Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Project Veritas
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Box Ox" data-source="post: 4700802" data-attributes="member: 48469"><p>What a snowflake loser Trump is.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure it'd break [USER=55017]@It will be fine[/USER] 's heart if the NDAA were held up. LOL</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/trump-to-congress-repeal-section-230-or-ill-veto-military-funding/" target="_blank">Trump to Congress: Repeal Section 230 or I’ll veto military funding</a></p><p></p><p>"On Tuesday evening, Trump ratcheted up his campaign against Section 230. In a <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578" target="_blank">tweet</a>, he called the law "a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity." He warned that "if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill.</p><p></p><p>The NDAA is a massive spending bill that Congress passes each year to authorize funding for the military. This year's version, now <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/11/17/formal-ndaa-talks-begin-under-shadow-of-confederate-renaming-issue/" target="_blank">under active discussion</a> on Capitol Hill, is expected to cost around $740 billion.</p><p></p><p>The NDAA is seen as a "must pass" bill because no one wants to be blamed for holding up funding for the troops. So inserting language into it can be a way to pass proposals that might not stand on their own. But there's also a risk of a backlash—especially if a measure is seen as unrelated to the military. This may be why Trump has started claiming that Section 230 is a "threat to our national security," since that would theoretically make it germane to a defense funding bill.</p><p></p><p>Trump's campaign to repeal Section 230 appears to go beyond mere tweets. The White House is reportedly telling members of Congress the same thing in private that the president is telling his 88 million Twitter followers: that he will veto the NDAA if it doesn't repeal or at least overhaul Section 230."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Box Ox, post: 4700802, member: 48469"] What a snowflake loser Trump is. I'm sure it'd break [USER=55017]@It will be fine[/USER] 's heart if the NDAA were held up. LOL [URL='https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/trump-to-congress-repeal-section-230-or-ill-veto-military-funding/']Trump to Congress: Repeal Section 230 or I’ll veto military funding[/URL] "On Tuesday evening, Trump ratcheted up his campaign against Section 230. In a [URL='https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1333965375193624578']tweet[/URL], he called the law "a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity." He warned that "if the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill. The NDAA is a massive spending bill that Congress passes each year to authorize funding for the military. This year's version, now [URL='https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/11/17/formal-ndaa-talks-begin-under-shadow-of-confederate-renaming-issue/']under active discussion[/URL] on Capitol Hill, is expected to cost around $740 billion. The NDAA is seen as a "must pass" bill because no one wants to be blamed for holding up funding for the troops. So inserting language into it can be a way to pass proposals that might not stand on their own. But there's also a risk of a backlash—especially if a measure is seen as unrelated to the military. This may be why Trump has started claiming that Section 230 is a "threat to our national security," since that would theoretically make it germane to a defense funding bill. Trump's campaign to repeal Section 230 appears to go beyond mere tweets. The White House is reportedly telling members of Congress the same thing in private that the president is telling his 88 million Twitter followers: that he will veto the NDAA if it doesn't repeal or at least overhaul Section 230." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Project Veritas
Top