SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
FCC Tries Something New: Making Proposals Public Before Voting on Them
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai yesterday announced a seemingly simple step to make the FCC's rulemaking process more open to the public: the FCC intends to release the full text of rulemakings before they're voted on instead of days after the vote.
Pai and fellow Republican Michael O'Rielly repeatedly complained about the secrecy of rulemakings when Democrat Tom Wheeler was chairman. Wheeler followed the practice of previous chairs by publicly releasing a summary of the proposed rules a few weeks before the FCC's meetings, while negotiations over the final text of orders continued behind closed doors. The actual text of rulemakings wasn't released until after the vote. In the case of net neutrality, Pai complained three weeks before the vote that he couldn't share the full text of the draft order with the public. The full text wasn't released until two weeks after the vote.
"Today, we begin the process of making the FCC more open and transparent," Pai said yesterday. He then released the text of two proposals scheduled for a vote at the commission's meeting on February 23, one on allowing TV broadcasters to use the new ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard and another on "giving AM radio broadcasters more flexibility in siting their FM translators."
[...] This would certainly make it easier for journalists to report on the impacts of rulemakings before they're voted on. Congressional Republicans pressed Wheeler to make releasing the text of orders in advance a standard practice, and there is pending legislation that would make it a requirement. But Wheeler said during his chairmanship that such a practice would cause long delays in rulemakings. Wheeler told Republicans in Congress in May 2015 that making the full text public in advance could make it easier for opponents to kill proposals they don't like.
[...] While Pai hasn't yet committed to making the pre-vote release of orders permanent, O'Rielly said he's confident that the pilot project will go smoothly. "If this initial attempt goes well—and I see no reason why it wouldn't—I think we will all find this to be a significant upgrade in terms of quality of feedback, quality of process, and ultimately quality of the commission's work product," O'Rielly said. O'Rielly acknowledged that the change "may make our jobs a bit more challenging," but he added that "it is the right thing to do for the American people, the practitioners before the commission and the professional press who report on commission activities."
Source:
FCC Rescinds Claim That AT&T and Verizon Violated Net Neutrality
The Federal Communications Commission's new Republican leadership has rescinded a determination that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality rules with paid data cap exemptions. The FCC also rescinded several other Wheeler-era reports and actions. The FCC released its report on the data cap exemptions (aka "zero-rating") in the final days of Democrat Tom Wheeler's chairmanship. Because new Chairman Ajit Pai opposed the investigation, the FCC has now formally closed the proceeding.
The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sent letters to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile USA notifying the carriers "that the Bureau has closed this inquiry. Any conclusions, preliminary or otherwise, expressed during the course of the inquiry will have no legal or other meaning or effect going forward." The FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau also sent a letter to Comcast closing an inquiry into the company's Stream TV cable service, which does not count against data caps.
The FCC issued an order that "sets aside and rescinds" the Wheeler-era report on zero-rating. All "guidance, determinations, and conclusions" from that report are rescinded, and it will have no legal bearing on FCC proceedings going forward, the order said.
[...] Pai opposed Wheeler's zero-rating investigation, saying that free data offerings are "popular among consumers precisely because they allow more access to online music, videos, and other content free of charge." He has also vowed to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rules and hasn't committed to enforcing them while they remain in place. "While this is just a first step, these companies, and others, can now safely invest in and introduce highly popular products and services without fear of commission intervention based on newly invented legal theories," Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said today.
Source:
(Score: 3, Informative) by opinionated_science on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:20PM
We live in strange times. I get daily mailshots from ATT to "highspeed 6.0Mbps internet!!!!!". I get the occasional call (on the ATT line I am *forced* to have to get DSL from someone else...), and I ask to be put on the "when you get gigapower please let me know".
What did I do this week? Setup (well, delegate the setting up of...) a datacentre, where connectivity is provided by......ATT Gigapower.
So basically, if you are a $CORP, they're the only player in town (Comcast could not meet the criteria).
If you are a domestic customer, DSL is "good enough to download movies".
I feel getting angry is handing them a victory in some weird way....:-/
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:41PM
they must have really sh1tty shareholders.
i mean, if you can provide multimedia over your own-owned network, a smart shareholder would ask:
"but, excuse me, why is this only available to customers using your network to get on the internet?
why, you being in the internet business, is not the WHOLE world the market (for your multimedia offerings)?"
teh answer will probably be, that if the multimedia were offered to the whole internet (and all the possible paying customers)
that some sort of peering agreement for data transit would have to be struck and that would allow COMPETITION into the network... the motto being "these is my sheeps! you cannot haz!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:43PM
This is the money quote:
Wheeler told Republicans in Congress in May 2015 that making the full text public in advance could make it easier for opponents to kill proposals they don't like.
