Can Democrats In Congress Restore America's Net Neutrality Rules? (nbcnews.com) 256
"Democrats are expected to use their upcoming control of the House to push for strong net neutrality rules," reports NBC News:
"The FCC's repeal sparked an unprecedented political backlash, and we've channeled that internet outrage into real political power," said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights-focused non-profit organization. "As we head into 2019, net neutrality supporters in the House of Representatives will be in a much stronger position to engage in FCC oversight...." Gigi Sohn, a former lawyer at the FCC who is now a fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology, Law and Policy, said she expects Democrats to use their new power to push for the restoration of strong net neutrality rules -- and for the topic to be on the lips of presidential hopefuls. "I have no doubt that bills to restore the 2015 rules will be introduced in both the Senate and the House relatively early on," Sohn said....
Jessica Rosenworcel, an FCC commissioner who has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality, noted that it has become a national issue -- and one that has broad approval from Americans. She pointed to a University of Maryland study that found 83 percent of people surveyed were against the FCC's move to undo the rules around net neutrality... Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation...said he is "extraordinarily confident" that proponents of net neutrality will win. "It really just boils down to how one side of the polling is in this space," Falcon said.
Jessica Rosenworcel, an FCC commissioner who has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality, noted that it has become a national issue -- and one that has broad approval from Americans. She pointed to a University of Maryland study that found 83 percent of people surveyed were against the FCC's move to undo the rules around net neutrality... Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation...said he is "extraordinarily confident" that proponents of net neutrality will win. "It really just boils down to how one side of the polling is in this space," Falcon said.
Legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
What they should pass:
"If you are an ISP, you cannot charge for preferential treatment of packets based on their destination"
What they will pass:
"If you are an ISP, you can't touch packets for any reason unless they are illegal or if the MPAA or RIAA wants them throttled or if they are in relation to a hate site or related to foreign involvement in government.." and two hundred more pages of nonsense that have nothing to do with net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
They won't pass anything. There's no chance for any bill to pass unless Democrats and Republicans and Trump all work together.
Do you want them all working together? Do you think 50% of voters want their legislators to work with the other side?
They won't even try to pass it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans need the Democrats to pass their federal budget. Telling Trump no budget till we get network neutrality...
I hope they try that. Keep it shut down for 2 years for some issue 95% of people don't care about.
...and healthcare for all
I really hope they try that. They won't though. They would have to appropriate funds to pay for it. There's nowhere near enough money anywhere for that. And actually trying to go ahead with it would mean ignorant people like you would find out they've been telling you fantasy stories the last 20 years.
You know you could just vote for people (Score:2)
It isn't even hard to know who's bought off. There's a website called Open Secrets that tracks it. It doesn't list all the dark money shenanigans, but it's not like these folks are trying to hide.
Nancy Pelosi had a left wing primary challenger that didn't take a dime from corporate PACs. For all everybo
Simplification (Score:3)
I am well aware that a typical law has two or three pages of terms, conditions and remediation.
My point is that the legislation *should* be limited to restricting ISPs from stratifying access based on who you are connecting to, or what service you are using. I would still like a carveout for QoS, so on Christmas morning, when everyone's X-Box is downloading gigabytes of game patches I'd like for Netflix to still work.
What will happen are requirements for special interests, and speech policing, and end-runs
They really haven't (Score:2, Insightful)
The FCC's repeal sparked an unprecedented political backlash, and we've channeled that internet outrage into real political power
Come on, the House win was because of something the FCC did over a year ago?
Sounds like an awesome way to squander what political power they did gain on a fruitless fight for something almost no voters understand or care about.
By the way, if it was such a clear-cut political victory how did the GOP gain two senate seats over what they had before?
Re:They really haven't (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, if it was such a clear-cut political victory how did the GOP gain two senate seats over what they had before?
Well let's see. There were 26 blue seats up for grabs and 9 red seats.
So I guess the answer would be... math?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that must be it. After all this talk about the "blue wave" what we got was a blue trickle and then a whole lot of accusations of voter fraud to even get that far.
I suppose when the Republicans gain even more seats in 2020 you'll still blame that on "math."
So if gaining two seats in the senate is such a stunning 'landslide', 'red wave' victory, how come the GOP lost 40 seats in the house despite all their gerrymandering, voter suppression and intimidation?
Re: (Score:2)
So a red wave might be GOP getting+13 seats, and a blue wave might be GOP getting +4 seats.
