Page 10 of 38 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
20
... LastLast
  1. #181
    The Lightbringer Clone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    3,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    I think financially that isn't going to be viable. Cable TV faltered primarily because it was a bad service compared to the internet AND overpriced. When I cut the cord it wasn't even some moral stand against television (Although I think advertising messes with your head), it was purely a financial decision. Televisions are expensive and eat up wallspace. Cable tv costs a lot per month and I don't watch anything.

    Their hope is I'm guessing to force people to bay 150-200 a month, but I think one of two things will happen:
    A) Public outcry will be so bad that either 2018 will be politically devastating to anyone trying to hold the ISP's line.
    B) The Internet will wither in America and people will be financially forced to not use, which will trigger a horrific and bitter economic crisis whilst we still struggle in the perpetual anemia after 2008.

    The economic fallout will be bad, very bad. The political fallout is likely to be radioactive.
    The bolded part is what I really have a problem with. Instead of investing into better options and remaining competitive, cable companies would rather spend that same money to keep a dying service.

  2. #182
    Demcorats could have protected net neutrality in 2009 and 2010. They should have protected it. Or they could have cut a deal with REpublicans any time up until 2015.

    Never forget the opportunity cost of Obamacare.

    Fact is though this is yet the latest entry in "policy via regulation is a stupid way to govern".

    I'm not sure what people expected. Honestly. Did you think there was going to be a different outcome if a Republican ever got elected, either in 2016, 2020 or 2024? This is what was ALWAYS going to happen because the Obama Administration, as was its way, didn't lift a finger to forge a less-than-perfect consensus. Instead, it utilized regulation and *shockingly* the next republican in office changes the regulation.

    I believe whole heartedly in net neutrality, but this is so typical of how we've become creatively terrible, as a country at governing. Many Liberals want EVERYTHING. They want to see their 100% solution implemented without any deviation from orthodoxy. Many conservatives want just the same.

    So get ready for a profoundly stupid way to live, where we live in 4-8 of Net Neutrality, then 4-8 of non-Net Neutrality, among hundreds of other issues. And it will be that way until someone takes the first step to accept their half a loaf.

    This is a stupid thing that is happening, but what did people expect when Title II was put in place along a party line vote? That it was going to stay that way forever? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Oh and who is that comment directed to? Every numbskull who criticized Tom Wheeler pre-Title II decision for holding back on pulling the trigger. Mayhaps the then 66 year old with decades of industry and policy experience, trying to find a way to forge a consensus that wouldn't be a 3-2 vote that could stand a change of parties in power, knew exactly what he was doing? You people, and you know who you are, are the ghost writers of this catastrophe. You won a battle and made the mistake of thinking you won a war.

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    So what if they didn't develop it? Someone has to maintain that infrastructure.They charge for the use of their facility, and any use gets them more satisfied customers. The additional charges for high-value content are in addition, not instead of, regular use. This enables the operators to earn more from those willing to pay more, but I don't see how it hurts anyone else.
    Do you reside in the US? They always rank dead last so when you say customer satisfaction you obviously don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The infrastructure you are talking about is crap it has always been crap they actually brag about it on their investor call because they know people have no choice.

    Ok so now we're dealing in hypotheticals that will probably never happen - there's no indication that
    1) They would form their own streaming services and if they did
    2) It would be bad for consumers
    Not hypothetical they plainly stated it starting with the Comcast court case in 2007.
    1) They already have their own streaming services and they suck which is why they need this so badly.

    Again you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

    The FCC order on net neutrality finally hit in 2015. Did you notice problems with small content providers before that date? I didn't.
    You mean you didn't notice it until they were desperate enough in 2014 to start their horrendous campaign to screw the public?

    Look at it this way. Infrastructure operators have invested billions in infrastructure that is used by content providers and consumers for their benefit. If the value of that benefit rises, should they not receive some of the extra benefit? They are the ones that have the most investment capital at risk, and should thus receive part of the reward for taking that risk.
    Let me say it one more time WE PAY FOR INTERNET SERVICE THEY ARE NOT GIVING IT FOR FREE, so when you say they invested billions you ignore the fact that they have made trillions off our backs and the protection the states give them from competition. What risk are they taking again? THEY HAVE ZERO COMPETITION.
    Last edited by Draco-Onis; 2017-11-23 at 05:25 PM.

  4. #184
    The Lightbringer Blade Wolf's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Futa Heaven
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Demcorats could have protected net neutrality in 2009 and 2010. They should have protected it. Or they could have cut a deal with REpublicans any time up until 2015.

    Never forget the opportunity cost of Obamacare.

    Fact is though this is yet the latest entry in "policy via regulation is a stupid way to govern".

    I'm not sure what people expected. Honestly. Did you think there was going to be a different outcome if a Republican ever got elected, either in 2016, 2020 or 2024? This is what was ALWAYS going to happen because the Obama Administration, as was its way, didn't lift a finger to forge a less-than-perfect consensus. Instead, it utilized regulation and *shockingly* the next republican in office changes the regulation.

    I believe whole heartedly in net neutrality, but this is so typical of how we've become creatively terrible, as a country at governing. Many Liberals want EVERYTHING. They want to see their 100% solution implemented without any deviation from orthodoxy. Many conservatives want just the same.

    So get ready for a profoundly stupid way to live, where we live in 4-8 of Net Neutrality, then 4-8 of non-Net Neutrality, among hundreds of other issues. And it will be that way until someone takes the first step to accept their half a loaf.

    This is a stupid thing that is happening, but what did people expect when Title II was put in place along a party line vote? That it was going to stay that way forever? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Oh and who is that comment directed to? Every numbskull who criticized Tom Wheeler pre-Title II decision for holding back on pulling the trigger. Mayhaps the then 66 year old with decades of industry and policy experience, trying to find a way to forge a consensus that wouldn't be a 3-2 vote that could stand a change of parties in power, knew exactly what he was doing? You people, and you know who you are, are the ghost writers of this catastrophe. You won a battle and made the mistake of thinking you won a war.
    You think republicans would be willing to work with Obama on anything?
    "when i'm around you i'm like a level 5 metapod. all i can do is harden!"

    Quote Originally Posted by unholytestament View Post
    The people who cry for censorship aren't going to be buying the game anyway. Censoring it, is going to piss off the people who were going to buy it.
    Barret: It's a good thing we had those Phoenix Downs.
    Cloud: You have the downs!

  5. #185
    So, can this be blocked in courts or in civil lawsuits?

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Demcorats could have protected net neutrality in 2009 and 2010. They should have protected it. Or they could have cut a deal with REpublicans any time up until 2015.

    Never forget the opportunity cost of Obamacare.
    You are funny as usual Skroe, you know just as well as the liberals do that it's impossible to cut a deal of any sort the moment liberals are the ones proposing. On any issue whatsoever.

    You are blaming Obamacare, as though 1)not pushing through ACA would somehow change things 2)life-saving healthcare is somehow less important than the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Fact is though this is yet the latest entry in "policy via regulation is a stupid way to govern".

    I'm not sure what people expected. Honestly. Did you think there was going to be a different outcome if a Republican ever got elected, either in 2016, 2020 or 2024? This is what was ALWAYS going to happen because the Obama Administration, as was its way, didn't lift a finger to forge a less-than-perfect consensus. Instead, it utilized regulation and *shockingly* the next republican in office changes the regulation.
    I don't quite get why you harp over Obama not getting "consensus" on literally every issue that crops up as an issue of resolute Republican obstructionism on everything that has a "liberal" tag to it.

    Person A wants to do X
    Person B wants to do Y
    Person A is willing to compromise
    Person B is not, to the extent where he's crying like a baby and then sticking his head in the sand
    Skroe: "OMG OMG PERSON A SUCKS FOR NOT GETTING A CONSENSUS"

    Your victim blaming is getting old and tiresome.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I believe whole heartedly in net neutrality, but this is so typical of how we've become creatively terrible, as a country at governing. Many Liberals want EVERYTHING. They want to see their 100% solution implemented without any deviation from orthodoxy. Many conservatives want just the same.
    I also don't understand this obsession with concessions and compromises. You don't, when faced with two choices of eating shit or bread, say the option is somewhere in between. You could though, for two choices between bread and noodles.

    And the reality with conservatives and liberals now is that the former is insisting on eating shit and the latter thinks sticking to bread is more practical. If conservatives were proposing noodles and the liberals didn't suggest "let's have yakisoba bread!", then maybe you would have a point. As of now, you don't.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post
    So what if they didn't develop it? Someone has to maintain that infrastructure.They charge for the use of their facility, and any use gets them more satisfied customers. The additional charges for high-value content are in addition, not instead of, regular use. This enables the operators to earn more from those willing to pay more, but I don't see how it hurts anyone else.
    'Willingness to pay' is a terrible argument to make in this situation. Ultimately, people who need the internet are willing to pay up to almost every bit of income not budgeted for other necessary services. As such, your argument basically means that any price increase up to the maximum is perfectly justified. Yeah, yeah, I know that you call it 'additional charges for high-value content', but that high-value content is fully undefined. Basic messengers or E-mail can be charged extra for due to that.

    But okay, let's assume that ISPs only put it on services that cannot ever be necessities, like Netflix or something. In that case, those willing to pay more for access to it can do so. Those that cannot afford it lose out on services they could previously afford. How is that not hurting them? People are worried that A) they will have to pay more for the same services or B) they will get less service at the same price. Both of those are negatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by infinitemeridian View Post

    Ok so now we're dealing in hypotheticals that will probably never happen - there's no indication that
    1) They would form their own streaming services and if they did
    2) It would be bad for consumers

    Verizon already has its own streaming service. Allowing them to lock out competition means less choice for consumers, which is almost always bad. Allowing companies that already have natural monopolies to enhance those monopolies rarely has any positive effects for consumers.

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Blade Wolf View Post
    You think republicans would be willing to work with Obama on anything?
    Considering that the government passed a budget, including a two year budget deal that hugely increased discretionary spending in late 2015, yes absolutely.

    The "Republicans would never work with obama" nonsense is an excuse. They did, when Obama bothered to demand less than 100% of his so called vision, and actually do that messy thing called building a consensus based around stakeholders.

    We've actually been through this exact discussion three times in the past four months. Most of the budgets, NewSTART, the Recovery Act, bipartisan survellience freofrm, a major Food Saftey bill.

    When Obama came half way, he got bills he could sign.

    What do you expect? Republicans roll over for whatever a Democratic President wants? They have zero incentive to do so. Of course they were going to fight tooth and nail on major policy. They have a fundamental difference of vision. How was it ever going to be any other way?

    We are here, right now, because Barack Obama didn't act when he needed to, period. Look up. What is one of the things I named:The Food Saftey bill.

    Namely this one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_Fo...ernization_Act

    Didn't know that existed? Bet nobody in this godforsaken cryfest did. This is this second cousin of Net Neutrality. It's the biggest FDA reform in about 80 years. And it was passed by a vote of 298-119-17 in the House, and 73-25 in the Senate.

    Bi.Partisan.

    Obama could have implemented nearly everything in the bill via via the FDA's analog of the Net Neutrality process. Regulatory reform that does not involve congress. Enforcement and implementation instructions. Instead, he cut a deal with republicans and got a major bill that effects all 325 million Americans, that people barely know about.


    So why didn't he do the same with Net Neutrality?

    Because it wasn't important enough to him and he didn't care, and when he did, he didn't want to compromise.

    So don't give me that shit that we would have had our Net Neutrality law as passed by Congress, rather than FCC regulation, if it wasn't for those dastardly Republicans who never gave Saint Obama refusing to negotiate on any point, on any issue. They did. When Obama bothered. They weren't the good guys, that's for damn sure. But they also weren't the bad guys. They were simply stakeholders with opposing interests that the other side refused to even attempt find common ground on (and as President, the onus was on Obama, as is the practice).

    Maybe with the next Democratic President we'll actually try to pass a law next time? Or are we going to have the in-the-future Democratic 3-2 FCC just flip the Net Neutrality switch and hope the next Republican doesn't switch it back?

  9. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Hextor View Post
    So, can this be blocked in courts or in civil lawsuits?
    The only part that can be is where the FCC promises to fight for the telecom companies to stop states from doing their own version of net neutrality. Aside from congress enacting net neutrality into law hope is pretty slim, of course this decision will be challenged in court so it will take a while.

