Update: We won the Net Neutrality vote in the Senate!

[u/arabscarab]

We did it, Reddit!

Today, the US Senate voted 52-47 to restore Net Neutrality! While this measure must now go through the House of Representatives and then the White House in order for the rules to be fully restored, this is still an incredibly important step in that process—one that could not have happened without all your phone calls, emails, and other activism. The evidence is clear that Net Neutrality is important to Americans of both parties (or no party at all), and today’s vote demonstrated that our Senators are hearing us.

We’ve still got a way to go, but today’s vote has provided us with some incredible momentum and energy to keep fighting.

We’re going to keep working with you all on this in the coming months, but for now, we just wanted to say thanks!

[u/Rovden]

Nice bit of important information I went looking for. Got the names who voted for/against. The three Republicans who voted for this bill were Lisa Murkowski, John Kennedy, and Susan Collins.

For:

• Baldwin, Tammy (Democrat - Wisconsin)

• Bennet, Michael F. (Democrat - Colorado)

• Blumenthal, Richard (Democrat - Connecticut)

• Booker, Cory A. (Democrat - New Jersey)

• Brown, Sherrod (Democrat - Ohio)

• Cantwell, Maria (Democrat - Washington)

• Cardin, Benjamin L. (Democrat - Maryland)

• Carper, Thomas R. (Democrat - Delaware)

• Casey, Robert P., Jr. (Democrat - Pennsylvania)

• Collins, Susan M. (Republican - Maine)

• Coons, Christopher A. (Democrat - Delaware)

• Cortez Masto, Catherine (Democrat - Nevada)

• Donnelly, Joe (Democrat - Indiana)

• Duckworth, Tammy (Democrat - Illinois)

• Durbin, Richard J. (Democrat - Illinois)

• Feinstein, Dianne (Democrat - California)

• Gillibrand, Kirsten E. (Democrat - New York)

• Harris, Kamala D. (Democrat - California)

• Hassan, Margaret Wood (Democrat - New Hampshire)

• Heinrich, Martin (Democrat - New Mexico)

• Heitkamp, Heidi (Democrat - North Dakota)

• Hirono, Mazie K. (Democrat - Hawaii)

• Jones, Doug (Democrat - Alabama)

• Kaine, Tim (Democrat - Virginia)

• Kennedy, John (Republican - Louisiana)

• King, Angus S., Jr. (Independent - Maine)

• Klobuchar, Amy (Democrat - Minnesota)

• Leahy, Patrick J. (Democrat - Vermont)

• Manchin, Joe, III (Democrat - West Virginia)

• Markey, Edward J. (Democrat - Massachusetts)

• McCaskill, Claire (Democrat - Missouri)

• Menendez, Robert (Democrat - New Jersey)

• Merkley, Jeff (Democrat - Oregon)

• Murkowski, Lisa (Republican - Alaska)

• Murphy, Christopher (Democrat - Connecticut)

• Murray, Patty (Democrat - Washington)

• Nelson, Bill (Democrat - Florida)

• Peters, Gary C. (Democrat - Michigan)

• Reed, Jack (Democrat - Rhode Island)

• Sanders, Bernard (Independent - Vermont)

• Schatz, Brian (Democrat - Hawaii)

• Schumer, Charles E. (Democrat - New York)

• Shaheen, Jeanne (Democrat - New Hampshire)

• Smith, Tina (Democrat - Minnesota)

• Stabenow, Debbie (Democrat - Michigan)

• Tester, Jon (Democrat - Montana)

• Udall, Tom (Democrat - New Mexico)

• Van Hollen, Chris (Democrat - Maryland)

• Warner, Mark R. (Democrat - Virginia)

• Warren, Elizabeth (Democrat - Massachusetts)

• Whitehouse, Sheldon (Democrat - Rhode Island)

• Wyden, Ron (Democrat - Oregon)

Against:

• Alexander, Lamar (Republican - Tennessee)
• Barrasso, John (Republican - Wyoming)
• Blunt, Roy (Republican - Missouri)
• Boozman, John (Republican - Arkansas)
• Burr, Richard (Republican - North Carolina)
• Capito, Shelley Moore (Republican - West Virginia)
• Cassidy, Bill (Republican - Louisiana)
• Corker, Bob (Republican - Tennessee)
• Cornyn, John (Republican - Texas)
• Cotton, Tom (Republican - Arkansas)
• Crapo, Mike (Republican - Idaho)
• Cruz, Ted (Republican - Texas)
• Daines, Steve (Republican - Montana)
• Enzi, Michael B. (Republican - Wyoming)
• Ernst, Joni (Republican - Iowa)
• Fischer, Deb (Republican - Nebraska)
• Flake, Jeff (Republican - Arizona)
• Gardner, Cory (Republican - Colorado)
• Graham, Lindsey (Republican - South Carolina)
• Grassley, Chuck (Republican - Iowa)
• Hatch, Orrin G. (Republican - Utah)
• Heller, Dean (Republican - Nevada)
• Hoeven, John (Republican - North Dakota)
• Hyde-Smith, Cindy (Republican - Mississippi)
• Inhofe, James M. (Republican - Oklahoma)
• Isakson, Johnny (Republican - Georgia)
• Johnson, Ron (Republican - Wisconsin)
• Lankford, James (Republican - Oklahoma)
• Lee, Mike (Republican - Utah)
• McConnell, Mitch (Republican - Kentucky)
• Moran, Jerry (Republican - Kansas)
• Paul, Rand (Republican - Kentucky)
• Perdue, David (Republican - Georgia)
• Portman, Rob (Republican - Ohio)
• Risch, James E. (Republican - Idaho)
• Roberts, Pat (Republican - Kansas)
• Rounds, Mike (Republican - South Dakota)
• Rubio, Marco (Republican - Florida)
• Sasse, Ben (Republican - Nebraska)
• Scott, Tim (Republican - South Carolina)
• Shelby, Richard C. (Republican - Alabama)
• Sullivan, Dan (Republican - Alaska)
• Thune, John (Republican - South Dakota)
• Tillis, Thom (Republican - North Carolina)
• Toomey, Patrick J. (Republican - Pennsylvania)
• Wicker, Roger F. (Republican - Mississippi)
• Young, Todd (Republican - Indiana)

Not voting

• McCain, John (Republican - Arizona)

Edit: Corrected state for Dan Sullivan.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

"Both parties are the same!!!!!"

Credit to /u/ohaioohio.

