Trump Allows Unemployment Benefits to Expire for No Particular Reason
The Succeeding New York Times:
President Trump on Sunday abruptly signed a measure providing $900 billion in pandemic aid and funding the government through September, ending last-minute turmoil he himself had created over legislation that will offer an economic lifeline to millions of Americans and avert a government shutdown.
The legislative package will provide billions of dollars for the distribution of vaccines, funds for schools, small businesses, hospitals and American families, and money needed to keep the government open for the remainder of the fiscal year. The enactment came less than 48 hours before the government would have shut down and just days before an eviction moratorium and other critical pandemic relief provisions were set to expire.
But it also came after two critical unemployment programs lapsed, guaranteeing a delay in benefits for millions of unemployed Americans.
The crisis was one of Mr. Trump’s own making, after he blindsided lawmakers and White House officials with a videotaped implicit threat on Tuesday to veto the package, which his top deputies had helped negotiate and which had cleared both chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support nearly a week ago. The 5,593-page legislation was flown to Florida, where the president is spending the winter holidays, on Thursday and had been waiting for Mr. Trump’s signature since.
The lapse will result in real hardship for real people, who are in most cases suffering through no fault of their own — and there appears to have been absolutely no reason to wait until just after the lapse in benefits to sign. Just the typical erratic behavior from this lout.
It’s the exact same bill he had just finished refusing to sign, calling it a “disgrace.” His opposition has been comically stupid, with the stupidity reaching its grandest heights when Trump made a long speech decrying foreign aid allotments that were in every case almost to the penny what he himself had requested in his own budget proposal. Now Trump has indicated he will send a redlined version of the bill back to Congress with a list of specific items to which he objects and wants deleted. I’m sure they’ll get right on that.
Counting the days until he is gone.
They are suffering because of the decisions of politicians to make them suffer for the benefit of “the community.”
The more people connect their hardship to the government, the better.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:14 amTrump put out the fire of his own making, unfortunately millions of Americans got burned in the process.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:20 amPOLITICO Playbook: Trump got nothing
THAT’S IT? President DONALD TRUMP made all this noise about the Covid relief and government funding bill only to sign it and get nothing in return?
TRUMP got taken to the cleaners.
WHAT A BIZARRE, embarrassing episode for the president. He opposed a bill his administration negotiated. He had no discernible strategy and no hand to play — and it showed. He folded, and got nothing besides a few days of attention and chaos. People waiting for aid got a few days of frightening uncertainty.
ZIP. ZERO. ZILCH. If he was going to give up this easy, he should’ve just kept quiet and signed the bill. It would’ve been less embarrassing.
……
……In his Sunday evening statement, Senate Majority Leader MITCH MCCONNELL didn’t even mention anything that TRUMP got in return for signing this bill.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST FITTING coda to TRUMP’S presidency, and a neat encapsulation of his relationship with Congress. He never cared to understand the place and was disengaged from its work.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:26 am…….
My emphasis. Attention and chaos is what Trump wanted, not caring about the consequences of his actions (as he never has).
Gitmo the mother-figure!
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:32 amOn the bright side, that’s $1,400 less of our children’s money that his faithful will have to send to him.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:38 amIf in the end Trump gets anything out of this, it might only be erosion of support among his base. Sure, there are some who would stand by him if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, but there must be some among them who have been negatively affected by this latest drama. I like to think that some, too, have caught on by now to the fact that most of his fund raising for “legal defense” has simply fed a growing slush fund with few strings attached.
Roger (782680) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:41 amWhere humans are involved, it can always be worse. No, I’m not bitter; more like jaded/sorely tested. 2020 was a looong year.
felipe (630e0b) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:48 am@6 – I wouldn’t count on it. What passes for the intelligentsia of the #MAGA set will criticize him, and then as soon as they start losing market share to the more slavish devotees they’ll change the subject to how democrats want to force your children to carry illegal immigrants to voting centers and Trump alone can stop it.
(Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:31 amI am constantly surprised that he still has capable people working for him. They must love their country dearly to put up with this man.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:48 amWHAT A BIZARRE, embarrassing episode for the president.
Compared to what?
Have you ever been in a relationship that you hoped would get better, but always got worse?
You have now.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:49 amThey must love their country dearly to put up with this man.
Comedy gold! The only thing they love is themselves (and turning a buck).
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:54 amThe really sad thing about this administration is that there were many people who had been marginalized and many things that needed correction in government. In four years, Trump has fixed none of these problems. At best he’s smashed a few things that needed smashing, along with several that didn’t, but he’s been unable to build anything on the rubble.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:54 amSo, I’d like to see how much money his PAC (established days after the election) raked in as a result of his latest theatrics. Clearly, he acted as if he truly had hard-working Americans first and foremost in his mind. Did his base believe that – yet again – he was the only one championing them, and the only one willing to stop the government, if necessary, to fight for them? It seems that whenever he plays that particular card, the money starts rolling in. Why would this be any different?
Dana (cc9481) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:57 amComedy gold! The only thing they love is themselves (and turning a buck).
There is a line of good men who tried to work with Trump — someone had to steer the boat while the captain was looking for his strawberries. Some have stayed, some were fired, most have left. That gonifs have risen to the top only reinforces the idea that better men should have stayed.
It’s easy to walk away and wash your hands of it, it’s much harder to stay and block the crazy.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:58 amThe (NY) Post says: Give it up, Mr. President — for your sake and the nation’s
Front page headline: “Mr. President…..Stop the Insanity”
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:02 amIf Trump does nothing he loses.
