The FCC plans to vote away net neutrality in December

[ThoD]

You can't argue that the Democratic Party is bad on free speech rights without substantive policy positions to back it up.

In addition, you've completely ignored the facts as I've presented them to you with regard to the Democratic Party's consistent endorsement of net neutrality.

I think your thesis that we shouldn't trust politicians to do what they're going to say is completely wrong. President Obama advocated for net neutrality, and he instructed the FCC to classify it as a public utility. Donald Trump said he was opposed to net neutrality, and he's guiding the FCC to give businesses free reign over the internet. With regard to this specific issue, politicians should very much be trusted to do what they said they were going to do.

You seem to not understand something, NO MATTER what someone SAYS, it's that they DO that matters. When you support and endorse riots and boycotts when targeted at your rivals just to shut them up, policy or not, you are AGAINST free speech. For that same reason, SAYING they support it doesn't mean they actually do support it as they haven't done anything other than say they are for it, except for what Obama did. In Obama's case though, he advocated for it and did that all right, one of the few things he actually did. More than half the things he said he would do during his election and reelection weren't even put into place. Sure, wasn't one of the best presidents you people have gotten in the last 20 years, but he didn't keep his word on everything and even made a lot of things worse (eg: health care). So yes, DON'T trust politicians' words, trust their ACTIONS. It's LITERALLY how politics work, but I guess ignorance is better for some... Finally, you keep confusing net neutrality and free speech, those are two different things. You can DIRECT free speech if you take away net neutrality, but not control it or take it away.

 

[Lacius]

You seem to not understand something, NO MATTER what someone SAYS, it's that they DO that matters. When you support and endorse riots and boycotts when targeted at your rivals just to shut them up, policy or not, you are AGAINST free speech. For that same reason, SAYING they support it doesn't mean they actually do support it as they haven't done anything other than say they are for it, except for what Obama did. In Obama's case though, he advocated for it and did that all right, one of the few things he actually did. More than half the things he said he would do during his election and reelection weren't even put into place. Sure, wasn't one of the best presidents you people have gotten in the last 20 years, but he didn't keep his word on everything and even made a lot of things worse (eg: health care). So yes, DON'T trust politicians' words, trust their ACTIONS. It's LITERALLY how politics work, but I guess ignorance is better for some... Finally, you keep confusing net neutrality and free speech, those are two different things. You can DIRECT free speech if you take away net neutrality, but not control it or take it away.

The Democratic Party has given every indication, through words and actions, that they're in favor of net neutrality. The Republican Party has given every indication, through words and actions, that they're against net neutrality. There's a lot of other stuff to address, but I'm keeping it on topic.

 

[ThoD]

The Democratic Party has given every indication, through words alone, that they're in favor of net neutrality. The Republican Party has given every indication, through words and actions, that they're against net neutrality. There's a lot of other stuff to address, but I'm keeping it on topic.

Fixed that right there for you

Now, back on topic, who's for some rioting and large-scale sabotaging? I got my popcorn and drinks ready to watch you simpletons struggle!

 

[Lacius]

Fixed that right there for you

You don't get to ignore the advances Democratic politicians have made on the issue of net neutrality–advances you've conceded–just because it contradicts your argument.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

Please, please, PLEASE stop making net neutrality a Democratic-Republican issue. The only people in favor of repealing net neutrality are politicians who can get money or rewards from ISP lobbying. It's not an issue with Republicans or Democrats, it's an issue with conflicts of interest.

Almost every single non-politician is in favor of net neutrality, no matter the party. That's what we should be focusing on!

The debate over which party supports net neutrality or not gets us nowhere. In fact, that's what Pai wants, since as we squabble he's actually working towards his shitty goals.

 

[the_randomizer]

I linked to when he expressed an interest in online censorship.


What are you talking about? I'm not aware of a single piece of policy or legislation by members of the Democratic Party aimed at taking away free speech.

No, but they were insistent on cramming a broken universal healthcare system that cost 800 billion dollars up our asses, so far in fact, when underemployed workers like meyself can't even afford basic coverage. How was that fair of the GDP to impose that? It should be called the Unaffordable Healthcare Act. ACA, Obamacare, whatever you call it, was a good system on paper, but a bullshit system when implemented. I shouldn't be penalized $800 for something I don't make enough hours to cover the basic fees for insurance. Universal healthcare is a joke, the United States doesn't have the proper infrastructure to support it; that's why smaller countries can but we can't. The US is far too expansive. Obamacare has never helped me afford seeing a doctor, dentist, I had to pay out of my own f*cking pocket, how is this supposed to be "for everyone" again?


