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 24, 2020
They don't convince you of it; they browbeat and gaslight you into accepting that 2+2=5. They ruin your life if you say otherwise.
anti SJW
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2016
Reminder that you eat your vegetables. Not elect them president.
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
What do you mean Kamala is a shit president? Are you some kind of racist, or sexist??! Girl Boss is doing awesome and it's white supremecy and mysogyny to say otherwise!!
That kind of browbeating?
Honka Honka Burning Love
In Clown World, the only god is the one who Honks.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
but nobody likes Bidensprouts.
RumblyTumbly
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2018
God I hope so.
When I heard the restrictions were lifted in the UK, it gave me a glimmer of hope that maybe the US will follow suit soon enough. Granted, it only happened in the UK because Boris fucked up and is trying to save face.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Yes. Most people don't actually think a crossdressing eunuch is a True and Honest woman, but if you dare say "that's a dude in drag", your life and career prospects will be ruined by hordes of screeching spastics.
As Theodore Dalrymple said, they do not persuade, they can only humiliate.
- Joined
- May 14, 2021
Can confirm. The people who are born and raised in NYC have no idea how much cheaper it is to live in other parts of the country and just assume the rest of the country outside of the major cities is on par with with more expensive parts of New Jersey.
There’s also the people who move to NYC for job opportunities convinced that they made the right choice to rent a $2000/mo 1br brownstone in Crown Heights. It’s essentially a sunk-cost mentality I see in a lot of actors I’ve worked with. They don’t stop the grift until they literally run out of money and move back home.
If anyone says they like living in New York cause of the “diversity,” they’re lying. It’s just a cop-out answer that makes them feel good about themselves. Most people would GTFO if there weren’t whole industries concentrated within the city. The politics absolutely suck, but it looks to me that most of the city votes Democrat out of apathy and is unwilling to budge on the status quo. That’s not to say there isn’t a sizable voting bloc of people who think electing another Giuliani will bring the second coming of Drumpf though.
The majority of people who live and work in NYC are still chasing the American Dream even if they don’t realize it. They’re convinced that their city is the best in world and moving out is tantamount to career suicide. They convince themselves that their municipal government has their best interests at heart even when they very much haven’t for decades.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
Rob Harrington is at again
and more approval ratings
www.newsweek.com
www.dailymail.co.uk
www.al.com
Kamala Harris approval rating same as Joe Biden—as she is confirmed running mate for 2024
President Biden has said that Vice President Harris is "doing a good job" and would be on the presidential ticket.
www.newsweek.com
Three polls show Biden and Kamala with 44% approval after Year One
VP Kamala Harris brushed off her and Joe Biden's 44% approval and 56% disapproval in a CBS News poll released Thursday as just a cyclical process that will continue to wax and wane.
Biden’s approval rating drops to new low in poll; president says he doesn’t ‘believe the polls’
The president's approval numbers have continued to drop since taking office a year ago.
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
Honestly I don't think the MSM tactics will be needed outside of some fluff pieces. Kamala isn't interested in the job and it think it will be 2 or 3 years of a very bland presidency. Russia and China will watch and wait, the mid-east might sabre rattle but nobody will pay attention. Covid will begone from the memories of normies in a few month and Ukraine will fizzle out.
Kamal's presidency will be America taking an afternoon nap for 3 years, and the world will go "Fuck it, I could do with a kip" and join in.
Doublerainbow.jpg
- Joined
- May 2, 2020
First thing this hag does is stutter and tell a non-story, lmao.
"The president has been clear."
Oh that he has, lol.
Who's Russia's bitch now, eh putos?
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2018
I live Upstate, and I cannot fathom living in NYC.
I had friends that moved to NYC several years ago "for the culture", and I cannot tell if they are still there because they are stuck or just because they genuinely still like it. It might be the latter considering our, let's say discussions, about the BLM riots last year.
A family of four needs to make $350K to be the "middle class." That's like the Top 1% in salaries of the entire country just to not be poor.
It now costs $350,000 a year to live a middle-class lifestyle in a big city—here's a sad breakdown of why
You can certainly live on less, but it won't be easy if your goal is to raise a family in a big city, save for your children's education, save for your own home and save for retirement (so you can actually retire at a reasonable age).
