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

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@bearrock I agree that healthcare isn’t by itself a factor in approval rankings... my point is a lot of the western world has many many social welfare programs... but as a fact it hasn’t done anything for their economy or their populations happyness..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2019-08-23/at-the-g7-trump-s-approval-rating-is-second-to-one

 

 

So goalpost moved on the correlation of healthcare policy and approval front.  If you feel like moving the goalpost again, approval rating of a chief executive =/= happiness of the population

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report#2019_report

 

US is #19.  Look at how many stereotypical social welfare states you can find at the top of the list.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Trump and the GOP have handed all the ammunition Dems should need. Ads should be nonstop on health care. Non-****ing-stop. 

Dems should be running ads on a lot of things but they aren't.  For example, they should be running video of his current bootlickers talking about how bad of a person he is from a few years ago.  Or videos of him openly admitting to doing things they say he didn't.  But they don't.  This is why I honestly don't have much faith in the Dems to do anything effective.  They handled Mueller wrong.  They handled impeachment wrong.  They have so much ammo but don't know how to use it. 

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Dems should be running ads on a lot of things but they aren't.  For example, they should be running video of his current bootlickers talking about how bad of a person he is from a few years ago.  Or videos of him openly admitting to doing things they say he didn't.  But they don't.  This is why I honestly don't have much faith in the Dems to do anything effective.  They handled Mueller wrong.  They handled impeachment wrong.  They have so much ammo but don't know how to use it. 

 

Bloomberg's ad game has been strong. I should amend that the health care ads don't need to start until after the primaries. 

[The Evil Genius]

11 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Isn’t Bernie leading there? 

 

Yep. But since the primaries are proportionally awarded, voting for the other close candidates works too.

 

 

[TheDoyler23]

I struggle with anyone whom will say something like "If _____ isn't the nominee, I'm voting for Trump or writing in _____'s name. It's better America suffers for four more years under Trump if they won't elect someone other than _____." 

[bearrock]

Just now, TheDoyler23 said:

I struggle with anyone whom will say something like "If _____ isn't the nominee, I'm voting for Trump or writing in _____'s name. It's better America suffers for four more years under Trump if they won't elect someone other than _____." 

 

As much as I dislike Sanders, he will get my vote if he's the nominee.   Only way I write in is if Don Jr. wins the Dem ticket. (I'd probably vote for Ivanka over pops)

[killerbee99]

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

As much as I dislike Sanders, he will get my vote if he's the nominee.   Only way I write in is if Don Jr. wins the Dem ticket. (I'd probably vote for Ivanka over pops)

Yeah, same here unfortunately, but even with people like us I see Sanders getting crushed by Trump... Biden or Warren might have had a better ****.. But whatever, as long as the orange turd is voted out of office, and let's start healing this country

[nonniey]

30 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

I struggle with anyone whom will say something like "If _____ isn't the nominee, I'm voting for Trump or writing in _____'s name. It's better America suffers for four more years under Trump if they won't elect someone other than _____." 

Would you have a problem with this? - "If _____ is the nominee, I can't vote for him."

[TheDoyler23]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Would you have a problem with this? - "If _____ is the nominee, I can't vote for him."

 

Assuming they are running as a Democrat (and are not a Russian asset like Tulsi), then probably, yea. 

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

I struggle with anyone whom will say something like "If _____ isn't the nominee, I'm voting for Trump or writing in _____'s name. It's better America suffers for four more years under Trump if they won't elect someone other than _____." 

 

So, depending which day you catch me, I'm one of those people. 

 

On the one hand, i think trump is an incompetent, stupid person that in all likelihood has done multiple illegal things and is harming the country.

 

On the other, some of these candidates are proposing drastic changes to how our country works.

 

So, for someone like me, I'm being asked to determine whether drastically changing the country (in many ways I'm not fond of) is better than 4 more years of an incompetent and corrupt president. And, based on the history of our country on these things, once they're implemented we will never be able to do away with them. The changes Warren and Sanders are proposing will be permanent.

 

I don't find that an easy situation. I also don't believe that trump wining the next election means we're doomed as a democracy (ie: dictatorship and trump is president forever), while someone who does think that probably views this scenario as having an easy answer... 

