If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
The latest political polls and polling averages from FiveThirtyEight.
* Going back all the way to 1910 there have been only THREE TIMES that the President's Party gained House seats in the midterm elections: 1934 (FDR), 1998 (Clinton), and 2002 (Dubya). And both 1998 and 2002 had unusual circumstances: iin 1998 the voters were mad at the R's for spending so much time on Impeachment. In 2002 there was still a lot of patriotic spillover from 9/11 and Bush's approval rating was still riding high.
So predicting the Republicans to do great in 2018 is a kind of historical ignorance mixed with yuge overconfidence in Trump's popularity. There have been other signs in the 2017 elections that things may not go as you predict.
Hey, sure, the Dems failed to get a law passed. Just enough of them broke off from the party line to kill multiple bills. The Republicans have never had the slightest bit of interest in a law.
Ummm, ok. But that's how, you know, the government works. It was Obama SOP -- can't pass shit through the actual legislative process, so it's Executive Branch to the rescue. Well, that shit is fleeting. I don't have much sympathy for any authority overreach reg that gets fucked.
So everyone is clear, "net neutrality" was rejected by the Congress of the United States. Net neutrality is NOT "the law" in the US. It is an executive rule that is an unlawful usurpation of the Legislative Branch's constitutional authority. As Talent says, it is something that could not be passed and had to be instituted unconstitutionally.
Then those who always want equality of outcome argue that this is one of the best industries we have and let's not fool with something that is working, so let's keep the Government involved. What we know to be true as a general principle is that the more government intervention or "rulemaking" involved, the less accurate the allocation of resources. Put another way, the free market has, in all times and in all places, optimized the allocation of resources and produced the most good for the most people.
I have simply stated a fact: autonomous autos are expected to need substantially more and quicker data transfer than is required on a cell phone. IF, that turns out to be true, why should we regulate those companies that may want to provide such a service and tell them they can't do it? The current law in the US allows this kind of innovation. The Obama-era lawlessness tried to prohibit it. If you progs want everyone to have an equality of outcome, then pass a law to make it so.
Comment