This is Progressivism in a nutshell. It is Nancy Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it" evil all over again and we see this repeatedly because it really is at the heart of the mindset. A self selected elite know better, so they will rule over us, and they will do it in secret because we are so stupid that we would object to what they are doing in our name and prevent all of the wonderful plans they have.
Isn't it wonderful to see it ending, to see transparency being placed as a fundamental principle of governance?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @06:52PM
Because the people who kill rulings like these are little guys, not big telcos with astroturf campaigns.
I like the idea of open deliberations. Buts lets not pretend who its that typically mobilizes against them - the people with lawyers specifically on staff to kill them.
Wheeler was a lobbyist for the telcos, he knows exactly how it works.
You, on the other hand, are a one-note johnny who knows nothing outside blind ideology.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sulla on Saturday February 04 2017, @07:48PM
When I was reading the article I kind of figured that corporations who would be effected already have a back door to get all of this information before it is voted on. If I am wrong I would be extremely surprised and impressed by how honest our politicians are.
I could not disagree more with their backing away from net neutrality, but I like the idea of opening this stuff up so people other than the megacorps can see it before it becomes rule.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday February 04 2017, @07:52PM
Of course they do: It's quite common for those corporations to be the ones writing the proposal for their favorite pet politician or regulator to introduce.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @09:02PM
I'll grant you that's true for politicians because they spend half their time fund-raising, they barely have enough time to legislate at all.
But regulators don't need to glad-hand, they are salaried and they don't really campaign. They certainly can and should talk to the affected parties, and I am sure there are some who are happy to take dictation from their buddies because of the revolving door. Idjit Pai is certain to be a shining example of that.
But as we saw with Wheeler and how much the telcos utterly fucking hated everything he did, they weren't writing his proposals.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday February 04 2017, @07:46PM
No, it isn't: It's your straw-man version of progressivism in a nutshell, and the Democratic Party in a nutshell. The part that you seem to not understand is that the Democratic Party stopped being progressive approximately 25 years ago when Bill Clinton took over the Democratic Party with the help of the same corporate donors that had taken over the Republican Party a decade before that.
A good way of showing the difference: Progressives demonstrated repeatedly during the Obama administration trying to get the Democratic-controlled government to actually hold the largest banks and their executives legally accountable for their many crimes. The Democratic-controlled government responded by organized police efforts to disrupt, discredit, beat up and arrest those demonstrators regardless of whether they had committed any crimes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:09PM
Careful, too much truth on a Saturday is liable to explode some brains... Oh what the hell, those ones don't srrm too valuable!
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:31PM
organized police efforts to disrupt, discredit, beat up and arrest
Citation needed. Occupy was allowed to act like f*cking retards for months on end. How many times have rioters 'protested' G20 meetings and other gatherings, and gone unpunished? Let us not forget the burned cities your friends in BLM gave us. And you have the balls to say that after the last couple of weeks of Progressive street violence has went almost entirely unpunished?
I look forward to seeing Soros' minions introduced to the concept of "felony rioting." Should only take a few hundred convictions to bring order back to the streets.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:06AM
Jesus Christ, you are a reprehensible piece of shit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:05AM
Good luck with the felony riot bit. With Nancy Pelosi sitting in Washington, praising rioters, it's going to be tough to pass legislation.
Better just to shoot some of them, dead, dead, dead. Then, shoot the judges who lean to far left. But, careful - we do need some balance. If we leave only right wing judges, we're still stuck with a truly fucked judiciary.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 05 2017, @08:13AM
Don't need Congress, it is already a thing. The problem up to now is the authorities are either "amendable" or cuckservative (i.e. too afraid of what the NYT would say about them) to actually file the charges. After the festivities in DC, over two hundred were charged, which has totally alarmed the professional protesting community. The masks are what push it over the felony line in most cases. Now we only need an AG (a certainty the DA in the District will be trying to dismiss all charges) who will follow through and ensure most of them either go all the way to a trial and conviction or a plea deal that leaves a felony on their criminal record. That should discourage a fair number of the less die hard. Without the masks it is harder to get a felony on most of them but so easy to arrest in the age of pervasive video it is still #winning. With our broken (by Democrats) criminal justice system the process is the punishment. A year or more of being drug through the system, god awful amounts of money if you actually try to defend yourself (something the rioters generally do not have so Soros would have to pay up) and you usually end on probation which would end following the riot tour since you can't leave the State.
And then there is the fun we can have with the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ in cases like the recent Berkley riot. All those police who stood down, the politicians who ordered it, etc. were ALL in an obvious conspiracy to deprive Milo and those students their civil rights. Could that go all the way to a conviction? Who cares, bleed em and find out, either way it is #Winning. Viewpoint discrimination, the bold new frontier in Civil Rights enforcement. And Hell, considering some of the crap caught on camera we could go for plain old racial hatred too. Making the enemy live by his own book of rules can be fun.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:32PM
So how do I become one of these magical special citizens who have a right to be paid thousands of dollars by a government entity to spew a bunch of garbage?
Yes, he has a right to speak. But he is not entitled to a platform for that speech. The right to free speech does not conscript the rest of us into slavery to propagate that speech. He was perfectly free to go deliver his speech elsewhere; he apparently chose not to.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday February 07 2017, @10:37PM
So how do I become one of these magical special citizens who have a right to be paid thousands of dollars by a government entity to spew a bunch of garbage?
Right from the start your premise fails. Ignorance isn't pretty. Milo does not charge for appearances, he doesn't like the idea of 1% people like himself sucking up funds from college students.... unlike some people I could point to... (Hillary Clinton) In point of fact, Milo had to pay $7,000 (provided by an anonymous benefactor) as a "security fee" to be granted permission to accept an invitation to speak. In light of the fiasco which occurred the fee was returned due to the non-performance by the university police.
Yes, he has a right to speak. But he is not entitled to a platform for that speech.
More failed premise. He was invited by the Berkley College Republicans. Five hundred plus people had tickets to attend a talk by a popular newsworthy speaker. The administration had approved and scheduled the event. (while unofficially backing the Antifa goons of course) Violent street thugs violated their rights.
As best as I can ascribe any sort of "thought" to your scribblings it comes down to "Berkley is ours, we assert the right to assault or kill any who intrude." Please be aware that we are now "Making the Enemy live by his own book of rules." so if it your side's actual position that there are now "no go" zones for people like Milo, please ask an authority on your side to define these areas where you claim to rule and be prepared for Team Red to assert zones where your kind may no longer safely go. Also be prepared for us to contest your control of some areas, violently. And remember who is currently in charge of much of the machinery of the State and has far more people trained in the use of violence and the most weapons. Pajama Boy and masked Black Bloc goons vs Tactical DeathBeast (and if he has an MRAP, air cover and artillery support.....) probably won't end well for your team but if Civil War II: Democrats Want A Rematch is really your final offer then we must accept your decision and meet you on the field of honor. Or perhaps you would care to revise and extend your rash remarks?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @03:53PM
Yes, he was invited. And then that invitation was rescinded. The university has every right to do that. If Milo or the College Republicans have a problem with that, they can follow whatever dispute resolution process the university has or file a lawsuit for breach of contract.
Obviously the university did do *something* wrong, I'm not saying everything that happened was perfect. Nor am I saying every single protester was fully complying with the law. But people have a right to pressure the university to change their decision, and the university has a right to make those changes, and if the university ends up paying a ton of fees to cover those cancellations then maybe they need to reconsider the process they use to grant such invitations in the first place. But none of that is really a *free speech* issue, it's a matter of contracts and property rights.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday February 05 2017, @02:05PM
to see transparency being placed as a fundamental principle of governance?
The reason we have governance is delegation. We could do that job ourselves, but it's better (for the delegators) to have someone else do that job - under the assumption that this will lead to a better personal outcome at the expense of maybe a slightly worse general outcome.
Transparency is nice. But delegation isn't based on transparency, it's based on trust.
The point is: transparency itself does not prevent problems or makes them known - it merely makes them knowable. To make them known, effort is needed. It's easy to make that significant effort (obscure language in many-page documents with lots of references to other documents).
