It's a shame that these days, we are focused on hyper-specialization and don't see these sort of polymaths.

Congress already gave him the authority: 50 U.S. Code  1701 and 50 U.S. Code  1702

From what we know so far, Mr. Pai's rationale for eliminating the rules is that cable and phone companies, despite years of healthy profit, need to earn even more money than they already do -- that is, that the current rates of return do not yield adequate investment incentives.

CEOs of various telecoms have been asked during quarterly earnings calls how the implementation of net neutrality and later its repeal would affect their bottom line. They have said it would not. They are legally required to provide accurate information during such calls (and can be sued for breach of fiduciary duty if they don't).

Such statements will be used against Pai when the FCC gets sued over this.

It says exactly what I said it does. Quoting verbatim from that decision: "Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."

I don't like them, but as long as they are content-neutral then they are constitutional. That being said, they become unconstitutional the minute you start forcing your critics to use them but don't do the same with your supporters.

If something's a constitutional or other legal right then you don't have to get a PERMIT to be authorized to do it.

Unless Grayned v. Rockford has been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is just not true. The government has a well-established right to regulate the time, place, and manner in which you exercise that speech.

Yep. Who knew a supposedly smart techie readership could be taken in by a con man like Trump?

She just accused Trump of believing, "pregnancy is an inconvenience for employer". That's a perfectly non-controversial soundbite in itself.

The context is Trump himself and how he treats women, compounded with the way he runs his businesses (regularly screwing people over.)

I personally doubt the birth certificate which has been released, but it is a moot point.

Conspiracy theories are a hell of a drug. You might want to talk to a doctor instead of self medicating.

"pregnancy is an inconvenience"

Last I looked, pregnancy was a natural aspect of humanity. I suppose it's an inconvenience if you think people exist solely to earn you money, and those who can't (however temporarily) should be punished for it.

Why wouldn't you believe that? If she did get stuck in Kenya late into her pregnancy and was forced to give birth there, the announcements could've been considered a perfectly innocent "white lie" (no racist pun intended) to ease repatriating the newborn child back into the US.

Birth certificate is from Hawaii, so that little bullshit line is out too. But anything to paste him as an EVIL KENYAN MUSLIN USURPER right?

There we go again. It is just unbelievable, that the kind of argument, which Hans Christian Andersen utterly destroyed back in 19th century, is still in use by Democrats today. Only a total moron or virulent racist would think, the Emperor is naked.

An argument repeatedly discredited put forth on conspiratorial grounds with zero evidence and lots of pre-existing vitriol doesn't deserve consideration.

A presidential contender — vying for arguably the highest post on the planet — is always under a microscope with hundreds of people, both well-paid and volunteers, looking for every possible flaw. For example, Washington Post alone has 20 reporters dedicated to digging up dirt on Trump this year. Are they White-hating racists, or is it a legitimate scrutiny of a major party's nominee?

The GOP actions against Obama are pretty much only for a handful of reasons: he's black, and he's a Democrat. I'm sure they went over his past with a fine-tooth comb when he first ran for President, and I imagine that they came up empty handed, so ultimately they had to resort to contrived scandals to attack him and Hillary with.

Both produced birth certificates upon request, rendering their circumstances rather different from Obama's, who kept stalling for 3 years...

He ignored the cries for 3 years because the claims were bullshit that had NEVER been leveled against a previous candidate. He released it to shut them up and, predictably, the conspiracy theorists just moved the goalposts.

You should just accept that Trump is an incompetent, disgusting excuse for a human being who gets a pass because he has money and has been on TV for a long time. And since they only see the TV personality, they generally don't know the con-man who has screwed people over for decades.

Sure.

"What will you do about climate change?"

"I will eliminate regulations and leave it up to the free market."

Which translates to "nothing and I will ensure it gets worse." Which is pretty much the Libertarian Party's platform.

t if you read the link I posted (not from a conservative source either)

The "Daily Mail" is as reactionary, fearmongering source you can possibly find. It is by no measure "liberal" or even "neutral."

I said they may well have left it on but were not really watching... I explained that that had to be the case because of the poll results.

So you're literally jumping to conclusions you can't support, but insist they must be the case because that supports your desired world view of Trump winning despite spending 90 minutes looking like an incompetent jackass.

Kinda had you pegged for a Trump supporter.

Trump was better earlier, then it evened out and at times Hillary was better.

At no point was Trump "better." He didn't say a single useful thing.

This is borne out by polls taken immediately after showing that Trump actually won the debate [dailymail.co.uk], by a pretty large margin.

An article from a right-wing shit rag from the UK shows that the right-wing blowhard "won" in a "landslide." Sure. Now get back to me when the Daily Fail has any credibility whatsoever.

the media is rigged strongly in favor of Hillary.

Bullshit. The media is dropping the ball by treating Trump with kid gloves.

who the press will actually watch closely and call out anything wrong - they are going to do that constantly with Trump, and very little to not at all with Clinton.

Well for one thing, Trump's done a lot of destructive shit in his life. Probably far more than Hillary. But please, feel free to point something out about Hillary that hasn't been covered that reveals this grand conspiracy.

You heard about war protests all the time under Bush, not at all under Obama despite drone strikes on civilians that would have had the press howling under Bush.

Given Bush started the wars in question, no shit there were protests. Once his ass was out, the criticisms leveled against Obama have been very much higher level in nature, particularly since he got us more or less out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He's been roundly criticized for the drone program, but since it's so detached it's unsurprising there have been very few protests against it.

I mean, I know you're playing the role of "poor persecuted Republican" who just can't get a fair shake, but that's a delusion, frankly. Trump's horrid, Hillary is not, and the only failing of the press has been to not rip into trump every way possible.

I fully expected the cops to not know or care what Tor was

I'd imagine that cops looking for child pornographers would have a pretty good understanding of what TOR is (even if they didn't think to check that it was an exit node)