Have you considered that maybe there are thoughtful reasons why people might disagree with your policy views? If you really can't understand conservative policy aside from it being "corrupt, craven, citizen-hostile and spiteful", then I don't think you're giving the issues an objective analysis.
I can sympathize with the idea of relying more on market-based approaches, but in my view that would require pretty aggressive anti-trust enforcement. In other words: I can see an argument for allowing monopolies but regulating them heavily (a-la the AT&T of old), or for light regulation in a highly competitive market (and relying on competition to prevent companies from screwing their customers).
It seems like most Republicans want neither significant regulation nor significant anti-trust enforcement, and I just can't see how they would honestly expect that to produce any result other than a small number of monopolies charging customers whatever they want and ramming whatever practices they want down their customers' throats.
My view on this administration is about more than their policy positions.
For the record, I grew up conservative, my whole family is, I'm fairly libertarian in my views, and I didn't vote for either major party due to their policy positions. I understand conservative policy perfectly well.
For the record, I'm not much different from a stereotypical commie pinko in my views, but I agree that this administration is cynical and "for sale" on a whole new level, and would vastly prefer dealing with actual libertarians or conservatives. I'm actually somewhat conservative myself, in the sense of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But pick your favorite issue, and there's a good chance that the Trump folk are on the wrong side.
You are being disingenuous at best, because Ajit Pai certainly has a principled argument against the FCC inventing Net Neutrality. You may disagree, but you are just making ad hominem attacks about corruption. I think this interview with Hugh Hewitt and Ajit Pai sums up his position clearly. TLDR: The FCC doesn't have teh authority to regulate the Internet, Congress does. If you want net neutrality, pass a law.
HH: Now I want to geek out with a fellow lawyer. Years ago, Dick Wiley tried to get me to become a coms lawyer, and I didn’t choose that path, and I’m glad about that. You went down that road, but I want to talk to you more broadly about the Chevron deference issue that came up with Justice Gorsuch in his confirmation hearings. The Congress has never passed anything about the internet. There is no predicate for you guys to regulate. And to me, that’s the beginning and the end. And the idea that we would have Chevron deference towards rules that have no predicate in a legislative act is extraordinary to me, Chairman Pai. Do your Democratic colleagues not get that?
AP: Well, I think they tend to think that the law is more elastic, that even beyond Chevron, if there is a gap in the law, that you can simply essentially make it up, even though Congress didn’t necessarily have the internet in mind when it crafted Title II in 1933 which I think is a fair assumption. Nonetheless, they think the worst thing in the world would be, to be, to have a market that is simply unregulated. We have to find some way to fit this square peg of 2017 into the round hole of 1934 laws. And that’s part of the problem, I think, is that Chevron presumes that an expert agency is acting within the scope of its expertise. And I don’t think it was here. It was more of a political impulse to, as I said, solve a problem that doesn’t exist. And that is, that’s buttressed by the fact by President Obama’s instructions who was to adopt these regulations. We didn’t adopt them of our own free will in 2014 and 2015.
HH: Well, this takes me back to why I favor what you guys do on the AM/FM band, for example, is rooted in a real law that existed, that was passed after radio came into being, and when people understood that there would be problems. When I bring up Mexico stations, it’s, I’m asking the FCC to do what it was intended to do. But obviously, nothing has ever been passed about the internet in the way that you are empowered to regulate concentration between AM and FM bands, and we talk about the subcaps. You are not authorized by the original Constitutional Article I authority to weigh into the internet.
AP: That’s exactly right. We are an independent agency that is a creature of Congress, and thus, we can only exercise the authority that Congress has given us. And the argument I’ve consistently made is like look, I know that this is an area of great public interest, but the right way to channel that public debate is through Congress…
There are thoughtful reasons why people might disagree with policy views, yes. And, speaking as a conservative, I appreciate you trying to keep people from painting me with their broad brush.
But (again speaking as a conservative) there is something completely abnormal about this administration. It rode to power on conservative votes, but it isn't a conservative administration. It seems mostly to be knee-jerk ego-driven reflex reaction to each day's hot news, rather than coherent policy.
Perfectly said, but ironically, since I'm not on "the other side" here from a political perspective. I voted for Bush twice, Obama once, didn't vote in 2012 (sadly) but would have voted for Romney, and wouldn't be saying any of this if Mike Pence was president. But amusingly, you assume that my disapproval of Trump means that I'm "on the other side" and just spouting platitudes. Ironic.
For better or worse (probably worse) we have a two party system, and one party has full control of Congress and the executive branch. So "flipping control" in this case means breaking that lock on power. I don't really want Democrats to hold Congress and the White House either.
