SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Senate Democrats have put together 50 votes for a measure meant to block the Federal Communications Commission's December decision to end net neutrality rules put in place by the Obama administration.
Democrats are just one GOP vote shy of the 51-vote threshold for a Senate resolution of disapproval, which would strike down the FCC's December rules change.
"With full caucus support," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, "it's clear that Democrats are committed to fighting to keep the internet from becoming the Wild West where ISPs are free to offer premium service to only the wealthiest customers while average consumers are left with far inferior options."
The Democrats' effort won the support of its first Republican backer, Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), last Tuesday.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:26PM (49 children)
But who are the idiots? This stuff plays great on the TVs and facebook/twitter posts back home.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:36PM (48 children)
Oh, they still are. They just managed to accidentally be right on an issue for a change.
Given the current setup, we need both the Useful Idiots and the Useful Shitheads. I'd like to see us get to a point where that's not the case but I'm not holding my breath.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @03:49PM (22 children)
Oh, they still are.
Well, if that's what it takes to keep winning reelection, I can certainly understand why they would play the part. I think you got it all wrong. The idiocy is truly one sided.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:17PM (21 children)
I said it was one-sided, no? Democrats think with their hearts, which is exactly as intelligent as thinking with your ass.
None of the above is in regards to the voters, mind you. Anyone with loyalty to either party is nothing but a sheep who lets others tell them what to believe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:31PM (4 children)
None of the politicians on either side think with what you said they do; they all think with whatever itches their greed the most. Could be money or power or recognition or something even darker. But there is a reason that the majority of their time is spent in one of the many call rooms, press rooms or social events at the Capitol.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @04:43PM (3 children)
None of the politicians on either side think with what you said they do;
Who cares what they think, it's how they act that matters.
And Dems consistently act towards a neutral internet. While the Reps consitently act to neuter the internet.
I know which I prefer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by crafoo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:29PM (1 child)
I don't think this is true. Dems vote very authoritarian as soon as copyright infringement comes up. It's not surprising considering who funds them. And it's still pushing for corporate control of the internet, just a different set of corps than republican corporate masters.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:26PM
More Reps voted for the DMCA than Dems. [govtrack.us]
While I'm no fan of the (historical*) Dem position on copyright the worst you can say about them is they're almost as bad as the Reps on that issue.
*With the recent left wing backlash against things like SOPA I doubt the Dems are nearly as aligned on this issue as they used to be. There hasn't been any major legislation either way in a decade, though, so it's hard to tell.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:17PM
This supposed "net neutrality" is about how companies like Verizon and Comcast have to treat the traffic from companies like Netflix and Hulu.
That matters, barely. It's nothing compared to how large end-user-oriented monopolies treat individual users, which is the neutrality that matters. Twitter, YouTube, Google search, Google news, and Facebook have all been caught suppressing viewpoints that are not politically correct in California. Amazon and Netflix have even gotten into that misbehavior, purposely promoting viewpoints that mainstream America finds abhorrent.
When the companies abusing users complain about other companies abusing them, it should be no surprise that this complaint falls on deaf ears at best.
Bonus: with the CAN-SPAM act encouraging spam and the patriotism of the PATRIOT act being questionable, we tend to assume that names are the opposite of what they sound like. So we already have suspicion that "net neutrality" is non-neutral, and then we see it supported by companies that fight end-user net neutrality.
Maybe if those companies wanted neutral treatment from ISPs, they could have provided neutral treatment to end users. There could be some sympathy then.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @05:08PM (15 children)
Right, I didn't mean "one sided" between republicans and democrats. There is little to nothing to distinguish them. And aside from idiocy, there is little to distinguish them from the voters either, but that is the one sided part. The only "idiot" politician is one that loses, or gets caught and loses and/or goes to jail.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:31PM
Fair nuff.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:42PM (13 children)
I believe that such thinking is the most dangerous to the future of US society.
If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
If you don't vote, you allow a small number of powerful people to tip everything in their favor. Ordinary people get screwed.
The real issue isn't what the differences are between the parties: it's where the midpoint lies that is critical. I believe that, for most policies, the midpoint has been moving rightward, resulting in more wealth transferred to the already wealthy, while ordinary people have to deal with the environment becoming worse: more polluted, less access to the better parts of the land, etc..
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:24PM (9 children)
I believe that such thinking is the most dangerous to the future of US society.
