FCC Chairman Slams Trump Team's Proposal To Nationalize 5G (axios.com) 248
The Federal Communications Commission's Republican chairman on Monday opposed a plan under consideration by the Trump White House to build a 5G mobile network, nationalizing what has long been the role of private wireless carriers like AT&T and Verizon. From the report: "I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network," he said. The FCC's reaction doesn't bode well for the proposal the Trump administration is considering, first reported by Axios on Sunday night, since it's one of the main government agencies when it comes to wireless issues.
Killing Net Neutrality was fine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
because it filled their wallets. This takes money off the table. Whoops.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep.
That Ajit Pai opposes this proposal is, prima facie, a strong argument in favor of having the government own the network and only rent its use to the cellular carriers.
Because, with that swine, it's always Opposite Day ...
Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A government monopoly means that you have some say in what goes on in a democracy. Vs. a Corporate monopoly where your only action is to not purchase it, and being a monopoly you will not have competing products to choose from.
Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine.... (Score:5, Interesting)
More importantly than anything it segregates the infrastructure from the service. A government run infrastructure would sell access to telecommunication companies to handle the calls. You'd have dozens of choices of telecom providers with different service offerings.
Government run infrastructure in natural monopolies is always the best solution. In fact government owned with yearly bidding on maintaining and running the system would be even better with all costs rolled into the access fee's charged to telecom providers. We'd have 100% national coverage and multiple providers in every area instead of the current system where rural people get the choice of verizon or verizon.
Re: (Score:2)
A government run infrastructure would sell access to telecommunication companies to handle the calls. You'd have dozens of choices of telecom providers with different service offerings.
You have this already, no government required. Anybody can call up one of the four major US carriers (if they have the money) and become a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) that buys wholesale airtime and resells it. You have dozens of those out there - Cricket, Tracfone, Straight Talk, MetroPCS, Project Fi, Ting, Virgin Mobile, etc. Maybe you don't like the existing options, but there's no reason that having the government in that business would necessarily increase the number of MVNOs out there.
The f
Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Government run infrastructure in natural monopolies is always the best solution.
As a card carrying lefty, I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, all monopolies have a tendency to stagnate, and public services are no exception to that. The definitive answer has rarely been simply nationalising/privatising the service, the subsequent monopoly eventually leads us back to where we started.
Big organisations have a habit of falling into bureaucratic ruts that are resistant to change. Some form of competition is needed to pressure them to continue to innovate & improve efficiency.
In our modern capitalist economies, there seems to be a universal cycle:
1. Government creates public infrastructure X that works well & supplies for the population's needs at a reasonable cost;
2. After a number of years, the public infrastructure lacks sufficient improvement and/or bureaucracy becomes a huge drag with no incentive to streamline. Service improvements stagnate & administration costs spiral out of control;
3. The public become disillusioned with the public service & cry for competition;
4. The public infrastructure is privatised to incentivise competition;
5. Competition drives innovation & improved efficiencies;
6. The "winner" eventually becomes a monopoly, kills off competition through sheer market dominance, surpassing the need pressures to innovate, and uses its position in the market to gauge its customers;
7. The public become disillusioned with the high costs & poor service, & demand government intervention with the renationalisation of the service.
Rail, post, utilities, you name it. It's the same story, again & again.
It's a constant battle between monopolies' economies of scale versus the competitive pressure to constantly innovate.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds an awful lot like the way wireless spectrum is handled by the FCC actually. We are at this proposal because of how terrible and monopolized that industry is.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, subsidize loses, privatize profits. The US tax payer will fund the roll out of this network. It will then be chopped up and the different regions will be sold to small regional private companies for pennies on the dollar. And those small regional companies will be purchased by AT&T, Verizon, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Close. It will be built at government expense and access will be licensed only on a nationwide basis, for an amount that barely covers the infrastructure costs over a period of time. This ensures that all four of the major cellular providers can afford to use it, but that the price for access remains out of reach for smaller companies, who will be forced to continue being MVNOs for one of the four major cellular providers. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
That's why the United States is a representative republic, not a pure democracy.
This is grammar school level basics of U.S. gov't....
