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

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Possible.  What about Castro?  Is protecting transgender women right to abortions too far?  Being sarcastic and serious same time

 

For Senate?

His brother would stand a better chance....which is slim to none.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, DoneMessedUp said:

I wonder when people will finally realize that Medicare for All is a pipe dream that doesn't have a chance in hell of ever passing the senate and get back to focusing on things like defeating Donald Trump

Because thinking like this is how we ended up with Donald Trump. 

[visionary]

She's going get attacked from both sides no matter what she puts out, since her plan will never satisfy the hardliners on the left who are wedded to Bernie or are anti-Dem, or those on the right or in the middle who want no part of M4A

[Larry]

40 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Because thinking like this is how we ended up with Donald Trump. 

 

Yeah.  Trump won because Hillary didn't promise enough goodies.  

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah.  Trump won because Hillary didn't promise enough goodies.  

 

That’s not what he said. Hilary didn’t generate enthusiasm. I think that’s a pretty fair statement. Identifying working class problems like lack of affordable healthcare and presenting exciting plans to address the needs of blue collar and lower-middle class Americans generates enthusiasm. 

[Cooked Crack]

48 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah.  Trump won because Hillary didn't promise enough goodies.  

 

Trumps wild promises didn't hurt him either though. Dude was going to eliminate the federal debt, get Mexico to pay for his wall, end congressional term limits, etc.

[Larry]

48 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

That’s not what he said. Hilary didn’t generate enthusiasm. I think that’s a pretty fair statement. Identifying working class problems like lack of affordable healthcare and presenting exciting plans to address the needs of blue collar and lower-middle class Americans generates enthusiasm. 

 

1)  I read his as attacking a poster who said that Medicare For All is too big a promise to deliver on.  

 

2)  You respond by announcing that he wasn't saying they should promise to give away goodies, they should "generate enthusiasm" (by promising to give away goodies).  

 

8 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Trumps wild promises didn't hurt him either though. Dude was going to eliminate the federal debt, get Mexico to pay for his wall, end congressional term limits, etc.

 

3)  And your response is to point out that Trump's base swallowed Trump's promises that he couldn't deliver on.  

 

Well, Trump's base swallows a hell of a lot, that I suspect will not find the same level of willing swallowing on the Dem side.  

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

$20 Trillion in debt because of 4 decades of Republicans promising massive tax cuts and defense spending and "don't worry about it, it'll pay for itself".

 

But if a Democrat actually wants to do something for the bottom 95%, no matter how it's financed, it's "giving away goodies" and other such nonsense.

 

It's BS right wing framing and no one should waste their time on it.

[twa]

30 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

Well, Trump's base swallows a hell of a lot, that I suspect will not find the same level of willing swallowing on the Dem side.  

 

 

Buncha spitters?

 

throat sore either way.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

$20 Trillion in debt because of 4 decades of Republicans promising massive tax cuts and defense spending and "don't worry about it, it'll pay for itself".

 

But if a Democrat actually wants to do something for the bottom 95%, no matter how it's financed, it's "giving away goodies" and other such nonsense.

 

It's BS right wing framing and no one should waste their time on it.

 

You're right. The fact that the other side has been giving away goodies proves that everybody should. 

 

And anybody who says otherwise is right wing. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

You're right. The fact that the other side has been giving away goodies proves that everybody should. 

 

And anybody who says otherwise is right wing. 

[88Comrade2000]

3 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

That’s not what he said. Hilary didn’t generate enthusiasm. I think that’s a pretty fair statement. Identifying working class problems like lack of affordable healthcare and presenting exciting plans to address the needs of blue collar and lower-middle class Americans generates enthusiasm. 

She or Bernie going to need historic enthusiasm to overcome the voters they will lose.

[DoneMessedUp]

4 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Because thinking like this is how we ended up with Donald Trump. 

So shooting our load on a pipe dream that less than 40% of Americans want (when they learn it means the end of private insurance) is how we beat Trump? Interesting strategy.

[DoneMessedUp]

4 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

That’s not what he said. Hilary didn’t generate enthusiasm. I think that’s a pretty fair statement. Identifying working class problems like lack of affordable healthcare and presenting exciting plans to address the needs of blue collar and lower-middle class Americans generates enthusiasm. 

 

Hillary's problem was Hillary. **** candidate with **** baggage who ran a **** campaign. And she still won the popular vote by 3 million and lost the electoral college by 70k (thanks, Jill Stein voters) 

 

I mean Obama, still the most popular politician in America, won two elections on a less progressive platform than what Hillary ran on in 2016. You don't think he would've beat Trump running on Hillary's platform? You don't think Biden would've?

 

This country isn't some leftist sleeping giant waiting to be awakened. And that's especially true for the 15 states that are going to decide the election. 

