Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consent was given in the ballot box, No?
The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.
[deleted]
More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
211–220 of 343 posts
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes. There is no "popular election" in the American system. Consent is, and has always been, given by proxy through the electoral college, as defined in the US Constitution. If you want to invalidate Trump's authority because of that, you have to invalidate every election prior as well, and claim that the US governm…
It is true the EC elected Trump, but the popular vote is often used to demonstrate a mandate based on the will of the people i.e. "The people have spoken and this is their decision." Well in November the people spoke and the man in the White House was not their decision. It was the decision of the electoral college. A system, btw, which was designed to give majority slave owning states a greater say in Presidential e…
> Less than 50% voted for either candidate.
True. Another way of saying this is 64% of voters cast a vote for someone other than the President. This is reflected in his historically low approval ratings [1], and public opinions on both the healthcare push [2] and the current tax reform push [3].
But if we assume for a moment that the election was a mandate for the President to implement his agenda, we have to also note he isn't implementing the agenda on which he ran. He promised a wall paid for by Mexico, and several times has asked Congress to appropriate money for the wall. He promised he would not touch entitlements, and supported GOP measures to slash medicaid. He promised to drain the swamp and appointed interests to his cabinet with an agenda contrary to the agencies they represent. He promised to release his tax returns if elected and then claimed his election meant the voters decided he didn't have to. He promised to get tough on China and then capitulated to them over a cake dessert. This whole "mandate" idea, if we are going to accept it, should only be a mandate to implement the agenda on which the candidate campaigned. It cannot be used as a carte blanche for an elected official to turn around and do whatever they want.
To be clear, I'm not saying how a President governs and how a President campaigns should be identical. There's room for improvisation and changing ideas. But the fact a President was elected cannot be used as a justification for every action his/her administration takes.
[1]: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/... [2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/28/suff... [3]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-poll/fewer-than-a...
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government governs by the consent of its citizens. It is never acceptable for the government to ignore the opinions of its citizens, and anyone in government claiming otherwise should be removed. I utterly reject your claim that we should just acquiesce in the face of such malignancy.
The consent was given in the ballot box, No?
You say that like Trump ran on a platform of deregulating internet service providers, as opposed to populist rage.
If anything, this election cycle demonstrates that the executive holds far too much power, that it can act with impunity at the behest of lobbyists on issues unrelated to, and in conflict with, the issues which drove voters to elect it.
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the biggest misconception among net neutrality sceptics is the assumption that bandwidth in general is a limited resource: It's not. The problem with 'others slowing down the internet' is usually on the last mile and it's cable providers oversubscribing this shared medium.
> The problem with 'others slowing down the internet' is usually on the last mile and it's cable providers oversubscribing this shared medium This sounds correct, but can you point me toward some additional info?
Best I could find, has seem further links: http://time.com/money/4360431/internet-data-caps-bogus-ploys...
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consent was given in the ballot box, No?
The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.
> lost the popular election by 3 million votes
Oh no not this again.
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC is appointed, not elected. And the current President, who appoints the FCC chairperson, lost the popular election by 3 million votes.
I really wish people would stop using the "he/she won/lost by 3 million popularity votes" line. Something I don't think people realize: 3 million people isn't that many. Considering there are ~325M American citizens, ~231M are eligible to vote, with ~63M and ~66M actual votes going to the Donald and Hilldog respectfully, the margin between the two runners is pretty small. The Donald collected 27.2% of eligible votes,…
> Something I don't think people realize: 3 million people isn't that many.
It's not that many in relative terms, but it's certainly a lot of people. It's more than the population of some countries and 20 US states.
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#217I got a bunch of emails from senators thanking me for contacting them this week... before I had contacted any of them. Who knows what was said in my name.
[deleted]
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the ISP wants to be involved in monitoring and regulating (or charging differently depending) where your packets go, then they can be liable for providing child pornography, being a party to all copyright infringements, etc... If they want to take action depending on the data, then they can be held liable for the data as well. This is why the telcos wanted "common carrier" status in the first place. But now they'r…
Aren’t they already? I thought they are the ones sending warnings about piracy etc. Also, its not like youtube, fb etc. Create their own content
No, they’re not.
Regarding ISPs creating original content, they have tried that and the quality of their stuff just couldn’t stand next to Google, Facebook, etc.
I think we all know a relative who used the “install CD” that came with their 2000s-era ISP and ended up with a junk homepage & browser toolbars, and “ask Jeeves” as their default search engine.
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consent was given in the ballot box, No?
You say that like Trump ran on a platform of deregulating internet service providers, as opposed to populist rage. If anything, this election cycle demonstrates that the executive holds far too much power, that it can act with impunity at the behest of lobbyists on issues unrelated to, and in conflict with, the issues which drove voters to elect it.
In this case the problem isn't with the executive though, but in congress (where's the outrage from our representatives?).
Actually my senator is outraged, but he doesn't have a big telco presence in his state. Congress certainly has the power to stop this.
Re: More Than a Million Pro-Repeal Net Neutrality Comments Were Likely Faked
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren’t they already? I thought they are the ones sending warnings about piracy etc. Also, its not like youtube, fb etc. Create their own content
No, they’re not. Regarding ISPs creating original content, they have tried that and the quality of their stuff just couldn’t stand next to Google, Facebook, etc. I think we all know a relative who used the “install CD” that came with their 2000s-era ISP and ended up with a junk homepage & browser toolbars, and “ask Jeeves” as their default search engine.
are you implying that google or facebook create original content?