Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[visionary]

6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Ya, no **** Russia doesnt want us to be the world police anymore, that doesnt make it a bad idea.

It’s more than that.  It’s part of Russia’s big strategy to undermine Europe and US alliances around the world by shrinking our influence and dividing world powers and Europe and making a lot of them dependent on it beholden to Russia.

 

 The first major piece of this was their intervention in Syria and massive escalation in the refugee crisis in Europe because of their tactics of destruction and rendering areas unlivable (they also advised the regime to do this earlier on) in Syria (a lot of which Gabbard has some involvement in propagandizing and encouraging here in the US).  (This intervention had cooled down for a bit but has picked up again recently as well)

 

The second step was to support right wing anti-refugee parties across Europe and elsewhere to grow Putin’s influence in those counties and make them beholden to him.  Keep in mind that Gabbard has also been somewhat anti-refugee.

 

The third step was obviously to intervene in our politics and either get someone loyal or favorable to Putin in power or keep Hillary out of office and undermine our ability to punish them or fight back and cause turmoil here to keep us distracted. 

 

[Destino]

12 hours ago, Barry.Randolphe said:

Tulsi Gabbard is being supported online by Russians....no way in hell she gets my vote

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261

How do you know your reaction wasn't their intended goal, or one of them, in overtly taking this action?  I'm guessing they're smart enough to know that those watching them can be bent to serve their interests easily enough. 

 

Russians aren't a lobbyist group picking the candidate that will pass the laws and sign the contracts they want.  They're a foreign adversary.  They're supporting groups and people on both sides with the end goal of making everything worse, and America weaker.  I suspect they care less about democrats and republicans, than they do causing the US to elect weaker leaders, worsening racial and political divisions, and further radicalizing American politics. 

 

Makes me wonder how much work they've put in smaller elections, like congressmen, and how long they've been at it. 

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

6 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Why?  Some people are better “fits” for states other than their own. Stacey Abrams being one obvious example. Mayor Pete another. Chances Indiana votes Dem: 0. Chances he plays really well the the true swing staes of PA WI and MI:  100. 

The idea that a VP pick who's really popular in his home state couldn't possibly help in that home state but one should be picked because he's sure to help in other states is just silly. I don't feel I need to expound on why. 

[dfitzo53]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

The idea that a VP pick who's really popular in his home state couldn't possibly help in that home state but one should be picked because he's sure to help in other states is just silly. I don't feel I need to expound on why. 

I dunno, maybe it would help if you did. 

 

I can see what @PleaseBlitz is saying, whereas I'm not sure what you're getting at. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

11 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

I dunno, maybe it would help if you did. 

 

I can see what @PleaseBlitz is saying, whereas I'm not sure what you're getting at. 

Really? I really need to explain why it's silly to say there is no way someone could help a ticket in their home state where they're known and popular, but it is likely they could help in different states?

 

No, I don't. 

[dfitzo53]

2 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Really? I really need to explain why it's silly to say there is no way someone could help a ticket in their home state where they're known and popular, but it is likely they could help in different states?

 

No, I don't. 

Well the relevant question isn't "Can he help?",  it's "Can he help enough to turn Indiana from red to blue on election day?" Like PB, I don't see that happening. 

[Springfield]

People didn’t vote for McCain because he chose a quack like Palin, so I’d argue that the VP pick does matter to some extent.

[No Excuses]

17 minutes ago, Springfield said:

People didn’t vote for McCain because he chose a quack like Palin, so I’d argue that the VP pick does matter to some extent.

 

It does in some contexts. Pence helped Trump shore up votes with hypocrites.

[PeterMP]

I will say, I think Biden did enough last night to remain at the top of the polls.

 

Booker was good last night, but not good enough to steal many of the Biden supporters.  Sanders and Warren are going to continue to split the far left vote.

 

If Biden can keep 5 people or so through much of the primaries (especially if the 5 include Warren and Sanders), he's got a real shot at winning it.

[Springfield]

Biden turned the **** UP!  My mans is out here putting in work with “the fact is” and “here’s the deal” type ****.  Straight FACTS.  Can’t argue with that.

 

😙

[Bozo the kKklown]

I think people have very low expectations of Biden. Almost like how people had low expectations of Orangeman.

[mistertim]

21 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I think people have very low expectations of Biden. Almost like how people had low expectations or Orangeman.

 

I wouldn't say they're that low, but I do think think you're somewhat right. Biden has such a history of his mouth shooting himself in the foot that if he gets through a debate without a huge gaffe it's generally considered a win. Either way, I just have a hard time seeing Biden going toe to toe with Trump. I can see Warren or Kamala doing it. 

[Fergasun]

I say this after listening to zero of the debates.

It should be Warren and Mayor Pete on the ticket. Warren has political outsider credibility and has been talking about her issues for years. I wonder if she had any idea where her star was going when she got appointed TARP COP after the bailout.

