Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Quin_Dub

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I know you were asking that specific poster but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it.

When I see a lot of people calling on a company to fire someone I would typically think of that as 'cancel culture'. It's not always the case. But for example that situation with the guy who hosted The Bachelor in the US where thousands of people online were calling for him to be fired and a petition was setup to encourage the network to do it. I don't consider the company firing him to be 'cancel culture' necessary, but I think the mentality of so many people to call on someone else to use their power to fire him in that situation would be 'cancel culture'-ish.

I get what you are saying , but how it that different (other than scale and reach) to the person on the street chasing signatures for some petition or other?

People have always tried to drive change , all that's happened recently is that the delivery mechanism is more visible and gets faster results.

Todays retweets and likes are yesterdays signatures scrawled on a clipboard.

Years ago, a TV show or presenter got "cancelled" by lots of people writing letters to the Newspapers or getting letters read out on Mailbag or Points of view.

Today, the exact same thing is achieved by Tweeting.

salmocab

nolivesmatter wrote: »

I know you were asking that specific poster but I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it.

When I see a lot of people calling on a company to fire someone I would typically think of that as 'cancel culture'. It's not always the case. But for example that situation with the guy who hosted The Bachelor in the US where thousands of people online were calling for him to be fired and a petition was setup to encourage the network to do it. I don't consider the company firing him to be 'cancel culture' necessary, but I think the mentality of so many people to call on someone else to use their power to fire him in that situation would be 'cancel culture'-ish.

So it’s a generic term for people protesting something? It’s just so overused for so many things that it’s just meaningless, people use it to make the protest seem disingenuous or to defend against other’s opinions. It’s become a catch all but really catches nothing.

nolivesmatter

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I get what you are saying , but how it that different (other than scale and reach) to the person on the street chasing signatures for some petition or other?

People have always tried to drive change , all that's happened recently is that the delivery mechanism is more visible and gets faster results.

Todays retweets and likes are yesterdays signatures scrawled on a clipboard.

Years ago, a TV show or presenter got "cancelled" by lots of people writing letters to the Newspapers or getting letters read out on Mailbag or Points of view.

Today, the exact same thing is achieved by Tweeting.

If what you're saying is that what we call 'cancel culture' always existed and that social media has simply elevated it to a higher level of visibility then I agree with you.

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

Nobody anywhere is entitled to say anything without repercussions.

Repercussions in what way?

nolivesmatter

salmocab wrote: »

So it’s a generic term for people protesting something? It’s just so overused for so many things that it’s just meaningless, people use it to make the protest seem disingenuous or to defend against other’s opinions. It’s become a catch all but really catches nothing.

If you're asking me I don't think it means people protesting something, but more the act of people (typically en masse) calling on someone (or company/organization etc.) to fire a person or cancel an event etc. If people protest or boycott someone/something I don't consider that 'cancel culture'. If they demand someone fires someone else I consider that 'cancel culture'.

It's also situation-dependent on whether it's a good or a bad thing. If someone is guilty of a horrific crime and people are demanding the person be fired, I would say that that is 'cancel culture' in effect, but probably not unwarranted.

But I agree, the term is overused and has almost lost all meaning.

Tell me how

nolivesmatter wrote: »

If you're asking me I don't think it means people protesting something, but more the act of people (typically en masse) calling on someone (or company/organization etc.) to fire a person or cancel an event etc. If people protest or boycott someone/something I don't consider that 'cancel culture'. If they demand someone fires someone else I consider that 'cancel culture'.

It's also situation-dependent on whether it's a good or a bad thing. If someone is guilty of a horrific crime and people are demanding the person be fired, I would say that that is 'cancel culture' in effect, but probably not unwarranted.

But I agree, the term is overused and has almost lost all meaning.

Do you think Donald Trump was a practitioner of cancel culture given he called for journalists to be fired because he didn't like the questions they asked him?

Or those who called on him to #FireFauci, were they taking part in cancel culture?

We all agree that it has been around a long time but I think there is an attempt by some, as said by someone else, to disqualify and argument by deeming it to be part of cancel culture and there's a hyopcrisy there which also should acknowledged.

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

Repercussions in what way?

Well it depends really but you have the freedom to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to say it without someone reacting. Obviously they have to react within the law but that would be them breaking a different law if they didn’t. Basically you can have whatever beliefs you don’t have immunity from people or companies treating you differently because of them only the state. A simple way to think of it is if you call your mother a bitch and she decides to write you out of her will you can’t say well I was using free speech. You’re entitled to think she’s a bitch but she’s then entitled to treat you differently.

eagle eye

salmocab wrote:

Well it depends really but you have the freedom to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to say it without someone reacting. Obviously they have to react within the law but that would be them breaking a different law if they didn’t. Basically you can have whatever beliefs you don’t have immunity from people or companies treating you differently because of them only the state. A simple way to think of it is if you call your mother a bitch and she decides to write you out of her will you can’t say well I was using free speech. You’re entitled to think she’s a bitch but she’s then entitled to treat you differently.

This is what I said. You have the right to voice your opinion but they have the right to voice their opinion on your opinion.

ohnonotgmail

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think Donald Trump was a practitioner of cancel culture given he called for journalists to be fired because he didn't like the questions they asked him?

Or those who called on him to #FireFauci, were they taking part in cancel culture?

We all agree that it has been around a long time but I think there is an attempt by some, as said by someone else, to disqualify and argument by deeming it to be part of cancel culture and there's a hyopcrisy there which also should acknowledged.

A very long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott

salmocab

eagle eye wrote: »

This is what I said. You have the right to voice your opinion but they have the right to voice their opinion on your opinion.

No you said the poster wasn’t explaining it right and they were, free speech means you can say whatever without government doing anything, nothing more really. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and others to react as they want (within the law) but that’s a different thing.

nolivesmatter

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think Donald Trump was a practitioner of cancel culture given he called for journalists to be fired because he didn't like the questions they asked him?

Or those who called on him to #FireFauci, were they taking part in cancel culture?

We all agree that it has been around a long time but I think there is an attempt by some, as said by someone else, to disqualify and argument by deeming it to be part of cancel culture and there's a hyopcrisy there which also should acknowledged.

Those two examples at the top are as clear an example of 'cancel culture' as I've seen so I think we're in agreement.

I've laid out what I think 'cancel culture' is. The hypocrisy as I see it is when people only describe it as 'cancel culture' when the person/thing they like is being fired/cancelled or whatever. That definitely happens a lot and is why the term means so little.

Tony EH

The problem with "cancel culture" is the phrase itself and the simple minded application of it. The is no CULTURE of cancelling things. Saying that there's a culture of something implies that it's widespread and something that's part of an established pattern of normal behaviours and customs.

The reality is is that there is no such thing as a "cancel culture". It's a silly catchphrase that's been blown out of all proportion.

That there are people in all walks of politics that will call for someone or something's head that they don't agree with is a given. And there are people who are overly censorious of things that irk them. But those people have always existed. However, there's no actual "culture" of such.

Overheal

The reason cancel culture is so prevalent as a term is because it is being used for victimhood. Look at Josh Hawley:

Sen. Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) online interview with Washington Post reporter Cat Zakrzewski took a contentious turn when she asked him about his objection to certifying the 2020 election, and he retorted that she shouldn’t try to cancel or silence him.

“Senator, we’re hosting you here,” was Zakrzewki’s memorable reply.

Hawley, along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was one of the Republican Senators who voted against certifying President Joe Biden’s electoral college win against former President Donald Trump, and was one of the most vocal proponents of the efforts to challenge the election.

“Do you believe that Biden is the legitimately elected President of the United States?” Zakrzewski asked Hawley point-blank.

“I do,” said Hawley, giving the correct answer — but then he kept talking. “But let me go back, for just a second,” he began, bringing up Pennsylvania, which he called “the heart of my objection” that he had filed.

