All Things Biden: Is It Over Yet?

[pErvinalia]

Cunt only does comments and opinions. He doesn't do rigorous debate.

[Hermit]

...the fact that I had to find it FOR you, kind of firms up my point. Your news is quite blinkered, in an area important to you.

Let me remind you that you did not make a point when you claimed

The Unity Party, which was created by scientists in 2020, was quickly banned by social media.

It was an assertion and it was incumbent on you to substantiate it.

Regarding the dearth of media coverage: Unity 2020 is an insignificant phenomenon. Just under 8000 of its members voted for its leaders, neither of whom accepted the offer to become leaders of the movement. It is difficult to regard Unity 2020 as more than a brain fart of a relatively unknown PhD who became a political activist. It did not even attempt to get on to any of the 50 states' ballots. It begged the Greens and the Libertarians to give them theirs. Unsurprisingly, neither obliged.

Next, let's have a look at Bret Weinstein's take on why Twitter suspended Unity 2020's account. he detailed it here, beginning at the 2:29 mark.

What we are proposing is a mechanism to defeat the argument that is always marshalled when somebody advances an idea outside the duopoly's official candidates. So, the argument that always comes back is that if you advance a candidate outside of duopoly structure that you will inherently draw support away from the major party candidate that is closer to your values and therefore push the system into the opposite direction and elect the greater evil.

His explanation has two fatal flaws. One is that Twitter suspended the Unity 2020 account because it is intent on maintaining a duopoly of political parties. If that were so, it would suspend the accounts of the Libertarian and the Green parties. It has not, so that's the end of that line of reasoning.

The other is that Twitter thinks "if you advance a candidate outside of duopoly structure that you will inherently draw support away from the major party candidate that is closer to your values and therefore push the system into the opposite direction and elect the greater evil". That is rubbish too. In 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote. His policy platform was much closer than that of the Republicans than the Democrats. It therefore stole more voters from the Republicans' contender, George H. W. Bush, than the Democrats' Bill Clinton. That is why Clinton won and Bush lost. I am certain that Twitter is aware of the fact that third party contenders do not automatically draw support away from the major party candidate that is closer to its values and therefore push the system into the opposite direction and elect the greater evil.

Political motivations for the suspension of an insignificant player on the political stage of the USA can be rejected on both grounds Weinstein cited. It was due to the fuckup huge, unwieldy companies tend to make. With around 5000 employees and a market capitalisation ranging between 35 and 44 billion US dollars in the past two months, Twitter is one of those, and given the wildly fluctuating share prices management is focusing on that rather than the ensuring the niceties account holders expect and are entitled to.

[Tero]

Trump left his own "deep state" behind, in the status of gov't officials:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/1 ... ozB4Dgm2uU


When Joe Biden takes office this week, he may actually have one. (deep state)

A higher-than-usual number of Trump administration political appointees — some with highly partisan backgrounds — are currently "burrowing" into career positions throughout the federal government, moving from appointed positions into powerful career civil service roles, which come with job protections that will make it difficult for Biden to fire them

[Cunt]

So now there are republicans, as well as democrats, comprising the 'deep state'?

Sounds like a good arrangement. Better than only one side represented anyway. Heck, it almost is exactly what you would want.

[Cunt]

...the fact that I had to find it FOR you, kind of firms up my point. Your news is quite blinkered, in an area important to you.

Let me remind you that you did not make a point when you claimed

The Unity Party, which was created by scientists in 2020, was quickly banned by social media.

It was an assertion and it was incumbent on you to substantiate it.

Regarding the dearth of media coverage: Unity 2020 is an insignificant phenomenon. Just under 8000 of its members voted for its leaders, neither of whom accepted the offer to become leaders of the movement. It is difficult to regard Unity 2020 as more than a brain fart of a relatively unknown PhD who became a political activist. It did not even attempt to get on to any of the 50 states' ballots. It begged the Greens and the Libertarians to give them theirs. Unsurprisingly, neither obliged.

Next, let's have a look at Bret Weinstein's take on why Twitter suspended Unity 2020's account. he detailed it here, beginning at the 2:29 mark.

What we are proposing is a mechanism to defeat the argument that is always marshalled when somebody advances an idea outside the duopoly's official candidates. So, the argument that always comes back is that if you advance a candidate outside of duopoly structure that you will inherently draw support away from the major party candidate that is closer to your values and therefore push the system into the opposite direction and elect the greater evil.

His explanation has two fatal flaws. One is that Twitter suspended the Unity 2020 account because it is intent on maintaining a duopoly of political parties. If that were so, it would suspend the accounts of the Libertarian and the Green parties. It has not, so that's the end of that line of reasoning.

The other is that Twitter thinks "if you advance a candidate outside of duopoly structure that you will inherently draw support away from the major party candidate that is closer to your values and therefore push the system into the opposite direction and elect the greater evil". That is rubbish too. In 1992 Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote. His policy platform was much closer than that of the Republicans than the Democrats. It therefore stole more voters from the Republicans' contender, George H. W. Bush, than the Democrats' Bill Clinton. That is why Clinton won and Bush lost. I am certain that Twitter is aware of the fact that third party contenders do not automatically draw support away from the major party candidate that is closer to its values and therefore push the system into the opposite direction and elect the greater evil.

Political motivations for the suspension of an insignificant player on the political stage of the USA can be rejected on both grounds Weinstein cited. It was due to the fuckup huge, unwieldy companies tend to make. With around 5000 employees and a market capitalisation ranging between 35 and 44 billion US dollars in the past two months, Twitter is one of those, and given the wildly fluctuating share prices management is focusing on that rather than the ensuring the niceties account holders expect and are entitled to.

I thought you might start to wonder why the ruling class decided to censor an idea from you. I never realized how firmly you would work to defend their...clumsiness?

You should probably trust twitter, facebook and the other ruling class, to decide for you which ideas are safe.

I won't though. I think wealthy corporations are unlikely to have my best interests at heart.

You can reject his claims by any defense you want, but the fact is that those censoring him don't have to answer for it. To you or to him. And they clearly operate censorship for political reasons.

[Tero]

Cute redhead with freckles now giving WH press events
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1352 ... 81/photo/1

[Cunt]

She did a great job explaining why Biden doesn't have to wear a mask on Federal property.

"example of our power, instead of the power of our example"

[Hermit]

I thought you might start to wonder why the ruling class decided to censor an idea from you.

If the suspension of the Unity 2020 account is an example of censoring an idea, the ruling class has just shot itself in the foot. The suspension brought the existence of that brain fart to the attention of millions more than would ever have heard about it otherwise.

I never realized how firmly you would work to defend their...clumsiness?

I don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. That is neither a firm nor a common house and garden defence.

You should probably trust twitter, facebook and the other ruling class, to decide for you which ideas are safe.

I don't trust twitter, facebook and the other ruling class at all. I get all my ideas from Parler, 8kun and in whatever other sites my Qanonical friends hang out. They can be trusted because they know the truth.

I think wealthy corporations are unlikely to have my best interests at heart.

Have I ever mentioned in this forum that wealthy corporations are unlikely to have my best interests at heart? That their raison d'etre is to make a profit for their owners? Oh yes. I have. At least half a dozen times in the past few months alone.

You don't need to search hard to find examples. Earlier this week a wealthy corporation demonstrated that it does not have the best interests of 26 million Australians at heart. Google told an Australian parliamentary hearing that a proposed law forcing the company to pay news publishers for the right to link to their content “would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia”. (Link) The law it opposes wouldn't even make the Australian market unprofitable. It will merely make it less profitable.

Another example: Last September Facebook told an Irish court that it may have to pull out of the European market entirely if a court judgment banning data flows between the US and UK was upheld. “In the event that [Facebook] were subject to a complete suspension of the transfer of users’ data to the US,” the company’s associate general counsel argued, “it is not clear … how, in those circumstances, it could continue to provide the Facebook and Instagram services in the EU.” (Same link)

You can reject his claims by any defense you want, but the fact is that those censoring him don't have to answer for it. To you or to him. And they clearly operate censorship for political reasons.

Indeed they don't have to answer for their decisions. Except to their shareholders, and then only in terms of how those decisions affect the bottom line.

The issue you and I appear to disagree on is the last sentence of your post. The old platitude "when money talks all other voices are silent" looks like an exaggeration because it grossly oversimplifies how businesses are run, but it is correct in principle.

[Cunt]

Biden seems to have finished using Antifa, with media platforms starting to treat them like violent extremists, or republicans.

I wonder if Antifa will peacefully protest their newfound rejection by the Democrats...maybe they'll join the MAGA rejects.

[Hermit]

Cute redhead with freckles now giving WH press events
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1352 ... 81/photo/1

Stand by for Jen Psaki's reiteration and defence of Biden's first whopper of a lie as President: "What looks like flags on the mall were actually people disguised as flags. It was in fact the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration!"

[Hermit]

Biden seems to have finished using Antifa...

When did Biden start using Antifa?

[Cunt]

I thought the biggest lie was saying he signed an executive order about masks on federal property, then hurrying out to break that rule.

Something about showing everyone who the rules were for.

My suggestion, to those who disagree with his orders, is to go to the white house and start a petition. That's the democratic way to change things

[Cunt]

Biden seems to have finished using Antifa...

When did Biden start using Antifa?

Oh, he didn't, because they aren't a group. Antifa is only an idea

[Tero]

There was no antifa here. Just fa (proud boys)

"(the guy that used to run the USA , sort of) tweets Antifa will be labeled a terrorist organization but experts believe that's unconstitutional"

An additional problem with the Doofus President's claim is that groups who identify as Antifa are amorphous and don't have a central leadership, though some local activists are highly organized, according to federal law enforcement officials. That has made it difficult for US law enforcement to deal with violence from members of groups that label themselves as Antifa.

The Doofus President's call for a terrorist designation comes as Doofus and Attorney General Bill Barr have pointed to far-left groups as responsible for many of the violent protests across the country.

CNN

[Cunt]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... ack-police

Leftist agitators rioted in the streets of Portland Wednesday night, smashing windows at the Democratic Party headquarters.

Hundreds of people associated with the leftist organization antifa gathered around 2 p.m. Wednesday, two hours after President Biden's inauguration ceremony, and marched to the Democratic Party headquarters and began smashing windows

Doofus President will have to re-iterate that antifa is NOT a group.