Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anything goes style internet platforms inevitably turn into miserable communities because it favors trolls and bad faith arguments. Conservatives believe the necessary steps to maintain a working community is inherently biased against them since they adopted and encouraged and ultimately made trolls, conspiracy theories, and con men an integral part of their message.

Now they have perler. If you want to see how bad it can get, it’ll be there.
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around this section 230 thing. As i understand it, currently, social media sites such as face book, twitter, etc, cannot be sued for content people post, due to being exempt (?) For some reason, conservatives feel this discriminates against them (?) but wouldnt the proposed unexemption allow Joe Liberal to sue twitter and facebook for something Jon Conservative posted, thereby causing Twitter and Facebook to further crack down on crack pot inciteful postings? or even shut the whole **** down? What do conservatives hope to gain from this?

I think you are right to wonder about this. With no Section 230 protection, none of the big social media players will allow anything controversial. Currently they're trying to be more responsible, hence curtailing harmful misinformation with warnings and bannings, which largely affects conspiracist and alt-right BS. If websites and social media become actually legally liable for such things, they won't just add warnings, they'll ban all the kooks, including Trump.

As usual, Trump is an idiot, and hasn't thought things through.

ETA: In the larger view, killing Section 230 would kind of kill the internet for everybody.
 
Last edited:
So much winning.

Yesterday, Trump's vaunted legal team lost cases in Wisconsin and Georgia. Today they lost cases in Michigan and Nevada.
 
Yesterday, Trump's vaunted legal team lost cases in Wisconsin and Georgia. Today they lost cases in Michigan and Nevada.

We meed a new Monty Python/Holy Grail meme since the BLack Knight has bcome overused.
I suggest:
Trump equald King Arthur and his English Keniggets;
Biden equals the French Knights in the Castle.
 
We meed a new Monty Python/Holy Grail meme since the BLack Knight has bcome overused.
I suggest:
Trump equald King Arthur and his English Keniggets;
Biden equals the French Knights in the Castle.

Can you imagine just how much would be left of the Black Knight if he was Trump?
 
Hmm. Looks like this warning might be worth considering, when preparing oneself for things that may come.

The key lies in something called the nondelegation doctrine. Under this theory, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the right to exercise all legislative powers, but it doesn’t give it the authority to delegate any of that power to any other branch. So, for example, Congress could pass a law saying “greenhouses gas emissions have to be kept at the level of 1980,” but it could not leave it to the EPA to determine what emissions are covered by the phrase “greenhouse gases” or anything about how levels should be maintained. Congress would have to define all the gases, all the levels, all the methods of reduction, all the means of testing, all the … everything. Right in the bill.

This theory of how the government should operate would have even broader consequences on agencies like the FDA, which has broad and general powers to determine whether or not a drug is effective, or a food product is safe. Under nondelegation doctrine, every one of these situations could require specific legislation.

If that sounds like a situation in which regulation becomes essentially impossible, and bad actors of all types can manufacture loopholes infinitely faster than government can provide a response … that’s exactly right. This is why the Supreme Court has rarely dipped its toes anywhere near these waters since the 1930s, when a similarly radical conservative court used its power to push back on programs supported by Franklin Roosevelt. The last time the doctrine was deployed by the Court was in 1935. Since then, innumerable rulings have directly refuted this idea for reasons that include the simple fact that without administrative agencies, governance of a modern state is impossible.

But as Slate reports, the current 6-3 conservative court hasn’t just hinted that it wants to revive this long-abandoned and intrinsically impractical doctrine, it has said so openly. A five-justice majority has already signed on to the idea of reviving a judicial approach that has been dead for over 80 years.

In 2019, four conservative members joined a dissent authored by Neil Gorsuch, who wrote that “the court should revive the dormant nondelegation doctrine.” Samuel Alito authored a separate opinion that also praised the nondelegation doctrine, and wished for an opportunity to make that clear in a case that was not about expanding prosecution of sex offenders. Since then both Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have joined the nondelegation chorus.
 
Trump to Somalia: Goodbye, ****-hole country.

From: CBC News (Canada)
U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the withdrawal of nearly all U.S. troops from Somalia by Jan. 15...The mission has received little attention in the United States, but is considered a cornerstone of the Pentagon's global efforts to combat al-Qaeda.
...
Rep. Jim Langevin (D), criticized the Trump pullback in Somalia as a "surrender to al-Qaeda and a gift to China."..."When U.S. forces leave Somalia in response to today's order, it becomes harder for diplomats and aid workers to help people resolve conflicts without violence and loss of life"...Langevin said China will use the opportunity to build its influence in the Horn of Africa.


