Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 148.2: Still, Don't Sexually Assault People

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah, I am not pro-Franken at this point, because of the second allegation.

I am 100% decrying both of them for the exact same thing >_>
---

"Grabbing ass as elected officials" sounds awesome.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Either way, if allegations are true, they were both grabbing ass as elected officials.

Umm, the allegations against Bush are from well after he left office (i think they are all from after his son left office actually). He literally was going senile at this point; this isn't people just going, "lol dirty old men."
---

First on CNN: New George H.W. Bush accuser says he groped her during 1992 re-election campaign

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/george-h-w-bush-accuser-1992/index.html

I've not read this whole article, but the gist from other articles is H.W. was still President when he grabbed a 30 year old's ass.
---

HaRRicH posted...

First on CNN: New George H.W. Bush accuser says he groped her during 1992 re-election campaign

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/george-h-w-bush-accuser-1992/index.html

I've not read this whole article, but the gist from other articles is H.W. was still President when he grabbed a 30 year old's ass.

You seem to really care a lot about the subject.
---

Can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.
---

HaRRicH posted...

Can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.

Both.
---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

"Grabbing ass as elected officials" sounds awesome.

Might need some work but it's going under the "potential album names" folder.
---

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/932685522820042754

lmao
---

FFDragon posted...

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/932685522820042754

lmao

God damn do I miss Obama.
---

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-shutting-down-his-charitable-foundation-n822636

Shutting down conflicts of interest appropriately? Trying to hide his bad financial dealings? What's the call here?
---

HaRRicH posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-shutting-down-his-charitable-foundation-n822636

Shutting down conflicts of interest appropriately? Trying to hide his bad financial dealings? What's the call here?

>.> If he were shutting down conflicts of interest, it wouldn't really be just the charity.
---

Hasn't this been planned for some time?
---

I'm pretty sure he's been trying to shut it down for a long time, but was literally blocked from doing so because it was under investigation by the state of New York.

So yeah, almost 100% certain to be doing this to conceal things
---

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/senate-gop-tax-plan-to-ultimately-raise-taxes-for-half-of-us-tax-policy-center.html

I seem to recall immediately after the election a number of users being ok with the result specifically because it meant more money in their pockets.

I seem to also recall thinking these users were selfish, uncivilized fucks.

Well now they'll be selfish, uncivilized fucks with less money if this tax plan passes.
---

No one thinks long-term, so the uninformed people who are still for it won't care. Even still, the immediate tax cuts are piddly for the vast majority of people, so maybe they won't be happy with an extra $1 in their paycheck each week? I dunno.

This thing probably passes too.
---

The FCC plans to destroy net neutrality and the free internet as we know it:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347868A1.pdf

Still more proof that Republicans care more about corporations than people.
---

I am still not entirely sure what the argument for it, other than "the ISPs can now make even more money" or "Obama was for it so it has to be bad".
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

the ISPs can now make even more money

This is literally it.

They're just blatantly lying about it to try to minimize outrage from regular people.
---

Yeah I love this line:

"Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan thats best for them"

As if large swaths of the country aren't locked into a single ISP.
---

Say what you want, but I would not be unhappy if Pai dropped dead right now.
---

Like, I understand that's an excessively cruel thing to say, but jfc the man is knowingly awful
---

Today in dumb stuff Trump says:

https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/933034764424052736
---

The Mana Sword posted...

As if large swaths of the country aren't locked into a single ISP.

Yeah, it's always funny how they pretend monopolies aren't monopolies.

"Customers can always just switch plans from... whichever telecomm monopoly runs in their area to... err well HughesNet Dialup I guess?"
---

To be fair, many (most?) places have a telecom and a cable option.

But that's not much better.
---

Honestly, it's time to just have local governments create their own Internet Service. It worked in Sandy Oregon. Do away with the telecom monopolies altogether.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Honestly, it's time to just have local governments create their own Internet Service.

Doesn't that usually end up with the state government making it illegal for local governments to do that? Throwing money into projects the big ISPs will just end up shutting down seems like a big waste to me.
---

Shaduln posted...

