SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Congressional Democrats seeking to reinstate net neutrality rules are still 46 votes short of getting the measure through the House of Representatives.
The US Senate voted last month to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, with all members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans voting in favor of net neutrality.
A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks.
"We're 46 [signatures] away from being able to force a vote on the resolution to restore the Open Internet Order," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tweeted yesterday.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @11:56AM (30 children)
No, seriously, it is not a rhetorical question.
USian Soylentils, especially those seeing/calling themselves conservatives, I'm really curious of your position, do you think are they representing your interest in regards with the "net neutrality" issue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:13PM (7 children)
Certainly not YOUR corporate interests.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:46PM (6 children)
(As I leave in Australia and don't represent any corporation, your answer is both misdirected and irrelevant)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:33PM (5 children)
Are conservatives in your country voting on American laws? Cool, didn't know they could do that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:58PM (4 children)
Do I need to vote on American laws to ask a question from pure curiosity?
Does a pure intellectual interest make my question invalid?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:38PM
You triggered them with the mere question. Facing the consequences of their bad decisions is more than they can handle.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @04:56AM
You are unhappy because "it doesn't represent YOUR corporate interests" is true.
Do you need an equivalent porno shoot to match an answer for your intellectual masturbation?
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Friday June 29 2018, @10:15AM (1 child)
There's your problem - by using intellect you've offended an American.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 29 2018, @10:36AM
... something about hindsight.
Not intentional, but I'll keep this in mind next time when it will be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:17PM (7 children)
I do not believe either D or R are representing ME.
Trouble is enough people have to recognize what is going on in order for us all to get worked up enough about it and get people in there that make it clear that they are on the ballot, not as a D or R, but to represent US! And get enough of 'em in there to upset the apple carts big-time.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:57PM (2 children)
Over the years there have been a few who fight the good fight. They usually end up dead or suddenly stop fighting at some critical moment. Look into Paul Wellstone's airplane crash.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday June 28 2018, @09:30PM (1 child)
Wellstone was a true Lefty Progressive, and was unapologetic about it. Not like the current center-right Democrats.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29 2018, @12:42AM
I have never seen any reference to that guy supporting a change in ownership models. [google.com]
...e.g. copying Italy's Marcora Law [google.com]
So, "Progressive"? OK.
"Lefty"? No.
He may have been a bit more toward the vertical center line than the rest of the bunch, [politicalcompass.org] but he was NOT on the Left side of the palate (NOT an Anti-Capitalist).
N.B. Neither are Nader or Kucinich; the chart is skewed to the left.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:52PM (3 children)
Yeah, both parties are sellouts. And I wonder how the 2 party system maintains such a lock. Bernie is really an independent, but he ran as a Democrat, out of pragmatism. Libertarians have been around for decades, but I can't think of a single election they've won. Part of the problem is they can be even crazier than the craziest Republicans, even more extreme about deregulation and letting the markets run wild. One item in the Libertarian plank is pulling out of NATO. There's Jesse Ventura who won a governership as a Reform Party candidate.
I'd love to see a viable 3rd party, preferably the Pirate Party. One weird thing is that Texas has 4 choices for straight ticket votes: R, D, Libertarian, and ... Green! How did that happen? The Republicans helped the Greens onto the ballot out of the cynical motivation of taking votes from Democrats.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Aegis on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:04PM (1 child)
Not on this issue they aren't. Dems successfully implemented Net Neutrality once. Republicans killed it. And now they're trying to implement it again.
Claiming Dems/Reps are the same on this issue is blatantly false.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday June 30 2018, @07:26AM
I guess I am still fuming over that DMCA vote, whereas they granted the "rightsholders" all sorts of protections about people reversing their product, but did not grant the responsibilities of having those rights go along with it.
That is if they were going to make the construction of the software opaque to the end user, they were going to be responsible for bad things their software had in it.
This to me was the same as making contracts they write legally enforceable, but telling me I have no rights to read the thing. I have just one option... usually a little button marked "I Agree".