We saw a very blue wave.
That's likely more math than the MAGA hats can handle tho.
Re: (Score:2)
LEGISLATION (Score:2)
Obama's royal decree concerning "network neutrality" was badly flawed, but I think the CONCEPT is worthwhile.Let's see how Congress does in working out viable law, which would actually be enforceable, where the FCC was making it up as they went along. And now, since any law would need to be passed by both the Democrat House and the Republican Senate, AND signed by President Trump, we're likely to get a much better law.
Why return to monopoly networks? (Score:2)
Remove the federal NN rules and let more competition and communities broadband grow.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Protecting the same near monopoly brands with years of federal NN rules did not result in the needed new ISP work.
Freeing up the federal NN rules will allow more new networks to get approved and allow people online with new ISP networks.
And unicorns will swoop down and carry Donald Trump off in a flaming chariot.
Seriously, that's about as likely as ISPs suddenly coming into existence because of reduced regulation. ISPs are monopolies or near-monopolies for one reason, and one reason only: The expected payoff for bringing a new ISP into an area is a very large percentage of the total life expectancy of the required infrastructure.
I'll give you a moment to let that sink in. When your infrastructure (cables, amplifiers, etc.) lasts on avera
no. (Score:2)
no.
longer answer: the dnc is tied to incrementalism, which means giving lip service to the rabble at the EFF and then doing nothing. because they are just as bought as the republicans, except they are paid to lose.
--
bmo
Re: (Score:2)
I do see it as a viable political football, like schools, health-care and other civilization building issues.
BUT...
The dems have failed at every turn over the past 50 years, running away from McGovern.
Even the ACA is a failure and capitulation to "republican values"
I am almost all out of fucks to give.
I had high idealistic hopes for the Internet last century.
And I look at a president that uses the most important vehicle for the spread of knowledge for his own personal alt.flame.
Burn. It. All. Down.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
>silly talk
Actually, no. The Democratic Party has been running away from the failed campaign of McGovern learning all the wrong lessons and tying themselves to concepts like "electablity" and doing everything they can to not appear "too leftist" whatever that is at the time. They abandoned the unions, losing all those votes and set the stage or the deundustrialisation of America through lopsided trade agreements. Shit like this has let the Republicans drive every argument all the way down to the vocabul
Trump would Veto it (Score:3)
a. it's an almost completely partisan issue
b. There's not enough votes to overcome a veto.
so I don't think it's a good way to spend political capital.
Oh, and before I forget (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's admin is pushing through a challenge to the ACA that, if Trump gets another term, will likely strike the law down.
And that would be one of the few reasons I would be happy for Trump to have another term. Once the Public Option was thrown out, the entire ACA should have been thrown out with it. It was bad law to begin with, but then it became absolutely useless. The best thing the Republicans did with their power was to mercifully gut the Individual Mandate (the single worst part of what remained of the ACA). Of course, they were responsible for making it absolutely useless to begin with, but at least they carried t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a. it's an almost completely partisan issue
Like a number of things that the PUBLIC overwhelmingly want, votes in congress end up split by party. That's why people say people voting republican are often voting against their own interests.
The Big 3 have me rooting for the Cable COs (Score:2)
The way Google, Facebook, and Twitter have been neutral and non evil has me routing for the ISP's to launch competing services and throttle the hell out of the big three, until you get seconds per frame out of youtube, and can't reach facebook or Twitter at all.
So I am pretty glad the rules got repealed now, and seeing as both my senators are now Republicans I'll be writing them to ask them to keep it that way.
Sure they can... (Score:2)
...as long as they can convince the GOP majority in the Senate to pass it as well, and then Trump to sign it.
Do people (Americans) not really understand how the US government works? Do Democrats think winning one house of congress is meaningful in any but a blocking way?
That's kinda how it's supposed to work (Score:2)
Outstanding and MOD PARENT UP! (Score:2)
This is excellent, and it's just a shame no one bothers to teach Civics in any sensible way any more. And very sad and very necessary for our little echo chamber to hear and understand. Much of what has been said here about NN is the product of the bizarro world.
Everyone should *want* rules/regulation/laws *voted on by elected officials* who can subsequently be made *accountable* for the results. Not by fiat of a President, appointed functionaries, etc. It is *supposed to be* very hard
Do Democrats In Congress WANT TO? (Score:2)
NO.
Democrats alone? (Score:2)
No.
