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
- Apr 21, 2013
That's not fucking happening. Considering the cucks Trump put on the bench. I wish it would though.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2018
Man, I fucking hope so that it's not going to pass, for the sake of all that is good in America, it better not pass.
737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
Pretty sure Russia sees right through Joe's empty threats.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2017
lol really? and despite the fact hillary clinton was a member of the electoral college for the 2020 election and joe biden won the electoral college last election?
christ, the democrats are acting like sore winners or something.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
Which begs the question: what the fuck did Trump do behind the scenes to get the Dems so spooked?
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2020
Nothing. He was just the first major challenge they faced in awhile by just becoming President and existing, and now they're all losing it now that they're 4 years behind schedule.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Be alive and move into the White House instead of Hillary.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2019
Based if true. The only way to counter threats of invasion from a larger power are tactical nukes.
- Joined
- May 2, 2020
Pfft, knowing the orange fag he'll put in two more Roberts.
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
-Biden begs for a meeting with Putin to resolve the Ukraine crisis.
-Putin tells him to fuck off, as he should.
-"Fresh sanctions" on Russia for election interference.
Why would any world leader respect this pathetic weakling?
Dark Edea
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
Agreed. Sadly that doesn't mean conflict can be avoided no matter how hard Russia tries to ignore NATO's aggression.
potato fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2019
Somehow having military bases in all the countries Russia wants to invade is aggression. The tankie cries out as he strikes you.
Dark Edea
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2020
The systematic effort of NATO to push Russia out of Europe by placing military bases and missile systems in former Soviet states. NATO's backing of the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Petty sanctions against Russia and attempts to push them out of the global community. And now you've got American domestic politics dragging everyone toward conflict as the Russiagate conspiracy has backed Democrats into a corner where they have no choice but to continue the lie and punish Putin for something he never did.
Russia's major mistake was to not get everything from the Americans in writing after the Cold War.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
WaPo Helping BIden Lie
This is wordplay meant to avoid calling President Biden a liar, which he clearly is on this matter. And by providing this semantic defense, Parker is showing her partisan bias.
Major Violations:
If you were to look at the definition for bipartisan, you would find that it generally says support from both parties. [2]
The quote of Anita Dunn effectively presents her opinion as fact. Dunn is quoted as an advisor to the President, neglecting to provide the context that she has been a prominent figure in SKDK for many years, operating as a communications consultant and spin doctor to left-wing politicians for decades. [3] The firm was referred to as a public relations powerhouse by Breitbart [4] and their left-wing clients read as a prominent roster of powerful interests. [5]
This quote would be very out-of-place if Dunn and her experience had been identified properly. Instead of just a “senior Biden adviser” it would have been a bit gauche to quote a left-wing, hired gun media communications expert to give her opinion on how her client, and the elected official who will make her millions of dollars, of course isn’t a liar and we should instead reinterpret and redefine a basic word in order to accommodate that thesis.
If something makes an obvious and significant difference to the financial interests of a quoted subject, and a reporter hides the basis of that financial interest, they are committing a serious journalistic crime to their readers. Obscuring those connections denies their readers the ability to understand why the source might be motivated to lie, or in this case to extremely stretch credibility on the meaning of words.
This may seem like semantics but this is a major issue, considering that the vast majority of readers of a story will not take the time to discover the extended biography of a quoted source.
It would be extremely dishonest and deceptive if a news outlet were to call a party-line vote on legislation a ‘bipartisan’ act because one voter from the opposition party, somewhere, voiced support. That interpretation would make the word have no meaning, it would render the concept of those two terms: bipartisan and partisan, as essentially meaningless. Of course there are going to be people from both parties who go against the majority of their elected officials on any topic.
In December 2019 FactCheck.org declared a claim to “Bipartisan bills” by Nancy Pelosi ‘false’ not because it had zero from the opposing party like Biden’s proposals, but they were rated false because they had some but not a majority of votes from the opposing party. [6]
Certainly if the phrase “bipartisan bills” means nearing a majority from both parties in 2019, the same phrase should mean more than zero in 2021.
And really this is also a way to make an extremely partisan argument in a subtle way: that elected Republicans do not represent their voters in any way. It is to assume the absolute illegitimacy of the party not in power, and total lack of representation. Either an elected official represents the constituents who put them into power, or they do not. According to the Washington Post, by Biden having effective bipartisan support, it also means that the elected Republicans properly represent no one.
That’s an argument you expect from left-wing zealots and hardened campaign hacks, not from journalists as they twist and weave their narrative agendas into their news pieces.
Notably the only two Republicans Parker found to buttress her story was Senator Mitt Romney, who blasted the concept, and the Republican Mayor of Mesa, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix. The story is unbalanced because it assumes an advocacy role throughout: it is clearly seeking to validate the political claims of the Biden camp by advancing the thesis that ‘bipartisan’ need not include any elected Republicans, a claim that is silly on its face.
Ashley Parker is making an unserious point using unserious people in this piece, it’s neither news or opinion, it’s trash and she should be ashamed of herself.
OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.
Bibliography:
1 ] https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b29ad8-96f0-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html
2 ] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
3 ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKDK
4 ] https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...-traffickers-shame-on-the-actresses-involved/
5 ] https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/skdknickerbocker/
6 ] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/pelosis-bipartisanship-boast/
- WashPost says “Bipartisan” means voters, not elected officials, to justify Joe Biden saying he has ‘bipartisan’ support for bills that have zero GOP votes
- Prior Fact-Checks on the same concept have given completely different definitions
- WashPost quotes a long-time left-wing media consultant and quotes her as a ‘Biden official’ in order to cover her financial conflict of interest
Ashley Parker in the Washington Post, a corporate media outlet owned by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos who receives billions from the government in no-bid contracts, wrote a news article that said President Biden’s claims of ‘bipartisan support’ for his agenda was true because it included support from Republican voters, even though there wasn’t a single Republican member of the Senate or House who supported his legislation.
This is wordplay meant to avoid calling President Biden a liar, which he clearly is on this matter. And by providing this semantic defense, Parker is showing her partisan bias.
Major Violations:
- Partisan
- Opinion as Fact
- Misuing a word
- Unbalanced
If you were to look at the definition for bipartisan, you would find that it generally says support from both parties. [2]
This generally tracks what Parker quotes from left-wing Anita Dunn:
But we aren’t talking about some political science concept known as “bipartisanship” we are, instead, asking whether the COVID relief package and the infrastructure legislation enjoyed bipartisan support. And in that analysis, of course the actual composition of the legislators involved is important and critical to that analysis.
The quote of Anita Dunn effectively presents her opinion as fact. Dunn is quoted as an advisor to the President, neglecting to provide the context that she has been a prominent figure in SKDK for many years, operating as a communications consultant and spin doctor to left-wing politicians for decades. [3] The firm was referred to as a public relations powerhouse by Breitbart [4] and their left-wing clients read as a prominent roster of powerful interests. [5]
This quote would be very out-of-place if Dunn and her experience had been identified properly. Instead of just a “senior Biden adviser” it would have been a bit gauche to quote a left-wing, hired gun media communications expert to give her opinion on how her client, and the elected official who will make her millions of dollars, of course isn’t a liar and we should instead reinterpret and redefine a basic word in order to accommodate that thesis.
If something makes an obvious and significant difference to the financial interests of a quoted subject, and a reporter hides the basis of that financial interest, they are committing a serious journalistic crime to their readers. Obscuring those connections denies their readers the ability to understand why the source might be motivated to lie, or in this case to extremely stretch credibility on the meaning of words.
This may seem like semantics but this is a major issue, considering that the vast majority of readers of a story will not take the time to discover the extended biography of a quoted source.
It would be extremely dishonest and deceptive if a news outlet were to call a party-line vote on legislation a ‘bipartisan’ act because one voter from the opposition party, somewhere, voiced support. That interpretation would make the word have no meaning, it would render the concept of those two terms: bipartisan and partisan, as essentially meaningless. Of course there are going to be people from both parties who go against the majority of their elected officials on any topic.
In December 2019 FactCheck.org declared a claim to “Bipartisan bills” by Nancy Pelosi ‘false’ not because it had zero from the opposing party like Biden’s proposals, but they were rated false because they had some but not a majority of votes from the opposing party. [6]
Certainly if the phrase “bipartisan bills” means nearing a majority from both parties in 2019, the same phrase should mean more than zero in 2021.
And really this is also a way to make an extremely partisan argument in a subtle way: that elected Republicans do not represent their voters in any way. It is to assume the absolute illegitimacy of the party not in power, and total lack of representation. Either an elected official represents the constituents who put them into power, or they do not. According to the Washington Post, by Biden having effective bipartisan support, it also means that the elected Republicans properly represent no one.
That’s an argument you expect from left-wing zealots and hardened campaign hacks, not from journalists as they twist and weave their narrative agendas into their news pieces.
Notably the only two Republicans Parker found to buttress her story was Senator Mitt Romney, who blasted the concept, and the Republican Mayor of Mesa, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix. The story is unbalanced because it assumes an advocacy role throughout: it is clearly seeking to validate the political claims of the Biden camp by advancing the thesis that ‘bipartisan’ need not include any elected Republicans, a claim that is silly on its face.
Ashley Parker is making an unserious point using unserious people in this piece, it’s neither news or opinion, it’s trash and she should be ashamed of herself.
OUR RATING: Trash Journalism, aka the Daily Beast.
Bibliography:
1 ] https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b29ad8-96f0-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html
2 ] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bipartisan
3 ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKDK
4 ] https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...-traffickers-shame-on-the-actresses-involved/
5 ] https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/skdknickerbocker/
6 ] https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/pelosis-bipartisanship-boast/
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
Rather than abolish the EC, maybe just raise the number of house reps to match a ratio of like 1:30000 rep per people again like how it was originally supposed to be. You still have the EC, but it's far more "balanced" towards general population representation, than it is land representation like now.
Blake Chortles
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2020
The market doesn’t seem to think these war threats are credible. All time highs again today.
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
It's not so much what he did as what he represents.
After 8 years of King Nigger and the rise of wokeism they were under the perception that all that stood in the way of realizing their grand dream of a new world order was formalities. It was assumed that the people who were pissed about the obama scandals etc were a small but vocal minority of tea party and old guard Republicans. The 2016 election showed them that while their efforts paid off in Democrat strongholds like california and New York, most of the country rejected it outright. And that notion, the notion that they had greater resistance to their schemes than they imagined, absolutely makes them seethe. And trump was happy to rub their noses in it.
Humble Shitpost Merchant
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
They're running out of time. The first 100 days are almost over and all he did was halfheartedly overturn some EOs (while largely keeping Trump's foreign and immigration policies anyway) and fart out a relief check that he walked back on.
Infrastructure is also going to be a shit show: they're going to negotiate down with themselves just as with the stimulus checks. Republicans are leveraging their control of state legislatures to make sure they'll be able to retain power and gerrymander everything to hell. And that's it. It also turns out the vaccine is not making COVID disappear overnight.
- Status