Re: (Score:2)
Democratic Republic. We elect our representatives. But they don't represent us, but rather their rightful masters, the corporations, unions, PACs and so on.
Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the transmission layer of the network, even a wireless network, is a natural monopoly. In such a case it does make sense to have the government running it...you aren't going to get much competition anyway. *Somebody's* going to be controlling it.
Compare the current situation with the original situation, where the phone company supplied the wires and the connection, and any group that wanted to could start up an ISP. Then there was real competition between the ISPs. Now? But competition at the physical level is impractical. So the physical layer should be handled by a "public utility". The problem is, I'd really like it to be isolated from government control.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for a private company, just so long as it is a non-profit and the board and executives are barred from any subsequent employment or engagement by any organization which has any affiliation or significant funding/profit from any sort of communications company. This includes after they leave and should be handled like trust law where the courts disregard any sort o
Re: (Score:2)
The most obvious solution to having the best of both worlds is multiple competing government programs who must offer good deals, or get reamed out and restructured by congress... with lots of firing in the least productive one after some predetermined review period expires. Sort of like a certain reality TV show... oh what was the name of it... just can't seem to remember. But that policy cannot sell, because unlike in the private sector, once the government gets involved, "redundancy" suddenly becomes a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you failed to answer the question, you brain-dead fool. All you did was throw up a strawman.
Considering his post was nearly identical to you, every bit of criticism you gave him also applies to your argument. If your only argument is that government shouldn't be trusted because it has done bad things, then it is no better than saying private companies shouldn't be trusted because they have done bad things. His implied point is that both private and public entities do bad things, so your argument is moot.
Most people agree that a competitive environment is best, a government monopoly is worse but sometimes necessary, and a corporate monopoly is the worst possible option. What many disagree on is what it takes to maintain a competitive environment and whether or not one can realistically exist for all industries.
A disagreement on this topic can be had without the type of inflammatory language you are using.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
logical fear of government monopoly? (Score:3)
which once brought us the Bell System and, in compensation, the Bell System funded Bell Labs. It was run by people who believed in the mission and the service to the country. Those used to be called "captains of industry" and they took their multiple responsibilities seriously.
underlying reasons: espionage (Score:2)
No, because the internet will be run per the NSA's, not TSA's, direction, and they are substantially more skilled and capable.
All along in this discussion, people are ignoring the reality underneath this move. There is now substantial evidence that deep and sophisticated hardware backdoors have been inserted by Chinese intelligence into the chips at the fabrication and design level and these are in operat
Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns. (Score:5, Funny)
At least it's consistent with his usual positions of "Less governement".
Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe. It is also consistent with his positions of being a tool of the telecoms. Or maybe he's holding out for a higher bid for his "services".
Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure why it is funny. But Trumps only policy is what seems to Trump up Trump. He isn't a conservative or liberal, he is Trump who just wants himself to look good. He will stick with the people who likes him and complements him, and will betray anyone who makes him seem less then he thinks he is.
This makes him easily manipulative. I have worked with personalities like this in the past, just as long as you weather the temper-tantrums, you can get the person to do whatever you want.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the "his" in the original post was referring to Pai, not Trump, though now I can see the irony in the latter
Re: (Score:2)
Lets be fair here. My post shouldn't had been Modded +5 Insightful.
It was somewhat offtopic.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your psychoanalysis of a man you've never met and don't actually know beyond a newspaper byline is interesting and all, but I don't see what it has to do with my comment about Ajit Pai.
Trump's behavior is a well-documented matter of public record that's been effusive throughout the public sphere, making your challenging the ability to do so dubious, but the fact that Trump himself adamantly insisted upon us doing so, makes your objection even more of a fraudulent pretense. Combined with your inability to see the reflection upon Trump, well, it's quite obvious you're a Stalwart, and a True believer, so you'll reject anything that challenges you devotional paradigm.
Do keep pretending you'r
Re: (Score:2)
as you weather the temper-tantrums, you can get the person to do whatever you want.
Putin knew that going in.
And he got what he wanted.
Or perhaps Putin has leverage over Trump.
We're all still waiting to see Trump's tax returns.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps he was instructed to do this.
Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish Pai had a consistent ideological belief... (Score:2)
... in free markets.
