'COVFEFE Act' Would Make Social Media a Presidential Record (thehill.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'COVFEFE Act' Would Make Social Media a Presidential Record (thehill.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday June 12, 2017 @09:20AM from the well-preserved dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) introduced legislation Monday to classify presidential social media posts -- including President Trump's much-discussed tweets -- as presidential records. The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act, which has the same acronym as an infamous Trump Twitter typo last month, would amend the Presidential Records Act to include "social media." Presidential records must be preserved, according to the Presidential Records Act, which would make it potentially illegal for the president to delete tweets. "President Trump's frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented. If the President is going to take to social media to make sudden public policy proclamations, we must ensure that these statements are documented and preserved for future reference. Tweets are powerful, and the President must be held accountable for every post," said Quigley in a statement. Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.

322 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

good by MrNJ · 2017-06-12 09:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

The more time the congress spends on pointless stuff like this, the less time is left to waste taxpayer money. Carry on.

--
I don't respond to or upvote ACs
1. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Fuck you. Accountability of government officials is of vital importance to our republic.
2. Re:good by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-12 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  After eight years of Obama, Congress ran out of post offices to rename.
3. Re:good by hey! · 2017-06-12 09:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Well, they're not exactly overwhelmed by the volume of work. Congress is already stalled by the fact that the party in power is not quite so ideologically unified as it thought it was.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:41 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Of course they're unified. They are united by the desire not to have a black man in power. Having got that, they don't have any idea what to do next.
5. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 09:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
  The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
  For example, compare GOP 2008/2012 Ron Paul with Democrat Sanders in 2016. Both establishment parties hated Paul/Sanders but only one party was arrogant enough to say "we don't need your vote".
6. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  This excuses Trump instead, by making one of his demented rants meaningful.
7. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
  The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
  For example, compare GOP 2008/2012 Ron Paul with Democrat Sanders in 2016. Both establishment parties hated Paul/Sanders but only one party was arrogant enough to say "we don't need your vote".
  The GOP knew Ron Paul had no fucking chance of winning - at no point in 2008 did he break into double digits - but the TP-ers & remnant KKK-ers he panders to still had to be placated.
  Sanders, otoh, who's NOT a Democrat appeared to have a very real chance of upsetting HRC.
8. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:58 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Except when those government officials are democrats
9. Re:good by MightyYar · 2017-06-12 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
10. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:03 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  sad truth, usa is a failed state of inbred racist idiots clutching their decaying nukes and thinking they are still a world power while they get thrown into the kiddie pool
11. Re:good by Tablizer · 2017-06-12 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Re: wasting taxpayer money -- if key details about governing and policy come as tweets, then they darn sure are important enough to properly track and catalog.
  As far as the acronym, they even outdid recent NASA probes in shoe-horned spelling such that they deserve a Uranus Award: Unique References And Naming Using Stretching.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
12. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 10:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  In 2008, people were laughing at Paul, yes. In 2012, the GOP was moving to where Paul was on many issues. He was a threat with his ideas to the point that the GOP changed the primary rules so that only candidates that won majorities in X number of states can win the nomination. That change later haunted the GOP when it became clear that only Trump will be the nominee because of that rule change. He was playing the delegate game to change the platform and considering his success (ideologically speaking) since 2008 the GOP was scared (not only of Paul but the Tea party). Very similar story to Sanders. Old consistent party member (that only joined that party recently) with a clear, concise, and ideologically pure message winning the youth vote of the party threatening the old guard.
13. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:13 · Score: 0
  
  the party in power is not quite so ideologically unified as it thought it was.
  Democrats were the ones who deceived themselves on this point.
14. Re:good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-06-12 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
  And with the two-party system, can you blame them? They probably don't want to cripple themselves in the US political landscape.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
15. Re:good by David_Hart · 2017-06-12 10:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
  Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons. This will provide a historical record that can be analyzed by historians, researchers, and laughed at hilariously by people in 2030.... The comedic value alone makes this worth it... (grin)
16. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Its kind of fun for us non Americans watching your President trying to get the country back on its keep and watching the media and all the sour losers tipit over! :-)
17. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  "libertarian"
  You are not a libertarian if you vote D or R.
18. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You think Obama directed congress to only deal with nonsense and ignore important issues? Does the name John Boehner ring a bell?
19. Re:good by Dutch+Gun · 2017-06-12 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Coming up with a title to fit the desired acronym alone probably ate up the better part of a day for a few congressional staffers.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
20. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I can blame them. I have more respect for the GOP because they are not so "pure" on their ideology to the point of shunning and chastising those that don't fall in line.
  
  They probably don't want to cripple themselves in the US political landscape.
  lol, fat load of good that did. Have you seen the last 8 years for democrats? They have been losing ground everywhere. Governor seats, House, Senate, Executive. Name it and they probably have been losing it.
21. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law. Well, except set up yet another government group tasked with doing something that adds little or no value.
  Obama's old staff in DC still has rent and bills to pay.
22. Re:good by TWX · 2017-06-12 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  The United States has the largest GDP in the world, even if the EU is considered one 743,100,000 population country.
  The United States is also the only nation on the planet capable of engaging in large-scale military action anywhere on the planet with basically no notice and requiring no significant time to configure expeditionary forces.
  It's certainly true that other nations may be experiencing more growth than the US, that some of these nations might at some point actually have greater absolute GDP, or even that the US might be in a bit of a decline compared to where it has been in the past, but your assertion, "...thinking they are still a world power while they get thrown into the kiddie pool," is off-base.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
23. Re:good by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-12 10:56 · Score: 2
  
  It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified. Just look at the libertarian strain of GOP compared to a mainstream GOPer.
  In the past, they were all unified by the desire to cut taxes (although not on how to pay for the cuts). Now, they are not even united on that.
24. Re:good by Opportunist · 2017-06-12 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  Like there is even a minimal chance that ANY of Trump's Tweets would ever get "lost". There's literally millions of eyeballs glued to that feed, and either his supporters or his enemies will immortalize any and all Tweets that could possibly be "worth it".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
25. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  lol, fat load of good that did. Have you seen the last 8 years for democrats? They have been losing ground everywhere. Governor seats, House, Senate, Executive. Name it and they probably have been losing it.
  California, the nation's most populous state with an economy only eclipsed by a handful of nations.
26. Re:good by Midnight+Thunder · 2017-06-12 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  This sort of accountability is already expected for employees of corporations, so why should the president or other high level government actor be held to a lower standard?
  I worked for a large financial institution and all social media communication from the companies was limited to specific employees, it was vetted and even recorded at every step. I can't see why government servants in the White House or congress can't be expected to follow the same process. If I were the CEO of a large company, I would appreciate my social media officer asking me whether that tweet really should be public record, if I were to say something stupid.
  As for twitter, I am sure they could find solutions to store tweets considered redacted or deleted, and possibly even how long it was public for.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
27. Re:good by Cmdln+Daco · 2017-06-12 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  You are not a libertarian if you think you need to belong to a party. You're just a Libertarian and your opinion can likely be dismissed.
28. Re:good by freeze128 · 2017-06-12 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Late night television already does that.
29. Re:good by sphealey · 2017-06-12 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  The archivists searching for the 22 million missing e-mails from George W. Bush's administration aren't doing too badly either.
  sPh
30. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  Have they checked his house for email servers?
31. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  It might even make social media places like Twitter less of a giant tumor.
32. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Or the bathroom of the pizza place down the road?
33. Re:good by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-06-12 12:40 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  The guy that let Obama get everything he ever asked for?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
34. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  The archivists searching for the 22 million missing e-mails from George W. Bush's administration aren't doing too badly either.
  sPh
  Please kill this topic. It's getting old. The missing e-mail was found on backups.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
35. Re:good by ArmoredDragon · 2017-06-12 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons.
  Aren't there lots of people that already do exactly that? I guarantee you that 100% of Trump's tweets can be found, even the deleted ones long before he was POTUS.
36. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  I know that for you just having any black man in power was enough but fortunately smart people look at the person regardless of their race.
  Can't expect that from the left though.
37. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  Many good ol' citizens overcame their prejudices and voted for Obama despite his race.
38. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  even if the EU is considered one 743,100,000 population country.
  Last I knew it was 400M. Wikipedia says 510M. But then, it's Wikipedia. Where do you get 743M from?
39. Re:good by acrimonious+howard · 2017-06-12 13:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  The Democrats, however, seem like they not only want ideological uniformity but enforce it by way of excising any opposing thought like a cancer. They really don't want anyone thinking out side of what the Party wants.
  Sorry, you're wrong. And you're conservative. I know not just because of personal experience (I fight with Dems all the time about everything - out of fun - because we like to think both sides of issues - and we usually agree we should end up doing the most pragmatic thing - but that's my personal biased view) but they did a real study on this, and these were the common answers in a survey, separated by party:
  "Republicans tend to emphasize what they view as ideological disagreement between the parties:
  
  Democrats “want the government to run everything and they think the government can fix everything.” Republicans “want people to be personally responsible for their own lives.”
  The Democratic Party “promotes big government, secularism, elitism and collectivism.” The Republican Party “pushes for cutting the size of the federal government.”
  Democrats are “quite socialistic, [giving] way too much power to the government.” Republicans are for “fiscal responsibility and conservatism . . . less government, more power to the states, encouraging jobs . . . with less dependency on the federal government.”
  Democrats tend to describe a clash between competing group interests:
  
  Democrats “support the poor and middle class.” Republicans “look out for the rich and don’t care about the poor and middle class.”
  Democrats have “concern for the working class . . . [and have] always worked to help women.” Republicans’ “concern is for people who have money.”
  Democrats are “the party of the common man.” Republicans are “for rich, mainly white older folks who tend to be quite judgmental, narrow-minded and unconcerned for their fellow Americans.”
  One party is battling for an ideology; the other is battling for groups of people. They’re fighting, in other words, over different things. This pattern has endured for decades."
  Did you find yourself in there?
40. Re:good by lucm · 2017-06-12 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  Obama did direct the DOJ to use "Operation Choke Point" to destroy the porn industry.
  
  --
  lucm, indeed.
41. Re:good by acrimonious+howard · 2017-06-12 14:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Here's an example.
  Taiwan spends 1/6 as much percentage of GDP as we do on health care. 1/6th. I've been to a Taiwanese hospital, and as a non-tax-paying foreigner, they charged me $10 to see the doc. I thought he was fine, even compared to American docs (of course he had an accent - but he even spoke english). I was expecting 3rd worldish service, and I was very surprised. But think about it - 1 / 6th!
  Can you imagine taking what you pay between medical bills, insurance, your employers' insurance, and taxes, dividing that number by 6, and then paying that amount in taxes only ? Sounds amazingly awesome ... for a pragmatist. But if you're conservative or Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work - because I used the word "taxes". That's the definition of an ideologue, you don't believe it could ever work, despite the proof of it working right there in Taiwan. Your not willing to try to improve something because there's a hard line of ideology - anything involving taxes must be bad, and we can't try to work in that direction at all (officially, I wouldn't necessarily want to try to go as far as Taiwan, but it seems obvious we should at least be picking out what could work for us, and go in that direction).
42. Re:good by tquasar · 2017-06-12 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  "In The Tear 2000" https://yro.slashdot.org/story... Thanks Conan and Lovitz..
43. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 14:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure, but without a trusted authoritative source that archives the Tweets, you can't really trust the millions of anonymous eyeballs to provide them without tampering with them.
44. Re:good by acrimonious+howard · 2017-06-12 14:33 · Score: 2
  
  California, the nation's most populous state with an economy only eclipsed by a handful of nations.
  Good. Cram all the democrat politicians into one or two small areas, and leave the rest of the country for the adults who have work to do.
  Heh, wouldn't the area with a bigger economy be doing more work? I mean, it's not like this can be easily tracked. Cali is right there near the top of hard workers while the "welfare queen" states are NM, Mississippi, StateOfPalin, LA, WV, ND, Alabama, SD, Kentuky, Virginia, etc. Even Texas, with all the oil and oil refining we do, isn't as productive as CA. How the heck?
45. Re:good by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-06-12 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny you mention the welfare queen states of the south. They got that way when the democrats were in charge. Those states' representatives and senators were in power so long in Congress, they sent as much pork as they could back home. So now there are many federal facilities, military bases, and so on that funnel that federal money to the states liberals hate the most. Blame it all on the democrats.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
46. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  I posted that comment, and I never voted for a Democrat for any federal office. I was against Hillary too.
  It is time for folks to stop defending the person they voted for, and to start expecting more from them. It is your precious right and the recipient should earn it.
47. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 14:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't care what democrats or republicans see the other side as. In the main of what you say, republicans are for the individual while demarcates are for the group. You get more diverse opinions when you promote the individual. Also, I have this opinion because that is the interaction I got from each party when I participated in each party.In the GOP for 2008/2012 for RP and in 2016 with the democrats for 2016 for Sanders. The GOP, didn't have the same arrogance or condescension. Sure, the old guard didn't like Ron Paul but not to the point to say "we don't need you or your vote" like what I experienced in 2016. I haven't seen any study that looks into the acceptance of diverse opinions between the group. Do you have a link?
  
  the other is battling for groups of people.
  Ever see what a black conservative is called in democrat circles? They are for groups of people so long as those groups toe the party line. Same treatment for gay conservatives. They don't want different thoughts and they chastise anyone from any group accordingly. I have seen this many times over.
  
  an ideology
  If the ideology is based on individualism. I am for it too. I don't care what group you belong to because the individual is the ultimate minority to be protected.
48. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  Expecting 3rd world service from Taiwan shows you didn't know much about Taiwan or the people before you visited. Unless it was 30 years ago.
  
