Jump to content

Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

Dropout

By Dropout
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Blotto

Blotto 23,432

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, GSU&UT said:

Not sure why this isn't a bigger issue this presidential cycle, if you've ever heard of the story of how Chattanooga created super cheap gigabit (generally free wifi gigabit is available in most of the city) through it's public utility then you know how much this could help so many people.

My take is that this is largely a solution in search of a problem. A couple of comments here.

The city of Chattanooga did decide to enter the broadband market via its electric utility (EPB) as they were already laying fiber for their smart grid initiative. I see no evidence that there is free wireless gigabit available in the city, and why would there be if their plan is sell gigabit access. I believe free wifi is available at the airport and a few other places, but you can see what they charge for the service ($68.00 per month): 

https://epb.com/home-store/internet

They were greatly aided in this effort by a $111M grant from the federal government related to the smart grid initiative. This utility currently services approximately 180,000 households so its not a trivial amount of money per household to deliver the service. In fact the utility estimates is will spend $300 million on the smart grid initiative,so not exclusively broadband.

Contrast that with recent news from TMobile on their 5G wireless network build out which also went live a week or two ago. They claim they can reach 200 million Americans with their 5G coverage and while the speeds are nowhere close to gigabit, tests show it at 100-200MB which will certainly improve as they enhance the build out. Cost for that service is $85 for one line and $170 for 4 lines. Once Verizon and Sprint roll out 5G, I imagine the prices will be kept in check. I may be wrong, but I don't think they are getting billions from the government to build out their networks. 

So you have Verizon, Sprint, Tmobile, DIsh  all building out 5G networks based on wireless technology on their own dime, and you also have the standard cable companies, Google and others  building out their infrastructure. Hell even SpaceX is building their satellite constellation Starlink which they claim will offer Gig speeds, and they will have competition in the satellite sector as well (https://www.pcmag.com/news/371511/spacexs-satellite-internet-plans-for-mid-2020-launch-in-the ).

So why exactly does the US taxpayer need to spend $150 billion dollars? I'm certainly not a Republican, but goddamn the Dems need to stop trying to invent new ways to blow 100's of billions of dollars. Its not a constitutional right to be able to download a movie in 3 seconds. Leave this shit to private enterprise and focus on blowing money in areas that private enterprise cant help. Should the government also take over all cellular service? How about movie/music streaming etc... Drives me fucking crazy.

If the government want to invest in delivering broadband to the areas where people don't have any options, fine, but promising government supplied broad band to all Americans is a waste of money. The vast majority of Americans have options today and will have far more options in a few years. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hank Scorpio
Hank Scorpio

When Bernie is president only the rich children will be put in cages. 

Johnny Sack
Johnny Sack

Watching you commie fucks lose this election is going to be enjoyable. 

Longhorn_Fan68
Longhorn_Fan68

it is really, really stupid that in the richest country in the world people are dying from lack of insulin. it's unconscionable, really.

Posted Images

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Blotto said:

So you have Verizon, Sprint, Tmobile, DIsh  all building out 5G networks based on wireless technology on their own dime, and you also have the standard cable companies, Google and others  building out their infrastructure. Hell even SpaceX is building their satellite constellation Starlink which they claim will offer Gig speeds, and they will have competition in the satellite sector as well (https://www.pcmag.com/news/371511/spacexs-satellite-internet-plans-for-mid-2020-launch-in-the ).

So why exactly does the US taxpayer need to spend $150 billion dollars? I'm certainly not a Republican, but goddamn the Dems need to stop trying to invent new ways to blow 100's of billions of dollars. Its not a constitutional right to be able to download a movie in 3 seconds. Leave this shit to private enterprise and focus on blowing money in areas that private enterprise cant help. Should the government also take over all cellular service? How about movie/music streaming etc... Drives me fucking crazy.

If the government want to invest in delivering broadband to the areas where people don't have any options, fine, but promising government supplied broad band to all Americans is a waste of money. The vast majority of Americans have options today and will have far more options in a few years. 

Those companies aren't doing this "on their own dime". That's a straight up lie. Taxpayers subsidize their build-outs to the tune of billions and billions and billions of dollars.

This is our money, our land, and our infrastructure. We should own it.

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1,798

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don't have time to respond to most of your post but I was just up in Chattanooga and there was free public fast wifi in lots of places I visited. I'm not suggesting that the internet is free in Chattanooga, that's different.

