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

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?

 

[Gehenna]

@LurkTrawl
Okay, a few thinks since I think I see where some of our conflict is occurring.

First off, retardation is not the same as deliberate malfeasance. A single fuck up is fairly easy to occur, and I am well aware the USPS has a -lot- of these. Engineering something mroe deliberate is a lot harder, ironically. Or, to put it another way, with a lot of the USPS being slack-jawed retards, do you really think they could pull off election hijinks without being constantly seen if they were left to their own devices, and not in some way controlled?

As to their morality, I'd point out that it doesn't need to be in individual workers who need paying off. But at the same time it does involve them. Unless you will claim that somehow every single time across the entire nation every single person delivering mail just so happens to also be the most braindead idiot on staff at the time.

No, that's unlikly., More likely is that the person above them is the target of the favors. He makes sure that the most checked out guy is on the job while the person above him takes orders. It's more a weaponization of incompetency.

 

[SneedEyeMitch]

Look... the believers in this are not rational. They genuinely believe once people are exposed tp.this new information they will believe it too and change their behavior and the world will be a better place. No other option or outcome is possible.

Please.. please, farmers, stop thinking you are dealing with rational thinking people here. It's weird seeing people complain or highlight things we already know and we're complained about a week ago.

In other words, stop applying reason to the unreasonable.

 

[LurkTrawl]

@LurkTrawl
Okay, a few thinks since I think I see where some of our conflict is occurring.

First off, retardation is not the same as deliberate malfeasance. A single fuck up is fairly easy to occur, and I am well aware the USPS has a -lot- of these. Engineering something mroe deliberate is a lot harder, ironically. Or, to put it another way, with a lot of the USPS being slack-jawed retards, do you really think they could pull off election hijinks without being constantly seen if they were left to their own devices, and not in some way controlled?

Yes, in that it wouldn't be difficult to put in the orders for packages to be delivered and have no questions asked other than "where does it need to go and by what date?"

As to their morality, I'd point out that it doesn't need to be in individual workers who need paying off. But at the same time it does involve them. Unless you will claim that somehow every single time across the entire nation every single person delivering mail just so happens to also be the most braindead idiot on staff at the time.

I would say that choosing the most braindead idiot amongst a herd of braindead idiots would be a challenge.

No, that's unlikly., More likely is that the person above them is the target of the favors. He makes sure that the most checked out guy is on the job while the person above him takes orders. It's more a weaponization of incompetency.

...you do realize right that the USPS promotes people to managerial and supervisory positions from the bottom right? They don't just hire supervisors or managers, and moreover I can't imagine any one of them would take any form of bribe to risk their retirement over something like that.

You're really just sort of speaking out of your depth here, I think. No, I ultimately don't believe that favors would be necessary, as someone who has come to know by proxy how their structure works. I could see someone making x dropoff and saying it's election mail that needs to go to y location, and that'd be the end of it. There's not much necessary beyond that.

Edit: I guess the best way to put it is that it's their job to deliver packages/mail and that's it. They're not paid to ensure election integrity beyond making sure ballot mail and the like aren't opened just like any other piece of mail. From what I understand it's enough of a job to get them to care enough to deliver shit to begin with, as long as they're moving mail and delivering it they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. You're acting like they're supposed to check the ballots or some shit.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

Yes, in that it wouldn't be difficult to put in the orders for packages to be delivered and have no questions asked other than "where does it need to go and by what date?"

I would say that choosing the most braindead idiot amongst a herd of braindead idiots would be a challenge.

...you do realize right that the USPS promotes people to managerial and supervisory positions from the bottom right? They don't just hire supervisors or managers, and moreover I can't imagine any one of them would take any form of bribe to risk their retirement over something like that.

You're really just sort of speaking out of your depth here, I think. No, I ultimately don't believe that favors would be necessary, as someone who has come to know by proxy how their structure works. I could see someone making x dropoff and saying it's election mail that needs to go to y location, and that'd be the end of it. There's not much necessary beyond that.

A lot of this argument isn't really adding up for me. General Incompetence doesn't explain the benefactor of the incompetence being so damned one sided. General incompetence doesn't explain the half assed faked paper trails that have been noted (Recieved ballots not sent, etc) also leaning heavily to only one side. The idea that idiots wouldn't risk their retirement for immediate cash runs in the face of every bribed idiot in history.

