***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Based Jesus]

So I was just reading that net neutrality is only 2 years old. So the internet spent most of its life span without it?

Maybe the sky won't fall if it's gone.

Keep in mind the first attempt to pass Net Neutrality was in 2010 I believe, but ISPs being slick said they couldnt be regulated due to the category they resided in, so it was overturned until they were recategorized in 2015. And ISPs have been caught throttling people's internet before, creating fast and slow lanes for content they like and disliked.

Is it an end of the world thing? No, but it gives them the legal right to unsavory tactics such as slicing up your internet access into packages.
So if you want access to NT, now you gotta pay more for it. Or maybe one day your ISP just shuts off access to NT because there was a thread heavily criticizing them.
Maybe your ISP strikes a deal with Hulu so now you cant watch Netflix even though you're already paying Netflix. Or maybe they say you gotta pay Netflix and them.

Does that sound like something you'd want? I know it's not a version of the internet I'd like.
They're already selling our browsing information and now they wanna **** up our browsing experience.

 

[fargin]

Trump is gonna fire Mueller.

I can't imagine Trump would fire Mueller, which is exactly the reason, why I believe he will fire Mueller.

 

[Brownstone]

Anything involving more than 200 words to explain and numbers is easily passed in plain site. Taxes and Net Neutrality both fall into those categories.

 

[everysingletime]

Keep in mind the first attempt to pass Net Neutrality was in 2010 I believe, but ISPs being slick said they couldnt be regulated due to the category they resided in, so it was overturned until they were recategorized in 2015. And ISPs have been caught throttling people's internet before, creating fast and slow lanes for content they like and disliked.

Is it an end of the world thing? No, but it gives them the legal right to unsavory tactics such as slicing up your internet access into packages.
So if you want access to NT, now you gotta pay more for it. Or maybe one day your ISP just shuts off access to NT because there was a thread heavily criticizing them.
Maybe your ISP strikes a deal with Hulu so now you cant watch Netflix even though you're already paying Netflix. Or maybe they say you gotta pay Netflix and them.

Does that sound like something you'd want? I know it's not a version of the internet I'd like.
They're already selling our browsing information and now they wanna **** up our browsing experience.

Nah I don't want none of that and believe me I had the same fears and was afraid of the same things a couple days ago. But I also don't remember some of this stuff happening before net neutrality either. Competition should stop ISP from doing this tomfoolery theoretically, right? As in if Cablevision starts pulling this stuff, I'd just switch ISP.

 

[gry60]

Anything involving more than 200 words 140 characters to explain and numbers is easily passed in plain site. Taxes and Net Neutrality both fall into those categories.

FTFY

 

[$tatus $ymbol]

Can anyone layout how not just trump but a president period is able to fire a special counsel running his own investigation? America is supposed to have this great checks & balance system, that seems pretty counterintuitive to me

 

[gry60]

Nah I don't want none of that and believe me I had the same fears and was afraid of the same things a couple days ago. But I also don't remember some of this stuff happening before net neutrality either. Competition should stop ISP from doing this tomfoolery theoretically, right? As in if Cablevision starts pulling this stuff, I'd just switch ISP.

Problem is, there isn't competition right now: you have entire subdivisions that have access to only one ISP because they have stricken deals with the local government/developer/whoever's in charge. Now they can just say "pay up or we disconnect you."

 

[everysingletime]

Problem is, there isn't competition right now: you have entire subdivisions that have access to only one ISP because they have stricken deals with the local government/developer/whoever's in charge. Now they can just say "pay up or we disconnect you."

Ohhh. Yea, that's a problem then

 

[Based Jesus]

Nah I don't want none of that and believe me I had the same fears and was afraid of the same things a couple days ago. But I also don't remember some of this stuff happening before net neutrality either. Competition should stop ISP from doing this tomfoolery theoretically, right? As in if Cablevision starts pulling this stuff, I'd just switch ISP.

2 things:
1. Competition doesn't stop them from doing it right now with your cable, partly because they all do it with your cable, and partly because (cont. in point 2)
2. There aren't many options in most areas when it comes to providers. Most areas have at best 3. Usually 2 or 1. Just naming 4 is hard. I know I can't besides Verizon, Comcast and AT&T.