This was certainly not unexpected (given Stubby McBonespurs is also withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan). But, its still a foolish thing to do.
 
Trump Tweets

GET TOUGH REPUBLICANS!

A provision is in the NDAA for the renaming, or even desecration, of National Monuments in National Parks. This is not what our Country wants!
Add National Parks and National Monuments to the extensive list of things Trump doesn't understand. And what the heck do they have to do with military funding?
I think he'll leave the White House a few days early to go golfing and never come back. He'll hint about getting sworn in for a second term. He'll have a rally on election day, and have present a Federal judge, dropping more hints about getting the judge to swear him in.

But then he won't.

He'll spend the next year or two threatening to return from Elba to reclaim his throne, doing lots of fundraisers to support that.

After that, my crystal ball grows too cloudy to be of any use.
I agree about the first part, but am still expecting him to get someone to swear him in. Probably Brett McRapeface.

Will the people who pay out the big bucks to hear the likes of an ex president speak after dinner pay to listen to Trump? I really don't think they will, the ones who will pay to listen to Trump are those that can't afford to pay Trump.
Correct. Trump's MO is fleecing the rubes. He'll be having rallies until the day he dies, selling hats, and asking for funds to restore him to the Presidency.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this section 230 thing. As i understand it, currently, social media sites such as face book, twitter, etc, cannot be sued for content people post, due to being exempt (?) For some reason, conservatives feel this discriminates against them (?) but wouldnt the proposed unexemption allow Joe Liberal to sue twitter and facebook for something Jon Conservative posted, thereby causing Twitter and Facebook to further crack down on crack pot inciteful postings? or even shut the whole **** down? What do conservatives hope to gain from this?
Somebody said something bad about Trump on Twitter; therefore Section 230 bad.
A change to section 230 could actually spell the end of this forum. Any idiot could sue Icerat for anything they took offense to. They might not win, but it would become a pain in the ass and not worth keeping up.
 
A change to section 230 could actually spell the end of this forum. Any idiot could sue Icerat for anything they took offense to. They might not win, but it would become a pain in the ass and not worth keeping up.

I own a forum myself and ending section 230 would probably spell the end of it as well.
 
I agree about the first part, but am still expecting him to get someone to swear him in. Probably Brett McRapeface.

Stupid question, but did they ever find out who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? To whom does he owe a favor?
 
Statement by the Arizona Speaker of the House​

This week, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and others representing President Donald Trump came to Arizona with a breathtaking request: that the Arizona Legislature overturn the certified results of last month’s election and deliver the state’s electoral college votes to President Trump. The rule of law forbids us to do that.

Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis made their case here at least twice—on Monday, at an unofficial public gathering hosted by a small group of legislators; and again on Tuesday, during a closed-door meeting at the State Capitol with Republican leaders from both chambers of the Legislature. Both times, the Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only theories, not proof. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr said on Tuesday that he, too, has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome of the election.”

Even if such evidence existed, the Arizona Legislature simply couldn’t do what is being asked. Under our state’s constitution, the Legislature can act only when it is in session, and the Legislature could call itself into a special session only with the support of a bipartisan supermajority of its members.

That won’t materialize, but even if did, the Legislature couldn’t provide the recourse the President’s team seeks. The U.S. Constitution authorizes each state to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” For decades, Arizona law has required that the voters elect the state’s electors on Election Day—this year, on November 3rd. And under a law the Republican-led Legislature passed just three years ago, the state’s electors are required to cast their votes for the candidates who received the most votes in the official statewide election canvass. Enacted after the 2016 presidential election, in which President Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, the law was aimed at ensuring that Arizona’s electors would remain faithful to the vote of the people.

So under current Arizona law, the presidential electors who were elected on November 3 must, after the canvass is completed, vote for the winners of the popular vote. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court even suggests that the Arizona Legislature could retroactively appoint different electors who would cast their ballots for different candidates.

The Trump legal team has cited McPherson v. Blacker (1892), to claim that the legislature can “resume the power [to appoint electors] at any time.” And it is true that the Arizona Legislature could alter the method of appointing electors prospectively. But it cannot undo the election of electors whom the voters already voted for. As the Supreme Court made clear in Bush v. Gore (2000), “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental.”

No election is perfect, and if there were evidence of illegal votes or an improper count, then
Arizona law provides a process to contest the election: a lawsuit under state law. But the law does not authorize the Legislature to reverse the results of an election.

As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election. I voted for
President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.
I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people’s vote based on unsupported theories of fraud. Under the laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters choose who wins, and our system requires that their choice be respected.

