United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[Arch Dornan]

If you're asking whether I think the results were honest I'd say yes, but I'd also add that we are 1) still more than three years away from the 2024 election; 2) Trump has much bigger name recognition than anyone else among the rank and file, and 3) Trump is a weird case because he has quite a bit of support from the more conspiracy-minded folk (witness the "Trump 2021" shirts at CPAC worn by people who think Trump is somehow going to be "reinstated" as president (despite that not actually being possible). Plus quite a few Trump supporters I have encountered don't give a fuck about conservatism; they simply like Trump (who isn't really what one would consider a prototypical conservative in a lot of his policies).

Since you do trust them then DeSantis has a lot of work to do if he's aiming for 2024.

 

[Airedale260]

Since you do trust them then DeSantis has a lot of work to do if he's aiming for 2024.

Oh, definitely. I never said he didn’t, just that if he does run in 2024 (or 2028 if Trump gets the nod in 2024) I will wholeheartedly support him. DeSantis appeals to both the populist grassroots and the establishment. If he gets the nod against Biden or Harris, I think he’d crush them.

 

[Captain X]

So if it comes out that the Democrats did for sure cheat, and Biden and/or Harris were active part(s) in that, what would be the way forward?

 

[Terthna]

So if it comes out that the Democrats did for sure cheat, and Biden and/or Harris were active part(s) in that, what would be the way forward?

That depends on whether or not the Republicans are willing to push the issue; some seem to be, but the rest are probably just happy that the "not really a conservative" Trump was ousted, and wouldn't want to give him or his "conspiracy-minded" supporters any more power over their party than they already have.

 

[LordsFire]

So if it comes out that the Democrats did for sure cheat, and Biden and/or Harris were active part(s) in that, what would be the way forward?

It'll probably be impossible to prove Biden or Harris were active in it, because the Dem machine is too good to do that.

However, if it is proven they cheated to victory, then we may have a constitutional crisis on our hands. Because Kamala and Biden will basically never admit they cheated, which means that we'd have an openly illegitimate president, with only the fully bubbled Democrat voters buying into it.

Probably there'd be an impeachment.

 

[Megadeath]

So, I know I asked this before, but what if the response to agitation by both the Biden administration and their opposition leads FB, Twitter etc to decide that operating in the US isn't worth the effort? Is that a "good" thing to your mind? Hopefully someone can give a more substantive answer than "Crazy leftists are going to shoot us all!"

 

[LordsFire]

So, I know I asked this before, but what if the response to agitation by both the Biden administration and their opposition leads FB, Twitter etc to decide that operating in the US isn't worth the effort? Is that a "good" thing to your mind? Hopefully someone can give a more substantive answer than "Crazy leftists are going to shoot us all!"

At this point, yes, it would be a good thing. It would also destroy FB, Twitter, etc, because no other country has a legal environment where they could have prospered like this in the first place. Maybe they could try to set up in a micronation or Iceland, but I doubt their staff would be willing to move there.

 

[Cherico]

So, I know I asked this before, but what if the response to agitation by both the Biden administration and their opposition leads FB, Twitter etc to decide that operating in the US isn't worth the effort? Is that a "good" thing to your mind? Hopefully someone can give a more substantive answer than "Crazy leftists are going to shoot us all!"

Actually that would be great.

Face book was caught red handed selling peoples personal information at scammers conventions, and twitter honestly is a pretty shit company with an anti free speech history that violates our countries principles, and both of them have a history of anti competive actions that fuck over other companies.

twitter for example doesn't do anything special if it shut down and left the US market the country would honestly be better off as numerous other companies filled the same nitch.

And face book has sucked for a long time would not be sad to see them go at all.

The problem with the tech industry in general is the over concentration of power in one small part of the country. If a lot of them up and left the country well its actually easier for us as a country to handle forgin companies intruding on our private sphere then domestic ones.

These companies are not special and neither are the people who run them. If they leave that opens up the market for better alternatives.

 

[Rocinante]

So, I know I asked this before, but what if the response to agitation by both the Biden administration and their opposition leads FB, Twitter etc to decide that operating in the US isn't worth the effort? Is that a "good" thing to your mind? Hopefully someone can give a more substantive answer than "Crazy leftists are going to shoot us all!"

Yes it would be a net positive.

Other competitors would certainly pop up in their place, and FB/Twitter would crash and burn.

Social media isn't that old. We were fine before it. And social media companies have crashed and burned before. We would be fine if FB and Twitter did.

I think they are actively causing more harm than good.

They've gotten too big and powerful, and the government is using them to censor the right. Since they're "private companies," they can do the censorship for the government. They've found a nifty little first amendment loophole, because they've become the primary method by which the public speaks, and since they aren't government, they're allowed to censor it.

