I think this says something about the trump government.

[Norm Paperman]

Only if the laws passed by Congress would allow him to do so.

The laws passed by Congress says the FCC controls what is shown on TV. If the president has complete control of the FCC then he can tell them to take any show off the air and that show would be gone.

The laws passed by Congress says that the FTC makes decisions on mergers. If the president has complete control of the FTC then he can tell them to approve or not approve any merger he wants.

That sounds like a king, not a president

 

[Marener]

There is no such thing as an independent Article II agency. The post office is independent of the executive branch because it is called for under Article I of the Constitution.

Humphrey's Executor was a bad precedent and will shortly be overturned.

You know what I'm talking about.

Independent agencies of the United States federal government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You want the president to exert total authority over every one of these agencies. Right?

 

[Seymour Flops]

More and more I'm being convinced by your insipid replies you're a bot designed for ignorance when info contrary to your remarks is readily available.

Yes, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent U.S. government agency, established by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, acting with some autonomy but overseen by Congress and subject to presidential appointments and legal revI'm5 t f gf dffdddt DC tfftff ft t gG ttt ft t ft ft fttt5t6tttt t I'm tnot going going

p

More and more I'm being convinced by your insipid replies you're a bot designed for ignorance when info contrary to your remarks is readily available.

Yes, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent U.S. government agency, established by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, acting with some autonomy but overseen by Congress and subject to presipointments and legal review.

So if the FCC decides that no LGBT characters can appear in sitcoms, there would be nothing the president could do to change that?

 

[martybegan]

The laws passed by Congress says the FCC controls what is shown on TV. If the president has complete control of the FCC then he can tell them to take any show off the air and that show would be gone.

The laws passed by Congress says that the FTC makes decisions on mergers. If the president has complete control of the FTC then he can tell them to approve or not approve any merger he wants.

That sounds like a king, not a president

Blame Congress, but what the law actually says is certain wavelengths of BROADCAST air are reserved for certain companies that have to work for the public interest.

As for mergers, again, that's what the law says, passed by congress.

So you want some leftover political administrator from a past President to have that power instead of one appointed by the current president?

Sounds idiotic.

 

[martybegan]

You know what I'm talking about.

Independent agencies of the United States federal government - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You want the president to exert total authority over every one of these agencies. Right?

There should be no such thing as an independent agency outside the control of the President if it can use Article II powers.

 

[Marener]

Blame Congress, but what the law actually says is certain wavelengths of BROADCAST air are reserved for certain companies that have to work for the public interest.

As for mergers, again, that's what the law says, passed by congress.

So you want some leftover political administrator from a past President to have that power instead of one appointed by the current president?

Sounds idiotic.

And you want the president to be the sole decider on what is in the "public interest".

 

[martybegan]

And you want the president to be the sole decider on what is in the "public interest".

Based on the laws passed by congress, yes.

If congress gives by law something that involves Article II powers, they give the President and only the President power to execute said laws. Or anyone delegated by said president to execute those laws.

 

[Marener]

There should be no such thing as an independent agency outside the control of the President if it can use Article II powers.

So when to companies want to merge and seek approval from the SEC, you want the president to decide.

When a campaign is under investigation by the FEC for violating the rules, you want the president to determine if they should be fined.

Oh, and the Federal Reserve is an independent agency too. Yikes.

 

[Marener]

Based on the laws passed by congress, yes.

If congress gives by law something that involves Article II powers, they give the President and only the President power to execute said laws. Or anyone delegated by said president to execute those laws.

If congress gives by law something that involves Article II powers, they give the President and only the President power to execute said laws.

This is gibberish. You seek to make the president astonishingly powerful. It's pretty ******* scary.

 

[martybegan]

So when to companies want to merge and seek approval from the SEC, you want the president to decide.

When a campaign is under investigation by the FEC for violating the rules, you want the president to determine if they should be fined.

Oh, and the Federal Reserve is an independent agency too. Yikes.

Or his duly delegated officers, who make their judgements based on the laws passed by congress. Not officers from previous administrations, not unelected bureaucrats.

The Federal Reserve is a tricky one, because it is actually a bank, and has powers outside Article II. that would have to be handled separately.

 

[martybegan]

This is gibberish. You seek to make the president astonishingly powerful. It's pretty ******* scary.

It is reality. And also, learn to quote properly. I fixed it for you.

 

[Norm Paperman]

Blame Congress, but what the law actually says is certain wavelengths of BROADCAST air are reserved for certain companies that have to work for the public interest.

As for mergers, again, that's what the law says, passed by congress.

So you want some leftover political administrator from a past President to have that power instead of one appointed by the current president?

Sounds idiotic.

I would rather have professionals who have no skin in the game making decisions based on information and not at the whims of the current President.

 

[martybegan]

I would rather have professionals who have no skin in the game making decisions based on information and not at the whims of the current President.

The idea they are impartial is laughable. They are mostly leftists, which is why you want them to rule on things.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

The problem is that you want Trump to be the one who should decide what is "provably false information".

No, it’s easy to prove what is false, is it factually true? If not, your license gets pulled. Trump isn’t a rapist, he wasn’t convicted of rape, if you keep claiming that you get shut down.

Fraud isn’t protected speech. Not sorry.

 

[Marener]

It is reality. And also, learn to quote properly. I fixed it for you.

It's not reality. The way the current system works is that these independent agencies are able to exercise judgement without interference from political considerations.

That system has been extremely beneficial to this country and has meaningfully contributed to our economic success.

And that's the system you seek to tear down and infect with politics.

 

[22lcidw]

A very famous republican said it very well:

"that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"

Abe is spinning in his grave right now.

For a percentage of people anyway. Much of what we see on TV today was forced on us with some demanding it and then a percentage more who got used to it. The FCC was much more stringent in its past.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

And you want the president to be the sole decider on what is in the "public interest".

How is spreading objectivity false information in the interest of the public?

 

[Marener]

No, it’s easy to prove what is false, is it factually true? If not, your license gets pulled. Trump isn’t a rapist, he wasn’t convicted of rape, if you keep claiming that you get shut down.

Fraud isn’t protected speech. No sorry.

It's not about what is true, it's about who decides what is true.

You want Trump to decide what is true and revoke licenses based on his whims.

 

[martybegan]

It's not reality. The way the current system works is that these independent agencies are able to exercise judgement without interference from political considerations.

That system has been extremely beneficial to this country and has meaningfully contributed to our economic success.

And that's the system you seek to tear down and infect with politics.

No, they operate politically, just using the political opinions of the bureaucrats.

The system is a bloated abortion, putting too much power in unelected hacks.

It's already "infected with politics", progressive politics. which is why you defend it.

 

[22lcidw]

And you want the president to be the sole decider on what is in the "public interest".

Watching Kimmel finish President Joe's incoherent sentences when he was on his Prog propaganda program said it all.