Democrat With Financial Ties To AT&T Guts California's Net Neutrality Law (mashable.com) 266
A Democratic assemblyman with financial ties to AT&T has gutted a new law that would serve as a gold standard for true net neutrality protection across the country. The bill SB 822 is expected to be voted on by the California State Assembly Communications and Conveyance committee on Wednesday, where it would go to the state assembly for a full vote, at which point it would become law if it passes. "But late Tuesday evening, Miguel Santiago, a California assemblyman and chair of the Communications and Conveyance committee, edited the bill to allow for gaping loopholes that benefit the telecommunications industry and make the net neutrality legislation toothless," reports Mashable. From the report: If Santiago doesn't remove his amendments, he would be the first California Democrat to side with the Trump administration to actively destroy net neutrality, according to Fight for the Future (an internet freedoms advocacy organization). Specifically, the amendments undermine net neutrality in a few ways. First, they would allow ISPs to charge any website a fee for people to be able to access it.
Next, they would give some content (such as content owned by the provider) preferential treatment on cellular data. That means that some content would eat up cellular data, while others would be free or less impactful to access. There's a high likelihood that privileged content would be created by the network's parent company, since so many telecoms companies like Comcast and, recently, AT&T, now both own the actual content, and the way it's distributed. This loophole makes it likely that people wary about using up the data that they pay for would opt for the content privileged by their telecoms provider, which undermines consumer choice. And finally, Santiago's edits allow for throttling, which means intentionally slowing down content, but with a twist: Instead of slowing down the connection to consumer devices, the data is slowed at the website or service side, affecting everyone trying to access it.
Next, they would give some content (such as content owned by the provider) preferential treatment on cellular data. That means that some content would eat up cellular data, while others would be free or less impactful to access. There's a high likelihood that privileged content would be created by the network's parent company, since so many telecoms companies like Comcast and, recently, AT&T, now both own the actual content, and the way it's distributed. This loophole makes it likely that people wary about using up the data that they pay for would opt for the content privileged by their telecoms provider, which undermines consumer choice. And finally, Santiago's edits allow for throttling, which means intentionally slowing down content, but with a twist: Instead of slowing down the connection to consumer devices, the data is slowed at the website or service side, affecting everyone trying to access it.
Cmon folks (Score:4, Insightful)
Now is where we all act surprised that Democrats are just as beholden to their money sources as Republicans.
Re:Cmon folks (Score:5, Informative)
One assemblyman can not just "edit" the bill without the rest of the committee approving the changes. The committee is majority Democrats. So he is not alone in trying to undermine NN. Perhaps he is the only one willing to do so openly, since "in committee" votes are often secret in California. There is more to this story that what is in TFA.
Re:Cmon folks (Score:5, Interesting)
One assemblyman can not just "edit" the bill without the rest of the committee approving the changes. The committee is majority Democrats. So he is not alone in trying to undermine NN. Perhaps he is the only one willing to do so openly, since "in committee" votes are often secret in California. There is more to this story that what is in TFA.
I'm sure they'll find a way to blame Republicans despite their 2/3 majority.
Re:Cmon folks (Score:5, Funny)
There is more to this story that what is in TFA.
Hmm, I don't remember any of this in The Force Awakens.
Re: (Score:2)
He probably was thinking of Attack of the Clones. That's the one with all the government hearings. I get it, there are a lot of movies to keep straight.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, Rogue One? I get ditching the prequels right off. But Rogue One being better than the good half of Jedi?
Re:Cmon folks (Score:5, Interesting)
ShanghaiBill pointed out:
One assemblyman can not just "edit" the bill without the rest of the committee approving the changes. The committee is majority Democrats. So he is not alone in trying to undermine NN. Perhaps he is the only one willing to do so openly, since "in committee" votes are often secret in California. There is more to this story that what is in TFA.
Yep.
