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
- May 6, 2019
How about I share with you guys some actual optimism. Most of the time my supposed 'optimism' is only acknowledging things are moving towards a situation where things COULD change for the better. I remain silent on if they will, because too many things are in the air.
But lets discuss one. I am not saying this is going to happen, or is likely to happen. Just that the ways thing sare going it COULD happen.
That thing, is SCOTUS deciding to actually fucking JUDGE things.
You see, the problem with SCOTUS is that it doesn't want to rock the boat. It really, really doesn't want to draw huge ire to itself. Ever since FDR and "The switch in time that saved nine" SCOTUS has been incredibly shy to wade into any form of controversy. This was when SCOTUS made a decision in favor of FDR, to avoid him stacking the court. Ever since then, SCOTUS has laboured under the knowledge that it is at the mercy of congress, and any sufficient majority could forever reduce them to irrelevancy.
But slowly that attitude may be changing. You see, Roberts was chosen as Chief Justice specifically because he was a spineless little shit. His judicial 'doctrine' is literally "Whatever the guy in power says". So with him as both Chief Justice and as the Tie Breaker, he had insurmountable power. And then Trump got in office, and did Trump put up ideologues? No. He put in actual judges, constitutionalist judges, but judges. Who would look at the issues as judges and not as partisans.
But most importantly, as judges who would chafe under that prior restraint, the need to never rock the boat.
But lets discuss one. I am not saying this is going to happen, or is likely to happen. Just that the ways thing sare going it COULD happen.
That thing, is SCOTUS deciding to actually fucking JUDGE things.
You see, the problem with SCOTUS is that it doesn't want to rock the boat. It really, really doesn't want to draw huge ire to itself. Ever since FDR and "The switch in time that saved nine" SCOTUS has been incredibly shy to wade into any form of controversy. This was when SCOTUS made a decision in favor of FDR, to avoid him stacking the court. Ever since then, SCOTUS has laboured under the knowledge that it is at the mercy of congress, and any sufficient majority could forever reduce them to irrelevancy.
But slowly that attitude may be changing. You see, Roberts was chosen as Chief Justice specifically because he was a spineless little shit. His judicial 'doctrine' is literally "Whatever the guy in power says". So with him as both Chief Justice and as the Tie Breaker, he had insurmountable power. And then Trump got in office, and did Trump put up ideologues? No. He put in actual judges, constitutionalist judges, but judges. Who would look at the issues as judges and not as partisans.
But most importantly, as judges who would chafe under that prior restraint, the need to never rock the boat.
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
I'm playing devils advocate here from the other side of the pond. Bear that in mind if what I say makes you steam or get pissy, I'm not trolling, just holding up a mirror. The bet still stands and I'm happy to go with whatever the outcome is. Sound.
Say Biden gets 10% approval rating, is panned universally for being the worst President ever. So what? I stand by the theory that Biden being shit is a benefit (cue the 'and here's why that's a good thing...' headlines) because it gives all of those 'factions' in the background, a chance to dump all of their dirty laundry. if X is stopping big tech from making money, but it's a very unpopular thing to do, then getting a President who is seen as an unpopular, senile old tosser, to impliment it is perfect for everyone. Everyone in the world can pretend to be against it, while making a killing.
Things weren't looking good for Trump. Three impeachments and four years of screeching and russian collusion. How many years did he serve? a full term. Biden will do 4 years, unless the reaper comes for him.
It's funny to see the media switch sides in front of our eyes, and nobody points out the hypocrisy or says "hold on a fucking minute, you cunts were giving people like us, shit for four years. Fuck off, you aren't on our side" instead it's "the media hate biden too. see it must be bad". You're being played for chumps by the media. That's not to say Biden hasn't done some bad things, he has, but how it's presented is pretty funny.
The media lying? Shocked pikachu face.
After 4 years of orange man bad from the media, what's the worst possible outcome? That Biden is shit and the media call him out - which means we all now agree with MSM (lol) or the media are lying like they did for four years under Trump?
Biden has done some bad shit, no doubt. But take a step back and see the big picture and you'll see it isn't very clear.
Slightly OT:
People using conspiracy theories, or discussing conspiracy theories about secession, impeachment, civil war, unironically, while ignoring that the next objective on the list of Russian world-domination is the collapse and in-fighting of the USA is eye-brow raising.
Make peace with Japan
Seperate Uk from Europe
Have Europe reliant on Russian resources
Descend the US in to civil war - as it's not worth the resources fighting a guerilla war against 200+ million armed citizens
Push China southwards
Push India in to Northern China
Those are (off the top of my head) objective achieved and yet to be acheived by Russia, to take over the world. At this point in time i have mad respect for Putin if this is true.