I wonder if it was at that job she realized that most politicians are idiots and pay no attention to their jobs nor the average American. She needs to play that up bigtime.

I like Liz!!

[Springfield]

All joking aside, when Biden said that Kamala’s Health care plan couldn’t be funded it kinda made sense.  His plan is much more grounded in reality that Harris, Sanders or Warren.  Further, all Harris could say was “that’s not true” even if it was true...

 

Completely different thread, but Biden’s plan for health care make A LOT more sense.  Rather than tear down the ACA and replace it with Medicare for all, build it up and add on to it.

 

Lets face it.  We aren’t getting Medicare for all.  Even if we could fund it, there are 0 republicants who will vote for it.  Until Moscow Mitch dies off, we’re stuck with a Senate that won’t pass anything with a D after the name.  Biden’s plan is much more realistic, because ACA already exists.  Build on that and work towards insuring everyone.

 

We can’t replace our health care system every 8 years at the whim of a politician.  We can’t have every Republican President come in and gut it for the rest of our lives.  Imagine Medicare for all system with a white nationalist president.  Do you want that?

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Completely different thread, but Biden’s plan for health care make A LOT more sense.  Rather than tear down the ACA and replace it with Medicare for all, build it up and add on to it.

 

It is probably the only plan that can pass Congress. 

 

The healthcare debate between Dems is quite pointless tbh. 

 

Let’s say the Dems win the Senate and nuke the filibuster. The HC plan will need votes from conservative Dem Joe Manchin, moderates like Bennet, Warner, Kaine etc. 

 

Any plan that tanks employer based insurance isn’t getting passed. The Bernie M4A is fantasy thinking.

[Llevron]

I agree lets adjust our plans to fit what the republicans think is best. 

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I agree lets tailor our plans to fit what the republicans think is best. 

 

This is a really bad talking point. Opposition to the lefty M4A will also come from within the party, and that isn't because it's a "Republican" talking point. There are vast numbers of Democrats who represent high-income urban and suburban districts. It is one of the core constituencies of the party. Most of these people probably like their healthcare plans at the moment. You just don't hear from them as much because they aren't leading rage mobs on twitter. But they will vote in primaries, and their senators and house representatives aren't going to blow up a system that to a good extent is working for them.

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is a really bad talking point. Opposition to the lefty M4A will also come from within the party, and that isn't because it's a "Republican" talking point. There are vast numbers of Democrats who represent high-income urban and suburban districts. It is one of the core constituencies of the party. Most of these people probably like their healthcare plans at the moment. You just don't hear from them as much because they aren't leading rage mobs on twitter. But they will vote in primaries, and their senators and house representatives aren't going to blow up a system that is working for them.

 

Correct me if im wrong, but acquiescing to moderates and republicans is what left the ACA unprotected and easily demolished in the first place correct? 

 

Im not saying you are wrong. Im just saying its unfortunate that we dont even think we can do better than a plan that still allows these pharmaceutical companies to make profit off of our health care. Again feel free to correct me where I am wrong, you clearly study this stuff more than I do. 

 

 

[No Excuses]

11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Correct me if im wrong, but acquiescing to moderates and republicans is what left the ACA unprotected and easily demolished in the first place correct? 

 

Im not saying you are wrong. Im just saying its unfortunate that we dont even think we can do better than a plan that still allows these pharmaceutical companies to make profit off of our health care. Again feel free to correct me where I am wrong, you clearly study this stuff more than I do. 

 

 

I don't think it's that simple but yes, the ACA public option was tanked by Joe Lieberman.

 

Ultimately, a good portion of the House democrats and senators will look to their constituents and find that their isn't a lot of support for blowing up the insurance industry, since it will cost people healthcare plans that they currently like. Not everyone has a stank ass healthcare plan. So realistically, any healthcare plan that discusses completely doing away with the private insurance sector is dead on arrival.

 

That doesn't mean that as a public option as introduced, and people see that a better option is available compared to employer-based insurance plans, that support for further expanding government healthcare won't increase. The popularity of the ACA is the reason why public option and M4A are being discussed to begin with. The popularity of public option may be the reason why people are more comfortable with further restricting the role of private insurance companies in the healthcare sector (as is the case in most Western countries). Joe Biden's position is closer to the reality in other Western countries with government healthcare than what Bernie is proposing.

 

And I think you meant to say insurance companies, rather than pharmaceutical, because you want a pharmaceutical sector that generates profits. It's a matter of how we regulate their sales to account for public benefit, without knee capping drug development.

[Springfield]

29 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I agree lets adjust our plans to fit what the republicans think is best. 

 

Then plan on not getting Medicare for all passed.  It’s kinda like a stupid boarder wall that I don’t wanna pay for, except the opposite and not full of hate and bigotry.  So nothing alike except republicans suck.

 

My personal preference is Medicare for all. It just won’t happen is all I’m saying.

[twa]

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

This is a really bad talking point. Opposition to the lefty M4A will also come from within the party, and that isn't because it's a "Republican" talking point. There are vast numbers of Democrats who represent high-income urban and suburban districts. It is one of the core constituencies of the party. Most of these people probably like their healthcare plans at the moment. You just don't hear from them as much because they aren't leading rage mobs on twitter. But they will vote in primaries, and their senators and house representatives aren't going to blow up a system that to a good extent is working for them.

 

I like my health insurance.  Maybe the government could do better, but I wouldn't bet money on it.  I'm not really strongly against a good nationalized healthcare system, but I'm not overly for it.

 

And then you have the issue that none of the Democrats are actually proposing a good nationalized healthcare system.  M4A is not what Canada, the UK, etc. actually do.

 

(More philosophically, I have an issue with singling out health care for reform.  Some of the issues that are affecting health care are having a larger affect on society and need to be discussed.  I suspect there are things that could be done around the edges that would improve health care that would also generally improve US society.

 

Our prices of generic drugs are going up (the Turing/Shkreli being a famous case, but it is happening else where too).  Partly, that's being driven by these companies agreeing to what are essentially non-compete agreements where they agree to not compete with one another.  I'm the maker of a generic drug, and I'm going to pay some other company to not make a different version of the same generic.

 

There's good evidence that non-compete agreements in employment lower incomes, even among the lowest paid

 

(https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-case-against-non-competes/)

 

(Left wing) Democrats want to build excess government bureaucracy to deal with both problems (do different things to boost wages and nationalized healthcare to deal with drug prices.)

 

Why not just greatly restrict non-compete agreements (between companies and companies and employees)?

 

(IMO too often the far left's solution to a problem does not tackle the underlying issue.  It builds government bureaucracy onto government bureaucracy to deal with an issue.)

 

The same thing is true for patents and trademarks.  If you don't like the costs of non-generic drugs, then maybe the solution is to take a look at the patent system rather than to create another bureaucracy on top of the patent system (which is a government bureaucracy) to deal with the result of the patent system.

 

Especially when there is a good evidence that in other industries (e.g. the tech industry) that the patent system is being used (abused compared to the longer time historical norms) to drive up prices and drive down competition (which helps drive down wages).)

 

I've been reading people here say the left is for big ideas.  What Sanders and Warren are discussing aren't big ideas.  They are patches.  A big idea would be how do we make the patent system work given the current focus on stock values and people willing to manipulate and abuse the patent system for their (short term) gain.

[Llevron]

 

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

I don't think it's that simple but yes, the ACA public option was tanked by Joe Lieberman.

 

What wasnt so simple about it? (not being a jerk this time, I just feel like you know something I dont) 

 

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Ultimately, a good portion of the House democrats and senators will look to their constituents and find that their isn't a lot of support for blowing up the insurance industry, since it will cost people healthcare plans that they currently like. Not everyone has a stank ass healthcare plan. So realistically, any healthcare plan that discusses completely doing away with the private insurance sector is dead on arrival.

 

That's understandable and why I'm confused on your position. Didn't Warren say that her plan would not get rid of private insurance as long as the companies can play by her rules? Keep in mind I haven't looked into any of this stuff. If yall havent discussed it here or it wasnt talked about at these debates its best to assume I dont know anything about it. 

 

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Joe Biden's position is closer to the reality in other Western countries with government healthcare than what Bernie is proposing.

 

I know im asking alot but how so? 

 

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

And I think you meant to say insurance companies, rather than pharmaceutical

 

I told you lol

[PeterMP]

24 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I know im asking alot but how so? 

 

Sanders' proposal includes no co-pays or deductibles so no out of pocket costs.  That isn't how most other western, democratic countries deal with health care.

Sanders is also planning on greatly restricting what private insurance companies can do and offer (essentially make them illegal).  That also isn't the norm.

 

Most of the relevant countries still have a pretty significant private insurance industry and many of them essentially only have private insurance, but it is heavily regulated.

 

The ACA was a move towards a Swiss-like health care system, which generally gets good reviews.

 

"Healthcare in Switzerland is universal^[3] and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. There are no free state-provided health services, but private health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country)."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/why-switzerland-has-the-best-healthcare-system-in-the-world/ar-BBV4MJG

 

"When Switzerland was named “best country” overall by U.S. News and World Report, two virtues stood out: The nation’s near-perfect ratings for economic and political stability, and its health care system."

 

The idea that you can't build a good health industry on the back of private insurance is false.

[No Excuses]

17 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

Candidates have a lot more visibility now due to digital platforms. If you're still polling at 1%, it's probably because you don't have a lot of appeal and aren't separating yourself in a meaningful way.