8 ms·

Given that a large majority of the public supports this, why is it the responsibility of Democrats to advance this bill?

by hnruss 8y ago

creaghpatr 8y ago
Because Republicans are too popular on other issues to swing the Senate.
- vibrio 8y ago
  Agreed, but "too popular" within certain geographies, which the structure of the senate favors. If I recall, at least by the numbers a majority in the Senate can be elected by something less than 20% of the US population.
hannasanarion 8y ago
Because Republicans have given up all pretenses of governing based on the will of the people and now openly strive to protect their own power and wealth forever at all costs.
- ratsmack 8y ago
  And you say that as if the Democrats are concerned about the will of the people. The problem is that Congress, in general, is bought and paid for by their favorite special interests and no one in congress really cares about what the people think.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    You can be supported all you like by special interest groups. If people don't vote for you, you're ejected from office. So at some point, they have to keep up the appearance of standing for the people.
    - ratsmack 8y ago
      The only time they "appear" to care is when they are campaigning and saying all the right things you want to hear. But on return to Congress, it is just business as usual.
      - crooked-v 8y ago
        The article you're commenting about would suggest otherwise.
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        Politicians overwhelmingly tend to keep their promises[1]. Democrats have tried many times to get money out of politics, but they were obstructed by Republicans (who have never promised such) on every attempt. 1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-ke...
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    Democrats have a long track record of trying to get money out of politics. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and establish public funding of election campaigns has been on the platform since 2014, and it was one of Hillary Clinton's chief campaign promises. For Republicans, it is just the opposite: they voted unanimously against an amendment proposal to overturn citizens united (all Democrats in favor)[1], unanimously against a bill requiring fincial disclosures of campaign finance (all Democrats in favor)[2], twice[3], against a ban on dark money campaign ads[4], unanimously in favor of a repeal of the existing pittance of public campaign money (all Democrats against)[5], and against a bill to require auditable paper trails of elections (all Democrats in favor)[6] Money in politics is absolutely NOT a "both sides" issue. 1. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906 2. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154 3. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152 4. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml 5. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37426 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37426 6. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011
    - ratsmack 8y ago
      Let's take a look at Democrat vs Republican fund raising: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/ https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        The fact that PAC money is needed to win elections doesn't mean that everyone supports PAC money. There are multiple PACs whose stated goals are to abolish PACs. Look at the votes. Republicans vote to defend money in politics, Democrats vote to abolish it. The pattern has been very consistent for over a decade.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      Meanwhile, Republicans typically prefer term limits instead, and are typically opposed by Democrats. [1] [2] TBH it amazes me that Congress has as much power as they do over campaign finance. Ads, etc. are form of political speech. And restricting political speech is nigh unto violating the 1st Amendment. [1] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-vote-advance-term-limits https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-... [2] https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-rejects-amendment-recommending-congressional-term-limit- https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-...
- balabaster 8y ago
  Republicans can only remain in power if people continue to vote them into office... so there has to be some pretense or the will of the people will cease to support them. Any party is only as effective as the numbers of people they have in office.
  - cloudsinthesky 8y ago
    > Republicans can only remain in power if people continue to vote them into office That's not true. People voted them out in 2016 but their votes were not counted, or their registrations were falsely and illegally cancelled, etc. There is a lot more at play here than people's choices; and given that people's ability to choose with correct information and free will has been significantly hampered by Republican-led efforts to reduce the quantity of real factual information in the hands of voters, replaced with lies designed to steal votes. Now I know that Donald Trump lies a lot, like a lot but sometimes he tells the truth. He has stated at least 5 times that neither he nor his supporters would accept any election results where he did not win. The current President threatens the nation regularly with his active plans to cancel the next elections and stay in power. Be careful assuming that the popularity of politicians or their party has anything at all to do with them being in power. It doesn't.
    - balabaster 8y ago
      Um... isn't the constitution designed to prevent shit like this happening? I have no special interest in American politics as I just watch from the other side of the border, but I'm pretty sure my understanding of the political system down there is full enough that I'm right in saying that a sitting president can't legally follow through on threats like that without getting evicted from office. Aren't there failsafes and backup plans and laws and a justice department to prevent presidential overreach? This is the whole purpose of the three branches of government.
      - toyg 8y ago
        Paraphrasing a certain mustachioed totalitarian, how many federal agents does the Constitution command? Is the Constitution going to personally storm the White House? Even if it did, what would happen if there were resistance at the other end?
rc_kas 8y ago
This and Global Warming alone are enough to keep me voting Democrat for years and years to come.
- YinglingLight 8y ago
  It's a shame that there is so much Money involved in each of those topics.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  Meanwhile abortion and second amendment enforcement are enough to keep me voting Republican for years and years to come (and the occasional Libertarian).
  - rc_kas 8y ago
    The interesting thing is, fewer abortions happen under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. Something about pushing sex education and birth control that reduces abortions. I don't exactly understand why you would vote Republican if you did not like abortions.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      Snopes rates "Abortion rates drop during Democratic presidencies and rise during Republican administrations" as false. [1] And even if it were true (and it's not), the national legislatures is often the opposite party as the executive, and they're the ones that actually make the laws. (The real reality though is that the states are far more relevant in this area.) [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencies/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencie...
      - rc_kas 8y ago
        Different fact check than what I'm saying. They don't rise during Republican presidencies. They do fall at a slower rate.
dgzl 8y ago
> majority of public Do you have sources? I personally believe in the free market, and think fast lanes are beneficial for customers.
- hnruss 8y ago
  It's pretty easy to find sources on this, although I'm sure that you can find conservative media sources that would support a contrary opinion (as is the case for most things). Maybe try using DuckDuckGo to ensure that you're not stuck in a bubble: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=net+neutrality+poll https://duckduckgo.com/?q=net+neutrality+poll One of the more compelling sources that I've seen is an analysis of the comments that the FCC received, which showed that 66% of verifiably legitimate comments favored Net Neutrality. See: https://medium.com/ragtag-notes/bot-or-not-verifying-public-comments-on-net-neutrality-8c77ee54a02e https://medium.com/ragtag-notes/bot-or-not-verifying-public-...
  - dgzl 8y ago
    Thanks for the reply, and I suppose you're right. In my review of the public understanding of this topic, they don't seem to understand or even realize the potential benefits from the free market approach.
- JaimeThompson 8y ago
  One thing I am curious about is why "fast lane" traffic is sold for so inexpensive a price to favored companies. Prices that are a lot less than a typical consumer could pay for extra transfer.

