Trump sets sights on net neutrality President Trump is spoiling for yet another fight and this time, much to the despair of internet experts, it is net neutrality. At a White House press conference on Thursday, presidential spokesman Sean Spicer went out of his way to highlight the controversial topic and characterized it using the Trump Administration's …
In one of my previous jobs we used to have a SVP (who has done a round of being some sort of "innovation person" in half of the Silly Valley and beyond). He used to say: "It is not important what you do, it is important what you blog about".
The modern version of this looks like "It is not important what you do, it is important what you tweet about".
I think there's a more significant difference.
There is no record that Trump has ever had a pet cat or dog. Hitler loved dogs.
Psychopaths, as kids, often start out by torturing animals because they have no empathy for animals or people (and if you're a psychopathic kid it's easier to start with animals). Hitler at least had empathy for some living beings other than himself. Or was smart enough to fake it.
BTW, Trump wants to relax/remove FDA regulation of both pet food and people food. Before anybody asks, the US Food and Drug Administration DOES regulate pet food (for now).
I've just realized the scary, scary path my thoughts are taking. Months ago I decided Nixon was better than Trump (at least Nixon created the EPA, rather than trying to demolish it). Weeks ago I decided Dubya was better than Trump (it took 9 months before the full extent of Dubya's incompetence became known). And now I've just pointed out one respect in which Hitler was better than Trump. Who next? Attila the hun?
This post has been deleted by its author
Also, if a guy jumped up on stage at an Attila The Hun For President rally, I would bet you that old Attila would not go scurrying behind the security guards in fear for his toupee.
This Republican "Party" is really quite the scene, man! More of the same, please! I like watching idiots who stand around waving flags and patting each other on the back, fall apart in a mess of in-action and processes with zero thought behind them, other than; how much money will this get me?
Here's how to fix the USA:
1) Destroy the Republican Party
2) Destroy the Democratic Party
3) Get some leaders who can divorce all the money machine shit from the actual working functions of our government
4) More of the same
As you can see, we are well behind on step 1, and will have to wait for it to complete, before we can accomplish step 2. If you are still thinking we are a two party system, you are a idiot. And probably a child molester. :P
With the whole DNC helping Hillary over Bernie thing, and the generally incompetent campaign she ran (help from the Russians notwithstanding) the democrats are already on their way to destroying themselves.
With yesterday's testimony in the Senate intelligence committee that Russia interfered even in the republican primary in Trump's favor things are not looking good for the republicans either. I have to think that those republicans who were blase about the idea the Russians helped Trump beat Hillary because that's the outcome they wanted will be less sanguine about it if it turns out they helped him beat the primary candidate they supported and felt would have made a much better president than Trump. Not to mention the whole "we can't even govern when we control everything" failure to keep their signature campaign promise of repealing Obamacare, the republican party is on their way to destroying themselves.
The bad news is that the US system is built so much around a two party system, it isn't as if the Libertarians, the Greens or some new party can spring up to fill the vacuum. It is basically built into the system in most states that a party called "the republican party" and a party called "the democratic party" have special rights and privileges in elections, so no matter how destroyed they are at a national level, whoever is left behind the steering wheel in the various states will still be under control. They might have a lot more trouble reaching national unity though. That would be an especially big change for the republican party, who have been so homogeneous in their platforms with litmus tests on a whole laundry list of things before you can 'qualify' as a republican.
Won't work. If you somehow destroyed both major parties, they would be replaced by something absolutely identical at the first election. Maybe at the second election, but not later than that. There are reasons the winning parties are what they are; they are neither insane nor aliens. Nothing will change much until those reasons are somehow addressed.
Not sure why you think that. Parties have changed positions over the years. Prior to WW II, the republican party was very isolationist and very much against increases in military spending. They did not support the US getting involved in WW II by helping the British or Chinese against their respective foes. While the democratic party wasn't exactly the opposite, they were not nearly so isolationist and mostly supported increased military spending and military aid for those fighting the Axis powers.
By the 80s, the republican party was very much for increases in military spending and pro engagement in the world, while the democrats mostly did not support increased military spending and had a large anti-war contingent thanks to the failure of the Vietnam war which they were mostly responsible for getting the US embroiled in.
It wasn't until the 60s that the republican party started to actively court what is now known as the "religious right" and completely dictates their social policy platform.
One can even look today, and the positions Trump campaigned on to find a few that are widely divergent from that of republicans even two years ago. Republicans have long been in favor of free trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP, but Trump has if not completely changed their direction at least has a large rudder in the water making a U-turn. They were always the more anti-communist party, and even after the USSR fell have remained highly suspicious of Russia and their motives. Trump treats them like his best friends, and while he will openly criticize the leaders of long time allies like the UK, France and Germany, he has never said anything bad about Russia or its leader.
So I'm not sure why you think that if the two parties had their national structure effectively undone for an election cycle or two that they would emerge with the same positions. The 'new' republican party might end up as anti-free trade, or even isolationist. If the party fractured on a national level and it was left to state organizations to build it back up again, look at which states are the biggest, and their social views versus current party platforms? It might not follow the religious right quite so much in things like gay marriage and transgender rights - after all, where are those social conservatives going to go, the democratic party?
Likewise the democrats may turn back the clock on the changes Bill Clinton made to the party in the 90s by supporting free trade and Wall Street and return to the more populist positions on those issues they held prior to Clinton's presidency that Bernie was pretty successfully campaigning on. There has been some grassroots movements in some states for democrats to try to include the so-called "religious left" who have been largely absent from politics, by framing issues of helping the less fortunate in society with religious messages like "what would Jesus do?"
1) Destroy the Republican Party
2) Destroy the Democratic Party
That should be undertaken simultaneously, that way neither of them get final control. If you did it in the order you outline you would never get to your option 3) and the country would end up like Russia in the 60s only on steroids.
Unfortunately, you are missing a vital step towards ensuring a new US government remains sane. The US needs to step out of the 2 party state system and First Past The Post voting and switch to a better democracy by using proportional representation. As a bonus, this also makes gerrymandering a moot point as votes will be totalled on the national level.
>The US needs to step out of the 2 party state system and First Past The Post voting and switch to a better democracy by using proportional representation.
You mean, like the Weimar republic?
I think we actually need both. We need FPtP to maintain local representation and accountability and we need PR to help break the two party system that tends to result from FPtP. Do a 50/50 split. That allows smaller parties to build up support without voters feeling their vote is "wasted" but at the same time allows the larger parties to over-ride the really small fringe interests and get things done.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Hitler loved dogs."Eva Braun was not a dog. The dog is on the right...
He didn't say Trump is the same as Hitler.
He said that Hitler had at least one redeeming quality more than Trump, do pay attention.....
In all seriousness, though, Trump's a twat but he isn't the same as Hitler. However, that doesn't automatically mean that he never will be, Hitler didn't come to power yelling that they should gas the Jews. Having someone unstable in power should always raise a few concerns before you get to the point that they turn out to be fucking insane.
So, no Trump's not the same as Hitler, but that doesn't mean it isn't important to take the lessons learned and use them to keep an eye on Trump (and May, and every other leader)
Frankly, he looks more like Mussolini. A presumptuous, incompetent buffoon. With a circus of presumptuous, incompetent buffoons around him. And a presumptuous son-in-law aiming for grandeur
And after all, Mussolini programme was 'make Italy great again' too...
Frankly, he looks more like Mussolini. A presumptuous, incompetent buffoon.
No. You missed one important adjective. Vindictive.
Mussolini did not hold multi-year grudges. That was Joseph Stalin's speciality.
As an example, he waited for the whole war to end to pay back to Admiral Kuznetsov who told him to f*ck off on the 21st of June. Kuznetsov put the fleet and fleet aviation on red alert resulting in them taking virtually no losses when the war broke out and giving the Luftwaffe a nice bloody nose above the sky of both Odessa and Riga which were under fleet, not central command. Their performance was the only bright spot in the first 3 months of the war. Stalin did nothing to him for breaking rank. For 5 years. Then after the war he demoted him and terminated the whole fleet renovation program.
That is just one example - one can write a whole book of them.
That type of personality is closer to what we see in the Orange One.
Putin is Hitler.
Trump is Mussolini - a fat, incompetent dictator with delusions of world domination.
Mrs May is of course Stalin - working of 100% surveillance of her own citizens - because she thinks they are all out to get her.
Still working on who is Mao - answers on a postcard please.......
"plunge the US into years of depression, social conflict, and global economic sanctions"
In 3+ years, once Trump's agenda REALLY starts to kick in, how would you like your crow, sir? I suggest deep-fried with KFC dipping sauce.
