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?

 

[Retink]

Andrew Yang sent out an email a few hours ago which made some predictions and comments.

Spoiler

View attachment 2902430

In summary:

• Yang says a donor told him several other donors are probably sitting out until the DNC can settle on a candidate for 2024. Which obviously goes against the official Biden narrative. Says there is some talk among these donors about finding a replacement for Biden and that they probably have multiple options.
• Yang says he's been in contact with a couple of people considering a 2024 run.
• He thinks the fight to select a nominee within the Democratic Party will probably begin before midterms, since Trump is considered to already be the uncontested pick of the Republican Party.
• Yang specifically names Sinema and JB Pritzker as being "among a host of new candidates".
  • Adds that JB Pritzker is one of the only candidates who could finance his own campaign.

Yang is just another dipshit politician who will say anything to get people to listen to him. Just watch his commentary on the Rittenhouse case when it first happened and it's clear he's not different or intelligent, he's just slightly better at social media than the corpses who are normally politicians.

 

[MirrorNoir]

Honselty why do democrats run hard core lefties in deep red states? Have they not pay attention to Louisiana and how Edward's (D) became governor?

1. Because the alternative is to basically cede those states to the right or put in more Manchins, who are unreliable to the DNC cause

2. To keep the base, especially the progs, happy by basically calling their bluffs and running progressives in those seats to shut them up and keep them from fucking shit up by going rogue and primarying people like Manchin with non-vetted SJW types and costing the Democrats a Blue Dog seat and flipping the state red. This way, they can sacrifice one or two races and keep the base happy while focusing on keep other Blue Dogs in power.

He had a cabinet hand-picked by Citigroup and upon taking office promptly bailed out Wall Street and kept the voting public from burning down the nearest bank. Which, I suspect, was a huge part of why he had establishment support during the height of the election, and why he pivoted to a useful distraction like healthcare for the rest of his first term instead of continuing to focus on economic recovery post-TARP.

Obama HAD to do health care reform, in part because the only way he and Edwards were able to kneecap Hillary and stop a Clinton Restoration, was to hammer home on one of his biggest weaknesses/failures; health care reform. And that with a big majority, it was either now or never to do it even if the end result was a half-measure bill that made no one happy but had JUST ENOUGH basic bitch (IE the stuff on pre-existing conditions) stuff in it that you couldn't get rid of the entire thing.

Indeed, one common complaint about Obamacare was that Obama basically abandoned a chance to go all New Deal 2.0 after bailing out Wall Street BECAUSE he pivoted to health care reform after doing a second round of bailouts to big business. Basically deciding that it was politically expedient to let main street starve to death in order to do health care reform, because the Democrats had one chance to do it and holding it off until middle/late in his first term would kill the momentum build around doing something, ANYTHING to reform health care in the country.

 

[TheBest]

How much more buck breaking can Joe take before he offs himself?

 

[Titos]

Why is the guy behind the CT dude wearing a cuckmuzzle that is dangerously close to being a "Women want me fish fear me" hat?

 

[Oxous]

Oh, the nay was Schumer himself? Must be an odd senate rule thing which he has to vote against it for. Nevermind me then.

Tricky tricky... Chris Murphy is currently talking his ass off right now. Is the plan to torture everyone in the Senate until they change the filibuster?

 

[Gehenna]

Tricky tricky... Chris Murphy is currently talking his ass off right now. Is the plan to torture everyone in the Senate until they change the filibuster?

No, it serves the same purpose as the prior talking. Giving Schumer time to make sure he has the votes and lock them in. This will then be the point he has the most problems for since the 50 vote from the Republicans means there is -no- RINO support here for sure. no cucks. So he needs to make sure neither Sinema nor Manchin vote against it... and both said they will.

 

[GuntPunt]

Oh, the nay was Schumer himself? Must be an odd senate rule thing which he has to vote against it for. Nevermind me then.

Addendum: I am not terribly familiar with the rules of the federal senate. I presume then that he had to vote against it for whatever purpose lets him try a rule change. So still going onto the filibuster rule change vote.

The 51-49 rejection for the vote to proceed means Rs are lockstep in voting no.

It's almost game over since Manchin and Sinema reaffirmed no votes today, both to save their political futures.

 

[Sithis]

Nays are 51, a dem voted against it. Worst case scenario hit.

Legitimately this is the best news I've seen in a while. Thank God.

edit - apparently Schumer voted nay to keep it "alive" so that it can be brought back up, is that accurate?

 

[Gehenna]

Legitimately this is the best news I've seen in a while. Thank God.

Sorry, I am fake news. The one dem who voted against was Schumer himself, presumably in order to trigger some sort of rules clause. We are onto the filibuster rule change vote now... but this is expected to fail terribly since the Republicans are officially in lockstep with that vote.

So all good signs, just too early to celebrate yet.

 

[spinal gas chamber]

Oh, the nay was Schumer himself? Must be an odd senate rule thing which he has to vote against it for. Nevermind me then.

Addendum: I am not terribly familiar with the rules of the federal senate. I presume then that he had to vote against it for whatever purpose lets him try a rule change. So still going onto the filibuster rule change vote.

@Gehenna just blue balled all of A&H

 

[Gehenna]

@Gehenna just blue balked all of A&H

Hey, I have prior said I can just be wrong. Especially when it deals with ancient ass, byzantine, convoluted rules.

 

[Sithis]

Sorry, I am fake news. The one dem who voted against was Schumer himself, presumably in order to trigger some sort of rules clause. We are onto the filibuster rule change vote now... but this is expected to fail terribly since the Republicans are officially in lockstep with that vote.

So all good signs, just too early to celebrate yet.

Damn. Which means that the Dems equally voted in lockstep in support of Vote-o-Rama. Not surprising, but concerning given that everything now hinges upon the filibuster.

 

[Josterman]

copium from us singers


here is one of the accounts from self entitled white bitch user name “antifaoperative” real name beks live in the state of tennese


here is the profile pic

 

[Gehenna]

Damn. Which means that the Dems equally voted in lockstep in support of Vote-o-Rama. Not surprising, but concerning given that everything now hinges upon the filibuster.

Eh, kinda to be expected. No points are to be gained by any of them by voting against it. Not even for Manchin, who would get all his kudos by keeping the Filibuster as is.

 

[GuntPunt]

Angus King (D-Maine) literally just said "Brad Raffensperger saved this democracy and they are trying to get rid of him."

Saved it by how? Denying Trump Georgia? Is he subverting democracy by investigating the 2020 election now?

God I hate these people.

 

[Oxous]

Damn. Which means that the Dems equally voted in lockstep in support of Vote-o-Rama. Not surprising, but concerning given that everything now hinges upon the filibuster.

Manchin is voting in line with his public statements, which are that he likes the bills and would vote for them, but that he just wanted the GOP to bipartisanly vote for it also.

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

God I hate these people.

Good. Gooood. Let the hate flow through you.

 

[Oxous]

It appears Harris has left the Capitol and Leahy is now presiding over the Senate. I take it she knows it's failing and thus she won't need to break the tie.

 

[Gehenna]

Also, some good news out of this. Schumer originally voted Yes but switched it for the procedural reason. A bit of digging and asking makes me think that the procedural reason was that the rule requires there be a clear consensus either to kill or pass the bill. His original vote of Yes indicates he expected that consensus on the side of Yes.


Schumer was expecting there to be a Republican vote, and was caught flatfooted and so had to change his vote at the end.

 

[Meat Target]