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?

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

View attachment 2098739

"I know, you know that I'm not telling the truth" - Psych!

 

[FunPosting101]

Yeah, piss off. I know that you need that my arguments be unable to stand without a religious basis, but I strictly make arguments independent of religion and focusing on the practical results because I'm aware enough to realize that if the only problem that I have with something in society is that it doesn't agree with my religious values, then that's something I need to suck up.


Nobody proffered this idea. It's a convenient strawman you fashioned ex nihilo so you could propose that a strictly bounded set of societal issues unmoored from their proper context are themselves the problems that need to be grappled with.


I've talked with devout Christians who have said that they would "very begrudgingly" allow even their child to be trans if it meant that they didn't kill themselves because "maybe God will reach them at some later point". They could not get I was concerned with the fact that they were mutilating themselves in the process-- I went back and forth with a doctor who was a Christian who insisted that SRS wasn't functionally mutilation, who knew nothing about the aftercare and that acktually trans women had functional vaginas because they had functional clitorises.

I don't think you don't know what you're coming up against. These are people who came from countries that couldn't even understand what homosexuality is. You think parents largely don't want their kids transitioning, but what they want more than that is to hold the positions seen as the ultimate in compassion-- the mothers especially. They've already largely cowed to the pressure and they cope using declarations of prayer that they'll likely never do while the world around them rots and they jeer about how messed up everything is in their friend circles.

And it's largely because they think the start and end of the issue is that Johnny wants to be Jenny.


Sidelining the reality that the issue is deeper than those kangaroo courts, you need to get more visceral than that. We've been making special exceptions for sexual offenses from time immemorial.


Most people don't connect drag with pedophilia.

Firstly, fuck you too.

Secondly, if your religious tradition can't solve the problem permanently, which is obviously the case since we wouldn't have gone from at least outwardly religiously conservative and observant societies to what we have now, then you effectively have no better solution to the problem than the people hoping that "generation zyklon" fixes it. What actually needs to be done is that those who are opposed to the absurdity of modern woke nonsense need to put forward why we are against it.

The evidence is there that "transitioning" doesn't lead to better life outcomes, that women(and probably men too, if anyone cared)will lie about rape, that people who want to dress up as fucking sex demons and be near people's kids are not actually harmless. No, we can't undo 20th century liberalism, people are rather fond of it, but we can in fact stomp down at least some of the worst excesses of the woke, and yes we may have to do that more then once, again and again. To which I say: Yes and? If traditional society was capable of stamping out woke nonsense permanently we'd still be living in those societies, and if modern liberalism was always going to lead to woke bullshit we would have legalized pedophilia in the 1970s, but that didn't happen either.

Modern society will never again be as conservative as it was in the first half of the 20th century, nor as conservative as it was in the 19th century, but we can and should fight against woke bullshit regardless in whatever way we are capable of, because it's worth it and we can in fact win victories.

 

[Blake Chortles]

There was a heresy in Christianity, that i fell prey to i admit, that we need to ally ourselves with the world to advance the church. Vote people in, campaign etc. The Bible tells us to be apart and that the Kingdom is advanced without our input.

Another thing thats often forgotten is this world’s Biblical Falleness. And that its designed to be a general slow slide to the end times. Basically we just swimming upstream and we need to remember God reigns.

 

[JosephStalin]

Firstly, fuck you too.

Secondly, if your religious tradition can't solve the problem permanently, which is obviously correct since we wouldn't have gone from at least outwardly religiously conservative and observant societies to what we have now, then you effectively have no better solution to the problem than the people hoping that "generation zyklon" fixes it. What actually needs to be done is that those who are opposed to the absurdity of modern woke nonsense need to put forward why we are against it.

The evidence is there that "transitioning" doesn't lead to better life outcomes, that women(and probably men too, if anyone cared)will lie about rape, that people who want to dress up as fucking sex demons and be near people's kids are not actually harmless. No, we can't undo 20th century liberalism, people are rather fond of it, but we can in fact stomp down at least some of the worst excesses of the woke, and yes we may have to do that more then once, again and again. To which I say: Yes and? If traditional society was capable of stamping out woke nonsense we'd still be living in those societies, and if modern liberalism was always going to lead to woke bullshit we would have legalized pedophilia in the 1970s, but that didn't happen either.

Modern society will never again be as conservative as it was in the first half of the 20th century, nor as conservative as it was in the 19th century, but we can and should fight against woke bullshit regardless in whatever way we are capable of, because it's worth it and we can in fact win victories.

Folks, let's play the ball, not the person. This is KF, not the street. Lots of great ideas here, let's not lose them by hating on each other. If you can't stand what someone says to you, just put them on ignore.

 

[Borscht]

Navalny is George Floyd-tier in terms of deserving a mass uprising and informing policy decisions. So of course they'll probably start a war over this asshole.

I'm infinitely amused by the fact that the foreign media is pulling out all stops on trying to make this man into a George Floyd-tier phenomenon and the louder they scream, the more Russians are going "meh, just another Western plant."

Assuming the man really is a visionary and not a CIA asset meant to stir up trouble, they are doing him a disservice.

The orgasmic screams of "NAVAAAALNAAAAY" coming from every English-speaking media are nothing if not hilarious.

 

[Eekum Bokum]

What is the story with this russian guy? i'd google it but i'm 99% sure i'll just be met with propaganda.

 

[737 MAX Stan Account]

Gen Z girls are still incredibly woke, and if they want these girls to fuck them they'll be woke too.

Thus, we need to constantly remind gen z guys to never stick their dick in crazy.

 

[Borscht]

What is the story with this russian guy? i'd google it but i'm 99% sure i'll just be met with propaganda.

Spoiler: A long-ass rant about Navalny.

Don't take my word as gospel (because I am biased and there will definitely be people with different opinions, the subject is controversial), but it goes approximately as follows:

Navalny is, for all intents and purposes, the most anti-Putin member of Russian opposition. He is young, he is energetic, he's been in politics for some years, and he knows which way the wind is blowing. He started his political carereer with a firm nationalist "Russia first" stance - isn't it wonderful how the bleeding Western hearts conveniently forget his rather firm position on the status of Crimea (should be Russian) and the migrants from Muslim states in the Caucasus ("cockroaches") - but eventually adjusted his angle and started exposing corruption.

This is the part where I actually agree with him and say he has done a good job. The famous "Putin's palace" video is just one of many, he really does go for the throats of oligarchs, judges, governorts, other officials - there is A LOT of corruption to go around in Russia - I actually voted for him at some point - but...

There is a always a but, isn't there?

He never went beyond articles and videos. Never proposed a platform beyond "Down with Putin, down with corruption". It may work for younger people (most of his supporters are students and young professionals), but older generations just want to grill (well, make shashlik on their dachas, but you get the point) or require a roadmap with a concrete set of policies and reforms he would implement. I may be out of the loop, but I never saw one.

Which firmly put Navalny on the fringes of the Russian political scene... Until recently.

Suddenly he is the Western media darling. Suddenly Putin tries to poison him by putting Novichok in his underpants (yes, really) BUT lets him go to a German clinic to get treatment. Suddenly Navalny comes back knowing he'd face arrest for missing his parole for his previous shenanigans. Suddenly all the world is watching him slowly die in a Siberian gulag (not really, a penal institution 70 km from Moscow I think) where he is tortured by the monstrous authoretarian regime (but still has access to lawyers and Instagram somehow?)

This shit stinks and glows. All of it. Most Russians won't touch it with a 10 foot pole, others want Navalny to come out and make Russia great and democratic (again? like in the nineties?), and the US is threatening Russia with (apparently) a war if something happens to him.

Beats me why they care. They sure didn't care this much about Epstein or Assange or Khashoggi or whatever...

P. S. Reddit armchair experts on Russia will tell you "Putin is afraid of him, the death of Navalny will be the wake-up call for another revolution and Putin knows it." Please do not believe what you hear on Reddit because Reddit is retarded.

