How President Trump Could Destroy Net Neutrality (vice.com) 235
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Donald Trump's presidential election victory could have dire consequences for U.S. internet freedom and openness, according to several tech policy experts and public interest advocates surveyed by Motherboard on Wednesday. The Republican billionaire will likely seek to roll back hard-won consumer protections safeguarding net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible, as well as a host of other policies designed to protect consumers, ensure internet freedom, and promote broadband access, these experts and advocates said. In the wake of Trump's election victory, FCC Chairman Wheeler is likely to step down before the billionaire reality TV star is inaugurated in January. Incoming presidents traditionally have the prerogative to select the leader of FCC, which has broad regulatory power over the nation's cable, phone and satellite companies. It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC, but Ajit Pai, the Kansas-born Republican FCC commissioner and former Verizon lawyer, is likely to be a contender. Trump has tapped Jeffrey Eisenach, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to lead his telecom policy transition team, according to Politico. Eisenach is a well-known figure in right-wing telecommunications policy circles, with a reputation as a "crusader against regulation." One immediate consequence of Trump's election is a dimmer outlook for ATT's proposed $85 billion buyout of entertainment giant Time Warner. Last month, Trump vowed to block the deal, warning that it would result in "too much concentration of power in the hands of too few." Trump's ignorance about tech and telecom policy was on full display throughout the election season. For example, Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine, a bizarre and ignorant assertion for which he was roundly mocked. The Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated decades ago, required media outlets to afford a "reasonable opportunity" for the airing of opposing views on major issues. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, but rather ensures that consumers have open, unfettered access to the internet. Net neutrality can't be torpedoed overnight. The FCC rules prohibiting online fast lanes and discriminatory broadband practices are now U.S. policy, and they can't be dismantled at the whim of an authoritarian president. But a Trump-backed, Republican-led FCC could simply stop enforcing the net neutrality policy, rendering it essentially toothless. That could unleash the nation's largest cable and phone companies, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, to expand controversial practices like "zero-rating" that are designed to circumvent net neutrality.
in short (Score:3, Informative)
The Republican billionaire will likely seek to roll back hard-won consumer protections PERIOD.
FTFY
Re:in short (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is a business man, those other business men are his competitors not his friends. At that end of town there are no friends just acquaintances and temporary partnerships. Reality is, for Trump business ventures Net Neutrality is a huge plus and as such it would be really dumb to cripple his and his families future business interests. We have seen the corruption, only 0.0001 percent of business profit with an absence of net neutrality, where as 99.999 percent of business profit with net neutrality. Smart business choice is net neutrality is good for the majority of business and only a tiny handful of business profit from it absence.
Re: (Score:2)
So that man *is* beholden to businesses! His own? Except, he'll make all the right policy decisions because his businesses are well meaning competitors who like to fight fair, not the wrong policies decisions that career politicians do for big businesses?
The mental gymnastics are impressive. I'm investing in straws.
Re: (Score:2)
GP never suggested that he was trying to do the right thing. Just that in this one particular case, it just so happens that what's good for Trump's business also happens to be good for the public (assuming you trust in GP's underlying assumption about it being good for Trump's business of course.)
Businesses aren't inherently evil which seems to be your assertion. They do what's in their interests and sometimes that happens to coincide with the public interest, and sometimes it doesn't. Of course that con
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is a business man
So are most of the Republicans in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
No most Republicans and Democrats are professional politicians and pretty much failed business people. If you are not a career politician the only useful serving your own business interests at the expense of all other business interests. Trump does himself and his family no favours by further competitors interests against his own, from his point of view fuck em, better to remembered well, whilst furthering his own interests, as a developer. Developers need stable well governed economies to profit, without t
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, Rupert Murdoch has been far more successful in business than Trump has ever been and has been fighting against net neutrality at every step because he thinks he can make a lot of money being a gatekeeper to parts of the internet (as well as thinking that the internet cuts into his cable tv profits).
Re: (Score:2)
How would Trump, a guy who specialises in exclusive, high price products benefit from net neutrality? He has spend considerable time and money trying to make sure his products aren't neutral, they are heavily biased towards people who can pay and even against minorities (as in the case of his real estate).
