4 ms·

> Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? Whether or not the GOP is generally evil

> Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing? Whether or not the GOP is generally evil, it certainly seems to be true that their position on net neutrality has been consistently bad and if they're allowed set policy on it, they'll do it in a way that will let carriers interpose themselves as gatekeepers. >The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys. That's the rhetoric, anyway. It's less clear how that's likely to fall out of any of their proposed policies.

Alupis 12y ago
The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power. This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees. > This isn't a party thing... Every FCC vote on Open Internet ("net neutrality") rules for the last several years has had a 3-2 divide on party lines (Democrats for Open Internet regs, Republicans against). How is it not a party thing?
  - Alupis 12y ago
    > The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees. And so are Supreme Court Justices. Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. The President isn't a king. It's not a party thing. Stop trying to make it one.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > And so are Supreme Court Justices. And Supreme Court Justices decisions, throughout their careers, on issues that are politically salient at the time of their appointment very closely track the positions of the President that appointed them. While lots of people like to pretend that the judiciary is apolitical and nonpartisan, all the actual evidence is that it is anything but. > Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. Right, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in general -- while not at all apolitical and nonpartisan -- are still more insulated from partisan politics and the mood current among elected politicians than, say, members of the FCC because they have lifetime tenure rather than 5 year terms. I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your case that the current net neutrality debate, both in the FCC and more generally, is not strongly partisan. > It's not a party thing. I'd surely prefer that support for net neutrality -- on the FCC, in Congress, and more generally -- wasn't a strongly partisan issue, but all the actual facts show that it is an issue that is extremely partisan. You can keep repeating "it's not a party thing" all you want, but it won't stop the fact that on the FCC, support for net neutrality regulations has consistently been split with Democrats for and Republicans against, in the Congress, support for the FCC issuing net neutrality regulations, or the Congress adopting strong net neutrality regulations itself, has consistently been strongly tilted to Democrats for and Republicans against (and, conversely, support for legislation explicitly prohibitong the FCC from regulating for neutrality has been strongly tilted to Republicans for, Democrats against.) It is a party thing, whether you think it should be or not.

Alupis 12y ago

The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power. This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees. > This isn't a party thing... Every FCC vote on Open Internet ("net neutrality") rules for the last several years has had a 3-2 divide on party lines (Democrats for Open Internet regs, Republicans against). How is it not a party thing?
- Alupis 12y ago
  > The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees. And so are Supreme Court Justices. Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. The President isn't a king. It's not a party thing. Stop trying to make it one.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > And so are Supreme Court Justices. And Supreme Court Justices decisions, throughout their careers, on issues that are politically salient at the time of their appointment very closely track the positions of the President that appointed them. While lots of people like to pretend that the judiciary is apolitical and nonpartisan, all the actual evidence is that it is anything but. > Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. Right, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in general -- while not at all apolitical and nonpartisan -- are still more insulated from partisan politics and the mood current among elected politicians than, say, members of the FCC because they have lifetime tenure rather than 5 year terms. I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your case that the current net neutrality debate, both in the FCC and more generally, is not strongly partisan. > It's not a party thing. I'd surely prefer that support for net neutrality -- on the FCC, in Congress, and more generally -- wasn't a strongly partisan issue, but all the actual facts show that it is an issue that is extremely partisan. You can keep repeating "it's not a party thing" all you want, but it won't stop the fact that on the FCC, support for net neutrality regulations has consistently been split with Democrats for and Republicans against, in the Congress, support for the FCC issuing net neutrality regulations, or the Congress adopting strong net neutrality regulations itself, has consistently been strongly tilted to Democrats for and Republicans against (and, conversely, support for legislation explicitly prohibitong the FCC from regulating for neutrality has been strongly tilted to Republicans for, Democrats against.) It is a party thing, whether you think it should be or not.