Net Neutrality

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Just for shits and giggle, here are some more liberal talking points: Trump's first 10 months lag Obama's (first and second term) economic performance on most measures of economic performance (jobs created, stock market performance, etc)...

 https://seekingalpha.com/article/4115465-trump-bump-compare-obama-effect-stock-market?page=2

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4122338-trump-bump-vs-obama-effect-part-2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/14/comparing-the-trump-economy-to-the-obama-economy/?utm_term=.4e900fc2f087

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfman/2017/10/30/trump-ranks-sixth-in-stock-market-performance-behind-obama-and-clinton/#6162b3b6644a

 

To invert Zippy5's point, I don't think having NN in place since 2015 has damaged the internet has it?  It has allowed things like Netflix and Amazon to thrive which is good for consumers (and bad for the ISPs that have big investments in TV delivery...).   I agree that there is probably too much hyperbole about this-- overturning NN won't cause the downfall of the internet in the near term.  But, I know I don't want my access to data and content on the internet to be metered or priced by what I choose to watch or do, which is what NN protected us from.   

 

[Balsy]

7 hours ago, lilroodude said:

Net Neutrality is simply government overreach, and was put in place to give regulatory powers to the government instead of letting the free market decide winners and losers, as Hilltopper previously mentioned. The law was put into place in 2015, 20(?)+ years after it was invented. The internet grew exponentially in that time frame, and was doing just fine. 

 

Don't look to government to solve problems. Look to government to protect and uphold the basic rights (Constitution) that afford each of us to solve problems on our own. 

 

It is not government overreach.  As other members have pointed out before, NN was put into place to keep the internet the way it had been for the previous 20 years.  Corporations used the courts to challenge the FCC that it could not prevent corporations from throttling customer service.  That decision WAS MADE IN 2015, which thus lead to the reclassification of the internet as a public utility.

 

Yes the internet was doing just fine because for 20 years companies hadn't been allowed to do what they are now allowed to do.  NN was the guarantee that the internet would stay status-quo.  I understand there's a bit of nuance to this, but NN IS NOT overreach, I'm sorry you are absolutely wrong on that.

 

In the post below I've posted Net Neutrality explained in 2014, and in 2017.  It clearly points out in 2014: it was the FCC that was moving to get rid of the NN provisions that had existed for 20+ years of the internet to "fix" the internet.  So, honestly, if you are making the argument that there was nothing wrong with the internet prior to 2015 and the growth seen is was a positive thing over the decades prior to 2015 without government intervention, you are in favor of Net Neutrality.

 

History Lesson:

 

->  Prior to 2014, the internet was classified under the telecommunications act of 1996 which kept companies from selectively speeding up, or slowing down specific content...making the internet Neutral. 

 

-> In 2014 corporations like Verizon and Comcast challenged this classification under the telecommunications act of 1996, and won, therefore changing the "Neutral" state of the internet, and opening to the selective speeding up/slowing down of content by ISPs.

 

-> In 2015 the internet is reclassified as a public utility under Title II, which kept it as the Neutral state it had been in for the past 20 years.

 

Again, if you think the internet was just fine prior to 2015 when the decision was made to move it from Title I to Title II classification, you are in favor of Net Neutrality.

 

The government wasn't overreaching, it was maintaining the status-quo.  The overreach was by corporations who have a vested interest in creating tiered internet fast lanes.  But I cannot emphasize this enough:  If you are in favor of the way the internet was for the decades prior to 2015; YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF NET NEUTRALITY.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Balsy

[Balsy]

In 2014:

 

 

In 2017:

 

 

[skip-zip]

9 hours ago, lilroodude said:

The average GDP growth under the previous administration was 1.5%. Already this year, we've seen 3% GDP growth quarters, and possibly 4% to end the year. Based on your argument, we should settle for the 1.5% growth and never strive for better. Furthermore, we are not intended to be a socialist nation, therefore taxes should always be as low as possible.

 

Net Neutrality is simply government overreach, and was put in place to give regulatory powers to the government instead of letting the free market decide winners and losers

 

I am very pro small government. I think many of our issues in the present day USA begin with our dependence, as a society, on government. Therefore, anytime I read "repeal" when it comes to a government action, I'm usually pretty happy; actually, I can't think of a time I haven't been happy. History has proven that government ruins most things it gets involved with.

