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?

 

[Billy Beer]

A travel ban on black countries
More dead in 21 than 20
Supply chain crisis in 21, not 20 (height of pandemic)

What has Biden done differently, let alone better, than Trump?

 

[Vyse Inglebard]

A travel ban on black countries
More dead in 21 than 20
Supply chain crisis in 21, not 20 (height of pandemic)

What has Biden done differently, let alone better, than Trump?

No mean tweets. This automatically makes up for everything else, according to Bidenbros.

 

[soy_king]

1. Pick a random name of a variant of the flu* out of a grab-bag
2. Pretend it doesn't exist anymore and rename it COVID.
3. Every year keep doing this until COVID is the ONLY flu that has ever existed in the history of forever and everything in the past was incorrect
4. ???
5. Profit

*or any sickness at this point... the common cold could be COVID to these fuckers and the useful idiots will STILL buy into it

It's Ok When We Do It #9872353

They're going with an obfuscation tactic: no guide you were wrong, Biden was reacting to Trump calling it the China Virus, not the abstract concept of travel bans themselves. These people are apologists and hypocrites of the worst order.

 

[Garm]

No mean tweets. This automatically makes up for everything else, according to Bidenbros.

Talked to a liberal friend last night. After saying Trump did shady fundraising and I pointed out Biden allowed Hunter on Air Force 2 his last response was how annoying the news coverage of Trump's tweets were.

 

[pwnest injun]

So I was wondering if Trump runs again and wins the primary after a long time of cuckservatives bitching and moaning.

Well cucks like Shapiro after wining suck it up again like last time?

My question is, when he wins, will he remember how the Jewish contingent abandoned him or stabbed him in the back during his time of need...

 

[Iceland Heavy]

A travel ban on black countries
More dead in 21 than 20
Supply chain crisis in 21, not 20 (height of pandemic)

What has Biden done differently, let alone better, than Trump?

He gave a troon a flag officer rank, how about that, MIGApedes?

 

[murdered meat bag]

lol

View attachment 2754287

r/tifu - TIFU by saying FUCK YOU to my mother-in-law after Thanksgiving dinner.

3,609 votes and 814 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

TIFU by saying FUCK YOU to my mother-in-law after Thanksgiving dinner…

archived 27 Nov 2021 05:07:43 UTC

archive.md

ah man that's rough. everyone talking politics at thanksgiving instead of the boys talking shop with men and the girls doing dishes with the women like it was back in the day.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

None, because he’d never be “outed”. It just wouldn’t be reported on, discussion of it online would be censored, the accuser would be unpersoned, and it’s back to regular programming.

Like how he would take those showers with his daughter that she wrote in that diary that nobody talked about?

Looks like it's not just gonna be a California problem anymore (this is Minnesota).
View attachment 2755303
Advocating for looters rights can only get you brownie points for so long. Unless the law is changed to allow businesses to hire private security who can arrest looters, ala South Africa, there are two options: the businesses will start leaving Democrat cities that allow this shit, or the DA will backwalk everything and start being hard on crime.

Good. They get what they fucking deserve.

Thinking too small, remember the IRS under obama targeting conservative groups? When asked to produce documents, the IRS said they deleted them all and no one ever followed up on that. Now think about the "insurrection" and how schoolboard protest leaders are literally having their doors kicked in by the FBI. I'm gonna bet that the people audited will somehow always turn out to be right wing and involved in that stuff.

Don't worry, they'll come down on one token left-aligned group, so clearly you're just a dangerous conspiracy theorist!

A travel ban on black countries
More dead in 21 than 20
Supply chain crisis in 21, not 20 (height of pandemic)

What has Biden done differently, let alone better, than Trump?

something something boring something something normal

ah man that's rough. everyone talking politics at thanksgiving instead of the boys talking shop with men and the girls doing dishes with the women like it was back in the day.

yikes! Big oucherino ooferino friendo! Men talking shop? WOMEN DOING DISHES??? Looks like you done a sexism. I'm gonna give y'all a downdoot to ensure you think about what y'all did!

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

Like how he would take those showers with his daughter that she wrote in that diary that nobody talked about?

Just like that. Look how fast that story got squashed. Feds seized the diary, silenced anyone with knowledge of the contents, networks refused to cover it, and Big Tech buried it online. It’s been 2-3 weeks and it’s already down the memory hole, never to return.

