It's understandable that Trump wouldn't put much stock in "allegations" after the spectacle of libel the democrats tried to conjure up out of nothing during his presidential race. But can I say for sure that Trump would not have endorsed even if the allegations against Moore were true and he knew it? HAHA Nope! Because politicians, at the end of the day, do what is politically expedient. Morality is illusory in their minds; the end justifies the means. Always. This is doubly true with Trump, and the Republicans have no choice but to sit back and take it, lest he command his hive mind army to vote for another stooge! And it is so hilarious to watch.
With that said, the Republicans should've learned a lesson from the democrats last year of what happens when you run a candidate embroiled in a scandal.
Personally, I think both Moore and Jones are degenerate liars. I had no preference - though it would've been nice to watch all the smug liberal outsiders who pooled resources into the State would've gone down in flames. When it comes to self-righteous, virtue signalling "intellectuals" who so dearly love the sickly sweet aroma of their own flatulence, there is hardly anything I despise more...except, well, Moore. I shed no tears.
On a more somber note, the GOP did warn that gay marriage would lead to acceptance of pedophilia...ah, snap!
Smug liberal outsiders. Been hearing that one coming out of the South for over a century. The smug liberal outsiders said we can't own slaves anymore. Then the smug liberal outsiders came down and told us we can't have segregated schools, restaurants and drinking fountains any more. Even worse, smug liberal outsiders said we have to let them vote and we can't lynch those black folk without repercussion anymore. And now the smug liberal outsiders are saying we shouldn't vote for a guy who thinks being gay should be illegal and who is a serial child predator. Yeah, those damn smug liberal assholes are the REAL problem.
Virtue signaling. Or, what used to known as "common decency", except the alt-right has invented a new (very predictable) language for everything. Doug Jones is a degenerate liar?? No one even knows anything about Doug Jones, since the entire race has been about Moore. I DO know that the first thing Doug Jones did tonight was call on the Senate to quite dragging their ass and re-authorize CHIP (which is the Children's Health Insurance Program, which Republicans have refused to fund and is quickly running out of money, possibly leaving up to 9 million children and their parents in limbo for healthcare). But yeah, such concerns are for the smug, virtue signaling liberals. Well, count this guy among them.
I'm not buying that shit. Liberals behave as though they have a monopoly on truth by which they control the narratives and bash working class whites and other common folk. Do I defend Republicans? No. I despise the way they appeal only to the abstract, seeing as how they have nothing concrete (but slavery) to offer the poor white buggers who place them in power. But to act like liberals or the democrats in general embody some type of righteous resistance that is in any way good for the country really churns my stomach.
Just a sickening display of smugness and gross over-privilege; the way they virtue signal from their ivy league schools and gated white enclaves; so-called "intellectuals" have established themselves as "moral vanguards", and are rife with self-importance while producing nothing of actual value. They have entrenched themselves in culture, the arts, education, media, entertainment, and the bureaucratic establishments. They control the narratives - they disseminate identity politics by which division is perpetuated among proletarian ranks. And they attack working class whites, call them "privileged" by which they implicate all whites with themselves (as a shield for themselves..."we're in this together - we're all privileged") - which forces the white commoner on the defensive and pushes them even further into reactionism. No, YOU'RE privileged. All whites need not be overcome - it's nowhere near that difficult you self-righteous, non-producing cretins. You'll find no safety in numbers here; only YOU need be overcome.
I long for the day when both poor white rural folk and social minorities awake from their controllers and unite, seizing power in these United States. Rest assured, all of these neo-capitalist, neo-liberal, identity politics spewing over privileged, yuppie fucks will at last become intimately acquainted with the redemptive power of work - forced communal labour. It will be the only time in their miserable silver-spoon fed lives they've produced anything of actual value.
Stalin did this. A million people died. This particular revolution isn't coming. The United States will turn fascist LONG, LONG before it descends into Soviet-style Communism. Forced labor camps?? You can't be serious......
I'm all a major swing to the left in this country, but you seem to be advocating de facto slavery for anyone who is rich or doesn't do manual labor/produce goods. It's entirely possible (maybe even likely) that one day history will record United States-style capitalism as a failed system. God knows we're on the way. But history has already rendered that judgment on fascism and communism. I'd like the rich to pay a bit more in taxes, not end up in a gulag.
