Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False (vice.com) 363
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A core Republican talking point during the net neutrality battle was that, in 2015, President Obama led a government takeover of the internet, and Obama illegally bullied the independent Federal Communications Commission into adopting the rules. In this version of the story, Ajit Pai's rollback of those rules Thursday is a return to the good old days, before the FCC was forced to adopt rules it never wanted in the first place. But internal FCC documents obtained by Motherboard using a Freedom of Information Act request show that the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General -- acting on orders from Congressional Republicans -- investigated the claim that Obama interfered with the FCC's net neutrality process and found it was nonsense. This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet, then, was wholly refuted by an independent investigation and its findings were not made public prior to Thursday's vote.
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Motherboard obtained a summary of the Inspector General's report, which has not been released publicly and is marked "Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive Information." After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: "We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process." [...] Since 2014, Republicans have pointed to net neutrality as an idea primarily promoted by President Obama, and have made it another in a long line of regulations and laws that they have sought to repeal now that Donald Trump is president. Prior to this false narrative, though, net neutrality was a bipartisan issue; the first net neutrality rules were put in place under President George W. Bush, and many Republicans worked on the 2015 rules that were just dismantled. What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn't true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet.
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Motherboard obtained a summary of the Inspector General's report, which has not been released publicly and is marked "Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive Information." After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: "We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process." [...] Since 2014, Republicans have pointed to net neutrality as an idea primarily promoted by President Obama, and have made it another in a long line of regulations and laws that they have sought to repeal now that Donald Trump is president. Prior to this false narrative, though, net neutrality was a bipartisan issue; the first net neutrality rules were put in place under President George W. Bush, and many Republicans worked on the 2015 rules that were just dismantled. What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn't true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet.
A politician lied? (Score:5, Funny)
You must be joking! That is unpossible!
Re:A politician lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Facing a corrupt political system with cynical acceptance will change nothing.
When politicians lie, we have to call them out, shout about it and try not to elect them. Resigned acceptance of lying politicians as a fact of life will only make things worse.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A politician lied? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is what is a lie, far righters will claim that Obama lied when he said you can keep your doctor, the rest of us point out that he was telling the truth in the context he was speaking. The problem is that you need to get into the mind of the accused to prove he had intent to lie, and that is damn near impossible.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is what is a lie, far righters will claim that Obama lied when he said you can keep your doctor, the rest of us point out that he was telling the truth in the context he was speaking. The problem is that you need to get into the mind of the accused to prove he had intent to lie, and that is damn near impossible.
The problem is you can't keep up with all the lies. The ones that sound plausible enough are likely to sneak though. Heck even if Obama did push hard for NN, then that would be within the bounds of his job and not really a bad thing, but republicans make it out to be a bad thing.
Obama's one major lie was that you can keep your doctor stuff. Most likely he knew when he was saying it, that if he said, "If you like your insurance then you can keep your insurance as is, if your insurance meets the new minimu
Re:A politician lied? (Score:5, Informative)
Except it wasn't a lie. There was nothing in the bill to prevent the insurance companies from keeping the old plans or just adding new features, and there was nothing in the bill to do anything with doctors at all. He did not lie, its only when you expand the context to absurdity that you can think of it as a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
He did not lie, its only when you expand the context to absurdity that you can think of it as a lie.