 

[Gehenna]

Gonna have to disagree with this perspective! That kind of fallacious reasoning is something that can't be falsified, because of how vague being actively controlled opposition by the Democrats is. (Does Trump count because he held up a pride flag once? Depends on if we need to unparty him!) To make matters worse, it ascribes to Democratic omnipotence what should be ascribed to Republican incompetence. Your party leaders making mistakes and not understanding what their base wants is something that can be rectified. The Democrats somehow both being so powerful that they can control party leaders effortlessly and so weak that they can't pass their own legislation cannot be rectified because it inherently cannot be reconciled with reality.

I will happily back this up, but first I need to knock down your rebuttal as it... ascribes to my point several things that were not in my points.

Let's start with this "The Democrats somehow both being so powerful that they can control party leaders effortlessly and so weak that they can't pass their own legislation cannot be rectified because it inherently cannot be reconciled with reality."

Nowhere did I imply this. And in fact an even basic memory of my prior points, many of which you have responded or reacted to, would prove this incongruous. It is not effortless, for one. It required the active subversion of the entire middle administration into people who wanted to toe the Establishment line. It is also horrifically failing in front of our eyes. So that doesn't make sense.

Beyond my severe contention there, you are right that "Controlled Opposition" requires clarification. It is not a puppet regime, which is where you seem to think I mean it. Instead, it is assets and personnel who are near wholly aligned with the opposition party but who put on the suit of their party and play the optics game. Think Romney, who voted for impeachment, his original support of the Infrastructure Bill, or the myriad of things he voted for under Obama.

Now, bipartisanship is not a dirty word. And if one could point to it being principled stances for the likes of Romney, you'd have an easy rejoinder of it not being anything but that. Thankfully, Romney himself is such a shameless weathervane of a man it kinda rules that out. So, what then is the draw, what makes him Controlled Opposition, and why is it failing now? Put simply, power. The RINOs, the Controlled Opposition, sought personal gain at the expense of their voters and willingly aligned themselves near wholly with the Democrat party on any issues of substantive note. They then resisted any minor bills or particularly contentious topics until a 'bipartisan agreement' could be reached which, near-universally, actually changed no fundamental aspects of what was being fought over.

It was, simply put, political theater.

Now repeat this across almost two decades, and you have Controlled Opposition. It's not some sort of mythical stranglehold that requires the democrats to be both incredibly powerful and incredibly weak, it just requires one side to choose personal power and money over their voters. And then to simply institutionalize it.

It is also incredibly fragile, hence the current situation.

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

I will happily back this up, but first I need to knock down your rebuttal as it... ascribes to my point several things that were not in my points.

Let's start with this "The Democrats somehow both being so powerful that they can control party leaders effortlessly and so weak that they can't pass their own legislation cannot be rectified because it inherently cannot be reconciled with reality."

Nowhere did I imply this. And in fact an even basic memory of my prior points, many of which you have responded or reacted to, would prove this incongruous. It is not effortless, for one. It required the active subversion of the entire middle administration into people who wanted to toe the Establishment line. It is also horrifically failing in front of our eyes. So that doesn't make sense.

Beyond my severe contention there, you are right that "Controlled Opposition" requires clarification. It is not a puppet regime, which is where you seem to think I mean it. Instead, it is assets and personnel who are near wholly aligned with the opposition party but who put on the suit of their party and play the optics game. Think Romney, who voted for impeachment, his original support of the Infrastructure Bill, or the myriad of things he voted for under Obama.

Now, bipartisanship is not a dirty word. And if one could point to it being principled stances for the likes of Romney, you'd have an easy rejoinder of it not being anything but that. Thankfully, Romney himself is such a shameless weathervane of a man it kinda rules that out. So, what then is the draw, what makes him Controlled Opposition, and why is it failing now? Put simply, power. The RINOs, the Controlled Opposition, sought personal gain at the expense of their voters and willingly aligned themselves near wholly with the Democrat party on any issues of substantive note. They then resisted any minor bills or particularly contentious topics until a 'bipartisan agreement' could be reached which, near-universally, actually changed no fundamental aspects of what was being fought over.

It was, simply put, political theater.

Now repeat this across almost two decades, and you have Controlled Opposition. It's not some sort of mythical stranglehold that requires the democrats to be both incredibly powerful and incredibly weak, it just requires one side to choose personal power and money over their voters. And then to simply institutionalize it.

