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?

 

[celebrityskin]

The Dems didn't spend that much on the campaign trail.

They did though. They were supposed to win like 60 senate seats and yet underperformed. They even spent tens of millions trying to get out little Susan Collins and she still held on.

 

[Meat Target]

Somber as my last post is, I saw this random sign nailed to a telephone pole in my town.

Maybe we're seeing the first stirrings of public discontent?

I disagree slightly here. People have awakenings that spur them to involvement; I've seen that in my own life.

But I think they can become selectively blind to certain things as soon as they think they've won, or when the lies become essential to their own self-image of being on the right side. Since 9/11 is the obvious example today, I'll mention that nearly all of my high school classmates who spent their early adulthood protesting Bush and the Iraq war, and the corrupt intelligence agencies magically had a switch flipped in their brain the second Obama won. Then came Trump, and that was the last nail in the coffin to any skepticism they had towards the government, once those same intelligence agencies were validating them daily that Orange Man was indeed Bad. We're seeing the fallout of that now during the pandemic.

They used to care and question, but stopped doing so when it was convenient.

Now in present, and in the short term, I tend to agree with you. More people who previously ignored politics finally have something to latch on to. But there is a need to keep that momentum going. The same people who protested children in cages in December were more than willing to defend it by the end of January. Then again, I think there is a difference between someone who rallies around a cause due to social pressures and personal convenience and someone who does the research because something truly begins to bother them. I do know people who dug deeply into Trump's immigration policies who were still furious when Biden made it worse on every level.

I was 3 years old when 9/11 happened. Huh. All i could recall about the bush administration was the numerous jokes made about him in family guy and every other comedy movie of the time

The one thing Kyle Kulinski has said with which I agree is that, 10 years from now, liberals will be all nostalgic for Trump like they are for Dubya now, completely forgetting all those years of Green Day and Michael Moore declaring Dubya the Second Coming of Hitler.

 

[Tree]

That'd not be "No bad tactics" though, it's merely acknowledging mutual incompatibility.

Sorry, I suppose I misunderstood what was being said then. I was reminded of the classic Canadian motto "If you kill your enemies, they win".

 

[Gehenna]

I disagree slightly here. People have awakenings that spur them to involvement; I've seen that in my own life.

But I think they can become selectively blind to certain things as soon as they think they've won, or when the lies become essential to their own self-image of being on the right side. Since 9/11 is the obvious example today, I'll mention that nearly all of my high school classmates who spent their early adulthood protesting Bush and the Iraq war, and the corrupt intelligence agencies magically had a switch flipped in their brain the second Obama won. Then came Trump, and that was the last nail in the coffin to any skepticism they had towards the government, once those same intelligence agencies were validating them daily that Orange Man was indeed Bad. We're seeing the fallout of that now during the pandemic.

They used to care and question, but stopped doing so when it was convenient.

Now in present, and in the short term, I tend to agree with you. More people who previously ignored politics finally have something to latch on to. But there is a need to keep that momentum going. The same people who protested children in cages in December were more than willing to defend it by the end of January. Then again, I think there is a difference between someone who rallies around a cause due to social pressures and personal convenience and someone who does the research because something truly begins to bother them. I do know people who dug deeply into Trump's immigration policies who were still furious when Biden made it worse on every level.

You are correct in all particulars here. I am speaking in generalities rather than specifics since I have found in my personal life that someone describing something in pedantic detail is the fastest way to make me stop giving a shit. So I try to avoid doing so to others. Especially when it's something I know a lot about and can get -pedantic- about.

Sorry, I suppose I misunderstood what was being said then. I was reminded of the classic Canadian motto "If you kill your enemies, they win".

Then to be clear, the mantra "No Bad Tactics, Only Bad Targets" is a line said by one MovieBob to justify doing literally whatever you can to ruin and destroy your enemy. While I do heartily believe the Republicans need to be more combative and less "lose with dignity", I also feel that any party which wants to maintain its own cohesion and principles must beware crossing the line where they compromise their principles to win.

