Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Joe]

6 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

meet the new boss same as the old boss

 

Exactly the same, ya.

[Chairslinger]

Just now, SilentWorld said:

meet the new boss same as the old boss

 

 

It's an issue kind of like Trump targeting only billionaires he didn't like for anti-trust lawsuits and such.

 

Trump wanted to get rid of 230 for petty reasons, but don't many on this same board want that outcome?

 

I have seen plenty of "End Facebook/Twitter" sentiment here.

 

I actually lean the other way. These platforms have done damage, but I still prefer to er on the side of free speech. Even if it's dumb or harmful.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

This doesn't do much for free speech but it does mean that Facebook and Twitter probably won't exist as significant moderation would be required

[osxmatt]

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

Biden wants Sec. 230 gone, calls tech “totally irresponsible,” “little creeps”

ARSTECHNICA.COM

---

Biden had harsh words about tech, seemingly spurred by anger with Facebook.

 

 

Pardon my ignorance, but in my limited understanding, Section 230 actually *makes* it possible for Trump and his supporters to post the batshit crazy stuff they do.

 

If it was repealed, people could not only sue Trump for his online content, but also sue Twitter or Facebook. To prevent that, Twitter and Facebook would obviously err on the side of caution, and just take down all questionable content.

[Uaarkson]

Just now, osxmatt said:

 

Pardon my ignorance, but in my limited understanding, Section 230 actually *makes* it possible for Trump and his supporters to post the batshit crazy stuff they do.

 

If it was repealed, people could not only sue Trump for his online content, but also sue Twitter or Facebook. To prevent that, Twitter and Facebook would obviously err on the side of caution, and just take down all questionable content.

Agreed. I see no problem with this. 

[Ghost_MH]

3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

It's an issue kind of like Trump targeting only billionaires he didn't like for anti-trust lawsuits and such.

 

Trump wanted to get rid of 230 for petty reasons, but don't many on this same board want that outcome?

 

I have seen plenty of "End Facebook/Twitter" sentiment here.

 

I actually lean the other way. These platforms have done damage, but I still prefer to er on the side of free speech. Even if it's dumb or harmful.

 

Ending 230 doesn't end Facebook or Twitter. It would have a more serious effect on this site than any of those larger social media sites. It would just lead to greater moderation and anyone that has the resources to automate that come out on top.

 

Folks just want to see the hilarious fallout of all these conservatives being banned from everything from YouTube to Reddit for liability reasons.

[SuperSpreader]

3 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Ending 230 doesn't end Facebook or Twitter. It would have a more serious effect on this site than any of those larger social media sites. It would just lead to greater moderation and anyone that has the resources to automate that come out on top.

 

Folks just want to see the hilarious fallout of all these conservatives being banned from everything from YouTube to Reddit for liability reasons.

 

That's fine. 

[osxmatt]

6 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Agreed. I see no problem with this. 

 

I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it.

[Uaarkson]

Just now, osxmatt said:

 

I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it.

If I can’t have desert, no one can 

[Ghost_MH]

Just now, SuperSpreader said:

 

That's fine. 

 

That part is fine. The bigger issue for me is the effect this would have on cloud-based email and messaging/chat clients like Discord or WhatsApp. They'd be equally liable for content and I really don't want to see what that looks like. Would someone like Signal even be able to exist?

[Ghost_MH]

4 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it.

 

They think removing their liability protections opens them up to censorship lawsuits, even if censorship lawsuits against private entities isn't a thing. Twitter can't violate your first amendment rights, but they REALLY think they can and do.

[CitizenVectron]

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

This doesn't do much for free speech but it does mean that Facebook and Twitter probably won't exist as significant moderation would be required

 

9 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Agreed. I see no problem with this. 

 

If done properly (exclusions for common message boards, review sites, etc) then it's not bad. But it won't be done that way. Facebook and Twitter will likely lobby for 230 to be totally repealed (rather than a new version made) because it will leave only the giants standing. They will be able to afford the thousands of moderators required to scan and remove bad posts, while places like Yelp, Resetera, or D1P will not. If any site can be sued for what anyone says on it, then 99% of sites simply won't allow posting or comments of any kind. It will silence all online discussion outside of mega corporations who can afford the AI/human moderation required.

[osxmatt]

2 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

They think removing their liability protections opens them up to censorship lawsuits, even if censorship lawsuits against private entities isn't a thing. Twitter can't violate your first amendment rights, but they REALLY think they can and do.

 

Why can my friend post fun recipe ideas all day long, but the minute I post about George Soros eating Hillary's baby blood, I get shadow banned??

[SaysWho?]

Considering we're talking about Trump

 

let's never quote The Who in regards to Trump and Biden. Because Trump took a while but I feel much more comfortable now saying he actually beat Bush in suckage and is on another level of hurting this country.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, osxmatt said:

 

I think it's fantastic, but it's never made sense why Trump and his right-wing enablers support it. They're literally the people benefiting from it.

 

They think their voices are the ones being unjustly suppressed, not that they're the people benefitting from it. 

 

It's hilarious, I know. Cognitive dissonance. Leopards, faces. Etc. My favorite part: the slight smile in the second panel.

