GOP supports "state's rights and small federal government"

[Gil Bang 25978]

 

[David Dennison 18924]

What is the biggest lie in American politics?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m curious what Trump’s response would be if you asked him about his thoughts on federalism.

[pyrohornIII 4815]

Not sure what his thoughts would be, but damned sure he couldn't spell it.

[Nivek 16945]

What is the biggest lie in American politics?

. Anything the GOP claims.

[softlynow 1816]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m curious what Trump’s response would be if you asked him about his thoughts on federalism.

He probably thinks Britney treated him “very unfairly.”

[TwiceHorn 31506]

As far as I can tell, though, internet and communications policy really ought to be done at the federal level.

[softlynow 1816]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as I can tell, though, internet and communications policy really ought to be done at the federal level.

The federal government ought to be led by a semi-sane person, with oversight by somewhat non-corrupt assholes. But elections have consequences. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Incredulity 11675]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as I can tell, though, internet and communications policy really ought to be done at the federal level.

California DGAF, emission standards out front should have told ya.

[Js1 85433]

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

What is the biggest lie in American politics?

Tax cuts pay for themselves

GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility

GOP shouldn't intervene in the bedroom or the doctor's office

 

It's hard to pick just one plank of the Republican platform that hasn't been the biggest lie in American politics

[Huckleberry 33015]

California DGAF, emission standards out front should have told ya.

What a silly non sequitur. You understand the difference between communications and emissions policies, right?

[Js1 85433]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

California DGAF, emission standards out front should have told ya.

What a silly non sequitur. You understand the difference between communications and emissions policies, right?

Nope, he said it in the 2nd word of his post.  DGAF = I'm not reading anything else, only the word "California"

[Incredulity 11675]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

4 hours ago, Incredulity said:

California DGAF, emission standards out front should have told ya.

What a silly non sequitur. You understand the difference between communications and emissions policies, right?

It’s pretty clear California is perfectly willing to set rules and regulations vastly different than Federal regulations.  California emissions standards are a perfectly valid example of that.

[Huckleberry 33015]

Okay, so you simply completely missed the point of TwiceHorn's post. There are valid reasons for the federal government to control communications regulations as the very nature of communications is to traverse state lines. Therefore commenting on California's emission standards is completely irrelevant.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Huckleberry

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

You forgot to mention the "free market." They like to claim they support that too. Their actions speak louder than their words. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

55 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Okay, so you simply completely missed the point of TwiceHorn's post. There are valid reasons for the federal government to control communications regulations as the very nature of communications is to traverse state lines. Therefore commenting on California's emission standards is completely irrelevant.

Actually, internet communications standards should be global, and nations that fail to meet those standards should have their interconnections severed. 

[Incredulity 11675]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Okay, so you simply completely missed the point of TwiceHorn's post. There are valid reasons for the federal government to control communications regulations as the very nature of communications is to traverse state lines. Therefore commenting on California's emission standards is completely irrelevant.

No, you miss the point.  California's emission standards have a large impact on the global production of everything from small engines to diesel engines.  

Point is California is completely willing to use its market size to regulate other states.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No, you miss the point.  California's emission standards have a large impact on the global production of everything from small engines to diesel engines.  

Point is California is completely willing to use its market size to regulate other states.

They are forced to do so when the federal government abandons its duty to regulate.  When it comes to emissions, LA is a smog trap.  They have no choice but to either have stronger emissions standards or limit the number of autos.  Personally, I'd prefer the latter.  They should be focusing on densifying and increasing mass transit usage.  Either way, they have a waiver from the feds to regulate auto emissions.  

With net neutrality, they aren't countering any federal regulations.  The feds aren't regulating.

Edited October 1, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[hpslugga 4062]

8 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No, you miss the point.  California's emission standards have a large impact on the global production of everything from small engines to diesel engines.  

Point is California is completely willing to use its market size to regulate other states.

This thread isn't about emission standards. That's why he correctly asserted that you missed the point. Your "point" is not relevant in the slightest.

[Incredulity 11675]

Just now, hpslugga said:

This thread isn't about emission standards. That's why he correctly asserted that you missed the point. Your "point" is not relevant in the slightest.

Bullshit.  The thread is States Rights vs. Federalism.

 

[F250 28786]

44 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Actually, internet communications standards should be global, and nations that fail to meet those standards should have their interconnections severed. 

Are we talking about IEEE type stuff where you conform or become incompatible or just good old fashion severing of submarine cables?

 

[Incredulity 11675]

Just now, F250 said:

Are we talking about IEEE type stuff where you conform or become incompatible or just good old fashion severing of submarine cables?

 

Spacefore shooting satellites out of the sky.

[Huckleberry 33015]

22 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

No, you miss the point.  California's emission standards have a large impact on the global production of everything from small engines to diesel engines.  

Point is California is completely willing to use its market size to regulate other states.

California makes rules that California wants for California.

The impact of those rules on other States or huge corporations that want to standardize their offerings across the entire nation is not California's fault. It's just more corporate crying. Do you believe in States' Rights or not?

Edited October 1, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Incredulity 11675]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

California makes rules that California wants for California.

The impact of those rules on other States or huge corporations that want to standardize their offerings across the entire nation is not California's fault. It's just more corporate crying.

So full blown States Rights then?  

[Huckleberry 33015]

I believe in States' Rights more than you do, that much is clear.

[Incredulity 11675]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

I believe in States' Rights more than you do, that much is clear.

If you agree with California having its own set of rules regarding NN you certainly do.

I don't think 50(or more) disparate standards for  things that massive impact on Interstate Commerce is the correct course of action.

[American Swindle 102]

I be for State's Rights up in dis mug..

It really allows other states to see if it works or what the unintended consequences are for other states..On a smaller scale, for example, Seattle's minimum wage laws gave us all perspective of the real world consequences of such policies.  

Regulating the information from the internet is a slippery slope though, it will take more government and busy bodies on the taxpayer dime to regulate.  Who will regulate them to make sure they aren't silencing voices that they just do not like?  

[Huckleberry 33015]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If you agree with California having its own set of rules regarding NN you certainly do.

I don't think 50(or more) disparate standards for  things that massive impact on Interstate Commerce is the correct course of action.

While I agree with you on internet rules, the fault lies with the FCC when they recently stated that they have no power to regulate ISPs. If the federal government has no power to do something, then guess what the 10th Amendment says?

[softlynow 1816]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I don't think 50(or more) disparate standards for  things that massive impact on Interstate Commerce is the correct course of action.

I agree with this. But your posting up to this point has been about mostly irrelevant things. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

25 minutes ago, F250 said:

Are we talking about IEEE type stuff where you conform or become incompatible or just good old fashion severing of submarine cables?

 

Not exactly severing.  Disconnection at landing or termination stations.  I wouldn't make it overly burdensome to resume connectivity once a nation is in compliance.

It does become more difficult with large land boundaries, or countries that require transit through 3rd party countries.  Canada, for example, typically routes routine Canada-to-Canada traffic through US exchange points.  And you'd also need to have contingency plans for small countries that rely on nearby larger countries for interconnection if that larger country became non-compliant.

It wouldn't be the simplest thing, but when the alternative is allowing rogue states to meddle in your elections and hack your infrastructure, it seems like a good idea.  Especially when those rogue states are already restricting you from accessing their internal networks remotely.

I do realize that good businesses, like cloud service providers, would be fucked if their country isn't compliant.

Edited October 1, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[David Dennison 18924]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If you agree with California having its own set of rules regarding NN you certainly do.

I don't think 50(or more) disparate standards for  things that massive impact on Interstate Commerce is the correct course of action.

Way off topic, but that's an excellent argument for the Affordable Care Act.

Just sayin'.

Edited October 1, 2018 by David Dennison

[Incredulity 11675]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

That's an excellent argument for the Affordable Care Act.

You can try to spin my words any way you want.  

In no way am I saying that all Federal regulations are the right intrinsic answer.

 

[David Dennison 18924]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 You can try to spin my words any way you want.  

In no way am I saying that all Federal regulations are the right intrinsic answer.

 

Just the ones you like.

Got it.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just the ones you like.

Got it.

For example, he probably loved DOMA, but would hate a federal pro gay marriage law.  He certainly hates that the SCOTUS effectively made it happen.  He loves federal communications laws that Verizon writes, but hates federal communication laws that protect the consumer.

Think of the poor auto manufacturers.  They shouldn't have to care about air quality in LA.  Let's go back to when it looked like Beijing.  Meanwhile, even Beijing is trying not to look like Beijing anymore.

[Incredulity 11675]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Just the ones you like.

Got it.

What a completely disingenuous argument.

Of course, there are Federal rules and regs I agree with and those that I don't.  

Thats not the point.  The point is there are matters that should be handled Federally and matters that should be handled by the States.

IMPO, NN isn't an issue that should rightfully handled by the States.

[Incredulity 11675]

9 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

For example, he probably loved DOMA, but would hate a federal pro gay marriage law.  He certainly hates that the SCOTUS effectively made it happen.  He loves federal communications laws that Verizon writes, but hates federal communication laws that protect the consumer.

Think of the poor auto manufacturers.  They shouldn't have to care about air quality in LA.  Let's go back to when it looked like Beijing.  Meanwhile, even Beijing is trying not to look like Beijing anymore.

