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
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
She dresses like a man usually, or like the old woman she is. Nothing noteworthy from what I can tell.
And what's this about prophecies? If you mean when she said blacks are super predators who need to be stopped, that was just obvious, not a prophecy.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
Here in australia we are well over 90% doublevaxxed, it is a hot SUMMER, and omicron is breaking new infection records daily.
So it seems very likely that the vaccines do not do very much in the sense of "prevent getting infected" at all.
But, hospitalization rates are still very small compared to when no one was vaccinated so it seems they mostly prevent you from getting seriously ill?
Or maybe we have just run out of 90 year olds with severe co-morbidities?
I will wait until we hit winter and proper flu season before I draw too many conclusions ...
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
I dislike how everybody is taking what she said out of context. Superpredators, meaning that criminality will infect cities like a virus. As we see now with "defund the police."
Are you saying she's right because you want to be racist or she's wrong because she said it?
That's because you lack taste.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
She apologized, so apparently it was not taken out of context, otherwise she'd have nothing to apologize for.
I'm saying she was right because she was, got nothing do with me being raycis.The Last Stand said:
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
I personally wish she haven't. She was 100% right in that statement. Times change, but not always for the better.
The issue I get with that point is that people use it as a gotcha to call Hillary racist.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
Well, it's racist by today's "standards" where criminalizing drive-by shootings is systemically racist because gangs are disproportionately black and Hispanic.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
Dresses like a man, dresses like an old lady.
Pick one.
What, women cannot wear pants?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2020
COVID declaration. That's why I said earlier that California needs COVID to continue existing. It fortifies mail-in ballots, keeps people hysterical, and keeps him in office as a popular governor. Biden's offers are clearly not enough to get Newsom to stop.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2020
The California courts affirmed emergency powers. He is quite literally Palpatine.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
We can't let a Black man have such power. That explains why they had such a titsy with Elder running. Racist bastards.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
I really don't understand Biden's process with Covid.
He is easing up restrictions by cutting quarintine days in half and waving the white flag at the federal level, which will only piss off his hardcore Covid fear constituency, and the only reason he was ever close to the White House in any capacity.
Meanwhile, his mandates are still in everyone's minds and in some states being enforced anyways, while the idea of closing down domestic air travel for the unvaxxed is in the air, pissing off Trump's base and anti lockdown people.
It seems the plan was for him was that Covid would stop being a problem by now so he can open the economy and obtain the "LOOK AT ME I AM FIXING EVERYTHING" moniker, but Delta and now Omnicron are cucking him out of it since they are now vaccine resistant and people don't want shots forever.
Unironically, Trump "losing" 2020 might've been the greatest thing to happen, since now Democrats get a version of Dubya they can't fallate into stardom through media manipulation.
He is easing up restrictions by cutting quarintine days in half and waving the white flag at the federal level, which will only piss off his hardcore Covid fear constituency, and the only reason he was ever close to the White House in any capacity.
Meanwhile, his mandates are still in everyone's minds and in some states being enforced anyways, while the idea of closing down domestic air travel for the unvaxxed is in the air, pissing off Trump's base and anti lockdown people.
It seems the plan was for him was that Covid would stop being a problem by now so he can open the economy and obtain the "LOOK AT ME I AM FIXING EVERYTHING" moniker, but Delta and now Omnicron are cucking him out of it since they are now vaccine resistant and people don't want shots forever.
Unironically, Trump "losing" 2020 might've been the greatest thing to happen, since now Democrats get a version of Dubya they can't fallate into stardom through media manipulation.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
The problem is that there's really no way to say for sure whether the jabs did anything since Big Pharma has been doing everything in their power to eliminate any possible control group. My dad signed up to be part of vaccine trials, and he got the placebo, but they not only informed him of that (which, if memory serves, they shouldn't have until after trials were concluded), they also offered him the actual jab. He took them up on the offer, not even caring that he was removing another control group data point. Actions like these not only obfuscate any benefits the jabs might have, it also means they're getting paid for more doses. Note how the first people to discuss a fourth jab were Big Pharma heads.
Realistically, the coof was going to get less severe but more transmissible no matter what we did. That's been the path of literally every pandemic in history, even the ones without the magic coof jabs: starts off strong, spreads globally, weaker but more transmissible strains gain evolutionary advantage, virus becomes endemic and little more than a nuisance. Time will tell if more severe complications keep popping up from the endless jab cycle, but even if they do, Big Pharma won't pay, they have legal immunity. Haha, it sure is great to live in a society.
Your problem is believing there's a process to begin with. The administration is completely dysfunctional, different factions are pulling every single way, and ol' Pudding Brain doesn't have any ability to wrangle the tards. It's literally just everyone doing whatever they can in the moment and not giving a damn what the repercussions will be.
I do think that some do want this to be over already, but others want the emergency powers to continue. They like their little fiefdoms they've set up, and they're reluctant to give up the enormous power they've been granted. As long as there are tinpot dictators like Newsom and Whitmer around, there's going to be resistance to declaring the coof over.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
Opinion | It’s Not Over for Joe Biden
How Barack Obama resuscitated his health care act offers clues to reviving the Build Back Better Act and President Biden’s precarious standing.
Opinion
Guest Essay
It’s Not Over for Joe Biden
Dec. 28, 2021By David Axelrod
Mr. Axelrod was a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist for the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns.
Joe Biden must be having flashbacks.
In early 2010, when Democrats lost a special election for the late Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat — and with it, their ability to overcome a Republican filibuster — Washington rose as one, an insistent chorus of grim reapers, reading last rites over the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama’s presidency. By then, Mr. Obama had been through six fruitless months of negotiations with Republicans, followed by fierce internal battles between House and Senate Democrats over the details of the plan. The Massachusetts defeat seemed as if it would doom the A.C.A., the centerpiece of his legislative agenda.
Twelve years later, President Biden finds himself in a similar fix. Senator Joe Manchin’s sudden announcement that he would deny the president the critical 50th Democratic vote for his prized Build Back Better Act was a bitter blow. It came after months of politically costly, maddening negotiations, during which Mr. Manchin, of West Virginia, provoked a series of big concessions, only to present the president and his party with a lump of coal just before Christmas.
The potentially decisive rejection of Mr. Biden’s signature initiative by a member of his own party added to a perception of weakness the president can ill afford at a time when his ratings have fallen and so much seems out of his control.
While the American Rescue Plan Act and the bipartisan infrastructure bill the president signed were indisputably major achievements, Mr. Manchin’s defection on the Build Back Better Act caused doubters to ask whether the president had placed too much faith in the Senate as an institution, in his own negotiating skills and in his steadfast belief that he could cajole the West Virginian, one Old Bull to another. Or maybe he misread what the Covid crisis would allow him to accomplish legislatively, causing him to shoot for too much.
The question is, what now?
No historical parallel is perfect, but the near death and revival of the A.C.A. is a parable that does offer a path forward for this president and his administration.
In early 2010, as Washington was hanging crepe on the White House, Mr. Obama was inside, regrouping. Two months later, the bill passed and became law, thanks to intense behind-the-scenes wrangling and a complex series of legislative maneuvers led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Yes, at the time Democrats enjoyed comparatively comfortable majorities in both chambers of Congress. But the strategy and tactics we used to resuscitate the A.C.A. still offer clues that may help revive not only the Build Back Better Act but also the president’s precarious standing.
Talk less about the Build Back Better Act and more about Covid and inflation:
While Mr. Obama quietly laid plans with congressional leaders to revive the A.C.A. in the weeks after the Massachusetts debacle, he largely stopped talking about it in public. Instead, he focused his appearances on two issues of immediate and urgent concern to Americans — jobs and the economic crisis.
Today, Americans are deeply concerned about the resurgent pandemic and the inflation that is eating away at their wage gains. Mr. Manchin captured the public mood when he said that these issues should be the center of attention in Washington. Voters, focused on the here and now, have begun to see the endless scrums over the size and scope of the Build Back Better Act as a distraction, even though the bill would substantially ease costs for families.
Fortunately, Mr. Biden already seems to understand that he needs to pivot. Judging from his recent comments, he and his team know they must do two things at once: communicate publicly and forcefully on the crises at hand while discreetly exploring which pieces of the shattered Build Back Better package might be revived.
You can’t always get what you want, so get what you can:
In 2010, some voices on the left vigorously argued that an A.C.A. without a government-run option to compete with private insurers was not worth passing. Yet some Senate Democrats resisted the public option, so Mr. Obama passed the law he could, convinced it would still do enormous good.
For months, Mr. Biden has been trying to balance the expansive social and climate agendas of progressives with the reticence of Mr. Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and other moderate Democrats.
Mr. Biden and congressional leaders tried to thread the needle by halving the size of his Build Back Better proposal while including pieces of as many of his original plans as possible, funded in smaller increments. The theory was that the popularity of these programs would compel future Congresses to continue them.
Pointing to the national debt, Mr. Manchin has called this gimmickry and publicly insisted that to get his vote, the president and Democrats would have to choose fewer priorities, do more to focus benefits according to economic need and fund them for longer.
Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times
These demands have enraged progressives, who had hoped to seize this moment, when Democrats hold the White House and control of Congress, to address the urgent and growing challenges of income inequality and climate change while paying for those efforts by reversing Trump tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy.
Failing to enact a package akin to the one he initially proposed might also disappoint the president, who hoped the gravity of these challenges and the trauma inflicted by the pandemic would create a rare opportunity to pass an agenda as bold in scope as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.
But the math is the math. In a 50-50 Senate and an almost evenly divided House, there are obvious limits to what can be achieved. Even Roosevelt took years to enact the New Deal.
To paraphrase Roosevelt, it’s time for a rendezvous with reality and to fight for what is possible.
Mr. Manchin said at various points that he could support a scaled-back bill that made long-term commitments to fewer priorities. If there is a chance to make prekindergarten the standard in America, with all that would mean for children today and in the future, it would be a remarkable achievement. Expanding and strengthening the A.C.A. or making permanent a more targeted child tax credit, dramatically reducing the number of children living in poverty in America, would mark monumental progress. Paying for it by offsetting or even partially repealing the Trump tax cuts of 2017 would be fair and equitable and a major step forward.
Focus on the parts, not the sum:
Americans are at once eager for solutions yet fundamentally suspicious of sweeping promises of government action. They are wary of words like “historic” and “transformative,” which speak more to the vanity of politicians than to the needs of people. The A.C.A. also set out to be transformative, but we were better able to sell it to the American people when we narrowed it down into a bill that offered practical answers for Americans who, say, got sick and, paradoxically, no longer qualified for health insurance when they most needed it.
Don’t get a victory and declare defeat:
Even after the passage of the A.C.A., some voices on the left called it a failure because it did not include the public option we could not win.
Tell that today to all the Americans with existing conditions who can no longer be refused coverage or be gouged by insurance companies. Tell that to the people who have serious illnesses and no longer face lifetime insurance caps. Tell that to the tens of millions of Americans who have coverage, thanks to the A.C.A.
Despite relentless efforts by Donald Trump and Republicans to undermine and repeal the bill, Obamacare has proved durable and popular. This year, more Americans enrolled in its programs than ever before.
In his first year in office, Mr. Biden passed the Rescue Act, which jump-started the vital distribution of Covid vaccines and helped families, businesses and the nation navigate the coronavirus. He defied the skeptics and passed a bipartisan plan to rebuild the country’s fraying infrastructure, with enormous implications for America’s economic future. That alone is pretty good work.
If he can retool the Build Back Better Act to make it permanent, as the A.C.A. is, rather than piece together a hodgepodge of temporary programs, it, too, may be able to stand the test of time and a decade from now may be even more popular than it is today.
Given the makeup of the Congress and the frayed bonds of trust among his fractious caucuses, there is no assurance that Mr. Biden can revive the Build Back Better Act as Mr. Obama did the A.C.A. Nor would its revival necessarily help Democrats avoid a midterm wipeout next fall, given the continuing concerns over inflation and the fact that incumbent parties almost always suffer losses two years after winning the White House.
The A.C.A. was no shield for Mr. Obama and Democrats in 2010. But if, through a retooled Build Back Better Act, Mr. Biden can achieve significant and durable progress on some major priorities that will benefit children and families for generations, Democrats would be wise to celebrate and tout those gains instead of complaining about what wasn’t possible.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
Gotta love that article's title insinuating that if BBB doesn't pass Joe Biden is fucking dead in the water.
Also, its a fuck-ton different scenerio from 2009, when partisanship is at an all time high, you need your team to be there for you, and Manchin isn't. So game over.
You can try the "Obamacare" method in the article, but you need to make major concessions for Republicans (and Manchin and Sinema) to get there and since they are so unwavering that Democrats aren't 100% on board, its just not going to happen.
And with election year coming, Democrats that would've voted for it are more likely to cuck and say no and Republicans more likely to cuck are willing to stand firm and not vote for it.
Also, its a fuck-ton different scenerio from 2009, when partisanship is at an all time high, you need your team to be there for you, and Manchin isn't. So game over.
You can try the "Obamacare" method in the article, but you need to make major concessions for Republicans (and Manchin and Sinema) to get there and since they are so unwavering that Democrats aren't 100% on board, its just not going to happen.
And with election year coming, Democrats that would've voted for it are more likely to cuck and say no and Republicans more likely to cuck are willing to stand firm and not vote for it.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
lol
I like how they talked about how more Americans enrolled in it, as if it was voluntary and not being forced by the threat of a fine, despite for many it might have been better to never sign up at all.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
I think the article is ignorant and pretends that BBB matters now for Biden. It does not.
He has now even walked back the "I am stronk man, I will federal mandate our way out of covid" and are dropping the push for various mandates.
Him being stronk man against covid was a huge part of his campaign and how he positioned himself against trump.
Consider that his handling of covid is the ONLY topic where he is above water in the various polls on his performance.
It is the only thing he has going for himself.
And now his DNC and establishment handlers have decided he should wave the white flag and give up on the one single item where he has some popular support.
"Hey, Joe, you know this thing, the only you do that people like? Our new strategy is a 180 on that thing so you will have to go out with this new message instead ..."
Just before the midterm campaigns will start no less.
To me this sounds like his handlers have decided he is a liability to the party, the midterms and election viability of democrats.
It is total surrender of him as viable in a leading position for the nation or the party or someone to gather around.
He is so toxic they do not want him to be in the spotlight in any shape or form during 2022 as they think he damage their chances in the midterms.
Him running in 2024? Sure Joe, sure. As an independent? It sure as hell will not be for the party that the DNC controls that is for sure.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
Yeah, all of the Dem's efforts over the next 10 months are going to be about figuring out how to not get completely destroyed in the midterms and then dragged in front of tribunal after tribunal after the shoe is on the other foot.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2020
It's a mixture of both. The vaccines make you less likely to die of covid if you're old or have comorbidities, but the people who were most likely to end up in hospital have either had it and recovered or died.
The fat, diabetic 75 year olds who were on ventilators during the first wave have, by and large, died (either from covid or from another consequence of being old and in poor health) so they aren't causing death numbers to go up in the way they were back then.
- Status