Biden for President?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Then I don't know what you're referring to.
Click to expand...

Stop being obtuse. You know as well as anyone the "Your President" thing was intending to imply I voted for and/or support Trump. There's no other reason to word it that way in that context.

You'll now play stupid and pretend that's not what you were doing. And action!
 
JoeMorgue said:
Errrr... sorta. I mean obviously it depends on how "terrible" we're talking but unless we're talking the extreme points on the Bell Curve a politician who does something is always preferable to one who doesn't.
Click to expand...

Tell that to everybody who's saying that Biden is preferable to Sanders because it'll give everybody a rest.

You can't argue with idealist. You can't reason with them or compromise with them or appeal to them or... use them effectively to get anything done.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Sanders has a long history of compromise in the Senate?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Errrr... sorta. I mean obviously it depends on how "terrible" we're talking but unless we're talking the extreme points on the Bell Curve a politician who does something is always preferable to one who doesn't.

You can't argue with idealist. You can't reason with them or compromise with them or appeal to them or... use them effectively to get anything done. A "dirty" politicians wants and desires will at least sometimes, even if only by accident, fall in line with the greater good.

Again assuming we're not talking crossing some line into outright mustache twirling evil a "bad" politician is still going to get good things done by pure chance or for the wrong reason and that's usually a net positive over "I will literally never accomplish anything because I think I'm too good to"

I don't want Littlefinger or Aerys over Eddard Stark, but I kind of do want at least Tyrion or Tywin over Eddard Stark.
Click to expand...

You'd prefer someone cut off Biden's nose rather than murder him? Yeah, I'll agree with that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Stop being obtuse. You know as well as anyone the "Your President" thing was intending to imply I voted for and/or support Trump. There's no other reason to word it that way in that context.

You'll now play stupid and pretend that's not what you were doing. And action!
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I know damn well you're not a Trumper. I was referring to your rhetoric, hence my "not an American" answer.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
We're reading your words and assuming that you meant what you said. Your recent explanation to Joe makes no sense when applied to the post in question.

Maybe people would be "confused" if you made a modicrum of effort to be clear.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "less confused" there.
 
I swear to God we used to actually have discussions where information would at least sometimes actually move between people. I promise I didn't dream that or make it up.

Why the **** am I treated like a rambling old man screaming at pigeons in the park when I say we used to have discussions that weren't meta-discussions about the discussion we were having?

"No I telling you I remember it! I was there! One person would say something and the other person would respond to it, not just pretend to not understand it!"
"Sure Grandpa, whatever you say, back to the home with you, it's pudding and Matlock night..."
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I swear to God we used to actually have discussions where information would at least sometimes actually move between people. I promise I didn't dream that or make it up.

Why the **** am I treated like a rambling old man screaming at pigeons in the park when I say we used to have discussions that weren't meta-discussions about the discussion we were having.
Click to expand...

You're right, Grandpa! There did used to be newspapers! And you could get a steak dinner for a nickel, on the Pullman cars! Do you want to come inside and have your nice medication? When you're done telling those pigeons what's what, that is. Let's get the nurse.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think your characterization of Bernie being an ineffective movement builder is a bit uncharitable. I think there was a long period of time where he was basically an anomaly without any other peers, but that is not true in recent years.

Bernie's 2016 run has been a cornerstone of the greater neo-progressive movement. AOC is probably the most prominent example of a new type of Bernie progressive that is a direct result of his 2016 run, but there are others. If there is going to be a fresh crop of young, progressive politicians, I suspect a lot of them are the direct or indirect result of Bernie's 2016 and 2020 runs.
Click to expand...
That seems to me more like an accident of history than evidence of Bernie being a movement builder.

The Blue Dog Democrats started up in 1995, already with four members. Today, there are 25 of them. Bernie arrived in Congress in 1991. Where are the Berniecrats? Where is the Sanders Caucus?

Yes, people are voting for something more radical now. But I don't think that's attributable to Bernie's activism. AOC is getting traction for the same reason Trump got traction: The mood of the nation at this point in time. Bernie didn't do anything to create that monstrous mood. He's benefiting from it, the way Trump and AOC are benefiting from it. But for Bernie, it's too little, too late.

It remains to be seen if AOC will have success building a movement from this mood. What's already visible is that Bernie's attempts to build a movement were unsuccessful, and never really extended beyond his own political career. Give him credit for trying, if you think he really tried. I don't think you can give him credit for succeeding, though, even with the current national mood.
 
Stacyhs said:
I agree. Trump and Sanders are both extremes. Far right-wingers on one side and far left-wingers on the other.
Click to expand...

Trump is a non-ideological opportunist.

Sanders, on the other hand, is an ideologically committed revolutionary progressive.

They're opposites, sure, but not on your left-right political spectrum.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
How does the Overton window shift?
Click to expand...
Incrementally, by achieving compromises in the direction you want to shift it.

Or by some drastic and violent social upheaval, which leaves its survivors with a very different outlook than previously. But that's the kind of thing we generally want to avoid at almost any cost.

How come only Republicans are good at it?
Click to expand...
They're not the only ones good at it.

But to the degree that they are also good at it, maybe it's because Americans generally are more conservative than you think they are.
 
Shadowdweller said:
Then you haven't investigated the matter very closely. Sanders has detailed plans and explanations regarding to how to pay for M4A. For the most part (exception: proposed capital gains tax) these would be unlikely to face any honest political issues from the Democratic side at least. (Yes, of course they would be non-starters from the GOP side since they involve taxes and increased public services). The fact of the matter is that the US taxpayer is already bearing the financial burden that would be potentially incurred for M4A in the form of premiums, deductibles, extra administrative costs, and employer-side expenses.

The bitter pill from a political standpoint is that M4A necessarily involves driving existing insurance companies out of business - many of whom already have powerful lobbies, donate significantly to both parties, and employ hundreds of thousands of people. (Some other prominent health-related industries have vested interests in M4A not passing as well; pharmaceutical companies, for example). And the reluctance of the American public to get rid of their existing health care without having a clear idea of what they would get in return.
Click to expand...

If it were that easy and all the numbers added up in favor of M4A, then that would be great. But they don't.

The Urban Institute, a center-left think tank highly respected among Democrats, is projecting that a plan similar to what Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are pushing would require $34 trillion in additional federal spending over its first decade in operation. That’s more than the federal government’s total cost over the coming decade for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office projections.
Click to expand...
How big a lift is it to raise $32 trillion? It’s almost 50 percent more than the total revenue the CBO projects Washington will collect from the personal income tax over the next decade (about $23.3 trillion). It’s more than double the amount the CBO projects Washington will collect over the next decade from the payroll tax that funds Social Security and part of Medicare (about $15.4 trillion). A $32 trillion tax increase would represent just over two-thirds of the revenue the CBO projects the federal government will collect from all sources over the next decade (just over $46 trillion.)
Click to expand...

What is clear now is that the Sanders version of single payer—which Warren at the debate called the “gold standard” of health-care proposals—would cost far more than any other alternative. The new analysis found that plans similar to the one Biden, Buttigieg, and other candidates have proposed—centered on expanding a public option to compete with private insurance companies—would achieve nearly universal coverage at a cost of roughly $122 billion to $162 billion annually, depending on exactly how they are designed. Even what the analysts called a single-payer plan “lite”—requiring some co-pays and offering somewhat less generous benefits, without covering undocumented immigrants—would cost about $1.5 trillion annually, about half as much as the Sanders and Warren proposal.
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...warren-and-sanderss-single-payer-plan/600166/
 
Stacyhs said:
Is that the rending of cloth and the gnashing of teeth I hear from the Sanders campaign?
Click to expand...

Trebuchet said:
Why would it? Delegates are divided proportionally. At most, it makes a difference of one delegate.
Click to expand...

Because liberally dominated Washington was the one state in that last round of voting that was supposed to be a stronghold for Sanders. For him to lose it to Biden does not bode well for Sanders.
 
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
I agree. Trump and Sanders are both extremes. Far right-wingers on one side and far left-wingers on the other.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
Trump is a non-ideological opportunist.

Sanders, on the other hand, is an ideologically committed revolutionary progressive.

They're opposites, sure, but not on your left-right political spectrum.
Click to expand...

I don't mean Trump and Sanders as individuals but as representative of those who support them. Thus my use of the plural "wingers".
 
Stacyhs said:
I don't mean Trump and Sanders as individuals but as representative of those who support them. Thus my use of the plural "wingers".
Click to expand...

I don't think even that is accurate.

Bernie's supporters are by definition a faction of revolutionary progressives.

Trump's supporters run the entire gamut of moderates, conservatives, and right-wing revolutionaries. Not all of them are the extreme right-wingers of your stereotype. And I think this goes right back to what they are as individuals.
 
theprestige said:
I don't think even that is accurate.

Bernie's supporters are by definition a faction of revolutionary progressives.

Trump's supporters run the entire gamut of moderates, conservatives, and right-wing revolutionaries. Not all of them are the extreme right-wingers of your stereotype. And I think this goes right back to what they are as individuals.
Click to expand...

Okey dokey.
 
This is so bizarre, a month ago, the pundits were saying the last rites on Joe and today he is the presumptive Democratic nominee.
 
acbytesla said:
This is so bizarre, a month ago, the pundits were saying the last rites on Joe and today he is the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif
 
Sanders is "assesing" his campaign. We all know what usually happens when a caindidate "assesees" his campaign.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The US also pays more into the healthcare industry from taxes - both per capita and as a percentage of GDP - than UK. I don't know about other countries with socialised medicine, but I imagine it's similar.

I also saw an article the other day, which I may look for a little later if I have the time and inclination, which gave the results of studies by several think tanks from both sides of the political spectrum, and they all came to the conclusion that socialised medicine in the US would cost less over all than the current model.
Click to expand...
Once again

Nobody. *******. Cares.

Go tell all the black voters giving the nomination to Biden about GDP and healthcare and how white countries do it so much better. (I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that exchange.)

Then you might actually learn something about US politics for a change and maybe then you'll stop repeating stupid talking points for bug people.
 
JoeMorgue said:
God damn is anything not about race to you?
Click to expand...

Plenty of things. But in an environment like this forum, where white people living in all white countries have no clue how mixed race countries work, you have to bring it up.

The Democratic primaries afford an excellent example. This is the one time in the election cycle where blacks assert themselves politically. And they gave the Democratic nomination for US president to Biden. Lo and behold the all white, "not racist" members hate what blacks are doing.
 
dudalb said:
Sanders is "assesing" his campaign. We all know what usually happens when a caindidate "assesees" his campaign.
Click to expand...
Hopefully he will recognize the need to avoid another 2016 and remind his supporters that whatever the outcome of the primaries the real target is Trump.
 
Distracted1 said:
If she is willing, Biden should immediately announce Liz Warren as his running mate.

Is there anyone else that seems more prepared to handle the crisis we find ourselves in?
Click to expand...
I am not saying Warren would not make a competent VP. However, I don't think the VP needs to be the one "handling" the crisis... I think Biden would do a good enough job making the 'big' decisions, and you would have plenty of minions (such as the CDC) making recommendations and handling the day-to-day stuff. So selecting Warren to be VP just because she could handle the Covid19 crisis would be a mistake.

Better to select someone younger, since they would (hopefully) become the next Democrat to become president after Biden is done.
 
Baylor said:
Once again

Nobody. *******. Cares.

Go tell all the black voters giving the nomination to Biden about GDP and healthcare and how white countries do it so much better. (I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that exchange.)

Then you might actually learn something about US politics for a change and maybe then you'll stop repeating stupid talking points for bug people.
Click to expand...

Gotta admit- there's something almost endearingly funny about someone decrying other folks "repeating stupid talking points" in political discussions who continually blats "bug people" as if that's some sort of meaningful point instead of just a dismissive and simplistic meme.

Did I say "endearingly"? Ok, that may be the wrong word here- it's actually more like "disgusting" when it's from someone with an obvious bug up their ass about something who persists in pulling it out and insisting everyone else should look very closely at it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom