I see her as something similar to Scarborough. She holds a few positions that can be construed as conservative but she's far from it.
Senate votes to let ISP's sell your browsing history without your consent.
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
I see her as something similar to Scarborough. She holds a few positions that can be construed as conservative but she's far from it.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Well they should have waited until the Congress passed that legislation, maybe now they can both find out what's on his phone AND his computer AND sell it for profit.
sturg33
I
http://billmoyers.com/story/vote-correlation-internet-privacy-resolution-telecom-contributions/
We took a look at the contributions received by members of the House and Senate from the telecom industry,
Here’s what we found: On the House side, while there wasn’t a huge difference in overall funds received by lawmakers voting for or against the resolution, there was a gap in the Republican vote. GOP lawmakers who voted to quash the rule received an average of $138,000 from the industry over the course of their careers.
The 15 Republicans voting nay? They got just $77,000.
Some Dems were quite popular targets for industry contributions. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, for instance, who is the second-highest ranking Democrat in the House, has received more than $1.3 million from telecom interests in the course of his long career, more than all but two House members; he received almost $190,000 in the 2016 cycle alone.
Still, he voted against the bill, as did South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn ($968,000 career), California Rep. Anna Eshoo ($864,000) and every other Democrat.
We can’t know if they objected to the bill on its merits, or they wanted to oppose the Republican agenda in all its manifestations, or what other motivations they might have had. Similarly, the yea-voting Republicans might have been on board for the bill because they oppose regulation in most forms, or they wanted to be team players, or for some other reason.
Blackburn has received close to $564,000 from the telecom industry over the course of her House career.
Nine House members — six Republicans and three Democrats — didn’t vote on the measure.
Over in the Senate, where the vote last week was strictly along party lines, the 50 Republicans voting for the bill had received an average of $368,648 from the industry during their congressional careers. The 48 Democrats who voted against it took in $329,180, about 11 percent less. Two senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky and John Isakson of Georgia, both Republicans — didn’t cast votes.
We took a look at the contributions received by members of the House and Senate from the telecom industry,
Here’s what we found: On the House side, while there wasn’t a huge difference in overall funds received by lawmakers voting for or against the resolution, there was a gap in the Republican vote. GOP lawmakers who voted to quash the rule received an average of $138,000 from the industry over the course of their careers.
The 15 Republicans voting nay? They got just $77,000.
Some Dems were quite popular targets for industry contributions. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, for instance, who is the second-highest ranking Democrat in the House, has received more than $1.3 million from telecom interests in the course of his long career, more than all but two House members; he received almost $190,000 in the 2016 cycle alone.
Still, he voted against the bill, as did South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn ($968,000 career), California Rep. Anna Eshoo ($864,000) and every other Democrat.
We can’t know if they objected to the bill on its merits, or they wanted to oppose the Republican agenda in all its manifestations, or what other motivations they might have had. Similarly, the yea-voting Republicans might have been on board for the bill because they oppose regulation in most forms, or they wanted to be team players, or for some other reason.
Blackburn has received close to $564,000 from the telecom industry over the course of her House career.
Nine House members — six Republicans and three Democrats — didn’t vote on the measure.
Over in the Senate, where the vote last week was strictly along party lines, the 50 Republicans voting for the bill had received an average of $368,648 from the industry during their congressional careers. The 48 Democrats who voted against it took in $329,180, about 11 percent less. Two senators — Rand Paul of Kentucky and John Isakson of Georgia, both Republicans — didn’t cast votes.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
What?
Eh never mind. I guess nowadays you basically have to be a fan of full on fascism to be a conservative.
sturg33
I
I know this is the fun party line... but a fascist is someone who supports more government power... not less
Oh and the "agree with us or you are dangerous/stupid/homophobic/sexist/racist" line is also a winner
I'm disappointed in you, Zito. You're usually more rational than this but you're approaching 57/goldfly lunacy here.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
And Trump who has made up positions for his cronies, who put unconstitutional bans, who wants to massively increase defense spending as someone who wants less government power? Well la de da, what reality are you living in?
Also fascism by the book is
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
Or a bit more advanced definition
" a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
WE've already seen Trump rail against the Judicial BRanch of the government. He has a White Supremacist as his special advisor or whatever. His who campaign was build around Make America Great Again. And they haven't fully gone on that last 3, but I'm sure if they could and get away with it they would.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No, you said someone who was basically free campaign spin for Mitt Romney in 2012 isn't a conservative.
Someone who calls others who want a balanced budget "extremists" is not a conservative.
He did rail against the judicial branch and I'm glad he did. That doesn't make him a fascist because he wants judges to make rulings by what the law says instead of on how they feel. The other points you're trying to make are just ridiculous and not worth responding to.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Except he doesn't want them to make the rulings based on the law. He thinks an executive order is law, and it isn't usually. There are some circumstances where it can be.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Executive Orders cannot supercede laws passed by Congress. THey also do not apply to anything outside of the scope of the executive Branch. For example, Trump cannot pass any laws that are specifically entitled to the states or congress to pass. Everything else is kind of grey but the Judicial Branch 100% has the right to declare an executive order unconstitutional.