Biden and Senate can still avert nightmare scenario but they have to act quickly.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Biden’s baffling FCC delay could give Republicans a 2-1 FCC majority
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That's a fair way to couch it. The way I read it in the subtitle however was one of subtle political hysteria, given that the rest of the article is tilted somewhat in a particular direction.
Upvote
-15
(7
/
-22)
I'll wholeheartedly agree with you there. I guess I would have preferred to see it written as "nightmare for consumer rights activists" or "nightmare for broadband advocates" or even "nightmare for democrats (or democratic priorities)". That would've felt more balanced and impartial.
Upvote
-1
(10
/
-11)
Upvote
38
(39
/
-1)
Neutrality doesn't mean refusing to favor one party over the other. It means that, when one party is clearly correct and one is clearly incorrect, you say so.
A tech publication refusing to take a stance on whether the FCC has been better under Democratic or Republican control over the past decade is not neutrality, any more than treating both sides as equivalent on vaccines, climate change, or whether it's okay to to take pipe bombs to the Capitol if your guy loses an election.
Upvote
64
(66
/
-2)
That's fair, I just was making the point that it's good practice to identify who it's a nightmare scenario for. To be clear, it's obvious even to me, an occasional devil's advocate for alternative point of views, that the republican FCC appointees have been shameless shills as of late.
Upvote
-11
(6
/
-17)
And the Democrats would have no one to blame but themselves.
They also have no credit talking about broadband accessibility when they couldn't even provide a functional FCC.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
Upvote
11
(14
/
-3)
That may be precisely why they are doing it. Avoid nominating anyone to avoid adding controversy to broadband and infrastructure legislation, although it could come back to bite them quite easily as the end of one commissioner's term is fast approaching.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Disappointing, but not surprising. Any position that must be confirmed by the Senate, where he can't afford to lose even a single vote, is going to end up in this type of situation.
People need to lay off of Biden a bit. The way activists and various internet commentators talk, you'd think he had a supermajority of hyper-partisans backing anything and everything he proposed. The reality is starkly different, and I don't think enough credit is being given to just how precarious the political situation is for Democrats right now.
People need to lay off of Biden a bit. The way activists and various internet commentators talk, you'd think he had a supermajority of hyper-partisans backing anything and everything he proposed. The reality is starkly different, and I don't think enough credit is being given to just how precarious the political situation is for Democrats right now.
Upvote
11
(17
/
-6)
Upvote
50
(53
/
-3)
And when the majority flips, then what? Cry because there is no filibuster to stop their agenda that you don't agree with?
Upvote
-4
(11
/
-15)
When there are so many other words, why do you chose one that the majority a disadvantaged and oft mistreated group of people ask not be used as they consider it a slur against them?
Upvote
-3
(9
/
-12)
Establishment Dems and plutocrats thought Bernie would win the primary, and so they had a bunch of candidates stay in the race way longer despite being obvious losers to muddy the numbers and electorate, and then rally around someone who wasn't going to fundamentally transform the nature of the system, money in politics, and transparency in government/business
I hope this isn't a persistent strategy that they can pull off every cycle.
Upvote
5
(14
/
-9)
Next time the filibuster threatens the Republican agenda it is gone. Do you genuinely believe otherwise?
Upvote
30
(37
/
-7)
Troubling. The FCC appointment and getting rid of that scumbag in the USPS would have been at the top, including any new EPA appointments.
Upvote
3
(7
/
-4)
The primary subtextual promise of his campaign was that he would maintain the status quo as it was before Trump. Sure he made some big promises, everyone does, but really, what he was branded as was "safe", "reasonable", "measured", and "familiar".
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
do you really think The President himself handles every detail of everything on his agenda, and that he doesn't have an army of aides and assistants prioritizing and handling things for him?
odds are good that there's a lot more to this story than any of the armchair strategists here know about.
Upvote
10
(13
/
-3)
Biden, what the actual fuck, dude? As a progressive, I expected that I would disagree with Biden on many issues, but voted for him because I at least expected him to do the job. In this case, he is not even trying. After the terrible reign of Ajit Pai, Biden has a chance to do some real good here, but is missing that opportunity, apparently intentionally.
Upvote
15
(20
/
-5)
He also happens to be a giant sack of shit. Oh, I guess that is synonymous, with "Oil and Gas Lobbyist", sorry for being redundant.
Upvote
16
(23
/
-7)
This is not a productive point of view. West Virginia was not going to elect anyone more liberal than Manchin, and if it wasn't him, it would almost certainly be a Republican, meaning Mitch McConnell would currently be Majority Leader in the Senate.
I don't like the guy, but that is irrelevant. The people of West Virginia voted for him, and without him, there would be no Democratic majority in the Senate to begin with.
Upvote
6
(14
/
-8)
Where is the fucking application for this? I’ll fucking do it. Anyone inclined enough to read any comments on this site is demonstrably more intelligent than the two Republican Trumptards currently over there. Yes, I’m including the Russian/Chinese troll accounts.