I think you mean "reality". Politicians tell lots of different kinds of lies. Sure, sometimes they lie about things they have no intent whatsoever of doing, like draining the swamp or giving a tax cut to the middle class. Sometimes they lie about things they don't really care about, like closing Gitmo. And sometimes they lie about things they can't actually accomplish because they have no control over them, like letting you keep your doctor. All of these things are lies, and when you do any of those things
Re: (Score:2)
So by that definition no one can be trusted since everyone lies at some point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it was. There was a whole class of catastrophic insurance plans which are very popular among those of us who are generally healthy. Those didn't meet his minimum insurance standards, thus they were effectively made illegal. I figured out during that whole time that a lot of people cannot understand the appeal of a catastrophic insurance plan because of the number of people that said losing those was of no issue because they didn't cover anything. I'm sorry, but I'm one of those people who uses those
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I hardly ever go to the doctor, I have a healthy lifestyle and make my own health decisions. I have some manageable chronic ailments but I don't like pharmaceuticals so I use diet and exercise and supplements for the most part. But I want to be protected if I have a trauma or serious illness that needs long-term treatment. Those plans did that. Yes, I pay more for doctor visits and any drugs, so I shop around. You would be amazed at the number of 3rd party pharmaceutical discounts available if you loo
Re: (Score:2)
yes and as big of a fan of NN as I am if the commish made the that comment I could not count it as a lie. A law can only do what it does. A claim of what a law does can only be taken into a context of what the law does. Carriers were already consolidating networks, trying to blame a continuation of this on the ACA is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
They required you to have a plan that had certian things, not that you could not have additional plans for additioanl coverages. also the ACA did not mandate costs to the doctor, just insurance costs.
Besides the doctors issues were rarely becuase of them dropping out, but of the network cutting them.
Re: (Score:2)
in what way am I a "true believer" about the ACA? All I said was the Obama didnt like about being able to keep your doctor, the ACA does not say otherwise
Re:A politician lied? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it was created my Romney, and adapted to the nation as opposed to the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which narrative is this, that Obama lied when he said "you can keep your doctor" or something else? Id so view a few posts below yours...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? Are you not in the US? Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
It was clearly a lie. The statement implies that 100% of people could keep their health care plans, and in fact it was only 98%+ of people. Comparing the scope of Obama's "lie" with the daily rants from the Twit-in-chief is an exercise best left to those with lower blood pressure than I.
Also:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t... [forbes.com]
https://www.gop.com/the-lie-us... [gop.com]
Re:A politician lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, it was technically a lie. What he should've said is "If you like your health care plan, and it passes muster under the new rules, you can keep it". He should've explained why there were going to be new rules - presumably to ensure that all insurance that calls itself a 'health care plan' had to actually provide health care when it was needed.
Now I don't say this as a major fan of Obamacare. I was on it for a while, and it was better than nothing. But it works out as essentially a free annual checkup plus a plan to negotiate discounts with doctors for fees that, unless you get seriously sick, you have to pay out of pocket. And in an emergency, it's real health insurance. That was the best that our political system was able to provide. And truth be told, it was exactly what Republicans claimed to have wanted - before Obama proposed it...
Re: (Score:2)
It was a promise he didn't keep.
Politicians should be punished for not keeping their election promisses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, that's what LGBTQ people want too, and yet there are "conservatives" who want to take away their rights.
Mentally unstable (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When any other person at any other job gets caught doing something similar, they are fired on the spot and told the leave the premises.
In politics it's "well maybe we just won't vote for you in X months/years, if we even remember this action, though if you run unopposed you get off Scott-free"
Re: (Score:3)
A problem with that is often positions of people in power change when they get in power and exposed to the complexities of the actual situation. It is easy to say that you are going to be tough on crime, but then you realize a lot of the criminals are also victims. Or say that we are going stop using Fossil Fuels, however it is still the most energy dense, relativity save, and portable energy source, where it still has its place.
Broad Statements will make you a lair, Complex objective statements makes you
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to agree, but watching the senate race in Alabama. The question to me becomes how bad does a person have to be to cause people to vote against their aligned party? While Doug Jones won, he won by less then 1% against a convicted pedophile? With church ministers standing up for this lowlife. How many traditional values is the population willing to give up, just for their party to win?
Now this will happen in Democratic states too, if a popular politician gets in trouble doing something, there i
Re: A politician lied? (Score:4, Informative)
Moore was not convicted of anything
Re: (Score:2)
You are right...
I meant "accused". I apologize.
Re: A politician lied? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. And this leads to an important point: How much do we believe women?
Eight women accused him of misconduct. He said he did not do it. The only people who would know for sure would be Moore and the 8 accusers.
So we find that for many folks in Alabama, one man is more believable than eight women. So women are, at most, about 12% as believable as men!
This sadly explains a lot about us as a culture.