State Rep. Dan Johnson of Kentucky, who was under investigation for molesting a teenage girl, has apparently shot and killed himself on a bridge. Which is definitely not the way to prove your innocence (and probably not all that uncommon an outcome for people who know they are guilty of such a heinous act). His suicide note (posted on Facebook) certainly captures a deranged and guilty mind in it's final throes:
Killing yourself seems an odd response to "fake news". The real tragedy here is that I'm already seeing people saying it is the GIRL'S fault for coming forward.
I think it sets a fine precedent. Roy Moore, you know what to do.
Also, a suicide note on Facebook? Come on.
@Stormvessel You seem to harbour an unhealthy amount of hate for the middle classes. Chill.
State Rep. Dan Johnson of Kentucky, who was under investigation for molesting a teenage girl, has apparently shot and killed himself on a bridge. Which is definitely not the way to prove your innocence (and probably not all that uncommon an outcome for people who know they are guilty of such a heinous act). His suicide note (posted on Facebook) certainly captures a deranged and guilty mind in it's final throes:
Killing yourself seems an odd response to "fake news". The real tragedy here is that I'm already seeing people saying it is the GIRL'S fault for coming forward.
I think it sets a fine precedent. Roy Moore, you know what to do.
Also, a suicide note on Facebook? Come on.
@Stormvessel You seem to harbour an unhealthy amount of hate for the middle classes. Chill.
I mean, he's clearly a Marxist. Which is fine, god knows we have enough outright fascists speaking out in this country right now to be able to tolerate hearing from communists on the forum. But I mean, come on......both of these ideologies end up in concentration camps and wholesale death and slaughter. It just happened 75 years ago in both cases.
I'd like the rich to pay a bit more in taxes, not end up in a gulag.
On the one hand, why? You don't think government programs will go bankrupt if they don't receive tax revenue, do you? Taxation at the Federal level hasn't worked like that in a long time.
On the second hand, how much more? To date, no one has ever answered the question "exactly how much should 'the rich' pay in taxes?" with a concrete number in the form of a flat amount or a percentage. I have my suspicions as to why no one has ever answered that question but I am curious to hear your response.
On the third hand, it is true that someone making a lot of money in the United States can afford to chip in a little more than the rest of us--think of it as a small price to pay for the ability to live a life of luxury which would make even Louis XIV, the Sun King himself, jealous for the lavish comforts 21st Century wealth can provide. The 1% still worry about taxes--"I made $1 million last year but I could deduct and/or shelter only $400,000 so I had to pay 35% on the rest"--while the 1% of the 1% make so much money that taxes are not a consideration for them at all.
(CNN)At a closed-door meeting of House Democrats to discuss reforming how Congress handles sexual harassment allegations, one senior congresswoman stunned lawmakers when she suggested female lawmakers were inviting unwanted advances because of the way they dressed.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur stood up and told her colleagues Wednesday that "too many members dress inappropriately" and it's "an invitation" to be harassed, according to three Democratic sources familiar with the discussion.
Kaptur said female staffers and reporters were also guilty of wearing outfits that she believed were too revealing.
Those in the room were "totally in shock" and their "mouths were agape" at the statement from Kaptur, according to these sources. Politico first reported Kaptur's comments Wednesday.
Kaptur told CNN in a written statement that she was not suggesting that victims were responsible. "When I was first elected to Congress my office and I became a refuge for female staffers who had been mistreated by their bosses. Some of them in tears many days. It is something I carry with me to this day and something I brought up during our Caucus meeting. Under no circumstances is it the victim's fault if they are harassed in any way. I shared the stories from my time here in the context of the 'Me Too' legislation and how we can elevate the decorum and the dress code to protect women from what is a pervasive problem here and in society at large."
The fact is there are women who do not understand what is or is not appropriate for the office. Is this an excuse for harassment? Of course not. Should these women be more aware of proper dress? Certainly.
The fact is there are women who do not understand what is or is not appropriate for the office. Is this an excuse for harassment? Of course not. Should these women be more aware of proper dress? Certainly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the way a person dressed effected the work that they do.
The only time it might is if you directly deal with clients/customers or maybe seen by them, or is a safety hazard during your job.
The fact is there are women who do not understand what is or is not appropriate for the office. Is this an excuse for harassment? Of course not. Should these women be more aware of proper dress? Certainly.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize the way a person dressed effected the work that they do.
The only time it might is if you directly deal with clients/customers or maybe seen by them, or is a safety hazard during your job.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize someone said it affects the work they do. I certainly didn't.