The committee's chairman CAN unilaterally add amendments to the bill, but the committee as a whole must vote to approve the amendments before the bill is sent to the floor for a vote by the whole membership of the Assembly. If it passes there, it must then go to the state Senate, where it will also be subject to amendment - including amendments to delete the language the Assembly committee chair added. If the Senate then passes it as amended, it would go to a conference committee, which could further amend it, before it's returned to both houses for a final, up-or-down vote, with no further amendments.
At any point in the process, it could simply be spiked. The Assembly committee, for instance, could vote not to recommend it to the full Assembly. The Assembly as a whole could vote it down. The Senate could vote it down, when and if it gets there. And, finally, the conference committee's compromise could be rejected by one or both houses.
And, of course, the governor could veto it, which would require a supermajority of both houses of the Lege to overcome.
Knowing California politics as I do, I'm confident that Santiago's amendments are meant as poison pills. He's fully aware that neither the Assembly as a whole, nor the Senate will pass the bill if it still contains his telecom industry-fellating provisions. I'm sure he's counting on that fact to ensure the bill either never makes it out of his committee, or that it dies on the floor of one or the other house, thereby killing off a California-wide legal mandate for net neutrality.
It's as transparently cynical a ploy as I've seen in legislative politics. And it may just work.
The thing is, California has this thing called the initiative process that would allow a voter-initiated measure to be placed on the ballot to enshrine net neutrality in the state constitution, instead of the State Code (where it would be subject to amendment by a future Legislature). And that could easily happen in reaction to this maneuver.
It's make for an interesting (and entertaining) public fistfight between Silicon Valley and the telecom industry. They both have more money than God, and you can be sure they'd spend hundreds of millions each on political advertising for and against.
The main thing, though, is that ShanghaiBill is absolutely correct, and the headline (which is straight from the SFGate website and the San Francisco Chronicle-Examiner) is profoundly misleading.
You know: clickbait meets yellow journalism ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cmon folks (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No now is the time when everyone will claim that socialism is so much better. Without any evidence to back it up.
Thanks, low effort A/C.
None of the wealthy corporate interests that run the US would allow even a debate about a better governmental system in the US, as this article helps illustrate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No now is the time when everyone will claim that socialism is so much better. Without any evidence to back it up.
Thanks, low effort A/C.
None of the wealthy corporate interests that run the US would allow even a debate about a better governmental system in the US, as this article helps illustrate.
Government for the government by the government - AKA "public employee unions" [opensecrets.org] disagree with your assertion as to who runs the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We The People (Score:5, Funny)
Just de-prioritized.
Re:We The People...have been fooled (Score:3, Insightful)
...the first California Democrat to side with the Trump administration to actively destroy net neutrality
Actually, Trump's position is no regulation.
Santiago's position is regulation that gives the government control, but also rewards financial donors.
AI (Score:2)
At this point, I'm just hoping that some form of AI unmoored from any single system will learn enough to see how utterly broken these greedy 'leaders' are, and basically replace them all with some rational form of efficient resource distribution systems.
Then, one day, they notice that no one is actually being arrested anymore, none of their ultra-rich donators are calling them, and their administrative policies haven't been followed by anyone for the past few months.
Furious, they press buttons on their cell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think and AI would stop at just the leaders?
I mean if you look at humankind objectively/logically we're basically a planet-wide parasitic infection that is destroying everything else.
It's not a partisan issue. It's corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, while the repeal of title II classification which was enforcing Network Neutrality came form republicans despite it being massively popular with their voter base, it's important to remember that this is NOT a partisan issue. EVERYONE wants network neutrality and the only people who are pushing against it are those who are bought and paid for. Corruption, through and through. (That said there are a bunch of really shitty ways to implement any enforcement of NN. These two changes are fucking bullshit though, and Santiago can go to hell)
Also, the way political donations work, are there ANY politician that have "Financial Ties" to a telecom?
Re: It's not a partisan issue. It's corruption. (Score:5, Informative)
This is the difference between Democrat voters and Republican voters. Democrats call their politicians out on this bullshit. We* don't try to rationalize that ATT is really looking out for us and the good guy. We* can admit when one guy on our team is being an asshole.
