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?

 

[CrippleThreat]

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.'"

I really hope the grifters (looking at Cerno bigly) stop egging on DeSantis to run. This is going to get ugly if it starts, and Ron doesn't have the guts for intra-party spats.

 

[Eekum Bokum]

Today, they want to use far worse methods to shake down a sitting senator and force him to directly vote against the wishes of his blood-red constituency

I've seen some people in the usual places say that the people manchin represents (i forget the state) actually want the things the dems want passed and so he's actually voting against his constituents.

I'm sure this is not true but i don't know enough about yank politics to be certain.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

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?

Editorializing speech is compelled speech, which is what Reddit, Facebook & Twitter would have to do in order to continue going if they were treated as publishers by default, which is exactly what they would do if Section 230 were repealed,

"(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

---

interactive computer service​

(2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."

An internet service provider falls under the category of "interactive computer service", which means that revoking section 230 makes them liable for illegal content transmitted through their services; ergo, walled garden. Do you have any idea how much work it would be to comb through every website on the internet for illegal content? It would be much more simple to just pick select top websites to keep & throw out the rest.

Hmm, I wonder what websites an ISP would prefer to keep, the well known ones that everyone uses or a bunch of fringe websites no one knows about?

 

[Czechem Republic]

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.

This is the only bit I take issue with. "Having claims raised in the first place" is a death warrant for most online content unless you have a strict ideological commitment and/or the finances to back it up (like Null or the Gab guy (kinda), or SV big tech). Getting dragged into court is uniquely harrowing all on its own and it's shameful that this is not recognized.

You could go a long ways just by splitting publisher from platform.

 

[Oxous]

@CrippleThreat (reply bug) Agree but if DeSantis doesn't want to be transparent about what he's doing in 2024... he's kinda bringing trouble onto himself. Cruz potentially running in 2024 is one thing, Trump and Tucker Carlson would just beat him into submission. But DeSantis running would just result in a popular Republican governor having to fight Trump, and get his name dragged through the mud in the process, for no real gain. It would just be a waste.

 

[Absolutego]

I've seen some people in the usual places say that the people manchin represents (i forget the state) actually want the things the dems want passed and so he's actually voting against his constituents.

I'm sure this is not true but i don't know enough about yank politics to be certain.

Manchin's got around a 70% approval rating in his state at the moment, while Biden's struggling hard to remain above 30%, so take from that what you will.
The whining about his constituents wanting BBB passed but Manchin being a big meanie is the same kind of condescending "we know better than you, you damn plebians" moralizing the Democrats have come to epitomize over the last 20 years.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

Actually yes it has, gay marriage anyone?

Which was my point.

Removing Christianity from government, which led to gay marriage, is part of why the West is in the state it is.

And what would these laws entail, exactly?

At the very least, defining gender as being based off biological sex and immutable, and banning any forms of CRT from public policy.

Both of those can be done and aren't really that extreme (believe me, I want plenty of things that are way more extreme, but those two are a good place to start). The reason they haven't been done is because the GOP has cucked to the idea that "you can't legislate morality", and so liberal NGO's and big businesses have stepped up to push their own morality.

 

[Constellationzero]

See Also: YouTube

See also: Fuckbook

 

[Spasticus Autisticus]

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?

Leftists are only concerned with gaining popular acceptance when they lack sufficient power to implement their agendas. This is why they used to claim to support free speech, academic freedom, and non-interventionism, among other ideals they have abandoned. They never truly believed in these as abstract goals. To them, these ideals were simply means to an end. Now that the left has (or at least they believe they have) sufficient power, they can dispense with any claim to those ideals. To any non-leftist, it appears as self-defeating hypocrisy, but that's only because we're assuming they are operating in the same logical framework that we are.

 

[Eekum Bokum]

Manchin's got around a 70% approval rating in his state at the moment, while Biden's struggling hard to remain above 30%, so take from that what you will.
The whining about his constituents wanting BBB passed but Manchin being a big meanie is the same kind of condescending "we know better than you, you damn plebians" moralizing the Democrats have come to epitomize over the last 20 years.

Yea but i'm sure i've seen those polls where they ask several questions like "are you in favor of free healthcare" shit like that just pertaining to whatever is in BBB and i swear it's been mostly positive in favor of BBB for manchins state.

Not that I believe that as i'm sure there is soem shenanigans going on but how can we be sure manchin is our guy...for now..

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

An internet service provider falls under the category of "interactive computer service", which means that revoking section 230 makes them liable for illegal content transmitted through their services; ergo, walled garden. Do you have any idea how much work it would be to comb through every website on the internet for illegal content? It would be much more simple to just pick select top websites to keep & throw out the rest.

Hmm, I wonder what websites an ISP would prefer to keep, the well known ones that everyone uses or a bunch of fringe websites no one knows about?

I always thought taking the "you change/delete what someone says, you take responsibility for it" was the most sensible basis for an approach to these things, but we live in clown world where big tech can get away with violating the shit out of that while claiming they shouldn't be accountable for anything while still being treated as neutral third parties.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

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.

What about the Fediverse? Why does the Fediverse always get subtracted from this conversation whenever Twitter alts come up in conversation?

 

[mandatorylurk]

I am pretty confident in the two having had a conversation, with Trump going "just stay out of my way and you'll be fine and I'll back you in '28." If Desantis is wooed by RINO cucks to split the party it's on Ron and no one else, and then you see he has the same eyes as Ted Cruz.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I always thought taking the "you change/delete what someone says, you take responsibility for it" was the most sensible basis for an approach to these things, but we live in clown world where big tech can get away with violating the shit out of that while claiming they shouldn't be accountable for anything while still being treated as neutral third parties.

Most people still don't understand that Section 230 lets you delete things which are obscene (subjective) but not change the contents, so if I were to own a social media site, I could expunge you & all your posts but I couldn't go into your posts & start meddling with their contents. Or at least that's what I remember reading.

 

[Constellationzero]

Alt alt Translation: "Know your place you uppity niggers."

'It's a private company' is the main reason I can never vote for Libertarians. Companies need checks on their powers even more than governments in the age of globohomo because they are otherwise completely unaccountable to the average person, but they keep buying out political whores who are more than happy to do nothing.

I seriously wouldn't mind, and would even AGREE with "It's a private company!" IF, and only IF said private companies were ALSO allowed to censor liberals and democrats and have their OWN views/takes unmolested by the outrage mob and butthurt democrats.

But we all know EXACTLY how that's turned out every time, so... I agree with you.

 

[draggs]

If you want to understand why "IT'S MUH PRIVATE COMPANY" is a shit argument, I would recommend reading The History of the Standard Oil Company by Ida Tarbell, 1904. Allowing autocratic power to any individual or organization in their or its sphere of activity is a bad idea

 

[Czechem Republic]

What about the Fediverse?

Because it's shitlib central, for the most part. Being 'federated' means nothing as most network nodes are run by tankies, and barring that, the people that make the goddamn apps will go out of their way to prevent others from using your site, as Gab found out.

 

[SouthernBitchBob]

Most people still don't understand that Section 230 lets you delete things which are obscene (subjective) but not change the contents, so if I were to own a social media site, I could expunge you & all your posts but I couldn't go into your posts & start meddling with their contents. Or at least that's what I remember reading.

That's a good legal standard; my personal morality errs on the side of deleting also = taking responsibility, but that so quickly spirals when you think about spam and grossly illegal stuff like CP that it's better to go much looser on deletion.

 

[Absolutego]

Yea but i'm sure i've seen those polls where they ask several questions like "are you in favor of free healthcare" shit like that just pertaining to whatever is in BBB and i swear it's been mostly positive in favor of BBB for manchins state.

Not that I believe that as i'm sure there is soem shenanigans going on but how can we be sure manchin is our guy...for now..

I wouldn't worry about Manchin being "our guy" or not, as you put it. He and Sinema are just the two moderate Dems in seats that will obviously flip Republican if replaced, so they're politically untouchable. They represent a much larger moderate wing within the party and are simply the fall guys for the quieter voices elected from more leaning blue states. EDIT: were Schumer to put stuff like BBB up for vote while obviously lacking the majority, I think you'd be surprised how much lower than 52-48 the record would be.
Aside from that, the rumor mill says Manchin wants to become governor again, so I'd assume he keeps prioritizing what keeps the West Virginians happy, even to the point of flipping Republican over cowing to the Dems.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

At the very least, defining gender as being based off biological sex and immutable, and banning any forms of CRT from public policy.

Both of those can be done and aren't really that extreme (believe me, I want plenty of things that are way more extreme, but those two are a good place to start). The reason they haven't been done is because the GOP has cucked to the idea that "you can't legislate morality", and so liberal NGO's and big businesses have stepped up to push their own morality.

Teachers at public schools instructing CRT are public employees, the only way big business could impose that is through government, which is just legislating morality anyway, so that's just a shit excuse & hypocrisy.