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?

 

[Corn Flakes]

Here's the thing, they don't need to operate as a party.

I don't know if you are American, if you are disregard this bit since it is me just explaining how the system works.

When an election occurs, there are actually six main elections with a bunch of side positions. You have the federal positions of President, Representative, and Senator. Then you have the state positions of Governor, State Representative, and State Senator. Each state has their own executive and legislative branches. Additionally, each Federal position except President is sent by the states to D.C. They are responsible to and empowered by their states.


So, why bring up the micro civics lesson? Well, if those internal struggles get significant the party will remain. but they would have no unified operation. But, they would also not dissolve or become inactive.

Rather, the states would be left largely on their own. Each kind of doing their own thing and operating on a state by state basis rather than as a single unified federal entity. If the federal party stops being able to function, the state-level ones retain their freedom. But in the end, they would not be operating as a unified party. And in the end, the Progs would in fact just be stamping their feet and demanding social justice and reparations. You are right it won't do any good. But if there is no way to reconcile the differences between the parties of the big tent which I mentioned in my post above this one... that is what happens. The Big Tent burns down, and the states will do their own thing until the federal-level party rebuilds the thing.

All right, that's what I wanted to know your opinion on. And I'm going to write down that little civics lesson. My niece is starting to ask a ton of questions about how the world works, she's bound to ask about government soon enough. That'll be a good starting point on states vs. nation.

And if you're right... that's a little frightening. If they're heading in that direction then Biden's election really was the poison pill to end all poison pills. My knowledge of political history isn't perfect, but I don't remember ever reading about either party completely losing national cohesion like that. The Republicans have had a weaker national game than the Democrats for as long as I remember, sure, but there was always some level of coordination between the levels of government. They're going to need a lot of strong-arming to rebuild that tent out of so many disparate interests.

 

[Chamaelirium]

I just want to take a moment and thank @Gehenna and every other kiwi in here providing top notch commentary and views. This is officially my favorite thread on the farms. I don’t regularly follow any mainstream news sources, mainly just this thread and the 20 of the best people on Twitter, and between those two things I feel like I’m six months ahead of everyone I talk to in real life. Cheers!

To say thanks, here’s a meme I enjoyed

 

[Gehenna]

Now, in the theoretical vacuum of a functional federal level party, wouldn't the individual state-level DNC be hideously vulnerable to an organized push by the GOP? Or is this one of those things where federal level organization is a marginal benefit at best?

They actually become harder to take down. With the federal party non-functional it will have one role and one role only. To fund the absolute fuck out of the state-level parties. And the state-level parties would be freed of a need to worry about any national implications and can instead go full in on their state-level issues. Effectively, it sheds off a ton of liabilities.

All right, that's what I wanted to know your opinion on. And I'm going to write down that little civics lesson. My niece is starting to ask a ton of questions about how the world works, she's bound to ask about government soon enough. That'll be a good starting point on states vs. nation.

And if you're right... that's a little frightening. If they're heading in that direction then Biden's election really was the poison pill to end all poison pills. My knowledge of political history isn't perfect, but I don't remember ever reading about either party completely losing national cohesion like that. The Republicans have had a weaker national game than the Democrats for as long as I remember, sure, but there was always some level of coordination between the levels of government. They're going to need a lot of strong-arming to rebuild that tent out of so many disparate interests.

Not strong-arming. While the U.S. has never had an example of this it is not unknown on a global front. It will last until one side creates a cohesive vision that resonates with enough people to secure an election. This will likely occur after inevitable schisms within the Republicans due to having power too long.

Ironically, not dissimilar to what's occurring now but in reverse. When one party enjoys consistent power for too long, inevitably it will grow fat on its own hubris and alienate the members at its center who will fall off and help aid in the reformation of the weaker party. It's a sort of naturally occurring thing in human psychology which keeps us close to the center in the long term. It would have occurred with the Democrats to the Republicans long ago, but the Democrats managed to hold back the pendulum artificially. What we see with them now is the result, because the pendulum kept building potential energy the entire time.

 

[The Last Stand]

And in the end, the Progs would in fact just be stamping their feet and demanding social justice and reparations. You are right it won't do any good. But if there is no way to reconcile the differences between the parties of the big tent which I mentioned in my post above this one... that is what happens. The Big Tent burns down, and the states will do their own thing until the federal-level party rebuilds the thing.