You can believe what you want. But for any positive change to take place, the republican/democrat monolith has to at least be reduced to a bit part with more independents in congress.
If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
There is this fool over there at the "green site" who takes it exactly that same way. And you both couldn't be more wrong. We have other people on the ballot, and we can nominate whoever we want. The procedure is well documented, and the paperwork is very inexpensive. So, there's no excuse to keep reelecting the same old shit every season. Don't try to twist into advocacy for not voting. In fact the non-voting block alone could vote out almost every incumbent in the house. And they certainly could rid us of democrats and republicans. The real danger to society is their continued reelection.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:39PM (8 children)
Comprehension fail.
I wasn't advocating for not voting.
I was advocating for voting. I believe that voting is very important.
I believe that the idea that there is no difference between the parties is false and that we all have a reason (and a duty) to vote.
I would not be surprised if the idea that there is no difference between the parties is one that is being promoted by paid posters. Who benefits when people don't vote: the very wealthy such as the Koch brothers and the Mercers. Who can afford a campaign to dissuade people from voting: the very wealthy.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:03PM (7 children)
I wasn't advocating for not voting.
Where did I say you were?
From you: If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
And where ever do I say the lack of differences between republicans and democrats is a reason not to vote?? In fact I explicitly warned against it, and look what happens...
Oof! Talk about comprehension fail...
The dream, is over
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:50PM (5 children)
Here:
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:02PM (4 children)
Yes, when you say, and I will repeat once again:
If you don't think that there is any difference, then there is no reason to vote.
That statement is wrong. I was quite explicit about why. The comprehension issue here is not mine.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:28PM (3 children)
Once again, you completely ignored the statement that I picked out in which you accuse me of advocating for not voting:
But then, what should I expect from someone with poor grammar skills:
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Troll) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)
Well, if that's your hang up, have a nice day :-)
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:29AM
Beep boop!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @04:35AM
All those down mods.. what as asshole! Of course you know, since you have nothing to say, you can go fuck yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 20 2018, @04:32AM
Well, obviously there's a moderator out there shilling for *business as usual*. He's a fucking idiot. Eh, whaddya gonna do? Fuck ya!
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:36PM (2 children)
There is little to nothing to distinguish them.
And they'll keep repeating this lie even in a thread about 100% of Dems trying to do the right thing while 98% of the Reps try to do the wrong thing.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:36PM
I guess you are more than welcome to continue playing your *good cop/bad cop* soap opera. We have alternatives. Their viability totally depends on your choice to try them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 18 2018, @07:52AM
To add to fustakrakich's reply, the roles were reversed a few years ago. Some people have been consistent no matter whether their side was in power or not, but that wasn't many.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 17 2018, @06:36PM (24 children)
C'mon, TMB, own this! Republicans are against liberty! It was Obama policy, overturned by Ajit, Trump's man at the FCC, on purpose, as part of long-standing Republican policy.
And putting together enough of a coalition to overturn an executive order? Accidently? You are not even fooling yourself anymore.
Maybe it is, at long last, time for the libertarian movement to abandon the right, to abandon racism, sexism, and Ron Paul, and join forces with the left-wing champions of liberty, like the EFF? Just saying. Unless the whole "libertarian" thing is just a cover for being a right-winger, with alt-or-light-right neo-nazi tendencies.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:28PM (6 children)
Obama originally didn't want net neutrality. He went for it after it became clear that enough people cared, but prior to that he was obeying his corporate masters.
Today, democrats are putting on a show to gain political advantage. Their corporate owners will tolerate it because a veto is certain.
It's like what happened during the Obama years, when republicans pretended to oppose Obamacare. Republicans didn't want to piss off their corporate masters (including health insurance companies) but could freely vote to repeal Obamacare as long as a veto was certain. It made great political theater, helping the republicans gain political advantage. As soon as we got a president who might not veto the repeal, the republicans got cold feet. Suddenly, every attempt to repeal Obamacare came up one vote short. Note that it wasn't two votes short. The senators who were least likely to run for reelection were chosen to vote against the repeal. All the others got to pretend they supported the repeal. We can't really know how many of them actually support a repeal. It could be 45, or 18, or whatever. They will always fall one vote short.
Now you're seeing the democrats do this with net neutrality. They'll vote for it again and again, feeling safe that Trump will veto it. As soon as a democrat becomes president, the vote for net neutrality will always be one vote short.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:37PM (5 children)
Obama originally didn't want net neutrality.
