The General US Politics Thread

For now, anyway. Edgy new companies are often liberators because they're trying to cut through the order created by the old incumbents. As they become incumbents, the instances of corporate evil go up, except for those enterprises which are almost inherently wicked.

Yeah, remember when Apple were the new guys fighting the evil stick in the mud of Microsoft.

I hope this means cable internet monopolies will be a thing of the past. And if that happens, I hope Google Fiber comes to the Twin Cities.

edited 26th Feb '15 2:33:36 PM by speedyboris

Scott Walker compared his experience in battling labor unions to his ability to battle ISIS at CPAC.

Let that one sink in a bit...

You mean that labor unions have murdered women and children? Beheaded hostages? That analogy may sell in CPAC but in the general election it would make a lovely sound bite in a Democratic attack ad.

That's downright offense. Especially given union organizers were often the target of violence. I mean, hell, they STILL haven't found Jimmy Hoffa.

@ Net Neutrality: Has anyone actually read what they just passed? I think this might have a few strings attached.

The full order hasn't been published yet, but here's a pretty good breakdown of what's been said about it so far.

ISPs are being reclassified as a telecommunication service (rather than an information service) under Title II of the Communications Act, which puts them in the same category as things like phone companies. This authorizes the FCC to impose certain regulations on them. (They tried imposing some regulations without reclassifying them, but Verizon took them to court over it and won, so the FCC choose to reclassify them in order to give themselves the legal authority to enforce the regulations.)

The new rules ban ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic and from paid prioritization ("fast lanes"), and requires them to disclose their network management practices. That last is largely an enforcement issue, so that they can't claim to be doing something for network management reasons while actually doing it for business reasons. This is because "reasonable network management" is exempted from the rules — ie, ISPs can block/throttle (but not require payment for) something if doing so is necessary for the health of their network. The rules also don't apply to anything not on the public internet — such as VOIP services that don't go through the internet proper, meaning that ISPs can charge you separately for phone service that travels over the same infrastructure as their internet service. (Said phone service is subject to different regulation, as a phone service, rather than being subject to regulation as an internet connection.)

There are other random things not directly related to net neutrality — such as a additional privacy rules, a requirement for ISPs to investigate customer complaints, and the ability for customers to formally complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" behavior, etc.

There are also things that the FCC could have imposed under Title II and chose not to, including "unbundling" requirements. Unbundling would mean that ISPs would have to sell their network access wholesale — as in, to other ISPs, meaning that no matter who owned the infrastructure that goes to your house, you'd be able to pick any ISP you wanted. (This is how phone lines currently work — if you're talking about actual phone lines and not VOIP service through your ISP, anyway.) The fact that they're not doing that is something of a disappointment, as it would have effectively destroyed the established ISPs' local monopolies. Alas, it is not to be... yet. And what we did get is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Separate from the Title II thing, the FCC also overturned state laws preventing municipal ISPs from expanding. These laws were largely framed as preventing the government from driving existing ISPs out of business in their service areas, but in reality what municipal ISPs have done is actually introduce competition into markets that were formerly local monopolies. In areas where municipal ISPs exist, they generally provide better service at lower prices than elsewhere. The Communications Act requires the FCC to use "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment", which is their legal basis for this ruling.

The FCC is almost certain to face lawsuits from ISPs about the rulings, and Republicans in Congress have promised to pass legislature overturning the rulings as well. Since the FCC is part of the executive branch, its job is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch (ie, Congress). Thus the repeated mentions of the Communications Act, the law that gives the FCC the authority to do all the stuff they're doing. So if Congress passes new laws that remove the FCC's authority to make these decisions, they won't be able to do what they've said they're going to do. Of course, the chances of such a law making it past President Obama without a veto are virtually nil, so that's effectively impossible at least for another few years. Lawsuits are a dicier matter, but given that the judges ruling on the Verizon lawsuit basically said "the FCC can't do this unless they declare ISPs common carriers under Title II", which is exactly what they've done, there's no obvious case to be made against the rulings.

edited 26th Feb '15 6:38:11 PM by NativeJovian

This looks like a nearly unqualified win.

''The fisherman destroyed evidence, said evidence was a fish. If I did that in front of a fish and wildlife warden I'd get arrested. Assholes catching undersized fish like that just ruin it for the rest of us. Doesn't give the young ones a chance to grow or reproduce.''

I do think that what they did was wrong and probably illegal somehow, but I do question the sanity of charging an illegal fisherman under an accounting regulation. It just seems like they're going well past the intent of the law.

edited 26th Feb '15 7:21:33 PM by storyyeller

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I'm with you. You have to consider what the lawmakers were actually trying to accomplish when ruling on a law, and not engage in Loophole Abuse.

Now if they can only remember that when the rule on King v. Burwell...

Yeah, i have to agree with the conservative justices on that one. The feds didn't pick the right tool in their kit to prosecute this guy. Unless this case is somehow used as precedent to undermine that law's intended purpose, we're good.

I did lol at Kagan's citation. She seemed to realize the lunacy of the Supreme Court wasting its time on such a matter to begin with.

Correction: The court was split along nonpartisan lines this time - Kagan was the only liberal on her side.

Galveston's City Council has voted to finally spend federal money to restore the city's trolleys which were damaged by Hurricane Ike over 6 years ago.

I'm surprised we even had a trolley system anywhere outside of California.

Trolleys are common in the bigger southern cities. Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, they all have them in at least a few of their big cities for the touristy areas. Probably the Carolinas but I don't know for certain.

Republicans generally seem pissed Yellen and the Fed are not GOP sock puppets

Boo hoo for them? Shall we call a Waaaahmbulance?

edited 27th Feb '15 1:18:34 PM by Fighteer

Some sadistic/sociopathic glee is more appropriate in such situations.

'Duck Dynasty' star receives free speech award at CPAC.

Rick Perry: Walker Went Too Far with ISIS-Protester Comments.

During CPAC, former NSA chief General Michael Hayden had the audacity to claim he is a “libertarian,” prompting boos and jeers from the audience.

DHS interim funding bill defeated by Republican hardliners, Democrats grab popcorn

Hasn't Perry said several times recently that others have gone to far with comments? Is this really the point we're at?

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D) was caught on a hot mic tonight calling House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R) a “coward” over a dispute about scheduling a vote on a Homeland Security funding bill.

Senators voted Friday night to pass a short-term spending bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), less than four hours before the department runs out of money.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) said that it “makes no sense” to let the Department of Homeland Security’s funding run out, as Congress scrambles to agree on a compromise before the agency’s budget runs out Friday at midnight.

Such bullshit with that duck dynasty thing. Nimrods, it's not the goddamn first amendment if nobody's prosecuting him for it!

This is, like, grade school logic, when you call your teacher stupid and get recess taken away and then claim "it's a free country."

edited 27th Feb '15 6:24:38 PM by Ogodei

Congress Votes to Keep DHS Funded for Another Week.