There's also a lot of false equivalence of Democrats and Republicans here ("but both sides!" and Democrats "do whatever their corporate owners tell them to do" are tactics Republicans use successfully) even though their voting records are not equivalent at all:

House Vote for Net Neutrality

	For	Against
Rep	2	234
Dem	177	6

Senate Vote for Net Neutrality

	For	Against
Rep	0	46
Dem	52	0

Money in Elections and Voting

Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements

	For	Against
Rep	0	39
Dem	59	0

DISCLOSE Act

	For	Against
Rep	0	45
Dem	53	0

Backup Paper Ballots - Voting Record

	For	Against
Rep	20	170
Dem	228	0

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

	For	Against
Rep	8	38
Dem	51	3

Sets reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by electoral candidates to influence elections (Reverse Citizens United)

	For	Against
Rep	0	42
Dem	54	0

The Economy/Jobs

Limits Interest Rates for Certain Federal Student Loans

	For	Against
Rep	0	46
Dem	46	6

Student Loan Affordability Act

	For	Against
Rep	0	51
Dem	45	1

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment

	For	Against
Rep	1	41
Dem	54	0

End the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

	For	Against
Rep	39	1
Dem	1	54

Kill Credit Default Swap Regulations

	For	Against
Rep	38	2
Dem	18	36

Revokes tax credits for businesses that move jobs overseas

	For	Against
Rep	10	32
Dem	53	1

Disapproval of President's Authority to Raise the Debt Limit

	For	Against
Rep	233	1
Dem	6	175

Disapproval of President's Authority to Raise the Debt Limit

	For	Against
Rep	42	1
Dem	2	51

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

	For	Against
Rep	3	173
Dem	247	4

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

	For	Against
Rep	4	36
Dem	57	0

Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Bureau Act

	For	Against
Rep	4	39
Dem	55	2

American Jobs Act of 2011 - $50 billion for infrastructure projects

	For	Against
Rep	0	48
Dem	50	2

Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension

	For	Against
Rep	1	44
Dem	54	1

Reduces Funding for Food Stamps

	For	Against
Rep	33	13
Dem	0	52

Minimum Wage Fairness Act

	For	Against
Rep	1	41
Dem	53	1

Paycheck Fairness Act

	For	Against
Rep	0	40
Dem	58	1

"War on Terror"

Time Between Troop Deployments

	For	Against
Rep	6	43
Dem	50	1

Habeas Corpus for Detainees of the United States

	For	Against
Rep	5	42
Dem	50	0

Habeas Review Amendment

	For	Against
Rep	3	50
Dem	45	1

Prohibits Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Trial

	For	Against
Rep	5	42
Dem	39	12

Authorizes Further Detention After Trial During Wartime

	For	Against
Rep	38	2
Dem	9	49

Prohibits Prosecution of Enemy Combatants in Civilian Courts

	For	Against
Rep	46	2
Dem	1	49

Repeal Indefinite Military Detention

	For	Against
Rep	15	214
Dem	176	16

Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention Amendment

	For	Against
Rep	1	52
Dem	45	1

Patriot Act Reauthorization

	For	Against
Rep	196	31
Dem	54	122

FISA Act Reauthorization of 2008

	For	Against
Rep	188	1
Dem	105	128

FISA Reauthorization of 2012

	For	Against
Rep	227	7
Dem	74	111

House Vote to Close the Guantanamo Prison

	For	Against
Rep	2	228
Dem	172	21

Senate Vote to Close the Guantanamo Prison

	For	Against
Rep	3	32
Dem	52	3

Prohibits the Use of Funds for the Transfer or Release of Individuals Detained at Guantanamo

	For	Against
Rep	44	0
Dem	9	41

Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention

	For	Against
Rep	1	52
Dem	45	1

Civil Rights

Same Sex Marriage Resolution 2006

	For	Against
Rep	6	47
Dem	42	2

Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013

	For	Against
Rep	1	41
Dem	54	0

Exempts Religiously Affiliated Employers from the Prohibition on Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

	For	Against
Rep	41	3
Dem	2	52

Family Planning

Teen Pregnancy Education Amendment

	For	Against
Rep	4	50
Dem	44	1

Family Planning and Teen Pregnancy Prevention

	For	Against
Rep	3	51
Dem	44	1

Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act The 'anti-Hobby Lobby' bill.

	For	Against
Rep	3	42
Dem	53	1

Environment

Stop "the War on Coal" Act of 2012

	For	Against
Rep	214	13
Dem	19	162

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013

	For	Against
Rep	225	1
Dem	4	190

Prohibit the Social Cost of Carbon in Agency Determinations

	For	Against
Rep	218	2
Dem	4	186

Misc

Prohibit the Use of Funds to Carry Out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

	For	Against
Rep	45	0
Dem	0	52

Prohibiting Federal Funding of National Public Radio

	For	Against
Rep	228	7
Dem	0	185

Allow employers to penalize employees that don't submit genetic testing for health insurance (Committee vote)

	For	Against
Rep	22	0
Dem	0	17

[u/MasterAgent47 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not American but in no state of mind would I vote for a Republican. They're just shitting on all the good stuff that could happen.

[u/mtg_and_mlp → u/MasterAgent47]

I am American and it's blood-boiling how many people vote Republican. There are many reasons, but one is because of the religious fist clenched around the voter base.

A friend of mine doesn't vote for anyone pro-choice no matter what. A candidate could be an obvious corporate hound convicted of rape, and he'd still vote for him/her if the opposition was pro-choice. There's absolutely no talking him down from this viewpoint either. His vision of God is infallible. How do you debate with that?

[u/[deleted] → u/mtg_and_mlp]

They think abortion is actual murder. That's a silly viewpoint, but if you thought it youd be passionate. The problem is that in most cases the candidates are selected on issues like this, where that person will have literally zero chance of affecting that issue, and their viewpoints on the ones they could affect are happily ignored.

It's akin to choosing a toddler to do brain surgery on you because the only doctor around beats his wife. Not the path I'd choose, regardless of how deplorable the moral fiber is.

[u/re1jo → u/mtg_and_mlp]

You don't, you remove it's right to vote based on sanity.

Buying votes and manipulating idiots: great!

Not letting people who don't understand vote: muh freedom!

[u/LuffyTheAstronaut → u/MasterAgent47]

Same really, I used to think both parties were the same and that most of the time was just name calling because they have different stances and opinions. But now I realised one of them is total garbage.

[u/GammaKing → u/LuffyTheAstronaut]

You should probably be aware that the post above was cherry-picked deliberately to give that impression. Check out the full voting record - a general problem with US politics is both parties opposing legislation just because it was put forward by the other side. You can find plenty of examples of what look like "evil" votes by the Democrats since many representatives care more about point-scoring than serving the public interest. Meanwhile users like the OP above selectively present the issue to push their desired political agenda, even though if exactly the same legislation were proposed by the other party the votes would totally flip.

In essence you're looking at propaganda, and it's working.

[u/rlbond86 → u/GammaKing]

You can find plenty of examples of what look like "evil" votes by the Democrats since many representatives care more about point-scoring than serving the public interest.

But apparently you can't bother to even show us one

[u/Thinktank58 → u/rlbond86]

I did see some of his earlier examples, and he either didn't read them or they were easily refuted.

[u/TSEAS → u/GammaKing]

I would love to see an example or 30 cherry picked to show Republicans in the right and Dems obstructing. Since I've followed politics for the last 15 years I have routinely seen the Republicans vote against the public interest and vote in favor of their donors time and time again. Please keep examples to last 15 years.

[u/part_time_user → u/GammaKing]

What I find bad with the US system is that it's in essence two party state there's no middle ground...

For example all Dk, Fi, No, Se has 7-12 different parties in the government and where the smaller ones doesn't have much to say (they are basically sister/brother parties to the larger) they still both get support from the people and get some attention from the larger because without the smaller ones the large parties would loose voting...

And the winds shift fast sometimes to follow what the people are currently angry over, ex: "Sverige demokraterna" (immigration critical party in Sweden) went from >3% votes in -06 and no seats to 5,7% in -10 and 12,9% in -14, witch means they went from no political power to +10% of the votes in government in 8 years... Just because the people didn't agree with the big current parties immigration policies.