P. P. S. Something most definitely is afoot, but there is no way to tell exactly what. Is Navalny a CIA-funded attempt to stage George Floyd-like protests across Russia and/or create pretext for crippling sanctions? Is he a genuine well-meaning and honest man who is fighting for Truth and Transparency, a thing about as common in politics as a unicorn? Is he being groomed by the master of six-dimensional underwater chess, the big Putin himself, to become his successor and make the West fall flat on its face because they will have to somehow backpedal with the Russia hate after all the ass-licking they are doing for Navalny right now? Is he a nothingburger?

Only time will tell.

 

[Radical Cadre]

Folks, let's play the ball, not the person. This is KF, not the street. Lots of great ideas here, let's not lose them by hating on each other. If you can't stand what someone says to you, just put them on ignore.

No Joseph.

Let them fight.

 

[Carbonation Grimace]

If you guys aren't shooting up your local liberal hotspot you just aren't doing enough to defend your traditional values, alright?

Dear mods and glow niggers: this post is a joke. Also you are extremely homosexual.

 

[jje100010001]

Biden's son Hunter failed to get his new book "Beautiful Things" to be a best-seller and it flopped big time. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hunter-bidens-memoir-flops-despite-media-fluffing ( https://archive.ph/nX5H1 )

> Implying that all NYT best-seller lists are not fluffed in the first place in order to drive politician publicity and push ideology.

This right wing doomerism is tiresome. It's coming from do-nothing people whose only contribution is complaining others do nothing. Either do something or leave Rome while it's still standing.

Doomerism is both justified and unjustified- justified in that the left is the mainstream, and that speaking out can result in a considerably harder personal life, and unjustified in that conservatives are convinced that the revolution will eat itself and that the problem will magically fix itself- but in reality, it will keep on going on until it meets some form of resistance.

 

[Radical Cadre]

> Implying that all NYT best-seller lists are not fluffed in the first place in order to drive politician publicity and push ideology.


Doomerism is both justified and unjustified- justified in that the left is the mainstream, and that speaking out can result in a considerably harder personal life, and unjustified in that conservatives are convinced that the revolution will eat itself and that the problem will magically fix itself- but in reality, it will keep on going on until it meets some form of resistance.

Cities and rural areas are both more or less locked down for the left and right, respectively. Granted, in my experience you will also see some lefty stuff in rural areas but that is because strangely enough a rural conservative town is going to be much more tolerant of "other" ideas and lifestyles as long as you abide by the "mind your own business" rule that defines most rural communities. Urban areas in America are by their nature easy to exert control over and expand ideologies due to population density and poor education and these regions seem very intolerant of "other" ideologies, despite a reputation to the contrary.

The fight seems to be over suburbs anymore. Some go this way, some go that. And the politicians are claiming their territories now before it is too late.

I do not see much of a push into rural areas so long as the golden rule that is "mind your own business" holds. And if that rule is broken, the rural areas will eventually fall but only after you've more or less killed off the locals. Rural conservatives are very flexible and tolerant until they are not. Which flies in the face of the stereotype but then again most of the merchants peddling that stereotype drive past the highway exit that leads to Ruraltown America.

 

[Governor Jeb Bush]

If you guys aren't shooting up your local liberal hotspot you just aren't doing enough to defend your traditional values, alright?

Dear mods and glow niggers: this post is a joke. Also you are extremely homosexual.

Kind of thing a Glownigga would say

 

[pwnest injun]

I'm infinitely amused by the fact that the foreign media is pulling out all stops on trying to make this man into a George Floyd-tier phenomenon and the louder they scream, the more Russians are going "meh, just another Western plant."

Assuming the man really is a visionary and not a CIA asset meant to stir up trouble, they are doing him a disservice.

The orgasmic screams of "NAVAAAALNAAAAY" coming from every English-speaking media are nothing if not hilarious.

You'd think that they would learn from their South American campaigns that Western, US support = illegitimacy in the eyes of the local populace.

 

[XYZpdq]

You'd think that they would learn from their South American campaigns that Western, US support = illegitimacy in the eyes of the local populace.

>glows
>learn
lolno

 

[jje100010001]

Cities and rural areas are both more or less locked down for the left and right, respectively. Granted, in my experience you will also see some lefty stuff in rural areas but that is because strangely enough a rural conservative town is going to be much more tolerant of "other" ideas and lifestyles as long as you abide by the "mind your own business" rule that defines most rural communities. Urban areas in America are by their nature easy to exert control over and expand ideologies due to population density and poor education and these regions seem very intolerant of "other" ideologies, despite a reputation to the contrary.

The fight seems to be over suburbs anymore. Some go this way, some go that. And the politicians are claiming their territories now before it is too late.

I do not see much of a push into rural areas so long as the golden rule that is "mind your own business" holds. And if that rule is broken, the rural areas will eventually fall but only after you've more or less killed off the locals. Rural conservatives are very flexible and tolerant until they are not. Which flies in the face of the stereotype but then again most of the merchants peddling that stereotype drive past the highway exit that leads to Ruraltown America.

IMO, the rural areas are somewhat unhealthy as the relationship between the metropolis and their hinterlands has been severed by globalism. You no longer have a hierarchy of local trade (farm > village > small town > city and vice versa), you now have cities that have very little to do with their surroundings, and which derive most of their existence to non-fungible global economic activity.

So you end up with supermarkets which source their produce from overseas and from Californian farms (picked by migrant workers), located in lost little towns which no longer have any economic reason for existence, and are (to roughly use a phrase from Gene Wolfe), "sit(ing) at home and wait(ing) for the money to run out". Same goes for manufacturing, the vast majority of stuff in stores is no longer manufactured by a local city or town- and from recent trends- those local stores are going the way of the dodo as well. Those local ties are being replaced by far-spanning just-in-time logistical networks, which frankly offer little local pride, and are vulnerable to any unexpected shocks.

And to be honest, the cities are not healthy either, as the commodification of housing and leftist overmanagement have essentially priced most people out of their homes, and created hotbeds of anti-societal thought. You can no longer build your own home or turn it into a store without some busybodies breathing down your neck, and it appears now that you can't even defend your home either without mobs being unleashed on you by activists and spineless liberal politicians.

The suburbs are the worst of both worlds (neither rural nor urban), and are not guaranteed to stay purple forever, as activists continue to extend their control into the education and local politics (look at how Orange County is going blue). The right must fight for the cities, and cannot retreat to the rural zones- as I've said before, to give up on the cities is to give up on a country's cultural and economic drivers, and you can't make a country out of just farms and declining towns.

 

[The High Prophet of Truth]

https://archive.md/GEhNJ

 

[Local FloRida-man]

View attachment 2099212

https://archive.md/GEhNJ

Arent like, 85% of the people who live in DC federal government workers? Is the US federal gov really voting to give itself states rights? I know it's dead in the water, but come the fuck on...

 

[LurkTrawl]

Spoiler: Long reply

If you think that, you don't have a proper understanding of what the aim of that movement even was, which was to overthrow the status quo. They always would have been able to pose it as a rebellion against the status quo, and they were fighting from advantage since they promised freedom from stuffy rules while maintaining a system in which you could recognize yourself as moral.

If those "stuffy rules" weren't there in the first place then it wouldn't have taken root the way it did. You're talking around my point without addressing it. A bunch of college graduates didn't lead the people who'd become progressive into that ideology, the culture did so in a manner that lead them that way. Had the culture not had an overbearing right-wing authoritarian presence the situation we see today simply wouldn't have a reason to exist.

I'm comparing specific ideologies, and ethno-nationalism/theocracy are distinct ideologies that happen to be classified "right". There are plenty of people that are conservative without being religious, because of how they behold purely the practical consequences. A theocrat may come to many of the same conclusions but their rationale has to do largely with their religious adherence. Ethno-nationalists reason differently from the typical modern conservative because their priorities and motivations are flatly different (typical modern conservatives aren't interested in ethnostates).

If you can demonstrate that center-left tendencies don't share a substantial rational base with modern progressivism (i.e. that they don't justify themselves by the same logical chain, differences being in where they choose to stop), then you'd have a point.

Ethno-nationalism and theocrats are both concerned, typically, with conserving cultural/traditional values, but through ethnic homogeneity or religious homogeneity. Ethno-nationalists of the white variety are also commonly concerned that with the changing of the genetic makeup of the population, so too goes with it the founding stock's ideals and shared culture. Ditto for theocrats except you can neatly change out the racial focus for a religious one. In a way, conservatives are merely ethno-nationalists/theocrats without the overt hyper-focusing on race or religion. They're often even accused as much by the former and the latter, that they're "weak" and "don't go far enough".

So if you can be conservative without being overly concerned about ethnicity or religion, instead only caring about core values and tradition, it stands to reason that there's no reason you cannot be a leftie without necessarily being vulnerable to buying into their analogous counterparts such as identity politics or gender politics.

Okay? But I explained why it's in the conservative domain, while acknowledging the existence of a moderate position. Curbing illegal immigration can be seen as moderate, but curbing immigration in general is squarely conservative because of the typical intentions behind the idea. If you can describe liberal-but-not-progressive intentions that could be associated with this (rather than flare up about supposed feminist rhetoric), you'd have a better point.

I don't really need to describe what they could be associated with when it should suffice to explain what it isn't. And I already have.

You should pay more attention to what I actually wrote-- which is that it's a conservative position, not that the person holding the position is a conservative-- instead of having flare ups about supposed feminist-flavored rhetoric.

It is a conservative position, simple as. It's a position held by conservatives normally but not by liberals because the values behind the idea as usually presented clash with liberal values. A liberal agreeing with this idea is finding common ground with a conservative, regardless of the rest of their ideology.

It's not, though. It's merely a position that conservatives commonly hold. Ideological positions aren't territories ideologies can plant their flags on and claim like pieces of property. This is like saying that miscegenation being abhorrent is an ethno-nationalist position, or that welfare systems being necessary to a healthy society is a progressive position when there's plenty of people across the political spectrum who'd agree with one, the other, or both.

And I keep making the distinction very clearly because that line of thinking is used very often to justify, as I said, pigeonholing people as "allies" or as one of your own when they're not. Cooption is annoying and makes conversation regarding such topics unnecessarily difficult.

You misunderstand, likely. I'm literally asking what the ideology of someone who would have this combination of views would resemble.

Why? It doesn't ultimately matter, as it's again sufficient to point out what it isn't when the conversation is specifically whether or not they are [political affiliation] or not. Same as if I were talking about whether or not a group or individual were progressive, liberal, libertarian, whatever.

The normalization of both homosexuality and transgenderism was concurrent by the specified time.

No it really wasn't. This transgenderism shit has only really been taking off since 2013-2014, thereabouts. By the time gay marriage was fully legalized in the U.S. (2015) it had been normalized in the public view for years.

Selfishness in the face of the complex of widespread societal issues they'll have to deal with would only make matters worse.

Just because you can't see the logic in a position doesn't make it untenable nor does it make it illogical for someone to buy into it. The modern political landscape should have shown you that by now.

I don't understand how they would "have to be selfish by necessity".

As far as why it'd be by necessity, in a situation in which times are rough it's not only not uncommon but rather prevalent to look out for yourself and those closest to you. Your ideas of how the world should work and what could fix it don't change basic human nature. Or are you going to argue that they'll have a better start than millenials did?

No shit. Rectifying the issue would be seen as "oppressive", and letting the issue persist would ruin more future generations. The solution is obviously to rectify the issue, but in order to do that, you have to get people to assent to yoking themselves. At the heart of the issue is exactly that: it's much easier to break something down than it is to build something up, and progressives are very good at breaking things down.

That's nice but they won't give a fuck, and that's what I'm saying. The time for such ideas to take hold and actually win people over, especially the generation coming up, have passed. You seem to either not get that or unwilling to accept that. Regardless of what your opinions on the topic are, I'm not arguing for or against the positions I'm theorizing they'll have - I'm merely pointing out what I think they'll be of the lot who don't buy into the propaganda they're being fed in public schools and the media. You seem to keep trying to convince me I'm wrong about this like I'm the one who believes this shit. I mean whether or not you like my predictions, whatever, but if you're expecting these people to listen to you and by-the-books old-school conservatism, you're pissing up a rope and indeed all over yourself.

And the thrust of what I was getting at was that your prediction was offensively off the mark.

It's increasingly clear to me that you think so not because it objectively is, but rather that you cannot accept that it possibly could be. You do you man but your view on the situation and the necessary means to counteract it are seen as claptrap by the people we're talking about. Hell, I'm not exactly young and it was seen as such back when I was getting out of high school, and I even agree with most of it for fuck's sake.

You're assuming I want to go back to the RR period in the first place, which isn't the case.

Whether or not you want to, what you're suggesting will indeed lead back to it.

I don't know if I've already said it here, but the religious right promoted intellectual featherweight arguments that were never designed for apologia, but rather were tools by which they reinforced their societal control-- that's at the heart of the contradiction of having poorly formed, callous, and simple arguments while asserting influence over the sociocultural aspect of the national community. As a result of this, they handed the liberals a pre-signed checkbook that helped them advance just about anything they wanted because opposition to them would be seen as stemming from being a fuddy-duddy fundie.

Yeah? And remind me again what gave them such prominence over the non fundie conservatives? Oh, right, the very same system that's perpetuating the current hysterical leftists who are acting in their place as the witch-hunters and whip-lashers of society. You act as if though they wouldn't just be coronated in the same way that the progressives were after O.W.S. You swing that pendulum right back to where it was, and you'll get exactly what you had. You'd be slotting out our current problem for one we've already as a society moved past, and this time they'd be as fervent as the progs, or more likely even more fervent given that they'd be scared witless of being cast out again.

The extent of their stupidity reached Congress, where their politicians would-- as an example-- make arguments that appealed to some vague idea of "sanctity of marriage", as though the state recognition of marriage and the religious institution of marriage were anything similar. Rather than be practical (e.g. point out that marriage financial benefits were to encourage family formation, and gay people could not be expected to have families because they can't naturally reproduce, point out that they should stay away from surrogacy because a child is entitled to the love of their mother and father, and absent that, they at least deserve a facsimile of that with an adoptive mother and father, point out that gay people can have wedding ceremonies and name changes just fine without state recognition, even allow them to visit their partners in the hospital past normal visitation times) they made surface-level appeals to religion.

Has the thought never occurred to you that they didn't have to listen to what was obviously a loud minority? Or did you/do you think that federally elected politicians, who are known to be most often lawyers and psychopaths to boot, are so brain-dead stupid as to really follow the paradigm of giving the squeaky wheel the grease? Of course not. Remind me again what kind of person was for the Patriot Act? What kind of person voted George Bush Jr. into the white house? If my point isn't obvious by now maybe this will drive it home:

the people who've been in these positions, and/or have had relatives or friends in these positions for thirty, forty, fifty years don't give a fuck about petty squabbles regarding gay marriage or whether or not trannies can use women's restrooms. They don't give a fuck how many illegals rob/rape/murder americans. They don't give a shit and never have. Trying to pass off the religious right as if though they weren't just the extreme version (or as you put it when talking about progressives and them sharing a "substantial rational base" with moderate lefties) of conservatism is laughable. They were elevated to cause as much of a kerfuffle as possible in the public political discourse over shit that ultimately doesn't have even half the effect of say, jobs being shipped overseas or immigration illegal and otherwise drowning out opportunities and depressing wages for the native population - or being in pointless wars for shitty reasons. You know, shit that if the public actually could come together and demand be fixed would hurt the bottom line of elected officials of both parties? Same way that the progs have been.

We simply aren't going to fix a problem by reverting to the same state that helped both it along and the people who fomented it in the first place. If we do we'll just end up right back where we started, people squabbling over bullshit that won't ultimately bring the country any further towards betterment and ever further down the spiral of slow decay from within.

Can Biden or Harris hurry and do something retarded again so we don't have the thread get clogged up with essays?

Hey man I at least try and spoiler my autism when it creeps up so you doesn't clog up the page for those who don't give a shit.

View attachment 2099212

https://archive.md/GEhNJ

Says a lot that they're going for D.C. before Puerto Rico.

 

[HumanHive]

View attachment 2099212

https://archive.md/GEhNJ

If the GOP don’t immediately go to court over the sheer unconstitutionality of this, then the deserved to be cucked forever and ever.