Re: (Score:3)
This sadly explains a lot about us as a culture.
No, it doesn't, because you've ignored numerous other factors that likely play a bigger role.
Our first tendency as humans is to reject anything that runs contrary to what we believe. As engineers and scientists, many of us (like to think that we) are less susceptible to that tendency than most, but if a normal person has bought into a carefully crafted public persona that a person has maintained for years, whether it's a celebrity, a politician, a journalist, or even just the church-going high school quarte
Re: (Score:2)
Lock him up.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore was not convicted of anything
That is true but then neither was Hillary Clinton but that has not stopped conservative pundits from dragging her into every conversation about the incompetence, hypocrisy and corruption of their leaders and confidently asserting that she is guilty of a long list of crimes as established fact. So you can think of Roy Moore as the liberal's Hillary Clinton, except while Hillary is merely corrupt Roy Moore is also way, way, way more creepy than she could ever hope to be.
Re:A politician lied? (Score:4, Informative)
I would like to agree, but watching the senate race in Alabama. The question to me becomes how bad does a person have to be to cause people to vote against their aligned party? While Doug Jones won, he won by less then 1% against a convicted pedophile? With church ministers standing up for this lowlife. How many traditional values is the population willing to give up, just for their party to win?
Now this will happen in Democratic states too, if a popular politician gets in trouble doing something, there is a huge support network trying to protect him, vilify the accusers and the messengers.
We as a nation can deal with people in power with positions that we don't agree with, however we have lost the feeling that these people are working for their constituents and their prosperity. They are in it for their own personal Ego trip Like President Trump, or for the Party Line like many of the Democratic and GOP Congressmen. This is the real tragedy of our nation. We have moved from debating policy to likability of the person, to general party alliance. So now the people in charge are just playing games with our nation to keep their power, by gerrymandering to keep their power, entertaining media show them that they are indeed pure conservative or pure liberal enough for their base, taking advantage of strongly held minority views to win elections...
I agree with the overall point you are making. Politics and governing should be more than a team sport. But I would also point out that the two parties are not equal here. The Democrats drummed out Al Franken while the Republicans rallied around and defended Moore. Heck, some of them said they believed Moore's accusers, but would vote for him anyway.
I am registered Independent. But from where I sit the Republicans seem much more willing to overlook wrongdoing to gain or maintain power. Donald Trump could never get the Democratic nomination and if he did, the Democrats would not be so negligent in their responsibilities to hold him accountable. The Democrats have their problems and faults, no doubt. But I think the Trump era has really put on full display the fact that the Republicans really only care about power. Literally everything else is secondary.
Re: (Score:2)
But I think the Trump era has really put on full display the fact that the Republicans really only care about power. Literally everything else is secondary.
I would say they only care about power and money. Kind of hard to argue that republicans aren't profit motivated. But to your basic point I agree.
Re: (Score:3)
The odd thing is that Doug Jones won in this reddest of states despite being portrayed as a tool of the dreaded Nancy Peolosi. Trump's pitch was "you need to elect Moore so we can achieve our agenda". I.e., pass the hideous tax 'reform' bill that nobody - presumably even in Alabama - thought was a good piece of legislation, much less a boon for the working class.
So the tragedy to me is that Jones didn't make his campaign about "Okay, Moore is a creep, and you shouldn't vote for him. But beyond that, thin
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Moore was tried in the court of public opinion with the media as his prosecutor. There was no proof of anything nefarious save for the words of someone about something that happened decades ago. Moore's only real transgression is that he is a Republican and that makes him a target. We are going to have to stop listening to sensationalist media if we want our country to survive.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And the fact that he was banned from a shopping mall for macking on little girls. And his autograph on little girls' high school yearbook.
If you're in your thirties and signing a high school girl's yearbook, you better be her teacher and not some pervy lawyer who's into lollies.