 

Don't look to government to solve problems. Look to government to protect and uphold the basic rights (Constitution) that afford each of us to solve problems on our own. 

 

I couldn't agree with you more on all of these points.

 

 

[Let'sGoZips94]

3 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

It is not government overreach.  As other members have pointed out before, NN was put into place to keep the internet the way it had been for the previous 20 years.  Corporations used the courts to challenge the FCC that it could not prevent corporations from throttling customer service.  That decision WAS MADE IN 2015, which thus lead to the reclassification of the internet as a public utility.

 

Yes the internet was doing just fine because for 20 years companies hadn't been allowed to do what they are now allowed to do.  NN was the guarantee that the internet would stay status-quo.  I understand there's a bit of nuance to this, but NN IS NOT overreach, I'm sorry you are absolutely wrong on that.

 

In the post below I've posted Net Neutrality explained in 2014, and in 2017.  It clearly points out in 2014: it was the FCC that was moving to get rid of the NN provisions that had existed for 20+ years of the internet to "fix" the internet.  So, honestly, if you are making the argument that there was nothing wrong with the internet prior to 2015 and the growth seen is was a positive thing over the decades prior to 2015 without government intervention, you are in favor of Net Neutrality.

 

History Lesson:

 

->  Prior to 2014, the internet was classified under the telecommunications act of 1996 which kept companies from selectively speeding up, or slowing down specific content...making the internet Neutral. 

 

-> In 2014 corporations like Verizon and Comcast challenged this classification under the telecommunications act of 1996, and won, therefore changing the "Neutral" state of the internet, and opening to the selective speeding up/slowing down of content by ISPs.

 

-> In 2015 the internet is reclassified as a public utility under Title II, which kept it as the Neutral state it had been in for the past 20 years.

 

Again, if you think the internet was just fine prior to 2015 when the decision was made to move it from Title I to Title II classification, you are in favor of Net Neutrality.

 

The government wasn't overreaching, it was maintaining the status-quo.  The overreach was by corporations who have a vested interest in creating tiered internet fast lanes.  But I cannot emphasize this enough:  If you are in favor of the way the internet was for the decades prior to 2015; YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF NET NEUTRALITY.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

 

 

So here's what I take from this history lesson. Near the very beginning of the internet, the government believed it to be a tool for the people. Companies eventually challenged this ruling, believing it to be a service that these ISPs provide, and therefore should be allowed to charge more/less for their services. The courts, which are designed to interpret and uphold our nation's laws (although they aren't always correct), ruled in their favor. Our government didn't like that, and then implemented their own Net Neutrality act. 

 

Thank you for sharing this, as it reaffirms my belief that Net Neutrality, especially the 2015 version, is truly government overreach. I don't necessarily have as much of an opinion on the 1996 version, as I was only 2 at the time and wasn't vigilant enough growing up to know right from wrong when it came to my internet experience. The internet is not a basic right; it is a service, and the courts ruled it as such. Therefore the service providers should be allowed to charge more/less. Just because the government has the oversight powers doesn't make it neutral. Lobbyists can easily influence the power. So I think the fear of selective throttling is irrelevant; just pay closer attention to your browsing speeds, and say something if you see something. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by lilroodude

[Balsy]

3 hours ago, lilroodude said:

 

So here's what I take from this history lesson. Near the very beginning of the internet, the government believed it to be a tool for the people. Companies eventually challenged this ruling, believing it to be a service that these ISPs provide, and therefore should be allowed to charge more/less for their services. The courts, which are designed to interpret and uphold our nation's laws (although they aren't always correct), ruled in their favor. Our government didn't like that, and then implemented their own Net Neutrality act. 

 

Thank you for sharing this, as it reaffirms my belief that Net Neutrality, especially the 2015 version, is truly government overreach. I don't necessarily have as much of an opinion on the 1996 version, as I was only 2 at the time and wasn't vigilant enough growing up to know right from wrong when it came to my internet experience. The internet is not a basic right; it is a service, and the courts ruled it as such. Therefore the service providers should be allowed to charge more/less. Just because the government has the oversight powers doesn't make it neutral. Lobbyists can easily influence the power. So I think the fear of selective throttling is irrelevant; just pay closer attention to your browsing speeds, and say something if you see something. 

 

Dude, it doesn't reaffirm a thing you believe.  It's "overreach" to maintain the status-quo?  Dude that's just idiotic.  Corporations found a loop hole to exploit, and the government closed it to maintain the status-quo.  Never thought you'd be on the side of lawyers, but cool w/e.

Yeah the internet has pretty much been regulated as Neutral over the time it grew the most.  You are for Net Neutrality and are too stubborn to accept it because your belief in an agenda is more important than reality.  The internet had the most successful growth and became what we know it to be today BECAUSE there was the protection keeping it Neutral.  The government is in charge of making rules...that's why it exists.  That's why the constitution exists.

[Balsy]

14 hours ago, lilroodude said:

I am very pro small government. I think many of our issues in the present day USA begin with our dependence, as a society, on government. Therefore, anytime I read "repeal" when it comes to a government action, I'm usually pretty happy; actually, I can't think of a time I haven't been happy. History has proven that government ruins most things it gets involved with.

 

Really?  It's proven? That's a pretty high standard of evidence.  Instances where government has made something bad sure.  But every time it's involved with?  Honestly that's a pretty narrow world view.

 

Because I can think of tons of times where government not being involved has led to huge problems...look no further than the 2008 financial crisis...but others as well.  Because without government protection many time it's the public that must shoulder the cost.  Many of the things listed below, including the 2008 financial crisis, are an example of when gains are privatized and the risk is socialized.

 

-Mine Run-off poisoning the waterways.

-Dumping whatever chemicals you want into waterways, which eventually catch on fire

-Wide spread use of Chemical sprays that nearly wipe out an American Icon the Bold Eagle

-Ammonium Nitrate Storage Facility Blows up 

-Lake Peigneur, popular fresh-water lake destroyed

 

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

 

There are many other instances in which regulation works fine:

 

-The entire plane industry is heavily regulated, and has been heavily revolutionized by publicly funded safety efforts through NASA/FAA research to solve problems like that seen by Delta-191 that killed 134 people.  Most FAA regulations are reactionary (like the establishment of smoke detectors and such) but there are far fewer fatal plane incidents in the US today then in the past.  To simply say "history has proven that government ruins most things it gets involved with" is categorically false.

 

-Lead (a nervous toxin); It's universal medical consensus today that there is no safe levels of lead in the bloodstream of children.  Banning of lead in commercial products and gasoline instantly reduced the exposure of children to lead.

 

So to say EVERY time the government is involved with something is bad, is frankly ignorant and lazy.  Is too much government regulation a bad thing?  Yes.  Is too little government regulation a bad thing?  Yes.  

A functioning society requires a healthy discussion, debate and approach to finding the "right" balance.  And the "right" balance isn't always the same.  

[Balsy]

14 hours ago, lilroodude said:

The average GDP growth under the previous administration was 1.5%. Already this year, we've seen 3% GDP growth quarters, and possibly 4% to end the year. Based on your argument, we should settle for the 1.5% growth and never strive for better.

 

And I wish you guys could just be honest.  You throw a stat around like that without context.  You know as well as I do that the "average" of the eight years of the previous president's presidency was dragged down by the outlier of the first few quarters where the economy shrunk as a direct result of the economic crash during the previous presidents presidency.  There was a point during Obama's presidency where each quarter it grew by 4-6%.  For almost a year.

[Bruce Willis Drummond]

Balsy,

For a guy that wanted to avoid vigorous debate, you sure do vigorously debate a lot.

[zippy5]

21 minutes ago, Balsy said:

A functioning society requires a healthy discussion, debate and approach to finding the "right" balance.  And the "right" balance isn't always the same.  

As long as you agree with balsy

[Let'sGoZips94]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 

Dude, it doesn't reaffirm a thing you believe.  It's "overreach" to maintain the status-quo?  Dude that's just idiotic.  Corporations found a loop hole to exploit, and the government closed it to maintain the status-quo.  Never thought you'd be on the side of lawyers, but cool w/e.

Yeah the internet has pretty much been regulated as Neutral over the time it grew the most.  You are for Net Neutrality and are too stubborn to accept it because your belief in an agenda is more important than reality.  The internet had the most successful growth and became what we know it to be today BECAUSE there was the protection keeping it Neutral.  The government is in charge of making rules...that's why it exists.  That's why the constitution exists.

 

What was the loophole they exploited, and what was the benefit for the corporations? What if the status-quo was improper to begin with? Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, it is still against the law for these ISPs to selective throttle or accelerate individual sites. I'm not siding with lawyers; I'm on the side of capitalism and a free market. It's amazing how the government will close the supposed loophole these corporations found in the internet/Net Neutrality, but won't simplify the tax code and close the tax loopholes that each of them and their lobbyists exploit. 

 

The bold part above shows a lack of understanding of the basic principles of this country. The Constitution was written to protect the people from the tyranny of government; they weren't written to portray government as some sort of God, with the Bill of Rights being its Ten Commandments. 

 

55 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Really?  It's proven? That's a pretty high standard of evidence.  Instances where government has made something bad sure.  But every time it's involved with?  Honestly that's a pretty narrow world view.

 

Because I can think of tons of times where government not being involved has led to huge problems...look no further than the 2008 financial crisis...but others as well.  Because without government protection many time it's the public that must shoulder the cost.  Many of the things listed below, including the 2008 financial crisis, are an example of when gains are privatized and the risk is socialized.

 

-Mine Run-off poisoning the waterways.

-Dumping whatever chemicals you want into waterways, which eventually catch on fire

-Wide spread use of Chemical sprays that nearly wipe out an American Icon the Bold Eagle

-Ammonium Nitrate Storage Facility Blows up 

-Lake Peigneur, popular fresh-water lake destroyed

 

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

 

There are many other instances in which regulation works fine:

 

-The entire plane industry is heavily regulated, and has been heavily revolutionized by publicly funded safety efforts through NASA/FAA research to solve problems like that seen by Delta-191 that killed 134 people.  Most FAA regulations are reactionary (like the establishment of smoke detectors and such) but there are far fewer fatal plane incidents in the US today then in the past.  To simply say "history has proven that government ruins most things it gets involved with" is categorically false.

 

-Lead (a nervous toxin); It's universal medical consensus today that there is no safe levels of lead in the bloodstream of children.  Banning of lead in commercial products and gasoline instantly reduced the exposure of children to lead.

 

So to say EVERY time the government is involved with something is bad, is frankly ignorant and lazy.  Is too much government regulation a bad thing?  Yes.  Is too little government regulation a bad thing?  Yes.  

A functioning society requires a healthy discussion, debate and approach to finding the "right" balance.  And the "right" balance isn't always the same.  

 

First of all, I said most things. Some regulations to keep an industry/companies honest and accountable can be good. I don't believe I've yet made a blanket, 100% statement about the evils and corruption in government. Second of all, my "narrow" point of view is hardly "narrow" as it has a pretty expansive view of the history of the world, not just the US. The US is a very unique country, with its Constitution and capitalist economy, yet still being VERY young. Third of all, for every example shared about government being "good", I can share multiple, negative examples of government involvement. This is a back and forth I don't want to get into at this point in time, but would be more than happy to debate/discuss another time. 

 

To get back to the main purpose of this thread, we are now a couple days into the repeal of Net Neutrality. Have any of you lost your internet capabilities and accessibility? 

Edited December 18, 2017 by lilroodude

[Let'sGoZips94]

45 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

And I wish you guys could just be honest.  You throw a stat around like that without context.  You know as well as I do that the "average" of the eight years of the previous president's presidency was dragged down by the outlier of the first few quarters where the economy shrunk as a direct result of the economic crash during the previous presidents presidency.  There was a point during Obama's presidency where each quarter it grew by 4-6%.  For almost a year.

 

He was the first president since Hoover to never see an annual GDP growth of 3%. Don't kid yourself. The reason he never saw 3% GDP growth, even in the years where he had 4-6% quarters, was because the other quarters were so incredibly poor, even negative at times. Additionally, if we're throwing out the outliers at the beginning of a presidency, Trump hasn't seen a quarter of GDP growth under 3% yet. 

 

Again, I don't want to get into Trump vs. Obama. Talk about escalated Groce vs. Dambrot discussion. 

[kreed5120]

18 hours ago, lilroodude said:

 

The corruption level in our government is unreal. Hence why the slogan "Drain the Swamp" was/is so popular. 

 

I actually think the problems derive from the two-party political system our Founding Fathers warned against. We've been divided into Democrats & Republicans, and instead of focusing on the issues, we focus on the parties. Not really a discussion to have in this thread, but it certainly is an interesting one to say the least. 

 

I'm in total agreement. So many individuals base their political views solely off of the political party they affiliate themselves with instead of looking at both sides of an issue and forming their own opinion.

[Balsy]

20 hours ago, lilroodude said:

The corruption level in our government is unreal. Hence why the slogan "Drain the Swamp" was/is so popular. 

 

I actually think the problems derive from the two-party political system our Founding Fathers warned against. We've been divided into Democrats & Republicans, and instead of focusing on the issues, we focus on the parties. Not really a discussion to have in this thread, but it certainly is an interesting one to say the least. 

 

Yes, the corruption is unreal, there I agree with you.  I disagree though.  The problem derives from money in politics.  So long as it is legal to bribe politicians in the form of campaign contributions, the government will be nothing but a haven for corruption.  Who benefits from a two-party system?  Those that lobby both sides of it to get what they want.  There earnestly was very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the types of people giving them money.  They polarize the public on issues that truly at the end of the day don't matter; while both sides are bought out on the issues that die in the dark.

 

But this is why I'm so outspoken in overturning Net Neutrality.  Thats the ONE thing we do have; and the inspiration to overturn Net Neutrality is being spear-headed by the company who's the second largest campaign contributor/lobbying entity in the country, who has a former CEO on the FCC board making the recommendations.  It's clear as day getting Rid of Net Neutrality IS THE SWAMP.  Yet the slogan "drain the swamp" is suddenly silent when we're actually talking about the swamp rigging the system for itself, and getting exactly what it wants.

 

Money in politics is what creates the two party system.  Both parties are lobbied and paid by pretty much the same companies.  Obama appointed Ajit Pai (former Verizon CEO) to the FCC...Verizon being a large donor.  Trump gets elected, Verizon "donates" $2million to the inauguration.  Trump keeps Ajit Pai as FCC chairman.  Verizon (and the rest of the swamp) continues to get what the Swamp wants regardless of who's in power.

 

I had hope Trump would be a man of his word and drain the swamp.  He hasn't.  Frankly, he's continued the status-quo of the swamp.  And the Swamp wants to get rid of Net Neutrality. 

 

2 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

I'm in total agreement. So many individuals base their political views solely off of the political party they affiliate themselves with instead of looking at both sides of an issue and forming their own opinion.

 

Yes and most who make this statement are guilty of the thing they criticize other people of doing.  

 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Balsy

[skip-zip]

2 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

So many individuals base their political views solely off of the political party they affiliate themselves with instead of looking at both sides of an issue and forming their own opinion.

 

I wish I could send this post to the 190-some House Members and 40-some Senators who have a (D) next to their name, and have yet to cast ONE SINGLE yes vote for any of Trump's policy initiatives.   

[Let'sGoZips94]

8 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Yes, the corruption is unreal, there I agree with you.  I disagree though.  The problem derives from money in politics.  So long as it is legal to bribe politicians in the form of campaign contributions, the government will be nothing but a haven for corruption.  Who benefits from a two-party system?  Those that lobby both sides of it to get what they want.  There earnestly was very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the types of people giving them money.  They polarize the public on issues that truly at the end of the day don't matter; while both sides are bought out on the issues that die in the dark.

 

But this is why I'm so outspoken in overturning Net Neutrality.  Thats the ONE thing we do have; and the inspiration to overturn Net Neutrality is being spear-headed by the company who's the second largest campaign contributor/lobbying entity in the country, who has a former CEO on the FCC board making the recommendations.  It's clear as day getting Rid of Net Neutrality IS THE SWAMP.  Yet the slogan "drain the swamp" is suddenly silent when we're actually talking about the swamp rigging the system for itself, and getting exactly what it wants.

 

Money in politics is what creates the two party system.  Both parties are lobbied and paid by pretty much the same companies.  Obama appointed Ajit Pai (former Verizon CEO) to the FCC...Verizon being a large donor.  Trump gets elected, Verizon "donates" $2million to the inauguration.  Trump keeps Ajit Pai as FCC chairman.  Verizon (and the rest of the swamp) continues to get what the Swamp wants regardless of who's in power.