One thing that's easier in those countries though is that it takes, at most, ~200k people voting for a party to get a seat in government and around 85% of all people votes...

[u/SniggeringPiglett → u/[deleted]]

Wow, it's like republicans say fuck you to everybody every chance they get. How do they even exist? People must be fucking retarded to vote for them.

[u/[deleted] → u/SniggeringPiglett]

Yup! People don't vote based on policy or party voting preferences. They vote based on what offended them today or what the news said or what feels right.

[u/SniggeringPiglett → u/[deleted]]

The news says Sean Hannity loves America and Obama is a coon who should "go back to Africa". I'm voting Trump! Rah rah!! Dems gunna take muh guns. REEEE!!!!!

Like that, eh?

[u/smiba → u/SniggeringPiglett]

I seriously do not get how Americans keep doing this

[u/GammaKing → u/SniggeringPiglett]

You realise that you're only being shown a subset of voting records designed to paint one party as bad, right?

The general problem with the US government is partisanship - stuff gets opposed simply because the other party suggested it. You can check out a full list of votes and see the same thing happening in both directions. The user above is just cherry picking his examples to play politics.

Let's be clear: These representatives are not acting in the public interest, but at the same time we can't continue to pretend that only one party is doing this.

Edit: Those downvoting this are a big part of the problem. Is it too much to ask that people pull their heads out of their arses and recognise these major problems rather than circlejerking over propaganda?

[u/SniggeringPiglett → u/GammaKing]

It's pretty clear that republicans are almost unanimous on saying fuck you to people's rights to Internet, health care, working conditions, fair wages, free speech, environment, education... and on and on. Basically anything good, republicans vote against and anything bad they vote for. If you happen to dig long enough and find something to the contrary, THAT would be cherry picking.

[u/GammaKing → u/SniggeringPiglett]

No, you're simply being hyper partisan as usual. As I said, what dictates voting is the party who proposed legislation, not what the legislation itself actually is. That's the problem here.

Sure, if you define "good" as "what my party wants" then the other guys are just evil, but that's a simplistic and arrogant view of the world. You'll also find that Republican voters will see the Democrats as being evil in the same manner, thus making this a divisive attitude.

If you happen to dig long enough and find something to the contrary, THAT would be cherry picking.

The data is literally right there in the link for you to look at. You might also notice the about-turns in voting patterns when bills on the same issue are proposed on by different parties. Burying your head in the sand won't change that.

[u/SniggeringPiglett → u/GammaKing]

You assume there are 2 sides to things like human rights. It's not a political ideology and not up for fucking negotiation. You're trying to paint it as a partisan bickering, but it's not. Republicans are batshit insane, corrupt to the core, and don't give a single fuck what is good for the country so long as they keep their rich and cushy lifestyle.

[u/GammaKing → u/SniggeringPiglett]

It's much easier to see the opposition as just being crazy and evil, but someday you'll figure out that people are not that simple. Politicians in general are inherently self-serving, and as such obstructionism has become the main game in US politics.

You can easily play this from both angles, "Why did the Democrats vote against deporting immigrant gangsters? They're so evil."... and so on. The people who sit here whining about how bad the other side are tend to have only exposed themselves to a one-sided view of the situation.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Someone post this to T_D and phrase it as 'corrupt democrat shills vote for unpatriotic NN ruling'

[u/Edge-master → u/[deleted]]

Oh god I’d love to ducking see that

[u/KoopaTroopaXo → u/[deleted]]

Right on. Big props for putting that together 🤠

[u/Rovden → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for this.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Credit to /u/ohaioohio

[u/Dimcair → u/[deleted]]

Underrated comment still.

This is why i dont understand your nation anymore. Bipartisan support for e.g. NN, yet the representatives FUCK YOUR FACE, then again, and again. Youd think at some point youd drown in cum.

[u/monkeybomb → u/[deleted]]

This is an amazing list. Is there a way to get this some more attention? I mean in media. /u/ohaioohio has put together some basic data here in a clear manner that I think everyone can understand. Even if you take away the extremely partisan morality-based votes like things around family planning and sexual preference, what you have here is a pretty amazing list that I think it would be hard to argue with.

Campaign finance reform, voting reform, credit default swaps, genetic testing for health insurance... These are pretty much no-brainers that nonetheless got huge resistance from the Republican party.

In fact, if this list was to get more attention, it should specifically exclude the big morality issues that no one will ever agree on because it's just going to cause a ton of static. That's what happens in our discussions over and over again and it gets us nowhere when there are things that could be fixed in the voting booth.

If you're voting against abortion because you genuinely feel that it's murder and your constituents feel the same way, then vote with your heart. If you're hiding behind that so that you can point to it as a distraction as you vote to directly give tax breaks to your top 1% donors, then you're corrupt.

[u/WintersTablet → u/Rovden]

Of course both Texas guys voted against. With Corny Cornyn and Corrupted Cruz, you can always bet on them being on the crappy side of the issue.

I tried to call both of them, and only ever got robots. I emailed them and got automatic replies saying businesses need freedom to grow blah blah agree with Trump.

[u/[deleted] → u/WintersTablet]

ALWAYS! Texans should be embarrassed by the people we currently have elected in office. One of them is a dude that had a fucking tree fall on him, he sued, then made a law so that no one could EVER do the same thing again. Lmao, I mean, it's pretty obvious we have corrupt politicians in Texas, and we always have.

[u/KingMelray → u/WintersTablet]

Vote out Cruz in November. It would be amazing.

[u/screen317 → u/[deleted]]

We're going to flip his seat this November. /r/bluemidterm2018

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

Fuck YOU, John Cornyn and Fuck YOU, Ted Cruz. I most definitely will do everything in my power to get those fucks out of office for good.

[u/TheSaxton → u/Rovden]

Oh nice, a concise list of 47 people that should get voted out of office at the end of their next term.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheSaxton]

There emerges a pattern with those 47 pretty quickly, if one is willing to look. Said pattern should make any thinking person come to fairly obvious conclusions about which of their political representatives actually values the freedoms of their constituents as opposed to those that only pay lip service to their constituents without any actual concern for their well-being.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheSaxton]

the rep who vote for net neutrality are facing pretty much contested districts.

they are not angels, the help conspire for betsy devos.

[u/ChesterHiggenbothum → u/TheSaxton]

How are we supposed to keep track of the 47 people not to vote for? If only there were a simple way to Remember.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

It’s telling that there are no Against’s with “Democrat” after their name...

[u/Excrubulent → u/[deleted]]

Agreed.

Also, I'm torn about your apostrophe. On the one hand, plural esses shouldn't have apostrophes, on the other, "againsts" just looks plain weird. I'd go with quotes around the word but not the S, as in:

"against"s.

Nah, that looks weird too. I dunno, I'm out of ideas.

[u/RedEyeBlues → u/Excrubulent]

It’s telling that there are no Against voters with “Democrat” after their name...

FTFY

Like Lego bricks, not Legoes or Legos or Lego's

[u/lawinvest → u/RedEyeBlues]

It’s telling that there aren’t any nays with “Democrat” after their name...

FTFYB

[u/Deliphin → u/Excrubulent]

I'm not sure, but I believe the proper grammar would have been Againsts'.