Time123 (130539) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:10 amHe’s not embarrassed by trying stupid things.
So he’s doing random, stupid things to try and create opportunities
This goes with my point at 13: I think it’s safe to say that any opportunities he is trying to carve out consistently start and stop with an eye on how he might most benefit. First, financially. Secondly, building the Trump Brand. By *appearing* as if he is fighting for his base provides them with a great reason to send him their money. It’s just more of the same old grift. Although I agreed with his video where he expresses his disgust with the bill, I never thought his motivation was anything but it always is, and always has been. I think people make a big mistake if they don’t recognize his base motivations always remain the same. I also think it’s a big mistake if people don’t recognize that his loyal supporters are now willingly wired to react accordingly. It’s not about political strategery, or clever maneuvering to benefit the party. It’s just about Trump sticking it to the GOP and cleaning out the swamp while appearing to be the last fighter for his base.
Dana (cc9481) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:26 amCounting the days indeed. More like counting the weeks. This is all about the runoffs in Georgia, where Trump is planning on holding a rally. To what point? He’s not on the ticket, and he has no coattails.
Trump is not even pretending to be president anymore. The Republicans want to maintain control of the Senate, so they can reign in Biden. That’s what this is all about, ruining the Biden presidency, making the transfer of power more and more difficult.
Twenty years ago if you had told me that Biden would win a primary, I would have laughed in your face. If you told me I would vote for him, I would have backslapped you in the face.
But he did win the primaries, and I did vote for him. First time in my life I ever voted for a Democrat. I’m no fan of Biden, but getting Trump out of office is all important.
Where are the Republicans? I mean seriously, who is willing to stand up against this fraud president?
They’re all cowards, and they’re all cowering to the base, the Trump base. As long as they continue to assign their name to that brand, they will continue to lose.
Trump cannot handle losing, neither can his cult base. But it’s over. The election is over, and Trump lost. The Republicans actually gained seats, but that doesn’t matter. It’s all about the 2022 midterm elections.
If the Republicans follow Trump, the will lose. Because Trump always loses. He’s a failed businessman, and a failed president.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:28 amI imagine that most of Trump’s actions can be explained by Jared Kushner’s stock market trades the day before.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:34 amIf the Republicans follow Trump, they will lose
If the follow Trump the Man, you are certainly correct. If someone who knows what they are doing addresses the issues that Trump left unsolved, I think they will do well. They’ll do better if Trump will STFU.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:37 amBut the catch is that Trump’s issues are unsolvable, as framed by Trump. Better, cheaper healthcare that leaves doctors’ livelihoods untouched is literally impossible. A dynamic, innovative economy is unachievable without relatively open borders and trade.
Other politicians have downplayed or otherwise danced around the tradeoffs associated with their policy goals; Trump is among the first to confidently assert tradeoffs literally do not exist. Anyone who knows what they are doing won’t be able to follow in his footsteps with a straight face.
(Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:53 amTotally blame Nancy and Mitch. Nobody told them to wait to the last minute to stuff a thousand pounds of sh-t in a ten pound lazy-azzed omnibus bag. Nor did anybody tell them to dick around for half a year and quill legislation w/program expiration dates at the rush-rush-get-it-done holidays. And it is one of he reasons Trump was elected in the first place. The Executive proposes and the Congress disposes. And the corporatist delegates to his/her team; no top exec can possibly know the hourly detail of how or what is ground into the pork sausage– nor would we want a Carteresque micromanager doing so [recall Jimma’s detailed schedule work for play times on the WH tennis courts?!?!]
No way. This bag-o-crap is wholly on the swamp creatures.
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:21 pm8. 11. They must love their country dearly to put up with this man. A lot of them, at higher levels, could get other jobs. And it is hard work to work around him.
Now one woman wrote an Op-ed in the New York Times that she was sorry. It would have been better for Trump to fail in court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/20/opinion/trump-justice-department-lawyer.html
I;m not sure what she’s talking about. What does she mean?
She seems to be attributing Trump’s failures in election litigation to having second rate lawyers.
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:22 pmThe weirdest thing about this political episode is how many people believe that the most self-centered, petty, sniveling president in history is really the most valiant, self-sacrificing patriot the nation has ever seen — like Churchill and Christ rolled into one.
I peak into Trumper Twitter and comment boards sometimes, and the faith in Trump is absolutely religious. Trump is the unquestioned measure of goodness and truth. Anyone and anything that doesn’t serve Trump is consigned to the camp of evil. Like all cult followers, Trumpers don’t recognize they’re part of a cult, but believe that they alone see the truth clearly while everyone else is deceived by “the media.” There is no way of persuading them otherwise.
Radegunda (b6cc34) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:30 pmThis kind of trouble from Trump is over maybe. They probably won’t need Trump’s signature on anything, or at least anything important any more, at least not on a bill..
After the current Congress adjourns sine die the new Congress will meet on January 6 to count the Electoral votes, and then not meet again (as a body – committees will be holding hearings) until January 20.
With regard to the missed payments, they probably should be eligible to get back pay.
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:33 pm“Swamp creatures” = anyone who doesn’t worship at the altar of Trump. It’s pretty funny to see such a self-serving cheat and chronic liar being portrayed as the only truly honest person in D.C.
Radegunda (b6cc34) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:33 pm15. On 770 AM WABC radio’s Curtis Sliwa with someone else show they said Donald Trump’s reads the printed paper – you can get the New York Post in Florida – so this was aimed at Donald Trump’s eyes.
The New York Post said Trump should be paying attention to the Georgia elections – January 5 – rather than January 6.
It’s not too likely to help because it is not aimed at his heart.
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:34 pm18. Gawain’s Ghost (b25cd1) — 12/28/2020 @ 11:28 am
But Trump, if he gets at least one Repuublican Senator, may leave them no choice but to stand up to him.
One day AFTER the Georgia runoffs.
Jon Ossoff consistently polls one percentage point ahead of Raphael Warnock.
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:39 pm@24. The weirdest thing is how cheaply Americans can be bought; sex, gadgets—on in this case, $600.
That likely wouldn’t by you an hour of ‘playtime’ w/Stormy.
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:44 pm^buy
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 12/28/2020 @ 12:44 pmDCSCA:
If Mitch was continuing with the fiction that the election is yet undecided, you know that Trump would have accepted the $600 with nary a tweet.
The payback is transparent. Trump could have weighed in on many occasions to make sure everyone got $2,000, if that is what he really wanted.
Appalled (1a17de) — 12/28/2020 @ 1:25 pmCan anybody show me where in Article 1 Section 8 of the enumerated federal powers of the constitution that any of the stimulus is allowed? For that matter most of this 5,600 page omnibus bill?
It’s compassionate to want to give people who are hurting because of the governments own actions financial relief. However, this is like the government breaking your legs then giving you crutches so you can walk. They are now saying because of the government you can walk, but they were the people who broke your legs in the first place.
It is only an overly expensive view of some clauses in the enumerated powers that allow some of this. It’s just not there. I’m sorry it doesn’t seem compassionate, but if you want to give the federal government that kind of power create an amendment. That’s the way it supposed to be done.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:02 pmIt’s as if Trump’s negotiator and voice in the room, SecTreas Mnuchin, was not involved in the development of this bill. Trump gets his share of blame, too.
Paul Montagu (77c694) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:11 pmNow that Trump has folded on the Covid relief bill, my guess is that he’ll pardon Assange, Snowden and himself on the day Congress overrides his veto on the Defense Act, and there will be nothing left for him to do after that. He might as well retreat to Mar-A-Lago and rage-tweet.
Paul Montagu (77c694) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:16 pmMaybe this wasn’t an oversight or a lapse. Maybe this is exactly what Trump wants: To make sure there will be suffering after he is no longer President. Most Americans will remember Trump wanted to give them $2000 but had to settle for less because the Deep State said No. They won’t know or care about the timing of how this happened. They will only remember Trump wanted to give more.
DRJ (aede82) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:26 pmTrump cares far more about getting credit than about getting the job done.
Radegunda (b6cc34) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:40 pmTrump knows the Senate won’t back him up so this could also be about making the GOP Senate the scapegoat when it refuses to go along with the Democratic House if it passes a bill for more pandemic relief. Trump wants to punish everyone but especially GOP politicians who don’t crown him King.
DRJ (aede82) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:46 pmTrump will no longer be in office. He needs to stay relevant, both in case he wants to run again and in order to make money off his views/influence. The only way he will be relevant is if people think only he can help them. This is about convincing people Trump is the only one who will stand up to Republicans and Democrats.
DRJ (aede82) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:53 pmIt doesn’t matter that he is ineffective. This is another example of where “He fights” is all that matters.
DRJ (aede82) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:54 pmBut the catch is that Trump’s issues are unsolvable, as framed by Trump. Better, cheaper healthcare that leaves doctors’ livelihoods untouched is literally impossible.
Like, “getting Mexico to pay for the wall” you are picking and choosing what you wish to ridicule.
Go talk to the millions of American men and women who are not suited for college degrees and have to compete for jobs with third world immigrants with low expectations. Tradesmen, as a group, have been badly treated by both parties, as have the former manufacturing workers. SUre, they can retrain, but most of the jobs they retrain to are very low wage.
Not everyone can code (and imho most who do are very bad at it).
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 2:59 pmTrump’s (unsolved) issues
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:02 pmIt is only an overly expensive view of some clauses in the enumerated powers that allow some of this
Well, “Regulate interstate commerce” and “necessary and proper” come to mind. That last is pretty elastic.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:03 pm> At best he’s smashed a few things that needed smashing, along with several that didn’t, but he’s been unable to build anything on the rubble.
i mean, this pretty much sums up his life, too.
aphrael (4c4719) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:06 pm> To make sure there will be suffering after he is no longer President.
this isn’t a word i use much, but if that *is* the motive — if his *goal* is to make people suffer so that they blame the suffering on someone else and he looks good by comparison — then he is simply *evil* and should be driven from public life posthaste.
aphrael (4c4719) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:10 pmThe power of the invisible conspiracy is that it’s unfalsifiable.
lurker (d8c5bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:20 pmKevin,
You’re right. I was a programmer for 35 years and interviewed many with a master’s in computer science who were horrible programmers. One of the best programmers I ever hired was the mail clerk at the company for which I worked. While I have also worked with many great programmers who have computer science degrees I don’t think it is the be-all end-all to be a good computer programmer. I believe customer service lessons learned at a fast food restaurant are more important. If you don’t listen to the customer you can’t give them a program that meets their needs.
Seems like some of you commenting are mind readers. Just how do you know what a person is thinking or their intentions?
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:29 pmI believe Trump is the result of a glitch in the subliminal messaging from the Florida Citrus Growers Association sent directly into people’s heads through 5G towers. We were supposed to like orange juice. Orange juice!
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:29 pmIs anyone going to attempt to answer my question?
