And he crashes the car back into the brick wall. Okay.


>>I assumed you were either trying to say something relevant
>to
>>the current discussion, or at least making a broader point
>>about political strategy. If you were doing neither, if you
>>were just randomly stringing words together, then I stand
>>corrected.
>
>You assumed all of that from my reply which was
>
>wth, Its true, a link to Pai's wiki page and thanks Obama.
>
>Sounds like you are putting a lie together on purpose to
>cover.

The "lie", specifically, that I thought you were trying to construct a meaningful sentence? You're not good with sarcasm, are you?

Or are you saying that you really WERE just randomly stringing words together?

From the rest of your discussion, it looks like you're actually trying to argue, despite a clear and complete ignorance of how this process works, that Obama did something wrong in naming Pai to this irrelevant position. Let's talk that out...


>>Yes. He was required by law to appoint a Republican to the
>>position. The Republican party was his opposition, not Mitch
>>McConnell.
>>
>
>A Republican, not only Mitch McConnell's Republican

Did you stop for a MOMENT and ask why he "went with Mitch McConnell's suggestion." Do you have any idea how this process is legally required to work? Clearly not, as you've shown it at every stage of the discussion. I don't either. I'll admit, I learned a few things from this discussion. There were other people who spread nice little seeds of knowledge while you were spreading ignorance.


When you were surprised by that one sentence on Wikipedia there were two obvious paths to take. Sometimes logic is like a choose your own adventure novel!

a.) Figure out what Pai's significance was as a minority member on the committee, realize that he had no power in that position and that that appointment had nothing to do with his eventual appointment to the chairmanship. Then you could just keep it moving.
(That's the route I took.)

b.) Be shocked and appalled that Obama would cooperate with the loathsome turtle-man from Kentucky, then look up how this process works, what the legal restrictions are, and hopefully find out WHY Obama would accept the recommendation of the guy who'd just said his first priority was to get him out of office.
(That's the route you should have taken, but it would have required some actual effort, which apparently you couldn't muster.)

Instead you tried to invent a third option:
c*.) Play dumb, try to spread your own intellectual laziness to others, and play the victim when someone calls you out on it.


>>No, put whoever you have to on the board, consistent with
>the
>>legal rules, and pay special attention to the people in your
>>own party. Because Democrats will always be in the majority
>>for as long as a Democrat is president, and Republicans will
>>always be in the majority when a Republican is president.
>>
>
>The power will eventually flip so you shouldn't ignore the
>minority member you appoint.

Again, here's that intellectual laziness. You're probably not aware, I guess, that the President has the authority to disband the committee and appoint everyone from scratch, are you? Pai's earlier membership on the committee was not relevant or necessary in any way for his eventual chairmanship or the pushing of this repeal.

Imagine that, somehow, Obama was able to stack the committee entirely with net-neutrality supporters. Imagine that Obama disbanded the committee, played a back and forth with McConnell (wasting political capital along the way) until McConnell finally gives him the names of two Republicans who fully supported the net neutrality measures.

What difference would that have made?

Well, for one thing, the net neutrality measures that we got out of the Wheeler years would have been endangered, because we likely would have just been sitting with an empty board for years.

And then, of course, when Trump takes power, he would remove these unicorn Republicans anyway, and we'd be in exactly the same place.

This is why it's important that the people who are actually representing progressive positions in government are not reactionary idiots like you.


>>Why? What difference do you think it would have made to pick
>>such a fight? Wheeler's rules would have still gone into
>>effect. They would have still been repealed today. And for
>all
>>we know, Trump would have still named Pai chairman of the
>>committee even if he'd never served on it before. At any
>rate,
>>whoever Trump chose would have definitely been just as
>>interested in tearing down net neutrality regulations. Even
>if
>>Obama had found the magical Republican who supports net
>>neutrality, Trump would have had the authority to remove him
>>or her and replace them with whoever he likes. So what are
>you
>>trying to argue?
>>
>
>Are you that defeated and beaten ? I know Dems are scared but
>it sounds like even the foot soldiers would rather run than
>fight. Pai brought his aide with him. You got Republican's
>doing worse and you don't think that Obama should've push back
>against McConnell's recommendation. I'm arguing fight, stop
>being scared.

It doesn't count as fighting to shoot yourself in the head.



>>^ Listen everybody... That's the sound of a guy realizing
>that
>>his own arguments are specious but failing to go back and
>>improve them.
>>
>
>No it's the sound of a guy who was just bombarded with
>arguments based on assumptions.

Yes, the assumption that you're interested in figuring out why you're wrong. Apparently you're not.



>>><<We lost net neutrality because a Republican is in the
>>White
>>>House, and no other reason. And a Republican is in the
>White
>>>House, in part, because a lot of ill-informed and
>>>logic-challenged 'progressives' were out there claiming
>>there
>>>wasn't much difference between Donald Trump and Barack
>Obama
>>>or Hillary Clinton.>>
>>>
>
>>
>>You're just completely discombobulated at this point.
>>
>
>LOL The topic is net neutrality and you are talking about why
>Hillary lost. I know any criticism of Hillary means go on the
>attack against Bernie Bros, progressives, but I guess that
>includes any criticism of Obama.

It includes anyone who claims to stand for my positions, but who is wilfully so ignorant and illogical about the structures and functions of government that if they gained any power or influence whatsoever, they could only hope to set those positions back. Here's another non sequitur: idiots like you are the Roy Moore's of the left.


>>Look, there's no shame in admitting that you spoke before
>you
>>knew what you were talking about. This is OKP, we all do it.
>>Yeah, it sounds shocking to hear that Barack Obama appointed
>>Ajit Pai. I'll admit, I was surprised by it when I heard it.
>>But surprises are supposed to be opportunities for learning.
>>We all learned something today about how the FCC board
>works.
>>Good for all of us.
>>
>
>Practice what you preach. Go to the top and read where you
>admitted to making assumptions, then go back and look at the
>all the words you typed based on those assumptions.

Again, the only assumption I made is that you believed what you said. I'm sorry if it confused you when I admitted to that. But from the size of your reply it's pretty clear that you at least want people to think you believed what you said.



>Don't
>waste time and lie when all of your words are right here. Stop
>being scared and getting defensive when Hillary or Obama's
>name come up and the discussion is not about worshiping them.
>Take the cape off put the shield down.

The problem is not that you criticized Obama. You didn't criticize Obama. You just said something fucking stupid. Multiple people tried to correct you on it, and you're fighting it to the end. You fight for the sake of fighting, whether you're right or (clearly, utterly) wrong. It's a good thing you weren't working in the Obama White House, or you'd have been telling him to pick pointless battles there too. Like battles over irrelevant positions on the FCC board.