You can't really argue selective incompetence that only benefits your argument without that same incompetence explaining the ease of manipulation and halfassed nature of the paper trail behind it.

 

[Gehenna]

Yes, in that it wouldn't be difficult to put in the orders for packages to be delivered and have no questions asked other than "where does it need to go and by what date?"

I would say that choosing the most braindead idiot amongst a herd of braindead idiots would be a challenge.

...you do realize right that the USPS promotes people to managerial and supervisory positions from the bottom right? They don't just hire supervisors or managers, and moreover I can't imagine any one of them would take any form of bribe to risk their retirement over something like that.

You're really just sort of speaking out of your depth here, I think. No, I ultimately don't believe that favors would be necessary, as someone who has come to know by proxy how their structure works. I could see someone making x dropoff and saying it's election mail that needs to go to y location, and that'd be the end of it. There's not much necessary beyond that.

So somehow they'd not take any form of bribe, but are also idiots? Leaving aside that weird inconsistency, you also contradict yourself. So, they'll help the fortification out of ideology, but not for a favour or bribe? That's contradictory.

You can say you can see something all you want, but so far you have failed to make any sort of solid points that don't either contradict themselves as above, or require you to say 'I totally know how it actually is, trust me". Even when there are clear flaws with it, like the fact such orders would involve multiple incidents of breaking procedure, that this has to be done across almost every state, that it has to be done by wildly different areas and political backgrounds, and that it somehow just is never caught.

But no, they'd never risk their pension for a bribe, but totally ideology.

Your entire thing is a massive contradiction into itself, which is why I can't really agree I am just out of my depth. There simply is no good case argued here.

 

[JohnDoe]

What is the payment comes in the form of keeping your job and getting paid with the possible chance that if you do not fall inline you can lose that or forget that promotion or generally ostracized from the Team?

As @Gehenna stated, you not only need a carrot to make the approach work, but the stick aspect requires believability. An empty threat is worse than useless, after all, and who is going to believe that the current fuckwits are able to follow through on their promises of pain or payment?

"Do what I say or..."
*trips over shoelaces*
"...there will be consequences..."
*quickdraws banana, Baldwin style*
"..severe ones for you and also..."
*discards banana peel, pulls a gun*
"...for your family too..."
*gets caught in backblast of a misfire*
"...everybody! We're super competent!"
*slips on the banana peel and falls*
"I mean it! We're super cereal you guys!"
*readjusts clown wig so they can see*
"So do it or you'll be on the list!"
*honks clown nose, sniffs a child*

 

[Compositesludge]

I'd not begin speculating as to her post-congressional career. Mainly because -nobody- was considering AOC and a post-congressional career, she fell -fast-.

So here's where I'm at right now. I read this, and I completely agree with it, but I'm not sure why. I've been pretty busy with work these past few months, and I'm not sure what precipitated this change. Was it all because of the Iron Dome vote? Her calling Pelosi "Mama Bear"? It seems like there should have been one big thing that did it for her, but I can't think of what it was.

 

[Gehenna]

So here's where I'm at right now. I read this, and I completely agree with it, but I'm not sure why. I've been pretty busy with work these past few months, and I'm not sure what precipitated this change. Was it all because of the Iron Dome vote? Her calling Pelosi "Mama Bear"? It seems like there should have been one big thing that did it for her, but I can't think of what it was.

Iron Dome funding, for sure. People have pointed out I am probably off base with blaming it on Soros support, and I am inclined to acknowledge that isn't likely what did it. But for some reason Pelosi forced her to heel over it. Maybe it was specifically over Iron Dome funding, maybe it was part of some larger move. But for whatever reason, Pelosi forced AOC to heel and it just shattered AOC's power.

 

[LurkTrawl]

A lot of this argument isn't really adding up for me. General Incompetence doesn't explain the benefactor of the incompetence being so damned one sided. General incompetence doesn't explain the half assed faked paper trails that have been noted (Recieved ballots not sent, etc) also leaning heavily to only one side.

Did "the GOP didn't consider doing it" ever enter into the equation?

The idea that idiots wouldn't risk their retirement for immediate cash runs in the face of every bribed idiot in history.

For one as I'll explain further in the post, we're talking about specifically senior members who've probably been there for 20+ years. No, I can't imagine risking that kind of work for a shitty bribe when your retirement is most likely worth more than what they could give you without the I.R.S. being alerted to fuckery.

You can't really argue selective incompetence that only benefits your argument without that same incompetence explaining the ease of manipulation and halfassed nature of the paper trail behind it.

I at times really do think that this section of the site could use reading comprehension lessons as a sticky on the forums. No, I'm not arguing that the people higher up are incompetent, just that they'd need more money as a bribe than what could be paid out reasonably for something that doesn't take a bribe in the first place, as I said here:

Edit: I guess the best way to put it is that it's their job to deliver packages/mail and that's it. They're not paid to ensure election integrity beyond making sure ballot mail and the like aren't opened just like any other piece of mail. From what I understand it's enough of a job to get them to care enough to deliver shit to begin with, as long as they're moving mail and delivering it they wouldn't raise an eyebrow. You're acting like they're supposed to check the ballots or some shit.

I'll just give the benefit of the doubt that neither you nor Gehenna saw that section before replying, but my point about ignoring the differentiation I made between the grunts on the ground and those in higher up positions is still solid - don't just skim people's posts because they're long if that's what caused that to happen. It's annoying.

So somehow they'd not take any form of bribe, but are also idiots? Leaving aside that weird inconsistency, you also contradict yourself. So, they'll help the fortification out of ideology, but not for a favour or bribe? That's contradictory.

We're talking about people at different levels of that organization here. Or did you miss that?

Your entire thing is a massive contradiction into itself, which is why I can't really agree I am just out of my depth. There simply is no good case argued here.

The easiest and simplest case to be made here is that they don't need to be in on it at all to begin with. You don't need to bribe couriers to carry packages, it's not in their job description to check ballots for validity. I'm going to ignore the rest of this post as it's just ignoring the various contextual statements made within my arguments that keep them from being contradictory, which is as worth answering as a rebuttal that completely removes all punctuation from a post.

 

[Gehenna]

Did "the GOP didn't consider doing it" ever enter into the equation?

For one as I'll explain further in the post we're talking about specifically senior members who've probably been there for 20+ years. No, I can't imagine risking that kind of work for a shitty bribe when your retirement is most likely worth more than what they could give you without the I.R.S. being alerted to fuckery.

I at times really do think that this section of the site could use reading comprehension lessons as a sticky on the forums. No, I'm not arguing that the people higher up are incompetent, just that they'd need more money as a bribe than what could be paid out reasonably for something that doesn't take a bribe in the first place, as I said here:

I'll just give the benefit of the doubt that neither you nor Gehenna saw that section before replying, but my point about ignoring the differentiation I made between the grunts on the ground and those in higher up positions is still solid - don't just skim people's posts because they're long if that's what caused that to happen. It's annoying.

We're talking about people at different levels of that organization here. Or did you miss that?

The easiest and simplest case to be made here is that they don't need to be in on it at all to begin with. You don't need to bribe couriers to carry packages, it's not in their job description to check ballots for validity. I'm going to ignore the rest of this post as it's just ignoring the various contextual statements made within my arguments that keep them from being contradictory, which is as worth answering as a rebuttal that completely removes all punctuation from a post.

So you don't have an answer for the contradictions. Got it.

 

[Compositesludge]

Iron Dome funding, for sure. People have pointed out I am probably off base with blaming it on Soros support, and I am inclined to acknowledge that isn't likely what did it. But for some reason Pelosi forced her to heel over it. Maybe it was specifically over Iron Dome funding, maybe it was part of some larger move. But for whatever reason, Pelosi forced AOC to heel and it just shattered AOC's power.

Yeah, I have to agree. I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn't think at the time that it would be this bad. At her best, Representative Ocasio-Cortez was seen as a fighter, somebody with the courage to stand up for the changes that needed to happen. Maybe it's the time she spent in Washington. Maybe it was the fear she felt on 1/6. But she broke, and it's never a good look when you go along with the last person who brought you to tears. I remember the four page, self-pitying/flagellating letter she had a staffer write about it that didn't answer anything, and even then I thought it was beyond pitiful, a parody of what her strongest supporters expected her to be. Somebody whose drive to make a better world ends at their comfort zone isn't somebody that can be relied upon.

