*** OFFICIAL *** Joe Biden Presidency Thread

[desertrunner]

The Secret Service told Politico it had no record of the alleged incident. A spokesperson also said “records confirm that the agency did not provide protection to any member of the Biden family in 2018, and that the Secret Service had no involvement in this alleged incident.”
[/B]

Thats part of the cover up, dah!

[desertrunner]

Another link- https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/hu...JqRkOFoAq9cTpU

[Walter Sobchak]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ens-gun-477879
https://news.yahoo.com/secret-agents...122021425.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...secret-service
https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/secret...-biden-report/

Even worse. The only credible source you provided had a much more complete story.
From the Guardian.

"Hunter Biden was the target of efforts by supporters of Donald Trump to dig up political dirt on the family, efforts which in part led to Trump’s first impeachment. A rightwing website, the Blaze, reported the gun incident in October last year.

The Secret Service told Politico it had no record of the alleged incident. A spokesperson also said “records confirm that the agency did not provide protection to any member of the Biden family in 2018, and that the Secret Service had no involvement in this alleged incident.”

The rest of the article is hearsay. 2018. Owning a gun is not okay? Suggesting the gun was bought for drug purposes is fantasy

This is Rethuglicans we're talking about. Any kind of crazy fuck can own a machine gun no problem, but it's a huge problem if they're related to someone they need to make up shit to use to attack them politically.

[Walter Sobchak]

Hunter Biden is a crazy motherfucker who fucks whores and uses drugs.

No wonder he and Trump get along so well.

[TheXFactor]

Biden’s press conference was kind of lame.

I'm mainly annoyed by these gutless journalists.

First question out of their mouths should have been...

Saudi dissent and American citizen Jamal Khashoggi who was a journalist was brutally murdered and dismembered in Turkey by Saudis working for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman back on October 2nd 2018.

Donald Trump refused to acknowledge that this event even happened and rejected the CIA report that MBS ordered the killing.

Joe Biden claimed he would hold MBS and Saudi Arabia accountable for the killing.

Biden instead decided to let MBS get away with murder.

The question is "How many more American journalists will Biden allow Mohammed bin Salman to kill and get away with murder?"

[Cerveza Fria]

Biden’s press conference was kind of lame.

I'm mainly annoyed by these gutless journalists.

First question out of their mouths should have been...

Saudi dissent and American citizen Jamal Khashoggi who was a journalist was brutally murdered and dismembered in Turkey by Saudis working for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman back on October 2nd 2018.

Donald Trump refused to acknowledge that this event even happened and rejected the CIA report that MBS ordered the killing.

Joe Biden claimed he would hold MBS and Saudi Arabia accountable for the killing.

Biden instead decided to let MBS get away with murder.

The question is "How many more American journalists will Biden allow Mohammed bin Salman to kill and get away with murder?"

There are no more “Journalists”. Just political hacks and spin doctors from both sides of the isle. But Journalism is DEAD.

[MumblesBadly]

Biden’s press conference was kind of lame.

I'm mainly annoyed by these gutless journalists.

First question out of their mouths should have been...

Saudi dissent and American citizen Jamal Khashoggi who was a journalist was brutally murdered and dismembered in Turkey by Saudis working for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman back on October 2nd 2018.

Donald Trump refused to acknowledge that this event even happened and rejected the CIA report that MBS ordered the killing.

Joe Biden claimed he would hold MBS and Saudi Arabia accountable for the killing.

Biden instead decided to let MBS get away with murder.

The question is "How many more American journalists will Biden allow Mohammed bin Salman to kill and get away with murder?"

Hate to break it to you, but Khashoggi was only a journalist for an American neswpaper and still a citizen of Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, Team MBS would not have been able to lure him to go to a Saudi Embassy for papers related to his upcoming wedding.

[TheXFactor]

He was a U.S. resident with three U.S. citizen children.

American media kept saying he was an American citizen which he kind of was, a legal U.S. resident.

Still no one is willing to stand up to Saudi Arabia and this Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

If he wants to murder a fake American journalist, he needs to start with Sean Hannity with Fox News. Biden may give him a medal if he does.

[Walter Sobchak]

Nothing at all wrong with Biden's press conference. The right will never accept that he is not senile. They need to make shit up to attack him because they are losers and they can't win a fair fight so they have to lie, cheat and steal.

[dwai]

Nothing at all wrong with Biden's press conference. The right will never accept that he is not senile. They need to make shit up to attack him because they are losers and they can't win a fair fight so they have to lie, cheat and steal.

you just described your own party

[nightmarefish]

Nothing at all wrong with Biden's press conference. The right will never accept that he is not senile. They need to make shit up to attack him because they are losers and they can't win a fair fight so they have to lie, cheat and steal.

What are you talking about Walt? He brought a binder and read prewritten answers from it and called on press members that were prepicked. He had a list of who he would call on ffs. You ever seen another president do that? He isn't the press secretary.

[nightmarefish]

[mickeycrimm]

Biden’s press conference was kind of lame.

I'm mainly annoyed by these gutless journalists.

First question out of their mouths should have been...

Saudi dissent and American citizen Jamal Khashoggi who was a journalist was brutally murdered and dismembered in Turkey by Saudis working for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman back on October 2nd 2018.

Donald Trump refused to acknowledge that this event even happened and rejected the CIA report that MBS ordered the killing.

