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

[twa]

How did he address inequality in his elected position?

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-buttigieg/mayor-pete-turned-around-south-bend-but-some-black-residents-feel-left-behind-idUSKCN1TY2PF

 

of course they could just be malcontents

[Bozo the kKklown]

59 minutes ago, tshile said:

Polls have shown otherwise for a while now. 
 

not to mention what drove the repeal in CA years ago...

I posted it a long time ago, but black people did not drive the vote for proposition eight in California. That has been debunked but is still repeated because the easiest thing to do is blame black people. That’s actually be a big problem on the queer community from what I’ve read and heard is how white gay men have a major blind spot to race.

 

https://www.futurity.org/new-analysis-on-california’s-proposition-8-vote/

 

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Black-support-for-Prop-8-called-exaggeration-3177138.php

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/01/prop-8-and-blaming-the-blacks/6548/

 

Surveys have also shown that black people believe gay people face discrimination, while other groups don’t believe it happens as much:

https://qz.com/1021265/the-americans-who-sympathize-most-with-the-lgbt-community-arent-white/

 

This country is homophobic. This world is homophobic. Pinning your candidates lack of appeal with a community on your sexuality is wrong headed.

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

This country is homophobic. This world is homophobic. Pinning your candidates lack of appeal with a community on your sexuality is wrong headed.

They didn’t pin it on that. 
 

it was one of a list of items. 
 

everyone else seems to understand what’s going on here. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

They didn’t pin it on that. 
 

it was one of a list of items. 
 

everyone else seems to understand what’s going on here. 

yeah, except the campaign seemed they wanted to highlight the sexuality point when leaking this report.

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

yeah, except the campaign seemed they wanted to highlight the sexuality point when leaking this report.

 

- How do you know the campaign "leaked" the report?

- The report summarizing the results of the focus groups was 23 pages and covered a variety of topics.

- Do you think the campaign dictated to the reporter which points to highlight?

- Do you think the reporter then heeded the campaign's wishes in writing the article?

- To what end would the campaign benefit from this grand strategy?

[Bozo the kKklown]

30 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

- How do you know the campaign "leaked" the report?

Because this was an internal focus group conducted by the campaign.

Presidential campaigns conduct these often and they don’t come out. This doesn’t come out unless someone wanted it to come out.

 

30 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

The report summarizing the results of the focus groups was 23 pages and covered a variety of topics.

Great! The article is mostly focused on what?

 

30 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

- Do you think the campaign dictated to the reporter which points to highlight?

Yes. Especially considering how modern journalism works with politics.

 

30 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

- To what end would the campaign benefit from this grand strategy?

You’re asking the wrong person. I also don’t know why Buttigieg’s strategy of running a campaign that doesn’t have much conversation on black people fits in his grand strategy either. 

2 hours ago, tshile said:

They didn’t pin it on that. 
 

it was one of a list of items. 
 

everyone else seems to understand what’s going on here. 

It’s strange because I definitely replied to this post. Anyway, the article is focusing on what exactly?

[visionary]

 

[88Comrade2000]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Any fatcat funding her 3rd party bid,  is wasting their money.

[TheGoodBits]

Just now, Rdskns2000 said:

Any fatcat funding her 3rd party bid,  is wasting their money.

 

On the contrary, it seems like a much better investment than throwing more money at Donald Trump, if you want Donald Trump to win. 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Any fatcat funding her 3rd party bid,  is wasting their money.

 

Unless it is merely to try and draw voters away from The Dem nominee (secretly?).  Don't underestimate what can be accomplished with a lot of money behind it. 

[visionary]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[visionary]

 

[twa]

someone tell him POTUS cannot legalize it yet?

 

He can give direction not to prosecute or enforce law .

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Def seems like an outlier.

[Bozo the kKklown]

40 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

I mean he is telling you exactly what he is. He is not for the people.

[Bozo the kKklown]

I posted it in the healthcare thread but it’s relevant here too:

 

American Prospect: The Medicare for All Cost Debate Is Extremely Dishonest
 

Quote

Over the weekend in Indianola, Iowa, Elizabeth Warren announced that she would soon roll out specific details for financing Medicare for All, the culmination of a week of “but how will you pay for that” demands from the media and rival presidential candidates.

 

That a nation with millions of uninsured people and tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths from lack of access to health care is consumed with talking about taxes, rather than the revolution in human rights that would come from universal coverage, tells you a lot about life in the United States, and why we still suffer from a broken system.

But this triumph of budgetary scolding is being applied unevenly. If we want to talk about “paying” for universal coverage, we should expand the discussion to all the candidates who claim to support it.

 

While Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg and others have howled about cost, there’s a deception at the heart of their own plans: either they put just as much health care costs on the federal government as the Warren-Sanders single-payer model, or they’re effectively useless. 

 

Biden and Buttigieg have separately proposed public options that would compete with private insurance. In Biden’s plan, even those with employer-sponsored insurance could opt out and choose the public plan. Buttigieg would offer subsidies to help people pay for the public option, capping the cost of insurance at 8.5 percent of income.

 

Both explicitly pitch this as a cheaper way to establish universal coverage. But that claim relies on a hide-the-ball scenario. Biden or Buttigieg’s public option, over time, will either serve as a weak alternative to private coverage, with high premiums and substandard coverage. Or, backed by government bargaining power, it will outshine private insurance and gradually supplant it. Buttigieg himself talks about his plan as a “glide path” to Medicare for All.

 

If it doesn’t work, the public option will certainly be cheap, but it also won’t help anybody at a meaningful scale. If it does attract millions of customers, then in the long run, it would approach a single-payer system. At that point, on the “how will you pay for that” question that Biden and Buttigieg are posing, it faces the same challenges as the Warren-Sanders model.
 

Biden and Buttigieg take advantage of the fact that we use a bizarre and often faulty system to “score” legislation in the Congressional Budget Office, which only looks at a ten-year window for budgetary impact. If the public option is good, and it eventually becomes a kind of Medicare for All, the cost spike would all happen outside the ten-year window. So Biden and Buttigieg are either lying about how effective their public options will be, or they’re lying about how much they will ultimately cost. They can’t have it both ways.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Not surprising.

 

[visionary]

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Tulsi is gonna prove all those people who think she's planning to run as a third party candidate wrong. 

 

She'll go and run as a third party candidate. Won't that make those fools look dumb!

[88Comrade2000]

4 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some more candidates need to be joining Tim in dropping out.

 

[LadySkinsFan]

She needs to shut up about the impeachment process. She doesn't know what she's talking about. 

[visionary]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

She needs to shut up about the impeachment process. She doesn't know what she's talking about. 

Or she knows exactly what she's talking about and who she's talking to.  😧

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 

 

Some more candidates need to be joining Tim in dropping out.

 

They've stayed in this long and now there's only three months till votes are cast. I'm not sure how many will drop out form now until then, though I hope it's several.

 

Meanwhile, we're likely headed to another 10 person debate in November. The DNC is making sure we never get to see anything like a real debate.

1 minute ago, visionary said:

Or she knows exactly what she's talking about and who she's talking to.  😧

Was just about to say the same. She's just moving more and more to get Republican sport for a 3rd party run. There's no "she doesn't know what she's saying" here.