Trump Appoints Third Anti-Net Neutrality Advisor To Telecom Transition Team
from the burn-the-house-down dept
President-elect Donald Trump's promise to "drain the DC swamp" has become a bit of a running gag as his administration plugs a wide variety of lobbyists and cronies into key cabinet positions. Telecom is certainly no exception, with Trump appointing a number of telecom sector lobbyists and allies to guide telecom policy and help select a new FCC boss. One of these picks doesn't believe telecom monopolies exist. None of them can actually admit the broadband market isn't competitive. And all of them have made it abundantly clear that they intend to roll back net neutrality and effectively gut the FCC from the inside out.Trump completed a telecom sector trifecta of anti-net neutrality advisors this week, with the selection of American Enterprise Institute think tanker Roslyn Layton. Layton joins Jeffrey Eisenach (a long-standing Verizon consultant) and Mark Jamison (a former Sprint lobbyist) to form a perfect circle of industry allies -- all of whom are on record opposing not only net neutrality, but nearly every FCC effort to make the broadband sector more competitive. All three have been visiting fellows over at the American Enterprise Institute, which takes money from large telecom providers in exchange for muddying the discourse waters.
Over at the AEI blog, Layton has consistently made her disdain for net neutrality very clear. Like so many broadband industry allies, Layton insists that net neutrality protections for consumers aren't necessary, and that the concept is all some kind of secretive cabal on the part of Netflix to ride incumbent ISP pipes for free:
"Using their own definitions, however, companies such as Netflix hijack the language of net neutrality to lobby for regulatory favors. They want the government to mandate that transit costs they pay for today become free. In the offline world, such a deal would mean that retailers could not negotiate agreements with their suppliers or even where products could be placed on shelves.This idea that net neutrality is a phantom problem and mostly about somehow secretly giving Netflix free bandwidth is a ridiculous idea we've debunked time and time again. Current FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, among the finalists to lead the next FCC, has tried to claim net neutrality is some kind of unholy Netflix cabal for years. Why the disdain and bizarre focus on Netflix? Incumbent cable companies loathe Netflix for its support of net neutrality, opposition to usage caps, and the erosion of their legacy TV subscriber base, so they work pretty tirelessly to smear the company as often as possible via proxy policy voices.
Blaming everything on Netflix helps incumbent broadband ISPs (and their allied think tankers, consultants, and lobbyists) avoid two glaring truths: one, that net neutrality is a symptom of the disease that is limited broadband competition, but if you admit the broadband market isn't competitive, then you have to actually do something about it; and two, that net neutrality has broad, bi-partisan support among the public. Pretending net neutrality is solely about giving Netflix "free stuff" is a handy narrative that obfuscates both truths.
Layton, like Eisenach and Jamison, also opposed the FCC's basic new privacy protections. Those rules, which only require that ISPs are transparent about what's being collected and provide working opt-out tools, were passed only after Verizon was busted modifying user data packets to track users around the internet -- without informing them or providing working opt out tools. The FCC also acted after AT&T began trying to charge broadband customers a premium just to protect their own privacy, and Cable ONE hinted at offering worse customer service to users with bad credit scores.
Like net neutrality, these violations are just another symptom of the lack of broadband competition, and the bad behavior on the part of incumbent ISPs has been fully apparent to anybody paying attention. But according to Layton, these privacy rules were just "partisan" gamesmanship, and utterly unnecessary because ISPs weren't doing anything wrong:
"Chairman Wheeler’s three years at the FCC have broken records in partisanship, with more votes along party lines for rulemaking than previous commissions combined. Consider the recent online privacy rulemaking, which came about only because the FCC’s Open Internet rules reclassified Internet broadband under Title II, giving FCC new authority to regulate Internet privacy. Simply stated, the FCC rulemaking was not born out of any concluded necessity."Yes, the FCC has long split along partisan lines, quite often on issues (like net neutrality) that shouldn't be partisan. Under Wheeler, that was largely thanks to Commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly, who voted down nearly every consumer-benefiting policy the FCC tried to enact. That includes the duo voting down every single attempt to hold AT&T accountable for outright fraud, whether that involved AT&T ripping off programs for low income families, turning a blind eye to abuse of IP Relay systems intended for the hearing imparied, or intentionally helping crammers rip off AT&T customers by making fraudulent charges on bills harder to detect.