Trump's mindset is the same as the ISPs - find a way to make people pay for access to everything. He is all about paying to access a certain lifestyle or property or knowledge (e.g. Trump University).
He is
Re: (Score:2)
Cough, cough, cough, with war industry controlled main stream media was dead set against Donald Trump, especially after his comment about de-funding NATO (not that he could because that would be up to the congress and however that statement was enough of a threat for them to go all out against him) Trump would have lost by a massive margin without net neutrality and that is the real reality and he is smart enough to realise it. You have never seen how rich people deal with each other behind closed, the con
Re:Oh shit moment (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope so.
I don't have to live in America, but I do have to share the world with the rest of you, and I'm not looking forward to your guy nihilistically firebombing it. If he comes to the decision to simply listen to the rest of the Republican party and puts in place standard conservative policies ... hey, another George Bush, we survived the last one. If he starts tearing down every major international institution on economics and security alliances? The potential chaos is almost unlimited.
Re: (Score:2)
... hey, another George Bush, we survived the last one.
Well, most people did, although a million or so people were not so lucky.
But you are right, his policy platform (what we know of it) reads like a reset to the Bush era. Which is ironic, given that it's the children of Trump's supporters who will be coming home in body bags when he and the other neo-neocons move to broaden their business interests overseas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can't do squat... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Trump can't do squat... (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt that the Congressional Republicans can agree among themselves what they want to do with running the government. They haven't been able to do that under Obama for eight years. As a moderate conservative, I expect some bloodletting between the different factions.
That's true, but it hardly means "Trump can't do squat".
Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
As commander-in-chief of the armed forces Trump has very direct control over what the US military does. He could, for example, just announce that he would not order them to act in accordance with the requirements of the NATO alliance treaties. Poof, NATO is basically gone, even though the US still technically has an obligation to comply. And of course we've basically given the president carte blanche to declare and prosecute wars. Congress can deny funding, eventually, but that still leaves a lot of leeway. Oh, and Trump will have The Button and there's not a damned thing anyone could do to stop him from pressing it whenever he wanted, short of Congress pre-emptively legislating that the system be dismantled (and if Trump commanded the armed forces not to comply?).
On trade, the president can't set arbitrary tariffs, but he can arbitrarily set 15% tariffs for up to 90 days on whatever he wants, and he can just keep rotating those tariffs around. Or he could even direct the coast guard to simply stop incoming vessels and order them out of US waters. That would be a violation of international laws and trade treaties alike, but nothing could actually stop him from doing it, other than the refusal of the Coast Guard to carry the orders out. Maybe they'd stand up to him, dunno.
I could go on. Just think about every federal agency and about what kinds of orders a president could give them, keeping in mind that while the orders can't be to do anything illegal, they can be to do anything at all that is legal, regardless of the agency's intended mission, and ordering them to simply sit on their hands is almost always legal.
The bottom line is that our system is a presidential system, not a prime ministerial system. A president is actually not that far from a constitutional monarch in power, with the one enormous exception that it's not a lifetime job. Prime ministers are considerably more limited because they're subject to recall by parliament. Congress can have all the votes of "no confidence" it wants, the president is the president. They have to impeach him and they have to try him if they want him out... something that has never been done so there's a pretty heavy historical weight of precedent behind it. And the Republicans are *not* going to hand that sort of victory to the Democrats.
No, Trump can do one hell of a lot, regardless of what Congress wants. I'm not saying he will, but don't think he couldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately you're wrong. There are checks and balances in place. Read this ... it cheered me up no end.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
@swilden
Fortunately you're wrong. There are checks and balances in place. Read this ... it cheered me up no end.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11... [cnn.com]
Nothing in that contradicts what I said. Yes, the UCMJ requires the military to obey only lawful orders... but an order from the Commander in Chief that doesn't violate any article of the UCMJ is lawful, by definition (outside of the US; inside the US, US law also applies, but Posse Comitatus pretty much eliminates that issue anyway).
