US House passes NDAA with Veto-proof majority

https://www.axios.com/trump-ndaa-de...=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

I actually agree with the President that the bill should have included the provisions he asked for. It was this SAME Congress that's brought the CEO'S of Facebook, Twitter, etc numerous times to Congress and we are well aware not only of their violations of privacy with information but now that they're entering the realm of selectively 'fact-checking' other posts and regulations that do not meet their original TOS, as Trump said it's less of a public social forum at that point and more of a newsletter with a comment section.

For the House to not take action, means they were only posturing with civil rights on social media outlets. Now, it's a veto-proof majority so his veto doesn't really do anything. A veto really isn't even as symbolic as this gesture would be:

Don't sign it. Technically, a bill becomes law when you don't sign it. While a veto can signal opposition, not so much when the House preemptively votes to prevent it from happening. So the best gesture of displeasure he can show, is to not sign it and therefore it never got the President's approval. It would forever be known as the House's NDAA.

 

No. You have a right to feee speech, not to lie. If the speech incites, it is not free

Look, lets be honest AN, the Trump admin has a vested interest in allowing lies on those platforms. It helped them in 2016, and they want it now. Think about this for 5 minutes AN, whats happening now is that the right is actually advocating for the right to lie. Do we as a country want to be lied to ? And Nobody is removing these posts, they are just tagging them. What Trump is doing on these platforms, mainly twitter, is using speech to incite. Speech stops being free when it incites.

 

They’ve been doing that for years. Fox once went to court to defend their right to pass off lies as fact.

 

That isn’t true. But then, civics was never your subject.

If the President does not sign the bill, it does not go into law. That’s what a pocket veto is.

Congress can override a Presidential veto, and it will become law. A veto proof majority on the first passing all but assures that.

As for “right of privacy” on third party social media platforms.......you don’t have any.

If you haven’t figured that out already, you’re probably waiting for a check from a Nigerian prince!

 

Jesus man. I guess you didn't grow up with School House Rock. No wonder so many conservatives are ignorant of how laws and government work.



And for a lighter side:



I'll see if I can dig up something on elections and court cases.

 

I detest Congressional Bills that are FUBARRED with unrelated and or extraneous provisions or additions. We need a relief bill now and we do not need to play Trumpeezian games or Pilosian games or McConnel games. Congress you need to Get it done ! Now!

 

pocket veto - The Constitution grants the president 10 days to review a measure passed by the Congress. If the president has not signed the bill after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature. However, if Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, the bill does not become law. Summary of Bills Vetoed, 1789-present


Per the US Senate site, it does in fact become a bill after 10 days of not signing it. So the next time you want to be a smart ass and attack my civics, you'll be reported.

 

it would be the end of this site and many like it had he, no one is gonna create free sites if they are liable for what their poster post

 

Not for them to be liable, but also not for them to pick and choose which content gets 'regulated', and which doesn't. That's for FCC broadcasting rights, we're not broadcasting anything. We're sharing our opinions. That's the main point of the President. Twitter wants power, but not the cost that comes(typically) with that power.

That's the wider concern here.

 

Twitter does the same exact thing that the moderators here do. The mods here do edit post, delete them, ban people and promote some viewpoint over other. Should PF be regulated?

 

So, you’re telling us that the Moderators and owners of this site should be liable for what you post here????

 

No, the “main point of the president” is to entertain his base, with yet another grievance meme.

The only reason Trump talked about it was because Twitter started labeling his false posts. And since that includes just about all of them, Trump is having a baby tantrum because Twitter put a mute on his BS megaphone!

 

Good for them! How about the Senate?

 

No, let's be perfectly clear here: In the same fashion that I am not personally responsible for whatever you do, the site creators aren't responsible for what I do. So long as they don't take ownership of it. The moment that they take ownership, then they're basically broadcasting.

If they take ownership, then they naturally yes become 'liable' in the view of the law. The answer to this, is obviously not to take ownership. Twitter wants to take ownership, without the liability of ownership. That'd make them a super person. Ignore the name 'Trump' here, Twitter's taking liberties and privileges that it doesn't have.

 

Take ownership of what ? The posted language is already theirs.

 

Contract laws are really tricky, and the nuances are infinite but let's bypass all of that and be simplistic about it: If the law had applied the way they think it applies(IE: That the property is theirs, but they don't take responsibility for it), it wouldn't be a stretch to say 'This site is hosting, say kiddy porn therefore they are liable for child pornography'. The reality is, a user posts explicit material and that user(ie: person) is the one committing the crime. and the user posting the material is prosecuted for it.

Or in a real physical example: Michael Vick's dog fighting ring, he hosted the ring at a site and you'd think that the people owning the site(by the same logic) would be prosecuted for the ring, but since they had no involvement/knowledge of the crime, they weren't.

It's the same damn principle. These words are AN's. If something I post is against the law, I am lawfully liable for those words, not PF. PF doesn't take ownership unless it claims ownership, and typically in these contracts you have a disclaimer that waives ownership in such an event.

These companies don't want to get caught holding the bag, which is basically what it is. This isn't even a political issue, it's a law issue. What Twitter wants, is the ability to claim ownership without ownership's liabilities. No one should be supporting this, it's a power grab by Twitter masqueraded under Trump's tweets.

 

Yes. I realize that you’re too young to know this, but Presidents used the pocket veto much more than the do now.

Back then, Presidential vetos were much more frequent, and votes to override were too.

Typically, a President would pocket veto a bill by letting it sit on his desk after the session ended.

Congress adjourns on Friday.

 

A pocket veto doesn't involve the process of not signing it, but rather as you said, letting it sit on his desk after the session ended. The 'after the session' part is the key to a pocket veto. Though it says a pocket veto cannot be overwritten, I presume the vote covers all vetoes including pocket vetos.

So again, not signing it is not the exact same as a pocket veto. As I suggested it, it would be an act of not sanctifying the law.

 

Yet, out of the other side of your mouth, you’re loudly proclaiming that the law should be changed so that TRump’s idiotic false tweets get passed on to the rubes free of fact check.

 

And to reiterate the moderators here are doing the exact same thing as twitter.

 

No, it's the same constant principle. If Twitter wants to "check" tweets, it then basically becomes a publishing paper. No one for example in real life goes around the restaurant tables saying "What x guy is telling you is false", it's utterly ridiculous and people would be looking at you like "Okay, even if you're right it's our conversation"

This isn't about "letting Trump lie", this is about "Twitter doesn't have that privilege, in the first place"(it granted itself that permission.) But it's blatantly hypocritical and a power grab. If they want to be a broadcaster, they should have the same liabilities and obligations as a broadcaster.

 

Point me to one post where a moderator put a sticky note saying "X poster's post is false". This ought to be good.

 

Here's the latest walking-talking cowardly scrotum

SNIP
Although he said he would support the defense spending bill, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters on Tuesday that he would not override a presidential veto — putting him at odds with other top GOP members, including Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo).
ENDSNIP

Does he actually NEED Trump to wind up the key on his back EVERY day?? How can people put idiots like this in charge of their caucus???

42 days left...

 

You never saw a post with the red <mod edit> warning? Lol!

 

Usually edited in response to a rule violation, the moderator team never uses their power to assert something as true or false. As an example, I'm sure you're probably wishing they would for some of my posts right now or in general. But they don't assert that because they're not as power hungry as twitter is.