  Republican, you're already making up reasons why it could never work
  
  I am no more a Republican than I am a Democrat. It is pretty obvious why it doesn't work as well in the US than compared to Taiwan and it's cultural and institutional reasons. Cultural because the US has a very strong sense of individualism compared to Taiwan. In Taiwan, it is much easier to pass top down things like that because of that culture. Institutional because of the semi-sovereign states with their own laws that make insurance and other bureaucratic health laws messy.
  You know how you get universal healthcare in the US? Start in the states and prove to the nation your framework works (you know, experiments of democracy and all). That way, the Federal initiative standardizes everything. If you really want to convince enough people to get a true universal healthcare start bottom up not top down. If blue states want universal healthcare, why can't their states do it? Why does it have to be federal? They can do it. Nothing is stopping them.
  That bit about taxes is your straw-man.
49. Re:good by tquasar · 2017-06-12 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  We don't live in the time of the pony express or the telegraph. Information travels at light speed around our globe and is analyzed and re-reported in real time. Filters have become denials or "explanations" of what I really meant to say. "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"-Twain.
50. Re:good by gl4ss · 2017-06-12 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that he was expecting 3rd world service because they charged him only 10 bucks.
  however..
  In Thailand I could if I wanted spend a night in a private hospital for about 20 to 50 dollars depending on the level of the room I wanted for my stay - or practically free in the government hospital.
  just because you have government hospitals does not have to mean that you can't have private hospitals.. however if you have only insurance company private hospitals guess what.. they're going to cost a shitload of money - and that shitload of money you have to pay in advance even if you didn't need the service because that's good business(for them).
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
51. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  gwb43.com is still online. with login and password screen. Hmmm.
  (captcha: Handbook)
52. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah we want to purge the whining California Maoist Bernie Brogressives. They whine, bitch, don't contribute, and gave the presidency to Trump
  Get. The. Fuck. Out.
  The Dems do fucking fantastic when they're a centerist party and don't waste time with clueless wannabee socialists. It just dilutes the message.
  Bernie is a bad politician with a bad record, has bad ideas, has toxic followers, and should be ignored.
53. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  Then consider a kind of lesson, designed to educate Trump to the fact that his words matter, regardless of where or when he utters or types them.
  He can't have it both ways... unless enough people like yourself let him!
54. Re:good by bongey · 2017-06-12 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  Seems you didn't care for the last 8 years, with Obama's IRS targeting conservatives, Eric Holder lying under oath multiple times, Holder pledging his loyalty to his boy Obama, Obama over-stepping his authority president and trying to do everything with executive orders.
55. Re:good by fahrbot-bot · 2017-06-12 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  The more time the congress spends on pointless stuff like this, the less time is left to waste taxpayer money. Carry on.
  s/waste taxpayer money/fuck us over/
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
56. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, maybe. But in 15 years, who knows. Laws aren't (or at least, shouldn't be) written to target one specific case.
57. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 22:39 · Score: 0
  
  This will provide a historical record that can be analyzed by historians, researchers, and laughed at hilariously by people in 2030.... The comedic value alone makes this worth it... (grin)
  tbh, I find no comedic value in Trump's tweets. Or pretty much anyone's tweets, for that matter.
58. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 23:01 · Score: 0
  
  Just like a true republican: never take responsibility always point the finger. You've learned well.
59. Re: good by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-06-12 23:36 · Score: 2
  
  What? You're claiming Hillary is a Republican now? Tell me it isn't so.
  By the way - correctly describing history isn't pointing a finger.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
60. Re:good by AmiMoJo · 2017-06-13 00:03 · Score: 2
  
  A government record would be authoritative though. It sounds better if you can cite the official US record of Presidential Tweets than Buzzfeed.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
61. Re:good by AmiMoJo · 2017-06-13 00:13 · Score: 2
  
  The United States is also the only nation on the planet capable of engaging in large-scale military action anywhere on the planet with basically no notice and requiring no significant time to configure expeditionary forces.
  That's not really something to brag about. Self-defence, of course, but you are not the World Police and you probably shouldn't give your politicians the power to do that so easily. The fact that it takes other countries time to assemble expeditionary forces is a useful brake on hasty and unwise military action.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
62. Re:good by BadTuna · 2017-06-13 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like what bathroom people use? Gerrymandering? Taking your shoes off in an airport? Bridges and roads to nowhere? Or the various other bullshit legislation that serves very few people?
  
  --
  Your sig here!
63. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  Have you seen the last 8 years for democrats? They have been losing ground everywhere
  Its called gerrymandering. Look it up.
64. Re:good by T.E.D. · 2017-06-13 01:41 · Score: 2
  
  That change later haunted the GOP when it became clear that only Trump will be the nominee because of that rule change.
  
  Trump would have become their nominee no matter what rules they adopted. He won twice votes as anybody else, and all but 15 states. If the Republican party didn't want someone like that as their nominee, then they shouldn't have spent the previous 8 years training their voters to respond to his kind of nonsense. You reap what you sew.
65. Re:good by thegarbz · 2017-06-13 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter
  The brains attached to those millions of eyes forget and eventually die, combating this problem is the purpose of archiving something.
66. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Seems you didn't care for the last 8 years, with Obama's IRS targeting conservatives, Eric Holder lying under oath multiple times, Holder pledging his loyalty to his boy Obama, Obama over-stepping his authority president and trying to do everything with executive orders.
  "his boy?" Oh, I get it, Obama is a n****r! Ha! Good one!
67. Re:good by thegarbz · 2017-06-13 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's the problem with black and white America. Well red or blue actually. Everything is all or nothing to everyone. The idea of creating a public health system caused so much grief to those people who suddenly "couldn't chose their doctors" or {insert other thing that public system can't do here}.
  For the rest of the world where public systems happily co-exist with private ones we were scratching our heads.
68. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Gee, you don't think it's because George W. Bush is still alive, and perhaps still has some political interest, do you?
69. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons.
  Gee, what a good idea. Wonder why no one has ever thought of that before... oh wait: http://www.trumptwitterarchive...
  Let's spend more taxpayer money on something that plenty of people are willing to do for free.
70. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Except that there are millions of eyes already on Trump's Twitter account and so this "bill" (actually just a stunt) would accomplish nothing if signed into law.
  I was not aware that twitter was under legal obligation to retain all tweets and all edits to said tweets. I was also not aware that those "millions of eyes" were also obligated to do the same.
71. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  You're jumping at shadows, dude. Re-calibrate your racistometer.
72. Re:good by MightyYar · 2017-06-13 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  You are being deliberately obtuse. There are hundreds or maybe thousands of reporters and citizens following Trump and saving every single tweet. They aren't "obligated" to, but they are - and that is what makes the bill useless as a practical matter. It does not solve a problem.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
73. Re:good by MightyYar · 2017-06-13 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  What in the world are you talking about? All Trump has to do to see that his words matter is look at the TV where they repeat his every Tweet, deleted or otherwise. Whether some obscure government bureaucrat is also saving his Tweets makes no difference here.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
74. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-13 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  One of Cruz's strategy was to win by delegates which if you Remember made Trump angry and Cruz was successful in a few Caucus states. Whether it was to influence the platform or to secure the victory without the votes the futility is the same in part because of the rule change. Initially, before Trump had cemented his leader status as the presumptive nominee he was the only candidate to win majority in enough states making Cruz's delegate strategy nearly pointless because of the rule change even if Cruz was able to pull off enough Caucus victories.
  
  If the Republican party didn't want someone like that as their nominee, then they shouldn't have spent the previous 8 years training their voters to respond to his kind of nonsense. You reap what you sew.
  If you wanted to a throw a political hand-grenade into Washington, who was the best candidate to do that in the both party primaries? I don't think you understand that people wanted something different and when Trump won there was hope for things to be different. Rationality takes the back burner to emotion particularly strong emotions like anger.
75. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  There's a difference between relying on "lots of people" and having an official gov't repository. I mean, you could say that no presidential communications should be kept, because, after all, "people" keep them. Trump supporters admire his use of Twitter because it provides an end-run around both media and subordinates. Fine, but then they're just as official as anything else he pushes out there and should be treated as such.
76. Re:good by T.E.D. · 2017-06-13 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you understand that people wanted something different and when Trump won there was hope for things to be different
  That's the standard armchair QB analysis. The problem is it doesn't really stand up to any look at the actual numbers. It turned out that in the general election, the demographics of the actual vote were almost exactly the same as 2012, except that "people of color" (particularly black voters) didn't come out in the numbers they did in 2012. There was no big new swing in existing voters. Many states that Trump swung from blue to red actually gave him less votes than Romney (eg: Michigan). Large swaths of people did not change parties. Its just that Clinton did not bring out all the Obama voters, so she lost.
  What does this mean for the primary? Most likely all those people who voted Trump weren't new Republicans. They were the same Republicans that party has had for the last 4-8 years. If their electorate is now more nativist, racist, supremacist, or just flat out gullible than in the past, that's almost certainly because the party itself (and most prominently is media outlets) spent the last two cycles cultivating and nurturing exactly those qualities.
77. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying that you can guarantee that trumptwitterarchive.com will continue to be available in the future as well, let's say in 10 years time for instance? What about in 30 years time?
  Repeat after me: Online is a synonym for temporarily.
78. Re: good by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Like when Tomi Lahren got fired for daring to not tow the conservative line on abortion ?
  Republicans always complain about evil PC when some dickwad gets fired for shouting racist or homophobic slurs on air - but their belief that people should not lose their jobs over 'different opinions' just because somebody was offended seemed to evaporate when Kathy Griffith got fired for offending the trumpster.
  Seems they never truly cared about free speech (or this ridiculous definition theroff) they just do not like that their side is more prone to foot in mouth disease.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
79. Re:good by michaelbuddy · 2017-06-13 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  And as an example of the accountability you demand, you've posted as anon for this round. Well done. Demanding no tweets can be deleted is like asking for scratch paper while somebody is writing an essay. He's deleted one tweet, after ample time was there to complain and it was to correct an autocorrect. People who demand this stuff are the same who said nothing when Obama was sicking the IRS on journalists, or Holder giving guns to drug cartels, or Hillary killing someone to help birth ISIS. You only care because it gives your autism comfort.
  
  --
  ...::----::...
  I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
80. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-13 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has their reason to vote or not vote a particular way. That was one sentiment I saw more than once. Aside from that, you have the same "standard armchair QB analysis".
81. Re: good by penandpaper · 2017-06-13 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I honestly don't care what republicans do. I am not a republican. Right now, the anti-speech party, imo, is the left party so I stand against them. When the republicans inevitably start doing the same shit, guess where I will be.
82. Re: good by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  And the examples I just gave you of them 'doing the same shit' don't matter ?
  I've never yet seen a legitimate example of the left being anti-speech. All I've seen is a bunch of idiotic rightwingers getting their panties in a bunch and crying 'censorship' whenever they face criticism for saying something fucking stupid, or told they can't just talk anywhere they want to. Free speech never guaranteed anybody an audience.
  The party with a long history of actually being anti-free speech, that is - trying to use the force of the state to restrict speech, is and remains the republicans. It was the republicans who tried to ban metal music during the satanic panic, the republicans who tried to ban porn over and over, the republicans who tried to ban video games.
  If a politician is trying to limit what you can see and read (and ipso facto: what you can think) - there is almost always an (R) after their name.
  That is censorship. That is assaulting free speech. Nothing else is. So while I gave you examples of republicans doing 'the same shit' that particular shit is not WRONG - it's just hypocritical to pretend only the left does it, but it's perfectly allowable for ANYBODY to do because it's NOT a violation of free speech. On the contrary - it IS free speech.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
83. Re:good by shutdown+-p+now · 2017-06-13 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  It never seemed that the GOP was ever ideologically unified.
  