 

I had hope Trump would be a man of his word and drain the swamp.  He hasn't.  Frankly, he's continued the status-quo of the swamp.  And the Swamp wants to get rid of Net Neutrality. 

 

 

Yes and most who make this statement are guilty of the thing they criticize other people of doing.  

 

 

Responses in order of the bold...

 

- In general in the last 17 years, I think people have voted based on issues that don't matter, at least not nearly as much. But last year's election was fully based on important issues.

 

- Trump is doing what he can to drain the swamp. I believe he's a chess master, playing 10 moves ahead of his opponents. Hence why he hasn't fired Mueller and the special counsel; he's letting them discredit themselves, and eventually they'll go away. There are certainly some questions I have, but ISIS has largely been defeated, the economy looks to be headed like a freight train in the right direction (like I said, we need to get our spending under control and lower our debt), and tax cuts (although I don't think taxes are being cut enough) look to be getting passed. A lot of good is happening for me to believe he is keeping his word on most everything. 

 

- The swamp put in Net Neutrality. Why would they want to get rid of it? The swamp is largely of the same ideological group that is crying about it being gone. Also, keep in mind who put Net Neutrality in place in 2015 - the same people that gave us the Affordable Care Act, which there is nothing affordable about. Just like there is nothing neutral about 2015 Net Neutrality. They label their big ideas as such that the sheep in society buy into it. 

[kreed5120]

54 minutes ago, Balsy said:

 

Yes and most who make this statement are guilty of the thing they criticize other people of doing.  

 

Fortunately for me then that I don't self identify myself with either political party.

[Balsy]

8 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

Fortunately for me then that I don't self identify myself with either political party.

 

Not identifying yourself with a political party doesn't mean that you don't prescribe to a political ideology; which is equally the problem.  The business of absolutism is part of the problem.

[Balsy]

1 hour ago, lilroodude said:

 

Responses in order of the bold...

 

(1) - In general in the last 17 years, I think people have voted based on issues that don't matter, at least not nearly as much. But last year's election was fully based on important issues.

 

(2)- Trump is doing what he can to drain the swamp. I believe he's a chess master, playing 10 moves ahead of his opponents. Hence why he hasn't fired Mueller and the special counsel; he's letting them discredit themselves, and eventually they'll go away. There are certainly some questions I have, but ISIS has largely been defeated, the economy looks to be headed like a freight train in the right direction (like I said, we need to get our spending under control and lower our debt), and tax cuts (although I don't think taxes are being cut enough) look to be getting passed. A lot of good is happening for me to believe he is keeping his word on most everything. 

 

(3)- The swamp put in Net Neutrality. Why would they want to get rid of it? The swamp is largely of the same ideological group that is crying about it being gone. Also, keep in mind who put Net Neutrality in place in 2015 - the same people that gave us the Affordable Care Act, which there is nothing affordable about. Just like there is nothing neutral about 2015 Net Neutrality. They label their big ideas as such that the sheep in society buy into it. 

 

Not sure why I'm even responding to this;  based on your comments, you live in a completely different universe than I do.  Response in order of numbers.

 

(1)  You could make that arguement on Obama's election to pal.  "Change"  "Hope" "Yes We Can" were all populist slogans used by Obama, who won.  Obama unfortunately didn't bring much change.  One of the very few things he did do was maintaining Net Neutrality which he was originally against maintaining until he was for it because of the outpouring of outrage from the public.  Trump will also not bring the populist change; he's as much in bed with the swamp as any politician before him.  This is why we have to change the system; get money out of politics.

 

(2)  This piece here is why the swamp exists in the first place.  Donald Trump is far from a master chess player, he's not even a decent tic-tac-toe player.  For pete's sake the guy went on for months about how he had the "largest crowd ever" at his inauguration which was verifiably false.  All you need to do is look at his cabinet to see the clear conflicts of interest to know that he isn't draining the swamp...he is the swamp.  Look no further than Betsy DeVos who's family owns private charter-schools who has been lobbying the government for decades to privatize  education (which they would directly financially benefit from); she was put in charge of the department which would make policy that would directly financially benefit her family.  That is the very definition of the swamp friend.  And look I'm objective here; I was a huge critic of Obama's coziness with corporate lobbyists, as I also was with Hillary Clinton (whom I did not support to be president).  But don't be stupid.  Trump isn't one iota better...in most ways his corruption is far worse.