 

And yes, to echo BT, this should be regarded as a utility and I do not give one single fuck about big telecom companies having to spend money to enhance their infrastructure. Everyone knows how much it sucks to get locked into a one or two year contract with Comcast and how many weird sneaky charges you get that you may have to dispute, a publicly owned utility (which granted may not worked in every single town in the US) cannot fuck you in the ass over costs like a big telecom. I dropped comcast at my last place because they started doing repairs for several days and literally didn't tell me, even when I called customer support. They are a shitty evil organization that I would not trust to run a fucking lemonade stand correctly, at least with a public utility you can freaking hold public officials accountable, quit giving me this ~ * MARKETS * ~ crap

 

34 minutes ago, Blotto said:

So why exactly does the US taxpayer need to spend $150 billion dollars? I'm certainly not a Republican, but goddamn the Dems need to stop trying to invent new ways to blow 100's of billions of dollars. Its not a constitutional right to be able to download a movie in 3 seconds. Leave this shit to private enterprise and focus on blowing money in areas that private enterprise cant help. Should the government also take over all cellular service? How about movie/music streaming etc... Drives me fucking crazy.

This isn't the US government doing it across the nation, it's going to be up to municipalities to do so in a publicly owned way hopefully. You cannot seriously suggest to me that in 2019 having shitty slow internet in a less than urban area (without paying out the ass) doesn't put you and your town at a economic disadvantage than a very big city. This whole Vice article goes into it,

 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpk77/chattanooga-gigabit-fiber-network

Edited by GSU&UT
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23,432

Posted
Posted

Again, if we had an infinite supply of money, I wouldn"t give a fuck. My only point is that laying fiber ain't cheap, and IF 5G solutions (and in a few years satellite broadband) can provide rural access why should the government get involved. In terms of pricing, sure Austin is pretty wired and an  exception, but I have several gigabit options available to me today. I use grande and its solid. I dont pay for gigabit because I get about 200MB already which is fine for me. But if I did want Gigabit, its $70 per month with no contract, almost identical to Chattanooga. Sure Comcast, Time Warner and other cable companies suck dick, but they will eventually be phased out of the picture as competition increases. It will be much harder for them to maintain their monopolies (where they still have them). 

The landscape is shifting due to wireless technologies. I would argue that cellular service  is more essential for everyday life than broadband, so are you also arguing that local municipalities should take that over ? Unless your argument is that the government should provide cell, TV, and other "essential services" I don't see why broadband will be any different in a few years. If its fine for wireless carriers to charge $60-$100 per month for cell service with unlimited data, why is a similar rate problematic for residential  broadband? Its quite likely that both would be bundled into a single bill for your family.  

I believe the large national cell companies charge the same amount for cell service no matter where you live in the US, and I I think its likely that they and the satellite companies once they come online, will adopt a similar price scheme. They will have to be price competitive or people will look elsewhere. If it costs me the same today in Austin for gigabit services as the municipal owned solution in Chattanooga, the wireless carriers will have to be at that rate to win business. 

Regarding satellite broadband.... 

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-how-it-works-2019-5

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20927277/spacex-starlink-broadband-satellite-constellation-internet-2020

Maybe SpaceX is full of shit and this will never work, but if it does, it will be much more cost effective than running fiber everywhere. We'll know soon enough as they have already launched 60 more satellites more since the business insider article above. If they fail, there's several more people behind them willing to try. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,171

Posted
Posted
On 12/6/2019 at 6:00 PM, Blotto said:

IF 5G solutions can provide rural access

giphy.gif

the range on high bandwidth 5G is barely better than wifi.  the long range 5G network that tmobile just turned on only averages 20% better than tmobile's LTE product.

https://venturebeat.com/2019/12/05/t-mobiles-600mhz-5g-peaks-at-roughly-225mbps-but-there-are-caveats/

 

 

On 12/6/2019 at 6:00 PM, Blotto said:

(and in a few years satellite broadband)

Quote

"If millions of people want to hop on to Starlink all at one time, that is just not going to work" within a populated area like a city, Handley said. The problem is akin to a cell tower being overloaded with too many users, which can slow or disrupt connectivity.

so, it should help rurally, but it isn't going to help in cities and it's going to crash every time a new episode of the mandalorian drops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

100% automatic free-to-use healthcare for literally everyone with zero disqualifications ever or get the hell out

Yeah but the billionaires don’t want to pay for that. Sure they easily could but they don’t wanna. They would rather you rely on their charity and their decisions about whether or not they wanna do that or not, since they made all that money all on their own. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted

Cenk is an oaf and a meathead who likes to yell. He's harmless. Apologizing or retracting the endorsement is IDIOTIC.