  Did you forget the part where they voted to repeal ACA like 60 times? Unanimously.
  Of course, once there was a president in the White House that they could no longer rely on actually vetoing that, suddenly, there was all kinds of difference of opinion on that - which parts should stay, which guarantees should remain etc.
84. Re:good by shutdown+-p+now · 2017-06-13 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  You know how you get universal healthcare in the US? Start in the states and prove to the nation your framework works (you know, experiments of democracy and all). That way, the Federal initiative standardizes everything. If you really want to convince enough people to get a true universal healthcare start bottom up not top down. If blue states want universal healthcare, why can't their states do it? Why does it have to be federal? They can do it. Nothing is stopping them.
  Curiously enough, this is exactly how it worked out in Canada. In fact, the Canadian healthcare system is still run by the individual provinces (and each of them could back out of it if it wanted to). The feds partially fund it, and set certain requirements as conditions for that funding, but aside from that they can't mandate participation.
  (And this all is that way because their constitution, where it defines the separation of powers between the feds and the provinces, specifically assigned the power to provide healthcare to the provinces.)
85. Re:good by shutdown+-p+now · 2017-06-13 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  You get more diverse opinions when you promote the individual.
  Is that why Republican congressmen vote in lockstep more often than Democratic ones?
86. Re: good by penandpaper · 2017-06-13 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Example from the left: antifa, BAMN, 3rd wave feminism.
  When I see censorship I am against it, I don't care the party.
87. Re:good by penandpaper · 2017-06-13 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  not sure, but when i interfaced with both party's one was willing to tolerate different opinions while the other shunned any dissent.
88. Re:good by TWX · 2017-06-13 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  I wasn't bragging, I was discussing the ability to project power. Arguably the ability to project power anywhere in the world is part of the very definition of being a world power, and the degree to which that capability exists is very much something quantifiable even if it's difficult to measure.
  Consider the 1982 Falkland Islands War as a case for the decline of the United Kingdom. Not only did the British have a fairly large number of naval losses in the conflict relative to the scale and scope of original Argentine invasion, but that Argentina even felt that it was a viable objective shows how far British influence across the globe had declined. This was no case like Algeria where the French had to contend with a hostile local population that chose to break-away, or of a colony that existed through subjugation of large local indigenous population like something that would have been seen in British interests in Asia, this was an invasion by a hostile foreign force of a British territory populated by Crown subjects.
  I very much doubt that any American territories would even be invaded or attacked with conventional military forces, let alone held for any length of time and incurring significant loss in the retaking. Nations that want territory currently held by the US know that retaliation would be swift and fierce, and depending on the nature of the original attack, might be disproportionate. The US has a history dating back to the World War 2 Doolittle Raid on the Japanese home islands and Tokyo in-particular that an opponent's home territory is not off-limits if even a remote territory of ours is attacked. That kind of projection of power is part of what makes the United States powerful, and even when our civilian government is in some state of disarray makes us a poor choice as a target from another nation.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
89. Re: good by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  You listed movements. You've shown no evidence of these organisations engaging the power of the state to silence the speech of others.
  That, and that alone, is censorship.
  Freedom of speech means teh GOVERNMENT cannot be used to silence you. It never says anybody else has to listen, or can't chase you the hell away.
  That's not censorship - nothing stops you from saying the exact same thing somewhere else.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
90. Re: good by penandpaper · 2017-06-14 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  And if the government is complicit, no harm no foul? One way the KKK and the south took the rights away from blacks was with a complicit government. If the government chooses not to enforce the law to protect the rights of its citizens, in effect, it is no different than if it had arrested those people to begin with. Do you think it mattered to the black man that a mob of KKK members stopped his speech or vote than if it was a line of police officers? A society that does not value freedom of speech will soon not have a government that protects it. A government that does not protect freedom will take it away. Your view is narrow and lacks the reality of history.
91. Re: good by silentcoder · 2017-06-14 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  You have shown no evidence of the government being complicit - in fact all the evidence we DO have is that on those occasions where some on the left have overstepped the bounds of protest the police have acted swiftly and, if anything, TOO harshly against them.
  So quite the contrary - not only is the government NOT complicit - they are actually on the side of the people you're defending!
  But even so - anybody has the right to protest, including the right to protest against a speaker. To take that away would BE the greatest intrusion on free speech in the history of the united states.
  If some protestors get violent, those individuals should be arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. It tells you FUCK ALL about the other protestors or the legitimacy of their cause.
  And it's not like it's only the left that gets violent. You complain about antifa getting violent - but I bet you don't even KNOW the fascists they attack have consistently shown up armed (and armoured) and frequently attacked first ? The majority of antifa violence are clear-cut self-defense and while the remainder is less clear-cut most of THAT is self-defense too.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
92. Re: good by penandpaper · 2017-06-14 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  You must not pay attention to recent events or only read WaPo. No, the police did not act swiftly. It wasn't until after there was a large outcry because while people getting beat up the police/security did nothing multiple occasions.
  Anyway, I said it was an opinion and you are doing a shit job to convince me that my opinion is wrong because you are ill-informed, narrow minded and have a lopsided view of events. That is not a good place to have a conversation and is a terrible way to try and change someones mind.
93. Re:good by acrimonious+howard · 2017-06-15 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  Citation? I'm probably not going to be swayed much by it though, because the history isn't as important as the present. They are currently controlled by R's, so they should fix it! They haven't because they can't - the strict ideology just doesn't work. Trickle-down doesn't work. Punishing poor people just creates more poverty. Taxing rich people more actually doesn't affect them, we'll whine the exact same amount, unless tax is 0, and then they'll demand more services, and they'll still be ahead of their neighbors, so they'll feel the same.
94. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-17 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  The bane of Norway, Americans saying "EU" when referring to Europe. That number is for Europe, so EU, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, and some other states.
Trump Library by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:24 · Score: 1

When he is no longer president, Donald J. Trump can have a library where his words of wisdom are recorded 140 characters at a time.
1. Re:Trump Library by hawguy · 2017-06-12 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When he is no longer president, Donald J. Trump can have a library where his words of wisdom are recorded 140 characters at a time.
  If they only include the words of wisdom, it shouldn't take more than a single post-it note. Probably not even that.
2. Re:Trump Library by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Do impeached and convicted presidents still get a library? Other than the one in prison.
3. Re: Trump Library by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:48 · Score: 1
  
  Shortest book in the world?
  The Wit of Margaret Thatcher
  (c) Fawlty Towers 1975
The same should happen for Congress by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:25 · Score: 1

Let's make the Democrats' social media accounts part of official government records, too. Don't limit it to POTUS.
1. Re:The same should happen for Congress by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, Let's do exactly that! I am sick and tired of my elected officials, unfortunately Democrats, deleting my legitimate concerns expressed to them on social media.
2. Re:The same should happen for Congress by Phydeaux314 · 2017-06-12 09:37 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure the point is to store the words of the *politician*, not the words of everyone that talks to him or her. If the politician opts to reply to a question, then sure, make that reply part of the record - but let's not fill the record with a spam bot spewing obscenities into everybody's twitter stream. That's not really useful.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the stupidity inherent in all human beings.
3. Re:The same should happen for Congress by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Let's make the Democrats' social media accounts part of official government records, too. Don't limit it to POTUS.
  Your headline says "same should happen for Congress" but then you only want it for Democrats?
  Fuck you & your PO{TU}S
4. Re:The same should happen for Congress by Archangel+Michael · 2017-06-12 10:16 · Score: 2
  
  Right?? Because if the constituents tweet is deleted "I never saw it" works. Nobody cares about the constituents anymore, just the power consumed by the politicians. They spew bullshit, they should have to wade through it on their twitter feed. Just saying, fair is fair.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:The same should happen for Congress by lactose99 · 2017-06-12 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  This is why most reasonable people don't have or use Twitter.
  
  --
  Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
6. Re: The same should happen for Congress by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  You aren't very smart, are you? The legislation was introduced by a Democrat from Illinois. Why shouldn't he be subject to the same rules? Congress should have to preserve records in exactly the same way, especially because they use social media to communicate with constituents. If this isn't partisan grandstanding, Congress should be subject to the same rules.
7. Re:The same should happen for Congress by Tablizer · 2017-06-12 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  Putin already did that.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:26 · Score: 0, Insightful

This is pathetic grandstanding by a moronic representative. We didn't elect you to troll the President and waste time on bills that won't get passed, we elected you to get actual legislation through.
He could have easily made the same bill without the insult and had a good chance of it passing, but that wouldn't get his name in the press.
1. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Nidi62 · 2017-06-12 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the courts, so why can't a Congressman come up with a bill that won't pass either?
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-12 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Are you talking about the Republicans for the last eight years or the Democrats today?
3. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't anyone tell this congressman that the meme already died weeks ago? This is the first I've heard it all month.
4. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Ichijo · 2017-06-12 09:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You think a bill sponsored by a Democrat has a chance of getting passed?
  You're an optimist. I like that.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
5. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Sir, snowflake is reserved for whiny liberals.
6. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:50 · Score: 0
  
  I for one am absolutely convinced that the name of the bill is the one and only reason the Republican congress won't pass it.
7. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by aardvarkjoe · 2017-06-12 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  He could have easily made the same bill without the insult and had a good chance of it passing,
  Given that he's a Democrat and such a bill is obviously targeted at the Republican President, it never would have had a chance at passing.
  Although I'm in full agreement that we should expect more of our legislators than this kind of juvenile attention-seeking.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
8. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-12 10:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You think a bill sponsored by a Democrat has a chance of getting passed?
  Once the Republicans figure out that they can't come to an agreement among themselves, they will turn to Nancy Pelosi for Democratic votes to pass "must pass" legislation. This bill and a laundry list of Democratic priorities will find its way into the "must pass" legislation.
9. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 10:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Trump seems to like spending time crafting executive order that get blocked by the court
  I don't understand this nor the reason it was modded up. As opposed to the courts not blocking orders from the president? We have seen that and that is why we have the first year filled with E.O.'s.
  Also, the arguments why he can't have his ban are specious at best. The only way the courts would allow them is if the executive prove a negative. "Prove it isn't racist!". Instead of taking the order as is and within the confines of the text to the extent that it would be enforced, the courts use campaign rhetoric that may or may not have influenced this order. But they don't have to prove it Trump has to prove it isn't racist.
  Prove you are not racist and want strong immigration enforcement.
10. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Rakarra · 2017-06-12 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Listen, both you idiots can be right. You guys can be snowflakes, AND the bill can be moronically named.
  At this point I think it's just pandering to the base.
11. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by kangsterizer · 2017-06-12 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  its not because X does shit that it warrants Y shit. With that kind of reasoning you end up with a whole lot of shit ;-)
12. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by orlanz · 2017-06-12 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, you can't pass crap like those bans. Any President doing so would have them blocked by judicial review. They aren't constitutional. They are so clear cut and dry that they shouldn't even be part of the discussion. It's a restriction the US has self imposed as powerful as Innocent until proven Guilty.
  The band aren't exactly that hard to think up. I am sure they were thought up by prior Administrations. But in those cases, the President knew it wouldn't work or atleast his advisors did. For Trump, no one wants to speak their mind against him.
13. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  As an Illinois resident, I'd like to note that not only did I select Trump pretty much solely to troll the government, but I also only vote for reps that I thunk will also troll leaders. I'm all about trolling the government.
14. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by amicusNYCL · 2017-06-12 11:46 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  We didn't elect you to troll the President
  Hey, speak for yourself, pal.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
15. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Although I'm in full agreement that we should expect more of our legislators than this kind of juvenile attention-seeking.
  Sure man, where were you for the previous 8 and a half years?
16. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Whatever you say, snowflake
17. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it is good that they are under judicial review but my contention is the arguments that amount to; "prove this is not a racist order". Hard to prove a negative. It also makes the argument that "cannot discriminate based on national origin" is an enforceable foreign policy when by definition any foreign policy is discriminatory policy based on national origin. Or should we not have different policy for adversaries with a stated goal of undermining and disrupting the US government? It is easy when it is easily defined like the USSR but difficult when it is based on ideology and terrorism. Can the executive determine places of inordinate danger to the US and US citizens and bar entry temporarily or increase screening procedures?
  Yes, the Executive cannot ban based on religion but the order does not do that nor does it state a religion. If it did you would think other nations would be part of that, not only ones that are failed governments, mired in civil war, and hot bets of terrorist ideology and recruitment that was named by the prior administration. The WH is arguing that the order should be judged by the extent of the order and the text that it is written which I agree. Sure, using the rhetoric on the campaign trail can, in some instances, give context to the order but that should not be the soul basis of constitutionality.
  If SCOTUS takes it up, they will be arguing whether the order should be judged by the text alone or in addition to campaign rhetoric and whether a nation with a lot of terrorism (recruitment, activity, and organization) is sufficient danger to the US to bar entry temporarily.
  
