US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?

 

[thx1138]

Also proof Denethor was right to make fun of Faramir.

The wrong (movie) guy died, IMO. Faramir in the novel is a righteous dude and way better than his brother (or dad).

 

[elite_club]

that doesnt work in cities. but paying X amount of taxes would have the same effect as landownership in rural parts.

The cities were the ones that caused all of this mess, they deserve disenfranchisement if they think that living 30 minutes away from the closest pop vinyl figure museum isn’t worth being able to vote

 

[mold]

You know, if you were to go to pretty much any other country as an American and demand/piss/dilate to vote in their elections they would just deport your dumbass.

Or worse for you.

generally noncitizens are not allowed to engage in political activity so you're not going to be able to agitate for voting rights without consequences, but it's not an unknown thing even outside the US

Right of foreigners to vote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

People seriously act like Twitter isn't a private company that can do w/e it wants when it wants. You don't pay for twitter. You have no rights on Twitter. Get off of it.

I will never understand the retarded arguments that Twitter should be compelled to allow whatever speech they don't want, and I don't buy this bullshit "modern public square" shit either. Twatter is no different than MySpace or Digg, if everyone abandoned it for other websites tomorrow then they'd be completely irrelevant, and the only reason they're relevant is because people use them. Therefore, let Twitter purge whoever they want off their site, because once they've banned everyone they'll cease to matter at all.

 

[wopirish]

generally noncitizens are not allowed to engage in political activity so you're not going to be able to agitate for voting rights without consequences, but it's not an unknown thing even outside the US

Right of foreigners to vote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reading through it, it looks like its mostly EU, North/South America and the Anglosphere. Also it still lists Hong Kong as allowing foreigners to vote. I think the PRC might be changing that here soon.

Its interesting how many of them have very specific conditions and types of elections in places like Ireland and Isreal, NY and CA will probably start pushing for federal elections and illegals being able to vote next.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Watch how fast your (non-constitutionally-protected) protections against responsibility for the otherwise illegal shit you host every day evaporates.

Anybody who wants Section 230 repealed is a fucking retard.

I don't understand what's so special about Twitter or what's so hard about using the Fediverse that we have to break the whole fucking Internet over it.

Why should Null be personally responsible for what you said simply because he allowed you to say it? Anyone who wants 230 revoked is asking for moral responsibility to be shifted from the criminal to a bystander.

What's more is that if Twitter really are hosting illegal content like CP, that's already illegal and they should be held accountable to removing it as they're supposed to, Section 230 does not need to be deleted to accomplish this. If they refuse to remove it then they're already in violation of the law and acting as a publisher & not a platform anyway so they would lose their Section 230 protections anyway without having to repeal it.

The problem with Section 230 is not the protections it grants but that it has few people to enforce violations of it.

 

[Czechem Republic]

Businesses should be subject to the common good and ultimately to the state.

I don't want regulations based on nebulous, easily-re-definable and politically-loaded concepts like 'the common good', and neither do you.
(Hint: "Diversity" in the current year is in service of 'the common good').

Anybody who wants Section 230 repealed is a fucking retard.

Hot take: social media is enough of a garbage fire with demonstrable negative effects on the world that I'd gladly watch the farms burn if it meant the same flame took down Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. Besides, what would happen is that anything spicy would move to decentralized, impossible-to-sue alternatives, or be centralized in countries hostile to US glowniggery. Communities would get smaller again.

 

[Ita Mori]

I can understand how the white leftists with nigger-saviour complexes can make the argument that blacks are too stupid and helpless to accomplish something as basic as obtaining ID, but the blacks who make the same argument "We niggas can't get ID because we dumb as shit!" I mean, seriously?

Are they seriously willing to put on a bullshit shuck and jive routine, portray themselves as low-functioning primates, and humiliate and degrade themselves in return for the opportunity to rig elections?

Are they really that bereft of pride and self respect?

> Pride and self-respect
> Niggers

LOL

 

[CrippleThreat]

I always knew this GAY LIBERAL was ourguy.



