The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

[fishonjazz]

It's interesting to think of where things would stand now if the delegates at the RNC would have chosen Nikki Hailey to be the nominee instead of trump.

My guess is that Biden would have remained in the race and been chosen as the nominee by the delegates at the DNC and would be way down in the polls vs Hailey right now and Hailey would cruise to a pretty easy victory and be president early next year with very little drama from either side.

Even if Biden dropped out in this scenario I bet Hailey would be up in the polls by a decent amount against Harris and win the election in November.

SMH Republicans.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Sardines]

It's interesting to think of where things would stand now if the delegates at the RNC would have chosen Nikki Hailey to be the nominee instead of trump.

My guess is that Biden would have remained in the race and been chosen as the nominee by the delegates at the DNC and would be way down in the polls vs Hailey right now and Hailey would cruise to a pretty easy victory and be president early next year with very little drama from either side.

Even if Biden dropped out in this scenario I bet Hailey would be up in the polls by a decent amount against Harris and win the election in November.

SMH Republicans.


Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Hailey did say the first side to ditch their octogenarian candidate would win.

I think she was right.

 

[fishonjazz]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-stokes-fears-unconstitutional-harris-160000703.html Trump doesn't understand the constitution or that delegates and superdelegates, rather than primary voters, choose presidential nominees.

Former President Trump is setting off alarms among critics as he pushes the claim that Vice President Harris’s ascent to become the Democratic nominee is somehow unconstitutional, with some warning he could be laying the groundwork to contest an electoral defeat as he did in 2020.

Trump has repeatedly sought to cast Harris replacing President Biden as the Democratic nominee as nefarious, likening it to a “coup” and in recent days claiming it may be unconstitutional because she was not atop the ballot in the primary process.

Biden and other Democrats, as well as some Republican Trump critics, have suggested the former president’s rhetoric is intended to cast doubt on November’s results should Harris prevail.

“We know one thing for sure. Trump never loses. And so if he’s not the winner of 2024 as in 2020, it must be because he was treated unfairly, yet again,” former Trump national security adviser John Bolton said on CNN.

“This is why people need to start thinking more now about how to deny Trump the ability the day after the election, if he loses, to try and throw the process into chaos again,” Bolton added.

Democratic delegates never formally backed Biden to be the party’s nominee in a roll call vote, and his name was not put on any ballots.

Trump’s rhetoric will be closely watched in light of what happened after he lost the 2020 election. Trump spent much of 2020 sowing doubt about the reliability of mail-in and absentee ballots, and he spent the weeks after Election Day claiming the result was fraudulent or rigged. He pursued numerous legal challenges, including up to the Supreme Court, but they were rejected for lack of evidence.

 

[fishonjazz]

MSN

A majority of Republicans support President Joe Biden's new Supreme Court reform plan, according to a poll that was published on Friday.

After the Court handed down several controversial rulings and with some justices on the Court being accused of unethical behavior, the Biden administration unveiled a three-part reform plan on July 29 that would check the powers of the Court.

The reform plan would create a constitutional amendment ensuring former presidents are not immune from crimes committed while in office, establish a single 18-year term limit for justices who currently are allowed to serve on the Court until retirement or death and establish a binding, enforceable code of conduct that would require justices to disclose gifts, not publicly participate in political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have a conflict of interest. (all of this makes 100% sense)

In a USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted from August 2 to 4, 70 percent of Republicans said they support establishing a binding code of conduct for the Court, 54 percent said they support enacting a constitutional amendment ensuring no person is above the law, including the president, and 51 percent support imposing term limits for justices.

An even larger majority of Democrats and independents also said they'd support Biden's reform plan. In total, 89 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of independents said they support a binding code of conduct while 89 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents said they support Biden's "No One Is Above the Law Amendment." Meanwhile, 83 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents said they support term limits for justices.

 

[fishonjazz]

.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 365]

A president proposing a popular policy idea? Something the majority of voters on both sides like? What a concept.

 

[Bucknutz]

All the “book burning” bros here who promote that fake narrative, are you okay with this?


View: https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1823035468394754244?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Threatening action to shut down speech. Speech that the government can subjectively classify the context to whatever they feel like. I think I just heard this recently coming from a VP candidate.

You guys are obviously against this “book burning” right?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

.View attachment 17020

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

This is an interesting propagandistic spin. In reality this data means the opposite of what is being presented. The truth being revealed there is an admission the government is lying about the scale of the problem by omitting food from the calculation of core inflation.

As a side note, you do know Jacobin.com is set up for the purpose of advocating Marxist Socialism, right? Your screenshot is literal communist propaganda.

Jacobin (magazine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LogGrad98]

All the “book burning” bros here who promote that fake narrative, are you okay with this?


View: https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1823035468394754244?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Threatening action to shut down speech. Speech that the government can subjectively classify the context to whatever they feel like. I think I just heard this recently coming from a VP candidate.

You guys are obviously against this “book burning” right?

I have not weighed in on the book burning issue, but I will weigh in here. Here in the united states, where we have a clear and unimpeachable right to freedom of speech (minus of course inciting speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.), yes this would be viewed as offensive by some of the population, but still allowed. Given the context of this being governed in the laws of the EU then the EU standard would apply. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the EU laws, it sure feels like it is, but if it is then if they want to continue having access to the EU on Twitter/X then they probably need to comply, as the laws of the United States do not govern other nations. Seems fairly clear to me.

Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold. I think the same for Facebook, et al. that they should all be willing to reduce the inflammatory content and reduced the targeting of children and young people in their addiction-generating algorithms, for example. But they have shown only a propensity to chase the almighty dollar regardless of who it harms or how much general harm it does in society. I think that is "more wrong" than what is being sought here in this letter.

Do I feel this is akin to book burning? No, not really. I mean I think an argument could be made, but to me this is not the same thing.

 

[LogGrad98]

.View attachment 17020

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

Yeah this kind of thing is simply out of control and a huge part of it is the loosening, and lack of enforcement of monopoly and anti-trust laws in the last few decades, from both sides of the aisle unfortunately. A side effect of rampant lobbying in that they pay off both sides to get what they want. So we still give oil companies huge tax breaks and even subsidies to the oil companies. In 2022 it is estimated that american tax payers gave the oil companies over $20 billion in hand outs all while prices jumped at the pump and they recorded record income and record profits. None of that is by chance, it is a result of systematic bribery of our elected officials to change laws then "look the other way" on everything else.

I know this is a heavily left-leaning source, but it checks out to various middle of the road sources as well. It is just more succinct here.

Oil & Gas Subsidies: Myth vs. Fact

MYTH: Eliminating subsidies to the oil and gas industry will raise gas prices. FACT: Variations in gas prices are driven by the world market, and are not dependent on U.S. government policies. This includes the existing subsidies for the oil and gas industry according to multiple studies that...

usa.oceana.org

 

[Bucknutz]

I have not weighed in on the book burning issue, but I will weigh in here. Here in the united states, where we have a clear and unimpeachable right to freedom of speech (minus of course inciting speech like yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.), yes this would be viewed as offensive by some of the population, but still allowed. Given the context of this being governed in the laws of the EU then the EU standard would apply. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the EU laws, it sure feels like it is, but if it is then if they want to continue having access to the EU on Twitter/X then they probably need to comply, as the laws of the United States do not govern other nations. Seems fairly clear to me.

Now, do I agree with it? Not sure actually. I think they should be able to post and send what they want to, within the law, but I think there is also a moral responsibility beyond the legal terms defined in "the law" that operators of sites like this should be expected to uphold. I think the same for Facebook, et al. that they should all be willing to reduce the inflammatory content and reduced the targeting of children and young people in their addiction-generating algorithms, for example. But they have shown only a propensity to chase the almighty dollar regardless of who it harms or how much general harm it does in society. I think that is "more wrong" than what is being sought here in this letter.

Do I feel this is akin to book burning? No, not really. I mean I think an argument could be made, but to me this is not the same thing.

What was said? To force action, In this situation? It hasn’t even happened and there is a threat.

Edit: this is suppression of speech. Don’t like who’s speaking, threaten them.

Edit 2: attempted suppression

View: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1823076043017630114?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ

 

[LogGrad98]

What was said? To force action, In this situation? It hasn’t even happened and there is a threat.

Edit: this is suppression of speech. Don’t like who’s speaking, threaten them.

Sure. Then I recommend you say out of the EU for sure, since that seems to be the standard M.O. considering it was mentioned that other letters had been sent before that Twitter did not adhere to, so they were sending another one. That tells me this is a standard thing for them. So it could be presumed this is the way they operate in general. Not sure what recourse we have against the EU in general. Boycott maybe?

They mention the DSA and laws in the EU to which large online entities are responsible to adhere. Sounds like Twitter hasn't been adhering. I guess if that is the choice, and sure you could argue this is suppression of speech but it sure seems to be codified to me. In that case, pull out of the EU entirely and show them that way that you won't play by their rules. They can set the rules the member nations feels are important, and companies can choose where to do business. Twitter should just pull out of the EU entirely. That or sue I guess.