Hawley said that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not hear the merits of the claim that the Pennsylvania legislature had violated the state constitution by allowing universal mail-in balloting, describing it as “declin[ing] to hear it, they dismissed it, on a procedural ground called laches, and they violated their own doctrine in doing so.”

Hawley, a Yale-educated lawyer, is wildly misstating the law and facts of the case.

To clarify, “laches” is a defense to a plaintiff’s lawsuit that the plaintiff showed a lack of diligence and unreasonably delayed in bringing their claim, and to allow them to pursue it now would be unfair or unjust to the defendant. It’s a basic concept taught during the first year of law school. Common reasons to invoke laches are because witnesses or evidence are no longer available, circumstances have changed, or the defendant has made economic decisions relying on the status quo.

In the specific example of the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, the state supreme court ruled unanimously that if the plaintiffs wanted to object to the expansion of mail-in voting, the time to do so was when the bill was originally passed, or, at minimum, before the election was conducted.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (among multiple other courts on this specific issue and other similar challenges arising from other states) ruled that the lawsuit filed after the election had already taken place (and about a year after the bill became law) was just far too late, and the plaintiffs would never be able to show why they should be granted such an extraordinary remedy as tossing out the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians.

“They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted,” wrote Justice David Wecht in a concurring opinion.

“Senator, Senator, I just want to step in here,” Zakrzewski interjected, “if you’re going to challenge this on saying they didn’t hear the merits of the case, because there was an appeals court that ruled that the case lacked merit, so it’s difficult for a court to rule on the merits when they don’t exist.”

She then attempted to turn the conversation back to Biden being legitimately elected, but Hawley cut her off. “No, no, no, no, you can’t have it both ways, Cat…you can’t say they heard it on the merits and dismissed it, that’s wrong, that’s wrong –”

Again, to be clear, the court did not hear the case on the merits, because once they decided that laches applied — that the plaintiffs had delayed far too long to bring their claim — that meant that the lawsuit was dead on arrival. Laches essentially says that a claim is so unfair and without merit that it shouldn’t even be allowed in the courthouse door.

“No, no, I said the Third Circuit Court of Appeals –” Zakrzewski started.

“Listen, it’s an important point,” Hawley cut her off. “Don’t try to censor, cancel, and silence me here. You raised the issue–”

“Senator, we’re hosting you here,” Zakrzewski replied.

“If you raised the issue, you’ve got to listen to the truth,” Hawley continued, undeterred, “and the truth is the Supreme Court did not hear the merits of the case, they dismissed the case on laches grounds, that’s in violation of their own precedent.”

Once again (sigh), Hawley is just flat out wrong. He’s wrong about what Zakrewski said, he’s wrong about the law, he’s wrong about what the precedent says, and he’s wrong about what the court actually ruled.

Laches means the court tosses the whole complaint in the garbage and there’s no need to even debate the merits of the case.

Seriously, students at every law school in America are expected to know this by the end of their first year. Why can’t this Ivy League-educated Senator figure it out?

“Senator, we’re going to move on,” said Zakrzewski.

Watch the video above, via The Washington Post.

Losing a flapping argument about his complete feigned ignorance of the law and cries about being oppressed. Really.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/dont-try-to-censor-cancel-and-silence-me-here-josh-hawley-clashes-with-washington-post-reporter-on-2020-election-objection/

everlast75

Biden must be doing a fantastic job if folk are posting on a thread about his presidency and banging on about a non existent phenomenon unrelated to the work he's doing....

Water John

POTUS aims for 70% vaccinated by 4th July.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/may/04/joe-biden-coronavirus-covid-fda-pfizer-politics-washington-live-latest

Another real deadline to aim for.

salmocab

everlast75 wrote: »

Biden must be doing a fantastic job if folk are posting on a thread about his presidency and banging on about a non existent phenomenon unrelated to the work he's doing....

Whilst I’m guilty of getting involved I was wondering how the conversation made it to here. I’m sure it started with Biden but it’s quite the tangent.

mcmoustache

Water John wrote: »

POTUS aims for 70% vaccinated by 4th July.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/may/04/joe-biden-coronavirus-covid-fda-pfizer-politics-washington-live-latest

Another real deadline to aim for.

