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?

 

[The Last Stand]

And here I meant "school-age" without the medical context:

You're a young kid growing up, and suddenly you're thrusted from your cozy bed at an obscene hour of day (for that age at least), and you're taken to this strange place that you have to stay in for 8 hours at most?

Then, you leave, go home, and your usual schedule has to be altered so you can get up at that obscene time all over again? And you have to do this for 5 days? Until you're at least 17-18?

How do they not see it?

Don't people have to do that for work?

 

[Puff]

Frankly, the economy is much too complicated a machine to boil it down to just "After X years it's Y President's fault".

It does follow true on policy in terms of a delay for it taking effect. You won't really see economic policy kick in until about two years after it's signed. Though so many other factors are also involved to be able to point to the policy and say "See, the policy affected things!" outside of pointing to very specific instances.

A good president's policy can be totally scuppered by bad events, just as a bad president's policy can be boosted by good events. In order to really lay blame at a president's feet one way or another, you need to work backwards and eliminate events to prove it. Something that most people fail to do whether its to condemn or praise.

And you can break an economy fast. Fixing it takes longer.

 

[CrippleThreat]

Don't people have to do that for work?

And that's voluntary (regardless on your ancestry).

And then, you have to work a hopefully not terrible job with hopefully not terrible hours, for a hopefully not terrible boss who hopefully doesn't see you as a means to their ends, ad nauseum.

I really hope that's not some communist's origin story. Pathetic.

 

[That_Guy]

Don't people have to do that for work?

Yes. Sort of. I had the distinct pleasure of a summer job between two years in high school where they wanted hours worked, but exactly when wasn't very important. Didn't like Mondays. Didn't work Mondays. Same hours, Just four (longer) days. Was pretty nice.

 

[The Last Stand]

And here I meant "school-age" without the medical context:

You're a young kid growing up, and suddenly you're thrusted from your cozy bed at an obscene hour of day (for that age at least), and you're taken to this strange place that you have to stay in for 8 hours at most?

Then, you leave, go home, and your usual schedule has to be altered so you can get up at that obscene time all over again? And you have to do this for 5 days? Until you're at least 17-18?

How do they not see it?

I remember having to get up at 6am to get to school and stay at school until 4:30pm. Now you try to complete homework in such a tight timeframe AND eat Michelle Obama's "healthy lunch." Yeah, you get burned out quickly.

 

[Die Dunkle Maus]

Difference being for Bush that sign was meant for the carrier its on, which actually DID just accomplish a 10 month long deployment in the gulf.

The hospitals and Biden? Eh, they accomplished not so much.

You're leaving out the part with Bush saying that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

So, he says that operations have ended (in 2003), and the USA has prevailed, with a "mission accomplished" banner behind him... and that's funny, and he was full of shit, and so are you.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

Just a reminder: overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't make abortion illegal; it just takes it back down from the federal level to the state level.

If you live in New York or California, overturning RvW means literally nothing. If you live in Texas, it means a lot probably.

Edit: @Zero Day Defense beat me to it.

Random thought: If red states don't have to be comfortable for blue infestations -- i.e., they have red state values instead of blue state values imposed upon them -- then the longstanding Democrat practice of sending excess blue voters to red states to destroy them won't be as easy. What selfrespecting whore would want to move from California to Texas if you can't slut it up and murder any inconvenient children you might have?

 

[gaystoner]

uh oh...well spoken good looking black man has taken a seat as a Republican in Congress.. Well done Mr. Donald

 

[Gehenna]

uh oh...well spoken good looking black man has taken a seat as a Republican in Congress.. Well done Mr. Donald

He's making good points there, and also really preventing any sort of good attack against him. The Democrats would love to go into a spiel about how it "helps marginalized women", but know they absolutely cannot use that on a black man.

 

[Local FloRida-man]

You're leaving out the part with Bush saying that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

So, he says that operations have ended (in 2003), and the USA has prevailed, with a "mission accomplished" banner behind him... and that's funny, and he was full of shit, and so are you.

