| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Trump Vetoes the Defense Authorization Act |
| 2020-12-24 |
| [Town Hall] After warning of plans to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, President Donald Trump followed through on the threat Wednesday afternoon and cited a number of reasons for the decision. "No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have -- over $2 trillion. During my 4 years, with the support of many others, we have almost entirely rebuilt the United States military, which was totally depleted when I took office. Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230 will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step," Trump said in a memo to Congress. Further, Trump rejected the bill because it requires a number of military installations be renamed. He also called the legislation a "gift to China and Russia." Since the legislation passed both houses of Congress with veto proof majorities, the move is symbolic. The veto is expected to be overridden next week with a vote in the House Monday and in the Senate, Tuesday. |
| Posted by:Ulavirong Omeager2818 |
| #4 Big Tech censorship and propagandizing is a national security problem. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2020-12-24 12:15 |
| #3 CCP whores + suppressing information to throw elections = 1. risk to free and fair elections = 2. risk to public confidence = 3. risk to elected leaders' legitimacy = 4. risk of bitter national division = 5. risk of Civil War II 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = major risk to our national security Actually, this is probably the biggest national security risk this country faces |
| Posted by: Bugs Spawn of the Huns8123 2020-12-24 11:20 |
| #2 ..except they've never addressed it. A couple of the big techies do work with the CCP. The veto is expected to be overridden next week with a vote in the House Monday and in the Senate, Tuesday. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-12-24 11:08 |
| #1 Trump's reasoning is, I think, flawed here. Section 230 (allowing internet publishers legal protection from publishing 3rd party opinions) is not a great national security risk compared to many other problems. Section 230 should have been addressed in separate legislation. This has been obvious for years. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2020-12-24 08:35 |