  10. #190
    Moderator Crissi's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    32,144
    I get whats skroe is saying. If something is truly important, it needs to be law and not just a regulation. Regulations are easily undone, laws are not. Yhus, it would be more permanently protected and that is something we need.

    Maybe when conservative sites are throttled, the people who voted for this will bitch to their reps and something will get done.

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    You are funny as usual Skroe, you know just as well as the liberals do that it's impossible to cut a deal of any sort the moment liberals are the ones proposing. On any issue whatsoever.

    You are blaming Obamacare, as though 1)not pushing through ACA would somehow change things 2)life-saving healthcare is somehow less important than the internet.
    Obama blew all his political capital in one shot, an a highly divisive issue, that also is deeply vulnerable to repeal because of the manner it was passed.

    Let's be clear. I don't want it repealed without a legitimate, non-BS replacement. But McCain will die in the next 2 years. Murkoswki will wobble. The Senate may gain a couple of Republicans in 2018. WIthout bringing in Republican stakeholders, it was vulnerable from the start whenever power changed hands, and continues to be.


    If legislation cannot be passed with a broad bipartisan consensus, it should never be passed, period.


    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    I don't quite get why you harp over Obama not getting "consensus" on literally every issue that crops up as an issue of resolute Republican obstructionism on everything that has a "liberal" tag to it.

    Person A wants to do X
    Person B wants to do Y
    Person A is willing to compromise
    Person B is not, to the extent where he's crying like a baby and then sticking his head in the sand
    Skroe: "OMG OMG PERSON A SUCKS FOR NOT GETTING A CONSENSUS"

    Your victim blaming is getting old and tiresome.
    Nonsense. Read my above post. You just don't know what you're talking about. I do.



    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    I also don't understand this obsession with concessions and compromises. You don't, when faced with two choices of eating shit or bread, say the option is somewhere in between. You could though, for two choices between bread and noodles.

    And the reality with conservatives and liberals now is that the former is insisting on eating shit and the latter thinks sticking to bread is more practical. If conservatives were proposing noodles and the liberals didn't suggest "let's have yakisoba bread!", then maybe you would have a point. As of now, you don't.
    Because liberals and conservatives share the country, and nobody is going to get remotely close to what htye want. The option of eating shit or eating bread, is to take a wad of shit, crumple up a slice of bread, and dive in.

    And you're just being biased. Why I am in no way in any regards aligned with Trumpublicans, in your point here, let's not forget that liberals love to eat bread, but put buying the bread on the credit card. Jeffery Sachs wrote a terrific piece in the Washington Post the other day about the insanity of these coming taxcuts. One of his points was that liberals and conservatives alike live on fantasy island when it comes to our nations finances and liabilities.

    Whats my obsession with compromise? Because policy passed last administration should stick, with modification, through the current one, which should stick, with modification, through the following one. Elections give elected leaders the right to put their own spin on policy. But this is not a country of revolutions. Every time we elect a President, it is not some ridiculous fucking new age. It's a conservative administrator in chief, or a liberal administrator in chief. Consistency and predictability forged consensus which made our country wealthy, healthy and strong.

    Contemporary Americans have forgotten that because the right and left has become extraordinarily greedy when it comes to policy. They want it all.

    So what's with my obsession with compromise? It's because I respect the wants and concerns of people I fundamentally disagree with on policy, and recognize that even though I think my way is the right way, they don't see it like that. And since we do share this country and have to live together in it, I have the moral responsibility to moderate what I want out of respect for their legitimate concerns.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    I get whats skroe is saying. If something is truly important, it needs to be law and not just a regulation. Regulations are easily undone, laws are not. Yhus, it would be more permanently protected and that is something we need.

    Maybe when conservative sites are throttled, the people who voted for this will bitch to their reps and something will get done.
    Yes. Thank you. Exactly.

    A regulation passed by the FCC or FDA is effectively a dry erase whiteboard.

    Laws are hard to overturn. They must be overturned with follow up laws. A explicit repeal is always very hard (unless the policy is transparently a disaster). Sneaking it into other bills usually poisons them, so it's rarely done.

    Less than perfect (way less than perfect) in a law, etched in stone, is VASTLY preferrible to ideal written on a dry erase board.