They could possibly introduce a bill that has this in it, but unless they throw in enough Republican sweeteners to get it though the senate and past the Whtehouse, the Democrats cannot DO anything.
In reality the past election didn't change much at all. It moved the power of the Democrats to say "NO" a bit towards the House and allowed them to actually get bills onto the Senate, but they cannot force the Senate to debate them or the president to sign them any more than before.
So the balance of powe
Re: (Score:2)
Takes 3 to tango? (Score:2)
Seems to me this whole stream is academic.
In the US system of government - the House, Senate, and President need to agree on a Bill to make it law (Me thinks someone needs to watch School House Rock again..).
With that being said - only the House is in the hands of the Democrat party - the Senate and Presidency are in the hands of the Republican party. Can you say grid-lock boys and girls?
QED - Can't/Ain't gonna happen.
Answer is No (Score:2)
Public agenda is set by the president, and democrats are a minority in this administration.
Sure, they can try and advance something in the House, but it goes nowhere without the President and the Senate onboard.
No. (Score:2)
Yes, the Dems have the House, but they lost seats in the Senate, and a bunch of moderate Republicans dropped out of the Senate as well. Any attempt to reimpose net neutrality by legislation will never make it through the Senate.
Simple Answer (Score:2)
Do they have the balls to... (Score:2)
Consider no other legislation until a Net Neutrality bill is signed into law.
Now, this may cause other problems because the legislature will be shirking their constitutional duties, and the other side will do the same with some other piece of legislation, like that "Border Wall", But "putting your foot down" to advance critical issues is something the corrupt US congress needs to start doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
Dems have more important things first (Score:2)
Considering NN is a 2015 thing (Score:2)
Why is it such a big deal? The apocalypse didn't happen prior to then. I'm also pretty sure that the major tech players ignored it whenever they want to.
So, what does it promise to do, and will any of the major tech players care?
1% have heard of it, 0% can define it. 40% hate Tr (Score:2, Interesting)
Of the roughly 1% of American voters who have ever said the words "net neutrality", most want it. Most Americans have never uttered the phrase. As far as politics, most Americans have one focus. They either like Trump or dislike him - and they don't really know why. Network neutrality is hyped on Slashdot, not on CNN and Comedy Central, where most Americans get their "news".
Of those 1% who have even thought about net neutrality, so far none can define it in any meaningful, actionable way. It's a set of gen
Re:I certainly hope not. Net Neutrality isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of something you right wing-nuts like to harp on about: a free market
Re: (Score:2)
Free market was the DECADES of explosive growth the Internet had. All of a sudden, Obama DECREES changes.
Now, if you ask me if I was the explosive growth of the Internet or I want the censorship & price control of Obama's policies that NO ONE voted on, I'll choose the former.
Re: (Score:3)
ISPs were never common carriers. That said, the GP was also wrong:
Explosive growth on the Internet was largely in spite of U.S. ISPs, not because of it. ISPs have never acted even slightly like a free market. They're a natural monopoly, because the high cost of infrastructure strongly favors any incumbent provider over any new provi
Re:Why do you think slavey to the state is freedom (Score:5, Informative)
More regulation is a freer market??
Obviously that depends on the regulation. Anti-trust laws protect a free market. NN regulations protect a free internet. Other examples are left as an exercise.
Remember the story is about restoring the FCC rules they lost. Liberals crave power, just as the original social democrat Hitler did. More brownshirts, more power, more violence!
Wow, that's one hell of a false equivalence. I'll just let it stand.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why do you think slavey to the state is freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
Re: (Score:2)
Many don't realize that 6 of the 7 years just before the regulation was passed in 2015 were under Net Neutrality rules.
And those rules were so horrible... nobody even noticed they were there.
People who think it's onerous regulation don't know its history.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
As for Youtube and other sites, it's entirely up to them what they allow. You have freedom of speech, but Youtube is under no obligation whatsoever to hand you a megaphone.
Arguably, service providers should be content-neutral regardless of if they're an ISP or a server.
However, the method of how you get NN regulations seriously matters. You want something which is on a practical level enforceable and which will stand up in court if challenged--and that means at the very least that there needs to be actual enabling legislation, even if it's done by passing a literal post-it note with a simple statement empowering the FCC to make regulations requiring net neutrality & enfo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal method of enforcing NN in America is for the government to own the network, and to have laws passed by Congress to define how they must run it. If a private company owns the network then the police/NSA/FBI/CIA will pay them to spy on you, just like they do now.