Nicely fitted tops and blouses, although shirts should never be tight or revealing. Slacks or skirts in more casual fabrics, such as cotton. If denim is permitted, dark-wash only. Avoid overly casual denim cuts, like cutoffs or flare jeans. Skirts should remain at knee-length. Open-toed shoes are permitted. Avoid casual shoes such as sneakers or flip-flops. Casual accessories, such as scarves. Larger rings, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces are fine, and may be of any quality. More leeway with hair length, style, and color. More adventurous styles and colors are typically fine. Nails can be painted in brighter colors, or with any type of pattern. Avoid novelty characters or designs, or limit “louder” designs to one nail only.
Nicely fitted tops and blouses, although shirts should never be tight or revealing. Slacks or skirts in more casual fabrics, such as cotton. If denim is permitted, dark-wash only. Avoid overly casual denim cuts, like cutoffs or flare jeans. Skirts should remain at knee-length. Open-toed shoes are permitted. Avoid casual shoes such as sneakers or flip-flops. Casual accessories, such as scarves. Larger rings, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces are fine, and may be of any quality. More leeway with hair length, style, and color. More adventurous styles and colors are typically fine. Nails can be painted in brighter colors, or with any type of pattern. Avoid novelty characters or designs, or limit “louder” designs to one nail only.
Nicely fitted tops and blouses, although shirts should never be tight or revealing. Slacks or skirts in more casual fabrics, such as cotton. If denim is permitted, dark-wash only. Avoid overly casual denim cuts, like cutoffs or flare jeans. Skirts should remain at knee-length. Open-toed shoes are permitted. Avoid casual shoes such as sneakers or flip-flops. Casual accessories, such as scarves. Larger rings, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces are fine, and may be of any quality. More leeway with hair length, style, and color. More adventurous styles and colors are typically fine. Nails can be painted in brighter colors, or with any type of pattern. Avoid novelty characters or designs, or limit “louder” designs to one nail only.
I'd like the rich to pay a bit more in taxes, not end up in a gulag.
On the one hand, why? You don't think government programs will go bankrupt if they don't receive tax revenue, do you? Taxation at the Federal level hasn't worked like that in a long time.
On the second hand, how much more? To date, no one has ever answered the question "exactly how much should 'the rich' pay in taxes?" with a concrete number in the form of a flat amount or a percentage. I have my suspicions as to why no one has ever answered that question but I am curious to hear your response.
On the third hand, it is true that someone making a lot of money in the United States can afford to chip in a little more than the rest of us--think of it as a small price to pay for the ability to live a life of luxury which would make even Louis XIV, the Sun King himself, jealous for the lavish comforts 21st Century wealth can provide. The 1% still worry about taxes--"I made $1 million last year but I could deduct and/or shelter only $400,000 so I had to pay 35% on the rest"--while the 1% of the 1% make so much money that taxes are not a consideration for them at all.
(CNN)At a closed-door meeting of House Democrats to discuss reforming how Congress handles sexual harassment allegations, one senior congresswoman stunned lawmakers when she suggested female lawmakers were inviting unwanted advances because of the way they dressed.
Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur stood up and told her colleagues Wednesday that "too many members dress inappropriately" and it's "an invitation" to be harassed, according to three Democratic sources familiar with the discussion.
Kaptur said female staffers and reporters were also guilty of wearing outfits that she believed were too revealing.
Those in the room were "totally in shock" and their "mouths were agape" at the statement from Kaptur, according to these sources. Politico first reported Kaptur's comments Wednesday.
Kaptur told CNN in a written statement that she was not suggesting that victims were responsible. "When I was first elected to Congress my office and I became a refuge for female staffers who had been mistreated by their bosses. Some of them in tears many days. It is something I carry with me to this day and something I brought up during our Caucus meeting. Under no circumstances is it the victim's fault if they are harassed in any way. I shared the stories from my time here in the context of the 'Me Too' legislation and how we can elevate the decorum and the dress code to protect women from what is a pervasive problem here and in society at large."
I meant more in regards to what they will pay after the tax cut. The top marginal rate before the Bush cuts and after they expired was 39.6%. I'm fine with that.
Nicely fitted tops and blouses, although shirts should never be tight or revealing. Slacks or skirts in more casual fabrics, such as cotton. If denim is permitted, dark-wash only. Avoid overly casual denim cuts, like cutoffs or flare jeans. Skirts should remain at knee-length. Open-toed shoes are permitted. Avoid casual shoes such as sneakers or flip-flops. Casual accessories, such as scarves. Larger rings, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces are fine, and may be of any quality. More leeway with hair length, style, and color. More adventurous styles and colors are typically fine. Nails can be painted in brighter colors, or with any type of pattern. Avoid novelty characters or designs, or limit “louder” designs to one nail only.
