Just mentioned that a few posts before yours, heh. Linked to the vote itself, just in case someone happens to feel like expressing an opinion to one of the shits that voted it through.
Yep, you're right. That's what I get for not checking thoroughly. What would it actually take to convince the legislative majority that regulations are designed to protect people from exactly this sort of thing?
My favorite example of how regulatory bodies are really important is how the FDA (and specifically Frances Oldham Kelsey) refused to approve a new drug for use in the US because of concerns over its safety back in the early 60s. The tests were, in their view, inadequate to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
Richardson-Merrel, the manufacturer, were given repeated requests for more information, and eventually they grew frustrated. This drug was already in use in more than forty countries, and those who used it had nothing but positive things to say. And then some long-term patients started reporting peripheral nerve damage. Women who had taken it during pregnancy started giving birth to horrifically deformed babies.
The drug was thalidomide. More than 10,000 babies were born in 46 countries with painful and even lethal birth defects; thanks to Kelsey and the FDA, only 17 of those births happened in the US.
That is what regulatory bodies do, and that's why they are so vital. Wanting to "protect consumers from overreaching Internet regulation" is quite possibly the most fundamental misunderstanding of a basic function of government I have ever heard in my entire life. Coming off the heels of Donald "Who knew healthcare was complicated?" Trump and Scott "put in charge of the EPA despite denying climate change and repeatedly suing the EPA over regulations" Pruitt, that's saying a lot.
EDIT: Just looked at the voting record for the Senate and for the House. No Democrats voted in favor in either case. Two Senate Republicans abstained from voting, while 15 House Republicans "defected" and 6 abstained.
You almost have to applaud the Republican party. By consistently voting as a party against any Democrat bill in the last administration, they could automatically turn any bill into a partisan one. They had to do exactly nothing while the Democrats attempted to make concessions and reach across the aisle for bipartisan support that would never be allowed. Even better, as the party of small government, pure obstructionism could only ever work in their favor; if a bill faltered, they could claim victory by blaming the Democrats, and if it passed despite their efforts, they could claim it was an example of the Democrats abusing their superior numbers to pass a partisan bill over their heads. Any stalls or obstacles (remember the government shutdown?) were evidence of how the federal government couldn't be trusted with so much power, just like they had been saying.
Of course, as even Paul Ryan noted in the aftermath of the AHCA's collapse, it's easy to be the party of pure opposition. The exact strategy of voting as a block against any bill from the majority party is what created the current notion of "defection", since bipartisan cooperation is now a poisonous concept.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4457504 times)