Slashdot Mirror
'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.
Fuck you. Accountability of government officials is of vital importance to our republic.
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).
All internal political party emails and communication will be released for public viewing to ensure no shenanigans are taking place.
Word verification: thefts
Twitter FB etc would be legally barred from deleting posts from government employees ?
How interesting.
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.
I'd love to see how Snapchat would handle deletion ban of POTUS posts.
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.
"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant." The small group are his Russian handlers.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
It's Orangenian for "Rosebud".
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
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)
This is why most reasonable people don't have or use Twitter.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
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 ;-)
You think Obama directed congress to only deal with nonsense and ignore important issues? Does the name John Boehner ring a bell?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 tend to describe a clash between competing group interests:
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
Still under the delusion that anti-Trump means pro-Hillary, eh?
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.
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
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
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.
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.