Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)
- Thread starter Borscht
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2021
Oh yes, it's all very routine, which is why it has never happened in the history of the United States. It doesn't have to lead to permanent damage to be shocking that we don't have French ambassadors in the US for the first time since the revolution. Even if France is overreacting, it hasn't happened before and is a pretty big symbolic blow.
Is it a guarantee that courting Hispanics would alienate the rest of the party? Or do they just have a particularly bad strategy to do it? If it involves amnesty...... yeah, I can see why. But if you're right, just being hardline on immigration would gain them Hispanic votes. So what's their actual strategy that could lose their base?
His numbers seem in line with DeSantis' to me. Pretty even split that's tilted in his favor. (This is a +5 GOP poll, so probably rosier numbers for him than usual.)
Even though Abbott's numbers aren't amazing, he would still beat Beto as of today.
Here's the full poll.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
The sorts of policies for courting them that have been raised and rejected are things like Amnesty, gibs, general ovations to the group that requires becoming like the democrats.
These have been rejected because nobody up top had the cajones to rip it all out and start again. Something Trump was indicating he wanted to do.
Last edited:
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
Say what you will about unintended consequences of the heartbeat bill, it makes for a fantastic distraction for voting laws. Other state should push it through just to slip voter ID laws in unnoticed.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
The Religious Right was always a grift, and that's why it was hand in hand with televangelists. By screeching about abortion and fags, they distracted a ton of people (including the left) from how most of these politicians were giving tax breaks to big corporations, bringing in immigrants by the truckload, and engaging in neocon fuckery abroad.
I'm just glad the Religious Right is dead and now we have people like Governor Asa Hutchinson in Arkansas being honest that they're just into religion for the money and power it brings to politics since if a corporation says to let men into the women's room and let them play on women's teams or else they won't spend money in your state, Jesus would say take the money.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
It'd be unwise to entirely dismiss the religious right. A strong undercurrent of religious views does affect a large swathe of the Republican base. The problem was not their 'grift', it was that the Republicans focused entirely on them to the exclusion of the rest of the party. What must occur is a rebalancing, and acknowledging the issues of the whole party.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
Like I ve mentioned before I have some friends who I had a few fights with regarding the hunterlaptop and trump being a fascist.
Some of the terms we throw around in this thread are loaded to a degree. Like cabal. It takes us close to the pizza gate tin foil Qtard world. So I ve been working on finding less inflammatory, such as the establishment and special interests making a "collation" to oust trump because it fucked with their ability to get paid.
Understanding how trump was/is a threat to this collation is kinda the first step. for this future debate.
One thing I often reflect on is how the iraq war was sold to us, and how in 2008 we had buyers remorse remember bush term 2 was hinged on not changing corse.
Obama a community organizer state sentaor and US senator for 1 TERM, and a 2 term president. Is now a fucking billionare...how does that work?
So over the weeks as we watch this fucking trash fire I m working on a thesis of 'the political machine that our elites participate in got too strong and on some level forsaken the voters."
Okay now I need support premises and examples.
Which lead to the people deciding they would throw in with a reality tv show host.
And the establishment collation pulled a fucking retard screeching melt down and most like tampered with the election. I cant wait for the result of all the audits because I really like the model that the election was tampered with, and infrastructure bill was to pay for it.
Well of course trump was/is free from both party's dogma.
So I have to ask if ether national party hired you what issue would you have them peel off from the other? what gop issues could the dems get behind to swing a few votes their way or vice versa for GOP?
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
I'd wish to note before I answer, it wouldn't just be hiring me. I am part of a team, I do the major analysis and predictions, but those would be useless without the data accumulation and filtering of said team. While my bit is the most dubiously lauded, I'd be useless without em.
Now to answer: GOP could make a lot more use out of the drugs issue. It's a relic of a past date, and openly embracing low-level drugs like marijuana legalization would go a long way towards places like Vermont and Colorado going from blue to purple.
For Democrats... a bit harder due to how schizophrenic their current policy-making is. But without infringing principles, they could likely embrace the Gun issue and instantly turn Montana blue. Would also make a few states trend closer to purple.
For obvious reasons, neither is terribly likely, but I could make arguments to either side that might persuade some.
Some Curious Person
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2020
It's been updated
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
Now that is an interesting idea for sure. Now it would detonate the progressive plank. But with the paradox of disarming police and fascist nature of the previous administration the media wing could swing a liberal pro 2nd amendment stance.
Plus the way the supreme court as ruled the last few decades short a repeal of the 2nd amendment. The gun issue is pretty much settled.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War
Considering the origins of the US Navy lie here, and not in the Barbary Wars, as both the Secretary of the Navy was appointed and the original six frigates laid down to prevent French privateers from raiding our merchant shipping, I'd say things are not the worst they've ever been.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2021
I grabbed it. It also seems to have reappeared on Trump's own Youtube channel, along with a 13 second edit, at least for now. Here's the fuller 24 second clip local archive:
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
Maybe that was the intent? It bears no further repeating that the Dems are fucking awful at forward planning; so throwing out the abortion shit makes the prog footsoldiers so psychotic that the establishment is forced to posture on it instead of the thing that’s actually bad for them.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
So they're going for the Montgomery Burns defense.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
What happened was the market crash and the bailout that happened afterward. The whole economy to that point was built on debt, and using debt to fuel an infinite growth model. Once debt surpassed real assets by too much, the whole economic system broke and the government under Obama asked congress to create a bunch of 0 interest loans to keep the system from going Mad Max. Once that sort of worked, they changed the rules to allow them to just pump out money whenever without having to go to congress. This changed everything. Quantitative easing meant that whoever controls the levers can just invent all the money in the world. It's an arms race of government theft.
The gun issue is 100% a class issue. Rich people hate guns because a poor person can get a gun and kill a rich person as easy as anyone. There isn't a billionaire alive who isn't terrified of the truth that a 50 cent bullet could rip through their skull and make all their money instantly meaningless. So, as the new party of the rich, the Dems will never go pro 2a.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
ditto
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
David Brooks says "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line"
Only thing missing is the identical black socks.
> Part of the CIA's "Humans of CIA" recruitment video series
> Humans
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2018
I don't think reversing on the gun issue would make more states blue. I think it would just piss off their bases.
I've been seeing more and more lately the statistic that more kids have been shot in Chicago this year than died of COVID, and the blue's response to this stat is inevitably "then why are Republicans so against gun control?" The low number of child deaths from COVID is usually ignored completely in that comparison.
I've been seeing more and more lately the statistic that more kids have been shot in Chicago this year than died of COVID, and the blue's response to this stat is inevitably "then why are Republicans so against gun control?" The low number of child deaths from COVID is usually ignored completely in that comparison.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
I m gonna disagree here after a fashion.
They are called the 1% for a reason and even amoung our elite its more like the 0.1%
They can afford their own police and compound security etc. The filthy poors with their guns and bullets arent really a threat.
There s a reason why most gun violence is jogger related.
Most anti gun people I ve interacted with tend to be women and soy chucks. They live in relative safety dont own or use firearms and see no reason why anyone would want one.
Then we had the summer of defund the police, and most peaceful but fiery protests.
There was then that article about how a bunch of blue voters in orange were shocked to learn how retarded the gun restrictions are as in Karens being told they cant just do cash and carry.
Also a very very harsh flaw with the left is the manor they wish to govern by,
If you wanna push a policey your gonna need judges to up hold them, your gonna need governors to support, along with senators.
So again to have affective policy you need people in
Congress
The judiciary lower than the SC
Governors
But for decades the left focuses on having power in two places the Supreme Court and the POTUS.
When I think about how the party allowed biden most likely thinking he would be a good puppet. His mental state causes them one of their two pillars of power. Same with the SC.
Whats funny is I think in regards to the eviction shit the SC was totally reasonable and basically told the white house to have congress pass something and they could do it.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
This is also how you can tell real socialists from the posers. A real socialist will want the people armed so that they can overthrow the bourgeois and line them up against the wall. Can't have a revolution without guns.
Of course, after the revolution, the new bosses immediately want to disarm the citizenry, lest they decided that they want another crack at that whole overthrow-the-state thing. That isn't strictly a feature of socialism, more a feature of a revolutionary dictatorship that is intimately familiar with how quickly an armed citizenry can dispatch a ruling class that is deemed in need of replacement.
The government of the united states has always been well aware of both how effective an citizen revolution can be, but also how few people are required to enact it. Until relatively recently that awareness (and the low-level fear accompanying it) kept the state and federal governments in check, but at some point the federal bureaucracy - as opposed to the political elite that forms the fast-fading veneer of democratic accountability - took on many of the qualities of a dictatorship and began acting to shore up its power and fortify itself against revolution. Part of that shoring up is necessarily the removable of the ability of the citizen to dismantle the state by force.
The contemporary intersectional left goes along with this disarming, because intersectionalism is brain-rot. Most left-wingers will go along with the same disarming because they're average people, and average people tend to prefer to go along with the crowd rather than risk ostracism. This is how the Atlee labour government of the UK exploited post-war weariness to begin enacting the progressive disarmament of the people. The war had entrenched a powerful bureaucratic dictatorship, so in the new peace, the goal became preservation of its power. The UK government has remained one of bureaucratic dictatorship ever since, with only the location of the bureaucracy changing over time.
The point is, a true socialist will demand the right to bear arms. Left and right can agree on this one issue if nothing else: the state should absolutely be afraid of the people and the people should not be afraid to overthrow the state if it becomes necessary. That requires an armed citizenry.
None of the above should be taken as an endorsement of violent revolution, nor a prediction of outcomes. It is merely a philosophical musing on historical events.
The government of the united states has always been well aware of both how effective an citizen revolution can be, but also how few people are required to enact it. Until relatively recently that awareness (and the low-level fear accompanying it) kept the state and federal governments in check, but at some point the federal bureaucracy - as opposed to the political elite that forms the fast-fading veneer of democratic accountability - took on many of the qualities of a dictatorship and began acting to shore up its power and fortify itself against revolution. Part of that shoring up is necessarily the removable of the ability of the citizen to dismantle the state by force.
The contemporary intersectional left goes along with this disarming, because intersectionalism is brain-rot. Most left-wingers will go along with the same disarming because they're average people, and average people tend to prefer to go along with the crowd rather than risk ostracism. This is how the Atlee labour government of the UK exploited post-war weariness to begin enacting the progressive disarmament of the people. The war had entrenched a powerful bureaucratic dictatorship, so in the new peace, the goal became preservation of its power. The UK government has remained one of bureaucratic dictatorship ever since, with only the location of the bureaucracy changing over time.
The point is, a true socialist will demand the right to bear arms. Left and right can agree on this one issue if nothing else: the state should absolutely be afraid of the people and the people should not be afraid to overthrow the state if it becomes necessary. That requires an armed citizenry.
None of the above should be taken as an endorsement of violent revolution, nor a prediction of outcomes. It is merely a philosophical musing on historical events.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
Am I right in thinking that part of the appeal of the Progressive faction is that it's the best choice if you want to gain power quickly and don't have big-time backing? To get a high spot in the Establishment you have to spend 40 years kissing ass, to be influential in the Business faction you need to be a rich executive, but in the Progressives it's possible to come from humble origins and get a leadership position if you can preach a good social justice sermon and have a knack for posting tweets that go viral.
- Status