Under the guidance of Layton, Eisenach and Jamison, you can expect every effort to hold incumbent ISPs accountable for bad behavior to evaporate. Gone will be the FCC's net neutrality rules. Gone will be the agency's new privacy protections. Gone will be efforts to shore up broadband competition. In addition to selecting an FCC boss that will be sure to avoid admitting any substantive faults on the part of incumbent ISPs, you can expect a rewrite of the Communications Act in 2017 with a full focus on hamstringing the FCC's ability to protect consumers while dramatically slashing its funding.
This tends to get lost among farmed think tank pie charts and misleading arguments from dollar-per-holler economists and fauxcademics, but boiled down to their purest essence, these positions are about one thing and one thing only: protecting giant incumbent ISP revenues. This isn't really about deregulation -- given that these same folks are generally ok with awful regulation, just as long as it's AT&T, Verizon and Comcast writing the law. And the ultimate irony remains that this gutting of all popular, bipartisan consumer protections will be conducted under the false banner of "populist reform."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, drain the swamp, fcc, jeffrey eisenach, lobbyists, mark jamison, net neutrality, roslyn layton
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Finally!
The RIGHT way to pick on and bitch about Trump! Someone pointing out where he is clearly shitting on his campaign promises instead of just increasing the shrill levels about something that is going on like it would not have happened if Hillary got in!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally!
I wonder how long it'll take before TD can post an article that mentions Trump without people in the comments section bringing up Clinton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally!
And true some of that bias does come from the commenters far more than from TD, so keep that in mind as get all defensive.
There are many ways to infer something without ever directly bringing up that which you are inferring too! There is an idiom for that call "reading between the lines!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally!
It was to be expected. That's why she lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Was it Pro-Hillary or Anti-idiot?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Was it Pro-Hillary or Anti-idiot?
The idea that Techdirt was ever "pro-Hillary" is the most laughable thing I've seen. Can anyone point to anything positive we ever said about Clinton? Some people just keep insisting that anyone who criticizes Trump must be pro-Hillary. And all that does is reveal that they root for a team, and don't care about actual policies. This is true of many supporters of either candidate. It becomes rooting for a team or even a religion, rather than anything rational.
We haven't changed our position: we focus on policies and statements made by people, rather than what team they're on. It's why we rarely even mention party names, and why over the years we've criticized people from both major parties pretty much equally.
I know it's tough for Trump supporters to recognize this, but believing he's going to be a disaster doesn't mean we didn't also think Clinto would be a disaster (for what it's worth, I thought basically every candidate would have been a disaster and I wish we had a better system for finding a President).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
While I do agree Trump has far more idiot tenancies I am not sure that should outweigh the negatives of Hillary can bring to the table.
In a competition of who is worse, I don't have a real answer for that one... both are egregiously bad for America to the point that I only think Trump won because he seemed more honest in his plans for America. That may not hold true as we move forward, but at there are a few promising events like the stock market which might deflate as well and the Carrier cancelled moves to Mexico. I think it is clear to say that none of these are likely to have occurred if Hillary was elected because she essentially promised more of Obama during her administration and to be honest, I think that comment only harmed her because she is a tough as nails old bat and she should have said I have my own ideas about how to run the nation. I think she would have definitely gotten farther on that than on... "I will be following in a mans foot steps."
Now we get to find out!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Gr_L3_g50
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161130/05165636155/wall-street-is-dreaming-megamergers-und er-trump-including-verizon-comcast-super-union.shtml
I might be wrong but it smacks of "this wouldn't be happening if Hillary got in" articles despite the fact that it totally would.
I can certainly stand to be corrected, but it's hard to work through someones bias! You free to work on mine so...
Come at be bro!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If things get worse, I hope it gets drastically worse because restoring net neutrality will be difficult.
The next 8+ years should be interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
A swamp for you...
And two swamps for me...
A swamp for you...
and.... two more swamps for me...
So yea, he is draining a swamp or swamps, just possibly not the swamps we want!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Drumpf won, move on.
Or is Drumpf a special snowflake for the next 4 years?
"Oh look, another Trump article, they are picking on him because they didn't build a shrine to him!"
Breitbart is over there. ->
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I wrote this article, don't like Hillary, don't support a huge swath of her positions, and didn't vote for her.
So if somebody is detecting "pro hillary bias" coming from me just because I'm pointing out the awful choices Donald Trump is making (running in viciously-stark contrast to his pre-election promises), that's entirely cognitive dissonance occurring in their own head.
I think we do a pretty good job here of looking beyond partisan patty cake and calling a spade a spade, regardless of what color-coded jumpsuit the person in question is wearing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trump is going to resolve so many open questions!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
It has nothing to do with "Drumpf won, move on."
