US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
With the average on the country's direction being consistently approximately +30 for "On the Wrong Track" lately, and this...

Hoo boy. I'm certain this flat 40% scratches the surface of "I'll answer fully partisan on polls, but fuck am I screaming right now" types of voters.
No, lower, Only the -strong- approval is his floor... at about 20%.
 
Do you really think that's possible? that would require half of the solid democrats to believe he was absolute shit. Even Bush II at his lowest only got 30.
Orange Man Bad.

Biden doesn't have people who voted -for- him, he has people who voted -against- Trump. He has almost no hardened support. His floor is thus -abysmally- low.
 
This is true for the core of the left, the Alinskys, the critical theorists, Antifa, etc. It's not true for most of the people who joined up to rebel against Bush and the Christian fundies. Between Reagan and Obama the real leftists were mostly driven underground and what people thought of as the left was mostly people who wanted to rebel against what they saw as excesses of the right, although most of their "conservative" antagonists were just hucksters and scam artists.

I talk to a lot of those old-time liberals who still get freaked out over Christian dominionists and abortion clinic bombers and think they're on the edge of taking over the country and turning it into a theocracy. They can't see what the core of the left is advocating. Ironically, because people like Rush Limbaugh cried wolf so much about how "Hillary's gonna turn your kids gay" now that all the "queer kid outreach" is actually happening they dismiss it as a conspiracy theory because their mind is still back in the 80s and 90s and they can't grasp just how much the Overton window has moved.
I’m not disputing that, I’m disputing the idea that that matters at all. If they can’t see what their side seeks now that isn’t our problem, not when things are this bad.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard

Texas GOP tries to protect US House seats under new maps​

(archive)
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans proposed redrawn congressional maps Monday that would shore up their slipping dominance and bolster their nearly two dozen U.S. House members, while adding new districts in booming Austin and Houston.

Texas was the big winner in the 2020 Census, as torrid growth fueled by nearly 2 million new Hispanic residents made it the only state awarded two additional congressional seats, bringing its total to 38.

Those demographic shifts threaten decades of Republican control in Texas, but in taking up the once-in-a-decade process of drawing new voting maps, GOP mapmakers’ first draft largely appears to firewall their existing seats and advantage rather than take additional seats from Democrats. One exception is along the Texas-Mexico border, where — encouraged by former President Donald Trump’s strong showing in 2020 — Republicans could make it harder for Democrats to hang onto a longtime stronghold currently held by Rep. Vicente Gonzalez.

Latino advocates and officeholders believed the numbers demanded at least one new Latino-majority congressional seat in Texas, around the Dallas area, but none was included in the Republicans’ first pass.

Booming suburban districts in Texas, which include four of the 10 fastest-growing and rapidly diversifying cities in the U.S., would be fortified with more voters pulled from surrounding rural areas.

Republicans currently have 23 House seats in Texas, while Democrats have 13.

The maps are the product of Texas Republicans wielding a newly freer hand to reengineer political boundaries: For the first time in more than 50 years, Texas is starting the redistricting process without federal oversight. A Supreme Court ruling in 2013 removed mandatory federal approval of new maps for Texas and all or parts of 15 other states with a history of discrimination in voting.

The redrawn districts unveiled by Republican mapmakers are starting points and will likely undergo changes in the coming weeks before being sent to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott for his signoff.

Republicans in America’s biggest red state want to expand their political advantage as their typically commanding victories in Texas have become thinner. Last year, Trump carried Ohio by a wider margin than Texas, and Republicans got a scare in 2018 when Democrats flipped a dozen statehouse seats and Beto O’Rourke nearly ousted Sen. Ted Cruz.

But Republicans held their ground in Texas in 2020, emboldening them to mount an aggressive agenda of hot-button conservative policymaking, and gains along the predominately Hispanic southern border have spurred the GOP into trying to expand their reach.

In every decade since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, courts or the Department of Justice have ruled that Texas’ redistricting plans violated federal laws — partly by scattering Democratic-leaning Latino voters among multiple districts dominated by non-Latino white residents who lean Republican.
Here's the proposed change:
FATbUfGVEAYvCQA.jpg
 
Orange Man Bad.

Biden doesn't have people who voted -for- him, he has people who voted -against- Trump. He has almost no hardened support. His floor is thus -abysmally- low.
Fair, but I think the hardened support that he has are people who unironically believe that the Democratic Party is good. For every shill like Brooklyn cuck, there is a wine aunt, boomer, soycuck or dog mom who believe and support the DNC to the bitter end.
 