To be fair, many (most?) places have a telecom and a cable option.

But that's not much better.

You really don't. I can get 2 MBPS download speed on Verizon or I can get up to 200 MBPS download speed on Comcast.

Is Verizon a real option?
---

Xeybozn posted...

Doesn't that usually end up with the state government making it illegal for local governments to do that? Throwing money into projects the big ISPs will just end up shutting down seems like a big waste to me.

It works in Sandy Oregon. Obviously some states would have difficulty (especially Red States I imagine).but I think it can work.

I mean SandyNet seems to work pretty well. Nobody's shut it down yet. And it's not exactly slow internet service either. They can get like 300 mbps for $40/month (except in rural areas, where it's only 5 mbps, but that's still way better than most rural areas. And they can get 10 mbps for $50/mont)
---

Dancedreamer posted...

(except in rural areas, where it's only 5 mbps, but that's still way better than most rural areas.

Not really

So it still doesn't solve the problem of screwing people with fewer options
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Not really

Yes, really. A lot of rural areas can't even get 2 mbps.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

Not really

Yes, really. A lot of rural areas can't even get 2 mbps.

I live in pretty much as rural as it gets, and the minimum was 3.
---

Corrik posted...

Shaduln posted...

To be fair, many (most?) places have a telecom and a cable option.

But that's not much better.

You really don't. I can get 2 MBPS download speed on Verizon or I can get up to 200 MBPS download speed on Comcast.

Is Verizon a real option?

I have fiber optic through my telecom instead of cable. I'm not saying everyone has that option, but many do.

Also, a 5M speed (pretty normal for a DSL offering) is fine for many people. Not if you're trying to game, sure, but browsing and email etc would be fine.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I live in pretty much as rural as it gets, and the minimum was 3.

A friend of mine lives in a fairly suburban area, and can't get more than 1.5 mbps. And some people have NO access to high speed internet at all.
---

"39 percent of rural Americans (23 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps."

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report
---

Shaduln posted...

Corrik posted...

Shaduln posted...

To be fair, many (most?) places have a telecom and a cable option.

But that's not much better.

You really don't. I can get 2 MBPS download speed on Verizon or I can get up to 200 MBPS download speed on Comcast.

Is Verizon a real option?

I have fiber optic through my telecom instead of cable. I'm not saying everyone has that option, but many do.

Also, a 5M speed (pretty normal for a DSL offering) is fine for many people. Not if you're trying to game, sure, but browsing and email etc would be fine.

But if you're going to go that route, then net neutrality being gone isn't going to effect 99.9% of people who just browse and email, anyway.
---

I think my point is that "300mbps! Oh unless you're rural then 5" isn't really something to tout as a roaring success over what most rural have, anyway. 5mbps isn't really going to let you do anything you can't do on 2-3.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Shaduln posted...

Corrik posted...

Shaduln posted...

To be fair, many (most?) places have a telecom and a cable option.

But that's not much better.

You really don't. I can get 2 MBPS download speed on Verizon or I can get up to 200 MBPS download speed on Comcast.

Is Verizon a real option?

I have fiber optic through my telecom instead of cable. I'm not saying everyone has that option, but many do.

Also, a 5M speed (pretty normal for a DSL offering) is fine for many people. Not if you're trying to game, sure, but browsing and email etc would be fine.

But if you're going to go that route, then net neutrality being gone isn't going to effect 99.9% of people who just browse and email, anyway.

I'm not saying that having two choices is fine, I'm just saying there often are two choices instead of just one. Also not saying ending net neutrality is good, because it's not.
---

Shaduln posted...

I'm not saying that having two choices is fine, I'm just saying there often are two choices instead of just one. Also not saying ending net neutrality is good, because it's not.

Oh, no, I get that.

I'm just saying that the standard shouldn't be "browsing and email" for this kind of discussion, because then it doesn't matter whether net neutrality exists or not and the debate just dies.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I think my point is that "300mbps! Oh unless you're rural then 5" isn't really something to tout as a roaring success over what most rural have, anyway. 5mbps isn't really going to let you do anything you can't do on 2-3.