And these rules are according to who... besides google, and what gives them the right to dictate these standards?
I am a firm believer in no one has a right to tell women (or men for that matter), what to wear and not to wear. That goes from the spectrum of Burka's to Daisy Duke shorts.
Now each company may have a standard dress code to reflect brand, but once again, if its not in the public eye, why does it matter?
The latest deal worked out, in the panic after Moore lost, has the corporate tax rate go to 21% and top tax rate drop to 37%. Donors were howling at that increase from 20 to 21% oh boy. As far as anyone knows they are leaving all the loopholes (maybe even adding a few more) that let corporations pay about 18% on average less than the top corporate tax rate. So basically after this tax bill a lot more companies will pay nothing in tax. This will effectively shift the tax burden to the middle class because the rich are also getting huge personal tax considerations along with the corporate tax cuts such as the elimination of the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax.
This is part of the reason that some people are calling this the biggest tax hike in American history - overall it will add close to $2 trillion to the deficit but to get there it gives like an 8 trillion dollar cut to the rich and a 6 trillion dollar tax hike to the middle class.
Nicely fitted tops and blouses, although shirts should never be tight or revealing. Slacks or skirts in more casual fabrics, such as cotton. If denim is permitted, dark-wash only. Avoid overly casual denim cuts, like cutoffs or flare jeans. Skirts should remain at knee-length. Open-toed shoes are permitted. Avoid casual shoes such as sneakers or flip-flops. Casual accessories, such as scarves. Larger rings, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces are fine, and may be of any quality. More leeway with hair length, style, and color. More adventurous styles and colors are typically fine. Nails can be painted in brighter colors, or with any type of pattern. Avoid novelty characters or designs, or limit “louder” designs to one nail only.
And these rules are according to who... besides google, and what gives them the right to dictate these standards?
I am a firm believer in no one has a right to tell women (or men for that matter), what to wear and not to wear. That goes from the spectrum of Burka's to Daisy Duke shorts.
Now each company may have a standard dress code to reflect brand, but once again, if its not in the public eye, why does it matter?
That's fine. I'm glad I don't share an office with you
While it would be nice to see the women who LOOK like Daisy Duke to wear the Daisy Duke shorts, I'd rather not see the great majority of my female co-workers wearing them. Ditto for the beer bellied, middle-aged men wearing Speedos to work!
Net Neutrality will be dead in a few hours. Mark my words, within 5 years, every person in this thread will begin to be extorted by telcom companies. It will start with companies like Netflix and Amazon, and then the shakedown will reach us. And anyone who believes companies like Comcast when they say nothing will change are out of their mind. They are about to become the Gambino Family of the internet. Brought to you 100% as a result of Republican governance.
On the second hand, how much more? To date, no one has ever answered the question "exactly how much should 'the rich' pay in taxes?" with a concrete number in the form of a flat amount or a percentage. I have my suspicions as to why no one has ever answered that question but I am curious to hear your response.
I meant more in regards to what they will pay after the tax cut. The top marginal rate before the Bush cuts and after they expired was 39.6%. I'm fine with that.
If I were making $500,000 I could probably deduct and/or shelter $200,000, so paying 39.6% on $300,000 is a tax bill of $118,000 (minus the amount I had already paid when I receive my monthly pay stubs). I could still live quite nicely on $381,200 and my CPA would thank me when I settle the bill. If I were making $50,000,000 I wouldn't worry about the taxes at all--I would just have my CPA show me the completed documents and e-sign them via the computer I have in my winter vacation house in Nice.
Of course, I view things differently than many people do. If I am taking home over $350,000 after all my taxes are paid then I am clearly winning financially even if my tax rate goes *up*. I wouldn't waste time like my grandmother did worrying about the money I don't have any more, especially when the amount I have is considerably large. As things stand, I have to adjust my withholdings next year because we had to add two dependents onto our medical insurance--the U. S. Navy made a mistake and now the biological father doesn't have medical coverage for the kids. The extra pre-tax deduction means I need to increase the amount I have withheld so that my 2018 tax return isn't short, sticking me with a tax bill of several hundred dollars.