  you can't pass crap like those bans
  Does the Executive control immigration to the extent of the law? Can the Executive bar immigration or travel if the place and people are determined to be a threat to the US? If not, then what is the point of a border? It isn't the same as the USSR and that is why it is a difficult thing. Was it unconstitutional to discriminate the national origin of Russians during the Cold War?
18. Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by tburkhol · 2017-06-12 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It's like introducing a bill to repeal the sitting President's signature legislation. These people need to grow up.
19. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by orlanz · 2017-06-12 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  The Executive can bar based on country or affiliation*. But they can't do a blanket bar without severe justification. The President can bar ppl from Canada and Mexico but without a justification equivalent to "we are at war with them", it would be overturned pretty quicky because of the economic impact to the border states. The Gov failed miserably in showing immediately threat that the ban was curtailing.
  The government also can't discriminate against religion in proxy nor results. They can't say "We are banning Buddhists" but they also can't say "We are banning Myanmar." because most ppl there are Buddhists and it unfairly impacts them. There is an "intent" aspect to this because maybe we are at war with Burma and want to ban them but they happen to be mostly Buddhists which we have nothing against. But the President's ongoing and past statements put that topic to rest.
  Yes, these are severe restrictions. But they exist because of the danger of abuse if otherwise. Good guys have to play by the rules and have noble ideals... that's mostly what makes them good!
  I doubt the Supreme Court will side with the President. I would be surprised if they take up the case. I easily see a majority voting against him. It would certainly be a fun read. Unless he has some major new argument and evidence.
  * = We automatically bar people affiliated with terrorist organizes as recognized by a bunch of countries. We also expand on that list by our own classifications (i.e.: Mx cartels).
20. Re: And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of the "immediacy" has been set by Obama to drone civilians i.e. not a lot. Are we at war? Where are we at war and who with? How do you ban people we are at war with that fight for a religious ideology who do not uniform their soldiers? How do ensure that the recruitment of that group does not reach any prospective refugee, immigrant, citizen?
  Honestly, I am glad it's in the courts but that doesn't mean I have to like the arguments but because the temporary nature I don't see an issue given the complexity of the problem.
Wasn't a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:30 · Score: 0

Covfefe actually isn't a typo. It's a code word sent to his Russian handlers. What it means, no one has figured out yet... but Trump himself admitted that it has a meaning. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/869858333477523458
1. Re: Wasn't a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  It isn't Russian, it is Arabic. Covfefe translated to Arabic stands for "I will stand up."
  Spoken in the Arabic writing of the word sounds like "so fuck off", the reason why the tweet was deleted.
  Go to YouTube, search for " Covfefe solved " and be prepared to see the genius of Trump.
2. Re: Wasn't a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  sorry I speak arabic natively that is wrong
3. Re: Wasn't a typo by Jzanu · 2017-06-12 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong!
4. Re: Wasn't a typo by Rakarra · 2017-06-12 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  sorry I speak arabic natively that is wrong
  And Trump does not. I would totally buy that some nitwit told him "this is what this word means in Arabic," and he ran with it.
5. Re: Wasn't a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  According to google you don't speak Arabic natively....
  Here is the YouTube video proving you wrong...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL89M9D40oY
  Suck it up.
6. Re: Wasn't a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Well, you are wrong too... Here is google pronouncing it for you.... no need for hearsay .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL89M9D40oY
  I'm amazed at all the stupid people in this world, including you.
7. Re:Wasn't a typo by AHuxley · 2017-06-12 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  The V next to the F? Could be thinking of Arkansas.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
8. Re: Wasn't a typo by LiENUS · 2017-06-12 13:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's totally why he deleted it right?
9. Re:Wasn't a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  I think it's going to become my new preferred magic number.
  0x0C05FEFE
Already subject to relevant rules by JoshuaZ · 2017-06-12 09:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the current record keeping rules are very broad and would include this, especially given Spicer's other comment that they consider Trump's tweets to be official Presidential announcements. So this seems unnecessary and more grandstanding than anything else (which is reinforced by the name chosen).
1. Re:Already subject to relevant rules by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  It has already been intimated that an attempt to go "1984" on any public presidential communication is likely unconstitutional, yes.
  However, having an item already covered by an existing law has never slowed any legislative body down.
  And it is true that politicians in particular are so oily that the only real way to keep them in check is to box them in from multiple directions.
2. Re:Already subject to relevant rules by T.E.D. · 2017-06-13 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is 100% correct. However, since the Republicans took Congress over in 2010, it has been transformed into a body that serves no other purpose than generating good headlines for its own members on conservative media outlets. So calling another new bill "grandstanding" isn't exactly making any kind of new point.
Related bill: The TRIGGER Act by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:32 · Score: 2, Funny

All internal political party emails and communication will be released for public viewing to ensure no shenanigans are taking place.
Word verification: thefts
Interesting implication by Crashmarik · 2017-06-12 09:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Twitter FB etc would be legally barred from deleting posts from government employees ?
How interesting.
1. Re:Interesting implication by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  But, The more interesting question is "Could they delete your comments?"
  Mike Honda, now politically defunct, had a bad habit of doing exactly that.
2. Re:Interesting implication by AmiMoJo · 2017-06-12 09:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Doubtful. More likely those posts would be archived instantly by the government, with no delete option. So not really that different to what happens now, only it's the government doing it as well as citizens.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Interesting implication by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-06-13 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  They are already archived instantly by president and Trump monitoring sites, news organizations, etc.
  This bill is stupid because it does nothing except try to control a private organization's (facebook's) messaging. They want a tool to hit a disfavored president over the head with. As its goal is already accomplished, the point is moot, in a context where freedom of speech is stepped on (facebook, or the President setting his message) neither of which is transgressible.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
ROFL by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:32 · Score: 0

Rolling on the floor laughing!
The world is a very weird place right now by Lisandro · 2017-06-12 09:34 · Score: 2

Not only because such a bill seems to be necessary, but because it was named about the most annoying non-story of 2017 so far.
1. Re:The world is a very weird place right now by Tablizer · 2017-06-12 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  The world is a very weird place right now
  When it became clear T won the election, somebody in the room stated, "Regardless of what happens, it will be really odd and the news will be busy." T hasn't failed in that regard.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Snapchat next? by kiviQr · 2017-06-12 09:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd love to see how Snapchat would handle deletion ban of POTUS posts.
1. Re:Snapchat next? by aliquis · 2017-06-12 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  "Look at this fine pussy!"
Funny how the Democrats were against this... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:35 · Score: 0

why they ruled us, but now they hypocritically have decided to support this.
1. Re: Funny how the Democrats were against this... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Obama said he would abide by this, but now they want Trump to? Hypocrites.
How hard was it? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:35 · Score: 0

Impressive, they found a way to make the babbling of an overgrown baby into an acronym for a real program.
Re:Related bill: The TRIGGER Act by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:35 · Score: 0

KEEP TRUMP IN PRESIDENT
The president and a small group of people... by ebcdic · 2017-06-12 09:36 · Score: 5, Funny

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." The small group are his Russian handlers.
1. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  *Citation Needed
2. Re: The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Funny though this is to say, I would assume Trump and his handlers would have a more subtle communication system.
  For comparison, even Obama used stickers on the backs of road signs to point the way to FEMA internment camps and crematoria. Also the chemtrails sometimes spelled out messages.
3. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-12 09:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Post said Kushner suggested the use of Russian diplomatic facilities as a way to shield pre-inauguration discussions with Kislyak from monitoring. Kislyak allegedly then relayed the suggestion to his superiors in Moscow. The idea was supposedly broached during a meeting between Kushner and Kislyak during an early December meeting at Trump Tower.
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/26/jared-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-russia-new-report-alleges.html
4. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-12 10:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That's unsubstantiated hearsay from some unnamed person - IE Gossip.
  I'm sure that the special counsel will get it straighten out in short order.
5. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  You keep dreaming and reaching for that brass ring! The GOP did countless investigations on Hillary's email servers... how'd that turn out?
6. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  retard
7. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  "straightened" out. You seem to have a problem with past participles.
  https://www.google.ca/#q=past+...
  Just trying to help you protect your brand as an author, it probably helps to master simple grammar.
8. Re:The president and a small group of people... by DamnOregonian · 2017-06-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  That she fucked up hard, but fell short of the bar for reasonable prosecution, lacking a few required elements like intent...
  
  Seems legit to me, and I'm no Hillary supporter.
  
  I think you're peddling conspiracy theories. What she did was stupid, not criminal. And she has paid the price for her stupidity in the court of public opinion. Nobody helps anything by trying to turn it into a crime because the bad press wasn't enough.
9. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Wow cremier, I just realized that the liberals are like muslims. They preach peace but practice hate. Good job! Thanks!
10. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Yawn, piss poor effort Boris.
11. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Then you're a moron.
  Petraeus abd Scooter Libby did far FAR less than Hillary and were both punished for crimes. Libby for "lying" under oath (which Hillary did in her testimony) and Petraeus for sending emails to his personal account.
  But, of course, that seems legit to you because you were a Bernie supporter.
12. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:17 · Score: 0
  
  This is just one more example of creimer's atrocious grammar.
  Here's a couple gems from one of his published ebooks:
  
  Two callus-harden fingers tilted up the baseball cap to reveal a pair of honey-brown eyes that slowly scanned Sasha from top to bottom like an ancient Playboy centerfold, making her blush from the blatant sexual scrutiny that stripped her naked of the black-and-white checkered sundress that covered her neck, arms and knees, white stockings, and comfortable walking shoes.
  "Callus-harden"? And what's with the ridiculous run-on? Do you get paid per adjective?
  
  "That depends," the young woman replied in askance. "You're a cop?"
  "replied in askance"? "What a ridiculous, nonsense phrase," he murmured in lustily.
13. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 14:22 · Score: 0
  
  Good grief, the man's even more sick than I imagined. There might be physical brain damage there. I wonder if we could get his fat ass to fit into a fMRI machine? Why can't he understand the past participle?
  I hope you didn't pay for that shit. If he hopes to retire and live to 110 on *that*, he is going to have a nervous breakdown you could see from Alpha Centauri.
14. Re:The president and a small group of people... by rastos1 · 2017-06-12 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.
  Let me give you a hint: what do you think is a group of random letters, forming a word that is not in a dictionary, that have a specific meaning to the POTUS and a small group of people around him?
  I just hope they changed it in the meantime. And also put in some digits and non-alphanumeric characters.
15. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 00:37 · Score: 0
  
  I hope you didn't pay for that shit.
  Looks like the asshat grabbed the passage from a sampler page. That is from the opening scene of "Sunday In The Park With Dawei," which was first published in the "Roboerotica" anthology in 2012.
16. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is just one more example of creimer's atrocious grammar.
  What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not writing great literature, I'm selling short stories and readers of short stories are very forgiving. The short story you quoted without proper citation has sold 700+ copies as an ebook.
17. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Just trying to help you protect your brand as an author, it probably helps to master simple grammar.
  Still under the delusion that Slashdot matters in the real world? Tsk, tsk.
18. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  If that's a sampler, I don't want the whole box. I wrote better than that in high school. Seriously, you're simply an AWFUL writer, just terrible.
  Do you at least have the humility to understand what we're saying or are you going to go back into your hysterical narcissist mode?
  Because believe it or not, we want to help.
19. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  ...then why do you gloat about imaginary "ad revenues" and "controversy" here?
  But your junky ebooks matter in the real world, yeah? Since you plan to retire on the revenues from these? So why can't you accept criticism to help you improve? I almost got a ruptured aneurysm trying to parse your run-on sentences... Good grief!
  You mongo.
20. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  "What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not writing great literature"
  Oh we understand just fine. It's not great, it's not even literature.
  "I'm selling short stories and readers of short stories are very forgiving."
  It's still amazing to me that 700+ idiots paid almost a dollar for the equivalent of a Bazooka Joe joke, minus the pictures, and minus the joke.
  You're about as pleasant as a hard pink piece of 1950s chewing gum, though.
  I can go to a used paperback store and get an entire 1960s sci-fi pulp novel written by an actual author with a grasp of the language, for about a dollar too.
  But maybe I've got you figured all wrong. Maybe I should contact the IRS and have them check your 1040 to see if you declare this stupendous revenue.
  Let me read this
  https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistleblower-informant-award
  And see what I can do for your country!
  I'm sure if I forward your post where you yourself give away your "private and confidential' sales figures, they'll be pleased as punch, yeah?
21. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, you're simply an AWFUL writer, just terrible.
  That's what they been saying about Stephen King for years because his AWFUL writing... sells.
22. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.irs.gov/uac/whistleblower-informant-award
  Did you read your own link?
  
  The IRS is looking for solid information, not an "educated guess" or unsupported speculation. We are also looking for a significant Federal tax issue - this is not a program for resolving personal problems or disputes about a business relationship.
  I wonder what the penalty is for filing a false whistleblower report? You may want to consult with an attorney first.
  