One of the things that torpedoes the narrative of all this being some sort of grand plan/conspiracy is that things change a lot in the timeframes we're talking about here. Democrats, or even outright communists, in the 50s or 70s wouldn't even recognize the way things are going on today. They couldn't have predicted the technological innovations that have shaped society since, and as such they couldn't have predicted where society would be in 2020, or who would be in power. If anything, anyone theoretically in charge of this whole mess would be flying it by the seat of his pants, making panicked changes and adjustments all the time. Which doesn't make for a great plan.

Fair, but I think the hardened support that he has are people who unironically believe that the Democratic Party is good. For every shill like Brooklyn cuck, there is a wine aunt, boomer, soycuck or dog mom who believe and support the DNC to the bitter end.
Biden is not the DNC, though. Just like Trump isn't the GOP. There are plenty of people who will absolutely vote blue no matter what next election cycle, who despise Biden's guts right now.
 
Last edited:
One of the things that torpedoes the narrative of all this being some sort of grand plan/conspiracy is that things change a lot in the timeframes we're talking about here. Democrats, or even outright communists, in the 50s or 70s wouldn't even recognize the way things going on today. They couldn't have predicted the technological innovations that have shaped society since, and as such they couldn't have predicted where society would be in 2020, or who would be in power. If anything, anyone theoretically in charge of this whole mess would be flying it by the seat of his pants, making panicked changes and adjustments all the time. Which doesn't make for a great plan.


Biden is not the DNC, though. Just like Trump isn't the GOP. There are plenty of people who will absolutely vote blue no matter what next election cycle, who despise Biden's guts right now.
And yet that's the problem. They will still vote for him, so even if his approval tanks to 20% (highly doubtful imo), at least 20% of those who disapprove will still vote for him if he's put on the ticket.
 
And yet that's the problem. They will still vote for him, so even if his approval tanks to 20% (highly doubtful imo), at least 20% of those who disapprove will still vote for him if he's put on the ticket.
Sure. But a lot more will vote for him if someone else is put on the ticket. Even if Biden were to survive until 2024, he would not be the top name on the ticket. 20% doesn't win federal elections.
 
Fair, but I think the hardened support that he has are people who unironically believe that the Democratic Party is good. For every shill like Brooklyn cuck, there is a wine aunt, boomer, soycuck or dog mom who believe and support the DNC to the bitter end.
Two things:

1: A lot of that middling support isn't hardened, only consistent. They will -not vote- if they have the candidate. They won't switch sides, they'll simply not show up.
2: "Fair, but I think the hardened support that he has are people who unironically believe that the Democratic Party is good." Yes... that's what hardened support means? This is nonsensical, it's just reiterating what the term means.
 
So it's not just Mark Milley who actively hates everyone under his command. The people running the US Air Force do too.

Definitely not just Milley, Milley isn't an anomaly in the military especially in the the high ranking brass, he's pretty much the norm on that level. Judging from what I've observed and from what guys like Johnny and Stalin have said this rot has been in there a long time. My estimation is if you did a run down of the whole military you'd see at least 90% of the officers were glowies or political faggots, while your boots on the ground guys are mostly what you'd expect.

When Trump came in he came in under the delusion that the military was still run by men like George Patton but those days are long gone but he didn't realize it until he had Mattis and Milley willing to commit treason to undermine him while in office. Though I'd say this isn't unique to Trump since a lot of conservatives still hold a more romantic view of the military as a bunch of take no shit hard asses that get the job done.
 
Sure. But a lot more will vote for him if someone else is put on the ticket. Even if Biden were to survive until 2024, he would not be the top name on the ticket. 20% doesn't win federal elections.
I don't think he's going to be on the ticket in 2024, if we're being honest. If they're lucky he'll have some health incident or something, and will have a public address about how the mission of returning to normalcy was accomplished and that he's stepping aside for a fresh face to continue the fight. There's no way he can last even at the mental place where he is right now for seven years, and unlike Trump, he and Jill are not as narcissistic where they need to be remembered as being the best thing since sliced bread.
 
60 minutes is running a special on Liz Cheney and I wonder why. Full interview is on YouTube but I don't want to look at that ugly cunts face. Seems like at least Bill Hicks was right that the media is proven to be on the side of "not you". At least the comments give hope.
Looks like during said special, she expressed regret over her past comments on gay marriage during her run for senate. It’s telling that she’s saying this now, considering her senate campaign was in 2013-2014. She must be seeing the writing on the wall, know that she’s deeply unpopular and facing a *serious* primary challenge, and is trying to scrape up some support (chiefly among the “ne’er-do-wells” she’s ignored beforehand) wherever she can find it in hopes of counteracting the noise of hemorrhaging support in the background.
edit: clumsily pressed post before finishing reply
 
Last edited:
Two things:

1: A lot of that middling support isn't hardened, only consistent. They will -not vote- if they have the candidate. They won't switch sides, they'll simply not show up.
2: "Fair, but I think the hardened support that he has are people who unironically believe that the Democratic Party is good." Yes... that's what hardened support means? This is nonsensical, it's just reiterating what the term means.
Consistent and hardened is for all intents and purposes the same, but thanks for calling me out on my use of redundant language.
 
