Biden's failure to fill empty FCC slot has consumer advocates increasingly worried.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Pai’s legacy lives on for now as Biden fails to nominate Democrat to FCC
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
10
(18
/
-8)
Upvote
7
(12
/
-5)
If you think you can convince Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema to A: support Biden's agenda, and B: kill the filibuster to make it happen, then I wish you luck. Otherwise, don't complain when the president doesn't single-handedly remake the entire US government.
Upvote
51
(55
/
-4)
Living through the pandemic under that maniac felt like a decade to me.
Upvote
39
(43
/
-4)
Do you mean Sanders? A Sanders nomination would have guaranteed a second Trump term, and new Trump FCC nominees.
Upvote
-12
(22
/
-34)
You can be forgiven for not following a foreign country's politics carefully, but the point of that conversation was Biden telling the affluent that they would be expected to give MORE and could afford to do so.
Upvote
16
(23
/
-7)
Heck, even counting to 50 would be useful. What do you wager that these folks are either foreign or fake social media accounts designed to sow division?
Upvote
0
(10
/
-10)
As much as I agree with your sentiment, I'd rather not play political ping pong with the FCC anymore. We don't need regulatory reform. We need legislative reform, so the FCC has no power to fuck up the works.
While there IS a majority (though that one asshole in the Senate pretending to be a Democrat will probably fuck it up) we need to pass a law declaring ISP's to be common carriers subject to Title II regulation, and make net neutrality the law of the land.
Having the FCC hold so much power isn't a good idea. They need to be constrained by law, not allowed to be the political play toy of whoever happens to be in power at the moment.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Upvote
19
(22
/
-3)
I don't like saying this, but check the comment histories. You're not wrong. But who knows anymore? Angry populism and disinformation both cut across party lines.
Upvote
-10
(3
/
-13)
The reason would be that I can't imagine a world where Wheeler would accept.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Saying that the standard of living won’t change for the rich under his administration is not incompatible with raising their taxes to pay for things. They can still live in the lap of luxury while contributing to the society that helped them achieve such extraordinary means.
While he’s not as vocal about income inequality as the more progressive wing of the party, and many (including myself) feel his policies aren’t aggressive enough, he at least isn’t afraid to say that if you make $400K+ annually that your taxes will go up.
That’s not nothing. Tax rates on the wealthy were higher during the Reagan administration for Pete’s sake & he’s hailed by the right as some kind of anti-tax, small-government messiah. Just having a President who vocally admits he wants to raise taxes on the rich is a huge step forward.
Upvote
42
(44
/
-2)
You do realize that Pai was an Obama nominee, not Trump's, right? Trump becoming President caused him to become the chair since he was the senior Republican. One does question if Pai was actually a Republican or if he was a member of party Verizon.
Upvote
-17
(14
/
-31)
Totally fair criticism. One of the many problems of the right is their complete inability to criticize their own leaders because it's their guy in office. I'm generally pleased with Biden's actions to this point but I'm not afraid to criticize him when warranted.
Upvote
17
(21
/
-4)
And Ron Johnson says he's a Marxist, and you're both wrong.
Bidden is a lifelong Democrat, who has a history of following consensus opinion. So no big surprise, he's turning out to be the most progressive Democrat since FDR.
Only Sith deal in absolutes!
Upvote
20
(28
/
-8)
No, Biden is not a Republican. Biden is a modern Democrat, which is what Republicans were decades ago (you know, back when it was just rich people being rat-bastards).
Biden is clearly beholden to moneyed interests, like most presidents before him. Biden is conservative on many points, but not to the point of overt fascism. (That's what we have Republicans for.
)Some of Biden's policies are what the Right would consider "progressive" - most of those are actually reasonably centrist policies.
However, Biden is also not reigning in various LEOs who have been involved in targeted killings of American citizens. Biden lacks political power - even with the strategic high ground of the Presidency - to really set and enforce his agenda in full. Biden has stated that he needs moneyed donors to remain in power.
Biden is not a Republican, but a centrist Democrat who is pacifying the much-more-leftist American populace so that his masters can remain in control behind the scenes, and he and his wife can remain comfortable.
Biden is a standard-issue American politician, and this is why I didn't vote for him in the primaries.
Note: Your actual voting power as a citizen is greatest in primary and local elections; your power is most diffused in large-scale national elections. Plan and vote accordingly.
