THE ERA OF TRUMP

[StCapps]

I mean.. holy fuck.. the guy claims to be a populist, right? What two most overwhelmingly popular issues in America today? Net neutrality and halting mass immigration. Both overwhelmingly popular issues. What does Trump do? The OPPOSITE of what he was elected to do.

Fuck Left Neutrality, and the horse it rode in on.

Well, then you are saying fuck over 70% of the GOP electorate..

The Democrats like Obama's Net Neutrality, Republicans are against the FCC power grab. Trump's base likes the move, you aren't Trump's base, you just think you are and project on them accordingly.

When are you going to learn that America doesn't think like you do about politics? Assuming most Americans think like you do leads to some real ridiculous analysis on your part.

The StA's of America are a mere vocal fringe minority, not the silent majority, so quit fronting like you're the latter.

[ssu]

When this whole Russian narrative collapses into nothing, what R U anti-Trumpers going to do? Real question. The Dems seemed to have moved on to "Trump must be removed because he is mentally ill." Will that be your play too?

Oh I'm just following here how persistently the utter collapse of the Russia narrative has been called here.

Starting from last year...

And anyway, every President whoever they might be would have a some sort of scandal that the opposition would be talking about. It's baked into the US political discourse.

[Speaker to Animals]

Fuck Left Neutrality, and the horse it rode in on.

Well, then you are saying fuck over 70% of the GOP electorate..

Wrong. The Democrats like Net Neutrality, Republicans are against it.

WRONG




If you want to argue the merits of regulating these monopolies, that's fine, but don't pretend like you speak for the majority of the American people, or even the majority of the republican electorate for that matter. Net neutrality was OVERWHELMINGLY supported by Americans, including over 70% of the republican base. We are talking about building and maintaining a coalition that puts the American people first and retains political power for years. This rat fuck, merchant neocon bullshit only alienates the base. It literally alienates to some degree the 73% of republican voters who supported net neutrality laws -- the battle for which was begun by George W. Bush.

I don't feel like arguing the merits of the regulations any longer. Most of you demonstrated you don't even understand the technology or the economics of monopolies, so there's really no point to it. But to argue that this represents economic nationalism and populism is fucking even more retarded. I can forgive your not understanding how the Internet works, or not having gone to college and never being exposed to macroeconomics, but this is trivial.

This guy is driving wedges into his own electorate. Dividing people over Bannon is a huge mistake. Spending political capital on unpopular issues like tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulating monopolies like Comcast not only make America less great, they divide the base. But when DACA gets signed into law. That's the end. This country is gone. We will be as far up shit creek as fucking Canada by that point.

We are not really that far off from a demographic turning point where non-westerners control the democracy.

[StCapps]

but don't pretend like you speak for the majority of the American people, or even the majority of the republican electorate for that matter.

I don't, you're the one doing that. Of course most Americans don't agree with me on politics, you are the one naive enough to believe that they agree with you.

You're graphic is bullshit.

[Martin Hash]

As I said over and over on the Net Neutrality debate, IF its overturn had also invalidated all municipal-granted broadband monopolies, then there was no need for "Net Neutrality", but because the monopolies were left intact, that shows exactly what the intention was.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you want to argue the merits of regulating these monopolies, that's fine, but don't pretend like you speak for the majority of the American people, or even the majority of the republican electorate for that matter.

I don't, you're the one doing that. You're graphic is bullshit.

Dude, most of you don't even understand how the Internet actually works. I was literally seeing nonsense like "not all IP packets are equal". Don't try to recover from that. It's stupid and asinine.

Now you are disputing that net neutrality was overwhelmingly supported by the American people, including over 70% of the republican base.

Just yesterday you argued that people who came out of nowhere to elect Trump into office after he promised to deport all the illegals and halt this mass migration don't really care about immigration issues at all.

You obviously need to lay off the drugs, or maybe you've burned off so many brain cells you are less qualified than TC for his human packet router job.

[StCapps]

As I said over and over on the Net Neutrality debate, IF its overturn had also invalidated all municipal-granted broadband monopolies, then there was no need for "Net Neutrality", but because the monopolies were left intact, that shows exactly what the intention was.

The monopolies existed before Obama Net Neutrality and after it gone they still exist, Obama's Net Neutrality didn't address the issue of monopolies at all.

[StCapps]

Dude, most of you don't even understand how the Internet actually works. I was literally seeing nonsense like "not all IP packets are equal". Don't try to recover from that. It's stupid and asinine.

Never made such an argument, you sure like your strawmen, they are the only goalposts you can win arguments against.

[Martin Hash]

As I said over and over on the Net Neutrality debate, IF its overturn had also invalidated all municipal-granted broadband monopolies, then there was no need for "Net Neutrality", but because the monopolies were left intact, that shows exactly what the intention was.

The monopolies existed before Obama Net Neutrality and after it gone they still exist, Obama's Net Neutrality didn't address the issue of monopolies at all.

WTF!? That's what NN was! Without a monopoly, a subscriber would simply change to a provider that didn't throttle bandwidth. Jesus Christ, where R U coming from?

[StCapps]

As I said over and over on the Net Neutrality debate, IF its overturn had also invalidated all municipal-granted broadband monopolies, then there was no need for "Net Neutrality", but because the monopolies were left intact, that shows exactly what the intention was.

The monopolies existed before Obama Net Neutrality and after it gone they still exist, Obama's Net Neutrality didn't address the issue of monopolies at all.

WTF!? That's what NN was! Without a monopoly, a subscriber would simply change to a provider that didn't throttle bandwidth. Jesus Christ, where R U coming from?

You've been lied to. Obama's NN had nothing to do with monopolies, you're thinking of the European version, not Obama's version. It was all just a power grab by the FCC, that's what Obama's Net Neutrality was, he just tricked you by telling you it was the thing you like, it wasn't, it's the opposite of that.