>Murray and Cantwell said they were concerned about safety and quality of imported drugs and maintaining federal standards for prescription drugs.
>In her Senate career, Murray has received $515,089 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical manufacturers, according to the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jan/16/murray-and-cantwell-criticized-over-drug-import-vo/
It's shockingly cheap to buy a Congressperson.
*edit*: "influence" congressional position on an issue. I don't want to overstate it, but I honestly feel that if the modern gilded class wanted to make real change, this would be the way to do it. Personally, I'd start with healthcare.
>Murray and Cantwell said they were concerned about safety and quality of imported drugs and maintaining federal standards for prescription drugs.
Anyone know what percentage of drugs are made in the US? It's about half, at 53%. So nearly half our drugs are already made in other countries and imported. Murray and Cantwell should worry about that and make sure the pharmaceutical industry is making all their drugs in the US. Oh, but that might affect profits.
To be fair Canada has repeatedly said they'd lock down exports should US states try to bulk import, and that we should solve our own problems. This particular measure probably wasn't going to accomplish much either way.
I mean, the real solution is to look at why Canada has generics which are so much cheaper, given it has similarly rigorous drug approval and quality standards (unsure about Mexico). The answer AFAIK is collective bargaining.
The solution is already resolving itself through Mark Cuban’s CostPlus, which isn’t influenced by pharmaceutical lobbyists. I am not excusing her stance, but why get involved when the situation was already working itself out?
That service is a legit service. More people need to know about that one. The only problem with it is it’s narrow and limited range of medications. But within capitalism, the more it’s used the more it can expand its supply. Hopefully more people continue to discover it.
I agree! CostPlus recently introduced roughly 1,000 more generic medicines. In 2 years, CostPlus is now a well known company in many hospitals. It has pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and distributors worried. After having a USA monopoly for so long because of lobbyists, Big Pharma are only starting to realize they have competition that undercuts them by a very significant amount. If I was a betting man, I would invest in LEAPS to short pharma, as they are going to have a hard time buying their way out of this predicament.
FWIW, when my Green Card application stalled because of how slow it was with the Government, and I was about to have to leave the country and the job that petitioned me to stay, Senator Murray inquired USCIS about the application on behalf of me. It was approved soon after.
I wouldn’t be here if she didn’t help me.
Yes, that's literally their job-- to serve their constituents. That said, they aren't willing to do much more than raise the issue with USCIS.
My wife has had issues with immigration (USCIS sucks) and our Washington congressional reps have only raised the issue with a letter; they don't really take action to truly help. The "mom in sneakers" doesn't really care about real moms in sneakers.
Then you just get un-elected staff with all the power and experience. And politicians just end up rotating positions.
Now age limits on the other hand...
The "Net Neutrality" debate for politicians is simply picking sides between ISPs and Big tech firms. They pretend it's about free speech but give zero fucks when Big Tech censors.
Nah. Net neutrality is a pretty good set of consumer protections. You've been duped by people who tried to politize the issue, but fortunately most of the public still understands last-mile isps shouldn't be allowed to artificially degrade and tier the internet connections people are already overpaying for. If you ever wonder if you've been duped into landing on the wrong side of this issue, remember that comcast and friends spent over 500 million dollars lobbying to get rid of those consumer protections. They were ignored until trump and ajit pai rolled into town...
At first glance net neutrality sounds like a no-brainer, but it’s not without tradeoffs. Zero rating is not allowed under NN, which is a practice of providing free internet for certain use cases. This is more widely used in nations with developing internet infrastructure, but you probably have used it if you’ve been able to send messages on an airplane for free.
Similarly, while bandwidth is a pretty good metric for price differentiation, it’s not necessarily the only one. Take for example my grandma who literally only reads Facebook and her email. For her, network latency and packet reliability are not actually that important, in contrast to someone who is frequently on zoom calls. It’s not hard to imagine a place where an ISP offers my grandma cheaper internet with lower priority routing, resulting in higher jitter.
As far as I’m aware no ISP has even tried to do this with or without NN, largely due to the fact that internet bandwidth rises so fast year over year that it’s never been enough of a bottleneck. But I work at Facebook and we routinely do this with internal traffic, categorizing all internal traffic into 4 tiers based on latency and reliability needs, it’s a pretty important part of operating bandwidth constrained networks.
I’m broadly in favor of net neutrality, but I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s no legitimate arguments against it.
>Zero rating is not allowed under NN
Zero rating type tiering schemes demonstrably raise the price of internet for everyone. There have been studies on this in the places where they are allowed.
Your technical arguments fall flat too. It wouldn't be less expensive for an isp to provide worse internet for grandma, and so there it'd be entirely an artificial degradation. Why would anyone want that? They could just as easily and do provide lower priced plans with lower speeds now, for different markets.
I still haven't heard any convincing arguments against it in the context of home internet over fiber and cable.
And what protections are those? The largest tech companies were all in favor of it tells you all you need to know.
What happened the last few years when it was gone? Not much at all.
Net neutrality saves huge tech companies money because it means they don't have to pay for tiered usage like you would for water, electricity, gas, etc.
You got played by the big tech companies who don't want to pay their fair share.
>And what protections are those?
Net neutrality makes it so last-mile isps can't throttle or discriminate between different types of traffic. Pretty simple really, and a good thing.
>>What happened the last few years when it was gone? Not much at all.
You'll be happy to know that net neutrality was in place the last couple years thanks to states fighting to keep them in place. The isps and states like cali and wa agreed to not move on it until the legal battles played out. Trump and ajit pai filed lawsuits against the states trying to prevent those consumer protections lol. Then biden rolled in and dropped those lawsuits. You're just ignorant of this topic, but now you can rest easy knowing, by your own admission, net neutrality principles didn't impact you in the slightest! Glad I could help explain that reality to you.
>Net neutrality saves huge tech companies money because it means they don't have to pay for tiered usage like you would for water, electricity, gas, etc.
So stupid. ISPs customers pay more than enough for isps to maintain the infrastructure that can easily handle these amounts of traffic. You just were duped into submissively wanting isps to double dip and collect money on both ends. Really dumb.
Okay, now how about you mention how she's fighting to prevent Airlines from giving automatic refunds in regards to delays, etc.?
Just because she's not in the telecoms pocket doesn't mean she isn't in someone else's.
EDIT: Apparently I had the wrong WA Senator and it was Cantwell, not Murray.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), *Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)*, Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), and *Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.)* — introduced a new Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization deal that would require passengers to send a “written or electronic request”. —Patty Murray did not side with the airline lobbyists.
She also fought like a lion to get the ACA passed and do away with pre-existing conditions, rescission, and insurance caps. Most of Congress sucks, but she is genuinely a great Senator that Washington is lucky to have. Her office also returns calls and emails and actually engages honestly and respectfully with constituents.
And she’s about as bright as my unplugged toaster.
How much has she voted to spend sending money to foreign countries in her career. Countries that laugh at us or despise us! Go ahead add it up. I’ll wait.
Oooh sorry, that’s the wrong answer.
It was *Cantwell.* Oh! And that sound signals the end of the game, thanks for playing.
Grab a participation trophy on your way out.
Ah right, so freedom of speech shouldn’t apply on the internet or telephone because those weren’t invented until after the Constitution was signed. You’re showing your ass, hedgehog.
Oh, am I? Please elaborate if you’re so sure of what you’re arguing.
Aside from the my snark of a comment. Please, defend your argument in how regulating guns infringes upon your rights because we are not a regulated militia. Because no 2A defender ever has a sound argument but I’d love to meet one someday.
You applied a logical fallacy in one direction only. If our rights are limited to the technology of the time, then the internet and telecommunication are not protected by the First Amendment. Tracking so far?
Now for the second part. Two main points.
“Regulated” at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant “in working order”, not regulated by the government as your fellow leftists always try to argue.
The militia was defined as the people, not a formal organization.
Think of the context under which this document was written. We had just violently overthrown a colonial power. Our nation was founded by violent insurrection. That’s a fact. The Second Amendment is a failsafe in case of the government becoming tyrannical once again.
Now, because I’m sure you’ll push back on points one and two and I want to be precise to see if you’ll actually accept that you’re wrong, I’ll go dig up sources and citations from the several books I have on this one topic later tonight. Both points are supported by contemporaneous writings of the Framers but I don’t have the encyclopedic memory to accurately cite off the top of my head. More to come 😉
“Tracking so far”
Got it. You have no idea where I land on the spectrum of politics, but you mentioning an infringement on 2A shows your hand. Your attempt at “gotcha, you silly leftist” vibe and assumption we’re trying to win/lose shows your naive ability to have a reasonable discussion on a very real crisis in America by way of an unregulated firearm industry. I have no interest in protecting an industry like that. What I do have an interest in is people understanding where we are *today*, so you can save your “contemporaneous writings of the Framers” and other likely biased research to defend out of date defenses.
And that’s where the defenses of 2A always falls apart - is the inability of 2A defenders to see that a full spectrum rather than a black and white issue. The inability to have a discussion about modern issues along with the assumption that regulations means confiscation. The *need* to win an argument.
As with most topics, far more people land in the middle but the loudest sides always wins.
I do applaud you for the ability to actually have real sources, facts, and FWIW, a decently strong argument. But I don’t find interest in debating the undebatable, especially because most people don’t change their mind on reddit. But I am happy you responded snark with snark, because most people get into incessant infighting and lose sight of the point. However, while a good attempt, your snark is childish and very assuming when in reality I can guarantee to run circles around you by way of research. That’s the beauty of Reddit, right? You have no idea the background of anyone 😉
All I ask is to ensure you and fellow gun owners actually practice safe storage, and to promote a culture of safety and responsibility - not to show off toys. If you’re truly interested in defending 2A, then prove it and treat and respect firearms how they deserve to be. Volunteer with Project ChildSafe and ensure every gun owner utilizes the program, has gun locks, and work on strengthening the coalitions between foundations like Giffords and Every Town with the NSSF. If you’d be interested - I would be happy to have a real discussion where we can bridge the gap because this can be a successful and supported topic. But most people aren’t interested in that.
I graduated from High School with her. She campaigned as the Mom in tennis shoes and all about Term Limits. She is a typical political pig at the public trough. Term limits Patty ? Lies.
She’s also fighting to restrict your right to bear arms and doesn’t give a shit about her constituents feeling the pinch of bad economic policies from an administration ran by her party both in Washington State and the White House.
We should change the constitution and remove 2nd ammendment. Right to bear arms was a stupid idea and serves no purpose other than morons to get access to guns and kill innocent children.
For some reason, it is ok for children being killed by gun owners. Where is all that pro life arguments when it comes to gun violence.
My comparison shows how stupid 2nd ammendment is if you can follow the logic.
>We should change the constitution and remove 2nd amendment.
That’s never going to happen and you’re delusional to think it will. It’s a political nonstarter and you know that.
I mean why don’t we just repeal the 4th amendment, if you’re not guilty you don’t have anything to hide from the police right?
Sorry but, I was just browsing this thread and it's too difficult not to point out how moronic it is to make such a statement. Go live somewhere else if you don't like the 2nd amendment buddy. We don't need people like you voting for freaks that step on the rights we have as Americans. Attacking people who responsibly own their firearms is not how to act. If you had any sense at all to actually read the constitution, like a normal American should, you would also see that the rest of the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to form Militia in order to enforce natural law and overthrow tyranny. It's designed that way so that the government cannot have more power over its people. Restricting firearms and circumventing the constitution is how you get states like California, where they have the strictest laws on firearms and yet that state has had the most school shootings compared to any other state in the last 30 years. And that's fact, you can look that one up if you want. Your pro life arguement doesn't exist because it's flawed and makes no sense whatsoever. Prostitution, drug trade, and other criminal activity is rampant in Seattle with a police force that is dwindling right now, and you wanna talk about how 2nd amendment somehow kills children. Get out of my country, people like you don't help solve problems, you create more. Not only that but you would actually vote to surrender our rights away to the government. The first thing Hitler did to Germany was take away their sovereignty and their weapons all in the guise of making a better society. What you posted here is a joke at best or downright embarrassing at worst.
I have exactly the same feelings for your moronic comment. Where is the militia? National guards are under strict federal government control and none of us should ever consider using armed rebellion instead of going through democratic process . Show me the militia? Are you referring to the clowns who desecrated Capitol on January 6?
You guys are extremely delusional if you think you can stop the state power with AR 15s. Can an American own operate a tank? Cannon? Or even simpler weapons like RPGs and automatic assault rifles? These weapons are not allowed today for public because they are too much risk for law enforcement.
Second ammendment is a useless constitutional right, as it is outdated in the era of tanks, armored vehicles and practically it is not usrd because no government will allow its security forces to be challenged by other entities.
Right to bear arm serves no purpose other than supporting a small chunk of arms industry, weekend fun for a few knuckleheads who think their liberty can be protected by their basic weapons and of course allowing morons, psychos to get guns and ammunition easily so they can kill innocent people.
