|
Thoguh posted:The GOP just returned internet privacy to what is was under Obama, didn't they? He made some token gesture on his way out they door and they stopped it from taking effect? Obama's restrictions were set to take effect at the end of the year so they'll just never take effect IIRC. Basically all this means is that your ISP can sell the same information to private companies that they have been selling to the intelligence agencies for years and the FCC can't restrict this without an act of Congress. Personally, I'm more bothered that every man, woman, child, and most dogs have a file on them just in case they need a reason to be arrested in the future than I am about private companies having more data points to try and sell me orthopedic foot inserts and dildos.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Obama's restrictions were set to take effect at the end of the year so they'll just never take effect IIRC. I completely agree. I just am thrown off by people acting like this is a huge sea change in how things work and a hugely evil thing the republicans did. When it is just preventing a new rule from taking effect. It is a really bad thing and I totally agree with that. But it isn't new and isn't a Trump thing. If Obama had wanted to do something about it he could have almost a decade ago. The coverage of this has been hysterical and you have to really dive in to it to even figure out that all this does is preserve the status quo rather than being a huge rollback of existing protections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:The GOP just returned internet privacy to what is was under Obama, didn't they? He made some token gesture on his way out they door and they stopped it from taking effect? According to the EFF: quote:The rules—which codified and expanded on existing online privacy protections—were passed by the FCC in October of last year and set to go into effect later this year. They would have kept ISPs from selling customers’ data and using new invasive ways to track and deliver targeted ads to customers. Additionally, the rules would have required those companies to protect customers’ data against hackers. So yeah they make it seem like it was a bit more than just blocking new rules from going into place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
of course a former hillaryman is a foreign loon, and thinks all kurds are fascists. This poster is also a Liberal Democrat in the UK lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:what in the gently caress is garcetti trying to say that statement is strangely worded, but Garcettis MO seems to revolve around quietly hampering the Trump administrations ability to gently caress with people in LA by doing things like loosening restrictions against street vendors, to keep them from getting pinched off the street; widening the availability of immigration law resources to low income individuals, passing safe campus laws, etc. he seems to be of the opinion that if you get in Trumps face too overt, he'll just gently caress with you for fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
also, CA-34 status: its going to be Robert Ahn vs Jimmy Gomez in the run-off. the Berniecrats were hampered by low turn-out in general, and there being like five of them plus a Green to split the vote. my girl Carrillo finished 5th, which is sad because she had the best praxis  Ahn is probably the closest thing to a republican that can get elected in this district, and is buoyed by strong grass-roots outreach in the Korean community. Gomez keeps getting called the Establishment Guy, but if hes Establishment then so is Sanders so idk what standard is here besides him getting an endorsement from the CA Dem party and having worked in government before
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Gomez is fine, and all the endorsements means at least he's not a dino.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
If it's a choice between a left-Clintonite and a Blue Dog I know which is the right choice
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Dr_0ctag0n posted:According to the EFF: No, that bit you quoted sounds exactly like "blocking new rules from going into place".
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
loquacius posted:If it's a choice between a left-Clintonite and a Blue Dog I know which is the right choice dunno if id call him a Clintonite. hes running on $15/hr minimum wage, debt-free higher education, and single-payer, so i feel like in any other state hed be the Sandersista candidate e. dang hes not only only in favor of LGBTQ rights, he's in favor LGBTQIA rights. at that point just go full QUILTBAG, Jimmy, it scans better paranoid randroid has issued a correction as of 16:52 on Apr 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/849522264601239552
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:dunno if id call him a Clintonite. hes running on $15/hr minimum wage, debt-free higher education, and single-payer, so i feel like in any other state hed be the Sandersista candidate yeah no objections here, ideally we'd be flipping off the establishment AND getting someone into Congress with all these sweet policy stances but the policy is the actual important part The Hill calls Chelsea Clinton every morning at 8:30 AM to ask this question over and over This time they even said pretty please with a cherry on top and she still said no 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
im vomiting
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
the hill's chelsea clinton beat is impressively thorough
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, that bit you quoted sounds exactly like "blocking new rules from going into place". ...and overturning existing ones that were previously enforced by the fcc without the pending Obama regulations but not codified?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
chelsea is going to get the warren experience where everything she does is viewed through the lens of "will she run or won't she"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:chelsea is going to get the warren experience where everything she does is viewed through the lens of "will she run or won't she" except for the literal rest of her life
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
and a happy suck zone to you
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rmc031/status/849657569517993985
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
lol thanks Obama for blighting Chicago with this piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:chelsea is going to get the warren experience where everything she does is viewed through the lens of "will she run or won't she" Well, she answers the question with "right now" and yesterday told at an interview said "You need to occasionally ask yourself if you're going to run" so it's entirely an intentional creation on her own part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
the number one issue facing Chicago and America as a whole: loving lazy kids
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
She just needs to sit down with a refreshing Pepsi and think it over once a month or so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Chicago sounds like a suck zone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
In the wake of the disastrous 2016 election, democratic operatives ask, " how are we gonna protect our phony baloney jobs?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the hill's chelsea clinton beat is impressively thorough They must be getting a whole lotta traffic from their Chelsea trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Chel- *crowd starts booing and groaning* -yabinsk is a city in Russia *sighs of relief, clapping*
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
buried in a larger good piece, this tidbit:quote:Here’s the real, non-ideological difference between Republicans and Democrats:
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
more like suckocrats
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Hillary is convincing Chelsea to run for President only because she knows her daughter will make her campaign look good by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Dr_0ctag0n posted:...and overturning existing ones that were previously enforced by the fcc without the pending Obama regulations but not codified? Nah, it's just written in a misleading way to make it sound worse than it is That bit isn't entirely unreasonable, considering that the first big push for a public option was back in the Truman years
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
loquacius posted:"love rich people" sums is up p well I think   
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
the one blurb i heard that makes sense is that democrats are publicly pessimistic but privately optimistic: things are bad, the USA is a criminal empire, and greedy dudes ruin everything, but we can do better. Republicans are publicly optimistic but privately pessimistic: America is the shining city on a hill and full of smiling happy people in their adverts and messaging, but they think people are really a bunch of xenophobic idiots exist to be fleeced by the real smart folk, and the world is fundamentally flawed forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
too woke! too woke!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Actually, I think you'll find that republicans are slytherin and democrats are hufflepuff
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Nah, it's just written in a misleading way to make it sound worse than it is Aw. More fake news EFF! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:the one blurb i heard that makes sense is that democrats are publicly pessimistic but privately optimistic: things are bad, the USA is a criminal empire, and greedy dudes ruin everything, but we can do better. Republicans are publicly optimistic but privately pessimistic: America is the shining city on a hill and full of smiling happy people in their adverts and messaging, but they think people are really a bunch of xenophobic idiots exist to be fleeced by the real smart folk, and the world is fundamentally flawed forever. this doesn't make sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2017 18:47
|
|