Did you miss where I said they also offer 10 to rural areas?

Also 5 vs 2-3 is a pretty big difference.

Let's say you want to download a 20GB game (or even just an update to a game that's 20 GB, which isn't that unusual anymore)

Under 2 mbps it would take you roughly 24 hours to download that update.
Under 5 mbps it would only take you 9 1/2 hours to download that same update
(and obviously under 10 mbps it would take you roughly 5 hours)
---

You know what I really miss from the turkey pardon?

Dad jokes.
---

61% of people living in rural areas have access to at least 25Mbps up and 3Mbps down
---

35% of people living in rural areas have NO access to high speed internet.
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rural-areas-internet-access-dawsonville-georgia/
---

Dancedreamer posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

I think my point is that "300mbps! Oh unless you're rural then 5" isn't really something to tout as a roaring success over what most rural have, anyway. 5mbps isn't really going to let you do anything you can't do on 2-3.

Did you miss where I said they also offer 10 to rural areas?

Also 5 vs 2-3 is a pretty big difference.

Let's say you want to download a 20GB game (or even just an update to a game that's 20 GB, which isn't that unusual anymore)

Under 2 mbps it would take you roughly 24 hours to download that update.
Under 5 mbps it would only take you 9 1/2 hours to download that same update
(and obviously under 10 mbps it would take you roughly 5 hours)

Sure, if you're only considering download speeds.

5mbps is the bare minimum most streaming services require, these days, and having that is typically going to knock you down into "SD only" territory on most services, anyway, same as 2-3 would. It's still pretty bad for anything but basic downloading and browsing/email.

I get your point, and it's not a bad one. My main point is the bigger issue is that rural still gets mostly fucked either way, and still only really have one option. In most areas, local government is not going to be able to be that option (or just won't). It's a nice thought and it's cool that it works in that area, but it's still not an ideal solution to just... Not fucking with a good thing (net neutrality).
---

Dancedreamer posted...

35% of people living in rural areas have NO access to high speed internet.
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rural-areas-internet-access-dawsonville-georgia/

NFUN posted...

"39 percent of rural Americans (23 million people) lack access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps."

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report

=/
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I get your point, and it's not a bad one. My main point is the bigger issue is that rural still gets mostly fucked either way, and still only really have one option. In most areas, local government is not going to be able to be that option (or just won't). It's a nice thought and it's cool that it works in that area, but it's still not an ideal solution to just... Not fucking with a good thing (net neutrality).

I get that it's unlikely to actually happen -- much like it's unlikely net neutrality is going to be saved barring a meteor striking Ajit Pai in the face before he can submit his plan. (And Trump will probably just appoint someone who is anti-net neutrality after him anyway)

I'm not wanting them to end net neutrality at all. I want them to keep it, even if we did give local control over the internet. But I think it'd help mitigate things, because local government can be held more accountable than the telecomm monopolies can.

(We could also go to rules like the UK, where companies must share their infrastructure, and people have way more choices. But that's about as likely to happen as the meteor, and even then you'd need infrastructure built going out toward people in rural areas. The friend I mentioned earlier has shitty internet, and nobody's going to go that last mile because there's just not enough customers where they live, even though someone living less than a quarter of a mile from them can get 10 mbps)
---

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/21/politics/roy-moore-kayla-kisor-15-years-old/index.html

Moore wrote about his wife in his book

In his 2009 memoir "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom," Moore also wrote about the moment.
"I knew Kayla was going to be a special person in my life," Moore wrote about when he first saw her when she was 15 years old.

No comment
---

For anyone else who doesn't want to read the whole article, Moore was 30 at the time.
---

Oh I see Corriks in the other topic defending it

Okay
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Oh I see Corriks in the other topic defending it

Okay

The best part of it is Corrik trying to say anybody who finds it weird doesn't have social interaction, yet he's never heard of the "half your age plus seven" rule
---