Joe Biden’s conflicts of interest keep piling up.

As Biden’s son-in-law invests in COVID-19 response, questions of family and ethics could resurface

But he’s lucky the press will handle each and every conflict with kid gloves.

Michelle Carter exercised her free speech by encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. She didn't kill him, so why should SHE have been punished when she was just exercising her free speech?

Exactly.

Right, keep repeating it it will come true. Democrats are going to invade their own country.

It’s a weird conclusion because what Trump was “really saying” (according to the author) is contradicted by what he really said. One can search his entire archive of tweets and not find a single mention of “invaders”. And given that the author’s analysis is restricted to Trump’s tweets, it leaves out a vast amount of rhetoric Trump used elsewhere. So it’s a poor analysis for poor minds.

Just what we need: more authoritarian pantywaists in power chilling free speech. This is a show trial in a kangaroo court,

Nancy Pelosi’s second impeachment trial begins today.

Our virtual president was booed at the Super Bowl. The most popular president ever.

One can say the same of any form of influence. But in this case dark money, corporate interest and media collusion pushed they finger on the scale. “Hey, it worked” isn’t a great answer.

This story is quite enlightening and getting a lot of traction. It turns out that there was a vast anti-Trump conspiracy to rig the election.

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

This is the inside story of the conspiracy to save the 2020 election, based on access to the group’s inner workings, never-before-seen documents and interviews with dozens of those involved from across the political spectrum. It is the story of an unprecedented, creative and determined campaign whose success also reveals how close the nation came to disaster. “Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,” says Ian Bassin, co-founder of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan rule-of-law advocacy group. “But it’s massively important for the country to understand that it didn’t happen accidentally. The system didn’t work magically. Democracy is not self-executing.”

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

True to form, the anti-Trumpers justify their actions by repeating glittering generalities about “democracy” and convincing themselves their actions would save America from some dire future. It’s a racket, of course. But shadow campaigns, vast sums of dark money, altering election laws, war games, colluding with corporations, big tech and the press to steer information doesn’t seem to me to represent the spirit of democracy.

The image is in the original document.

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Brian%20McCreary%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

So I guess you'll believe anything if it fits your worldview and disbelieve it when it doesn't?

Biden’s genius FBI included a photoshopped image in their criminal complaint.

I’m touchy? You’re the one who interjected because I criticized Biden.

My father doesn’t sniff little girls.

I don’t like Biden at all.

“But if Trump did this”.... Counterfactual thinking at its most embarrassing. :lol:

It looks like Joe’s military inauguration and subsequent military occupation of Washington is costing big, tax-payer bucks.

The cost of deploying about 26,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol in the wake of the deadly Jan. 6 riot is nearly $500 million, U.S. military officials said Thursday.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-4b27fdcda664a919e3eeaa1691c9c785

As an aside, I took Harvard’s Implicit Bias Test and came away with results showing I have a bias against European Americans. I don’t know how I should feel about those results.

Yes it is evidence of abuse.

The speed and amount of executive orders is where the abuse lies.

Right, it’s not Biden it’s the system. Yet it’s Biden abusing the system. The discussion ended when you went into something something task forces.

Your method of cleaning toilets is to drop a big coiler in the center of the bowl and smear it about.

Speaking of making shit up as we go along, you couldn’t even get the citation right.

I read every executive order and proclamation, and have done so for the last few years. I doubt you have, but I don’t mind if you quote a line or two from a “CNN” article in lieu of that.

The point is this:

“ In his first two weeks, President Biden has signed more executive orders than most recent presidents did in their first month. He has signed nearly as many executive orders as Franklin Roosevelt did in his record-breaking first month.”

I would prefer to know what you think about that than be given some red-herring about “task forces”.

Anti-Trumpism is still the reigning principle, it seems. I cannot wait to see what other behavior you’ll forgive on such grounds.

Don’t bother. I don’t require bits and pieces of CNN articles to tell me what I should think.

Do you believe policy should be reached through a process of debate and deliberation, or by presidential order?

The point was made and you desperately searched for some way to dismiss it, but did a poor job of doing so, convincing no one but yourself. Thanks anyways.



According to Biden’s own fuzzy principles, ruling by EO is something dictators do.

28 executive orders in 2 weeks. Benkei: “For creating a task force?”

If the problem isn’t Biden why didn’t others do it? No, the problem is Biden.

Biden has been signing EO’s like a madman. He has almost signed as many EO’s in his first two weeks as FDR did in his first month. According to Biden’s own words this is dictator shit.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/03/963380189/with-28-executive-orders-signed-president-biden-is-off-to-a-record-start

But who cares? At least he doesn’t make mean tweets.

I ask because I’d like to know who privileges someone on account of these characteristics. If not yourself, then how are we able to assume that the larger society does so?

Do you privilege people on account of these characteristics?

You say that 'the recipient of privilege is never born with it', but that ignores the whole way into which can be born into an environment of privilege. An easy example is how some people are born into wealthier backgrounds. The whole life we are given at birth affects who and what we can become in so many ways.

What I mean is one does not come out of the womb with privilege in his skin color or gender, as if it was biology. Rights, immunities, favors, privileges etc. are always given, granted, bestowed. So it isn’t the case that one is necessarily privileged by virtue of certain attributes. One remains unprivileged until someone privileges him.

Everyone has privileges in the structure of the social world, such as being male, white etc. In a way, we could say that the most disadvantaged could be the black, disabled lesbian. We live such hierarchical structures in a way in which these categories are almost invisible but they permeate life.

I don’t think there are such hierarchies or privileges, and we risk falling into identity politics by thinking along such lines.

Privileges must be granted before they can be possessed. People who grant privilege according to such characteristics certainly exist, but the recipient of privilege is never born with it. One could heap privilege on a black disabled lesbian and she would be privileged thereby.

First: "Thinking" is an Action and it is an obvious truth that all Actions unequivocally exist in the Real Universe. I might also say: "I eat therefore I am" or "I sneeze therefore I am" or "I walk therefore I am".

I would push back on this because I don’t think it’s obvious that all actions unequivocally exist. When I jump, for instance, something called a “jump” doesn’t immediately pop in to existence and vanish when I’m finished.

That’s exactly what the Trump administration did.

“Our number one goal is to unify them with their sponsor and while that’s happening we’re providing them with a quality education”

- Mark Weber, US Dept. of Human Services, Trump administration.

It must have slipped your mind.

The Biden administration is reopening a “concentration camp” for children. Given the past, I suspect we’ll see mass world-wide outrage and condemnation. But given the selectivity of said outrage, I won’t hold my breath.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/migrant-children-facility-immigration/index.html

What I mean is, the meaning isn’t in the symbol. I carry it around with me so that when I come across a symbol I can understand what it means. Obviously I must first learn what it means.

This is where Wayfairer works. He has a VPN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_re-education_camps

The implications are dire, I admit.

I just explained that. It's not complicated. The sound (or image) stimulates a neuron sufficiently for it to stimulate one to which it is proximate. At the end of that chain is the instruction to your muscles to type. What is it you're not understanding about that?

It’s not that I don’t understand it. I just think it’s kind of ridiculous because I am being treated as a passive object, the words acting upon me as if I was silly putty. I think it’s the other way about: I act upon the words.

All the activity you describe, from hearing a word on down to responding, is performed by and caused by me. Just as you chose your words and manifested them, it is I who chose to read them. It is I who learned the language. It is I who differentiated between your text and the general noise of other sense data. It is I who interprets the data and supplies the meaning to the symbols. It is I who formulates and delivers the response.

I would call myself a liberal in the classical sense.

No, I do not approve. This sort of stuff leads to the killing fields. I think your ideas are unjust and I fear for the countries where such mindsets achieve power.

Not only stupid, but ignorant. Can you say rhetoric? The art of persuasion? And never mind Aristotle's measly Rhetoric when you can have Quintillian's whole bookshelf on the subject. And these just two of thousands. Every letter write, every poet, every person who attempts literature of any kind, in particular every speech writer. Every mother who calls her child. These just examples; in short every person who communicates. Btw, nos4, are you aware of music? Do you know what that is? As usual you are an insult to these forums. You just don't usually display this "level" of ignorance.

Then why won’t you persuade me, Tim? Surely you know some of these arts.