Trump Promises To Defund The Entire Military, If Congress Won't Let Him Punish The Internet For Being Mean To Him
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
President Trump has continued to throw his little temper tantrum in response to #DiaperDon trending on Twitter. When that happened, he suddenly demanded a full repeal of Section 230 -- which would not stop Twitter from showing #DiaperDon trending when the President throws a temper tantrum like a 2 year old. Then, yesterday, we heard that the White House was really pushing for the Senate to include a 230 repeal in the must pass NDAA bill that funds the military.
Late last evening I heard from people in touch with various Congressional offices saying that this entire effort by the White House was dead in the water, because almost no one had an appetite to even try to attempt it, and despite the whackadoodle conspiracy theories from the President and Senators Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, and Josh Hawley, it turns out that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn't care about 230 reform.
Of course, even later last night, things took an even stupider turn, as Trump declared on Twitter that unless the NDAA included a full repeal of Section 230, he would veto it. This is all sorts of stupid and we'll break it all down in a moment, so bear with me.
That says:
Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to “Big Tech” (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand..... Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk. Take back America NOW. Thank you!
We'll get into why nearly everything in that statement is wrong, dangerous, and stupid, but I want to be crystal clear about what is happening here.
President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he's upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.
That's it. That's the reality. This is the world we live in. And it's so insane, it needs to be repeated.
President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he's upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.
Oh, and it's even stupider. On so many levels. First off, taking away Section 230 wouldn't stop #DiaperDon from trending on Twitter, because that's protected by the 1st Amendment and has nothing to do with Section 230. If anything, it would give much more incentive for Twitter to remove Donald Trump and his followers accounts entirely to avoid the suddenly increased legal liability.
But, now, let's take a deep breath, take a step back, and look at how incredibly stupid Trump's statement is.
Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to “Big Tech” (the only companies in America that have it - corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity.
None of this is even close to reality. This is pure nonsense. Section 230 applies to all websites for any 3rd party content they host. The claim that "big tech" are the only companies that have it is belied by this simple point: Donald Trump himself has invoked Section 230 in court. Multiple times. Incredibly, in 2017, he argued that he shouldn't be liable for the content of a retweet he did, because of Section 230. In fact, in court, Trump argued that Section 230 "should be given an 'expansive' reading" in order to protect himself from defamation claims. He's right. Section 230 should protect him in those cases, but it also highlights how it's absolutely bullshit to claim that it only protects "Big Tech" and that big tech companies are "the only companies in America that have it." It's just not true.
As for the claim that Section 230 is a "threat to our National Security," let's play a little thought exercise: which is a bigger threat to our national security: a law that says internet websites are not liable for the actions of their users or defunding the entire military? I'll give you a minute to think about it.
Because here's the point where I remind you that President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he's upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.
Oh, and then there's the claim about "election integrity" and... what? What the fuck does election integrity have to do with Section 230? The answer is absolutely nothing. He's just spewing words.
I could go on, but it's all just incredibly stupid. It's one thing to say that Trump is an blundering fool, but here is a legitimate threat to national security, entirely because people are making fun of him. It's frightening beyond all belief.
And this is the point that in a functioning Congress, everyone would stand up to the President and say "no, this is not how this works." Congressional Republicans need to stop enabling this utterly dangerous nonsense. Because President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he's upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending. That should not be allowed to happen.
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: donald trump, insults, intermediary liability, military spending, ndaa, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Amendment XXV
Amendment XXV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amendment XXV
That might have worked before the 12th Amendment, when the Vice President was the runner-up in the Presidential election. In the modern age, they're inevitably a crony of the President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amendment XXV
Too bad none of them have the necessary backbones to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backbones
I think it's also power lust. If they do that, their careers in the White House -- possibly in Washington -- end.
All the means to oust the President have been proven ineffectual thanks to the great penetration tester in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Backbones
“Pence thinks God is 'calling' him to be president” (CNN / YouTube)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Backbones
Is he now The Chosen One?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So.. why hasn't there been an Article 25 movement on this guy yet. He sure seems to be expressing some pretty dangerous ideas that could cause some serious harm to others, and as the President he does in fact have the power to carry them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was told the military does not obey illegal orders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that'll show us he's not a baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also it looks like you didn't close an <i> tag (the one that opens before "which is a bigger threat to our national security").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see if using markdown italics will shut it off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone think he will get bad enough before Jan 20 to the point where a significant number of his supporters in the public will blink? Maybe in his own way he is working to patch the divide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His hardcore supporters will never waver. They would rather he make himself the godking of the United States and overthrow democracy than accept the idea that Donald Trump is/should be anything less than their ruler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While at it, given his predilection to see his own name everywhere, he would also rename the country to Trumpiana, Trumpland, or even Trumpistan if he could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He will call it trump York
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think he's got an unshakable core of supporters, and I think he's also got a lot of fair-weather fans. There's going to come a time when the latter decide they have more to lose by continuing to humor him than to gain, and will go back to distancing themselves from him like most Republicans did during the 2016 primary (or like they all ran away from Bush after the 2006 midterms).