    It's mindboggling to me this has to be explained. It's like people want to lose things that are important to them, when the other side gains political power, which is, ya know, inevitable. We would stop having conversations like this if people had a fucking clue how to actually fight and win, rather than engage in short term feel good acts.

    And just to underscore the point, you know who knew this most of all? Thomas-fucking-Wheeler, who was public enemy number one on Reddit, imgur, and the broader interwebs, when he refused to jump in and Title II ISPs, because he knew, one day Darth Pai would be FCC chairman, and he would undo it. He only did Title II at the 11th hour, after forging a FCC consensus failed. But he should never have been in that position, because that the role of President and the Congress that got wrongly shifted.

    Again, what is the FCC doing deciding major policy like this? Either which way - either for it a few years ago, or against it now. Why is there not a law? This entire practice - of using regulation rather than passing laws - is undemocratic, and as we see, produces deep instability.

    It must stop, and there must be zero exceptions to it. Or to put it another way, unless Congress restores Net Neutrality via a law, signed by the President, there should be no more attempts at net Neutrality. If there is another FCC drama under the next Democratic President, we'll be right back here, 4 to 8 years later. That is no way to govern a country.

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Obama blew all his political capital in one shot, an a highly divisive issue, that also is deeply vulnerable to repeal because of the manner it was passed.
    I am going to agree with you the biggest mistake of the Obama administration was going for healthcare first, wall street reform would have passed easily considering the climate. He shot himself in the foot by going for healthcare first, net neutrality would have also been an easy lift, by taking on healthcare he undercut his momentum after the election and wasted considerable leverage and political capital.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Nonsense. Read my above post. You just don't know what you're talking about. I do.
    This part?
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post

    The "Republicans would never work with obama" nonsense is an excuse. They did, when Obama bothered to demand less than 100% of his so called vision, and actually do that messy thing called building a consensus based around stakeholders.
    I liked the creative manner in which you rephrased "0%".

    Next time I have absolute zilch in my pockets, I am going to brag I have less than a billion dollars. Which is true, but ultimately pointless, and most importantly misleading.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post

    Because liberals and conservatives share the country, and nobody is going to get remotely close to what htye want. The option of eating shit or eating bread, is to take a wad of shit, crumple up a slice of bread, and dive in.
    No, you just choose to not eat shit. It's really that simple. People who can't always choose the right thing to do, especially when it comes to the greater good, simply lack mettle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    And you're just being biased.
    And that's a useless label as any. Why? Anyone who detests evil, would naturally be "biased". Against evil. But they still have to stand their ground against it, rather than bargain with the devil.

    Like you never bargain with extremists and terrorists.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Contemporary Americans have forgotten that because the right and left has become extraordinarily greedy when it comes to policy. They want it all.
    I don't see the problem with greed in this case, as long as that greed doesn't maliciously come at the expense of others, especially when it impacts the majority of the nation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    So what's with my obsession with compromise? It's because I respect the wants and concerns of people I fundamentally disagree with on policy, and recognize that even though I think my way is the right way, they don't see it like that. And since we do share this country and have to live together in it, I have the moral responsibility to moderate what I want out of respect for their legitimate concerns.
    So basically, if one day enough people in your nation wants to randomly explode a few nukes on their own soil(or even on foreign soil), you are going to "have the moral responsibility to moderate what you want out of respect for their legitimate concerns".

    That just means you lack the mettle required to do what is right, because that involves you making people do what is right. You place "freedom" over the the welfare of the people you profess to care about, which in other words just means equal parts hypocrisy and cowardice.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    This part?


    I liked the creative manner in which you rephrased "0%".

    Next time I have absolute zilch in my pockets, I am going to brag I have less than a billion dollars. Which is true, but ultimately pointless, and most importantly misleading.
    The Church would find your absolutionist stand endearing in the dark ages.

    Your rejection of compromise, which stinks up the next segments of your reply, is pretty much a rejection of a basic tenent of enlightenment thought.

    "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm good, your evil", when it comes to policy disagreements, which let's be clear, what the overwhelming majority of our national disputes are, is barbaric.

    How is negotiations and a fair outcome to all parties supposed to emerge from such a mindset?