If he was against Title II net neutrality, and also against competition-limiting state and local regulations, that would be globally consistent.
The FCC has the power to strike down anti-competitive local/state regulations.
The only reason I can see for them not doing that would be regulatory capture by the telecom industry.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel free markets are good when there's enough elasticity in the market for good old-fashioned supply and demand to function correctly.
A brilliant explanation of free-enterprise in comix form:
http://economixcomix.com/Econo... [economixcomix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns. (Score:5, Interesting)
Electricity is a good example. When it was first developed, nobody knew if AC or DC was better for long-distance transmission. Edison (DC) and Westinghouse/Tesla (AC) built competing electrical systems - entire cities were wired up with AC or DC electricity. Since the government didn't know which was better either, the smart thing for it to do was to stay out of it and not try to regulate it.* Both systems competed, and it soon became clear that AC was superior. Pretty soon all electrical systems were AC, and that's when the government stepped in and converted it into a utility. Your local power company built, owns, and maintains the wires. But in most jurisdictions you can purchase your power from any number of electricity providers. Those providers pay the owner of the wires a fixed rate, set by the local or state's public utilities commission.
* GSM is a good example of how to screw this up. The EU government regulated too quickly when it developed GSM and mandated it as the standard all EU phone companies had to adopt. GSM was based on TDMA - each phone took turns talking to the tower. That worked fine in low-bandwidth applications like voice, but once cellular data became the hot commodity, it was terrible. GSM wasted data bandwidth by allocating it to phones which didn't some or all of it. Fortunately the US didn't adopt GSM and let cell phone companies come up with their own systems. A few tried CDMA - each phone transmits simultaneously, and the tower tells them apart via orthogonal coding (kinda like writing on a sheet of paper, then turning it 90 degrees and writing on it some more - the letters are orthogonal enough that you can distinguish the vertical ones from the horizontal ones). With CDMA, each phone sees the transmissions of the other phones as noise, which raises the noise floor and reduces the signal to noise ratio, automatically dividing the available data bandwidth between all transmitting phones. It completely blew GSM out of the water. Enough so that within a year GSM threw in the towel and was amended to include wideband CDMA for data [wikiwand.com]. That's why CDMA networks got 3G data about a year before GSM networks. That's why GSM phones could talk and use data at the same time - they had a TDMA radio for voice, and a second CDMA radio for data. CDMA phones only had a single radio for both voice and data.
So 5G is a good candidate for converting the cellular network into the utility model.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing market fragmentation with competition. The two are actually mutually exclusive. Using the same standard means you can buy one phone and change carriers freely at any time, which is a prerequisite to any meaningful competition.
There was a small amount of competition at the chipset m
Re: (Score:2)
DC is actually much better for long distance transmission at high voltage but they didn't have the tech at the time to do the voltage conversion but AC was easily converted with transformers so it won out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
“He” is Ajit Pai (Score:5, Informative)
Just thought I’d mention it since the editors didn’t...
Re:"He" is Ajit Pai (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worth mentioning to drive home the point that he works for the telecom cartel and not DJT.
While the WH was definitely on-side with the Net Neutrality debate, it'll be interesting to see Trump's Twitter reaction to this news (assuming Fox tells him what to think about it first). I mean, this will have to look like disloyalty to him, right? I wonder how he'll blame Obama or Hillary for this betrayal?
Re:"He" is Ajit Pai (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple, he will blame Obama for appointing Pai.
Re:"He" is Ajit Pai (Score:4, Informative)
Obama: "Mitch (McConnell), I am required to select a Republican to the FCC. Who do you want me to appoint?"
McConnell: "My choice is Ajit Pai."
Obama: "Okay, I appoint Ajit Pai to the FCC."
Re:"He" is Ajit Pai (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that's what happened.
But do you think that the fact that Pai was McConnell's choice will stop Trump from blaming Obama for Pai's appointment?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And, that's really the most interesting part.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, thanks for mentioning Herostratus' name
Re: (Score:3)
This goes against my rule of judging each situation based on the merits of that situation and not because I simply don't like some one. But I'm of the strong option if Ajit Pai is against something then I'm all for it. I really can't tell if this man is a idiot, just a tool of the telecom industry, or both. Safe bet is probably both.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, my comment was 100% about the badly-written summary. I don't currently hold a strong opinion on whether a nationalized 5G network makes sense... I haven't put much thought into it.