And you're leaving out the portion of the speech where he said "much still needs to be done". Major combat operations obviously meant the initial large scale invasion, which was a huge success and did in fact end in 2003; while the "much still needs to be done" referred to the occupation and nation building bullshit we got sucked into. If you're gonna be pissy about the speech, do it for the right reasons.

But it's so much easier to just shut your brain off and smugly chuckle at a clear propaganda photo, huh?

 

[Puff]

And you're leaving out the portion of the speech where he said "much still needs to be done". Major combat operations obviously meant the initial large scale invasion, which was a huge success and did in fact end in 2003; while the "much still needs to be done" referred to the occupation and nation building bullshit we got sucked into. If you're gonna be pissy about the speech, do it for the right reasons.

But it's so much easier to just shut your brain off and smugly chuckle at a clear propaganda photo, huh?

Even if you're right it's still a propaganda photo. Almost anything any politician intentionally does is propaganda.

 

[MrJokerRager]

View attachment 2767274

Did this cuck ever discuss how the left wing defamed Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[The Last Stand]

uh oh...well spoken good looking black man has taken a seat as a Republican in Congress.. Well done Mr. Donald

You KNOW they hate it when a POC speaks out against their bullshit.

 

[Local FloRida-man]

Even if you're right it's still a propaganda photo. Almost anything any politician intentionally does is propaganda.

True, but does that justify blindly going along with the fake narrative that's been built around it? All the accomplishments of the USS Abraham Lincoln on their 10 month deployment, and the actually contents of the speech, were both wiped from the public zeitgeist because dems successfully reframed the entire event into "hurr durr boosh dum".

 

[Puff]

True, but does that justify blindly going along with the fake narrative that's been built around it? All the accomplishments of the USS Abraham Lincoln on their 10 month deployment, and the actually contents of the speech, were both wiped from the public zeitgeist because dems successfully reframed the entire event into "hurr durr boosh dum".

Blah, blah, blah. I'm drunk and that's not what I was talking about. Try to be correct completely instead of letting some things slide to make a point.

 

[Local FloRida-man]

Blah, blah, blah. I'm drunk and that's not what I was talking about. Try to be correct completely instead of letting some things slide to make a point.

I've seen people try to be completely correct. All that happens is you end up with huge walls of meandering tl;dr trying to cover every possible (mis)interpretation. Which is pointless, because this is the internet and bad faith flows like wine here. It's better to just write statements like a normal human.

 

[HTTP Error 404]

lol, Tucker outting Alex Jones as a glownigger shill

what?

 

[Snekposter]

True, but does that justify blindly going along with the fake narrative that's been built around it? All the accomplishments of the USS Abraham Lincoln on their 10 month deployment, and the actually contents of the speech, were both wiped from the public zeitgeist because dems successfully reframed the entire event into "hurr durr boosh dum".

Yeah, people forget the banner was the carrier's crew celebrating the end of a ten-month mission, not anything specifically related to Bush or Iraq.

 

[Trianon]

Hard for me to not see what the pro-choice side did as trying for all or nothing. Soto continued acting like a dumbass trying to say they can't listen to any scientists, that brain dead people looking like they feel pain is proof fetuses can't feel it, and that people have rights that aren't stated in the constitution.

Then you even have the fact that Soto doing all this essentially means she's arguing against the other justices on when you can consider the fetus 'viable'. Which as Turley mentions leaves a "steep cliff problem".
View attachment 2765662

Meanwhile we have libs going nuts like this black activist/attorney implying black women having kids is murder.
View attachment 2765673

Yes, the pro-abortion side argued for all or nothing, which I thought was the most interesting takeaway of the day.

The pro-abortion side said they can't uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban and say that Roe and Casey are still in effect. They clearly wouldn't be because the justices would have to ignore all the text of the decisions to let the 15-week ban stand. The pro-life side said that the viability standard is nonsensical and unworkable, and nothing else the court tries to sub in as a better standard is going to be any less arbitrary, since viability is subjective and premies are being born earlier and surviving all the time. An abortion compromise such as Roe has to, by its nature, be extremely technical, and a court is not well equipped to create that standard.

