Trump adds antitrust expert to Justice transition team

So can someone explain to me the antitrust shit?

I dont know anything why this is a good thing, whats a quick rundown of this?

Anti-trust means breaking up corporations that monopolize markets.

Antitrust issues result when a company (only enormous ones to my knowledge are capable of it) uses it's resources in one area to fuck up competition or consumers in another area.

Examples of this:

ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws

So theres a chance we can break up the fucks that dominate ISP's?

Not sure - only judging by the summary which says a "hands-off" approach to antitrust dealings. To be more "hands-off" than Obama on antitrust they would have to make the TWC and Comcast CEOs put out a porno of them buttfucking eachother as a condition of a merger to show they got close enough.

How would this work? Even though it's completely necessary, it would be metaphorical hell trying to break up the stranglehold that is had on ISPs for the majority of Americans right now.

That being said, all Trump would have to do is hold a rally, ask how many people have services with Comcast or Verizon and ask them how much they enjoy paying for 3rd world amenities. Pretty easy to get the populism needed to move the necessary mountains.

Nationalize ISPs? I mean, that obviously comes with its own set of problems, but it's not as if the NSA doesn't know everything we jack to already anyway, no matter how much hardened Linux fags want to convince themselves otherwise…

Why have literally no politicians ever actually had the idea of rallying public will to put pressure on congress to pass legislation?

Has a politician ever actually held a rally to push legislation ever?

They would make it so that the infrastructure was owned by a single company which in turn leases out access to lines to companies that compete for retail customers. That single company would be deemed a public utility.

I'd prefer if the internet were tied to the rights and freedoms enshrined within the US constitution.

Universal free speech on the internet would increase our power exponentially and it would be the end of SJW's

kek, Lainposter is a NSA scrub what else is new

The only other option to nationalizing would be to break up the ISPs by geographical location and allowing for people to bid on the infrastructure in place. Though I'd imagine it wouldn't be as easy as breaking up a bank into branches that can be bought by smaller banks.

Rallies are for getting things done, pretty much explains everything in domestic policy the past few decades.

Not even electricity production is owned by a single company, you don't break up monopolies by creating one.

natsoc in action. Notice the lobergers are silent.

It pretty much is on a state by state basis, and the grid is interconnected - recall the blackout that occurred on the east coast about 7 years ago due to a breaker going off causing a cascade. In that case fine, have the operations of that single company broken up into 50 different companies, one in each state. They'll all be utilities.

I'm not Lainposter, I just like Lain. :-)

You're right, there's a lot of different ways we can handle the ISP problem. Maybe state governments would be a better choice, because they don't have an automatic obligation to share information with Federal authorities. Though we all know how easily indebted states cave to financial pressure eh heh.

This should be one of his top priorities. Half the country has been totally redpilled on shitlib censorship and now it's time to end it

Monopolies should be owned by the state, not given sovereign power, which subverts the leadership.

...

Here are some pages from my outline for my Antitrust class last semester with a professor who loved/specialized in it.

The pages are out of order, but the info is helpful.

Some notes on the Microsoft case, it was a HUGE case in antitrust law when it came down.

Third picture is some info on the Clayton Act.

First time getting Hitler dubs

With the NSA there has got to be a pile of dirt on FB/Twitter etc. If we know these sites are allowing ISIS to communicate Trump sure as fuck does. Thats grounds for taking em down right there.

noice

They did once upon a time, but these days doing that outside of an election campaign will get you labelled a demagogue, which I think is right behind racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and xenophobic on the list of labels our cuck politicians are terrified of being called. So politicians have relied on surrogates and media to inspire people with the ideas the politicians will then step in and affirm.

I never thought I would say this, but

I might actually get tired of winning this much

It means fuck the kikes. Its all you need to know.

NEVER

I would wait for tangible results before celebrating too much. It's certainly promising, but I don't think realization will be trivial.

They are only libertarians because they can't have NS

Wew.

It's the opposite you idiots. Obama blocked a lot of mergers for examples. Trump aims to do the opposite and leave them do whatever they want.

Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

You're a moron.

>>>Holla Forums

here, have my OC. it should help you understand what your future looks like

Did any of you read the fucking article? I'm not going to trust yahoo news, but none of you have provided any evidence to the contrary of what the article claims, that Obama "challenged an unusually large number of mergers," and Trump is about to appoint a guy that "signals a more hands-off approach to antitrust enforcement."
I know there is certainly spin here, and the kikes being mad about anything is a good sign, but show me the fucking facts, please.

Non-burger here.
can anyone explain this part to me:

feel free to imagine you are talking to a very dumb 8 year old.

do you hate yourself?

MAKE THIS HAPPEN

Holy shit this sounds like a extremely wet dream. Though this creates more than few enemies that want to see him dead.

Please Kek keep God Emperor safe, I'd gladly die for sake of greater good in his stead.

What?

No clue. Without a source, e.g., "Professor of Anti-Trust Law at the University of Chicago," it might as well be whatever lawyer in whatever field yahoo news happens to have on staff.