Obama was campaigning on Net Neutrality as far back as 2008. (that was his first campaign since you seem to be lacking some historical knowledge)"“I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality,” [youtube.com]
Support network neutrality on the Internet: Promise Kept [politifact.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by e_armadillo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:04PM (2 children)
Don't ruin a good story with the facts. Oh, wait, that is for "good" stories . . . carry on DM.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:10AM (1 child)
Yes. Let's all get real self righteous and prissy about a President that cared so much about justice and righteousness that he had Citibank literally choose his entire fucking Cabinet for him, before he even took office.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday January 18 2018, @05:56AM
Wikileaks is amazing. The stuff that’s coming out, the #PodestaEmails [twitter.com] and so much. Real bad stuff. The press doesn’t even pick this stuff up. You look at the Fake News Media, where are you seeing it?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:27PM
What is so special about 2008? It isn't when Obama was born, at least not according to the forgery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @03:39AM
Why do you want to cut things off at 2008? Is that, perhaps, a really convenient cut-off date?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:48PM (7 children)
It was Obama policy, overturned by Ajit, Trump's man at the FCC, on purpose, as part of long-standing Republican policy.
Yeah, well, everybody helps their own. What party was it that appointed this guy to the FCC?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:05PM (6 children)
What party was it that appointed this guy to the FCC?
Republicans
(Score: 2, Informative) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:47PM (5 children)
*ahem* [fcc.gov]
He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate in May 2012.
Don't shoot!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:33PM (4 children)
*ahem* [wikipedia.org]
In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.
Imagine the shitstorm if Obama refused the recommendation for a Republican position.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:49PM (3 children)
He didn't have to pick that republican. He obviously should have listened to somebody besides McConnell. That was Obama's main problem, his predilection for appeasement. If he put up a fight, people would have respected him and the party a bit more. but, you know, business is business, and everybody just rolls with it...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:29PM
Politics is the art of the possible, said a great German once.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:31PM (1 child)
You do know that the other two Republican nominees on the FCC voted for the repeal of the net neutrality regulations also, don't you? Why would you assume that any other Republican nominee would behave differently?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:06PM
Well, you have to depend on the luck of the draw. Democrats had their chance and blew it, and they're still passing blame.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday January 17 2018, @07:59PM (1 child)
Yes...not to mention that this is in response to an FCC decision driven by the three Republican commissioners who were at odds with the two Democrats! But no...we're supposed to chant "both sides are the same" and assume the Dems just got "lucky" this time? I mean fuck me anyway. Yes...own this one for sure.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:16PM
He's not going to "own it," and for pretty much the same reason all these shithead politicians never "own it" when they fuck up: ego. The darkly hilarious part of this is that he thinks he's somehow different from them deep down. I guess the horseshoe effect works for individuals as well as collectives :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @08:25PM (5 children)
Why would I own something I disagree with when I voted against the guy who appointed him?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:35PM
Mitch McConnell?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 17 2018, @10:19PM (3 children)
Why would I own something I disagree with when I voted against the guy who appointed him?
And your Senators, are they in the nay section? [senate.gov]
The ones I voted for sure as hell are.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday January 17 2018, @11:22PM (2 children)
I voted anti-incumbent on all congressional races except the one guy that was running unopposed; I voted Donald Duck there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2018, @08:12AM (1 child)
Admit it Buzzy, you just like people named Donald.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:21AM
Not people, ducks. Ducks are mightier. There's a movie about it even.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday January 17 2018, @09:37PM
I'll tell you, there was no executive order. I didn't do an executive order. I can't, unfortunately. I appointed the FCC Commissioners. The Five. They make the decisions. I don't make the decisions. And when they make a bad decision, I don't fire them. They get 5 years, then I can pick new ones. Or leave them in there for longer. Unless our Second Amendment folks do something. I made it very BIPARTISAN, there's two ladies who are Dems. There's Jessica, who I picked. She's 46, a little older than I really like. Not the prettiest woman but at least she's a woman. And Mignon, she's 55 but you wouldn't know it. President Obama picked her. I've said a lot of things about him, I'll say this. He has an eye for the women! Her 5 years ran out in June, but I left her in there. I could kick her out, I didn't kick her out. Would you kick her out of bed? She gives the Commission a little color. And a lot of SEXY!