Given that a large majority of the public supports this, why is it the responsibility of Democrats to advance this bill?

by hnruss 8y ago

Given that a large majority of the public supports this, why is it the responsibility of Democrats to advance this bill?

creaghpatr 8y ago

Because Republicans are too popular on other issues to swing the Senate.

vibrio 8y ago
Agreed, but "too popular" within certain geographies, which the structure of the senate favors. If I recall, at least by the numbers a majority in the Senate can be elected by something less than 20% of the US population.

hannasanarion 8y ago

Because Republicans have given up all pretenses of governing based on the will of the people and now openly strive to protect their own power and wealth forever at all costs.

ratsmack 8y ago
And you say that as if the Democrats are concerned about the will of the people. The problem is that Congress, in general, is bought and paid for by their favorite special interests and no one in congress really cares about what the people think.
- balabaster 8y ago
  You can be supported all you like by special interest groups. If people don't vote for you, you're ejected from office. So at some point, they have to keep up the appearance of standing for the people.
  - ratsmack 8y ago
    The only time they "appear" to care is when they are campaigning and saying all the right things you want to hear. But on return to Congress, it is just business as usual.
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      The article you're commenting about would suggest otherwise.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Politicians overwhelmingly tend to keep their promises[1]. Democrats have tried many times to get money out of politics, but they were obstructed by Republicans (who have never promised such) on every attempt. 1. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-ke...
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  Democrats have a long track record of trying to get money out of politics. A constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and establish public funding of election campaigns has been on the platform since 2014, and it was one of Hillary Clinton's chief campaign promises. For Republicans, it is just the opposite: they voted unanimously against an amendment proposal to overturn citizens united (all Democrats in favor)[1], unanimously against a bill requiring fincial disclosures of campaign finance (all Democrats in favor)[2], twice[3], against a ban on dark money campaign ads[4], unanimously in favor of a repeal of the existing pittance of public campaign money (all Democrats against)[5], and against a bill to require auditable paper trails of elections (all Democrats in favor)[6] Money in politics is absolutely NOT a "both sides" issue. 1. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/49906 2. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/32154 3. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/41152 4. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll034.xml 5. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37426 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37426 6. https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011 https://votesmart.org/bill/votes/21011
  - ratsmack 8y ago
    Let's take a look at Democrat vs Republican fund raising: https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/ https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      The fact that PAC money is needed to win elections doesn't mean that everyone supports PAC money. There are multiple PACs whose stated goals are to abolish PACs. Look at the votes. Republicans vote to defend money in politics, Democrats vote to abolish it. The pattern has been very consistent for over a decade.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Meanwhile, Republicans typically prefer term limits instead, and are typically opposed by Democrats. [1] [2] TBH it amazes me that Congress has as much power as they do over campaign finance. Ads, etc. are form of political speech. And restricting political speech is nigh unto violating the 1st Amendment. [1] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-vote-advance-term-limits https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-... [2] https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-rejects-amendment-recommending-congressional-term-limit- https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-...
balabaster 8y ago
Republicans can only remain in power if people continue to vote them into office... so there has to be some pretense or the will of the people will cease to support them. Any party is only as effective as the numbers of people they have in office.
- cloudsinthesky 8y ago
  > Republicans can only remain in power if people continue to vote them into office That's not true. People voted them out in 2016 but their votes were not counted, or their registrations were falsely and illegally cancelled, etc. There is a lot more at play here than people's choices; and given that people's ability to choose with correct information and free will has been significantly hampered by Republican-led efforts to reduce the quantity of real factual information in the hands of voters, replaced with lies designed to steal votes. Now I know that Donald Trump lies a lot, like a lot but sometimes he tells the truth. He has stated at least 5 times that neither he nor his supporters would accept any election results where he did not win. The current President threatens the nation regularly with his active plans to cancel the next elections and stay in power. Be careful assuming that the popularity of politicians or their party has anything at all to do with them being in power. It doesn't.
  - balabaster 8y ago
    Um... isn't the constitution designed to prevent shit like this happening? I have no special interest in American politics as I just watch from the other side of the border, but I'm pretty sure my understanding of the political system down there is full enough that I'm right in saying that a sitting president can't legally follow through on threats like that without getting evicted from office. Aren't there failsafes and backup plans and laws and a justice department to prevent presidential overreach? This is the whole purpose of the three branches of government.
    - toyg 8y ago
      Paraphrasing a certain mustachioed totalitarian, how many federal agents does the Constitution command? Is the Constitution going to personally storm the White House? Even if it did, what would happen if there were resistance at the other end?

rc_kas 8y ago

This and Global Warming alone are enough to keep me voting Democrat for years and years to come.

YinglingLight 8y ago
It's a shame that there is so much Money involved in each of those topics.
paulddraper 8y ago
Meanwhile abortion and second amendment enforcement are enough to keep me voting Republican for years and years to come (and the occasional Libertarian).
- rc_kas 8y ago
  The interesting thing is, fewer abortions happen under Democrat presidents than under Republican presidents. Something about pushing sex education and birth control that reduces abortions. I don't exactly understand why you would vote Republican if you did not like abortions.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    Snopes rates "Abortion rates drop during Democratic presidencies and rise during Republican administrations" as false. [1] And even if it were true (and it's not), the national legislatures is often the opposite party as the executive, and they're the ones that actually make the laws. (The real reality though is that the states are far more relevant in this area.) [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencies/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/abortion-rates-presidencie...
    - rc_kas 8y ago
      Different fact check than what I'm saying. They don't rise during Republican presidencies. They do fall at a slower rate.

dgzl 8y ago

> majority of public Do you have sources? I personally believe in the free market, and think fast lanes are beneficial for customers.

hnruss 8y ago
It's pretty easy to find sources on this, although I'm sure that you can find conservative media sources that would support a contrary opinion (as is the case for most things). Maybe try using DuckDuckGo to ensure that you're not stuck in a bubble: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=net+neutrality+poll https://duckduckgo.com/?q=net+neutrality+poll One of the more compelling sources that I've seen is an analysis of the comments that the FCC received, which showed that 66% of verifiably legitimate comments favored Net Neutrality. See: https://medium.com/ragtag-notes/bot-or-not-verifying-public-comments-on-net-neutrality-8c77ee54a02e https://medium.com/ragtag-notes/bot-or-not-verifying-public-...
- dgzl 8y ago
  Thanks for the reply, and I suppose you're right. In my review of the public understanding of this topic, they don't seem to understand or even realize the potential benefits from the free market approach.
JaimeThompson 8y ago
One thing I am curious about is why "fast lane" traffic is sold for so inexpensive a price to favored companies. Prices that are a lot less than a typical consumer could pay for extra transfer.