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:31 pmOk nk, you made me laugh.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:33 pmLooks like the House called Trump’s bluff. Onto the Senate, where the GOP will knock it down.
Paul Montagu (77c694) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:33 pmThis will give Trump some measure of revenge against McConnell (for disloyally calling it for Biden), but it will likely repel more voters away from Loeffler-Perdue and hurt the GOP. Strategy backfire for Trump, because his petulance and general cruelty will only blow up in his face.
Paul, if Trump could just think two moves ahead, he would have realized that this is a massive gift to Biden. If Biden has a more friendly D senate it completely changes how powerful he is, how effective he is, how easily he can deal with committees or get things done.
Combined with Lin Wood’s little operation for republicans to get the GOP vote total negative in Georgia, to ‘prove to SCOTUS’ Trump won, and it’s really as though the democrats have taken over the GOP and are ramming it into a wall over and over.
Dustin (4237e0) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:42 pmState policies are what are causing the unemployment (lockdowns, etc.).
kaf (8a543d) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:49 pmWhy should the federal government be spending any money on easing the pain that the individual states are inflicting on themselves?
Is anyone going to attempt to answer my question?
Regulation of interstate commerce, combined with the 16th Amendment and the tax and spend powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution:
The spending power has been held to be plenary if tied to another enumerated power such as interstate commerce. But it could as easily be tied to the war power (and it has been) or the protection of civil rights, interstate travel, and patents and copyrights.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 3:56 pmIs anyone going to attempt to answer my question?
Article II, Section 8, which begins with “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and ends with the following: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Also Section 9, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
And Article VI, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
See also Amendments XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII,XXIV, and XXVI, all of which include the authority to Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions” of each amendment.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:00 pmTrump is a Republican In Name Only. He esteems the Republican Party only as his spear carrier and cupbearer. He could not possibly care less how it fares without him. Which is to his credit, actually.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:06 pmI second NK’s post – the general welfare clause of the Constitution.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but sound as if you are not a big fan of that clause. As a strict Constitutionalist (as you seem), you know how to remedy that…
Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:36 pmTanny, I answered you back in #42. There’s more but I think those two are enough.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:36 pmI think Rip’s answer is a kitchen sink approach. He was done after the first paragraph. Not sure how an amendment to require equality before the law justifies a $600 check, especially as some do not get one.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:38 pmthe general welfare clause of the Constitution.
The preamble is just throat-clearing. No powers are derived from that (or at least shouldn’t be). It no more means that “welfare” payments are OK than it means General George Welfare must be promoted.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:40 pmArticle I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution:
contains words from the Preamble but it is not throat clearing.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:49 pmI think Rip’s answer is a kitchen sink approach. He was done after the first paragraph. Not sure how an amendment to require equality before the law justifies a $600 check, especially as some do not get one.
You’re right-I wanted to cover all the bases of Congressional authority. Tanny also asked about the entire omnibus bill, and I’m sure you can find in my “kitchen sink” that whatever is in the 5,000+ pages, authority can be found in one of the Articles or amendments.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:52 pmThe Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18,
first requires an enumerated power that Tanny was asking about.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:59 pm[I]n United States v. Butler, (297 U.S. 1, 1936) the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Justice Roberts wrote for the Court:
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.
Source. My emphasis, and footnotes omitted.
Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 5:01 pmThe relief funds are not fundamentally different from FEMA providing emergency food, shelter, evacuation, etc, to people in an area hit by hurricane, earthquake, or any other natural disaster.
In this case the natural disaster is a pandemic.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/28/2020 @ 5:08 pmob·scu·rant·ism
/əbˈskyo͝orənˌtizəm,äbˈskyo͝orənˌtizəm,ˌäbskyəˈranˌtizəm/
noun
the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.
“The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 5:10 pm47, hard to believe the long-time though long-ago patrons of Anita Bryant would entrust their marketing to a Roy Cohn minion.
urbanleftbehind (036b24) — 12/28/2020 @ 5:34 pm5G is a collaborative endeavor of the vast left-wing, globalist, collectivist, vegan, Section 230 tech giants, urbanleftbehind. They entrusted nothing to Trump, he was just a coding error.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 5:54 pmThere’s a theory being circulated that the AT&T building in Nashville was hit by a missile instead of being damaged by a bomb. (!!!???)
Apparently after hitting TWA Flight 800, the missile was captured by a time warp and emerged 24 years five months 7 days and 9 hours later in Nashville, Tennessee.
No, they are not saying that but this isn’t that far away from that. Somebody truly wants to make some people be ridiculous.
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:06 pmObscurantism. When people were illiterate, isolated, and living hand to mouth, they could simply be kept ignorant. With universal literacy, wide-spread means of communication, and an above-subsistence standard of life, it is necessary to keep them functionally ignorant by bombarding them with propaganda and disinformation so that they do not know what to believe.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:14 pmI believe we should go back to the plain reading of the US Constitution. Before FDR the commerce clause was tightly controlled and did not allow the federal government to do anything they feel like doing. Because of the Supreme Court during the FDR administration we have the tragedy of the Wickard v. Filburn decision. I believe David Barton has a good take on the commerce clause.
It’s to be able to regulate or make regular between states. Texas has a lot of vineyards and so does California. If Texas outlawed California wine the federal government could step in and say no Texas under the commerce clause you cannot do that.
Regulate does not mean micromanage.
https://wallbuilderslive.com/federal-government-pt3/
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:15 pm59. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:40 pm
Powers are not derived from that but it is not just throat clearing. It is there for a very important reason:
It has to deal with the fact that the entire constitution is unconstitutional!
