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

Smee_Again

Leroy42 wrote: »

Notice that Gaetz is not saying let's shoot them he is saying it is their obligation to shoot them.

A sitting Senator is saying that Republicans have an obligation to undertake terrorism.

Can you imagine the uproar if a black person came out and said it was the obligation of black people to attack white people as they didn't agree with them. Or AOC said it, Or Omar etc.

But as usual this dangerous rhetoric will be excused, contextualised, laughed off, deemed to have been misunderstood.

What Gaetz meant was...

Tony EH

"The internet’s hall monitors out in Silicon Valley, they think they can suppress us, discourage us. Maybe if you’re just a little less patriotic. Maybe if you just conform to their way of thinking a little more, then you’ll be allowed to participate in the digital world.

Well you know what? Silicon Valley can’t cancel this movement, or this rally, or this Congressman. We have a Second Amendment in this country, and I think we have an obligation to use it."

Wow.

extra gravy

extra gravy wrote: »

Republicans: "Lefties are cancelling us!!!"

That is happening though.

extra gravy wrote: »

Also Republicans: "Let's shoot people we don't agree with"

It's embarrassing what the Republican party has become.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

It's embarrassing what the Republican party has become.

It’s worse than embarrassing, it’s dangerous.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

It’s worse than embarrassing, it’s dangerous.

True.

I see Antonio Garcia Martinez is the latest victim of the progressive lead cancel culture that 'doesn't exist' according to some.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

I see Antonio Garcia Martinez is the latest victim of the progressive lead cancel culture that 'doesn't exist' according to some.

Who?

Igotadose

Smee_Again wrote: »

Who?

And, why should anyone care? And define the term the OP is rabbitting on about?

Igotadose

WhomadeGod wrote: »

FYI

That didn't define the term I referenced. "Lead Cancel Culture" was the phrased used.

And, why should anyone care about this guy who had something happen to him - which the OP unfortunately leaves out.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

Who?

A not particularly well known techie who did, however, write a relatively successful book that was well received back in 2016 when just published. It just goes to show that anyone can fall foul of the ultra progressive mob unfortunately.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

A not particularly well known techie who did, however, write a relatively successful book that was well received back in 2016 when just published. It just goes to show that anyone can fall foul of the ultra progressive mob unfortunately.

What happened?

Igotadose

Hhhhh wrote: »

A not particularly well known techie who did, however, write a relatively successful book that was well received back in 2016 when just published. It just goes to show that anyone can fall foul of the ultra progressive mob unfortunately.

Hmm. And exactly what happened to him?

extra gravy

Hhhhh wrote: »

I see Antonio Garcia Martinez is the latest victim of the progressive lead cancel culture that 'doesn't exist' according to some.

Why don't you set up a thread where you can whine about it? This has nothing to do with Biden.

maik3n

Details on Antonio Garcia Martinez here
http://www.theverge.com/2021/5/12/22432909/apple-petition-hiring-antonio-garcia-martinez-chaos-monkeys-facebook

Some random new Apple employee who apparently had a questionable background in terms of the oul racism/sexism.

Strictly speaking it's not really cancel culture in the regular sense.
It seems other Apple employees kicked up a fuss about hiring him to begin with.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

That didn't define the term I referenced. "Lead Cancel Culture" was the phrased used.

And, why should anyone care about this guy who had something happen to him - which the OP unfortunately leaves out.

Because it's indicitive of American society, currently being led by Joe Biden, and the ones who call for individuals to be fired from jobs, or endure some financial cost for their opinions, or something relatively benign they've eritten, tend to be followers of a progressive ideology that is and will continue to damage the democrats in the years to come.

Smee_Again

Sounds like he doesn’t much like women who work in tech in California and a bunch of people who work in tech in California decided they don’t much like him.

Not seeing any link here to Biden or so called cancel culture.

All I see is people desperately trying to link any negative story to an already and increasingly popular president.

Smee_Again

Smee_Again wrote: »

Sounds like he doesn’t much like women who work in tech in California and a bunch of people who work in tech in California decided they don’t much like him.

Not seeing any link here to Biden or so called cancel culture.

All I see is people desperately trying to link any negative story to an already and increasingly popular president.

The link to Biden is this poisonous ideology resides in his party, and instead of trying to get rid of it, he is trying to appease those in his party who support these types of things. A bit like how centrist Republicans tried to appease the religious right and effectively destroyed their party. Let's hope the same things doesn't happen to the dems.

Smee_Again

Hhhhh wrote: »

The link to Biden is this poisonous ideology resides in his party, and instead of trying to get rid of it, he is trying to appease those in his party who support these types of things. A bit like how centrist Republicans tried to appease the religious right and effectively destroyed their party. Let's hope the same things doesn't happen to the dems.

What ideology? Some guy slagged off women in tech and now is suffering the consequences.

Any evidence this is in any way linked to Biden or even the Democratic Party?

Cause all I see is you making a helluva leap here.

extra gravy

Smee_Again wrote: »

What ideology? Some guy slagged off women in tech and now is suffering the consequences.

He's the "victim" though. That's how their silly little version of "cancel culture" works.

Ten of Swords

Back on topic please, thread is getting derailed

Brian?

Hhhhh wrote: »

I see Antonio Garcia Martinez is the latest victim of the progressive lead cancel culture that 'doesn't exist' according to some.

Could you provide some context?

I hear Corporate Joe has abandoned his 'public option' and is instead gonna pump 200 billion into the insurance companies.

Despicable.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I hear Corporate Joe has abandoned his 'public option' and is instead gonna pump 200 billion into the insurance companies.

Despicable.

You hear where?

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

You hear where?

Lots of people. They say "sir!", with tears in their eyes...

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I hear Corporate Joe has abandoned his 'public option' and is instead gonna pump 200 billion into the insurance companies.

Despicable.

Where did you hear that?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Could you provide some context?

It appears I am no longer able. But yiu can listen to Sam harris' podcast he was on that quite recently.

Brian?

Hhhhh wrote: »

It appears I am no longer able. But yiu can listen to Sam harris' podcast he was on that quite recently.

Cryptic

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Cryptic

No I'm obeying mod instruction. See a few posts back.

gizmo

Christ, this isn't hard...

The $200b figure is part of the American Families Plan which, as you can see in brief here, is a wide ranging piece of legislation, not specifically focused on healthcare reform.

The aim of this particular bit of investment is to subsidise premiums within the existing ACA framework, so yes, in short, it'll ultimately go to insurance companies.

This is, of course, different from his noted campaign pledge to introduce a public option which would provide a government-sponsored alternative to the private insurance driven system for those Americans who are not eligible for the existing Medicare or Medicaid programs.

There's currently no evidence to support the notion he has abandoned this pledge.

That being said, given the current state of the Senate, the likelihood of any such legislation passing will almost entirely come down to the ability of his party to mould the package in such a way that it can be classed as a budget reconciliation bill and pass with a simple majority vote.

gizmo

gizmo wrote: »

Christ, this isn't hard...

The $200b figure is part of the American Families Plan which, as you can see in brief here, is a wide ranging piece of legislation, not specifically focused on healthcare reform.

The aim of this particular bit of investment is to subsidise premiums within the existing ACA framework, so yes, in short, it'll ultimately go to insurance companies.

This is, of course, different from his noted campaign pledge to introduce a public option which would provide a government-sponsored alternative to the private insurance driven system for those Americans who are not eligible for the existing Medicare or Medicaid programs.

There's currently no evidence to support the notion he has abandoned this pledge.

That being said, given the current state of the Senate, the likelihood of any such legislation passing will almost entirely come down to the ability of his party to mould the package in such a way that it can be classed as a budget reconciliation bill and pass with a simple majority vote.

A very wordy way of saying that I was right.