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

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.

Comments

Snapchat next?

[kiviQr]

I'd love to see how Snapchat would handle deletion ban of POTUS posts.

Re:good

[penandpaper]

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".

Re:And naming it the COVFEFE act dooms it

[__aaclcg7560]

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.

Re:good

[penandpaper]

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.

Who thought they were to begin with?

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:good

[acrimonious howard]

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?