Author Topic: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about  (Read 6691 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Emo EMAW

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 17891
  • Unrepentant traditional emobro
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2017, 11:52:12 AM »
I just post.  It's not random though. 

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2017, 05:48:15 PM »

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2017, 06:06:42 PM »
When Sally Yates was being confirmed as the Deputy Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions asked her if she would be able to stand up to a president who asked her to enforce an unconstitutional law. She said she would and she did.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-jeff-sessions-pressing-sally-yates-to-defend-the-constitution-against-presidents-unlawful-views-151137405.html

Now Jeff Session is up for Attorney General, and it seems like he will not stand up to Trump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dianne-feinstein-eviscerates-jeff-sessions_us_5890bc98e4b02772c4e96bf4

Call your Senators to let them know that you are opposed to Jeff Sessions being confirmed as Attorney General.

 :lol:
You aren't actually going for this talking point are you?
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2017, 10:46:12 PM »
The extremely liberal Ross Douthat of the NYT writes a surprisingly honest piece about the politics as usual behind the Dems' rabid opposition to Betsy DeVos.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/the-comforts-of-the-betsy-devos-war.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer=

Quote
In these distinctly abnormal times for the republic, with Donald Trump in the White House and a group of unprepared revolutionaries around him, one must be grateful for small doses of normalcy and politics as usual. Thank heavens, then, for Senate Democrats, who just gave us the most predictable of spectacles: a liberal holy war against Betsy DeVos, just confirmed as the new secretary of education by Mike Pence’s tiebreaking vote.

A visitor from Saturn might be puzzled by this particular crusade, since none of the things that liberals profess to fear the most about a Trump era revolve around education policy. If Trump is planning to surrender Eastern Europe to the Russians or start a world war with the Chinese, perhaps his secretary of state nominee deserved an all-night talkathon of opposition. If he’s bent on domestic authoritarianism with a racist tinge, then it’s Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, who presents the natural target for Democratic protest. If the biggest problem is that Trump will nominate allies who are unqualified for their responsibilities, then the choice of Ben Carson to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development seems like an obvious place to draw a line.

But somehow it was DeVos who became, in the parlance of cable-news crawls, Trump’s “most controversial nominee.” Never mind that Trump’s logorrheic nationalism barely has time for education. Never mind that local control of schools makes the Education Department a pretty weak player. Never mind that Republican views on education policy are much closer to the expert consensus than they are on, say, climate change. Never mind that the bulk of DeVos’s school-choice work places her only somewhat to the right of the Obama administration’s pro-charter-school positioning, close to centrist Democrats like Senator Cory Booker. None of that mattered: Against her and (so far) only her, Democrats went to the barricades, and even dragged a couple of wavering Republicans along with them.

DeVos did look unprepared and even foolish at times during her confirmation hearings, and she lacks the usual government experience. But officially the opposition claimed to be all about hardheaded policy empiricism. A limited and heavily regulated charter school program is one thing, the argument went, but DeVos’s zeal for free markets would gut public education and turn kids over to the not-so-tender mercies of unqualified bottom-liners. Just look at what happened in her native Michigan, her critics charged, where the influence of her philanthropic dollars helped flood Detroit’s school system with unsupervised charters run by incompetents and hacks.

But the empiricists’ argument wasn’t particularly empirical. There’s no evidence that DeVos-backed charters actually visited disaster on Detroit’s students. Instead, the very studies that get cited to critique her efforts actually show the city’s charters modestly outperforming public schools.

That “modestly” is important, because it tracks with much of what we know about school choice in general — that it offers real potential benefits without being a panacea. Decades of experiments suggest that choice can save money, improve outcomes for very poor kids whose public options are disastrous, and increase parental satisfaction. (The last is no small thing!) But the available evidence also suggests that choice alone won’t revolutionize schools or turn slow learners into geniuses, that the clearest success stories are hard to replicate, and some experiments in privatization (like Louisiana’s recent voucher push) can badly disappoint.

So in DeVos, we have an education secretary who perhaps errs a little too much on the side of choice-as-panacea, overseeing (with limited powers) an American education bureaucracy that pretty obviously errs the other way. And wherever you come down on striking the right balance, it’s hard to see this situation as empirically deserving the level of political controversy that’s attached to it.