Re: (Score:3)
So true, we have become a nation of party over country. I am center left, but wanted our DA (left) to resign after she got caught with a very bad DUI. It was incomprehensible to me that she did not, even knowing the right governor (Perry) would have gotten to choose her replacement. She was not just drunk but belligerent with the officers and kept saying "Do you know who I am?". Video went nationwide. I've wondered if part of this is due to sports, where "my team" must win at all costs even if "my team" con
Re: (Score:3)
That was a mistype on my part
I meant "accused". I apologize.
Re: (Score:3)
All politicians lie, because all *people* lie. But that doesn't make everyone equally honest. Nor are politicians equally dishonest.
The highest degree of honesty consistent with success as a politician is what I call the prosecutorial standard. At a trial a prosecutor is actually expected to omit facts that might weaken his case (lies of omission). He is expected to present facts in an unfairly damning light (lies by equivocation).But he's not allowed to outright fabricate evidence. That would be a crim
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK a defense barrister must excuse themselves from the case if they know the party they are defending to be guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of words for saying "scientists want to have truth, everyone else just wants to be right".
Right versus "right" (Score:2)
That's a lot of words for saying "scientists want to have truth, everyone else just wants to be right".
You forgot the air quotes around "right".
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, how about
"Scientists want to have truth, everyone else just wants to have it their way"?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists don't deal with truth, they deal with evidence. If you don't understand that, you don't understand science.
Re: (Score:2)
True, true...
Re: (Score:2)
Experience has shown, actually.
I've worked with many scientists, helping them prepare proposals and in some cases even draft responses to peer reviews. Never do they invoke anything like the concept of truth.
In science closest thing to "truth" you have "consensus", but it functions very differently in reasoning. Contradicting the truth means you're wrong, end of story. Contradicting consensus means you carry a burden of proof.
Re:Why neutrality for only 3 of the 7 OSI layers? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I would actually agree with you, this would probably just drive these companies out of the US. With nothing accomplished aside of jobs in the US being lost.
The main difference is that I cannot choose to use an ISP in, say, Norway, where there are rather cheap and fast internet connections available. On the other hand, it's trivial for Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to shut down their US business and move to any country offering them to do business as they please because on the internet it simply does not matter where your server is located.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically trivial perhaps.
However, there -are- alternatives to the major social media services these guys don't want evolving into real threats. Usually these are reactionary to the objectionable actions (privacy ignoring, arbitrary and capricious, politically biased, news manipulation, blah blah) of the Facebooks and Twitters.
Shutting down US operations to relocate elsewhere would be a Godsend to those niche alternative platforms (even if they aren't US centric themselves.)
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down US operations doesn't change anything. Do you really think Joe Randomsurfer cares whether Facebook has its servers in the US, Russia, China or Generistan?
Re: (Score:2)
So what, 99% of what we do today is very un-American. Why is it suddenly a problem but it was none when state-sponsored monopolies for ISPs were installed? When governments deliberately and forcefully kept others from entering the market? When corporations buy laws that enshrine their market position and ensure they can keep gouging customers because no competition may emerge? That's not un-American?
Re: (Score:2)
There are such things as natural monopolies - and the last mile of internet connectivity is a pretty good candidate. Getting those wires to homes involves digging up streets and/or stringing wires. Cable TV providers were coaxed into wiring whole cities with the promise of that monopoly, and with those cables already in place, they became a natural candidate for providing broadband internet.
Even in a city as big as New York (where I have my choice among 3 cable companies - because I live in a building wit
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately it ain't THAT bad for Europe where there are actually uncapped mobile plans... but not the bandwidth required to make this feasible because even though NGMS promises data rates of 100mbit and more, the bandwidth simply isn't there. In other words, yes, you can transmit 100mbit... if you're the only one. On a cellphone network, you probably usually aren't. And certainly not in New York.
There also is a limit to how many transmitters you can put into a certain area, at some point they start to inte
Re: (Score:2)
There are such things as natural monopolies - and the last mile of internet connectivity is a pretty good candidate.
For now it is, sure, since you need fiber or cable for decent broadband connection that isn't metered. I won't be the case at all in a few years, when 5G rolls out...