Make peace with Japan
Seperate Uk from Europe
Have Europe reliant on Russian resources
Descend the US in to civil war - as it's not worth the resources fighting a guerilla war against 200+ million armed citizens
Push China southwards
Push India in to Northern China
Those are (off the top of my head) objective achieved and yet to be acheived by Russia, to take over the world. At this point in time i have mad respect for Putin if this is true.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
Or to put it another way… you or someone else (the Alpha Centauri avatars make this confusing) has talked about how abandoning every rule or moral for easy wins means your party has nothing to actually hold it together. The internal struggles we’re seeing with the DNC globohomos indicate why it’s a bad idea long-term.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
I think the most apt description of Orange Man is "the right tool for the job," with an emphasis on the double entendre.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2020
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
While I understand the logic behind this, the problem is implementing it. If the populace hate it enough, the guy running on "I'll rip it all out when I get in office" will win by a landslide. Additionally, you'd need to get -everyone- on board to do this, while also making it clear that a good section of those who need to get on board will get fucked over by it.
It works in only a loose theory, but put in practice it becomes an impossibility. You'd need to:
1: Get the majority of Republicans on board while;
2: Ensuring Republicans can never get elected while;
3: Preventing yourself from losing power while;
4: Expanding your own power in every other sector while;
5: Maintaining your own fractious coalition while...
It keeps going like this for a while. It's basically a giant nest of mutually exclusive goals that'd all need to be successful.
Addendum: Thinking about it, I'd not be surprised if someone TRIED it though. It's a functional impossibility but presents a deceptively simple idea on the outside. I'd expect any political operator who wanted to do it to realize the impossibility on a serious think-through, but I have also seen more stupid ploys. What makes me think it didn't happen here is the sheer number of people who'd have had to never put serious thought into it.
Last edited:
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
Impossible for a democracy, sure. Just another Tuesday for the theatrical production company known as the uniparty.
Even if we don't go as dramatic as that, by the time 'opposition' get's in to power, COVID/covid powers will just be part of the furniture. 20 years ago, gays getting married was a hot topic. 15 years ago gays adopting was a hot topic. Name me a party that would now reverse the gay marraige bill, even though loads of people were against it? Then do the same for gay adoption, trans rights, extra airport security, NSA/CIA spying...It's all still there.
Biden could turn around tomorrow and say "we won't force federal companies to vax, but we will throw the whole might of (congress or whoever it is) behind any company that WANTS to enforce it". Everyone wins.
Dictionary definition of politics
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
That turkey neck was so unflattering I'm glad he got rid of it. Hope he hits the gym & does his hyperbaric chamber therapy.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
There is a difference between politics as usual and what you propose. Politics as usual allows for mutually exclusive goals because it's acknowledged nobody can win everything. Compromise is built in, even in backroom deals. What you propose isn't the same, because the mutually exclusive goals cannot be compromised on. It's not two sides or 'two sides' going at it in competitive terms, it's them supposedly working alongside each other. In such a scenario, goals must be achieved, compromise after the fact is imposible.
Now, as to your proposals. Gay Marriage was on a long track to be at least 50/50 support when it was found to be constitutional. While 15 years ago gays adopting was a hot topic, even back then gay marriage itself was on the upswing for support. Also, it wasn't a gay marriage bill, it was SCOTUS finding that restrictions against gay marriage were unconstiutional. All in all, this example is not analogous to anything pushed forward by this admin.
You provide a brief list after, so to knock them down quick: Trans Rights can be and is controversial, to the point that we have the last sitting president moving against Trans people in the military to very, very little condemnation from the center. As in, it was a net -support-. Airport security is here to stay because we have had twenty years to accept it. No real groundswell ever rose to oppose it nor was there significant disapproval at the time. Again, not analogous to here. Finally, Spying. Technically gutted under Trump when he didn't renew the big bill for it, see the prior one for again a large part of why it is here to stay.
Meanwhile, I can provide you convenient counters. Trump and Biden both spent a -lot- of time stripping out what their predecessor did.
Now, as for Biden being able to 'throw the might of congress". No. Simply no. The problem is that this is largely a states right issue, HORRIFICALLY unpopular among the general populace, and would see immediate resistance to it. Unlike your prior examples, it wouldn't get to be here and stay here because its always been here and wasn't opposed when it was put it.
Last edited:
Weppers
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2018
I will stay sore forever after reading Gorsuch's book where he talked about how the Supreme Court trying to rewrite legislation is consistently a major cause of future problems, only to watch him make the decision that the 1964 Civil Rights Act totally meant to include gender identity the whole time you guys.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2018
The only reason people rarely get into the White House is because they hop the fence rather than knocking on the front door.
White House party crashers went without confirmed invitation
WASHINGTON ? Copies of e-mails between the White House party crashers and a Pentagon official undermine their claims that they were invited to President Barack Obama's first state dinner. Tareq and Michaele Salahi pressed the friendly Pentagon aide for four days to score tickets to the big event.
www.pressdemocrat.com
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
I am of the opinion that was an attempted bone to the left, a way to see if they could be appeased.
The answer was no, and BOY HOWDY has he not supported them since.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2019
It’s been established that Laurene Powell Jobs, the billionaire widow of Steve Jobs, is funding far left media outlets with her cash. She is almost single-handedly keeping The Atlantic afloat, and Apple News is just another subversive way to disseminate propaganda on a daily basis to unsuspecting smartphone users.
