There was a budget last year - a bipartisan one - ready to be signed by the President. It included billions for border security.
Fake news. There was only a CR, no border security funding included at all. A proposal was floated for a CR with $1.5 billion for border security, but the Dems rejected it.
All this after Trump promised after signing a pork-filled spending bill, with no border funding, back in March that "I will not sign a bill like this again."
Just curious, how do you propose that these content creators get paid for their contents if they cannot get ad revenue or ask for donations or have sponsors?
Advertising like that is dying.
It's a bad investment for advertisers.
Companies will influence what content creators say so they can remain "ad friendly".
It's annoying to your audience.
A better (and working) model is value-for-value. It's how The No Agenda Show is supported, for 11 years now. It's how most YouTubers make money when they get "demonitized" (Patreon worked for a while, but people are leaving them in droves).
It's the SAME model as a lot of free software models.
and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security
That's a lie.
It's factually accurate.
That money was solely requested to fund his stupid fucking wall,
Yes, a wall, barrier, whatever. He's actually preferring the steel slat fencing at this point. Congress could actually specify that as part of the funding. And, yes, a barrier is indeed part of border security, a part that the Border Patrol folks say is needed.
which is not in any way related to border security.
I don't see any way to you can justify saying that. It's part of securing a border in every country throughout all of history.
You're trying to reframe this to seem like the democrats are against border security, when they're not.
Well they certainly make that claim. But they are not proposing anything other than some vague hand-waving about "technology." There's no explanation of that, or any proposals of what they would be willing to fund for "technology," or anything. In fact, many Democrats have expressed support for more open borders, abolishing ICE (no immigration enforcement at all), etc.
They're against us paying for an ineffective wall that Trump said over 200 times that Mexico would pay for.
They're against Trump, period. That's all it's about, really, because they've supported greater funding for actual physical barriers in the past. This is just not a persuasive argument. If it's ineffective or "immoral" as some have claimed, what difference does it make who pays for it?
You are trying to defend someone punishing the country because he's not getting something that he said someone else would give him. Do you not understand how utterly batshit insane that is?
I'm not defending anyone, or taking sides either way. All I'm saying is that Trump and the Republicans have the more persuasive argument. I would prefer some negotiation about doing something more comprehensive, to include border security, but also DACA, other folks here, enforcing labor laws against employers breaking it, and other issues. That debate could have happened this year, as Trump was clear he was not going to sign another Omnibus or CR back in March. But nothing at all happened.
If there is such great support for the wall he could have asked for the next bill from congress to address it directly so it could have any up or down vote and it could be abundantly clear which way each member of congress voted on it.
That already happened. Trump signed the omnibus bill in March after threatening to veto it because of its lack of border-wall funding. At the signing ceremony, the president warned that it would be the last major funding bill without it that he would sign. He didn't like it, and he promised not to sign one like it again. “But I say to Congress: I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again."
So they had all year to work something out, but, like usual, they wanted to just keep kicking the can down the road.
A budget bill was written that could have passed both houses of congress.
Incorrect. There was no budget bill written. The only thing they and was a CR, which is congresscritterspeak for "just keep spending like you have been for another few weeks (February 8th, in this case).
Instead we have a giant spending bill that has tons of other moving parts, and ultimately obfuscates where people stand on this issue.
The compromise that McConnell and Ryan proposed was the CR with a $1.6 billion for border security. Democrats rejected it.
Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.
Civics lessons failed for this AC. The CR (which only provided funding until February 8th), was NOT passed. It was never submitted.
Overriding a veto requires 2/3 of BOTH houses (civics isn't taught in school anymore?). McConnell could not make that happen, nor could the Republican whip. You need plenty of Republicans to agree to it, and too many of them won't. Besides, he already tried a compromise by asking for $1.6 billion, and that couldn't get through Democrats either.
He had a better hand, right up until he said he would own the shutdown. At that point, he lost his bargaining power. Why? Because where is the incentive now for the Dems to compromise when Trump has already conceded.
Well that was my point. Both sides are obstinately refusing to compromise at this point, and Trump said he would take the blame even before it happened, so that's irrelevant. Trump's entire budget that was submitted to Congress was completely thrown out, and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security, something like 0.1% of the budget. Pelosi and Shumer are arguing that it's too expensive (not persuasive), that walls are immoral (no traction on that), that he said Mexico would pay for it (why does it matter who pays for it if it's immoral?), and pretending it's not strictly a symbolic political stance. Trump's supporters already know it's a political stance, that he needs it or be seen as failing, so that doesn't detract from his argument.
So Trump has the more persuasive argument, and less to lose by not giving in. I'm not saying he's right, only that his argument is more persuasive, and that only Pelosi and Shumer stand to lose support as the shutdown continues.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
Completely false and stupid. Your civics teacher should be fired. The US was formed not as one big land mass ruled by fiat from Philadelphia. It was a bunch of United States. STATES. And far to large to be managed by a single government. The states elect the president, not the mass population centers on the coast.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote.
And yet, you were wrong. But, instead of admitting you were wrong, you double-down with "oh, American is terrible.
Any other democracy
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. See above about your incompetent civics teacher.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts.
I hope he does, although you like to ignore facts that prove your ignorance, so maybe just more silly insults for such a silly person is more appropriate.
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves. Trump actually said explicitly the last time they passed a CR with lots of added spending, but none for the wall, that he would never sign a bill like that again.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority, but if the Senate was flipped, which was not unlikely, the Dems would have used those rules as well.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides. But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
And the Dems are offering $1.5 billion for upgrades to border security and infrastructure.
They won't allow any of that for infrastructure, it's for "technology" (that is, they plan to had it to Google and Facebook and a couple of other Dem-friendly tech companies, not sure how it improves "security," but it does improve certain Democratic congresspersons' campaign finance potential).
"Meddling," huh? Can you quote the law section that prohibits election "meddling?" Is that part of the FEC regulations? No, that would only apply to registered electioneers. Just what law is it that forbids "meddling," anyway?
the US government repeals Network Neutrality, and passes laws requiring ISPs to block certain web sites
No need to repeal NN, it's already baked into the rules. ISPs cannot block or slow lawful content and lawful traffic. Lawful is actually a higher bar than "legal," and there's nothing in NN that says the US cannot define specifically what is lawful content and lawful traffic.
Just for your edification, here is the link to the latest proposals from the MPAA, in which they describe, among other thinks, "Illegal internet protocol television services," (that would be unlawful traffic), and "Additionally, illegal applications that can make legitimate streaming devices infringing can
be found through a myriad of legitimate and specialty app repositories," (which would be your unlawful content).
Bullshit. I live in an urban area and there are 8 very nice craft breweries within a two mile radius of my home. Now, they don't grow any barley around here, but they do grow hops...
The primary function of government is to protect its citizens
No, that's false. Politicians say that all the time, but it's NOT true. No public office holder (in the US), nor military person or Federal law enforcement officer, ever makes such a promise. Instead, the oath they are required to make is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution that includes the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
It doesn't matter what they think they should be doing to "protect" the citizens. Their first obligation, which they swore to as a condition of serving, is to defend the Constitution. Full Stop.
is there a reason they can't run the line underground?
Cost. It's orders of magnitude more expensive. I heard an interview with the CEO of Sonic, which is rolling out symmetric gigabit fiber to the home out in California for like $40 or $50 per month. I don't remember the amount per mile it cost for pole-based installation versus buried, but it was a HUGE difference. Orders of magnitude. So right now they are ONLY rolling it out to places where they can use poles.
combined with,...
a flat display
and a headphone jack.
That isn't an old model, a modern, powerful one. Try to find one, it no longer exists.
Here you go.. I've had mine for about 6 months, and got it at a slightly better price. It's plenty fast for me, and also supports up to 256 GB of extra storage via micro SD.
128 GB is pretty anemic for a phone storage, especially one with no expandable storage. That's a deal killer for me. I need storage for pics and videos. ALL of their competition offers 256 GB, and most of them have expandable storage, too. I notice they offer a 256 GB model for $80 (300% - 400% more than the same amount of storage on a fast Micro SD). Are they trying the Apple business model? Not a good idea when entering a new market.
1. When it was hotter, there was twice as much oxygen and no higher lifeforms.
2. The rate of change is greater than that from the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs. Rate of change, not magnitude, is what matters, as climate scientists keep pointing out.
Both of these statements are myths. Even the MWP was hotter, and the change was just as fast.
TLS itself as well as browser enforcement are designed to protect against the same kind of threats on your home network as on public WiFi. It's assumed that the network link can be monitored and modified at will, so there shouldn't be a difference.
My point is weakening those restrictions for "private" subnets will have much greater consequences than just your home network, and doing that because a power user can't or won't use a FQDN to access an internal network resource will have a much larger impact on regular users elsewhere.
That should by my call, not some faceless corporations' focused on their bottom line.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a budget last year - a bipartisan one - ready to be signed by the President. It included billions for border security.
Fake news. There was only a CR, no border security funding included at all. A proposal was floated for a CR with $1.5 billion for border security, but the Dems rejected it.
All this after Trump promised after signing a pork-filled spending bill, with no border funding, back in March that "I will not sign a bill like this again."
Yep, Julian Assange changed, or perhaps new information came out.
The same way once you learned your wife was cheating on you, you got a divorce.
People, the world, decisions, they are not fixed in eternity but subject to alteration.
Is this news to you?
So it was the "southern strategy" and all the good people switched sides?
rather he was an active conduit between hackers and Trump campaign in the Hacker to Assange to Corsi to Roger Stone chain
That's some stunning schizophrenically delusional conspiracy theorizing, right there!
Kudos to you sir! Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
Just curious, how do you propose that these content creators get paid for their contents if they cannot get ad revenue or ask for donations or have sponsors?
Advertising like that is dying.
A better (and working) model is value-for-value. It's how The No Agenda Show is supported, for 11 years now. It's how most YouTubers make money when they get "demonitized" (Patreon worked for a while, but people are leaving them in droves).
It's the SAME model as a lot of free software models.
and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security
That's a lie.
It's factually accurate.
That money was solely requested to fund his stupid fucking wall,
Yes, a wall, barrier, whatever. He's actually preferring the steel slat fencing at this point. Congress could actually specify that as part of the funding. And, yes, a barrier is indeed part of border security, a part that the Border Patrol folks say is needed.
which is not in any way related to border security.
I don't see any way to you can justify saying that. It's part of securing a border in every country throughout all of history.
You're trying to reframe this to seem like the democrats are against border security, when they're not.
Well they certainly make that claim. But they are not proposing anything other than some vague hand-waving about "technology." There's no explanation of that, or any proposals of what they would be willing to fund for "technology," or anything. In fact, many Democrats have expressed support for more open borders, abolishing ICE (no immigration enforcement at all), etc.
They're against us paying for an ineffective wall that Trump said over 200 times that Mexico would pay for.
They're against Trump, period. That's all it's about, really, because they've supported greater funding for actual physical barriers in the past. This is just not a persuasive argument. If it's ineffective or "immoral" as some have claimed, what difference does it make who pays for it?
You are trying to defend someone punishing the country because he's not getting something that he said someone else would give him. Do you not understand how utterly batshit insane that is?
I'm not defending anyone, or taking sides either way. All I'm saying is that Trump and the Republicans have the more persuasive argument. I would prefer some negotiation about doing something more comprehensive, to include border security, but also DACA, other folks here, enforcing labor laws against employers breaking it, and other issues. That debate could have happened this year, as Trump was clear he was not going to sign another Omnibus or CR back in March. But nothing at all happened.
If there is such great support for the wall he could have asked for the next bill from congress to address it directly so it could have any up or down vote and it could be abundantly clear which way each member of congress voted on it.
That already happened. Trump signed the omnibus bill in March after threatening to veto it because of its lack of border-wall funding. At the signing ceremony, the president warned that it would be the last major funding bill without it that he would sign. He didn't like it, and he promised not to sign one like it again. “But I say to Congress: I will never sign another bill like this again. I’m not going to do it again."