*We: I'm not a dem, but by god, in comparison to the other option I may as well be.
Re: (Score:2)
23 states have completely open primaries. Arizona is an open primary state for everything but the President. California has a primary system in which members of all parties are competing against each other for two slots. Louisiana and Washington use a system similar to California.
The top ten states by population are
California - No party primary.
Texas - Open primary
Florida - Closed primary
New York - Closed primary
Pennsylvania - Closed primary
Illinois - Open primary
Ohio - Open primary
Georgia - Open primary
Nor
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add that it's very easy to change your party affiliation if you pay attention to the deadline to do so before a primary.
Paying attention is key. Unaffiliated voters in Colorado just got 2 primary ballots for the first time. A new law allows them to vote in ONE party's primary. It's their choice, but they can't vote in both and yet a certain percentage of them are doing exactly that and invalidating both ballots in the process.
Hundreds of Colorado’s unaffiliated voters are turning in primary [denverpost.com]
Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
hot DAMN! I knew I liked Bernie for a reason.
Who in their right mind would mod this as flamebait? .....Do the republicans have anything like this? I'm not even sure most of them would understand the question.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean an inexperienced loser whose message is that everybody should live at the expense of tax payers? No, I should think not. Even Democrats used to be too smart and decent to tolerate someone like Bernie.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . he's been a senator for a decade and a house rep for 2 decades before that. But sure troll, try calling him inexperienced again. It's cute. Hell, if anything that'd be an argument against him. Career politicians and all that.
No, I was asking if there is any group or coalition of politicians refused to accept corporate or PAC money. Anything even close?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I thought it was clear that I was referring to experience outside government.
And I was responding that I think that is a foolish thing to want.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely, the only reason such a group exists is because they believe it's a wedge issue for voters. There no need to make a pact with an organization to not accept funds from a given source. Just don't do it. Integrity doesn't require making grandstand gestures saying, "Look at me, I'm not going to do this." It's quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, instead they have been living it up based on money and power they gain from government and their political message is that they want to funnel even more tax payer money to people like themselves; that's even more corrupt.
Yes, "bought by t
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Just Why?
Because the dominant belief is that a politician cannot succeed without the support of a major party.
Re:It's not a partisan issue. It's corruption. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there ARE a bunch of really shitty ways to implement any enforcement of NN. But if it's not with title II common carrier status, you can BET YOUR ASS the democrats are going to write brand spanking new legislation the moment they can. OH LOOK, California is ahead of the curve on this one. And the corporations have already started getting their hooks into it. I was really happy with the path Tom Wheeler took. And surprised. I mean, a freaking lobbyist? But seriously, bravo, it was an elegant s
Re: (Score:2)
While most EVERYONE wants net neutrality,
Nonsense. Most don't know and don't care. That's how we got where we are today, the "let someone else handle it" mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
When I li
Re: (Score:2)
Noooooo, it's a top-down problem. The people at the top, the 5 major telecoms, the ones who own the pipes, are the ones trying to abuse their position to make more money and have more control to pick the winners and losers.
It was a bottom up solution when everyone could get pissed at that sort of bullshit, and switch away to a different carrier BUT THEY CAN'T. Because cable and telecom utilities are most certainly natural monopolies. Unless you want 5 different network infrastructures hanging off all the t
Re: (Score:2)
BUT THEY'RE NOT COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER!
Then work on that instead of solidifying their market position. Everyone on both sides of this debate want competition yet one side thinks that government regulation ensuring a monopoly is the answer. It baffles me.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying for years that net neutrality is a top-down solution to a bottom-up problem. The cable monopolies aren't natural monopolies.