Try getting some context and maybe a decent meal, you might be running low on a few essential vitamins and minerals buddy. Maybe a nap too... it might be your nappy time lil fella!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Yeah, you're wrong.
I wrote that article too. I don't like her policy positions and didn't vote for her. Because somebody is pointing out the dumb things Donald is doing does not automatically mean they support Hillary.
Binary thinking is the enemy, kids.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Would you rather?
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the FCC was completely dismantled and the various parts were to be under the FTC instead. The very nature of the job would mean that the 'enforcers' couldn't be so narrowly picked (ex-telco, telco lobbyists, etc). Could it in fact make things better for consumers?
...Might be an interesting article to research...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I actually tend to agree with this comment right here! But that still does not create complete absolution. And as I said as well, I also think that some of that tilt comes from the commenters as well.
Look at it this way, I like TD a lot, both for the articles you guys write AND for the comment section, so I tend to be harder on you guys because despite my frothy comments I do think highly of you clowns so I am less inclined to give you a pass. Which is funny, people with decent reps deserve more of a pass than those without but hey, life is not fair right?
"So if somebody is detecting "pro hillary bias" coming from me just because I'm pointing out the awful choices Donald Trump is making (running in viciously-stark contrast to his pre-election promises), that's entirely cognitive dissonance occurring in their own head."
Yes, I almost agree with this statement as well, except that cognitive dissonance can blind someone to others cognitive consonance leading them to falsely believe that the consonance is dissonance.
And as a non-Trump support I can certainly cop to having a much longer and greater level of disgust with Hillary that has built up. You can bet your paddy cakes that Hillary is most definitely at a disadvantage in my mind. But as things stand, Trump is only getting mostly a pass because I have not been reading about his blunders and bullshits for nearly as long as I have about Hillary's and I have no problem admitting to that bias. However, I do not think it rises to cognitive dissonance because I am not evaluating the difference of the articles based on my historical perspectives but my comparing TD to its own historical articles.
Of late I am sure many people might mistake me as being pro-trump but I hardly am pro trump I abstained from voting this election because there was no hope.
I hate the Republican Party every bit as much as the Democratic Party except I recently gained hope for the repukes because Trump created a major upset for them and it is hilarious as fuck, while the Democrats held on to old codgers like that anti democratic cock sucker Pelosi. Any party that holds onto someone that says "We must first pass it to find out what is in it" is a fucking festering pile of anti-American, anti-Democratic, anti-Civilization waste of human flesh! And Paul Ryan said much the same making him a steaming pile of it as well! So that makes both parties scum piles with only some potential hope for the repukes and none for the demtards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
It was the way it was written, like the world was ending "because trump".
Seriously, the mega-mergers and stuff has been going on even before trump was a presidential candidate, you acted like all of sudden things are even worse when there is no real evidence of that. That is why. Does it mean things will not be worse? They might be, neither you nor I can know this yet. So yea... sensationalizing and I consider that to be a bit over dramatic which makes me think... do I remember this level of shrill against Hillary or Obama? I do not recall it, maybe it happened on one of the days I did not visit TD.
And no, binary thinking is not necessarily an enemy, like many other things it's completely legit and depends on context. Don't make something that is not a default bad into something that is always bad... like the word BIAS. It's just a word and not always a bad one despite being used as one often.
Life in sorts is very binary, especially when you get down into the chaos math of it all. It just so happens that at the Macro level, you cannot see all the binary bits working on the micro.
A lot of people say life is a gray morass, well, that is just the result of them looking at loads and loads of separately and unevenly distributed/clustered groups of blacks and whites.
An no, I in no way think that every attack on Trump makes someone pro Hillary, I read between the lines on that one. Oh yea, one other thing, you do not have to be pro Hillary to support here either... there are things I do like about both candidate and would support them in certain contexts. I am not like everyone that sees a D or R and goes all red eye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Regulatory capture always happens
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trump is going to resolve so many open questions!
So don't ask it ever again... or have you not seen movies where they prove those points realistically?
Cause after it start raining... someone says "great what next?" then you git hit by a fucking lightening bolt... after which you may not even be alive or conscious enough to be dumb enough to ask for fucking more!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
"I've watched politicians talked about stopping companies from leaving our states. They'd give the low-interest loans. Here's a low-interest loan if you stay in Pennsylvania. Here's a tax abatement of any kind you want. We'll help your employees. It doesn't work, folks." - Drumpf, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, October 10, 2016
Carrier looks to have gotten a tax abatement of $700,000.
"What neither Trump nor the company has announced officially, however, is just what the Indiana government has offered as an inducement to stay. But you can assume, even with the pressure from the President-Elect, that Indiana paid up. Earlier on Wednesday, a source close to the company told Fortune that United Technologies would get $700,000 in state tax breaks for a number of years."
http://fortune.com/2016/11/30/trump-carrier/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Trump did follow through with doing something to make them stay, even if that something is not viewed as the best method for accomplishing it, which makes him look better than worse for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
The other one that doesn't mention Clinton, at all?
You're wrong. Any reference to Clinton you read in that article is the product of your own imagination and not the text of the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
But I still view it as positive that the jobs were saved even though it did not happen the way I wanted it to.
Don't get me wrong, I have no illusion that Trump is some awesome person, he is a smelly turd just like Hillary. I just say if I liked something or not regardless of candidate being talked about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Then I take it you love Obama for saving the auto jobs in the bailout of 2008-2010? It would take 30 years Carrier deals, at 1 a week, to match that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9310_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_ United_States
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally!
They've got no trouble telling you over and over that they won, but man, report on something their orange "winner" does, and you're an asshole for it...
Please, Trumptards, tell me more about this bias problem you have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
It has nothing to do with "Drumpf won, move on."
It's got everything to do with it, jackass.
She lost. You guys have pointed that out many times.
How the fuck long does the media need to report on what she's not doing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I also believe there wasn't any hope but the fact you didn't vote means you shouldn't even have an argument in politics. You could have even written someone down in protest to the vote. What was the point of even commenting on political bias if you didn't even care enough to vote in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Did you happen to know that there are entire fields of study surrounding human behaviors and how their biases are shown through their efforts even in cases where they seek to hide them? Heck they are building AI systems surrounding these things so they can better track AC's like myself so they can hopefully consistently identify people.
Or better yet, have you ever heard of charades, or how about the concept behind the movie inception? The idea is to give someone an idea without actually directly giving them one. Any intelligent person can play these things to great effect, which should be considered a compliment to the writers at TD for being able to mange it well. And one does not even have to be dishonest about it either, they could be trying every bit to be responsible and suppress it but it still gets out no matter what. The sharing of ideas and complaining about certain ones kinda pigeon holes you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Mike asked for an example I gave one and you nutters are flopping around like fish out of water.
what gives?
No, it has NOTHING to do with it. Get a stinking clue!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Yes I see the arrangement for Carrier as a positive, and NO I do not think it is the best one. Since I already view taxes on business as already too high, this just happens to come as a net benefit. Though I do not like the idea of giving businesses tax breaks just to keep them here as it sets a very bad example. They need to be controlled by tariffs. They should have to pay to play in the American Economy for the obvious reasons.
If this is the only trick Trump has up his sleeve then yes, even this deal will turn sour over time, but we have to wait to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I'll tell you what gives.
Whiny bitch "winners" complaining about what the loser would've done, had she won.
Drumpf won - move on. He's doing exactly what he said he would do. What in the fucking fuck are you still pissing and moaning about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
All the trump supporters on here or Clinton supporters on here need to look at the results, they have almost no support in the country in fact they have less support than my dog would have if i was able to put him up for the position as president.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Drumpf does it (good?), Obama does same x1000 (bad?) =/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
If Obama had just given the Auto MFG's a tax break then I would have liked that much better.
But that did not happen, Obama took MY & OTHERS MONEY and fucking gave it to them without any fucking Constitutional Power to do so! There is a huge fucking difference! If you are to stupid to figure that one out then please stop opening your mouth and eating your foot!
It is at least constitutional for the government to levy taxes and tariff, but they have ZERO POWER to give any business, any cause, or any country any money!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I do not have to vote in the way you "think" I should to validate my political opinions or arguments. Children are not allowed to vote, should we force them to have no 1st amendment rights? People like you create zero tolerance policies that get kids eating pop tarts into gun shapes into trouble.
Stop drinking the tool-aid, and get with the program!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
"I didn't vote, but I get to complain about it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
The Constitution does three things.
Dictates the structure of the Government.
Grants Powers to those respective entities.
And establishes Amendments specifically defining the Rights that the Government are never to usurp!
The Constitution never granted any branch of government the power to ever give away money to anyone or anything. They are specifically to be used to...
"1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Taking money from the tax payers and giving it to the rich in some reverse fucking robin hood scheme is not promoting the general welfare by any fucking stretch, but hell... with all the crap going on these days tell me... what would you NOT put past the government of today? The Constitution is shredded, division is building, and people care more about their fucking parties before the nation itself.
Oh...
"And what Constitutional Power prevents this?"
This sentence reveals how ignorant you are of the US Constitution. Powers are defined and granted in the Constitution not prevented, if they are not there, then they do not have the power despite having already assumed many on behalf of ignorant citizens like yourself. That is how the document works. You are a breathing example of the stupid that pervades the American Citizenry... or are you not an American?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Sure have. I'm watching one right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Which of us do you wish to deal with....
and One says, I will bind you down and beat you till death with a cactus.
The other says, I will bind you down and pour small drops of acid upon your skin til death.
Choose your fate...
What wise man votes for either of these?
You can bet I will complain about it! I might be a special snowflake, but you are a run of the mill tool without a clue!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Every Nation gets the Government it deserves, no exception.
And by all means do point these things out, that is NOT the reason for the commentary I provided, it's how a previous article today was written compared to this one.
I wanted to specifically point out that this article was well written compared to the other in my opinion and it set a few in bunches. Which is okay! It's good to have discussions!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Some of my best friends grew up in Bosnia in the 1990's. Maybe you'd care to explain to them how much they deserved their government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Christ, now on top of Clinton you want to bring up Sanders, too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
How about the one today?
I ask you for an example of a pro-Clinton article, and you point out one that doesn't even mention Clinton.
I think I've made my point.
Again: it is possible to criticize Trump without being pro-Clinton.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drain the swamp. Hahahaha!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
.... short memory span or short attention span, hard to tell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Where is the /s ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Any pissing and moaning you perceive, I'd guess, is because we're fucked. Or we're certainly bent over and spreading, anyway. "We" the ones "using" this network utility.
... fucking joke. We are, pretty much officially, a nation of corporations. United by one common bond. Only one.
Trump did do well, did he not? I could care less, personally, as we are already spiraling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
fixed
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But the forth one stayed drained, and it's the most blatantly corrupt patch of damp ground you've ever seen! It's so great and honest it doesn't even pretend not to be filled with alligators that will rip your limbs off the second you get close enough, unlike those other, dishonest swamps where the alligators promise that they're just really big geckos in need of belly rubs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Insecurity Among Trump Supporters ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Sec. Clinton is an mendacious self serving politicrat.
President Elect Trump is an idiotic, self aggrandizing narcissistic sociopath intent on self enrichment.
The choice between them isn't one of "good" or "bad", it's one of "Do I want to die of cancer or infection?". In the end, you still die.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hopefully the neighbors downstairs won't get too mad about all the foot stamping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
That may be, but it is not a useful statement.
In countries where it is compulsory to vote, and/or that usually have 90%+ turnouts, not voting, not even turning up, is a useful statement, as it shows people disagree with what is happening so strongly they are willing to break the law and not vote.
However, where voting is voluntary, not voting at all is very ambiguous, as there could be many reasons for not voting, ranging from laziness to disinterest in politics entirely to not liking any of the candidates.
A more effective and useful political statement is to enroll, turn up at the voting place, and enter a blank/invalid/none of the above type vote. This shows that you are not lazy (at least with respect to this), that you are interested in the political process, but that you are unhappy with all of the candidates.
Having a 90% participation rate with 50% none of the above votes is a stronger statement that having a 20% participation rate with 100% valid candidate votes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Which is insanely stupid in my opinion. If they all refuse to vote because they hate the system, they could vote for someone who will change it. Refusing to participate at all means that you're just blindly accepting all the consequences of the election that will affect your life until the next one.
By not voting, you're not saying "I disapprove of the system". You're saying "I will accept whatever other people choose for me".
"All the trump supporters on here or Clinton supporters on here need to look at the results, they have almost no support in the country"
Yet, they're still going to be running everything and you've refused to state your opinion about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Finally!
Strangely, most of the places I've been reading about this stuff have been pointing out the hypocrisy since the first appointment was made. When people say that nobody's talking about this kind of thing, I always wonder where they're getting their one-sided news.
However, pointing out that Hillary won the popular vote and this appears to reveal fundamental flaws in the election process does not mean that you can't also talk about this. There can be more than one story at a time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
A box of chocolate x-lax and a trip to the bath room!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Oh, and if you're talking about the financial crisis, Iraq, the PATRIOT act and similar stuff, you might as well not bother. Citations only on the things Obama actually did, not "he didn't clean up Bush's mess quickly enough so we'll blame him for all of it".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Dealing with the vile scum that oppose liberal ideals like equality and honesty does often make one less than happy. Fortunately, there's plenty of funny liberal entertainers to cheer them up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
That depends. If you don't vote, do the strangers standing around you make the choice for you? Because that's what happened if you abstained from voting in this election.