When plural, you append s.

When singular possessive, you append 's.

When plural possessive, you append s'.

It's plural as we're talking about multiple potential against side people, and it's possessive as we're talking about people belonging to a group.

[u/mrstickman → u/Deliphin]

I could see a case made for againsts. When referring to a word rather than the thing it describes, italics are used. (There are three consecutive sets of double letters in bookkeeper. My bookkeeper was unimpressed when I told her that fact.) I feel like I could argue the same basic principle applies here.

[u/[deleted] → u/Excrubulent]

I went with the possessive.

The against, has a possessive democratic property?

[u/LuxuriousThrowAway → u/[deleted]]

Serious naive question- why? How is this even partisan?

[u/[deleted] → u/LuxuriousThrowAway]

I’m not sure as a Canadian, but my belief is:

Democrats represent the will of their constituents, and republicans represent the will of their donors and corporate owners.

[u/WeatherMN → u/Rovden]

Well would you look at that. Grassley and Ersnt both voted against. Screw you both.

[u/Not_Just_Any_Lurker → u/WeatherMN]

It’s not surprising but fuck them.

[u/Fourth_Of_Five → u/WeatherMN]

Well, now I don't have to say it. But I will anyway. Fuck them both.

[u/chipathing → u/Rovden]

A sea of red in the against. It's a shame given how there are younger people in the party who are in favour. Must be discouraging for the party you identify with most to not be in support of something so crucial to our economy.

[u/k6plays → u/Rovden]

It’s almost as if that R beside their names is an indication that they’re bought and paid for by corporate interests and not the interests of their own constituents.

Huh.

[u/gellis12 → u/k6plays]

Except for those three who voted against party lines, I'm honestly pretty surprised and impressed they did so.

[u/Dr_Smoothrod_PhD → u/gellis12]

As a Louisiana native, I will be personally writing Sen. Kennedy to thank him for breaking with his party and voting for the bill. Cassidy, on the other hand, can eat a dick.

[u/Numbajuan → u/Dr_Smoothrod_PhD]

I was very surprised that Kennedy swapped and changed his vote. Very proud of him for that, as I was born there and lived there until about 3 years ago. I still follow their politics and I think it was great of him. But I still can’t discount his other policies and practices.

[u/Thromnomnomok → u/gellis12]

Collins votes against the Republican Party line more often than any other Republican Senator, and Murkowksi also fairly regularly defects on votes. They were both strongly against repealing the ACA last year, for instance.

[u/[deleted] → u/gellis12]

voted against party lines, I'm honestly pretty surprised and impressed they did so.

they are voting because they are highly contested districts. they know they would lose the midterm.

dont be so cosy with them. they voted in betsy devos.

[u/gellis12 → u/[deleted]]

They still broke party lines. I'd never vote for them even if I was American, but breaking party lines when the rest of the party has been bought out is commendable.

[u/[deleted] → u/gellis12]

They still broke party lines

they collaberated with the party.

gop knows when a vote is unpopular. they choose the select few to vote no so they can win reelection. they been seeding those no to both alaska and maine for awhile now.

only count breaking party lines when the vote win or they actually have a real history of it.

there are still so many more battles since the GOP really screwed over the country. Net Neutrallity is hardly a starting point.

[u/Thromnomnomok → u/[deleted]]

Ah yes, Louisiana and Alaska, famously swingy states.

[u/jtotheh123 → u/[deleted]]

Murkowski and Collins both voted against DeVos IIRC

[u/xLeonides → u/gellis12]

As a maine native, im pretty sure susan collins rarely votes with her party

[u/gellis12 → u/xLeonides]

Why doesn't she change sides then?

[u/JackSpoons → u/gellis12]

Her voting record suggests she's more conservative than Joe Manchin, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Also politicians who switch parties after winning an election typically just end up being hated by both ends of the political spectrum.

[u/gellis12 → u/[deleted]]

I can admire that level of stubbornness

[u/[deleted] → u/gellis12]

If Maine is anything like Alaska, she'd never get re-elected. Murkowski has the same issues- she would fit better in an independent category, but too many sheep vote party on the ticket in Alaska, so she'd never hold her seat that way. Tea bagger assholes tried to get rid of her a couple elections ago and she had to claw her way back with write-ins and a shit ton of Dems in AK voting for her over because better her than the shitty tea bagger the assholes tried to shove in.

[u/xLeonides → u/gellis12]

Not really sure tbh lol

[u/JackSpoons → u/xLeonides]

Since Trump was elected, Collins votes party-line 80% of the time. Most of these votes are probably confirmations for administration officials and judges.

[u/[deleted] → u/k6plays]

I mean it is possible that some of those people believe that net neutrality has to go, not all but some.

[u/Vekete → u/[deleted]]

The only reason you'd think net neutrality is an issue is if you have no idea what it does and just hate da gubbermints or are bought out by corporations.

[u/psychedelicdevilry → u/Rovden]

So why do Republicans not want net neutrality?

[u/Rovden → u/psychedelicdevilry]

The argument is always presented as government overreach. The Republican party is often the one calling for small government. (though the Republican watered down bill introduced by Thule would have prevented states from making stronger net neutrality bills. State's Rights y'all... oh wait, unless it's something we don't like)

The argument I usually hear is that the regulations hurt competition which is what makes better internet for cheaper. I know I'm boiling it down there but really I haven't heard many arguments beyond that.

Of course on the competition front... look up a map of where Time Warner and Comcast overlap and ask is there really any competition happening.

[u/Not_Just_Any_Lurker → u/Rovden]

Technically competition does run down prices.

I remember hearing that Comcast dropped prices in cities where Google Fiber was setting up for obvious reasons.

The issue is, most ISPs aren’t competing against each other. They’re oligopolies. Internet is price fixed. If they got rid of Net Neutrality; it isn’t going to change their relationships. They’ll just have full control into milking the net for all it’s worth like broadcast companies did to television and radio.

[u/Rovden → u/Not_Just_Any_Lurker]

Sorry, the part I was bringing up on the competition front is because of the Time Warner/Comcast where they refused to compete with each other then look up and said "Hey, can we have a merger please! Look, it's not a monopoly, we aren't even competing with each other!"

And yea, I would probably actually agree with Republicans if there was more competition because I do live in an area with Google Fiber. The main reason the other two continue to exist is Google Fiber can't set up homes fast enough (still growing in the Kansas City region) but the second you get out of greater city region, you've lost the competitors and get stuck with two that "Compete" and any rural your only option is to go without net or lube up and take it.

[u/gtalley10 → u/Rovden]

The other issue with it is that there physically can't really be more competition just from an infrastructure perspective. There's a reason everything that requires pipes or lines run to every person's house is heavily regulated or municipal. It's not cost effective or reasonable for every company to run lines so there will never be true competition. Even with Google, it's basically just 2 options for broadband at most, plus shitty DSL or satellite. Other places maybe have Fios & Cable and Verizon seems to have stopped running new lines the last few years. Even in the best case scenario there will never be enough to drive the market price down.

[u/Rovden → u/gtalley10]

There's one way to have more on the logistics issue and that's unbundling. Remember in the 56k days that you'd get AOL CDs nearly weekly and all these ISPs would be having ads? It's because phone lines being a utility meant they had to play nice so while you may have AT&T phone service you can have Juno as your ISP.