Re: (Score:3)
What I acknowledge is what I can see, that is every time someone tries to create competition for the entrenched ISPs you can see them go to their government hos and buy some new laws to ensure that competition does not see the light of day.
Re: Why neutrality for only 3 of the 7 OSI layers? (Score:2)
This is dumb and you should feel dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
So I've read the gp's comment, which presents some interesting ideas in a civilized and intelligent manner. I've also read your comment, which is nothing more than a petty, childish insult that's completely void of any real substance. The gp's argument is far more convincing than yours is. The pure hostility you show toward a very reasonable set of ideas additionally makes me think that the gp is correct.
I would advise you to not to base your opinion of an idea on the attitude and tone of its detractors. It is possible for two sides of an argument to both be wrong.
That said, the problem with the GP's reasoning is that he is conflating the transmission of content from one node to another with the display of that content on a node. It's like saying that if we allow all trucks to drive on a road, we must require all businesses to sell whatever the trucks deliver. They are separate issues, but the GP does no
Re:Why neutrality for only 3 of the 7 OSI layers? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are called an ISP then you should only be responsible for the level 1-3. The hire levels 4-7 are outside of the domain, and in general do not require the same level of infrastructure support. Slashdot can moderate down or even delete my comment so it isn't read, even if my comment was legal. Because I am able to post my view in an other forum, or in general being able make my own site relatively inexpensively.
Today for the ISP we are limited in choices, hence why Net Neutrality is important. In my area I have 3 options, Cable (Spectrum) and Cell Wireless (AT&T and Verizon). In my home Cell coverage is spotty so I only have one real option. All three of these ISP sources have interests in additional services that compete against other services which do not own the infrastructure to be an ISP, and many of the ones who can may not be able to get past the local monopolies to implement.
If I don't like Facebook, Google or Slashdot. I can use an other service. If I don't like my ISP well I am kinda stuck, if my ISP says I shouldn't use a service then I may not be able to do so.
That is the real danger. At the moment the ISP are saying they are not planning on blocking anything, or throttling down anything. But they put in a lot of political capital to get this removed... Which make me wonder why the effort if they are not planning to do something.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment the ISP are saying they are not planning on blocking anything, or throttling down anything. But they put in a lot of political capital to get this removed... Which make me wonder why the effort if they are not planning to do something.
All they really spent was some money. Political capital doesn't mean as much as it used to. Used to politicians at least had to pass the "what have you done for me lately" test to stay in office, but in today's hyper partisan climate the only test that matters is what letter comes after your last name. To merge an old analogy with a Douglas Adams quote: the foxes have gotten the chickens to elect a fox to guard the henhouse because they don't want to pick the wrong fox and at least he is their fox.
Re: (Score:3)
Since you are already modded up to 5, I'll reply in verbal support. The OSI stack is more of an abstraction after the first 3.5 layers -- the top three layers are all about the software that uses the network, not the network per se, and honestly I think that the idea of applying "net neutrality" to the application, presentation, and session layers is an absurdity as they have never really been a "networking" issue but more a matter of choice of software design at the two ends of the connection. For exampl
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Layers 4-7 are implemented by the communication endpoints and simply turn the raw data stream into something useful - 4-6 are typically implemented at the network card driver or operating system level, and I've not heard *any* claims about anything non-neutral about them. If you can successfully establish a communications link with a server, then Layers 1-7 have all done their job.
Even layer 7, the Application layer, has nothing to do with the applications themselves - it's simp
Re: (Score:2)
Well this is rich, now conservatives are backing a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet as a form of net neutrality!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fortunately not living in the US. The US is a one party dictatorship with The Party acting as if it was two separate parties so they can play the divide & conquer game.
Re:A politician lied? (Score:4, Insightful)
And Obama didn't influence the FCC at all, eh?
That's not what they said. What they said was that there was no improper influence.
Anything tied to Obama is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can play the political fill-in-the-blank game, too.
Trump's defeat of Hillary Clinton in the Presidential election virtually guaranteed Obama would remain the partisan figurehead of revulsion for the right, but she would've sufficed just as well had she been a little more electable.
In the same breath, Teddy Cruz would be just as repulsive to the left. Without some incentive to come toward the middle of the road by the vast majority who make up the duopoly, it's amazingly simple to disarm the democracy.
Re:Anything tied to Obama is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
While that has been true to some extent, it has never been so ridiculous as it has been now. Basically from the moment Obama got elected, the republican party went nuts. The first sign of problems was the Tea Party and now we have a Trump presidency. Even ignoring Trump, the republican primaries had quite a few crazies overshadowing reasonable candidates.
George W. Bush had one huge screw up and very likely corruption at the heart of why (Iraq) and I would argue a bit weak and mostly had shots called by others in his administration, but the party in general was a bit more reasonable. McCain was a very good candidate and I wouldn't have minded the least if he won. Romney was out of touch and a weak candidate, but even then I wouldn't have been *too* concerned.
I don't know if it was racism reaction to a not quite fully white president or an inevitable reaction to the economy collapsing or some combination of both, but something started stirring in the republican party in 2009 that was just nasty. Combine that with a weak candidate that also triggers the frothing anti-clinton and anti-woman factions, while also pissing off democrats by doing unfair things to Sanders and we got Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it was racism reaction to a not quite fully white president or an inevitable reaction to the economy collapsing or some combination of both, but something started stirring in the republican party in 2009 that was just nasty. Combine that with a weak candidate that also triggers the frothing anti-clinton and anti-woman factions, while also pissing off democrats by doing unfair things to Sanders and we got Trump.
The populous is reactionary. It takes at least 2 years for a Presidents fiscal policies to show any effect, but the media often paints it as "National debt hits new peak in Obama administration". Bush spent billions (trillions?) on an unpopular war. Yet Obama is the bad guy because he got the bill, nevermind the guy that at the lobster and forgot his wallet.
There is always a spin on the story, always something that pisses off someone. Here's hoping the Net Neutrality debate stops the public from fighting it
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians know all this and ignore it. When spending AKA borrowing, was increasing to near-WWII levels per capita, in good times, people wondered what would happen in the case of war or recession (or both). Clearly something would have to give.
Nope! Heave it all onto the debt.
Re: (Score:3)
The first presidential election I can remember is Nixon-Humphrey. Having observed the Republican Party for decades now, he biggest change in the party came with the post-Nixon absorption of the Dixiecrats. And the big new thing they brought into the Republican Party wasn't racism, it was the kind of romanticism that makes nostalgia for the Confederacy possible.
Prior to the Southern Strategy the ideology of the Republican Party was Burkean Conservatism, a kind of hard-headed skepticism of far-fetched idea
Re:Anything tied to Obama is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
While that has been true to some extent, it has never been so ridiculous as it has been now. Basically from the moment Obama got elected, the republican party went nuts. The first sign of problems was the Tea Party and now we have a Trump presidency. Even ignoring Trump, the republican primaries had quite a few crazies overshadowing reasonable candidates.
George W. Bush had one huge screw up and very likely corruption at the heart of why (Iraq) and I would argue a bit weak and mostly had shots called by others in his administration, but the party in general was a bit more reasonable. McCain was a very good candidate and I wouldn't have minded the least if he won. Romney was out of touch and a weak candidate, but even then I wouldn't have been *too* concerned.
I don't know if it was racism reaction to a not quite fully white president or an inevitable reaction to the economy collapsing or some combination of both, but something started stirring in the republican party in 2009 that was just nasty. Combine that with a weak candidate that also triggers the frothing anti-clinton and anti-woman factions, while also pissing off democrats by doing unfair things to Sanders and we got Trump.
It is impossible to ignore that racism played a significant role in whatever happened to the GOP. Full disclosure. I voted for McCain in 2008. A lot of Republicans did, and had nothing to do with Obama being black.
But right after the election, I could not believe my eyes, my ears, to see so much nasty racism coming out the closets all of the sudden. That was my turning point when I started to move away from the GOP.