Welcome to the club, decent journo who's been critical of Bolsonaro.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I'll take my negrates for saying this, but this is one of the many problems I have with Western neoliberalism. As it is a cartel of businesses can act in the interests of a small elite and trample on the common good, and libertarian tards will defend that because "it's a private company, they can do what they want".

Businesses should be subject to the common good and ultimately to the state. The liberal idea that the invisible hand of the free market (read; the people who control the free market) should get to control society just leads to Trump being kicked off Twitter and big tech forcing troons down your throat.

You're just asking to trade one dictatorship for another, instead placing supreme power into the hands of Big Gov instead of Big Tech.

You don't trust the uniparty with securing your most basic rights (speech & firearms) but you do trust the government to compel others to do so?

Twitter is nothing fucking special & hemorrhages money daily, if everyone got up and stopped using it then it would shit itself & die.

What even is Twitter, really? Some shitty microblogging site. Anybody could make one of those, it's called the Fediverse.

Shit take: social media is enough of a garbage fire with demonstrable negative effects on the world that I'd gladly watch the farms burn if it meant the same flame took down Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

Real Take: it wouldn't, welcome back to the AOL walled garden days with no net neutrality, enjoy your Facebook, Twitter and Reddit cable package where speech is compelled because all websites are treated as a publisher.

And what is it that you don't like about Plebbit & Failbook anyway that merits burning everything else down? That they say things you personally disagree with?

Besides, what would happen is that anything spicy would move to decentralized, impossible-to-sue alternatives, or be centralized in countries hostile to US glowniggery.

Oh good, that means we're leaving our free speech in the hands of backward shitholes like Turkey.

Internet service providers would just block anything not on the walled garden list because net neutrality would be deader than shit.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

I don't want regulations based on nebulous, easily-re-definable and politically-loaded concepts like 'the common good', and neither do you.

The thing is that no matter what happens you'll get regulations based on nebulous, easily redefinable and politically loaded concepts like the common good and morality, because laws, by their nature, are based off someone's idea of morality and the common good.

Obviously I wouldn't trust Nancy Pelosi or any of the Con Inc grifters to define the common good, but then again my form of politics wouldn't put either of them anywhere near power, so it's a moot point.

You're just asking to trade one dictatorship for another, instead placing supreme power into the hands of Big Gov instead of Big Tech.

Let's not pretend that the idea that "the state shouldn't legislate morality" hasn't got us to where we are today.

All laws are based in morality. The government can either pass laws to defend Western, Christian morality, or it can let big corporations define morality because muh freedomz and muh theocracy. We've tried the second, liberal approach and it led to the President being buck broken by big tech.

 

[Nate Scully 025]

I always knew this GAY LIBERAL was ourguy.

View attachment 2892852

Welcome to the club, decent journo who's been critical of Bolsonaro.

I... what the hell? The Left has always devoured itself, but that’s actually pretty crazy. While I’m sure plenty of them do that because they’re actually True Believers... surely someone has to be aware that the more they push away everyone in their party right of Marx, the less they’ll actually be able to do?... right?

 

[Oxous]

I don't understand what's so special about Twitter or what's so hard about using the Fediverse that we have to break the whole fucking Internet over it.

Network effect is a bitch. Twitter's value, to most people, is that everyone uses it... or that's how it looks at least. 2% of Twitter accounts are 90% of posts, but that 2% still composes a pretty large body of people and all their spewing of verbal diarreha into the cloud just reinforces the perception that Twitter is bigger than it really is. People see this and thinks Twitter is relevant and important, and when enough people do... it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

Where Section 230 comes in is that the vast majority of people who:
a) recognize Twitter is hot air, and
b) want it to go away
Do not know how to achieve b). They don't know how to actually make Twitter irrelevant. They sorta have an idea what Section 230 is about but they don't understand the full implications repealing it has, so some of them think they can repeal it and use that as a bludgeon to beat Twitter to death with brute force. But like most brute force attacks, it would be incredibly messy.