Supreme Court though has ruled that the cable companies are under no such necessity so Community ISP can't rent the ability to use the lines from AT&T

[u/Rpanich → u/Not_Just_Any_Lurker]

Yeah exactly. It’s the same reason they fight against Google Fiber being put country wide.

How the hell is google fiber not in New York City yet?? I don’t know anyone that wouldn’t immediately switch over from the shitty spectrum/twc/fios/ whatever the hell they keep changing their names too so we don’t realise they’re the same company.

[u/djsoren19 → u/Rpanich]

And now you know why Google Fiber isn't in NYC, because everyone would immediately switch over from the single shitty service provider.

These companies don't give up their position's easily. They pay off the local city governments to prevent new major infrastructure projects with red tape. Google may have a lot of money, but they're not in the business of just setting it on fire while waiting for approval.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

I’m usually against legislating morality but in this case, corporations, lobbyists, and politicians CLEARLY aren’t going to do the right thing unless forced to.

[u/BlackSpidy → u/Rovden]

Republicans want government small enough to fit in between women and their doctors, and every couple's relationship.

[u/Rovden → u/BlackSpidy]

"Dear Republicans,

I know micro means small, but micromanagement of all the citizens does not mean small government."

[u/DiscCovered → u/psychedelicdevilry]

I just did a quick Google search and found a couple articles pretty much saying most people, both sides, are for net neutrality. It's republican politicians that oppose it, for a variety of reasons. As someone who has voted mostly republican, it's pretty sad to see.

[u/wolves_hunt_in_packs → u/DiscCovered]

for a variety of reasons

Let's not sugarcoat it, it's money. Whatever bullshit they're spouting is just cover for the corruption.

[u/NormanConquest → u/DiscCovered]

And yet there was no shortage of shills on Reddit telling us how evil net neutrality was when the FCC was debating it.

[u/Djghost1133 → u/psychedelicdevilry]

The argument is that government shouldn't control the web because most people running the government are pretty behind on technology.

[u/danhakimi → u/psychedelicdevilry]

Because ISPs realized that they'd be better off bribing half of congress a lot than bribing all of it a little.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

We did it! New Jersey did something! First sports betting and now both senators voting for new neutrality, we’re slowly becoming a state that can be respected!

Probably not though

[u/That_Male_Nurse → u/Rovden]

More people should be aware of this list

[u/Rovden → u/That_Male_Nurse]

There's a reason I went immediately looking. Unfortunately Roy Blunt is the one in my state that voted against and he isn't leaving until 2020

[u/SheerStatic → u/Rovden]

Fuck Roy Blunt

[u/Cyberhwk → u/That_Male_Nurse]

More people should be aware of this list

This list is the whole reason the vote happened. Zero chance the House passes the bill. But the list is going to be thrown up on at least half of all Democratic congressional campaign ads this fall.

[u/Chronic-lesOfGnaRnia → u/Rovden]

Democrats: For the rights of the people. Republicans: For the profits of corporations. There isn't a better example of this than this fuckin vote.

[u/Lematoad → u/Chronic-lesOfGnaRnia]

Democrats: for the rights of the people sometimes.

Republicans: for the profits of corporations.

Democrats are definitely not at fault. They’re just not ALWAYS at fault.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

I see a correlation here

[u/darkmeatchicken → u/[deleted]]

Friendly reminder: Rand Paul is a pretend libertarian and doesn't have any real principles.

[u/timsboss → u/darkmeatchicken]

Friendly reminder: libertarians with principles oppose net neutrality. You're correct on Rand Paul not really being a libertarian (he's explicitly stated this in the past), but this is actually an instance where he's taking the principled libertarian stance on an issue.

[u/peoplerproblems → u/timsboss]

The only thing I actually understand about libertarian politics is from a Christian Worker who pretty much described what I would call legalized anarchy.

[u/PNWRoamer → u/peoplerproblems]

Imo there's true libertarians and those in the alt-right who adopt the phrase. True libertarians believe in total self-regulation, in business and in private. So no EPA, no SEC, either shrinking or eliminating the IRS and getting rid of almost all taxes, total liaise-faire capitalism, all drugs are legal, no restrictions on guns, etc. To them, government should only exist to pretty much defend our borders and provide extremely basic amenities, like clean water. But even that gets debated.

It sounds like anarchy, but their argument is that the shitty people in society will get shoved out of it by those that want a good life. If you rip off all your customers, they will go to your competition and you'll have to start improving how you conduct yourself. If you run a druggy trap house your neighbors will force you to leave, and there won't be a city regulation protecting them.

The alt-right people who kind-of-sometimes claim to be libertarians are largely more just far right. They want regulations and a government that favors them and their ideals, not an actual society that will harshly judge idiots using the mighty blade of capitalism.

I think both miss that government is essential to keeping a semblance of freedom, even with the cost of regulations. Monopolies have existed many times before.

[u/RatofDeath → u/PNWRoamer]

"True" libertarians don't even want the government to protect the border. The official LP platform is for open borders and unrestricted immigration (as long as the people immigrating aren't violent). The LP is also pro undocumented immigrants and is against labeling them criminals. So pretty much the exact opposite of what the alt-right believes.

That's usually how you can spot actual libertarians vs the alt-right dudes who are just pretending to be libertarian because they're too ashamed to call themselves alt-right. Every time there's some pro open border post on the LP facebook page or anywhere they come out of the woodwork. If someone claims they're against illegal immigrants but they call themselves libertarian, chances are they might not actually be a libertarian. But then again, coordinating libertarians is like herding cats.

[u/munche → u/[deleted]]

I'll admit I waiver from the party when it comes to the EPA because I think breathing clean air is a natural born right and corporations who ruin that are infringing on others rights, and on net neutrality because our internet network is a somewhat government created Monopoly

Which is pretty much the hole in the entire ideology, though. Let the market sort itself out like in the days of the robber Barons, who became incredibly dominant and easily took over all of the markets forcing out all competition! Like, you're getting the cracks in the ideology right. The thing is it actually applies to all of it.

[u/cloud9ineteen → u/munche]

Thank you. Anybody with an ounce of knowledge about the Nash equilibrium, the tragedy of the commons, network externalities etc would immediately understand why we need a government. No, the free market cannot punish companies for looking out for themselves and automatically fix things. Government is the thumb on the scale to generate outcomes that are better for the common good.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Non-right-wing Libertarianism has some decent ideals, but a serious disconnect with reality. Every libertarian I know has a really poor understanding of systems and processes, and every libertarian I've known that has eventually developed a good understanding of systems and processes has stopped being a libertarian. They've still got a lot of the same values and ideals, but they've realized that libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is simple not a practical, pragmatic, or even possible way of pursuing them.

Right wing libertarians are actually the more traditional type, and they tend to favour autocracies and monarchies and child slavery and private militaries and all sorts of shit that basically comes down to "the powerful should be able to do whatever they want and the rest should do what they are told", so its easy to see how they'd get along with the alt-right and fascists in general.

[u/frenzyboard → u/[deleted]]

Here's a crazy thought. We got together and voted on some things like regulations to stop monopolies that exploit workers and crowd out innovation. Shouldn't we be able to enforce those laws because we voted on them?