It sounds to me that you're saying the Progressives are responsible for burning the Big Tent because even that subset is divided toward one another. That angers the neoliberals because they are losing their influence on a federal level while they try to handle the Progs.

Tell me this, not counting California, would every state now be red because the Republican tent values freedom?

 

[Gehenna]

It sounds to me that you're saying the Progressives are responsible for burning the Big Tent because even that subset is divided toward one another. That angers the neoliberals because they are losing their influence on a federal level while they try to handle the Progs.

Tell me this, not counting California, would every state now be red because the Republican tent values freedom?

Eeeeeeh, no.

If the election were just "Progs versus Republicans" it would be something like Vermont and Cali blue, everywhere else red. But its not quite that simple. The state-level Democrat parties tend to be more of a mixed bag on whether Progs are in it or not, even if the federal level has been violently shoved to the left. Part of the problem is that your premise is broken. The Republican tent only values freedom in a superficial way. Now, there is currently an attempt for one faction under that tent to take over the leadership of said tent who does value it... but they aren't in power yet.

Keeping with the tent analogy, and a bit of a circus one because honk honk, the current ringleader of the tent is the Establishment. The partner to the Democrat Establishment is currently being violently assaulted by its Prog wing. This ringleader currently is being challenged by the bearded lady and the seel boy for control of his position... and while he is losing, it is still to be determined if it will be a successful coup.

That being said, the audience definitely prefers the shows the bearded lady puts on more than either of the old ringleaders.

 

[borsabil]

@Oxous

Going line by line:

1. The president needs a new team, starting with a new chief of staff.

Yes they do, the problem here isn't a need to eat humble pie though. Nobody is possibly a peer here for one. Nobody has the gravitas or political weight save for Pelosi and they desperately need her to stay in congress. noot that she'd agree anyway, since the cabal has fractured apart so anybody brought up would need to be unaligned with any faction. Which is... well, needle in a haystack doesn't begin to cover it. So nobody exists to fill the roll, and if one did they'd not be an option.


2. The president needs to focus on American needs, not liberal wishes.

The writer again spots accurate issues, but again misses that there is no options here. The progs are a force now. With AOC officially kicked from their leadership they are off the chain and all news I get says they are not in fact bluffing anymore. They are making demands that everything they want be passed -or they will pass nothing-. Good luck refocusing when you are held hostage by your own party.


3. The president should remember that he won as a moderate and a unifier.

The president doesn't remember what he had for breakfast that morning. Though the writer here does have a good point and probably the most viable path going forward... if not for the progs and fractured party. It's more or less a continuation of point 2 and suffers the same flaw.


4. The president also won office as a trusted steward of American power.

What? No! Nobody trusted Biden to do anything. Even among his legitimate votes he wasn't trusted and instead it was simply "not Orange Man'. And playing brinksmanship only works if someone thinks you'll go through with it. Good advice for Trump, not good advice for Biden.

If Biden had half a brain (yes I know) he'd pull a Clinton and run against his own party. Reach out to RINOs, pass some populist legislation, get tough on crime, get the border mess under control. It probably wouldn't be enough to stop the GOP winning the mid terms but it would save his Presidency. Why doesn't he? Biden is not an ideologue, he's a machine politician so it's not like he has principles that are getting in the way.

So yes I think you're right, he doesn't do this, or should I say his handlers won't do this, because they can't. The Democrats have way too many genuine crazies in their ranks, especially in their rank and file, to make a pivot viable. Congressmen in safe seats would face tough primaries against SJW candidates, their big donors would abandon ship, we'd see an out and out civil war. So he's trapped and his Presidency is done for.

 

[The Last Stand]

The Republican tent only values freedom in a superficial way. Now, there is currently an attempt for one faction under that tent to take over the leadership of said tent who does value it... but they aren't in power yet.

That subparty for the Republicans would be MAGA?

I apologize for my gross simplication of your tent analogy. I get the premise that each party has unified values to follow, but to reach them is up for interpretation.

Keeping with the tent analogy, and a bit of a circus one because honk honk, the current ringleader of the tent is the Establishment. The partner to the Democrat Establishment is currently being violently assaulted by its Prog wing. This ringleader currently is being challenged by the bearded lady and the seel boy for control of his position... and while he is losing, it is still to be determined if it will be a successful coup.

I thought the Establishment was both parties.

Random question, who would the Hillary Clinton of Republicans be?

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

3. The president should remember that he won as a moderate and a unifier.

The president doesn't remember what he had for breakfast that morning. Though the writer here does have a good point and probably the most viable path going forward... if not for the progs and fractured party. It's more or less a continuation of point 2 and suffers the same flaw.

He's already gone in on the whole "half the country is domestic enemies and terrorists because they don't like me" communist dictator type thing. It's already too late for the whole unification thing even not counting the fracturing of his party.

 

[Gehenna]

That subparty for the Republicans would be MAGA?

I apologize for my gross simplication of your tent analogy. I get the premise that each party has unified values to follow, but to reach them is up for interpretation.

I thought the Establishment was both parties.

Random question, who would the Hillary Clinton of Republicans be?

McCain before he died, no clear successor to him.

The Establishment is made up of two partners with differing but mutually beneficial intentions. The Dems want Power and the Reps want Money. They each would like the other as well, but want their specific one most. So The Dem establishment ensures the Rep establishment gets plenty of money and enough power to satisfy that secondary goal, and the Reps support the Dems in anything they want to get them their Power while ensuring enough kickbacks and look aways that their secondary money goal is made.

It's the world's most toxic case of quid pro quo.

And yes, though I prefer Trumpian Populism as a term. MAGA is very much Trump's movement, but the movement is spawned is distinct in a few ways. And will likely outlast him. Though the best thing that could happen to America is Trump gets back in, sets up a few fixes, and then remains a force in Republican politics for at least a decade.

 

[Cuckoman]

They actually become harder to take down. With the federal party non-functional it will have one role and one role only. To fund the absolute fuck out of the state-level parties. And the state-level parties would be freed of a need to worry about any national implications and can instead go full in on their state-level issues. Effectively, it sheds off a ton of liabilities.


Not strong-arming. While the U.S. has never had an example of this it is not unknown on a global front. It will last until one side creates a cohesive vision that resonates with enough people to secure an election. This will likely occur after inevitable schisms within the Republicans due to having power too long.

Ironically, not dissimilar to what's occurring now but in reverse. When one party enjoys consistent power for too long, inevitably it will grow fat on its own hubris and alienate the members at its center who will fall off and help aid in the reformation of the weaker party. It's a sort of naturally occurring thing in human psychology which keeps us close to the center in the long term. It would have occurred with the Democrats to the Republicans long ago, but the Democrats managed to hold back the pendulum artificially. What we see with them now is the result, because the pendulum kept building potential energy the entire time.

10 years in the wilderness. I think the most recent example of this potential outcome for the democratic party is UK Labor and Corbyn.
Before that something similar happened in my birth country. The far left uses their youth energy and eventually topples the moderates. At that point it pivots quickly and the whole party turns hard left scaring all the moderates away. Election results are then catastropic for a few elections as folks realize that the loud far left marxists are actually not a very big group. And the process back to normality takes over. but it takes a decade, while the party is completely decimated and powerless. It happens over and over in mostly leftwing parties across the globe. It is MUCH more rare that the same happens to rightwing parties, possibly due to the stigmas associated with too-far-to-the-right and that there is a line on the right you can not cross while that line is missing on the left..

 

[Gehenna]

10 years in the wilderness. I think the most recent example of this potential outcome for the democratic party is UK Labor and Corbyn.
Before that something similar happened in my birth country. The far left uses their youth energy and eventually topples the moderates. At that time it goes quick and the moderates are scared away. Election results are catastropic for a few elections as folks realize that the loud far left marxists are actually not a very big group. And the process back to normality takes over. but it takes a decade, while the party is completely decimated and powerless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrO72C1WQ0&list=PLBD1ADBFF6B7FD052 I'd fully recommend this documentary as a watch to anyone who wants a glimpse into the likely fate of the Democrats and their future. It details the prior Labour Wilderness Years.

I'd say take a shot every time you see a similarity, but you'd be dead by the end of episode 2.

 

[The Last Stand]

And yes, though I prefer Trumpian Populism as a term. MAGA is very much Trump's movement, but the movement is spawned is distinct in a few ways. And will likely outlast him. Though the best thing that could happen to America is Trump gets back in, sets up a few fixes, and then remains a force in Republican politics for at least a decade.

That's concerning short term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Republican Party is splintered themselves after Trump. MAGA slowly soured neoconservatives because beyond power, they couldn't get through to Trump himself. MAGA spawned the Groypers because the younger crowd wanted a slice of the "be abrasive like Trump" pie.