Neither side left the judges much room to maneuver for a compromise. This puts Roberts and maybe some other fence-sitters in a tough spot. From today's arguments, I think Kavanaugh is fully on board with "return it to the states" being the best compromise that can be found. It's just going to be hard for them to go digging into the Constitution to come up with some third standard that makes sense, as both sides have told them not to bother. Either this is settled constitutional law, don't fiddle with it, or scrap it and start over. That makes it easier for them to throw up their hands and say, "You guys figure it out." A particularly strong point is that legislators are perfectly equipped to write definitions about what "viable" means if a state wants to allow some abortions, whereas the Court just creates a standard and leaves it untouched for 50 years. They're the only ones who can "update" it, and people are going to keep coming back to them for updates until they wash their hands of it.

If they do that, I hope they give the opinion to Thomas. Barrett would be a good choice because she's the conservative woman, but Thomas writes beautifully on this issue.

I thought that Clarence Thomas rarely speaks. I would venture, he spoke more in this case than in a couple years of him on the bench.

He started talking during Trump's term. Him speaking up is basically him putting his hand on Roberts' neck and whispering, "My court now."

 

[Gehenna]

Yes, the pro-abortion side argued for all or nothing, which I thought was the most interesting takeaway of the day.

The pro-abortion side said they can't uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban and say that Roe and Casey are still in effect. They clearly wouldn't be because the justices would have to ignore all the text of the decisions to let the 15-week ban stand. The pro-life side said that the viability standard is nonsensical and unworkable, and nothing else the court tries to sub in as a better standard is going to be any less arbitrary, since viability is subjective and premies are being born earlier and surviving all the time. An abortion compromise such as Roe has to, by its nature, be extremely technical, and a court is not well equipped to create that standard.

Neither side left the judges much room to maneuver for a compromise. This puts Roberts and maybe some other fence-sitters in a tough spot. From today's arguments, I think Kavanaugh is fully on board with "return it to the states" being the best compromise that can be found. It's just going to be hard for them to go digging into the Constitution to come up with some third standard that makes sense, as both sides have told them not to bother. Either this is settled constitutional law, don't fiddle with it, or scrap it and start over. That makes it easier for them to throw up their hands and say, "You guys figure it out." A particularly strong point is that legislators are perfectly equipped to write definitions about what "viable" means if a state wants to allow some abortions, whereas the Court just creates a standard and leaves it untouched for 50 years. They're the only ones who can "update" it, and people are going to keep coming back to them for updates until they wash their hands of it.

If they do that, I hope they give the opinion to Thomas. Barrett would be a good choice because she's the conservative woman, but Thomas writes beautifully on this issue.


He started talking during Trump's term. Him speaking up is basically him putting his hand on Roberts' neck and whispering, "My court now."

The problem for the Pro-Abortion side is that there really isn't a biological period they can point to that is functional for a compromise.

Viability is ever-changing and, as soon as artificial wombs can be made, utterly void.
Fetal pain is a non-starter, as soon as you craft law around whether something can or cannot feel pain you have already lost. It's an optics nightmare.
And a Heartbeat is way, way too early into a pregnancy to even really be a viable option period.

And I cannot think of a fourth one to even bother trying to use.


The only really functional thing is to determine it via arbitrary date, but as soon as you try to do that you lose every single potential constitutional basis for it that isn't explicitly about abortion. The 'right to privacy' was conjured up specifically to avoid saying "it's about abortion".


Addition: A bit of history on how Viability became the standard it was. Basically, a massive misread by the SCOTUS of the time. Viability was always a stop-gap, a delay of it becoming an issue because there was no real period to point to otherwise but it provided the necessary obfuscation to concoct the "Right to Privacy". The idea at the time by SCOTUS was that clearly the nation was trending towards being pro-abortion, so -obviously- it would never come to where the can was kicked to because the issue would become dead.

SCOTUS judges aren't political analysts. They instead reinvigorated the issue and actually managed to slowly bleed the support away from it until it's a dead heat tie of support -in general-. Thankfully, this quite possibly has taken another compromise verdict off the table. There is nothing to compromise with.