Joe Biden claimed he would hold MBS and Saudi Arabia accountable for the killing.

Biden instead decided to let MBS get away with murder.

The question is "How many more American journalists will Biden allow Mohammed bin Salman to kill and get away with murder?"

The liberal press was warned not to make Joe look bad. And Fox News was not allowed to ask even one question. Consequently Joe got all soft ball questions. Still, he looked like an idiot and a weakling.

[mickeycrimm]

An opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court in a recent libel case:

Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s.10 (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a DemocraticParty trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.

As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. See Kaitlyn Tiffany, Twitter Goofed It, The Atlantic (2020) (“Within a few hours, Facebook announced that it would limit [a New York Post] story’s spread on its platform while its third-party fact-checkers somehow investigated the information. Soon after, Twitter took an even more dramatic stance: Without immediate public explanation, it completely banned users from posting the link to the story.”).11 It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination “raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 387 (1992). But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.

To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content based censorship.

Of course, I do not take a position on the legality of big tech’s behavior. Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore not subject to the First Amendment. Yet—even if correct—it is not an adequate excuse for big tech’s bias. The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is—I say this advisedly—fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions. One would hope that someone, in any institution, would emulate Margaret Chase Smith. Admittedly, a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left. There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact. That was empirically and persuasively demonstrated in Tim Groseclose’s insightful book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind(2011). Professor Groseclose showed that media bias is significantly to the left. Id.at 192–197; see alsoid. at 169–77. And this distorted market has the effect, according to Groseclose, of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical election. Id. at ix, 201–33. And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services.

It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.

[Walter Sobchak]

An opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court in a recent libel case:

Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s.10 (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a DemocraticParty trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.

As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. See Kaitlyn Tiffany, Twitter Goofed It, The Atlantic (2020) (“Within a few hours, Facebook announced that it would limit [a New York Post] story’s spread on its platform while its third-party fact-checkers somehow investigated the information. Soon after, Twitter took an even more dramatic stance: Without immediate public explanation, it completely banned users from posting the link to the story.”).11 It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination “raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 387 (1992). But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.

To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content based censorship.

Of course, I do not take a position on the legality of big tech’s behavior. Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore not subject to the First Amendment. Yet—even if correct—it is not an adequate excuse for big tech’s bias. The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is—I say this advisedly—fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions. One would hope that someone, in any institution, would emulate Margaret Chase Smith. Admittedly, a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left. There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact. That was empirically and persuasively demonstrated in Tim Groseclose’s insightful book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind(2011). Professor Groseclose showed that media bias is significantly to the left. Id.at 192–197; see alsoid. at 169–77. And this distorted market has the effect, according to Groseclose, of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical election. Id. at ix, 201–33. And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services.

It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.

Good luck with that.

[mickeycrimm]

An opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court in a recent libel case:

Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s.10 (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a DemocraticParty trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.

As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party. See Kaitlyn Tiffany, Twitter Goofed It, The Atlantic (2020) (“Within a few hours, Facebook announced that it would limit [a New York Post] story’s spread on its platform while its third-party fact-checkers somehow investigated the information. Soon after, Twitter took an even more dramatic stance: Without immediate public explanation, it completely banned users from posting the link to the story.”).11 It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination “raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377, 387 (1992). But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.

To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content based censorship.

Of course, I do not take a position on the legality of big tech’s behavior. Some emphasize these companies are private and therefore not subject to the First Amendment. Yet—even if correct—it is not an adequate excuse for big tech’s bias. The First Amendment is more than just a legal provision: It embodies the most important value of American Democracy. Repression of political speech by large institutions with market power therefore is—I say this advisedly—fundamentally un-American. As one who lived through the McCarthy era, it is hard to fathom how honorable men and women can support such actions. One would hope that someone, in any institution, would emulate Margaret Chase Smith. Admittedly, a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left. There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact. That was empirically and persuasively demonstrated in Tim Groseclose’s insightful book, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind(2011). Professor Groseclose showed that media bias is significantly to the left. Id.at 192–197; see alsoid. at 169–77. And this distorted market has the effect, according to Groseclose, of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical election. Id. at ix, 201–33. And now, a decade after this book’s publication, the press and media do not even pretend to be neutral news services.

It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.

Good luck with that.

What's the matter, Waltie? Can't handle the truth? Big Tech is on their way to being regulated because of their crimes against non-socialists. Other countries are in the forefront of it but it will happen here to.

[Walter Sobchak]

Good luck with that.

What's the matter, Waltie? Can't handle the truth? Big Tech is on their way to being regulated because of their crimes against non-socialists. Other countries are in the forefront of it but it will happen here to.

Fine to regulate Big Tech, but the first amendment will not be reduced in scope unless the constitution is amended.

[Dan Druff]

I know it's a different topic, but a lot of this social media bias crap can be solved by changing Section 230 to only apply to smaller sites (like this one), and to require that the bigger sites not curate by ideology if they wish to have such protection.

That would solve everything. Smaller sites can continue to operate how they wish and still enjoy the Section 230 protection, whereas large, influential sites will either have to allow content from both sides or lose their protection.

Right now Twitter and Facebook are acting like publishers.

[desertrunner]

https://www.facebook.com/1776471057/...062007066079/?

[David USF]

https://www.facebook.com/1776471057/...062007066079/?

Ah, memories.