Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Re: peal of FCC regulations.
On the one hand. The House committee likely got called several times already. And simialr internet-centric bills have always faced a staunch "Hell no!" reaction since SOPA. So it is possible that the House will reject this for the following reasons.
- Russia and Wikileaks: Some of the people there might realize that Trump and his administration would be considered untrustworthy due to the investigation and would hesitate to hand them unfettered access to everyone's traffic like that.
- Precedent: see, the reaction to the AHCA a few days back.
- Unpopularity: by now, most people in the House should know how much of a delicate subject the internet is when it comes to policy, and would be most likely be adamant about such hasty changes. At the very least passing this would give the public less of a reason to vote for Trump in 2020 or the people that would support this in 2018
On the other hand. The entire government has become unpredictable since Trump took office, and we don't know what Trump thinks of the internet or the FCC. Its possible the Republicans might vote along party lines and regulate the internet away piece by piece.
BTW Do you think bills like this are the result of people not knowing what the internet actually is and what role it plays in culture and politics?
edited 27th Mar '17 8:09:26 PM by MorningStar1337
![]()
This is a huge part of it IMHO.
And unlike Trump's version, the Democratic Party one probably has (had) way less graft.
edited 27th Mar '17 8:12:58 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI've become slightly paranoid recently about the possibility that I might have locked myself in a liberal echo chamber instead of getting actual factual news, because it's clear that CNN, NYT, WaPo and such have not taken too kindly to Trump due to his attacks on the media. How do i know I'm not just taking something as gospel just because I happen to agree with it? My parents (neither of whom are fans of Trump in the slighest) like to snark at this phenomenon. I just want to be sure I'm being properly informed...
I was too young to really understand back when it was a big deal but my impression was that SOPA and other such bills were more the result of Congress really not understanding the reality of the Internet rather than them having some kind of nefarious goal. I don't know if that's really true or if I'm a bit naive.
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas Edison![]()
If you're worried about becoming an Echo in a Chamber, you can always tune into 'alternative' Channels. I'd say Fox News, for all it's faults, still does "News". You just have to remember that every modern News Source will have its biases, its propaganda and its story-that-turns-out-to-be-false and keep a keen eye on all of that. Because my parents (particularly my mother) constantly play Right-Wing Radio 'Reporters' and Fox News, I'm constantly exposed to both sides of the news.
edited 27th Mar '17 8:59:45 PM by DingoWalley1
![]()
The problem with that is that doing so contributes to FOX News' ratings. I'd rather not support that prick Murdoch in any way if I can help it.
"Conservative" Echo Chambers are a friggin' minefield. Some of them are relatively sane, but others tend to be magnets for all sorts of nativist bigotry and sexism.
As for a "Conservative" and reputable news source...I'm partial to Forbes.
edited 27th Mar '17 9:07:47 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedIn a time before the rise of the Trump gang, political tradition was to lie by way of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. No matter the news source, it'll be mixed in with impressions that demand your own reasoning.
Even if you know nothing about the subject in the news, a quick shorthand (shorthand, not infallible method) as to what's fact and conjecture on facts and what is bs is to think of what's being said that is falsifiable
(roughly what you can disprove by your own reasoning) rather than what can be proved true. (This does nothing at all for flat out lying, but helps separate interpretations of facts from flat out delusion).
edited 27th Mar '17 9:21:17 PM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our livesIf you want reliable news sources you can always look abroad, while all organisations have their biases you'll find that the likes of CBC, the BBC, al jazeera and similar will report on the US's domestic politics in a fair manner. Foreign afairs relating to their home countries will obviously get a bias, so that's worth keeping in mind.
As for CNN being on the anti-Trump train, I'm not convinced, CNN isn't angry or out to hurt Trump, it's feeling rejected and wants his approval, CNN would love to get back in Trump's good graces, they helped create this situation remember and they seem to love claiming that Trump is being presidential when he manages to keep his mouth shut for a few days.
I'd bet money that come 2020 CNN will insist that whatever Democrat is equally bad as Trump, because they will once again want a horse race and the ratings that come with one.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWell, we just lost 4 more Obama-era regulations to the heretofore sparingly-used Congressional Review Act
.
HR 37 - repeals the "blacklisting rule", which explicitly stated that the US government would not contract companies with a history of wage, labor, and/or workplace safety laws.
HR 44 - Reduces the power of the Bureau of Land Management in regards to the use of Federally-owned land out west, which was opposed strongly by the Energy industry.
HR 57/58 - provisions of the "Every Student Succeeds" act, which measured student and teacher performance.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"![]()
![]()
![]()
by googling an excerpt form you post, I might had found an answer.
from Slate
: the 1st amendment, the Equal Protection clause of the 14th, the Due Process clause, Habeas Corpus clause, and Family Reunification Rights.
edited 27th Mar '17 10:42:58 PM by MorningStar1337
I know that in at least one instance it was found to be in violation of rules against religious discrimination, the judge basically ruled that it is a Muslim Ban no matter how hard Trump tries to insist otherwise, because he campaigned on it being a Muslim Ban.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranWhat does California need to meet its climate change goals? Denser housing and less driving for starters, report says
. Apparently they would need some large scale changes in development policies. Oh yeah, and one would get more economic growth from these too.
There is a renewed push to remove the McCarran name in Nevada
. Dude was a raging bigot, apparently.
![]()
but muh housing prices
Seriously, I want to know how one goes about bulldozing the middle class' wealth storage successfully, because right now we need to shift away from the idea of home-as-investment if we're ever to get rid of the constant NIMBYism that's choking necessary development, which means (among other things) killing the mortgage interest deduction.

Small government, eh?
Do not obey in advance.