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

Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#191

Post by brobinson »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #147
0x09 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that these were the votes against the original CISA bill, NOT the bill that passed yesterday. Those votes were: Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R] Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R] Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R] Nay - Sen. John McCain [R] Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R] Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R] Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R]…

Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R] Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D] Cowards.

It is likely this was intentional. If you don't want to be present for a vote for some reason, you can find someone else who would vote the other way (usually reaching across the aisle) and both agree not to participate. Happens all the time.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#192

Post by merpnderp »

tptacek wrote: post #77
twoodfin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful to note that Paul Ryan gained his position by saying shady backroom deals like this, plus giving Congress almost no time to read and think about the bill themselves, were the exact things he promised to stop. He did? I thought he got the job (after much cajoling) because he was the only candidate the moderate and right wings of the GOP could agree on.

Yes. He had to be courted; the House Freedom Caucus had to make concessions for him to accept the job. The modal HN user has either a DailyKos or RedState (mostly Kos) understanding of US politics.

Drudge and the conservative media has been all over him for this. They're calling him a liar and a failure. Rush Limbaugh is calling for the disbanding of the Republican party over this. So I'm not sure how Kos figures in to this (FYI, I don't read Kos).

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#193

Post by rayalez »

I don't get it, can somebody explain this to me, why does this stuff happen in democracy?

How can public fight government for years and lose?

How is it possible to pass a law in US that is clearly against everyone's will? I mean for all I know, most of the people are strongly against it, except for a few polititians, nobody wants this to happen, so how is that even a discussion?

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#194

Post by amyjess »

herbig wrote: post #85
randomname2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 14 votes against, FWIW: Baldwin (D-WI) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Coons (D-DE) Franken (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Markey (D-MA) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Udall (D-NM) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live. The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live acc…

Paul's views on immigration and refugees are also equally horrendous.

I can't see myself voting in 2016. I find the views of all the Republican and Democratic candidates to be morally repugnant, just for different reasons.

As an LGBT person myself, I refuse to vote for Paul or any other candidate who opposes LGBT rights (including the entire Republican field), and as a Jew, I refuse to vote for any candidate that opposes refugees. However, I also won't vote for the Democrats because their views on other subjects are just as repugnant, including gun control and minimum wage.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#195

Post by Jonoco »

Diamons wrote: post #183
warfangle wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure. For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into accoun…

Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.

> the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi

Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#196

Post by mahranch »

jklinger410 wrote: post #185
mahranch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would…

>Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against. I understand why you feel like you're correct in naysaying and feeling like you're adding something to the conversation by being contrary. Unfortunately you're setting up a bit of a strawman, as if people who support…

> I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against.

Sometimes I forget that hackernews has a slightly more intelligent user-base. Unfortunately, I participate on reddit as well, and there, political supporters have a slightly naive view of how politics and the government works (that's putting it nicely). Sometimes I confuse the two websites.

> So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.

Well, real change means electing the right congressmen. To up-end our current republic, the first-past-the-post system, and to reform campaign finance requires electing senators who would do just that.

If Bernie wins the nomination, he's definitely getting my vote. Unfortunately, that's a near impossibility. And he also said he wouldn't run against Hillary if she wins the nomination. Bernie recognizes the fact that he would damage the party and take votes away from Hillary if he runs as an independent. He's a pragmatic & logical man and understands that a Clinton presidency is orders of magnitude better for our country than a Bush or Trump presidency. It's simply the lesser of all the evils.

And unless you run for office yourself, it's always, always going to be choosing between the "least evil" because no candidate will represent your views 100% unless, again, you run yourself.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#197

Post by tptacek »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158
tptacek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bills get passed in omnibus spending bills all the time. For instance, as someone pointed out on the last thread about CISA: your COBRA health insurance? COBRA stands for "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act". There was extended public debate and a prolonged amendment process for CISA and PCNA in both houses of Congress. There was intense media coverage and, once CISA passed in October, the consensus was t…

Now you're just making the case that the Schoolhouse Rock process is never followed for controversial bills. That isn't the process being followed, it's evidence that the proponents required procedural gymnastics to subvert that process in order to get the bill passed.

CISA was probably the least controversial part of this bill. The real controversy was the budget itself; the bill involves Ryan surrendering the ability to freeze the government with future budget bills until almost after the next election. The GOP has been using that ability on and off for the last 6 years.

In message board land, the fact that the bill was finalized in the middle of the night is evidence that The Man is trying to sneak CISA past us. In reality, nobody in Congress cares about CISA; that's a done deal. It's the budget they're being sneaky about.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that CISA (and a bunch of other random stuff in the budget bill) had been scheduled to go through on the budget bill for weeks.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#198

Post by um_ya »

Jonoco wrote: post #195
Diamons wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.

> the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

> Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

You do realize that the government pays (with private company tax dollars) other private companies to do things for them, don't you?

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#199

Post by fleitz »

rgbrenner wrote: post #181
caseysoftware wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've specified "agencies" since my first comment, not the CBO. In the US, those are separate branches - executive vs legislative respectively - and use different approaches to build their "baselines." CBO assumes the government continues current operations and applies the effects of new laws to create their baseline. Agencies include discretionary spending to create their baseline. All of this is noted on the Wikiped…

yes, I read the entire wikipedia article. Did you read it? Because it does not support what you're saying. You've made up a definition of baseline budgets that does not exist... it sounds like your version combines baseline budgets -- which are created by the CBO; and budget requests -- which are submitted by the various departments of the executive. Baseline is defined by law. There's no made up definition or arbitr…

Other than the words he's using he's basically correct.

Agencies request more than they need so they can say their budget is being cut. That's like negotiations 101.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#200

Post by mahranch »

joeyaiello wrote: post #153
mahranch wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all. Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this ma…

> Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys

Except, all the evidence throughout history has shown this never to be the case. It never, ever works. It's what the big companies want you to believe to you'll buy into whatever ideology they're selling. It's libertarian nonsense with no basis in reality. It's a Koch brothers talking point - they literally live by that mantra.

Post reply on HN