It is also incredibly fragile, hence the current situation.

Is it so fragile? McCarthy is just a folksy version of Paul Ryan and Turtle Man the very epitome of a Company Man. So the GOP gets control of the House and Senate back in ‘22. Nothing changes. More political theater. Then in ‘24 let’s say a Republican wins. It’s either an “outsider” like Trump who gets obstructed for all 4 years or it’s a controlled opposition candidate and it’s business as usual. It’s the illusion of change, but nothing really changes.

 

[Gehenna]

Is it so fragile? McCarthy is just a folksy version of Paul Ryan and Turtle Man the very epitome of a Company Man. So the GOP gets control of the House and Senate back in ‘22. Nothing changes. More political theater. Then in ‘24 let’s say a Republican wins. It’s either an “outsider” like Trump who gets obstructed for all 4 years or it’s a controlled opposition candidate and it’s business as usual. It’s the illusion of change, but nothing really changes.

Yes, it is fragile. Because it requires every party actively involved to be on board. As soon as one side begins to grumble it begins having issues.

The Democrats right now are internally flying apart, and a hostile entity has taken over the Republican party.



Also, the Uniparty stuff only really started with the end of Clinton/Start of Bush.

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

Yes, it is fragile. Because it requires every party actively involved to be on board. As soon as one side begins to grumble it begins having issues.

The Democrats right now are internally flying apart, and a hostile entity has taken over the Republican party.



Also, the Uniparty stuff only really started with the end of Clinton/Start of Bush.

What “hostile entity” is that? The folks running the GOP are the same old same old. You talking about Trump? What’s he going to do? The only reason the GOP even let him run in 2016 is that the Dems wanted “fringe” candidates like him in the GOP primary mix. There’s no way Trump gets the nomination in ‘24, they won’t even let him in the primaries or debates. So who do you end up with? DeSantis? Cruz? Crenshaw? All Company Men. The illusion of change.

 

[Gehenna]

What “hostile entity” is that? The folks running the GOP are the same old same old. You talking about Trump? What’s he going to do? The only reason the GOP even let him run in 2016 is that the Dems wanted “fringe” candidates like him in the GOP primary mix. There’s no way Trump gets the nomination in ‘24, they won’t even let him in the primaries or debates. So who do you end up with? DeSantis? Cruz? Crenshaw? All Company Men. The illusion of change.

They don't get to choose who enters the primaries, and the RNC has already been co-opted by him so that means he gets in the debates.

Trump is a central figure that gives power to a -lot- of people who couldn't do anything on their own. He is slowly consuming the party to become his image. Hence why Liz Cheney was kicked out of the party.


Seriously Lorne, you are at this time saying things that simply do not reflect reality. Not just interpretation of events, but hard factual inaccuracies.

 

[Chamaelirium]

As bad of a guy Mitch McConnell is, he stopped Merrick Garland from getting a SCOTUS seat, and for that alone God Bless him.

 

[Compositesludge]

Let's start with this "The Democrats somehow both being so powerful that they can control party leaders effortlessly and so weak that they can't pass their own legislation cannot be rectified because it inherently cannot be reconciled with reality."

Nowhere did I imply this. And in fact an even basic memory of my prior points, many of which you have responded or reacted to, would prove this incongruous. It is not effortless, for one. It required the active subversion of the entire middle administration into people who wanted to toe the Establishment line. It is also horrifically failing in front of our eyes. So that doesn't make sense.

Ah, this is a perfectly fair point and I apologize! My calling it effortless had no thought put into it - it was flippant and inspired not by your posting, but by what I perceived as a roundabout way of finding doomerism. For this, I am sorry. That was unwarranted on my part.

Beyond my severe contention there, you are right that "Controlled Opposition" requires clarification. it is not a puppet regime, which is where you seem to think I mean it. Instead, it is assets and personnel who are near wholly aligned with the opposition party but who put on the suit of their party and play the optics game. Think Romney, who voted for impeachment, his original support of the Infrastructure Bill, or the myriad of things he voted for under Obama.

I wanted to look more into these things before I posted again, but I don't think any of those things are signs that Romney's controlled by the Democrats. I'll break it down into chunks because that helps me think through things and I hope it will also be helpful to people who are reading my post. (And no, I don't count on my fingers, but you could be forgiven for believing I do considering my formatting!)