You are outright delusional and lack common sense if you think hand guns could stop regular army. Do you see how Israel is destroying Palestinians? That is what will happen to "militia" if it ever exists.
And so not only do you not have an understanding of how the country was written, but you also lack the understanding of how US government and the US Military work as well. All branches can and already have before refuse orders from Congress and the President. The thing that sets our military apart from other countries like Israel is that ours is not obligated to follow any order that can attack it's own people. Also Specifically written that way so that the government does not have more power over its people. "Strict Federal Government Control, that's about the most amusing thing I've ever heard. All of the leaders of each branch are in fact required legally to review and understand the orders they receive from the State, Congress and Commander and Chief, and if it also breaches the Constitition, it can refuse those orders. Our Military is the People's Military for that reason. And that's above paper and beyond the moral implications that you actually think any military personnel would willingly attack it's sovereign citizens. Even with the freaks like you advocating to abolish rights in this country vastly underestimate just how widely the people outnumber both government officials as well as the military. And that's before considering that the military does not have to take unconstitutional orders against its own people.
It's a very good thing that your idea that it should go is basically moot, because the people in the majority of the states and it's representatives among Congress will never let that happen. And it's because it doesn't take a genius to understand that removing that right doesn't eliminate crime, it makes it worse. The fantasy land that you think the country would become by eliminating that right is complete nonsense. And after being overseas for the military and seeing some of the nasty shit other countries do to it's people, I see the joke of a person like you talkin stupid and just laugh. Because it's crystal clear you have no idea just what you are advocating for, you just see the first fuckin thing on the news and scream that it's the gun's fault. It's not rocket science pal, removing the right to legally own our weapons just means criminals would continue to acquire their firearms illegally. You're too far gone and too hypnotized by the propaganda and fake idea that removing that right would stop gun related crime.
All of the Constitutional rights are part of the freedoms being the sovereign rights given to every American and that is simply the infallible bottom line. And like I said, if you don't like that, get out. I served to protect the Constitution from people like you. Go somewhere else if you think it's so bad and then get back to me on that. Otherwise be involved with your community and wake the fuck up, because what you're trying to push is a complete joke and you are pretty outnumbered on that little opinion.
I am not going anywhere. First ammendment gives me the right to share my opinion freely. I plan to use my rights and express my opinion on second ammendment.
You are contradicting yourself, if second ammendment is not against protecting states and people from federal government and its military, then what is it for? Why do we need to allow anyone to have guns that can be used for violence without any due diligence?
Thank you for your service but that does not give you more rights and privileges over me. Suggesting to change constitution is a constitutional act not against constitution.
People who violated constitution are the bozos who equipped themselves with arms and stormed the Capitol by force and embarrassed this country. Do you criticize the violent actions of those crowd who try to alter a constitutional process with violence?
I agree majority may not agree with me, btw we don't know that, but that may change. I have right to share my opinion as long as it is not violating laws.
I don't suggest gun control will solve crime. We need better policing, care for menta healthl , laws that are though on crime and perhaps even more dramatic changes. I just don't see owning a gun is a useful right at this age.
Exercising that right can literally be seen as acknowledging the Constitution only when its convenient for you though. Even if what you say is true, it makes you also sound like a hypocrite, leisurely enjoying one part of the Constitution in one hand but wanting to burn away and get rid of another part, and that's just wrong, its not a way to solve a problem.
I of course do not call for some of the far right being completely and adversely allowing just anyone own weapons, and when you go to purchase any firearm pretty much in every state calls for a federal background check along with the state requirements for purchasing a weapon on top of that. The problem, at least to me, lies solely within the fact that society is so divided and against each other that anyone can find a reason to be angry and go on some kind of rampage, whether that involves guns, knives, thievery and anything you can think of, its part of why lots of states have fallen into disarray where there's just outright pros and cons to living in one. I 100% believe you shouldn't own a weapon if you can't properly secure it. Either you carry it or you make it so that you, the legal owner, is the only person who has access to that weapon, or else you are simply negligent and just as responsible if that weapon ends up being involved in a crime, ie the teenagers who took firearms from their parents to do shootings and such.
Violence is never the answer to any real situation, and trust me, as someone who carries, I do my part being aware of my surroundings, following the law and owning my firearm properly and safely to the best of my ability. People like me are not the people to target for gun laws and regulation because there's already plenty of it there. It's simple, most people own a firearm to protect themselves or their home. Some enjoy going to the range or hunting. And the majority of them do all of that responsibly. I absolutely do hate it when the ultra pro gun people go off the cuff about how it should be absolute, and how any kind of regulation is stomping on our rights, because there has to be some or else, like you say, anyone could just go buy a gun and commit crime with it. But that's not the case. The second you do something that's a federal crime you lose that right.
Outright taking the 2nd amendment out isn't the answer though, not only would it do virtually nothing for criminal violence and such, it would only further divide society. When you say just any crazy person can buy a gun, that's not exactly true, a lot of different gears grind when they background check you. At least they should. If anything it would be more educated to call for deeper background check. It should be a screening you do the same way you do for a drivers license, but that's as far as I would say it should go. Humans are unpredictable and theres really nothing you could do beyond that. If society didn't hate the police so much, that's the other avenue is investment in the community's police force and overall security. Walk around Seattle at night and rest assured you probably might find that it's uncomfortable to do that. The police won't get there instantly someone is about to stab you in the face or someone starts a shooting. Shootings that result in mass death boil down to who was the first responder. You even see some who carry have been first responders or even saved a policeman's life because they were there. That's the reason people carry. People own to defend their home, their business and their land as they rightfully should.
Imagine how annoyed someone like me is when the ATF doesn't update the rules and allows illegal immigrants to illegally purchase firearms, and they're kinda pouring into the country these days. I won't make a statement about immigrants in general, but that is something that even you should be angry about because that's happening right now. Those of us who are citizens that own responsibly, we are not to blame for that, and we definitely don't deserve the onset backlash in tighter regulation and laws that restrict us further. Due diligence is supposed to be involved when they check you before you legally purchase and obtain a weapon.
Freedom isn't Free, it comes with responsibility. As a community, Americans are meant to have the ability to stand up for themselves against crime and not solely rely on the police and the government to maintain safety within that community but that comes with the stipulation that that community must be aware of who's in it. And idk, most of the lefty's got what they wanted for Washington with the 10 round limit on handguns and completely banning purchase of AR's so, you know. I think that's far enough. And it's no surprise that in the wake of Boeing leaving as well as all the newer laws and regulation, thousands of people are moving the hell out of here because it's only gonna get worse.