  I'm sure if I forward your post where you yourself give away your "private and confidential' sales figures, they'll be pleased as punch, yeah?
  Pfft... Whatever floats your boat.
23. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  I've read Stephen King, and you sir, are no Stephen King.
  Always with the humility, huh creimer?
  Can you show where King didn't know what a past participle is, or if he uses run-on sentences?
  Can you walk down the street and ask random strangers if they know of Stephen King? How many would know creimer?
  King sells, you don't. He sold 350 000 000 novels, you have about 6 orders of magnitude to catch up.
  But that doesn't sink in at all, does it?
24. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...then why do you gloat about imaginary "ad revenues" and "controversy" here?
  Because I love trolling the trolls. Nothing gets a troll pissed off than knowing that someone else is making money off of their comments and stupidity.
  
  Since you plan to retire on the revenues from these?
  Ad revenues is one revenue stream. First serial rights, reprints and ebook sales is another revenue stream. I have 28 other revenue streams that I haven't even discussed on Slashdot.
  
  So why can't you accept criticism to help you improve?
  Criticisms based on ignorance isn't helpful.
25. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  I've read Stephen King, and you sir, are no Stephen King.
  You read his short stories as they were originally published in the titty magazines? Or did you read them in the short story collection books? Stephen King is well known for re-editing his short stories a dozen times for the reprint market before they're published in "final" book form. He even revised the first four volumes of The Dark Tower to fix all the plot holes he introduced over the decades and later included himself as a character in volumes five and six. Heck, he might even revise himself out of volumes five and six in the future.
  
  Although he's famous for making cameos in movies and TV miniseries based on his novels, King had second thoughts after including himself as a character in the series. The author mentioned in an interview with fellow scribe Neil Gaiman for The Sunday Times that he would consider writing out the author proxy who appears in the fifth and sixth Dark Tower volumes.
  
  http://mentalfloss.com/article/62981/12-things-you-may-not-know-about-dark-tower-series
  
  Can you show where King didn't know what a past participle is, or if he uses run-on sentences?
  Read "On Writing," where he confessed his literary sins and giving advice that he doesn't often follow himself.
  
  But that doesn't sink in at all, does it?
  That's because you're not looking at Stephen King from the perspective of an indie author.
26. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  This is how ALIE got a hold of the launch codes.
27. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  That's what they been saying about Stephen King for years because his AWFUL writing... sells.
  Stephen King tells enjoyable stories, and has a strong voice. People criticized him because he tells "scary" stories, which are not / were not considered "serious" writing by his critics.
  You tell boring stories (I've grabbed samples of several of your books - they're ALL poorly editied, full of run-on sentences), which are completely unreadable by anybody who has an expectation of being entertained or informed by something they read.
28. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  The short story you quoted without proper citation
  Oh noes, better lawyer up creimer. Maybe you can suppress my fair use criticism of your work with a DMCA takedown!
  
  has sold 700+ copies as an ebook.
  Yes, and thousands of people have signed up to commit suicide by strapping a vest full of explosives to themselves and detonating the vest in a crowd full of strangers. Given that, I'm not surprised, or impressed, that 700 people have bought a copy of your shitty ebook.
  And let's talk profits. Let's assume 750 people bought it, and everybody who bought those books paid $0.99, and you're eligible for the 70% royalty. The "average" fees Amazon charges is ~0.06 per unit sold, so let's say your book costs them 4 cents - substantially below the average. That means you netted:
  750 * .70 * (0.99 - 0.04) = 498.75
  You've netted just shy of $500 from a piece you wrote in 2012 - that's an average of $100 a year. Or, an average of 24 cents per page. Or, a hair less than 10 cents a word, for this 5040 word story.
  Yeah, I can see now why you're planning to retire on this revenue stream. With $27 a month from your advertising revenues and $8.50 a month from your ebook revenues... you'll be living large for sure.
29. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  You tell boring stories (I've grabbed samples of several of your books - they're ALL poorly editied, full of run-on sentences), which are completely unreadable by anybody who has an expectation of being entertained or informed by something they read.
  That's funny. Most of my short story ebooks were previously published in anthologies, which were sold at Borders and Barnes & Noble. I used to grab a half-dozen different anthologies off the shelf to show off to my friends.
30. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Most of my short story ebooks were previously published in anthologies, which were sold at Borders and Barnes & Noble.
  My girlfriend used to submit poems to be published in anthologies that got sold in Barnes & Noble and Borders, as well. Spare me the attempt to impress me - I understand that anthologies are mostly "labors of love" by their creators. Nobody puts together anthologies to get rich - anthologies exist so that writers can say they were published somewhere, and the publishers can say that they published something.
  She is a passably decent "amateur" poet - skilled with language and imagery, and capable of producing - at times brilliant - evocative phrases. She's published various pieces in 15-20 different anthologies over the last few years, and she's proud of them - but even she will freely admit that most of the stuff that gets published in these small anthologies is "filler" - stuff that ranges from "not quite competent" to "more or less atrocious." There are a small number of "good" pieces sprinkled in. I read the anthologies she was published in, and MOST of the time, hers was one of the "good" pieces - but occasionally, even she - with far greater talent for writing than you've ever had - was one of the stinkers.
  YOUR inclusion in anthologies is filler, creimer. Your piece is selected to bulk up the book by a few pages, and make it seem like you're getting more value for your dollar because "this book is really heavy!" Your writing is terrible. You clearly have no editor, and you don't even have a discernible tone or voice - you write with the impassive descriptiveness of a proctologist narrating a digital rectal exam.
  Congratulations, your writing exists to take up space. My girlfriend actually gets paid to write, full time. No, getting paid to write doesn't mean she posts on Slashdot "while waiting for a script to run," either.
31. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  That's actually a lot of money for the atrocious pieces of shit he vomit forth askance on his keyboard as he type heavily with his short, fat mongoloid fingers, and breathing heavily through his monkey-like nose from the sheer mental effort it takes to write such drivel.
  "You've netted just shy of $500 from a piece you wrote in 2012 - that's an average of $100 a year."
  Assuming the dishonest piece of shit reports this income to the IRS, it's less than that, no?
32. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  "Criticisms based on ignorance isn't helpful."
  Criticisms, plural. You wanted "aren't". You're the one who's ignorant of grade-school level knowledge.
33. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  The "average" fees Amazon charges is ~0.06 per unit sold, so let's say your book costs them 4 cents - substantially below the average.
  
  Please stop pulling numbers out of your ass. Since I'm not a KDP Select member that requires giving Amazon exclusive rights to sell my ebooks online, my royalty rate is $0.35 per copy. Smashwords royalty rate is $0.54 per copy. About 90% of my sales come from Smashwords. That's ~$365 to date for this ebook (not including the $20 for first serial rights).
  
  Yeah, I can see now why you're planning to retire on this revenue stream.
  Let's say that sales stay consistent for the next 30 years until I retire. My short story ebook could earn $11,000 during that time. That's not bad considering that short stories were published (paid) once and never seen again as the reprint market have ceased to exist over the last 50 years. I got ~60 published short stories, another ~30 short stories circulating for submission, and I can easily write four 5,000-word stories per year. Let's say I have 200 short story ebooks by the time I retire in 30 years, and they averaged $11,000 in sales each, my total income by retirement could be $2M+.
  Here's pro tip: read The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More by Chris Anderson.
34. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Criticisms, plural. You wanted "aren't". You're the one who's ignorant of grade-school level knowledge.
  If you're going to be a grammar nazi, your comments need more bite. It'll be more effective if your target actually cares about his comments on Slashdot (I don't).
35. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations, your writing exists to take up space.
  With virtual bookshelves, space is infinite and ebook sales can continue forever.
36. Re:The president and a small group of people... by DamnOregonian · 2017-06-13 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Then you're a moron.
  Yes, and you're an illiterate toolshed. My ad hominem trumps yours.
  
  Petraeus abd Scooter Libby did far FAR less than Hillary and were both punished for crimes.
  Untrue.
  
  Patraeus leaked information to the press. Hillary transferred poorly understood classified data places it wasn't supposed to go without intent and without harm.
  Scooter lied to cover up a major crime within the White House, which was the burning of an intelligence agent for political purposes. His punishment was met out for that reason, and Bush acknowledged that when he commuted his sentence, but did not pardon him.
  
  But, of course, that seems legit to you because you were a Bernie supporter.
  Again, entirely off the mark. I'm no Bernie supporter either.
37. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  "It'll be more effective if your target actually cares about his comments on Slashdot (I don't)."
  You don't care about your own comments? You can't even clearly articulate a simple thought. 11 million dollars by retirement from writing a few pages of mentally-incompetent word salad.
  Tell me, if you apply your own math to Stephen King, how much money should he have?
38. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming the dishonest piece of shit reports this income to the IRS, it's less than that, no?
  I've been in business 10+ years. All my income has been reported to the IRS.
  You wouldn't by any chance be the asshat who falsely accused me of threatening to shoot him? I still haven't heard from Governor Jerry Brown for that complaint.
39. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  You can't even clearly articulate a simple thought.
  Why do you keep replying to my comments then?
40. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think they make a gun with a trigger hole big enough for your mongoloid fingers.
  " I still haven't heard from Governor Jerry Brown for that complaint."
  Have you tried tweeting him three times a day?
41. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think they make a gun with a trigger hole big enough for your mongoloid fingers.
  I have no problems shooting a regular 9mm handgun.
  
  Have you tried tweeting him three times a day?
  I'm not the asshat threatening to file imaginary complaints because my covfefe feelings got hurt.
42. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  I was being generous, you dimwit - assuming you got *very good* royalty rates. So by your own admission, you make even less than I estimated.
  Have you ever heard the phrase, "past performance is no guarantee of future results"? The fact that you've sold 700 copies over the past 5 years is no guarantee that they will continue to sell at the same rate for the next 30 years. In fact, MOST "content" sells most of its copies early in its life, and then tapers off to a very small amount in the long term. So it's likely that the 700 copies you sold are more than you can reasonably expect to sell in total over the next 30 years. Why?
  First - your reviews aren't very good, where they exist at all. Even the 4-star review of your Dawei book on Smashwords reads:
  
  Nearly prefect [sic] work, but could have used a last read through to catch the few remaining grammatical errors.
  Somebody who can't spell the word 'perfect' properly is criticizing your grammatical errors! Stop and think about that for a second. Anybody reading that will say, "Hmm, poor writing. Guess I'll spend my money elsewhere." As those reviews pile up, your books get harder and harder to sell, too - that means that the more you "don't care" about your bad grammar, the harder it'll be to sell NEW books, as well as copies of old books.
  So realistically, the money-making lifetime of these stories is signifcantly front-loaded, and it's likely that your sales of new stuff will decline as bad reviews accumulate, unless you can manage a Stephen King-like blowup in popularity and people start looking up your early writing.
  
  Let's say I have 200 short story ebooks by the time I retire in 30 years, and they averaged $11,000 in sales each, my total income by retirement could be $2M+.
  That's not INCOME, that's TOTAL EARNINGS over 30 years. If you have 200 ebooks in print in 30 years (when you'll be dead anyway, but hey, who's worried about the massive coronary you're heading for?), and they're each earning $365 per year in perpetuity - which is an INCREDIBLY optimistic estimate - that's $73,000 a year in income. This is a "best case" scenario; MORE likely is that you'll be selling a handful of copies of a handful of books every year, meaning you'll be lucky to be taking in a few hundred dollars a year from this revenue stream.
  Better work on your advertising revenue streams, chum.
43. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  I know you do, but what am I?
  If you apply your own math to Stephen King, how much money should he have?
44. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  So by your own admission, you make even less than I estimated.
  I didn't pull the numbers out of my ass like you did. They're based on what I actually earned each month.
  
  As those reviews pile up, your books get harder and harder to sell, too - that means that the more you "don't care" about your bad grammar, the harder it'll be to sell NEW books, as well as copies of old books.
  Which is why I'm spending this year revamping my catalog with new cover art, revised texts and higher prices.
45. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  "Which is why I'm spending this year revamping my catalog with new cover art, revised texts and higher prices."
  Wow, the Extinction Asteroid can't come soon enough.
46. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, the Extinction Asteroid can't come soon enough.
  The old business model doesn't work. This is the new business model.
47. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't pull the numbers out of my ass like you did. They're based on what I actually earned each month.
  "Precision" was not the point. Getting a rough estimate of your revenue stream was the point - and it turns out, I was overly generous in my estimates, which means that you're in WORSE shape, financially, than even I gave you credit for.
  
  Which is why I'm spending this year revamping my catalog with new cover art, revised texts and higher prices.
  Yep, if you just keep polishing that turd, it'll turn into gold. Bold prediction time:
  - New cover art will not matter. Nobody buys your books because "oooh the cover art is cool." They'll pull a free sample, and laugh merrily as they delete it.
  - Revised texts - this MIGHT help, but your actual original material is hackneyed, trite, and boring. I've read samples of multiple books, and the stories just aren't interesting or entertaining. Reading your stories makes me want to crawl into bed and sleep for a few days - it's that boring & off-putting.
  - Higher prices: This will *REDUCE* your income. Nobody's going to pay higher prices for bad writing - at 99 cents, they might say "oh well, if it's terrible, it's only 99 cents." At $2, 3, 5? People will say, "I don't know this guy, his reviews are pretty bad, and the free samples are boring as fuck. Pass."
  Want to sell books? WRITE BOOKS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO READ. Not idiotic essays about your mom punching someone while buying a cabbage patch doll. Not ridiculous kissless-virgin imaginings of what two "sexy" women might say to each other when behaving all "sexy" with each other. Not trite & painfully over-labored homilies on the environment. If you're forecasting that your current crop of books is going to fund your retirement, you're delusional.
48. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  New cover art will not matter. Nobody buys your books because "oooh the cover art is cool." They'll pull a free sample, and laugh merrily as they delete it.
  New cover art done by a professional graphic designer to replace my cheap ass cover art.
  
  Revised texts - this MIGHT help, but your actual original material is hackneyed, trite, and boring.
  If you think my stuff is bad, try reading the Twilight novels. The publisher forgot to hire a copy editor and a proofreader for the series.
  
  Higher prices: This will *REDUCE* your income. Nobody's going to pay higher prices for bad writing - at 99 cents, they might say "oh well, if it's terrible, it's only 99 cents."
  Yes, in the short term. Once my entire catalog gets revamped, I'll have a solid foundation to launch new titles next year.
  
  WRITE BOOKS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO READ.
  Which is what exactly? Don't bitch about what I've already wrote. Tell me what readers want to read now. The entire industry is waiting breathlessly on your pronouncement.
49. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  New cover art done by a professional graphic designer to replace my cheap ass cover art.
  1) How much is that going to cost you? How many years of best-case sales estimates will it take you to offset the cost?
  2) "The first few pages of this book look shitty, but they have cool cover art, so I'll buy it," said nobody, ever.
  
  If you think my stuff is bad, try reading the Twilight novels. The publisher forgot to hire a copy editor and a proofreader for the series.
  I've read the Twilight novels. They're certainly obnoxious bullshit, but they're still many, many orders of magnitude better storytelling than your hackneyed bullshit. So, in comparison to even Twilight - you compare poorly.
  
  Yes, in the short term. Once my entire catalog gets revamped, I'll have a solid foundation to launch new titles next year.
  Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya tomorrow - you're always a day away.
  "Next year" for you seems to have a magical, talismanic quality - you'll get your certs NEXT year. You'll sell a shitload of books NEXT year. You'll make a ton of money NEXT year. You'll lose more weight NEXT year. You're constantly planning for a future that never arrives, because if everything is always safely in the future, you never have to actually deliver on anything. You're so full of shit you squeak, creimer.
  Nobody who's considering buying your NEXT book gives a shit whether or not your OLD ebooks have spiffy cover art.
  
  Which is what exactly? Don't bitch about what I've already wrote. Tell me what readers want to read now.
  They want to read stories with rich characters, immersive worlds, and interesting scenarios. They want to read beautiful language that brings those characters, words, and scenarios to life in their minds. They want to finish reading a book, and feel like they've just spent days or weeks hanging out with good friends. I'm not going to write the book for you, creimer - you're the one who claims to be a content creator - if you don't know how to create compelling content that people are interested in, then that's YOUR problem, not mine. I'm telling you that your current crop of stories suck, and I've given you specific examples of how they suck. Criticism is tough to swallow, but you've yet to offer a single counterpoint that suggests that my criticism has somehow missed the point of your writing.
  I can go through all the motions of building a web site all about how to diet like creimer, but if I put a bunch of poorly-constructed pages on the site containing nothing but a couple photos of cottage cheese and a treadmill display, I can't profess to being surprised when people leave comments saying "This site is useless, and doesn't help me diet like the Creamster - your site is terrible."
50. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya tomorrow - you're always a day away.
  I find your lack of faith disturbing.
  https://twitter.com/cdreimer/status/874784575389552640
51. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
52. Re:The president and a small group of people... by tepples · 2017-06-13 13:03 · Score: 1
  As I understand it, the intended text of the Tweet was "Despite the negative press coverage". My theory is that three factors allowed nonstandard English to be posted:
  Misspell coverage as covrege
  Mistype r and g as adjacent f
  Type it last, with no trailing space to trigger autocorrect
53. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  Way to miss the point. I'm not saying "you'll never get new book covers." I'm saying that you keep making these pronouncements about how, "sure, things are not good now, but if I just double down on what I'm doing today, somehow it'll all turn out all right!"
  "My book sales are low. It must be because the covers are ugly, and the prices are low. I'll commission new covers, and raise the prices of all my books. That will - somehow! - translate to massively increased book sales which will allow me to retire by 80!"
  You never seem to even consider the simple possibility that your book sales are low because they are not very good books. You can slap all the lipstick you want on those pigs; you can plaster every surface of the book with nude photos of the hottest supermodels ever; the fact will remain that they are not well-written books.
  But no, that's unpossible - it's not that your books are low-quality. It's that the COVER art is bad, and you're not charging a premium price to trick people into thinking that what's inside the package is worthwile.
  That won't get you far, broseph. The greater the disconnect between packaging and content, the MORE disappointed people will be when they buy it, and find the product lacking. That translates to more negative reviews, which translates to lower overall sales. That you spout off with references to all kinds of business & writing books exposes your shockingly profound lack of comprehension of what you claim to have read.
  If you want to be a content creator, focus on creating high quality content. If you want to be a snake oil marketer, then by all means, keep on focusing on slick packaging and generating "premium" packaging for your (literal) shit.
  Also - for what it's worth: Those new covers look like completely generic stock photos with some meme captioning thrown on them. They're marginally less ugly than the existing ones, but they're not going to sell additional copies for you. And if you want to use any of my comments as pull quotes, feel free. I'd recommend putting this on the cover:
  "Sure it's a turd, but check out that high gloss polish!"
54. Re:The president and a small group of people... by __aaclcg7560 · 2017-06-13 14:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm saying that you keep making these pronouncements about how, "sure, things are not good now, but if I just double down on what I'm doing today, somehow it'll all turn out all right!"
  The artwork covers were created six months ago. The new covers and revised text are being uploaded this month to be available for sale during Smashwords Summer/Winter sale in July, where my newly priced $1.99 ebooks will be discounted by 50% to $0.99 each. I'm forecasting to sell 60 copies of each ebook to pay back for the new artwork. This is something that I've been planning to do for the last two years. This is only the beginning.
55. Re:The president and a small group of people... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  In two years you changed some random artwork and forecasted 60 sales. In two years, I made more money bringing back the empties to the grocery store.
Twitter Bans.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:38 · Score: 0

Wondering how and if Twitter and Facebook can ban access to there services... if they are now official government communication channels.
1. Re:Twitter Bans.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  not much different than blacklisting an smtp server or having your internet disconnected for repeated abuse.
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:46 · Score: 0

Downgraded for use of unimaginative juvenile epithet.
Doesn't this already exist? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:48 · Score: 0

Wasn't there some article about all of Obama's tweets being backed up in the Library of Congress? Or did that only happen at the end of the term, not as they're coming out, fast and furious.
1. Re: Doesn't this already exist? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  I remember it being at the close of his presidency.
Sad... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:50 · Score: 0

Really, they're just fucking with the President now. I'm ashamed of the US Government, the media, and the lack of intellect of most voters.
1. Re:Sad... by bugs2squash · 2017-06-12 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Most voters - that's pretty funny really.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
2. Re:Sad... by Opportunist · 2017-06-12 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  He's making it really hard not to, ya know...
  When someone is asking to be trolled, you can't blame anyone if they simply do it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Awesome by AlanObject · 2017-06-12 09:50 · Score: 1

Point 1: Master level trolling.
Point 2: He's right. Now that several layers of courts and the White House via Spicer have established that Trump's tweets are in fact relevant to his administration's policies then they should be treated as they were presidential records.
Point 3: Make it retroactive so he is already in violation for his deleted Tweets.
Point 4: This will never make it to the floor but if it did and passed Trump would veto it anyway.
1. Re:Awesome by XxtraLarGe · 2017-06-12 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Point 3: Make it retroactive so he is already in violation for his deleted Tweets.
  Nope, that would be ex post facto...
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
2. Re:Awesome by xQx · 2017-06-12 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  Point 5: Big respect for having the maturity not to turn it into a torturous acronym.
  Idiots behind the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" Act, take note.
Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 09:51 · Score: 0

Is this needed? YES ABSOLUTELY!!
Does it have any chance of passing? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
So why bother introducing it? It won't pass. Republicans control both houses.
Re:pointless by cayenne8 · 2017-06-12 09:53 · Score: 1

If anything could keep his fingers off twitter, then I think I'd be all for it.
I believe it is one of the chief things keeping him from getting things done actually.....it creates too much turmoil, and distractions from the things he promised to get through...healthcare reform, tax reform, and the wall.
I used to love watching all the news channels, MSNBC, Fox, CNN...I'd watch all the Sunday morning news shows every week.
But man, I'm so over it....this tweet, that tweet...and the press jumping on this, or on that...just the constant "noise" is driving me to just watch nothing more weighty than Family Guy reruns on Netflix in endless succession.
If someone would take the fucking twitter phone away from him and advise him to just shut the fuck up and do leader stuff in the background quietly for awhile, I'd be ever so thankful.....
I don't like everything about him or his policies, but there are some I do....like the supreme court appointment (my main voting issues), and those listed above, but geez....can't he do it quietly and out of the spotlight a bit? He's his own worst enemy most of the time it seems....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:pointless by penandpaper · 2017-06-12 09:58 · Score: 1

It's something of a sad state of affairs that news has become glorified Twitter readers.
Re:Related bill: The TRIGGER Act by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:02 · Score: 0

All internal political party emails and communication will be released for public viewing to ensure no shenanigans are taking place.
Word verification: thefts
Putin's willing to do his part!
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:05 · Score: 0

so, using that logic, whatever copyright duration that was in effect when something was first published show be in effect?
Who thought they were to begin with? by SuperKendall · 2017-06-12 10:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

Congress is already stalled by the fact that the party in power is not quite so ideologically unified as it thought it was.
Only the fear-mongers on the left ever claimed there was ideological unity. Anyone with a mind left could clearly see there are many Republicans who detest Trump and are part of the effort to work against him in most things. Every now and then there is real alignment but it is rare and happens in only the most clear-cut of cases (like Gorsuch, and even that became a bit iffy).
Trump's election was never a danger to anyone because he's not a God Emperor, he's just a president and in the end they can only do so much alone.
If you want real fear, actually manage to pop Trump from the stack of American leaders, because up next is Pence and there you WILL see ideological unity of the worst kind. That's the point *I* would think about leaving the country.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by TWX · 2017-06-12 11:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Consider the Republican perspective- if you were a Republican prior to the Tea Party era then even with your party co-opted you might be hesitant to leave the party, and if you and a bunch of other pre-tea-party Republicans leave to form a new party then there'll be two conservative parties that will diminish in-power much more than half, essentially ceding control of the government to the Democratic Party for as long as it takes for one of those two conservative parties to finally fold.
  The problem with any "big tent" party is there are always forces within that party that want different things than other forces. When the issue at-hand is generally in-agreement then those disparate groups might be able to work together for the specific issue, but once that single issue is dealt-with then they can't form consensus on other issues.
  The Democratic Party has similar issues at times, to the point that Will Rogers quipped, "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."
  If we want to fix this kind of partisanship then we need to either acknowledge that political parties have a place in the system and use a voting method that rewards seats in legislative bodies based on the population's vote for that party, and lets voting for party-members decide who fills those seats, or else we need to revise the number of seats in our legislatures to create significantly smaller districts with significantly more representatives, so that gerrymandering is much less effective.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by stabiesoft · 2017-06-12 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Do not underestimate the power of the prez. He alone is the ONLY person in the US who cannot be indicted on any federal crime while prez. Further, it is a matter of debate if he can be indicted on any state level crime. So it is possible that the US Supreme court could rule even if Donald shot and killed someone on 5th avenue he may not be able to be indicted. It is a matter of scholarly debate as to how the Supreme's would rule. It has never been tested. Further, I believe if congress does not extend the special prosecutor law, Donald can fire Mueller from investigating him. The constitution is very specific, the executive branch is a unitarian form of entity with the president solely and completely in charge. So if congress does not properly oversee and impeach bad behavior, the prez can do alot. If he doesn't like a law, don't enforce it. If he wants something reallocate funds. Frankly we are at a juncture in the US I fear, and how a republican congress acts may well change the course of history. And no I don't think I am being over dramatic.
3. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by ausekilis · 2017-06-13 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Do not underestimate the power of the prez. He alone is the ONLY person in the US who cannot be indicted on any federal crime while prez. Further, it is a matter of debate if he can be indicted on any state level crime. ... It has never been tested.
  You've contradicted yourself, you make the claim that the prez is immune, then say it has never been tested. There is no real legal precedent for the POTUS to be indicted while president. The closest instance of that was the Reagan/Watergate scandal, and the decision was never legally made. More reading here, and a more detailed analysis from 1997 here.
  My own interpretation is that the POTUS is not any more immune than any other elected official, considering a Senator could be summoned for jury duty or personally sued for something, but I am no legal scholar and my opinion means jack.
4. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by edtice1559 · 2017-06-13 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  Only Congress can charge the president with a crime. This provision exists to ensure that the governance of the country cannot be interrupted by frivolously charging the president. Neither can Congressmen be "detained" as allowing it would present a means to prevent them from getting to important votes. To charge the president with a crime, you essentially need to follow the impeachment procedures.
5. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by Notabadguy · 2017-06-13 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  My own interpretation is that the POTUS is not any more immune than any other elected official, considering a Senator could be summoned for jury duty or personally sued for something, but I am no legal scholar and my opinion means jack.
  Senators cannot be summoned for jury duty, but they can be sued. Serving in a full time capacity as an elected official excuses one from jury duty.
6. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by Hognoxious · 2017-06-13 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Trump's election was never a danger to anyone because he's not a God Emperor, he's just a president
  
  Does he know that?
  
  That's the point *I* would think about leaving the country.
  Hope you're good at swimming, because nowhere else will take you.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
7. Re:Who thought they were to begin with? by WrongMonkey · 2017-06-13 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Executive privilege is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but has been part of how courts interpret the separation of powers. Therefore, the exact limits of executive privilege are subject to the courts' interpretation. In both of the recent cases (United States v Nixon and Clinton v. Jones), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the sitting President. Clinton v. Jones, in particular, ruled that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. This really sets a strong precedent that Presidential immunity only applies to actions taken in the official capacity as President. If Donald shot and killed someone on 5th avenue, he would almost certainly be indicted under state law, since separation of powers does not apply. He might be able to drag the case to the Supreme Court, but precedent suggest that he would ultimately lose the case.
8. Re: Who thought they were to begin with? by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Its like you Americans seriously think your institutions are infallible. Like you do not even know of their past failures. Like the time a president flat our ignored a supreme court decision and, in the process, killed 8000 innocent people and faced no consequences whatsoever for his god-emperorish abuse of power.
  By the way he too was elected by angry middle americans pissed at 'the elites' because he promised to fight for them. Then spent his entire administration on nothing but self enrichment and corruption on 3rd world dictator levels.
  By the way he is Donald's favorite past president ! Makes sense: don the con could be his reincarnation.
  Andrew fucking Jackson one of the worst leaders in the history not just of America but of the whole world.
  The systems are only as strong as congress's willingness to defend them. When congress wants to appease the president even the supreme court can become impotent. Its happened before. Do not imagine it cannot happen again.
  
  --
  Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Recording tweets by trewornan · 2017-06-12 10:13 · Score: 1

What's the problem - you want to record Trump's tweets then record them, they're openly available. Ffs there's even a JavaScript API for Twitter you can use to do it automatically.
1. Re:Recording tweets by rahvin112 · 2017-06-12 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is that HE's supposed to record them. That you don't understand that it what makes you ignorant. By law the president is supposed to record everything he does, all his notes, basically the entire record of his governance and then he's supposed to build a library and put all that information in this public library for the public to use after he leave office.
  Do you think he's made official record of all the tweets he deleted? Because if he didn't he violated the presidential records act. The point of this bill is to make it explicit that tweets are to be part of the record so that in 4 years when he leaves office he doesn't claim the tweets weren't part of the record and then conveniently leaves out anything that makes him look bad.
  If there is any president in history that will violate the presidential records act it's Trump, the egotistical narcissistic despot he is wouldn't allow anything that he doesn't perceive as favorable to be in the record. Hell, look at the little fellatio session he had with his cabinet in front the press the other day where he made everyone in the cabinet stroke his ego for the press making all sorts of bullshit claims. He even claimed to have passed more legislation than any president in history. Make no mistake, without policing by congress this guy will rewrite the record of his presidency after he leave office.
2. Re: Recording tweets by PoopJuggler · 2017-06-12 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say it's even more important if he's embedding secret codewords in official statements.
3. Re:Recording tweets by kenh · 2017-06-13 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  If there is any president in history that will violate the presidential records act it's Trump
  
  I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read that!
  Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, refused to every communicate over secure federal email servers, never logged into her official email account, and in clear violation of all applicable regulations retained 100% of her work emails for two years before being forced, at threat of federal subpoena, to turn them over - and when she did, she turned over only email her personal staff/lawyers determined were "work related", deleting - permanently - over 30,000 emails sent/received while Secretary of State. Hillary testified in front of Congress she didn't understand "confidential" markings, yet STILL, despite all I've detailed above, you insist that it would be Trump that would run afoul of the Presidential Records Act?
  Amazing.
  At best, even her strongest offenders have to admit Hillary Clinton struggled with federal record retention laws as Secretary of State.
  
  --
  Ken
4. Re:Recording tweets by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  And...she isn't president. So your point is mot.
Secret unveiled by Tablizer · 2017-06-12 10:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.
It's Orangenian for "Rosebud".

--
Table-ized A.I.
Twitter the Worst by sycodon · 2017-06-12 10:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Twitter is the worst thing to happen to public discourse since TV.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:Twitter the Worst by TWX · 2017-06-12 10:45 · Score: 2
  
  The old joke was that if your political views fit on a bumpersticker then you needed better views.
  The new joke simply replaces, "on a bumpersticker," with, "in a tweet," or, "in 140 characters or less."
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:Twitter the Worst by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  u r a fggt
3. Re:Twitter the Worst by ShanghaiBill · 2017-06-12 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  The old joke was that if your political views fit on a bumpersticker then you needed better views.
  The new joke simply replaces, "on a bumpersticker," with, "in a tweet," or, "in 140 characters or less."
  Since a tweet holds more than a typical bumpersticker, this could be viewed as progress toward more substantive discourse.
4. Re:Twitter the Worst by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  and in previous generations probably said radio...the printing press...clay tablets...cave drawings...going back as far as the species.
5. Re:Twitter the Worst by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  The old joke was that if your political views fit on a bumpersticker then you needed better views.
  The new joke simply replaces, "on a bumpersticker," with, "in a tweet," or, "in 140 characters or less."
  Since a tweet holds more than a typical bumpersticker, this could be viewed as progress toward more substantive discourse.
  Or, it could be viewed as proof that more space does not lead to more substance.
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

you seem to think that using twitter is making trump a less effective leader, when in reality it is more of a symptom of him not being a leader at all. So don't blame twitter, if his twitter phone was taken away from him he will think of something else to distract himself, like say play even more rounds of golf.
Whence the Democratic Party? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:27 · Score: 1

Seriously, do they even have a platform anymore? If they want to regain power, they need to figure out what they're about. (Hint: Twitter butthurt can't be it.)
Covfefe means "execute order 66" by Steve1952 · 2017-06-12 10:42 · Score: 1

Certainly, something that should be preserved as a presidential record.
Nice backronym you got there. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 10:47 · Score: 0

It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.
I said it before, I say it again by Opportunist · 2017-06-12 11:07 · Score: 2

I love that sitcom about the aging wannabe-celebrity becoming US president. It's a bit unrealistic, I admit that, but it's a hoot and a half, every episode a new surprise and you never know what's gonna happen next.
Some say it's formulaic, but I can only say I'm entertained. And isn't that the most important aspect?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:I said it before, I say it again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  The only question is whether you'll be entertained all the way to prison or deportation, too, if Trump's henchmen happen to decide you're just not his type.
2. Re:I said it before, I say it again by Kergan · 2017-06-12 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure anyone will laugh if he ends up dragging the US in a major war though.
3. Re:I said it before, I say it again by Opportunist · 2017-06-12 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sure.
  The key to enjoying a reality soap is to not be part of it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:I said it before, I say it again by T.E.D. · 2017-06-13 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  I love that sitcom about the aging wannabe-celebrity becoming US president.
  The original back in the 1980's was better. The current reboot kind of sucks.
5. Re:I said it before, I say it again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, this is way better. You were younger. So were I too.
  But if you take that into account... this one is an amazing reboot. They have carefully included the technological advances in the script in a truly seamless manner.
6. Re:I said it before, I say it again by T.E.D. · 2017-06-13 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  They have carefully included the technological advances in the script in a truly seamless manner.
  I have to disagree, Regan's hair was far more realistic
7. Re:I said it before, I say it again by Opportunist · 2017-06-15 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but his general animation was much more ragged and less lifelike.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Zaphod Beeblebrox by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:18 · Score: 1

People seem to forget (or never learned) the lesson from Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.
What was the role of President? To distract people's attention from where the real power was.
With the media's help, Trump is doing that job admirably, just like Zaphod,
1. Re:Zaphod Beeblebrox by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  No I'm pretty sure by now that everyone is well aware that the real power lies in the Kremlin, so he's not doing that great a job really.
Call center workers first, legislators second by drnb · 2017-06-12 11:25 · Score: 2

Well, they're not exactly overwhelmed by the volume of work.
Congress is seriously overworked. You are thinking only of their secondary job, legislating. You are not thinking of their primary job, walking out of Congress and going to the nearby DNC and RNC private offices where they get on the phone and start dialing for donations. Members of Congress as essentially call center workers first, legislators second.
DOA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:33 · Score: 0

Another pointless bit of political grandstanding.
Much like slashdot itself is becoming.
1. Re: DOA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, when are they going to publish some nice stories about Trump?
Re:I love you lügenpresse by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 11:41 · Score: 0

you are a stupid idiot
_Official_ communication? by ichthus · 2017-06-12 11:44 · Score: 1

President Trump's frequent, unfiltered use of his personal Twitter account as a means of official communication is unprecedented.
Why are his tweets deemed official? They're from the President, and many of them are tactless, Jimmy Kimmel fodder. But, he's not using Twitter to issue instructions to his cabinet. This is his personal account, and it's no more official than any other Twitter account.

--
sig: sauer
1. Re:_Official_ communication? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:31 · Score: 0
  
  They're official because, once sworn in, the POTUS never ceases to be the POTUS... until his/her term expires... or s/he resigns. It's simple. But "simple" has a way of eluding Trump fans.
2. Re:_Official_ communication? by ichthus · 2017-06-12 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  But "simple" has a way of eluding Trump fans.
  You're right, and thank goodness. Hillary was simply the most evil, vile and corrupt candidate anyone could have chosen.
  
  --
  sig: sauer
3. Re: _Official_ communication? by PoopJuggler · 2017-06-12 17:50 · Score: 2
  
  Still under the delusion that anti-Trump means pro-Hillary, eh?
4. Re: _Official_ communication? by ichthus · 2017-06-13 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  No. But, pro-Trump is largely, strictly anti-Hillary. Trump certainly wasn't my first choice, but I'm still VERY comfortable with my vote against Hillary.
  
  --
  sig: sauer
Obstruction of justice? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:16 · Score: 0

IANAL but Trump's tweets about Comey and Flynn appear to me to be obstruction of justice. I don't believe an act of Congress is necessary to find that either.
Depends How You Measure GDP by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-06-12 12:23 · Score: 1

The United States has the largest GDP in the world
That depends on how you measure GDP. If you use puchasing power parity which is designed to remove the effects of the international currency markets that skew rates in a way that may have little to do with actual GDP then the EU beats the US.