It violates the terms for amending the Articles of Confederation.
So they step outside of it, and say “We the People…so ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
In part to make sure that this doesn’t happen again, in Article VI they make every state and federal take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution.
Amendment 14, Section 3, makes a reference to this oath.
Articele VII, at the end, then says when and if it will go into effect
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:20 pm@31. The turtle gots hizelf another six years in the swamp.
Where turtles are right at home. 😉
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:21 pmIt starts with the schools. That’s where we start paying for our “education” with our mental health.
How many of you have nightmares about school? I’m 44 years out of high school and I had a nightmare about high school less than a week ago and it was by no means the first one. I did not participate in this study
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:23 pmIn this survey, 128 adults described their recurring dreams of being in school.but any or all of the participants could be me.
Tanny O’Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:15 pm
But under the 21st amendment, Section 2, they can, although maybe that only means the same kind of wine that is illegal in California.
Sammy Finkelman (081278) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:25 pmRe: Rip Murdock (80e6b4) — 12/28/2020 @ 4:00 pm
What about the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution?
Article 1, section 8:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Look closer and will see “for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers”. The important part here is “foregoing powers” not any new powers. What is necessary and proper to execute the enumerated federal powers of the government. Necessary and proper is not a standalone clause apart from the enumerated federal powers of the government.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:27 pmTanny is right. There was a recent Supreme Court case which ruled that the 21st Amendment does not supersede the Commerce Clause.
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:31 pmNot a cult.
lurker (d8c5bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:34 pmSome people state “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.
“General welfare“! That means anything doesn’t it? No it doesn’t. How about we ask what some people call the father of the constitution James Madison? Letter from James Madison to Andrew Stevenson regarding the general welfare clause.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2220
In the US Constitution “common defence and general welfare” is to be used to pay down debt incurred by the states for the revolution. Not as some think to create any law under the sun.
I’m not a big fan of stare decisis. The supreme court has gotten it wrong a number of times (see Dred Scott, Korematsu, Wickard v. Filburn, …) and if a previous ruling violates the plain reading of the US Constitution I believe that ruling should be overturned.
The supreme court didn’t take an oath to stare decisis, but to the constitution. I believe we should always go first to the US Constitution and use stare decisis as guidance, but not the final word.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:42 pmYes you did. I apologize. I addressed the commerce clause in 70 and the necessary and proper clause (not a standalone clause) in 75.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 6:50 pmAh, but I’m stating that the only powers that give authority to the federal government is in the enumerated federal powers of Article 1 Section 8 and the 16th amendment. No other amendments give additional authority to the federal government.
The 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th (XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI) Amendments are about citizen’s rights And don’t give the federal government authority to make laws on any additional items that are not listed and the enumerated powers of the federal government and the 16th amendment.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 7:10 pm“to give authority to the federal government to make law is in …“
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 7:38 pmI’ve had nightmares that I have to teach a class and haven’t begun preparing.
More often, it’s that I’m traveling somewhere and haven’t begun to pack (though in fact I’ve made a practice of starting well ahead of time).
Radegunda (b6cc34) — 12/28/2020 @ 7:38 pm@77 — Maybe not, but this is definitely a cult.
Radegunda (b6cc34) — 12/28/2020 @ 7:44 pmHeh! From Radgunda’s link:
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:03 pmI find it odd that for around 150 years after the US Constitution was ratified that the commerce clause was extremely limited in its power. Then during the FDR administration the Supreme Court started to expand the powers of the commerce clause to mean almost anything. Just like the 16th amendment which gives the federal government the power to tax income doesn’t give Congress the power to make up anything that they can spend that taxable money on. It’s limited to what is already outlined in the enumerated powers the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.
I had an aid in Representative Tony Cardenas’ office tell me that Congress could do anything they wanted because of the power of the purse. That because of the power of the purse they had unlimited power to make any law they wanted to make.
But they are our superiors and know what’s best for us. Despite the oath Representatives recite before taking office it doesn’t seem that they know the US Constitution hardly at all.
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:03 pm*Radegunda’s*
nk (1d9030) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:04 pmIt’s limited to what is already outlined in the enumerated powers the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.
In your opinion, but the current state of the law is outlined in Butler (see #63).
Rip Murdock (e7189f) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:16 pm2020 Was the Year Reaganism Died
…….
……. In times of crisis, government aid to people in distress is a good thing, not just for those getting help, but for the nation as a whole. Or to put it a bit differently, 2020 was the year Reaganism died.
What I mean by Reaganism goes beyond voodoo economics, the claim that tax cuts have magical power and can solve all problems. After all, nobody believes in that claim aside from a handful of charlatans and cranks, plus the entire Republican Party.
No, I mean something broader — the belief that aid to those in need always backfires, that the only way to improve ordinary people’s lives is to make the rich richer and wait for the benefits to trickle down. This belief was encapsulated in Ronald Reagan’s famous dictum that the most terrifying words in English are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Well, in 2020 the government was there to help — and help it did.
Rip Murdock (e7189f) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:27 pm…….
So the government was there to help, and it really did. The only problem was that it cut off help too soon. Extraordinary aid should have continued as long as the coronavirus was still rampant — a fact implicitly acknowledged by bipartisan willingness to enact a second rescue package, and Trump’s grudging eventual willingness to sign that legislation.
……..
DCSCA should be happy (I think).
1936 during the FDR administration. I don’t understand how it applies to Article 1 Section 8 Enumerated Federal Powers.