[DoneMessedUp]

Explain to me again how an unwanted leftist pipe dream (that's going to raise taxes on everyone and kill millions of jobs in the medical field no less) is how we beat Trump? 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

7 hours ago, DoneMessedUp said:

Explain to me again how an unwanted leftist pipe dream (that's going to raise taxes on everyone and kill millions of jobs in the medical field no less) is how we beat Trump? 

 

New poll: 76% of people who have never had indoor plumbing think it's pretty fair and nice to have a bucket outside to **** in and it's not worth the cost to add indoor plumbing to their house.

 

For one, people are going to save money. So framing the debate the way you did as in everybody is just getting a tax hike is unfair and part of the problem. They're going to save money and have better healthcare without all the bull**** of insurance

 

I don't think anybody really likes insurance. Nobody likes the paperwork, the copays, the back and forth over coverage, never knowing exactly how much you are going to owe, the bills in the mail, the annual reviews at work or during policy changes, how everything feels like it's stacked against you or going out of it's way to **** you over, paying for insurance and still not being able to afford a trip to the doctor but keeping insurance just in case of a crazy emergency. All of it. It's a headache, it's confusing, it's a disaster and a lot of that is by design. People might like their healthcare as in the doctors they have, the level of care they receive and have access to but i truly doubt 76% of people enjoy health insurance. 

 

Regardless, M4A is a better way. If you can show Americans how it is a better way, how it is cheaper and will make their trips to the doctor hassle free, how they can actually take their kids to the DR when they get sick instead of waiting to see if their symptoms get better because even with insurance they can't afford it, then it can be a big advantage against Trump who had a lovely plan for health insurance that involved kicking 20 million people off it and removing protections for pre-existing conditions. Hell, just contrasting that with M4A sells M4A against Trump by itself. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

8 hours ago, DoneMessedUp said:

 

Hillary's problem was Hillary. **** candidate with **** baggage who ran a **** campaign. And she still won the popular vote by 3 million and lost the electoral college by 70k (thanks, Jill Stein voters) 

 

I mean Obama, still the most popular politician in America, won two elections on a less progressive platform than what Hillary ran on in 2016. You don't think he would've beat Trump running on Hillary's platform? You don't think Biden would've?

 

This country isn't some leftist sleeping giant waiting to be awakened. And that's especially true for the 15 states that are going to decide the election. 

 

I don't agree that she was a **** candidate or had **** baggage. She was incredibly qualified and her baggage was garbage GOP smears. She did run a bad campaign though.

 

It's also not really fair to compare a generational candidate like Obama to Hillary or the 2020 field. Obama could have won under a ton of different platforms, however, I think you are underselling how much Obama appealed directly to the blue collar and lower-middle class Americans during his 2008 run. He told them he was looking out for them and inspired them with a message of changing their lives with various progressive ideas. That is in essence, is what running on M4A is. 

 

Once the nominee is finalized and if it's a M4A candidate, it's appeal will become even more evident against Trump. The candidate can't really spend time framing it right now because they are so bogged down in the weeds against other Dems 

8 hours ago, DoneMessedUp said:

So shooting our load on a pipe dream that less than 40% of Americans want (when they learn it means the end of private insurance) is how we beat Trump? Interesting strategy.

 

So who are you supporting in the primary and what is your ideal plan for health care?

[Momma There Goes That Man]

8 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

She or Bernie going to need historic enthusiasm to overcome the voters they will lose.

 

People that are ok with keeping the status quo and that will vote Trump or 3rd party due to M4A turning them off of Bernie or Warren weren't voting Dem anyway. I think the historic enthusiasm will be there for either of them. 

[PeterMP]

38 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

People that are ok with keeping the status quo and that will vote Trump or 3rd party due to M4A turning them off of Bernie or Warren weren't voting Dem anyway. I think the historic enthusiasm will be there for either of them. 

 

That might be true at the Presidential level, but I'm not at all sure that's true down ticket.  As somebody that is not a fan of Trump or Bernie, if my choice is Bernie, I could absolutely see going and voting for Bernie, but if a moderate Republican is running in other races voting that way too.

 

And the question if that's true, isn't the reverse true too.

 

People for M4A will vote for a non-M4A Democrat vs. voting for Trump?

 

You've got to think bigger picture.

[Larry]

44 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

For one, people are going to save money.

 

I don't think it's possible for anyone to declare that with absolute certainty.  

 

Lots of people may have opinions.  Some of them may be expert opinions.  But that's not certainty.  

 

46 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

So framing the debate the way you did as in everybody is just getting a tax hike is unfair and part of the problem.

 

Granted, the "massive tax increase" talking point is based on taking the money spent on MFA, and labeling it as "tax", and taking the money spent now, and labeling it "not tax".  