Forty years ago next month, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that while the “orderly transfer of authority” is a “commonplace occurrence” for Americans, “n the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.” Now, Americans are being reminded once again never to take for granted what President Reagan correctly described as “the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.”
 
Statement by the Arizona Speaker of the House​

This week, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and others representing President Donald Trump came to Arizona with a breathtaking request: that the Arizona Legislature overturn the certified results of last month’s election and deliver the state’s electoral college votes to President Trump. The rule of law forbids us to do that.

Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Ellis made their case here at least twice—on Monday, at an unofficial public gathering hosted by a small group of legislators; and again on Tuesday, during a closed-door meeting at the State Capitol with Republican leaders from both chambers of the Legislature. Both times, the Trump team made claims that the election was tainted by fraud but presented only theories, not proof. U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr said on Tuesday that he, too, has “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome of the election.”

Even if such evidence existed, the Arizona Legislature simply couldn’t do what is being asked. Under our state’s constitution, the Legislature can act only when it is in session, and the Legislature could call itself into a special session only with the support of a bipartisan supermajority of its members.

That won’t materialize, but even if did, the Legislature couldn’t provide the recourse the President’s team seeks. The U.S. Constitution authorizes each state to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” For decades, Arizona law has required that the voters elect the state’s electors on Election Day—this year, on November 3rd. And under a law the Republican-led Legislature passed just three years ago, the state’s electors are required to cast their votes for the candidates who received the most votes in the official statewide election canvass. Enacted after the 2016 presidential election, in which President Trump won the electoral college but not the popular vote, the law was aimed at ensuring that Arizona’s electors would remain faithful to the vote of the people.

So under current Arizona law, the presidential electors who were elected on November 3 must, after the canvass is completed, vote for the winners of the popular vote. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court even suggests that the Arizona Legislature could retroactively appoint different electors who would cast their ballots for different candidates.

The Trump legal team has cited McPherson v. Blacker (1892), to claim that the legislature can “resume the power [to appoint electors] at any time.” And it is true that the Arizona Legislature could alter the method of appointing electors prospectively. But it cannot undo the election of electors whom the voters already voted for. As the Supreme Court made clear in Bush v. Gore (2000), “[w]hen the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental.”

No election is perfect, and if there were evidence of illegal votes or an improper count, then
Arizona law provides a process to contest the election: a lawsuit under state law. But the law does not authorize the Legislature to reverse the results of an election.

As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election. I voted for
President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.
I and my fellow legislators swore an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the state of Arizona. It would violate that oath, the basic principles of republican government, and the rule of law if we attempted to nullify the people’s vote based on unsupported theories of fraud. Under the laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters choose who wins, and our system requires that their choice be respected.

Forty years ago next month, President Ronald Reagan reminded us that while the “orderly transfer of authority” is a “commonplace occurrence” for Americans, “n the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.” Now, Americans are being reminded once again never to take for granted what President Reagan correctly described as “the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic.”


He will get the 2 minute hate from the Trump and his followers.
 
He will get the 2 minute hate from the Trump and his followers.

I don't agree with this man's politics, but I love this statement. He laid it out plain and simple. I like that he could have just said that there was no legal mechanism which would allow the election results to be overturned, but that he said he wouldn't do it if he could.
 
I don't agree with this man's politics, but I love this statement. He laid it out plain and simple. I like that he could have just said that there was no legal mechanism which would allow the election results to be overturned, but that he said he wouldn't do it if he could.
However:

As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election. I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.
Do these folks ever stop to wonder what kind of president would even make the request? Is a good guy going to ask you to break the law to keep him in office?

Why would you want to re-elect someone like that?
 
Statement by the Arizona Speaker of the House​

This week, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, and others representing President Donald Trump came to Arizona with a breathtaking request: that the Arizona Legislature overturn the certified results of last month’s election and deliver the state’s electoral college votes to President Trump. The rule of law forbids us to do that
...

I wonder if these people have even thought through the scenario of what would happen if their wish were to come true
 
However:

Do these folks ever stop to wonder what kind of president would even make the request? Is a good guy going to ask you to break the law to keep him in office?

Why would you want to re-elect someone like that?

I don't disagree with that. But at least he is smart enough to see that this was a bridge too far.

I grant you that Trump went too far long before 2016.
 
Note that this AZ Squeaker of the House makes his obeisance to Trumph, and ends with an invocation of Saint Ronnie Raygun. Thus he attempts to hoard his ****-cake and eat it too, while annonting himself with True Conservative Holy Oil.

Goddamn but sometimes I feel like shoving in a clip and going weasel hunting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom