This is a no go zone for the police that's why there is so many wannabe cops in here.

Inauguration day is over and the feeling seems to be if at all it was a rather feeble historic moment. The bitching about the lower size of the cheering crowd compared to the popular predecessor was just pathetic. The lying about the alleged lying of the bad, bad press (which was actually telling the truth) was even worse.

But it only reinforces what I feel the whole time, that I cannot understand how anyone could ever vote for Trump. I just never saw him as president material. Cruz or someone else I may have understood but Trump just ever was a no go for me. It's like me and Trump voters come from different planets.

Now let's see how the other plans are going.

Congratulations. Now you feel what communists felt, when Soviet Union collapsed.
Welcome to the 21st century.

As a German, it's normal that you see people like Bepe Grillo as an alien when in the next elections, you'll only have the choice between Merkel and Martin Schulz for the chancellorship ;)

I specifically meant Trump as someone I would never even dream of voting for, but we have now right wing populists too as in all the other countries. So there is more choice, only the top candidates of the right wing party in Germany are a bit ludicrous. One of them gave a speech lately and it was an x-double minus performance, so bad I don't even know where to start.

Trumps choice of FCC chairman seemed very shady to me first, but this forbes article seems to say he's pro net neutrality : http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#2f0716184c7f
If he is indeed pro NN and a good person for the job, then that seems consistent with Trump's pulling out of the TPP, both of which seem pro-freedom and anti-large corporations to me. Then again, I don't know what Trump HAS done in other fields so he might be sucking corporate dick elsewhere.

I don't really see how Ajit Pai is pro-net neutrality. The guy used to be a lawyer for Verizon, which was IIRC against net neutrality and he came out rather heavily against the regulations instated 2 years ago to enforce net neutrality. He stated that there were far too many regulations at the FCC. The article seems to state he says he agrees with the basic principles behind net neutrality, not net neutrality as we currently know it.

What I think "agreeing with the basics behind net neutrality" means is: "I agree that ISPs giving "premium customers" an advantage is evil, but government regulations preventing that behavior is an even bigger evil". In practice, that would mean the major ISPs would be let off the leash under the assumption that the free market would encourage them to do the right thing instead.

I'm not sure if Trump could really be called anti-large corporations to begin with. Not only has he been appointing corporate execs left and right for government positions, but he's the exec of a large corporation himself. He's not gonna do anything that negatively affects his company's bottom line.

But is there a relation between increasing internet speed and NN? Aren't internet speeds going up all the time anyway? Even in the US where there isn't government regulation, isn't there competition to offer more speed at lesser price already?

I see your point, but the primary concern is that if you could pay more for toll roads, those who could pay would pay more to use it exclusively, focing those who could pay less to use a dirt path. We don't have guarantee from the ISPs about what they'll do. They can increase access speed and offer that to those who can pay more, or they could keep their current maximum access speed and overcharge on every level now that that maximum is up for auction.

Here is the problem with this... the media fucking spun this big time. Spicer got run over about something he was ultimately correct about. He said there was a tweet that framed the crowd size as smaller than it was, as far as I know he never specified which tweet. During the campaign the media would regularly take close up pictures to make Hillary's crowd look bigger (when she had only a few hundred people) and to make Trump's look smaller when he had about 10,000 people show up. This happened a lot and was easily proven. So I'm willing to believe this may have happened. He then gave some statics that they were wrongly given and he corrected himself 2 days later, saying it was not intentional. It happens.

But then comes the part that is really fucked up. He said essentially something like "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe". What did the media do? Some of them reported he said "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period" cutting off part of the quote and then contributed it to crowd sizes. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know "around the globe" would include tv ratings and other ways of watching (computers, tablets, phones...). Even if we take only what data has been released... it pretty much was the biggest watched inauguration ever. Trumps inauguration broke streaming records according to tech crunch which doesn't even include all the data from every place where the event could be streamed. One just had to add that to the tv ratings.

The biased media spun it and the left took it at face value and crucified him as lying... alternative facts were the real facts. He called them out on this on Monday's press conference, reading his direct quote and they still kept spinning it.

