Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#171

Post by throwaway729 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #53

ajross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject. Seriously?

This comment simply attacks the source while doing nothing to actually refute its arguments.

I don't tend to assume advertisements provide an unbiased review of a product. Also, I think pointing out submarine advertising tends to produce more informed consumers.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#172

Post by puranjay » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:43 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #169

puranjay wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people harp on the 2 million popular votes thing. If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. But the goal was 270 electoral votes, so that's what the candidates campaigned for. This is like a losing soccer team saying that they won more free kicks, so they should get to win, not the team that scored more goals

> If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. And I think that would've been a good thing. Do you disagree?

Sure, but the rules of the game were set before the candidates started playing. You can't lose and then retroactively change the rules to give yourself the victory.

If the rules are bad, change them the next time around.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#173

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #145

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sell me on the argument against it? There are three groups of people opposed to network neutrality. 1) People who don't like government regulation in general, 2) Telecoms lobbyists and 3) People who don't understand what network neutrality is. Obviously only the first are worth listening to, though the second are the loudest and the third are the most numerous. And the issue with listening to the first group is tha…

> And if they're wrong and they fail Fair point, but worth noting that they could fail for many reasons that have nothing to do with your central thesis.

In theory they could also fail because they're wrong about something else, but whose problem is that? Either they can figure out how to have competition without regulation, or they can't and we need network neutrality.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#174

Post by throwaway729 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

apatters wrote: post #136

TulliusCicero wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too. Utter nonsense. Under a popular vote-based system, each person in a non-coastal state would have exactly as much say as each person in a coastal state. To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they…

> To the extent that coastal areas might have more sway as a whole because they have more people, isn't that the whole point of democracy? But the United States was never intended to be a popular democracy. In their wisdom the Founding Fathers acknowledged the problems inherent in democracy (it devolves too easily into two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner). Instead, they created a federal republic, in wh…

You're confusing federalism with the politics surrounding the electoral college.

The motivation for the electoral college had nothing to do with the values you've outlined in your post.

Incidentally, re: your thought experiment, we'd also have slavery and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. The politics of 1780 wasn't idyllic.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#175

Post by ng12 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #169

puranjay wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people harp on the 2 million popular votes thing. If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. But the goal was 270 electoral votes, so that's what the candidates campaigned for. This is like a losing soccer team saying that they won more free kicks, so they should get to win, not the team that scored more goals

> If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. And I think that would've been a good thing. Do you disagree?

I think this is one election where the Electoral College did it's job. One of the big issues Trump made this election was globalization. You know who benefits from globalization? People who live in metropolitan areas. Who pays the bill? People who live in small-town America. We are a federalist republic for this very reason -- to limit the ability of the majority to shoehorn the minority.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#176

Post by awinder » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #144

theli0nheart wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. This begs for a source. Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words? Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that at the time the U.S. was foun…

>The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. - Federalist Papers, # 68, Alexander Hamilton The electoral college was there to prevent demagogues. That way, if one person managed to convince the populace with empty rhetoric…

Exactly, and the number of states with bound electors sure seem to be in conflict with the originalism of wanting to retain the electoral college argument...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#177

Post by throwaway729 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #172

throwaway729 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If that was the goal, that's what the candidates would have campaigned for. And I think that would've been a good thing. Do you disagree?

Sure, but the rules of the game were set before the candidates started playing. You can't lose and then retroactively change the rules to give yourself the victory. If the rules are bad, change them the next time around.

Which is exactly what's being proposed.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#178

Post by cobralibre » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #70

xahrepap wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is anti-democratic by design . Founding fathers didn't want a democratic election for presidents. I think a good example of what the electoral college is: you have a sports tournament. The winner isn't the person who gets the most points in all the games. It's the person who wins the most games.

The original purpose of the electoral college was NOT to provide disproportionate voice to non-populous states. In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves. Also, the founding fathers weren't all supporters of the electoral college. Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely becom…

> In fact, the states backing the college were some of the most populous as long as you count slaves.

Worded another way: The states backing the college were some of the least populous UNLESS you counted slaves, who did not themselves enjoy rights of citizenship but were included in population counts to boost the political power of slaveholders.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#179

Post by seanmcdirmid » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

GOP has both chambers, they are against net neutrality, Trump is against it, there is nothing to protect it at this point. NN won't last the first years of Trump's administration.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#180

Post by lintiness » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

phailhaus wrote: post #152

lintiness wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uh, dunno ... maybe yield on dollars spent is indicative of, say, their ability to manage our tax dollars.

No? I don't see how spending money on a campaign is related to spending money on, say, social security. Otherwise, you're suggesting that advertising companies would be fantastic at government. Like, "They got me to buy Coke, they must be great at managing our public education!"

i didn't qualify their "ability" to govern; i suggested a poor use of money spent campaigning MIGHT be indicative of one's poor use of money governing. do you have a logical counter, or are you and everybody else around still crying over the hillary loss?