Besides that, when it comes to the nuclear arsenal, you have to keep in mind that the command and control system was designed during the depth of the Cold War, and there were
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
Well, if it works equally well, then he will fail completely. The DEA didn't stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
Well, if it works equally well, then he will fail completely. The DEA didn't stop.
Cite? I know of no DEA actions in Colorado against marijuana growers, sellers or users, for example. (I lived there when it was legalized).
Re: (Score:2)
Cite? I know of no DEA actions in Colorado against marijuana growers, sellers or users, for example. (I lived there when it was legalized).
The DEA is involved in literally every big bust in America. They provide at minimum information and logistics support. Instead of a whole bunch of feds showing up, one fed shows up with a bunch of local cops. If you think the DEA wasn't involved in some big bust you heard about because the paper said it was the local cops, guess what? Sucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Cite? I know of no DEA actions in Colorado against marijuana growers, sellers or users, for example. (I lived there when it was legalized).
The DEA is involved in literally every big bust in America. They provide at minimum information and logistics support. Instead of a whole bunch of feds showing up, one fed shows up with a bunch of local cops. If you think the DEA wasn't involved in some big bust you heard about because the paper said it was the local cops, guess what? Sucker.
There weren't any marijuana busts after the referendum passed, big or small. Local cops definitely couldn't have been claiming credit because while the DEA still had a legal basis for arresting people over weed, the local cops didn't.
WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.
I am so tired of Obama's lies being regurgitated as truth. I can only imagine what the next four years are going to be like from the other side.
And, in case you're wondering, the DEA has been merrily harassing legal marijuana growers even after Obama pretended to tell them to do otherwise. He's the executive. All he had to do was say "You *will* quit enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it is legal or you will be fired and possibly prosecuted under federal statute (honest services fraud would
Re: (Score:2)
So your proof is an example of a DEA raid on an operation that was deemed illegal by the state supreme court? Huh?
Show me a case where the DEA raided an operation that was fully legal according to the state.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, if you can't be bothered to use google I'm not going to help you. I would recommend you read this:
https://www.greenrushdaily.com... [greenrushdaily.com]
The quote from Obama (which people like you don't understand):
"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana—and the reason is because it’s against fede
Re: (Score:2)
No, Trump can do one hell of a lot, regardless of what Congress wants. I'm not saying he will, but don't think he couldn't.
You're right, the President is called "most powerful man in the world" for a very good reason. However, that's why our government is structured the way it is. We have Congress that has to approve many of those actions, such as the annual budget or officially declare war. We also have the Judicial branch making sure laws are being followed. The system is designed to limit each branches power through those checks and balances.As broken as it is, it's still better than many other styles of government.
Anothe
What is this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is this... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I especially like the part about how he is against the Time Warner / AT&T merger. People (especially on slashdot) have been railing against the lack of competition in both the telecom industry and the media. We've gone from 50 media outlets to 6, many places don't have choice of broadband provides. Some people on here has even gone so far as call for breaking up some of these big conglomerate. No one I know things this merger is good for consumers.
But now that Trump is agreeing with us it's suddenly
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because Donald Trump has never expressed contradictory positions before.
On the media? Not so much. He made a sport of vilifying them throughout his entire campaign. He called them the worst scum of the earth, threatened to pass laws to make it easier to sue them, mocked and insulted numerous reporters, and so on.
In a nutshell, he told everyone to listen to him, not them. And if we put our fingers in our ears and go "la la la la la" whenever the media tries to point out his "contradictory positions" he effectively makes himself immune to criticism and accountability.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder which news site Trumps supporters were going to to confirm the things Donald was saying were truthful?
Afraid of your own shadows? (Score:3, Funny)
He hasn't even been sworn in yet, but the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching has gone to DEFCON 5 already...
Re: (Score:2)
sworn in or not, we know the face of a moron when we see and hear him speak.
I know all I need to know about him, and I don't even watch the news anymore.
is it treason to wish to be invaded so that someone ELSE can rule over us?
please, someone, invade us. take us over. we can't rule ourselves anymore, this much is clear.
Netflix protection... (Score:2)
Messing with TV service
Yeah, the reaction from the blue collar people who elected him into office would be very bad.
Please just stop! (Score:3, Insightful)
The sky isn't falling, the four horsemen aren't riding across the moors, just give it a fricking rest!
What happened to News for Nerds? Is it now Fear for Nerds?
Maybe we just need to start a "What Trump COULD do" thread and let the rest of us get on with life.
Re: (Score:2)
the four horsemen have to be confirmed by the senate first.
they are:
-Attorney General: Rudy Guiliani
-Secretary of Defense: Chris Christie
-Dept of Homeland Security: the crazy sheriff from milwaulkie who thinks racism doesnt exist unless it comes from blacks (btw...he's black), and that BLM is an ISIS sleeper cell
-Secretary of State: Sarah Palin
sleep tight america.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky isn't falling, the four horsemen aren't riding across the moors, just give it a fricking rest!
I thought it was three horsemen, not four. [citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
It hasn't been eliminated. He is not in office yet nor has he approached congress with any legislation requests for this.
The what-if articles get redundant after a while. Fortuneteller, the frequency they are coming out makes it very easy to see them for what they are.
Donald Trumph, America's first sociopath president (Score:3, Funny)
As the Beaverton reports:
"Donald Trumph, America's first sociopath president"
"Is this America's 9/11?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Canadian humour
Re: (Score:2)
All funny and true ...
except the "first sociopath" part . Come on ... L.B.J., Theodore Roosevelt, probably Kennedy and lots more.
They're not all bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Predictions brought to you (Score:4, Insightful)
These predictions brought to you buy the same types of people who swore Trump wouldn't be the Republican nominee, and wouldn't be elected president. So take them with a grain of salt: everyone has been completely wrong about Trump so far regarding every material prediction.
If net neutrality would last exactly until a Republican gets in office... I mean, did you think there would never again be a Republican in office? Like, ever?
Valuable takeaways from the summary include:
"It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC"
and
"Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine"
It's reasonable and probable that Trump has barely thought about the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine"
Actually, Trump wasn't complete wrong about that.
Net neutrality is about "open, unfettered access to the internet". The Fairness Doctrine was about unfettered access to differing political opinions.
The problem is that he opposes both.
Re: (Score:2)
It's reasonable and probable that Trump has barely thought about the issue.
Irrelevant. The most important thing the president does is make appointments. He's going to get to appoint a supreme and he's also going to get to decide who's going to run the FCC. BOHICA!
Solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The internet needs to be forked for the purposes of non-profit, non-competitive use.
Feel free to spend a couple hundred billion $$ on the infrastructure for that.
Re: (Score:2)
They have: . Primarily designed by and for research institutions.
Of course, its not just arbitrarily available to the general public because well, guess who are also members of the general public? For-profit, competitive business owners (and their businesses.)
Every "news" article that begins with "How" (Score:3, Insightful)
Every "news" article that begins with "How" is a puff piece, and I refuse to read any of them, including this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Every "news" article that begins with "How" is a puff piece, and I refuse to read any of them, including this one.
Ba-a-a-a-a-a!
Not net neutrality (Score:2)
Disclaimer (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish stories like this included a disclaimer. No one on the planet is opposed to network neutrality. Lots and lots of us are opposed to Network Neutrality, Inc.(TM) - a government overreach brought to you by corporate sponsors to use against their corporate opponents and customers which may or may not involve networks and certainly contains no neutrality.
Part of the reason we all hate the media so much is that they tend to switch back and forth between the concept and the instance in an intentionally de
Re: (Score:2)
I wish stories like this included a disclaimer. No one on the planet is opposed to network neutrality. Lots and lots of us are opposed to Network Neutrality, Inc.(TM) - a government overreach brought to you by corporate sponsors to use against their corporate opponents and customers which may or may not involve networks and certainly contains no neutrality.
Part of the reason we all hate the media so much is that they tend to switch back and forth between the concept and the instance in an intentionally deceptive way. Please, slashdot editors, for each story like this, insist that the submitter pick a meaning, tell us which, and stick to it.