Upvote
20
(35
/
-15)
It didn't turn out like that, but I think the reasons why progressives were upset by his nomination should still be valid if they apply to Biden's nominee. Wheeler appears to be a rare exception to the rule, not an invalidation of those issues.
Personally I would love to see Biden nominate someone who successfully spearheaded/chaired a muni broadband initiative.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Biden has always, consistently, and vocally been opposed to single payer, at least in the form of m4a. If you're going to criticize Biden's lack of success, at least point to things he actually campaigned on. He seems to be perfectly successful re: campaign promises for m4a: he promised to oppose it, and we don't currently have it.
Upvote
24
(25
/
-1)
Memory seems to be in short supply with a healthy dose of revisionism.
Wheeler was vilified by progressives when Obama announced his nomination. The rhetoric escalated further when in 2014 there were signs that Wheeler's FCC would propose rule making that would have run counter to net neutrality. Months later, he backtracked after who knows how many meetings with the White House despite the FCC independent status. He's not the savior he's now made out to be; his personal politics more likely than not run counter what progressives actually want.
Upvote
-4
(10
/
-14)
Republicans like for their constituents to not have choices for Internet.
Joseph Robinette "I'm basically a conservative" Biden II probably thinks that's a valid stance.
Upvote
-17
(6
/
-23)
Nathan Simington was nominated 9/16, almost immediately after Trump had a hissy fit over Michael O'Rielly comments.
He was then confirmed by the senate on 12/10.
It's frustrating that the previous administration seemed to be only good at burrowing the unqualified into government. Biden and the Dems need to rebuild the government and actually need to look at whether people are qualified, which slows it down. Whereas republicans do not give an f.
He was then confirmed by the senate on 12/10.
It's frustrating that the previous administration seemed to be only good at burrowing the unqualified into government. Biden and the Dems need to rebuild the government and actually need to look at whether people are qualified, which slows it down. Whereas republicans do not give an f.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
Biden's Administration took over for a president that didn't give him a full transition and that left government massively understaffed since civil servants headed for the exits (ex here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ebuilding/) during the Trump Administration.
Trump jammed people through and it still took him months to do so. Government of this type is designed to move slowly already - add in recalcitrant Republicans and a couple of right-of-center Dems like Sinema and Manchin in a 50/50 Senate, and yes, it'll take time to find people that can get through the nomination process.
That's not on Biden. That's on the voters of ME, NC, and other states that returned Republicans to the Senate last year.
Upvote
22
(28
/
-6)
Yes, I find it amusing that many progressives thought the senator from MBNA was going to indulge them. Thus far, the Biden Administration's policy record has been one of continuity with his predecessor. With so few days left in the legislative calendar, it would be wise to expect no more major legislative action out of this Administration, since nothing happens in an election year (2022) and the Democrats are very likely to lose seats after the mid-terms. Sometimes, I wonder if the parties in Congress are competing for the position of minority party, which need do nothing but voice relentless opposition.
No, Biden is not a Republican. Biden is a modern Democrat, which is what Republicans were decades ago (you know, back when it was just rich people being rat-bastards).
Biden is clearly beholden to moneyed interests, like most presidents before him. Biden is conservative on many points, but not to the point of overt fascism. (That's what we have Republicans for.
Some of Biden's policies are what the Right would consider "progressive" - most of those are actually reasonably centrist policies.
However, Biden is also not reigning in various LEOs who have been involved in targeted killings of American citizens. Biden lacks political power - even with the strategic high ground of the Presidency - to really set and enforce his agenda in full. Biden has stated that he needs moneyed donors to remain in power.
Biden is not a Republican, but a centrist Democrat who is pacifying the much-more-leftist American populace so that his masters can remain in control behind the scenes, and he and his wife can remain comfortable.
Biden is a standard-issue American politician, and this is why I didn't vote for him in the primaries.
Note: Your actual voting power as a citizen is greatest in primary and local elections; your power is most diffused in large-scale national elections. Plan and vote accordingly.
Upvote
21
(27
/
-6)
To be 100% fair: You're not wrong. Saying "no" is arguably much more powerful than agreeing to anything in the American system.
The real hell of the thing? That's how the American system was designed...for the purposes of getting slaveholders to agree to policies.
