FCC To End Broadband Discounts For Poor People After Republicans Undermine Program
FCC To End Broadband Discounts For Poor People After Republicans Undermine Program
The FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), part of the 2021 infrastructure bill, currently provides 23 million low-income Americans a $30 broadband discount. While it didn’t get m…
In short Republicans are going to screw over 23 million poor Americans because they don’t want Democrats getting political credit for helping them during an election season. And because our press is generally broken and afraid of calling a duck a duck, this is going to get dressed up as a genuine concern about wasteful spending by a party that’s long been a huge fan of no shortage of wasteful spending.
You're viewing a single thread.
Meanwhile Biden wants applause for giving this same discount to one single battleground state...
49 states lose it, one gets to keep it. And moderate Dems want us to congratulate them for it.
It's this kind of strategy that makes "moderate progress" an oxymoron. The result isnt just less progress, it's a slow backslide because gains never outpace setbacks from conservatives.
Moderates might not be the ones breaking shit, but when they're the only other option "not breaking shit" isn't good enough, they need to actually fix shit.
If they can't, maybe that's a sign 30 years of the neoliberal experiment just shows that it doesn't work and we need FDR style Dems again...
I feel like the current establishment wouldn’t allow an FDR-style candidate to succeed, they’re making too much money from protecting the status quo.
But I’ll still grudgingly support them if Trump is the other option. I’ll vote progressive in my local elections, but as long as we still have a first-to-the-post election process, it’s always the lesser of two evils.
Isn’t it the case that whoever wins this one, they’ll be the oldest president in US history? Gross.
Obama was probably out last best chance...
But the party made a lot of changes after 08 to prevent anyone except their favorite from winning.
And they put a lot of pressure on Obama to not actually be progressive, and paired him with Biden to show donors everything would still be ok.
12 years later trying to pretend Biden was/is a progressive was just a huge slap in the face. He was literally the opposite of a progressive, a sign to boomers that the young Black man who talked about "change and hope" would get all the "guidance" he needed.
But like Heinlein said:
Surely the game is rigged, but don't let that stop you. If you never play, you'll never win.
We have to be at them at their own game, there's no other option.
But it's not the first or last time the good guys didn't get a fair fight and fought it anyways.
Win or lose, we still have to keep trying.
Creating a third party isn't really an option unless the DNC goes full nuclear and ignores a primary vote to nominate their favorite.
Are you playing to win though? I ask because Lemmy is absolutely loaded with faux-progressive astroturfing designed with no other end than to demoralize Democrats, progressives, moderates, "centrists", and anyone else who might stand even the most remote possibility of voting for Joe Biden in November. Why should the GOP bother attacking the administration? They have you to do it for them.
Look at this thread. This program was part of Biden's infrastructure package, passed by Democrats at President Biden's urging, to give free or reduced-cost broadband to low-income families, and the Republicans in Congress defunded it because they hope that when their constituents suffer they'll blame Democrats. And would you look at that! Nearly every comment in this thread, including yours, is a criticism of the administration. No shit, the game is rigged, but from here it sure looks like you lot are playing for the other team.
Because problems dont go away if you ignore them.
And it's harder for politicians to ignore problems if people talk about them.
And if more people are talking about them, it's more likely the politicians actually address them.
Which is good for the people suffering from the problem, and helps the politician get elected.
So tell me. What's so wrong about asking for more from the only rational choice I have when I vote for president?
What do you think will happen if dek voters aren't allowed to criticize Dem politicians?
They want us to be cultish and compliant like Trump voters are. 🙄
You cannot question Dear Leader!!! /s
It's some real George Bush "if you're not with us, you're against us" shit.
with no other end than to demoralize Democrats, progressives, moderates, “centrists”, and anyone else who might stand even the most remote possibility of voting for Joe Biden in November.
Maybe we have real issues we're upset about?
No, it can only be plants trying to change the election outcome by making people upset!