The FCC shouldn't have a position on this (Score:5, Insightful)
This just comes to show.... the FCC is in the Pockets of the corporate monopolies who are scared of potential competition.
The FCC's job is to be a neutral technical regulator for spectrum and consumer protection --- having a national 5G network would not adversly affect the FCC's ability to do their job, so why are they even commenting?
I can think of only one reason.... the commission is attempting to leverage the fallacy that they are experts in matters of commerce and infrastructure investment to push the administration in the direction of the political goals of their past and future employers: The largest cable companies and Telcos.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Ajit Pai was making an official "FCC" statement here but a personal/professional statement on the issue (given that he IS head of the FCC)
Re: (Score:2)
It's all f**ked. Thanks for noticing.
Re:The FCC shouldn't have a position on this (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, I was against a national 5G network when it was suggested, but if Ajit says it's a bad idea, I'm all for it. Fuck that guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all sure I'm for it anyway. Is it really practical? But the physical layer of the network *is* a natural monopoly, and should therefore be run by *some* part of the government. I'd prefer a utility commission...and I'd prefer that all members of the commission and executives be forbidden from accepting any remuneration from anyone even remotely connected with the industry they are regulating not only while they are serving on the commission, but for the rest of their lives. This might mean th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty far libertarian, but there are things that should be public goods. Transportation and communication methods are some of those. They need to be legislated to remain freely accessible so that corporations can't intrude upon the natural freedom to communicate and travel freely. "It's not censorship if it's a company doing it" is a poor excuse if a company is the only way to communicate using the current communication technology.
Also, GPS was done by the government and look at the explosion of innova
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure that the government would never turn over all personal information without a warrant to the ... government.
Sounds like Lenin's wet dream. A conduct for for all information which the government has total control over. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
What fantasy world do you live in where cellular carriers aren't regularly and enthusiastically turning over data to the government?
Re: (Score:2)
You need to re-read the part that says "without a warrant"... Of course carriers hand over data when they receive a warrant for it, I would.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is unbelievably easy to get plus we have no idea how much permanent ingress is allowed to the government or what data is just sent over regularly.
I don't think a common wireless utility (simply running the spectrum + backhaul) would be any less subject to the thin barrier of warrants or any less compromised than the major carriers already are.
The consumer benefit so greatly outweighs the "muh gubmint" risk.
Re: (Score:2)
As I under stood PRISM, it was only connected in ways that allowed the collection of call data as it traversed to/from foreign soil. Only calls that originated or terminated on foreign soil where subject to monitoring. Domestic to domestic call could not be collected.. Also, I thought the program was officially ended.
As I understand the law here, data collection on foreign targets who are on foreign soil is NOT subject to search warrants. However, callers located on US soil ARE afforded the protections
Re: (Score:2)
We already have a federal postal system which seems perfectly capable of honoring warrants while not opening every package to spy on people. And unlike like the postal system, individual can choose to use encryption to circumvent any content monitoring.
Besides, it's naive to think AT&T would not turn your secrets over to the government if asked [wikipedia.org]
And AT&T has done such a good job (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If fears of Trumpnet 5G is what gets you to finally start moving everything to darknets and looking harder at key exchange for things that can't go to darknets, that can only be a good thing.
By the time you think you're ready to tunnel through Trumpnet in 2022, you'll finally be ready to deal with the realities of 2002 Internet.
my brain exploded (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Trump and the FCC chairman. How do I know which to oppose on this? ;)
I hate neither, but you beat me to archly pointing out that heads like yours would explode, lol
Re: (Score:2)
Tribalism (Score:2)
Politics is not i-hate-that-guy-thus-everything-he-says.
Sorry but for a lot of people it is exactly that sort of tribal us-vs-them mentality. How else do you explain so much of they idiocy that goes on today? Religious disputes are almost always tribalism run amok. We see political parties oppose legislation that was their own idea simply because the other team tried to pass it. We see people acting against their own objective self interest just because the other party says it's a good idea. I agree that this is a monumentally stupid way to view the world b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? I thought this was a Slashdot post involving Trump.
