Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 598 posts

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#281

Post by MOARDONGZPLZ »

redeeman wrote: post #267
da_chicken wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have a clear plan in two parts. 1. Since the opposition seeks progress in many forms, blindly obstruct them in all cases. 2. Legislate the country back to 1953. When that is accomplished, legislate the country back to 1853. The only part I'm unsure about is whether they're interested in renaming the nation "Gilead."

if you're just halfway serious, perhaps its time to seek some medical help

That’s a bit of an extreme comment “seeking medical help” but to be fair I’m only aware of the “to 1953” legislation and not the additional “to 1853” legislation.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#282

Post by darkwizard42 »

dmorgan81 wrote: post #160
SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

Congress was destined to this fate when they eliminated earmarks. Earmarks, or pork barrel spending, were derided as gov't waste, but in reality they were the grease that kept legislation moving. A representative could go back to their voters and say, "I voted for this thing you might not like, but I did it to ensure this crucial local project got done." Without earmarks there is no incentive to compromise. Compromis…

There are still bill riders on many congressional votes. I don't think this is true (regarding elimination of earmarks)

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#283

Post by spaceguillotine »

redeeman wrote: post #267
da_chicken wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have a clear plan in two parts. 1. Since the opposition seeks progress in many forms, blindly obstruct them in all cases. 2. Legislate the country back to 1953. When that is accomplished, legislate the country back to 1853. The only part I'm unsure about is whether they're interested in renaming the nation "Gilead."

if you're just halfway serious, perhaps its time to seek some medical help

They published the plan and its pretty much what the parent comment said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

The GOP wants fascism everywhere

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#284

Post by noahtallen »

s3r3nity wrote: post #242
skyfaller wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how soci…

> But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship Democrats have been calling on Biden to increase his power through just writing Executive Orders to act on their platform, and bypass all other branches of government...but THAT's not dictatorship?

If you look at the number of executive orders per president, republicans tend to have slightly more over the past couple decades. (Bush more than Obama, Trump more than Biden.)

I don’t think executive orders are that concerning when the legislative body has problems getting shit done. It’s a normal political tool that both parties use (relatively) evenly. What is concerning is gravely anti-constitutional movements to overturn the results of democratic elections.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#285

Post by yencabulator »

dmorgan81 wrote: post #160
SeanAnderson wrote: post #13

I'm happy this reversal occurred, but I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. Feels like we're stagnating as a nation by going in a circle rather than finding commonality to go forward. Maybe it's always been this way though and I'm just getting old enough to be bothered by it?

Congress was destined to this fate when they eliminated earmarks. Earmarks, or pork barrel spending, were derided as gov't waste, but in reality they were the grease that kept legislation moving. A representative could go back to their voters and say, "I voted for this thing you might not like, but I did it to ensure this crucial local project got done." Without earmarks there is no incentive to compromise. Compromis…

Not wanting to compromise comes largely from the two-party system. If a politician had to worry about losing votes to a more moderate party, they'd end up with less extreme voting records.

Multi-party governments function largely because some subset of the parties agrees to compromises to gain a combined majority on a specific topic; none of them can do anything in isolation.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#286

Post by MrZongle2 »

triceratops wrote: post #40
objektif wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Administration sees they are losing the young vote. Administration checks what can get them more young votes…..

Politicians doing what voters want?! What a radical concept!

Funny how they seem to rack up most of these high-profile accomplishments in election years....

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#287

Post by darkwizard42 »

zer00eyz wrote: post #3

FCC rules... The other day it was FTC and banning non competes, there's also talk right now on the home page regarding KYC and an executive order. I would love for us to be able to get back to making laws in the US. Executive orders and agency rulings are a bad way to run a "democratic republic"

This is the equivalent of a CEO/C-suite delegating decision making to various teams and leaders below them. They still add laws and appoint the leaders of those organizations, but can't be involved in every decision.

Can't expect every single item in the government to get direct democracy, the world would grind to a halt due to the sheer number of decisions needed to be made.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#288

Post by bedhead »

skyfaller wrote: post #222
feoren wrote: post #167

This flip-flopping happens because there is no commonality to find. One of the only (effectively) two major political parties of the United States is completely uninterested in governing. They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing. Their only goal is the piecemeal selloff of government powers to the highest bidder, and they convince their stalwart followers of this by making sure…

I have to disagree that the Republicans do not have a plan. They have a very clear and public plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Yes, they spend a lot of energy on obstructing the government from functioning, and creating a naked kleptocracy to use the government to funnel money into their own pockets. But they are also moving openly towards a fascist dictatorship with very specific ideas about how soci…

Remember when there was no net neutrality and everything...worked great?

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#289

Post by redserk »

Auracle wrote: post #234
al_borland wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power. I wish more people had this perspective. The topic of packing the Supreme Court comes to mind. There are people who want Biden to do this, but if does it, what’s stopping the next Republican from doing it too… back and forth until the court is so big it can’t function. These easily won “vict…

Congress had decades to make actual abortion laws, and both sides had times where they were fully in power - not that they shouldn’t have compromised on something like 12 or 15 weeks instead like most European countries. As far as people’s opinions of the court goes, it really grinds my gears how most people assume the Supreme Court is there to essentially make or strike down laws on their own whims. That’s not how i…

The Supreme Court decides which cases it wants to hear and there are many cases brought into the legal system each year. That practically gives it the power to make (well, re/interpret) or strike down whatever legislation it wants, as long as there's a relevant-enough case.

Re: FCC votes to restore net neutrality rules

#290

Post by xienze »

tivert wrote: post #135
jmyeet wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... I am exhausted by the continuous flip-flopping of legislation depending on which party is in charge. By design, Congress is unable to do anything. It's either one party (always the same party) being completely obstructionist, even other presidential appointments, or if a rotating villain who defects and stops any meaningful legislation. Power has moved to the courts and to the states. Again, entirely by design.…

> By design, Congress is unable to do anything. It's either one party (always the same party) being completely obstructionist, even other presidential appointments, or if a rotating villain who defects and stops any meaningful legislation. Don't pretend like the Democrats wouldn't be just as obstructionist if it suited their political objectives. What we actually have is lack of consensus, and excessively polarized f…

> Don't pretend like the Democrats wouldn't be just as obstructionist if it suited their political objectives.

And this is exactly what they did when Trump was in office! Their motto was “#resist” for crying out loud. Sheesh, right now TikTok is on the verge of being banned, something that they were completely against when Trump wanted to do it. Bad idea when Trump wants it, good idea when Biden does.

Just be honest folks, it’s truly a “both sides” thing. And honestly, political gridlock is a good thing. Most of the people here on HN quickly forget how valuable it is when it’s the side YOU don’t like ramming legislation through.

Post reply on HN