EPTHe is likely shouting at his aids for ways in which he as President can punish the company.
Would be hella funny if this would cause companies like Twitter to leave the US.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2328
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22281 Posts
He is likely shouting at his aids for ways in which he as President can punish the company. Would be hella funny if this would cause companies like Twitter to leave the US. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23893 Posts
On May 27 2020 23:16 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: How is he going to shutdown the social networks? Is he gonna build a firewall for the MAGA crowd? edit: the firewall just got 10 feet higher Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. You might think it could never happen here in the United States. But think again. + Show Spoiler + To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today. Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress. The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security. These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so. www.washingtonpost.com But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9201 Posts
I could be wrong, but I don't recall riot control weapons being used on the reopen protesters screaming at cops' faces | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 27 2020 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think enough people know how much of a dumbass this president is. So it won't be a loss. It'll be a net gain if anything. People will still be talking about it/him on the platform, so there's that. And if he does leave, they should ban his account. I'm actually glad now he doesn't use the official POTUS handle. He would never use that account, it doesn't have his name on it. He's a malignant narcissist, one of the worst in the world. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote: Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. + Show Spoiler + To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today. Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress. The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security. These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so. www.washingtonpost.com But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. The next time reasonable people are in charge of the legislative it'd probably be wise to remove some presidential powers and return them to congress because that's fucking ridiculous. It's like some kind of poor man's king | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On May 28 2020 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote: Using his authority from the Communication Act would probably be the most straightforward option. + Show Spoiler + To understand how, start with the Communications Act of 1934 — which, though it has been amended and updated several times, is essentially an 86-year-old law that is still the framework for U.S. communications policy today. Section 706 of this law allows the president to shut down or take control of “any facility or station for wire communication” if he proclaims “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” With respect to wireless communications, suspending service is permitted not only in a “war or a threat of war,” but merely if there is a presidential proclamation of a “state of public peril” or simply a “disaster or other national emergency.” There is no requirement in the law for the president to provide any advance notice to Congress. The language here is undeniably broad. The power it describes is virtually unchecked. That’s not surprising, since some of the last changes made to this section of the law were introduced in 1942, shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, when Congress was laser-focused on protecting our safety and security. These are, of course, different days. After all, back in 1942, “wire communication” meant telephone calls or telegrams, and “wireless” meant radio. But if you think this language, and what it authorizes, have faded into the dustbin of history, you’re wrong. Today those terms have generally been accepted as including access to the Internet. And as recently as 2010, a Senate committee report on protecting cyberspace concluded that section 706 “gives the President the authority to take over wire communications in the United States and, if the President so chooses, shut a network down.” That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so. www.washingtonpost.com But presumably they'd come to terms before he resorted to that. That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote: That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. IAAAL and I agree, fwiw  | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote: That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. Oh, I can't wait for the great mental leaps we are about to witness when there will be arguments about how the founding fathers intended to handle twitter. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On May 28 2020 03:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm scared to have to listen to trump give a speech after the space launch. It's one of those little things that just makes everyone seem incompetent when it's just one person. I have major reservations about a lot of people in the admin, but Bridenstine seems to be a good pick for NASA. (he was a trump appointee right? Or was it just a succession thing?) Bridenstine has done fairly well I think, to manage being in a largely political position as head of a technical organization. Commercial crew has gone stunningly well, and he's doing well to tiptoe around the SLS. Definitely agree with you on Trump. I'd imagine he's going to boast that he understands rockets better than anyone, and should be an astronaut. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22281 Posts
On May 28 2020 04:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Isn't the obvious answer to simply have better contracts and agreements that place penalties upon contractors if they are unable to meet terms? That brings up a good discussion topic I suppose. What about congress giving life long after it should have ended to pet projects? Like SLS (huge money sink considering (though the company involved is known to be...sloppy with overruns)), the fighter jet, etc. Is there a way to write a bill that ties the congressmen/women financially to the success of pet projects? Cutting pork from spending bills and ensuring SLS isn't a decade long project or fighter jets that are obsolete long before they're even flown? Yes your often dealing with experimental things and contractors are unwilling to shoulder the risk themselves but on the other hand now it looks like they often lowball their offers because its not like the government is going to go somewhere else when they are already billions of dollars into the project. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14105 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
On May 28 2020 05:15 Gorsameth wrote: Isn't the obvious answer to simply have better contracts and agreements that place penalties upon contractors if they are unable to meet terms? Yes your often dealing with experimental things and contractors are unwilling to shoulder the risk themselves but on the other hand now it looks like they often lowball their offers because its not like the government is going to go somewhere else when they are already billions of dollars into the project. It would make to have substantial list of completion terms so that in order to receive more money, they have to meet deadlines and terms, plus prove that they aren't wasting money. And if they are found to be wasting money or low-balling, they should be forced to repay all of that money. I'd rather not waste a few billion on pet projects for senators or whomever because it brings a temporary increase in jobs in an area. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23893 Posts
On May 28 2020 03:10 ChristianS wrote: That seems like an easy thing for Twitter to go to court for rather than settle. They’d probably win (at least to my rudimentary understanding of 1st amendment, IANAL obviously), and in the meantime it sounds like great PR. He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9037 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On May 28 2020 07:39 GreenHorizons wrote: He's just got to shut them down for a few months before the election and liberals gave him a reason with Russiagate. We'd all know he's full of shit, but that won't matter even if he eventually loses in a court and decides to listen to them. Personally after 4 years of "this will get him" and "the institutions/adults in the room will stop him" and Democrat's impeachment efforts flopped while giving him his space force, money for caging kids, and the rest, it seems to be more wishful thinking that it would end differently than Twitter groveling. I think the most likely outcome is that any government action against Twitter would be halted while the case was pending (again, IANAL but I have trouble seeing how the court wouldn’t make him wait for the court case). I wouldn’t especially care if Twitter specifically got shut down anyway, aside from the free speech implications, and I certainly don’t think it would help Trump in November. Don’t get me wrong, I fully expect Twitter to back down on their “get the facts!” tag on false posts, there’s nothing in it for them. Anybody who was calling for them to shut down Trump will think it’s a spineless half-measure, and conservatives will still scream bloody murder in between Candy Crowley flashbacks. But I think “what if Trump uses this 86-year-old law to shut down Twitter” is a silly fear. He probably won’t, and I don’t think it would go well for him if he did. | ||
| ||
