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
- Sep 4, 2019
I hope we get another illustrated children's romp like "The Pumpkin and the Pantsuit"
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
I voted Trump, and while I want him to win, him winning in a landslide ala Reagan would possibly be the worst outcome imaginable. It'd drive the people who have all the power absolutely bugfuck insane and the results, while unimaginable, would not be pretty. Like, suicides live on air (think Bud Dwyer but news anchors) kind of chaos.
Edit: And you know what, if you think I'm joking just look at that pantsuit shit in the post above mine. If we get a Trump v Biden historic landslide like Reagan v Mondale, these batshit insane lunatics quite literally will be incapable of processing it. You'd think fucking Cthulhu won the election.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2019
I'm not seeing the problem here.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
You're saying that as if it's a bad thing that we would no longer be seeing a bunch of arrogant and dishonest agitprop peddlers on our TV screens because their brains melted from their bubble of self delusion being popped.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
Who, pray tell, has been riling up people to destroy shit in urban centers for the past year? Think that, but the dogs will officially be let off the leash. If we get a landslide for Trump these motherfuckers will burn the country to the ground in a delusional fury the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1800's. It'll be hell on earth, seriously. I'm just glad that I don't think it'll happen, and hope that Trump wins but not in a 45+ state washout or some ridiculous shit.
A Trump landslide would be not unlike giving them the middle finger before shoving your entire fist up their ass. They couldn't take it.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
IF, on the other hand, it is such a landslide, the companies that have been oh so eager to support the woke narrative will see how unpopular it is and slowly start to back off from the narrative. I'm saying this as someone living in a highly liberal area, and I understand that if it's a massive landslide (or any serious Trump victory), there will be serious violence, BUT if it's obvious that the narrative is deeply unpopular, you will see the large corporations change their tune.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
Oh yeah for sure, it wouldn't be all bad. Just pretty damn bad. Good thing it isn't going to happen, like I said, but theoretically it's kind of awful to imagine the fallout from it, were that to occur.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
It's clown world, my friend. Anything could happen.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
Just being optimistic. If there ever were a year for that to be the outcome, quite honestly it'd be 2020. Fingers crossed it's an otherwise normal election with a Republican victory. Gotta live in hope, friend.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
They don't announce that shit before the election's results are clear, lol. Even Shattered wasn't brought up before Jan 2017 IIRC.
In any case, part of Shattered's appeal was the fact that it was a surprise loss for so many people. Even among the people who believe the polling this year I've noticed most are far more hesitant about Biden actually winning vs. the smug confidence they all had for Hillary. I think a Biden loss is just going to be instantly memory holed and moved on from, the same way everyone stopped talking about John Kerry from '04 until Obama picked him to replace Hilldawg.
RockPaper
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
Legacy media on-air clowns love their cushy lifestyles too much to off themselves. They leave that to unstable anonymous Twitter people who are really unbalanced and can't handle reality.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
I'd guess it's something as easy as "Mr Vice President, 2016 was a fluke, this time the polls are real." and basing everything off of polling. It's the only reason why i think Biden went down to texas because everyone was saying he's up by 10,13 points and it's going to go blue.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2017
My city used the Housing First model for 24 apartments with a fully-staffed addiction and other counseling services available 24/7. The cost is nearly impossible to find now, early articles tout the opening and later ones just call it a success, but I remember it was in the double-digit millions. I emailed them and asked for concrete success stories, where the person successfully transitioned out and into their own homes with jobs and have kept those homes/jobs for a year or more. I received an email back directing to their website and using weasel words to define success in a nebulous fashion.
Here is an excerpt from an article showing "success" :
Now I don't know about you, but I think that if they did have one or more persons move out and successfully live on their own, those would be the cases they would highlight, not some frequent flier to the ER reducing (not even eliminating) their patronage of front-line healthcare.
I did see a news segment years ago where they spoke to two of the new denizens: one was in his early 20's with many cranial accessories and tattoos, and the other was a dumpy. overweight woman using a walker. Both were white, as I am sure they intended to show that everyone is affected by drug and alcohol abuse, ok - but damn, where are those two fine specimens going to find work? The young one may do well in a factory or something, but that older woman really doesn't have any skills. She is simply a low-IQ individual and is probably going to be fast-tracked into disability rather than trying to get her clean and into the job market. So where's the success? Where is the glowing follow-up? Google and the organization itself doesn't give me any information. Because there isn't any. Just a place to dump money and people, those fancy degrees in public health with an emphasis on addiction aren't going to pay for themselves!