 

(3)  No, you couldn't misunderstand the corupption in this country more.  The swamp wants get rid of Net Neutrality.  It's easy to understand:  the swamp (the corruption machine) stands to make $$$$$ by getting rid of Net Neutrality.  Allowing the ISPs to control speed of content gives them the leg up in negotiations with content creators (Netflix, Slings and Hulu's of the world), as well as the ability to force consumers to buy more expensive packages to access content they do on a regular basis now.  Why allow people to have access to facebook on a basic package, when you can create a new super-delux package that includes facebook!?  All about the $$$$$$$$.   The swamp lobbies, places politicians in positions to support it's position, get's people who are sympathetic to their cause in charge of the agencies responsible for regulating/watching said industries.  THAT is the swamp dude.  I don't understand how you don't get that.

 

But you're views are more radical then I thought.  I don't think you have a firm foot in reality.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Balsy

[Hilltopper]

Balsy, you totally lose all credibility in your posts due to your constant use of ad hominem attacks in your responses to the other members of the forum. Try sticking to some actual points of discussion.

[kreed5120]

1 hour ago, Balsy said:

 

The business of absolutism is part of the problem.

Not disputing this. I'm fairly opened minded when it comes to politics, but thanks for insinuating otherwise.

[Let'sGoZips94]

2 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Not identifying yourself with a political party doesn't mean that you don't prescribe to a political ideology; which is equally the problem.  The business of absolutism is part of the problem.

 

Wait, what? So having political thoughts is part of the problem? I don't identify with a political party either, but I have political thoughts based around certain ideals. That's not the problem in the least. 

 

2 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Not sure why I'm even responding to this;  based on your comments, you live in a completely different universe than I do.  Response in order of numbers.

 

(1)  You could make that arguement on Obama's election to pal.  "Change"  "Hope" "Yes We Can" were all populist slogans used by Obama, who won.  Obama unfortunately didn't bring much change.  One of the very few things he did do was maintaining Net Neutrality which he was originally against maintaining until he was for it because of the outpouring of outrage from the public.  Trump will also not bring the populist change; he's as much in bed with the swamp as any politician before him.  This is why we have to change the system; get money out of politics.

 

(2)  This piece here is why the swamp exists in the first place.  Donald Trump is far from a master chess player, he's not even a decent tic-tac-toe player.  For pete's sake the guy went on for months about how he had the "largest crowd ever" at his inauguration which was verifiably false.  All you need to do is look at his cabinet to see the clear conflicts of interest to know that he isn't draining the swamp...he is the swamp.  Look no further than Betsy DeVos who's family owns private charter-schools who has been lobbying the government for decades to privatize  education (which they would directly financially benefit from); she was put in charge of the department which would make policy that would directly financially benefit her family.  That is the very definition of the swamp friend.  And look I'm objective here; I was a huge critic of Obama's coziness with corporate lobbyists, as I also was with Hillary Clinton (whom I did not support to be president).  But don't be stupid.  Trump isn't one iota better...in most ways his corruption is far worse.

 

(3)  No, you couldn't misunderstand the corupption in this country more.  The swamp wants get rid of Net Neutrality.  It's easy to understand:  the swamp (the corruption machine) stands to make $$$$$ by getting rid of Net Neutrality.  Allowing the ISPs to control speed of content gives them the leg up in negotiations with content creators (Netflix, Slings and Hulu's of the world), as well as the ability to force consumers to buy more expensive packages to access content they do on a regular basis now.  Why allow people to have access to facebook on a basic package, when you can create a new super-delux package that includes facebook!?  All about the $$$$$$$$.   The swamp lobbies, places politicians in positions to support it's position, get's people who are sympathetic to their cause in charge of the agencies responsible for regulating/watching said industries.  THAT is the swamp dude.  I don't understand how you don't get that.

 

But you're views are more radical then I thought.  I don't think you have a firm foot in reality.

 

1) I don't even know where to begin. 