Now, I live surrounded by wares I have no idea what they are going to do when I run them. It's all become "hopeware", and the onus is on me to keep my disks imaged ( which probably violates copyright just to do that! ).
Whether its corporate spyware ( aka "marketing tools" ) or botnets, or cryptolockers.... all protected from scrutiny by our Congress, backed up with people who have authority to shoot other people over it if it comes to that.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday June 28 2018, @05:21PM
Here's the list [wikipedia.org]. Wasn't hard to find, but your point is valid.
And the two-party system works very hard to keep it a two-party system, as well.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:33PM (4 children)
They made the right decision on this one. And stopped another dumb Obama regulation from holding us back. Thanks to our Republicans in the House -- except the 3 DISLOYAL ones!!!!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @01:44PM (3 children)
Hollow words.
I didn't ask if it's right or wrong, I asked if it's representative for the respective interest of each individual that chooses to respond.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday June 28 2018, @02:35PM (2 children)
It's in my interest, it's right. Same thing!!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:00PM (1 child)
You started with "it's right" without addressing the interest part.
The ambiguity persists (as it could be "right" without being in your interest).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday June 28 2018, @09:43PM
I think you are missing the point.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 28 2018, @03:35PM
Fuck no, I don't get the impression my "representatives" are actually representing me.
Between "safe districts," the two-party tango ("vote him out!" "okay" "this guy sucks too, vote the other guy back in!"), and corporate lobbyists, most of them seem to care about us about as much as they care what happens to their shit after they flush.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @04:08PM
"still"? That's a funny way to spell "ever".
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday June 28 2018, @06:39PM (4 children)
No, of course not.
There are only two parties. Your only choice is the one that you disagree with the least. This is an inherent property of the first past the post, single vote, winner take all system and can be proven mathematically and verified experimentally.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday June 29 2018, @01:56AM (3 children)
Except Britain has FPP, single vote, winner takes all as well, but currently has 8 parties in Parliament, and a coalition governmet, so there are other problems with the US system, and they seem to revolve around money.
I think you will find that as long as the corporate interests who really run the US are allowed to keep hold of power, there will only ever be two parties.
Only because it looks better than one party though.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday June 29 2018, @07:04PM (2 children)
I'm not familiar with how the British Parliament works, but from a cursory search, Conservative and Labour parties take up 574 of the 650 seats. That basically proves my point. None of the other six parties have any power.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 01 2018, @10:12PM (1 child)
It does the opposite of proving your point, which was that there could only be two parties.
Also the DUP is in coalition with the Conservatives, so they are part of the Government, which is the definition of having power.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday July 02 2018, @04:17AM
I'm sorry, let me clarify my claim: under such a voting system, there will only be two parties at any given time of any significance, and which two parties those are may change over time. During such a change, there may be more or fewer than two parties of significance, similar to how a planet's magnetic field may temporarily lose its two distinct poles during a geomagnetic reversal.
Clearly, I incorrectly assumed that these details were obvious without being explicitly stated.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday June 28 2018, @08:32PM (1 child)
On this particular issue, I would say most likely not. Time will tell, but we had to live with 8 years of Obama. The shoe is on the other foot, now. Was Trump a good choice? No. Was Hillary a good choice? Definitely not, either. I was rooting for Ben Carson, but it became clear that he wasn't going to get anywhere near the votes he needed from fairly early on. Truly being able to vote for someone who's worth being president hasn't been on the table for some time. "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."--Douglas Adams. He seems to have hit the nail on the head with that statement.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28 2018, @09:11PM
Obama was worth the risk, 100%. Then he went status quo and fighting the Republican majority made it even harder. Blame "your" side for at least 50% of Obama's failures, and comparing Obama's term to Trump's can only be a valid statement if you're a bigot and/or moron.
Go ahead, explain all the good things Trump has done. I don't really agree unemployment has gotten much better, but if the numbers have improved those are always due to whatever was done a few years previously so we'd be thanking Obama's administration for that anyway.
PS: I don't like Obama, he continued the authoritarian evils, but compared to Trump he is a saint.