131–140 of 242 posts
The root issue is entrenched (literally and figuratively) local monopolies. We want Net Neutrality because we can't switch providers when our ISPs behave badly. I think if they go after that issue think manner they will get the votes. However, I see them going after the regulatory route, which unlikely to be pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm presuming purple (being red + blue) means a district that could either way? Lucky you. Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established.
You can still have an impact. Make noise in favor of things like open primaries, proportional representation, and instant-runoff/score/range voting. Imo one of the biggest problems with our current system (single winner FPTP) is it results in two parties, with various side effects such as extremist candidates in primaries, complete lack of representation for minority voters, and gerrymandered districts. Moving toward…
If things go well, that can be an example for the rest of the country. More states should follow the Maine example!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Here we don't have elections that matter because thanks to redistricting and gerrymandering, the outcome (along party lines) is well established. All that means is that the general election doesn't matter, and so you need to move your vote to whatever comes before the general election in your district to make it matter. 1. Register for the party that the redistricting and gerrymandering favors. 2. Vote in that part…
I’d like to hear an argument for why #1 might be dishonest. There is no definition of “registered Democrat” except for “someone who is registered as a Democrat.” I’m pretty sure you don’t have to sign anything claiming to believe in certain principles. I’m struggling to think of any way this could be considered dishonest.
That is to say, game the system by looking at the rules and vote for someone you don't actually believe in. (In the primary.) Whether or not that rises to the level of being dishonest is up to you to decide.
(The "new" rules are that the "less likely to win" candidate may be harder to determine in the current political climate.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>People are going to die based on our health care policy Yes, and people are going to die based on our self-driving car policies, our affordable housing policies, our food subsidy policies, our energy policies, our alcohol policies, our gambling policies, our foreign aid policies, etc. The crippling of the Internet via poor net policies could hamper technologies that ultimately would have saved billions. You are pres…
The difference here is that you are guessing as to what might happen. We know that some people without access to medical care will die. You're saying it's okay to gamble those people's lives on the chance that future lives might be saved. Obviously a balance between spending on research and health care must be struck so this isn't a black and white issue but you would need to put forth a pretty convincing argument th…
That actually sounds like an argument for allowing patients the option of a "fast lane" to their hospital for telemedicine and monitoring with higher priority than Netflix and YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. First off, he didn't say that Republicans are reprehensible. He said that voting for a Republican implies that you are voting for a lot of reprehensible stuff (by proxy through your Republican representative). Reprehensible doesn't mean "I don't agree with". Over the years I've had disagreements with both parties (and have voted for members of both parties). However, with the increas…
I understand exactly what the parent's point is. I'm just continuing the discussion. The implication (and the sibling comments agree) is that you shouldn't vote for a party if you don't agree with everything about the platform. I'm defending the GP in this case arguing that I wish collectively we would focus more on single issues and less on broad sweeping platform stereotypes (e.g. reprehensible republican). I initi…
Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…
However, I'm still not all too sure whether Net Neutrality is worth promising support to existing Republicans. There are so many other issues on the table this election cycle and they next Congress is likely to be as, or more, supportive on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds exactly like what I got from Cathy mcmorris Rodgers in eastern Washington as well
I wonder if there's a "Letter's from my Congressman" website where random people post letters they got from their congressman.
Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…
I also live in a purple district (in a very blue state), and while my Republican Congressman has made it clear he's against Net Neutrality, he voted against the repeal of the Internet privacy regulations, so he can't be counted out entirely. However, I'm still not all too sure whether Net Neutrality is worth promising support to existing Republicans. There are so many other issues on the table this election cycle and…
Putting it on paper is valuable. It clarifies your thoughts. And it makes it clear how draconian these red lines are. (I constantly re-evaluate them, with the goal of talking myself out of them.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Things aren't addressed either. Because the House still needs to vote. Bicameral Legislative process in the USA. Laws need to be passed twice before they have any effect, and Trump has the (nearly) final say in the form of a presidential veto. Assuming the Democrats manage to vote as a bloc in the House, there still needs to be ~25 Republicans who switch sides on this issue. Net Neutrality is... for some reason... se…
> for some reason Legalized bribery. The phrase you're looking for is legalized bribery.
Time to call your Congressmen. I live in a purple district, and I'm going to make it clear to my Republican representative that: 1) I'm going to vote in November, 2) I will vote for him if he votes to keep the pre-existing title II net neutrality regulations, and against them if he does not, and 3) Net neutrality is even supported by a majority of Republican voters [1], so if he votes against it's clear he's voting a…