peterms Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, mjmooney said: Not in Lancashire/Yorkshire. Surely two if not three e's required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2017 35 minutes ago, peterms said: Surely two if not three e's required. Well, yes, but times are 'ard. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Analysis this morn is putting this down as more of a huge anti-Moore protest vote rather that either pro Jones or anti-Trump. I saw some amazing exit polling last night where childless couples went for Moore by a few percent margin, but couples with kids were massively against. A small slice of sanity. I'm a little torn though as this also has the side effect of de-railing the Bannon train (perhaps only temporarily) and he was setting up to do a huge amount of damage to the mainstream Republican party (whatever that is these days). I wonder how much extra pork will get tacked onto the tax bill to make up for this missing senate vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted December 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2017 7 hours ago, peterms said: Obviously a lot to do with the candidate, but the result combined with Trump's low approval ratings may make some Republicans fear for losing their seats and a bit less likely to do his bidding. Perhaps less likely to support him in blocking the Mueller inquiry. Any of our US posters have a take on this? House Judiciary Committee hearing right now and the Republican chairman is going after the Mueller inquiry and FBI staff big time. They want another special counsel to investigate Mueller and his team. Muddy the waters, confuse and distract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 13, 2017 Author Share Posted December 13, 2017 9 hours ago, peterms said: Obviously a lot to do with the candidate, but the result combined with Trump's low approval ratings may make some Republicans fear for losing their seats and a bit less likely to do his bidding. Perhaps less likely to support him in blocking the Mueller inquiry. Any of our US posters have a take on this? Yep, that's a good read. It weakens Trump's hand. He's endorsed three candidates now and they've all lost. He's at 33% approval rating and has Mueller looming. He's almost a lame duck at this point, toxic to his own party. Republicans have already been walking a tightrope, this election result just makes things more difficult. They'll still try to ram home this tax bill though. The question now is will McCain seat Jones before the vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Apparently Jones won't be seated until December 26th at the earliest, and maybe early Jan, but Jones' seat wasn't essential for passing the tax reform anyway. Leaves literally no margin for error though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted December 13, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, maqroll said: Yep, that's a good read. It weakens Trump's hand. He's endorsed three candidates now and they've all lost. He's at 33% approval rating and has Mueller looming. He's almost a lame duck at this point, toxic to his own party. Republicans have already been walking a tightrope, this election result just makes things more difficult. They'll still try to ram home this tax bill though. The question now is will McCain* seat Jones before the vote. That's the hopeful read from us on the left side of the aisle. If you read/watch the other side they see things very differently re: Mueller. They are convinced that it is a George Soros/Clinton funded witch hunt packed with partizan hacks led by Mueller who is the love child of Obama & Ted Kennedy. Ok I exaggerate, but they are desperate to dis-credit Mueller and the agent Strzok debacle is giving them the ammunition. *I think you mean 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 13, 2017 Author Share Posted December 13, 2017 Yes, the other Mc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czechlad Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 12 hours ago, maqroll said: 25 % voter turnout should tell Dems that if they can get black people and young people in general to the polls (without GOP obstruction), these deep south red states can be flipped. There are far more democrats in the US than republicans. I think it's near a 3 to 2 ration for dems to republicans. Problem is a huge number of young democrats just can't be bothered to vote. Long lines, conflicting work hours, and other responsibilities get in the way. I know for the presidential elections a lot of places had 1-2 hour waits to vote. For people who have stuff to do, or responsibilities, that is tough to justify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I know the accusations are just that, and not a conviction, but it's amazing how the demographic that spawned 'pizzagate' was willing to ignore 9 separate sexual assault accusations. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 13, 2017 Author Share Posted December 13, 2017 18 minutes ago, Czechlad said: There are far more democrats in the US than republicans. The problem is, they aren't spread out enough to dominate, the Trump election demonstrates this. I recently read that the congresspeople from Massachusetts, New York and California represent half of congressional Democrats. The party needs to make inroads in red areas, and the win last night proves that it can be done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 35 minutes ago, TheAuthority said: That's the hopeful read from us on the left side of the aisle. If you read/watch the other side they see things very differently re: Mueller. They are convinced that it is a George Soros/Clinton funded witch hunt packed with partizan hacks led by Mueller who is the love child of Obama & Ted Kennedy. Ok I exaggerate, but they are desperate to dis-credit Mueller and the agent Strzok debacle is giving them the ammunition. *I think you mean It's not just purely conspiracy stuff. Yes, it's a bit pot/kettle from the republicans, but see also the the recently demoted Mr. Ohr at DoJ and his wife who worked for Fusion GPS and the CIA. Not to mention, it has been reported that it was Mr. Strzok who made the critical edit in the Comey statement that allowed Hillary to get away with mis-handling classified data in a manner that has resulted in prosecutions by Obama, who came down very hard on "leaks". There are legitimate concerns here about the politicization of the instruments of the state security apparatus by the previous administration. Talking of Russia interfering in the election is a bit rich given how it appears members of the DoJ/FBI and CIA were working politically during the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 4 hours ago, maqroll said: He's almost a lame duck at this point, toxic to his own party. King Lear: "Let go thy hold when a great wheel runs down a hill, lest it break thy neck with following it. But the great one that goes up the hill, let him draw thee after." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I keep hearing bits and pieces about how corrupt the US voting system is, but I really don't understand how it has been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 My goodness, what a dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 14, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 14, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: My goodness, what a dick. That's what she said. Edited December 14, 2017 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42355666 Quote Net neutrality rules weakened by US regulator Restrictions on US broadband providers' ability to prioritise one service's data over another are to be reduced after a vote by a regulator. The Federal Communications Commission split three to two in favour of changing the way "net neutrality" is governed. Internet service providers (ISPs) will now be allowed to speed up or slow down different companies' data, and charge consumers according to the services they access. But they must disclose such practices. Proceedings in Washington were halted for about 15 minutes after a security alert forced an evacuation of the FCC's chamber. Campaigners claim the reversal of rules introduced under President Barack Obama will make the internet less open and accessible. But the FCC's chairman Ajit Pai has suggested the move will foster innovation and encourage ISPs to invest in faster connections for people living in rural areas. He refers to the change as "restoring internet freedom". Technically, the vote was to reclassify broadband internet as an information service rather than telecommunications. The consequence of this is that the FCC will no longer directly regulate ISPs. Instead jurisdiction will pass to another regulator, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Its key responsibility will be to check that the companies disclose if they block data, throttle it or offer to prioritise traffic, rather than stopping such behaviour. One criticism of this is that consumers often have few if any ISPs to choose between. Moreover, opponents of the change claim it could take years to address any misbehaviour. "I dissent to this legally-lightweight, consumer-harming, corporate-enabling, destroying-internet freedom order," said Democrat commissioner Mignon Clyburn ahead of the vote. But fellow commissioner Michael O'Rielly, a Republican, said fears over the end of net neutrality were a "scary bedtime story for the children of telecom geeks".New York's attorney general Eric Schneiderman has said he will lead a lawsuit challenging the FCC's decision. Mr Schneiderman accused the watchdog of failing to investigate possible abuse of the public commenting process. He said as many as two million identities, some of dead New Yorkers, were used to post comments to the FCC website. During the hearing, FCC commissioner Michael O'Rielly said staff had been able to determine and discard comments that were illegitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted December 14, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 14, 2017 14 minutes ago, mjmooney said: That's what she said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tegis Posted December 14, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted December 14, 2017 41 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: But the FCC's chairman Ajit Pai has suggested the move will foster innovation and encourage ISPs to invest in faster connections for people living in rural areas. He refers to the change as "restoring internet freedom". How can one say this with a straight face? Clowns! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted December 14, 2017 Share Posted December 14, 2017 Perhaps off topic, but how does that change affect the neutrality of the internet outside of the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts