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

[twa]

3 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

No one on the Democratic side cares about the Biden story. It's like "fetch", it isn't going to happen.

 

They didn't care about sexual harassment till they had to........just wait.

 

 

[Skintime]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

From the people who brought you Uranium One...

Proof that you can't fix the clueless. Wingers need to go find their own country, say like Russia since they love Putin so much now.

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 hours ago, Cooked Crack said:

Uranium Two. What did Warren know and when did she find out? On the next segment of Hannity.

Worse. I heard she sent an email with the word "Benghazi" in it.

[The Sisko]

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

Certainly could with Biden being forced to address other issues, then again you never know what might come out in future news cycles as far as Warren.

 

could get interesting. 

No matter what it is or the degree of proof, I’ll easily dismiss it as just an anti-Warren (Biden) witch hunt. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Cooked Crack]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

No matter what it is or the degree of proof, I’ll easily dismiss it as just an anti-Warren (Biden) witch hunt. Nothing to see here. Move along.

VICE PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT

[Larry]

Was just thinking that I bet Liz wishes Trump was getting caught blackmailing foreign governments into fabricating evidence against her.  

[TheGoodBits]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

Was just thinking that I bet Liz wishes Trump was getting caught blackmailing foreign governments into fabricating evidence against her.  

 

I’m not sure about that. Biden is going to get a ton of faux controversy media coverage in Fall 2019 instead of Summer/fall 2020 because gop will be busy deflecting. It won’t be positive attention for him. This could end up being a huge gift to Warren. 

[twa]

you can run, but you will just die tired.

[Cooked Crack]

Good for the Wikipedia editor. Keep bull**** claims off Wikipedia. Want bull**** just watch Fox or get on Facebook, etc.

[twa]

Is it just me or does she look much better in white?

 

[twa]

 

[twa]

 

[Larry]

 

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

 

Does he have proof of collusion?  Cause, you know, if there's no proof of federal conspiracy changes being violated, then nothing whatsever happened.  

 

[twa]

 

[bearrock]

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

 

This is a fair criticism that every pro big government advocate needs to be able to answer.  I don't necessarily agree with libertarian conservative's proposed solutions to the issue, but it is a very fundamental question that requires answering.  

[No Excuses]

29 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

This is a fair criticism that every pro big government advocate needs to be able to answer.  I don't necessarily agree with libertarian conservative's proposed solutions to the issue, but it is a very fundamental question that requires answering.  

 

Go to Somalia and find out what the libertarian wet dream of an impotent government looks like.

 

”Big government” is a completely useless term that defines nothing.

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Go to Somalia and find out what the libertarian wet dream of an impotent government looks like.

 

”Big government” is a completely useless term that defines nothing.

 

That's fine.  But the central point still remains, if the progressives are going to advocate that increased government spending and more government regulations are needed in at least some areas, they need to argue and convince why that's a good thing and how it can be done well.  To be clear, I believe increased spending and regulations are necessary in some areas, but concerns of government waste and inefficiency are legitimate. 

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

That's fine.  But the central point still remains, if the progressives are going to advocate that increased government spending and more government regulations are needed in at least some areas, they need to argue and convince why that's a good thing and how it can be done well.  To be clear, I believe increased spending and regulations are necessary in some areas, but concerns of government waste and inefficiency are legitimate. 

 

They have and this is where research into specific topics can be done for the way instead expecting dissertations during debates that only allow 30 second answers.  How much convincing does someone need that we shouldnt be allowing factories to dump in our fresh water supplies?

[No Excuses]

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

That's fine.  But the central point still remains, if the progressives are going to advocate that increased government spending and more government regulations are needed in at least some areas, they need to argue and convince why that's a good thing and how it can be done well.

 

You say this as if Elizabeth Warren doesn’t put out detailed policy plans and the rationale behind them on quite literally a weekly basis. 

 

AOC released a set of new policies dealing with housing yesterday and went into the rationale for them: https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-brilliant-simplicity-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-n-1838444038

 

Either I am not following you or you are weirdly asking for something that is extensively done already.

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

They have and this is where research into specific topics can be done for the way instead expecting dissertations during debates that only allow 30 second answers.  How much convincing does someone need that we shouldnt be allowing factories to dump in our fresh water supplies?

 

 

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

You say this as if Elizabeth Warren doesn’t put out detailed policy plans and the rationale behind them on quite literally a weekly basis. 

 

AOC released a set of new policies dealing with housing yesterday and went into the rationale for them: https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-brilliant-simplicity-of-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-n-1838444038

 

Either I am not following you or you are weirdly asking for something that is extensively done already.

 

That's the thing.  Most of the country is not debating over the end goals, we are debating over the means to achieve it.  And when progressives like Warren and AOC rolls out proposals on those means, the attacks are usually how do we pay for it, it will never work, or private industry/citizens can do it better. 

 

Argument needs to center around not only how do we pay for it and why it can work, but also why government is the best party among the stakeholders to get it done.  Sometimes only the government is interested enough to get things done, as often is the case with environmental issues.  But we've been hearing arguments from libertarians till blood is gushing from our ears that market forces is the best way to handle everything from utility to healthcare.  Now people like Warren and Sanders are arguing that profit concerns should be removed from healthcare in its entirety and pronto.  Which is fine.  You can make that argument.  But you can't make it without addressing the concern in twa's linked tweet: How can the people trust the government to do it better and cheaper than the private industry?  Progressive candidates have to be able to sell that in some areas, government solution is necessary and preferable.

[No Excuses]

18 minutes ago, bearrock said:

That's the thing.  Most of the country is not debating over the end goals, we are debating over the means to achieve it.  And when progressives like Warren and AOC rolls out proposals on those means, the attacks are usually how do we pay for it, it will never work, or private industry/citizens can do it better.  

 

All of these things are already discussed. Warren goes to length about her tax policy on how to pay for it or how she intends to enact her policies structurally through government agencies.

 

The why and how is being discussed and I'm a bit perplexed because you seem to be implying that it isn't.

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, bearrock said:

But you can't make it without addressing the concern in twa's linked tweet: How can the people trust the government to do it better and cheaper than the private industry?  Progressive candidates have to be able to sell that in some areas, government solution is necessary and preferable.

 

Everytime they point out our health care costs are easily twice that of every other nation they are making the point you say they arent making.

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

The why and how is being discussed and I'm a bit perplexed because you seem to be implying that it isn't.

 

We may be wasting time here, some people dont want to be convinced, and I'm not sure if that's his point, but that's true and shouldnt be a reason to not do it.

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

All of these things are already discussed. Warren goes to length about her tax policy on how to pay for it or how she intends to enact her policies structurally through government agencies.

 

The why and how is being discussed and I'm a bit perplexed because you seem to be implying that it isn't.

 

In terms of policy details and willingness to discuss it, Warren is heads and shoulders above anyone in the field and quite possibly any other presidential candidate in the past.  I'm not talking about the how to pay or how to implement, but the question of why should it be done through the government.  The central philosophical question itself as to when is it preferable for a government to be the actor instead of private or some hybrid system?

 

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Everytime they point out our health care costs are easily twice that of every other nation they are making the point you say they arent making.

 

But is that a problem with higher health care cost in the US in general or because private insurance is handling the reimbursements?  If government sets the rates and likely pays doctors and hospitals far lower than what they receive now, what effect will that have?  I still think a government run health insurance for basic and necessary care supplemented by private insurance option for optional expensive care makes more sense, but if progressives want a total takeover of healthcare reimbursement by the government, they need to justify why that's a better option and what fallout may happen.  Cause you can't get to 1/2 cost without having government make the call of what procedures and medication will be covered and what won't.  Either we cover less procedures than we do now, pay less to doctors and hospitals than we do now, or some combination, all scenarios which will require trade offs.  So given that, explain to the public why a government run system is superior to private options and hybrid options without glossing over the negatives that comes with a solely government run system.

[Skintime]

15 hours ago, twa said:

 

LOL at using Zerohedge as a source. No wonder you have no idea what fact-based journalism is. Please find better sources.

[LadySkinsFan]

BTW, love the tread title change. Keeping up with the times.