Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
c933103 wrote:Thing is, most Republicans also hate section 230, as they think it enable "censoring" by internet platforms
Many Democrats also hate section 230, as they think internet platforms should bear more responsibility for contents published on them
And then social media companies like Facebook also want this section 230 to be repelled, as that can enhance the ebtry varrier entrenching their position, making it more difficult for small startup to compete agaonst them by requiring them to havr resource to review and be responsible for everything users published on them
bennett123 wrote:My understanding is that a Presidential Veto can be overruled by Congress.
tommy1808 wrote:You don't know, now that Trump is just a few weeks away from being unemployed, maybe the Republicans can find their spine again. If only to cover their backs so that, should it come to convictions against Trump or senior Trump administration officials, they can point to this vote and say they have a history of voting against Trump so their conscience is clean.Republicans voting against Trump? They couldn´t even find the courage to listen to evidence that Trump is a criminal and rather violated their oath to be impartial jurors ......
So.. no.. not gonne happen.
petertenthije wrote:tommy1808 wrote:You don't know, now that Trump is just a few weeks away from being unemployed, maybe the Republicans can find their spine again. If only to cover their backs so that, should it come to convictions against Trump or senior Trump administration officials, they can point to this vote and say they have a history of voting against Trump so their conscience is clean.Republicans voting against Trump? They couldn´t even find the courage to listen to evidence that Trump is a criminal and rather violated their oath to be impartial jurors ......
So.. no.. not gonne happen.
tommy1808 wrote:petertenthije wrote:tommy1808 wrote:You don't know, now that Trump is just a few weeks away from being unemployed, maybe the Republicans can find their spine again. If only to cover their backs so that, should it come to convictions against Trump or senior Trump administration officials, they can point to this vote and say they have a history of voting against Trump so their conscience is clean.Republicans voting against Trump? They couldn´t even find the courage to listen to evidence that Trump is a criminal and rather violated their oath to be impartial jurors ......
So.. no.. not gonne happen.
If they do, Trump is going to do a house to house in GA to tell every single Republican voter not to vote in the runoff.
best regards
Thomas
luckyone wrote:tommy1808 wrote:petertenthije wrote:You don't know, now that Trump is just a few weeks away from being unemployed, maybe the Republicans can find their spine again. If only to cover their backs so that, should it come to convictions against Trump or senior Trump administration officials, they can point to this vote and say they have a history of voting against Trump so their conscience is clean.
If they do, Trump is going to do a house to house in GA to tell every single Republican voter not to vote in the runoff.
best regards
Thomas
Well, that's already happening so what's the difference? .
Aaron747 wrote:Things are really coming to a head and GOP members of Congress may be tested on this as the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) usually includes provisos on US military pay increases. Tying signing of NDAA to repeal of Section 230 in the CDA is an attempt to exert power over tech giants the White House simply doesn’t like (supporters online continue to field wildly inaccurate 1st amendment arguments about Twitter, for example).
Dutchy wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Things are really coming to a head and GOP members of Congress may be tested on this as the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) usually includes provisos on US military pay increases. Tying signing of NDAA to repeal of Section 230 in the CDA is an attempt to exert power over tech giants the White House simply doesn’t like (supporters online continue to field wildly inaccurate 1st amendment arguments about Twitter, for example).
Strange way to conduct politics. Two totally different subjects, tieing the outcome together and play hardball.
Dutchy wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Things are really coming to a head and GOP members of Congress may be tested on this as the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) usually includes provisos on US military pay increases. Tying signing of NDAA to repeal of Section 230 in the CDA is an attempt to exert power over tech giants the White House simply doesn’t like (supporters online continue to field wildly inaccurate 1st amendment arguments about Twitter, for example).
Strange way to conduct politics. Two totally different subjects, tieing the outcome together and play hardball.
bhill wrote:Yeahhh...lets screw with Service members' pay...reaaal smart GOP..
Dutchy wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Things are really coming to a head and GOP members of Congress may be tested on this as the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) usually includes provisos on US military pay increases. Tying signing of NDAA to repeal of Section 230 in the CDA is an attempt to exert power over tech giants the White House simply doesn’t like (supporters online continue to field wildly inaccurate 1st amendment arguments about Twitter, for example).
Strange way to conduct politics. Two totally different subjects, tieing the outcome together and play hardball.
c933103 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Things are really coming to a head and GOP members of Congress may be tested on this as the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) usually includes provisos on US military pay increases. Tying signing of NDAA to repeal of Section 230 in the CDA is an attempt to exert power over tech giants the White House simply doesn’t like (supporters online continue to field wildly inaccurate 1st amendment arguments about Twitter, for example).
Strange way to conduct politics. Two totally different subjects, tieing the outcome together and play hardball.
IIRC US Congress do that every year with their omnibus budget bill
apodino wrote:Interestingly enough, the Veto Threat actually has bipartisan support. Tulsi Gabbard has come out and is in favor of Trump using his veto pen on this.
https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-donald-trump-section-230-battle-1552336
zkojq wrote:So defund the police because of police violence against minorities = bad....but defunding the entire military because the internet is sometimes mean to Donnie = good?
zkojq wrote:So defund the police because of police violence against minorities = bad....but defunding the entire military because the internet is sometimes mean to Donnie = good?