Baldwin (D-WI)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Coons (D-DE)
Franken (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Markey (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Wyden (D-OR)
[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...
[2] http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tamm... & http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-...
How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all.
Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.
I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it).
As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue".
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...
For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account.
Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.
http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...
Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.
You do realize that the government pays (with private company tax dollars) other private companies to do things for them, don't you?
Except, all the evidence throughout history has shown this never to be the case. It never, ever works. It's what the big companies want you to believe to you'll buy into whatever ideology they're selling. It's libertarian nonsense with no basis in reality. It's a Koch brothers talking point - they literally live by that mantra.
The solution to the problem is to support organizations and institutions that have real substantive incentives to protect net neutrality -- not merely an inherently co-optable political mandate -- and to work in parallel to diminish the actual capacity of ISPs to actually abridge e.g. by promoting widespread end-to-end encryption of everything, etc.
The mindset of "we've got to address this potential problem by giving monopolistic coercive power to this single centralized institution" has just got to go away.
http://time.com/4154635/rand-paul-paul-ryan-omnibus-spending...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_...
Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R]
Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R]
Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R]
Nay - Sen. John McCain [R]
Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R]
Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R]
Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R]
Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R]
Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R]
Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R]
Nay - Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman [R]
Nay - Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R]
Nay - Sen. David Vitter [R]
Nay - Sen. John Thune [R]
Nay - Sen. Bill Cassidy [R]
Nay - Sen. James Risch [R]
Nay - Sen. Tim Scott [R]
Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R]
Nay - Sen. Rand Paul [R]
Nay - Sen. Mike Lee [R]
Nay - Sen. Tom Cotton [R]
Nay - Sen. Steve Daines [R]
Nay - Sen. Deb Fischer [R]
Nay - Sen. Ted Cruz [R]
Nay - Sen. Dan Sullivan [R]
Nay - Sen. Joni Ernst [R]
Nay - Sen. Benjamin Sasse [R]
Nay - Sen. Jeff Merkley [D]
Nay - Sen. Joe Manchin III [D]
Nay - Sen. Jon Tester [D]
Nay - Sen. Claire McCaskill [D]
Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D]
Nay - Sen. Ron Wyden [D]
Nay - Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D]
Nay - Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I]
Cowards.
The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live according to his religious beliefs.
Paul is a libertarian and believes that Government should not be involved in the private space, including marriage. I think that's a very reasonable position to have - and I don't think I have seen him saying anything against gays, but please provide a source if you have any.
So in extensional terms, such "libertarians" are often indistinguishable from theocrats on key social issues (i.e., regardless of what different set of inner philosophical principles they might claim to be following, the outward result in terms of lawmaking is identical). Which in turn means they're not going to get my vote.
How many self-professed libertarians are there in the Congress? Paul's not even self-professed libertarian. The only one I know is Justin Amash, and he couldn't introduce any of type of bills you reference because under Boehner's regime only bills blessed by his team could ever make it to the floor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_U...
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
is exactly what Obama "believed" in 2008.
The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out.
The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.
Follow up: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay...
I can't see myself voting in 2016. I find the views of all the Republican and Democratic candidates to be morally repugnant, just for different reasons.
As an LGBT person myself, I refuse to vote for Paul or any other candidate who opposes LGBT rights (including the entire Republican field), and as a Jew, I refuse to vote for any candidate that opposes refugees. However, I also won't vote for the Democrats because their views on other subjects are just as repugnant, including gun control and minimum wage.
If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .
The thing with Sanders, I think, is that he has been around for so long and he has been so consistent, that you can know what he think about most issues:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sande...
i don't recall obama being an actual socialist or talking about breaking up the banks. i do recall obama being a dem and giving the banks bailout money though.
> he is being undermined by the DNC
agreed.
His ideological framework hasn't changed in the entire time I've been following him (I'm from Vermont) and that includes going from mayor of Burlington up through US Senator.
He's also not saying things to get elected. He'd have a much better chance if he dropped some of his more socialist rhetoric, but he genuinely believes it.
Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would be a waste of 4 years. People overestimate just how much power the president has. Even with executive orders, there's only so much a president can do within the law. If you want universal health care, or MJ legalized, or CISA repealed, a president can't do that by himself, that requires congress.
Presidential elections are a red herring I'm afraid, and that's no exaggeration. If you want true and real governmental change, it requires you to vote the right congressmen and senators into the government.
I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against.
I understand why you feel like you're correct in naysaying and feeling like you're adding something to the conversation by being contrary. Unfortunately you're setting up a bit of a strawman, as if people who support Bernie feel like somehow he's going to magically change everything by himself. Bernie himself said that will not be the case, and you're mostly just arguing people who have little understanding of government, who honestly aren't even taking part in this conversation.
Bernie is probably the most likely candidate to promote the idea in your comment anyway, as he's the only candidate who I feel truly wants to change the system. So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.
Sometimes I forget that hackernews has a slightly more intelligent user-base. Unfortunately, I participate on reddit as well, and there, political supporters have a slightly naive view of how politics and the government works (that's putting it nicely). Sometimes I confuse the two websites.
> So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.
Well, real change means electing the right congressmen. To up-end our current republic, the first-past-the-post system, and to reform campaign finance requires electing senators who would do just that.
