Politics The Biden thread

[Ivan le Fou]

Precisely the point, Republicans condemn all violence, Democrats only when it’s the other side. Dig deep enough and in every liberal you’ll find a totalitarian just begging to be let out. Anything goes, violence, cheating, lies and everyone’s favorite, hypocrisy. How dare Trump say there was fraud! When for 2 1/2 years we had.....
I think the ISM in liberalism stands for Incredibly Short Memory. Are you all typing this bullsh*t with a straight face??
View attachment 271213

The never-Trumpers and other "trumpahu-ackbars" made it pretty clear they have 0 self awareness.

 

[Deleted member 11302]

If you have an issue with private property, the right of a company to run its business as it wants, you can do your coming out as a socialist.

EDIT: I´ll rephrase for the weaker thinker here.

Of course you can have an issue with the way a business is run. But you have no right ordering them what to do.

Perhaps it is your thinking ability that suffers from weakness? Twitter, Facebook et al. enjoy tax benefits under section 230 according to which they are essentially public squares, like an open plaza in the city where everybody may make their opinions known nonviolently. When Trump tried to block users from his Twitter, a judge ruled that he couldn't do that because his Twitter is essentially a public space! So all these bans, algorithmic throttlings and shadow bannings are essentially illegal under current US laws, laws that are simply not enforced and probably never will until one of those anti-trust suits against Google and the other usual suspects is successful.

 

[riderboy]

The only people who have “defiled” the Capital building are the greedy, mendacious jackass congressmen and senators who have so thoroughly corrupted and stained it’s honor. Chief among them, Joe Biden. 4 multi million dollar mansions in fancy neighborhoods. Millions in cash AND he thoughtfully let his family in on the graft. What did Joe do to earn all that money, this poor kid from Scranton? Photo credit to Ivan...

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Perhaps it is your thinking ability that suffers from weakness? Twitter, Facebook et al. enjoy tax benefits under section 230 according to which they are essentially public squares, like an open plaza in the city where everybody make their opinions known nonviolently. When Trump tried to block users from his Twitter, a judge ruled that he couldn't do that because his Twitter is essentially a public space! So all these bans, algorithmic throttlings and shadow bannings are essentially illegal under current US laws, laws that are simply not enforced and probably never will until one of those anti-trust suits against Google and the other usual suspects is successful.

That has to be the third or fourth time this is being explained to him and yet he still does not understand.

He is utterly clueless about the US system and it appears it is way above his "processing abilities".

Don't waste your time, you'd have more luck teaching a dog how to ring a bell.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Pelosi: House 'will proceed' to impeachment of Trump

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will proceed with legislation to impeach President Donald Trump, calling him a threat to democracy after the deadly assault on the Capitol

www.actionnewsjax.com

 

[Mardonius]

That has to be the third or fourth time this is being explained to him and yet he still does not understand.

He is utterly clueless about the US system and it appears it is way above his "processing abilities".

Don't waste your time, you'd have more luck teaching a dog how to ring a bell.

That's rich coming from a guy with little to none intellectual abilities. Stick it to placing Tweets and articles of bogus sources.

Regarding the discussion: when those judges ruled that Trump can't block users from his Twitter platform, the ruling didn't consequentially elevate Twitter into a public marketplace of ideas and opinions.

From the ruling (page 4):

We do not consider or decide whether an elected official violates the Constitution by excluding persons from a wholly private social media
account. Nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.

We do conclude, however, that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.

Opinion (holding blocking unconstitutional)

knightcolumbia.org

@Serj, like always, does not know what he's talking about.

 

[Telmar]

Perhaps it is your thinking ability that suffers from weakness? Twitter, Facebook et al. enjoy tax benefits under section 230 according to which they are essentially public squares, like an open plaza in the city where everybody may make their opinions known nonviolently. When Trump tried to block users from his Twitter, a judge ruled that he couldn't do that because his Twitter is essentially a public space! So all these bans, algorithmic throttlings and shadow bannings are essentially illegal under current US laws, laws that are simply not enforced and probably never will until one of those anti-trust suits against Google and the other usual suspects is successful.

No Serj, I'm sorry. You can be removed from a social network...or a public square. By the owner of the network or by the police on a public square. Provisions protect the social networks from being prosecuted by creating a line between them and the user, as long as they don't actively contribute themselves from joining the debate and editorialzing.

And keep in mind that for the moment we do not live in a socialist world where an account on a social network is either an entitlement or mandatory.

What probably is illegal are the actions against Parler, that constitute business collysion IMO.

 

[Deleted member 11302]

No Serj, I'm sorry. You can be removed from a social network...or a public square. By the owner of the network or by the police on a public square.

Eehhr yes, but neither can the Police remove someone from a public square for uttering an opinion that is considered unpalatable to somebody else, nor are these Social Media networks simply equal to any private companies. A telecommunications company for example doesn't get to cut your phonelines because you disputed the election results of last year while talking on the phone.

Provisions protect the social networks from being prosecuted by creating a line between them and the user, as long as they don't actively contribute themselves from joining the debate and editorialzing.

Oh, so you agree then? You see, systematically silencing one side of a debate is infact a form of editorialising and heavily weighing in on the debate.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

In the 1980s, a Far-Left, Female-Led Domestic Terrorism Group Bombed the U.S. Capitol

Historian William Rosenau investigates the May 19th Communist Organization in a new book about the little-known militant group

www.smithsonianmag.com

May19 detonated bombs at the Capitol to kill Republican senators in November 1983.

Instead of hanging them, Bill Clinton pardoned one of them at Jerry Nadler’s request.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The ACLU notes that it would effectively criminalize dissent against the government by any political movement.

Do remember though these are privately owned outlets, they are free to have who they want. Twitter is kind of an enormous bar where everyone can have a drink and engage in a conservation. As in any bar, the owner can throw out the people he thinks are rowdy.

 

[nicememe]

If you have an issue with private property, the right of a company to run its business as it wants, you can do your coming out as a socialist.

EDIT: I´ll rephrase for the weaker thinker here.

Of course you can have an issue with the way a business is run. But you have no right ordering them what to do.

I have a different question for you.

What is your opinion on famous people, like musicians, movie celebrities, writers, etc. preaching their political views online, where millions of their followers can read them?

You can't anymore use the "private business" card here, because a celebrity's political views have nothing to do with business. All he/she has that is special about them is the enormously big audience they have.

The problem I see here, is that when celebrities voice political opinions, their voice is disproportionately louder, much louder, than the voice of an average non-politician citizen. So do you consider it safe, for people who have no mandate whatsoever, to have political influence over millions of people, whom they have gained the attention of not through political campaigns or activism, but through the entertainment industry?
For as far as I am concerned, they are using non-political tools to usurp the political discourse. And you know that their followers will brainlessly follow their idol's political views, because that's just how people are.

I am, frankly, extremely against any celebrities peddling political agendas. And for the exact same reason I am against corporations peddling political agendas. They are usurping control over the public political narrative while having no mandate to do so, but enough power to do so more than any politician, elected or aspiring. This is just F***ed up, no matter how much you love capitalism.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I have a different question for you.

What is your opinion on famous people, like musicians, movie celebrities, writers, etc. preaching their political views online, where millions of their followers can read them?

You can't anymore use the "private business" card here, because a celebrity's political views have nothing to do with business. All he/she has that is special about them is the enormously big audience they have.

The problem I see here, is that when celebrities voice political opinions, their voice is disproportionately louder, much louder, than the voice of an average non-politician citizen. So do you consider it safe, for people who have no mandate whatsoever, to have political influence over millions of people, whom they have gained the attention of not through political campaigns or activism, but through the entertainment industry?
For as far as I am concerned, they are using non-political tools to usurp the political discourse. And you know that their followers will brainlessly follow their idol's political views, because that's just how people are.

I am, frankly, extremely against any celebrities peddling political agendas. And for the exact same reason I am against corporations peddling political agendas. They are usurping control over the public political narrative while having no mandate to do so, but enough power to do so more than any politician, elected or aspiring. This is just F***ed up, no matter how much you love capitalism.

Do remember though these are privately owned outlets, they are free to have who they want. Twitter is kind of an enormous bar where everyone can have a drink and engage in a conservation. As in any bar, the owner can throw out the people he thinks are rowdy.

Instagram just pulled one of our posts for "violence and incitement" ... It was a screenshot of Twitter's trending topics. The irony is beautiful.

Tech overlord Instagram yanked one of our posts for "violence and incitement" ... and the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

notthebee.com

No collusion! It's fine! Private business! Big pub! They can do whatever they want! *honk honk*




That presidency is going to get built on the complete absence of legal standards.
Instead: different standards applied in different ways.

"TruMp bAd! I wAnT a pReSideNt wHo caReS abOuT the RulEs of LaW!"

As one once said...