It couldn't be they're actually unhappy with how hollow and useless the Democrats have been for over forty years!
You sound like this guy:
No shit, the game is rigged, but from here it sure looks like you lot are playing for the other team.
Because we're not like the Trump Cult and we have the audacity to question our leaders, their competency, and their motives? God damn, go join their fucking cultish ranks if undying, unquestioning loyalty is what you want.
"Can't you just be complaint, unthinking, unquestioning voters who just are happy their team is winning?" isn't the flex you think it is.
I don't think you appreciate the stakes.
I actually don't think you do, or you wouldn't be jerking off the people who are currently glad-handing the Israeli version of Trump.
Also, not an actual argument or rebuttal.
So got it, all you've got is conspiratorial bullshit to spew.
You sound more like a paid operative than I do. I can defend my fucking opinions and don't need a script.
Also, being a paid political operative isn't illegal in the USA, and it's been well-documented that both Republicans and Democrats use them, so take a fucking hike with this bullshit. There's a reason Democrats haven't made it illegal, and it's because it's useful to them, too. Currently paid operatives don't have to say they're being paid to promote a position, like you have to in a political ad. Why isn't this on Democrats agenda, hmmm? If paid operatives are such a problem, hmmm?
Oh! Got it. You're a both sides guy. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, we're done. Take it easy.
You're done because you're out of script? Shocking.
Your arguments and rebuttals have more holes than a wheel of Emmentaler. They don't even make sense under the most cursory scrutiny. Whether you agree with the other guy or not, you're shorting yourself by not deeply analyzing your opinions to see if they're both internally and externally congruent. Everyone really owes themselves that.
Just vote in primaries.
The DNC has to respect the result of primaries.
So many people ignore primaries then complain they only have two choices.
The DNC has to respect the result of primaries.
I'm guessing you weren't around for the 2016 DNC primaries? There is no legal precedent that the results need to be respected and they have outwardly said as much.
we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That's not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right... - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva
DNC lawyers have argued and continue to argue that the Democratic Party doesn't owe anyone a fair process. It has every right to disregard its own rules or interpret its rules how it wants because it is a private organization
Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: .... as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn't really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses. "The party has the freedom of association to decide how it's gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party," said Spiva. "Even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a candidate. I'll put it that way."
That's just lawyers being lawyers... Trump and Republicans have certainly argued far more absurd theories only for them to be shot down when put to test.
But FDR style Dems don't collect big piles of soft money, and collecting big piles of soft money is now the one and only goal.
Yep, we're supposed to fucking cheer every time they make deals with Republicans to give them more of what they want and backslide human rights even more...
Every time they fail, we're supposed to be happy that they were aspirational towards change, as if failed aspirations mean shit. (Pro-tip: they don't)
Like, we're supposed to be overjoyed they're supporting Israel when Israel is being run by their equivalent of Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is absolutely a fascist.
They're literally, right now, making deals with a fascist, a fascist state, and acting like we're supposed to be happy about that because Trump hates Jewish people or something?
News is McConnell and Schumer are closer buddies than ever. It's a Big Club and We Ain't In It.
Democrats might not be the ones breaking shit, but they sure love throwing a bitch fit if you say out loud that Republicans are breaking shit.
They desperately want people to see them as more than mid-right Republican-lites but all they do is roll over for Republicans, explicitly game the primaries against somebody who could win, and explicitly tell anyone left of Biden "fuck you we don't need you."
They're not just gaming them...
After Biden for his ass kicked in NH last time, the DNC said they weren't first anymore.
So the DNC stripped the whole state of delegates and Biden didn't sign up to be on the primary.
That's something trump would do. And the media wouldn't stop talking about how it's an attack on democracy. Mostly because it is.
