US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Billy Beer, Splinters RCVD, GenderCop and 22 others
Click to expand...
soy_king said:
The ACA is a mixed bag decision that clearly stems from his obsession with trying to keep the Supreme Court apolitical, which creates absurd results of its own but I digress.
Click to expand...
That's not a digression, and actually deals a fatal blow to your own argument. You're forgetting or ignoring the general rule that socially left-wing positions are increasingly considered apolitical or default. Ergo, you de facto admit that it's about (elite, if not general) popular support. You cannot have it both ways.

Look, I glean from your posting on this subject that you have a vested interest in pretending that the judicial system is something other than an exercise in political gamesmanship these days, but I would say that is willfully dishonest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard, Not Really Here and Corette
  • Agree
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard
Random Internet Person said:
How much you wanna bet they wind up in a more opened state and use it to extend the lockdowns even more until the left can reopen things in their ideal conditions?
Click to expand...
Considering that Connecticut is reopening on March 19th, there's a good chance the elites are realizing that they're going to crash things earlier then they want. I think there's a civil war going on between the Democrats on whether or not to reopen, so we'll have to see.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tehpope, Vyse Inglebard and Dark Edea
X Prime said:
That's not a digression, and actually deals a fatal blow to your own argument. You're forgetting or ignoring the general rule that socially left-wing positions are increasingly considered apolitical or default. Ergo, you de facto admit that it's about (elite, if not general) popular support. You cannot have it both ways.

Look, I glean from your posting on this subject that you have a vested interest in pretending that the judicial system is something other than an exercise in political gamesmanship these days, but I would say that is willfully dishonest.
Click to expand...
Don't try to be smart with me boyo, it's not working. Adding "ergo" to a point doesn't make it any more valid, especially when your previous posts demonstrate just how poorly you understand the American legal system.

Literally nothing that I've said points to the idea that Roberts bases his decisions on being popular. What I can tell you is that based off statements he's made, he purports to decide cases in a way that supports the idea that the Supreme Court is apolitical in its decisionmaking. Literally everyone realizes that it's completely untrue, but Roberts has made many of his decisions based on the idea that he can't permit the Court to become overly conservative or liberal, hence some of his ideologically inconsistent ideas. What he is very consistent about is to maintain the originalist interpretation of certain fundamental constitutional principles that have been unduly expanded. These include the Commerce Clause and Constitutional doctrines relating to the administrative state.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was originally meant to solely regulate interstate and international commerce that has been bloated to justify almost any government action against private citizens, including the drug war, environmental regulation, antidiscrimination laws, wiretapping, and Rico and gun laws, should be abhorrent to any basic American conservative. Just because you can't recognize that Roberts has taken very strong conservative stances on these key issues doesn't mean he's all of a sudden the next incarnation of Earl Warren.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the fall of man, Vyse Inglebard and Dark Edea
Who ever had bets for bablon bee take your winnning again :story: :story: :story:

1614972087793.png

 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Every Crook and Nanny, Potatoherder and 12 others
soy_king said:
Don't try to be smart with me boyo, it's not working. Adding "ergo" to a point doesn't make it any more valid, especially when your previous posts demonstrate just how poorly you understand the American legal system.

Literally nothing that I've said points to the idea that Roberts bases his decisions on being popular. What I can tell you is that based off statements he's made, he purports to decide cases in a way that supports the idea that the Supreme Court is apolitical in its decisionmaking. Literally everyone realizes that it's completely untrue, but Roberts has made many of his decisions based on the idea that he can't permit the Court to become overly conservative or liberal, hence some of his ideologically inconsistent ideas. What he is very consistent about is to maintain the originalist interpretation of certain fundamental constitutional principles that have been unduly expanded. These include the Commerce Clause and Constitutional doctrines relating to the administrative state.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that the modern interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was originally meant to solely regulate interstate and international commerce that has been bloated to justify almost any government action against private citizens, including the drug war, environmental regulation, antidiscrimination laws, wiretapping, and Rico and gun laws, should be abhorrent to any basic American conservative. Just because you can't recognize that Roberts has taken very strong conservative stances on these key issues doesn't mean he's all of a sudden the next incarnation of Earl Warren.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. So which part of this diatribe nobody but me is stupid enough to even skim actually challenges my point beyond effectively making a claim that he has potential pet issues, again?

I found it particularly amusing you tried to claim Roberts is against forcing people into a marketplace, when that's more or less exactly what the ACA decision did.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Jann_Hörn, verissimus, Vyse Inglebard and 1 other person
X Prime said:
Uh huh. So which part of this diatribe nobody but me is stupid enough to even skim actually challenges my point beyond effectively making a claim that he has potential pet issues, again?

I found it particularly amusing you tried to claim Roberts is against forcing people into a marketplace, when that's more or less exactly what the ACA decision did.
Click to expand...
I think I triggered him when I said that he rules anything progressive and popular as constitutional.
He seems to think that means I think he's a progressive like Chunk Yogurt.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard
Not Really Here said:
I think I triggered him when I said that he rules anything progressive and popular as constitutional.
He seems to think that means I think he's a progressive like Chunk Yogurt.
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous. All that signifies is that you don't want to be shut out of increasingly-politically-polarized social gatherings by taking positions unpopular with that set.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vyse Inglebard and Not Really Here
X Prime said:
Uh huh. So which part of this diatribe nobody but me is stupid enough to even skim actually challenges my point beyond effectively making a claim that he has potential pet issues, again?

I found it particularly amusing you tried to claim Roberts is against forcing people into a marketplace, when that's more or less exactly what the ACA decision did.
Click to expand...
Holy shit, you're even dumber than Hollywood Hulk Hogan pretends to be. The ACA does not constitutionally give Congress the right to force people to enter a marketplace. Its decision is based on Congress's taxing power, which is significantly more limited than Congress's enumerated power under the Commerce Clause.

How exactly are they pet issues? Demonstrate to me either where I've said Roberts has pet issues or Roberts has explicitly stated as much. And before you begin, having a specific interpretation of constitutional principles is not the same as having pet issues.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Dark Edea and Vyse Inglebard
soy_king said:
Holy shit, you're even dumber than Hollywood Hulk Hogan pretends to be. The ACA does not constitutionally give Congress the right to force people to enter a marketplace. Its decision is based on Congress's taxing power, which is significantly more limited than Congress's enumerated power under the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...
Ah yes. "I say it was because of X and not because of Y, even though the only reason I'm saying X applies is because I don't want to be a social pariah and the effect is fundamentally the same." Truly masterful linguistic judo there that is completely not seen through by anyone with a lick of common sense.

Can you be any less mad that the profession in question has less worth than prostitution? Though admittedly the differences are hard to discern nowadays.
 
  • Dislike
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Not Really Here, Vyse Inglebard, Jann_Hörn and 2 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back