No, that won't actually work. Either you can trust the government or you cannot. If we could trust the government to own the network, then that bowl of tinfoil hat alphabet soup would not be paying private companies to spy on you. If they are/would be doing that? Then all the government owning the network can do is make it cheaper for the police/NSA/FBI/CIA to spy on you, because they'll own the network...and they can probably make it vastly easier for them to do so and harder to catch them at it because
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. NN is not about what websites publish. It's about how service providers shape traffic.
That's what they want you to think. That's what it sounds like. Do some more research.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what it IS. Quit spreading disinformation. Net neutrality rules covered ISPs, period. Websites were completely and totally out of scope for those laws. Do at least a tiny bit of research.
Re:Why do you think slavey to the state is freedom (Score:5, Informative)
No, the major push for censorship happened when the notion of "safe harbor if compliant" was brought forward with DMCA.
Rather than giving blanket immunity for what subscribers did with a service, and holding the individual subscribers directly accountable, and not the service provider, which was the prior legal practice.
But that was "too hard!!", and service providers had more money, and more direct control that could be enforced, and here we are.
Terms of service documents changed all over as the threat of legal responsibility for the vitriol produced by subscribers became a real and present danger for service providers.
But by all means, continue with this nonsense about NN being responsible. All NN really did was say "No, you cannot suddenly abandon the open-ended agreements the internet started with just because now you can get much more profit by double dipping with charges, and with offering graded or exclusive service levels." That was all.
Re: Why do you think slavey to the state is freedo (Score:5, Informative)
NN has nothing to do with censorship in the manner that Parent states. That was the point.
NN is about not prioritizing content, and or, not making content exclusive access.
The DMCA on the other hand, introduced the concept of "Site operator is responsible for content, even when they did not create it."
That did not exist prior to the DMCA. It was this introduction that started the chilling effect, not NN.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we didn't see so much censorship on the internet til AFTER NN was pushed though by the left.
How do you call it when a facepalm punches right through your head?
Notice how sites like youtube started doing most their censoring of people's views while NN has been in place?
Youtube is not a censor, it's a private organization.
What censorship? (Score:3)
I think by "censorship" you mean, "Companies excising their freedom of association". That's part of it too, you know. If you don't like it, you can exercise freedom of association too. Stop doing business with the companies that deplatform folks you like. Directly support them.
And that said, NN has _nothing_ to do with the last round of deplatforming and you know it. Even ignoring the fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a causality problem. And your timeline is off since you happily seem to be ignoring "censorship" prior to the NN discussions. Mind you since you're talking about "censorship" I honestly wonder if you have any idea what net neutrality is or why it is being discussed at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More regulation is a freer market??
Well, ideally not, but it is more free than a market dominated by few players.
If you want a free market you have two choices:
1) The government steps in, takes over and breaks up AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and Charter.
2) Net neutrality.
The alternative is a non-free market controlled by a few companies with the same problems you get with a government controlled internet together with the demand for ever increasing profits.
The free market model only works if you can keep taking your business elsew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Simple example for the perennially stupid. Unregulated free market, easiest way to deal with competitors, SHOOT THEM, a regulated market bans this. In more business like terms, say one health insurance company wants to out compete another. It simple offers cheap policies, that it never intends to pay. Basically chew up all premiums in wildly inflated executive salaries and let the company go inevitably bankrupt. In the meantime they have bankrupted honest health insurance companies because they are not sell
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't lose the rules... some power hungry cuck that was paid off by corporations abdicated his responsibility to maintain a level playing field so that the citizens of this country don't get fucked by fascist shi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hitler was a right wing fascist.
Sorry, no. Fascism is on the Left along with Socialism and Communism. Hitler used National Socialism as a means to power and then went relatively straight into a military dictatorship
When Mussolini turned Italy Fascist, Lenin congratulated him as a fellow leader of a Marxism-based nation. Communism, Fascism, and Socialism are all Collectivist-based, central-command-and-control societies where the desires and agendas of "The State"/"The People" (as defined by a few powerful people or person in charge) are pa
Re:Why do you think slavey to the state is freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a right wing fascist. Stupid fucks like you keep being told that by pretty much everyone in the world other than your worthless right wing partisans.
Hitler was a leftie. He was a socialist.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler was a nationalist populist. Some Nazi positions were left, some were right. But attempting to describe it fully in terms of modern parties is impossible, because no modern party would ever declare that immigrants and members of a particular religion are the cause of all of our country's problems, and that we have to cage them and deport them at all costs, and wall ourselves off from... no, wait....
Re:Why do you think slavey to the state is freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Net neutrality is actually a basic manifestation of ... a free market
More regulation is a freer market??
You can almost count the companies for who it is 'more regulation' on one hand: Charter, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile.
But it ensures a free market and level playing field for the hundreds of thousands of companies that are actually providing services on the internet. Without net neutrality, you only reward the current big dogs, while the next Netflix, Youtube, Facebook or Amazon may never stand a chance to even be visible to the public at large.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulation is a necessary part of a free market. Without it then you have thugs, whoever is the biggest pushes everyone else around, which is not freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
More regulation is a freer market??
Yep, that's how it works for natural monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
More regulation is a freer market??
Yes, because you people don't understand the term free market, so we've just stopped differentiating. You see every time you use the word "Free Market" what you actually mean is a "Perfect Market". A Perfect Market is a free market in it's most unstable form with ideal competition to solve problems.
The reality for a free market is there is only one stable condition: Pure monopoly, and the consumers and workers getting fucked over.
So since al'ya'all've been using the term wrong all these years why can't we t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NN has a cool name, but it's price control and censorship. Net neutrality wasn't passed by law. It was decreed by Obama.
Regulation of pricing, enforced contracts, and government enforced censorship is "free market". Right.
The original rules they tried to use were so bad, the EFF came out against them [eff.org] - they were neither "free" nor "market". The later revision was slightly better, but still allowed several types of priority content (while banning some of the worst), and ALSO allowed censorship of content - along with all the other shitty things that companies can do under the Title II provisions.
If you want Net Neutrality, you need to get Congress to actually pass a Net Neutrality law. Trying to force pre-internet laws written for phone and cable networks onto the internet is a bad idea. Do it right.
You can take your us-vs-them Obama is the anti-christ rhetoric and deposit it where the sun does not shine. Net neutrality, by definition provides a free market environment on the internet because big players, such as Amazon, would not be able to choke competitors at birth because they, unlike the competitor, get more and better bandwidth. Net neutrality is the natural consequence of an environment where there is true competition between all telecommunications providers. In such an environment of true compe
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you poor idiot. The post didn't mention Obama, didn't blame any party, but just laid out the facts.
What idiots voted up your incoherent rant? You aren't familiar with the US or US laws, and even when I linked to detailed arguments by a pro-Net Neutrality you couldn't be bothered to read them or address their points.
Try learning a little something about US laws, and what the FCC tried to do. Try the EFF - it's a great source. Of course, it requires reading, learning, and understanding, which you may be short on in your corner of the world. But good luck! Maybe next time you won't embarrass yourself with an ignorant rant about something you don't understand.
Oh, you poor idiot, the OP (which I quoted and you did not read) mentioned Obama, Also, NN has shit-all to do with censorship, it is all about ensuring an euqal playing field when it comes to bandwidth access. And I know all about the US telco marker and what a corrupt and screwed up unholy mess of monopolies it is. None of that changes NN into some kind of censorship mechanism that is ‘Bwaaaaah!!! UNFAIR!!’ to right-wing blow hards.
Re: (Score:3)
I would be absolutely on board with overturning the Federal Arbitration Act so that customers can do so.
I wouldn't say that it flourished. The United States has consistently been behind the rest of the world, speed-wise, for nearly the entire history of the Internet, largely because unlike the rest of the world, we used governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, undoubtedly a Russian troll. We traced his IP address directly to Stalingrad.
Since the city only gets the name Stalingrad for six specific days a year in reference to its WW II heroism, this will help nail down the time of trolling, right?
Re: Lying moron = lying moron, news at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Price control? Net neutrality doesn't prevent ISPs from charging whatever they want for the bandwidth. It just means they CANT DISCRIMINATE against specific websites or content. They can still treat video different than email for QOS but they have to treat all video the same... No fast lane for their preferred content while slowing down or charging extra for other content of the same type. They can even charge customers extra for faster speeds but again that faster speed is for whatever the customer wants -
Re: (Score:2)
The incoming Democrats COULD do a lot of things. They won't. They'll spend 90% of their time, energy, and press on a futile, symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with. A perfectly legal action (though distasteful) that he did before he was President.
Clearly you're behind on current events. The payments to a porn star and a Playboy model, arranged by Mike Cohen under the direction of the POTUS, were made in the context of an election. As such, they were a violation of campaign finance laws, something Cohen pleaded guilty to.