Biden and the DNC do it tho. And it's crickets
Democrats keep screaming at leftists that we have to vote Biden because Trump will sidestep congress and start rounding people up
Oh you mean like how Biden sidestepped congress to fund genocide? Totally cool when our guy does it guys
They just repeat what their donors tell them to keep their campaigns funded. They want less regulations or nothing changed because change is scary.
Never fails to amaze me how y'all can tie literally any news to how fucked up Democrats are. Like this article is literally about republicans being fucked up and yet somehow that was a prompt to say democrats are.
For those of us who have been following this, the FCC has been sounding the alarm about this for a while. It's not as though there hasn't been a budget that the Democrats were working on with the Republicans or anything recently that they could have, you know, fought for this.
Oh wait, I forgot, they let the conservatives cut a bunch of stuff to let it pass. Thank the LAWD.
Really?
Are you surprised when people criticize the police?
Do you think we should only criticize the criminals, or that it's ok to criticize police when they're not doing enough?
As I said elsewhere, they don't really understand that they're actually asking us to be more like Trump voters and vote on the party line without questioning things.
Are you surprised when people criticize the police?
They probably are, and they're probably shocked that after the George Floyd protests that people are upset that Democrats all over the nation are pouring more money into police departments than ever.
No one said anything about the police but you weirdos start assuming
Epic rebuttal. /s
No one said a goddamn word about police you stoned ape
The fact that you don't understand how examples work speaks loudly, friend.
The fact that you think you cram words in someone's mouth and then they actually have to care speaks LoUdLieR
lmao no, it's clear you don't care
Wtf are you talking about
"Biden has already achieved more in three years than most presidents in eight:
The biggest investment in the middle class since Franklin Roosevelt,
The biggest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower,
The biggest investment in health care since Barack Obama
And the biggest investment in climate change and chip technology in history.
Then there’s the biggest expansion of veterans’ benefits since World War II.
The first gun safety law since Bill Clinton
And with last month's jobs report, the lowest US unemployment rate since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were walking on the moon."
How the fuck hasn't an admin banned that username yet?
Edit:
I've explained this to that account at least three times now, so I'm just blocking them and leaving the same evidence as the other times for everyone else.
Yet, the most infamous records of intentionally spreading smallpox to Native Americans occurred in 1763 at Fort Pitt (present day downtown Pittsburgh). On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a fur trader commissioned at Fort Pitt, wrote in his journal after a failed negotiation between the British and the Delaware tribe. He stated that they had given the emissaries food, and as Trent wrote, “Out of our regard to them we gave them 2 Blankets and an (sic) Handkerchief out of the Small pox (sic) Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.”
Later that year, the Delaware, Shawnee and Mingo Tribes laid siege to Fort Pitt. The fort’s commander wrote to his superior officer, Colonel Bouquet, that he feared the disease would overwhelm the fort’s inhabitants. After hearing of the outbreak, Bouquet’s superior officer, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, sent a suggestion from New York: “Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox (sic) among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.”
Bouquet responded, “I will try to inoculate [them] with some blankets that may fall in their hands and take care not to get the disease myself.” It is important to understand that before Jenner’s safer practice of vaccination, the term inoculation specifically meant deliberate infection. While this method was the main way of producing mass immunity, it was also known to be just as likely to start an epidemic as to end one. The timing of an outbreak of the virus that struck the Ohio Valley later that year and lasted well into 1764 coincides very closely with the distribution of infected articles from Fort Pitt.
https://asm.org/Articles/2023/November/Investigating-the-Smallpox-Blanket-Controversy
And as that article states, the main reason for lack of evidence is Native populations had no written language and were stripped of their own languages later.
So the only evidence we have, is when the people doing it flat out wrote down that they were doing it.
And we've got plenty of examples of that.
Because they'd rather not censor a purposely provocative native educating people who still think blankets with smallpox was a thing. Or were you under the false assumption like 99.9% of people that literally useless blankets with smallpox were being handed out like Pez in the past? Yeah, turns out a lotta shit you're taught when growing up is absolute bullshit lol.