The reality is this, for a good segment of the population, say 20%, it is racial resentment (I don't know about fucking what, though.) It is a resentment that goes like this: "I have nothing because some blacks and homosexual illegal mexican muslims from China are living in welfare." Do not laugh at it. You know there is a lot of people that think like that.
They bitch about not having jobs, but don't move to where the jobs are. As Mike Rove from "Dirty Jobs" put it, they want the perfect job right in their towns (when the solution is to be like a Mexican and move to where the jobs are, abandoning everything if they must.) And they cannot tolerate the notion that somewhere a poor household where both parents are working multiple part-time jobs might need some help to stay afloat.
THAT'S WELFARE. IT BELONGS TO ME.
So, in essence, this incredibly virulent minority voted in 2016 hoping for what it is, in essence, a Herrenvolk Welfare State. Sure, some minorities jumped into this idiotic choo choo train (or some people who aren't racists looked the other way because they hated HRC's guts.) But it doesn't change the fact that what these people want, and what Trump has implicitly promised, is that: a Herrenvolk Welfare State.
They ain't gonna get that shit, and in fact, they will be hurt the most with these new policies. I for one will not shed a tear. Let people reap what they sow.
Re:Anything tied to Obama is bad (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yes, let's - you first. Which post is modded insightful?
The one that hews more closely to objective reality, frankly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the narrative that the dems are trying to get people to believe.
And yet, even though it's true, there are plenty of idiots who don't believe it.
What is more shocking? (Score:3)
I am unsure what rattles me more... that a politician would lie or that a republican would lie about the Obama administration...
This is daft (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're not going to find evidence of "collusion" between the White House and the FCC, and no, that does not contradict the claim that the Obama administration got the FCC to pass net neutrality. Net neutrality was a huge goal of the Obama administration and a very big political win for them. It IS possible, you know, for like-minded people to work independently towards a common goal. I've heard that happens from time to time.
And, by the way, can we save everyone a huge amount of time and wasted expense and just assume that we won't find any evidence of "collusion" between this White House and the hacking of the DNC email servers or the purchase of Facebook advertisements? And, can we also just admit that like-minded people can be working independently towards a common goal in THIS instance, too?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not going to find evidence of "collusion" between the White House and the FCC, and no, that does not contradict the claim that the Obama administration got the FCC to pass net neutrality. Net neutrality was a huge goal of the Obama administration and a very big political win for them. It IS possible, you know, for like-minded people to work independently towards a common goal. I've heard that happens from time to time.
And, by the way, can we save everyone a huge amount of time and wasted expense and just assume that we won't find any evidence of "collusion" between this White House and the hacking of the DNC email servers or the purchase of Facebook advertisements? And, can we also just admit that like-minded people can be working independently towards a common goal in THIS instance, too?
Politics are 90% theatrics and 10% actual work.
Re:This is daft (Score:5, Insightful)
those two narratives are completely unrelated. In one instance you have an ex president saying that he thinks the FCC should protect net neutrality, but that it was ultimately their decision. No emails or personal communications found to exist, just that comment.
On the other hand we have a current president who calls the FBI director in to talk to him personally and suggests "maybe you could just let it go" referring to the investigation into Flynn
Those two things are as far apart ethically as any political situation I can imagine
Re: (Score:2)
And, by the way, can we save everyone a huge amount of time and wasted expense and just assume that we won't find any evidence of "collusion" between this White House and the hacking of the DNC email servers or the purchase of Facebook advertisements?
No. Not until we stop finding more evidence of collusion with Russia in the Trump administration will we be able to stop suspecting that we will find still more after that.
The enemy is us: the Partisans. (Score:4, Insightful)
Both major US parties use the same siren song. On the right: "That's what Obama wanted!" On the left: That's what Trump is doing!"
The power brokers now have the ability to galvanize a large portion of the population with a few key buzzwords. It's a lot more work to remain undecided.
Re:The enemy is us: the Partisans. (Score:5, Insightful)
This 'both sides' argument is getting to be a bit of a tired trope.
It's obvious which party is on the side of big telecom and which is on the side of the consumers here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go look at how the two parties actually vote in different questions.
The parties aren't the same and one of them is consistently trying to screw over the people.