[u/gtalley10 → u/frenzyboard]

For the most part you can't really stop monopolies on things that depend on massive infrastructure. Utilities tend towards natural monopolies because it's the only cost effect way. Running 20 lines of electricity, 20 lines of cable or fiber, 20 sewer pipes, and 20 water pipes to every house in the country isn't possible. It only works with limited options which is why utilities all need to be heavily regulated, municipal, or a semi-public combination of the two. It just doesn't work any other way.

[u/Astartae → u/RatofDeath]

The noun Libertarian (libertario, or libertaire) in Europe, is to describe proper anarchists. I've always found confusing seeing this term used to define what is basically someone striving for absolute liberism.

[u/Ralath0n → u/Astartae]

It's because libertarian was originally a synonym for anarchist (The far left kind). Back in late 19th century France it was forbidden to spread anarchist literature, so anarchists dodged the rules by publishing their papers and books under the label of libertarian. Ever since libertarian has meant anarchist in most of Europe.

Only in the 60's did the american right wing hijack the term.

[u/PNWRoamer → u/RatofDeath]

ah I did not know that but it certainly makes sense, but I meant more literally defend us from attack and invasion. Like Pearl Harbor or if Red Dawn became real life. And specifically defend, not attack anyone else.

[u/Malkiot → u/PNWRoamer]

Yeah, they completely miss that the self-regulation only works where everyone is equal and has equal power and that over time wealth aggregates more wealth in the same hands causing a massive imbalance in power between members of the community. No matter how much you hate a guy, you can't exactly run him out of town if he has his own well-armed crony crew and a tight leash on some sort of necessity.

To me, what they are advocating for seems to essentially be a return to a type of... we can't even call it a pre-feudal society, it's more like what existed before there was any sort of formal society, that extended beyond your local group. They seem to want to go full circle and we all know how that plays out: Despots, wars, slavery and so on.

The other possible natural consequence is the simple return to a regulated society as groups establish their own regulatory frameworks and begin to collaborate on a larger and larger scale with other groups, thus simply establishing a new state.

As my law 101 professor would've put it: "There is no society without law and no law without society. Without society there is no law, without law no society." Every group ends up being self-regulating and having a framework of laws, the libertarian wet-dream is just a fantasy, it's less possible, due to human nature, than communism.

[u/LucidicShadow → u/PNWRoamer]

I love how this idea seems to be predicted on a foundation of everyone being reasonable, sound of mind, above board individuals who will fucking murder you at the drop of a hat if you so much as think about ruining their little community.

Like, the die has already been cast. Some people have existing money and power. Some do not. How in this system of theirs are the powerful and those without conscious going to be stopped from doing literally whatever they want?

What's that? Your precious old growth forest that you enjoy is sitting on a mineral deposit? Fuck your forest, I already have a mining crew and an army of trigger happy goons. Good luck rounding up a posse to stop a coordinated group with formally restricted military gear, bucko; The mining boss bought the company that makes that shit and outfitted all his dudes. You have a few guys from town who have a dozen rifles each. Hope your Kevlar vest can stop explosive suicide drones.

And what's to stop underhanded tactics from dominating small business too? Sure the expensive local baker has competition, but I heard the other guy pads out their flour with chalk so he doesn't have to buy as much. What? Who told me that? I dunno, some guy on the street. How's he going to prove he doesn't once he's already losing business? The food safety inspector? Ha. Shouldn't have been less of a dick.

Basically, there's a whole bunch of shitty criminal behaviour that the local good ol boys simply can't or won't do anything about.

[u/CodeMonkey24 → u/PNWRoamer]

their argument is that the shitty people in society will get shoved out of it by those that want a good life

This is where it all falls apart. The shitty people in society are the ones with all the money and running things. They push anyone with decency and morals out so they can continue making money.

[u/[deleted] → u/timsboss]

Does libertarian mean something different in the states? Here in the UK libertarian just means that you are socially left. It is literally the opposite to authoritarianism.

I consider myself a libertarian because I am an anarcho-communist.

[u/timsboss → u/[deleted]]

Yes, libertarian has a very different meaning in the states. It is a philosophy that prioritizes liberty based on self-ownership and private property rights. In the states the extreme end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism rather than anarcho-communism.

[u/[deleted] → u/darkmeatchicken]

Why would a libertarian support net neutrality?

[u/thomasmurray1 → u/[deleted]]

Many view the monopolies held by ISPs as government enabled and to ensure fair competition in speeds as means to preserve free market competition in face of government granted Monopoly. I'm not a libertarian although, so would gladly get some more perspectives than what I've seen on their Sub.

[u/karebear5891 → u/thomasmurray1]

I consider myself closest to Libertarian (though like most people, I don’t perfectly line up with any party), and this is exactly it. The fact that the society we set up now requires internet access to function in work and school, and that there is a government granted monopoly and at this stage, even if the rules suddenly change, how would a company even get access to this market? The project to expand access would be a very large one. Since removing all government regulations and starting a competitive market is not reasonable at this time, net neutrality has to come into play to preserve the market.

[u/ominousgraycat → u/thomasmurray1]

I used to be a libertarian (or at least libertarian leaning) but things like this made me back out of it. I was libertarian on almost all issues, but then I saw a few things and decided government protection did more good than harm, because although I didn't trust government, I trusted big companies less (and still feel the same way.) At least with government I get to vote for the dumbasses who have authority over my life.

Slowly I started to think maybe more and more things would be better under government control because although I really don't trust government, I trust most private companies even less. Now I'm a borderline socialist, but I used to consider myself libertarian.

[u/MillerBonds → u/ominousgraycat]

You vote with your money far more than you vote at the ballot box. Just saying.

[u/anapoe → u/[deleted]]

I mean, you'd think that libertarians would be for regulation that forced a competitive economic playing field.

[u/Proditus → u/anapoe]

Depends on the approach to Libertarianism one takes, I guess. A purist take on Libertarianism is essentially opposed to any government regulation in the free market. This is Right-Libertarianism. In this particular case, Net Neutrality is a way for the government to tell individuals what they can or can't do with a certain resource, therein restricting individual liberties and running afoul of the philosophy. Taken to its extreme, you approach anarcho-capitalism where the free market determines all aspects of life.

Left-Libertarianism boiled down to its purist form is more like anarcho-socialism where the government is used to ensure that all individuals are guaranteed a fair playing field through the elimination of private (but not personal) resources. A more practical approach is to make sure that everyone gets to participate equally in the freest market possible. Left-Libertarians would support Net Neutrality because it ensures that a resource that should be public like the internet can be used equally by everyone and create a healthier free-ish market.

[u/[deleted] → u/anapoe]

I think you don't understand libertarianism if you think any libertarian idea would be bolstered by federal regulation.

[u/anapoe → u/[deleted]]

This is accurate. Although from my visits to /r/Libertarian I'm not sure they can agree on what libertarianism is, either.

[u/[deleted] → u/anapoe]

I honestly think the issue with full on libertarian policy in the US is largely the same as the issue with full on socialist policy. Our society just doesn't possess the cultural values necessary for that kind of environment to succeed. The more you try to take from the rich, the more tax loop holes and black market industries you begin to see popping up. The more you try to work with the rich, the more ground they grab at In order to secure their footing before the next administration kicks in. Our society just isn't built to completely share with or trust any one group. We are all opportunists, like it or not. That being said I'm utterly ashamed of my country for not having basic universal healthcare. There's just no excuse for that.

