Illinois Rep Quigley Introduces...the COVFEFE Act

originally posted by: jjkenobi
It's already a law, do we really need yet another law? Just politicians wasting time and money.

Remember - Trump said for every law created - 2 will be removed.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Did you deduce from my post that I am against this Act

No, I didn't, but you didn't discuss the act. You made a sacarstic reply and deflected with an irrelevant meme.

because you simply don't like me?

What?

This is not the mud pit.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Liquesence

ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS should be made to wear live-streamed bodycams, imagine the money saved in the last 12 months alone - no need for commissions, their every move will be recorded. Then the least of their problems will be someone else's tweets

In hindsight, maybe Trump was sending out a code........

Yeah, now that Bill Clinton is no longer in the office it won't be XXX-rated. Well, it would have saved the taxpayer money when Clinton was in office I suppose.

a reply to: Liquesence

Sarcastic at the lack of government oversight and articulating that via a comment about acute-monitoring of public servants is not being sarcastic towards your OP, but if my tone is too rough for you then I'll just leave you to it.

i'm starting to get the feeling trump is sacrificing himself to accomplish a specific set of goals and he is actually doing all this on purpose and is conspiring with the MSM because their goals align, he creates chaos that directs attention to the corruption in government by exposing himself and the media gets lots of juicy stories as everything is exposed as people in power push harder to take him down.

think about it; why should a 70 year old billionaire businessman care if his political career is ruined or even if the world hates him? he has nothing to lose at this stage and everything to gain if he goes all out without restraint.

i think a purge of corruption is starting and things like this are a sign of things to come.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
he said it, he owns it. Just as things Obama said...

So true, we should combine them and make Covfefe the 57th state.

I thought it was. Didn't Obama just visit it?

Who is stopping anybody from recording and documenting it?

a reply to: rickymouse

If they really wanted to do some good, they would have aimed it at Weiner.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: JAY1980

A few steps? That's quite a big leap, there, from The President of the United States to...every single person...

:/

When the media SJWs cum Globalist Scum feverishly and relentlessly press Trump,
or anyone connected to Trump, for
a single snippet that he denies AGW, or 'doesn't believe in it', they are
implicitly putting every man against the same wall, for the same firing line,
to be fired upon by the same *cough* usual suspects.
If they will crucify the most powerful man in the world for unbelief in their God,
their religion, then what fate awaits Joe Six Pack?

They planned on our collective submission, and silence.
Time will tell if the psy-op succeeded.
It was a threshold moment.

For some reason, Trump didn't take the bait.
No one took the bait. I believe there were orders in place, thankfully,
to stfu, or look for another job. Somebody is thinking a few moves ahead,
but what a diabolical game.

Personally, I would have responded with 'Do you believe in time?'

The steps are fewer than you believe them to be.

# 807

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Who is stopping anybody from recording and documenting it?

The tweets?

No one, I suppose, but this makes it part of the official record, in which case they legally have to be included *in* that record.

a reply to: Liquesence

Even though this is directed at Trump's tweets, It says 'all elected government officials'...so I am guessing this law is not going to be passed. It should be though, then most may stop and really think before they type that 140 character rant...Trump included.

So now will twotter have the responsibility to maintain all politicians tweets forever?

Will twitter be compensated for this arrchival service?

Will twotter have to allow everybody equal access to read and respond to politicians tweets, even people who don't want to register and provide personal info/ad revenue?

Will all other news formats be required to post every article, video and audio they ever use, including notes, revisions and retraction, from all politicians and allow full access to non-paying subscribers?

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Dramatic, much?

they are implicitly putting every man against the same wall. . . The steps are fewer than you believe them to be.

No they aren't.

POTUS to Everyperson USA, that's a big conclusive connection to try to make.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Even though this is directed at Trump's tweets, It says 'all elected government officials'...so I am guessing this law is not going to be passed. It should be though, then most may stop and really think before they type that 140 character rant...Trump included.

This act is an amendment to the presidential records act only; the presidential records act only pertains to the president and his staff (or those immediately connected to him), not every single elected (or appointed) official in the US government.

Who knows whether it will pass, though.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Dramatic, much?

they are implicitly putting every man against the same wall. . . The steps are fewer than you believe them to be.

No they aren't.

POTUS to Everyperson USA, that's a big conclusive connection to try to make.

Oh, I don't know. Dramatic, like this?

Remember David Roberts?

reason.com...

Get back to me when your kid's college diploma is withheld because of a term paper
he or she handed in that went against the prevailing winds, and he was last seen swinging at Nuremberg.
Or when you get blacklisted in business because you are a smoker, and as a smoker, you scoffed at new taxes designed to relocate future evacuees from Boston at some future date.
(Smokers caused waterworld dontcha know).


# 808

Sooo . . .

Does this mean that they'll have to preserve presidential snapchats from now on?

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Oh, I don't know. Dramatic, like this?

Remember David Roberts?

Get back to me when your kid's college diploma is withheld because of a term paper
he or she handed in that went against the prevailing winds, and he was last seen swinging at Nuremberg.
Or when you get blacklisted in business because you are a smoker, and as a smoker, you scoffed at new taxes designed to relocate future evacuees from Boston at some future date.
(Smokers caused waterworld dontcha know).

What the hell does any of that have to do with the issue being discussed about social media posts becoming official presidential record?

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Sooo . . .

Does this mean that they'll have to preserve presidential snapchats from now on?

Good question, lol.

That does fall under social media....

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

the media SJWs cum Globalist Scum

lotta buzzwords there. i think you forgot libtard, snowflake, leftists...

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Liquesence

Sarcastic at the lack of government oversight and articulating that via a comment about acute-monitoring of public servants is not being sarcastic towards your OP, but if my tone is too rough for you then I'll just leave you to it.

Thanks for the concern.