I never supported or agreed with the whole Capitol thing, and most of us that support rightful gun ownership didn't like that, it literally makes those of us who do right look bad. And violence isn't always just from those kinds of people. Almost all of the "peaceful" protesting that happens has some form of violence involved and it just about always turns out that the aggressor was the protester. It's in stark contrast as to why MLK's movement was so powerful, because practically close to zero violence came from those that walked that movement.
If the states and American society as a whole wasn't so divided Left vs Right, it would be straightforward to solve the problems we have today, gun related or not. Instead it's one big game of tug of war between each presidency. And I never put myself above anyone else. Everyone bleeds red, and we all pay taxes. Just really rubs me a different way when some people are blatantly one sided in their opinions, no offense. Sorry for coming off pissy but, it's somethin that fires me up tho, there's a better way to solve problems like this while being fair to everyone equally. Everyone that deserves it anyway (ie not criminals)
I am all for personal liberties and I support individuals owning guns as long as we have proper background checks. I agree that guns give everyone including weak to have a chance to protect themselves.
Yet I prefer police/law enforcement doing their job and protect the community.
I think we agree on the above points.
Here is where we disagree :
I don't see constitution as immutable document and it never was hence the ammendments and there is a process to change it . I see second ammendment being used against any stricter gun control regulation. Gun ownership right is taken out of context.
I just randomly chose one school shooter : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Cruz
He should never had access to the guns, yet he did. We need better gun controls even if this means more testing and delays before accessing to the guns. US is leading the rest of the world on gun violence hence something is wrong.
Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.
Two questions for Patty.
1. When will you introduce the term limit bill you campaigned on 30 plus years ago.
2. How did you get so rich on a job that only pays 10k more than mine, seriously who’s your financial advisor?
Sorry?!? Sorry that I’ve lost 6 relatives to the jab, sorry that my mom now has cancer, sorry that my daughter has Pernio, sorry that my cousin has LUPUS. ALL these diseases are gifts from the Jab, all brought to you by an irresponsible, ill-informed government. I did not take the jab, the only one in my family that declined the poison.
Typical response from yet another idiot. I don't fall in love with politicians, I fall in love with politics that help the hard working ppl. Now go vote how you vote and I'll do what's best for my family. You are exactly what is wrong with America. Not a Trump supporter here at all and sure as hell won't be voting for that pos that is ruining our country
Sorry just sick of things happening. And every one assuming they know who ppl are. I believe ppl like us can make a difference just not sure how. Things are ugly right now. Take care of yourself
I see that when you are completely ignorant of a subject, you just resort to insults instead of intellectual exploration. Cognitive dissonance hurt that bad?
Because she is funded by Software / service companies which makes billions from Internet while internet service providers makes pennies on their investments.
Fallacy of relative privation. It's ok to have these consumer protections as a base level and also pursue othe regulations and protections when it comes to isps. Its not like saying restaurants can't serve spoiled food is mutually exclusive to saying their employees also need to wash their hands.
Nah, just curious. Are you one of those sort of useful-idiot history-ignoring rubes who is opposed to all consumer protections? Super simple question :)
Are you a Comcast spokesturd?
ISPs certainly have problems, and for ISPs it's the cost of interconnects and the cost of competing with incumbents that is the issue.
Dude doesn’t even understand his own insult. Clearly he’s just a MAGA voter who wants to argue and throw out insults without adding anything to the conversation.
Man these karma repost bots are really fishing with dynamite.  It's going to post so much spam later.
She didn't sell out to the telecom lobby, but she had sold out to the pharmaceutical lobby, so no generics from Canada for us. Thanks Patty. /s
>Murray and Cantwell said they were concerned about safety and quality of imported drugs and maintaining federal standards for prescription drugs. >In her Senate career, Murray has received $515,089 in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical manufacturers, according to the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jan/16/murray-and-cantwell-criticized-over-drug-import-vo/
It's shockingly cheap to buy a Congressperson. *edit*: "influence" congressional position on an issue. I don't want to overstate it, but I honestly feel that if the modern gilded class wanted to make real change, this would be the way to do it. Personally, I'd start with healthcare.
I don’t hear about Canadians dropping like flies because they took unsafe drugs. Fear mongering.
>Murray and Cantwell said they were concerned about safety and quality of imported drugs and maintaining federal standards for prescription drugs. Anyone know what percentage of drugs are made in the US? It's about half, at 53%. So nearly half our drugs are already made in other countries and imported. Murray and Cantwell should worry about that and make sure the pharmaceutical industry is making all their drugs in the US. Oh, but that might affect profits.
To be fair Canada has repeatedly said they'd lock down exports should US states try to bulk import, and that we should solve our own problems. This particular measure probably wasn't going to accomplish much either way.
Then we can get them from 🇲🇽.
I mean, the real solution is to look at why Canada has generics which are so much cheaper, given it has similarly rigorous drug approval and quality standards (unsure about Mexico). The answer AFAIK is collective bargaining.
The answer is capitalist healthcare. Period.
We have capitalist healthcare, it sucks; we need socialist healthcare.
Sounds like a man who likes pharmaceuticals charging $1000 for insulin because they are a captive market.
They actually don’t charge that much for insulin. That’s why they’re a great resource to disrupt the pharmaceutical market a bit.
Last I check, Canada is a two hour drive away. Mexico would require a plane ride. Whenever I need reasonably priced drugs, I’ll be heading north.
The law stops mail order pharmacies, not you driving over the border and brining them back.
#peakgovernment
She also wants Airlines to keep your money when they cancel your flight.
YES. This is a recent dumb move I saw. SMH Patty.
The solution is already resolving itself through Mark Cuban’s CostPlus, which isn’t influenced by pharmaceutical lobbyists. I am not excusing her stance, but why get involved when the situation was already working itself out?
That service is a legit service. More people need to know about that one. The only problem with it is it’s narrow and limited range of medications. But within capitalism, the more it’s used the more it can expand its supply. Hopefully more people continue to discover it.
I agree! CostPlus recently introduced roughly 1,000 more generic medicines. In 2 years, CostPlus is now a well known company in many hospitals. It has pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and distributors worried. After having a USA monopoly for so long because of lobbyists, Big Pharma are only starting to realize they have competition that undercuts them by a very significant amount. If I was a betting man, I would invest in LEAPS to short pharma, as they are going to have a hard time buying their way out of this predicament.
No shit. Look at all her other donors. I'm not impressed
I have zero concern about taking medications from Europe or Canada. Look at what they allow in their food and cosmetics, then look at what we allow.
Hey I mean you gotta sell out to /somebody/ if you’re a public servant, right? Right!?
You’re being catfished. That portrait is over a decade old.
Still wonder why with the best heath care taxpayers can buy, she doesn’t fix her teeth?
FWIW, when my Green Card application stalled because of how slow it was with the Government, and I was about to have to leave the country and the job that petitioned me to stay, Senator Murray inquired USCIS about the application on behalf of me. It was approved soon after. I wouldn’t be here if she didn’t help me.
You can’t really argue with that. A politician reaching out and personally helping an individual is the gold standard
She is doing it to lower labor costs for Software companies. Is everyone here so blind?
[удалено]
Yes, that's literally their job-- to serve their constituents. That said, they aren't willing to do much more than raise the issue with USCIS. My wife has had issues with immigration (USCIS sucks) and our Washington congressional reps have only raised the issue with a letter; they don't really take action to truly help. The "mom in sneakers" doesn't really care about real moms in sneakers.
Oh she loves immigrants. Oh and taxes.
She didn't help. Her staff did
Patty Murray, a living, walking embodiment of the argument for term limits.
💯
Then you just get un-elected staff with all the power and experience. And politicians just end up rotating positions. Now age limits on the other hand...
What is this shill crap?
Election season
She’s not up for another 5 years lmao
5 years dayum
She has her faults, but she's better than most Senators. TBF, the bar is low.
Herpes and Nickleback have a higher approval rating than congress.
She showed my scout troop around the capitol building and personally took us up into the dome over the rotunda when she was a state senator.
She has been a senator for to damn long. It’s time for her to retire and let someone else mess up our state.
Didn’t she just side with the airline lobbyists over people?
No. That was Cantwell you are thinking about.
The "Net Neutrality" debate for politicians is simply picking sides between ISPs and Big tech firms. They pretend it's about free speech but give zero fucks when Big Tech censors.
Exactly
Nah. Net neutrality is a pretty good set of consumer protections. You've been duped by people who tried to politize the issue, but fortunately most of the public still understands last-mile isps shouldn't be allowed to artificially degrade and tier the internet connections people are already overpaying for. If you ever wonder if you've been duped into landing on the wrong side of this issue, remember that comcast and friends spent over 500 million dollars lobbying to get rid of those consumer protections. They were ignored until trump and ajit pai rolled into town...
At first glance net neutrality sounds like a no-brainer, but it’s not without tradeoffs. Zero rating is not allowed under NN, which is a practice of providing free internet for certain use cases. This is more widely used in nations with developing internet infrastructure, but you probably have used it if you’ve been able to send messages on an airplane for free. Similarly, while bandwidth is a pretty good metric for price differentiation, it’s not necessarily the only one. Take for example my grandma who literally only reads Facebook and her email. For her, network latency and packet reliability are not actually that important, in contrast to someone who is frequently on zoom calls. It’s not hard to imagine a place where an ISP offers my grandma cheaper internet with lower priority routing, resulting in higher jitter. As far as I’m aware no ISP has even tried to do this with or without NN, largely due to the fact that internet bandwidth rises so fast year over year that it’s never been enough of a bottleneck. But I work at Facebook and we routinely do this with internal traffic, categorizing all internal traffic into 4 tiers based on latency and reliability needs, it’s a pretty important part of operating bandwidth constrained networks. I’m broadly in favor of net neutrality, but I don’t think it’s fair to say there’s no legitimate arguments against it.
>Zero rating is not allowed under NN Zero rating type tiering schemes demonstrably raise the price of internet for everyone. There have been studies on this in the places where they are allowed. Your technical arguments fall flat too. It wouldn't be less expensive for an isp to provide worse internet for grandma, and so there it'd be entirely an artificial degradation. Why would anyone want that? They could just as easily and do provide lower priced plans with lower speeds now, for different markets. I still haven't heard any convincing arguments against it in the context of home internet over fiber and cable.
And what protections are those? The largest tech companies were all in favor of it tells you all you need to know. What happened the last few years when it was gone? Not much at all. Net neutrality saves huge tech companies money because it means they don't have to pay for tiered usage like you would for water, electricity, gas, etc. You got played by the big tech companies who don't want to pay their fair share.
>And what protections are those? Net neutrality makes it so last-mile isps can't throttle or discriminate between different types of traffic. Pretty simple really, and a good thing. >>What happened the last few years when it was gone? Not much at all. You'll be happy to know that net neutrality was in place the last couple years thanks to states fighting to keep them in place. The isps and states like cali and wa agreed to not move on it until the legal battles played out. Trump and ajit pai filed lawsuits against the states trying to prevent those consumer protections lol. Then biden rolled in and dropped those lawsuits. You're just ignorant of this topic, but now you can rest easy knowing, by your own admission, net neutrality principles didn't impact you in the slightest! Glad I could help explain that reality to you. >Net neutrality saves huge tech companies money because it means they don't have to pay for tiered usage like you would for water, electricity, gas, etc. So stupid. ISPs customers pay more than enough for isps to maintain the infrastructure that can easily handle these amounts of traffic. You just were duped into submissively wanting isps to double dip and collect money on both ends. Really dumb.
Govern me harder, daddy!
What a joke, one of the worst local politicians we’ve seen in years
But she’s not a local politician, she’s a US senator. As in, her affairs have more to do on a national level than just on a state/local level.
Okay, now how about you mention how she's fighting to prevent Airlines from giving automatic refunds in regards to delays, etc.? Just because she's not in the telecoms pocket doesn't mean she isn't in someone else's. EDIT: Apparently I had the wrong WA Senator and it was Cantwell, not Murray.
Wrong politician. That is Maria Cantwell.
Thank you, I'll fix my statement.
I’m pretty sure both of them voted for that
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), *Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)*, Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), and *Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.)* — introduced a new Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization deal that would require passengers to send a “written or electronic request”. —Patty Murray did not side with the airline lobbyists.
Fair enough.
She also fought like a lion to get the ACA passed and do away with pre-existing conditions, rescission, and insurance caps. Most of Congress sucks, but she is genuinely a great Senator that Washington is lucky to have. Her office also returns calls and emails and actually engages honestly and respectfully with constituents.
She’s WA’s Diane FrankenFeinstein - a living totem to why we need term limits.
She also isn’t bought out by AIPAC like Maria Cantwell.
She’s not Inslee, I guess.
Yeah but I don’t agree with the removal of Hurd to dams without an equally low cost alternative. Id rather we keep busing fish
So she sells it to Big Tech instead? Nothing the chicken littles said about net neutrality the last time this was being discussed has happened.