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Its a mixture of a few things.
1: Simple timing. As was said in reply, they were expecting 2020 to be a total loss and the opportunity presented itself to hurt the economy enough to squeak in a good bit of votes. The opportunity simply being there is not sufficient to explain their actions but is a clear factor that helped make up their decision.
2: They had a lot of plans in motion. Clinton -was supposed to win-. They had borrowed a lot, set up a lot of time-sensitive plans, and all around did a lot of things that had hard timers. Trump winning fucked that up -hardcore-. He began dismantling a lot of the things which they absolutely needed. The courts? Yah, those became less friendly., And don't get me started on SCOTUS. Losing control of SCOTUS was absolutely the most devastating blow they had received up to that point. And everything they had due was coming due in 2022, this year. They needed to be in power to avert disaster.
3: Pure fucking hubris. They believed it was their right, their sacred duty to have control of power. That it was snatched from their jaws as they stood poised to be ultimately triumphant threw many into a frothing rage. Even the coolest of their minds were incensed. Anger and vitriol poured out... and just washed off Trump. The election stood as a great chance to dethrone this man who had wounded their pride.
4: Pure fucking hubris 2: electric boogaloo. They honestly, sincerely, believed that they would be able to rule by cabal. The problem is that every faction of the cabal thought they'd be the one leading the cabal. This belief spurred on a lot of their actions and decisions and each maneuvered into a leadership position and where vying for it even after Biden had been sworn into office... up until Afghanistan where each tried to divest themselves of any responsibility for it. Ironically, leading them to try to push the other members into the once bitterly fought-for seat.
Nobody knows how much of a poison chalice power can be until they have fought for it, bled for it, and tasted its bitter fruits.
- Joined
- May 14, 2021
I tell this to my family every time the question of my living situation pops up: “I’m too smart to live in Manhattan, but too stupid to escape New Jersey.”I live Upstate, and I cannot fathom living in NYC.
I had friends that moved to NYC several years ago "for the culture", and I cannot tell if they are still there because they are stuck or just because they genuinely still like it. It might be the latter considering our, let's say discussions, about the BLM riots last year.
A family of four needs to make $350K to be the "middle class." That's like the Top 1% in salaries of the entire country just to not be poor.
It now costs $350,000 a year to live a middle-class lifestyle in a big city—here's a sad breakdown of why
You can certainly live on less, but it won't be easy if your goal is to raise a family in a big city, save for your children's education, save for your own home and save for retirement (so you can actually retire at a reasonable age).www.cnbc.com
New York City is a fucking debt trap for illegal immigrants and theater kids.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
I live in the 'burbs, and I make angry tard noises the moment a single car gets in my way on my commute. If I had to live in a city, even the moderately-sized one near me, I'd go apeshit.I live Upstate, and I cannot fathom living in NYC.
I had friends that moved to NYC several years ago "for the culture", and I cannot tell if they are still there because they are stuck or just because they genuinely still like it. It might be the latter considering our, let's say discussions, about the BLM riots last year.
A family of four needs to make $350K to be the "middle class." That's like the Top 1% in salaries of the entire country just to not be poor.
It now costs $350,000 a year to live a middle-class lifestyle in a big city—here's a sad breakdown of why
You can certainly live on less, but it won't be easy if your goal is to raise a family in a big city, save for your children's education, save for your own home and save for retirement (so you can actually retire at a reasonable age).
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
Big cope. Pelosi is mad that everyone in Congress wants her to stop inside trading, so now she wants to "take the Supreme Court with us" (her words) and block them from trading also
Nancy Pelosi changes course, says she's open to stock trading ban for lawmakers: 'If members want to do that, I'm okay with that'
(archive)
"I've said to the House Administration Commitee, review all the bills that are coming in and see which ones — where the support is in our caucus," said Pelosi, responding to a question from Insider about a request she made to the committee last Thursday. "If members want to do that, I'm okay with that."
Pelosi's remarks came just hours after former President Donald Trump chided Pelosi for frequent stock trades made by her husband, investor Paul Pelosi.
And facing broader pressure from other politicians on both the left and the right, Pelosi has already asked the House Administration Commitee to review compliance with the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which requires timely disclosures of financial transactions but offers little in the way of penalties for noncompliance.
In December, Insider released "Conflicted Congress," a 5-month investigation which found that dozens of lawmakers and nearly 200 senior congressional staffers had failed to comply with the law.
Insider also identified numerous conflicts-of-interest among lawmakers' personal stock trades and their public responsibilities, such as members who craft military policy and invest in defense contractor stocks and who traded in COVID-19 vaccine maker and test manufacturer shares in the months after the coronavirus pandemic began.
Pelosi told reporters that she'd received letters from members encouraging support for the idea — a possible reference to a letter to leadership being drafted by Rep. Jared Golden of Maine that was first reported by Bangor Daily News.
"We came to Congress to serve our country, not turn a quick buck," wrote Golden in the yet-to-be-released letter, asking both Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to bring a bill to the floor to address the issue.
Pelosi's newfound openness to changing the rules around stock ownership follows a flood of stock trade ban proposals, including from Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, as well as from Democratic Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota and Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.
But Pelosi also made clear Thursday that she doesn't see an issue with the status quo.
"I have great confidence in the integrity of my members. They are remarkable," she said. "So when people talk about well, somebody might do this, and somebody — I trust them. If in fact we should have severer penalties for delays in reporting on the STOCK Act, then do that."
Those remarks mirrored her position when Insider first asked her in December about the idea of a stock trading ban for lawmakers and their spouses.
"We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that," Pelosi said at the time.
"I do come down always in favor of trusting our members," she said Thursday. "To give a blanket attitude of 'we can't do this, and we can't do that' because we can't be trusted — I just don't buy into that."
Pelosi also reiterated that blatant insider trading is already illegal under federal law. "That's a Justice Department issue," she said.
"Should the penalties be greater? Subject to review," she added. "I don't know why people don't [report] on time, but whatever it is, if there's a penalty, and it should be more severe, so be it."
The standard penalty for a first-time STOCK Act disclosure violation is $200, regardless of the severity of the offense. Insider found that Congress' STOCK Act enforcement is inconsistent, the penalties minimal and the process decidedly opaque. Senior-level congressional staffers who violate the STOCK Act sometimes face even less scrutiny, Insider reported.
Pelosi then directed her attention at the Supreme Court, calling for the judiciary to be held to the same disclosure standards as Congress. She pointed out that the body has nothing like the STOCK Act in place to govern judges' disclosures, even though it's "where decisions are made all the time that affect our environment, our workforce, our personal freedoms, every subject you can name."
"If we're saying everybody should be living by the same standard, then so be it. That's okay with me," she said.
"But I don't think that the court should be let off the hook," she added, referencing a recent year-end report by Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts calling for greater financial disclosure in the judicial branch. "I say, when we go forward with anything, let's take the Supreme Court with us."
The vast majority of Americans — conservative, moderate, and liberal alike — support a ban on members of Congress trading stocks, several recent polls have indicated.
- Nancy Pelosi reversed course, saying she's open to banning lawmakers from stock trading.
- "If members want to do that, I'm okay with that," she said, emphasizing the "trust" she has in members.
- She also called for more disclosure at the Supreme Court, saying she doesn't want the court "let off the hook."
"I've said to the House Administration Commitee, review all the bills that are coming in and see which ones — where the support is in our caucus," said Pelosi, responding to a question from Insider about a request she made to the committee last Thursday. "If members want to do that, I'm okay with that."
Pelosi's remarks came just hours after former President Donald Trump chided Pelosi for frequent stock trades made by her husband, investor Paul Pelosi.
And facing broader pressure from other politicians on both the left and the right, Pelosi has already asked the House Administration Commitee to review compliance with the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which requires timely disclosures of financial transactions but offers little in the way of penalties for noncompliance.
In December, Insider released "Conflicted Congress," a 5-month investigation which found that dozens of lawmakers and nearly 200 senior congressional staffers had failed to comply with the law.
Insider also identified numerous conflicts-of-interest among lawmakers' personal stock trades and their public responsibilities, such as members who craft military policy and invest in defense contractor stocks and who traded in COVID-19 vaccine maker and test manufacturer shares in the months after the coronavirus pandemic began.
Pelosi told reporters that she'd received letters from members encouraging support for the idea — a possible reference to a letter to leadership being drafted by Rep. Jared Golden of Maine that was first reported by Bangor Daily News.
"We came to Congress to serve our country, not turn a quick buck," wrote Golden in the yet-to-be-released letter, asking both Pelosi and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to bring a bill to the floor to address the issue.
Pelosi's newfound openness to changing the rules around stock ownership follows a flood of stock trade ban proposals, including from Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, as well as from Democratic Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota and Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.
But Pelosi also made clear Thursday that she doesn't see an issue with the status quo.
"I have great confidence in the integrity of my members. They are remarkable," she said. "So when people talk about well, somebody might do this, and somebody — I trust them. If in fact we should have severer penalties for delays in reporting on the STOCK Act, then do that."
Those remarks mirrored her position when Insider first asked her in December about the idea of a stock trading ban for lawmakers and their spouses.
"We are a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that," Pelosi said at the time.
"I do come down always in favor of trusting our members," she said Thursday. "To give a blanket attitude of 'we can't do this, and we can't do that' because we can't be trusted — I just don't buy into that."
Pelosi also reiterated that blatant insider trading is already illegal under federal law. "That's a Justice Department issue," she said.
"Should the penalties be greater? Subject to review," she added. "I don't know why people don't [report] on time, but whatever it is, if there's a penalty, and it should be more severe, so be it."
The standard penalty for a first-time STOCK Act disclosure violation is $200, regardless of the severity of the offense. Insider found that Congress' STOCK Act enforcement is inconsistent, the penalties minimal and the process decidedly opaque. Senior-level congressional staffers who violate the STOCK Act sometimes face even less scrutiny, Insider reported.
Pelosi then directed her attention at the Supreme Court, calling for the judiciary to be held to the same disclosure standards as Congress. She pointed out that the body has nothing like the STOCK Act in place to govern judges' disclosures, even though it's "where decisions are made all the time that affect our environment, our workforce, our personal freedoms, every subject you can name."
"If we're saying everybody should be living by the same standard, then so be it. That's okay with me," she said.
"But I don't think that the court should be let off the hook," she added, referencing a recent year-end report by Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts calling for greater financial disclosure in the judicial branch. "I say, when we go forward with anything, let's take the Supreme Court with us."
The vast majority of Americans — conservative, moderate, and liberal alike — support a ban on members of Congress trading stocks, several recent polls have indicated.
RumblyTumbly
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2018
All of this is true. I personally can't stand cities like New York because its too crowded and loud, and I am more of a low key person. All the corrupt politics and shitty state of the city only give me additional reasons to never even consider moving there.
Tanner Glass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2016
It's not about anything Trump did or was going to do, it was the chance they had with COVID crisis and the control it would potentially let them exert.
COVID-19 really clouded (some) people's judgement and emotions, to a point where Democrats were able to ram through tons of changes to the election processes that were extremely favorable to their own party - all changes that were billed as "temporary" and all changes that laxed the security requirements for voting (mail in, less signature requirements, no chain of custody, etc).
COVID (despite what people say) isn't going to be around forever, with some places (red states, the UK) completely dropping the loose mandates and most places just treating them lightly. Imagine the hypocrisy people are feeling, even now, as Democrats still say COVID is a huge crisis emergency but the Mayors of huge Dem Cities are still approving permits for gigantic Concerts, Sports Games, Award Shows, and so on.
So if Democrats wanted to get in to change the voting requirements, they would have to do it now (in 2021). They couldn't hope that Trump had a bad 2020 and the Republicans had a bad 2024, there would not be a COVID emergency in 2024 to exploit.
It was a perfect storm of racial fears being stoked (George Floyd) and a general hysteria over COVID-19 that really let them try and sell a narrative of "If you don't support these laws, you are racist". It wound up being too little too late (with #StopAsianHate and COVID-19 racial vaccinations being big upenders) but they very likely saw they had an extremely limited window to try and exploit to consolidate power.
Now they're just spinning their wheels, unsure of what to do now that none if it has worked and they destroyed everything trying to make it happen.
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Joined
- May 2, 2020
While claiming that Orange man shot the journonig.
"Let's be clear: You just saw Donald John Trump assassinate this man."
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2020
Nancy just big mad that people are jealous for not making a yuge gains on stocks
- Status