 

I find the argument "they can't implement what they want, so ignore their platform if you take issue with it" to be illogical. First, there's nothing guaranteed about election results, so this idea that there won't be support to push the policies through is sort of a farce; there very well could be. Second - when you vote for a platform you're endorsing it, suggesting otherwise is silly, so don't tell me their platform doesn't matter and to blindly vote for it (because we all know that the outcome of that is them running around showing how many people voted for the platform, and that this means we should go forward with it, and the same people telling me not to care about the platform now are going to use my vote to justify it later...)

 

 I realize why many people on the left don't understand any of that; because for the most part they're somehow aligned with the platforms we're discussing. So it's very easy for them to find disagreement, but view the removal of Trump as the more important bigger picture.

 

But if you're against many of these policy ideas... it's not necessarily easy.

 

This is why I like the centrist democrats. I'm not being forced to support a platform I don't like, and it allows me to vote against trump. Klobuchar appears to be the perfect candidate for me - she has all the great attributes of democrats in the sense that she acknowledges issues in our society, prioritizes them, and speaks to them (as opposed to the republicans that just pretend they don't exist...), but none of the baggage of proposing sweeping and drastic changes to address them.

 

I know the sanders/warren people feel strongly about their side of things. I think they're way overestimating how much support they'll have. I don't care what the polls say. I've walked around i life enough to know well enough that there are a lot of people that are going to seriously reevaluate things if the options are 4 more years of trump, or picking someone like Sanders or Warren... And I don't think the democrats can afford that scenario.

[Renegade7]

54 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Isn’t Bernie leading there? 

 

Yes. 

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/california/

[Llevron]

7 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Would you have a problem with this? - "If _____ is the nominee, I can't vote for him."

 

I did that last time and we got Trump. Im trying not to make the same mistake again and I want to hold others to the same standard. Though I understand why someone would feel that way...I dont think anyone nominated for the dems could be as bad for us overall as Trump has been. 

[nonniey]

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I did that last time and we got Trump. Im trying not to make the same mistake again and I want to hold others to the same standard. Though I understand why someone would feel that way...I dont think anyone nominated for the dems could be as bad for us overall as Trump has been. 

I did that too. I still don't have a problem with it. But it could get to a point on who one is running against. It got to that point with you with Trump (Trump is so bad that you could vote for someone you vehemently dislike). Sanders may be my limit.  With me If it is Trump against any Dem other than Sanders I won't vote for Trump and if it is Klobucher or Buttigeig I may vote for the Dem. 

[TheDoyler23]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I don't find that an easy situation. I also don't believe that trump wining the next election means we're doomed as a democracy (ie: dictatorship and trump is president forever), while someone who does think that probably views this scenario as having an easy answer... 

 

 

 

I get your perspective. I'm probably right in the middle of the Left side of things and think being pragmatic is important. I also understand how many whom support Bernie types believe that we need to shift the focus completely. That despite having two successful Democrats in the White House since Reagan, we haven't left the mindset of Reagan.  

 

I wish someone more together than myself could outline every way Trump (and the GOP) has broken the traditional system of government and thus endangered our democracy. The notion of where our country will be with 4 more years of Trump is terrifying to me. 

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I did that too. I still don't have a problem with it.

 

Yea I get that we differ greatly here lol

[Renegade7]

@tshile I agree the idea that anyone is better then Trump is a bad idea on paper.

 

But I cant agree with you on thinking four more years of Trump isnt as bad as implementing something like MFA.  Look at how much damage hes done to our institutions in less then four years.

 

Let's say for the sake of simplicity that a starting reason like MFA is too expensive.  We are already running trillion deficits with Trump in office.  The idea that we can afford that but not MFA makes no sense to me.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, TheDoyler23 said:

I wish someone more together than myself could outline every way Trump (and the GOP) has broken the traditional system of government and thus endangered our democracy. The notion of where our country will be with 4 more years of Trump is terrifying to me. 

 

The country never really worked as intended and Trump & Co proved it. Im down for a massive change. Though I understand why someone wouldnt be. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, nonniey said:

I did that too. I still don't have a problem with it.

 

Same.

 

Both parties get to run their own process to pick their candidates. I participated at the level I was allowed. I'm actively engaged in political discourse with many people. I've made my views well known. For the most part, I've been told to shut up and that I'm not a real republican, or a real democrat, and that the real republicans/democrats get to pick who they want.

 

Those same people turn around at election time and look at me, when I say both candidates suck and I wont support either, and tell me I have to support theirs because the other guy was so bad.

 

No... no I don't. You don't get to bully me into supporting your platform, your ideas, and your candidate. If you picked a ****ty candidate that can't win a person like me's vote, then that's on you. 

 

If you didn't like the results of 2016, my suggestion is: Find a better candidate this time.

 

If they're going to roll out the same playbook of ignoring all the criticism from people more in the center, then trying to bully them into voting for their candidate, I think we're going to get the same result...

 

If I didn't actively participate in the process, I'd probably accept their arguments. But I am politically engaged. I do vote in primaries. I do make an attempt to keep myself informed. If you can't win me over, then that's on you. If you don't need me (which I've been told countless times by people on the left, including on this message board) then fine, don't need me. But don't turn around in November and try to bully me into it. I thought you didn't need me?
 

[nonniey]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea I get that we differ greatly here lol

I added a bit to my original reply.

[Hersh]

27 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Would you have a problem with this? - "If _____ is the nominee, I can't vote for him."

 

Only if the blank is Trump. All that matters is removing Trump. Most of what Bernie proposing won't happen in the near future anyway. The primary purpose of this election is the removal and defeat of Trump and his followers

 

[Llevron]

11 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I added a bit to my original reply.

 

18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

I did that too. I still don't have a problem with it. But it could get to a point on who one is running against. It got to that point with you with Trump (Trump is so bad that you could vote for someone you vehemently dislike. Sanders may be my limit.  With me If it is Trump against any Dem other than Sanders I won't vote for Trump and if it is Klobucher or Buttigeig I may vote for the Dem. 

 

All I can really say is (I think) I understand why you feel that way and we just disagree here. I wouldn't say I would vote for anyone over Trump. But any of the current candidates, yes. Bloomberg makes me the most uncomfortable for some of the same reasons I like Burnie, but I would probably still go there over Trump. Bottom line is I feel like he gives me my best chance at me and my future generations being successful compared to what Trump is doing right now. We have deep differences on this and I know that. I respect your opinion here enough to understand there is nothing I can do to change it, so im not gonna take up everyone's time rehashing it. I cant think of one person the Dems would actually nominate that would scare me more than Trump. I think the scariest they are gonna get is Burnie, and I dont think they are willing to do that. 

 

Edit: I also understand that I dont understand everything. There are things I dont know I dont know. And people who I think are stupid for their choices that are making them because they are smart. I get all of that. But right now I know what I want and its Trump out of the power as fast as possible and by whatever means I have available to me. And I really only have one way to do that. 

[88Comrade2000]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

So, depending which day you catch me, I'm one of those people. 

 

On the one hand, i think trump is an incompetent, stupid person that in all likelihood has done multiple illegal things and is harming the country.

 

On the other, some of these candidates are proposing drastic changes to how our country works.

 

So, for someone like me, I'm being asked to determine whether drastically changing the country (in many ways I'm not fond of) is better than 4 more years of an incompetent and corrupt president. And, based on the history of our country on these things, once they're implemented we will never be able to do away with them. The changes Warren and Sanders are proposing will be permanent.

 

I don't find that an easy situation. I also don't believe that trump wining the next election means we're doomed as a democracy (ie: dictatorship and trump is president forever), while someone who does think that probably views this scenario as having an easy answer... 

 

I find the argument "they can't implement what they want, so ignore their platform if you take issue with it" to be illogical. First, there's nothing guaranteed about election results, so this idea that there won't be support to push the policies through is sort of a farce; there very well could be. Second - when you vote for a platform you're endorsing it, suggesting otherwise is silly, so don't tell me their platform doesn't matter and to blindly vote for it (because we all know that the outcome of that is them running around showing how many people voted for the platform, and that this means we should go forward with it, and the same people telling me not to care about the platform now are going to use my vote to justify it later...)