Consistent and hardened is for all intents and purposes the same, but thanks for calling me out on my use of redundant language.
No, hardened support is hell or high water I -will- vote for you. Consistent is only "If I vote, I will always vote X".

What this low approval is showing is that the amount of people likely to vote, that consistent vote, is being nuked.
 
My estimation is if you did a run down of the whole military you'd see at least 90% of the officers were glowies or political faggots, while your boots on the ground guys are mostly what you'd expect.
This is why, Colonel Gaddafi, ended up winning, Libya, for himself. His opponents where of the political class, whereas he was more of the military class.
 
No, hardened support is hell or high water I -will- vote for you. Cnnsistent is only "If I vote, I will always vote X".

What this low approval is showing is that the amount of people likely to vote, that consistent vote, is being nuked.
It is interesting that political analysts make that distinction, but I suppose it makes sense in hindsight.

Does that mean the GOP has more hardened support, but less consistent ones, while DNC has less hardened support, but more consistent ones, given past trends? After all, lower turnout has historically favoured the GOP.
 
One of the things that torpedoes the narrative of all this being some sort of grand plan/conspiracy is that things change a lot in the timeframes we're talking about here. Democrats, or even outright communists, in the 50s or 70s wouldn't even recognize the way things are going on today. They couldn't have predicted the technological innovations that have shaped society since, and as such they couldn't have predicted where society would be in 2020, or who would be in power. If anything, anyone theoretically in charge of this whole mess would be flying it by the seat of his pants, making panicked changes and adjustments all the time. Which doesn't make for a great plan.
This makes sense if you view it purely in materialistic terms. Fine, your prerogative.

However I'll posit that all of what your saying doesn't make sense if someone or something has a longer time preference that what you're considering and is the orchestrator behind said plan. I don't need the first pawn to know what the 20th pawn is going to do, I just need the first pawn to lay the ground work to justify what the 20th pawn will do. Which coincidently is what we see happening and was pointed out at the time when the first pawns were doing their shit.

"We wrestle not agaisnt flesh and blood"
 
This makes sense if you view it purely in materialistic terms. Fine, your prerogative.

However I'll posit that all of what your saying doesn't make sense if someone or something has a longer time preference that what you're considering and is the orchestrator behind said plan. I don't need the first pawn to know what the 20th pawn is going to do, I just need the first pawn to lay the ground work to justify what the 20th pawn will do. Which coincidently is what we see happening and was pointed out at the time when the first pawns were doing their shit.

"We wrestle not agaisnt flesh and blood"
What you're describing is the natural evolution of political movements. Someone builds upon the groundwork made by the people before them, and seizes the opportunities available in the present. You don't need some kind of overarching plan for it. If you're arguing is that "democrats in the 50s wanted complete power and worked towards it", then congratulations: you stated the obvious for any political entity.
 
One of the things that torpedoes the narrative of all this being some sort of grand plan/conspiracy is that things change a lot in the timeframes we're talking about here. Democrats, or even outright communists, in the 50s or 70s wouldn't even recognize the way things are going on today. They couldn't have predicted the technological innovations that have shaped society since, and as such they couldn't have predicted where society would be in 2020.

One thing I think alot of people over look was the grooming of Regan and bush I.

In 1992 rose perot ran as an independent and fucking split the gop vote allowing clinton to win.

Then when Al gore was the anointed successor to clinton, who had george bush II and that fuckery in fl.

So then after 8 years and I remember 2008, I know alot of us didnt feel good about the war on terror and oh hey Obama. He was gonna change things....lol...

It was supose to be hilary but barry was a unplanned factor.

I remember being mocking the conflicting narative of obama being both retarded a machurian candidate anointed when he was just a baby in kenya.

Fuck the events that brought the clinton faction to power are the reason why the GOP is married to trump.

The GOP chimping out on obama for every fucking little thing and adopting a brand that was basically "not/fuck obama" and basically failing to have a vision is what lead to trump fucking clowning then in the primary.

Then the fucking dems spend 4 years crying about not being trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back