"He was never a real Republican. Did you know he used to be a Democrat?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More he is followed by those who fall for jingoism and a 'great' leader. They would jump ship if another great leader came along with a promise to lead them to the land of milk and honey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Dear Leader shot someone? They must have had it coming.'
He might, might lose a few(and I'm talking double-digits at the most), but at this point I'd say anyone still in his cult has made pretty clear that they're sticking around no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Dear Leader shot someone? They must have had it coming.'
Shot someone? you are thinking too small! Things would have to get far far worse than that to make his hardcore people change their minds..
I'm thinking move to Russia and accept a top position in Putin's gov't :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
His supporters would probably see him accepting a role in Russia as a good thing. Remember, these are the kinds of people who’ve said, in one way or another, that they’d rather be Russians than Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is what the New Democratic Party is for once a decade or so when the liberals and conservatives get too out of control people can vote NDP and they will smarten up by the next election... Don't you guys have an NDP party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sort of, except it's just called the Democratic Party.
We have a far-right party and a centrist party. The left doesn't really have any significant political power in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From a European perspective your Centrist party looks fairly right too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, they’re not entirely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have noticed something about the US to which most of the US is entirely blind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"From a European perspective"
From the perspective of most of the industrialized world, the centrist party of the US -- that being the Democratic party -- is unreasonably right-wing.
Our justice system which murders people without justice and incarcerates people in inhumane conditions based on dubious convictions -- and is right now looking to going back to gas chambers and firing squads rather than just ceasing our capital punishment program -- is not a high priority for the DNC.
Addressing the dissolving biodiversity of the global ecosystem, the US' immense greenhouse gas permit (especially when considered per capita), failure of which almost assures human extinction before 2200 is not a priority for the DNC
Nor is the immense precarity of the American population. 80% of families cannot scrape $400 in an emergency. Over 50% of those who want a job that would earn a living cannot find one. (All of Trump's low employment rates exclude people in sucky jobs, people who have been disqualified for unemployment insurance and those people who stopped looking in frustration and disgust.) 80% of the workforce is in temporary gig-economy positions and still live paycheck-to-paycheck, and have neither food nor housing security. And the DNC doesn't care about these people either.
In fact, all they really care about is doing better than Trump. They're aiming high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "From a European perspective"
"the centrist party of the US -- that being the Democratic party -- is unreasonably right-wing."
and if they want to engage the more progressive voters in two years, they will need to support more progressive legislation than they have in the past.
Don't be fooled by the landslide, the only mandate that can be honestly claimed here is the rejection of Donald and the Sycophants.
I miss Pinky and the Brain, perhaps bring that cartoon back and call it Donald and the Sycophants.
Sycophants: What are we going to do today Donald?
Donald: What do we do everyday sycophants? Why take over the world of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "From a European perspective"
Probably more like 24%. Even the original claim was 40%, not 80%. Unless you have more recent data from the pandemic.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/do-40-percent-of-americans-have-less
This one seems quite a bit more complicated but if you have a reference I would be interested to see it.
25-30% (not necessarily as their only jobs):
https://www.gigeconomydata.org/basics/how-many-gig-workers-are-there
36%:
https://fortunly.co m/statistics/gig-economy-statistics/
80% is just not a plausible number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lower rates
I want to say I'm relieved for some of your corrections, but they're still rates that are problematic, and still being ignored by our federal governments.
As for the total job market, it was from a YouTube video of someone who broke it down (and noted the federal government started its policy of arbitrarily disqualifying unemployed laborers back in the 19th century). It was chosen for me by the YT algo and I watched it a couple months ago, which means it's going to be tricky to relocate. Still there's a lot to be said about underemployment in the US, and people working multiple jobs just to eek out a living.
Stay tuned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lower rates
Yes, none of that was intended to imply that the situation is hunky dory. Sounds like the kind of video YT should recommend to me too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video on US Unemployment
Here we go. The YouTube algo eventually decided I might want some more of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Video on US Unemployment
Ah, Second Thought. Nice, thanks. Depressing, but a good video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It doesn't matter about their policies as long as they are a third choice so when the other two get too cocky and think you can't do anything about it you can vote for them to get them back in line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, the punish the main parties party.. Gotta have one of those
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like the British Liberal party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This was kindof the role that Trump played in 2016 I think except now there is no more republican party to go back to after they have been suitably chastised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump is much closer to Screaming Lord Sutch, but without the monster raving loony party so that people realized he was satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
punish-the-main-parties-party
In 2016, that was the Republican party. We had two choices: the Monster and Same As The Old Boss. The monster lost the popular vote but won the EC.
In 2020 we had the Monster and Same As The Old Boss Before The Monster
In 2016, the Monster's appeal was not as a vote against the Old Boss, but because he made it okay to hate Other people.
I think in 2020, that's still why he's getting so many votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: punish-the-main-parties-party
...such as the Old Boss. There was something about him that really riled people up, but I can't quite seem to put my black president on what it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgruntlement with Old Bosses
Well, then, it was George W. Bush's one-two punch of stealing the election and then going far-right in his policies (despite his Compassionate Conservative campaign), fucking up the Katrina response, starting a war on false pretenses (plus torture and mercenaries, and... and... that allowed the Democratic party to dare put a non-white or non-male or non-Christian into office.
Obama was supposed to be something different, (Hope and Change) and even got a Nobel Peace Price for not being Bush. And then he turned into Same As The Old Boss with George W. Bush policies, the surveillance state and low-gear incrementalism that was slower than Bush rolled the previous incrementalism back.
And that justified giving the election to a known confidence man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disgruntlement with Old Bosses
"And that justified giving the election to a known confidence man."
Well, it's a good reason, according to all the Very Fine People. After all, that a Kenyan-born Muslim made it to the white house was just proof positive the satanic pedo ring of the democrats had finally undermined the very last pillars of Great America and it wasn't until then that the last brave few patriots arose to chant that long-standing american battle cry of "But Obama!" and cast their ballot for the entitled inept grifter who had spent his entire life being bailed out by other people in his multitude of failures and would now be upheld as the Lord and Savior by the very people he kept pissing on for most of his life.
I have never been happier not to be an american. We certainly don't lack idiots in Europe, but they are far, far fewer than 1 in 3 of the voting citizenry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We've got third parties but, outside limited and mostly-local examples, they generally don't win elections. Voting for a third-party candidate usually amounts to a protest vote. And the takeaway is never that the Democrats think "Shit, we really should have appealed to those Green Party voters," it's always to blame the Green Party voters for putting Bush/Trump/whoever in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And one of the primary reasons third parties can’t gain traction in the U.S. is the broken-as-hell electoral system, starting with our first-past-the-post voting system and springing out from there. Scored/ranked voting would give third-party candidates an instant leg up — maybe a small one, but a leg up nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have first past the post as well, but we don't really elect the PM directly like you do the pres, we elect individual parliament members who vote on decisions, and whoever gets the most parliament members gets to decide who they want to lead their crew. We can have something happen like the cons get 45% of parliament and the libs get 35% and the ndp gets 20% the libs and ndp decide to join together to gain majority and nominate a P.M. between them, or we can have something like the liberal party once elected can decide the guy they picked as P.M. is terrible and replace him. So losing a parliament seat here or there to NDP or green party is a bigger deal and can actually affect the balance of power
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t sound worse, but I’m not sure it’s better than what we’ve got here in the States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a bit less polarized, but it's definately got it's own problems. those big examples I mentioned are mostly only theoretically possible, but really unlikely but you do get occasional traitors members of parliament where they were elected as a conservative and then later have a falling out and decided to defect to the liberals or visa versa. People get really pissed when that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I used to think parliamentary democracies were less dysfunctional than our system, but watching the UK and Israel these past few years has changed my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ranked choice voting was on the MA ballot this year and it got shot down in flames big time. I have to admit I'm somewhat at a loss as to why aside from perhaps the intelligence level of the average American voter who perhaps found it too confusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We don't have a centrist party, we have far right, and slightly less far right parties in an absolute sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd have agreed twenty years ago, but I think the Democratic Party has moved far enough left in the intervening time to qualify as centrist.
Though of course any such analysis is reductive and it's really more of a case-by-case thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Dear Leader shot someone? They must have had it coming.
I think they are so gullible that at one of his rallies he could serve out the kool-aid to everyone of them & at the next rally claim that it was "fake news" & serve the kool-aid again to everyone & they would still drink it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
82 months Zombie Off-line Making Believe Is Engaged!
Well, well. After my outing them suppressed for a couple weeks, here's another "account" over TEN years old, SEVEN of which INACTIVE.
tubes: 18 (<2), 30 mo gap; 52 mo gap; Sep 8th, 2010 https://www.techdirt.com/user/tubes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 82 months Zombie Off-line Making Believe Is Engaged!
Your conspiracy theories are bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 82 months Zombie Off-line Making Believe Is Engaged!
Really? You're calling me out because I don't post often on here. I usually just read & don't sign in. Keep trying your conspiracy somewhere else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 82 months Zombie Off-line Making Believe Is Engaged!
Don't worry about it. He did the same thing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 82 months Zombie Off-line Making Believe Is Engaged!
And to me...and everyone else with a real life who on occasion has reason to prioritize away the online environment.
It's just that Baghdad Bob desperately needs to believe that in reality all of Techdirt and especially the ones gainsaying him are just all Mike Masnick sock puppets. Or, and this is amazing, astroturfers paid by CIA and Google for years just to smack that troll over the head with his own bad arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk.
And he needs to include an adjective about the beauty of a desk in this? What the fuck does the looks of a desk have to do with anything? He can sign it or not on a fucking card table for all I care.
That half the country voted for this moron is pathetically sad. He writes like a teenager trying to get his essay to exactly 100 words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He got his diapers in a twist about people mocking him for that tiny-ass “Resolute Desk” he was sitting behind in some press thing a few days ago. He can’t be embarassed — his ego won’t allow it — so he acts like My First Writing Desk is the most beautiful thing to ever exist (besides his daughter, anyway).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The little desk
The desk was explained on Twitter as a signing desk for when the President needs to sign a think in a photo op while a big crowd of courtiers gather to celebrate the new policy. Small desk = closer crowd.
I suspect Trump didn't know what was going on when the White House staff set him up with the tiny desk and no officials to crowd around him. So he looked awkward. Silly.
This is to say he's not well liked by White House staff. The kitchen staff probably routinely spits in his food. They're generally getting braver in their mischief as Trump's days as lame duck President dwindle away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The little desk
I find the generic funny of the overly-pompous moniker "Resolute Desk" is pretty incredible even disregarding relative desk sizes and Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The little desk
There's a reason it's called that:
"It was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and was built from the English oak timbers of the British Arctic exploration ship HMS Resolute. "
Thus, since it was built from the timber of the HMS resolute, it's called the Resolute Desk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What the fuck does the looks of a desk have to do with anything?"
This is how Trump's brain works, or doesn't work. He's incapable of distinguishing the important things from the unimportant things, or at least appreciating which things that are important to him (gaudy trinkets) are not necessarily important to others. He simply believes you're genuinely impressed by 'his' desk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I, uh…I think y’all may have broken an italics tag at some point in this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the line!'
It's both amazing and entirely predictable that he would be so insanely quick to throw the military under the bus like this because someone on the internet said something mean about him.
With a reaction like this I can't imagine how people could have ever thought that he didn't 100% respect and support the military and the men and women serving in it, because really, does he seem like the sort of person who doesn't have their backs?
Silver lining though I'm thinking he just pretty thoroughly gutted the odds of adding in a 230 removal rider to the NDAA, because after attempting to hold the military's budget hostage like this any attempt to do so is going to look really bad for whoever tries it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the line!'
Most of his supporters in Congress were just reelected. I don't think they're too worried about facing electoral consequences for backing Trump's deranged whims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the line!'
You might be right, it's just this case involves him holding the military's budget hostage in his temper tantrum and while I doubt the cultists in congress will bat an eye at that it might go over poorly for the rank and file, though with the 'Dear Leader is Always Right' mindset of the cult I suppose that could simply be ignored just like everything else he's done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the line!'
I think you've got it exactly backwards. It's not Congress who are Trump cultists (aside from a few like Cotton and Hawley); their relationship with Trump is transactional. They're not loyal to him because they love him so damn much; they're loyal to him because he's their best shot at getting what they want. And as soon as he isn't anymore, they'll insist they never liked him in the first place.
It's the rank and file who have a cult-like devotion to Trump and will go along with anything he says, even if it contradicts everything the Republican Party is supposed to stand for. You've seen how they've done a complete 180 on Russia, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the line!'
Hmm, a fair point, now that I think about it pretty sure I noted in the past something similar about how they'll ditch him the second he's no longer in a position to give them what he wants, in which case calling the politicians a part of his cult would likely be erroneous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the line!'
Of course, it's not entirely clear when that's going to be. He'll be out of office seven weeks from now (boy that feeels good to say), but he's not going away, he's still popular among his base, and, for now at least, he's still got a great deal of power to help or hurt fellow Republicans at the polls.
Maybe Congressional Republicans stop kissing Trump's ass once he's out of office, or maybe they won't. Hard to say. I think it's going to depend on a number of factors -- his ongoing legal problems, his unhinged ravings finally starting to impact his supporters (note the Georgia election officials currently sobbing that they never thought the face-eating leopard would eat their faces), his health, and who knows what other surprises we've got coming in the coming months and years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the lin
"...he's not going away, he's still popular among his base, and, for now at least, he's still got a great deal of power to help or hurt fellow Republicans at the polls."
If he follows through with his claims to run in 2024, particularly if he announces early (Inauguration day!), then nothing will change, because those spineless transactors will believe they have to continue to kowtow to him to further their careers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No way the junky will give up that fix
For a sociopathic narcissist like Trump having huge crowds to cheer him on and tell him how amazing he is has got to be like the ultimate drug fix, so I have no doubt that he'll be campaigning if not on Biden's inauguration day then almost immediately afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Campaining on day one, forward
On the contingency that he's not headed to prison any time in the near future, one can hope he runs himself right into the infirmary where the nurses slip tranquilizers into his daily meds to shut him up.
It'd also be interesting to watch if the right-wing media networks keep tuning in to Trump and nodding to his rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Campaining on day one, forward
I think there's still a good chance he intends to start his own network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the
I mean some of them are going to run against him in the primary; they won't just give it away to him like when he was an incumbent.