They should have had a name and a back-up name when he won the primary.
They should have had a name and a back-up name when he won the primary.
Upvote
2
(8
/
-6)
Since there's disturbing rumblings of Trump: The Second Term, I'll vote for Biden if he re-runs on the grounds he's not Trump. HOWEVER: I'd like to say there's reasons I voted for Sen. Warren back during the presidential primaries. At first, I thought it was because Trump was barely competent enough to out-debate Biden.
While he proved me wrong on that front, some of Biden's choices aren't the choices of competent Commanders-in-Chief. Yes, I'll concede that Biden has been handed a shit sandwhich, and is somehow building a nuclear submarine out of it. However, decisions to not get the FCC's ship righted are going to be an impediment to America at large. Planning booster shots for COVID when much of Earth is still struggling with COVID isn't a good use of resources or brainpower either.
That's not even getting into the fact that his U.S. Marshalls assassinated a man in Minneapolis who was on a date with his girlfriend, for the fact that he had spoken out during the George Floyd riots.
Biden isn't as bad as Trump. There is no both sides here. However, Biden has some serious room for improvement.
Upvote
16
(20
/
-4)
I think information was just released that a US general was planning not to follow orders from Trump in case of him wanting to start a war with China.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
To be fair, while it is legally mutiny, I think not having Earth go up in atomic flames just might justify even theoretical mutiny. I thank this General for being ready to stop Trump in case he made the worst decision in human history.
Upvote
28
(28
/
0)
You don't seriously think that Republicans wouldn't kill the filibuster do you? Democrats have one thing going for them: Republicans hate change. They don't want to enact new laws, or govern, or do anything except protect their donors. They didn't need to kill the filibuster when they were in control because they weren't trying to pass any real laws.
The second they find a piece of legislation they feel is worth it, they will kill the filibuster if they are in control. This idea that Republicans are ever going to play nicely is just ridiculous. Failure to act NOW is what will doom Democrats to losing their majority, putting the anti-democratic Republicans in control once again. They need to pass as much as they can to help Americans NOW so that they don't get voted out next year.
Also, there is really nothing stopping Democrats from making an exception to the filibuster rules. They could change the rule just for certain pieces of legislation, while preserving the filibuster for everything else. Do you truly think Republicans would not do this themselves if they felt they needed to? Whoever is in control can pretty much set whatever rules they want.
Upvote
30
(32
/
-2)
If the majority flips, then they can eliminate the filibuster themselves, whenever the hell they want. Do you really think the reason McConnell hasn't already done it is because he cares so very much about tradition and decorum?
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Honestly this feels a little like moderate dems being concerned net neutrality rules will cut off their private funded / operated security state with no clear alternative. Dragging their feet is easier than admitting to your voters that you like having access to all that monitoring.
Upvote
1
(7
/
-6)
My odd thought to your post was that it would be seen as "bad" by both sides. The leftists would scream about not being inclusive and the rightists would scream about abusing power.
Frankly, for that kind of abuse of power, I'd be fine with not being inclusive. Fuck the GOP and the rightists. Trample their sensibilities like they trampled ours. If they want to play hardball, the leftists have to stop throwing snowballs.
Upvote
-10
(3
/
-13)
And this is exactly the kind of shit that played out over a century ago that turned Senators from state-appointed officials to elected ones -- they continually and aggressively refused to represent the interests of the public over that of wealthy 'sponsors' ie the old robber-baron capitalists who almost destroyed this country with their insatiable greed. And it's happening all over again.
Upvote
24
(25
/
-1)
I'm really confused about your use of "leftists" in this context.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Do you think the other party would have introduced a bill for an EV rebate at all?
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
In the UK here, the Prime Minister has to move out of their Downing Street office (which is also their home) by, I think the day after the election results are known. Usually within a day or two of voting. It is remarkably brutal and quick. I do think a few extra days would help, but definitely don't want it to take as long as the USA.
The incoming Prime Minister declares their full Cabinet within a few days, but they and the incoming party will already have a 'Shadow Cabinet' of 'Shadow Ministers' who have been in their roles for anything up to several years, seeking to hold to account their opposite number in power in Government.
The UK closest equivalent to FTC and FCC are the regulatory agencies like OFCOM (regulates communications); OFSTED (regulates education); OFGEM (regulates the energy markets); and a few others with less '1984' sounding titles. They are set up by Parliament, which means to some extent they are fully independent of Government. However the Prime Minister can nominate their preferred candidate to chair these agencies. This candidate however has to go through the same independent review process as all other candidates and can fail this process.
I'm not clear what this 'independent review process' means but it looks to be explicitly non-political and expertise-led. Currently there's unusually intense politicking over a new chair of OFCOM (our FCC) because our idiotic PM had his favoured candidate thrown out of the door by the reviewers.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)