So they had all year to work something out, but, like usual, they wanted to just keep kicking the can down the road.
A budget bill was written that could have passed both houses of congress.
Incorrect. There was no budget bill written. The only thing they and was a CR, which is congresscritterspeak for "just keep spending like you have been for another few weeks (February 8th, in this case).
Instead we have a giant spending bill that has tons of other moving parts, and ultimately obfuscates where people stand on this issue.
The compromise that McConnell and Ryan proposed was the CR with a $1.6 billion for border security. Democrats rejected it.
Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.
Civics lessons failed for this AC. The CR (which only provided funding until February 8th), was NOT passed. It was never submitted.
Overriding a veto requires 2/3 of BOTH houses (civics isn't taught in school anymore?). McConnell could not make that happen, nor could the Republican whip. You need plenty of Republicans to agree to it, and too many of them won't. Besides, he already tried a compromise by asking for $1.6 billion, and that couldn't get through Democrats either.
But Trump actually has a better hand.
He had a better hand, right up until he said he would own the shutdown. At that point, he lost his bargaining power. Why? Because where is the incentive now for the Dems to compromise when Trump has already conceded.
Well that was my point. Both sides are obstinately refusing to compromise at this point, and Trump said he would take the blame even before it happened, so that's irrelevant. Trump's entire budget that was submitted to Congress was completely thrown out, and his only demand for any of it was $5.7 billion for border security, something like 0.1% of the budget. Pelosi and Shumer are arguing that it's too expensive (not persuasive), that walls are immoral (no traction on that), that he said Mexico would pay for it (why does it matter who pays for it if it's immoral?), and pretending it's not strictly a symbolic political stance. Trump's supporters already know it's a political stance, that he needs it or be seen as failing, so that doesn't detract from his argument.
So Trump has the more persuasive argument, and less to lose by not giving in. I'm not saying he's right, only that his argument is more persuasive, and that only Pelosi and Shumer stand to lose support as the shutdown continues.
Which was necessary when calculating the national vote was not a practical thing to do in a short amount of time (days, even). We can tally the national vote in hours or less now. Results don't have to be transported on foot, by horse, or even by rail.
Completely false and stupid. Your civics teacher should be fired. The US was formed not as one big land mass ruled by fiat from Philadelphia. It was a bunch of United States. STATES. And far to large to be managed by a single government. The states elect the president, not the mass population centers on the coast.
a massive Democrat campaign to overturn the results by trying to force the electors to not vote for him
Nice conspiracy you have, there. Care to provide support for it?
Ha! Easy. There were too many results, so you can check out the actual conspiracy yourself.
That represents barely 60% of the population of people who are eligible to vote.
And yet, you were wrong. But, instead of admitting you were wrong, you double-down with "oh, American is terrible.
Any other democracy
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. See above about your incompetent civics teacher.
But go ahead and keep slinging silly insults at me and attacking me instead of actually presenting facts.
I hope he does, although you like to ignore facts that prove your ignorance, so maybe just more silly insults for such a silly person is more appropriate.
There is no "two sides" to this. This problem falls squarely in the laps of the Republicans.
Trump had an entire year to get this pushed through when the Reps had all three branches of gov't. He didn't.
It only suddenly became a burning priority when the democrats took the house. There is only one side being childish right now, and that's been the case for a while now.
(Yes, the democrats have their issues, but those issues are not what caused this current mess.)
Spending bills still require 60 senators to pass, not 51, so the Republicans could not get it passed by themselves. Trump actually said explicitly the last time they passed a CR with lots of added spending, but none for the wall, that he would never sign a bill like that again.
You could have argued that McConnell could have changed the rules to allow those bills to pass with a simple majority, but if the Senate was flipped, which was not unlikely, the Dems would have used those rules as well.
So the OP is right, the blame lies on both sides. But Trump actually has a better hand. As pointed out, the amount he's asking for really is a tiny fraction of the budget. People's opinion of Trump is not going to change much over this, people that hate him will continue to do so. Pelosi and Schumer, though, are a different story.