So why did the Democrats fight so hard? Because in this particular case, the rules of normal pre-Trump politics still apply.

First, when interest groups talk, politicians listen — and the teachers’ unions are simply more powerful in Democratic circles, with more money and leverage and clout, than most of the groups leading the charge against other Trump policies or nominees. It’s not that liberals aren’t genuinely worried about everything that makes Trumpism potentially abnormal and un-republican and authoritarian. But a more normal threat to a deep-pocketed interest group’s preferences still turned out to be a more natural rallying point than the specter of creeping Putinism.

Second, even in the age of surging blue-collar populism, upper-middle-class suburbanites haven’t lost their influence, and they generally like their public schools and regard school choice as a threat rather than a promise. Charters and vouchers are most appealing to the poor, the religious and the eccentric — to low-income families locked into failing schools and religious conservatives and bohemians with ideological doubts about the content of the public-school curriculum. That’s a motley, divided constituency, whereas well-off suburbanites are easier to activate and rally. It’s the same dynamic that made it easy to defeat a modest expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts last November: Not only teachers-union-loving Democrats but also lots of Republican-leaning suburbanites, having bought (literally) into the existing system, tend to sympathize with liberal warnings that too much choice could leave their own kids worse off.

Finally, even after Trumpism’s disruptions, the older culture-war bogeymen still get liberals excited. Sure, they’re officially more worried about white nationalism and the fate of NATO, but wave the cape of looming theocracy, and suddenly it’s 2004 all over again. After all, did you hear that DeVos is some sort of Calvinist? That she’s actually linked her policy views to her Christian piety? That her support for school choice could conceivably enable more evangelical and Catholic parents to send their kids to conservative religious schools? (If, that is, they aren’t already … home schooling!)

I don’t want to make mock of all DeVos opposition. Senators had every right to vote against her if they felt her underqualified or uninformed. But the fervor and pitch of the opposition basically reflected the present Democratic Party at its worst: unstinting in defense of bureaucracy and its employees, more excited about causes dear to the upper middle class than the interests of the poor, and always girding for the battle with the Real Enemy, religious conservatives, no matter what the moment actually demands.

But again, these are troubled times. Familiarity has its comforts. And a debate this predictable, this pre-Trumpian, came as something of a relief.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2017, 11:23:34 PM »
Cool
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Institutional Control

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 14933
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2017, 12:16:09 PM »
Anyone following this twitter account?

https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40472
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2017, 01:21:33 PM »
The extremely liberal Ross Douthat of the NYT writes a surprisingly honest piece about the politics as usual behind the Dems' rabid opposition to Betsy DeVos.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/opinion/the-comforts-of-the-betsy-devos-war.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&referer=

Quote
In these distinctly abnormal times for the republic, with Donald Trump in the White House and a group of unprepared revolutionaries around him, one must be grateful for small doses of normalcy and politics as usual. Thank heavens, then, for Senate Democrats, who just gave us the most predictable of spectacles: a liberal holy war against Betsy DeVos, just confirmed as the new secretary of education by Mike Pence’s tiebreaking vote.

A visitor from Saturn might be puzzled by this particular crusade, since none of the things that liberals profess to fear the most about a Trump era revolve around education policy. If Trump is planning to surrender Eastern Europe to the Russians or start a world war with the Chinese, perhaps his secretary of state nominee deserved an all-night talkathon of opposition. If he’s bent on domestic authoritarianism with a racist tinge, then it’s Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, who presents the natural target for Democratic protest. If the biggest problem is that Trump will nominate allies who are unqualified for their responsibilities, then the choice of Ben Carson to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development seems like an obvious place to draw a line.

But somehow it was DeVos who became, in the parlance of cable-news crawls, Trump’s “most controversial nominee.” Never mind that Trump’s logorrheic nationalism barely has time for education. Never mind that local control of schools makes the Education Department a pretty weak player. Never mind that Republican views on education policy are much closer to the expert consensus than they are on, say, climate change. Never mind that the bulk of DeVos’s school-choice work places her only somewhat to the right of the Obama administration’s pro-charter-school positioning, close to centrist Democrats like Senator Cory Booker. None of that mattered: Against her and (so far) only her, Democrats went to the barricades, and even dragged a couple of wavering Republicans along with them.

