[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)