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).
Twitter FB etc would be legally barred from deleting posts from government employees ?
How interesting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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).
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.