Identifying someone is incompatible to you and must be forcibly resisted does not mean one must sacrifice everything that they represent to do so.

 

[The Nothingness]

For something to uplift the spirits on this day.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1436749195218718720

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

View attachment 2528355
Caption This:
View attachment 2528357

I just shit my pants.

 

[Gehenna]

Somber as my last post is, I saw this random sign nailed to a telephone pole in my town.

Maybe we're seeing the first stirrings of public discontent?
View attachment 2528586

The discontent has been there a -long- time, it's just that a mixture of factors ensured that the discontent could never blossom. The abundance of bread and circuses distracting people, active efforts to kill or subvert any opposition, and a continuing uniparty presence. It is only now that the grip has loosened that discontent can do anything.

The board is set to allow change to occur. The question remains if any change -shall- occur.

 

[Celebrate Nite]

For something to uplift the spirits on this day.
View attachment 2528599

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1436749195218718720

Archive:

 

[Socrates]

What does this imply?

the old hag had to suck off the circumcised hungarian cock in a desperate bid for him to refill their war chest before midterms completely flush away their power.

 

[Oxous]

Any individual governor has more power than Biden now. People look to strength when in a time of crisis, and Biden has proven himself whole, unmistakeably weak. The damage Afghanistan did will be felt for a long time.

I'm no lawyer but what could anyone in Biden's position do if a Governor simply refused point-blank to do something they wanted? The last (and only) instance I recall of the President strong-arming a Governor into compliance was when Kennedy forced Wallace to stop blocking the school door. I believe that Biden would only have the opprotunity to really do anything if his vaccine mandate was a law, which I don't think it is? Could be wrong.

 

[Meat Target]

Then to be clear, the mantra "no Bad Tactics, only Bad Targets" is a line said by one MovieBob to justify doing literally whatever you can to ruin and destroy your enemy. While I do heartily believe the Republicans need to be more combative and less "lose with dignity", I also feel that any party which wants to maintain its own cohesion and principles must beware crossing the line where they compromise their principles to win.

Identifying someone is incompatible to you and must be forcibly resisted does not mean one must sacrifice everything that they represent to do so.

This. "What good is it for a man to gain a whole world, and lose his soul?"

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Kinda seems like the biggest bitch move ever to call for draconian vaccine mandates upon the private sector, pissing off half the country in the process, and then, not even a full week later, make some sappy speech asking why we can't all just get along, maaaaaan.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Joe.

It's almost like none of the things he says or does follow a logical narrative flow but rather he's just checking items off an itinerary, so he'll go from telling Americans he's getting pissed about vaccination to talking about unity as they happen to be two sequential items appearing on his checklist. It's all lip service in the moment.

 

[Gehenna]

I'm no lawyer but what could anyone in Biden's position do if a Governor simply refused point-blank to do something they wanted? The last (and only) instance I recall of the President strong-arming a Governor into compliance was when Kennedy forced Wallace to stop blocking the school door. I believe that Biden would only have the opprotunity to really do anything if his vaccine mandate was a law, which I don't think it is? Could be wrong.

An EO is never law, it's merely an interpretation of existing law. As for Biden's options... basically none! SCOTUS sure as fuck wouldn't back any extra measures, you can't send in the military too look over the shoulder of every single business so can't go -around- the governor. He can leverage the powers of the federal government to hurt a state to force the governor's hand, but that cuts both ways, and any governor resiting him as -way- more mandate to keep going than Biden has to.

I was mentioning this when Biden was threatening Florida and said it was about a 50/50 chance of either side buckling first. That was when Biden was in a stronger position and only against one governor. This though? Biden can do sweet F.A.

 

[Socrates]

I'm no lawyer but what could anyone in Biden's position do if a Governor simply refused point-blank to do something they wanted? The last (and only) instance I recall of the President strong-arming a Governor into compliance was when Kennedy forced Wallace to stop blocking the school door. I believe that Biden would only have the opprotunity to really do anything if his vaccine mandate was a law, which I don't think it is? Could be wrong.

The only enforcement measure is the fines from OSHA and the threat of them shutting you down. This EO is a farce and everybody knows it, it will be smacked the fuck down by the SC. They should have just let the corpo oligarchy continue to ramp up the pressure on the unvaxxed in the background instead of bringing this shit to the foreground and giving people a single point of resistance to focus on.

 

[Blake Chortles]

I'm no lawyer but what could anyone in Biden's position do if a Governor simply refused point-blank to do something they wanted? The last (and only) instance I recall of the President strong-arming a Governor into compliance was when Kennedy forced Wallace to stop blocking the school door. I believe that Biden would only have the opprotunity to really do anything if his vaccine mandate was a law, which I don't think it is? Could be wrong.

Legally? Cut off federal funding, fuck with them with federal regulations in random shit, then war. Assuming Congress can support this.

 

[Gehenna]

The only enforcement measure is the fines from OSHA and the threat of them shutting you down. This EO is a farce and everybody knows it, it will be smacked the fuck down by the SC. They should have just let the corpo oligarchy continue to ramp up the pressure on the unvaxxed in the background instead of bringing this shit to the foreground and giving people a single point of resistance to focus on.

Whats worse, if it goes to SCOTUS, that ruling can -severely- harm any mandate pushes, even private company ones. Doing this right on the heels of the Moratorium ruling is bad, because it's actively incentivizing SCOTUS to specifically rule in as hostile a manner as it can.

 

[Socrates]

Whats worse, if it goes to SCOTUS, that ruling can -severely- harm any mandate pushes, even private company ones. Doing this right on the heels of the Moratorium ruling is bad, because it's actively incentivizing SCOTUS to specifically rule in as hostile a manner as it can.

Yup. You're right on the money with your analysis regarding the desperation of this move. It's a flail, like a frustrated target shooter just unloading a mag down range after a couple terrible misses. I'm not even all that skeptical of the vaccine and this tinpot dictator shit is making me not want to get it simply out of principle now. The big question is what comes after SCOTUS makes Biden eat shit again and fully breaks his illusion of power? What an autistic web of failure these people have weaved.

 

[Gehenna]

Yup. You're right on the money with your analysis regarding the desperation of this move. It's a flail, like a frustrated target shooter just unloading a mag down range after a couple terrible misses. I'm not even all that skeptical of the vaccine and this tinpot dictator shit is making not want to get it simply out of principle now. The big question is what comes after SCOTUS makes Biden eat shit again and fully breaks his illusion of power? What an autistic web of failure these people have weaved.

We don't even have to wait for the SCOTUS ruling. The reaction going into today has been silence from Biden's nominal allies and even condemnation from anyone on the right or center. It's just assumed it's going to fail at SCOTUS, which means it's almost a certainty they take it up and rule against it. SCOTUS doesn't like rocking the boat... but it's a case where their ruling is assumed so the only way they could rock the boat (sans a hostile ruling) is to NOT do so. The only thing we are waiting for is on whether it's a hostile ruling or just a slap of the hand.

What I'd give to be a fly on the wall right now at a few headquarters. Cause issuing this ruling -was- the act of a tinpot tyrant, and now everyone gets to decide what to do about the fact nobody is going to obey it. And I do mean nobody, a few companies said they'd issue it as a requirement right after... and now silence. Nothing. A few might be regretting their hasty actions because any Legal team looking over it is gonna be going "Nope!'.

 

[SeniorFuckFace]

Unbelievable...

Psaki explains in detail how the vaccination mandates work.

The News Junkie's Cartoons Channelhttps://www.youtube.com/c/TheNewsJunkiesCartoonsThe News Junkie's Channels Supporthttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_but...

www.youtube.com

 

[mold]

Wanna have a really sad thought? Answer me this:

When was the last time you heard someone in meatspace say "it's a free country?" I don't think I have in at least 10 or 15 years.

America the once-great will die not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I say it like a dozen times a week when someone is telling the idiot thing they plan on doing

"it's a free country" has always meant "you're a retard"