Trump Doubles Down On Threat To Defund Military Because People Are Mean To Him Online; Republicans Threaten To Override His Veto

from the what-a-way-to-end-the-presidency dept

On Tuesday, we highlighted that it looked like Congressional Republicans were willing to finally stand up to their party’s insecure and whiny lame duck president and refuse to include a Section 230 repeal as part of the military authorization bill, the NDAA.

Senator Jim Inhofe, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee and who lead the negotiation on the bill, has been a longtime supporter of the President, and has said that the two talk by phone every couple days. But on Wednesday, Inhofe apparently did his phone call telling Trump that the 230 repeal wasn’t going into the NDAA while on a speakerphone walking down the hallway of a Senate building, meaning that people overheard Inhofe tell Trump that the 230 repeal wasn’t going to happen.

On Thursday, the negotiations closed and a deal was made on the NDAA that does not include anything on Section 230 because, as Inhofe rightly notes, that’s got nothing to do with the military at all. In response, Trump continued his temper tantrum and claims he really will veto the bill, putting the military he always claims to support so much at risk of severe cuts.


That’s Trump saying that because the NDAA doesn’t revoke Section 230, which Trump falsely says is “so bad for our National Security and Election Integrity” (it’s not), he will veto. The thing is, everyone knows he’s full of shit. And Republicans are not only saying that they have the votes to override a veto, they seem to be getting snippy with the President about it. Here’s Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger saying he’ll vote to override the veto and concluding with the kind of thing you don’t often hear from Republicans these days when talking to Trump: “Because it’s really not about you.”

No, it’s not about him. But it is about him throwing a total whiny tantrum because people made fun of him online, and wanting to punish the entire internet and free speech in response. The idea that it’s worth undermining the military (which he claims to support, and which frequently supports him) is… quite something.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Trump Doubles Down On Threat To Defund Military Because People Are Mean To Him Online; Republicans Threaten To Override His Veto”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
34 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'I support the military! ... that I'm trying to defund.'

Blatant attack on free speech, property rights and the military all in one go, quite the time-saver there, and all because someone said mean things about him online and he’s throwing another temper tantrum over it.

Always nice of Trump to remind people that his ‘favor’ and claims of supporting a person/group lasts only so long as it serves him to do so, and he’ll throw anyone under the bus the second it’s seen as beneficial to do so.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Army of suckers

It’s been established Trump cares about the military as much as George W. Bush cares about it. Or to quote Kurt Vonnegut, toys a rich kid got for Christmas.

Given that it’s a thing we send to places to stomp on people that dare to offend our plutocrats, much less defend the interests of the people of the US, it’s only important to us because it waves flags while telling us so. It’s about courage, duty and honor only because we talk about these things a lot while soldiers in dress blues stand at attention.

So maybe our federal lawmakers should engage in fewer shenanigans while trying to get their sacred cow passed, since it costs a lot of money that I’d personally rather see spent on, oh say, keeping the people warm and fed during the pandemic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

COVID Killed Darth Vader! says:

Analysis level: Full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You’re so swept away in nerdy outrage that can’t imagine ANY other motive for Trump, like that "social media" is openly turning to censoring? — Arbitrary and unaccountable censoring by gov’t-conferred authority as YOU advocate?

This may be bad way to raise it, but you imply that NO ONE else in the whole world but Trump wants to change Section 230.

You show yourself as totally biased and can only spew ad hom. Sheesh.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Analysis level: Full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome.

That is not what this article says. It says that the NDAA is not the place to amend or remove §230, and that §230 is not a threat to national security or our electoral process.

So basically, even among those who are in favor of removing or amending §230, Trump is pretty much alone in wanting to do so in the must-pass NDAA. The NDAA is about military spending. Anything unrelated to the military has no place in the NDAA. Period. Even anti-§230 people agree this is not the place to repeal or amend §230. Trump may not be the only one who dislikes §230, but he’s the only one who wants to deal with it in a bill about military spending.

Now, that said, social media companies only control speech on platforms they own, and that power is not a gov’t-conferred authority but one based on the FA and property rights. As such, their removal of speech or banning users, even if arbitrary, is not censorship. Censorship means you can’t say it anywhere under penalty of law or violence. If Facebook removes you or your speech from Facebook, you can still go to Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, 4chan, 8kun, Parler, Gab, or your own site and say the exact same thing(s), and Facebook will be unable to do anything about it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

COVID Killed Darth Vader! says:

Here's Zuckerberg agreeing with Trump:

Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg went further in calling for legislative reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "Section 230 made it possible for every major internet service to be built and ensured important values like free expression and openness were part of how platforms operate. Changing it is a significant decision. However, I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended."

[link for just the quote:] https://www.rollcall.com/2020/10/28/facebook-endorses-section-230-changes-ahead-of-senate-hearing/

"working as intended" means for We The People to Publish what want without corporate or gov’t a priori interference, and corporations only "moderating" that content "in good faith", as Section 230 specifies.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

COVID Killed Darth Vader! says:

Here again is your real view on Section 230.

In quoting the law, you simply DELETED the "in good faith" requirement!

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190201/00025041506/us-newspapers-now-salivating-over-bringing-google-snippet-tax-stateside.shtml#c530

You clearly intended to change the meaning of statute so that I wouldn’t point up the "in good faith" phrase. That was OUTRIGHT FALSIFYING.

And in a reply you deca-down to say "in good faith" wasn’t even to be considered! Your REAL view of "law" Maz is that corporations are to rule, and The Public can’t even expect "good faith" efforts.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Here again is your real view on Section 230.

You clearly intended to change the meaning of statute so that I wouldn’t blah blah blah

Dude, nobody does anything with you in mind. You don’t matter. You are irrelevant. Just shut up already.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Here again is your real view on Section 230.

You are saying this for a Pro corp group?
Installing persons in Controlling offices that regulate the corps, that are ARNT doing anything against them?

230, is about communication. NOT the corps. its Not about 3rd party. Its about Who is responsible for YOU, being an idiot.
That this SITE, not the corps, is NOT responsible for your COMMENTS. That You alone have to stand behind your comments if someone gets upset by them.

But there is common sense behind that law, as well as a few restrictions.
The BIG corps dont run many Forums or chat rooms. And I dont see many online newspapers doing it either.

You made a comment about No one in the world wanting to Change 230. Umm, go look at recent Riots in France. A bill about posting Police pictures, or recording them.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s not about him.

Tweety Amin is using S230 blathering to give him more PR-friendly (and potentially GOP-supported) cover to veto the bill because it includes a provision to rename military bases named after Confederate leaders … THAT is the real reason he’s threatening to veto it, b/c he thinks it’ll upset his base.

Glad to see the GOP is finally starting to blow this lame duck named #DiaperDon off.

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s not about him.

Tweety Amin is using S230 blathering to give him more PR-friendly (and potentially GOP-supported) cover to veto the bill because it includes a provision to rename military bases named after Confederate leaders … THAT is the real reason he’s threatening to veto it, b/c he thinks it’ll upset his base.

Glad to see the GOP is finally starting to blow this lame duck named #DiaperDon off.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This would have been significant if the GOP hadn’t squandered its goodwill enabling said lame duck.

As it stands, the GOP’s actions come off more like they’re getting ready to distance from Diaper Don now that his usefulness has been exhausted, not from any sense of guilt from their neverending quest to "screw the libs".

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

They’ll find the veto-proof majority if he does veto the bill. But I don’t think he’ll go through with his threat. Even he wouldn’t want his last days in office marred by the idea that he didn’t “support the troops” when a fundamentally broken Congress was more than willing to work together for that same goal.

Anonymous Coward says:

Wonder if there’s anything that can be done to hold him accountable to the oath he swore. It goes

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Damn. Looks like the phrase "to the best of my ability" gives him enough wiggle room if you assume his ability is low enough. And the current evidence seems to support that theory.

Anonymous Coward says:

I had a dream

I had a dream. In that dream, NATO had tied its military doctrine to the notion that the ZFC theory of sets is the foundation of mathematics, and linked the doctrine to Wikipedia. So it made sense that the US Congress should want control over Wikipedia content, on that topic at least.

But outside the dream, it makes less sense for NATO, and US, to have made itself dependent on Wikipedia like that in the first place.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...