|
Rand alPaul posted:I live in Oklahoma, my vote does not matter. Hey, yours might. (Love you DC.)
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 08:47
|
|
Best democracy in the world! 
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Edgar Allan Pwned posted:Hey so I don't know a ton about politics in America (yes I'm american Third party votes count. There just aren't enough of them to win an election and therefore they don't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 18:57
|
|
so excuse the ignorance. But I wanted to verify, that voting counts, but not if you vote third party? Can you vote third party for senate/house elections? And if republicans are the majority, it becomes harder to pass bills because of all of the tantrums?
|
Badger of Basra posted:I believe he didn't have the votes for it (from older senators), but I don't know the whole story. Pretty much this. The long-term Senators (Levin in particular) were still stuck in collegiality mode, while younger Senators were pretty much ready to go. So it took a bit of time to sell the older generation on the idea.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:I almost started taking him seriously and got frustrated but now Having a poster whose gimmick is "I am literally Rahm Emanuel", down to inflating the chances of his best bud Rauner, makes for a nice contrast with Amergin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:
There were a ton of Democratic superPACs in 2012 and 2014.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:The cost and speed of broadband are like the only things that every single millennial cares about, why did it take Obama so long to figure this out? Well, net neutrality rules won't actually affect either of those things, so maybe he was giving them credit for being halfway intelligent? Of note: Wheeler was a cable lobbyist in the 80s when it was a totally different industry, people who suggest he's bought by Comcast are idiots, and Verizon LOST the net neutrality case - even though the ruling was in their favor, the details spelled out how to do what the FCC wanted under mildly different rationales. Of course when the FCC tried to do that, the Internet decided to revolt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Ironically enough I think a USPS-backed e-mail system would wind up being more secure from mass surveillance than the current one if the laws applying to search of mail applied to it. You should really look into the law on mail covers and postcards before you say things like this. It would not work the way you want it to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What I'm wondering is, if US telecoms are utilities, what is the impact upon current surveillance programs? Nothing positive, but nothing huge. It clarifies that their CALEA obligations are statutory, rather than as a result of a rule making, but they're already subject to those obligations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
England Sucks posted:So let me guess. Just people in states with Republican legislatures who refuse to adopt the federal exchange as the state exchange. Definitely won't affect states which set up their own exchanges, and likely won't affect any states which pass symbolic adoption laws to deem the federal exchange their state exchange.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note that despite being an "industry lobbyist" he actually hasn't been in any position related to that in about 30 years. I mean, CTIA might matter to whether the net neutrality positions the FCC takes extend to wireless, but yeah, I'm not convinced that the guy who has actively pursued channel debundling and is considering bringing OTT IP services into the retransmission regime is all that beholden to the cable industry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So why did he suggest that two tier plan a couple of months ago? Because that plan had been preemptively signed off on as acceptable by the DC Circuit (the one that struck down the two previous attempts) meaning that they could implement it without fear of court challenge and have a working net neutrality framework that would be essentially identical to Title II net neutrality in place by early 2015. Instead we get to wait for the rule making that might or might not invoke Title II, and if it does we get to enjoy another preliminary stay for 5 years while the litigation over whether the reclassification was done properly and properly supported goes on. Good job, net neutrality advocates! (By the way, you know the Comcast/Netflix dispute that everyone points to as why we need net neutrality? Comcast is subject to stronger than Title II conditions as a condition in a merger. Title II isn't going to do poo poo about that dispute or most other ones.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Unlikely, given that Wheeler's not exactly someone who's pushed it... ever? Pretty sure he did exactly that. Did you mean "someone who's pushed the plan I prefer instead of the effectively one already tested in court and approved?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:No I mean the guy who suggests things like two-tiered internet that lets ISPs strongarm content providers: So you're taking about the DC Circuit? I mean, not that that's the actual effect of Wheelers proposal, but that's who suggested Wheelers proposal originally.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There has never been a threat to net neutrality to begin with, there's too much money in keeping it as it is. I mean, they could pass a law barring the FCC from implementing any neutrality rule makings. It wouldn't matter since there's essentially zero commercial reason to implement any of the parade of anti neutral horribles people like to bring up, but they could pass it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I think so, but the one thing that I still don't understand is, why haven't the ISPs just done their shitbag thing, in the absence of laws stopping them? I mean, it's clear that opposition from consumers means nothing to them. Because it doesn't actually serve their interest, despite the "sky is falling" crowd.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