Sounds good to me. They helped cause the problem, they can help fix it.
And the Dems are offering $1.5 billion for upgrades to border security and infrastructure.
They won't allow any of that for infrastructure, it's for "technology" (that is, they plan to had it to Google and Facebook and a couple of other Dem-friendly tech companies, not sure how it improves "security," but it does improve certain Democratic congresspersons' campaign finance potential).
Anyway, $5.7 billion is needed.
"Meddling," huh? Can you quote the law section that prohibits election "meddling?" Is that part of the FEC regulations? No, that would only apply to registered electioneers. Just what law is it that forbids "meddling," anyway?
Here, here!
the US government repeals Network Neutrality, and passes laws requiring ISPs to block certain web sites
No need to repeal NN, it's already baked into the rules. ISPs cannot block or slow lawful content and lawful traffic. Lawful is actually a higher bar than "legal," and there's nothing in NN that says the US cannot define specifically what is lawful content and lawful traffic.
Just for your edification, here is the link to the latest proposals from the MPAA, in which they describe, among other thinks, "Illegal internet protocol television services," (that would be unlawful traffic), and "Additionally, illegal applications that can make legitimate streaming devices infringing can be found through a myriad of legitimate and specialty app repositories," (which would be your unlawful content).
The concern now is that Google has all the power. It's not that they are particularly malicious
Actually, yes, it is, and yes, they are.
They might have to stock their warehouses with robot spray soon. What exactly it contains is left as an exercise to the reader.
Water?
not even a can of beer
Bullshit. I live in an urban area and there are 8 very nice craft breweries within a two mile radius of my home. Now, they don't grow any barley around here, but they do grow hops...
The primary function of government is to protect its citizens
No, that's false. Politicians say that all the time, but it's NOT true. No public office holder (in the US), nor military person or Federal law enforcement officer, ever makes such a promise. Instead, the oath they are required to make is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution that includes the 4th Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure.
It doesn't matter what they think they should be doing to "protect" the citizens. Their first obligation, which they swore to as a condition of serving, is to defend the Constitution. Full Stop.
is there a reason they can't run the line underground?
Cost. It's orders of magnitude more expensive. I heard an interview with the CEO of Sonic, which is rolling out symmetric gigabit fiber to the home out in California for like $40 or $50 per month. I don't remember the amount per mile it cost for pole-based installation versus buried, but it was a HUGE difference. Orders of magnitude. So right now they are ONLY rolling it out to places where they can use poles.
combined with,... a flat display
and a headphone jack.
That isn't an old model, a modern, powerful one. Try to find one, it no longer exists.
Here you go.. I've had mine for about 6 months, and got it at a slightly better price. It's plenty fast for me, and also supports up to 256 GB of extra storage via micro SD.
No expandable storage.
128 GB is pretty anemic for a phone storage, especially one with no expandable storage. That's a deal killer for me. I need storage for pics and videos. ALL of their competition offers 256 GB, and most of them have expandable storage, too. I notice they offer a 256 GB model for $80 (300% - 400% more than the same amount of storage on a fast Micro SD). Are they trying the Apple business model? Not a good idea when entering a new market.
The study in question concluded in 2013, so no devastation, no hurricane, no man made displacement. Try again.
SO those guys are such geniuses they took five years to publish?
You're forgetting several things.
1. When it was hotter, there was twice as much oxygen and no higher lifeforms.
2. The rate of change is greater than that from the asteroid strike that took out the dinosaurs. Rate of change, not magnitude, is what matters, as climate scientists keep pointing out.
Both of these statements are myths. Even the MWP was hotter, and the change was just as fast.
TLS itself as well as browser enforcement are designed to protect against the same kind of threats on your home network as on public WiFi. It's assumed that the network link can be monitored and modified at will, so there shouldn't be a difference. My point is weakening those restrictions for "private" subnets will have much greater consequences than just your home network, and doing that because a power user can't or won't use a FQDN to access an internal network resource will have a much larger impact on regular users elsewhere.
That should by my call, not some faceless corporations' focused on their bottom line.