Came here to say exactly that, thank you.
When the politicians talk about "Net Neutrality" they're talking about a set of laws that may or may not have anything to do with what nerds/geeks here think when the term "net neutrality" is used. Remember the PATRIOT Act? How little "patriotism" was actually in it? Same deal here.
Being opposed to "Net Neutrality" the FCC Act/mandate/policy is not the same as being opposed to net neutrality the concept. One can be for the latter while opposed to the former and still
Re: (Score:2)
government overreach
So you prefer a world where Comcast essentially won't let your business operate unless you pay them a $1000/mo (for the lowest tier) "fast lane" fee? Or where bittorrent is just flat out banned not because of any illegal activities on it, but simply because AT&T decided that it was using too much bandwidth so fuck it?
And I can already hear the cries of "but but competition fixes everything!" Yeah. Sure. When there is any. But a large portion of the country is limited to exactly one provider. And e
I need a quick recap on Why FCC (Score:2)
Why was Net Neutrality considered an FCC/executive issue in the first place, instead of a problem for Congress? Was it just because the FCC was more responsive and Congress was dragging their feet, or is there some more principled justification?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they couldn't get the government to regulate the Internet as they wanted to via the normal democratic process using the people's elected representatives, so they did an end-run and got the Dems on the FCC to do it instead.
Now that the people have gotten around to electing a President on an explicit platform of overturning the FCC's actions and he gets to pick the commissioners, there is speculation their end-run won't last very long.
You can apply this same logic also to many of Obama's executive act
Could? (Score:2)
unfortunately have to give something up. (Score:2)
I'd like to see a presidential candidate that was :
Tech Savvy.
Pro-environment.
Pro-life.
Pro-small business anti-multinational conglomerate.
Pro-states rights
Pro-immigration and Pro-immigrant.
Anti-torcher , Anti-war. Pro-military, pro-police, pro-civil rights, pro-black lives matter.
Not Anti-Muslim just anti-terrorist.
And willing to stop shoving all kinds of liberals or conservative agenda's down the throats of people who don't want them.
But the democrats didn't give me that one nor the republicans so I had t
Trump could ... (Score:2)
Trump could destroy Net Neutrality.
Trump could invite Obama and Putin on a "The Bachelor" style third-wheel date
Trump could drop trou during his inauguration and moon the nation
Trump could do a lot of things ... but I wouldn't count on any of the things I listed.
First off, it wasn't an Obama thing, it was an FCC thing. So his decree to erase Obama's legacy won't matter here. Secondly, Trump is smart. Scary smart. Or he has some ridiculously smart advisors to whom he pays very close attention. His ent
Re: (Score:2)
No he just talks a good "game" and treats everything like a game.
He's going to play with the country like a cat does with a lizard.
Bankrupting the USA and defaulting on the debts to the banks of other countries like a third world Dictator is now a real possibility instead of being interesting science fiction. Don't look at the Party he has attached himself to, look at the man - he could be our Chavez
Join his team and help him do it right... (Score:2)
... https://www.greatagain.gov/ser... [greatagain.gov] This is a breath of fresh air if real. Anyone know this was coming? Trump's gotta know this will get FOIA'd eventually to see who he did or didn't hire. Dude's got balls.
anybody need a job...?
Re: (Score:2)
He definitely knows... the bottom of the page says "One should assume that all of the information provided during this process is ultimately subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act."
He's already doing it! (Score:2)
Is Trump the ultimate Manchurian Candidate? (Score:2)
This is just speculation, but not completely unfounded given that we know that Trump used to espouse much more liberal views in the past, and the fact that he was tricked into accepting Pence as VP - also given what is now confirmed about the Russian influence.
A well informed acquaintance of mine thinks Trump is under duress, make of it what you wish:
Well it is speculation. But there was quite a change politically about five years ago as specified by that informant. And I can't explain the look in his eyes
Innovation (Score:2)
trump Inc. (Score:2)
If He Even Takes Office (Score:2)
anti-business (Score:2)
I have a theory! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not a Trump supporter, but I'll start. From the summary:
Trump's ignorance about tech and telecom policy was on full display throughout the election season.