 

However, I will note that demanding that everybody must compare things the way that my side wants isn't automatically more fair.   

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Regardless, M4A is a better way. If you can show Americans how it is a better way, how it is cheaper and will make their trips to the doctor hassle free, how they can actually take their kids to the DR when they get sick instead of waiting to see if their symptoms get better because even with insurance they can't afford it, then it can be a big advantage against Trump who had a lovely plan for health insurance that involved kicking 20 million people off it and removing protections for pre-existing conditions. Hell, just contrasting that with M4A sells M4A against Trump by itself. 

 

If we are talking specifically about Bernie's  version of M4A here, there's not really any evidence this is true.  Bernie's version of M4A is leftist/liberal with respect to the rest of the world outside of the likes of Cuba (where getting access to recent technology with respect to healthcare is very hard).  Other countries have multiple mechanisms to control costs (e.g. co-pays and deductibles) and usage that are absent from Bernie's plan.

 

The idea that you can remove essentially all barriers to access and control costs has no real support in any system (and especially the health care system) anywhere.  Having every person that has a fever for 2 days want to go to the doctor because they can is going to put an incredible strain on our healthcare system in terms of access and costs.

 

(You should wait to see if your kids symptoms get better in many cases because if it is a virus that is the best thing to do.  Otherwise in most cases, you are just wasting time and money.)

 

(And I'm an educated person that has good health insurance, has read a lot about the healthcare industry, and has some personal knowledge beyond just going to the doctor on how the healthcare industry works and likes their healthcare insurance.  To tell me that I don't or am wrong to like it is pretty arrogant.  And I've said I like my health insurance here before so this isn't the first time I've said that here.)

[Renegade7]

11 hours ago, Larry said:

 

You're right. The fact that the other side has been giving away goodies proves that everybody should. 

 

And anybody who says otherwise is right wing. 

 

No one given me a new stealth fighter jet. Wheres my free stealth fighter jet?

 

I'd like to believe we arent saying we'd rather be drowning in debt for social welfare programs instead,  but saying we cant afford it is missing the point that we still drowning in debt by addressing the priorities of corrupt lobbyists and greedy transnational corporations instead.

[Renegade7]

9 hours ago, DoneMessedUp said:

Explain to me again how an unwanted leftist pipe dream (that's going to raise taxes on everyone and kill millions of jobs in the medical field no less) is how we beat Trump? 

 

Wheres the millions of jobs gone coming from? Is that factoring the amount money allocated in both the senate and house bill to address this?

 

Most people that have commented on this either dont believe it will work, nullifying that the plan would be better then theres, or believe there taxes is going up without confirming it.

 

There are a lot of polls, but when I see 70% of Americas support MFA proposals, it's about how not what for some, excuses not reasons for others.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/412545-70-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all-health-care%3famp

 

 

58 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I don't think it's possible for anyone to declare that with absolute certainty.  

 

Lots of people may have opinions.  Some of them may be expert opinions.  But that's not certainty.  

 

 

This is starting to remind me of the climate change debate.  When the Koch Brothers say this will cost less then current system...

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No one given me a new stealth fighter jet. Wheres my free stealth fighter jet?

 

I'd like to believe we arent saying we'd rather be drowning in debt for social welfare programs instead,  but saying we cant afford it is missing the point that we still drowning in debt by addressing the priorities of corrupt lobbyists and greedy transnational corporations instead.

 

An excellent reason to try to reduce the deficit. Not a good argument to increase it. 

Now, since this thread is becoming one to discuss general policies,  not just the election, I'll say:

I'd have no problem with a candidate announcing that if elected, I intend to try to reduce the deficit. BUT, I'm not going to start off trading things. My position will be that:

1)  This deficit was intentionally exploded by the Republican Party. 
2)  My deficit reduction plan will BEGIN with the complete repeal of the two bills which doubled the deficit in the first place. 
3)  THEN, maybe, I'll consider bipartisan deals to work on it further. 

No, we will not play the "when the Rs are in power, they will explode the deficit, and then when they're not, they will give up some of it, if I give them something more." game. 

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Wheres the millions of jobs gone coming from?

 

It's one of the standard talking points. 

Start by assuming that, if MFA passes, millions of people who are the private insurance bureaucracy will be out of a job. 

Assume that the government will not need those people to do exactly the same job. 

(This is based on the government's legendary ability to function completely without bureaucracy. Private corporations need bureaucrats, but government doesn't.)  

(Also ignore the fact that, if this miracle actually happens, we will have reduced health care costs by billions.)

Use this "reasoning" to try to push the notion that we cannot migrate to a better health care system, because keeping millions of bureaucrats employed to sit between patients and health care is needed, to support the bureaucrats. "Won't somebody just think of the paper pushers!?!?"