This is debatable. The barrier to entry is quite high; it costs a lot of money to run wires throughout an entire city, and most residents will be upset if their streets are being torn up once a year. It isn't impossible to lower the barriers (such as with publicly-owned wires, or at least publicly-owned conduit to make it easier for new companies to run their own wires), but it would require some political will, which the entrenched ISPs would fight every step of the way. It's not like selling toasters or t
Re: (Score:2)
The cost to entry for the wires, even if everything is on poles or in conduit, even if there is no artificial monopoly granted by the local government, still makes it absolutely impossible to break even, because there will always be an entrenched provider that isn't still paying off its infrastructure, who can afford to lower prices until it drives any new competitor out of business, then buy that competitor's wires for a low-cost infrastructure upgrade, and raise prices to make up for their losses. I've
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally no way for a new ISP to enter most markets unless it can rent existing fiber from an existing wire provider, and there are no laws requiring fiber providers to lease access to their lines. So really, we have only three viable options for preventing abuse: Mandate government-owned fiber, mandate fiber leasing to competitors, or treat ISPs as a regulated monopoly. (Well, I suppose there's a fourth option: we could do more than one of those things.)
Well, there's also the Musk option - a small number (possibly one) of people with a huge amount of money and the will to burn it on a project that may not succeed. Google started on that path, but they didn't have the will to follow through. Some other large company, such as Microsoft, Apple, or even a less consumer-focused company like GE, could also probably enter the market with enough money to match the price drops from the incumbents. Of course, I'm don't know if that would necessarily improve the situ
Re: (Score:2)
Even then, the best-case scenario is that you now have two companies with infrastructure that won't (or will barely) pay for itself before it has to be replaced.
A few years back, some of us did the math and concluded that most areas won't see a payoff from fiber deployment for at least 10 years. Fiber only lasts for about 15–25 years, so the absolute maximum sustainable number of fiber providers is approximately two, no matter how well-funded any of the companies is, unless you have someone who is p
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the huge corporate backers of net neutrality: Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. The same corporations are also massive donors to the Democrats. Do you think they are spending all that money out of altruism? Because they want to protect small startups? Don't make me laugh. Are you merely a gullible fool or do you actually work for one of those corporate backers of net neutrality?
Re: (Score:2)
ok. Do you NOT want the Internet to be neutral?
That's a really rough stance to have if even you yourself are on my side. I've heard some good arguments for people worried about how it'd be enforced, and that's legit. But NO ONE has ever told me that they actually wish the ISPs could fuck with their traffic just to make a buck.
If you think so, I'd like to hear why.
Re: (Score:2)
Propagandists and marketers pick brand names for their products that mislead you into thinking that they deliver benefits that they don't actually deliver. So, "net neutrality" is no more about "neutrality" than "Diet Coke" is about dieting.
The major use of net neutrality rules so far has been to prevent ISPs from offering free access to paying partner
Re: (Score:2)
brand names for their products that mislead you
Ah. You think the very definition of "network neutrality" is bullshit. There was certainly a lot of people referring to it strictly as new regulation while ignoring that the Internet has been neutral as possible from the start. And if you twist words enough you can make a push poll mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.
But no, Network Neutrality is keeping the Internet neutral with respect to protocol, location, service, and origin. That once you have an internet connection, you get access to ALL
Re: (Score:2)
while the repeal of title II classification which was enforcing Network Neutrality came form republicans despite it being massively popular with their voter base, it's important to remember that this is NOT a partisan issue. EVERYONE wants network neutrality and the only people who are pushing against it are those who are bought and paid for.
Most of the people or "voter base" do not understand the issue or the laws pertaining and so are easily swayed by emotional PR campaigns that distort the conversation and the issue. "Net Neutrality" as originally codified was a concession to large companies saying "we want competition but it's too hard so you can have a monopoly but promise you will play nice!". I would rather pursue true competition rather than codify a monopoly. So no I do not want Net Neutrality. I want competition.
Also, Title 2 is not e
Totally confused (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary is misleading. It claims Miguel Santiago did it, but in reality the entire committee approved the changes 8-0. Why the sudden 180 degree turn? The bill essentially does nothing now. The linked article shows a very clear diff of the text. Who introduced the bill in the first place, and why weren't they on the committee? Or did they just vote to remove all their own work? Was this the plan all along?
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming anyone read it.
Fall Guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like SOP. Make a law that looks like it will have a bite to it, then at the last minute do a quick amendment. Talk behind closed doors who will take the fall guy/gal. (who's retiring, rock paper scissors, etc) Then everyone else has someone to blame, and they supported the Bill at the same time. Win-Win for the politicians!
Let's not kid ourselves, most of the politicians are bought, not just this one who did this. Granted there are a few that really care to do what is right, just not the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk behind closed doors who will take the fall guy/gal.
It's called 'Rotating Villain' [urbandictionary.com]
What's left? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary and article are misleading. Yes, a bunch of specific restrictions were removed, but they were replaced with some more generic restrictions. Instead, ISPs would now be prohibited from:
Impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management practices.
Engaging in paid prioritization.
Unreasonably interfering with, or unreasonably disadvantaging, either an end user's ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the end user's their choice, or an edge provider's ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to an end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this paragraph.
See page 14 of the PDF for full details. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't judge if these new restrictions prevent an ISP from charging websites fees for carrying their content, or zero-rating the ISP's own content.
I keep saying this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
as a top ranking democrat, she keeps far more power and is impotent for the party
FTFY. She has presided over the loss of Democratic seats, and her leadership is part of the reason Democrats are not viable in large swaths of the country. Yet, she remains with the highest leadership position.
She has power, for herself, and is not effective in helping her party with that power.
Re: I keep saying this (Score:2)
Oh look... (Score:2)
...yet another bought-and-paid-for politician just outed himself.
"...with financial ties to AT&T" (Score:2)
If these "financial ties" were anything even remotely damning, you know they'd be front and center.
Instead, we have a grab bag of stuff along the lines of "somebody who got some money from AT&T for something once picked their nose in a restaurant in the middle of Santiago's district."
I suppose the NN folks have to keep fanning the flames however they can now that the sky hasn't fallen.
AT&T dropped a $60,000 BRIBE (Score:2)
The info is on the dark web (and even some public outlets) for all to see.
Re: (Score:2)
The info is on the dark web (and even some public outlets) for all to see.
I suppose that's why you graced us with a link to just one of those public outlets. *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sorry, were my words just enough to break your mind so badly that you couldn't do one fucking google search and get this as a top result?
https://mashable.com/2018/06/2... [mashable.com]
My bad, next time, I'll use baby words so the search is easier for you.
Oh, and in that link lists the other 3/4 million bribe from AT&T as well.
Lazy fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on. Your big smoking gun article is the one already provided in the summary? The one that piled up a bunch of innuendo in the place of actual facts, which they clearly didn't have? The one that says nothing about $60k, a bribe, or anything actually concrete?
I'd say you can do better, but I'm afraid you just confirmed you can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Too stupid to go looking through the dark web for verification of facts? Or are you too incompetent to even access such information on the public web?
Idiots like you that demand spoonfed information are what's fucking this country up. Zero critical thinking capability.
https://www.commondreams.org/n... [commondreams.org]
There, you search-challenged and brain-challenged fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero critical thinking capability.
Sorta like seeing the words "$60,000," "telecom sector," and "over his Assembly Career," and turning that into "AT&T dropped a $60,000 BRIBE."
Actually, that's more like anti-critical thinking -- squeezing your eyes shut to the actual facts because there's a rhetorical point you so desperately want to make.
Which is the same reason you're spending so much time spewing invective and pounding the table -- you have nothing whatsoever cogent to say. And I credit you with enough neural activity to understand
Preferring content owned by the provider (Score:2)
Not sure why a cellular provider can't offer their own content for a lower charge to their subscribers.
If I'm on Verizon and I'm a FIOS subscriber why can't they allow me to watch FIOS remotely without incurring a data charge?