Who here makes it a daily effort to read public documents produced by their government? Now let's extend that to every department in the city, the city council, any municipal collaboration bodies, state/province level with assorted departments, and finally country level with assorted departments. No one has time to read even a fraction of all of that. So, basically, the public will get riled up when someone on the inside decides to spill the beans and point journalist / activists the way through the information jungle. Given that most policy issues are not black-and-white, the devil will be in the details. And your friendly insider will surely point out some of the details...
TL;DR: Being transparent is nice, but absolutely no guarantee of nor substitute for having good intentions towards the public you serve.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 05 2017, @05:50PM
Agreed, but transparency is far better than the alternative we have now. It usually went something like: "An anonymous source inside the agency tells [legacy media outlet] that there are efforts to [do something horrible]." Now we sometimes get "An anonymous source inside the agency tells [blogger|Drudge] that there efforts to [do something horrible]." That is a lot less information to work with compared to someone inside or outside (the industries impacted by regulation DO read this stuff) being able to point to the actual current draft language of a law or regulation about to be voted on. There is a reason they want to keep this stuff secret.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @08:57PM
It seems that if you ignore the media and actually look at what Trump (and his appointees) is/are doing, he's actually starting to push America in a very positive direction. He is actively working to make government more transparent and more accountable. For instance one of his executive orders forbids political appointees at any agency from engaging in lobbying activities related to that agency for 5 years after the end of their appointment. That is one of the biggest steps towards closing the revolving door between politics and the corporations that we've had in decades, and revoking that executive order would be politically very difficult.
And the "Muslim ban" is nothing of the sort. You can read the executive order here [whitehouse.gov]. It's a 3 month moratorium from a small handful of high risk nations (and 4 months for refugees) while an actual immigrant vetting system is established. For instance one specific topic of the bill was the issue that right now we're still openly allowing people who endorse honor killings, or those who believe their religious law overrides American law in. These sort of views are incompatible with life in the United States or any modern and secular nation for that matter. There are only a limited number of people allowed to migrate into the US and each time we allow these sort of people in we give fewer opportunities for the next Elon Musk struggling to just get into a country that he thinks fits his ideals and aspirations better than his present one.
Anyhow, just bizarre for me. I'm extremely liberal, but I'm also pragmatic, realistic, and try so much as I possibly can to judge things in a reasonably objective and independent fashion.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @09:31PM
He is actively working to make government more transparent and more accountable.
Oh puhlease.
Ajit Pai is only accountable to the telco companies, the guy used to be assistant general counsel to Verizon before he went into government. He's spent his entire tenure on the board of the FCC fellating the telco cock.
Meanwhile the minority president is removing the safeguards on bank lending that were put in place after the housing bubble. [nytimes.com] Who stands to benefit from another real-estate bubble? One guess. Hint: Somebody who won't reveal his tax returns. Transparency!
And letting coal mines pollute streams. [bloomberg.com]
And letting oil companies secretly bribe foreign governments. [bloomberg.com]
And removing protections that stop 'financial planners' from ripping off grandmothers. [investopedia.com]
And the ‘Unprecedented’ Plan to Staff Cabinet Without Ethics Vetting [nbcnews.com] The republicans want to rush the nominations through the senate before the background investigations are complete. Transparency!
And the "Muslim ban" is nothing of the sort.
A ban on 7 muslim majority nations with special exceptions for minority religions is totally not a ban on muslims. Nope, not at all.
For instance one specific topic of the bill was the issue that right now we're still openly allowing people who endorse honor killings, or those who believe their religious law overrides American law in.
Because we have such a terrible problem with people doing that. Oh wait, we do. All the fundies who want to let churches fund political campaigns and the minority president has promised to let them. [washingtonpost.com] And of course his promise to appoint a supreme court justice who will let their religion determine what women can do with their own bodies. [theintercept.com] The guy has brought christian 'sharia' into the white house.
I'm extremely liberal
If you really are liberal, then you are an extremely misinformed liberal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:07PM
Like the nytimes, bloomgerg, nbcnews, washington post, and the intercept are the most objective, non-biased sources news sources, right? Of course politically biased "journalism" is nothing new in USA. Try looking up Yellow Journalism, Muckrakers, and the like in the history of the press.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:43PM
What's your point?
Are you disputing the factual content of those articles?
There is no room for interpretation, those are all legislative actions that either trump or his republican congress have taken.
I simply picked the first articles that came up in google when searching for each item.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:13AM
You're a fucking moron. Every story, every legislation, is subject to interpretation. Everything that happens in Washington, happens because someone has an agenda. Every bribed senator, congressman, and appointed official is subject to interpretation. Just because you personally believe everything you read from some given source, doesn't make that source reliable. If you're not aware that main stream media gobbles progressive cock, and begs for more, then you're simply out of touch with reality. Progressive media tells you what to think, and you think it, then parrot it. GTFO, idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @06:02AM
You are mostly just parroting what the media tells you. I try to avoid doing this. For instance on Dodd Frank. How much do you actually know about the bill? I've on occasion been directly involved in issues that had substantial media coverage. Other times, I have been knowledgeable in the fields they're reporting on. Even prior to the media completely jumping the shark goes, they're reporting was rubbish. Now a days it's 100% politicized and hyperbolized. And you're simply repeating what they say. This is not smart.
Something I'm noticing is that the roles of the parties seem to be switching once again. In the past conservative thinking generally entailed a lack of ability to grasp nuance: essentially seeing everything in black and white terms. The sort of thing you're doing now. You have to demonize everything you don't agree with. And have to refer to a moratorium, which is a temporary stay, as a religious ban. It reminds me of conservative media referring to Mass effect as a digital rape simulator because it had sex-alluded scenes and it was digital. You could inform them of the facts, but they weren't particularly concerned with that - they had to demonize anything that went against their world view.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday February 05 2017, @10:44AM
We're spinning off topic, but page 8 - 11 of the ACLU filing [aclunc.org] is a remarkably informative read on the history of Trump's Muslim Ban, and various statements from Trump & confidants that it's a muslim ban and the actual wording is an attempt to work around the US Constitution, including this gem, which I'd missed:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:20PM
This may come as a surprise to you, but Trump is not particularly politically correct. For instance in the past LBJ regularly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which he fought hard to help pass, as "the nigger bill."
The bill is unambiguously and entirely about keeping out radicalized individuals or individuals with views that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the United States - by whatever name Trump may refer to them. I think trying to peer into his motivations is little more than speculation and hearsay. Judge people by their actions; this action is extremely reasonable. If he takes things a step further, I will be the first to go back on my position. But if he doesn't take things a step further and simply continues along the path that it seems he is - which is to work to simply try to improve American security in a fair yet firm approach - would you go back on your views and biases against him? Or will you constantly play a game of "Just wait - I know he's going to turn into Hitler tomorrow!" until the day he leaves office?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:23PM
The pros and cons of posting anonymously. To clarify, the point of the LBJ example is to emphasize that just because somebody speaks of something in a way that has a negative connotation does not necessarily speak to their intent. LBJ played a crucial and unbelievably beneficial role in the civil rights movement in the US even though he would be crucified by the political correctness or death mobs of today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @03:54AM
The bill is unambiguously and entirely about keeping out radicalized individuals or individuals with views that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the United States
Where "views that are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the United States" means whateverthefuck the minority president wants it to mean. And that's how bigotry works - bigots always have a rationalization for why their particular flavor of bigotry is justified. Its always bullshit.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 05 2017, @07:53PM
"Ajit Pai is only accountable to the telco companies"
Except by this action.
"And letting coal mines pollute streams."
The EPA did that under Obama.
"And letting oil companies secretly bribe foreign governments."
People voted for Clinton who is 100% owned by Saudi Arabia - to the point where she has let several Americans die to keep them happy. This is objectively an improvement.
"And removing protections that stop 'financial planners' from ripping off grandmothers."
The marketplace will *eventually* remove bad actors, especially now that the internet exists.
"is totally not a ban on muslims. Nope, not at all."
Except if you are a Muslim coming from Britain, Mexico, Canada, etc. there is literally nothing extra special that you will go through. How obtuse can one liberal be? This obtuse, apparently.
"The guy has brought christian 'sharia' into the white house."
"Well yeah a muslim just killed 50 people for being gay but remember that time a christian couple refused to bake a cake???" YOUR FALSE EQUIVALENCY IS COSTING INNOCENT PEOPLE - NOT CONVICTED FELONS/MURDERS - THEIR *LIVES.*
"If you really are liberal"
I don't care what you are or what you call yourself - you are fully ingesting MSM, and at the same time, probably believed that MSM was corrupt right around the time they backstabbed Bernie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 04 2017, @10:01PM
For instance one of his executive orders forbids political appointees at any agency from engaging in lobbying activities related to that agency for 5 years after the end of their appointment. That is one of the biggest steps towards closing the revolving door between politics and the corporations that we've had in decades, and revoking that executive order would be politically very difficult.
No it wouldn't. Bill Clinton revoked his version of the same lobbying ban on his way out the door. [npr.org] Trump used the same language as Clinton's executive order did. Count on him to revoke it the same way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @01:03PM
Have you ever asked yourself why Clinton revoked his own order? Or why Obama undermined his? These people were career politicians and incredibly corrupt. They grinded their way up to the top through the 'establishment' and that includes a countless number of favors, debts, and reciprocations. Trump differs from them in at least one enormous way. He went from political zero to president. He's certainly no angel, but he is also not politically indebted. He earned the presidency with everybody, even the republican party, actively trying to undermine him. It's the first time the public has overcome the 'system' in many years.
The text of the order is great so why reinvent the wheel? Will Trump consciously screw America over on the way out like all presidents for decades have been doing? Maybe, but I think for now at least there's no reason to think that other than bias against him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:02AM
He went from political zero to president. He's certainly no angel, but he is also not politically indebted
Which is why he paid back mitch mcconnell by installing his wife as secretary of transportation.
Letting them beccome lobbyists has nothing to do with owing anything to the party and everything with owing a debt to the people he's relied on. Hell, look at Corey Lewandowski, that guy is already a lobbyist [politico.com] based on nothing more than his access to trump.
Trump owes tons of people. Furthermore his single biggest qualifier for hiring people is "loyalty" - and that's a two way street. He's going to pay back everybody in his administration and the easiest way for him to do that will be let them make a ton of money farming the swamp.
You are just being willfully blind. You've got a narrative of trump as some uberman when he's actually more dependent on the people around him ("I hire the best guys") than other presidents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @09:12AM
You don't find imply her selection for the role is because she is "Mitch McConnell's wife" as even slightly misleading? This [wikipedia.org] is the Wiki page on "Mitch McConnell's wife." An immigrant from rough conditions to a Harvard MBA with decades of political experience and leadership, years of public service, and more. I find what you just did here as about as classy as the people who chose to refer to Hillary as "Bill Clinton's wife" as opposed to her own person with her own accomplishments. Your statement is not misogynistic, but many of the politically correct folks would call it that. This sort of doublethink has become a major problem in modern politics alongside judging people based on speculation and strawmen.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:20PM
It's a 3 month moratorium from a small handful of high risk nations (and 4 months for refugees) while an actual immigrant vetting system is established.
Unfortunately, wrong on both counts.
1) A ban intended to protect us from terrorism would target nations that past terrorists (or their forebears) were from, especially the country that's believed to have partly funded the terrorists that struck in in 2001. So, let's check the stats:
Islamist attacks in US since 2000: 10
…by native-born Americans: 6
…by 1 native-born American & 1 green card holder: 1
…by 1 native-born American + 1 visa holder: 1
…by people from (or descended from) a banned nation: 0
From what I can tell, the stats are similar for the attacks in Europe.
2. We already had a thorough "vetting" system in place [state.gov] for refugees/immigrants, which involves 18-24 months of intensive investigation. Trump hasn't given any indication as to what he feels would do a better job, or even whether he bothered to look into what existing measures were in place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 05 2017, @12:44PM
He gave specific examples of things we should be checking for and currently do not. They were included in that message.
The nice thing about religious zealotry is that we can ask people to simply tell us, for instance, whether they believe e.g. Sharia Law supersedes or overrides US law. If they do, then we trash bin their application and move on. Other things would be views on domestic violence or violence/aggression towards women - again stuff mentioned in the bill. People that still hold these values tend to extol them. For instance you'll have women who refuse to shake the hand of men because of religious reasons, or men who would refuse to allow "their" women to do as much. Many Muslims also believe death is a reasonable punishment for apostasy or that homosexuality should be punished by death. Again these sort of values are in direct contradiction to US values and things we have no reason to embrace. It's like claiming racists rednecks have that as their culture and so we should simply accept that they're racist. It's idiotic double think. Some beliefs -cultural, religions, or otherwise- are simply not acceptable. Under Obama this sort of 'discrimination' was not allowed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06 2017, @04:05AM
The nice thing about religious zealotry is that we can ask people to simply tell us, for instance, whether they believe e.g. Sharia Law supersedes or overrides US law. If they do, then we trash bin their application and move on.
Funny, aren't you one of those assholes with a rage boner for taqiyya?