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?
 
Update on the Texas abortion case: as the Supreme Court previously indicated, they will be hearing arguments for both cases against it - one of them being filed by the Justice Department, the other by abortion providers - on November 1st. What they'll be determining is not the legality of the law, but if the federal government has the right to sue Texas and prevent the abortion law from being enforced. In the meantime the Court has decided it will not block the law... which is perhaps a preview of what decision they're going to make. Sotomayor dissented against that particular decision.

Biden's admin, meanwhile, is doing some saber-rattling warning that if the Court rules in favor of Texas “no decision of this Court is safe. States need not comply with, or even challenge, precedents with which they disagree. They may simply outlaw the exercise of whatever rights they disfavor,”.

This is also true.
“no decision of this Court is safe. States need not comply with, or even challenge, precedents with which they disagree. They may simply outlaw the exercise of whatever rights they disfavor,”.

Oh, if only this applied when it came to firearms... you know the right that is actually mentioned in the Bill of Rights unlike everything else they scream about that exists nowhere in the document.
 
“no decision of this Court is safe. States need not comply with, or even challenge, precedents with which they disagree. They may simply outlaw the exercise of whatever rights they disfavor,”.

Oh, if only this applied when it came to firearms... you know the right that is actually mentioned in the Bill of Rights unlike everything else they scream about that exists nowhere in the document.
Yeah, and that statement of the administration. . .Jesus Christ, they're really trying to threaten the Supreme Court?
 
You do realize I was not referring to places like the parking lot in SF's the Tenderloin which is nothing more than a gussied up concentration camp for tranny heroin shoplifters, right?

If you think every border hopper are living in those or flats that charge a Mexican peasant's lifetime wages every month I believe you are being sheltered from the underclass, especially on the West Coast.
ok and I think you're sheltered from the reality of the enormous amounts of resources, public and private, that are being pissed away at all of this

people who live in shantytowns in the US are there because they're poor and fucked up, not just because they're poor, and the US incentivizes fuckedupdedness. people in shantytowns in actual poor countries are there just because they're poor.

SF Tenderloin or downtown Portland or Columbia City in Seattle aside - if you're living in a house you built out of pallets in Stanislaus County or Lake County or some shit you are a fucking junkie full stop. it's not the same as a favela.
 
Did Biden or one of his lackeys actually say this? If so then it's Civil War Electric Boogaloo 2; Haunted Tank is real version
Looking around, I can't find the text of the brief itself although I did find another quote from it.

"Texas should not obtain a different result simply by pairing its unconstitutional law with an unprecedented enforcement scheme designed to evade the traditional mechanisms for judicial review,"
 
ok and I think you're sheltered from the reality of the enormous amounts of resources, public and private, that are being pissed away at all of this

people who live in shantytowns in the US are there because they're poor and fucked up, not just because they're poor, and the US incentivizes fuckedupdedness. people in shantytowns in actual poor countries are there just because they're poor.

SF Tenderloin or downtown Portland or Columbia City in Seattle aside - if you're living in a house you built out of pallets in Stanislaus County or Lake County or some shit you are a fucking junkie full stop. it's not the same as a favela.
we used to have asylums for the homeless. because if you are permanently homeless its almost a certainty that you are insane.
 
Lol, apparently there is rumblings about Pence trying to primary Trump in 2024, to "save the Republican party for the neo-cons."

Hope his logo is "Mike!"
If true, let's hope people remember that Pence backstabbed Trump during 1/6 and his campaign crashes and burns as a result of that remembrance. Fucking duplicitious cuckservative faggot.
Biden's admin, meanwhile, is doing some saber-rattling warning that if the Court rules in favor of Texas “no decision of this Court is safe. States need not comply with, or even challenge, precedents with which they disagree. They may simply outlaw the exercise of whatever rights they disfavor,”.
I...buh....YES! THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF STATE'S RIGHTS IS, YOU FUCKING MONGOLOIDS! Also, as @Ozymandius12 stated, threatening the Supreme Court while they've been busy saying "NO" to everything you demand them to do....that's a bold strategy, Cotton. :roll:
Ah, Don? You’re talking to us like we haven't seen the Wikileaks emails where CNN was colluding with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
These are normies we're talking about here....they most likely haven't. Even if they haven't, it's fucking CNN. The only people who genuinely believe them are dyed-in-the-wool leftists who unquestioningly believe everything they're told, anyway.
"Texas should not obtain a different result simply by pairing its unconstitutional law with an unprecedented enforcement scheme designed to evade the traditional mechanisms for judicial review,"
Oh, you mean like YOU'VE been doing with the eviction moratorium and the vaccine mandate? Oh, but it's YOU doing it, so it's therefore OK, right? Eat my ass.
 
I mean the Florida shift has always been down to Cubans who fled the increasingly socialist DNC.

Hispanics have never been a unified voting block and people shouldn't be mixing up the various subgroups when discussing their trends. (Cubans, Mexicans, first-gen/second-gen, etc).
True Hispanics are different groups of cultures. Besides Cubans, aren't Brazians conservative leaning too? I think Hispanics on Texas and Florida are becoming more republican than say Calforina or New York.
View attachment 2648313

>Folks like Brandon

my sides :story:
Fuck you!! Let's Go Brandon!!!!
Yeah, and that statement of the administration. . .Jesus Christ, they're really trying to threaten the Supreme Court?
Let them do it. Just so the Supreme Court can continue to smack down more of their attempts to pass more laws that they don't have the authority to pass.
 
Looking around, I can't find the text of the brief itself although I did find another quote from it.

"Texas should not obtain a different result simply by pairing its unconstitutional law with an unprecedented enforcement scheme designed to evade the traditional mechanisms for judicial review,"
This is what they did with Obamacare and they let that pass and all the left huffed their farts thinking they were smart, fuck 'em, enjoy the whirlwind.
 
we used to have asylums for the homeless. because if you are permanently homeless its almost a certainty that you are insane.
this is something that people repeat a lot and I'm not sure why

I can assure you the majority of people living in tent cities with whom I interact on a daily basis would not have been institutionalized back when that was a thing.
 
ok and I think you're sheltered from the reality of the enormous amounts of resources, public and private, that are being pissed away at all of this

people who live in shantytowns in the US are there because they're poor and fucked up, not just because they're poor, and the US incentivizes fuckedupdedness. people in shantytowns in actual poor countries are there just because they're poor.

SF Tenderloin or downtown Portland or Columbia City in Seattle aside - if you're living in a house you built out of pallets in Stanislaus County or Lake County or some shit you are a fucking junkie full stop. it's not the same as a favela.
Never heard of desert rats, I see. Look, you can pretend every single person is there entirely through their own poor decisions and choices; otherwise, the truth may force you to face the reality that yes, there are circumstances entirely beyond your control.

I never said we had favelas, what I said is we have a huge population that is houseless, which includes middle class workers, in California and the like, simply because rentals are scarce, monthly rent itself is astronomical and buying a home is becoming and impossible goal. Eventually we'll get impromptu housing, which you call favelas and the government will throw up its hands and say "Oh well, we tried".
 
FCRKeHAUYAgmMkk
Illuminati Confirmed 👌

IlluminatiConfirmed - Copy.jpeg


Of course, maybe Joe really did think it was the white power symbol.
 
Never heard of desert rats, I see. Look, you can pretend every single person is there entirely through their own poor decisions and choices; otherwise, the truth may force you to face the reality that yes, there are circumstances entirely beyond your control.

I never said we had favelas, what I said is we have a huge population that is houseless, which includes middle class workers, in California and the like, simply because rentals are scarce, monthly rent itself is astronomical and buying a home is becoming and impossible goal. Eventually we'll get impromptu housing, which you call favelas and the government will throw up its hands and say "Oh well, we tried".
desert rats don't stay there *unless they're junkies*

this was all originally in response to "They don't see the extreme poverty that exists in some places in the world, which would enable them to recognize it here." we don't *have* that level of extreme poverty here and we probably never will. I'm intimately familar with everything you're talking about and it all sucks but it's not remotely the same as what you get across the border.
 
desert rats don't stay there *unless they're junkies*

this was all originally in response to "They don't see the extreme poverty that exists in some places in the world, which would enable them to recognize it here." we don't *have* that level of extreme poverty here and we probably never will. I'm intimately familar with everything you're talking about and it all sucks but it's not remotely the same as what you get across the border.
Extreme poverty exists, if for no other reason that clueless imbeciles like you thought importing a good chunk of the population from south of the border into the United States to recreate the aforementioned conditions of extreme poverty because of liberal tears and feels. You're simply being pedantic, not to mention obtuse.
 
The other fundamental issues is that, even if they had enough NG to fill every vacancy (they don't) and each NG was actually trained for that role (they aren't) the end result is just a shifting of the available labor pool. The National Guard is comprised of people that normally hold regular full time jobs anyway, anything from mechanics to police or fire fighters to clerks and sanitation guys, whatever. So the proposal to take all these NG members and remove them from their normal civilian job to go try and unload warehouses or something ends up not only insufficient and inefficient but worsens the labor shortage overall.
You are missing the point. The left views the NG as a disaster relief program. They legitimately believe the NG can just pull, through force if necessary, the people with those expertise into the issue.

Yeah, and that statement of the administration. . .Jesus Christ, they're really trying to threaten the Supreme Court?
Oh -please- do this. It'd be the final straw for Manchin to say fuck it and flip parties.
 
Merrick Garland's having a bad day. A couple GOP representatives have just been tearing him a new asshole it looks like. My personal highlights;
"They forced their way into the Department of the Interior. They fought with security and police officers, sending some of those officers to the hospital. The extremists violently pushed their way into a restricted government building in an attempt to thwart the work of the department," Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) told Garland. "Police arrested at least 55 protestors on sight, but others got away. Mr. Garland, do you believe these environmental extremists who forced their way into Interior are also domestic terrorists?"

Garland appeared to have no clue what Steube was talking about.

"This is the first you’ve heard about demonstrators who forced their way into a federal government building right here in D.C.?” Steube asked. “You didn’t hear about this at all?" asked Steube.

To which Garland shot back: "Just because I don’t know about this particular example, it doesn’t mean the Justice Department doesn’t know about it."
"When did you first review the data showing this so-called disturbing uptick?" Rep. Jim Jordan asked Garland.

"I read the letter, and we have been seeing over time—" replied Garland, before Jordan cut in.

"So you read the letter? That’s your source?” Jordan asked incredulously. “Is there some study, some effort, some investigation someone did that, said there’s been a disturbing uptick, or you just take the words of the National School Board Association?"

To which Garland only dug himself in deeper - adding 'newspaper reports' to his body of evidence used to demonize angry parents.

"Well, the National School Board Association, which represents thousands of school boards and school board members, says that there are these kinds of threats. When we read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence—" he said, before Jordan interjected (via The Federalist).
Garland denied that his memo directing the FBI to investigate 'threats' poses a conflict of interest, given that his son-in-law co-founded a company that sells CRT materials to schools. The company, Panorama Education, provides "Social-Emotional Learning" which includes race-focused surveys, materials on systemic oppression, white supremacy, intersectionality and unconscious bias.

When Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) asked Garland if he had run the relationship through an ethics counsel, Garland repeatedly said "There are no conflicts of interest."

"You don’t get to make that decision…Your impartiality is being called into question. Why would you not submit to an ethics review?" Johnson shot back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back