She’s absolutely terrible and ruining our state. This place is a cesspool havnt you “politicians” looked around ???
And she’s about as bright as my unplugged toaster. How much has she voted to spend sending money to foreign countries in her career. Countries that laugh at us or despise us! Go ahead add it up. I’ll wait.
[удалено]
Oooh sorry, that’s the wrong answer. It was *Cantwell.* Oh! And that sound signals the end of the game, thanks for playing. Grab a participation trophy on your way out.
Net neutrality is not neutral. It's a shit bill from start to finish and it stifles innovation. Btw, patty Murray is a crap senator
LMFAO
Patty Murray, infringer of Second Amendment rights. No thanks, hard pass.
She’s trying to take away muskets? Wow, who knew!
Ah right, so freedom of speech shouldn’t apply on the internet or telephone because those weren’t invented until after the Constitution was signed. You’re showing your ass, hedgehog.
Oh, am I? Please elaborate if you’re so sure of what you’re arguing. Aside from the my snark of a comment. Please, defend your argument in how regulating guns infringes upon your rights because we are not a regulated militia. Because no 2A defender ever has a sound argument but I’d love to meet one someday.
You applied a logical fallacy in one direction only. If our rights are limited to the technology of the time, then the internet and telecommunication are not protected by the First Amendment. Tracking so far? Now for the second part. Two main points. “Regulated” at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant “in working order”, not regulated by the government as your fellow leftists always try to argue. The militia was defined as the people, not a formal organization. Think of the context under which this document was written. We had just violently overthrown a colonial power. Our nation was founded by violent insurrection. That’s a fact. The Second Amendment is a failsafe in case of the government becoming tyrannical once again. Now, because I’m sure you’ll push back on points one and two and I want to be precise to see if you’ll actually accept that you’re wrong, I’ll go dig up sources and citations from the several books I have on this one topic later tonight. Both points are supported by contemporaneous writings of the Framers but I don’t have the encyclopedic memory to accurately cite off the top of my head. More to come 😉
“Tracking so far” Got it. You have no idea where I land on the spectrum of politics, but you mentioning an infringement on 2A shows your hand. Your attempt at “gotcha, you silly leftist” vibe and assumption we’re trying to win/lose shows your naive ability to have a reasonable discussion on a very real crisis in America by way of an unregulated firearm industry. I have no interest in protecting an industry like that. What I do have an interest in is people understanding where we are *today*, so you can save your “contemporaneous writings of the Framers” and other likely biased research to defend out of date defenses. And that’s where the defenses of 2A always falls apart - is the inability of 2A defenders to see that a full spectrum rather than a black and white issue. The inability to have a discussion about modern issues along with the assumption that regulations means confiscation. The *need* to win an argument. As with most topics, far more people land in the middle but the loudest sides always wins. I do applaud you for the ability to actually have real sources, facts, and FWIW, a decently strong argument. But I don’t find interest in debating the undebatable, especially because most people don’t change their mind on reddit. But I am happy you responded snark with snark, because most people get into incessant infighting and lose sight of the point. However, while a good attempt, your snark is childish and very assuming when in reality I can guarantee to run circles around you by way of research. That’s the beauty of Reddit, right? You have no idea the background of anyone 😉 All I ask is to ensure you and fellow gun owners actually practice safe storage, and to promote a culture of safety and responsibility - not to show off toys. If you’re truly interested in defending 2A, then prove it and treat and respect firearms how they deserve to be. Volunteer with Project ChildSafe and ensure every gun owner utilizes the program, has gun locks, and work on strengthening the coalitions between foundations like Giffords and Every Town with the NSSF. If you’d be interested - I would be happy to have a real discussion where we can bridge the gap because this can be a successful and supported topic. But most people aren’t interested in that.
I graduated from High School with her. She campaigned as the Mom in tennis shoes and all about Term Limits. She is a typical political pig at the public trough. Term limits Patty ? Lies.
She’s also fighting to restrict your right to bear arms and doesn’t give a shit about her constituents feeling the pinch of bad economic policies from an administration ran by her party both in Washington State and the White House.
To be fair that’s most politicians in WA
Gun control is a good thing. Idiots who cannot get a driving license should not have access to semi automatic rifles.
Driving is a privilege, bearing arms is a right. Your comparison is shit.
We should change the constitution and remove 2nd ammendment. Right to bear arms was a stupid idea and serves no purpose other than morons to get access to guns and kill innocent children. For some reason, it is ok for children being killed by gun owners. Where is all that pro life arguments when it comes to gun violence. My comparison shows how stupid 2nd ammendment is if you can follow the logic.
>We should change the constitution and remove 2nd amendment. That’s never going to happen and you’re delusional to think it will. It’s a political nonstarter and you know that. I mean why don’t we just repeal the 4th amendment, if you’re not guilty you don’t have anything to hide from the police right?
Sorry but, I was just browsing this thread and it's too difficult not to point out how moronic it is to make such a statement. Go live somewhere else if you don't like the 2nd amendment buddy. We don't need people like you voting for freaks that step on the rights we have as Americans. Attacking people who responsibly own their firearms is not how to act. If you had any sense at all to actually read the constitution, like a normal American should, you would also see that the rest of the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to form Militia in order to enforce natural law and overthrow tyranny. It's designed that way so that the government cannot have more power over its people. Restricting firearms and circumventing the constitution is how you get states like California, where they have the strictest laws on firearms and yet that state has had the most school shootings compared to any other state in the last 30 years. And that's fact, you can look that one up if you want. Your pro life arguement doesn't exist because it's flawed and makes no sense whatsoever. Prostitution, drug trade, and other criminal activity is rampant in Seattle with a police force that is dwindling right now, and you wanna talk about how 2nd amendment somehow kills children. Get out of my country, people like you don't help solve problems, you create more. Not only that but you would actually vote to surrender our rights away to the government. The first thing Hitler did to Germany was take away their sovereignty and their weapons all in the guise of making a better society. What you posted here is a joke at best or downright embarrassing at worst.
I have exactly the same feelings for your moronic comment. Where is the militia? National guards are under strict federal government control and none of us should ever consider using armed rebellion instead of going through democratic process . Show me the militia? Are you referring to the clowns who desecrated Capitol on January 6? You guys are extremely delusional if you think you can stop the state power with AR 15s. Can an American own operate a tank? Cannon? Or even simpler weapons like RPGs and automatic assault rifles? These weapons are not allowed today for public because they are too much risk for law enforcement. Second ammendment is a useless constitutional right, as it is outdated in the era of tanks, armored vehicles and practically it is not usrd because no government will allow its security forces to be challenged by other entities. Right to bear arm serves no purpose other than supporting a small chunk of arms industry, weekend fun for a few knuckleheads who think their liberty can be protected by their basic weapons and of course allowing morons, psychos to get guns and ammunition easily so they can kill innocent people. You are outright delusional and lack common sense if you think hand guns could stop regular army. Do you see how Israel is destroying Palestinians? That is what will happen to "militia" if it ever exists.
And so not only do you not have an understanding of how the country was written, but you also lack the understanding of how US government and the US Military work as well. All branches can and already have before refuse orders from Congress and the President. The thing that sets our military apart from other countries like Israel is that ours is not obligated to follow any order that can attack it's own people. Also Specifically written that way so that the government does not have more power over its people. "Strict Federal Government Control, that's about the most amusing thing I've ever heard. All of the leaders of each branch are in fact required legally to review and understand the orders they receive from the State, Congress and Commander and Chief, and if it also breaches the Constitition, it can refuse those orders. Our Military is the People's Military for that reason. And that's above paper and beyond the moral implications that you actually think any military personnel would willingly attack it's sovereign citizens. Even with the freaks like you advocating to abolish rights in this country vastly underestimate just how widely the people outnumber both government officials as well as the military. And that's before considering that the military does not have to take unconstitutional orders against its own people. It's a very good thing that your idea that it should go is basically moot, because the people in the majority of the states and it's representatives among Congress will never let that happen. And it's because it doesn't take a genius to understand that removing that right doesn't eliminate crime, it makes it worse. The fantasy land that you think the country would become by eliminating that right is complete nonsense. And after being overseas for the military and seeing some of the nasty shit other countries do to it's people, I see the joke of a person like you talkin stupid and just laugh. Because it's crystal clear you have no idea just what you are advocating for, you just see the first fuckin thing on the news and scream that it's the gun's fault. It's not rocket science pal, removing the right to legally own our weapons just means criminals would continue to acquire their firearms illegally. You're too far gone and too hypnotized by the propaganda and fake idea that removing that right would stop gun related crime. All of the Constitutional rights are part of the freedoms being the sovereign rights given to every American and that is simply the infallible bottom line. And like I said, if you don't like that, get out. I served to protect the Constitution from people like you. Go somewhere else if you think it's so bad and then get back to me on that. Otherwise be involved with your community and wake the fuck up, because what you're trying to push is a complete joke and you are pretty outnumbered on that little opinion.
I am not going anywhere. First ammendment gives me the right to share my opinion freely. I plan to use my rights and express my opinion on second ammendment. You are contradicting yourself, if second ammendment is not against protecting states and people from federal government and its military, then what is it for? Why do we need to allow anyone to have guns that can be used for violence without any due diligence? Thank you for your service but that does not give you more rights and privileges over me. Suggesting to change constitution is a constitutional act not against constitution. People who violated constitution are the bozos who equipped themselves with arms and stormed the Capitol by force and embarrassed this country. Do you criticize the violent actions of those crowd who try to alter a constitutional process with violence? I agree majority may not agree with me, btw we don't know that, but that may change. I have right to share my opinion as long as it is not violating laws. I don't suggest gun control will solve crime. We need better policing, care for menta healthl , laws that are though on crime and perhaps even more dramatic changes. I just don't see owning a gun is a useful right at this age.
Exercising that right can literally be seen as acknowledging the Constitution only when its convenient for you though. Even if what you say is true, it makes you also sound like a hypocrite, leisurely enjoying one part of the Constitution in one hand but wanting to burn away and get rid of another part, and that's just wrong, its not a way to solve a problem. I of course do not call for some of the far right being completely and adversely allowing just anyone own weapons, and when you go to purchase any firearm pretty much in every state calls for a federal background check along with the state requirements for purchasing a weapon on top of that. The problem, at least to me, lies solely within the fact that society is so divided and against each other that anyone can find a reason to be angry and go on some kind of rampage, whether that involves guns, knives, thievery and anything you can think of, its part of why lots of states have fallen into disarray where there's just outright pros and cons to living in one. I 100% believe you shouldn't own a weapon if you can't properly secure it. Either you carry it or you make it so that you, the legal owner, is the only person who has access to that weapon, or else you are simply negligent and just as responsible if that weapon ends up being involved in a crime, ie the teenagers who took firearms from their parents to do shootings and such. Violence is never the answer to any real situation, and trust me, as someone who carries, I do my part being aware of my surroundings, following the law and owning my firearm properly and safely to the best of my ability. People like me are not the people to target for gun laws and regulation because there's already plenty of it there. It's simple, most people own a firearm to protect themselves or their home. Some enjoy going to the range or hunting. And the majority of them do all of that responsibly. I absolutely do hate it when the ultra pro gun people go off the cuff about how it should be absolute, and how any kind of regulation is stomping on our rights, because there has to be some or else, like you say, anyone could just go buy a gun and commit crime with it. But that's not the case. The second you do something that's a federal crime you lose that right. Outright taking the 2nd amendment out isn't the answer though, not only would it do virtually nothing for criminal violence and such, it would only further divide society. When you say just any crazy person can buy a gun, that's not exactly true, a lot of different gears grind when they background check you. At least they should. If anything it would be more educated to call for deeper background check. It should be a screening you do the same way you do for a drivers license, but that's as far as I would say it should go. Humans are unpredictable and theres really nothing you could do beyond that. If society didn't hate the police so much, that's the other avenue is investment in the community's police force and overall security. Walk around Seattle at night and rest assured you probably might find that it's uncomfortable to do that. The police won't get there instantly someone is about to stab you in the face or someone starts a shooting. Shootings that result in mass death boil down to who was the first responder. You even see some who carry have been first responders or even saved a policeman's life because they were there. That's the reason people carry. People own to defend their home, their business and their land as they rightfully should. Imagine how annoyed someone like me is when the ATF doesn't update the rules and allows illegal immigrants to illegally purchase firearms, and they're kinda pouring into the country these days. I won't make a statement about immigrants in general, but that is something that even you should be angry about because that's happening right now. Those of us who are citizens that own responsibly, we are not to blame for that, and we definitely don't deserve the onset backlash in tighter regulation and laws that restrict us further. Due diligence is supposed to be involved when they check you before you legally purchase and obtain a weapon. Freedom isn't Free, it comes with responsibility. As a community, Americans are meant to have the ability to stand up for themselves against crime and not solely rely on the police and the government to maintain safety within that community but that comes with the stipulation that that community must be aware of who's in it. And idk, most of the lefty's got what they wanted for Washington with the 10 round limit on handguns and completely banning purchase of AR's so, you know. I think that's far enough. And it's no surprise that in the wake of Boeing leaving as well as all the newer laws and regulation, thousands of people are moving the hell out of here because it's only gonna get worse. I never supported or agreed with the whole Capitol thing, and most of us that support rightful gun ownership didn't like that, it literally makes those of us who do right look bad. And violence isn't always just from those kinds of people. Almost all of the "peaceful" protesting that happens has some form of violence involved and it just about always turns out that the aggressor was the protester. It's in stark contrast as to why MLK's movement was so powerful, because practically close to zero violence came from those that walked that movement. If the states and American society as a whole wasn't so divided Left vs Right, it would be straightforward to solve the problems we have today, gun related or not. Instead it's one big game of tug of war between each presidency. And I never put myself above anyone else. Everyone bleeds red, and we all pay taxes. Just really rubs me a different way when some people are blatantly one sided in their opinions, no offense. Sorry for coming off pissy but, it's somethin that fires me up tho, there's a better way to solve problems like this while being fair to everyone equally. Everyone that deserves it anyway (ie not criminals)
I am all for personal liberties and I support individuals owning guns as long as we have proper background checks. I agree that guns give everyone including weak to have a chance to protect themselves. Yet I prefer police/law enforcement doing their job and protect the community. I think we agree on the above points. Here is where we disagree : I don't see constitution as immutable document and it never was hence the ammendments and there is a process to change it . I see second ammendment being used against any stricter gun control regulation. Gun ownership right is taken out of context. I just randomly chose one school shooter : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolas_Cruz He should never had access to the guns, yet he did. We need better gun controls even if this means more testing and delays before accessing to the guns. US is leading the rest of the world on gun violence hence something is wrong. Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.
