6 ms·

What was the basic gist of the response?

arbie 8y ago
That it was a non-issue for them, and that they deal with dozens of "real problems" that their constituents face every day.
- smsm42 8y ago
  How is this "straight up bond villain"? This sounds like a legitimate disagreement about the order of priorities.
  - fwsgonzo 8y ago
    Because its not an issue about order of priorities at all. Not to mention some of the responses I've seen basically said "we know better." 80% of americans supported NN at some point, and so any one politician who votes against it is basically voting for himself.
    - smsm42 8y ago
      I have hard time to believe response said "we know better". Could you quote one? I am seeing that legitimate "we have different priorities" (which is always the case - it is not humanly possible to accommodate all preferences of all voters in a way that satisfies everybody) interpreted as "bond villain" so I am suspecting there's a bunch of distortion going on here.
      - croon 8y ago
        Having other priorities isn't a problem, meaning it's fine if they spend their time working on other issues. But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voting, and at that point your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents. Unless you have an incredibly good reason not to. "Different priorities" isn't one, it's straight up misdirection.
        smsm42 8y ago
        > your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents Who said they don't? We just heard from one person so far, which disagreed with the elected representative's priorities. Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. Presenting this - completely routine and normal - policy disagreement as "straight up bond villain" implies that there is only one constituent that matters and only one order of priorities that is legitimate, and any disagreement is not just difference in opinion, but supreme villainy. By a weird coincidence it turns out the only legitimate priorities are exactly the ones of the author of the comment, what are the chances!
        croon 8y ago
        > Who said they don't? Polling says they don't. [1] > Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. That's not accurate. Since they are still elected, clearly enough people agree with enough of their priorities (or perceived priorities). That's not to say that they couldn't better represent their voters, when that representation is clear. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
      - pawn 8y ago
        I've received a "we know better" answer before, in 2014 regarding Net Neutrality from Roy Blunt. Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality. As you know, in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established rules to regulate the Internet. The FCC claimed it could regulate the Internet under the authority of its traditional telephone regulations developed during the monopoly-era. A DC Circuit Court recently struck down certain parts of these rules and decided the FCC does not have jurisdiction over broadband providers to implement regulations in this manner. The Internet should certainly be free and open to those who legally provide content to consumers. This principle does not necessitate additional government regulation, particularly given the innovative and highly competitive broadband marketplace. Attempts to preemptively implement industry-wide regulations may inadvertently harm consumers by stifling competition and innovation. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I intend to remain fully engaged on this issue to ensure the rules governing broadband service providers maintain the flexibility needed to evolve as rapidly as the technology they provide. Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter. Sincere regards, Roy Blunt United States Senator
  - zaphirplane 8y ago
    What’s priority have to do with voting on the issue.” Look it’s low on my priority list I’m going to vote other way without understanding” Let’s call it as is, low priority I’ll trade my vote in exchange for something higher importance to me.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rkuykendall-com 8y ago
    You're replying to a different person. The person who said "straight up bond villain" isn't the person you responded to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
whamlastxmas 8y ago
My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning.
- swebs 8y ago
  And that's probably what he honestly believes because that's how some lobbyist explained it to him. I think a huge chunk of America's problems would be solved just by getting rid of lobbyists.
  - cies 8y ago
    > America's problems Every democracies problems. The problem with lobbies is that they allow "deeper pockets" to have "more influence", which is exactly what democracies should prevent. Thus big lobbies (especially the corporate funded ones, which ar by far teh larger part) are undermining the democratic process. We see the results of this all over the world.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?
    - swebs 8y ago
      >You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcast's lobbyist only. A person elected into one of the highest positions in the US is too incompetent to do their own research.