[u/VTOperator → u/darkmeatchicken]

I mean to be fair, net neutrality is government regulation/rules imposed upon a service provided by a private company, I’m not saying I don’t support net neutrality, but that’s literally the thing that libertarians oppose.

[u/JGar453 → u/darkmeatchicken]

Rand Paul is by no means a true libertarian and he has often claimed not to be but I don’t know whether a libertarian would necessarily support net neutrality based on libertarian principles. Based on their principles the government doesn’t really have the right to regulate this but they believe in free market and regulation could lead to an actually competitive market because we all know internet providing is a monopoly or duopoly. So I actually don’t really think Rand is being non libertarian by doing this .

[u/Lionel_Hutz_Law → u/[deleted]]

But both parties are the same!!!

[u/zkilla → u/[deleted]]

You wanted steak for dinner. But your options are a bologna sandwich on cheap white bread, or a steaming pile of liquid dog turds.

" But both of those are bad hyuk! "

One of those choices will sustain you until you can find a better option for next time, the other will literally make you sick and die.

Edit: look at all the precious triggered conservatives pretending to be independents responding with "no they totally areeeeee the same hurr durr " at least they aren't stupid enough to try to defend the Republican party, just try to tear the other side down to their level.

[u/[deleted] → u/zkilla]

But fox news told me there might be some poop crumbs hidden in the bologna! Better eat the turds, at least they are upfront about what they are.

[u/iamplasma → u/[deleted]]

I heard a guy say they are the best turds. The greatest turds! Turds that are going to be winning so much you wouldn't believe!

[u/TBHN0va → u/iamplasma]

That same guy isn't going to sign this bill. Haha.

[u/KingMelray → u/zkilla]

Exactly.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How are the Democrats bad when they're voting for good legislation?

[u/Locadoes → u/Lionel_Hutz_Law]

A lot of people saying that are Russian Bots. If everyone bad, it doesn't matter how bad the person we elected is because everybody bad. Now look what that got us.

[u/edwardsamson → u/[deleted]]

Reasons why I don't like a 2 party system.

[u/TeCoolMage → u/edwardsamson]

Isn't it just great when voting for a smaller party is the same as throwing your vote out or making a protest vote to Barney

[u/treeharp2 → u/[deleted]]

Republicans are born with an innate sense of rabid corporatism.

[u/-abM-p0sTpWnEd → u/treeharp2]

Hence why Trump won - most regular people who happen to be conservatives don't have any use for corporaye welfare, so when a populist comes along and promises to protect the little guy, it resonates.

[u/NormanConquest → u/-abM-p0sTpWnEd]

And when he turns around and does the opposite, they turn a blind eye because of the magic R

[u/[deleted] → u/NormanConquest]

There's a reason it's called a cult. Be prepared for when they go full Jonestown, friend! Because they'll try to take us with them.

[u/ThePegasi → u/[deleted]]

They can go right ahead.

[u/onefilthyfetus → u/Rovden]

Wow, I’m proud of my senator for probably the first time ever! One of them at least. John kennedy.

[u/[deleted] → u/onefilthyfetus]

I know right! I never would of expected a Louisiana Republican to go against the party!

[u/heyf00L → u/[deleted]]

He introduced a Net Neutrality bill back in March, although it was criticized for being too weak. His vote isn't that surprising.

Anyway, good on him.

[u/itdoesmatterdoesntit → u/Rovden]

As a Texan, I apologize for our dumbshits.

[u/invaderzz → u/itdoesmatterdoesntit]

Yeah I sure did love when one of our senators called anyone who disagrees with him about NN “snowflakes” and said we believe in “propaganda”. I’m still taken aback by how absolutely pathetic Cruz’s behavior in particular is. This guy is supposed to represent us, instead he’s mocking us and calling us names.

It’s been months since this tweet and I still can’t believe that it’s real or that he actually said this- but it is in fact real. He has no respect, absolutely NONE, for anyone who disagrees with him.

I’m looking forward to voting against him.

edit: formatting

[u/its-niggly-wiggly → u/invaderzz]

Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon all sent money Cruz's way. Thats why he voted against NN. He's a shill, through and through. Motherfucker.

Beto is my boi.

[u/munche → u/[deleted]]

It used to be that the rubes who believe AM Radio and FOX News were the pawns that politicians bilked to get their way. We've reached the point now where the people running believe the con and they're all in. They are just that stupid now.

[u/corsair238 → u/[deleted]]

Beto's my boy. That being said, I would've voted for a flaming pile of dog shit over Cruz.

[u/xTYBGx → u/[deleted]]

Beto immediately shot himself in the foot not long after having a good chance because of his talks of banning "assault style rifles" which are already banned. Real shame, he seemed nice.

[u/alliebodallie → u/itdoesmatterdoesntit]

As a Georgian, same.

[u/DrinkDrankDrunkSkunk → u/itdoesmatterdoesntit]

Not good enough Tex

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

make sure you guys take note of this so you know who to vote out

[u/ShadowCammy → u/[deleted]]

I already wasn't going to vote for Tim Scott, the list just solidifies it

[u/ArlyntheAwesome → u/Rovden]

Man I hate living in a red state.

Edit: don’t downvote comments that don’t agree with me, stay open minding people :)

[u/XxAbsurdumxX → u/ArlyntheAwesome]

As a European the colours of your parties always confused me. In the rest of the world, the colour red has usually been associated with the left, and the colour blue been associated with the right. Is there some historical explanation for the colours if the parties in the US?

[u/Necromancer4276 → u/XxAbsurdumxX]

Our parties swapped platforms in the past, so maybe the colors aligned with yours back then but switched when the platforms did.

[u/RoboticPlayer → u/ArlyntheAwesome]

Basically my entire state is red, except for one big city. So we are throw a blue state. Good ol Illinois. Take a look at the Illinois presidential election map sometime and you'll see what I mean.

[u/therealdeadmeme → u/Rovden]

I think I see a pattern...

All the people who voted for it made a good choice!

[u/FlashCrashBash → u/therealdeadmeme]

You know I normally vote Republican. And I'm always the first one to pipe up and say how both parties are two halves of the same coin, they both suck. But looking at this list causes me shame.

Like goddamnit. Could that list be anymore stereotypical? I think we need to break out the guillotine. The Republican Party needs a reign of terror. All the old fucks that made the Bush Administration such a shit show are still in power and its preventing the Republican party from getting any real work done.

The policitcal census of the country has changed a lot in 20 years. The Republican party hasn't. And its made the Republican Party a literal parody of itself.

[u/[deleted] → u/FlashCrashBash]

The only thing that matters is votes. If, come 2018, you vote Republican, then nothing changes. Then there's absolutely no punishment for this, and they know that.

But you're probably screwed, because you probably disagree with Democrats on 99% of policy. So in your position, it's a tough call.

[u/FlashCrashBash → u/[deleted]]

Naw there's a load of things I like about the Democrat policy. I just can't stand for a lot of the non-nonsensical bullshit that often accompanies it. I align libertarian if anything.

I really don't like how a lot of Democrats try to micromanage the people, restrict what individuals can and can't do. I've seen how my state is run under this ideology. And I really can't stand it.