Anyways, here's the article the quote above was pulled from.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
I wonder if it's ever occurred to these people that constituencies are increasingly sick of "nice, polite and as corrupt as ever". I'd certainly be unhappier with someone who smiled and gave me a hug just to get the knife around to my back as opposed to a loud, relatively uncouth, brash jackass who at least doesn't seem to actively harbor a kind of ill will or contempt towards his constituency.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2018
If Joe Biden loses, blame the Democrats, not third-party voters or non-voters
US Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden gestures as he speaks during a campaign event at the William "Hicks" Anderson Community Center in Wilmington, Delaware on July 28, 2020. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
- In what could be the most consequential election in modern history, there's a sentiment among liberals that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump.
- But if Biden loses, the Democratic establishment should hold the lion's share of the blame, as they've deliberately discarded the people they now shame.
- This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
- Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
However, reasonable people can also argue that Biden has no real intention to follow through on some of his more ambitious proposals that are designed to try and win over the left-wing of the Democratic party that was unenthused by his nomination. These people can also believe that "orange man bad" isn't a compelling enough reason for them to cast their vote for someone they don't believe in.
As we get closer to the election, the stakes are becoming clearer. Get-out-the-vote efforts like LeBron James' "More Than A Vote" program are on the rise. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar teamed up with popular Twitch streamers to drive voter registration efforts, and political nonprofits like MoveOn have been big on promoting voter registration. The idea is that the better the voter turnout, the more likely it is that Biden wins.
This has resulted in the sentiment that people who lean left but vote for third-party candidates or those that choose not to vote at all, are effectively voting for Trump, and should bear the blame should Biden lose on Tuesday. It's a reasonable notion, but it is misguided.
Blame game
The shaming and blaming of third-party or non-voters would come as no surprise given that many liberals view votes cast for third-party candidates as instrumental to George Bush and Donald Trump's elections.The 2000 presidential election between Bush and Al Gore came down to Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes. The third party candidate, Ralph Nader, received over 97,000 votes in the state, helping to cement a disdain for third parties among Democrats. If a fraction of Ralph Nader voters voted for Gore instead, the thinking goes that we could have avoided eight years of globally catastrophic policy. Similar thinking exists among conservatives who were angry at the splitting of votes by independent Ross Perot in 1992.
However, if Joe Biden loses, there will be plenty of more applicable people for the Democratic establishment to blame. Namely, themselves.
Since Biden clinched the Democratic nomination, he, his campaign, and the Democratic establishment, have been callously deriding the party's left, erasing them from the national conversation.
Besides AOC's dutiful nomination of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic National Convention, progressive politics were left by the curbside. Instead, Democrats featured a speech by John Kasich, the guy who, as governor of Ohio, passed some of the strictest anti-abortion legislation in the nation.
The choice made it clear that Democrats would rather use their biggest stage to champion someone whose views go against their own than champion progressives. This is a clear effort to win over voters from the right, and it shows that these voters are being prioritized over the progressive ones in their own party.
According to Politico, the Biden campaign is currently vetting Republican figures (including, again, John Kasich) for potential cabinet positions. The Biden camp knows that considering a Republican for a cabinet position risks turning off some of the more progressive or left-leaning members of the electorate, but they believe it's worth that risk.
Given all of these facts, if Biden loses on Tuesday, it doesn't make sense to blame the loss on people — particularly progressives — who were discouraged from voting for him because of his actions and the actions of the Democratic Party in general. You cannot discard a group of voters before the election and then blame them for not voting for you afterwards. The Democrats can either appeal to Republicans or chastise the progressive electorate for considering other options, but they can't do both in good faith.
Progressive names for cabinet positions have floated around, too. Imagine a Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Warren or the most recent speculation of a Labor Secretary Bernie Sanders. Democrats would risk losing a senate seat for either of these to come to fruition, but it'd be an easy way for the disgruntled progressive voter to come on board before election day. A simple promise that Biden would include progressive voices in his cabinet would do the trick. Instead, we have Republican John Kasich at the top of the list.
Even former President Barack Obama has chimed in with his own version of blaming non-voters. In a speech on October 27, he said that voters "...can't be complacent. We were complacent last time. Folks got a little lazy. Folks took things for granted. And look what happened."
Let's take a closer look at why those voters might have gotten "a little lazy."
The electorate's burden
In 2016, 43% of eligible voters did not cast a ballot, nearly 100 million people. Many of them, according to FiveThirtyEight, are disillusioned from voting, and don't feel like either party's candidate can enact meaningful change. Democrats, instead of convincing these people that they're the better option over Republicans, would rather target people who already vote, even if they're Republicans or moderates. In a crunch, the strategy makes sense, but there's a difference between blaming non-voters who aren't going to vote anyway, and blaming non-voters who actively tried to participate, but were let down by their party.It's true that third party voters could have saved us from Bush and Trump, but at the end of the day, their votes weren't earned by either major party. That is a failure of campaigning, not a failure of the people who decided to vote for the party that best matched their interests — or that no party accurately reflected their interests. They are participating in our civic institutions just like any voter, and it feels misguided to shame them for the way they did so.
Think about it this way: in the two hugely consequential elections of 2000 and 2016, the third party vote was instrumental in deciding the victor, as well as, obviously, the tens of millions of people who didn't vote. That means that it is in the Democrats' best interest to target people who vote third party and who don't vote. If they fail to do that, why is that the electorate's fault?
Before you become upset at how someone decided to express their rights, ask yourself how your party could have better appealed to them. As I mentioned above, it's usually a pretty drastic oversight.
————————
———————-
Democrats seem to have it out for 3rd party or non-voters more than Republicans. It’s irritating when people try to police how others vote but what I find so lulzy about the sperging is that imo strategically third parties hurt Republicans more: Third parties made some key states like Florida more competitive for Al Gore, most Libertarians would’ve voted for Trump, Perot helped spoil George Sr.’s run, etc. So I could understand Republicans freaking out about third parties but Democrats, especially the ones with lolcow tendencies, seem to scapegoat third party voters for their losses. They can’t take responsibility for not winning over flakey voters or people who voted third party.
The issue is that many conflate self-identified independents as third party voters. It’s true that most self-identified independents are left leaning but they are slightly more likely to vote Democrat than Republican or for a Third Party. However, most self-identified independents are not actually independents but rather flakey voters that are indifferent to their preferred party, politics, or angry with the establishment but they overwhelmingly vote for the same party, when they can be bothered to vote, despite their rhetoric. They can also be the “enlightened centrists” who disagree with their party’s base but still vote for it anyways and just want to come across as smert. There are also actual independents too but they’re more likely to be disinterested in politics overall, black pilled, don’t believe in democracy, or feel that in the current election cycle their interests aren’t being represented.
In contrast to “self-identified independents,” most third party voters are conservative leaning. Even when they’re not they aren’t indifferent, many third party voters are actually solidly left or right wing and have core issues they support. More importantly they really do vote third party. Since they skew conservative it akshually hurts Republicans more. Some CNN pundits and Democrats, however, are convinced that third party candidates are to blame for Trump beating Clinton and other losses. They’re convinced that not only would the Green Party have voted entirely for Hillary if they were not on the ballot, which is likely, but that the larger Libertarian party would have as well. In total the Libertarians won ~4.5 million votes, the Green Party won ~1.5, while the conservative leaning independent Evan McMullin won 731k votes, and the conservative Constitution party also won 203 k votes. To put that in perspective if the United States had a parliamentary system in which coalitions had to be formed, the conservative leaning parties (Republican, Constitution, Libertarian, and that glowie) would have won a slim majority of about 68.4 million votes over the Democrats + Green who would’ve won 67.3 million.
What is funny is how they expect or even demand people to vote for them. It’s almost like when an incel expects women to sleep with him for “being nice” or saying the right things. Just because Democrats say the correct buzzwords it doesn’t mean that they should expect or even have the right to demand that Green and Libertarian voters support them instead of the party that more closely represents their values. What’s even funnier is if Democrats did succeed in getting rid of third parties altogether, it would give Republicans more net votes.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2020
Oh hey, they started to notice. Took long enough.
Speaks volumes that they treat the progressives this way, volumes the guy who wrote this article just isn't picking up on, though.
Yes, as they should. What a buffoon. It's almost like progressivism is the largest collective forced meme in human history, or something.
Jimmy Durante's Ballsack
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
I don't understand why they're building so many new houses. The left has been screaming for years that we already have enough empty houses to get the homeless off the street. And that we just need to give them the houses and BAM problem solved forever it was so simple.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
Money. Money being funneled into their pockets, into their friends' pockets, into their business associates' pockets. There's also the possibility that building new housing projects allows them to introduce their preferred voterbases into areas they normally wouldn't have a foothold.
Jimmy Durante's Ballsack
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
"How do we explain the 2016 election to our kids?"
Uh... how about you don't. They're kids. Let them be kids. You're going to end up inadvertently damaging your kids with your baggage anyway, but you don't have to make a concerted effort to damage them unnecessarily.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2018
I am willing to give AOC a free pass on that one.
Tulsi Gabbard nominated Bernie in 2016 even though Hillary had already been chosen. It is a procedural thing that happens.
I don't need to accuse AOC of fake shit when the crazy bitch does 1000s of other crazy things. I am a fair man.
- Status