11–20 of 322 posts
This is the end. If we think this guy's gonna listen to the people, we're completely wrong.
This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.
The same faction that opposes net neutrality in the FCC also controls both Houses of Congress plus the White House, in fact, the change in the latter that completes that control is why they control the FCC, not an unrelated independent event. So laws would be no less vulnerable than FCC regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.
The same faction that opposes net neutrality in the FCC also controls both Houses of Congress plus the White House, in fact, the change in the latter that completes that control is why they control the FCC, not an unrelated independent event. So laws would be no less vulnerable than FCC regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same faction that opposes net neutrality in the FCC also controls both Houses of Congress plus the White House, in fact, the change in the latter that completes that control is why they control the FCC, not an unrelated independent event. So laws would be no less vulnerable than FCC regulations.
But eight years ago, the opposing faction had even more control. They could have enshrined net neutrality in law then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.
The same faction that opposes net neutrality in the FCC also controls both Houses of Congress plus the White House, in fact, the change in the latter that completes that control is why they control the FCC, not an unrelated independent event. So laws would be no less vulnerable than FCC regulations.
This is the end. If we think this guy's gonna listen to the people, we're completely wrong.
This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.
Having people who are competent at their job in regulatory positions seems just as important as having Congress do their job for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why getting laws passed, instead of relying on executive orders and the whims of bureaucrats in power at the time, is so crucial.
That's not going to happen as long as there are at least 40 Republicans in the senate. They used a filibuster to block a moderate Supreme Court nominee, you think they'll even consider allowing an internet reform bill to come to a vote?
Compromise. Something that neither of the two major parties seem interested in anymore. It is that, not the allocation of seats to a party in Congress, which is why things haven't gotten done.
Why is the FCC against net neutrality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same faction that opposes net neutrality in the FCC also controls both Houses of Congress plus the White House, in fact, the change in the latter that completes that control is why they control the FCC, not an unrelated independent event. So laws would be no less vulnerable than FCC regulations.
But eight years ago, the opposing faction had even more control. They could have enshrined net neutrality in law then.