Twitter's greatest allies in keeping them relevant are the very people trying to build Twitter competitors, amazingly enough. Sites like GETTR, Gab and Parler are all garbage. GETTR is just a parasite trying to leech Trump supporters off Twitter. Gab and Parler are both run by incompetent retards who are also hypocrites. Trump Social will flop whenever it releases because "liking Donald Trump" is not a good enough incentive to use the site.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Story is 2 days old but this isn't getting talked about as much as it should be: The Department of Human Health and Services is going to stop releasing daily Covid death counts on Feburary 2nd. Hospitals have been told that they won't be required to report daily deaths to the government after that date.

View attachment 2892567

On the one hand, this implies that the pandemic is coming to a close since they don't need to propagandize anymore, on the other hand this implies they can't continue using those numbers for propaganda for some reason & need to make Covid deaths opaque to continue.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

On the one hand, this implies that the pandemic is coming to a close since they don't need to propagandize anymore, on the other hand this implies they can't continue using those numbers for propaganda for some reason & need to make Covid deaths opaque to continue.

Feels more like the latter to me right now. Having official numbers out there showing that deaths have taken a dive off a cliff is not good for the current narrative. But the skyrocketing case count is good for the narrative. Take away the official numbers and just let a few anecdotes of nurses talking about deaths float out instead, and on paper you can have the best of both worlds.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Let's not pretend that the idea that "the state shouldn't legislate morality" hasn't got us to where we are today.

Actually yes it has, gay marriage anyone?

All laws are based in morality.

Or in personal gain.

The government can either pass laws to defend Western, Christian morality, or it can let big corporations define morality because muh freedomz and muh theocracy.

And what would these laws entail, exactly?

We've tried the second, liberal approach and it led to the President being buck broken by big tech.

Okay, and? Just use the Fediverse, or Trump's Twitter alternative whenever that comes about, or GETTR or Parlor.

 

[Czechem Republic]

Real Take: it wouldn't, welcome back to the AOL walled garden days with no net neutrality, enjoy your Facebook, Twitter and Reddit cable package where speech is compelled because all websites are treated as a publisher.

What the fuck are you blithering about? Net neutrality is already dead and I don't see any cablesque website packages being sold by anyone. How would making websites responsible for they content they host change that? Who said anything about compelled speech?

 

[Oxous]

Trump dogs “dull” DeSantis ahead of potential 2024 matchup​

Spoiler: Full Article

(article)
Donald Trump is trashing Ron DeSantis in private as an ingrate with a "dull personality" and no realistic chance of beating him in a potential 2024 showdown, according to sources who've recently talked to the former president about the Florida governor.

Why it matters: The two are among the most popular Republicans in the country, and as the former president eyes another run in 2024, he's irked by DeSantis' popularity and refusal to rule out running against him.

• DeSantis is a favorite of Republican voters when pollsters remove Trump from the hypothetical 2024 field.
• The governor also hasn't been beyond tweaking his fellow Floridian.
• DeSantis said on the "Ruthless" podcast, recorded Thursday, one of his biggest regrets in office was not speaking out "much louder" in March 2020, when Trump advised the American public to stay home to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Behind the scenes: "In the context of the 2024 election, he usually gives DeSantis a pop in the nose in the middle of that type of conversation," said a source who recently spoke to Trump about DeSantis.

• The source, who shared the private remarks on the condition of anonymity, has heard Trump criticize DeSantis on multiple occasions.
• The source said Trump makes a point of saying he isn't worried about the Florida governor as a potential 2024 rival.
• "He says DeSantis has no personal charisma and has a dull personality," the source added.
• A spokesman for Trump did not comment when presented with this reporting.

A second source who's discussed DeSantis with Trump said the reason for the former president's irritation with the popular governor is "that Ron DeSantis won't say he won't run [in 2024]. ... The others have stated pretty clearly they won't challenge him."

• DeSantis also did not respond to a request for comment.

Between the lines: Several potential 2024 GOP contenders have either ruled out running if Trump does — as his former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, did — or said they would support Trump if he runs.

• That's been the case for South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
• Trump has kept a close eye on these statements. He's noticed that two potential rivals in particular have declined to rule out running: DeSantis and former Vice President Mike Pence.
• Trump seems less bothered by Pence than DeSantis. He's told advisers he thinks Pence's future in GOP politics is over after he abided by the Constitution and refused Trump's request to send electors back to the states on Jan. 6, 2021.
• Other potential rivals who haven't ruled out challenging Trump include former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

The second source said that in Trump's view, "there's no way" DeSantis would be governor without Trump's endorsement.

• The former president also's said something to the effect of: "What's the big deal? Why won't he just say he's not going to run against me?"
• The New York Times' Maggie Haberman reported recently that "Trump has been telling a range of aides a version of, he isn't getting the deference from DeSantis that he wants in the pre-2024 leadup."

Trump's private irritation about what he perceives as DeSantis' ungratefulness and willingness to defy him date back several years. Their disputes have ranged over matters as varied as closing beaches during the early days of the pandemic and a public clash over hurricane death statistics — as the Washington Post's Ben Terris and Josh Dawsey detailed in a 2020 story.

• DeSantis claimed on the "Ruthless" podcast last week that the reports of tensions between him and Trump were a media invention. In the same conversation, he again sidestepped a question about his strength as a potential GOP presidential nominee in 2024.

What we're seeing: Trump's frustrations with DeSantis have been bleeding into his public statements, though he's refrained — so far — from attacking the popular governor by name.

• During a recent OAN interview, the former president said he'd watched interviews with "gutless" politicians who refuse to say whether they've had a booster shot. "You gotta say it — whether you had it or not," Trump said. "Say it."
• As Mediaite noted, DeSantis "has refused to say whether he has received the booster shot. 'I've done whatever I did,' he said in December when asked if he'd been boosted. 'The normal shot.'"

 

[JohnDoe]

@MarvinTheParanoidAndroid misses the central point, in that Facebook, Twitter, et al are playing legal games where they want all the protections offered under 230 for non-editors/publishers while also exercising de facto editorial control over content being posted which should preclude them from the expansive protections.

Justice Thomas explains the issue really well, which is that the protections of 230 as written are relatively narrow (and probably reasonable). Unfortunately these protections have been expanded to cover deliberate, bad faith conduct which runs completely counter to both spirit and letter of the law. The law itself is not necessarily defective, but the enforcement and interpretation of it is deeply flawed.

A very thorough judicial review of 230 would do a world of good.

The year before Congress enacted §230, one court blurred this distinction. An early Internet company was sued for failing to take down defamatory content posted by an unidentified commenter on a message board. The company contended that it merely distributed the defamatory statement. But the company had also held itself out as a familyfriendly service provider that moderated and took down offensive content. The court determined that the company’s decision to exercise editorial control over some content “render[ed] it a publisher” even for content it merely distributed. Stratton Oakmont, 1995 WL 323710, *3–*4. Taken at face value, §230(c) alters the Stratton Oakmont rule in two respects. First, §230(c)(1) indicates that an Internet provider does not become the publisher of a piece of third-party content—and thus subjected to strict liability— simply by hosting or distributing that content. Second, §230(c)(2)(A) provides an additional degree of immunity when companies take down or restrict access to objectionable content, so long as the company acts in good faith. In short, the statute suggests that if a company unknowingly leaves up illegal third-party content, it is protected from publisher liability by §230(c)(1); and if it takes down certain third-party content in good faith, it is protected by §230(c)(2)(A).

This modest understanding is a far cry from what has prevailed in court. Adopting the too-common practice of reading extra immunity into statutes where it does not belong, see Baxter v. Bracey, 590 U. S. —— (2020) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), courts have relied on policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protection to Internet platforms. (“[C]ourts have extended the immunity in §230 far beyond anything that plausibly could have been intended by Congress). I address several areas of concern.

Courts have discarded the longstanding distinction between “publisher” liability and “distributor” liability. Although the text of §230(c)(1) grants immunity only from
“publisher” or “speaker” liability, the first appellate court to consider the statute held that it eliminates distributor liability too—that is, §230 confers immunity even when a company distributes content that it knows is illegal. In reaching this conclusion, the court stressed that permitting distributor liability “would defeat the two primary purposes of the statute,” namely, “immuniz[ing] service providers” and encouraging “selfregulation.” Id., at 331, 334. And subsequent decisions, citing Zeran, have adopted this holding as a categorical rule across all contexts.

Courts have also departed from the most natural reading of the text by giving Internet companies immunity for their own content. Section 230(c)(1) protects a company from publisher liability only when content is “provided by another information content provider.” (Emphasis added.) Nowhere does this provision protect a company that is itself the information content provider. And an information content provider is not just the primary author or creator; it is anyone “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development” of the content. §230(f )(3) (emphasis added).
But from the beginning, courts have held that §230(c)(1) protects the “exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.” cf. id., at 332 (stating also that §230(c)(1) protects the decision to “edit”). Only later did courts wrestle with the language in §230(f )(3) suggesting providers are liable for content they help develop “in part.” To harmonize that text with the interpretation that §230(c)(1) protects “traditional editorial functions,” courts relied on policy arguments to narrowly construe §230(f )(3) to cover only substantial or material edits and additions. (“[A] central purpose of the Act was to protect from liability service providers and users who take some affirmative steps to edit the material posted”).
Under this interpretation, a company can solicit thousands of potentially defamatory statements, “selec[t] and edi[t] . . . for publication” several of those statements, add commentary, and then feature the final product prominently over other submissions—all while enjoying immunity. (interpreting “development” narrowly to “preserv[e] the broad immunity th[at §230] provides for website operators’ exercise of traditional publisher functions”). To say that editing a statement and adding commentary in this context does not “creat[e] or develo[p]” the final product, even in part, is dubious.

The decisions that broadly interpret §230(c)(1) to protect traditional publisher functions also eviscerated the narrower liability shield Congress included in the statute. Section 230(c)(2)(A) encourages companies to create content guidelines and protects those companies that “in good faith . . . restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Taken together, both provisions in §230(c) most naturally read to protect companies when they unknowingly decline to exercise editorial functions to edit or remove third-party content, §230(c)(1), and when they decide to exercise those editorial functions in good faith, §230(c)(2)(A). But by construing §230(c)(1) to protect any decision to edit or remove content, courts have curtailed the limits Congress placed on decisions to remove content, see e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., (rejecting the interpretation that §230(c)(1) protects removal decisions because it would “swallo[w] the more specific immunity in (c)(2)”). With no limits on an Internet company’s discretion to take down material, §230 now apparently protects companies who racially discriminate in removing content. Sikhs for Justice, (concluding that “‘any activity that can be boiled down to deciding whether to exclude material that third parties seek to post online is perforce immune’” under §230(c)(1)).

Paring back the sweeping immunity courts have read into §230 would not necessarily render defendants liable for online misconduct. It simply would give plaintiffs a chance to raise their claims in the first place. Plaintiffs still must prove the merits of their cases, and some claims will undoubtedly fail. Moreover, States and the Federal Government are free to update their liability laws to make them more appropriate for an Internet-driven society.
Extending §230 immunity beyond the natural reading of the text can have serious consequences. Before giving companies immunity from civil claims for “knowingly host[ing] illegal child pornography,” Bates, 2006 WL 3813758, *3, or for race discrimination, Sikhs for Justice, 697 Fed. Appx., at 526, we should be certain that is what the law demands. Without the benefit of briefing on the merits, we need not decide today the correct interpretation of §230. But in an appropriate case, it behooves us to do so.

 

[thx1138]

On the one hand, this implies that the pandemic is coming to a close since they don't need to propagandize anymore, on the other hand this implies they can't continue using those numbers for propaganda for some reason & need to make Covid deaths opaque to continue.

It, and calls for "socially distanced Thanksgiving and Christmas" will restart right about the 3rd week of November.

Bookmark this post. It will happen if the Republican sweep happens.