 

 

 

[Chairslinger]

6 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Considering we're talking about Trump

 

let's never quote The Who in regards to Trump and Biden. Because Trump took a while but I feel much more comfortable now saying he actually beat Bush in suckage and is on another level of hurting this country.

 

 

 

I remember there were some on the left who would chastise people for saying Trump was worse than Bush because of the Iraq War body count.

 

Those takes calmed down a lot in 2020.

 

But I maintain Trump was always worse than Bush. He just hadn't confronted a crisis yet(though Maria should have been a fucking warning sign).

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

I remember there were some on the left who would chastise people for saying Trump was worse than Bush because of the Iraq War body count.

 

Those takes calmed down a lot in 2020.

 

But I maintain Trump was always worse than Bush. He just hadn't confronted a crisis yet(though Maria should have been a fucking warning sign).

 

I was that person in the first sentence.  

 

I definitely think too many on the left will look fondly at a Republican who did a lot of wrong because a really bad Republican appears later. But the COVID body count, which somebody's probably calculating now as to how many lives would be here if Trump took it seriously and told others to do so as well instead of trying to get past it, and now a US Capitol under attack to the point that foreign terrorists couldn't even do what we just did, skyrockets him up there. At this point, Bush did help plant the seeds same as many other Republicans, but I can safely say I long for this:

 

 

 

Lots of things sucked. His presidency sucked. But this alone puts him over Trump's disastrous last few months.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Trump gets "credit" for every covid death, and at the end of the day that will rival the Iraq war so they're both world class criminals who deserve to hang

[Joe]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Trump gets "credit" for every covid death, and at the end of the day that will rival the Iraq war so they're both world class criminals who deserve to hang

 

Yeah at first the notion of Trump being worse than Bush seemed absurd, but the more I thought about it, they are neck and neck to me.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

 

Yeah at first the notion of Trump being worse than Bush seemed absurd, but the more I thought about it, they are neck and neck to me.

Until covid it was bush being worse by sheer body count alone.

Now?

[finaljedi]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Until covid it was bush being worse by sheer body count alone.

Now?

 

No, fuck it, at least the Republic was still in one piece at the end of his administration.  No one was meeting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to make sure he didn't have a hissy and set off a nuke.

[Joe]

 

Beautiful!

[Jason]

Just now, Joe said:

 

Beautiful!

 

[ThreePi]

Isn't the NRA already hanging by a thread what with all the in-fighting and lawsuits about embezzling money?

[Brick]

If the NRA goes under it'll be icing on the cake. Even some gun owners, and 2nd Amendment advocates don't like the NRA because they don't really do anything for gun owners, they're just a lobby group for gun manufacturers. There are plenty of better pro gun organizations to join without the shady past of the NRA.

[SilentWorld]

If Trump accelerated the collapse of the republic that would be the one good thing he did. 

[Nokra]

1 hour ago, Joe said:

 

Yeah at first the notion of Trump being worse than Bush seemed absurd, but the more I thought about it, they are neck and neck to me.

Neck and turkey gizzard, you mean?

[CitizenVectron]

 

[CitizenVectron]

Arizona GOP censured/going to censure Cindy McCain for endorsing Joe Biden. Taking on the serious issues.

 

 

[PaladinSolo]

AZGOP looking to be as competitive as the CAGOP!

[Oberon]

so I have a question, and I haven't been able to find an answer. Let's say that that DC and/or Puerto Rico become states. How do they determine the term for the first round of senators? i dont think any state has 2 senators that have the same start time of their 6 year term. 

 

so 1) do they only get 1 senator for the first 2 years, then they get their second senator?

2) do they get 2 senators at once, but the one senator is there for 2 years less than the other?

3) do they have 2 senators start at the same time and both get 6 year terms and that state always has both senators up at the same time?

 

[SuperSpreader]

3 minutes ago, Oberon said:

so I have a question, and I haven't been able to find an answer. Let's say that that DC and/or Puerto Rico become states. How do they determine the term for the first round of senators? i dont think any state has 2 senators that have the same start time of their 6 year term. 

 

so 1) do they only get 1 senator for the first 2 years, then they get their second senator?

2) do they get 2 senators at once, but the one senator is there for 2 years less than the other?

3) do they have 2 senators start at the same time and both get 6 year terms and that state always has both senators up at the same time?

 

Probably same start with a 4 and 6 year term. 

[TwinIon]

8 minutes ago, Oberon said:

so I have a question, and I haven't been able to find an answer. Let's say that that DC and/or Puerto Rico become states. How do they determine the term for the first round of senators? i dont think any state has 2 senators that have the same start time of their 6 year term. 

 

so 1) do they only get 1 senator for the first 2 years, then they get their second senator?

2) do they get 2 senators at once, but the one senator is there for 2 years less than the other?

3) do they have 2 senators start at the same time and both get 6 year terms and that state always has both senators up at the same time?

 

Option 2 is what seems to have happened in Hawaii.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

Doesn’t PR already have Senators? They just don’t have voting privileges. If they became a state I would assume there existing Senators would just get all rights and privileges and they would continue their term. 

[Jason]

15 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Doesn’t PR already have Senators? They just don’t have voting privileges. If they became a state I would assume there existing Senators would just get all rights and privileges and they would continue their term. 

 

wat