Yup, It's the status quo. Never let an opportunity to besmirch a poster who has any philosophy that is remotely conservative pass you by.

 

[F250 28786]

16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Not exactly severing.  Disconnection at landing or termination stations.  I wouldn't make it overly burdensome to resume connectivity once a nation is in compliance.

It does become more difficult with large land boundaries, or countries that require transit through 3rd party countries.  Canada, for example, typically routes routine Canada-to-Canada traffic through US exchange points.  And you'd also need to have contingency plans for small countries that rely on nearby larger countries for interconnection if that larger country became non-compliant.

It wouldn't be the simplest thing, but when the alternative is allowing rogue states to meddle in your elections and hack your infrastructure, it seems like a good idea.  Especially when those rogue states are already restricting you from accessing their internal networks remotely.

I do realize that good businesses, like cloud service providers, would be fucked if their country isn't compliant.

Enforcing something like this would be extremely difficult. You mentioned CSP's being fucked if their country isn't compliant, it would actually be CSP's being fucked if any of their countries are not compliant. These are global entities spread out across the world. Still, I think dealing with CSP's would be easier than companies that handle internet infrastructure services like Dyn or Akamai whose presence is much more globaly spread out and critical to the routing of internet traffic.

I can't imagine something like this ever happening to any nation with any international influence or nation backed by a multinational corporation. Shit, I doubt Exxon Mobil would even allow a place like Nigeria to be taken offline.

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yup, It's the status quo. Never let an opportunity to besmirch a poster who has any philosophy that is remotely conservative pass you by.

 

You aren't conservative.

[Chrispy 132]

Here’s a pro tip: if California believes something is a good idea, then do the opposite. 

[Nivek 16945]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Here’s a pro tip: if California believes something is a good idea, then do the opposite. 

California likes football.   Do the opposite and quit this place.

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

If you agree with California having its own set of rules regarding NN you certainly do.

I don't think 50(or more) disparate standards for  things that massive impact on Interstate Commerce is the correct course of action.

I didn't realize we had 50 (or more) disparate standards for emissions.

[Chrispy 132]

5 minutes ago, Nivek said:

California likes football.   Do the opposite and quit this place.

[Incredulity 11675]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I didn't realize we had 50 (or more) disparate standards for emissions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

 

• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

[Huckleberry 33015]

Look, Incredulity, you are a self-proclaimed tech idiot so I'm not sure why you're so eager to get into this discussion again. But since you are, your post about intellectual honesty makes zero sense whatsoever.

High Plains Drifter is clearly pointing out that your concern that we would end up with 50 (or more) net neutrality standards is countered by the fact that we don't have that many different emissions standards. I mean you certainly think that emissions standards are relevant to this topic, right? You argued as much earlier. So why are they now irrelevant when he brings them up?

Edited October 1, 2018 by Huckleberry

[Incredulity 11675]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Look, Incredulity, you are a self-proclaimed tech idiot so I'm not sure why you're so eager to get into this discussion again. But since you are, your post about intellectual honesty makes zero sense whatsoever.

High Plains Drifter is clearly pointing out that your concern that we would end up with 50 (or more) net neutrality standards is countered by the fact that we don't have that many different emissions standards. I mean you certainly think that emissions standards are relevant to this topic, right? You argued as much earlier. So why are they now irrelevant when he brings them up?

This discussion is about States rights versus Federalism.

My point is quite fucking clear.  There are issues that should be decided by the Federal Government.  Specifically, those that have to do with Interstate Commerce.

 

 

[Huckleberry 33015]

That point is not clear at all when you make irrelevant posts about emissions standards. If you would actually stick to that instead of being snarky about irrelevant things like emissions then you wouldn't have to deal with that tangent being thrown back at you like HPD did right there.

[Incredulity 11675]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That point is not clear at all when you make irrelevant posts about emissions standards. If you would actually stick to that instead of being snarky about irrelevant things like emissions then you wouldn't have to deal with that tangent being thrown back at you like HPD did right there.

So I get this straight.

The standard you see represented in the Politics forum of Surly Bevo is not being snarky?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

15 hours ago, David Dennison said:

What is the biggest lie in American politics?

We can’t afford x, y, or z because it would run up the debt.   

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Bullshit.  The thread is States Rights vs. Federalism.

 

Look. I believe (and I think most would agree with me) that some things are best handled at the federal level, and some at the state level. We may disagree about the details.

However, OP's point was that the GOP continuously goes on and on about "States Rights!", then as often as not shows its hypocrisy by doing things like suing Ca when that state does something they don't like.

I mean is it really that hard to say "Some things are better left to the states, some aren't"?