(I'm not telling you which one, go and see how they vote instead of looking at what they say.)
A more core point (Score:3, Interesting)
A more common point that I see is that we didn't have net neutrality until 2015. Not only was the net effectively neutral (most of the time) prior to that, the dial-up internet of the dotcom era was regulated similarly, and even had leasing requirements that meant multiple options and some real semblance of competition. The change from that regime happened with cable and DSL, which were less regulated, but still neutral, until the actions from ISPs that prompted the 2015 rules out of necessity.
So, the actual timeline was: Neutral internet->Deregulated broadband->Dickish ISP behavior->Fixing dickish ISP behavior by re-regulating->Re-deregulating broadband.
Re:A more core point (Score:4, Insightful)
This feels like the lead up to the financial collapse too...
dickish behavior by banks->economic collapse because of it-> regulation of banks to prevent dickish behavior-> de-regulation of banks -> dickish behavior by banks -> economic collapse.... wash rinse repeat...
Though our next economic collapse is because of dickship behavior on the part of congress.... (I'd blame the president for signing the bill into law, but we all know he can't be expected to read or understand a bill put on his desk to sign, congress should know that doubly well.)
Re:A more core point (Score:4, Insightful)
Good points. It was really the whole shakedown of content providers like Netflix and others for daring to make money selling content to Verizon and Comcast customers that was the impetus... as-if those customers that were paying Verizon, Comcast and Netflix somehow needed to be protected by the ISPs from accessing the content they paid for without paying for bandwidth twice.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the actual timeline was: Neutral internet->2005 Net Neutrality Regulation->Verizon lawsuit (successful in 2014)->Deregulated broadband->Dickish ISP behavior->Fixing dickish ISP behavior by re-regulating->Re-deregulating broadband.
FTFY. The time span of deregulated broadband was actually less than 2 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Let Ajit Pai know how "thankful" you are (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
- If just having your "real name" online means your identify will get stolen then nobody should use Linkedin, right (or better yet, whitepages.com)?
- If someone values their Internet freedoms enough to risk identity theft, that does not make them suckers or vermin. That makes them true patriots. .
- Your "warning" seems more like a threat? Are you a paid astro-turfer or simply a coward who is trying to reduce their coward guilt?
Title should be "Republican Narrative is False" (Score:4, Informative)
Absence of proof... (Score:3)
But absence of proof is not proof of absence.
The OIG report didn't debunk the suspicion that Obama had undue influence on the FCC's processes. They simply didn't come across any proof of it in the email records kept by the FCC. They did, though, restate that Wheeler and the president had had conversations about topics like this.
So it still leaves unexplained the FCC's decision to make such a sudden break with longstanding, bipartisan, and legal consensus that the Internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
Re:Absence of proof... (Score:5, Informative)
So it still leaves unexplained the FCC's decision to make such a sudden break with longstanding, bipartisan, and legal consensus that the Internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
No, it doesn't. First, there was no longstanding consensus that the internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
But, if you've been following this from the time before the FCC decision, you'll see that there is no mystery here at all. Here's the synopsis for you, but I encourage you to actually research the history of all of this.
1) ISPs began to abuse their position by unfairly interfering with internet traffic.
2) The FCC stepped in to try to stop it.
3) ISPs took it to court.
4) The court said the FCC didn't have the authority to stop the abuse because ISPs weren't categorized as common carriers by the FCC.
5) The FCC changed how they categorized ISPs so that they could put a stop to future abuse.
There's zero mystery here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, she won the popular vote. And Trump is President. What's your point exactly for justification?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the moronic majority votes for them, they in a sense are doing what the public wants. Not saying this is good, but a majority of the voters is inflicting Republicans on themselves without good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not a majority. Trump got millions of votes fewer than Clinton. Congressional House Republicans got 6 million fewer votes than Congressional Democrats. Republican senators got millions of fewer votes than Democratic senators.
In the United States we are not governed by the party that gets the most votes. In fact, we are governed entirely by the party that got fewer votes.
https://www [usatoday.com]