General Welfare is defined in the Article 1 Section 8 Enumerated Federal Powers which limits the powers of the federal government. It’s pretty specific as to what the federal government may do. Butler appears to be a slap in the face of those who expanded the commerce clause. It affirms the limits on what the federal government is authorized to do and affirms that those powers not specifically given to the federal government are under the power of the states. I don’t see it expanding the power of the federal government to do anything they please, but severely limiting the federal government‘s power and authority.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/297us1
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:50 pmAn article by Paul Krugman? He’s been wrong on everything!
Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc) — 12/28/2020 @ 8:52 pm“the belief that aid to those in need always backfires”
Yes, like all government aid was heartlessly shut down during the evil 1980’s…..and the records of this were cleverly hidden to protect Reagan and his legacy. It’s good to remember that no one’s taxes have gone up to pay for all of the aid currently going out. It’s all being put on the government “credit card”….with interest on the debt continuing to grow and subsume the budget. Though, I…and I would dare to say most conservatives…. don’t oppose the relief….because this is a national disaster….with government edicts causing the economic stress….but let’s not confuse that one case of subsidy being necessary and helpful does not somehow prove the appropriateness of every other government subsidy….I think there’s some rule of logic involved in there. It would be interesting if the op ed writer might… in good faith of course….analyze more cases of government subsidies and speculate about when government debt might actually become a problem…..but in this season of Santa Claus, why ruin the story…..
AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:19 pmOh wait…it was Krugman….good faith…never mind
AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 12/28/2020 @ 9:20 pmYou’ve forgotten Obama already? It was only 1 presidency ago. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” ” You will save $2,500 a year under my plan.” And on and on.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:05 pmNo they cannot. But it’s in the Soviet one.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:08 pmcontains words from the Preamble but it is not throat clearing.
I stand corrected.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:51 pmfirst requires an enumerated power that Tanny was asking about.
Interstate Commerce clause. Me being broke affects interstate commerce, at least as far as me growing wheat or pot does.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:53 pm2020 Was the Year Reaganism Died
No, it was the year that abject incompetence didn’t get re-elected. Comparing ANY aspect of the Trump administration to Reagan’s is libelous, and anyone who makes that claim is a hack.
And look, it’s Paul Krugman, known hack.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/28/2020 @ 10:59 pmThe constitution and the government it established exist to serve us, not the other way around.
The founders confronted this question almost immediately, in regard to creation of the First Bank of the United States. Jefferson and Madison objected that the constitution conferred no such power to charter a bank; Hamilton eloquently demolished their arguments, and Washington signed the bank into law.
Another enumerated power absent in the constitution is the power to purchase or annex territory. Jefferson – the oracle of limited government – briefly worried that purchasing Louisiana would go beyond the federal government’s enumerated powers, before common sense won the day.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/29/2020 @ 2:00 am“Another enumerated power absent in the constitution is the power to purchase or annex territory.”
But the Constitution explicitly gives the President the power to “make treaties” subject to the “advice and consent” of the Senate. And one type of treaty was to acquire land, with a notable example being the Treaty of Paris of 1783 which secured land from Britain. That was the whole pretext that started the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson wanted to purchase New Orleans for easy navigation of the Mississippi. So if you can acquire a city via treaty, what constitutionally would limit the President from negotiating for a larger land area? So though Jefferson can be commended for being careful about his use of power, this one seems pretty well supported by text and precedent.
Now the First Bank introduces a more subtle issue of what is “necessary and proper” to bring laws into execution. So, could government require everyone to purchase health insurance in order for it to properly regulate the interstate market of health insurance? NFIB said “no”. McCulloch certainly expanded “necessary” to go beyond “absolutely essential to” and closer to “convenient to” but something must limit the reach of the N&P clause or why even have enumerated powers if you can apply House-that-Jack-built analysis to whatever government…and Dave…. wants to do?
AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 12/29/2020 @ 5:45 amTany, if you can spend to create the social security system or medicare system, the die has been cast. Both systems address a “general” problem…and survived scrutiny under Butler, Helvering, and Steward Machine. No federal spending initiative has been deemed unconstitutional since, except under certain situations when the money is conditioned on something else (Dole). Now I understand your frustration with stare decisis, but it does provide predictability and introduces efficiency into the system…or else some issues would be argued ad infinitum and the stability of the law would be lost. My preference would be that major shifts in government power be authorized by constitutional amendment….I’m old fashioned that way…..but our forefathers dropped the ball on that in the 30’s and 40’s….and no court now wants to unwind the spending and regulatory powers….and the huge disruption this would have to courts, rights, and contracts…. because of selective readings of Madison over Hamilton. If you want to change the reach of government, you must try to amend the Constitution. If you cannot get a supermajority to agree with you, then your argument isn’t that compelling. That’s where we are at.
AJ_Liberty (a4ff25) — 12/29/2020 @ 6:45 amAt issue was not the president’s power to make treaties with consent of the senate, but for congress to appropriate money for the purpose of acquiring territory (which also requires passing legislation in the House).
Putting COVID relief or a health insurance mandate (for instance) into a treaty would not create a constitutional basis for them, if it did not already exist.
Dave (1bb933) — 12/29/2020 @ 7:23 amAs 2020, annus horibilus, comes to a close, and the Trump administration, or what’s left of it after so many departures, turnovers and acting subordinate secretaries and deputies, it ends as it began, with lies, fraud and hypocrisy.