I also think his threats to run in 2024 are likely empty. I can't rule it out, of course, but he'll be four years older, and who knows what scandals will happen in the meantime. I don't think he'll get more popular now that he's lost reelection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Screw the trooops, my ego is on the lin
Well... Congressional Republicans haven't dumped any of the nitwit fringes they have collected so far to increase their voter base. They just keep getting fringe-ier, with an increasing number of wackaloons elected to office, and "old-style" semi-rational fiscal conservatives (voters and party players) apparently just accepting all this as just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screwing the troops
In a (maybe only slightly) better world, the Senate could work out a bare-bones no-riders bill and find it agreeable to everyone. If we turn the better-world dial up another notch, we could get them to pass a bill that assures a continuity-of-operations budget is passed automatically (so that one has to pass a bill to stop the budget, or change it). That way it wouldn't be subject to petty bickering of the federal government.
But then Congress and the White House wouldn't have this recurring opportunity to bring up pet policy and bicker over it.
I'm pretty sure we do things this way because it was part of some kind of fiscal responsibility effort in the past. Now that we see the Republicans give zero fucks about fiscal policy -- as per the most recent tax reform bill, they just want their earmarks to go through and not the ones from the other side -- we don't need all these alleged fiscal responsibility provisions that makes the rest of the nation nervous whether the US will still be around in a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screwing the troops
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
Well dangit!
Yeah, we should have amended that shit out after WWII since it was clear from then on the US was going to have a standing professional army.
That is a problem with making the Constitution too difficult to amend: we only get additions for clear, specific changes of culture, not for adjustments to make the system work better, or to keep language true to the spirit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
The core problem is firstly a disfunctional Congress, and secondly, now a —adjectives fail me— executive
In the abstract, I actually rather favor the idea that armies, wars, should be voted on at least once in every term of the House of Representatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems unlikely any of the 230 reform/repeal or copyright bills will be put into this must passed bill
But there is a small worry that the Democrats may blink and allow some of the bills to pass seeing that some of them are bipartisan and that Joe said he also wanted to repeal 230. (he likely to backtrack on that)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
True.
Also, seems the italics are broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We are under 60 days to the election, technically they can vote for it, then un-vote for it after the election using the same process Trump used to backtrack a bunch of stuff that gets passed 60 days before the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defunding chicken
The Democrats want to defund the police, well I can beat that. I'm so bigly I'll defund the whole military - that'll really show them who's the biglyest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd love to see the military have to do a bake sale to raise money for their budgets, except I've eaten at the Officer's Club on a few bases, so I don't recommend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, Trump is actually the leader of the military. So even if they get the money some other way, e.g. by bake sale or veto override, he could just order them to stop all work for two months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider things from Trump’s perspective for a minute. Trump thinks “election integrity” as it relates to the 2020 election is about all the “voter fraud” and “election rigging” to “give” the election to Joe Biden. It’s this BS logic and not election security in the general sense of the word that Trump is likely referring to. Translation: Trump wants section 230 repealed not just because people are mocking him on Twitter to the point #DiaperDon is trending, but also because Twitter calls out his BS election conspiracy theories and false victory claims as just that: BS.
In other words, no matter how you look at it, Trump’s problem is NOT with section 230, but with the first amendment. You know, the amendment to the Constitution he swore an oath to protect and defend? And he’s willing to defund the military unless he gets his way? No matter how unconstitutional his true wish is? January 20th can’t come soon enough! And I just hope Congress gets its act in gear, not succumb to the President’s temper tantrum, and can secure enough votes to override the impending veto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trump's real problem is with the reality which exists outside his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, could this one even be too stupid for all the Drumpf assclowns that usually come to defend the orange idiot in the comments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just until tonight when Hannity gives them their talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's Still Fighting
You forgot that a number of Democrats want to repeal section 230 also. The behavior of big tech companies and their censorship has been so ugly that they don't have as many allies in congress as you might imagine. For the past many years Trump has been called a populist, and rightfully so, because he has championed popular ideas. If Trump is as wrong on this subject as you say he is, Democrats wouldn't be running scared of him right now. Instead, it turns out that he's still pretty darn popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's Still Fighting
So then you're admitting that you agree with Democrats who want to repeal section 230? Don't you think they'd have some kind of ulterior motive for doing so that further punishes right-wing nutjob speech?
I mean think about it - why would Democrats support something that you guys have been bitching about as unfair to conservatives, unless they had some kind of larger plan?
You dumbfucks are being played again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
Thing is most Democrats do not want to repeal section 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201201/23254145806/trump-promises-to-defund-entire-military-if-c ongress-wont-let-him-punish-internet-being-mean-to-him.shtml#c137
"...Joe said he also wanted to repeal 230. (he likely to backtrack on that)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HOSTING is NOT Publishing, therefore NO "right" to control.
A. Stephen Stone's usual stupid challenge:
You state "hosting". The prior assertion was that sites were Publishers.
YOUR position NOW is that every mere web-site HOST actually has the power to totally and arbitrarily suppress speech.
You're now explicitly advocating that corporations providing services that are mere mechanisms -- electronic printers -- DO in fact have TOTAL control over all that persons wish to publish.
Whew. Leftists must think the end is in sight. What you and Maz for years called "Free Speech", was actually CORPORATE CONTROLLED speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the power to totally and arbitrarily suppress speech"
Every mere [website host] actually has the power to totally and arbitrarily suppress speech [on its website]
Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brainy never has figured that one out. Add that to the list of things he doesn’t understand:
the difference between “private” and “privately owned”
the actual definition of “common law”
the fact that people aren’t as obsessed with this website as him, such that they don’t feel the need to comment on even a regular basis
pop culture references
memes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HOSTING is NOT Publishing, therefore NO "right" to control.
There is no relevant distinction between host and publisher. Any potential liability goes to whomever wrote or said a thing. Hosting services may moderate as they see fit, and even weirdly and inconsistently at scale because that's how shit works.
No one needs a "right to control" for anything more specific than it's their goddamned property.
So either let the Free Market ruin them for not hosting whatever, or shut the fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALL access to The Internet is through some "host" corporation.
Therefore ALL speech on The Internet is CONTROLLED! It's not AT ALL the wonderful medium that we were told. We've been tricked and cheated, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ALL access to The Internet is through some "host" corporatio
Nope. You can create your own website if you want and put your speech there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just threw away main prior arguing point for The Internet.
WHY do you wish to preserve a totally CONTROLLED medium? Where does that fit in your supposed advocacy of "Free Speech"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You just threw away main prior arguing point for The Interne
Because no one entity controls the whole thing, and many sites publish by default rather than choosing whether or not to publish beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So where do I find a forum for "Free Speech"?
You NOW state that EVERY mere host has a Right to control even Speech okay under common law (that is, Brandenburg rules).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So where do I find a forum for "Free Speech"?
Make your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you and Maz...
...advocate there can be NO such thing as "Free Speech" on The Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you and Maz...
Does the government control it? If silenced one place, are you unable to say it somewhere else? No. Therefore, we have free speech on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHY are you defending the fiction of "Free Speech", then?
Or are you? Been a long time since either you or Maz have actually stated that you're FOR "Free Speech". For the last three years or so, you were both adding "except that which I disapprove of, on some hidden tiny site". -- Now you've dropped down to TOTAL CONTROL for mere hosts!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next for you and Maz? Advocating explicit enabling law...
... for TOTAL corporate control of all speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next for you and Maz? Advocating explicit enabling la
Deciding whether or not to do work for someone doesn't control speech. Not doing something for someone is not the same as preventing them from doing it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should the government compel a privately owned interactive web service (e.g., a Black Lives Matter forum) to host legally protected speech that the admins of said service don’t want to host (e.g., White supremacist propaganda)?
Also: I’m still not going to fuck you, Brainy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's Still Fighting
It doesn't matter how popular he is because he fucking lost.
The ugliness isn't in "big tech" that the fuckbrains keep trying to make a thing but in congress. They have constantly tried to extort support for their political positions because they aren't "playing the game" like journalists of not providing honest coverage in exchange for press access. Nothing makes a con artist or spin doctor more mad than people opting out of their bullshit altogether.
We already saw this when the old birdcage liner industry tried to insult their way to subscriptions among the younger generations by bad mouthing millennials more and then acting utterly shocked that they didn't pay to be insulted by morons who don't know jack shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's Still Fighting
He's still fighting for his own damaged ego, Koby. No one else.
You forgot that a number of Democrats want to repeal section 230 also
If that "number" is "one" then sure. Joe Biden has said he wants a repeal, but no one believe he'll stick to that. There are lots of suggestions for reform but no proposals on repeal from the Dem side. And pretty much all of them have said that the President's call here is irresponsible.
The behavior of big tech companies and their censorship has been so ugly that they don't have as many allies in congress as you might imagine.
Koby, which part of this being about everyone's ability to speak online (and not "big tech") do you not understand?
If you think their "censorship" (not censorship) is bad now, without 230 it will be worse. I, for one, would shut down most ability for people to comment here. And I'd kill your account easily because you spew such debunked nonsense that you'd be a liability on this site.
For the past many years Trump has been called a populist, and rightfully so, because he has championed popular ideas.
That's not what a populist is and this is not a "popular" idea. It's only "popular" among brainwashed idiots.
If Trump is as wrong on this subject as you say he is, Democrats wouldn't be running scared of him right now. Instead, it turns out that he's still pretty darn popular.
You are so deluded. It's sad, Koby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
The Maz says:
IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you advocate there can be NO such thing as "Free Speech" on The Internet.
YOU are simply a fraud, Maz! You cannot be for "Free Speech" when actually mean that it's to be TOTALLY CONTROLLED by corporations. Complete contradiction.
And again, the ineffectual "Koby" account looks like a sock-puppet you put up just so appear can shoot down opposition, that's consistent with YOU frequently responding to it -- because safe to do so, you know it won't come back at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
"IF mere hosts have total arbitrary control as you advocate there can be NO such thing as "Free Speech" on The Internet."
Start your own damn website and say whatever the hell you want. That's "Free Speech" on The Internet. Just don't think you can do that on my website, Mike's website, or Twitter's website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
It is actually a little more involved than that. I know of an ultra right wing blog that recently got smacked by its web host for some of the content posted there. When you setup a website with a hosting company you agree to their ToS which, more often than not, disallows calls for violence, hate speech and other things Trump's ass kissers love doing.
You might bypass that by running the web site on your own hardware but that still runs into ToS agreements with your ISP. Even your domain name can be taken away from you for violating whatever ToS you agreed to when signing up for DNS registration.
It's Terms of Service all the way down. The only real way to escape them is to not use the internet and distribute your screeds manually, either on paper or by yelling from atop soap boxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
But no one is going to shut them down for merely being "conservative" in the putative sense of the descriptor.
So Twitter is probably just fine to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can a corporation control and enforce a copyright when you believe corporations have no legal rights, and how do you feel about corporations using copyright to censor speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
You seem upset, who was mean to you this time?
Poor baby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: He's Still Fighting
Man, when out_of_the_blue of all people is calling you ineffectual...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go ahead and defund the military. More money for universal health care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, folks... you thought the past 4 years were bad? You ain't seen nothin' yet! The next 4 weeks will be even worse! Too much lies and treason from Trump to even shake a stick at!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still unclear
So are you saying that President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he's upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending?
Just want to be sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still unclear
Yes. President Donald J. Trump is threatening to defund the US military, because he's upset that enough people mocked him on Twitter that it started trending.
It shouldn't be a surprise: he took money from them to try and build his precious wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still unclear
he took money from them to try and build his precious wall.
...that Mexico and the big gofundme were supposed to pay for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a bit crazy ...
Trump threatens to defund the military.
A few of his supporters want him to declare martial law, a condition where the military takes over, does he expect the military to obey his orders if he were to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We knew Dear Leader was going to scorch the earth
We knew President Trump was going to scorch the earth on his way out.
Now he's working out what all the buttons in the Oval Office do when he pushes them.
Forty-nine days and counting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We knew Dear Leader was going to scorch the earth
Not that what has already been done isn't bad enough and that I do not expect more to come, but so far it has actually been less than I expected.
Maybe it says more about me than him, but due to his general behavior, I actually expected him to do something worse in his child-like manner. Like a 4-year old running amok and destroying the house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, he made a lot of promises
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He can veto it...
and Congress can override the veto. Wouldn't that just destroy what's left of his self image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeez, I know four year olds who are more mature than The Donald. I can see the day when a major tantrum will be known as "throwing a Trump."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how is Trump going to start suing all his critics if Twitter can't be compelled to give him their IP addresses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And again, MOST of CDA was thrown out for un-Constitutional!
BUT Maz and other corporatists LOVE the unprecedented IMMUNITY and apparent authorization for arbitrary censoring.
Section 230 confers immunity yet according to Maz, in return the Public doesn't get even Brandenburg / common law range for Free Speech! We The People get NOTHING now except ARBITRARY CONTROL by corporations! So get rid of it, and We are better off, may get some concessions from the new royalist Publisher class our Public Servants foolishly created!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But do you know WHAT was declared "un-Constitutional"?
The part of the Communications Decency Act that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was about censoring pornographic and other "indecent" content on the internet. That was struck down because it violated the first amendment. But the doctrine of severability saved section 230, as it should. The fact that part of the law was declared unconstitutional is not a reason that section 230 should be struck down. And as far as your other complaints, I think you're very wrong. Thankfully, I came across an article on this very topic that I think would prove helpful. It's on this technology and legal news site that's a bit small, so you might not have heard of it: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre- wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But do you know WHAT was declared "un-Constitutional"?
It's funny how what became 230 started as separate law and was just rolled into the abortion that was the CDA as they do.
And then, it was the only part explicitly shown to be not unconstitutional. In fact, it is directly, and very constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And again, MOST of CDA was thrown out for un-Constitutional!
"...unprecedented IMMUNITY..."
The idea of punishing the letter writer instead of the mailman is not exactly unprecedented.
You're bad at the big words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And again, MOST of CDA was thrown out for un-Constitutio
Similarly, not punishing the owner of a billboard for deciding to take down certain ads is hardly unprecedented, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ve yet to explain why you believe, with the insistent fervence of a religious zealot, that the law should force people to host speech on the Internet (but not in meatspace, for some reason).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And again, MOST of CDA was thrown out for un-Constitutional!
Without section 230, and web site owner can be dragged into court by anybody with a bit of money that takes offence at anything that appears on the site. How long would you be able to keep a web site up if you kept being sued, and how long would the big sites keep going? It is not a matter of winning or losing in court, but rather how much money you have to keep on fighting with. Even Google/YouTube could be forced to close by having to fight thousands of cases in thousands of courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
i look at it as more of a win-win dept., but i suppose it could go horribly wrong here in bizarro world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are US Residents who get wireless Internet from across the border.
Years ago I used to chat with a woman on an "adult" chat site who lived in Montana, but got her Internet from over the border in Canada, becuase it was the only one she got.
ISPs in Canada are not subject to US laws, which is why SOPA, if it has passed, would not have affected Internet users in parts of Montana, beuase they get wireless Internet from over the border in Canada.
Canadian wireless ISPs only have to follow Canadian laws and CRTC rules, even if they have customers on the other side of the 49th.
So ever if 230 is repealed, there are parts of the US population who get their Internet from across the border in either Canada or Mexico who will not be affected by any blocking as wireless ISPs in Canada or Mexico do not have to comply with US laws, even if they have Customers on the US side of the border
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what, a VPN will also bypass US laws, but that does not mean much if all the big us sites go away because they lose the protection of section 230, and no foreign site will risk owning servers on US soil, or US based CDNs give them service. At best you will have a slow Internet, but at least that will solve the digital divide, as her will be no advantage to having broadband when the bits are trickling in from some foreign country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Very true
After what happened today kim dotcom, they will think twice about having servers in the usa
Had dotcom not had any us servers, the us would have no jurisdiction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
230 has literally nothing to do with accessing the Internet itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not even sure why SOPA is worth bringing up, but saying that "one part of one part of the US wouldn't be overly affected, therefore the proposed law is okay" has got to be one of the most blindly naïve things I've come across in a while. Especially when it comes to IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
common nouns
Fun fact: president is a common noun and doesn't need to be capitalized. If you're attaching it to a name ("President Trump") it's capitalized because it's part of the name, but other references which don't include the name ("the president") do not call for capitalization, despite what they might think over at CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was it just clickbait?
I'm not seeing where he said he'd defund the military, where did that come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was it just clickbait?
From his tweet:
"Therefore, if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was it just clickbait?
Ahh okay, I thought the NDAA was something that already existed (Non-native).
So it's more he's defunding by not allowing the passage of legislation that would help the militaries purchasing power? Not a direct, "your budget is not 1 trillion instead of 2" type thing, from what I understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Was it just clickbait?
The NDAA is the bill that authorizes military expenditure each year. Without it passing, the military cannot spend any money. I don't know what happens in that case because as far as I know it's never failed to pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Was it just clickbait?
Thanks for the info. I can't imagine either side would be happy about that. Be interesting to see if it's just a bluff and ends up passing anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What an idiotic assclown!
DiaperDon is ignoring the fact that ALL companies in the US enjoy this same protection under US constitution. let's put it this way. You can't sue Walmart for something bad that another customer says to you while in it can you? That is what section 230 means for the internet. #DiaperDon and #ShitVanka would be the very first assclowns sued if section 230 ceased to exist! They retweet and echo so much harmful shit both online and in person that they would totally be liable for if going after third parties for speech other people said suddenly became legal.
Republicans are eating shit across the board at the moment thanks to him so its a non starter from a desperate lame duck assclown in chief. Fuck him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The right-wing has a difficult time with parity
For decades now, our officials and plutocrats have been above the law, and have been acting as if laws and policies don't apply to them. So it might be a bit of a shock whenever the courts decide to treat them as they would the rest of us.
To be fair, most of the time, they totally get away with it. Lindsey Graham's phone calls to secretaries of state to disenfranchise large swaths of voters would be felony voter fraud, except Graham is a US Senator, and no prosecutor is going to indict him.
That's now normal in Washington, and our aristocracy would be glad to silence the people so that news agencies were once again the loudest voices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow, this site has turned into utter dogshit
vetoing the NDAA until the internet has better regulations on gigantic corporations seems like a good policy to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow, this site has turned into utter dogshit
Why? That has nothing to do with the military, and therefore nothing to do with the NDAA. Good policy should be focused. And why should our military suffer because the internet doesn’t have enough regulations? Holding (part of) the government hostage in order to get something controversial through is never good policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow, this site has turned into utter dogshit
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid tweet? Yes, but so are the people who believe it
I know I'm a little late, but...
"Oh, and it's even stupider. On so many levels."
This is a great observation, but the problem is that you're preaching to the choir. I'd say that most people reading this article agree with you.
However, how many followers does Trump have? The tweet itself has 119.7 likes, which means 119,700 people liked it.
How many people on Twitter see a tweet and think it's true without doing any research on their own? How many of Trump's followers blindly believe what he says?
So, yes, this has the potential to spiral out of control as Republicans rush to please the Trump supporters, even though there's no risk of them getting voted out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump
Nice to see TechDirt getting right to the point with 45. This is what he has always done. He wants something but can’t get it so he threatens to take away a necessity. He’s a disgrace to humanity, to life in earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]