DeVos did look unprepared and even foolish at times during her confirmation hearings, and she lacks the usual government experience. But officially the opposition claimed to be all about hardheaded policy empiricism. A limited and heavily regulated charter school program is one thing, the argument went, but DeVos’s zeal for free markets would gut public education and turn kids over to the not-so-tender mercies of unqualified bottom-liners. Just look at what happened in her native Michigan, her critics charged, where the influence of her philanthropic dollars helped flood Detroit’s school system with unsupervised charters run by incompetents and hacks.

But the empiricists’ argument wasn’t particularly empirical. There’s no evidence that DeVos-backed charters actually visited disaster on Detroit’s students. Instead, the very studies that get cited to critique her efforts actually show the city’s charters modestly outperforming public schools.

That “modestly” is important, because it tracks with much of what we know about school choice in general — that it offers real potential benefits without being a panacea. Decades of experiments suggest that choice can save money, improve outcomes for very poor kids whose public options are disastrous, and increase parental satisfaction. (The last is no small thing!) But the available evidence also suggests that choice alone won’t revolutionize schools or turn slow learners into geniuses, that the clearest success stories are hard to replicate, and some experiments in privatization (like Louisiana’s recent voucher push) can badly disappoint.

So in DeVos, we have an education secretary who perhaps errs a little too much on the side of choice-as-panacea, overseeing (with limited powers) an American education bureaucracy that pretty obviously errs the other way. And wherever you come down on striking the right balance, it’s hard to see this situation as empirically deserving the level of political controversy that’s attached to it.

So why did the Democrats fight so hard? Because in this particular case, the rules of normal pre-Trump politics still apply.

First, when interest groups talk, politicians listen — and the teachers’ unions are simply more powerful in Democratic circles, with more money and leverage and clout, than most of the groups leading the charge against other Trump policies or nominees. It’s not that liberals aren’t genuinely worried about everything that makes Trumpism potentially abnormal and un-republican and authoritarian. But a more normal threat to a deep-pocketed interest group’s preferences still turned out to be a more natural rallying point than the specter of creeping Putinism.

Second, even in the age of surging blue-collar populism, upper-middle-class suburbanites haven’t lost their influence, and they generally like their public schools and regard school choice as a threat rather than a promise. Charters and vouchers are most appealing to the poor, the religious and the eccentric — to low-income families locked into failing schools and religious conservatives and bohemians with ideological doubts about the content of the public-school curriculum. That’s a motley, divided constituency, whereas well-off suburbanites are easier to activate and rally. It’s the same dynamic that made it easy to defeat a modest expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts last November: Not only teachers-union-loving Democrats but also lots of Republican-leaning suburbanites, having bought (literally) into the existing system, tend to sympathize with liberal warnings that too much choice could leave their own kids worse off.

Finally, even after Trumpism’s disruptions, the older culture-war bogeymen still get liberals excited. Sure, they’re officially more worried about white nationalism and the fate of NATO, but wave the cape of looming theocracy, and suddenly it’s 2004 all over again. After all, did you hear that DeVos is some sort of Calvinist? That she’s actually linked her policy views to her Christian piety? That her support for school choice could conceivably enable more evangelical and Catholic parents to send their kids to conservative religious schools? (If, that is, they aren’t already … home schooling!)

I don’t want to make mock of all DeVos opposition. Senators had every right to vote against her if they felt her underqualified or uninformed. But the fervor and pitch of the opposition basically reflected the present Democratic Party at its worst: unstinting in defense of bureaucracy and its employees, more excited about causes dear to the upper middle class than the interests of the poor, and always girding for the battle with the Real Enemy, religious conservatives, no matter what the moment actually demands.

But again, these are troubled times. Familiarity has its comforts. And a debate this predictable, this pre-Trumpian, came as something of a relief.

I really enjoy how you assign non liberals as liberals in order to make your point that liberals agree with you.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2017, 02:46:38 PM »
I really enjoy how you assign non liberals as liberals in order to make your point that liberals agree with you.