That it was a non-issue for them, and that they deal with dozens of "real problems" that their constituents face every day.

smsm42 8y ago
How is this "straight up bond villain"? This sounds like a legitimate disagreement about the order of priorities.
- fwsgonzo 8y ago
  Because its not an issue about order of priorities at all. Not to mention some of the responses I've seen basically said "we know better." 80% of americans supported NN at some point, and so any one politician who votes against it is basically voting for himself.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    I have hard time to believe response said "we know better". Could you quote one? I am seeing that legitimate "we have different priorities" (which is always the case - it is not humanly possible to accommodate all preferences of all voters in a way that satisfies everybody) interpreted as "bond villain" so I am suspecting there's a bunch of distortion going on here.
    - croon 8y ago
      Having other priorities isn't a problem, meaning it's fine if they spend their time working on other issues. But at some point they'll spend an hour or so voting, and at that point your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents. Unless you have an incredibly good reason not to. "Different priorities" isn't one, it's straight up misdirection.
      - smsm42 8y ago
        > your "priorities" doesn't factor in anymore, as you should just represent your constituents Who said they don't? We just heard from one person so far, which disagreed with the elected representative's priorities. Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. Presenting this - completely routine and normal - policy disagreement as "straight up bond villain" implies that there is only one constituent that matters and only one order of priorities that is legitimate, and any disagreement is not just difference in opinion, but supreme villainy. By a weird coincidence it turns out the only legitimate priorities are exactly the ones of the author of the comment, what are the chances!
        croon 8y ago
        > Who said they don't? Polling says they don't. [1] > Since they are still elected, clearly many people do agree with their priorities. That's not accurate. Since they are still elected, clearly enough people agree with enough of their priorities (or perceived priorities). That's not to say that they couldn't better represent their voters, when that representation is clear. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
    - pawn 8y ago
      I've received a "we know better" answer before, in 2014 regarding Net Neutrality from Roy Blunt. Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality. As you know, in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established rules to regulate the Internet. The FCC claimed it could regulate the Internet under the authority of its traditional telephone regulations developed during the monopoly-era. A DC Circuit Court recently struck down certain parts of these rules and decided the FCC does not have jurisdiction over broadband providers to implement regulations in this manner. The Internet should certainly be free and open to those who legally provide content to consumers. This principle does not necessitate additional government regulation, particularly given the innovative and highly competitive broadband marketplace. Attempts to preemptively implement industry-wide regulations may inadvertently harm consumers by stifling competition and innovation. As a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, I intend to remain fully engaged on this issue to ensure the rules governing broadband service providers maintain the flexibility needed to evolve as rapidly as the technology they provide. Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country. I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter. Sincere regards, Roy Blunt United States Senator
- zaphirplane 8y ago
  What’s priority have to do with voting on the issue.” Look it’s low on my priority list I’m going to vote other way without understanding” Let’s call it as is, low priority I’ll trade my vote in exchange for something higher importance to me.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rkuykendall-com 8y ago
  You're replying to a different person. The person who said "straight up bond villain" isn't the person you responded to.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

whamlastxmas 8y ago

My response from a Texas senator was that he "supports net neutrality" and then went on define net neutrality as the exact opposite of the commonly accepted meaning.

swebs 8y ago
And that's probably what he honestly believes because that's how some lobbyist explained it to him. I think a huge chunk of America's problems would be solved just by getting rid of lobbyists.
- cies 8y ago
  > America's problems Every democracies problems. The problem with lobbies is that they allow "deeper pockets" to have "more influence", which is exactly what democracies should prevent. Thus big lobbies (especially the corporate funded ones, which ar by far teh larger part) are undermining the democratic process. We see the results of this all over the world.
- smsm42 8y ago
  You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? Or explain them, but people who do it would be called not "lobbyists" but "educators" and would be only allowed to say what agrees with some opinions, but not the others? Or allowing anybody explaining things to congressmen and just not calling it "lobbying" because it's a dirty word?
  - swebs 8y ago
    >You mean not explain complicated technical matters to congressmen at all, so they will be making decisions in complete ignorance? So the options are either 1. Get a biased source of information (along with donations $$$) from Comcast 2. Just throw your hands up in the air and declare that the problem is unknowable. Nope, Wikipedia doesn't exist. Neither does the library, your staff, or the actual bill itself. Comcast's lobbyist only. A person elected into one of the highest positions in the US is too incompetent to do their own research.