The concern is that MAGA views the party with Trump as the ringleader and show. What happens if/when Trump dies?

 

[Gehenna]

That's concerning short term. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Republican Party is splintered themselves after Trump. MAGA slowly soured neoconservatives because beyond power, they couldn't get through to Trump himself. MAGA spawned the Groypers because the younger crowd wanted a slice of the "be abrasive like Trump" pie.

The concern is that MAGA views the party with Trump as the ringleader and show. What happens if/when Trump dies?

If he dies within the next six years, chaos and destruction and everything he made starts to fall apart.

Welcome to my hell, understanding and knowing the fate of the U.S. and possibly the world since she is her hegemon, rests on one guy in his mid-seventies living at least another ten years.

 

[Compositesludge]

If he dies within the next six years, chaos and destruction and everything he made starts to fall apart.

Welcome to my hell, understanding and knowing the fate of the U.S. and possibly the world since she is her hegemon, rests on one guy in his mid-seventies living at least another ten years.

The great news about this is that he's clearly lost weight and is focusing on improving his health. Barring something catastrophic, I'd say he's got good odds of making it another ten years.

 

[The Last Stand]

Welcome to my hell, understanding and knowing the fate of the U.S. and possibly the world since she is her hegemon, rests on one guy in his mid-seventies living at least another ten years.

Let me have some fun for a second. The DNC's mistake with Obama was using him as a figurehead for the party's trajectory moving forward. Not in the man's policies, but the man himself. One person cannot, well should not, be the basis of a political party.

Imagine if Joan Crawford ran all of MGM. I'm sure it would bring some success, but after she passed, they don't know what to do with themselves.

 

[Cuckoman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XrO72C1WQ0&list=PLBD1ADBFF6B7FD052 I'd fully recommend this documentary as a watch to anyone who wants a glimpse into the likely fate of the Democrats and their future. It details the prior Labour Wilderness Years.

I'd say take a shot every time you see a similarity, but you'd be dead by the end of episode 2.

Only 1:50 into that documentary "...the labor party should never cease to remind itself of..."
and just 20 years later they repeated it again with Corbyn. Lol.

 

[Gehenna]

The great news about this is that he's clearly lost weight and is focusing on improving his health. Barring something catastrophic, I'd say he's got good odds of making it another ten years.

Yes, and likely the very thing I just said was a massive influence for it. He needs to live long enough to see his successor and their successor into office. And his rhetoric now indicates he understands -why-. Him pointing out the Republicans not walking their work and being honest over the boosters was -very- encouraging.

Trump's role after round 2 is simple. To keep them on track long enough that a generation of new Republicans grew up under an honest and Trumpian party. So that they will expect and accept nothing less. While also seeing the last of the old guard fade away and pass on while he stewards in that new Republican party.

Let me have some fun for a second. The DNC's mistake with Obama was using him as a figurehead for the party's trajectory moving forward. Not in the man's policies, but the man himself. One person cannot, well should not, be the basis of a political party.

Imagine if Joan Crawford ran all of MGM. I'm sure it would bring some success, but after she passed, they don't know what to do with themselves.

The problem with Obama was not that he was the focus, but that he himself had no interest in stewarding the party. One man can be the basis, if his goal is to steward in a party after him that does not need him.

 

[The Last Stand]

The problem with Obama was not that he was the focus, but that he himself had no interest in stewarding the party. One man can be the basis, if his goal is to steward in a party after him that does not need him

Hillary Clinton wanted to be the stewardess of the DNC, no? (Looking damn fine doing it, I may add.) But looks aren't everything.

 

[Gehenna]

Hillary Clinton wanted to be the stewardess of the DNC, no? (Looking damn fine doing it, I may add.) But looks aren't everything.

No, Clinton was in it for her own power. Her own ego. She was... unconcerned with the party's fate after her. As could be seen by her gutting the DNC.

 

[The Last Stand]

No, Clinton was in it for her own power. Her own ego. She was... unconcerned with the party's fate after her. As could be seen by her gutting the DNC.

That's what I see with Trump. His ego would be the driving force of politics moving forward. That uncontrollable force would be diasterous for both parties in differing ways.

Clinton was in it for her own power. Her won ego.

You see where I'm going with this, no? Everybody pay attention.