Biden's corruption

[Cutlass]

Are you aware that asking thus just shows how effectively the story about Hunter Biden's laptop contents was suppressed by the editors of the media channels you consume? You really did not hear what the Bidens were accused of in the news pieces about the laptop's contents?

The accusation was that Biden (joe) was the "big man" refereed to in one of the messages from a Biden's (son) associate regarding the distribution of received bribes from a ukranian oligarch.

Hunter Biden was "hired" by that oligarch at the time when Joe Biden was vice-president and specifically handling foreign policy towards Ukraine in the US. As hunter Biden's only known competences are as a possible evaluator of hookers and drugs, and ukranian oligarchs certainly do not need aid in those departments, his "hiring" was transparently a bribe. Said associate of Hunter Biden later confirmed in an interview that the message refereed to the father.

It would have been an open-and-shut case of corruption were it not for the fact that no one prosecutes top politicians. As you have verified from your own dashed hopes of seeing Trump actually prosecuted in court. The Bidens too are "untouchable". But what is really bad is that they are even uncriticizable, in that reporting on the dirt known about them is being actively suppressed. And with such a close election, if you acknowledged that the report about the laptop was damning then you'd have to consider whether its suppression managed the election outcome.

All is fair in love and war? Then you get to live with widespread and entrenched political corruption. Bcause so long as the party can "manage the narrative" for the faithful, everything goes.

So you're a Republican now?

 

[Cutlass]

sites like facebook admit to suppressing it.

they also admit to acting as government agents for the purposes of controlling "misinformation", regardless of whether it was actually misinformation, since they made those choices at behest/recommendation of the biden administration


desantis might take care of that, should he run. if he does, trump's ego probably won't allow for stepping aside and he'll run independent. among votes that will split to trump, it's hard to imagine many of them would otherwise be democratic.

another issue is that the democratic candidate that "can beat trump" should ideally be better wrt policy implementation than trump. biden administration openly admitted to attempting to push past constitutional restrictions during this term, so whatever candidate the democrats try to ballot harvest up next time should at least not blatantly go against their oath? "better than trump and biden" shouldn't be a high bar to clear, but it's notable that we just failed to clear it last time.

As opposed to Trump, who flat out says that the Constitution should be nullified so that he can rule.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom. . . of the press.

How is the press deciding what to publish and what not to publish a Constitutional violation?

it seems you crossed arguments there

the objective constitutional violation by biden administration was using facebook as an agent to suppress information (plus any other company which operated at their behest, but facebook admitted this publicly). well, that and trying to use osha as a means to constrain actions by landlords and a few other overt attempts to ignore constitution. iirc biden even acknowledged one of these would likely get struck down as unconstitutional but opted to do it anyway (that should be more of a scandal than it was, since he was telling us public "i intend to openly violate my oath" then did so).

press suppressing its own employees was a different line/an aside, to point out that they do suppress information. not to claim this particular action was 1st amendment violation (unless again this was done via government pressure, but we don't have the same evidence for that which we have with facebook).

 

[JollyRoger]

Attempting to influence the press is not unconstitutional.

 

[RobAnybody]

looks, walks, quacks, and propagates like a duck. it's a duck. people get their news there. apparently as enough of a % that government felt inclined to take an active role in controlling the narrative there, ignoring the constitution yet again in doing so

What laws did Congress pass abridging the freedom of Facebook to publish what it chooses? I seem to have forgotten them. Please remind us.

 

[Remorseless1]

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom. . . of the press.

How is the press deciding what to publish and what not to publish a Constitutional violation?

It's 100% permitted under the Constitution. The Trumpers are just whining because Benedict Donald can't spew lies and hatred 24/7. Of course,Donny boy just told his minions the Constitution should be "terminated" because he lost the 2020 elections. Trumpers don't care about the Constitution, civil rights, the rule of law, the economy, the environment, or simple human decency.

 

[Remorseless1]

it seems you crossed arguments there

the objective constitutional violation by biden administration was using facebook as an agent to suppress information (plus any other company which operated at their behest, but facebook admitted this publicly). well, that and trying to use osha as a means to constrain actions by landlords and a few other overt attempts to ignore constitution. iirc biden even acknowledged one of these would likely get struck down as unconstitutional but opted to do it anyway (that should be more of a scandal than it was, since he was telling us public "i intend to openly violate my oath" then did so).

press suppressing its own employees was a different line/an aside, to point out that they do suppress information. not to claim this particular action was 1st amendment violation (unless again this was done via government pressure, but we don't have the same evidence for that which we have with facebook).

