And when the IG reaches the obvious conclusion that Pai is making laws to benefit one and only one party, to ensure Americans get only one twisted view, what then?
Nothing. Because nothing will change as long as the GOP has a scrap of power. Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed.
> You're probably going to get downvoted because "both sides are the same" but they really aren't. Only one party is doing this.
This is the height of arrogance.
Either major party can be characterized as the reigning party of broken promises and slime. Both of them will represent their own policies as of six years prior as reprehensible when the opposing party runs on those same policies; and both will use whatever power the electorate gives them to enrich themselves (or at least their own cause), if that is an option.
You don't have to look at how the parties represent themselves or each other. You just have to look at their actions. Neither party is perfect, of course, but if you can look at the world today and claim "both sides" are equally at fault you're....
False equivalence is a powerful form of propaganda in heavy use today.
It is our duty to be objective and rational, and that requires us to challenge and reject "false equivalence" arguments whether it's Putin, or Assad, or Duerte, or Erdogan rationalizing their despotic government or US Republicans rationalizing their unprecedented and unequal malpractice in American government.
I feel that anyone who dares suggest that "both parties are the same" is so fundamentally ignorant that they're suffering from Dunning Kruger / illusory knowledge.
One only needs to read about "starving the beast" (a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs) or the Project for a New American Century (Republican PAC in 1999 which planned the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria in the early 90's before GWB re-invaded the middle east -- that list sound familiar?) to understand how the modern assault on Liberal Democratic order in the West was planned and executed.
> "a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs"
That's an odd thing to cite as it really isn't a form of corruption.
A limited federal government is a core pillar of conservatism and the republican party. That "nefarious" plan is the what they (and many right-voters) consider the most viable strategy for reducing the size and scope of the federal government. I think you'll find more instances of corruption/pandering/populism on the right, in the places where they are expanding the federal government.
Its a bit like calling democrats corrupt because they have a "nefarious" plans to confiscate more of your money (in the form of taxes) to pay for federal programs.
I find this is the way many of the back-n-forths go in the "party x is more corrupt" game. <insert party here> is so demonized in the minds of their opponents, literally acting in accordance with their political philosophy appears like a form of corruption.
I guess the "they want to kill your babies!" style rhetoric actually works.
The fallacy you are absokutely running with here is "false equivalence." Yes the Democrat party is slimy self-serving punters. But they're not nearly as good at it as the R's. Even acceptingthere isn't a difference in kind (I happen to think there is) but surely you would admit there is a difference in degree.
Yeah! Democrats! What have they ever done for us? Except for putting the internet common carrier regulations in place in the first place for Pai to tear down. Or making antitrust law reform a core plank in the party platform. Just for a couple of examples.
> Over the last thirty years, courts and permissive regulators have allowed large companies to get larger, resulting in higher prices and limited consumer choice in daily expenses such as travel, cable, and food and beverages. And because concentrated market power leads to concentrated political power, these companies deploy armies of lobbyists to increase their stranglehold on Washington.
>Democrats! What have they ever done for us? Except for putting the internet common carrier regulations in place in the first place for Pai to tear down.
This is unrelated to the concentration of media. Plus, if they cared about that, they should have passed the law ensuring it when it hit the floor in 2009.
You realize that quote basically says "we've helped this happen for the past thirty years, but we've changed now!"
You may well be right that it's too little too late. But the choice is between "we've changed", or "We've helped this happen for the past thirty years, and now we're gonna triple down, baby".
There's a large number of candidates who lost in 2016 running again on the same platform with support from the party. Fundraising seems to be the main requirement for support, which is at odds with their "Better Deal." This touches some of the issues, https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primarie...
Ah. Yeah; the party does have an unfortunate habit of treating "fundraising ability" as a proxy for "electability". I don't love that strategy; it does tend to skew them away from more progressive candidates. It's very much arguable that it's the wrong tack to be taking in 2018 (and 2020), and I'd agree that it's a big part of what lost them the presidency in 2016.
But it's equally arguable that it's just facing up to electoral reality. Winning elections costs a lot of money, Citizens United is a thing that exists, the other side has a lot of billionaires willing to bankroll them, too many voters still choose based on whose face they've seen on TV the most, and if you can't afford enough ad buys you're probably going to lose.
(And some of what's being cited in that Intercept piece is just plain sour grapes. The quote from Zephyr Teachout leaped out at me in particular: the district she ran for is the next county over from me, and I've been volunteering with a group trying to get Faso out in 2018. It's a mix of long-time party members and volunteers, angry Berniecrats, DSA radicals, and newbies to politics who had their Oh Shit! I gotta do something! moment when Trump was elected. (I fall into the last group.) One of the not-very-many things that everyone in that room agrees on was thank gawd Teachout isn't making another run at it. She'd be a fine candidate for a solidly blue district, but the party was absolutely correct to work against her in NY19; she was 100% not going to win that district against anyone who knew the words "librul" and "carpetbagger".)
But I digress. Look, I agree with you: the Democratic Party is a deeply flawed institution with a talent for unforced errors and own goals; they've been parasitized by too many expensive "consultants"; there's a gazillion things I wish they'd do differently. But "they're not changing quickly enough" or "they're not selecting candidates in the way I personally would prefer" doesn't translate to "therefore the whole party platform is a lie."
For me the Trump year has been a (sobering and sometimes humiliating) exercise in working with the situation we have, rather than the situation we want to have. And the situation we have right now is, frankly, a choice between that flawed and often disappointing party on one side, or barely-figleafed kleptocracy on the other. There just aren't other viable options right now, much as we might wish there were.
>But "they're not changing quickly enough" or "they're not selecting candidates in the way I personally would prefer" doesn't translate to "therefore the whole party platform is a lie
They've given no reason to expect things have changed, and their method of selecting candidates runs counter to their platform. The candidate that can raise the most money in a Citizens United world can't work against those interests, unless they only target opposing monopolies. And that's a kleptocracy too.
If you wish there was another viable option, you have to stop supporting what you consider "the lesser of two evils." Opposing other options is one of the areas the parties show true unity.
And yet we do live in a Citizens United world. Candidates do need money to win.
I have my issues with the Democratic party but I don't take nearly as dim a view of them as you do. But even if I did, just opting out of the process as you suggest would just do even more to support the status quo.
>And yet we do live in a Citizens United world. Candidates do need money to win
Many of these candidates already proved that money didn't end in a win. And what does their winning matter if they can't represent your interests?
>I have my issues with the Democratic party but I don't take nearly as dim a view of them as you do. But even if I did, just opting out of the process as you suggest would just do even more to support the status quo.
War is a primary issue for me, and the status quo is basically the same voting R or D there. I'm not opting out, I'm refusing to support the current situation.
Yep, the same with Mueller, nothing will happen until the Republicans lose the 2018 midterms. But the investigation is still important, even the current congress won't act on it, a future one might.
> Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed.
"It's only an utterly rigged primary, nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.", "I swear none of the records I destroyed after generating them illegally were sensitive or scandalous", "Come on guys, I didn't sell that much uranium to Russia at cut rates.", "If it weren't for that stupid video that nobody watched, nobody would've attacked the facilities in Benghazi", "It's perfectly okay that Clinton Foundation money marked for assistance to Haitians was instead used to fund my daughter's wedding."
Mind pointing out which ones, and which demonstrations? I know at least one habitual Democrat voter that has acknowledged each of these in conversation.
The wedding one is a bit tough since it relies solely on rumor, so I'd accept that as not solid, but the other ones are either paraphrases of things somebody has said on record, or provable with public facts. One is not "half" of five.
Somewhere else in the world, a republican just grouped all democrats together and called them brainwashed. And the argument they presented was as good as yours (that is, they didn't have one). Just maybe, the "brainwashed" ones are the people that buy so heavily into the partisan politics the media sells them to keep them in a constant state of outrage at the other team.
I live in a red state and e-mailed all of my representatives about net neutrality and I got a response back from all but one of them. From their responses, and my own research I've concluded there is another side to this story than just Republicans treating this like a partisan issue or votes being bought out from Comcast so large cable companies can make more money.
All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum.
[0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."
And you believe them? The big money interests promised not to violate net neutrality, if only we would remove all the rules first? And we're supposed to believe that?
Not sure if the internet freedom bill was written maliciously, or with a "one problem at a time" approach. I would have loved for there to be a proposal to replace title 2 with something better, but maybe Ajit Pai knew straight up removing it would be more popular with the Republicans interests.
I believe the "violations" people cite are very blown up, example being Comcast blocking bit torrent, they worked with bit torrent and made their service much more efficient, win win for everyone.
That being said I do not trust big cable companies, and that's why I don't share the "The free market will take care of itself" approach some republicans seem to have, which ignores there is no competition in some areas to begin with. I'm pro net neutrality, and am hoping some future law can ensure this without being inherently suffocating for ISPs.
Just look at countries without protections: your phone provider extorts monthly fees to 'provide' access to facebook etc. In fact they're doing nothing. Except blocking access until you pay. Simple shakedown. This is what we have to look forward to.
I'm not looking forward to that future either, which is why I'm still being politically active about net neutrality, just not title two.
The good thing is that the new law doesn't have to be permanent, there have already been a net neutrality specific law in Montana, I don't know if it is any good and I haven't done any research on it, but I'd be willing to bet its more relevant than title 2 was.
I've also seen a lot more articles talking about lack of competition in areas ISP problems and such since title 2 was repealed. So there is still hope!
If only Ajit Pai knew what the people he bends over for, and whom he thinks hes an equal by doing their bidding, think about him and the names they call him behind his back...
37 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 48.6 ms ] threadNothing. Because nothing will change as long as the GOP has a scrap of power. Republican voters will forgive every outrage because they've been brainwashed.
This is the height of arrogance.
Either major party can be characterized as the reigning party of broken promises and slime. Both of them will represent their own policies as of six years prior as reprehensible when the opposing party runs on those same policies; and both will use whatever power the electorate gives them to enrich themselves (or at least their own cause), if that is an option.
...well, you're probably a Republican.
It is our duty to be objective and rational, and that requires us to challenge and reject "false equivalence" arguments whether it's Putin, or Assad, or Duerte, or Erdogan rationalizing their despotic government or US Republicans rationalizing their unprecedented and unequal malpractice in American government.
I feel that anyone who dares suggest that "both parties are the same" is so fundamentally ignorant that they're suffering from Dunning Kruger / illusory knowledge.
One only needs to read about "starving the beast" (a nefarious legislative plan of cutting taxes and not spending, to intentionally manufacture budget crises surrounding debt, to cut social welfare programs) or the Project for a New American Century (Republican PAC in 1999 which planned the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran and Syria in the early 90's before GWB re-invaded the middle east -- that list sound familiar?) to understand how the modern assault on Liberal Democratic order in the West was planned and executed.
I'm just so tired of false equivalence.
That's an odd thing to cite as it really isn't a form of corruption.
A limited federal government is a core pillar of conservatism and the republican party. That "nefarious" plan is the what they (and many right-voters) consider the most viable strategy for reducing the size and scope of the federal government. I think you'll find more instances of corruption/pandering/populism on the right, in the places where they are expanding the federal government.
Its a bit like calling democrats corrupt because they have a "nefarious" plans to confiscate more of your money (in the form of taxes) to pay for federal programs.
I find this is the way many of the back-n-forths go in the "party x is more corrupt" game. <insert party here> is so demonized in the minds of their opponents, literally acting in accordance with their political philosophy appears like a form of corruption.
I guess the "they want to kill your babies!" style rhetoric actually works.
> Over the last thirty years, courts and permissive regulators have allowed large companies to get larger, resulting in higher prices and limited consumer choice in daily expenses such as travel, cable, and food and beverages. And because concentrated market power leads to concentrated political power, these companies deploy armies of lobbyists to increase their stranglehold on Washington.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017/07/A-Bet...
This is unrelated to the concentration of media. Plus, if they cared about that, they should have passed the law ensuring it when it hit the floor in 2009.
You realize that quote basically says "we've helped this happen for the past thirty years, but we've changed now!"
