GOP Confirms Unqualified Simington to FCC With Eye On Crippling Biden FCC

from the minority-rule dept

The Senate voted 49-46 Tuesday afternoon along strict party lines to appoint Trump ally NTIA advisor Nathan Simington to the FCC. Simington is hugely unqualified, and his appointment sets another new low in the modern GOP's campaign of sleazy and blisteringly hypocritical politics at the cost of a functioning government or the public interest.

Simington has absolutely no experience in telecom issues, consumer protection, or the other complicated issues facing the FCC. He was nominated because he literally helped write Donald Trump's idiotic and dangerous attack on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and is expected to continue (at least performatively for distraction's sake) the campaign at the FCC. If you ask Trumpland, the campaign is necessary to stop "censorship" of conservatives online. In reality, that censorship doesn't exist (in fact reality indicates the opposite). The campaign is really about bullying tech giants into not policing disinformation and hate speech, now cornerstones of GOP power.

While the 230 drama will get all the press attention, Simington's appointment was rushed through primarily for another reason: to help Mitch McConnell (read: AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast) gridlock the FCC at 2-2 Commissioners for at least the next two years, preventing the reversal of hugely unpopular Trump FCC policies by the Biden FCC.

By law, the party that wins the White House controls a 3-2 majority at the FCC, and gets to appoint the agency boss. But back in August Trump fired Republican FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly for some pretty timid comments (correctly) suggesting Trump's planned attack on social media didn't make much sense. With both O'Rielly and Ajit Pai leaving the agency on January 20, that left the FCC with a 2-1 Democratic majority in the new year. So despite the FCC attack on 230 now crippled with Trump's election loss, and despite Simington being an unqualified Trump sycophant, the GOP rushed the nomination through anyway, knowing he would create 2-2 agency gridlock.

Most every telecom expert and consumer advocate I've spoken to now expect the GOP, should it retain control of the Senate after the Georgia run off elections, to block the appointment of any Democratic FCC boss with a spine, ensuring that the FCC remains mired in partisan gridlock indefinitely. With Democratic FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel's term up at the end of 2021, her replacement is likely to be blocked as well, resulting in a GOP 2-1 FCC majority -- despite losing the election. Whatever representative democracy is supposed to look like, this sure as shit isn't it.

The GOP's ploy is a huge gift to telecom giants like AT&T and Comcast, which don't want the Biden administration reversing any of the Trump FCC's hugely unpopular policies, be it the attack on net neutrality, the neutering of the agency's overall consumer protection authority, or the attack on decades-old, bipartisan media consolidation rules.

Gridlocked at 2-2 or even 2-1, the Biden FCC also won't be able to pass any COVID-relief efforts that meaningfully challenges the broadband industry (the whole point), be they restrictions on arbitrary and punitive usage caps, or policies aimed at preventing ISPs from kicking struggling Americans offline for nonpayment. Angry voters will then blame the Biden FCC for the dysfunction foisted upon them by the GOP, a story you'll see playing out across numerous regulatory agencies and policy fights in the coming year as the GOP shifts from Trump sycophancy (and attacks on fundamental democracy) back to obstructionism.

With that as context, Simington's role as a Section 230 attack dog is largely going to be an afterthought and distraction. Though as TechFreedom's Berin Szoka notes, that doesn't mean he can't throw a wrench into the numerous ongoing litigation efforts related to content moderation:

Still, the primary goal here now for Mitch McConnell isn't Section 230. It's protecting the four-year ass kissing the Trump administration gave the telecom industry. An industry every bit as problematic as the "big tech" giants the GOP's faux-populist wing (Josh Hawley quickly comes to mind) exploits for political benefit. "Big telecom" has waged an incredibly successful four-year campaign exploiting the often legitimate anger at "big tech," to call for heavier regulation of the industries it wants to compete with in the ad space, while eliminating most meaningful oversight of its own highly monopolistic sector.

Now, with the GOP's help, they're hoping to keep things that way for as long as is humanly possible. In a functioning country, crippling the nation's top telecom regulator in the middle of a pandemic (one showing how affordable broadband is essential for survival) because some lobbyists told you to would be met with real consequences and scorn. Here, if the press can even be bothered to report on what telecom and the GOP are even doing, it will be met with a shrug and around thirty seconds' worth of attention span.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fcc, mitch mcconnell, nathan simington, net neutrality, policy, politics, section 230


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • icon
    Jeroen Hellingman (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 6:43am

    Calling populists "faux-populists" is not necessary: populists are fake by definition: they are politicians who promise whatever the voters want to hear, even the impossible, and then don't deliver, except what costs them nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Bring Out Your Dead -- Oh, got themselves out!, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:27am

      Re: "Jeroen Hellingman" with silly labeling.

      Calling populists "faux-populists" is not necessary

      You're yet another ancient yet sparse "account" with name change and LONG absence:

      Jeroen or Jeroen Hellingman: 94 (9), 1 in 2017, 1 in 2016; 22 mo gap to 2013; 1 Jul 2010

      https://www.techdirt.com/user/jhellingman -- ODD bunch of websites given w name

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jojo (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 6:57am

    I bestow this man no long Simington. But your name shall be...

    ...Simpington.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Bring Out Your Dead -- Oh, got themselves out!, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:30am

      Re: I bestow this man no long Simington. But your name shall be.

      Gosh, "Jojo", THANKS for so well typifying the depth of reasoning and analysis from Techdirt fanboys.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:11am

      Re: I bestow this man no long Simington. But your name shall be.

      I used to go with "Slymington", in reference to the then-Arizona governor.

      When I was ten.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:21am

      Re: I bestow this man no long Simington. But your name shall be.

      Childish name-calling is a very right-wing way to "debate" an issue, as if your opponent is so easily dismissed. Did you learn that from the child in chief? Or did you just never grow up past 3rd grade?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nathan F (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:10am

    I hate this government.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      Mitch McConnell is the problem. He doesn't just play hardball, he plays hardball and then he shoots the batter in the face.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:44am

        Re: Re:

        It's not that he plays hardball, it's that he cares more about his own power than he does about the country or people. Think about that, one (actually many) of the ruling elite in the US doesn't give a damn about the country. Is it any wonder we have problems.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Dec 2020 @ 3:11pm

        McConnell is a poison pill for democracy

        We need to not only strip McConnell of his power (and then make an example of him -- which is unlikely) but we then need to make sure no future McConnell-wannabes can do what he does, in crippling the federal government via procedural shenanigans.

        This is one of those situations where I think the fourth box of liberty might be opened, not to assassinate a senator, but to hold the Senate hostage until ironclad provisions are installed that assure no given ten officials can obstruct lawmaking under any circumstances.

        Though I certainly have fantasies of shelling the the Senate if the siege takes more than a week. Maybe with 3-inch Ordnance Rifles to reduce costs of history books.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Bring Out Your Dead -- Oh, got themselves out!, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:32am

      Re: "Nathan F" declares himself.

      I won't guess by which label his view are, as doubt that has any actual consistent views other than "hate", exactly like a yapping ankle-biter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Nathan F (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:34am

        Re: Re: "Nathan F" declares himself.

        Right. So I'm supposed to like and respect a government that spends the vast majority of time deadlocked or voting straight down party line instead of actually debating the issue, working out a compromise or voting on the issue in the manner the people they are supposed to represent want?

        Yeah no.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:13am

    FCC best & brightest

    Objectively then, what should be the personal qualifications for an ideal member of the FCC.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:59am

      Re: FCC best & brightest

      Not strongly aligned to any political party, and an understanding of what the citizens problems are, rather than the problems of monopolies wishing to grow their income every quarter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:59am

      Re: FCC best & brightest

      Someone who actually has experience and knowledge about telecom and administrative law?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:22am

        Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

        ...without having worked for the telecom industry in the past.

        It's a bit of a high bar. Bringing in industry insiders to govern the industry is a failed proposition. But where do you find someone with the right experience and none of the wrong motives?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:33am

          Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

          "Bringing in industry insiders to govern the industry is a failed proposition."

          Would you agree to surgery from non medically trained personnel? Someone who has never performed the procedure?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          thefantodayhtml (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 12:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

          What about Mike Masnick? :)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 5:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

          ...without having worked for the telecom industry in the past.

          There are plenty of people who meet that criteria, including those who have worked on Capital Hill on telco issues, or worked at the FCC previously, or worked at any one of the non-profits focused on teclo related issues...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 8:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

          There are loads of people who understand telecom but who haven't defended or lobbied the industry's business practices. Hell, there are enough who haven't even worked in telecom.

          It's a high level of fallaciousness to insist someone can't know about x if they themselves have never been x. It's ridiculous, and frequently a way to seek to avoid any accountability, among other things.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 5:12am

        Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

        Someone who actually has experience and knowledge about telecom and administrative law?

        Equally as important knowledge of admin and telecom law, work at the FCC requires a solid technical grounding.

        While it's just barely possible to pick up the required background knowledge informally, it's more likely that any good candidate would have at minimum a bachelor's in electrical engineering (BSEE) or equivalent.

        Knowlege of Maxwell's Laws is important at the FCC.

        Or do you just want call those the most foundational of “telecom” laws?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 6:53am

          Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

          Better yet, government appointees should listen to employees with relevant knowledge for technical information. I.e. they do not need to understand the reasoning, but rather accept an expert opinion, such as data caps do not help managing congestion, and make decisions based on that acceptance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 7:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

            Better yet, government appointees should listen to employees with relevant knowledge for technical information.

            Certainly I'm not suggesting that a candidate needs a Ph.D. in physics!

            But if you can't, won't or haven't done the math at some point in your life, then you just don't speak the language.

            I totally agree that the FCC commissioners should listen to genuine experts, including the FCC's technical staff, as well as others. The more you learn, the more you realize how much you don't know yourself, and how much you just have to rely on advice.

            But you really need the fundamental background.

            Is there any possible excuse for doing spectrum management without ever having done your homework in Fourier analysis? I just don't think so.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 9:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC best & brightest

              But you really need the fundamental background.

              Why, because the lobbyists and telco executives have almost zero knowledge of the physics. An ability to read Wikipedia will give enough technical background, and an ability to tell other unpleasant truths would be more useful

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          OGquaker, 7 Jan 2021 @ 9:34pm

          Re: Re: Re: FCC's best & brightest Everyman

          Maxwell? How about Lenz Law? But more important, Sidney Lens & the law of the Commons

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ed (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:32am

    The French...

    ... were very effective with Guillotines.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Bring Out Your Dead -- Oh, got themselves out!, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:21am

    So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"!

    In reality, that censorship doesn't exist (in fact reality indicates the opposite).

    YES, reality IS the "opposite" of your lying "doesn't exist".

    And anyway, a President is ENTITLED by will of the majority to appoint whoever he wants and surely to implement his notions.

    You're not actually in favor of "democracy" when don't get your way. You just start shrieking that all is illegimate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:41am

      Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"

      "a President is ENTITLED by will of the majority to appoint whoever he wants and surely to implement his notions"

      The public is also entitled to question, criticise and attack his choices to any degree they wish - especially when a majority has already stated that their will is for him to leave office at the next available opportunity. You seem strangely opposed to others exercising that freedom.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:13am

      Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"

      And anyway, a President is ENTITLED by will of the majority to appoint whoever he wants and surely to implement his notions.

      Which is why there is a lot of anger over Mitch McConnel's decision to hold up Obama appointees, fast track Trump Appointees, and his stated intent to not confirm Biden appointees.

      The article noted that FCC nominees are normally appointed in partisan pairs (one R, one D) to avoid the very problem this appointment would present.

      While this appointee is unqualified, Its the history of appointments and stated future environment for appointments that is the real issue being discussed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:36am

      Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"

      " President is ENTITLED by will of the majority"

      Donald Trump lost the majority vote, twice.
      But yes, you are correct in that Donald considers himself to be entitled to whatever he wants because he thinks he is king.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 2:35pm

        Re: Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't ex

        And by getting his sycophants in positions of power will continue to rule after he leaves the Whitehouse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 6:17am

          Re: Re: Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn'

          Rule from a jail cell hopefully.
          After the GOP looses GA, the Senate will be free to do their jobs and impeach those who have committed crimes.
          I'm dreaming.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 2:58pm

      Re: So... You admit in Freudian slip, it doesn't "doesn't exist"

      "...a President is ENTITLED by will of the majority..."

      Did you mean to confirm that he in fact doesn't have that entitlement, or was that your own Freudian slip?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:27am

    Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?

    I obviously don't get all the subtle differences of American English compared to the language I learnt at school.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Bring Out Your Dead -- Oh, got themselves out!, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:37am

      Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into English

      Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?

      Yes. Down with Royalists.

      A serf in thrall to Royalists of course can't understand the principle of rational national self-interest -- and especially the NOT of allowing furriners to set our interests -- because carefully indoctrinated from birth to BE a serf: your monarch is your god / nation and you're devoted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:48am

        Re: Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into Engl

        Well, "Down with Royalists" does not seem to match what is happening here, "Royalists" meaning people entrenched with maintaining an inherited order rather than one established through individual merit. And "America" and "nation" to me naively refers to a populace governed by common principles, not to some select part of it.

        So I don't really figure out how to apply your explanation to the usage of that phrase.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:38am

        Re: Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into Engl

        "understand the principle of rational national self-interest"

        I wish the GOP types understood this.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 5:22pm

        Re: Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into Engl

        “Rational self interest”

        You people can’t even wear mask and take vaccines to not get sick and die of preventable disease lol

        Don’t tell me about my interest

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:55am

      Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?

      How about "Anyone who's not my supporter can fuck off"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:11am

      Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?

      I can think of a 14-word translation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:23am

      Re: Can anyone translate "America First" into English for me?

      Your issue might be that at least 3 dialects of American English make use of the phrase.

      In the trump supporter Dialect, "America first" generally means "do things that upset people online".

      In the Trump donor Dialect, it means "My bank account first".

      In the Trump Dialect, it means "An eternal war to spin what makes my bank account bigger to get cheers from the people whose bank accounts I am draining."

      There is a lot of nuance in the various Trump Dialects, to a near Groot degree.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:40am

    But won't the new chair create a 3-2 majority?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      kallethen, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:51am

      Re:

      Yes, but if the Senate is still controlled by the GOP, you can easily expect that they will stall and block any Biden nominee for as long as possible, as they had done so with Obama.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        TKnarr (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:26am

        Re: Re:

        Only if the Democrats go along with it. As Schumer's already shown, there's a procedural method to force a floor vote in the Senate over the Majority Leader's objection. The Democrats merely need to be willing to use it regularly enough on things they can successfully pass (at worst they only need to swing a couple of GOP Senators to succeed) to break McConnell's illusion of control.

        And even the Majority Leader's control of the agenda isn't part of the Senate rules. By the rules the Vice President as presiding officer controls the agenda and which items go to a floor vote when, it's only tradition that that gets delegated to the Majority Leader and tradition can't be enforced.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:52am

      Re:

      Isn't this is addressed in the para that starts:

      "Most every telecom expert and consumer advocate I've spoken to now expect the GOP, should it retain control of the Senate ..."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:57am

      Re:

      If Biden can get his nomination confirmed by the senate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 8:58am

      Re:

      It would, if the GOP hadn't already perfected the tactic to deal with that: Refuse to even consider any non-GOP nominations. So long as they have any veto power they've made clear the only people they consider acceptable for government positions is someone on their side, and if you're not that you're not getting in.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:01am

      Re:

      Historically, what has happened is that the FCC opens up 2 seats at a time: one for each party. Then there's a consensus agreement that the Senate will approve filling both seats at once.

      But the move to push Simington on now, rather than wait until January, effectively ends that practice. And now the GOP-led Senate (assuming victories in Georgia) can just block the FCC from ever appointing a new Dem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:06am

    Next...

    Time for McConnell to follow Trump out the door.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 9:23am

    'Our way or not at all.'

    Ah the GOP, not even pretending to be there to serve or represent the public(or if they are, saying far too much about the kind of person that they're representing). No, much like monarchs of old they are there to rule and the only quality needed for any office is loyalty to the party, with everything else a distant second.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Christopher (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 12:22pm

    Okay, so fire some of the GOP commissioners

    I mean, let's do this. Let's fire them all. And let's start putting GOP people in prison.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 10 Dec 2020 @ 8:23am

      Re: Okay, so fire some of the GOP commissioners

      I mean, let's do this. Let's fire them all.

      How? You saw how well impeachment worked out last time.

      And let's start putting GOP people in prison.

      You're...skipping a few steps there. Generally somebody has to be charged with a crime first. And then convicted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2020 @ 6:04pm

    Why not

    So why can’t Biden just sell ace this tunt “see what I did?” When he gets in office and tell Mickey to get older faster so he can leave everyone else alone?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dickeyrat, 10 Dec 2020 @ 2:34am

    To envision the Trump regime, simply imagine a gang of four-year olds, hopped up on caffeine, speed and crystal meth, then turned loose in the Nursery after being told to destroy everything they could find. And cheering them on, a larger gang of purely Amerikan (with some Russians on the sidelines) drooling idiots, waving their MAGA skullcaps in the air, hollering with unrestrained glee. SO we have there what our own, homebred Amerikan Fascists have been able to craft, with the help of a completely incompetent Democrat opposition warbling "Kumbayah", and screaming slogans of hatred at Jimmy Carter, for all of the past forty years. 'Nuff said.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 2:18pm

    How can you call your entity independent, when all you spout is leftist talking points. Y'all sick rocks, bit I thank you for sharing your true colors.
    Enjoy Biden communism dumbasses

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 4:30pm

      Re:

      Enjoy Biden communism dumbasses

      How does that compare to Trump's handling of the pandemic?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 5:25pm

      Re: sudden laughs

      “How can you call your entity independent”

      Hahahahahahaha!

      Hahahahaha!

      Hahahaha!

      I’m sorry I was just thinking of you people trying to invalidate an election and you said that.

      Please continue your worthless diatribe I’m not going to care about.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 10 Dec 2020 @ 6:24pm

      Re:

      I don’t think you know what communism actually is, what Biden does/doesn’t support, or what leftism actually is. You’re just spouting conservative buzzwords.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2020 @ 8:13pm

      Re:

      What does independent have to do with an outlook? What does leftist have to do with any of this outlook, or with Biden of all people? What does communism, which has never existed anywhere in any modern nation state have to do with Bidenor anything?

      Enjoy your continuing stay in Fantasyland.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 12 Dec 2020 @ 9:36am

      Re:

      [Projects facts not in evidence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.