Well I guess he'd be considered conservative by NYT standards, like David Brooks, but that doesn't mean much.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline ednksu

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9862
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2017, 06:10:29 PM »
I really enjoy how you assign non liberals as liberals in order to make your point that liberals agree with you.

Well I guess he'd be considered conservative by NYT standards, like David Brooks, but that doesn't mean much.

or by anyone who has reviewed his books....or isn't a rough ridin' idiot.
Quote from: OregonHawk
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue

Quote from: Kim Carnes
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #60 on: November 28, 2017, 12:28:11 PM »
This is the proper thread for the Net Neutrality issue.


Here's a link for you to actually do something.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/08/how-to-protest-the-fccs-plan-to-dismantle-net-neutrality/

Offline treysolid

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3483
  • complacent and self-involved
    • View Profile

Offline Mrs. Gooch

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 9975
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #62 on: December 14, 2017, 02:04:54 PM »
Call, tweet, email to urge Congress to vote on a Resolution of Disapproval.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #63 on: December 14, 2017, 02:38:48 PM »
Call, tweet, email to urge Congress to vote on a Resolution of Disapproval.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

https://resist.bot

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #64 on: December 14, 2017, 02:45:20 PM »
Quote
The real problem is a complete absence of leadership and policy aimed at making sure that low-priced, ubiquitous, world-class fiber optic services reach every home and business. Left to their own devices, the giant US companies Pai is determined to protect have every incentive to divide markets, avoid capital investments in upgrades to fiber that reach everyone, charge as much as they can get away with, and leave out poorer and rural people. That is in fact what has happened here.

LOL, what a load of bullshit.

First of all, technology is making it possible for for customers to get more than enough bandwidth without FTTP.   Already most coax based residential cable platforms are capable of offering up to 300Mbps straight out.    Hell, many major cable providers already start at 100Mbps in their base offering which when bundled is cheap as hell, and still cheap when not bundled.   

Dealing with larger Enterprise customers with "smart" IT staffs, I can tell you that people in most instances way, way, way over estimate the amount of bandwidth they need.   

It's hilarious to think that some people actually feel like that they can sit on their ass gobbling up hundreds of gigabits a month in total Internet usage but then demand that it's provided to them for pennies on state-of-the-art networks.

Not to mention in the land of urban sprawl that all these neighborhoods that cost assloads of money to build out to, get state of the art platforms for pennies relative to the amount of bandwidth consumed.

I'm currently looking at a bill of materials core backbone upgrade in a Topeka sized city.   $8.9 million before labor, bring in the remote nodes, double that price, before labor.   Why, because in order to continue the franchise, the city demanded they become a Gigabit City, when customers can already call up and order 400x50 service for their house.  Total takers:  376








Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #65 on: December 14, 2017, 03:30:41 PM »
Does dax hate net neutrality (or whatever he thinks net neutrality is) more than he hates Hillary Clinton?
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

The Big Train

  • Guest
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #66 on: December 14, 2017, 03:38:17 PM »
I don’t think that’s possible

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #67 on: December 14, 2017, 03:44:53 PM »
The wired article used Wilson,NC.

What it doesn't tell you that the City of Wilson runs a Power Monopoly, and the bonds they used to fund the GreenLight are paid for by money funneled via their electric and gas monopoly.   They're also not bound by any franchise agreement or carrier of last resort mandates.


Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #68 on: December 14, 2017, 03:50:22 PM »
Are you able to choose your electric and gas provider dax?
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #69 on: December 14, 2017, 04:27:23 PM »
Are you able to choose your electric and gas provider dax?

No, and in most places you cannot.

But in a substantial number of places you have at least two and in some cases more vendors for Internet.

But the main point is, Wilson is being painted as a model while leaving out a substantial number of facts, like the "model" being funded by a monopoly. Plus having worked with government enough to know that anytime they try and say it was financed by bonds instead of taxpayer money, it's pretty much a lie, the taxpayers are on the hook.




Offline passranch

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
    • View Profile
Re: Trump things you actually need to call your congress rep about
« Reply #70 on: December 15, 2017, 01:29:42 PM »
Does dax hate net neutrality (or whatever he thinks net neutrality is) more than he hates Hillary Clinton?

Not sure, but he sure does like to write a lot of words on a topic that have absolutely no practical relation to the net neutrality rules for some reason.