    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    No, you just choose to not eat shit. It's really that simple. People who can't always choose the right thing to do, especially when it comes to the greater good, simply lack mettle.
    In this thread, PosPosPos advocated for authoritiarianism. Got it. Got a little Putin in you?

    The most fundamental freedom is the freedom to choose. If people cannot choose for themselves, then whatever action is taken is illegitimate.

    I personally am aethist. I have never believed in god. I find it incompatible with my rationalist beliefs. I find it incompatible with my life (which is science). But some of the most obnoxious people on planet earth, in my book, are actually other aethiest. Aethist who think there is some intrinsic, moral good, in telling grandmothers there is no God, or defaming religion as a fundamental bedrock of our civilization.

    I believe it is all little more than stories and superstition of course. But unless believers come to that conclusion themselves, of their own CHOICE, then their walk out from ignorance into the light would be as illegitimate as the indoctrination that made them believers in the first place.

    I've seen many things said in this forum that have made me positively sick. This is one of the worst. Un-American. Pre-modern. Totalitarian. Disgusting. Happy fucking thanksgiving. Here's a hand gesture.

    Not even bothering with the rest of your trash. Who cares. Don't reply to me anymore. I think you're a nut.

  15. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post

    So what's with my obsession with compromise? It's because I respect the wants and concerns of people I fundamentally disagree with on policy, and recognize that even though I think my way is the right way, they don't see it like that. And since we do share this country and have to live together in it, I have the moral responsibility to moderate what I want out of respect for their legitimate concerns.
    That is true. However, how can the US even return to the days of compromise? Trump will certainly not be the end of the seesaw politics. If a democrat comes after him, the expectation will be they overturn most of the stuff he implemented. I just don't see a return to anything other than the polarized partisanship of today. If I look at American culture, movies, books, etc., from my outsider perspective, I see a place where compromise in the face of vastly different opinions, is considered weakness. You don't see political dramas where the main character has to get a broad consensus with a compromise. Even if what they do is for the good of the people, they will be put against obstructionists and partisans and only win by a slim majority. I know, fiction is not exactly something to build an assessment on. But those are the things that are popular among mainstream Americans. And thus, they also help inform the world view of said Americans.
    How can that be changed?

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiri View Post
    That is true. However, how can the US even return to the days of compromise? Trump will certainly not be the end of the seesaw politics. If a democrat comes after him, the expectation will be they overturn most of the stuff he implemented. I just don't see a return to anything other than the polarized partisanship of today. If I look at American culture, movies, books, etc., from my outsider perspective, I see a place where compromise in the face of vastly different opinions, is considered weakness. You don't see political dramas where the main character has to get a broad consensus with a compromise. Even if what they do is for the good of the people, they will be put against obstructionists and partisans and only win by a slim majority. I know, fiction is not exactly something to build an assessment on. But those are the things that are popular among mainstream Americans. And thus, they also help inform the world view of said Americans.
    How can that be changed?
    As it always is. Someone has to be brave and make the first move and be relentless in creating a new normal of compromise, even in the face of opposition. But as we've seen in many of these political threads, the right and the left is filled with utter and complete cowards... angry peasants who don't know the difference between policy and a manifest. Fools and charlatans who think beating on "libtards" and conservatives, is a valid political mean or end. Moving past our current politics will mean a brave leader who squashes his own side's radicals first and foremost, and then reaches out to the otherside and build a fresh relationship.

    It will be incredibly challenging, deeply unfair for much of it, and probably evoke an enormous amount of anger form the base who feels "betrayed" and shit like that.

    But that's how you do it. You engage in the time tested and proven methods of building good faith and relationship buildings. Remember how Obama used to be compared to Spock? Logical to the extreme? A bit detached? Yeah that's not a compromise. Politics is not science. Politics is about people. It's about belief more than facts. It's about the heart more often than the brain. Obama being compared to Spock was meant as a compromise. It's not. He needed to be a Kirk or a McCoy. We're people, not machines, and our beliefs are messy and far from coherent or unified across the country.

    You want a rock solid idea? Hows' this one. Instead of the next Democratic President, or new Republican President, making some ridiculous show of the next year's budget, by producing a document that won't get passed anyway (because congress never does that... they write their own budget), the President proposes a budget identical to his predecessor's last signed budget, with an across the board boost, inflation plus a percent or two.

