This apathy exists because the Government is broken and has been broken for quite some time. High level discourse is wonderful if it leads to solutions, if it doesn't, it is eloquent masturbation. When everyone plays nice but nothing happens, everyone seems pleased but not me. As you see, with broken Government comes loss of patience, I no longer have any concern with what he says, I am concerned with results. So far in year 1 there is tax reform on the way and ISIS has been essentially liquidated.....not a bad start.
You mean the tax reform that most people don’t want and they’ve been trying for six months to pass after “repeal and replace on day one” missed its mark by over 200 days and counting? And a net neutrality vote on Thursday that I think twelve people in the country are in support of which is likely to pass. Start building the statues now..
He did? In the tweet previously posted, or somewhere else? Prior to being President, as a wealthy executive, I am quite certain many politicians and lobbyist sought donations from Trump, and offered all sorts of favors. Why does saying "do anything for them" imply sexual favors? Because she's a woman? That sounds like your bias, not his. But, apart from that, I think Trump should be held accountable for his actions if he is guilty of sexual assault or sexual harassment. But, why do you think that apathy is limited to Trump and Moore succeeding? Hasn't that apathy been going on for some time, like say when there were women accusing Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct? Any woman who claims misconduct is quickly discredited by whichever party is opposing them. I think that should stop, and the public should demand justice. If the one being accused is guilty, they should pay for it dearly. Hopefully, more and more women will be emboldened to come forward with all the recent incidents being brought to light, which will start to cut down on the men's ability to get away with it.
Okay. So you accept the premise that he is trying to demean and belittle her right? What is the worst possible thing a woman could do for money? What is the dialogue in every porn ever where a woman seeks a favor from a man in a position of power? What is Trumps history with sexism and gender? He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Trump is good at this. He says things in a way where everyone understand exactly what he means but he gives himself a centimeter or two of plausible deniability to squeeze through. "Oh I didn't mean *that* I just meant *standard okay thing*." But to fall for that gimmick you have to really want to fall for it.
People don't want to pay less in taxes? Strange, unless I'm missing something here and, admittedly, I have essentially stopped watching the news at this point but I know I wouldn't mind paying less if this is correct: http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-tax-plan-brackets-trump-tax-reform-two-charts-2017-11 So, what is the big fear with net neutrality? Deregulation will lead to companies charging you more or throttling or blocking content? If that is the case, don't you think in an unregulated environment that opens things up for ISP competition that a company will be smart enough to understanding how unpopular throttling, charging and blocking are? If a company does those behaviors doesn't that put them at a disadvantage to the competition who doesn't do that? Net neutrality essentially treats ISPs like a utility and regulates them as such, right? Out of curiousity, do you know anyone who lives in a market where their electricity is unregulated? What do they think of it? Do they pay more or less?
It is questionable at best whether it will lower taxes, and it depends on who. I personally don’t mind paying higher taxes as a higher earner and think that upper tax brackets should be higher. Anyone who says that will disincentive people from wanting to make more money is lying and also doesn’t understand how a progressive tax system works. Lowering corporate taxes would be good if it meant higher wages but trickle down economics is a bullshit theory that doesn’t happen. Yes in theory an unregulated market would work but I think the statistic I have heard is 70% of the US only has the option of one or two internet providers so they are virtual regional monopolies so it’s not like you can just cancel your internet and go to another provider. So for a small business owner in anywhere besides major cities you have the potential to be screwed pretty badly. And I have very little faith in Comcast and other deciding to “do the right thing” because their track record is pretty shit in those situations.
This sounds like an outstanding business opportunity. The rules and regulations that protect big businesses due to cost of entry and cost of ongoing regulation are eliminated. The big business is the only game in town, potentially making life shitty for their customers (I agree and hate comcast). Now, on a local or regional level, a company can come in and offer a service competitively without the need to go nationwide. I don't understand why everyone is so averse to the idea of allowing competition to happen, sure it will take time but soon enough there will be localized competition for your dollars if the ISPs start getting shitty.
Because what I believe is more likely to happen is when a new company comes in to build out the infrastructure required to service an area the existing company will spend a ton of money to lobby the local governments to reject their proposals. I am all for expanding competition in that market and I think it is desperately needed. This just isn’t the way to go about it in my opinion. eta: The regulations they are removing are the fact that they have to charge everyone the same rate for the same speed. It would be as if the water company charged you more for your water than your neighbor
I actually doubt that. Its not that competition cant happen, its that the barriers to entry are so large. A company cant just spin up as an ISP. They have to build the cabling infrastructure, which requires raw materials, digging into the ground, etc. With dial-up, there used to be many more ISPs since the phone lines were already in place. With broadband/fiber, they have to build it from scratch. Hell, it cost Google 90-100 million to spin up Google Fiber in Austin, TX alone. Dial-up companies used to be granted to Title II rights in the 90s, which meant they had to lend out the lines for internet providers. Cable companies fought them hard to avoid them having local monopolies. Then the cable companies pushed out dial-up, and now have the monopolies they fought against. They dont have Title II, but even if they did it would just be shitty Comcast infrastructure in another wrapper. And even if a new ISP managed to raise the capital in a local area (a few cities have done it), they get sued into oblivion by the large providers. Its going to take a conglomerate that already exists to pivot to that business for another company withstand the market. Think Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos deciding to get into the business. Google is as big as it gets, and even then Fiber is taking years.
AT&T put fiber in to Orlando just in hopes of avoiding Google showing up and eating their lunch. That is competition for you, Google shows up with better technology and the market reacts. I have a feeling that the future of the ISP isn't terrestrial-based anyway, as WISPs get off the ground and technology matures, you won't need the capital outlay involved in all of that infrastructure. While I agree with you in principle, you and I aren't going to go out and get a loan to start our own ISP on a local or regional level, there will be competition, especially when barriers such as regulation and infrastructure come down.
There are people on the board who have more knowledge than me about how far off into the future any of that is. If we take it as a given that in ten years internet would all be provided over the air and wouldn’t require all the infrastructure and take it as a given that it becomes a competitive market everywhere. Eliminating net neutrality now still causes a lot of issues between now and then and I have yet to see someone put together a legitimate argument from the other side of it. Like I said, I don’t think the status quo is good either, but their proposals don’t do anything to resolve that as far as I can see.
Arguably, NN undermines property rights of ISPs. The underlying argument is that violating property rights of the providers is the right thing to do for the greater good. In theory, private companies would have the right to set prices for the products they sell. If they want to double dip with streaming services like Netflix, they would have the right to. Now, theres no benefit to consumers directly for removing NN. But from a freedom of business standpoint, the priorities are radically different. In theory, because they cant control delivery of content, you dont have boutique ISPs that would tailor for specific purposes. All ISPs have to deliver the same bandwidth to all recipients all the time. Not that boutique ISPs is even a good idea, but it raises the barrier dramatically.
https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/940704581742419969 The part where his brain completely stopped functioning for a good seven seconds, rebooted into safe mode, and then immediately launched the utterly useless troubleshooting tool.
I’m sorry, is this walking can of brain damage some sort of an “advisor” to the asshole who just rode a horse (while wearing a sombrero) to the voting booth or something?
A cowboy hat is a sombrero. They are both gigantic and needed only when it is either very sunny or very rainy. The only difference that separates them is the irresistible urge to dance around a specific one when it is on the ground.