So the POTUS is implicated in a felony. And this may just be the beginning. 'Scuse me, I'm going to make some popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, we've already been through this very example with Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards. He used campaign funds to pay off his mistress, not his personal funds. He was charged, and then let go - because it was determined that it wasn't a campaign finance violation to pay off mistresses.
That's a pretty generous mischaracterization. John Edwards was indicted on six counts. He was found not guilty on one of them (pertaining to a transaction that occurred after he had dropped out of the race). The other five counts ended in a mistrial. Prosecutors elected not to re-try the case. So nothing was "determined" regarding payments to a mistress.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll spend 90% of their time, energy, and press on a futile, symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with
That is unlikely. When Pelosi was in charge before, she rose above that kind of petty vindictiveness ("Impeach Bush" sort of thing) and ended up working with Bush to get a LOT of what she wanted. She says she wants to do the same thing now, and Trump is kind of a liberal anyway, so he might be willing to go along with it. (This is all my opinion, of course).
Trump isn't Bush. Not by a long shot (Score:2)
Remember in all of American history, only two Presidents have been impeached. It's not something that normally happens. A president has to be a special kind of crooked to get impeached, or especially hated. "Impeach him" isn't the normal case.
Pelosi wasn't all about impeaching Bush because that would be absolutely nuts. There wasn't ever even any claim that Bush had possibly done anything remotely resembling an impeachable offense. (Aside from, perhaps, fringe nutjobs who call anyone who isn't part of their
Re: (Score:3)
Which may cost her the Speakership, either not getting it this time, or lose it a year in. Sleeping with the enemy won't play well with today's Democrats.
They'll get along with it. She knows what she's doing. She just doesn't make a big deal of it, and lets the normal fighting go on while she's getting things done in the background.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly true. History seems to show that whichever party in power is always its own worst enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
symbolic push to impeach Trump for paying off a woman he had an affair with.
Trump fanboys wish this minor campaign finance violation was his only crime which is why they constantly bring it up. Money laundering and treason are the 800 lb gorillas that will bring Trump down. A Mueller indictment bombing run may occur before the Democrat House even begins. Can't pardon state crimes either and SDNY is in the loop. Will be fun watching Trump tears next year.
See how hard it is for you guys? (Score:2)
I stated that while Democrats *could* do some useful and good things, they won't because they are too consumed with hating Trump. That's all they can talk about or focus on. They can't focus on anything positive because they can't get their minds on anything but hating Trump.
Your response was a bunch of "I hate Trump". Even when the criticism is "y'all can't say anything other than hating Trump", STILL the only thing that can come out of your mouth is "I hate Trump". Even when that's obviously the absolu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nancy Pelosi actually has a history of political competence
Whoops there goes all your credibility. Nancy Pelosi is only vaguely aware of who the current president is [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Good job provide my point (Score:4, Insightful)
My thesis was that Democrats will spend all their time on "we hate Trump", rather than doing anything useful for the country.
Your rebuttal is:
We hate Trump.
I'm not 100% sure if you're an actual Democrat, or a parody of one.
Not Democrats, _Clinton_ Democrats. (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the actual left are busy pushing legislation like Medicare for All, tuition free college, ending wars and yes, restoring net Neutrality.
Register Democrat, show up at your primary in 2020, and vote the Clinton Dems out and you can have the government you deserve. Stay home or worse, vote in more of the Clinton Dems or the GOP (same difference really) and, well, you'll get exactly what we've always had.
Re:The internet loves Democrats (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Pence and Trump are going nowhere, the losses are among the lower for first midterms, and Kavanaugh will be hearing whatever asinine challenges your side comes up with.
You are beyond delusional - get out of the echo chamber, you are not getting good information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How many wars has Trump started? Zero so far.
Best thing about Trump's presidency hands down.
Still, he once bombed a country over cake, and later couldn't remember which country it was
He described the cake in detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the Internet was going to die at the hands of Trump. It seems with Obama's "Net Neutrality" gone, the FCC and various states are finally going after TWC/Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Centennial CO Fiber [centennialco.gov]
Longmont CO fiber [longmontcolorado.gov] Ft. Collins, CO Fiber [fcgov.com] Oops. Turns out that we have over 100 towns/cities adding/already added GB fiber-as-utility on their own. [denverpost.com]
How is all this disagreeing with me?