    No revolution. No remaking society. Boring consistency.

    How about the next President, regardless of Party, makes a third his cabinet from the other party? Or appoints more non-political appointees to government agencies. There is no reason the "FBI Model" can't be applied to a host of them.

    America thinks it's political dysfunction is unique or special. It's not. Other western democracies have been here before. We've been here before. The way out is difficult, but it starts with some guy deciding that he needs to engage the opposition as if they disagreed with him on 20% of the issues, not 90%, even if that isn't the case.
    Last edited by Skroe; 2017-11-23 at 06:58 PM.

  17. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiri View Post
    That is true. However, how can the US even return to the days of compromise? Trump will certainly not be the end of the seesaw politics. If a democrat comes after him, the expectation will be they overturn most of the stuff he implemented. I just don't see a return to anything other than the polarized partisanship of today. If I look at American culture, movies, books, etc., from my outsider perspective, I see a place where compromise in the face of vastly different opinions, is considered weakness. You don't see political dramas where the main character has to get a broad consensus with a compromise. Even if what they do is for the good of the people, they will be put against obstructionists and partisans and only win by a slim majority. I know, fiction is not exactly something to build an assessment on. But those are the things that are popular among mainstream Americans. And thus, they also help inform the world view of said Americans.
    How can that be changed?
    One of the problems is that for some people, they don't just think you're wrong, they think you're a bad person. There's no compromise with a bad person, they need to just be opposed. We see this on issues regarding illegal immigration, for example. We see it on healthcare. If you oppose a larger government role in healthcare, you're not just wrong in policy, you're a bad person for denying healthcare to so many people, is the way some people think. We see it on gun control.

    There are a lot of issues that aren't exactly compromise-worthy material. I mean, technically they are, but with a climate like I described, they're not.
    Last edited by Dacien; 2017-11-23 at 07:42 PM.

  18. #198
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by mvallas View Post
    So, couple questions:

    1) What can we do now, at this point, to stop this insane chicken-shit vote from going the wrong way on Dec whatever?

    2) If the vote does go through in December, can courts block this stupidity much like Dumbass Dump's other stupid brain-child ideas like punishing "sanctuary cities" and his muslim bans?
    1. Mass revolution and violence in the streets? Not advocating for such things, but seriously, unless Congress saves the day (LOL!!!!) what can we do? Bicker and complain helplessly because the FCC is captured agency and Verizon is partitioning the Internet for their own profits. Meanwhile, free speech becomes suppressed by the telecom monopolies, the US economy goes down and Europe rises as their networks still allow for free access and equal treatment of data . . .



    2. Hopefully.
    Putin khuliyo

  19. #199
    Merely a Setback breadisfunny's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    flying the exodar...into the sun.
    Posts
    25,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    1. Mass revolution and violence in the streets? Not advocating for such things, but seriously, unless Congress saves the day (LOL!!!!) what can we do? Bicker and complain helplessly because the FCC is captured agency and Verizon is partitioning the Internet for their own profits. Meanwhile, free speech becomes suppressed by the telecom monopolies, the US economy goes down and Europe rises as their networks still allow for free access and equal treatment of data . . .



    2. Hopefully.
    she and the dnc did this to themselves by playing dirty with bernie sanders and disregarding his base. deal with it.
    r.i.p. alleria. 1997-2017. blizzard ruined alleria forever. blizz assassinated alleria's character and appearance.
    i will never forgive you for this blizzard.

  20. #200
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    she and the dnc did this to themselves by playing dirty with bernie sanders and disregarding his base. deal with it.
    Are you sure that base wasn’t in California? Maybe it was because she ignored middle America, who I do not believe favored Bernie over Hilary... if the liberal fear mongering is to be believed. At some point, the reason Trump won being the fact that people voted for him, will be clear. I know it’s difficult to see on this forum, since even his biggest defenders claim to not vote for him. But, at some point... people who supported and promoted Trump, as anything more than a reality TV celebrity, are the ones to take a look at... or, more like those that fell for that marketing...

    TLDR: Trump won because he is a blue collar billionaire...
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •