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?
US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)
- Thread starter Borscht
- Start date
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Trump approved the vaccines to begin with, the Democrats at the time refused to take the jab including Harris stating it publicly.
Trump was not in favor of forced jabs though and under him, the military or federal employees were not required to taking it. He didn't mandate the private sector to force the jab either or force the CDC to step out of bounds.
That is the difference between the two at this point.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2020
Well yeah... it was basically core to his covid response and MSM refuses to acknowledge that.
Remember the Harris v. Pence debate where Harris all but spelled out that she wouldn't take the vax under Trump?
Edit: fucking ninjas
Tanner Glass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
Also when Trump approved the vaccines, he didn't have nearly 2 years of data to base a decision on.
I highly doubt he'd push them as hard in 2021 when the two current mutations bypass the vaccine (with Omicron apparently doing so incredibly easily) and the vaccine needing a booster like every 3-6 months to try and maintain efficacy (and failing).
- Joined
- May 14, 2021
Democratic politicians have treated Hispanic voters as a monolith that will vote blue forever as long as the government can reliably perpetuate the existence of the welfare state, essentially viewing them as blacks but with the the numbers to rival whites.
However, it never occurred to them that unlike blacks, the Hispanic family unit is way stronger on the whole regardless of class. They're not as easily impressed by politicians promising gibs or voting for policies that will negatively affect their bottom line, which is why we're seeing a lot of second-generation immigrants voting in favor of immigration reform and tighter borders; they know they can be fucked over by people who come here illegally in the thousands and offer to work for extremely reduced wages.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2021
They will never be the new Irish, but the Hispanic population of the United States has been proven to not be a reliable voting block for either party (outside of Cubans who are very right wing). I guess those of you putting your faith in Castizo-futurism might be winning the game though.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
The beaners are getting uppity too?! C'mon gooks, you can't be too far behind!
Is Manchin the Tyler1 equivalent?
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
It was 2 AM but yes you are correct
I have zero fucking sympathy for employers who can't weather this storm. I know a lot of small and middle size business owners and people who work for them. They're not just doing fine, they're doing awesome, because everyone sees the owners (and their spouses and their kids if they have them) working ten times as hard as everybody else. Everyone knows the owners have their backs. Shitty companies aren't just competing with NEETbux for labor, they're competing with good bosses with consciences who treat their employees like human beings.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2021
Still not taking it
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
Asians are, for the most part, only nominally/traditionally Democrats thanks to the religious right, which solidly pegged the Republicans as the white man’s party. It’s a position that comes from a time when being a liberal meant that you thought gays should be able to get married. I went to a university in NYC with a large Asian population, and when the campus idpol groups (consisting predominantly of white students… obviously) started making noise, pretty much all of the Asians - even the self-described liberals and feminists - publicly or privately voiced their opposition.
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
And yet one of the most common retorts among the branch covidians toward the unvaxxed is to call them trumptards
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Nintendo put a guy named Bowser in charge.
As a staunch unvaxxed, I'll admit that the vax isn't useless. It does seem to increase survivability(except maybe to the variants it might be creating). It's not a vaccination, but it does appear to be a preventative.
However, it not being a vaccine is the most critical fact. It's not something that needs to be distributed to large number of the population. It does nothing to establish hers immunity and over distribution is likely contributing to variants. It essentially shouldn't be given to anyone that isn't vulnerable (under the age of ~60, over ~30 BMI, and certain pre-existing conditions).
Same, but I also have relatives and friends that I'm not worried about taking it, and think it may help(though an given no relief in thinking they are protected). Trump oversaw this, he can't come out against it, but he is very opposed to the way it's being forced.
- Joined
- May 3, 2019
There is one important question haunting the Democrats HQ, who was the "White supremacist racist queerphobic nationalist" That build Giant Manchin shaped WALL ? i think people should start calling Manchin The Wall as nickname would piss lefties something fierce.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
Yes, I should always speak cordially in response to profanity-laced rants where I am called an idiot, I know, I am a bad person, and I feel bad.
GOD FORGIVE ME. There, it's all good, like it never happened, right?
Anyway, I'm getting exactly the results I am seeking, i.e. angry Trumpnuts telling me to leave along with their mewling pleas to ignore me, all for sharing quotes from Trump himself and his circle jerk of perverts. Please note I've just used Trump and Epstein buddies for my sources, for extra laughs.
I enjoy this thread a lot; unfortunately (for some of you, anyway), I'm not really into sitting in an anti-Trump hugbox thread, where's the fun in that? A lot of the posters here (in the pro-Trump hugbox thread) live in a la-la land, and seem to be under the impression that the Democrats are evil blood-sucking vampires, and Republicans are fighters for truth and justice; they're apparently blissfully unaware of the parties symbiotic relationship.
Trump is a perfect example of this hypocrisy, having been a Democrat for the majority of his life. 2008 rolls around and "poof" he's now a Republican who hugs the flag! Just a few years before, he was one of those gross Democrats hanging out with disgusting scum like Epstein, and it's all forgiven, like it never happened, and they see him as the Great White Hope. So... fucking... dumb.
EVERYONE involved in the the Trump-Epstein social circle at the time agrees they were friends, including Trump and Epstein. Yet, the morons here reject the truth, and instead choose the feel-good fantasy in their heads. This never fails to amuse, don't you agree?
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
Yeah but it would make some pre-existing conditions worse, like autoimmune disorders or heart conditions. It's a crap shoot at this point.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
Yes give me the salt. I feel the energy going through me.The salt from Washington comPost’s (((Jennifer Rubin))) has been a rare treat. She always seems to project optimism towards Ds and pessimism towards Rs, so this dooming is nothing short of delicious.
View attachment 2814926
to think that the WH has any upper hand in this situation at all. Goddamn…
View attachment 2814929
Don’t hold your breath.
View attachment 2814932
View attachment 2814933
>Jennifer “pro-voting” Rubin
>Manchin: *votes*
>NO NOT THAT KIND OF VOTING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
A west Virginia one.
Even being dead the man still lives rent free in their heads.
Not a fascist at all.
I'm still voting for him
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2021
What never occurred to libs is that Hispanics don't have a racial grievance against whites, and they really, really, really hate blacks. They do not give a flying fuck that blacks used to be slaves. There is no universal BIPOC solidarity or whatever. Nobody likes blacks except for UMC whites, and even then, they don't like actual blacks, just the imaginary ones from the TV that are smart and wise and sassy.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
If anything, Hispanics probably have the strongest family units of all the racial demographics in America, due to living in tighter-knit communities partly out of necessity. As far as I’m aware, they are also supportive of their children going to school and getting better jobs than their parents, unlike the urban black “community” which viciously tears down anyone who dare try escape the ghetto.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
Chucky is getting pissy. He is saying he will nuke the filibuster to pass HR1... without the votes to do it.
Archive
Schumer Will Try to Change Senate Rules if G.O.P. Stalls Voting Bill
The Senate majority leader still lacks the votes to alter the filibuster, but he said he will renew the effort to enact voting rights measures as early as the first week of January.Archive
WASHINGTON — Stymied by Republicans on voting rights legislation, Senator Chuck Schumer on Monday gave the clearest sign yet that he would try to force a fundamental change in Senate rules if needed to enact federal laws to offset voting restrictions being imposed by Republican-led legislatures around the country.
In a letter to colleagues, Mr. Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, said that the Senate would take up stalled voting rights legislation as early as the first week of January and that if Republicans continued to filibuster, the Senate would “consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation.”
But it is not clear how far Democrats will be willing or able to go in working around the 60-vote requirement for most legislation and finding a way to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority. While several formerly reluctant senators have in recent weeks endorsed rules change for voting issues, at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have resisted.
Alarmed by state laws being enacted in the aftermath of the 2020 election that seem aimed at making it more difficult for people, particularly minorities, to vote, Democrats have tried repeatedly this year to set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and curb partisan gerrymandering, among other provisions. But they have been consistently thwarted by a Republican blockade.
To this point, Democrats have not pressed the issue. But Mr. Schumer’s new stance shows that he is ready to take the next step and start a rules fight on the Senate floor though he has so far lacked the 50 Democratic votes needed to force through a change over Republican opposition.
Mr. Schumer’s move seems intended to change the dynamic of the debate and put new pressure on his colleagues to back a change. Mr. Schumer’s frustration boiled over in his letter, saying it was unfair to let states set new rules through partisan majority votes while Republicans were preventing the Senate from doing the same.
“I would ask you to consider this question,” he wrote. “If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?”
Mr. Schumer has in the past said mainly that “all options are on the table” when it comes to pressing voting rights legislation, refraining from a direct threat on Senate rules.
A group of more moderate Senate Democrats have been engaged in negotiations on rules changes with Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema and have reported some progress but no breakthrough. While Mr. Manchin on Sunday shattered Democratic plans to push forward on a sweeping social policy and climate change bill, he opened the door a crack to potential changes in Senate rules.
“If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes,” Mr. Manchin said Sunday on Fox News. But he also suggested that he might be interested in more modest changes than Mr. Schumer and others are contemplating, saying he would continue to support the 60-vote, supermajority threshold to overcome a filibuster.
Ms. Sinema has also drawn a line against partisan changes in the rules, but Democrats say they believe she would not want to be the lone holdout if Mr. Manchin were persuaded to relent on the legislative filibuster.
Democrats knowledgeable about the internal deliberations say that many possible changes are under consideration, including weakening the filibuster against the preliminary “motion to proceed” to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. But in a more significant move, Democrats say they are also discussing a change that would clear the way for final action on a bill through a simple majority vote after guaranteeing opponents the opportunity to alter the legislation through a significant number of amendments.
Instituting such a change would require the support of all 50 Democrats and the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris presiding to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate.
Democrats say such a filibuster “carve out” would apply only to issues grounded in constitutional rights such as voting, but Republicans and others say it would inevitably be extended to other legislation, diminishing the overall power of the filibuster.
The Democratic voting rights and rules change push would meet universal resistance from Republicans. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, last week accused Democrats of “rattling swords about changing the structure of the Senate” and commended Mr. Manchin for opposing it.
“Changing the structure of the Senate in order to achieve a partisan advantage is a mistake for the Senate and a mistake for our country,” he said.
Once used rarely, the filibuster has become a routine aspect of the Senate in recent decades and virtually all legislation now has to clear a 60-vote hurdle just to be debated on the floor, severely limiting what business can be taken up.
Outraged over Republicans blocking President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through regular filibusters, Democrats in 2013 took the procedural steps to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Republicans countered in 2017 by extending that rule to Supreme Court nominees, enabling President Donald Trump to install three high court justices.
In a statement in the letter directed at Mr. Manchin, Mr. Schumer noted that Senator Robert C. Byrd, a Senate stalwart whose seat Mr. Manchin occupies, said in 1979 that sometimes Senate rules that seemed appropriate “must be changed to reflect changed circumstance.”
“I believe our constituents deserve to know which senators choose to hide behind ill-conceived and abused rules and which senators prefer to restore Senate floor procedures to better align with the founders’ intentions,” Mr. Schumer wrote.
In a letter to colleagues, Mr. Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, said that the Senate would take up stalled voting rights legislation as early as the first week of January and that if Republicans continued to filibuster, the Senate would “consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation.”
But it is not clear how far Democrats will be willing or able to go in working around the 60-vote requirement for most legislation and finding a way to pass voting rights legislation with a simple majority. While several formerly reluctant senators have in recent weeks endorsed rules change for voting issues, at least two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have resisted.
Alarmed by state laws being enacted in the aftermath of the 2020 election that seem aimed at making it more difficult for people, particularly minorities, to vote, Democrats have tried repeatedly this year to set federal standards for early and mail-in voting and curb partisan gerrymandering, among other provisions. But they have been consistently thwarted by a Republican blockade.
To this point, Democrats have not pressed the issue. But Mr. Schumer’s new stance shows that he is ready to take the next step and start a rules fight on the Senate floor though he has so far lacked the 50 Democratic votes needed to force through a change over Republican opposition.
Mr. Schumer’s move seems intended to change the dynamic of the debate and put new pressure on his colleagues to back a change. Mr. Schumer’s frustration boiled over in his letter, saying it was unfair to let states set new rules through partisan majority votes while Republicans were preventing the Senate from doing the same.
“I would ask you to consider this question,” he wrote. “If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?”
Mr. Schumer has in the past said mainly that “all options are on the table” when it comes to pressing voting rights legislation, refraining from a direct threat on Senate rules.
A group of more moderate Senate Democrats have been engaged in negotiations on rules changes with Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema and have reported some progress but no breakthrough. While Mr. Manchin on Sunday shattered Democratic plans to push forward on a sweeping social policy and climate change bill, he opened the door a crack to potential changes in Senate rules.
“If you can make the Senate work better, the rules are something we’ve changed over the years; 232 years, there’s been rule changes,” Mr. Manchin said Sunday on Fox News. But he also suggested that he might be interested in more modest changes than Mr. Schumer and others are contemplating, saying he would continue to support the 60-vote, supermajority threshold to overcome a filibuster.
Ms. Sinema has also drawn a line against partisan changes in the rules, but Democrats say they believe she would not want to be the lone holdout if Mr. Manchin were persuaded to relent on the legislative filibuster.
Democrats knowledgeable about the internal deliberations say that many possible changes are under consideration, including weakening the filibuster against the preliminary “motion to proceed” to bring legislation to the floor for consideration. But in a more significant move, Democrats say they are also discussing a change that would clear the way for final action on a bill through a simple majority vote after guaranteeing opponents the opportunity to alter the legislation through a significant number of amendments.
Instituting such a change would require the support of all 50 Democrats and the vote of Vice President Kamala Harris presiding to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate.
Democrats say such a filibuster “carve out” would apply only to issues grounded in constitutional rights such as voting, but Republicans and others say it would inevitably be extended to other legislation, diminishing the overall power of the filibuster.
The Democratic voting rights and rules change push would meet universal resistance from Republicans. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader, last week accused Democrats of “rattling swords about changing the structure of the Senate” and commended Mr. Manchin for opposing it.
“Changing the structure of the Senate in order to achieve a partisan advantage is a mistake for the Senate and a mistake for our country,” he said.
Once used rarely, the filibuster has become a routine aspect of the Senate in recent decades and virtually all legislation now has to clear a 60-vote hurdle just to be debated on the floor, severely limiting what business can be taken up.
Outraged over Republicans blocking President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through regular filibusters, Democrats in 2013 took the procedural steps to allow most nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Republicans countered in 2017 by extending that rule to Supreme Court nominees, enabling President Donald Trump to install three high court justices.
In a statement in the letter directed at Mr. Manchin, Mr. Schumer noted that Senator Robert C. Byrd, a Senate stalwart whose seat Mr. Manchin occupies, said in 1979 that sometimes Senate rules that seemed appropriate “must be changed to reflect changed circumstance.”
“I believe our constituents deserve to know which senators choose to hide behind ill-conceived and abused rules and which senators prefer to restore Senate floor procedures to better align with the founders’ intentions,” Mr. Schumer wrote.
- Status