 

 I realize why many people on the left don't understand any of that; because for the most part they're somehow aligned with the platforms we're discussing. So it's very easy for them to find disagreement, but view the removal of Trump as the more important bigger picture.

 

But if you're against many of these policy ideas... it's not necessarily easy.

 

This is why I like the centrist democrats. I'm not being forced to support a platform I don't like, and it allows me to vote against trump. Klobuchar appears to be the perfect candidate for me - she has all the great attributes of democrats in the sense that she acknowledges issues in our society, prioritizes them, and speaks to them (as opposed to the republicans that just pretend they don't exist...), but none of the baggage of proposing sweeping and drastic changes to address them.

 

I know the sanders/warren people feel strongly about their side of things. I think they're way overestimating how much support they'll have. I don't care what the polls say. I've walked around i life enough to know well enough that there are a lot of people that are going to seriously reevaluate things if the options are 4 more years of trump, or picking someone like Sanders or Warren... And I don't think the democrats can afford that scenario.

Just vote for Donald and be done with it. If you don’t view Trump as the greater threat; then just vote for him.

 

Bernie & Elizabeth would have a tough time enacting their agenda because most of the Democratic Party doesn’t agree with it.

 

Also, Very unlikely either would beat Trump.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Only if the blank is Trump. All that matters is removing Trump. Most of what Bernie proposing won't happen in the near future anyway. The primary purpose of this election is the removal and defeat of Trump and his followers

 

 

This is exactly where I am.  I cannot stand Bernie, as a person or as a politician, and I think most of his ideas are bad.  But most of his ideas also won't go anywhere because they are not supported by a significant portion of the Democrats and are abhorred by all of the Republicans.  So, I really hope he does not win the nomination (hence my post about voting for anyone but him above), but if he does I will still vote for him because we'd be replacing a repugnant, ignorant, deceitful chaos machine with a stable human being (even if I don't like him) that won't get much of his major policy planks done.  

[Hersh]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@tshile I agree the idea that anyone is better then Trump is a bad idea on paper.

 

But I cant agree with you on thinking four more years of Trump isnt as bad as implementing something like MFA.  Look at how much damage hes done to our institutions in less then four years.

 

Let's say for the sake of simplicity that a starting reason like MFA is too expensive.  We are already running trillion deficits with Trump in office.  The idea that we can afford that but not MFA makes no sense to me.

 

This is well said and worth emphasizing. Trump is changing the country for the worse and largely without things being voted on. He's destroying norms and has a political party backing him up on doing all sorts of terrible ****. There needs to be wide spread rejection of the behavior and actions. It's way beyond a policy debate. 

[bearrock]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

I know the sanders/warren people feel strongly about their side of things. I think they're way overestimating how much support they'll have. I don't care what the polls say. I've walked around i life enough to know well enough that there are a lot of people that are going to seriously reevaluate things if the options are 4 more years of trump, or picking someone like Sanders or Warren... And I don't think the democrats can afford that scenario.

 

As someone who's preferred system would be labeled a pinko commie by his own cold war era grandmother, I will say this.  The type of sweeping changes espoused by Sanders and Warren, specifically the wealth tax and MFA, can easily be FUBAR'd with the wrong implementation (I would dare to say the chances of FUBAR is very high, especially as currently outlined).

 

For example, if you drop the wealth tax into the current system, where access to US market via international corporation is neither heavily taxed nor particularly difficult, many uber wealthy are likely to opt to expatriate and simply pay the exit tax (now you'll likely see jurisdictions who will offer very sweet tax incentives to offset the bite of the exit tax to court those expats).

 

As for Sander/AOC version of MFA, universal care and single payer system has proven to work across the globe.  But those systems are two-tier, government covers what they consider necessary services (at full cost or with cost sharing via co-pay/deductible) and remainder is covered out of pocket or via additional private insurance.  Sanders/AOC can still claim this rubric, as certain procedures are not covered, but the threshold to what they consider necessary is so much lower than other existing systems.  Are they right?  Maybe.  Is it a bit disingenuous to say our version of MFA works cause similar versions work across the globe?  I'd say so.

 

In that vein, I would place greater responsibility on candidates advocating for sweeping changes to provide specifics on how it will get done, what exactly will you do, and so forth.