbid states from regulating that business within its own borders.
Says someone who has never had freshly boiled, light maple syrup. The stuff you get in the store is typically Grade A Medium or Dark. That's fine, and better than any artificial syrup product, but it's not like Vermont Fancy Light. In my experience, the only way you can get that unless you live in Vermont is to boil it yourself. If you have it available on your grocery store shelf, consider yourself very, very, lucky. And send me some, pls!
The 17th didn't give states the option to allow the popular vote to decide Senate races - it REQUIRED it. And it did indeed change the constituency from state governments to the population of the state. The original intent doesn't matter when the intent has been legally changed through constitutional amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Which clause authorizes it? What is the actual language?
I'd rather wait to get a knee replacement than not be able to get it at all because I can't afford it.
His use of "misnomer" qualifies as one.
Written by that bastion of liberal thought and Democratic stronghold that is the Heritage Foundation.
How the fuck do people forget that A) The Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 9 months, B) the GOP demonstrated a willingness to filibuster any and every proposal, and C) even with the filibuster-proof majority, the Democratic party is not a monolithic entity that demands every member toe the line like the GOP does? For example, the Democrats had to keep the votes of blue dogs to pass anything, and they nixed the Public Option, which would have been the primary mechanism to force private insurance to compete throughout the country. Without it, many places - particularly rural areas - didn't have competition between insurance companies, thus completely undermining the power of the market to provide a better product.
Trust me, photovoltaic energy IS dirty. There are better renewable energies.
How about you give people a reason to trust you in the form of data and detailed analysis? A link would suffice.
As much as it pains me to defend her, Clinton didn't hire a foreign spy. She hired an American research company. Trump, on the other hand, accepted something of value provided by a foreign government. The former didn't leave Clinton beholden to a foreign power. The latter did exactly that with Trump.
Strong words for an anonymous coward. Baseless accusations and personal attacks, too. But the claims of proof without any actual, you know, proof are what really make this a top-notch troll.
4.5 stars out of 5.0 - Would definitely laugh at again.
4.7 million adults seeing a benefit at the expense of 230.5 million other adults doesn't seem like a very good thing from where I sit. Especially when you consider that the people most likely to benefit are already very wealthy and the people most likely to lose out are not.
8 years is kind of a bullshit number, but there's a grain of truth there. It does take time for policies to have an impact on the economy. Of course, you have to actually implement those policies first for the to have an impact - something Trump hasn't been able to do, other than a pointless tax cut that has only very recently gone into effect.
More telling, though, is the trendline. And the trend has been a steadily growing economy since about 2010. There's still the matter that the benefit of that growth has been going disproportionately to the wealthiest, and specifically to capital rather than labor. But THAT trendline has been going on since the early 1980s, and will only be accelerated by the Trump tax cut.
There are also plenty of right wingers - like David Frum, Evan McMullin, William Kristol, etc. - who won't shut up about Russia. With good reason, too. Putin is doing his damnedest to undermine liberal democracies and export authoritarianism using very sophisticated propaganda techniques. It's kind of a big deal.
The problem is that many (probably most) users never learned the skills necessary to hash it out for themselves, or if they did, they willfully refuse to apply them. Confirmation bias is a powerful force.
Lucky shitholes ...
God DAMN I miss that show.
Nice straw man you've knocked down there. How about we look at the actual issues cited by the Mayor?
1) "Over the holiday break, despite nine months of deliberations, a single industry representative completely rewrote a draft municipal code at the 11th hour, leaving municipal representatives scrambling with insufficient time to vet the hundreds of changes. That rewritten version closely resembled legislation that the industry pushed in 20 states across the country."
2) "The BDAC has focused on reducing municipal fees, and eliminating local control and discretion over where and how broadband infrastructure is deployed in the public right-of-way.
3) "The industry’s claim that reducing municipal lease rates on public infrastructure will help it better serve the 34 million Americans without broadband access bears little resemblance to patterns of industry investment in low-income neighborhoods and rural areas."
4) "[the industry] has sought to create a set of rules that will provide it with easy access to publicly-funded infrastructure at taxpayer-subsidized rates, without any obligation to provide broadband access to underserved residents."
5) "Below market rates and by-right access to public infrastructure also strip cities of the ability to hold companies accountable for building out networks to serve all areas of a city."
From where I sit, it sure looks like Liccardo has some valid points - points that are highly unlikely to be addressed at the state level.
A Trump administration committee is advancing the interests of industry over the public. Who would ever have guessed?
The internet itself is interstate. The provision of its service is not - it is very specifically local.
There is no legal basis for the bolded. The FCC is authorized to regulate communications companies. They are in no way authorized to regulate states. Simply put, that sentence is worth less than the electrons needed to display it on your screen.
It's also highly dubious that the FCC has the power to ban states from implementing their own versions of Net Neutrality. If they don't have the power to institute Net Neutrality themselves (not an argument I buy, but an argument presented by Pai's defenders), then they certainly don't have the power to dictate what states can or cannot regulate themselves.
The problem is they're supposed to review the comments AFTER they're submitted, not before.
How cute - you think the GOP-held congress is beholden to the electorate and interested in public debate.
The main difference being the latter is possible and the former is as likely as pigs sprouting wings.
The commerce clause gives the federal government the ability to regulate business that crosses state lines. It doesn't forbid states from regulating that business within its own borders.
Says someone who has never had freshly boiled, light maple syrup. The stuff you get in the store is typically Grade A Medium or Dark. That's fine, and better than any artificial syrup product, but it's not like Vermont Fancy Light. In my experience, the only way you can get that unless you live in Vermont is to boil it yourself. If you have it available on your grocery store shelf, consider yourself very, very, lucky. And send me some, pls!
The 17th didn't give states the option to allow the popular vote to decide Senate races - it REQUIRED it. And it did indeed change the constituency from state governments to the population of the state. The original intent doesn't matter when the intent has been legally changed through constitutional amendment.