TL;DR - The government is FUBAR no matter what they do, FCC can stick it where the sun don't shine.

 

[Lacius]

Please, please, PLEASE stop making net neutrality a Democratic-Republican issue. The only people in favor of repealing net neutrality are politicians who can get money or rewards from ISP lobbying. It's not an issue with Republicans or Democrats, it's an issue with conflicts of interest.

Almost every single non-politician is in favor of net neutrality, no matter the party. That's what we should be focusing on!

The debate over which party supports net neutrality or not gets us nowhere. In fact, that's what Pai wants, since as we squabble he's actually working towards his shitty goals.

It shouldn't be a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but it unfortunately is one. It should also be noted that 61% of people are in favor of net neutrality, and the rest are opposed or don't know what it is. That number drops to about 51% among Republicans, and it rises among Democrats. As with a lot of issues, however, the polling doesn't coincide with the views of the politicians. Republican politicians are overwhelmingly opposed to net neutrality, and Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly in favor of it.

No, but they were insistent on cramming a broken universal healthcare system that cost 800 billion dollars up our asses, so far in fact, when underemployed workers like meyself can't even afford basic coverage. How was that fair of the GDP to impose that? It should be called the Unaffordable Healthcare Act.

You're way off-topic. PM me if you want to talk about this.

 

[ThoD]

You don't get to ignore the advances Democratic politicians have made on the issue of net neutrality–advances you've conceded–just because it contradicts your argument.

I didn't ignore anything, I just don't consider things that happened more than two elections before relevant to how the party is now.

Please, please, PLEASE stop making net neutrality a Democratic-Republican issue. The only people in favor of repealing net neutrality are politicians who can get money or rewards from ISP lobbying. It's not an issue with Republicans or Democrats, it's an issue with conflicts of interest.

Almost every single non-politician is in favor of net neutrality, no matter the party. That's what we should be focusing on!

The debate over which party supports net neutrality or not gets us nowhere. In fact, that's what Pai wants, since as we squabble he's actually working towards his shitty goals.

You are right, I said it's not. Neither party really wants you to have it anymore, it's mostly individuals though in both parties. Hurry up and do something rather than fight about how to go about it! You don't have much time and if you take too long I will get bored with the stale entertainment...

No, but they were insistent on cramming a broken universal healthcare system that cost 800 billion dollars up our asses, so far in fact, when underemployed workers like meyself can't even afford basic coverage. How was that fair of the GDP to impose that? It should be called the Unaffordable Healthcare Act. ACA, Obamacare, whatever you call it, was a good system on paper, but a bullshit system when implemented. I shouldn't be penalized $800 for something I don't make enough hours to cover the basic fees for insurance. Universal healthcare is a joke, the United States doesn't have the proper infrastructure to support it; that's why smaller countries can but we can't. The US is far too expansive.

The health care in the US is easily the worst part of everything you people have! They shoved that slong so far up your ass that it's almost impossible to take it away now!

 

[the_randomizer]

It shouldn't be a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but it unfortunately is one. It should also be noted that 61% of people are in favor of net neutrality, and the rest are opposed or don't know what it is. That number drops to about 51% among Republicans, and it rises among Democrats. As with a lot of issues, however, the polling doesn't coincide with the views of the politicians. Republican politicians are overwhelmingly opposed to net neutrality, and Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly in favor of it.


You're way off-topic. PM me if you want to talk about this.

I'm just saying, what the government does is never for the benefit of the people, never has and never will be. FCC and Verizon are no different.

 

[Lacius]

I'm just saying, what the government does is never for the benefit of the people, never has and never will be.

That's not even close to true.

I didn't ignore anything, I just don't consider things that happened more than two elections before relevant to how the party is now.

You were complaining earlier about how the Democratic Party was well over two election cycles ago.

 

[the_randomizer]

That's not even close to true.

So you're saying that the bullshit FCC and Verizon are pulling are good for the citizens of the US? I sure don't think so. Government officials never agree on anything, it's always this vs that, no one can agree on this issue without bringing up that issue. I absolutely detest it because no one can seem to agree on a single issue or solution. Makes me want to bitch slap some sense into them.

Why can't people just learn to agree to disagree and move on? Sometime there isn't going to be magical solution, there almost never is one in fact, but no, politicians have to over-dramatize and sensationalize the issues, it's really aggravating.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

As with a lot of issues, however, the polling doesn't coincide with the views of the politicians.

Exactly this, and that's pretty much the only problem here, and its why we have to come together as people and call those snakes we call our congressmen. Let's not argue among ourselves. the only way to solve it is to make it a problem for them by making their phones ring like crazy.

 

[Lacius]

Exactly this, and that's pretty much the only problem here, and its why we have to come together as people and call those snakes we call our congressmen. Let's not argue among ourselves. the only way to solve it is to make it a problem for them by making their phones ring like crazy.

Or we could vote for the politicians who consistently support policies that the people support, instead of voting for the politicians who sell out to the rich and the big businesses.

So you're saying that the bullshit FCC and Verizon are pulling are good for the citizens of the US?

I didn't say that. Reread what I was responding to. I'm very much against what Trump and the FCC are doing, if I didn't already make myself clear about that.

 

[the_randomizer]

Or we could vote for the politicians who consistently support policies that the people support, instead of voting for the politicians who sell out to the rich and the big businesses.


I didn't say that. Reread what I was responding to. I'm very much against what Trump and the FCC are doing, if I didn't already make myself clear about that.

And I have my reasons for not wanting Clinton in power, but I will say the FCC was not one of the reasons, but like was mentioned, I can take it to the PM. The people shouldn't stand for this, part of me hopes for some kind of insurrection to overturn or remove the former Verizon CEO from the FCC. Or that the FCC is completely defunded and/or whitewashed with people who know what the hell they're doing.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

Or we could vote for the politicians who consistently support policies that the people support, instead of voting for the politicians who sell out to the rich and the big businesses.

This is easy to say, but sadly there issues that most people care more about than net neutrality.

In the perfect world, most politicians would be in favor of it, just like their constituents. In practice, unless we as their constituents make a move we can kiss net neutrality goodbye.

 

[the_randomizer]

This is easy to say, but sadly there issues that most people care more about than net neutrality.

In the perfect world, most politicians would be in favor of it, just like their constituents. In practice, unless we as their constituents make a move we can kiss net neutrality goodbye.

I hope someone gets their ass sued and the decision reversed.

 

[ThisIsDaAccount]

I hope someone gets their ass sued and the decision reversed.

This is possible if we band together. First step is to donate to groups like the EFF and ACLU that have the power to sue and then call our congressmen to make them pay for their actions against net neutrality, maybe by voting against them in our party's primaries or calling them like I've been saying.

 

[Lacius]

This is easy to say, but sadly there issues that most people care more about than net neutrality.

In the perfect world, most politicians would be in favor of it, just like their constituents. In practice, unless we as their constituents make a move we can kiss net neutrality goodbye.

On all the major issues I can think of, the policies of the Democratic Party are more popular:

• Climate change
• Net neutrality
• LGBT rights
• Women's rights
• Taxation
• Gun control
• Foreign policy
• Immigration issues
• Public education
• Health care
• Minimum wage
• Infrastructure

These are just off the top of my head. Why, then, do Democrats sometimes suck when competing against Republicans? The candidates sometimes suck at campaigning, and we have a gerrymandered House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency.

This is possible if we band together. First step is to donate to groups like the EFF and ACLU that have the power to sue and then call our congressmen to make them pay for their actions against net neutrality, maybe by voting against them in our party's primaries or calling them like I've been saying.

I'm 100% on board with this.

 

[Subtle Demise]

This is possible if we band together. First step is to donate to groups like the EFF and ACLU that have the power to sue and then call our congressmen to make them pay for their actions against net neutrality, maybe by voting against them in our party's primaries or calling them like I've been saying.

I emailed congress to repeal the controlled substances act and abolish the DEA, and all I got was a form letter back lol.

I don't think contacting congress really has any effect.

 

[Lacius]

I emailed congress to repeal the controlled substances act and abolish the DEA, and all I got was a form letter back lol.

I don't think contacting congress really has any effect.

It only has an effect if a lot of people are contacting them about the same issue.