It's time for them to be knocked down a peg, and it's time for the GOP to let go of their "free market" ideals and to accept that this is the enemy, and that they must be fought.

 

[Captain X]

DO we really have to let go of our free market ideals, though? Seems to me there really isn't a free market anymore and this country would benefit greatly from actually having one.

 

[Megadeath]

At this point, yes, it would be a good thing. It would also destroy FB, Twitter, etc, because no other country has a legal environment where they could have prospered like this in the first place. Maybe they could try to set up in a micronation or Iceland, but I doubt their staff would be willing to move there.

I don't really understand how you mean that. You do know they operate internationally already, so clearly they can prosper in the legal environment of other nations.

Actually that would be great.

Face book was caught red handed selling peoples personal information at scammers conventions, and twitter honestly is a pretty shit company with an anti free speech history that violates our countries principles, and both of them have a history of anti competive actions that fuck over other companies.

twitter for example doesn't do anything special if it shut down and left the US market the country would honestly be better off as numerous other companies filled the same nitch.

And face book has sucked for a long time would not be sad to see them go at all.

The problem with the tech industry in general is the over concentration of power in one small part of the country. If a lot of them up and left the country well its actually easier for us as a country to handle forgin companies intruding on our private sphere then domestic ones.

These companies are not special and neither are the people who run them. If they leave that opens up the market for better alternatives.

So then, it stands to reason that Trump is doing exactly the wrong thing fighting so hard to be reinstated on these platforms? First through their own appeals process, and now through dubious legal actions.

Yes it would be a net positive.

Other competitors would certainly pop up in their place, and FB/Twitter would crash and burn.

Social media isn't that old. We were fine before it. And social media companies have crashed and burned before. We would be fine if FB and Twitter did.

I think they are actively causing more harm than good.

They've gotten too big and powerful, and the government is using them to censor the right. Since they're "private companies," they can do the censorship for the government. They've found a nifty little first amendment loophole, because they've become the primary method by which the public speaks, and since they aren't government, they're allowed to censor it.

It's time for them to be knocked down a peg, and it's time for the GOP to let go of their "free market" ideals and to accept that this is the enemy, and they must be fought.

If the censorship can only apply to people who actively choose that particular method of communication, that's pretty weak sauce, or a lot of people must disagree with your "censorship" interpretation. What's your explanation for why a huge majority of people choose a service that you seem to consider openly and obviously bad, over the other options among their competitors that seem to do so very poorly?

 

[Rocinante]

I don't really understand how you mean that. You do know they operate internationally already, so clearly they can prosper in the legal environment of other nations.


So then, it stands to reason that Trump is doing exactly the wrong thing fighting so hard to be reinstated on these platforms? First through their own appeals process, and now through dubious legal actions.

No, these are the main avenues for disseminating information and reaching the public at large. As long as they exist, and his competition uses them, he needs to try to be on them to reach his base.

If the censorship can only apply to people who actively choose that particular method of communication, that's pretty weak sauce, or a lot of people must disagree with your "censorship" interpretation. What's your explanation for why a huge majority of people choose a service that you seem to consider openly and obviously bad, over the other options among their competitors that seem to do so very poorly?

It's the simple fact that these companies have become so large and far stretching. They're #1. Everyone uses them for information. This is how people get news these days. Everyone has accounts, those accounts are integrated with countless other accounts with other companies. Ever see the options to Log in with Facebook? Everyone chooses these because they've been on them for like 15 years and they have the most users. If the company decides to use their influence to block certain information, candidates, parties, etc, it does them real harm. The democrats in power are currently using them to shut down "misinformation," and a lot of what they have blocked over the last year wasn't even misinformation. It was information they didn't like. Ivermectin, the lab leak theory, and Hunter Biden's laptop say hello.

Why are they still around and still dominating the space? It's pretty much the same reason I kept using spacebattles up until a good alternative (here) was created. It exists, has a large userbase, everyone is already on it. It's basically habit at this point.

 

[Megadeath]

No, these are the main avenues for disseminating information and reaching the public at large. As long as they exist, and his competition uses them, he needs to try to be on them to reach his base.


It's the simple fact that these companies have become so large and far stretching. They're #1. Everyone uses them for information. This is how people get news these days. Everyone has accounts, those accounts are integrated with countless other accounts with other companies. Ever see the options to Log in with Facebook? Everyone chooses these because they've been on them for like 15 years and they have the most users. If the company decides to use their influence to block certain information, candidates, parties, etc, it does them real harm. The democrats in power are currently using them to shut down "misinformation," and a lot of what they have blocked over the last year wasn't even misinformation. It was information they didn't like. Ivermectin, the lab leak theory, and Hunter Biden's laptop say hello.

Why are they still around and still dominating the space? It's pretty much the same reason I kept using spacebattles up until a good alternative (here) was created. It exists, has a large userbase, everyone is already on it. It's basically habit at this point.

Uh huh, I get cultural inertia. I guess, to be more clear, my question is do you think that everyone else disagrees with you about the degree/scope/effect/etc. of such censorship, or do you think that everyone else is stupid and doesn't see what's plainly obvious to a particular niche?
I realise that might sound like it's intentionally inflammatory or condescending or whatever, but it's truly not. If there's a third option I'd love to hear that too. From where I stand though, it looks like a huge majority of people think you're wrong or at least over reacting on this particular issue.

 

[Rocinante]

Uh huh, I get cultural inertia. I guess, to be more clear, my question is do you think that everyone else disagrees with you about the degree/scope/effect/etc. of such censorship, or do you think that everyone else is stupid and doesn't see what's plainly obvious to a particular niche?
I realise that might sound like it's intentionally inflammatory or condescending or whatever, but it's truly not. If there's a third option I'd love to hear that too. From where I stand though, it looks like a huge majority of people think you're wrong or at least over reacting on this particular issue.

Lots of people lean to one political side and like that they're silencing and censoring certain things.

That doesn't make it right.

 

[49ersfootball]

Backlash growing against the Biden administration over their blatant withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

[Zachowon]

Backlash growing against the Biden administration over their blatant withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Why?

 

[Battlegrinder]

What's your explanation for why a huge majority of people choose a service that you seem to consider openly and obviously bad, over the other options among their competitors that seem to do so very poorly?

Because for most regular people who use social media to keep up with thier family and friends and a few small hobby groups, these issues don't come up. For the relatively small (but incredibly loud) portion that are political active, like 90% of those people are on the political left (and much farther to the left then the average democrat) and are disinclined to care about political censorship targeting thier enemies.

Social media censorship affects only a small number of users, most people are fine. So there's no incentive for the average user that these sites rely on to switch.

 

[Cherico]

Why?

He gets credit for losing the war.

The democrats are also going to get credit for inflation and the great credit crunch that will happen next year.

Though the later was built in by demographics. 2020 is turning out to be another poisoned chalice.

 

[LordsFire]

I don't really understand how you mean that. You do know they operate internationally already, so clearly they can prosper in the legal environment of other nations.

Yes, they have operations in other countries, but they are American companies. That means that if you want to exert governmental force on them, you have to either do it only against their local branch (as has happened recently in India), or you have to tangle with the US Government as well in order to do so.

Social media companies simultaneously hide behind the protections that the legal environment of the US gives them, such as the first amendment, and abuse it by acting as publishers when it pleases them, while claiming the protections of a platform when it does not.

And as it was mentioned by others, no, we don't need to abandon free market principles. We just need to stop letting social media companies claim the legal protections and priveleges of two mutually exclusive categories simultaneously.

 

[DarthOne]

He gets credit for losing the war.

The democrats are also going to get credit for inflation and the great credit crunch that will happen next year.

Though the later was built in by demographics. 2020 is turning out to be another poisoned chalice.

He who controls the media (or writes the history books) controls the past, commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past.

The Military Plays No Part in the Constitution’s ‘Checks and Balances’

https://amgreatness.com/2021/07/18/the-military-plays-no-part-in-the-constitutions-checks-and-balances/

Recent reports demonstrate a frightening willingness by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other high-ranking generals to undermine President Trump during the final year of his administration. These efforts began with some grumbling about the use of the military to enforce law and order during the Black Lives Matter riots of last summer. They reached a fever pitch during the uncertain period between the election of 2020 and the inauguration of Joe Biden.

Milley expressed contempt for protesters supporting President Trump, comparing them to “Brownshirts” and “Nazis.” He described Trump’s challenges to election results as a “Reichstag moment.” He even tried to say something profound: “Everything’s going to be OK. We’re going to have a peaceful transfer of power. We’re going to land this plane safely. This is America. It’s strong. The institutions are bending, but it won’t break.”

It is apparent top military officers conceive of the military as a critical part of the Constitution’s checks and balances, with a duty to review, rank, or resist the president’s orders as they deem appropriate.

The President Is the Commander in Chief
This push towards military independence from presidential control has been underway for a while. When Trump wanted to leave Syria, the president’s military advisers lied to him about troop levels. When Trump wanted to deploy the National Guard to quell violent rioting, military officials ordered that troops would not be armed. Later, on his own initiative, Milley bragged of creating a “Ring of Steel” around the Capitol to protect it from “Nazis.”

Milley’s greatest regret does not appear to be his role in the failed mission in Afghanistan, or the recent conversion of the military into a woke struggle session, or the fiscal disaster that is procurement. Rather, he seems most determined to atone for criticism he received for accompanying Trump and other executive officials in a survey of Lafayette Park. After this entirely defensible episode, the sting from his peers and the media was too much to bear. He became a born-again convert to wokeism, committed to proving his own loyalty to the Washington, D.C. political class.

While Milley and others wrap their power grab in the rhetoric of upholding constitutional principles, a cursory review of the Constitution and the founders’ writings shows that this is just a pose.

The founders were concerned with striking a balance: to create a sufficiently energetic government to protect the nation from internal and external troubles, while avoiding the kind of power that is beyond the control of the people or otherwise a threat to their rights. Thus, the words Army and Navy appear only once each in the Constitution: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

Regarding this language, Alexander Hamilton elaborated in Federalist 74:

The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself; and it is at the same time so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them, which have in other respects coupled the Chief Magistrate with a Council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms an usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

In other words, whether Trump or Biden, the president alone is supposed to be in charge of the military. Even if other parts of government are conducted by committee, this requires singular leadership. The honor of officers and enlisted alike is intact so long as they are subordinate to him. When a group of military officers gets together to conspire against the orders of the commander in chief, it is a real case of mutiny and treason.

Within the military, there is an exception to the duty of obedience for “illegal orders.” But that is a very narrow category, typically limited to war crimes. There is no right to disobey the president on matters of policy. Generals are not constitutional scholars. Orders are presumptively valid, and disobedience is done at one’s peril.

Then Who Checks the President?
This notion of individuals within the executive branch being a check on the president is a peculiar one. One branch cannot check itself. The executive from whom their power is derived is the president. We saw the first hint of this novelty in Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman’s stated belief that the president had no authority to countermand the “consensus views of the interagency.”

The Constitution provides for three branches of government, each having separate powers. They have the limited ability to check and balance one another. Two of the branches have direct democratic accountability. The judiciary is uniquely independent of ordinary politics, but it is limited by the “case and controversy” requirement, and its members obtain their appointments from the combined decision-making of the executive and legislative branch. Executive branch agencies, bureaucrats, and most especially the military are never supposed to be a check or balance against anyone, especially the president.

Milley has said he doesn’t want the military to be political. This is a high order. As Clausewitz famously observed, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” Furthermore, the military is controlled by an elected politician. While the military cannot avoid politics altogether, it can avoid becoming partisan and dangerous by remaining subordinate to the democratically accountable commander in chief.

Milley and others have the option to resign and should be disciplined if they defy these limits.

“Higher Loyalty” to the D.C. Hive Mind
The military’s recent foray into left-leaning partisanship is particularly toxic, because Milley, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and their fellow travelers take their cues from the “hive mind” of Washington, D.C. In the capital, the unelected bureaucrats, think-tankers, journalists, lawyers, and perfumed princes make up a privileged and insular managerial class, whose interests and views of the world deviate widely from the country at large.

In the name of defending the Constitution and its principles, the deep state and its military fellow travelers have expressed a far greater threat to democratic self-government than Trump’s challenge to the election results in the courts and in the court of public opinion. Now that someone more compliant is in office, the same people ominously offer the military to occupy the nation’s capital and turn their arms against Americans, whom they defame as Nazis.

The chief barrier to the domestic misuse of the military is the democratic accountability and control of the president, along with the “doomsday option” of American arms. But it is not clear the military would be turned back from such efforts if some future election turned out “wrong” and the military and the managerial class deemed these efforts essential to fight against “domestic extremism.”

After all, we saw civil servants, FBI heads, and military officers willingly take up the mantle of #TheResistance in response to Trump’s 2016 victory. The military, along with many others in the executive branch, convinced themselves they are entitled to resist presidents and policies they do not like in the name of vague principles derived from the Constitution, even though the words of the Constitution say the opposite.

The military’s embrace of such a principle would mean the true death of constitutionally limited government. If the military conceives of itself as subordinate not to the elected president but to an unelected managerial class, the founders’ seemingly archaic concern for standing armies would be proven to be more relevant than ever.

This push towards military independence from presidential control has been underway for a while. When Trump wanted to leave Syria, the president’s military advisers lied to him about troop levels. When Trump wanted to deploy the National Guard to quell violent rioting, military officials ordered that troops would not be armed. Later, on his own initiative, Milley bragged of creating a “Ring of Steel” around the Capitol to protect it from “Nazis.”

I need to link to this whenever folks b!tch about Trump not using his so-called, ostensible "presidential power" to fix election fraud, street violence.

That story about the military stealth-shipping illegal immigrants across the country at the request of the Biden administration was/is huge, and it has gone largely unnoticed because it preceded Tucker's admission of election fraud in his show.

The military is covertly shipping illegal aliens to specific destinations on American soil to change voter demographics.

That plus the Capitol police becoming a federal police force should worry the absolute shit out of every American.