I see more parallels between Trump and Ronald Reagan than I do with any other world leader. The main difference between Trump and Reagan is who their political enemies are. It seems Trump has to fight Republicans as well as Democrats. Well, when you hire a consultant to go into a company and clean it up, nobody really likes the guy until he's done fixing things.
As for 'net neutrality', the way it's being defined is COMPLETELY bogus. Getting rid of the Obaka FCC's definition, which basically dumbs ALL traffic down to an "equal" mediocrity, and allowing PRIORITIZATION (at a cost, naturally) of "certain traffic", can only help in the long run. [Of course the rules would have to prevent high-pri traffic from congesting out the rest, but that's what debate is for]. In the long run, having Netflix "pay extra" to deliver your movies allows providers to purchase upgraded gear to HANDLE that extra traffic. And so the entire system improves. That's how _I_ see it.
So "GO TRUMP!" when it comes to GETTING! RID! OF! THOSE! ROTTEN! REGULATIONS!, and let's allow the FREE MARKET to determine how to fix things. THAT is what _I_ want!
Wow, you really have your blinders on if you think he's like Reagan. Reagan had governing experience, knew how to work the politics to make deals (instead of Trump who can only make wussy little Twitter threats against the Freedom Caucus when he doesn't his way) and tried (and succeeded) to beat the Russians instead of playing kissy face with them.
Ignoring political views, Trump is so far from Reagan as a man that Obama is easily closer! I guess you were so ready for a republican to be in the White House that you are willing to support even an orange-faced snowflake who probably has a 50/50 chance of impeachment before his term is up. But no matter, I'm sure you'll be fine with President Pence and claim the reason you supported Trump was only to get him.
Trump is the anti-Reagan. His signature policy is to undo everything that Reagan accomplished.
NAFTA was Ronald Reagan's initiative. Reagan believed firmly in free trade, he thought that American workers and American companies could compete on a level playing field, and the discipline would make them better for it. That's diametrically opposite to what Trump believes, which is that American workers are incapable of surviving either change or competition.
Reagan passed the Emergency Medical Treatment Act, entitling anyone, regardless of insurance, citizenship or anything else, to free emergency treatment at (effectively) any public hospital.
Reagan believed in truth and democracy. No Reagan aid ever coined the phrase "alternative facts". Nor did they perpetually accuse the media of lying. When Reagan was caught out (e.g. Iran-Contra), he put his hands up and said "You got me".
Reagan oversaw the end of the Cold War and the dismantling of the Russian empire and one-party state. Trump is doing his damnedest to reverse all of that.
Reagan introduced the (current form of) the Alternative Minimum Tax, which Trump wants to abolish.
Under Reagan, the number of people living in the US who were born in Mexico - doubled. 'Nuff said.
Reagan signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and pressed for further treaties that the Donald has decried as a "bad deal".
So... now he has three years? I thought he was going to do all of this at once. Is he a strong leader with all of Congress his own party? Has he promised immediate action across a range of promises? And now we are expected to wait? When oh when do we get to the promised land??
The free market is great for many things, but Adam Smith was clear that it always needed Government regulation. Read a bit about, oh, food safety, the development and spread of the electrical grid in the USA and so on to see how companies fight against regulation to maximise their profits even in the face of diabolically poor customer service. Sometimes consumers can't use their buying power to stop evil -- because the big companies close ranks. Adam Smith again: free markets lead inexorably to monopolies.
That's the thing, he only cares about making his rich friends richer. And that is what the Republican party is about, it's not making more companies successful its about making already successful companies better capable of crushing their smaller rivals.
Re: "Government of the people ..."
Like it or not, and I am far from thrilled at the outcome, Donald Trump was the choice of a majority of those who voted in 21 of the 50 states, and of a plurality of those who voted in an additional 7 states. Nearly all Senators and US House members were elected in their states and districts, respectively, by a majority of those who chose to vote. So also were the state governors, secretaries of state, senators, representatives, and so on who determined the electoral districts from which US House members (as well as the state representatives and senators) were chosen. By the rules operational for the last 225 years, that counts as "by the people" and "of the people." Whether or not it is "for the people" is for the people to decide at the next election.
if you want to help protect NN you should support groups like ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality.
https://www.aclu.org/
https://www.eff.org/
https://www.freepress.net/
https://www.fightforthefuture.org/
https://www.publicknowledge.org/
https://demandprogress.org/
also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/
also write to your House Representative and senators
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state
and the FCC
https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