1) Cenk hasn't actually hurt anyone. He's just embarrassing.
2) This only encourages the people who are going to harp on Bernie. Feeding your trolls is a bad idea, and that's all this does.

Never apologize unless it is 100% warranted on the merits, never apologize to minimize controversy or satisfy people who cannot be satisfied.

Bernie and his campaign need to come out BREATHING FIRE about the anti-semitism accusations. 100% screaming offense. Get out in front and take control of it, because the scum in the middle and the scum on the right are absolutely going to try to make him out to be an anti-semite or a friend to anti-semites.

They won't, probably, which profoundly sucks.

However, Jeremy Corbyn is not a Bernie analogue. Corbyn has been very unpopular for a very long time. Also, the UK is not a stand-in for America. The UK is an 80+% white nation and it's a garbage island full of ugly goblins who sound like idiots. America is vast, diverse, and beautiful. America is amazing, the UK sucks. The NHS is the only worthwhile British thing and they're going to destroy that and basically become the Irish. Good riddance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28,596

Posted
Posted

HARMLESS????

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and revisit some of this “harmless” hatemonger’s greatest hits -

That’s why I’m talking about repressed homosexuality,” Uygur responded, feigning laughter. “Bob’s gay, right? OK, let’s do something in his ass.”

Kasparian pointed out that sexual abuse is often used as a form of intimidation.

“They say it’s about power," Uygur said. "But apparently, it’s also a little bit about sex. Not in every case, but the ones where they are trying to put something in your ass, it’s a little bit about sex."


“Obviously, the genes of women are flawed,” Uygur wrote. “They are poorly designed creatures who do not want to have sex nearly as often as needed for the human race to get along peaceably and fruitfully.”


Under an entry outlining the supposed “Rules of Dating,” Uygur said that “if I haven’t felt your tits” by the third date, “things are not about to last much longer. In fact, if you don’t get back on track by the fourth date, you’re done.”


But some of Uygur’s most bizarre remarks came long after he became an icon of the internet left. In a November 2016 Young Turks segment, Uygur defended the Harvard University soccer team for creating a list rating female students by their looks; in a segment three years earlier, Uygur himself said that men should rank women on a 1-10 scale based on how willing they would be to allow them to perform oral sex. In a 2012 discussion about incest porn, Uygur said that if he were single, he’d “do it.” One year later, he said that if he were a global dictator, he would legalize having sex with animals.


84fb74837df8a34bbc56be9c595e363a.plist4a528b758af6ee7fc4796d46f5d54b4b.plist89c2895879214c5c244be9d2e6ee675f.plist

No, he’s not just a harmless meathead who likes to yell.

He’s a racist, misogynistic, sexist, islamaphobic, genocide denier heap of garbage.

Bernie was absolutely wrong in endorsing him and minimizing the harm Cenk causes is Peak Bernie Bro.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted

“The stuff I wrote back then was really insensitive and ignorant,” Uygur said. “If you read that today, what I wrote 18 years ago, and you’re offended by it, you’re 100 percent right. And anyone who is subjected to that material, I apologize to. And I deeply regret having written that stuff when I was a different guy.”

Cenk used to be a transgressive right-winger in the 90s. In the 00s he started moving in a good direction and now he's a yelling meathead for good ideas as opposed to a yelling meathead for bad ideas. Again, I'm not an actual fan of Cenk. I don't watch TYT or care about it at all. I listen to Ana Kasparian sometimes because she's awesome and Hasan Piker sometimes because he's hot.

"Hatemonger"?

Jesus Christ.

The guy made a "gay guys like butt sex" joke in the fucking 1990s and in the last 10 years has done more to advance truly progressive, multi-ethnic, and multi-gender politics than any of the nannying scolds waggling fingers at him. There are ZERO accusations of actual inappropriate behavior from the myriad of women who have worked for and with him. That is the shit that actually matters, not misogynistic jokes from 20+ years ago.

Cenk is a dumb meathead. That's not an apology, it's an observation that comes from the reality of watching probably a grand total of 45 minutes of his work.

