|
haveblue posted:This was already passed as part of the infrastructure bill, this is the concrete program that implements that part of the law This sentence seems familiar.
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
holy poo poo knock off the low content shitposting and sniping, thanks
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It is fascinating that you are fantasizing about an uprising to overthrow the government the next time Republicans steal an election (even though it didn't happen last time), yet also angrily defending bills to beef up the police state which will be used to massacre organized resistance. It's actually very easy to understand when you realize that the fantasy of uprising in the future is just a backhanded way to argue that the present situation hasn't crossed the line and further resistance must be disavowed. They're both lines of argument for maintaining the systemic status quo
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This sentence seems familiar. The second tweet leads to the form and sign up site. At least here 100mbps is 120 a month so good amount of savings if you qualify.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:It's actually very easy to understand when you realize that the fantasy of uprising in the future is just a backhanded way to argue that the present situation hasn't crossed the line and further resistance must be disavowed. They're both lines of argument for maintaining the systemic status quo It's also an argument that if conservatives win the next election(s) that institutional oppression of women, trans kids, and minorities should be allowed because democracy has spoken. The fantasy of an uprising was only in response to corrupting one of our institutions, not our institutions brutally depriving people of life and liberty.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This sentence seems familiar. It literally already exists. You can sign up right now. It has actually existed for about a year, but they just expanded it to 40% of households today. RBA Starblade posted:The second tweet leads to the form and sign up site. Do you live in Alaska or possibly rural Missouri? $120 a month for 100 mbps is pretty bonkers. I pay $39.99 for 300/300 mbps right now.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:40% of American Households will now be eligible for free 100 mbps internet. But I've been paying off my (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It literally already exists. You can sign up right now. Right outside Washington DC lol. Verizon.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:It's also an argument that if conservatives win the next election(s) that institutional oppression of women, trans kids, and minorities should be allowed because democracy has spoken. The fantasy of an uprising was only in response to corrupting one of our institutions, not our institutions brutally depriving people of life and liberty. That's a good point, I agree
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It literally already exists. You can sign up right now. 100mbps is 80 a month here in new york through charter internet prices are hosed in this hellhole country
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing that news Leon. Its nice to see government policy that directly benefits the material conditions of struggling Americans. I went ahead and applied for the benefit myself, and I'll be sure to let other people know that they could save a few hundred dollars a year on internet service.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
Turns out companies that have a monopoly on infrastructure is not good. I remember when a town became it's own ISP and paid for their own infrastructure because they decided fast internet should not only be a utility, but a government-provided service. The ISPs didn't like that and lobbied to have stopped. https://www.yahoo.com/now/n-c-residents-still-fight-195327884.html
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Right outside Washington DC lol. Verizon. Dang. I haven't lived in DC for a while, but when I did the options were Comcast or RCN. We had RCN 100 mbps for ~$50. $120 per month just outside the city is crazy. Edit: Verizon says they are offering 300 mbps upload and download through Fios for eligible households in their new release on the news: https://www.verizon.com/home/fios-forward Might be worth checking out if you qualify or calling and seeing if you can get on a $30 per month plan if you don't qualify for the subsidy. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
I went and looked at the plan, because even if I don't qualify for the subsidy, those plans are way better than what I've been having to pay for internet. Turns out with Comcast (the only real option here) you can't even buy the $30 plan unless you've had no internet for the last 90 days. So I'm still stuck getting fleeced forever, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Davedave24 posted:I went and looked at the plan, because even if I don't qualify for the subsidy, those plans are way better than what I've been having to pay for internet. Turns out with Comcast (the only real option here) you can't even buy the $30 plan unless you've had no internet for the last 90 days. So I'm still stuck getting fleeced forever, I guess. You can try three things: 1) Call and ask for the new rate and threaten to cancel if they don't give it to you. My internet rate used to be a promo rate with Verizon, but they gave me the rate permanently after I called and said I wanted to switch. I just checked and they are offering my promo rate as the default price for those 300/300 plans now. 2) If there are any other providers available at all in the area, you can switch to them for 90 days and then switch to Comcast for the upgraded/cheaper plans. 3) If you have someone else in your household, you can sign up for a new plan under their name. My partner and I did that for a while with Comcast to keep getting HBO for free when Game of Thrones was on and keep our promo rates. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:38 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Lemming posted:This would be a more compelling argument to me if they weren't also spending time on their messaging that the protests are potentially dangerous That is in fact the effect of having to play defense to a wedge issue. Even in this instance you're ignoring the first sentence (and all other statements about the subject from the administration) to focus on the part that lets you attack the dems. VitalSigns posted:What exactly are you objecting to? We don't have to pretend that CNN citing press releases is the same as Fox citing an anonymous source, earlier. The point of the bill, and the specific way it was framed and introduced into the thread, was to create the exact rationalization of conflict that it did. Bishyaler posted:So they have to vote to protect fascists or someone will criticize them? Actually they'll get criticized either way, but it sounds like they've decided to get criticized by people who want to stop the GOP instead of the pro-decorum block. It's not actually a vote to "protect fascists". Others have already explained why the bill has little to no material impact. Your decision to fixate on a messaging bill as a sign of betrayal doesn't reflect a desire to stop the GOP; it reflects a lack of considering the context and intentions of those involved. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:100mbps is 80 a month here in new york through charter Spectrum (which I believe owns Charter) is one of the companies that announced they are participating in the program today. https://www.spectrum.com/cp/broadband-get-qualified?p1=1-877-958-7103 Seems like you can get up to 200 mbps for $49.99 if you don't qualify for the discount and $0 if you do. Might be worth checking out with an online chat or phone call. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:52 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Davedave24 posted:I went and looked at the plan, because even if I don't qualify for the subsidy, those plans are way better than what I've been having to pay for internet. Turns out with Comcast (the only real option here) you can't even buy the $30 plan unless you've had no internet for the last 90 days. So I'm still stuck getting fleeced forever, I guess. lol, they had to means test it like housing aid in which you have to go without to deserve it, or jump through all the hoops that Leon listed in order to qualify. "Just switch internet providers after three months": easy peasy said no one who's ever tried doing this.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:
Ostensibly, it's about trying to get to the bottom of fascists who attempted to violently overthrow the government and attempted a coup but more and more it seems like it's just for show.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That is in fact the effect of having to play defense to a wedge issue. Even in this instance you're ignoring the first sentence (and all other statements about the subject from the administration) to focus on the part that lets you attack the dems. If it’s just a messaging bill it’s sending a lovely, unhelpful message. The American security state is already too large, and instead of acting like Roe is a four alarm fire, which it is, we’re getting the administration’s officially translated thoughts of a guy who has been middling at best on abortion rights his whole career, and outright hosed up on it at worst, but has consistently not found a cop he didn’t want to give a raise to. It’s poo poo loving politics, absolute malpractice, a ship of state as rotted and unfit for purpose as the lich in the captain’s chair.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We don't have to pretend that CNN citing press releases is the same as Fox citing an anonymous source, earlier. The point of the bill, and the specific way it was framed and introduced into the thread, was to create the exact rationalization of conflict that it did. I don't know much about media literacy but unless NBC journalists are lying too in order to create rationalization of conflict in the thread (hi NBC!), looks like Fox's anonymous source was right on the money https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1523800376432078850
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That is in fact the effect of having to play defense to a wedge issue. Even in this instance you're ignoring the first sentence (and all other statements about the subject from the administration) to focus on the part that lets you attack the dems. The context is that the Democrats suck poo poo at this and are continuing to fall for stupid bullshit games. I hate it, which is why I'm posting about how I hate it. As much as I think Gav-bot also sucks, his message of "Where the hell's my party? Where's the Democratic Party?" feels like it's something that's being pretty widely felt by a lot of people, and I am not seeing much coming out of the national leadership that makes me feel any different. Falling for the stupid bullshit decorum games right now looks really, really loving stupid
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That is in fact the effect of having to play defense to a wedge issue. Even in this instance you're ignoring the first sentence (and all other statements about the subject from the administration) to focus on the part that lets you attack the dems. By what means are you divining the intentions of those involved if not by looking at the things that they say and the things that they do
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
This is the equivalent of “I’m not racist but…” Discendo Vox posted:That is in fact the effect of having to play defense to a wedge issue. Even in this instance you're ignoring the first sentence (and all other statements about the subject from the administration) to focus on the part that lets you attack the dems. Vox I continue to be perplexed on the way you frame your defense of the Biden administration and Democrats. Typically defense of Dems comes in the form of the public not voting hard enough or rally for the next election. However the way your defense is framed goes deeper to the point that it feels like you have actual skin in the game. Could you help me understand the desire to defend Dems and Biden at all cost from the silly to the truly reprehensible? Example: defending Dems, at best, providing lip service to protecting judges who stripped women of their rights to Dems calling out protestors standing up to the fascist takeover of the country. virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 00:24 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
The bill is the messaging wedge. The coverage, in advance, to and through fox via an anonymous source, focusing on the prospect of objections, is how the wedge is driven. This is not complicated.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:40% of American Households will now be eligible for free 100 mbps internet. 40% are eligible, eh? Here are the requirements:    You have to sign up for the benefit, then find out if an ISP offers a compatible program in your area, probably have to prove your eligibility to the government and the ISP, then receive your (up to) $30 from the government, and then pay it to the ISP. The amount of paperwork involved and running back and forth between the two entities is going to deter a lot of people from using this benefit. The benefit also only provides $100 towards a laptop or tablet to access the internet, and you have to have to the internet to sign up for the benefit in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know much about media literacy but unless NBC journalists are lying too in order to create rationalization of conflict in the thread (hi NBC!), looks like Fox's anonymous source was right on the money We can spend money to protect the families of murderers but their victims need to be thrown under the bus to protect... decorum and the filibuster?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1523647950324649984?s=20&t=58s7u3T7NXcBzqUw-WVQxw This person is assuming the filibuster will never be abolished and that the Dems have to get to 60. That assumption is both stupid and wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This person is assuming the filibuster will never be abolished and that the Dems have to get to 60. That assumption is both stupid and wrong. It's an assumption that's held up until now, and using my magical rubric of "what will produce the stupidest outcome?" it will continue to hold.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This person is assuming the filibuster will never be abolished and that the Dems have to get to 60. That assumption is both stupid and wrong. Plus the usual caveat about prognosticating two years into the future and beyond It's not certain, but it's scarily plausible
