US Politics Thread 2021-24

[mapuc]

Who's in charge in USA who is the boss in the White House ?

A video clip showing the President asking for a woman named Jackie who had died some month earlier at some press meeting. Which Biden knew he ordered flag on half that day she died.

Biden seems to have had many of these "black-outs" sign of dementia

This made me wonder-Who is the real boss in the White House. Who's in charge behind Bidens back ??

Markus

[Catfish]

Like in every good democracy they are and always were, in the best hands money can buy

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Who's in charge in USA who is the boss in the White House ?

A video clip showing the President asking for a woman named Jackie who had died some month earlier at some press meeting. Which Biden knew he ordered flag on half that day she died.

Biden seems to have had many of these "black-outs" sign of dementia

This made me wonder-Who is the real boss in the White House. Who's in charge behind Bidens back ??

Markus

The guy running the teleprompter

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by MaDef

The guy running the teleprompter

[mapuc]

Danish TV2News Writes:

ANALYSIS: We have to talk about Joe Biden

As an analyst, you shouldn't make remote diagnoses, but you can't ignore the obvious: The ravages of time are eating away at the world's most powerful man.

Let's start with the conclusion:

I'm not going to make remote diagnoses about Joe Biden's alleged or possible mental state. That would be frivolous. But that doesn't mean that analysts can refrain from stating the obvious:

We have to talk about Joe Biden.

Yesterday's seance, in which the 79-year-old Biden asked during a White House conference where the late Congressman Jackie Walorski was among the audience, obviously cannot be ignored.

- Jackie, are you here? Where's Jackie? She's obviously not here," the US President said of Walorski, who died on 3 August this year.

- I thought she would be here to help make this a reality, continued the world's most powerful man. I wonder if the Walorskis would have wanted the same thing, but she was tragically killed in a car accident just two months ago.

Comic Ali's cousin
It was not helped by the fact that White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, at a subsequent press briefing, kept replying that the president had had Walorski "in mind" and, moreover, affectation that the president was confused.

With a twinkle in one's eye, one can of course note that Comic Ali has got a cousin. After all, anyone and everyone can see from the viral video clips that Biden not only had Walorski on his mind, but repeatedly inquired as to the late congressman's whereabouts.

Or, as one member of the press corps so eloquently replied to the press secretary, "I think about John Lennon almost every day, but I'm not looking for him."

Aging
The concern of the American public has long been there. Biden has made himself significantly less available to the press and spoken significantly less to the nation than his predecessors, even though we live in tumultuous times with plenty to talk about.

A poll in late February showed that a majority of Americans do not believe Biden "has the mental acuity to be an effective president". Last month, 59 percent of respondents also said they were "concerned" about Biden's mental health. Concerns about Biden's age are also slowly being voiced in quotes by fellow partisans. Democratic voters keep saying in polls that they don't want Biden to run again in 2024.

In order to navigate this minefield analytically, I myself prefer the formulation that Biden is ageist. It's a more neutral and less loaded term, though it may not be accurate.

Stories
I was at a voter rally with Joe Biden in Nevada in February 2020. Here Biden came on stage and began by saying he was glad to be in California. Potatos, potatoes.

Tales like this have been many in Biden's long career in American politics. Often, the statements are explained away or affectation is that Biden stuttered as a child, or "that's the way Joe Biden has always been."

That may be true. But it is also undeniably the case that these slanders have increased over the years. That said, yesterday's episode obviously can't be categorized as just another slander.

An impossible task
At the same time, of course, it is easy to understand that the White House press secretary has an impossible task. If she finds out the obvious, she will be bombarded with questions about Biden's mental state. If she steps into the role of Comic Ali's cousin - as she did - she is laughed at, and no one buys her excuses.

I have to be honest and admit that it's hard as an analyst, too. It was, by the way - just in a different way - when Donald Trump sat in the White House and behaved - diplomatically put - unusually.

On the one hand, one has to be careful not to be hitched to a party political bandwagon and pass on spin and propaganda. It didn't get any easier, to say the least, after Donald Trump and the Republicans began attacking Biden's mental health, making claims about alleged dementia and that Biden should be out the window.

On the other hand, you have to itemize what everyone can see and hear and put it into a larger analytical context. Especially in such a tense situation as the world is currently in, and when the 79-year-old Biden continues to express his intention to run for re-election in the upcoming presidential elections in 2024.

But here we are back at the beginning: that as an analyst, in my world, one must refrain from making remote diagnoses, while at the same time having to italicize that the ravages of time are clearly gnawing at the world's most powerful man.


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Markus

[em2nought]

So, Paypal recently "accidentally" released a new policy stating that they would fine you $2500 if they thought you were spreading misinformation. Paypal has a link to your bank account by the way, so they could just go in and suck it right out. They said it the policy release was an accident, but what was it doing there in the first place? Deleted my banking info and closed my paypal. Bye, Bye.

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by em2nought

So, Paypal recently "accidentally" released a new policy stating that they would fine you $2500 if they thought you were spreading misinformation. Paypal has a link to your bank account by the way, so they could just go in and suck it right out. They said it the policy release was an accident, but what was it doing there in the first place? Deleted my banking info and closed my paypal. Bye, Bye.

That's kinda old news and there's nothing accidental about it. That's in their TOS since June 2020, and also only applies to businesses.
The part about spreading misinformation being a violation of their TOS? The oldest full TOS I could find was from Oct. 2019 and that was in there already back then. in the archived changes to the TOS going to 2014 there was no mention of this being added or changed in the list of forbidden activities, so I guess that's in the TOS since atleast 2014. Just to make sure I went back as far as 2013 with the waybackmachine, and it's already in there.

[August]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

That's kinda old news and there's nothing accidental about it. That's in their TOS since June 2020, and also only applies to businesses.
The part about spreading misinformation being a violation of their TOS? The oldest full TOS I could find was from Oct. 2019 and that was in there already back then. in the archived changes to the TOS going to 2014 there was no mention of this being added or changed in the list of forbidden activities, so I guess that's in the TOS since atleast 2014. Just to make sure I went back as far as 2013 with the waybackmachine, and it's already in there.

If that is so then why did the company issue this statement?:

“An Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused,” a PayPal spokesperson said in a statement.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...p/10486413002/

[Skybird]

How Paypal shares your data (click on nodes):
https://rebecca-ricks.com/paypal-data/

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by August

If that is so then why did the company issue this statement?:

“An Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused,” a PayPal spokesperson said in a statement.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...p/10486413002/

ok, but then... that's still in the TOS in the US atleast, written like it applies to all sellers who receive funds through PayPal, when in violation of the AUP, so they didn't walk it back? Now I really wonder how that was worded before...

Edit: and I tried to fiddle it out of the wayback machine, but no dice

[mapuc]

Regarding Paypal.

I have only used it once and never again-This Paypal is made for the seller not the buyer. Bought once a lot of model building material and paid via Paypal. Sellers pal paid my money to them-And I was waiting....waiting...waiting..nothing.

Send Paypal a mail and got my money return-Send Paypal a second mail where I said-It looks like you are pal for the sellers and not us the buyer.

Back to discuss American politics

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

ok, but then... that's still in the TOS in the US atleast, written like it applies to all sellers who receive funds through PayPal, when in violation of the AUP, so they didn't walk it back? Now I really wonder how that was worded before...

Me too. Not sure it would be legal even if it just applied to businesses, but the biggest question in my mind would be who makes the determination as to what is misinformation or not?

[Otto Harkaman]

Originally Posted by August

who makes the determination as to what is misinformation or not?

that is the question, the answer is voluminous

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by August

Me too. Not sure it would be legal even if it just applied to businesses, but the biggest question in my mind would be who makes the determination as to what is misinformation or not?

I mean if you make an account as a seller, or not terminate it, you're bound by the agreement/contract, so I guess in that sense it is legal, since you agreed to it.
As to the determination what is and what isn't misinformation, since I don't think they'll go around themselves looking for these specific violations, they will have to rely on user reports about it and follow up on that.
I guess you'd have to fight that in court if you can prove you were wrongfully charged the 2500$ for providing false, inaccurate or misleading information as it is termed. And Paypal would probably be on the hook for a good chunk more than that, since they'd also suspend your account and you can't receive payments, so they better be damn sure a report about this to them is accurate, even if they have big pockets.
Even if corps aren't our friends, they're definitely friends of their bottom line, so I don't think they'll go around suspending accounts and charging people over that willy-nilly.

[August]

Originally Posted by VipertheSniper

I mean if you make an account as a seller, or not terminate it, you're bound by the agreement/contract, so I guess in that sense it is legal, since you agreed to it.
As to the determination what is and what isn't misinformation, since I don't think they'll go around themselves looking for these specific violations, they will have to rely on user reports about it and follow up on that.
I guess you'd have to fight that in court if you can prove you were wrongfully charged the 2500$ for providing false, inaccurate or misleading information as it is termed. And Paypal would probably be on the hook for a good chunk more than that, since they'd also suspend your account and you can't receive payments, so they better be damn sure a report about this to them is accurate, even if they have big pockets.
Even if corps aren't our friends, they're definitely friends of their bottom line, so I don't think they'll go around suspending accounts and charging people over that willy-nilly.

Maybe but their definitions are pretty vague and I think of all the people on facebook and other social media platforms that have been banned for saying what eventually turned out to be true so I don't have much confidence in their fidelity.