"Because that is how you govern."
I think the point is that Democrats aren't actually in government right now. So they can't do anything but try pointless things.
After weeks of teasing, Senate Democrats will finally take decisive action on bringing back net neutrality to America on Wednesday – by holding a pointless vote. "BREAKING," yelled Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) on Twitter. "The Senate's vote to save Net Neutrality will take place this Wednesday, May 16th. Keep raising your voices …
Like the highest UN-emplyment records set by any recently elected President in history. By actually getting North Korea to talk to us, and hopefully end all the hostillity. (Instead of giving them candy, and kicking the can though the years till a guy like Trump comes along. Here's looking at you Bill.)
By actually getting North Korea to talk to us,
The only reason Korea talked was that it achieved its aim to make the Kaddaffi scenario too expensive for everyone.
At which point it was offered candy by Mike Pompeo combined with a demonstration that we would still like the Kaddaffi scenario in the form of the currently ongoing military exercises. By the way - these exercises were cranked up by Bolton/Trump one level above last year. Stealth aircraft and nuclear bombers. Just in case you know... Defensive weapons you know...
At which point it cancelled the talks. Frankly, cannot blame them - they are for once consistent. It is pretty much a given they will cancel the Singapore summit too.
If anything Trump and Pompeo have destroyed whatever was achieved so far between the Koreans themselves.
No. That's because there was no single popular vote, but rather 50 separate popular votes, and he won enough of those to become president. It was designed that way to prevent the large cities from controlling the rest of the country. You could argue that's a bad thing, but I tend to think having the inner city government dependents in charge is sub-optimal. They have a slight conflict of interest.
"all the things the Trump administration has foisted on the US populace"
like, BETTER ECONOMY, FEWER REGULATIONS, LOWER TAXES, MORE JOBS, LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT RATES *EVAR* FOR MINORITIES and WOMEN, ...
I do not think that word 'foisted' means what you think it means.
But as for 'net neutrality' (the ironically named attempt at gummint control of content on "teh intarwebs"), *THAT* in and of itself (aka 'net neutrality') is "the pointless thing".
The economy was already on the upswing before Trump. Remember the economy under collapse at the end of Bush's term. Lots of rebuilding under Obama but trump claimed it was a bubble. The economy is now on amphetamines as this increase in economic activity is pushing the National Debt is through the roof. Buy a nice membership to Sam's Club with your tax break unless you are super rich in which case get yourself a new jet.
You wouldn't want the quality of your water or air to be regulated as it might interfere with bidness. Enjoy your free market choices with the end of net-neutrality.
"I think the point is that Democrats aren't actually in government right now. So they can't do anything but try pointless things."
If that's their point, it's badly damaged by their claim that the LAST time they held the presidency and both houses of Congress (by overwhelming majorities) that the Republicans blocked them at every turn but one.
Why are the Democrats so dang impotent now when they are only *one vote* short in the Senate and reasonably close in the House? You frustrate me, Ds!
"And then Trump might get impeached (but won't)."
After he just flew out a squad to support his favourite terrorist apartheid state in it's illegal occupation which then shot over 2000 unarmed Palestinians in a single day, hopefully sanity will prevail and his remaining tenure will be brief. He is an embarrassment to America.
"terrorist apartheid state in it's illegal occupation"
Let's not forget "invented by Great Britain in 1948 to give Jews a place to go that wasn't Fair Albion".
"He is an embarrassment to America."
A joke, anyway. At least his tenure will be short. Should only take a couple years to clean up the mess after we take out the trash. Mid-terms in a few short days should be a start as to how the country really feels about the rotund orange idiot-in-chief.
"Let's not forget "invented by Great Britain in 1948 to give Jews a place to go that wasn't Fair Albion"."
Well yes, but only after a Zionist terrorism campaign in Palestine that killed several hundred British such as the bombing of the King David Hotel. Americans are apparently oblivious that the Palestinians learnt everything they know about terrorism from the occupying regime.
Anyway, those bits are not generally in dispute. It's all the other land they took by force and that they have systematically expelled the ingenious population from and then colonised.
Mid-terms in a few short days should be a start as to how the country really feels about the rotund orange idiot-in-chief.
He is trying to replicate (sometimes verbatim) the previous idiot - Ronnie the Demented Raygun. Judging by the votes then and the American nostalgia to Ronnie's tenure I would not hold your breath if I was you. It was Ronnie's tax cuts and super-weapon spending that started USA on the path to bankruptcy. It was Ronnie who brought us to the brink of bequeathing the Earth to the roaches. It was Ronnie...
None the less the USAsians still like him. So frankly, in a worst case scenario, expect another democrat defeat and plan accordingly. At best - expect a congress where any of the new democrats are indistinguishable from hardcore pro-Trump republicans.
> "America has the finest politicians money can buy."
Not in the White House. Mrs. Clinton massively outspent Trump and still lost. Sometimes money cannot overcome a poisonous personality and a huge smelly baggage train.
Not that Trump is a lily, but his personality is merely loud and brash, not actually repellent (except among those already opposed). And Trump's baggage is mostly just inflammatory stuff he has said out loud, while hers is composed of equal parts influence peddling, money laundering, underhanded electoral dirty tricks, and outright rigging. No contest, really.
Next November's Election commercials:
So and so "Voted against Net Neutrality..."
They'll probably also add a few other line-items to the bill such as help for orphans, assistance to veterans, and national "middle class" day, to make voting it down as toxic as possible.
Sorry bob, but I think you'll find a lot of independents - especially women - have a real problem with Trump. The tax cuts amount to chicken feed for most people, it is only when you get into six figures that you really start to notice (but not so much in a state like California thanks to the state/local tax deductibility changes)
If you think republicans are going to sweep this fall based on that weak (for most) tax cut, prepare to be surprised. Trump and republicans in general have a huge problem with women, which is only growing. Relying primarily on white men is not a good long term strategy for the republican party.
Doug, I honestly believe you're whistling past the graveyard. Trump has no huge problem with women that I'm aware of, outside the Left's echo chamber. Why do you think several prominent leftist women have recently badmouthed other women publicly for voting Trump? It's a disgraceful national "name and shame" operation, and it's going to fail miserably, as it should.
And the GOP's chances are not solely based on the tax cut by any means, regardless of its true impact. There's plenty of other things to point at, assuming it's real Republicans we're discussing and not "Never-Trump" fake GOP'ers. Of course, most of those aren't even running, knowing they will get their heads handed to them should they do so.
"You actually BELIEVE that?"
That anthropomorphic emmissions of CO2 are warming the planet hasn't been in any scientific doubt whatsoever for a couple of decades now.
"This is due to the ~70 year cycle in the northern hemisphere"
And what is the scientific explanation for this cycle? Of which I can find no evidence at all.
The various independent data sets of GLOBAL average temperature all show a very clear trend of long term rises over a time scale of decades. As do satellite measurements. And as is also demonstrated by global sea level records showing persistent long term sea level rises which is primarily due to hydrothermal expansion, and also partly due to melting glaciers and similar land based ice.
"In fact, there's been no "global warming" for at least a DECADE."
Reality backed by overwhelming observed evidence disagrees:
"In fact, temperature is going DOWN now"
The first accurate thing you have said. And that's only due to the previous El Nino event. The underlying warming trend continues.
"I could write an entire BOOK on this subject"
I suggest that you make sure it's soft, strong and very absorbent.
Sentences with random caps do tend to imply that.
Yes, same reason republicans held meaningless votes on repealing Obamacare. At least the democrats will (hopefully) only vote on this once, instead of dozens of times!
If democrats think net neutrality will be a winning issue for them this fall, then we can look forward to the "blue wave" crashing onto the rocks before it reaches shore.
The only way net neutrality becomes an issue is when ISPs begin to abuse their "freedom" and start trying to extort money out of streaming companies that use a lot of bandwidth - especially those who directly compete with their TV offerings like Netflix, Directv Now, Sling TV, etc. - and "de-prioritize" those who won't play ball. They aren't going to be dumb enough to do that before the 2018 elections, and undoubtedly will start small - just ask for a small amount to get them all used to paying up, then ratchet up slowly to see where the streamers start to become screamers.
If/when it does become an issue, republican legislators who voted it against it won't face any repercussions because their vote will have been years ago. They will say "my thinking on this issue has involved" or profess shock that ISPs couldn't be trusted to self-regulate and admit that this is a rare case where regulation is required.
"Of course the Democrats want to make the Net 'neutral'
Any sane consumer would want to make the Net Neutral. The only real interest of not having net neutrality is for restricting content or changing someone for certain traffic types. Neither of which benefit consumers.
"like they've made gender 'neutral' and it will work out the same way"
Well no, this is more like charging you extra to go the bathroom if you are a vegetarian...
When Trump reversed DACA all the talk was "Congress should pass a law, that's their job."
We're all agreed, aren't we, that leaving important policy decisions to unaccountable government agencies is a bad thing? The correct approach is for elected lawmakers to propose, debate and vote on appropriate laws.
Now they're trying to do that, you're still giving them grief. What do you people want?
The basic problem is as you stated... The correct approach is for elected lawmakers to propose, debate and vote on appropriate laws. Our government has for at least a decade been going around the lawmaking to department regulations and rules, presidential orders, etc. All that can be wiped out as shown by the current White House tenant. Apparently, Congress just got a wake up call...
Mark, I totally agree with you on this. Let Congress do its job, period. Obama's great sin was to eschew congress and go it alone. If his ideas were so great then they could have been passed by Congress, regardless of GOP opposition (NN included).
T'was ever thus.
After all, even a fair amount of Rep voters are not entirely happy at Pai's Net Neutrality gimmicks.
This law has little semblance to true Red conservative causes, like abortion, coal production or gun control. It's just a predatory bit of regulatory capture. If doomsayer predictions come true and people's bills and services worsen, why not have Rep lawmakers on the record in front of their constituents as having voted for it?
Maybe the next election Rep voters can elect representatives who can think for themselves and vote for the greater good rather than by party line? Not that it would hurt Dems any to apply that unsurmountable hurdle to their own Congress critters ;-)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019