I guess this is supposed to be weighed against Clinton's tech acumen - "Like with a cloth?"
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton did not know how to use a desktop computer [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you speaking to about foreign policy, Trump?
"‘I’m speaking with myself, I have a very good brain’." - Trump
Between who would hire experts to make proper decisions and who thinks he knows the things he doesn't know, I know who I'd side with.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this is supposed to be weighed against Clinton's tech acumen - "Like with a cloth?"
Tech *policy* acumen. We need them to understand net neutrality, not IT drudgery.
Re: (Score:2)
We've had a good year to get used to Trump and listen to his promises about what to do when he's elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Projections like this aren't helpful at all. He hasn't even taken office yet and people are trying to do their best to destroy him. Nice of you.
If Trump says so much stupid shit his staff took away your twitter access then 'people' don't really have to do much to destroy him other than listen up and repeat the stupid shit the man said.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You want them to do what they said the republicans should not have been doing?
It would show them as even more hypocrites than they already are. Alternatively, it would justify what the republicans did.
And - outside of SCOTUS - they barely slowed Obama down. He just switched to executive orders. That said, it will make it easier for Trump to reverse what Obama did since he won't need congress to undo an executive order.
Re: (Score:2)
no, dems should not work with republicans.
dish out some of what they have been doing and see if they like the taste.
gridlock is our only savior at this point.
Re: Bernie Wouldn't (Score:5, Informative)
The GOP platform specifically states that it is against net neutrality
Re: Bernie Wouldn't (Score:5, Informative)
Amazing how easy it is to get hens to vote for foxes these days. Just point out some connection, any sort, no matter how tenuous, between a candidate you want to defeat and some unpopular entity, and you can write off their entire voting record no matter how long it is. So we can write off that Clinton has always been one of the leading sponsors of net neutrality, including being a cosponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 1996 and having voted for every net neutrality bill while she was a Senator.
No, just point out that Viacom donated money to an international charity that her husband founded and which she does not work for, and all of the sudden, forget about how she actually, consistently voted - instead, vote for the guy who literally promises to overturn net neutrality.
I wish it was just this one issue, but the whole campaign has been like this on virtually every issue.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I console myself with thoughts of Schadenfreude. Because the idiots, deplorables, racists, etc. who voted for Trump are precisely the ones he will likely betray. Tax cuts to the rich, taking away healthcare for the poor, running up deficits, they are the ones who will fare the worst, and they deserve it.
How white average Joes think someone as truly corrupt as Trump (tax shenanigans, real estate dealings, non-payment to workers/contractors, Trump U) will help them just goes to show how plain STUPID they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump probably won't attack another country,
I'll take that bet. War is the only consistent US policy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Bernie Wouldn't (Score:4, Interesting)
...forget about how she actually, consistently voted - instead, vote for the guy who literally promises to overturn net neutrality.
I wish it was just this one issue, but the whole campaign has been like this on virtually every issue.
Similarly people wanted the benefits of Obamacare, such as subsidies, no lifetime caps, must accept everyone, no insane prices if your sickly, etc, etc. I know my father had heart then lung problems for the last probably twenty years of his life. Our health insurance was insanely expensive, and you just had to pay it or you would probably not get it again. Now that will probably be back. As far as my own health insurance goes, the impact is likely none, since my company provides it.
The Trump voters who hated Obamacare seem to be one of two groups. The first were mainly just the deadbeats. They hated it because they now had to pay for insurance or get a fine, and it wasn't even a big fine. I'm embarrassed to say that I have a half sister like this. She just uses emergency rooms and stiffs them on the bill. The second group was the one that acted shocked at the premium increases. People from the first group decided that the fine wasn't high enough, so they were not going to contribute and the hell with the consequences, hence the risk pool was smaller, hence the fees went up. They forget that before Obamacare fees also went up every year like clockwork. I suppose you could add a third if you add the low IQ trolls who believe it is the worst thing since malaria just because of frequent lies used in talking points and fake news stories, but you gotta write them off and hope they don't reproduce.
