Trump MAGAthread X - Follow the Money

[The Flutterlands]

That is what I am talking about. So really, again, what can be done about it between now and November 2018 should lawsuits fail? We need net neutrality for start ups and small businesses to florush. So why not find other ways of inforcing net neutrality. The repeal preempt net neutrality laws, but they are vague enough not to count taxes right?

Challenge it in courts an see what sticks? There is a very real chance that the preemption clause is way out of bounds for the FCC. I seriously do not think that the FCC can force states to deregulate in this manner, at all.

Not to mention it was put in there at the last minute without a comment process...

[Ifreann]

The real issue being that start-up web applications, websites, and services will be relegated to complete obscurity (Or even functional non-existence) as they won't be able to pay the fees that major ISPs charge out. It makes the next youtube, Gmail, Netflix, Wikipedia, etc. significantly more costly to produce, and likely means many such services will never see the light of day. Services, websites, and applications which could fundamentally change how we operate.

The notion that the ISPs are going to censor political dissent is absurd. Utterly, ridiculously, supremely absurd.

That is what I am talking about. So really, again, what can be done about it between now and November 2018 should lawsuits fail? We need net neutrality for start ups and small businesses to florush. So why not find other ways of inforcing net neutrality. The repeal preempt net neutrality laws, but they are vague enough not to count taxes right? Like there should be short cuts and loopholes...

As you try to conceive of ways for states to subvert the will of the federal government, consider that anything you come up with can just as easily be used by conservatives to achieve their ends. Do you so desperately want net neutrality in some form that you will pave the way for bans on non-Christian religions, for criminalisation of homosexuality, for second-class status for every kind of minority?

[Zanera]

That is what I am talking about. So really, again, what can be done about it between now and November 2018 should lawsuits fail? We need net neutrality for start ups and small businesses to florush. So why not find other ways of inforcing net neutrality. The repeal preempt net neutrality laws, but they are vague enough not to count taxes right? Like there should be short cuts and loopholes...

As you try to conceive of ways for states to subvert the will of the federal government, consider that anything you come up with can just as easily be used by conservatives to achieve their ends. Do you so desperately want net neutrality in some form that you will pave the way for bans on non-Christian religions, for criminalisation of homosexuality, for second-class status for every kind of minority?

At least the atheists will be fine.

[Ifreann]

As you try to conceive of ways for states to subvert the will of the federal government, consider that anything you come up with can just as easily be used by conservatives to achieve their ends. Do you so desperately want net neutrality in some form that you will pave the way for bans on non-Christian religions, for criminalisation of homosexuality, for second-class status for every kind of minority?

At least the atheists will be fine.

Yes, I'm sure no one would want to oppress them.

[The Flutterlands]

That is what I am talking about. So really, again, what can be done about it between now and November 2018 should lawsuits fail? We need net neutrality for start ups and small businesses to florush. So why not find other ways of inforcing net neutrality. The repeal preempt net neutrality laws, but they are vague enough not to count taxes right? Like there should be short cuts and loopholes...

As you try to conceive of ways for states to subvert the will of the federal government, consider that anything you come up with can just as easily be used by conservatives to achieve their ends. Do you so desperately want net neutrality in some form that you will pave the way for bans on non-Christian religions, for criminalisation of homosexuality, for second-class status for every kind of minority?

....No...

[Zanera]

At least the atheists will be fine.

Yes, I'm sure no one would want to oppress them.

I wouldn't. :3

[Seangoli]

Challenge it in courts an see what sticks? There is a very real chance that the preemption clause is way out of bounds for the FCC. I seriously do not think that the FCC can force states to deregulate in this manner, at all.

Not to mention it was put in there at the last minute without a comment process...

It did have a comment process. It seems that the comment process was compromised, however the comment process was present. There is nothing at all stipulating that the FCC actually follows what people in the comment process say, only that people have a chance to voice their concerns on the subject. I am also unsure of whether or not Ajit Pai acting in bad faith can cause problems for him legally in trying to defend the decision. His openly mocking of opponents to the move and not even addressing the comments made are unlikely to win him much sympathy in court, however. Equally unlikely to impress the court is his use of misleading information and data.

That said, if you think the courts will say that he doesn't have the authority to do this, then you are just wrong. They will absolutely state that the FCC has the authority in this situation. Any court proceeding that claims he cannot remove Title II protections is a complete waste of time and energy, which could be used to better focus on other aspects that they may have the authority over. Namely, tht Ajit did not follow proper procedure in doing this; this will be only a temporary victory, however. The bar is very low for following said procedure, and Ajit seemd to want to fast-track it through rather than take a measured approach. Which is mostly par for the course for the Administration.

[Seangoli]

As you try to conceive of ways for states to subvert the will of the federal government, consider that anything you come up with can just as easily be used by conservatives to achieve their ends. Do you so desperately want net neutrality in some form that you will pave the way for bans on non-Christian religions, for criminalisation of homosexuality, for second-class status for every kind of minority?

....No...