However, even third place (China is first) still means the US is clearly a world power. While the trend does not seem to be a positive one for the US especially recently given your president the same could be said for the EU too.
1. Re:Depends How You Measure GDP by KingMotley · 2017-06-12 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Only until brexit. Then the EU will be a distant 3rd.
Butthurt Democrats Just Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 12:38 · Score: 0, Insightful

These Butthurt Democrats just don't get it. They are making themselves look 10 times worse than they are Trump, because they're just proving themselves to be a bunch of whiny crybabies and petulant children throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.
I don't like Trump at all, but I have more respect for him than I do for these idiots.
1. Re:Butthurt Democrats Just Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  Actually you do like Trump, the hideous, hyper-conflicted, traitorous individual he is. As much as he would like to play the part, ignorance is no excuse under the law.
  The day Chris Christie was sworn into office as governor of NJ, he forgave Trump of tens of millions of dollars in tax debt to the state. This is the kind of nudge-nudge, wink-wink activity Trump is accustomed to. It has no place in government. But stupid people LIKE YOU are liable to help make it an everyday occurrence by taking the heat off Trump and his administration.
2. Re:Butthurt Democrats Just Don't Get It by hyades1 · 2017-06-13 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  As usual, snowflake conservatives get all bent out of shape when somebody offers up a little well-deserved mockery of their self-importance, their willful ignorance and a level of arrogance so extreme they can't even admit to a simple spelling mistake.
  Anybody doubting how far gone they are merely has to look at the video of Trump's cabinet meeting, where all the good little toadies took turns proving it's not just necessary to kiss the president's butt anymore. Now, there also has to be tongue involved.
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:42 · Score: 0

This is the kind of Asshat Bullshit you get when one party doesn't accept the results of an election.
Remind me will you, how many repeals of the ACA did Repubtards send to Obama between 2012 and 2106?
Covfefe is a sled!? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:48 · Score: 0

Who'd name a sled covfefe?
1. Re:Covfefe is a sled!? by Tablizer · 2017-06-12 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  I can't say the name of his roller-skates in polite company.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
Re:I love you lügenpresse by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 13:57 · Score: 0

Take some immigrants into your home, then.
Re:pointless by lucm · 2017-06-12 14:08 · Score: 1

If someone would take the fucking twitter phone away from him and advise him to just shut the fuck up
Good idea. Let's rely only on the NYT and other unbiased mainstream medias to tell us what is happening

--
lucm, indeed.
The party's perfectly unified by rsilvergun · 2017-06-12 14:21 · Score: 1

they just haven't figured out how much they can get away with before even they get thrown out on their asses. But while no one was looking they gutted the last of Dodd-Frank along party lines no problem (hope you don't need a payday loan anytime soon because they're no longer regulated).

I'm reminded of Microsoft during the Xbox One launch where every day brought a new announcement of something horrible followed by a retraction. But that only worked because they had a viable competitor. Unlike the console wars the other side of the political wars is a mess.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re: Typical by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 14:43 · Score: 0

It is going to take until 2106??? Damn...
June 12th, 2037- by WolfgangVL · 2017-06-12 15:07 · Score: 2

Today, the Department of Common Sense" (DoCS) Finally struck down one of the most frivolous and wasteful government resolutions yet. On the 20th anniversary of its inception, the the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement (COVFEFE) Act was finally struck down.
For years, the American taxpayer has been footing the bill to replicate the childish and nonsensical social media tweets of every sitting leader since the controversial and infamous Donald Trump (45). Those opposing this bill have been fighting for the past 20 years to make lawmakers understand that nothing posted on the internet ever really goes away, and the bill, by its very nature, is a terrible waste of taxpayer money in its current form.
One could speculate that this may be a direct result of the actions of one Rep. Qike Muigley III(D-Ill.) When his tweet "Underware sux haha!" began circulating attached to a picture of the Muigley with a conspicuous brown stain on his rear.
President Comancho's reaction to news?
"wut? lol OMG"

--
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
1. Re:June 12th, 2037- by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  guess what - if the president spent a couple of weekends in Washington instead of his golf course or trump tower a year it would probably pay for the program.
Let's make a big deal over a typo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 17:08 · Score: 0

Also, how are we losing audience and electorate?
Too bad Nixon didn't tweet by helpfulcorn · 2017-06-12 19:08 · Score: 1

... it'd probably be things like:

Damn it @Marty, you know the Jews are out to get me!

Shut the hell up @CheckersTheDog!
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 20:29 · Score: 0

Unconstitutional. There's a difference. Retroactive law is forbidden under the constitution.
Already done by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-12 22:44 · Score: 0

Peace of cake. Just task NSA to send all presidents' records caught in course of mass surveillance directly into Presidential Record file.
Another law from the parasite class. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 00:33 · Score: 0

Another law from the parasite class. Only good Liberal is a dead liberal.
Good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 00:56 · Score: 0

Assuming that this isn't already covered by existing law, it is a good idea, despite the ridiculous backronym.
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 01:30 · Score: 0

You use Donald Trump's Twitter feed to find out "what is happening"?!
The idiocy of the typical Trumpista never ceases to amaze me.
BS. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:31 · Score: 0

So it COVFEFE is an internally used acronym or term that only a handful of people in the oval office know the meaning of? Riiiiiiiight... So it was shared on Twitter to millions why??? Spicer has shoveled enough shit to fill a landfill.
Also completely unrelated... If Comey coming forward with Trump's completely inappropriate implications makes him a "leaker", what does that make Trump for giving away classified info to the Russians? Only difference: A bigger title to hide behind. Apparently you can do no wrong as the POTUS unless you're black Hawaiian.
Trump is like the Herp; embarrassing, irritating, and refuses to go away.
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 02:33 · Score: 0

Downgraded for use of unimaginative juvenile epithet.
That would be the majority of angry "progressives" today.
Yup by circularWaffle · 2017-06-13 02:35 · Score: 1

Do it.....Not sure how this wasn't already thought of. Definitely should have been in place already, that's for sure.
Whoooooosh... by kenh · 2017-06-13 02:41 · Score: 1

Most people took the "covfefe" tweet to be a typo, although press secretary Sean Spicer told the media that the term was used intentionally. "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant," he said.
Of course, it couldn't have been a typo and Sean Spicer couldn't have been joking...

--
Ken
Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 03:47 · Score: 0

You use Donald Trump's Twitter feed to find out "what is happening"?!
Why not? That's how the NYT does it.
Re:pointless by cyberchondriac · 2017-06-13 04:25 · Score: 1

My sentiments exactly. Not crazy about him, didn't vote for him, and hate his insipid tweeting; but OTOH, I've never seen such viciousness and unfounded speculation directed against a political figure ever. Ironically, it almost makes you want to root for the guy just on principle, but like you said, he creates a lot of his own problems too with his big mouth.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
This sure ain't the slashdot I know by whitroth · 2017-06-13 04:37 · Score: 1

The slashdot of five or ten years ago would have been laughing themselves silly over this perfect troll of Trump.
One of the many thing wrong with the so-called conservatives, and libertarians: no sense of humor.
The True Meaning of CovFeFe by Frosty+Piss · 2017-06-13 05:28 · Score: 1

"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." The small group are his Russian handlers.
Code word for his bot-net - Sorry, I mean dihard supporters...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Moving Is Easy by SuperKendall · 2017-06-13 06:17 · Score: 1

Does he know that?
Obviously, but even if he didn't - irrelevant. I don't care what he thinks, I care what it is possible for him to do I consider to be harmful.
So far the net impact of Trump being elected has been extremely positive, the main thing I wanted out a Trump victory was (1) the press to pay more attention to what the president was doing, which they were not under Obama, and (2) to reform the Democratic party so it was a real party and not run by a secret cabal of incompetent corporatists.
Number 1 is accomplished in spades, the press is actually watching the presidents every move. Excellent.
Number 2 is a work in progress but I think after more Democratic losses in the next election they will have some real reform.
Hope you're good at swimming, because nowhere else will take you.
You're either not in tech or have never tried to work abroad. There's actually several options, one I was most strongly considering for some time was the Netherlands which would happily have me. If you are technically competent, have a good amount of savings, and have a clean criminal record there are a LOT of countries that will be very happy to have you. They need the tax revenue after all...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re: pointless by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 07:39 · Score: 1

Were you living under a rock during the 8 years of Obama's administration ?

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Re: pointless by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 07:41 · Score: 1

America has passed many a retroactive law, including the last 2 copyright extensions. The last one survived a supreme court challenge.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
USA! USA!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 07:45 · Score: 0

Welcome to the United States of Anagrams!! The politicians here are capable of coming up very creative names for bills. See PATRIOT Act. Now, we have COVFEFE.
Re: pointless by cyberchondriac · 2017-06-13 08:01 · Score: 1

No, and I wasn't under a rock during George W. Bush's administration either. Or Bill Clinton's. Those got progressively nastier with each administration.
You may have been under a rock however, if you think well known celebrities casually mocked Obama's death, or openly talked about burning down the White House, or that tens of thousands of average conservatives took to the streets to protest, march, chant, and in many cases, burn cars and businesses, break windows, and beat people in an anti-Obama berserker rage. Then there's the constant attacks on his family. Previous presidents have all seen a little of that too, but nothing like what the trump family is seeing. OTOH, the mainstream media adored Obama in all it's sycophancy.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re: pointless by silentcoder · 2017-06-13 08:28 · Score: 1

Taking to the streets to protest, march and chant is a constitutional right - and indeed they DID do that to Obama as well. Remember the teabaggers ?
And they did ALL the same things you just said - only when WHITE people do it during protests the police (and the media) tend to look the other way. It's not news unless it's black people.
Famously during the massive women's march there were no arrests or altercations with police - but as many women who were there documented, there were all the things happening that usually causes arrests and altercations with police: but police don't respond when it's white women doing those things because white women getting beaten by police looks bad on TV.
Nothing new about that - hell Louis XV was about to have his soldiers murder a troop of protestors in the early days of the revolution (before the Bastile storming, when the aristos still held power and the revolution was just sporadic protests over food hoarding while the people starved) until he realized these were FEMALE protesters - then rapidly pulled his soldiers back and instead ordered them to open the grain stores so the protestors could get all the food they wanted !
The same pattern has attended basically every women's march since (and probably before -though history is doesn't record prior examples as well).
There has been no president more deserving of mass protest since Donalds' hero Andrew Jackson - and if you recall his actions led to the brutal murder of thousands of innocents. Here is a president who is exactly like Jackson in every regard. Like Jackson he was elected on a populist wave by angry middle Americans after promising to defend them from the 'elites'. Like Jackson he has spent his time in office only enriching himself and surrounding himself with corruption while an ultra-partisan congress has been too afraid to restrain him. Like Jackson he is considered an idiotic buffoon by most of the voters and ALL of Washington. Like Jackson he thinks he is a strongman and is way to eager to use the military. Like Jackson he has absolutely nor regard or respect for American's institutions or checks and balances - including, critically, the courts and the press.
But unlike Jackson - he lives in the 21st century - with a far more educated populace, and far more rapid flow of news. Unlike Jackson - he cannot operate with the ignorance of most citizens. Unlike Jackson - he can be protested against whenever he tries to overstep his authority, and forced to obey the courts. Unlike Jackson - even with congress refusing to do his job - the CITIZENS can step up and do it for them.
The best thing you can say about Donald Trump is that he is probably suffering from dementia (one merely needs to compare a video of him speaking now to one of his speaking in the 1990s to see the marked and obvious decline in coherence). He'll probably end up impeached, but in fairness he really should be removed under the 25th amendment because he is simply unfit to continue to hold office.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Re:pointless by lucm · 2017-06-13 08:41 · Score: 1

You use Donald Trump's Twitter feed to find out "what is happening"?!
It's better to have more sources than relying on news organizations who have literally asked Clinton "how can we help".

--
lucm, indeed.
Lame Excuse Making by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-13 11:55 · Score: 0

Oh please. Two things:
1). The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the road to ruin is paved with actions such as electing Trump. Your Pollyanna "he's ONLY President, really, he's just a minor bureaucrat in a tiny corner office, nothing to see here, move along" act isn't impressive;
2). Really? "[T]here are many Republicans who detest Trump..."? Where? In the Republican Party? On the Hill? Where? Republicans in power have near universally swallowed all their Trump objections and magically discovered how "excited they are" and are "eager to work with" the Yuge Orange Leader.
Yes, that could change, but only if crass self-preservation issues cause a rift. Republicans displayed crass pandering once Trump started to get momentum and only crass self-preservation will cause them to suddenly rediscover their independent principles. Such as they are.
Gross product of a language's speakers by tepples · 2017-06-13 13:34 · Score: 1

the effects of the international currency markets that skew rates in a way that may have little to do with actual GDP
They have much to do with GDP, for reasons explained by the Balassa-Samuelson model.
But I discount the size of the EU as a single market, especially for information products, because of its multiculturalism. One plausible measure of market size is based on the effort needed to localize an application, a manual, or product packaging for the languages spoken in a market. Then each language group in the EU doesn't look like so big of a market anymore because after Brexit, Ireland and Malta will be the only EU members using English in any sort of official capacity.
Headline + URL = Tweet by tepples · 2017-06-13 13:37 · Score: 1

In addition, a Tweet allows convenient citation of an article that more completely describes the views expressed in the first 115 characters.
Treat domestic terrorists no differently by tepples · 2017-06-13 13:44 · Score: 1

by definition any foreign policy is discriminatory policy based on national origin. Or should we not have different policy for adversaries with a stated goal of undermining and disrupting the US government?
The latter does not follow from the former. A "policy for adversaries with a stated goal of undermining and disrupting the US government" can be written to treat foreign alleged adversaries no differently from domestic alleged adversaries. Otherwise, it misses domestic terrorists, such as natural-born Timothy McVeigh and naturalized Jahar Tsarnaev.
Re: pointless by cyberchondriac · 2017-06-14 02:42 · Score: 1

Don't even try to compare the TEA party marches to the violent crap that happened with BLM, various Trump protesters, even the pussy hat wearers.. you killed your argument right there before it even got off the ground, and then you threw in the race card for good measure too.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.