Trump accomplished nothing, other than increasing federal spending to a level it took Obama two terms to achieve, in half the time. There has been no substantive reform. There is no wall, certainly not paid for by Mexico. The only things he accomplished was signing a tax bill, which benefitted the wealthy and large corporations but not the poor or the middle class, and nominate some justices recommended by the Federalist Society. And sign bill after bill he threatened to veto.
That’s not draining the swamp. It’s filling it.
https://reason.com/2020/12/28/surrendering-on-covid-spending-is-fitting-end-for-trumps-tenure/
The Republicans need to take a serious look at their party structure and leadership, because if their only strategy moving forward is to make things difficult for the Biden administration, the status quo isn’t going to change much. Biden cannot possibly be a worse president than Trump.
Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1) — 12/29/2020 @ 9:32 amKevin @40-
Go talk to the millions of American men and women who are not suited for college degrees and have to compete for jobs with third world immigrants with low expectations. Tradesmen, as a group, have been badly treated by both parties, as have the former manufacturing workers. SUre, they can retrain, but most of the jobs they retrain to are very low wage.
Not everyone can code (and imho most who do are very bad at it).
They can work at Amazon.
……
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/29/2020 @ 9:41 amSo yeah, let’s break up an American success story! That’ll teach them to be successful!
@88. Glorious.
DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 12/29/2020 @ 9:43 amTanny and NJRob:
Under your interpretation of the Constitution, would you agree the civilian space program and the national park system are unconstitutional?
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/29/2020 @ 9:49 amabout 85 percent are frontline employees in warehouses and operations who earn a minimum of $15 an hour.
Yeah, people who used to earn 3 times that will be happy to know you’ve got a job for them.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:11 amannus horibilus
Having lived through 1968, I had thought I’d never see such a year again. I’m not convinced that 2020 is worse, but it’s certainly a contender.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:15 amThe Republicans need to take a serious look at their party structure and leadership
Nikki Haley, who has tried very hard to weave a path between Trump and not-Trump, is clearly running for president already. But whatever the GOP does, it needs to take a lesson from the Democrats this year, as they avoided their own crazy by quickly settling on an alternative. Trump and his ilk cannot be allowed to define the party any further.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:18 am72% of Republicans See Trump As Model for Party’s Future
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:20 amIt’s actually worse than Congress being unfettered in its power; they at least are elected and can be held to account. We now have regulatory agencies like the EPA that can do things unintended by Congress with only the threat of a new Law being passed and signed to undo their actions.
When the Nixon-era agencies were crated, Congress reserved the right to block regulations, but that check was stripped from the law by the courts (INS v Chadha). If you want to return to the Constitution, perhaps we should start there.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:26 am72% of Republicans See Trump As Model for Party’s Future
I had not realized alcoholism was so widespread.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:27 amMore like mental illness.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:30 amMore to the point, though, Rip, I doubt they see incompetence, deceit and confusion as the model; they see the need to address the same issues (particularly immigration, trade and jobs) that Trump championed in speech but failed to deal with in practice.
In short, a competent, informed and effective leader co-opting the same coalition. Had Trump been that person, he would have been easily re-elected (assuming he did not get votes for being incompetent, ineffective and embarrassing). As it was he came far too close.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:33 amThere’s also what I call the Trump Lesson: half the population has an IQ of 100 or below. Trump never tried to appeal to our intelligence; rather to our emotions and prejudices. His speeches are written at the 5th grade level for a reason.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 10:39 amTo your points above….
The Life in The Simpsons Is No Longer Attainable
The most famous dysfunctional family of 1990s television enjoyed, by today’s standards, an almost dreamily secure existence that now seems out of reach for all too many Americans. I refer, of course, to the Simpsons. Homer, a high-school graduate whose union job at the nuclear-power plant required little technical skill, supported a family of five. A home, a car, food, regular doctor’s appointments, and enough left over for plenty of beer at the local bar were all attainable on a single working-class salary. Bart might have had to find $1,000 for the family to go to England, but he didn’t have to worry that his parents would lose their home.
……
……[T]he world for someone like Homer Simpson is far less secure. Union membership, which protects wages and benefits for millions of workers in positions like Homer’s, dropped from 14.5 percent in 1996 to 10.3 percent today. With that decline came the loss of income security and many guaranteed benefits, including health insurance and pension plans. In 1993’s episode “Last Exit to Springfield,” Lisa needs braces at the same time that Homer’s dental plan evaporates. Unable to afford Lisa’s orthodontia without that insurance, Homer leads a strike. Mr. Burns, the boss, eventually capitulates to the union’s demand for dental coverage, resulting in shiny new braces for Lisa and one fewer financial headache for her parents. What would Homer have done today without the support of his union?
The purchasing power of Homer’s paycheck, moreover, has shrunk dramatically. The median house costs 2.4 times what it did in the mid-’90s. Health-care expenses for one person are three times what they were 25 years ago. The median tuition for a four-year college is 1.8 times what it was then. In today’s world, Marge would have to get a job too. But even then, they would struggle. Inflation and stagnant wages have led to a rise in two-income households, but to an erosion of economic stability for the people who occupy them.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 12/29/2020 @ 11:12 am…….
The purchasing power of Homer’s paycheck, moreover, has shrunk dramatically. The median house costs 2.4 times what it did in the mid-’90s. Health-care expenses for one person are three times what they were 25 years ago. The median tuition for a four-year college is 1.8 times what it was then. In today’s world, Marge would have to get a job too. But even then, they would struggle. Inflation and stagnant wages have led to a rise in two-income households, but to an erosion of economic stability for the people who occupy them.
Yes, all of this. Some see this from atop Olympus, but the ones who have to live it are angry. The decline in living standards in the US, at least as far as non-college grabs is concerned, is both meaningful and stark. People who were making $25/hour (1980 dollars) are now getting $15/hour (2020 dollars). It’s unsurprising that there are many more single men than before.
Trump promised to turn this trend around, and small successes. All of which was undone by Covid and his feckless response. That Trump is an incompetent, ignorant and foolish man does not change the facts on the ground.
Someone will come along to address these again.
The Democrat version would suggest vastly more state aid, evolving to a Guaranteed Annual Income at some point. What SF writers have come to call “Basic.”
The old GOP line was to become an Information Society, with a highly educated populace and global free trade enriching all.
The Trump line argues that such a thing might be wonderful for many, but won’t work for all (particularly more (and more expensive) education), and in any event is a long-term strategy when people eat in the short term.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 11:34 amall these three things are not paid for out of current income.
Sammy Finkelman (7e803d) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:26 pmall these three things are not paid for out of current income.
Just because it is paid over time does not mean it is not paid. And it wasn’t paid out of current income back then, either.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:48 pmBernie Sanders is stopping the Senate vote to override the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 because he wants the Senate to take up the $2,000 per Social Security account stimulus payment that the House passed yesterday. They have the rest of this week, and Sunday morning, to do it.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, I think I heard, is thinking of packaging together (in hopes it loses?) three of Trump’s priorities in a single bill: The $2,000 checks, the repeal of Section 230, and something about election integrity. If that did pass it would have to pass the House too to become law.
Sammy Finkelman (7e803d) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:48 pmBetter: The
Trumpnew GOP line argues that such a thing might be wonderful for many, but won’t work for all (particularly more (and more expensive) education), and in any event is a long-term strategy when people eat in the short term.The “Trump line” uses more short words.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:49 pm118. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:48 pm
Having it not paid out of current income allows inflation.
Housing is paid for by borrowing, which is paid back by working it out to be a fixed payment per month, and the effective cost can be lower if interest rates are lower. If houses do not drp in value in general a person can recover the value of the house.
Medical care is paid for, in large part, by insurance, and the rise in costs has been felt.
College tuition is paid for more and more by borrowing which is increasingly not paid back but which is eligible for bankruptcy and it creates enormous trouble for some people with these loans. It is made very easy to borrow.
Sammy Finkelman (7e803d) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:54 pmThe $2,000 checks, the repeal of Section 230, and something about election integrity
Repeal of Section 230 would end the Internet as we know it. Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, and every comment section on every blog or publication would end. Even product reviews on shopping sites would disappear.
Requiring site owners to be responsible for the the comments made by others would require massive censorship, constant vigilance, and quite a bit of fact-checking by the site owners.
Why is Trump doing this? Because some jackass on TV told him that Section 230 allows censorship. Which it does in the sense that it doesn’t ban it, but it reduces the need almost completely. Twitter and Facebook don’t censor because of Section 230, but in spite of it.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:56 pmSammy,
In 1990 or 2020 all those things were paid over time. That means that if it costs 3x what it did then (in inflation-adjusted dollars) the monthly payment is ALSO 3 times as large.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 12:59 pmToday to do even basic “censorship” (light moderation), you get things like this. If there were the liability that Trump seems to think he wants, a) Trump would not be allowed anywhere near the internet, he would force twitter et al, to be liable for hundreds of trillions of billions of millions of dollars of liability. And b) neither would anyone else.
It’s almost like Trump doesn’t know WTF he is talking about IRT this. Which makes it so much different than…
Oh yeah, he’s a complete moron, full stop.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 12/29/2020 @ 1:04 pmOr he wants to silence other websites so he can fill the void they leave once he starts Trump Media, where he won’t let any voice but his (and his family/surrogates) be heard.
DRJ (aede82) — 12/29/2020 @ 2:27 pmBut then he’d be his own liability for libel. I guess that he’d be the publisher and be shielded from that, normally, but then he’d be Trumpeting (because it’s Trumpet Media in this case, so to Trump is a verb) Trumpisms which may not be good for him, a la Newsmax/Fox/Dominion/Smartmatic brewhaha. Of course, when he gets sued into oblivion, he could always file for bankruptcy and…
Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 12/29/2020 @ 3:30 pmwhere he won’t let any voice but his (and his family/surrogates) be heard.
We used to have a UHF station in L.A. like that. The gospel according to Gene Scott. IIRC, he had a worldwide network of stations at one point, with his sermons running 24/7.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 4:07 pmKlink,
I’m not arguing that moderation is wrong or unnecessary, although it is very hard to avoid bias when the moderators are human (and young and inexperienced humans at that).
What I’m arguing is that Section 230 is the only thing that allows unmoderated discussions to be possible. Remove 230 and open discussion is impossible. Everything offends someone, and someone can always sue.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 12/29/2020 @ 4:13 pmMy understanding is that Section 230 protects hosts who moderate discussions from liability for what their commenters say. Trump won’t moderate discussion if he has websites or allows commenters, so he won’t need protection there. His liability will be for traditional defamation and he has navigated that for decades by speaking in vague innuendo, coupled with aggressive use of legal threats and lawsuits. In other words, business as usual for him but it will crush online websites as we know them now.
DRJ (aede82) — 12/29/2020 @ 6:17 pmI heard yesterday from someone who called up his bank. The $600 might be deposited on Monday.
Sammy Finkelman (b78e49) — 12/31/2020 @ 6:38 am