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?

 

[X Prime]

My friend, it is barely hyperbole to say that Gehenna just told you.

 

[northstar747]

"The constitution does not matter".

I need to get glasses for some reason I read that as "The coomstitution does not matter"

 

[Gehenna]

What were their arguments?

That was their argument. Someone linked the decision a bit ago, it's quite literally "The other side isn't saying the virus doesn't kill people, therefore we should allow OSHA to have all the power the administration wants".

That... -is- the argument. I am not being flippant.

 

[Vaclav]

The short version of it is as follows:

1. The dems relied on high turnover to keep the ground game going, under mid-level staffers with actual managerial and leadership skills.

2. This leadership has been suffering a slow bleed for years, as individual members of it retire, die, or fuck off in disgust.

3. The people replacing the rank-and-file, and in turn, the leaders, have increasingly been activists who have minimal ambition and ergo, won't threaten the power structure too much if they go off the reservation too much (a legit concern with some of the newer ones).

4. As result of 2-3, the sort of necessary ground game leadership the Dems need is in critically short supply, and getting worse.

5. They have no solution to this. They chased off the oldsters by failing to deliver, chased off the moderates with abandoning them in favor of embracing the hard left types, and they chased off the talented people from who were left by only promoting suck-ups who couldn't threaten their carefully-stacked deck of cards.

Given your points, the impression that I get is that this is a side-effect of Democrats' pivot toward postmodernists and SJWs as their new base. The ideologies stemming from critical theory were designed specifically to be ineffectual. They were brought in to combat Occupy Wall Street because once the progressive stack was introduced with its endless obsession over grievances, that movement ceased to function. Postmodernism grew within universities because it allowed professors to endlessly pontificate over language without doing anything concrete to further the causes they supposedly believed in.

All of this is summarized in the excellent essay Exiting the Vampire Castle for those who haven't already read it. The author notes how the processes within leftist UK student movements were designed to ensure any progress toward the group's goals happened as slowly as possible. He was bullied into suicide for his trouble. What's funny is that the Dems brought this culture of useless bickering into their organization because it gave them better control over their underlings in the near term, without regard for the fact that this way of thinking will corrode and collapse an organization and was indeed designed to do that.

Ironically, this is the same reason why the party of fighting racism and sexism has virtually no qualified black women to be in the top spots in congress.

You think they are going to let Stacy Abrams or Cori Bush have any more power than they have now? AOC is getting run out of the Progressive leadership by Jayapal. We all know what Kamala is.

I suspect there's another reason for that. The Democrats have stoked the fires of ethnic hatred to gain political power but they must not let ethnic firebrands into positions of authority. If someone like Cori Bush or Stacy Abrams took over leadership of the Dem party, it would become the Black Party overnight. They would turn the party into an instrument to advance their specific ethnic group.

If that happens, what becomes of the other groups who Dems have been courting? Latinos, gays, students? If the Yass Kweens took over they would start sponsoring bills to cancel recognition of Pride Month and turn June into Black History Month II in honor of Juneteenth, stop all Latino migration into black neighborhoods, and protect the rights of all brothas to beat fags and Chinamen. They would probably add explicit language to all their bills to ensure that the benefits would not be extended to African immigrants. I'm sure the Jewish donors would be thrilled when they invite Louis Farrakhan to address the House.

If they let hardcore pro-Aztlan Latinos run things they would do the same, probably try to replace the Washington Monument with an Aztec pyramid. The Democrats, paradoxically, must maintain a leadership of white, (((white))) or white-adjacent people (i.e. Kamala) or their party will explode into a literal race war even as they preach the evils of whiteness.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

That was their argument. Someone linked the decision a bit ago, it's quite literally "The other side isn't saying the virus doesn't kill people, therefore we should allow OSHA to have all the power the administration wants".

That... -is- the argument. I am not being flippant.

I need to see this shit, is it at a highlighted post?

 

[Gehenna]

I need to see this shit, is it at a highlighted post?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf Here yah go.

 

[Iceland Heavy]

It's the bullshit the 3 liberal justices just pulled that make me grateful Trump was elected to put his judges on, even if they're really Mitch McConnell's judges and have been decidedly uneven so far. To think Merrick Garland was dressed up as a moderate compromise, he'd have probably been right there with Sotomayor going 'But people are coofing! Quick, burn the Constitution!'

 

[Oxous]

The Republican candidate in that district had a budget of $24,000 and went to prison for theft and cocaine possession. Cherfilus-McCormick is a multimillionaire who got donated over a million dollars for her campaign. The only thing about that election that was surprising is that the Libertarian Party found a guy willing to campaign there.

Heh, the GOP candidate's refusing to concede. He's already filed a lawsuit over the ballots.

“Now they called the race, I did not win, so they say, but that does not mean that they lost either, it does not mean that we lost,” said Republican Jason Mariner.

“And we’ll also have some stuff coming out that we’ve recently discovered,” he said.

I don't think you're gonna win this fight, bro, but it's your money I guess.