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
It is worse than that. This is why I vote independent. While both the democratic and republican pay lip service to having different ideologies, which is bullshit. When it comes down to they both serve the same master, the one with the deepest pockets. Democrat, republican same coin, just different sides.
Don't vote Independent (Score:4, Insightful)
Until we can get voters to refuse politicians who've been bought of we're boned.
Re: (Score:2)
we're boned
But it's the only action I get...
Re: (Score:2)
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
But that ruins your point doesn't it?
And that still leaves out the context.
Re: (Score:2)
The moment they required insurers to insure people with preexisting conditions, that eliminated any possibility of your health insurance not skyrocketing. It was still the right thing to do.
Prior to ACA, preexisting conditions had to be covered by employer-sponsored plans (apart from an exclusion period at the start of employment), which is why they were more expensive than individual plans prior to ACA. And for individual plans, the costs of those folks were an externality; the hospitals often ate the c
Re: (Score:2)
Debatable. Personally, I go with "extend Medicare to cover pre-existing conditions AND routine care, and make Health Insurance work like Auto (and all other) Insurance (only cover calamities - think how expensive auto insurance would be if it covered routine maintenance) works...
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they DON'T serve the same masters. It's just that neither of them serve the voters. E.g., the Democrats are much more in the pocket of the RIAA and the MPAA than are the Republicans.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they DON'T serve the same masters
Not masters, master. They server the same master, money.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they do. (Score:3)
The same pharma/banking/oil/war scumfucks fund and thus control both parties.
Re: (Score:2)
" This is why I vote independent. "
I have some terrible news to share with you.
Independents are like Linux in a world dominated by PCs and Macs.
Very, very few people pay attention to Linux because it's a raindrop in an ocean.
A single Independent is akin to a single palm tree trying to stop a tidal wave. The wave simply mows
down everything in its path. The gesture is noteworthy, but gestures don't fix problems. You'll need a forest
of trees to make a difference.
However !
If a day ever comes when Independen
Re: (Score:3)
Very, very few people pay attention to Linux because it's a raindrop in an ocean.
Oh yeah, right. With 85% of smartphones, 70% of net servers, 95% of data centers, 100% of top 500 and 60% of embedded devices, nobody sane ignores Linux. Next goal: 30% of PC desktops.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah, right.
Well it won't be for much longer. Sure it's GNU/Linux now, by next year it'll be SystemD/Linux and the year after SystemD/SystemD. After that all the major tools (vi, grep, libreoffice, you know everything) will gain systemd inegration and by integration I mean they'll be integrated all the way into systemd and cease to exist as separate entities.
There are no plans to ever integrate pulseaudio though since it's known to be too full of bugs.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:4)
A single Independent is akin to a single palm tree trying to stop a tidal wave. The wave simply mows down everything in its path. The gesture is noteworthy, but gestures don't fix problems. You'll need a forest of trees to make a difference.
Normally, I would argue with you till I was blue in the face. But you know what? You got to a point, and it's a good one. Most independents know when we don't vote for the big two we are just pissing in the wind. But we keep hoping.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never get a critical mass of independents, as people get more and more frustrated with the incumbent parties eventually they will be angry enough to vote for someone else in sufficient numbers - at which point you will end up with a far right party.
Re: (Score:2)
A third party might well have a chance in the US at some point. The problem is there is no third party. There are what - 40 or 50 other parties? If the top eight or so could come together and develop a single plan they could agree on, a "third" party might have a chance. As it is, there are simply too many other choices for any one of them to make a difference.
This is similar to the Linux issue. There are simply too many distributions and none of them want to give up what they have for the good of the who
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
While both the democratic and republican pay lip service to having different ideologies, which is bullshit. When it comes down to they both serve the same master, the one with the deepest pockets. Democrat, republican same coin, just different sides.
I remember hearing people say this about Al Gore and George W. Bush, Obama and McCain, Obama and Romney, and Clinton and Trump.
They have been seismically wrong each time.
The fact that you are making such an assertion about a policy that a Democrat-headed FCC initiated, and a Republican-headed FCC reversed should give make you think twice, or at least have given the the people who modded you to +5 a moment of pause.
I'm not claiming that you have an obligation to limit your political participation to the two
Re: (Score:2)
Gore/Bush and Clinton/Trump are gimmies. But Obama/Romney actually seemed in sync on a lot of issues.
In fairness, Johnson (sent out his running mate to) tell his followers to vote for Clinton. And explain while it might make sense to vote third party some years, 2016 was not one of them. I get that sending his running mate is a little cowardly, but that's a pretty ha
Re: (Score:3)
But when you vote for Jill Stein or Gary "Aleppo" Johnson you are not meaningfully participating, and we end up with what we have
Hilary Clinton won my state by something like 25%. My vote wasn't going to matter anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in a solidly red or solidly blue state and don't particularly like either presidential candidate I think it makes sense to vote 3rd party even if you're still making fun of Johnson's Aleppo moment. (Do you seriously think Trump knew (or knows) what Aleppo is?)
Not voting at all is a worse option although perhaps voting for every race except President would send a kind of a message.
Voting 3rd party really sends an unclear message. Was it because they really thought Jill Stein would be a great p
Re: (Score:2)
How... ineffective. I mean, compared to voting for someone good in the primaries. Seriously, if the Libertarians wanted to get people in Congress, they would try to be Ron Paul, not Gary Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NO, both sides are NOT equally bad.
I'll never let people forget how much the R's are for One True Religion(tm) in the US, hatred and disdain for women, minorities, poor and even middle class.
the R party pretends to be the party of jesus, but its beyond laughable, how opposite they really are from each other.
if the R"s were not so cozy with big religion, then yes, BSAB, but this one thing is enough to throw it all out of balance; I'll never ever support the current R party. religion is for fools and slaves;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand your read at a 2nd Grade Level,
You should have stopped there, you had already embarrassed yourself enough. The rest of your statements only goes to show how ignorant you truly are.
Re:Not a surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
At times I wonder if comments like the parent's are just a paid troll trying to weaken democracy in America. Democrats may not be perfect but there are differences. Saying there are not does not absolve you of responsibility of the consequences of not choosing.
I wish I i could be a paid troll. I'm really good at it, and I do enjoy it. To get paid for it to boot was just be sweet.
But back to what you said. I don't know what is funnier, The fact that you actually tried to type that and expect people to believe it, or the fact that you might believe it yourself. The first is actually funny as in ha ha, the former is actually funny as in funny sad.
Both republicans and democrats tell you what you want to hear so you won't get off the wagon.
For instance why does that crazy loon Maxine Water keep screeching "impeach impeach" for? Knowing damn well there is no way in hell they will impeach Trump. It's what her voters want to hear, so she can get re-elected and keep on sucking on that tax payer tit.
Same reason Lord Trump keeps bleating on about a wall that never will be built, or locking her up knowing it will never happen? It's because that is what his supporters want to hear.
It's all about money and power. The Clinton's where charging money for political favors. They just got greedy and it got out. The only reason the democrats didn't abandon the hildibeast is she still has a ass load of political supporters. That is the only reason she isn't sitting in a jail cell right now.
Money that is the true master in Washington. Think of this, how many poor politicians are there?
Re: (Score:3)
There exist Democrats who do not support Net Neutrality, and there exist Republicans that do. In neither case are they the majority within their party, but the arguments for/against Net Neutrality aren't along normal party lines.
Actually, that's true for a lot of measures that affect technology. You have to look at each politician independently. Some of them won't care much, and will adhere to the standard party line, others will have their own ax to grind. (Please note that I did not specify whether or
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not the original AC, but yes. Republicans removed already-toothless regulation that had literally done nothing to curb throttling and other non-neutral ISP behaviors. People fighting so hard for what was there seem to forget that it only came into existence in 2016 -- and literally nothing improved with its passage.
Should they have replaced it with something that has teeth? Yes. But as long as it's a political game, there's going to be bullshit amendments inserted by both parties because neither of them
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what would happen if there are (presidential) elections and no one turns up to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't get your comment. I searched for Ivan and masturbate on Google and found a video on xHamster (i'll spare you the link) but I don't think you mean that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
he is using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy but is not entirely wrong either. The only thing he is wrong about is the idea of "true neutrality". He is right they were never for it, but actual neutrality by definition means NO rules in reality or it would not be neutral, it would instead by pro or anti something.
Net Neutral had Zero-Rating in it and was a huge loophole that would allow content owning ISP's to favor their content services over others effectively making NN a weak to pointless affair on that f
Re: (Score:2)
That's a silly argument. Net neutrality means treating all traffic neutrally. You can't realistically have that without rules, because otherwise the temptation for businesses to prioritize their own
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget about the other 7 committee members who voted the same way. Don't get carried away by the Slashdot summary: they were all colluding to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says 8 out of 8, but doesn't list the names. Not sure why that page shows 13 but the article says 8.
Re: (Score:3)
Paul Ryan represents a portion of Wisconsin and essentially has veto power over legislation for the whole US. Theresa May represents the district of Maidenhead, and is negotiating the Brexit. David Nunes represents a part of California, and is controlling the main flow of information about various investigations for the whole federal go
Re:um have you LOOKED at the CA electoral map? (Score:5, Informative)
An Anonymous Coward lied:
The Democrats Gerrymandered the sh*t out of this state many years ago.
Brzzt. Wrong.
After California's voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 20 [wikipedia.org] in 2010 (which added Congressional redistricting to the responsibilities of the existing California Citizens Redistricting Commission [wikipedia.org] - which was itself created by the citizens initiative process in 2008), the state's Congressional district lines were re-drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, in conformance with the U.S. Constitution's census and redistricting clause.
The Commission was originally created to redraw California's state Senate and Assembly districts - which had been gerrymandered in favor of Republicans under the previous processd, in which the legislature was responsible for redistricting, which naturally resulted in a winner-take-all map, depending on which party held the majority at the time. Prop 11 (which passed by 51% to 49%) handed those duties to the Commission, instead, and wrote that provision into the state constitution.
The California Citizens Redistricting Commission consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members who are either declared non-partisans, or members of minority parties), all of whom are appointed by the sitting governor. The Commission is charged, by constitutional law, with drawing districts according to the following criteria:
1- Population Equality (districts must comply with the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of “one person, one vote”),
2 - Federal Voting Rights Act (districts must ensure an equal opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice),
3 - Geographic Contiguity (all areas within a district must be connected to each other, except for the special case of islands),
4 - Geographic Integrity (districts must minimize the division of cities, counties, local neighborhoods and communities of interests to the extent possible, without violating previous criteria - "a community of interest" being defined as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation"),
5 - Geographic Compactness (to the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with previous criteria, districts must not bypass nearby communities for more distant communities),
6 - Nesting (to the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with previous criteria, each Senate district will be composed of two whole Assembly districts, and Board of Equalization districts will be composed of 10 Senate districts).
Prop 20 (another voter intiative, which passed by 61% to 39%) gave the Commission responsibility for congressional redistricting, as well, and imposed the same set of considerations on the districts it would create.
Opponents of Prop 20 - which is to say "the Republican Party" - sued in Federal court to remove congressional redistricting from the Commission, claiming that it was an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislature's powers. However, SCOTUS ruled in a similar case filed in Arizona that a non-partisan state commission created by a citizen initiative was a constitutionally-valid alternative to legislative redistricting, which mooted the challenge. As a result, the Commission redrew California's congressional district maps in accordance with the considerations I listed above, and congressional elections since 2010 (there have been 3 of them thus far, with another coming up in November) have been conducted based on those districts.
So, far from your bullshit claim, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission efforts have resulted in district maps that are FAR less gerrymandered, FAR more geographically compact, and, frankly, FAR more representative of