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

  • Twórca wątku Twórca wątku Borscht
  • Data rozpoczęcia Data rozpoczęcia
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wyróżnienie
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?
 
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Ted Cruz is nettled

"Not since the Jimmy Carter administration has an administration had as many serious foreign policy blunders in such a short period of time."
 
Stoneheart powiedział(a):
so you guys want ohio in the union?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
It already is all Ohio.
tehpope powiedział(a):
I know the left will just go over the courts, wipe their asses with the constitution, and deal with the consequences later. But, didn't the SC just rule red flag laws unconstitutional?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
They ruled that warrantless "public safety concern" seizing of firearms was unconstitutional, but in their opinion said this opened up the door to challenging red flag laws.
Nacho Man Randy Salsa powiedział(a):
I think the idea of Harris being the Cheney shadow president has now been shattered.

Who is really in charge?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
The DNC's various corporate donors, via proxy with the administration's cabinet appointees.
Takayuki Yagami powiedział(a):
Who the fuck is that filthy with their lawyer?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Silver-spooned white trash like Hunter Biden.
 

Opinion: Something appears to be ‘simply, simply wrong’ at the Biden Justice Department​




During the final days of the Trump administration, the attorney general used extraordinary measures to obtain subpoenas to secretly seize records of reporters at three leading U.S. news organizations. After this was reported last month, President Biden rightly decried this attack on the First Amendment, calling it “simply, simply wrong” and assuring Americans that it would not happen in his administration.

Unfortunately, new revelations suggest that the Biden Justice Department not only allowed these disturbing intrusions to continue — it intensified the government‘s attack on First Amendment rights before finally backing down in the face of reporting about its conduct.

After Biden took office, the department continued to pursue subpoenas for reporters’ email logs issued to Google, which operates the New York Times’ email systems, and it obtained a gag order compelling a Times attorney to keep silent about the fact that federal authorities were seeking to seize his colleagues’ records. Later, when the Justice Department broadened the number of those permitted to know about the effort, it barred Times executives from discussing the legal battle with the Times newsroom, including the paper’s top editor.

This escalation, on Biden’s watch, represents an unprecedented assault on American news organizations and their efforts to inform the public about government wrongdoing.

Last month, The Post learned of secret subpoenas authorized by President Donald Trump’s outgoing attorney general to obtain email information and home, cell and office telephone records of three Post reporters over a 3½-month span in 2017. We immediately requested an explanation and answers to several questions from the Justice Department as well as a meeting with the attorney general.

To date, no answers have been provided and the meeting has yet to take place. This delay is troubling. When asked about how the president’s assurances can be squared with his Justice Department’s behavior, White House press secretary Jen Psaki could offer no explanation. She subsequently released a statement disavowing White House knowledge of the actions that appear to have continued for several months during Biden’s presidency.

Throughout U.S. history, there have been inevitable differences between news organizations seeking to shed light on government activity and government officials seeking to preserve secrecy. As a society, we have become accustomed to these tensions. For the most part, they have been constructive and good for the health of our democracy. However, the egregious acts by the outgoing Trump Justice Department, and the apparent doubling down on them during the Biden administration, should alarm all Americans, regardless of political persuasion.

The First Amendment is not a special privilege of the press but, rather, a fundamental right protecting all Americans. It empowers citizens to hold their elected officials to account by ensuring that wrongdoing, even at the highest levels, will be brought to light. Much of this reporting would be impossible without courageous government employees who, after learning about serious misdeeds, improper programs conducted under the cloak of secrecy, or other actions contrary to America’s fundamental principles and national interests, take the risk of speaking to reporters in confidence to bring such conduct to the attention of their fellow citizens.

Over the years, revelations by confidential government sources have informed Americans of serious missteps by our leaders and institutions that possess great power but little accountability. The sinister experiments at the Tuskegee Institute, the controversial interrogations at secret CIA prisons and dangerous lapses in the Secret Service’s protection of the president are just a few of the countless stories that emerged because government sources, trusting reporters to keep their identities secret, served the public’s right to know.

Trump’s actions, and the expansion upon them during the Biden administration, pose a grave threat to our ability as a nation to keep powerful officials in check. With the revelation that the Justice Department has secretly obtained phone and email records at multiple news organizations to sniff out the identities of journalists’ sources, government employees who would otherwise come forward to reveal malfeasance are more likely to fear exposure and retaliation, and therefore to stay silent.

Perhaps beginning to realize the seriousness of its errors, the Biden Justice Department released a statement Saturday asserting that it “will not seek compulsory legal process in leak investigations to obtain source information from the media doing their jobs.” While this is an encouraging step, it does not guarantee that the Biden administration — or future administrations — will not resume these intrusive tactics. There must be clear and enduring safeguards to ensure that this brazen infringement of the First Amendment rights of all Americans is never repeated.

The inconsistency between presidential words and Justice Department deeds dictates the need for full accountability and transparency regarding the actions taken by the exiting Trump Justice Department and those of the incoming Biden administration. A full accounting should be produced and released for the American public to see.
Anything less would be simply, simply wrong.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

------------
Is Biden setting Harris up to fail

slate.com

Is Biden Setting Harris Up to Fail?

The vice president has been assigned to lead on the issues the White House finds particularly challenging. What does this bode for her political future?
slate.com slate.com

If you look at the assignments Kamala Harris has been given during her tenure as vice president, it’s pretty easy to think that she’s getting the short end of the political stick. First, she was tasked with taking on immigration: After mostly staying in D.C. during the pandemic, Harris is on her first international trip, a visit aimed at helping Guatemala and Mexico stem migration. She’s also been assigned to help protect voting rights that are under attack across the country. It’s hard to know what to call her job, why she’s being saddled with the tasks she’s been saddled with, and what this may portend for her future political prospects. On Tuesday’s episode of What Next, I spoke with Atlantic staff writer Edward-Isaac Dovere about why Harris’ vice presidency may feel simultaneously familiar and unlike anything you’ve seen before. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Mary Harris: I’ve heard Harris’ résumé described as a high-risk, high-reward résumé, where she could take things that don’t work out—but if she does work something out, it could be great for her. Is that how you see it as well?
Edward-Isaac Dovere: I think being vice president is high-risk, high-reward. Running for president is also very much high-risk, high-reward. I would say the chances that Kamala Harris runs for president again are quite high, right? She’s going to need to show people that she has done some things, and those things are going to need to resonate if she wants to have a successful future campaign, almost certainly.
The issue she has as a vice president is that she asked to not have one portfolio, and to be involved in everything, even as she’s gotten these smaller, additional priorities. That makes it hard to shine a light on any one thing. I was one of the people who asked her questions when she was running for president. I said, there are a lot of people running saying that they’re identified with one big issue—Elizabeth Warren was very much about the economy, Pete Buttigieg was on the generational argument, Jay Inslee was running on climate change. What’s the thing that Harris going to be identified with? She says, I don’t want to be identified with just one thing, I’m for all of these things. That’s correct, but it’s hard because voters need things to attach themselves to. Her campaign started to come apart because people felt like they didn’t have anything to grab onto. Now she wants to give them a variety of hooks in addition to the fact that she’s vice president and she’ll be associated with Joe Biden and she can get a lot of benefit from being connected to his brand if the presidency is successful.
One of the advantages of taking on this immigration challenge is that it gives the vice president foreign policy experience. She’s meeting with heads of state. The question is whether taking on a problem she’s unlikely to solve will help or hurt her.
Right. John Cornyn, Republican senator from Texas, said to me that he feels like Biden handed her a grenade, pulled the pin, and walked away. Politically, no one wants to touch immigration. It’s bad news to try to say that you’re going to fix the problem because it is such a complicated and seemingly intractable problem. That’s unfortunate.
What would success in this role look like for Harris? Is one level of success just getting foreign leaders on speed dial, and then is another level getting something done?
The problem is, let’s say there’s some improvement, not that everything’s all solved, but that things are starting to look better by 2024. For most people, it will look like Joe Biden made things better, and it’ll be hard for her to say no, that was me.
She doesn’t even get the credit.
If there is success, it’s Biden’s success, and if there is not success, it’s mostly Biden’s lack of success. And when it comes to the immigration situation, how much will Harris’ tasks make a difference in people’s perception of what was going on? If she can say, well, we had productive conversations with the leaders of Guatemala and other countries, and that led to some incremental policy changes that hopefully over time will mitigate the migration crisis—that’s a lot harder to say.
That’s what being a vice president is like. You are there to support the president, and so any success you have, the shine goes to him. The failures are on him too. But what’s interesting to me about watching what’s happening with Harris and immigration is that Republicans are trying to make a lack of action her problem. That may be because they have more trouble making things stick against Biden—he doesn’t rile up their base in the same way. There’s a little bit of it that’s a vice president problem and there’s a little bit of it that is just all about her and how she’s perceived.
I think there’s a lot of it that’s about her and how she’s perceived. And there’s an incentive for Republicans who think they will be facing her as a presidential candidate in 2024 or 2028. They can start taking shots at her now and building up negative impressions of her now. Biden has proved largely impervious to Republican attacks.
Immigration isn’t the only intractable issue Harris has on her plate. She’s also been tasked with protecting voting rights at the state and national level. The New York Times actually reported that she asked to be the lead on this topic. It feels like something that is big and hard to do, but does she see it that way?
Well, she sees it as something that you could fail in, but she also sees it as something that she could have success with. It may not be success in getting state legislatures to change voting restrictions, or even in getting something like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act through Congress—but rather in rallying people to this cause. This connects to a woman who has long seen herself as fighting for civil rights, fighting for more political power for people of color. There’s a lot of reason to want to be associated with someone who has been fighting for this cause or will be fighting for this cause. How things will it get done if through a lot of political pressure that is created over this.
What does that look like? Does that look like her going to states with senators who are maybe feeling a little bit fragile on the issue, and rallying people directly?
That would probably be part of it. I think there you see the outside game is going to be a big piece of it. That means not just bucking up Democrats, but putting pressure on Republicans, like, “How are you voting against the John Lewis Act?” If they can create a level of pressure and shame, that is probably the only way this gets passed in the Senate. It’s not going to be because she haggles over paragraphs in the bill. This public role, that seems to me where she could probably be more powerful, than in leaning on Senate relationships.
POPULAR IN NEWS & POLITICS
Federal Judge Claims the COVID Vaccine Kills More People Than Mass Shootings Do
White Supremacy Was on Trial at Washington and Lee University. It Won.
Watch Chris Wallace Confront Manchin on Whether He’s “Being Naive” About Bipartisanship
The Future of the Senate Is Up for Debate This Month
I wonder a little bit if your perspective is that it’s kind of funny we’re asking these questions. We wouldn’t be asking these questions necessarily about previous vice presidents: What are they doing? Should they be doing more or less, or handling more or less sensitive issues? But because of who Kamala Harris is, she bears this burden of inquiry about what she’s doing and why she’s doing it.
I think that that’s exactly right. These are not questions that were asked of Mike Pence or Joe Biden or Dick Cheney. There were other questions asked about Cheney as vice president. But are a lot of people who look to Harris and want things out of her, want her to be the vessel for progressive politics, want her to be the representative of people of color, want her to be the leader for women, want her to do all these things that they might not be getting out of the Biden administration. She is historic in her role. That pressure is reflected, I think, in the attention to it.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...

-------------
Who would have thought that the VP of the administration who had journalist thrown in jail for not giving up sources would be hostile to the press. And how much pussy pass do you have to have to be given the vice-presidency and it be considered oppression.
 
>tfw no astropath gf powiedział(a):
It'a incredible that we live in the Information Age and yet it seems like the average citizen is somehow more fanatical and foolish than your average medieval peasant, however instead of being fanatical about religion the average citizen is fanatical about fucking politics and they are more foolish than the peasant because they get played time and time again by the politicians they shill so much, meanwhile in Medieval Times a Noble couldn't just screw over his serfs whenever he wanted and get away with it because if he did then the serfs would revolt and have him hanged, while in THE CURRENT YEAR people treat politicians like they are some kind of holy figures that need to be respect and recieve unquestionable support, except the politicians of the other side, fuck them they're literally evil incarnated.

My main point is, why the fuck people treat politicians like they are above critisism? They aren't, their only job is to represent the interests and opinions of the people, if they don't do that then they should be removed from their position.
I've always thought that the only way to reliably make politicians actually do what they're supposed to do is through one of the following 2 options, either cut their paychecks OR cut their heads off.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I think the problem is that you can find any crackpot theorist that will spout the same idea's you have. There isn't the "culling of idea's" anymore, you can find that small group of people that believes the same weird shit you do.
The High Prophet of Truth powiedział(a):
Wyświetl załącznik 2244674
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
And you will seethe and do nothing.
FlappyBat powiedział(a):

Opinion: Something appears to be ‘simply, simply wrong’ at the Biden Justice Department​






------------
Is Biden setting Harris up to fail

slate.com

Is Biden Setting Harris Up to Fail?

The vice president has been assigned to lead on the issues the White House finds particularly challenging. What does this bode for her political future?
slate.com slate.com



-------------
Who would have thought that the VP of the administration who had journalist thrown in jail for not giving up sources would be hostile to the press. And how much pussy pass do you have to have to be given the vice-presidency and it be considered oppression.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
"presidency is successful"

Are the doubting that Biden's presidency will be successful? That may be a baby step in the right direction aside from their usual deep throating of the administration.

Also the twist theory that Harris is being set up to fail. In my more fanciful moments I had considered that Biden and Harris were sacrificial pawns because the problems we face are not going to be handled in one administration or two or even three. That Harris would be the figurehead while the deep state got their situation figured out.

But the idea they would willingly sabotage the first woman president would be a bit much.

Then again Hillary Clinton probably couldn't give Harris the Tanya Harding treatment either.
 
59040F62-5CB0-4B14-8185-7C588CA43E93.png 87986887-48A4-4F74-830D-A7CBF5F09568.png

:thinking:

 
Sithis powiedział(a):
Wyświetl załącznik 2243904
Source - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-casual-conversation-text-messages-show.html

lmao imagine if Hunter and Papa Joe skate by in the public eye on smoking fucking meth and selling the country out to China, but suddenly start facing criticism because Hunter talks like any other millennial dipshit when he's not around his woke friends or POC
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
So about that media blackout/censorship switch being flipped back on?
 
Garm powiedział(a):
Who knew that Hunter and his laptop would be the gift that keeps giving?

There is a system of succession. I'm not completely sure who comes after the Vice President.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
There's sometimes a misconception about how presidential succession works, so I'd like to clarify that for anyone interested.
Generally speaking, presidential succession only matters in terms of the president resigning, becoming incapacitated, or dying, in which case the vice president takes over. The former VP then appoints a new VP to take their place, who must be confirmed through a majority vote in both chambers of Congress. This VP can be anyone, there aren't really any restrictions aside from the standard eligibility requirements of the office.

Likewise, if the VP is removed through some means, then the current president will appoint a new VP in their place who must be confirmed by the same process. This is how Gerald Ford became the only unelected president; he replaced Spiro Agnew as Nixon's VP, and then replaced Nixon when he resigned.

In the event that both the president and vice president are incapacitated at the same time, then and only then does the line of succession kick in. The next in line is the Speaker of the House. If they are also incapacitated or ineligible, then it falls to the President pro tempore of the Senate. The line of succession continues with every cabinet official in the order in which their departments were founded, with the Secretary of State being first and the Secretary of Homeland Security being last. I don't think there is any provision for what happens if all of the line of succession is incapacitated simultaneously, which is why the concept of the designated survivor exists.

The misconception I've seen from some is that they think that if the VP becomes president, then the Speaker is automatically bumped up to the VP slot. Hell, when I first learned about the concept of presidential succession when I was a kid, I thought that everyone just moved up a spot if someone higher up died, not really thinking about how that would put a lot of cabinet members in departments they weren't qualified for (assuming they were qualified now, anyway). Recently, I've seen fear from some that the lich Pelosi would get bumped up in the event of Biden's untimely demise. Honestly, Nancy wouldn't be likely to be picked anyway in the event Kamala became president, simply because she wouldn't want to give up her fiefdom in the House.

There are definitely still some issues with the line of succession (like the aforementioned "what if they all die" problem), but hopefully we'll never find ourselves in that situation. And if we do, then we probably have bigger things on our plate to worry about.
 
King Dead powiedział(a):
There's sometimes a misconception about how presidential succession works, so I'd like to clarify that for anyone interested.
Generally speaking, presidential succession only matters in terms of the president resigning, becoming incapacitated, or dying, in which case the vice president takes over. The former VP then appoints a new VP to take their place, who must be confirmed through a majority vote in both chambers of Congress. This VP can be anyone, there aren't really any restrictions aside from the standard eligibility requirements of the office.

Likewise, if the VP is removed through some means, then the current president will appoint a new VP in their place who must be confirmed by the same process. This is how Gerald Ford became the only unelected president; he replaced Spiro Agnew as Nixon's VP, and then replaced Nixon when he resigned.

In the event that both the president and vice president are incapacitated at the same time, then and only then does the line of succession kick in. The next in line is the Speaker of the House. If they are also incapacitated or ineligible, then it falls to the President pro tempore of the Senate. The line of succession continues with every cabinet official in the order in which their departments were founded, with the Secretary of State being first and the Secretary of Homeland Security being last. I don't think there is any provision for what happens if all of the line of succession is incapacitated simultaneously, which is why the concept of the designated survivor exists.

The misconception I've seen from some is that they think that if the VP becomes president, then the Speaker is automatically bumped up to the VP slot. Hell, when I first learned about the concept of presidential succession when I was a kid, I thought that everyone just moved up a spot if someone higher up died, not really thinking about how that would put a lot of cabinet members in departments they weren't qualified for (assuming they were qualified now, anyway). Recently, I've seen fear from some that the lich Pelosi would get bumped up in the event of Biden's untimely demise. Honestly, Nancy wouldn't be likely to be picked anyway in the event Kamala became president, simply because she wouldn't want to give up her fiefdom in the House.

There are definitely still some issues with the line of succession (like the aforementioned "what if they all die" problem), but hopefully we'll never find ourselves in that situation. And if we do, then we probably have bigger things on our plate to worry about.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
"There are definitely still some issues with the line of succession (like the aforementioned "what if they all die" problem), but hopefully we'll never find ourselves in that situation. And if we do, then we probably have bigger things on our plate to worry about."

Like what to do about the recent rope shortage?
 
King Dead powiedział(a):
There's sometimes a misconception about how presidential succession works, so I'd like to clarify that for anyone interested.
Generally speaking, presidential succession only matters in terms of the president resigning, becoming incapacitated, or dying, in which case the vice president takes over. The former VP then appoints a new VP to take their place, who must be confirmed through a majority vote in both chambers of Congress. This VP can be anyone, there aren't really any restrictions aside from the standard eligibility requirements of the office.

Likewise, if the VP is removed through some means, then the current president will appoint a new VP in their place who must be confirmed by the same process. This is how Gerald Ford became the only unelected president; he replaced Spiro Agnew as Nixon's VP, and then replaced Nixon when he resigned.

In the event that both the president and vice president are incapacitated at the same time, then and only then does the line of succession kick in. The next in line is the Speaker of the House. If they are also incapacitated or ineligible, then it falls to the President pro tempore of the Senate. The line of succession continues with every cabinet official in the order in which their departments were founded, with the Secretary of State being first and the Secretary of Homeland Security being last. I don't think there is any provision for what happens if all of the line of succession is incapacitated simultaneously, which is why the concept of the designated survivor exists.

The misconception I've seen from some is that they think that if the VP becomes president, then the Speaker is automatically bumped up to the VP slot. Hell, when I first learned about the concept of presidential succession when I was a kid, I thought that everyone just moved up a spot if someone higher up died, not really thinking about how that would put a lot of cabinet members in departments they weren't qualified for (assuming they were qualified now, anyway). Recently, I've seen fear from some that the lich Pelosi would get bumped up in the event of Biden's untimely demise. Honestly, Nancy wouldn't be likely to be picked anyway in the event Kamala became president, simply because she wouldn't want to give up her fiefdom in the House.

There are definitely still some issues with the line of succession (like the aforementioned "what if they all die" problem), but hopefully we'll never find ourselves in that situation. And if we do, then we probably have bigger things on our plate to worry about.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Thanks for this info.

In theory then, Biden could remove Kamala, or visa versa, appoint HRC as VP, then whoever sits in the chair could die/resign and HRC could take over?

Joking of HRC aside. Could this be the plan all along? Remove Biden and have Kamal sit in the chair, Kamala picks surfer mummy as VP. Kamala resigns, Surfer mummy is a Pres in time for the 2024 elections, which she wins by a land slide?
 
Wyróżnienie
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wstecz
Top Na dole