I don't think there are any utilities that can handle everyone using it to the max all at once. That's how blackouts happen. If everyone in your neighborhood turned on their sprinklers and taps at the same time, the pressure would drop drastically. If everyone in town picked up their phones (meaning landlines) at the same time, the switches would crash. ISPs are no different from the rest, they count on not everyone needing all of it all at once.
The difference is, with ISPs - in the US anyway - nobody gets the advertised maximum most of the time. With the others, I can run my sprinklers or air conditioning or make a phone call and it works perfectly, whereas there's no telling how well my internet connection will work at any given time.
That still sounds unlikely. Did the ACA have 80% public support? I don't think it was even 50%. SOPA would have passed in the complete absence of any public support at all. It was only massive public outcry that defeated it. Saying that issues with around 80% public support get passed and those without don't is an oversimplification at best, and flat out wrong at worst.
Uhm if they sell 'unlimited' they usually set an amount of data for high speed internet and after you have used the set amount of data they just dial the speed down to barely useful but you can still use it hence 'unlimited'.
I'd settle for 4G. The definition of 4G requires a peak download speed of 1 Gb/s for a stationary user. LTE does not qualify. LTE-advanced does but I'm not sure if anyone's actually deployed it in the US.
You have a requirement for four different kinds of majority, under different rules, and eighty percent of the underlying public is about right.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. To "do anything", by which I assume you mean pass something into law, you need greater than 50% support in the Senate and House, and the President. The public has no say. So where does this 80% come from, or are you talking about something totally unrelated?
If you want federal gun control, you have to find a way to structure it in terms which makes sense to a deer hunter somewhere in Tennessee.
There are gun control measures, such as universal background checks, that are favored by a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans, and a majority of gun owners. Yet they cannot get through Congress. If Congress only cared about representing their constituents, this would not happen. Gun control is just one example, there are others where Congress will not act despite the will of the people.
There is basically no oversight outside the military for launching nuclear weapons. So if we elect Trump, we're relying on a narcissist world leader with the attention span of a kindergartener to keep his cool enough to not nuke anyone for at least four years. Or for the military to disobey an order from the commander in chief if he does decide to push the button. This ought to be enough to keep him out of office, but then there have been a lot of things that ought to have been enough to end his run.
Under the American system of checks and balances, you need something like 80% popular support to actually do anything.
You need the support of a majority of both houses of Congress (or sometimes a supermajority). The public doesn't get any input between elections. Very few issues have 80% popular support, and I would guess most of those are not being acted upon because Congress isn't interested (eg campaign finance reform, gun control).
The sentence reads fine without "per se", and the addition of it is superfluous.
I like your joke and I got it, but it's a legal thing: "Thus, an act is illegal without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of scienter (knowledge) or other defenses." They're trying to make it sound like they don't need to prove anything like intent or knowledge, that the act is defamatory without regard to any extenuating circumstances. Which sounds like complete BS to me.
If your problem is with the idea of suddenly legalizing everything without any planning for the consequences, I think you're arguing against a strawman. I doubt anyone is proposing that, just arguing that the war on drugs is a stupid expensive useless dangerous violent failure, and we need to stop doing it.
It seems Moore's math assumes everything but those four states will stay the same. Not clear that is the case, and it looks to me like the changes are not in Trump's favor.
Don't underestimate this; it means he's likely to win the voter turnout game hands-down!
Sure, but it may not matter. He could turn out every single person in states like Alabama, Arkansas, and Kansas, and it would make not one bit of difference, because that wouldn't get him a single additional electoral college vote. Where is he going to turn out these additional voters? If it's not in swing states, it's irrelevant (unfortunately - basically most of the votes in the US just don't matter, which is terrible).
"A presidential candidate needs 270 Electoral Votes to become president. In other words, if Clinton wins just the states leaning in her direction, she would be president without needing any of the toss up states — Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio or Pennsylvania."