 

[everysingletime]

True. Yea, there needs to be more ISPs :/

 

[fargin]

Can anyone layout how not just trump but a president period is able to fire a special counsel running his own investigation? America is supposed to have this great checks & balance system, that seems pretty counterintuitive to me

I'm not 100%.

Remember Attorney General Jefé Sessions has recused himself from all things Russia, because of his own "misremeberings" of Russian meetings during the campaign/transition. Special counsel is appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and only he can fire Mueller. Trump can order Rosenstein to fire Mueller, but depending on the reasoning and Rosenstein's integrity, Rosenstein would either fire Mueller(he just testified, he sees no reason to do so), refuse or resign. Trump would then fire Rosenstein and ask the next person in line to fire Mueller, who would either comply or resign.

This happened under Nixon, known as the Saturday Night Massacre, where in order to shut the Watergate special counsel down, Nixon asked the Attorney General, who had appointed it, to fire the special prosecutor. He refused and resigned. Nixon then asked the Deputy Attorney General, who also refused and resigned and finally Nixon asked the Solicitor Attorney General and he was sworn in as Attorney General and fired the special counsel Archibald Cox.

This eventually lead to charges of Obstruction of justice, articles of impeachment and finally Nixon's resignation.

 

[kdawg]

If that’s how it plays out I hope he fires Mueller then!

 

[fargin]

Remember at this point, you need the Republicans to impeach.

And an impeachment is pretty much admitting, that they rallied behind a traitor and welcomed him in the White House. Alleged traitor obviously.

 

[Belgium]

Keep in mind the first attempt to pass Net Neutrality was in 2010 I believe, but ISPs being slick said they couldnt be regulated due to the category they resided in, so it was overturned until they were recategorized in 2015. And ISPs have been caught throttling people's internet before, creating fast and slow lanes for content they like and disliked.

Is it an end of the world thing? No, but it gives them the legal right to unsavory tactics such as slicing up your internet access into packages.
So if you want access to NT, now you gotta pay more for it. Or maybe one day your ISP just shuts off access to NT because there was a thread heavily criticizing them.
Maybe your ISP strikes a deal with Hulu so now you cant watch Netflix even though you're already paying Netflix. Or maybe they say you gotta pay Netflix and them.

Does that sound like something you'd want? I know it's not a version of the internet I'd like.
They're already selling our browsing information and now they wanna **** up our browsing experience.

To expand on this:
Comcast changed wording from their net neutrality pledge as soon as chairman Pai announced he would push for a repeal. It suggests they may be open to paid fast lanes. Why change the wording immediately if you don't plan on violating net neutrality one way or the other?
They also publicly urged for the repeal of Title II back in July.
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcas...-free-and-open-internet-comcasts-fcc-comments
In 2007 there was also this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101900842_pf.html
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

Around the period of 2007 to 2009, AT&T (iPhone's exclusive carrier at the time I believe) entirely blocked Skype calls from its network. Other competitors such as Google Voice got the same treatment. After pressure from the FCC they took actions to allow Skype traffic and other similar VOIP services.

Between 2011 and 2013, AT&T once again, along with Verizon and Sprint, blocked Google Wallet on their networks. There was a competitor to Google Wallet on the market at the time, which all 3 of these corporations stood to gain from.

In 2012, AT&T blocked some users from using the FaceTime app. They had to undo that decision.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...e1c2b3548a4a_blog.html?utm_term=.cba6ce2aa807

Also in 2012, Verizon got caught blocking tethering apps by the FCC and they were fined $1.25m. The reason for this was because these apps cut into their profits by circumventing Verizon's tethering fee. Verizon's blocking of these apps was a violation, hence the fine.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...1/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.96b9d774228c


Is it the end of the internet? No. Are corporations going to abuse this repeal? Of course. They've done it in the past and those are pretty significant examples. With Comcast immediately rewording their net neutrality pledge, obviously they're anticipating some kind of change in their policy.
Was the internet fine before net neutrality? Mostly yes. But repealing net neutrality is always a huge step backwards and no person with a functioning brain can argue otherwise. Literally the only purpose of such a repeal is to give the ISP's more money. That's all there is to it. And best believe all of these major ISP's are salivating about the thought of squeezing more money out of their customers and other corporations.
There's always some people who bring forth the "well da free market will treat these companies accordingly" as if the major ISP's don't have large monopolies in many areas. Unsatisfied with Comcast? Tough luck, better get used to it.
The repeal gives these ISP's free reign to throttle whatever they want, however they want and whenever they want. A service like Netflix would be a prime target for new measures that would violate net neutrality if it were still in place in the US.
I don't think it's an existential threat to the internet or anything but it shouldn't be understated just how far backwards this repeal is either, given that the only people who stand to benefit from it are on the ISPs' payroll.

 

[IATT]

 

[elpablo21]

End of 2017 should be quite interesting

 

[Nike Jordan]

https://www.mapbox.com/labs/net-neutrality/

You can find out how many ISPs are your area.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[gry60]

Only principle is "buy me, pay me"

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...ad-tax-bill-denies-changing-his-vote-exchange

In an exclusive interview with International Business Times, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn, denied knowing about a controversial last-minute provision slipped into the Republican tax bill that could personally enrich him. Corker, the lone Republican to vote against the original Senate bill, which didn't include the provision, also admitted he has not read the final tax bill he announced he will support.

Corker’s vote is considered pivotal in the closely divided Senate and he could be in a position to make or break the landmark legislation. He declared his support for the final reconciled version of the bill on Friday after GOP lawmakers added a provision that could benefit his vast real estate holdings -- a provision that Corker denied having any knowledge of.

In a series of rapid-fire telephone interviews, Corker asked IBT for a description of the provision, and then criticized it. But minutes later, he called back to walk back that criticism, saying he wanted to further study the issue, and that it was more complex than he initially understood it to be. Despite potentially holding the fate of the entire tax bill in his hands, Corker told IBT that he has only read a short summary of the $1.4 trillion legislation.

“I had like a two-page summary I went through with leadership,” said Corker. “I never saw the actual text.” Despite not reading the bill -- and having time to read it before the final vote scheduled for this week -- he reiterated his support for the bill to IBT, support he announced hours before bill’s full text was publicly released on Friday.

Corker called IBT to respond to a series of IBT investigative reports showing that he switched his vote to “yes” on the tax legislation, only after Republican leaders added in a provision reducing taxes on income from real-estate LLCs. Federal records reviewed by IBT show Corker, a commercial real estate mogul, made up to $7 million last year from such income. President Donald Trump's financial disclosures listed between $41 million and $68 million of the same income.

Your government at work, folks.

Not only is he directly benefiting from the bill, he is also trying to act like he doesn't know what's in it and has the nerve to ask the paper for a summary of the provision he is supposed to vote on. Fool, it's YOUR bill, not the newspaper's!!!!

 

[everysingletime]

End of 2017 should be quite interesting

Trump doesn't even want to give us a break during the holidays..

 

[boris]

End of 2017 should be quite interesting

I can't wait till people are arrested.

 

[flyeed]

Ready for the goalposts to move when dems take congress and impeach this fool for obstruction of justice

"Da only collusion was between Mueller and da dems for that partisan witch hunt. His dapperness only stopped da investigation as a gift to the American people to save tax dollars. And this is how they repay him. SMH WOW."

 

[flyeed]

Cop executes unarmed black guy with clear video evidence and no reasonable room for interpretation

"Lets wait for all the facts"

Rich white guys collude with hostile foreign power

"Clearly no need to investigate this"

 

[IATT]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/c...-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/ar-BBGNo02

 

[whywesteppin]

End of 2017 should be quite interesting

that's really the only way this can end up.

trump is guilty. well, guilty enough that most of his associates and family will face criminal charges and that he will be exposed as a criminal himself.

he will act out of desperation soon because he knows that's where this is leading.

with nearly double the number of Americans disapproving of him vs. those who approve, there is the political willpower to overthrow him. but we will need to make sure it happens. calls to Congress, protests, etc.