On his vote for Impeachment, both Trump and Trumpism are not very popular in Utah. McMullin was a pretty decent spoiler for Trump in 2016, and while things were better in 2020, it still wasn't as commanding a majority as one might expect from one of the most conservative states in the union. Still a decent one, 21% isn't anything to sneeze at, but considering what Biden's promised... it's a bit wild. There are also little apocryphal stories I remember (like joking around with my stepfamily when their bishop and ward started wondering if Trump was literally the antichrist in early 2016), but that's more due to me being a Utahn than any research I've done on my own. The impeachment vote was 57/43 - if Romney had pushed it to 61/39, I would absolutely agree with you, but his vote was a way to signal that he wasn't under Trump's thumb without doing any actual damage. That picture of him having dinner with Trump indicates that this is a razor's edge he is traversing with some difficulty, but that's what he's doing.

On his support of the original infrastructure bill, his position came down more to his fear that, if Democrats did it all by reconciliation, Republicans/Republican states would be left out entirely. Were his fears overblown? Possibly. But this was before we knew about how pivotal Manchin and Sinema would be in affecting the development of the bill. I'd again argue that this wasn't him being coopted by the Democrats, but instead by him wanting to make the best of what he saw as a bad situation.

As for the myriad of stuff Romney voted for under Obama, I frankly have no idea. Is there anything in there that seems more troubling than the the two aforementioned examples?

now, bipartisanship is not a dirty word. And if one could point to it being principled stances for the likes of Romney, you'd have an easy rejoinder of it not being anything but that. Thankfully, Romney himself is such a shameless weathervane of a man it kinda rules that out. So, what then is the draw, what makes him Controlled Opposition, and why is it failing now? Put simply, power. The RINOs, the Controlled Opposition, sought personal gain at the expense of their voters and willingly aligned themselves near wholly with the Democrat party on any issues of substantive note. They then resisted any minor bills or particularly contentious topics until a 'bipartisan agreement' could be reached which, near-universally, actually changed no fundamental aspects of what was being fought over.

The last major pieces of legislation I can think about passing were the infrastructure bill and the survival checks bill, both of which passed under reconciliation without any Republican support. BBB has fundamentally changed from being a $3.5 trillion overhaul of the United States to a 2.5 2 $1.5 trillion(?) spending plan. I think I'm going to need some examples of bipartisan agreements that were enough to save any of the major legislative hallmarks of Biden's agenda.

It was, simply put, political theater.

Now repeat this across almost two decades, and you have Controlled Opposition. It's not some sort of mythical stranglehold that requires the democrats to be both incredibly powerful and incredibly weak, it just requires one side to choose personal power and money over their voters. And then to simply institutionalize it.

It is also incredibly fragile, hence the current situation.

Just one side? Both parties are dedicated to enshrining their power at all costs, the alternative isn't great. I agree with you on the effects, but I don't know if the causes were due to RINOs. I'd argue it's a toxic social environment that's been getting steadily worse over the years. I can't point to when exactly it began (2004, maybe? Stab in the dark here!), but I think the bigger problem is the polarization between parties that's been trending upwards for the last few years. I'd say the bigger problem here is that while bipartisanship isn't a dirty word yet, the idea of it and the diminishment of power is a dirty one indeed, which is why we have increasingly empty signifiers like RINO and DINO being tossed around instead of coming out and saying that bipartisanship is a dirty word. I'd argue that it's not that Romney's under Clinton's thumb, or that Manchin's under Trump's thumb, It's that neither party really knows what it wants to be because we're in unprecedented times and politicians haven't quite caught up to that.

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

They don't get to choose who enters the primaries, and the RNC has already been co-opted by him so that means he gets in the debates.

Trump is a central figure that gives power to a -lot- of people who couldn't do anything on their own. He is slowly consuming the party to become his image. Hence why Liz Cheney was kicked out of the party.


Seriously Lorne, you are at this time saying things that simply do not reflect reality. Not just interpretation of events, but hard factual inaccuracies.

The GOP can never become the Trump Party because the leadership of the GOP is diametrically opposed to Trump and they’re not going anywhere, plus they’re bringing in fake populist youngsters like Crenshaw to fool the voters, and they fall for it. Are you going to primary McCarthy and McConnell? If not, and if they’re running the show in the House and Senate then it doesn’t matter who you elect President.

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

As bad of a guy Mitch McConnell is, he stopped Merrick Garland from getting a SCOTUS seat, and for that alone God Bless him.

Yeah, Turtleman knows how to play The Game. That’s also why he didn’t do a damn thing to prevent Garland being confirmed by the Senate for AG.

 

[Gehenna]

@Compositesludge Joy, Reply bug

On his vote for Impeachment, both Trump and Trumpism are not very popular in Utah.

This, by your own source, is simply inaccurate. He still won the state by 8.1% and gained in the state. This also utterly ignores the backlash to Romney over said vote. As can be seen here; while the vote failed it was a -narrow- result. That does not in anyway show a lack of popularity for Trump in the state.

As to Romney's record, I admit having difficulty parsing your point. The Democrats are still trying for Reconciliation, and Romney would know this. So your attempt to bring up his own defense only serves to highlight that he is lying. They were saying outright they were going to do it before he even voted for the bill. That is simply a lie by Romney, there really is no other way to see it given what he would -have- to have known from multiple sources.

I will correct myself on one thing, I was mixing up McCain and Romney's history when it came to the Obama years. This is why I should doublecheck some of this stuff before posting. Romney bowed out of the Senate in 2006 to focus on his run. Mea culpa.

The last major pieces of legislation I can think about passing were the infrastructure bill and the survival checks bill, both of which passed under reconciliation without any Republican support. BBB has fundamentally changed from being a $3.5 trillion overhaul of the United States to a 2.5 2 $1.5 trillion(?) spending plan. I think I'm going to need some examples of bipartisan agreements that were enough to save any of the major legislative hallmarks of Biden's agenda.

This is... nonsense. I think I have read it five or six times and can find no relation to what I said. If I am to take a stab, you somehow misread what I typed as saying only in the Biden era? But even that is a serious stretch. Still, seizing on that and hoping I am right.

The Recovery Act
The Surveillance Reform law
the 2010 tax law (This one especially has some very fun details behind the scenes)
And the fairly infamous, if you follow politics, Sequester.

All these are cases under Obama where the bipartisan support was vital to getting things to pass, and where there were serious issues from the voting base but then the RINOs came in, fundamentally didn't actually change any of the things people had issues with, but passed it anyway with a new coat of paint.

I'd argue that it's not that Romney's under Clinton's thumb, or that Manchin's under Trump's thumb, It's that neither party really knows what it wants to be because we're in unprecedented times and politicians haven't quite caught up to that.

You are bringing up things nobody else is, or at the very least I am not. Please cease. But yes, it is just one way. Mainly because those on the right who are part of this don't really have anything they want to push. They are in it for personal gain, as I stressed in the prior section that your response confused me so much on.

If one side of an agreement is in it for some end goal they want to reach, and the other is in it purely for personal gain.... well, of course it's lopsided.

 

[CrippleThreat]

A laughable slap fight, but mind if I toss in my opinion?

Trump gets the nomination as the base is behind the King Don's Revenge.

However, the only ills he has are with:

1. Muh January 6th ("How could leave your poor supporters to rot? I wouldn't do that!"). Worthless because literally only Revolver News and Julie Kelly has done anything of note for J6. Those boomers aren't going free without Congress resolutions tbh.

2. The vaccine ("We had to fight Biden's admin because you made this damn thing, and you haven't said anything negative about it since! You even got boo'd for being so out of touch with it!") If you've seen An0maly's rantings on Twitter (lol), he makes Rand Paul come up as a primary opponent simply because he's openly against the vaccine.

Despite all that, "True Conservatives" (Matt Walsh, Shapiro, Cernovich, Chamberlain, Pedros) make a worthless scratch with their postings.

Honestly, it's gone from "Trumpism without Trump," to "lol I don't who I'll support in the primary lol. Trump has to shape up though!" to a bigger outcry of "T w/o T" after the Youngkin victory.

And now we're at, "We have to make sure the second Trump Admin is free of Mnuchins, Pompeos, McMasters, and the rest of those loathsome serpents" after polling shows Blumpf wiping the floor with the Footnote and his tagalong in '24. All that, especially with DeSantis not running.

Great to see we're all on the same page now!