Reply With Quote
He's going to tie this to Section 230 reform and election fraud. Dems will obviously vote against and Rs will rally fake support while claiming it's all the Dems fault. Guys like koriwat will eat it up.
Mitch is ing diabolical.
this isn't "decline" for mitch, that has been his standard operating procedure for a decade now
He's going to tie this to Section 230 reform and election fraud. Dems will obviously vote against and Rs will rally fake support while claiming it's all the Dems fault. Guys like koriwat will eat it up.
Mitch is ing diabolical.
His political instincts have been fine...until now.
Costing the GOP the Senate would be a huge silver lining to this but I'm not holding my breath.
warnock/ossoff need to jump on this. Perdue/Loeffler's lip service about "supporting the bill" is absolutely useless if their election is going to keep mitch as majority leader.
Here comes the poison pill from Mitch...
Earlier today, Mitch McConnell blocked the motion to vote on increasing the checks to $2,000. Afterwards, he announced, in the most awkward language possible, that he wants to link the raised stimulus to... Section 230 repeal and the made-up issue of "election fraud."
McConnell on CHECKS, SECT. 230, ELECTION FRAUD: "Those are the three important subjects the President has linked together. This week the Senate will begin a process to bring these three priorities into focus."
It's not difficult to figure out what's actually happening here. McConnell does not want the larger checks going out. He's spent months trying to limit the size of any stimulus plan. So, his plan now is to "link" the issue to things that he knows will not pass in an actual vote. Basically, Section 230 (and the made up issue of election fraud) are poison pills to kill the stimulus plan.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...s-checks.shtml
can he attach one to the other all by himself?
No, but he can claim he won’t bring it to a vote unless the other issues are addressed.
Clearly he’s baiting Trump into the discussion so Trump does the work for him.
It’s a poison pill because the House will never pass the other two bills.
Breaking: McConnell wants to attach the $2000 bucks to a full repeal of Section 230.
here's the bill;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o8n...3GE35zKja/view
unreal
either these people are actually clueless as to what 230 is, or more likely, they're just virtue signaling to dear leader and his rabid fanbase
Well, that’s not going to happen. But this is only going to work if Trump takes the bait. Unfortunately Trump is pretty dumb, so he might.
The senate doesn’t initiate legislation, so that whole full repeal of Section 230 needs to come from the House.
also would establish a bipartisan commission to study the election "which shall report in ninety days"
just to placate a toddler and his cult following
why not both?
is there any chance repealing Section 230 would so quickly become a fiasco that the new Congress would swiftly reinstate it?
in other words, might this be a decent deal in disguise, since all it adds to the $2000 checks is a toothless Congressional commission and a completely unworkable law?
interesting wrinkle: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is embedded in the USMCA. If the US Congress repeals it, Facebook/Google could get Mexico to sue the US, and the dispute would be settled in an extrajudicial tribunal. According to David Dayen, Section 230 is also embedded in a separate trade deal with Japan.
https://prospect.org/power/section-2...-ago-big-tech/I first wrote about Section 230 in the USMCA in July 2018. This was the first multilateral agreement that included such a provision, which isn’t standard outside the United States. By this point Big Tech already knew that its grip in Washington was loosening, so they managed to engage in a common tactic: implanting into a trade deal what they might lose if it were stand-alone legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi belatedly tried to remove the provision from USMCA before it came to a vote last December but didn’t succeed. “There was not really a focus” on removing it, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told me recently.
The provision also appears in a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Japan, and is expected to be a template for future deals.
At the time, the U.S. trade representative’s office insisted that there was an escape clause in the law, allowing countries to adopt “legitimate public policy objectives,” even if they conflict with the spirit of the trade deal. In 2018, Congress passed a carve-out to Section 230 through anti-sex trafficking legislation that holds tech companies responsible for such conduct being transacted on their websites. That would be able to stand, along with other changes, if the trade office is correct.
But it’s not entirely up to USTR. If the U.S. tries to alter Section 230, Facebook or Google could sue, maintaining that the proposed change, whatever it might be, was illegitimate and violated the USMCA. The case could go to an extrajudicial tribunal or the World Trade Organization, and the U.S. could lose the case or get tied up in the courts for years.
the $600 has been expedited, says Mnuchin
Which Texas Republicans voted against $2,000 pandemic stimulus checks requested by Trump?
While all 13 Texas Democrats in the House backed the larger payouts, only a handful of Texas Republicans did so
“Giving checks to those whose income has not been affected is an affront to those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by government, and it will not change the need to safely reopen America’s economy,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Austin, said in a news release.
Others joining Roy in voting “no” were
Reps. Jodey Arrington of Lubbock,
Brian Babin of Woodville,
Kevin Brady of The Woodlands,
Michael Cloud of Victoria,
Michael Conaway of Midland,
Dan Crenshaw of Houston,
Louie Gohmert of Tyler,
Lance Gooden of Terrell,
Van Taylor of Plano,
Mac Thornberry of Clarendon,
Randy Weber of Friendswood and
Roger Williams of Austin.
Even some of Trump’s biggest supporters in Texas’ GOP congressional delegation didn’t support the president on both fronts.
Indeed, of the 22 Texas Republicans in the House, only Burgess voted both against the veto override and for the larger stimulus checks.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/12/29/which-texas-republicans-voted-against-2000-pandemic-stimulus-checks-requested-by-trump
If the Senate were somehow to pass the bill without the House first having passed it, it couldn't become law.
Presumably US Senators are all familiar with the origination clause, I wonder why they're letting McConnell bamboozle the rubes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