Not much has changed in about 250 years, has it?
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
Our government moves at a glacial pace when it comes to actually getting things. But now with climate change, the glaciers are ahead.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I'm pretty sure, given the inability to get anything of substance past Manchin and Sinema DINOs, the reality is that it's better to just get nothing done than put more 'acceptable vipers' on the FCC with the GOP's blessing.
Upvote
1
(5
/
-4)
While having an actual progressive leader of the USA would be great, it has become very clear that the conservatives who incorrectly think of themselves as (ironically oxymoronic) "liberal centrists" would never vote for a progressive, as progressive people and ideas make them... uncomfortable.
Upvote
16
(21
/
-5)
Yes, the system was very likely designed to encourage minority rule. Republics have a tendency to be controlled (or captured) by the economic elite (i.e. become a de facto oligarchy). This was well known at the time of the American Revolution, which was itself a minority movement (only about 1/3 of the colonists were pro-independence, with 1/3 royalist and another 1/3 indifferent). Rather, until that time, most (if not all) republics were oligarchies.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
Agency officers have to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2). Congress may exempt "inferior officers" from this process, but the FCC commissioners would not likely be considered inferior officers, as they run the entire agency.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Yep. Because McNoChin knows the lesson of Arrakis: He who can destroy something, controls it.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Who didn't see oldtymers disease causing problems on progress... 5 months from now, it'll come out that he forgot about the FCC Chair. Sure there's been a few important things to take care of, but come on man, get your shit together. I'd figured his pre/post election team would have a laundry list of nominees for the different positions put together. If feels like this administration has just talked about their position and cave on their position.
Upvote
-18
(5
/
-23)
Why? Because Biden is owned by the oligarchs. He does what they want...why do you think that the DOJ is more concerned with finding the person who leaked the information that Bezos and other oligarchs paid no taxes, rather than investigating Bezos etc? Why do you think the DOJ is still defending Trump in a lawsuit? Why do you think that Barr and Sessions are still walking free, not to mention Trump and the other Republican scum that tried to over throw the government on Jan 6?
Upvote
9
(20
/
-11)
With the Senate in a 50-50 tie, getting any nominee through is tough. If one Democrat falls off to the side, any nominee put forth will be blocked, and I'm sure there's at least one Democrat who's pro-cable industry.
We see the Republicans push to block Kiran Ahuja for Office of Personnel Management because of her views on abortion (she once spoke against the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal money for abortions) and her alleged view on Critical Race Theory. Senator Hawlings is currently blocking her. He says she thinks the US is a "systematically racist nation” because of her support for employee sensitivity training.
Biden maybe feels he's better off pushing the FCC to shift to a more pro-consumer viewpoint without trying to push a nominee to be approved in the Senate. He does have Jessica Rosenworcel as chairperson.
Or Biden simply hasn't found someone who he thinks can clear the Senate without the Republicans raising a fuss and possibly losing a few Democratic senators on the way. Biden has shown himself to be well prepared for filling in positions. He had all of his cabinet nominees already in place by the end of November and he had filled in most of the sub-cabinet positions too. I can't imagine nominees to the FCC falling through the cracks — especially with the push by many in the industry.
Upvote
9
(13
/
-4)
The over the counter bidding amongst lobbyists to choose the new FCC leader is just taking longer than usual probably due to the pandemic. Eventually the position will be filled with the winner.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
So far it feels like both parties are just controlled by the elites and the parties just play political breads and circuses to keep the populace distracted and fragmented, attacking each other like crabs in a bucket.
Upvote
2
(8
/
-6)
It's called politics. Investigate Manchin's corrupt family - they're all over the Mylan EpiPen scandal, from him and his wife and their daughter (who was the Mylan CEO). There are always pressure points and one would expect the party whips to be on them, and a President who wanted to push his agenda would whip them himself.
But if they were to push for that, they'd find several other Democrats who would be opposed to filibuster reform and several key pieces of legislation, ruining the whole charade. These bills are proposed specifically because they can't get past whatever procedural hurdles the Democratic party allows to stand in their way. There are not 48 votes to eliminate the filibuster with two holdouts; even if there were 55 Dem senators the filibuster would remain. As we've seen in the past, even with a supermajority of Dem senators, progressive legislation will fail.
Upvote
8
(11
/
-3)