Breitbart has said that Laurene Jobs is essentially George Soros 2.0. Minus the whole “earning your money” thing.
Last edited:
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
Assuming they aren't after the same base goals, just with a different lick of paint. If the destination is the same, the path you walk is just a distraction. or something more philosophical.
What's the support for the vax mandate? NOT how Biden is going about doing it, but for the actual mandating of jabs and passports becoming a requirement for travel/work/entertainment? The waters are muddied because we can't see how popular/unpopular the idea of passports is, only Bidens idea of using 'force'. The old saying' "can't see wood for the trees" is the best way i can describe it.
As for gay marraige, it wasn't popular. It won through apathy. Not enough people cared, or had reason enough to stop it, rather than it having 50% support and 50% against. Ironically, those against gay marraige said it would lead to degeneracy in society. They were right.
Again though, how many people support trans rights, vs don't care enough either way/don't want to be seen as a bigot. You couldn't oppose extra airport security after 9/11 because it was a bit daft to do so, given the circumstances. 10 years later though? We don't need it, but nobody cares enough either way to do anything about it. Wouldn't it be political suicide to say "we're going to remove that thing that people feel makes them safer"?
Trump removed what Obama did, Biden, Obama's VP removed what Trump did and re-instated what Obama did, just reversing the reversal of Obamas policy. Uno.
He doesn't have to do it, he just has to say it. The general populace gets their information from headlines, not details and information. And on that, the general populace are jabbed. 54% have been poked, so why would they, as a majority, kick up a fuss about something that will have no impact on them?
Sure, you may get a few arseholes shouting about on twitter for updoots, about how they disagree with restrictions etc, but they still got the jab. Do you think they care if people can't go travelling? Will they care enough to stand up for the people who haven't been jabbed?
Both the jabbed and un-jabbed can think Biden is a useless twatt, but only the unjabbed will kick up a fuss to stop restrictions happening. Just like those people in the 90's who said "don't let gays get married, it will degenerate society". And where are we today? We are at a place where misgendering a fat old bloke in a wig, sees you marched out of your job.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
Wrong. We may not use much in the way of guns but US SAMs are good.
MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia
Army rebuilding short-range air defense
The Army is now standing up short-range air defense units, known as SHORAD battalions, and offering a five-week pilot Stinger course for Soldiers in maneuver units.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Biden has... actually reinstated very little of what Obama did. Weirdly.
And yes it would be political suicide, but not for the reason you think. The general populace is fine with repealing them., even support them, but the political capital to remove something so long ingrained would be massive.
To address the meat of your response though, it really can be summarized by answering the question presented. What's the support? In VERY general terms a very, very narrow plurality for, but within the margin of error. With literally even the slightest amount of force behind said mandate, absolute revulsion to the point that the opposition is more than twice the support, It only gets worse with higher enforcement. So yes, the public would take note, and yes they'd take issue with it. A lot of issues with it, despite most of the country being vaxxed. Rather pointedly too.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
Major phone lines after the 40s were funded in most parts by the federal government anyway, so they basically had direct access to tap them. Didn't help that junctions post copper phone linkages were massive physical locations that doubled as fallout shelters during the cold war. Bell owned and operated this network under the jurisdiction of the US government and the military got it's own network as well.
If you ever see one of these
It's a stripped down version of one of these physical links.
This is what the first of these looked like. Some still exist in major farmland states in Northeast US.
What most tended to look like. A lot of these are still visible in major farming states.
These massive things needed a mechanic stationed at all times and you can bet that a lot of them had people listening in. With the cell tower network it's at least mostly automated.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
DeSantis might be more powerful politically and that might go a long way to explaining this vax mandate decree. The Afghanistan dumpster fire has left the administration looking weak, impotent and cowardly and that's on top of the question of its legitimacy. Competent leadership like DeSantis and Abbot make Biden look even worse by comparison. It leaves Biden in need of a way to flex his muscle and proves power but also needing to undercut these governors at the same time, and what really brought the governors to the front of national politics? Their management of the coof. The problem is that Biden's wranglers or my guess DR. Jill forgot they don't really have the power to bully these govonors in the event they just say "lol no".
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2020
Biden on how much he cares about Democracy, unity, against autocracy, attacks Trump and Republicans
What are your thoughts on what Biden is sharing here?
Biden on how much he cares about Democracy, unity, against autocracy, attacks Trump and Republicans.
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
Billy Beer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2021
TIL. that's very wierd. Any reason for it?
Are the public opposed to enforement, as in, you WILL do this or else, or are they opposed to the restrictions placed on non-jabbed? If so, is it to the point where they, the jabbed, would openly oppose passive force being placed on the un-jabbed? (IN my mind "Get jabbed or be fined" is active force and "No entry for unjabbed" is passive force)
Has the silent majority gone from Trumpers, to jabbers?
- Status