If you can tolerate listening to him, which I usually can't, Ana grills him on this negative stuff ~28 minutes into his own announcement video...

He's good. He's fine. He's got the head of a brick but a pretty important piece of motivational knowledge is stuck in that brick head right now and it's going to be far better and more useful than whatever garbage Dem would otherwise run for that seat.

If anyone can show me actual human living women who have had bad experiences with Cenk, I'm very happy to listen. Very happy. Because all I'm hearing are very POSITIVE things from the women who have worked with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted

It's great.

Bernie is a real-ass dude. He doesn't like being around politicians and rich people. He's uncomfortable with sharing his emotions. He is gripped by self-doubt. He is in denial about his mortality. He is incapable of bullshit smiles and is angered by the existence of forced happiness. His flaws are plain, open, and universal.

Fucking LOVE this old bastard.

(But when he dies, which will happen soon, next up for the revolution.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9,935

Posted
Posted

The positive evolution of America since 2008. There are signs America is waking up to the new economy:

Spoiler

Members of the new class of Democrats in Congress have made particularly effective use of populist, anti–Wall Street politics. Some routinely demand big bank heads answer for themselves and for the two-tiered justice system that enables them. “I represent kids that go to jail for jumping a turnstile because they can’t afford a Metrocard,” New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez informed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, perhaps the top Occupy enemy, up there with Bloomberg and the NYPD, earlier this year. “Do you think that more folks should have gone to jail for their role in a financial crisis that led to 7.8 million foreclosures in the 10 years between 2007 and 2016?” When Dimon criticized Warren, saying she “vilifies successful people,” Ocasio-Cortez remarked, “Y’all, the billionaires are asking for a safe space—you know, in addition to the entire U.S. economy and political lobbying industry.”

As the Democratic primary for the 2020 election wears on, it’s clear that the class-war politics some thought would vanish with the Occupy encampments has, instead, become commonplace. Public debate over now–presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax has been spun as an attack on billionaires themselves. Bloomberg, the ninth-richest person in America, is running for president, but in a climate in which wealth is increasingly a liability rather than an advantage.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, after Warren said he should open his fundraisers to the press, released a list of his top bundlers—supporters who have raised $25,000 or more for his campaign—but omitted more than 20 people from the worlds of Hollywood and finance. He is thought to have the third most billionaire donors of any candidate still in the race and is now protested at those fundraisers with chants of “#WallStreetPete!”

Then there’s the senator from Vermont who championed Occupy from the start. “They are focusing attention on the most powerful entity in our country, which is Wall Street, which is also the most secretive, and also the most dangerous,” Bernie Sanders said in a video at Occupy’s height. “The protesters are now forcing a debate and a discussion in this country on the huge issue of income and wealth inequality… the floor of the senate is 100 feet away from us, and I got to tell you, there are very few people who talk about that issue.” He closed with something that has become one of his campaign signatures: “We have to ask whether it is morally and economically important that 400 people own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people”—an enormous divide that has deepened.

A decade on, Occupy has helped mainstream that which they were ridiculed for at the outset: illustrating, in the streets and elsewhere, how economic inequality is poisonous to democracy. Critically, Occupy named the people who currently benefit from this destructive order. They also took steps to hold them to account and bring others into the fight. Despite having little appetite for electoral politics, they gained some congressional allies, including those whose runs for the White House may have been unimaginable without them. In that regard, Occupy has already set the terms for the decade to come: demanding not just accountability from the financial industry but also that, in the face of political corruption and financial villainy, the people divorce their worth from the rule of billionaires.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155989/democratic-party-learned-wage-class-warfare

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,132

Posted
Posted

Q4 money for Bernard

$34.5M total for Oct/Nov/Dec ($18M in Dec)
300k new donors
1.8M individual donations (5M total for the campaign cycle so far)

--------------

Q1
Sanders - $20.7M
Warren - $16.5M
Harris - $13.2M
Gillibrand - $12.6M
Buttigieg - $7.1M

Q2
Sanders - $25.7M
Buttigieg - $24.9M
Biden - $22M
Warren - $19.2M

Q3
Sanders - $28M
Warren - $24.7M
Buttigieg - $19.2M
Biden - $15.7M

Q4
Sanders - $34.5M
Buttigieg - $24.7M
Warren - ??
Biden - ??
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...