Downvoting statements that are accurate and contribute to the discussion is a hallmark of this topic. Hacker news cannot have useful discussion here because it's all orthodoxy.
I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what.
In the past it was religion, today it is whether or not you are a network expert with an opinion about the technical implications of net-neutrality proposals. People on the pro-net neutrality side of this debate become furious if you don't spout their orthodoxy. I find it revolting.
But yes, by all means, downvote sp332 for making a completely accurate assessment of how our legislative system works. It really improves the quality of the discussion.
It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.
johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?
Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare).
If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.
> johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead
Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.
I always marvelled at historical hatred between protestants and catholics during and prior to the enlightenment. I now realize that this is a symptom of human nature. Humans apparently have to hate the other guys no matter what.
In the past it was religion, today it is whether or not you are a network expert with an opinion about the technical implications of net-neutrality proposals. People on the pro-net neutrality side of this debate become furious if you don't spout their orthodoxy. I find it revolting.
But yes, by all means, downvote sp332 for making a completely accurate assessment of how our legislative system works. It really improves the quality of the discussion.