Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Could Run Facebook While Serving in Government Forever (techcrunch.com)
Reader randomErr writes: Closer look at SEC documents reveal that Zuckerberg only needs to own enough Facebook stock or have the board's approval to be allowed to serve in the government. This comes hours after, Facebook co-founder said his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, hinting that he may have intentions of getting into politics. Without the limit, Zuckerberg has the opportunity to be appointed or elected to a more significant office and have as much time as he wants to make an impact, rather than just dipping in potentially as a cabinet member whose terms typically last less than two years. Of course, getting elected would require the faith of the people which has been shaken by the fake news scandal. Some would surely view a role in government as a selfish push for power despite Zuckerberg's massive philanthropy initiatives. Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
Resign.
The stories seem fine to me. The users and moderators have declined in quality. You're a big part of the problem. Buzz off.
Zuckerberg is already at the top of the fake news feed
It had been a while since slashdot reminded us to worship Zuckerberg. I can't say I was missing the call to prayer or anything, but I had noticed its absence.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Is he an immortal? A vampire? a Howard?
I find it interesting that the same tech rags that say that Zuckerberg can still own interest in Facebook while running for political office are the same tech rags excoriating Trump for owning businesses while running for, and ultimately being elected as POTUS.
And then there's the whole fact that the Democrats conveniently forget that their hero JFK was massively wealthy and owned businesses as well. They also weren't screaming for Hillary to give up all interest in The Clinton Foundation, just that she needed someone else to run it (her daughter). Of course when Trump says that his sons wil manage his businesses, that's no good.
And, before someone does it, because I know they will, I am *NOT* pro-Trump as much as I am anti-Clinton. BOTH candidates sucked.
It's not about Zuckerberg being appointed to or running for political office. The justification for this news story is the jab at the end about "fake news," lest we forget for a moment that we are all smart people and nobody we know voted for Donald Trump, therefore there must be foul play.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
He's a college dropout who became a billionaire. I thought Red State America loved that? Or do you also have to be a racist?
You just tell them what they want to hear and they'll vote for you, whether you make any attempt at being sincere or not. When they are reminded of your past opposite positions, just deny that ever happened and make some half-assed attempt to play to their fears about something else. In short, lie. Seems to work pretty reliably these days. And you don't have to be a racist, but you absolutely shouldn't denounce racists either, because every white vote counts, even the evil ones.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Yet another person I will be very happy to vote against.
Therein lies the problem with modern American politics. Far too often we are stuck voting for the lesser of two evils, casting our ballots against someone rather than for anyone we truly believe will represent our best interests. I don't have an easy solution, but the problem is clear, and our system is screwed.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
My new hypothesis is that democracy isn't focused on getting a good leader, its purpose is to make it easy to get rid of a bad leader without a bloody revolution. That is the main benefit of democracy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
But he stated it as if it were common knowledge so nobody would challenge. He's depending on idiots to just accept it. Get with the manipulative program dude.
I think a lot of folks who voted Trump and a Republican Congress are about to find that out with Obamacare, as it becomes clearer with each press conference that the Republicans have no actual plan, and are more than likely simply going to tinker with the ACA, and that the "great repeal" is going to be little more than a rebranding, with some funding changes, and probably defunding of Planned Parenthood and a means for Catholic and Evangelical employers to squeak out of having to pay for the birth control.
The block grant plan will be the most fun to watch, because it's going to mean an even greater health care disparity between the poorer (and more often Red states) and the wealthier (more often) Blue states. But overall, the likes of Paul Ryan are making it as clear as they dare that there isn't going to be an overnight repeal of Obamacare, which means the transition is going to be multi-year, and longer than the life of the current Congress. It makes me wonder if the Republicans will simply use the whole thing as a delaying tactic, make the changes I suggest above, rename it and then try to use it as a feather in their own cap.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Our congressional leaders can't pass a law against it, it's prohibited by the constitution for the legislative branch to interfere with the executive branch in that way.
In what "way"? Please point to the passage of the Constitution that you're claiming makes this restriction. The only argument I've seen is it puts additional constraints on qualifications to be president (in addition to age 35 etc.) but that sounds pretty weak to me, since Congress can also pass laws saying the President can't commit all sorts of crimes. The issue isn't a matter of qualification (what the president does BEFORE taking office) but rather a decision to continue acting in problematic business dealings AFTER taking office.
Congress has basically plenary power to pass laws regulating the Executive as long as it doesn't hinder execution of the delegated Executive powers of Article II. There have been a number of SCOTUS rulings to this effect. Moreover, there was even a statute that basically included presidents in this sort of regulation from the Civil War through 1989 (and an attempt exempt the President when the law was recodified in 1962 under JFK was summarily rejected), but then they exempted president and VP.
It would be one thing if Congress were singling out the president for this sort of requirement (which might place an undue burden unfairly on the occupant of the office), but this is a law that applies to a multitude of government officials and serves a clear anti-corruption purpose. And there's no good argument that requiring divestment would interfere with the president's Article II powers, so I think there's little chance even a conservative SCOTUS would say such a statute is out of bounds. But who knows these days??