The major problem was that Comcast and Level 3 had a settlement free peering deal. This meant that they basically didn't pay each other anything and just passed traffic back and forth. This is a great idea in the world where your traffic is about equal back and forth, which for a long time was the case. When L3 was Netflix's primary interconnect, this relationship didn't hold up. Comcast was refusing to upgrade L3's connections because they didn't want to give even more free transit to Level 3 despite the increasing imbalance in traffic. They wanted to move to a settlement peering deal where passing traffic is paid for if there's an imbalance. The reason the ISPs are against the Title II proposal is because it comes with a lot of baggage beyond net neutrality - while they don't love 706 net neutrality regulations (because it's one more thing that allows people to sue them, and lawsuits are expensive), they generally don't mind behaving neutrally.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
ZombieApostate posted:Why does that make any more sense than using a 3rd party? The connections are there to be used. The 3rd party pays the ISP to carry their data if they're net-positive. E: Level3's ports aren't "reserved for Netflix" - all services carried over Level3's interconnect were slowed in the same way as Netflix. Verizon wasn't targeting Netflix, they were having a business dispute with Level3 over their interconnect agreements. It's not (and never has been) a hardware or cost of hardware issue. Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:No...I had no idea. The last three ISPs I have had at least have not reported a cap in any obvious way, and I'm a pretty heavy user of streaming video, yet it's never come up. Would I have to be a full-time warezer or whatever to have a risk of hitting the cap? Comcast's (not actually enforced unless you're way over it) cap was something like 350 GB last I checked, so basically yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:While I agree this is generally how it works, she was doing this on the behalf of the school board and a nonprofit, for public sector child care. Also she's now retired and gets nothing from this besides a good feeling and a free trip to DC with a bunch of other old ladies. When you get "promised an appointment", unless they tell you it's with the Congressperson, it's with an assistant. That's okay - if you can convince an assistant, they will probably convince their boss of the importance of whatever it is. Most lobbyists spend most of their time lobbying assistants so it's not like your mom is getting treated any differently there. As to how constituent mail systems would deal with Indian spamming - if you don't give a name and address, your mail gets trashed. If your name and/or address don't match a registered voter on the list, they usually get trashed. The old advice about mail vs email isn't accurate anymore, also - they all get fed into the same system and are tallied identically. Phone calls are usually still a separate tally from written correspondence, though. (Also, you'd be surprised how little mail even a U.S. Congressperson actually gets, at least after culling junk - I think my old office got maybe 1000 pieces a day max most of the time, with more when a few really high profile things were going on.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
What? No. You could get a number on a tally sheet which an assistant would look at and probably not give much of a poo poo about if it wasn't an issue anyone had talked to them about. Your mom almost certainly did more even if the assistants looked bored.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Don't forget: The KKK was also threatening to violent suppress any riots if they don't indict. This is the same group that "outed" the officer who killed Brown, who wasn't Wilson, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3681876&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 It's completely unsupported and probably correct in a few instances by dumb luck, you mean? Let's not pretend Anonymous has a great track record with outing people in Ferguson.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I agree lets just assume the Klan isn't real and they aren't mouth-breathers incapable of covering their own tracks on the Internet. Okay cool let's assume that posting photos of people and saying they're Klan members means we should believe it. Particularly when the last time the entity posting those photos said someone did something they were completely wrong. Yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Yes, Kalman. Please tell us more about the false flags being run in support of the So you think Wilson didn't kill Mike Brown, given that you apparently believe unquestioningly all things posted by Anonymous? It doesn't have to be a false flag to be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:I see you haven't read their posting in the I/P threads. They're a full-on genocide apologist. I honestly think you're thinking of someone else. I have no idea what you're talking about here. BiggerBoat posted:I asked this before and no one answered but, seriously, what's stopping a Clinton/Warren ticket from being a real thing Warren wanting to run for VP.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What could Warren possibly provide the ticket? Pandering to feckless, moronic progressives who can't even be assed to vote in a midterm? Those people will all project their hopes onto Hillary. More importantly, what could being VP actually offer to Warren over staying in the Senate? I guess she'd avoid being forced to take any controversial votes in favor of not doing very much, but it seems like a poor choice all in all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Pascallion posted:"If an arrest is unlawful, resistance to that arrest is not unlawful." Technically yes, but in practice it's a great way to get the poo poo kicked out of you if you're lucky and get shot if you aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Also note that resisting arrest is an arrestable offense Depending on the state, you may or may not be able to resist illegitimate arrest without it itself being illegal. For example, Texas specifically calls out unlawful arrests as within the scope of their resisting law, while Illinois law says that the act resisted has to be an authorized act (which unlawful arrest isn't.) But it's kind of complicated. Also some states don't allow it at all anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Resisting cops is a good way to get hurt no matter what race you are.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:*does not apply to the following races: cops, judges, politicians (with sufficient clout), bosses Applies to all of those unless the cop actually knows who you are on sight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
site posted:Serious troll post: Could Obama just nominate Ted Cruz to SecDef to get him out of the Senate, and then completely shut his rear end out of everything? You can turn down a nomination.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:How do you think you purchase tax exemptions and abatements on property? It has everything to do with the rest of my post. Your Rahm gimmick is much better than your Gutierrez gimmick.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There's no chance of any action being taken against a prosecutor that helped raise money for the guy he was supposed to prosecute is there? I mean that should be a disbarment or something, right? If it had happened it'd be an issue. It didn't happen, so it isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:Yeah, I'm much more troubled by the fact that he's the president of the cops' booster club than that Wilson supporters want to donate to it. He's unfit to prosecute cops, period, regardless of pro-Wilson charities. It's a charity to support the children of police, EMS, and fire responders who died performing their jobs, not a "cops boosters club." Which, notably, means that there is no circumstance in which that charity could support Wilson. Given that he himself is a child of a policeman who died in the line of duty, I think it's no more a conflict of interest than him being himself, which is to say - it isn't. (Just curious: were any of you arguing McCulloch should have recused because his dad was shot also arguing that Walker should have recused himself from the Prop8 case for being gay?)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I'm saying that the state criminal justice apparatus has a mentality in which defending your own is the first principle, and clearly the St. Louis county system is a particularly obvious and egregious example. Absolutely. It just has nothing to do with a guy who is the son of a dead cop being involved in a charity for the children of dead first responders. There are a hundred reasons to question McCulloch's objectivity. His participation in that particular charity really isn't one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:You're right in that I'm not arguing for a law that tries to establish criteria that disqualifies prosecutors or other agents of the justice system from public office or participation in certain cases based on nebulous criteria of personal histories. But at the very least, the fact that he is openly a major supporter of the police means he was biased about this case from the get-go. Obviously, objectivity is an impossible ideal, and any judge or prosecutor comes to a case with biases. But the pro-police bias is ruining the credibility of the justice system, and clearly some kind of change in personnel is necessary. So you think Walker should have recused himself from the Prop8 case? I mean, he's pretty clearly a supporter of gay people and his pro-gay bias is ruining the credibility of the justice system. Again: there are plenty of reasons to criticize McCulloch. Helping run a charity that isn't even police-specific isn't a sympathetic one and it isn't even close to the kind of bias people should worry about. His public statements are plenty - it's not really necessary to target him for something that's unequivocally a good thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:We've actually already started seeing a little bit of this. Remember the Maine State Senate candidate who got outed as a WoW addict? By the time the people with significant online histories that can't be scrubbed are running for office, the behavior your average candidate has online will be normalized anyway. No one will care.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 00:43
|
|