In the transactional world of certain people, I appointed you, so you decide in my favor. I don’t think that works with Supreme Court Justices. They may not be everyone’s favorite judge, but they’re still a judge, not a total buffoon like the “elite strike force” “release the Kraken” lawyers. I would be surprised if SCOTUS touched any of this. I have my doubts about Kavanaugh’s love for beer, but otherwise, they are only going to accept a modest level of crazytown.
I also believe that is 99.9% the case with election judges, ballot counters, secretaries of state, etc. Media and both parties would have you believe they will act solely according to party affiliation. I think mostly they just do their job, even if they wish the outcome were different. Much of what we see is projection. If that were me, I would totally do these crooked things, so let’s assume that’s what everyone would do. Nobody could possibly just be doing a job the best they can, with no other motives. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steve Jones Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 12:27 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference Unless there is a direct constitutional question, scotus has no business being involved. The fact that scotus is even in play is a direct consequense of the decades of judicial politicking On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 12:14 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com <mailto:part15...@gmail.com> > wrote: The Supremes are going to refuse to get involved; if they are asked, which I'm on the fence about. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 11/23/2020 10:06 AM, Steve Jones wrote: This shit is neverending entertainment. They put the crazy lady up as the lead, then shitcanned her, but she didnt stop and theres no infighting. Pennsylvania is back in play in the courts. Media runs with some judge dismissing something like it's relevant, theyve bending it for 4 years, that's just a step in the process to get things to the supreme court. Either way I see armed conflict prior to inauguration. One side wants to bury everything and one side wants sunlight on everything, then if it doesnt bear fruit they want it dissected and sunlight on its guts. They're gonna fuck around and get biden disqualified after it's to late and then the bigot harris will be in play. We dont want that On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 11:29 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote: https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-gop-challengers-we-faced-open-intimidation-detroit https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc Two poll challengers in Detroit with different perspectives about what they saw at the exact same polling place. I do see general agreement on the events though. A volunteer busybody follows people around and questions everything they do. They get annoyed and say, "buzz off, talk to my supervisor". The Democratic challenger says, "the GOP poll challenger was being douchey and asking accusatory questions. Also racism." The Republican challenger says "All I did was ask questions and they got all douchey about it. Also I was intimidated/oppressed." On 11/23/2020 11:33 AM, Bill Prince wrote: That's the sort of thing you'd expect from Huffpost or TheOnion. Kind of apropos though. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 11/23/2020 7:50 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: Back to the press conference, either Fox News has totally turned against DJT, or someone paired the wrong headline and photo. From: AF <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Steve Jones Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 9:06 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference The intent was that an isp couldn't throttle competitor traffic in preference of their own, but in true bureaucratic fashion they purposefully left it vague so it could be reinterpreted at whim. On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 7:55 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote: The 2015 Open Internet Order didn't do even 1/10th of the things attributed to it. It had nothing to do with congestion, censorship, freedom, service pricing, etc. The rules were no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. All three rules had the exception for "reasonable network management". Reasonable management was not specifically defined, but in discussion it was said to be driven by a technical need rather than a business one. So the blocking and throttling we all do to make traffic flow properly was ok and nobody was ever going to pay any of us for prioritization. I've never been convinced that the rule was necessary. It seemed like a rule saying ISP's can't build moon rockets....like ok I'll stop my Apollo project immediately. The actual rules were trivial to obey and I'd bet almost nobody here was ever breaking them My only concern was Title II status could open the door on additional rules that might be more onerous later. On 11/23/2020 8:40 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: The original Net Neutrality had nothing to do with congested upstream or peering ports. Why force your competition to be less bad? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> _____ From: "Darin Steffl" <mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> <af@af.afmug.com> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2020 9:48:05 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference If net neutrality comes back, there will likely be similar exemptions for ISP's less than 100k subscribers or whatever the number was before. It shouldn't affect us in any real way. It will force the big ISP's to be good (better?) guys and not let peering cross connects fill up and become congested for example. On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 9:45 PM Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us <mailto:se...@rollernet.us> > wrote: On 11/21/20 7:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > But as amusing as this may be, it might be time to start looking at how > the next administration could affect WISPs. Like a 3-2 Dem FCC and a > new Chairman (woman?). Will Net Neutrality and Title II return? Does > it matter? > Net neutrality seems likely to make a comeback. Would it change anything I do? No, but it might add annoying paperwork. Worst case someone thinks I'm doing something and files a formal complaint, which would waste time having to answer it. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