*************
The FCC is in session right now, most likely just going through the motions of having a hearing before they roll back the Net Neutrality regulations. All things considered, the Internet was not a place where corporations used and abused most users before neutrality and it won't be a place where most people are used and abused once the regulations are canceled. Yes, there were isolated incidents of shady practices but those still happen now so it isn't like NN solved all the problems. A future administration with a different FCC Director will just wind up putting the regulations back in place, anyway, so my advice to those who are actually worried about this minor change is "patience".
edit/update: clearly I disagree with @jjstraka34 here. I don't think things will be as bad as that. I spend most of my time online checking the current Standard and Modern metagame data for MtG, chuckling at "road rage" and "public freakout" video clips, news/current events (obviously), and songs I like. I was fine before the Internet so if it went away completely I wouldn't miss it too terribly.
It's going to be a disaster, and it's going to hit everyone's pockets. It also allows telcom companies to restrict access to news and opinions that are in opposition to them. The last battlefield is now on it's way to being surrendered. And it's going to hit the right-wing as well. The only difference is they are walking lock-step right into it and causing it.
The fact is there are women who do not understand what is or is not appropriate for the office. Is this an excuse for harassment? Of course not. Should these women be more aware of proper dress? Certainly.
Odds are that nothing of the sort is going on and that Marcy Kaptur is simply blaming women for being targets of sexual harassment.
Further, what a woman wears should not count as provocation for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape.
There's simply no justification for it, whatever one might think "appropriate for the office" means.
So Governor Jay Inslee of Washington state basically said that Washington will continue to enforce net neutrality.
Corrupt Ajit Pai, along with telecomm lobbyists behind this attack on Americans, have already considered that. They saw that after withdrawing from climate agreements at the federal level, states said they would enforce it anyway. To prevent that Ajit Pai put in a provision that prevents states and cities from putting in their own net neutrality provisions. States will not be able regulate ISPs at all.
So what can states or cities do? They can offer Internet service and have their internet service be neutral but they will be unable to affect rules on ISPs that service their area. Awful Republicans....
That doesn't seem constitutional. Congress can only regulate interstate commerce; intrastate commerce is governed by the states. An internet service provider would have to abide by Washington laws when providing services to Washington residents.
So Governor Jay Inslee of Washington state basically said that Washington will continue to enforce net neutrality.
Corrupt Ajit Pai, along with telecomm lobbyists behind this attack on Americans, have already considered that. They saw that after withdrawing from climate agreements at the federal level, states said they would enforce it anyway. To prevent that Ajit Pai put in a provision that prevents states and cities from putting in their own net neutrality provisions. States will not be able regulate ISPs at all.
So what can states or cities do? They can offer Internet service and have their internet service be neutral but they will be unable to affect rules on ISPs that service their area. Awful Republicans....
I think Inslee is aware of this and looking at what he can do despite restrictions.
That doesn't seem constitutional. Congress can only regulate interstate commerce; intrastate commerce is governed by the states. An internet service provider would have to abide by Washington laws when providing services to Washington residents.
The city of Chattanooga, TN runs their own high-speed internet. It's been a wild success. Other cities should immediately start making similar plans. But that won't be possible if the Trump Administration gets it's way. And this is where the court-packing comes in.
Beyond that, let's put this in lunch pale terms: Republicans just handed nearly unlimited power to.....your cable company. The people who make appointments by saying they'll arrive SOMETIME between 9 and 3pm on Monday or Friday. You'd be hard pressed to find 5 businesses people hate more than their cable company. The messaging on this should be visceral and emotional. Maybe most people can't grasp the nuance of Net Neutrality. But they will grasp power and money being handed to the company that threw half their work-week into flux just so they could get cable and internet installed.
The fact is there are women who do not understand what is or is not appropriate for the office. Is this an excuse for harassment? Of course not. Should these women be more aware of proper dress? Certainly.
Odds are that nothing of the sort is going on and that Marcy Kaptur is simply blaming women for being targets of sexual harassment.
Further, what a woman wears should not count as provocation for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape.
There's simply no justification for it, whatever one might think "appropriate for the office" means.
@BelleSorciere I explicitly said it is not an excuse. Why are you telling me this?
Comments
I'm all a major swing to the left in this country, but you seem to be advocating de facto slavery for anyone who is rich or doesn't do manual labor/produce goods. It's entirely possible (maybe even likely) that one day history will record United States-style capitalism as a failed system. God knows we're on the way. But history has already rendered that judgment on fascism and communism. I'd like the rich to pay a bit more in taxes, not end up in a gulag.
Also, a suicide note on Facebook? Come on.
@Stormvessel You seem to harbour an unhealthy amount of hate for the middle classes. Chill.
On the second hand, how much more? To date, no one has ever answered the question "exactly how much should 'the rich' pay in taxes?" with a concrete number in the form of a flat amount or a percentage. I have my suspicions as to why no one has ever answered that question but I am curious to hear your response.