 

2/3) There's a difference between putting people in positions to succeed based on their personal experience in that field, and putting lobbyists in positions as favors. I don't know how I feel about DeVos, but her idea of privatizing our educational systems shouldn't be automatically dismissed. Actually, several of Trump's cabinet picks have the goal of privatizing at least certain parts of their departments. Government is too big. Privatizing certain areas would kill two birds by shrinking government (therefore cutting spending, stretching our tax dollars the extra mile and even allowing more tax cuts), and drain the swamp. There is nothing wrong with people getting rich in a free market, capitalist society. There is something wrong with people getting rich on my/our tax dollars (Obama, Bernie Sanders, Clintons, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain to name a few). Look deeper into Trump and his actions, by the way. They are far from the swamp. He has been donating the presidential salary. Melania cut the number of her assistants from Michelle's 24 (totaling $1.24M in annual salaries) to 4 (less than $500k in annual salaries), saving the tax payers hundreds of thousands already. The number of people working for Trump is down 110 people from Obama's staff, saving taxpayers $5.1M per year. He took care of ISIS. He's been deregulating the economy and EPA, which promotes job growth and takes the foot off our farmers' throats, but maintaining an emphasis on taking care of our planet. Look at what our economy is doing (BOOMING); economies don't boom like this under the swamp's socialist leadership and policies. Instead of funding other countries, he's taking that money and putting it into our infrastructure, military, and other areas of need that have been neglected. Draining the swamp isn't about preventing already wealthy people from getting wealthier with their own business. Draining the swamp is about preventing the overgrowth of government and foreign influence in our government; it's about preventing our capitalist republic from being destroyed, and preventing our government from taking advantage of the people for their own gain. Have you heard about Uranium One? How about Operation Fast and Furious? Did you see the Politico article about Obama preventing the DEA from doing its job (they were targeting drug trafficking by the Iran-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah) in order for the Iran Nuclear Deal to go through? THAT'S the swamp. THAT'S what needs drained. 

 

The fears that have been mentioned, they're repetitive talking points from a playbook co-written by Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. They pray on the public's bleeding hearts and fears. If you don't agree with them, they then label you as racists, sexists, homophobes, misogynist, etc. Do you know how many times I've been called those things, or an extremist? HUGE amounts; like Trump's exaggerations amounts (see, I can have fun ). Are they true? Heck no. My beliefs stem from our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Does that sound so extreme, racist (no, I don't share the belief in slavery that of the Founding Fathers had), sexists, homophobic, misogynistic, etc.? No? Then be careful with the personal attacks. As I previously stated, politics is a very important topic to discuss, and I don't believe it's something that shouldn't be publicly discussed. However, when it is discussed, it needs to be done in a civil manner. 

 

We have gotten so far off the topic of Net Neutrality, so I will most likely end my involvement with this thread with this post. Good talk, gentlemen. As always, Go Zips and .

Edited December 19, 2017 by lilroodude

[Balsy]

7 hours ago, lilroodude said:

Wait, what? So having political thoughts is part of the problem? I don't identify with a political party either, but I have political thoughts based around certain ideals. That's not the problem in the least. 

 

No, I did not say thoughts.  I said Political Ideology which is defined as "a certain set of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order."

 

This can be part of the problem, because identifying with a political ideology is similar to identifying with a political party...rather than a rational consideration of facts.  People will distort their understanding of reality; bend, distort or outright deny observational facts about reality if they don't support their political ideology.  Believing one thing is right, in every situation, all the time is absurd.  Yet people confirm to these ideologies as if they do exist.  It's quite irrational.

[Balsy]

7 hours ago, kreed5120 said:

Not disputing this. I'm fairly opened minded when it comes to politics, but thanks for insinuating otherwise.

 

I've seen very little commentary from you, over the many conversations on this forum, that would lead me to think you're as open minded as you claim to be.

[kreed5120]

16 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

I've seen very little commentary from you, over the many conversations on this forum, that would lead me to think you're as open minded as you claim to be.

Pretty much all my posts you've seen are sports related (which I admit I'm opinionated about as I'm more passionate about it) because A) this is a sports forum and B ) I try to avoid internet political debates. But thanks for jumping to assumptions when you have little to no knowledge of where I stand politically.

Edited December 20, 2017 by kreed5120