It's a novel approach getting advice from experts and planning accordingly. As fun as it as to see a clown pull figures out of his hole that ended up having no basis in reality, it wasn't really what one would want in a leader.

EddieN75

everlast75 wrote: »

Biden must be doing a fantastic job if folk are posting on a thread about his presidency and banging on about a non existent phenomenon unrelated to the work he's doing....

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

ohnonotgmail

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

out of 61 promises he has already fulfilled 26, partially completed another 42 and has only 3 not met at all. Pretty decent for his first 100 days.

ohnonotgmail

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

he is making up for the mask that trump refuses to wear. just doing his bit.

Overheal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he is making up for the mask that trump refuses to wear. just doing his bit.

Owning the Trumpers and playing 6D chess etc

EddieN75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he is making up for the mask that trump refuses to wear. just doing his bit.

Oh yeah. So true.

everlast75

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-climate-iran-nuclear-immigration-de7b288aa2b4315b5b7fe38559a6e666

See for yourself.

He has 2 masks on it that first picture. I just noticed

He has a surgical mask on underneath and a color coded one for his suit.

Stylish guy joe.

Doesn't need fake tan, high heels, a corset and enough hairspray to defy gravity by curling his hair into a monstrosity.

Brian?

salmocab wrote: »

Whilst I’m guilty of getting involved I was wondering how the conversation made it to here. I’m sure it started with Biden but it’s quite the tangent.

I blame myself. I said cancel culture doesn’t exist in reply to someone whinging about it.

EddieN75

everlast75 wrote: »

He has a surgical mask on underneath and a color coded one for his suit.

Stylish guy joe.

Doesn't need fake tan, high heels, a corset and enough hairspray to defy gravity by curling his hair into a monstrosity.

Either that or he is wearing two masks because a dose of Covid could easily kill a man of his age. Just being extra careful and fabulously stylish of course

ILoveYourVibes

everlast75 wrote: »

He has a surgical mask on underneath and a color coded one for his suit.

Stylish guy joe.

Doesn't need fake tan, high heels, a corset and enough hairspray to defy gravity by curling his hair into a monstrosity.

He still looks handsome! :P

duploelabs

EddieN75 wrote: »

Either that or he is wearing two masks because a dose of Covid could easily kill a man of his age. Just being extra careful and fabulously stylish of course

Except he's vaccinated and his masks are there to prevent transmission, jfc

Brian?

EddieN75 wrote: »

Either that or he is wearing two masks because a dose of Covid could easily kill a man of his age. Just being extra careful and fabulously stylish of course

What’s actually your point here?

Option 1: he’s wearing 2 masks to be extra careful.

Option 2: He didn’t like the look of the surgical mask so he’s wearing one that matches his suit over it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of these. Why are you making an issue out of it?

If only cancel culture did exist and we could cancel ridiculous posting.

ohnonotgmail

Brian? wrote: »

What’s actually your point here?

Option 1: he’s wearing 2 masks to be extra careful.

Option 2: He didn’t like the look of the surgical mask so he’s wearing one that matches his suit over it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of these. Why are you making an issue out of it?

If only cancel culture did exist and we could cancel ridiculous posting.

because they have nothing else to criticise him for. It is just desperation.

Professor Moriarty

EddieN75 wrote: »

Either that or he is wearing two masks because a dose of Covid could easily kill a man of his age. Just being extra careful and fabulously stylish of course

Giving his wife a dandelion and wearing two masks. Things must be very boring on Parler.

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

What’s actually your point here?

Option 1: he’s wearing 2 masks to be extra careful.

Option 2: He didn’t like the look of the surgical mask so he’s wearing one that matches his suit over it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of these. Why are you making an issue out of it?

If only cancel culture did exist and we could cancel ridiculous posting.