If Bernie wins the nomination, he's definitely getting my vote. Unfortunately, that's a near impossibility. And he also said he wouldn't run against Hillary if she wins the nomination. Bernie recognizes the fact that he would damage the party and take votes away from Hillary if he runs as an independent. He's a pragmatic & logical man and understands that a Clinton presidency is orders of magnitude better for our country than a Bush or Trump presidency. It's simply the lesser of all the evils.
And unless you run for office yourself, it's always, always going to be choosing between the "least evil" because no candidate will represent your views 100% unless, again, you run yourself.
Read that, not so crazy.
Unfortunately, I read the same exact thing about Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012. :)
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1106/R...
and
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-in...
Not a joke. I would vote for it.
This is not the case in an across-the-aisle Presidency. There are lots of Paul supporters who would like to see Sanders dead, and a whole bunch of them have guns and are fond of out-of-the-box thinking about their liberty. I spent a few months participating in online communities associated with Ron Paul back in 2007; It was enlightening, though it left me feeling a little soiled.
The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul.
Interesting, if only due to its impossibility.
Like, not one the president and the other one the vice president. If they were just, dual presidents. Both the singular president. ( if either died, it would be counted as the president dieing, and the vp would take the place)
Schoolhouse rocks, last I checked, had one bill moving from one house to the other. Citizens could lobby at any point, including the conference committee.
Each of these were passed in isolation, then stuck together, then stuck into a budget bill. Then the only question was whether you wanted the entire bill to pass or not.
It's a fair interpretation to say that some reasonable public feedback -- if nothing else than what kinds of compromises needed to occur between both bills -- was missing from the mash-up we got this past week. Yes, majorities approved of similar bills in both houses. But there was no point in time where the public was informed "Hey, this is your last chance if you want to change what's going to go into the law"
Another way of looking at this is asking this question: if we're going to use the rules for budget bills on everything else that might be controversial, why have conference committees at all? Just pass kinda the same thing in each house and then look for the right political moment and the right combination of things to lump together so that you can do whatever you want to.
This is just leadership writing laws. If they want to do things like that, fine. I believe the logical conclusion is that we should start having direct election of house and senate leadership.
There was extended public debate and a prolonged amendment process for CISA and PCNA in both houses of Congress. There was intense media coverage and, once CISA passed in October, the consensus was that CISA was going to be the law of the land.
The one uncertainty about it was the extent to which the House would drag CISA towards PCNA's broader law enforcement language. Thankfully, that drama, with its attendant opportunity for "public commentary", didn't happen.
For you to make a strong case for how important a prolonged conference committee would have been to the process, I think you should start by pointing out another bill that died in a conference committee due to public outcry. Has that ever happened?
For those who are interested, this type of application is fairly recent. The Reconciliation Act was passed in 74. It hadn't even been out a year before it was being used in ways not anticipated by the sponsors, and the stretching has continued year-after-year. Relevant wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_...
IIRC, CORBA was the first big "win", providing continuing insurance privileges to folks when they left their job. A great idea, no doubt, but not a damned thing to do with the budget.
Also more information: https://www.votetocracy.com/blog/what-is-reconciliation
Interesting historical quote from the second article. President Clinton attempted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Byrd, according to Wikipedia, “insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets,”
Times have changed. Each year these things get easier and easier.
I am sad.
In message board land, the fact that the bill was finalized in the middle of the night is evidence that The Man is trying to sneak CISA past us. In reality, nobody in Congress cares about CISA; that's a done deal. It's the budget they're being sneaky about.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that CISA (and a bunch of other random stuff in the budget bill) had been scheduled to go through on the budget bill for weeks.
Thankfully? In the sense that at least it wasn't close to PCNA or that you think this bill will do anything to actually benefit "cybersecurity"? Because if it doesn't serve its purpose, then it doesn't really matter how close was or wasn't to the PCNA, does it?
Also, you're not worried at all about the legal protections companies get for cooperating with the NSA? If they "aren't doing anything wrong", why should they need legal immunity?
It is not the way conference committees work that there's a whole new open public process. By the time a bill has passed both houses of Congress, the incentive is declare victory and get the thing over with. The only reason there even is a conference committee is to get the House and Senate to agree on language.
I've explained repeatedly why the legal immunity language in CISA is not only reasonable, but in fact most of the impetus for the entire bill.
I'm a little annoyed at how you're asking me to explain it again, because that once again puts me in the position of being perceived as a supporter of CISA, which I am not. I'm very tired of people --- like, respectfully, you --- equating "effort taken to understand a complicated issue" with "partisan support for one side of that issue".
The "tell" that that's what's happening here is the language you chose to use: "you're not worried at all that...?". In sales, language like that is referred to as "an assumptive close". It is literally a mind control technique. Here, you're trying to deploy it on me to put me on the wrong side of an issue being discussed on HN.
PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.
PCNA, the House's (worse) version of CISA, passed with similar margins in April.
Obama has publicly supported the bill all year.
As much as HN and Twitter wants to believe CISA was enacted in some shady backroom deal, the process that actually occurred, including publicly available amendments and months-long review, is pretty close to "Schoolhouse Rocks".
The debate on CISA was over. Thankfully. The only debate left was how close CISA would come to PCNA, with its broader law enforcement ties and vaguer language (EFF claims PCNA would have in some cases authorized large private companies to "hack back" computers they believed had been trying to hack them). Instead, Senate's CISA is the law of land almost verbatim to what they passed --- in a drawn out, public process --- in October.
Later:
Someone downthread asked for a summary of the bill. I did my best to strip the legalese out of it:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10763827