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
selec posted:It's an assumption that's held up until now, and using my magical rubric of "what will produce the stupidest outcome?" it will continue to hold. We have 48 votes and only need 50+1. In a world where we get even halfway to 60, the filibuster would have been long since gone.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This person is assuming the filibuster will never be abolished and that the Dems have to get to 60. That assumption is both stupid and wrong. They actually aren't if you read to the bottom of the tweet thread. https://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1523702659462885376 They just don't think it's likely that they'll pick up 2 seats and that things are just going to get worse after 2022. And I'd agree with that read of it. Also if matters for pedantic reasons they note that some weird black swan could change things, but lol if that's where we're at. The point of bringing up the 60 seats is how hosed the game is. Most people screaming about  also like the filibuster so killing it would be just as big of a deal as any other drastic measure.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:they note that some weird black swan could change things This is about to occur. In my opinion there is absolutely no conceivable event that anyone here could imagine or dream up whatsoever that would fundamentally shift things towards the Democrats more than Roe v Wade getting struck down.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This person is assuming the filibuster will never be abolished and that the Dems have to get to 60. That assumption is both stupid and wrong. No they are assuming that the filibuster will not be abolished before Republicans take the senate and obtain the power to block anything Democrats want to do like pass laws or confirm judges, and therefore in order to save abortion rights and voting rights the Dems would have to get to 60. And they are correct. Discendo Vox posted:The bill is the messaging wedge. The coverage, in advance, to and through fox via an anonymous source, focusing on the prospect of objections, is how the wedge is driven. This is not complicated. What kind of message does a bill implying that pro-choice protests are a violent threat to people's families send?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We have 48 votes and only need 50+1. In a world where we get even halfway to 60, the filibuster would have been long since gone. What evidence is there that there are already 48 votes toward overturning the filibuster? That's just an assumption you're making based on two no votes being extra loud
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is about to occur. In my opinion there is absolutely no conceivable event that anyone here could imagine or dream up whatsoever that would fundamentally shift things towards the Democrats more than Roe v Wade getting struck down. could you, uh, show your work on this? I recall that recent poll showing that democrats and republicans reported increased enthusiasm to vote as the result of the draft decision, with the republicans slightly more enthusiastic than the democrats. Like obviously thats just one poll but a claim like the one you're making seems like it would need some pretty hefty support!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:40% are eligible, eh? Even if you don't qualify for the subsidy, you can still purchase one of the plans for $30 to $39.99. Qualifying for the subsidy just makes it free. If you have Fios in your area, they have $39.99 for 300/300 up and down as a default plan price with no contract now. Some of the companies didn't offer a lower price, but they did double the speed on their cheapest plan to be at least 100/100 mbps. Comcast and Spectrum seem to be the stingiest because they didn't fully opt-in. I wasn't even factoring in the $100 towards a laptop or tablet. That is just a bonus if you qualify, but too specific to really factor in.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:could you, uh, show your work on this? I recall that recent poll showing that democrats and republicans reported increased enthusiasm to vote as the result of the draft decision, with the republicans slightly more enthusiastic than the democrats. Like obviously thats just one poll but a claim like the one you're making seems like it would need some pretty hefty support! The Republican party does not have a problem getting their religious anti-choice voters to vote. Increased enthusiasm doesn't matter much for the side that already votes reliably. The Dem voter apathy problem and the struggle to get people on the left to vote is extremely well-known and documented. The GOP is outnumbered, when Democrats vote they win.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The Republican party does not have a problem getting their religious anti-choice voters to vote. Increased enthusiasm doesn't matter much for the side that already votes reliably. The Dem voter apathy problem and the struggle to get people on the left to vote is extremely well-known and documented. The GOP is outnumbered, when Democrats vote they win. It makes sense: the GOP delivers for its base and the donors. The Dems just deliver for the donors. So why would the left get fired up for a party who not only doesn’t come through for them, but in fact a lot of times espouses open contempt for their goals? Party/base alignment is very tight for the GOP, not nearly so for Dems
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
selec posted:It makes sense: the GOP delivers for its base and the donors. The Dems just deliver for the donors. So why would the left get fired up for a party who not only doesn’t come through for them, but in fact a lot of times espouses open contempt for their goals? This black swan event is going to completely swamp these assumptions. People ARE NOT going to react by throwing up their hands and going "I quit, there's no point in voting." Dem turnout is going to be immense.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 01:09
|
|