Option 3 (aka MAGA 101) : masks show you're a weak cuck. Look at how powerful Trump was by ripping it off at the White House. Biden needs two - lol

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

Either that or he is wearing two masks because a dose of Covid could easily kill a man of his age. Just being extra careful and fabulously stylish of course

Plenty of politicians have gone for the two mask approach, it's more effective in terms of limiting transmission. So basically you're annoyed by him having far more human decency than the previous guy..

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Plenty of politicians have gone for the two mask approach, it's more effective in terms of limiting transmission. So basically you're annoyed by him having far more human decency than the previous guy..

I pointed out that the was wearing two masks in a picture.

I pondered why he might be wearing two masks.

I am neither annoyed nor pleased by it.

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

I pointed out that the was wearing two masks in a picture.

I pondered why he might be wear

What have you concluded from your pondering?

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What have you concluded from your pondering?

Welcome back

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

I pointed out that the was wearing two masks in a picture.

I pondered why he might be wearing two masks.

I am neither annoyed nor pleased by it.

It was a pretty poorly informed conclusion since he's fully vaccinated and the fact masks primarily prevent transmission.

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was a pretty poorly informed conclusion since he's fully vaccinated and the fact masks primarily prevent transmission.

There was no definitive conclusion reached. Only a theory

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

Welcome back

Ehm, I posted in this thread 18 hours ago, but thank you.

So, why do you believe he was wearing two masks?

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ehm, I posted in this thread 18 hours ago, but thank you.

So, why do you believe he was wearing two masks?

To be stylish?

As pointed out by a poster.

To be fashionable.

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

To be stylish?

As pointed out by a poster.

To be fashionable.

So you won't be giving an honest answer to that question then?

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you won't be giving an honest answer to that question then?

I'm unsure why someone would wear two masks. It's not something I have come across before. I can't give a definitive answer.

One poster said it's for the purpose of being stylish. Maybe it is

What are your thoughts on it?

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

I'm unsure why someone would wear two masks. It's not something I have come across before. I can't give a definitive answer.

You still don't understand why someone would wear two masks even though the below has been pointed out to you?

Deleted User wrote: »

Plenty of politicians have gone for the two mask approach, it's more effective in terms of limiting transmission. So basically you're annoyed by him having far more human decency than the previous guy..

EddieN75 wrote: »

What are your thoughts on it?

See above.

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

I'm unsure why someone would wear two masks. It's not something I have come across before. I can't give a definitive answer.

One poster said it's for the purpose of being stylish. Maybe it is

What are your thoughts on it?

Here you go.. It's more effective so I imagine it was the primary motivation.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/covid-19-double-masking-increases-protection-from-droplets-by-90-cdc-finds-1.4481473?mode=amp

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You still don't understand why someone would wear two masks even though the below has been pointed out to you?





See above.

Plenty of politicians?
I don't know about that.

I prefer the trying to be fashionable theory. More believable

EddieN75

Brian? wrote: »

Option 2: He didn’t like the look of the surgical mask so he’s wearing one that matches his suit over it.
.

This one.

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

Plenty of politicians?
I don't know about that.

I prefer the trying to be fashionable theory. More believable

His chief medical adviser often wears two masks and studies show that is it beneficial. You believe what you want due to confirmation bias.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/well/live/double-masking-covid.amp.html

Pete and his husband wearing two masks too so not exactly unique to Biden..

EddieN75

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/well/live/double-masking-covid.amp.html

Pete and his husband wearing two masks too so not exactly unique to Biden..

Both of their masks match their clothes. It's a fashion thing again. Look at the guy on the right. He got one to match his clothes perfectly. Very stylish.
Unless it's purely coincidental but that's 3 from 3.

duploelabs

EddieN75 wrote: »

Both of their masks match their clothes. It's a fashion thing again. Look at the guy on the right. He got one to match his clothes perfectly. Very stylish.

What point are you trying to make?

Is it just because you wanted to virtue signal/dogwhistle about mentioning his age when you highlighted it first?

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

Both of their masks match their clothes. It's a fashion thing again. Look at the guy on the right. He got one to match his clothes perfectly. Very stylish.
Unless it's pire

How is it a fashion thing? Why are they wearing the white masks underneath?