I dislike Cruz way more than Trump. I can understand how someone can dislike Trump, I didn't like him either for the longest time. I slowly changed as I got more involved and started looking at him and Hilary. Hilary was the bigger of the two evils if you ask me, when you actually looked at the things NOT being reported by the media.

Now sure Trump is a bit of a lose cannon, and I have no doubt he is going to say controversial shit every week... but he is doing what he has pledged to do and is getting shit done rather quickly, even if you disagree with his policies. I don't really care what he says... as long as he sticks to his polices (some/most of which I can agree on) then he is fine with me.

Honestly after this election and all the of the crap I have seen coming from the liberal media and the liberal left... I'm not sure if I could vote for a democrat after this. They would have to make some drastic ideological changes and drop identity politics for me to vote for them.

You already answered your question right here, This IS THE POINT. the internet was a technology that moved too fast for the government to crush it early. As you also noted, and what I pointed out, the FREE MARKET of the Internet proved that adding gov has no benefit at all. It is undeniable fact, speed has increased, access has increased, price has decreased, free speech grew and you have competition from telcos, cable cos, and other ISPs. Why make it a monopoly and regulate it like a utility? So gov has domination over it, that is it.

As far as paying tolls, yeah, that is how toll roads work. People willing to pay for the road pay the toll, those unwilling to pay the toll take streets with more traffic. It's also the fairest tax in the world. Those who use the road the most spend the most on it. Here in Florida, we have no state income tax. We have toll roads in Orlando and Miami. It is great, it ensure tourists who use the roads pay for it. We also have a hotel tax and car rental tax for the state. Y'all use a ton of our resources so you pay your share too, and we have no state income tax. But we keep our beaches great and our cities clean.

Also, no content delivery has the same price. Mail anything and the price will depend on size, weight, destination, speed or delivery and importance. Mail a 10 pound baby gift certified overnight 6,000 miles to another country, or mail your local water bill, they are not the same price. All content is not the same.

Typical "free market" hooey that ignores the fact that monopolies are *never* a good thing. The notion that giant corporations should be allowed to police themselves is just as wrongheaded as allowing government to police itself. If "big government" is bad -- and it is -- so too is "big corporation", because in both cases you have unaccountable and unwieldy hierarchies that are completely antithetical to civil liberties such as free speech.

Free market hooey? We don't have monopolies right now because of the free market. Hence how AOL came and went. It is why so much competition exists for the internet. Also, take a look at who supported NN. Google, Netflix, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Ebay, Level 3, Yahoo, Linkdin, Foursquare. Real tiny companies.

gee they supported NN because it helped smaller companies, start ups, new businesses and competition. Seriously, wake up.

Business is always accountable. A business has to survive everyday. Sears is going to be gone, so is KMart. Woolworth bit the dust ages ago, A&P was the first billion dollar company, and larger than Walmart in its prime adjusted for population and inflation - gone.

As for your free speech argument, yeah, which is why (always from the left) facebook, twitter keep censoring truth and banning accounts. So now Gab has come along to challenge twitter because it allows free speech. You think we need gov to silence our speech like in Europe? Or what the Canadian gov is proposing? Hell No!

And fast lane options are awesome. Just like choosing shipments. Do I want 2-day, 3-day or 5-day delivery. How important is it too me? How much will I pay? At least I have the option. How awesome would it be if GoG competing with Steam bought fast-lane download, Steam gets throttled some but my GOG games download super fast. It adds competition.

The most capitalist countries in the world have risen to the top. The most government have sunk to the bottom. USA or Cuba?

Japan, UK, Australia or USSR, Venezuela, Argentina?

South Korea or North Korea?

Damn, didn't see this reply this morning.
Yeah he seems to be a supporter in principle only, and where the principle is defined quite vaguely itself. He is in the ''NN (as we know it) is interventionism'' camp and that might not be ideal. AFAIK the last chair was also a former lobbyist type, but NN at least stood during his term. Hopefully it stands in this guy's as well.

It also helps deal with voter fraud.


I think the EC is a good thing...However, one could make a case for rejiggering with the EC because originally only land owners could vote.



I can't speak for Trump liking Putin, but I believe Putin likes Trump because he sees Trump as his best chance of the US leaving NATO.