But it's equally arguable that it's just facing up to electoral reality. Winning elections costs a lot of money, Citizens United is a thing that exists, the other side has a lot of billionaires willing to bankroll them, too many voters still choose based on whose face they've seen on TV the most, and if you can't afford enough ad buys you're probably going to lose.
(And some of what's being cited in that Intercept piece is just plain sour grapes. The quote from Zephyr Teachout leaped out at me in particular: the district she ran for is the next county over from me, and I've been volunteering with a group trying to get Faso out in 2018. It's a mix of long-time party members and volunteers, angry Berniecrats, DSA radicals, and newbies to politics who had their Oh Shit! I gotta do something! moment when Trump was elected. (I fall into the last group.) One of the not-very-many things that everyone in that room agrees on was thank gawd Teachout isn't making another run at it. She'd be a fine candidate for a solidly blue district, but the party was absolutely correct to work against her in NY19; she was 100% not going to win that district against anyone who knew the words "librul" and "carpetbagger".)
But I digress. Look, I agree with you: the Democratic Party is a deeply flawed institution with a talent for unforced errors and own goals; they've been parasitized by too many expensive "consultants"; there's a gazillion things I wish they'd do differently. But "they're not changing quickly enough" or "they're not selecting candidates in the way I personally would prefer" doesn't translate to "therefore the whole party platform is a lie."
For me the Trump year has been a (sobering and sometimes humiliating) exercise in working with the situation we have, rather than the situation we want to have. And the situation we have right now is, frankly, a choice between that flawed and often disappointing party on one side, or barely-figleafed kleptocracy on the other. There just aren't other viable options right now, much as we might wish there were.
They've given no reason to expect things have changed, and their method of selecting candidates runs counter to their platform. The candidate that can raise the most money in a Citizens United world can't work against those interests, unless they only target opposing monopolies. And that's a kleptocracy too.
If you wish there was another viable option, you have to stop supporting what you consider "the lesser of two evils." Opposing other options is one of the areas the parties show true unity.
I again recommend a piece from The Intercept as a reminder that these problems run far deeper than Trump. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/17/bonus-intercepted-podcas...
I have my issues with the Democratic party but I don't take nearly as dim a view of them as you do. But even if I did, just opting out of the process as you suggest would just do even more to support the status quo.
Many of these candidates already proved that money didn't end in a win. And what does their winning matter if they can't represent your interests?
>I have my issues with the Democratic party but I don't take nearly as dim a view of them as you do. But even if I did, just opting out of the process as you suggest would just do even more to support the status quo.
War is a primary issue for me, and the status quo is basically the same voting R or D there. I'm not opting out, I'm refusing to support the current situation.
"It's only an utterly rigged primary, nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.", "I swear none of the records I destroyed after generating them illegally were sensitive or scandalous", "Come on guys, I didn't sell that much uranium to Russia at cut rates.", "If it weren't for that stupid video that nobody watched, nobody would've attacked the facilities in Benghazi", "It's perfectly okay that Clinton Foundation money marked for assistance to Haitians was instead used to fund my daughter's wedding."
Edit: or how's this for some fun: http://archive.is/ZX27N
If you think habitual (D) voters are any more reasonable and unforgiving than (R) voters, I don't think we're looking at the same country.
The wedding one is a bit tough since it relies solely on rumor, so I'd accept that as not solid, but the other ones are either paraphrases of things somebody has said on record, or provable with public facts. One is not "half" of five.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16387050
All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality.[0] From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum.
[0]Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."
I believe the "violations" people cite are very blown up, example being Comcast blocking bit torrent, they worked with bit torrent and made their service much more efficient, win win for everyone.
That being said I do not trust big cable companies, and that's why I don't share the "The free market will take care of itself" approach some republicans seem to have, which ignores there is no competition in some areas to begin with. I'm pro net neutrality, and am hoping some future law can ensure this without being inherently suffocating for ISPs.
The good thing is that the new law doesn't have to be permanent, there have already been a net neutrality specific law in Montana, I don't know if it is any good and I haven't done any research on it, but I'd be willing to bet its more relevant than title 2 was.
I've also seen a lot more articles talking about lack of competition in areas ISP problems and such since title 2 was repealed. So there is still hope!