 

[Absolutego]

So here's where I'm at right now. I read this, and I completely agree with it, but I'm not sure why. I've been pretty busy with work these past few months, and I'm not sure what precipitated this change. Was it all because of the Iron Dome vote? Her calling Pelosi "Mama Bear"? It seems like there should have been one big thing that did it for her, but I can't think of what it was.

I'd say it was the 1-2 combo of her Met Gala appearance with the $27k "Tax the Rich" dress (which was the most egregious in a long line of her enjoying the celebrity of her position instead of living up to her stated principles) and then the Iron Dome vote. The first was a big hit to her credibility with her base, the second was the hit to her credibility with the progressive caucus.
It doesn't help that those two events happened within two weeks of each other.

 

[Oxous]

Matt Gaetz says he's found an interesting $2.25 billion provision in BBB/Infrastructure bill (not sure which one).

 

[LurkTrawl]

So you don't have an answer for the contradictions. Got it.

Don't be an ape.

Spoiler

So somehow they'd not take any form of bribe, but are also idiots? Leaving aside that weird inconsistency, you also contradict yourself. So, they'll help the fortification out of ideology, but not for a favour or bribe? That's contradictory.

The contradiction is only there because you're ignoring that those are two different layers of the organization that we're talking about here, as is the problem with the rest of this post. The higher ups wouldn't risk 20+ years of work and a damn good retirement for a one-off bribe that'd most likely get them in hot water with the IRS at best and at worst cost them their retirement and possibly end up with prison time.

You can say you can see something all you want, but so far you have failed to make any sort of solid points that don't either contradict themselves as above,

I explained how it isn't contradictory unless you have reading comprehension problems.

or require you to say 'I totally know how it actually is, trust me".

Which is a damn sight better than your "I totally don't know how it actually is, trust me".

Even when there are clear flaws with it, like the fact such orders would involve multiple incidents of breaking procedure,

Go ahead and list to me what procedures, then, are being broken when someone asks for a package to be delivered just because it's election mail?

that this has to be done across almost every state, that it has to be done by wildly different areas and political backgrounds, and that it somehow just is never caught.

It's almost as if though there isn't anything to be caught with because it was done on a local level. You're not really helping your case here as it not being caught - to reiterate - despite being done in wildly different areas would signify that there wasn't any need for overarching, top-down favors and bribes to be done.

But no, they'd never risk their pension for a bribe, but totally ideology.

The former is the higher-ups, think supervisors, managers, etc. The latter would be your on the ground worker - again, if they're even aware of it which I covered here:

No, I can completely believe that people looked the other way on their own accord for no other reason than "I'm busy and I just want my second lunch break". Up to and including people in managerial and supervisory positions.

But hammering home the point I'm not certain how that would even matter as they're not required to make sure of anything beyond the packages not being opened/damaged, as far as I'm aware.

Next time I'd like it if you'd actually read the post instead of posting a one-line gotcha. This isn't Twitter, you know.

 

[ForTheHoard]

Matt Gaetz says he's found an interesting $2.25 billion provision in BBB/Infrastructure bill (not sure which one).
View attachment 2669540View attachment 2669539

I hope they adopt a brightly colored helmet as part of their uniform.

 

[Oxous]

I hope they adopt a brightly colored helmet as part of their uniform.

I don't know why, but I have a feeling that if this doesn't get cut out of the bill a certain family of ranchers in Nevada will get very pissy.

 

[Gehenna]

Don't be an ape.

Spoiler

The contradiction is only there because you're ignoring that those are two different layers of the organization that we're talking about here, as is the problem with the rest of this post. The higher ups wouldn't risk 20+ years of work and a damn good retirement for a one-off bribe that'd most likely get them in hot water with the IRS at best and at worst cost them their retirement and possibly end up with prison time.

I explained how it isn't contradictory unless you have reading comprehension problems.

Which is a damn sight better than your "I totally don't know how it actually is, trust me".

Go ahead and list to me what procedures, then, are being broken when someone asks for a package to be delivered just because it's election mail?

It's almost as if though there isn't anything to be caught with because it was done on a local level. You're not really helping your case here as it not being caught - to reiterate - despite being done in wildly different areas would signify that there wasn't any need for overarching, top-down favors and bribes to be done.

The former is the higher-ups, think supervisors, managers, etc. The latter would be your on the ground worker - again, if they're even aware of it which I covered here:

But hammering home the point I'm not certain how that would even matter as they're not required to make sure of anything beyond the packages not being opened/damaged, as far as I'm aware.

Next time I'd like it if you'd actually read the post instead of posting a one-line gotcha. This isn't Twitter, you know.

Well, ad hominem aside, I'll outline several procedures:

1: All election mail must be certified by the upper brass as having followed -a strict- chain of custody guidelines. This isn't boots on the ground, this has to be supervisor staff. This would be violated.
2: All election mail must be signed off by the senior elections official at the dropoff location, this -is- repeatedly violated in every point checked for election shenanigans.
3: This also occurs at the start point, all election mail is put in those special boxes, there is a strict checklist of what they are supposed to do with this it isn't just throwing it in the box. Again, supervisors are the ones doing this.

It's not just "throw the mail in the box and drop it off", which is the only way your proposal works. Hence why what you said -is- a contradiction, since supervisors would have to be involved for this to work.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Well, ad hominem aside

It's only an ad hominem if someone says you're wrong because of the insult. I didn't say you were incorrect because you are an ape, I merely asked that you don't act like one.

1: All election mail must be certified by the upper brass as having followed -a strict- chain of custody guidelines. This isn't boots on the ground, this has to be supervisor staff. This would be violated.
2: All election mail must be signed off by the senior elections official at the dropoff location, this -is- repeatedly violated in every point checked for election shenanigans.
3: This also occurs at the start point, all election mail is put in those special boxes, there is a strict checklist of what they are supposed to do with this it isn't just throw it in the box., Again, supervisors are the ones doing this.

So at no point in these procedures does it say that they have to make sure that the ones delivering it to be picked up and moved elsewhere have to be part of the USPS. Because, I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong, the people collecting and packaging these ballots aren't USPS employees? As in, the people who should be checking signatures and verifying the validity of the ballots themselves.

So my point that it doesn't even take bribing a USPS official is spot-on, I suppose.

It's not just "throw the mail in the box and drop it off", which is the only way your proposal works. Hence why what you said -is- a contradiction, since supervisors would have to be involved for this to work.

I'm still not sure how the possibility of the people doing the rigging merely dropping off a shitload of fake ballots doesn't factor into this at all. You're acting as if though they're supposed to open each and every letter and check signatures or some shit.

 

[Oxous]

Matt Gaetz says he's found an interesting $2.25 billion provision in BBB/Infrastructure bill (not sure which one).
View attachment 2669540View attachment 2669539

Looking more into this, I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before.

The low-down, according to the Biden admin (this is part of BBB): "In addition, the framework will create a new Civilian Climate Corps - with over 300,000 members that look like America. This diverse new workforce will protect our public lands, bolster community resilience, and address the changing climate, all while putting good-paying union jobs within reach for more Americans."

Apparently this seems to have been one thing that major climate activist groups like Sunrise Movement were trying to push for. I, for one, have to wonder if they would even be capable of getting 300,000 employees should this pass.

Worth noting also that I can't find total agreement on how much the CCC is getting in funding. Gaetz suggests just the $2 billion but I've seen people make estimates as high as $30 billion.

 

[Gehenna]

It's only an ad hominem if someone says you're wrong because of the insult. I didn't say you were incorrect because you are an ape, I merely asked that you don't act like one.

So at no point in these procedures does it say that they have to make sure that the ones delivering it to be picked up and moved elsewhere have to be part of the USPS. Because, I'm assuming and correct me if I'm wrong, the people collecting and packaging these ballots aren't USPS employees?

So my point that it doesn't even take bribing a USPS official is spot-on, I suppose.

I'm still not sure how the possibility of the people doing the rigging merely dropping off a shitload of fake ballots doesn't factor into this at all. You're acting as if though they're supposed to open each and every letter and check signatures or some shit.

They are in fact USPS employees. The people collecting ballots and packaging them are USPS employees, supervised under strict chain of custody by their superiors. And as for each individual one, they are supposed to check a few things. The big one is the date it was postmarked. It gets postmarked as soon as it comes in, and then sent off to collecting and packaging. Any ballots postmarked after a date set state by state is supposed to be discarded. The standard procedure for the supervisor is to pull out a random sample of packets and check them for correct postmarks. Any wrong means the whole box is redone.

Addition: The only time Election Mail is supposed to be out of the direct hands of USPS employees is when it's in the mailbox or when it's in the hands of the people counting the votes.