Go figure (Score:5, Insightful)
A lawyer for Verizon would oppose nationalizing part of Verizon's business.
As much as I think ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And this includes building systems in poorly covered areas where private capital doesn't see the ROI to justify the service.
If I make a conscious choice to live out in the sticks, that choice has pluses and minuses attached to it just like any other lifestyle choice.
I have no right to demand that you subsidize my choice by building out cell infrastructure to reach my preferred location than I do the other
Re: (Score:2)
I'll add 2 more.
I may need to put in propane if I want "natural gas" for cooking.
I may need a backup gen as power is less reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I considered going down the electricity route -- on top of reliability, power companies generally will only run a line/meter so far into a property and beyond that you're on your own for installation/maintenance. But apart from that, I think electrical coverage is a lot more comprehensive these days than water/sewer/cable so I feared that would end up turning into a sideshow. Given the general tone of the rest of the responses so far, it probably didn't matter one way or the other....
Re: (Score:3)
What you do have a right to do is initiate a conversation about whether it would be a net benefit for the country to have everyone connected through cell service or whatever.
This is what happened when the country decided to connect most everyone to the electrical grid and the telephone network, not to mention the postal network way back.
Re: (Score:2)
What you do have a right to do is initiate a conversation about whether it would be a net benefit for the country to have everyone connected through cell service or whatever.
Of course. But that's not what OP was doing, as you know.
Re: (Score:2)
And this includes building systems in poorly covered areas where private capital doesn't see the ROI to justify the service.
Why a half-assed solution? Either you are okay with government intervention and you nationalize everything, or you let the "invisible hand of the free market" coming up with a solution.
Having the government taking care only of poorly covered areas ends up costing more to the tax-payer, since it cannot use profits from high-ROI areas to subsidize other places. And it also means that users in dense areas pay twice: once for themselves through their contract with telecom companies, and once for people in less-
Of course he'll slam it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The gubmint needs ... (Score:2)
... a whole new internet that is air-gapped from the current one that's connected to the whole fucking planet.
Is this really a SLAM? (Score:2)
I just read axios' mission statement, about not injecting hyperbole. But if this is a "SLAM" then it is the weakest one I have ever seen in my life. Just imagine Pai in a rap battle spitting fire like this:
"I deeply disagree with your ability to construct rhymes and I question the moral fortitude of your mother."
There was not a proposal (Score:2)
Ruse (Score:2)
LOL (Score:2)
Ajit Pai probably never saw this coming! That's the problem with having a madman for an ally, you can never be sure when he'll suddenly decide to do some batshit crazy thing that goes against your interests.
Not that a nationalized 5G network is an inherently crazy idea, but it's certainly batshit by Republican standards.
Meanwhile (Score:2)
Beginnings of corporatism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people like to call Trump a fascist, and this, potentially nationalizing what now belongs to private industry to serve the body state, is a feature of Mussolini's corporatism (not the usual government by and for the corporations, as it is commonly used, but private industry serving the corporate (body) state).
Now, I know they're talking about Federal ownership like the way the roads are maintained, but do you think a compromise deal between privatization and government ownership might include the beginnings of corporatism? It just might.
Oh... and Ajit Pai is a tool. This actually isn't a bad idea, if the government wants to roll out 5G securely and quickly, but it is a bad idea if private industry winds up being mixed up in co-ownership with the government. That's not a good thing at all.
Fuck Ajit Pai (Score:2)
It's about access and control. (Score:2)
Wireless #G networks are used extensively to access Internet and this would be a way for the Government to easily shut that down and/or restrict access to it. Several times Trump has called for an Internet "kill switch" or other measures. From Snopes [snopes.com] (and other places):
On 7 December 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addressed a crowd of supporters at the U.S.S. Yorktown in South Carolina. During that appearance, Trump invoked a vague approach to campaign issues as he proposed restricting access for some individuals to the internet:
"We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people." -- Trump
Trump calls for internet to be cut off for terrorists [cnet.com]
The Law That Could Allow Trump To Shut Down The US Internet [forbes.com]
etc...