Selling across state lines is no magic cure either. States establish minimum standards which Obamacare also mandated. Sure people will be able to buy junk policies again, and worse they will be able to buy policies that are probably little better than toilet paper. Said people will love and treasure their wonderful and super cheap health insurance, right up until they get sick then go bankrupt. At this point I have no sympathy for those people, unless they voted against Trump. If they voted for Trump, get sick, and go bankrupt, well they deserve it.
Actions have consequences, and it is past time our policies reflect that. Those who can afford health insurance but instead waste the money on crap, and then stick us ultimately with the bill are leeches on society, and I suspect a great many of them were Trump voters. I'm not even sure hospitals should be forced to pay in those cases. In fact, if they were to just remove the fine on Obamacare, but also remove your right to emergency room care for failing to pay said fine, then that would seem fair to me, or at least fairer.
Another action that has consequences is the love of tax cuts. The ones in Bush's era ballooned the deficit under Obama. Now the ones in Trump's era will balloon the deficit even farther. If I had a kid, I'd be worried. Fortunately it just doesn't matter to me. As a software engineer, Canada will probably take me, if I get desperate :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but is unknown enough that he *COULD* be better.
In the same way, that betting on black 10 times in a row *COULD* make you rich? Gambling with the future of your country like this seems extremely irresponsible to me, but hey I'm not American...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP platform specifically states that it is against net neutrality
You know, net neutrality is not actually a partisan issue. It's been made to look that way so you don't consider who is really behind it. It's actually members of the US Chamber of Commerce like Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner that have lobbied the government. They'll influence anyone they think will favor their position to strong arm citizens into arrangements to pay them more money for their respective boards of directors.
Re: (Score:2)
GOP establishment also didn't want Trump as president. I wouldn't take the GOP platform as a guide to what Trump will do, the senate and house perhaps but not Trump.
Trump just got elected after fighting against the mainstream media and the establishments of both parties. All of the big media establishments bashed Trump, and he bashed them in return. Trump and the people who voted for him hate companies like Comcast, Time Warner (CNN), and AT&T. Plus he didn't take money from them and doesn't owe the
'Net neutrality' vs 'access rights' (Score:2)
The GOP platform specifically states that it is against net neutrality
The term - Net Neutrality - regardless of what it actually is, seems to suggest that it's about regulating the Internet so that the contents/coverage are balanced b/w Left and Right. So people on the Right see this as an attempt to censor them in case the coverage weighs out heavily in their favor. The big communications companies - the Comcasts, the AT&T's, et al see this as an opportunity to sabotage the attempts to force them to deliver all content via any of their channels. Like if you don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah - and I thought we (general audience on slashdot) wanted that deal blocked.
It's strange seeing my liberal brethren suddenly want a larger more powerful corporation - and ATT no less!
Re: (Score:2)
True - otherwise the narrative would have just been what the mainstream media set - which has been demonstrated by wikileaks to be controlled (or at least heavily influenced) by the Clintons.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would he want to destroy it. Freedom of the internet is one of the things that got him elected.
Democracy got H*tler elected. So surely he's going to defend it. :P
Re: Hillary wanted to destroy it, not Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? The big news in tech for the next few weeks is "what is Trump going to do about issue X in tech" and you expect slashdot to ignore it?
There are other stories to read and comment on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, regulation limits some freedoms. It's certainly possible for it to unlock more freedoms. For example, the regulation of "don't run red lights" dramatically reduces the risk of collisions, leading to cheaper transportation, and therefore more freedom of travel than the regulation removed.
Re: (Score:2)
I never mentioned safety as a goal. I talked about fewer collisions lowering the costs of travel. Which is totally a thing.
And, they put in roundabouts sometimes. But the space requirements are really prohibitive. The areas where we have tons of space (say the country) they put up a stop sign. The areas with tons of traffic have crazy high property values.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Buzzfeed will tell you what you want to know. [youtube.com] Just know it before those jack booted right-wing death squads come for you.
Re: (Score:2)