Our legal system is in part based on common law. Common law is based on precedent. Once precedent is set Due to the various constitutional protections in place, what's good for one person is good for another, regardless of ideology. Once Pandora's Box is open, it is impossible to close. You don't just get to pick and choose when legal proceedings apply.

[Zanera]

....No...

Our legal system is in part based on common law. Common law is based on precedent. Once precedent is set Due to the various constitutional protections in place, what's good for one person is good for another, regardless of ideology. Once Pandora's Box is open, it is impossible to close. You don't just get to pick and choose when legal proceedings apply.

I heard it was Pandora's Pithos.

[The Black Forrest]

At least the atheists will be fine.

Yes, I'm sure no one would want to oppress them.

Not for awhile.

There is the bigger threat of the LGBT community.

[Holy Tedalonia]

That is what I am talking about. So really, again, what can be done about it between now and November 2018 should lawsuits fail? We need net neutrality for start ups and small businesses to florush. So why not find other ways of inforcing net neutrality. The repeal preempt net neutrality laws, but they are vague enough not to count taxes right? Like there should be short cuts and loopholes...

As you try to conceive of ways for states to subvert the will of the federal government, consider that anything you come up with can just as easily be used by conservatives to achieve their ends. Do you so desperately want net neutrality in some form that you will pave the way for bans on non-Christian religions, for criminalisation of homosexuality, for second-class status for every kind of minority?

I'm conservative and I'm not really against net neutrality but not for it. I have my own policy on the issue that no-one cares about because NN is considered for or against and no other real thinking processes. Also it seems to me that you view conservatives poorly. Just look at me I turned out fine.

[Corrian]

So of course Trump comments on the Washington train crash and spouts bullshit.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

So of course Trump comments on the Washington train crash and spouts bullshit.

"Infrastructure plans first!"
"But, Mr. President, condolences-"
"Which will be given with the right infrastructures!"

Probably the set mind he used.

[Holy Tedalonia]

So of course Trump comments on the Washington train crash and spouts bullshit.

"Infrastructure plans first!"
"But, Mr. President, condolences-"
"Which will be given with the right infrastructures!"

Probably the set mind he used.

Personally I think the president has autism which is why he's so offensive to people. It's a type of social ineptness.

[The Black Forrest]

"Infrastructure plans first!"
"But, Mr. President, condolences-"
"Which will be given with the right infrastructures!"

Probably the set mind he used.

Personally I think the president has autism which is why he's so offensive to people. It's a type of social ineptness.

I know a few autistic. Have a couple kids on my street. They are basically quiet and friendly. The seem to lack the asshat nature of trump.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Personally I think the president has autism which is why he's so offensive to people. It's a type of social ineptness.

I know a few autistic. Have a couple kids on my street. They are basically quiet and friendly. The seem to lack the asshat nature of trump.

True they tend to be quiet and friendly (I would know since I am one, and have many friends that are autistic too), but really though they're limited to that. Best explanation for autism is that they think differently. They are not limited to the quiet friendliness that most autistic people display.

[Corrian]

His tweet.

Also it is a lie as I am pretty sure he's done the opposite of help the infrastructure.

[Corrian]

Jesus Christ this one

He's using the congressional races that Republicans have won as a good sign for 2018, despite the fact the whole reason they won is one, choosing ones with large margins on purpose, and two...they were more narrow than ever.

He also claims he knew Gillespie and Moore would lose.

[Holy Tedalonia]

His tweet.

Also it is a lie as I am pretty sure he's done the opposite of help the infrastructure.

Nah, you can't make infrastructure worse if you sink more money into it.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

His tweet.

Also it is a lie as I am pretty sure he's done the opposite of help the infrastructure.

We don't know that for sure. After all, it's still 3 more years of Trump presidency.

Anything can happen.

Anything.

[Vassenor]

His tweet.

Also it is a lie as I am pretty sure he's done the opposite of help the infrastructure.

We don't know that for sure. After all, it's still 3 more years of Trump presidency.

Anything can happen.

Anything.

Trump slashed Amtrak's funding early in his reign.

[Corrian]

Judicial nominee who couldn't even answer basic law questions withdraws

[Neutraligon]

Judicial nominee who couldn't even answer basic law questions withdraws

"He has told me, 'Kennedy, when some of my guys send someone who is not qualified, you do your job,' " Kennedy added.

So Trump, since you hire the best, why are your guys sending someone who is not qualified? Why are they not doing their job?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Judicial nominee who couldn't even answer basic law questions withdraws

I’m not surprised, that hearing was a train wreck based on the clips I’ve seen from it.

[Corrian]

Judicial nominee who couldn't even answer basic law questions withdraws

"He has told me, 'Kennedy, when some of my guys send someone who is not qualified, you do your job,' " Kennedy added.

So Trump, since you hire the best, why are your guys sending someone who is not qualified? Why are they not doing their job?

Not that I give them much credit because they still accept other guys who have been deemed "Not qualified" and trying to discredit the organization that deems them that, but I gotta give credit where credit is given where Kennedy is even just like "Yeah, fuck this, this guy is completely unqualified so just no"