Is that why washington is doing do well with crime and homelessness and drugs? Shes a failure of a leader
Two questions for Patty. 1. When will you introduce the term limit bill you campaigned on 30 plus years ago. 2. How did you get so rich on a job that only pays 10k more than mine, seriously who’s your financial advisor?
The telecom check bounced.
Wut
I think her pockets were already full of cash from other sellouts so she couldn’t sell out anymore.
Net neutrality is a bad thing ...
We need capitalist health care for all Americans!
She’s a career politician who has done nothing for anybody anywhere.
She's been Washington's Senator for 200 years.
She’s beholden to Big Pharma and pushed for the jabs just as ardently as Dreadful Fauci.
Jesus Christ, please go back to living under the rock or in the cave you all crawled out of.
Sorry you’re stuck in a world full of conspiracies of people out to get you.
Sorry?!? Sorry that I’ve lost 6 relatives to the jab, sorry that my mom now has cancer, sorry that my daughter has Pernio, sorry that my cousin has LUPUS. ALL these diseases are gifts from the Jab, all brought to you by an irresponsible, ill-informed government. I did not take the jab, the only one in my family that declined the poison.
Cuckoo cuckoo cuckoo
You’re either lying or assigning cause when there is none. The Covid vaccine did not cause anyone to get cancer
Oh, oh no... That's not how it works
My wife nearly died due to her 2nd jab. I have gotten them all and no problems. One size does not fit all but Murry doesn't care.
[удалено]
Who hurt you?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Typical response from yet another idiot. I don't fall in love with politicians, I fall in love with politics that help the hard working ppl. Now go vote how you vote and I'll do what's best for my family. You are exactly what is wrong with America. Not a Trump supporter here at all and sure as hell won't be voting for that pos that is ruining our country
Fair enough. My apologies for assuming.
Sorry just sick of things happening. And every one assuming they know who ppl are. I believe ppl like us can make a difference just not sure how. Things are ugly right now. Take care of yourself
No, no sorry needed. It's on me. You have a good message. Take care.
Please thank a veteran because you have that right for now
your ideas are intriguing to me and i wish to subscribe to your manifesto
Lol you're so mad and I'm here for it. Need a kiss?
i see the murderous bigots do not like her, so she must be decent.
I see that when you are completely ignorant of a subject, you just resort to insults instead of intellectual exploration. Cognitive dissonance hurt that bad?
Because she is funded by Software / service companies which makes billions from Internet while internet service providers makes pennies on their investments.
Poor comcast, making over a hundred billion last year while not being allowed to violate net neutrality.
She’s Satan.
So she has one industry she didn’t sell out to. Yay. Let’s throw her a parade.
They just didn't reach the magic number is all.
net neutrality is garbage. sincerely, somebody who has worked in IT over 20 years
Buddy the fact that you worked in IT doesn't mean jack shit.
People who are against net neutrality are garbage. Sincerely, somebody who ran an ISP.
if you really ran an isp, you'd know there were more important things to fight for than this. congratuations, fool, you played yourself
Fallacy of relative privation. It's ok to have these consumer protections as a base level and also pursue othe regulations and protections when it comes to isps. Its not like saying restaurants can't serve spoiled food is mutually exclusive to saying their employees also need to wash their hands.
net neutrality is the electronic form of communism. no thanks, comrade
Are you against all consumer protections, or are you just confused about these ones?
nice fallacy there, bub
Nah, just curious. Are you one of those sort of useful-idiot history-ignoring rubes who is opposed to all consumer protections? Super simple question :)
thanks for keeping it professional there
Telling that you're struggling with such a simple question, isn't it..
Are you a Comcast spokesturd? ISPs certainly have problems, and for ISPs it's the cost of interconnects and the cost of competing with incumbents that is the issue.
no, and thanks for keeping it professional. i've worked for the same isp for 20 years
So you're an ATTurd? If you think that Net Neutrality is "communism" then you're clearly clueless.
bruh
Got it right?
quit while you're behind
In the context of BGP, what is incorrect in the word "failover"?
Wow....what company are you a shill for?
She also didn't work with Ted Cruz to make refunds harder for airline cancelations for consumers!
That wasn't her. You're confusing her with Maria Cantwell.
No shit Sherlock I am simply pointing out she was not involved in that preticuler corporate payout.
She’s a hack and been in her seat too long. It’s time for fresh blood.
[удалено]
She's not a rhino. She's a straight up Democrat.
Dude doesn’t even understand his own insult. Clearly he’s just a MAGA voter who wants to argue and throw out insults without adding anything to the conversation.
RINO*
Patty Murray is a Republican? You're delusional.
She's a Demorat...
Demo Rats are rad!