5G Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Don't worry folks, with the government running the 5G network, your precious "Net Neutrality" will be protected. You don't want those horrible profit-loving companies running the 5G network and doing "non-net neutral" things, right? Only the government can protect us from capitalist evil!
You'll love TrumpNet, it will be so Net Neutral, it will be Neutraller than Neutral!
Australia (Score:2)
Follow Australia's lead.
Allow him to put through his plan, then wait until he's out of office, change the implementation so that it's twice as expensive for half the network, and make it look like Trump's plan was rubbish from the start.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
FCC CHAIRMAN HATES TRUMP! The headline blares
More loaded words like "nationalizing" 5G (never used when Obamcare nationalized the health insurance industry or student loans)
I'm assuming you're joking. The news was full of "socialized medicine" and "nationalized medicine" during the whole "Obamacare" situation. Even "Obamacare" is a term to make fun of the Affordable Care Act.
There was a poll done during Obama's term that showed 66% of Americans approved of the "Affordable Care Act" and 66% of Americans were against "Obamacare". Most informed people will notice that this is rather amusing considering Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are the same thing; just one has a delibe
Re: (Score:2)
Because it wasn't nationalized. The ACA is basically subsidized insurance provided by the existing for-profit insurance industry, and with some reduced eligibility requirements for Medicaid.
If the government abolishes insurance companies, goes single-payer, and completely takes over and runs all of the existing hospitals, THEN we can discuss "nationalized" health care.
Re: (Score:3)
Better make that have only one slide. With pictures.
Like the daily intelligence brief.
Re: According to Slashdot (Score:2)
Most insightful post here, modded to zero!
https://news.google.com/news/a... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can actually read the document [axios.com]. It doesn't say they'll "Nationalize 5G" (which they couldn't do even if they wanted to).
It's a lot of talk about how 5G is good and they want to speedup deployments of it and take away Huawei's marketshare, maybe by building their own network. It's low on practicality. Most of the actions it talks about are unrealistic. They won't be nationalizing any 5G networks.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government effectively could nationalize the 5G network by removing the spectrum once the current leases are up.
That would be turning it off, not nationalizing it. It doesn't operate itself.
The spectrum is owned by the American people - period. The carriers bid on spectrum and may use it at our discretion. If we (read Congress) do not believe that the spectrum is being used in our best interest, we can re-purpose it however we see fit.
Stop believing in fantasy scenarios.
Re:According to Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Are you trying to claim Trump is more coherent than Obama? Trump loses his train of thought mid-sentence all the time when giving speeches.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/op... [bostonglobe.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/tv... [theguardian.com]
I love this example of a Trump speech:
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
https://www.snopes.com/donald-... [snopes.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/tv... [theguardian.com]
Here are some more examples:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Covfefe covfefe covfefe covfefe, covfefe covfefe covfefe.
Re: (Score:3)
That's totally misleading. This is the actual speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Obama starts at 6:30.
It definitely was one of Obama's worst speeches as he is reading from his notes, rather than a teleprompter. If you take one word clips of Trump you could make it sound like all sorts of things too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The prior assertion was a bit stronger than that. It was an assertion that he contradicts not his staff, but himself. I've seen several second hand (third hand) reports of such, but I've never been interested enough to verify them.
Re:Only Consistent Trump Policy is TREASON (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this is very consistent for Chairman Pai - he's a telecom shill and (officially) former Verizon lobbyist, so both rejecting the Federal government from becoming a supplier for Verizon, as well as killing Net Neutrality is entirely consistent with serving his corporate overlord.
He can't serve two masters, and only one of those masters is paying him 30 coins of silver to sell the rest of us out.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is wrong, then how do you feel about the Fusion GPS Dossier built on Russian FSB intel?
If that is wrong, then how do you feel about the Attorney that met with Jr being linked to Fusion GPS?
And JUST an FYI, since the Russian Attorney was linked to Fusion GPS and the Dossier appears to be what was used for the FISA court warrant, you must REALLY be pissed off.
Either that, or you're just another AC hack that has a big fat nothing burger. One meeting that didn't go well isn't collusion. But nice try.
Yo