 

[Gehenna]

Heh, the GOP candidate's refusing to concede. He's already filed a lawsuit over the ballots.

I don't think you're gonna win this fight, bro, but it's your money I guess.

I mean, if he wants to burn his money and in the process burn more of the Democrats ever-decreasing funds....


Frankly, more power to him.

 

[pwnest injun]

I'd say its less luck and more a combination of complacency and that lack of money. The Dems have a big tendency to coast in comfortable spots. Just look at what happened when AOC (or more accurately her handlers) decided to primary Pelosi's hand-picked successor. So, something comes up, a trucker begins knocking on doors, getting the word out, and the Dems go "Eh, its probably safe, we have more pressing issues elsewhere"... and he wins. They've got a lot of fires and only so many resources, and they figured such a "safe" seat was one they could leave relatively alone.

Here's something also to consider. The Democrats have long relied on naïve idealists as their foot soldiers, the sorts of dye job blonds who donate to the SPCA and have Coexist stickers on their imported hatchbacks. This does not jibe with the modern leftist militancy of the college youth. The young Democrat stan of today is intentionally ugly, craves misery, and is openly dishonest. It's all a bunch of shitty, sloppy Alinskys, sneering as they tell obvious lie after obvious lie. It's an irreconcilable difference between the generations, and it's off-putting to the normies.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf Here yah go.

On page 20, so far they're acting like the separation of powers doesn't even exist mixed in with lots of excuse-making.

 

[Gehenna]

On page 20, so far they're acting like the separation of powers doesn't even exist mixed in with lots of excuse-making.

As I said, I wasn't being flippant. It really is not a stretch to say their response was to throw out the constitution.

 

[Trianon]

That CMS mandate is gonna fuck over health centers in rural America. I get that it was a hard sell and I'm not a healthcare worker myself so this doesn't affect my employment prospects, but I'm still upset that it's been upheld because we all know that these hospitals and urgent care facilities out in fumbuck nowhere that require CMS money to maintain operations are gonna be bleeding employees and will probably be understaffed for at least a couple months, if not longer. More lives are gonna be lost by understaffed rural health centers than they will from covid.

For this reason, the CMS mandate fight is far from over. It will still be working its way through the courts, and the whole time rural hospitals will be hemorrhaging staff while nurses with COVID are allowed to work because they're vaxxed. It's lunacy.

No, and some companies will go forward with them. However, I do not think most will unless it is something like clicking a box in an HR system without proof because having employee PHI without knowing how to store it is asking for lawsuits.

Yeah, the infrastructure that the OSHA mandate would have required was insane. No company wants to deal with it willingly.

Anecdotally, my workplace immediately backed off on their mandate after OSHA caved, though they said they're hanging onto the documentation in case it somehow becomes legal again! Did not send mine in on time, thankfully, because I knew they'd do that.

That's weird. Like.. I'm not even sure what this means or the point of it. Do debates matter? Not at all, and if this is the decision of some gen x/millennial political genius who has decided the GOP isn't gonna play these bullshit games anymore good on them. Except I'm pretty sure the silents are still deciding things for the GOP so this is weird.

It's because the issue has been raised for the past few election cycles, both for state elections and nationally, that it's WEIRD that every moderator is a diehard Democrat and chooses to step all over the candidates' answers. It's been brewing since Romney got "corrected" by the moderator to try to save Obama, when it turned out she was factually wrong. This is one of the truly good decisions the GOP has made in a long time. In the Virginia governor's race, Youngkin refused to debate for months because the moderator they had picked out had a thousand conflicts of interest, and nobody wanted to admit it. It's basically growing out of that conflict: reform, or we will not participate. And it's very clear no viewer is getting any good information about candidates and policies out of the debates. They'd be better off just letting them loose on a stage for three hours.

 

[Compositesludge]

On page 20, so far they're acting like the separation of powers doesn't even exist mixed in with lots of excuse-making.

My favorite quotes came from pages 28 and 29 (12 and 13 of the original document):

Underlying everything else in this dispute is a single, simple question: Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from COVID–19? An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety, acting as Congress and the President authorized? Or a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces, and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes?
...And then, there is this Court. Its Members are elected by, and accountable to, no one. And we “lack[] the background, competence, and expertise to assess” workplace health and safety issues.

There's a great clip on lateral passes from the Youtube series "Pretty Good" that I'm too lazy to look up right now. In the clip, a seasoned NFL player, when faced with a lateral pass, panics and tries to kick the ball out of the air. It's not that he's stupid or unqualified, it's just that, in that moment, he forgot what he was supposed to be doing and why. This dissent predicates itself on the idea that the Supreme Court is unaccountable to anybody (and thus illegitimate, I assume) and cannot be relied upon to make workplace health decisions (which it's not doing, it's looking at the constitutionality of a policy, which could be about, I don't know, wigs for dinosaurs, and still go through the same process).

These three justices are not only trying to kick a football, they're saying that they and the rest of their body shouldn't be in a position to interact with the football at all, and that's just incredible to me.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

As I said, I wasn't being flippant. It really is not a stretch to say their response was to throw out the constitution.

Some choice quotes.

Underlying everything else in this dispute is a single, simple question: Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from COVID–19? An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety, acting as Congress and the President authorized? Or a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces, and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes?

And then, there is this Court. Its Members are elected by, and accountable to, no one. And we “lack[] the background, competence, and expertise to assess” workplace health and safety issues. South Bay United Pentecostal Church, 590 U. S., at ___ (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.) (slip op., at 2). When we are wise, we know enough to defer on matters like this one. When we are wise, we know not to displace the judgments of experts, acting within the sphere Congress marked out and under Presidential control, to deal with emergency conditions. Today, we are not wise. In the face of a still-raging pandemic, this Court tells the agency charged with protecting worker safety that it may not do so in all the workplaces needed. As disease and death continue to mount, this Court tells the agency that it cannot respond in the most effective way possible. Without legal basis, the Court usurps a decision that rightfully belongs to others. It undercuts the capacity of the responsible federal officials, acting well within the scope of their authority, to protect American workers from grave danger.

So the SC is not reliable enough to refute the legitimacy of a mandate, but the President is reliable enough to make such a mandate? All of their arguments are straw grasping & fail to get to the heart of the matter that it does not meet the muster of legislative procedure, this was the Biden admin going over the heads of Congress to institute a mandate from Heaven on a subject matter Joe Biden surely understands no better than a SC Justice to endow an executive body extrajudicial powers to enforce medical procedures.

The efficacy of the policy is not the subject, the legitimacy is.

 

[The Last Stand]

It's the bullshit the 3 liberal justices just pulled that make me grateful Trump was elected to put his judges on, even if they're really Mitch McConnell's judges and have been decidedly uneven so far.

>Trump's judges
>McConnell's judges.

Pick one. Who's screwing who?

 

[Trianon]

My favorite quotes came from pages 28 and 29 (12 and 13 of the original document):

"Underlying everything else in this dispute is a single, simple question: Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from COVID–19?"

It seems like the answer should be the workers themselves? I legitimately thought this was a quote from the main decision at first because it was such an obvious question. It's telling that they just take it for granted that someone has to tell the plebs what to do.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I mean, if he wants to burn his money and in the process burn more of the Democrats ever-decreasing funds....


Frankly, more power to him.

Democrats have an endless supply of money thanks to Soros and other globalists backing them. And if they need more, they just do another Summer of Love where the money donated to freeing rioters from prison or money donated to help organize "peaceful protests" goes straight to the DNC once six or seven figures gets skimmed from the top.

Here's something also to consider. The Democrats have long relied on naïve idealists as their foot soldiers, the sorts of dye job blonds who donate to the SPCA and have Coexist stickers on their imported hatchbacks. This does not jibe with the modern leftist militancy of the college youth. The young Democrat stan of today is intentionally ugly, craves misery, and is openly dishonest. It's all a bunch of shitty, sloppy Alinskys, sneering as they tell obvious lie after obvious lie. It's an irreconcilable difference between the generations, and it's off-putting to the normies.

The problem is that in many parts of the country, your blue haired weirdo who doesn't know what gender they are essentially IS the normie of their generation.

 

[Gehenna]

Democrats have an endless supply of money thanks to Soros and other globalists backing them. And if they need more, they just do another Summer of Love where the money donated to freeing rioters from prison or money donated to help organize "peaceful protests" goes straight to the DNC once six or seven figures gets skimmed from the top.

No they don't. For one, Soros doesn't have an endless supply of money himself, and saying he does is just flat stupid. His net worth is 8.6 billion, which is less money than was spent in the last election -total-. That's not even accounting for the fact the vast, vast majority of his money is in non-liquid assets. Nor does it account for the fact that liquid assets don't just materialize from thin air and money has to be restored between heavy spending sprees. Which 2020 was, and no method of restoration has occured.


And the total amount donated was even less, totally untargeted, heavily skimmed off of, and a drop in the bucket.

Please know thing one about how political financing actually works before trying to correct someone else. You may wish to also add personal accounting or accounting in general for the knowledge on what static and liquid assets are, how they work, and then look up how and where someone's money is actually invested.

 

[Corn Flakes]

No they don't. For one, Soros doesn't have an endless supply of money himself, and saying he does is just flat stupid. His net worth is 8.6 billion, which is less money than was spent in the last election -total-. That's not even accounting for the fact the vast, vast majority of his money is in non-liquid assets. Nor does it account for the fact that liquid assets don't just materialize from thin air and money has to be restored between heavy spending sprees. Which 2020 was, and no method of restoration has occured.

Would you say moneyed agents like Soros et al. spend their resources more on punctual operations and causes rather than carte blanche "do what you will with this" donations to the party? I can't imagine a successful investor like Soros, with that much experience in the game, wouldn't know any sum he donates to the party's coffers itself would immediately get gnawed into oblivion by the bureaucratic rats scurrying just under the floorboards.