United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

[Airedale260]

Do you trust the CPAC results?

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).

 

[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.