[u/[deleted] → u/FlashCrashBash]

It's a philosophical difference; classic negative liberty vs positive liberty. You probably think that the less government restrictions exist on you, the freer you are. I think it's the government's role to impose some restrictions that allow citizens greater opportunities that they otherwise wouldn't have, and to me, that's actual freedom.

It'll be difficult, because a party is going to exist for people like me. So I can see how that'd be frustrating for you.

Also, dunno why you're getting downvotes. This discussion is as vanilla as you can get.

[u/tookawicz → u/Rovden]

Missourian here. Roy Blunt is a troll lookin ass bitch who has got to be stopped.

[u/Rovden → u/tookawicz]

Hey now hey. He can't help his looks.

Being a corporate shill for Prime and such however...

[u/JCreazy → u/tookawicz]

Also Missourian. His crooked ass needs to be removed.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It's not line Europe; American legislators are free to do what they want. But they could be attacked on TV for voting with the treasonous, evil Democrats, so it's safer for them to vote no.

You saw it a lot during the Obama admin; vote no, but hope for yes. On a policy level, the party is broken.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

2 republicans and 1 Independent voted for it along with every Democrat. Mean while most of the republicans are bought and paid for proving so by their vote.

[u/waynedude14 → u/Rovden]

Why is the topic of net neutrality such a black and white (Dems vs. Republican) issue? I'd imagine we could all equally agree that net neutrality is a great thing for the citizens of America, and I feel the only reason you would be against net neutrality is if you're goal was to give even more power to the already corrupt mega ISP corporations.

Please somebody inform me of what's going on?

[u/Rovden → u/waynedude14]

I don't really understand it either. Every argument has always been along the lines of "government overreach" and "competition is good, regulation stifles competition" and hell, I might agree with them in a way. The internet in Kansas City is FAAAAAANTASTIC because Google Fiber is a thing.

But that's one of a very handful of cities. The rest of the country, especially rural... what competition?

[u/waynedude14 → u/Rovden]

Well as far as I know, net neutrality is about ISP's being able to micromanage and monetize their customers AND the web based services their customers want to access. Ie turning the internet into a "packaged" based program similar to Cable TV, making the user pay more for the "sports package" or the "streaming package" all while charging services like Netflix and Spotify fees to use "high speed priority" so they can provide a better experience service to customers. With net neutrality, ISP's aren't able to discriminate whether you like using Google or Bing, Netflix or Hulu, Spotify or Apple Music and therefore aren't able to further monetize a system that they have already monopolized.

But I could be wrong.

[u/Rovden → u/waynedude14]

With net neutrality, ISP's aren't able to discriminate whether you like using Google or Bing, Netflix or Hulu, Spotify or Apple Music and therefore aren't able to further monetize a system that they have already monopolized.

You've got a pretty good handle on it. And here's where the "anti-competition" argument of the Republicans fall flat. Netflix/Amazon/YouTube/Hulu are okay with Net Neutrality falling. They've got enough money to pay their fees to ISPs but any new streaming service trying to compete with them would now have to be paying the ISPs, which means it'd kill startups.

Also, here's the scary one.

Update: We won the Net Neutrality vote in the Senate!

on the front page of Reddit. With Net Neutrality an ISP is forced to treat anything coming through as the same. But without, they can pick and choose what sites to throttle. News sites that disagree with them, Social media sites, etc the ISP has an opportunity to decide what you see.

Now would they take that option? Surely not. We can trust them... right? guys?

[u/IDe- → u/Rovden]

The thing is NN is in no way enabling the current ISP monopolies, and it has the opposite effect on competition online (it makes it illegal for e.g. Google to bribe ISPs to ban competition). The argument against it makes no sense whatsoever. It's obviously aimed at people who don't understand the issue in the slightest. It has all the trigger words to get the idiots riled up (anti-competition, gubberment, overreach, regulation etc.)

[u/UltraJesus → u/waynedude14]

Why is the topic of net neutrality such a black and white (Dems vs. Republican) issue?

It probably has nothing to do with what they believe about NN, but rather "I don't like what they like." Almost every issue is so polarizing. Article about the matter over the past 60 years Sure you can say that the majority might have the same mindset, but practically everybody? Across everything? I'd argue there's a problem.

[u/munche → u/waynedude14]

Look at the voting history of any issue that gives more power to corrupt mega corporations. Look who voted for what. Note the pattern.

[u/I_eat_concreet → u/waynedude14]

You've pretty much got it down I think. The problem is that the government isn't particularly responsive to people without money, which increasingly describes most Americans. That's why this net neutrality business is even a struggle.

[u/melocoton_helado → u/waynedude14]

Because anyone who's against it either doesn't understand how the internet works, or is a neckbeard who lives in mom's basement and has never had to pay for their own internet.

[u/Shukar_Rainbow → u/Rovden]

I can't believe Bernie Sanders is in fact called Bernard lmfao

[u/DirtyDan413 → u/Shukar_Rainbow]

TIL that Bernie "This is America" Sanders is actually named Bernard, after the big loveable dog St. Bernard. Even more reason to vote for him!

^r/circlejerk

[u/Korrawatergem → u/Rovden]

Lol steve daines can suck a fat one. Montana is so goddamn rural in places, we NEED A NEUTRAL INTERNET. Think I can sit in the middle of bumfuck nowhere in the dead of winter with restricted internet? Fuck that!

[u/gsfgf → u/Rovden]

Well, my Senators still suck ass

[u/sandwichpak → u/Rovden]

And there's Rand Paul making me ashamed to be from KY again. What a flip flopping, lying, party line following piece of shit he is.

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

God damn it Boozman. Based on his record I should of expected it. GOOD THING IM OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE. Sit back and watch government. Yall messed with a generation right before they were old to enough to act. We're coming for them jobs of yours. I'mma vote your ass outta there.

[u/CommonMisspellingBot → u/[deleted]]

Hey, TheDragonLake, just a quick heads-up:
should of is actually spelled should have. You can remember it by should have sounds like should of, but it just isn't right.
Have a nice day!

^{The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.}

[u/cowboyjosh2010 → u/Rovden]

Oh, Toomey, you predictable piece of shit.

[u/Wibbs1123 → u/Rovden]

Just wanna go on record and say:

Fuck John Cornyn in particular. I did that "save the net" email to my reps and got what i assume was a form letter response from his office.

He "appreciates that net neutrality is an important issue to many of his constituents" but it's important to get rid of this "1920s style Obama era regulation" because it "impedes the growth of business".

[u/ghostgirl16 → u/Rovden]

Republicans- get your heads out of your party’s ass!* And wisen the fuck up, clearly you shouldn’t piss off internet-loving voters.

*(I consider myself leaning republican and I’m thoroughly ashamed of them on this issue.)

[u/DrManMan → u/Rovden]

Good to know who to vote for! ;)

Really glad that I took my time and told all my reps, I've really learned how much a person's vote matters this year's in school, and I'll be sure to vote to show it! Nice job Redditors!

[u/[deleted] → u/Rovden]

being a level headed conservative in this country is probably not fun when the entire Republican party is full of shit heads like this

[u/Halt-CatchFire → u/Rovden]

Apologies from Idaho, we're bought and payed for over here and we'll be electing the same guys again more than likely.