On the third hand, it is true that someone making a lot of money in the United States can afford to chip in a little more than the rest of us--think of it as a small price to pay for the ability to live a life of luxury which would make even Louis XIV, the Sun King himself, jealous for the lavish comforts 21st Century wealth can provide. The 1% still worry about taxes--"I made $1 million last year but I could deduct and/or shelter only $400,000 so I had to pay 35% on the rest"--while the 1% of the 1% make so much money that taxes are not a consideration for them at all.
*************
Meanwhile, over in Congess, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D - OH), engaged in a little victim-blaming and shaming, leaving her fellow Members of Congress speechless. In her defense, she did subsequently try to walk back her initial comments...but still, that sounded like how people thought back in the 1970s.
The only time it might is if you directly deal with clients/customers or maybe seen by them, or is a safety hazard during your job.
https://www.moneycrashers.com/what-wear-work-tips-office-dress-code/
Nicely fitted tops and blouses, although shirts should never be tight or revealing.
Slacks or skirts in more casual fabrics, such as cotton. If denim is permitted, dark-wash only. Avoid overly casual denim cuts, like cutoffs or flare jeans.
Skirts should remain at knee-length.
Open-toed shoes are permitted. Avoid casual shoes such as sneakers or flip-flops.
Casual accessories, such as scarves. Larger rings, bracelets, earrings, and necklaces are fine, and may be of any quality.
More leeway with hair length, style, and color. More adventurous styles and colors are typically fine.
Nails can be painted in brighter colors, or with any type of pattern. Avoid novelty characters or designs, or limit “louder” designs to one nail only.
I am a firm believer in no one has a right to tell women (or men for that matter), what to wear and not to wear. That goes from the spectrum of Burka's to Daisy Duke shorts.
Now each company may have a standard dress code to reflect brand, but once again, if its not in the public eye, why does it matter?
This is part of the reason that some people are calling this the biggest tax hike in American history - overall it will add close to $2 trillion to the deficit but to get there it gives like an 8 trillion dollar cut to the rich and a 6 trillion dollar tax hike to the middle class.
While it would be nice to see the women who LOOK like Daisy Duke to wear the Daisy Duke shorts, I'd rather not see the great majority of my female co-workers wearing them. Ditto for the beer bellied, middle-aged men wearing Speedos to work!
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Of course, I view things differently than many people do. If I am taking home over $350,000 after all my taxes are paid then I am clearly winning financially even if my tax rate goes *up*. I wouldn't waste time like my grandmother did worrying about the money I don't have any more, especially when the amount I have is considerably large. As things stand, I have to adjust my withholdings next year because we had to add two dependents onto our medical insurance--the U. S. Navy made a mistake and now the biological father doesn't have medical coverage for the kids. The extra pre-tax deduction means I need to increase the amount I have withheld so that my 2018 tax return isn't short, sticking me with a tax bill of several hundred dollars.
*************
The FCC is in session right now, most likely just going through the motions of having a hearing before they roll back the Net Neutrality regulations. All things considered, the Internet was not a place where corporations used and abused most users before neutrality and it won't be a place where most people are used and abused once the regulations are canceled. Yes, there were isolated incidents of shady practices but those still happen now so it isn't like NN solved all the problems. A future administration with a different FCC Director will just wind up putting the regulations back in place, anyway, so my advice to those who are actually worried about this minor change is "patience".
edit/update: clearly I disagree with @jjstraka34 here. I don't think things will be as bad as that. I spend most of my time online checking the current Standard and Modern metagame data for MtG, chuckling at "road rage" and "public freakout" video clips, news/current events (obviously), and songs I like. I was fine before the Internet so if it went away completely I wouldn't miss it too terribly.
Further, what a woman wears should not count as provocation for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape.
There's simply no justification for it, whatever one might think "appropriate for the office" means.
So what can states or cities do? They can offer Internet service and have their internet service be neutral but they will be unable to affect rules on ISPs that service their area. Awful Republicans....
Beyond that, let's put this in lunch pale terms: Republicans just handed nearly unlimited power to.....your cable company. The people who make appointments by saying they'll arrive SOMETIME between 9 and 3pm on Monday or Friday. You'd be hard pressed to find 5 businesses people hate more than their cable company. The messaging on this should be visceral and emotional. Maybe most people can't grasp the nuance of Net Neutrality. But they will grasp power and money being handed to the company that threw half their work-week into flux just so they could get cable and internet installed.