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)
- Iniciador del tema Borscht
- Fecha de inicio
-
🚨 On-and-off DDoS attacks. (July 25th: On-going connection issues.)
🧅 Tor is stable: https://kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion/ -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 7 de Dic, 2013
The issue is that they might not be able to get a buy-in from the Mexican government. They don’t have any leverage to work with.
- Registrado
- 2 de Ene, 2020
... do... does he not realize that the majority of Hispanics voted for Trump and hates democrats?
Or are we not counting Cubans anymore as Hispanics?
- Registrado
- 12 de Jun, 2020
It's largely symbolic. The ports at at capacity hence one of the reasons for the backlog. In addition their has been a significant chassis shortage and one of chassis depot's caught fire when Biden was speaking.
1 in custody for fire at Wilmington train yard
A man was in custody in connection with a fire at a Wilmington train yard Wednesday that sent thick plumes of black smoke into the air.
CAPTAIN HAPPY
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2021
The Biden admin going back on its bullshit? Say it ain't sooo...
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 3 de Ago, 2021
Well, I realize now my wording (and the article title) is a little bit misleading. The policy is being reimplemented because Texas and Missouri are currently winning a lawsuit against the Biden admin over how they repealed the policy. It's probably in Biden's interests to make a phone call to the Mexican government and be like "hey ese wouldnt it be great if you said no?"
- Registrado
- 13 de Ago, 2016
Isn't Mexico already pissed off at us for turning their country into a giant doormat for every Hattian and Middle Easterner who wants to come here?
- Registrado
- 30 de Abr, 2016
This is untrue. While Trump has been making gains since the percentage of Hispanics voting red bottomed out with Romney, he still only got around 35% of the vote.
Rykel22
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 24 de Mar, 2019
Boy, that certainly is a sign.It's largely symbolic. The ports at at capacity hence one of the reasons for the backlog. In addition their has been a significant chassis shortage and one of chassis depot's caught fire when Biden was speaking.
Ver archivo adjunto 26282701 in custody for fire at Wilmington train yard
A man was in custody in connection with a fire at a Wilmington train yard Wednesday that sent thick plumes of black smoke into the air.abc7.com
- Registrado
- 15 de Abr, 2014
Why not both? Let’s get Avant Guard with it and make Multicultural National Socialism. All races and people need to work together to gas the jews.
This is clownworld. We need to go faster into madness.
- Registrado
- 15 de Dic, 2018
Ignore the holocaust part for a bit.
The left does not even think that they should debate the right because that is "giving them a platform."
One of the reasons why misinformation is so censored on social media is because it is a crime on the left to even acknowledge that other viewpoints exist. That's why they also scream "bothsidesism."
A couple of weeks ago, Ana Kasparian (yes of the Young Turks) actually had a live one-hour debate with Ben Shapiro, and social media started freaking out at her for "giving Ben a platform" until even Ana has to say that Ben's platform was bigger than hers.
I left in the top comment because it encapsulates their point of view: the left debating the right is pointless because they believe the right doesn't care about "the truth".
- Registrado
- 6 de Jun, 2020
Lefties don't even think they should even "own right-wingers" probably because teir world view would be shatter in an hour long debate is that why
- Registrado
- 15 de Dic, 2018
The left's entire strategy is gaslighting the hell out of people.
Every time the left says something and the right start a debate, the left claims that the right suddenly care "out of nowhere." When Biden said that he wanted transkids to be in sports in schools and the right started push back, I saw multiple articles about "why does the right care about transkids in sports all of a sudden." They are still trying to say that they AREN'T teaching CRT in schools and that it's a right-wing dog whistle as they literally hand out CRT textbooks to kids. Why does the right think that Pride is grooming children when they are passing laws that make it illegal for teachers to reveal a kid's "trans status" to their own parents? It's not enough to even say that the right wants to try "ineffective anti-parasite medication", they have to call it "horse dewormer." They want to make the right seem crazy for bringing up things that they themselves said. It's not enough for the right to be incorrect; they have to be pushing conspiracy theories and not care about the truth/science/facts.
- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2020
I really wanna signal-boost my take on the term "bothsidesism": leftists would rather invent new words than acknowledge the existence of viewpoints or opinions other than their own.
It's their subtle, pernicious way of dehumanizing and "othering" you. They deny you have anything to say because they implicitly deny that you are a human being with your own life experience. To them, you are just an obstacle to power that needs to be dealt with.
- Registrado
- 19 de Feb, 2018
It's straight up cult indoctrination shit, honestly. Information isolation and control is a key part of the brainwashing process. From the outside, it's all very obvious - and how shitty is your philosophy if it can't withstand critique? If everything falls apart under even casual scrutiny then how much value does it have?
That is why they have to gaslight everyone.
- Registrado
- 6 de Jun, 2020
These are the same people who claim Christianity is a cult. Yet they are more cult like than any Christian group I have seen.
Mr Cuddles
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Nov, 2020
I genuinely don't know what it could be tbh, out of the two I would pick the solidarity with Palestine thing but it could be something else entirely.
The only realistic avenues of exploration regarding the Holocaust are if it happened and why it happened. The first question has a pretty straightforward answer, which is yes. Somewhere in the region of 4.5million-7million Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime. The reason why the number has such a wide range is because the data itself isn't clean cut. The guy who says it's definitely 6million and they were all killed in the camps just doesn't appreciate how the difficulties in ascertaining whether names missing off the censuses managed to escape to Switzerland/Palestine/Spain/North Africa/USSR. There was a lot movement of peoples between 1938-1944 and it really plays havoc with record keeping, especially in war time.
When you add in that the USSR were also doing extensive purges and aggressively expanded it's territory from 1939-40, you can see what problems you would run into. However with that being said I find the notion that the Nazi regime didn't try to systematically erase the Jewish population to be weak. It is quite clear from eye witness accounts, census data and their own records that the mainstream historical narrative is mostly sound on this.
The more interesting question is why it happened. Now the mainstream narrative is that the Jews were shamelessly scapegoated by the Nazis to unify Germans and racism. The people who have put a little more thought into it will bring up the treaty of Versailles. However as someone who has always been interested in history and is fascinated with 20th century European history I think there is more to it than that.
The first thing that should be explored is whether this has happened before. The answer is surprisingly yes and quite often with a far global reach. Purges of Jewish people have occurred in England (13th century, I think), Russia (Tsarist Russia 1840s-70s and Stalins russia 1936-51), China (17th century Qing dynasty). Now it should be noted that genocides is not something unique to them and have also occurred with decent frequency throughout history. The question is why them, or anyone else for that matter?
For me genocide requires an outgroup, this is usually split by religion, ethnicity, heterodoxical lifestyles and or poltical beliefs (in that order). The outgroup is the natural target as they are minorities (thus vulnerable) by their status. If that were simply the only ingredient though we would live and would lived with permanent balkanisation and genocide. That simply hasn't occurred as despite all the bloodshed, genocides have been the exception rather than the rule. So what might be the other factors required for genocide?
Simply put, deprivation and the struggle for resources. 13th century England saw peasant revolts, war between England and Scotland (Braveheart is historically inaccurate), England and France and even some Irish troubles to boot. The first waves of plague were coming and the Krakatoa exploding had quite the impact (nearly a century) on the environment which meant crop yields were much lower. The 17th century was not a good one for the China, as they were facing continual defeats from European, Japanease and Manchu forces, the latter half saw them completely conquered by the Manchus. If you simply look where Genocides happen today it's mostly in dirt poor African countries fighting over resources.
Now when you draw that back this to Weimar Germany, what had happened. Well the treaty of Versailles did create some immediate hardships, but didn't cut it by far. The German ports had been blockaded between 1914-1918 which cut off their supply to nitrates and minerals which are needed in agriculture and heavy industry. This had its effects long after the the armistice in 1918. Decent farmland takes years to cultivate and what they left with by 1919 was sub standard. The average family was subsisting on roughly a quarter on what we eat today (healthy people not obese people) and it didn't get much better in the coming years.
The economic slump from reduced output combined with the inflation from the spite money printing from 1921-24 meant that times were very hard for hoi polloi. It should be remembered that the money printing was a middle finger by the German government to the French saying " you want 1 billion marks, here they are, and they're worthless). Then you had the Wallstreet crash of 29 and well, that messed up the global economy. So why wasn't there genocides everywhere? A lot of countries have outgroups and near all of those were going through time of deprivation, so why did it happen in Germany?
The final factor in my opinion is sheer anger. The Germans (Central powers) lost the war, which many felt (incorrectly) could have been won. They were forced to sign a humiliating treaty for a position that could be considered a narrow defeat. Their economy suffered and there was immense inequality in the inter war years and one more thing. Everything was becoming liberalised and decadent. The arts were booming and stupid philosophies like communism were in vogue (admittedly amongst the working poor than the rich socialites). Government was relatively incompetent and rife with ineffectual policies from people who were disconnected to how dire everything was.
There were experiments with unemployment insurance and attempts to both bolster and weaken the trade unions, but people were fed up. So fed up that they turned to a man and an ideology to save them from their misery and they got themselves Hitler. Hitler wasn't elected (well 42% of the vote) because he was a decent con artist, he won his political power because people were pissed. That's the mistake the mainstream make. You don't ban Hitler to stop Hitler, you just listen and respond to the people who vote for Hitler in the first place.
Jews have been largely despised throughout history. I think they have been partial architects of their own downfall (please PM me if you want my views on this), but at the end of the day the rise of Nazi party was the failure of elitism to meet the needs of the average person. I see the exact same mistake being played out today. They never stop warning us about another Hitler while pressing ahead with the same kind of shit that gave us Hitler originally.
When you add in that the USSR were also doing extensive purges and aggressively expanded it's territory from 1939-40, you can see what problems you would run into. However with that being said I find the notion that the Nazi regime didn't try to systematically erase the Jewish population to be weak. It is quite clear from eye witness accounts, census data and their own records that the mainstream historical narrative is mostly sound on this.
The more interesting question is why it happened. Now the mainstream narrative is that the Jews were shamelessly scapegoated by the Nazis to unify Germans and racism. The people who have put a little more thought into it will bring up the treaty of Versailles. However as someone who has always been interested in history and is fascinated with 20th century European history I think there is more to it than that.
The first thing that should be explored is whether this has happened before. The answer is surprisingly yes and quite often with a far global reach. Purges of Jewish people have occurred in England (13th century, I think), Russia (Tsarist Russia 1840s-70s and Stalins russia 1936-51), China (17th century Qing dynasty). Now it should be noted that genocides is not something unique to them and have also occurred with decent frequency throughout history. The question is why them, or anyone else for that matter?
For me genocide requires an outgroup, this is usually split by religion, ethnicity, heterodoxical lifestyles and or poltical beliefs (in that order). The outgroup is the natural target as they are minorities (thus vulnerable) by their status. If that were simply the only ingredient though we would live and would lived with permanent balkanisation and genocide. That simply hasn't occurred as despite all the bloodshed, genocides have been the exception rather than the rule. So what might be the other factors required for genocide?
Simply put, deprivation and the struggle for resources. 13th century England saw peasant revolts, war between England and Scotland (Braveheart is historically inaccurate), England and France and even some Irish troubles to boot. The first waves of plague were coming and the Krakatoa exploding had quite the impact (nearly a century) on the environment which meant crop yields were much lower. The 17th century was not a good one for the China, as they were facing continual defeats from European, Japanease and Manchu forces, the latter half saw them completely conquered by the Manchus. If you simply look where Genocides happen today it's mostly in dirt poor African countries fighting over resources.
Now when you draw that back this to Weimar Germany, what had happened. Well the treaty of Versailles did create some immediate hardships, but didn't cut it by far. The German ports had been blockaded between 1914-1918 which cut off their supply to nitrates and minerals which are needed in agriculture and heavy industry. This had its effects long after the the armistice in 1918. Decent farmland takes years to cultivate and what they left with by 1919 was sub standard. The average family was subsisting on roughly a quarter on what we eat today (healthy people not obese people) and it didn't get much better in the coming years.
The economic slump from reduced output combined with the inflation from the spite money printing from 1921-24 meant that times were very hard for hoi polloi. It should be remembered that the money printing was a middle finger by the German government to the French saying " you want 1 billion marks, here they are, and they're worthless). Then you had the Wallstreet crash of 29 and well, that messed up the global economy. So why wasn't there genocides everywhere? A lot of countries have outgroups and near all of those were going through time of deprivation, so why did it happen in Germany?
The final factor in my opinion is sheer anger. The Germans (Central powers) lost the war, which many felt (incorrectly) could have been won. They were forced to sign a humiliating treaty for a position that could be considered a narrow defeat. Their economy suffered and there was immense inequality in the inter war years and one more thing. Everything was becoming liberalised and decadent. The arts were booming and stupid philosophies like communism were in vogue (admittedly amongst the working poor than the rich socialites). Government was relatively incompetent and rife with ineffectual policies from people who were disconnected to how dire everything was.
There were experiments with unemployment insurance and attempts to both bolster and weaken the trade unions, but people were fed up. So fed up that they turned to a man and an ideology to save them from their misery and they got themselves Hitler. Hitler wasn't elected (well 42% of the vote) because he was a decent con artist, he won his political power because people were pissed. That's the mistake the mainstream make. You don't ban Hitler to stop Hitler, you just listen and respond to the people who vote for Hitler in the first place.
Jews have been largely despised throughout history. I think they have been partial architects of their own downfall (please PM me if you want my views on this), but at the end of the day the rise of Nazi party was the failure of elitism to meet the needs of the average person. I see the exact same mistake being played out today. They never stop warning us about another Hitler while pressing ahead with the same kind of shit that gave us Hitler originally.
- Registrado
- 16 de Sep, 2019
So the Dept of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has been on fucking paternity leave since August and hasn't even bothered coming back despite the fact that America has a dire supply chain crisis and this faggot has instead been biting the pillow for 8 weeks at home with his donut toss partner who obviously didn't give birth.
Again I say it, the sooner the Chinese or Russians or whoever roll in and toss these people off rooftops, the better in comparison to now.
Again I say it, the sooner the Chinese or Russians or whoever roll in and toss these people off rooftops, the better in comparison to now.
CAPTAIN HAPPY
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2021
She says insufferable for only a second lol
- Registrado
- 26 de Mar, 2020
The Biden Administration has launched a major attack on our free speech liberties. Steve Forbes discusses who the DOJ is targeting and why federal law enforcement is coming for parents who challenge the policies and practices of local school boards.
- Estado