The "possibly unconstitutional" act Biden referred to was student loan forgiveness, not Facebook and others refusing to put a poorly sourced article from a tabloid well known for questionable reporting on the site. Facebook, Twitter and others were not agents of the government -- they could have refused with no real consequences. Besides, why are Trumpers so darn eager to look at naked pictures of Hunter Biden?

One last point: every major news organization in the US carried reports on Hunter Biden, including recent stories about Hunter may face jail time for failure to pay taxes. All the previous nonsense was also carried. I'm a retired newspaper journalist. Private enterprises can suppress speech all they want. Check out their corporate conduct policies.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The decision to impeach Donald Trump merely because he delayed US aid to Ukraine while trying to
find out what Hunter Biden had been up to is the clearest possible pointer to corruption by the Biden clan.

There were grounds for the second impeachment, but the first impeachment was a complete cover up.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The decision to impeach Donald Trump merely because he delayed US aid to Ukraine while trying to
find out what Hunter Biden had been up to is the clearest possible pointer to corruption by the Biden clan.

There's nothing wrong with using US foreign aid money to bribe foreign leaders to try to dig up dirt about your political opponent. Nothing bad can come of that.

It's a cover up!

 

[Senethro]

They could both have been in the wrong!

("Could" has such a breadth of meaning now that I look at it)

 

[Lexicus]

Besides, why are Trumpers so darn eager to look at naked pictures of Hunter Biden?

The real news story here is what supplement cocktail Hunter was taking to get such a giant dong

 

[Gori the Grey]

The decision to impeach Donald Trump merely because he delayed US aid to Ukraine while trying to
find out what Hunter Biden had been up to is the clearest possible pointer to corruption by the Biden clan.

There were grounds for the second impeachment, but the first impeachment was a complete cover up.

And to add to Ziggy's sarcasm, the first impeachment involved referencing daily a transcript that included the following:

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.

Not a great move if you're trying to "cover up" corruption by the Biden clan. In fact, the kind of move people would do only if they were sure that looking into all of this would turn up nothing.

 

[El_Machinae]

So check this out:

Fascist's use copyright and patent law to protect Big Tech's various monopolies (under the guise of 'networking effects are efficient'). Big Tech then hires unelected and invisible bureaucrats and flunkies to selectively enforce censorship according the whims of the Board. Fascists then have a handshake deal to continue to use legal force to protect Big Tech's monopoly.

Then we pretend it's not 'real' censorship if it's done through the plausible deniability of a multinational company whose powers are kept from democratic control.

All of their ability to censor comes from the original legal ability to censor you from copying their code.

 

[bernie14]

What laws did Congress pass abridging the freedom of Facebook to publish what it chooses? I seem to have forgotten them. Please remind us.

As frequently mentioned by our cyclical history commie friends, this opinion puts you with the slave holders pre 1861

 

[Gori the Grey]

So check this out:

Fascist's use copyright and patent law to protect Big Tech's various monopolies (under the guise of 'networking effects are efficient'). Big Tech then hires unelected and invisible bureaucrats and flunkies to selectively enforce censorship according the whims of the Board. Fascists then have a handshake deal to continue to use legal force to protect Big Tech's monopoly.

Then we pretend it's not 'real' censorship if it's done through the plausible deniability of a multinational company whose powers are kept from democratic control.

All of their ability to censor comes from the original legal ability to censor you from copying their code.

All the First Amendment does is prevent the government from throwing you in jail for something you say. It does not obligate the government to ensure that every statement gets a "fair shake," that there's some kind of level playing field for people's opinions, information, misinformation, disinformation. Fascist control of the media of propaganda is a concern, but that concern has to be met in different ways than worrying about these monopolies. Twitter has a kind of monopoly on micro-blogging. Twitter is not the only outlet for your opinion. If Twitter is hostile to your opinion, take it elsewhere.

(Again, unless I'm not seeing what you're driving at.)

 

[El_Machinae]

All the First Amendment does is prevent the government from throwing you in jail for something you say. It does not obligate the government to ensure that every statement gets a "fair shake," that there's some kind of level playing field for people's opinions, information, misinformation, disinformation. Fascist control of the media of propaganda is a concern, but that concern has to be met in different ways than worrying about these monopolies. Twitter has a kind of monopoly on micro-blogging. Twitter is not the only outlet for your opinion. If Twitter is hostile to your opinion, take it elsewhere.

(Again, unless I'm not seeing what you're driving at.)

Hiding behind "it's the companies doing it" when they only exist with our permissions is a bit of a framing that I think restricts the conversation. They have too much power. Selectively endorsing and defending that power (when it's on your side) is a series of micro-victories in a war doomed to be lost.

It's a first amendment issue for two reasons: the first is that the very patent/copyright laws defending these companies a restriction on free speech, the 2nd is that allowing megacorps to selectively enforce government whims is just hiding behind a veneer. There comes a point where it's just plausible deniability, and I'm raising the alarm on that sooner than later.

But, you've made a very good case that the monopolies are actually brutally difficult to control (like, it's hard to do well). I am convinced. But having someone say "I think it's impossible" shouldn't be the de facto assumption - the problem is only solvable by people who presume it can be solved.

 

[JollyRoger]

So check this out:

Fascist's use copyright and patent law to protect Big Tech's various monopolies (under the guise of 'networking effects are efficient'). Big Tech then hires unelected and invisible bureaucrats and flunkies to selectively enforce censorship according the whims of the Board. Fascists then have a handshake deal to continue to use legal force to protect Big Tech's monopoly.

Then we pretend it's not 'real' censorship if it's done through the plausible deniability of a multinational company whose powers are kept from democratic control.

All of their ability to censor comes from the original legal ability to censor you from copying their code.

But Big Tech doesn't really have a monopoly. Number 1, there are several competing players. Second, they are not the only conduit for the flow of information. Third, new payers emerge. Someday, MySpace won't have the same influence that it currently has.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, definitely. The capitalist free market might save us!

I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek about all of this, but I think there's a much greater threat here that is going to be hard when the hypocrisy of "oh, they're not on our side this time so we're against it!" starts up. To be clear, right now the majority of the hypocrisy is rightwing, where they're complaining about billionaires controlling everything after being warned about it for centuries. I view it as a time to strike. If rubbing their noses in it is part of the strike, I'm for it. But if the eye isn't on the ball, then we're in longer run trouble. The goal isn't to make them smell poo. It's to realize they're smelling their own poo

 

[Remorseless1]

Hiding behind "it's the companies doing it" when they only exist with our permissions is a bit of a framing that I think restricts the conversation. They have too much power. Selectively endorsing and defending that power (when it's on your side) is a series of micro-victories in a war doomed to be lost.

It's a first amendment issue for two reasons: the first is that the very patent/copyright laws defending these companies a restriction on free speech, the 2nd is that allowing megacorps to selectively enforce government whims is just hiding behind a veneer. There comes a point where it's just plausible deniability, and I'm raising the alarm on that sooner than later.

But, you've made a very good case that the monopolies are actually brutally difficult to control (like, it's hard to do well). I am convinced. But having someone say "I think it's impossible" shouldn't be the de facto assumption - the problem is only solvable by people who presume it can be solved.

You're right -- companies exist on the permission of its Customers, not the government. Twitter exists because millions of people like. Ditto Facebook and Instagram. The government, regardless of what level, cannot tell these companies what can and cannot be on their sites. If Facebook shuts someone down, legally they don't have to give a reason. Now, if they start eliminating white posters or gay posters, that's a case where the government could step in. Not about the content of the post, but the person do it.

Want to stop Big Tech? Stop using it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Eat a low fat diet.

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

Documents show that in the '60s, the sugar industry funded Harvard researchers who, examining risk factors of heart disease, dismissed concerns about sugar and doubled down on the dangers of fat.

www.npr.org

Always recycle.

How Big Oil Misled The Public Into Believing Plastic Would Be Recycled

An NPR and PBS Frontline investigation reveals how the oil and gas industry used the promise of recycling to sell more plastic, even when they knew it would never work on a large scale.

www.npr.org

Big tech is not a monopoly.