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.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: confederate basis, congress, donald trump, jim inhofe, military, ndaa, republicans, section 230, veto


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 9:28am

    '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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      rkhalloran (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 11:50am

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

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 3:33pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    COVID Killed Darth Vader!, 4 Dec 2020 @ 9:54am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 5 Dec 2020 @ 3:05pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2020 @ 10:52pm

      No problem bro

      “This may be a bad way to raise it”

      That’s ok “not really” your entire life is a bad way of Doing Things lol

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    COVID Killed Darth Vader!, 4 Dec 2020 @ 9:55am

    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/

    & quot;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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 5 Dec 2020 @ 3:10pm

      Re: Here's Zuckerberg agreeing with Trump:

      Nope. That’s not it at all. The only thing Zuckerberg is supporting is an addition of transparency requirements, which Facebook already does. Also, the writers of §230 think that it’s already working as intended.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2020 @ 10:55pm

      Stop with that

      Please stop saying “we the people”

      There is no we there is you.

      Qoute as many documents as you want your the only virgin at this party.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    COVID Killed Darth Vader!, 4 Dec 2020 @ 9:55am

    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-ove r-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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:18am

      Yes or no, Brainy: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:20am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 11:18am

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

        "You are a fluke of the universe.
        You have no right to be here.
        And, whether you can hear it or not,
        The universe is laughing behind your back!"
        --found in an old <i>National Lampoon</i>
        dated 1972

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2020 @ 10:56pm

        Notice me Washington

        He wants some people to watch him throw tea into the Boston harbor so bad lol

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 12:24pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 5 Dec 2020 @ 3:08pm

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

      Case law has effectively removed the “good faith” requirement by treating moderation under §230c(1) rather than §230c(2). It also doesn’t take much to satisfy “good faith”.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:06am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 5:17pm

      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".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 7:22pm

      But why would military bases be named after traitors at all?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    genghis_uk (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:11am

    Given that Republicans and Democrats both want to pass this spending bill so they can get on with the next one, it would be interesting to see if they can get the 2/3 majority to overturn the veto.
    That would really be one in the eye for Trump. By doubling down he may be even more embarrassed when both sides go against him

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:20am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    genghis_uk (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:28am

    It would be an ironic end to the Trump presidency if he actually got both sides agreeing on something ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      End his presidency claiming to be the "Great Negotiator who got Republicans & Democrats To Work Together -- NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE"?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    genghis_uk (profile), 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:53am

    Oh, damn... you're right <facepalm> There is no end to this guy's spin and BS.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 10:54am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 4 Dec 2020 @ 11:50am

    Nothing is about Trump, so he tries to make everything about him (aka the only thing Trump cares about).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2020 @ 11:00pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.