You didn't opt to not choose between the two candidates, you asked others to choose for you. Then, you expect others to sympathise if you whine because you didn't like the result...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
He is not even da prez yet ... and people are already making excuses for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
"Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, an expert on constitutional law at Harvard, said in an interview that such a challenge was unlikely to succeed because the doctrine of Congressional delegation, which flourished in the 1930s, was significantly weakened during the New Deal and never recovered.
The bailout, Professor Tribe said, “certainly tests the outer limits of Congressional delegation authority,” and “if the delegation doctrine were genuinely alive and well, TARP might be among its potential victims.”
But, he said, recent cases in which the Supreme Court approved broad delegations of authority made it clear that it was unlikely to intervene on constitutional grounds. As an example Professor Tribe cited the authority conveyed to the federal Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16challenge.html
Keep dreaming in your safe spots, snowflake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So, a man like Trump would be able to able to enter politics at any time because he's inherited/made enough money that the salary doesn't matter. A man like Obama, however, may not be able to enter at all because his means elsewhere can't support his family. I may have noticed a flaw...
I'm not 100% on the history, but wouldn't the intention of such a salary be to attract lower/middle classes who wouldn't otherwise enter the profession, to avoid having a government full of landed gentry?
Also, the salary isn't really the problem. Pork/bribes/kickbacks/etc are where the corruption is, not the fact that they get a regular pay packet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
If some of the things being talked about wouldn't have happened under a Clinton presidency, that doesn't automatically make talking about them "partisan" or "pro-Hillary". It just makes the truth more depressing.
The election's over; you can get off your party bandwagon now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Help me Obi-wan
But that hope is slim to none. Some of them have already voted against net neutrality as FCC commissioners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
You can always write someone in right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I thought his comment was bad, but your response is so hateful. People that don't agree with liberal ideals are vile scum? Really? I don't think I would want to subscribe to ideals that teach me that anyone that doesn't think as I do are "vile scum".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
I mean, if you really want to, go for it: do some sort of data mining study, count up all the words on Techdirt discussing each of these people, rank them on a scale of how critical they are, crunch the numbers and give us a report on precisely how hard we've been on every politician. We'll gladly look at it and say "hm, interesting" - then we'll get back to doing what we do, which is comment on important policy issues as they come up.
Other than that, get over it! Trump is gonna be president, and so we're going to spend a lot of time analyzing and criticizing him. That sort of comes with the territory. We're not going to add a footnote to every post saying "Clinton and Obama also suck" just to keep reminding you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
About the same amount of time it took TD to stop blaming Bush for Obama's failures.
Can you point me to an example of where we did that? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
...and that was fair. He deserved it. Funnily enough I found ZERO people leaping to his defence calling us out as rightwing zealots out to end all human rights, establish a Republic of Kluckers, etc.
Okay, now I'm curious. Why can we absolutely batter Feinstein, Clinton, and Obama with barely a squeak in their defence (I'm including the ravings of authoritarians like Whatever), but say one word against the Holy Roamin' Emperor Trump and by [deity of your choice (or not)] we are guilty of plotting treason?
I genuinely want to know. Heck, TD even called out Saint Ron of Wyden when he blotted his copybook for supporting TPP. Did none of our beloved bretheren on the Right actually notice this? Identity politics serves no useful purpose, people. Drop it, already.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Do a search on "Shillary." Take your time. She gets bashed all the time. Now drop the identity politics. Move away from the identity politics. We need to nuke it from orbit, people, just to be sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Finally!
Sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, etc. are more apt descriptors.
"People that don't agree with liberal ideals are vile scum?"
When the ideals are like the ones I mentioned, yes. Or, do you have a nicer word for people who oppose equality? It's interesting that you're more concerned with the names I call such people than the ideas they hold. Thin skin does seem to be a strangely common trait in people who disagree with "liberals", it seems.
"I don't think I would want to subscribe to ideals that teach me that anyone that doesn't think as I do are "vile scum"."
You wouldn't want to subscribe to ideals that tell you that racist neo Nazis are vile scum, for example? Interesting. I wouldn't want to subscribe to ideals that tell me that their words and actions are acceptable, personally, but to each their own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]