It wasn't a coup. Someone sitting in the Speaker's chair, while wearing a buffalo hat is not a coup. It wasn't terrorism either. Terrorism is when you cut people's head, plant them on a stick, have them displayed in public while filming the whole thing.
Pelosi asking military leaders to stop taking orders from Trump, the sitting President, is a military coup.

Like the Ukraine-thing, the call for Impeachment is equally legally worthless. First of all because Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense, and he didn't even commit a crime to begin with.
But since they want to short-circuit the whole thing (thus making the whole arguments hearing process), they want to impeach him while he still is in office (you can't impeach a private citizen, it only applies to office holders) and basically kangaroo trial him and disqualify him for future office. The idea of impeaching a private citizen is a terrifying anti-constitutional precedent.
It only highlights how obsessed they are with Trump, they want to lash out, punish, punish, punish. They basically want to terrorize, shame and make sure nobody will ever voice opinions similar to, or in support of, Trump's under the threat of personal, economical, social, political backlash.

I do recall some, unfortunately, intellectually deficient and morally weak and bankrupt individual making witty comments and puns "trumpahu ackbar", and comparison between Trump and Maduro/Hitler and such.
The lack of self-awareness is mortifying...


Constitutionally speaking, the 25th does not and cannot apply to Trump. Only when the President is physically incapacitated. It came after JFK got shot, with the bigger back-story of Woodrow Wilson being incapacitated during the last 6 months of his administration, and also meant to safeguard the chain of command (Cold War context). Not meant as a substitute for impeachment.
Suggesting the use of the 25th for Trump because he had some seditious behavior is, indeed, actual seditious behavior.
Which Pelosi did.


They know the response it is going to trigger, and they oh so very much hope that response get triggered!

They will use the events of January 6 as a pretext to impose new Patriot Acts laws. And guess what, the author of the first Patriot Act 1995 after Oklahoma City: Joe Bidden.
And the lefties, never-Trumpers, are gleefully cheering for it.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

On a funny side note regarding "Trump's speech incited violence".

Remember when Bernie claimed Trump was elected by Russia, was Putin's candidate and went on and on and on on it?
Remember when that got constantly repeated by the MSM? And believed by many? Including some members of this very forum?
Remember when, one day, one dude got so convinced it was, indeed, true that he decided to go out with his gun and shot congressmen during a baseball game?
That's inciting violence.

We've had AOC, Kamala Harris, Maxine Waters calling for it all summer long.
And the Media complacently carried their voice, condoned them, amplified them and sanctified them.

Thing is, people who stormed the Capitol were not affected by the speech. The speech had no casual effect. They were not at the speech, they were not attending, they weren't even hearing and/or listening to the speech!

 

[surfpunk]

Parler is gone, wiped from the internet. thank goodness! imagine the nerve of those people attempting to engage in discourse not approved by the ruling class! its for their own good. they just need to be re-educated

 

[riderboy]

Eehhr yes, but neither can the Police remove someone from a public square for uttering an opinion that is considered unpalatable to somebody else, nor are these Social Media networks simply equal to any private companies. A telecommunications company for example doesn't get to cut your phonelines because you disputed the election results of last year while talking on the phone.



Oh, so you agree then? You see, systematically silencing one side of a debate is infact a form of editorialising and heavily weighing in on the debate.

Mexico leader condemns Facebook, Twitter for blocking Trump | FOX 7 Austin

“I don’t like anybody being censored or taking away from the right to post a message on Twitter or Face(book). I don’t agree with that, I don’t accept that,” López Obrador said.

www.fox7austin.com

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deleted member 11302]

Razörfist gets it, but he's also the man!! Follow his Twitter (for as long as it exists) and make sure to watch his content on bitchute:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Shut up Merkel!

Do remember though these are privately owned outlets, they are free to have who they want. Twitter is kind of an enormous bar where everyone can have a drink and engage in a conservation. As in any bar, the owner can throw out the people he thinks are rowdy.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Pelosi issuing an ultimatum?

Why should she not do it?

What would be wrong with that?

Well, in that matter, nothing...

The Dems have the majority everywhere, their candidate will be POTUS in a few days, she has got Schiff and Nadler sitting chairs of major committees.
She knows the other Dems will fall in line behind her, she knows the Media will support her and give her the green light, she knows the base is hyped AF against Trump.

Why wouldn't she give the VP an ultimatum? Why wouldn't she demands the Pentagon to remove Trump's military prerogatives and privileges?

These are, indeed, seditious and military-coup acts. But it's fine. Because that's Pelosi, she is a Democrat and this is done against Trump.
That's the literal embodiment of "the end justifies the means".

"trumpahu-ackbar" and such.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies