So Biden-Haters: why Trump over Biden?

[tstorm823]

Who determines whether they are using their time productively here? Do you think you have the right to police your neighbors private behavior in their own home? Some people with medical conditions may have to sleep up to 18 hours a day just for their bodies to heal less than yours does in 6, and it is none of your business what they are doing with the hours they are awake here. Whether they are sitting out on their lawns looking at you or you never see them because they are asleep all the time, what they do is up to them, not to be scrutinized by onlookers any more than they should police what you do with your time.

Then why does it matter where they live? If what your neighbors do, what they have, how the behave, etc are none of your business, what advantage is there to living there? I'm consistent on this. Living in a nicer neighborhood is better for you because it's better cared for, because people are out and doing things and caring for the community. The reason I would want poorer people to have the opportunity to live alongside wealthier people is because engagement in such a community would be improvement in their lifestyle and opportunities to network with people with means. I don't think wealth begets wealth the way left-leaning people do, but everyone recognizes the "it's who you know" mantra, you can definitely lift people up by contact. If it's just nobody else's business and the people are just going to hole away inside and the property will rot unless the government maintains it, it no longer matters where they live. You've got to participate in the community for the community to matter. The obvious exception is school districts, I'll concede that, but that's the kids being out and involved with the people around.

EDIT: Also, the reason the democrats keep building low income housing is because they currently have no other options for immediate relief right now due to Republicans blocking the long term solutions and also block putting the people up in hotels and resorts in wealthy areas while we wait for the long term solutions to happen here.

I never expect to say this to you out of everyone, but do you have a source for that?

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

The US does not actually suffer from the SAME problems, you have to have the solution match the problem rather than attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole here. I specifically mentioned Malta because of they have suffered tremendously from extreme migrant issues in very limited space and resources on their small island. You cannot overload a raft in Africa and make it to the US. It doesn't work this way here. The US is not part of a larger system within the EU, where you may or may not have options to allow relocation in other EU nations spreading out the problem. The other primary issue in Europe in general vs the US is due to the age of established neighborhoods in most of Europe, is there is not as much flexibility with establishing new housing among already established neighborhoods as exists in the US, thus also leading to further segregation along cultural lines. Most of the US is rural by comparison and has an abundance of newly built cities and neighborhoods allowing for a level of flexibility that simply does not exist in many other regions. We cannot use the same method to solve the issues in the US to solve the problems in Greece as they do not have the same options and resources available to do so. That is why I am solely focusing on solutions for the US in a thread about the US as we would have to start another thread to discuss housing problems in Greece as that is off topic. This being a thread about Biden and his actual policies here, I was discussing Obama's housing program to move low income people into affluent areas and how Biden will be working to expand those programs as well.

Having a discussion about Greece would need it's own thread here as to not derail this one.

Okay, I think we need some clarifications:
a) Exarcheia is a case study of a modern urban squat (which was not built on old buildings but was part of a purpose-built social housing project) which was transformed, through the work of a community, into a place where the Greek government dumped addicts and other vulnerable people whilst not doing anything to develop or de-segregate the area or to improve the underlying causes of poverty. The autonomists, anarchists and the locals subsequently got rid of drug dealers and pushers, established drug treatment clinics and created squats to help accomodate those people. Consequently its a functional example of squats done well.
a.i.) as a result, me and Neuro are saying that these aren't suboptimal solutions for immediate problems. Building projects take time to be constructed, so occupying absent or unused domiciles in this manner can work positively, better than charity run enterprises if we were to extrapolate this case study

b) America is not immune to the systematic issues of poverty. America too, has gigantic cities, and modern urban planning across the world is systematically enabling gentrification and homelessness in a way that makes this problem worse as time progresses. The EU had nothing to do with the situation in Greece (though at this point we're ignoring other succesful squat projects of the past, like those in London and New York).
b.i) most of Greece is also rather rural, squats are something people living in urban centers too, and the US has those aplenty. Notice how homelessness is not as much of a pronounced issue in rural areas.
b.ii) Greece if anything has fewer resources than the US does so not going for all the available options is not an argument. If anything it's an argument for imitating Exarcheia, since you have more means to do so.

As for what this thread is about it already got derailed many times, but I don't think simply discarding these ideas when the issue becomes more general (because nothing happens in a vaccuum with politics) does anything meaningful either.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Sweet Space Buddha, I was gone for only a couple of days. Literally don't know where to begin.

I'll start with a thought that's been going around my head for a couple of days. This current situation is like being forced into a room with a few others, and being surrouned by Exposed Nuclear Waste. Yet someone managed to find a door that opens to a burning dumpster fire with a little ventilation, but not enough to get rid of all the smell and smoke. When some of you cheer, others go "Wait, burning trash? I hate that smell. And that can't be good for your lungs. I'll stay here, thanks".

Now to more salient points.

Biden on Vetoing

Former Vice President Joe Biden suggested that he would veto the universal health-care legislation known as “Medicare for All” championed by his Democratic presidential primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders, citing costs.

“Nancy Pelosi gets a version of it through the House of Representatives. It comes to your desk. Do you veto it?” MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell asked Biden during an interview Monday night.

“I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now,” Biden responded. “If they got that through in by some miracle or there’s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, ‘OK, it’s passed,’ then you got to look at the cost.”

Biden added: “I want to know, how did they find $35 trillion? What is that doing? Is it going to significantly raise taxes on the middle class, which it will? What’s going to happen?”

I love the idea of medicare for all. Universal Health Care is something I want to happen in my lifetime. Or certainly in my children's lifetime. In these words, Biden doesn't nix the idea of Medicare For All as people Portend. He just wants to know where the money will come from, will people get the adequate care, and other questions that should be asked.

Do I like that my medicare for all dreams are not being met at this time? No. Not really. But for someone who is trying to lead an entire nation, not just those who like him, he has to think about the cost of measures he puts out. And he said something seemingly unpopular, but it really isn't. He said he would question where they got the money if it passed.

And? Is that bad?

If he looks over where they got the money and it checks out, did he say he would continue to veto it out of spite? How about the part of the scenario where they found the money and it came from a source that doesn't harm the American people, doesn't hurt our security, and is tenable in the bill's current form? Can someone show me where he says it will still be trashed out of spite?

Moving on to the policy that people accuse Democrats saying people should vote for them because they are democrat and that means they aren't republican... Like... literally Republicans do the same thing all the time. Every political party does. They say their views, they say how they are different than the others, and they call on the moralistic pride of being a part of the political party and having the same values. It's not something to be singular tired of the Democrats for when it's just part and parcel with politics. It's like Tstorm's getting tired of Worgen because of his height, yet he isn't tired of me. And Worgen and I are both 6'2 (I don't know if Worgen is also 6'2. If he is, that would be weird).

I mean, if that's all the Democrats do, why are the ideas of Universal Healthcare, Raising the minimum wage, better education and supporting our teachers, championing diversity in culture and the workplace, voting rights, immigration reform, How the left are all environmentalists, and/or the advancement of science and technology continually tied to them?

Biden wasn't my choice. I think it's well known that I am with Sanders. But I voted for Hillary. Because when you compare the politics, by a wide margin, Hillary was more in-line with what I believe in. Biden is admittedly less in-line than Hillary is. Yet his policies are definitely more in-line even just on the surface than Trump's.

As a Bernie supporter since 2016, I had to fight of accusation after accusation that people like me (and possibly me) lead to Trump getting in office because we supposedly didn't go for Hillary. And we had 4 years of this nonsense. Now, 2020 is coming along and it's shaping up to be another conscientious objector movement.. yet now it's ok even if we get four more years of Trump? I don't even care about receiving the static. I just want to know where the flip came from.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Sweet Space Buddha, I was gone for only a couple of days. Literally don't know where to begin.

I'll start with a thought that's been going around my head for a couple of days. This current situation is like being forced into a room with a few others, and being surrouned by Exposed Nuclear Waste. Yet someone managed to find a door that opens to a burning dumpster fire with a little ventilation, but not enough to get rid of all the smell and smoke. When some of you cheer, others go "Wait, burning trash? I hate that smell. And that can't be good for your lungs. I'll stay here, thanks".

Now to more salient points.

Biden on Vetoing



I love the idea of medicare for all. Universal Health Care is something I want to happen in my lifetime. Or certainly in my children's lifetime. In these words, Biden doesn't nix the idea of Medicare For All as people Portend. He just wants to know where the money will come from, will people get the adequate care, and other questions that should be asked.

Do I like that my medicare for all dreams are not being met at this time? No. Not really. But for someone who is trying to lead an entire nation, not just those who like him, he has to think about the cost of measures he puts out. And he said something seemingly unpopular, but it really isn't. He said he would question where they got the money if it passed.

And? Is that bad?

If he looks over where they got the money and it checks out, did he say he would continue to veto it out of spite? How about the part of the scenario where they found the money and it came from a source that doesn't harm the American people, doesn't hurt our security, and is tenable in the bill's current form? Can someone show me where he says it will still be trashed out of spite?

Moving on to the policy that people accuse Democrats saying people should vote for them because they are democrat and that means they aren't republican... Like... literally Republicans do the same thing all the time. Every political party does. They say their views, they say how they are different than the others, and they call on the moralistic pride of being a part of the political party and having the same values. It's not something to be singular tired of the Democrats for when it's just part and parcel with politics. It's like Tstorm's getting tired of Worgen because of his height, yet he isn't tired of me. And Worgen and I are both 6'2 (I don't know if Worgen is also 6'2. If he is, that would be weird).

I mean, if that's all the Democrats do, why are the ideas of Universal Healthcare, Raising the minimum wage, better education and supporting our teachers, championing diversity in culture and the workplace, voting rights, immigration reform, How the left are all environmentalists, and/or the advancement of science and technology continually tied to them?

Biden wasn't my choice. I think it's well known that I am with Sanders. But I voted for Hillary. Because when you compare the politics, by a wide margin, Hillary was more in-line with what I believe in. Biden is admittedly less in-line than Hillary is. Yet his policies are definitely more in-line even just on the surface than Trump's.

As a Bernie supporter since 2016, I had to fight of accusation after accusation that people like me (and possibly me) lead to Trump getting in office because we supposedly didn't go for Hillary. And we had 4 years of this nonsense. Now, 2020 is coming along and it's shaping up to be another conscientious objector movement.. yet now it's ok even if we get four more years of Trump? I don't even care about receiving the static. I just want to know where the flip came from.

The problem is M4A plans that are floating around (like Sanders) are paid for. They're meticulously planned and budgeted so him asking for them to 'paid for' is code for 'he doesn't want it'. I mean it makes sense, he's an austerity Republican when legislating, it's why he cuts social security every chance he gets. But he's already said that he doesn't believe in Sander's M4A proposal and just says it's price without mentioning that Sanders has already planned how to pay for it. What Biden wants is a 'balanced budget' bill, where any expenditures mentioned in an M4A bill are balanced within that bill with taxes or cuts elsewhere.

As for their reliance on being 'not Republicans' getting old, that list of positions are held by Democrat voters, however not the politicians. That's the problem, you listed a lot of good ideas that aren't shared by the Democrat party when they get around to actually legislating. And we know this because despite calling for it, it never happens, and we find examples of the Democrats themselves waffling on it when it actually comes up to a vote that might win. The Democrats have an image issue of being full of hot air and just paying lip service to their platforms.

Finally on why it seems more okay if you don't vote for Biden now, I don't know. Here on the forums it's the same people in the same positions, but outside the forum all I can think is the disillusionment for the Dem party has grown, understandably, with the DNC taking the lesson of 2016 to be 'go further right'.

 

[lil devils x]

Then why does it matter where they live? If what your neighbors do, what they have, how the behave, etc are none of your business, what advantage is there to living there? I'm consistent on this. Living in a nicer neighborhood is better for you because it's better cared for, because people are out and doing things and caring for the community. The reason I would want poorer people to have the opportunity to live alongside wealthier people is because engagement in such a community would be improvement in their lifestyle and opportunities to network with people with means. I don't think wealth begets wealth the way left-leaning people do, but everyone recognizes the "it's who you know" mantra, you can definitely lift people up by contact. If it's just nobody else's business and the people are just going to hole away inside and the property will rot unless the government maintains it, it no longer matters where they live. You've got to participate in the community for the community to matter. The obvious exception is school districts, I'll concede that, but that's the kids being out and involved with the people around.



I never expect to say this to you out of everyone, but do you have a source for that?

So you are trying to argue that if they are not able to get out and engage in the community, it doesn't matter where they live? The advantages of living in a wealthier neighborhood to start with are basic access to safety, security, a healthier environment, access to safer food, cleaner air, soil and water.. You know all the basic things needed to survive they do not have access to in the lower income areas because they often build low income neighborhoods in toxin contaminated areas, flood zones. The poor areas in the US are literally too toxic to live in. This causes an increase in serious health issues, lack of security makes it unsafe for them exist there at all.

People in Poor Neighborhoods Breathe More Hazardous Particles

Tiny particles of air pollution contain more hazardous ingredients in nonwhite and low-income communities than in affluent white ones, a new study shows

www.scientificamerican.com

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222496/

Then we have the resources made available to school districts that are not available in low income communities, access to opportunities, course selections, job fairs and numerous other factors that impact their ability to end the persistent cycle of poverty that they otherwise would never have access to in lower income neighborhoods. Hell even with the COVID-19 testing, many of the low income neighborhoods do not even have access to that at all, while they have testing locations in wealthy neighborhoods even though the lower income neighborhoods were the ones harder hit. Low income areas are deprived of basic necessary resources to sustain life. It is especially the sick and vulnerable that need access to clean air, water and soil in order to stay alive at here. Access to everything from better physicians and hospitals to better selection of food when they go to the store are all important factors that impact their ability to flourish, let alone survive. Simply because they may not be able to be all that active in the community does not mean they should be forced to live in a toxic unsafe environment. No one deserves to be forced to live like that. Just because someone is not able to mow a lawn or climb a ladder does not mean they should be forced to live in a bad environment. If anything, those that are forced to spend more time indoors, really need a home that allows for an improved indoor environment, which is usually even more expensive to acquire than most. Currently whether or not those needing help with maintenance can even obtain the help they need is hit or miss depending on the charity and local beautification projects that exist in that area. We need to have this more consistent and widespread and not only have to be dependent on resources that do not exist in all areas.

 

[lil devils x]

Sweet Space Buddha, I was gone for only a couple of days. Literally don't know where to begin.

I'll start with a thought that's been going around my head for a couple of days. This current situation is like being forced into a room with a few others, and being surrouned by Exposed Nuclear Waste. Yet someone managed to find a door that opens to a burning dumpster fire with a little ventilation, but not enough to get rid of all the smell and smoke. When some of you cheer, others go "Wait, burning trash? I hate that smell. And that can't be good for your lungs. I'll stay here, thanks".

Now to more salient points.

Biden on Vetoing



I love the idea of medicare for all. Universal Health Care is something I want to happen in my lifetime. Or certainly in my children's lifetime. In these words, Biden doesn't nix the idea of Medicare For All as people Portend. He just wants to know where the money will come from, will people get the adequate care, and other questions that should be asked.

Do I like that my medicare for all dreams are not being met at this time? No. Not really. But for someone who is trying to lead an entire nation, not just those who like him, he has to think about the cost of measures he puts out. And he said something seemingly unpopular, but it really isn't. He said he would question where they got the money if it passed.

And? Is that bad?

If he looks over where they got the money and it checks out, did he say he would continue to veto it out of spite? How about the part of the scenario where they found the money and it came from a source that doesn't harm the American people, doesn't hurt our security, and is tenable in the bill's current form? Can someone show me where he says it will still be trashed out of spite?

Moving on to the policy that people accuse Democrats saying people should vote for them because they are democrat and that means they aren't republican... Like... literally Republicans do the same thing all the time. Every political party does. They say their views, they say how they are different than the others, and they call on the moralistic pride of being a part of the political party and having the same values. It's not something to be singular tired of the Democrats for when it's just part and parcel with politics. It's like Tstorm's getting tired of Worgen because of his height, yet he isn't tired of me. And Worgen and I are both 6'2 (I don't know if Worgen is also 6'2. If he is, that would be weird).

I mean, if that's all the Democrats do, why are the ideas of Universal Healthcare, Raising the minimum wage, better education and supporting our teachers, championing diversity in culture and the workplace, voting rights, immigration reform, How the left are all environmentalists, and/or the advancement of science and technology continually tied to them?

Biden wasn't my choice. I think it's well known that I am with Sanders. But I voted for Hillary. Because when you compare the politics, by a wide margin, Hillary was more in-line with what I believe in. Biden is admittedly less in-line than Hillary is. Yet his policies are definitely more in-line even just on the surface than Trump's.

As a Bernie supporter since 2016, I had to fight of accusation after accusation that people like me (and possibly me) lead to Trump getting in office because we supposedly didn't go for Hillary. And we had 4 years of this nonsense. Now, 2020 is coming along and it's shaping up to be another conscientious objector movement.. yet now it's ok even if we get four more years of Trump? I don't even care about receiving the static. I just want to know where the flip came from.

I think you make a good point about Biden's questions about medicare. Medicare in it's current form does not cover many of the issues that it would need to in the manner it would need to in order to be adequate to cover the general population and thus why so many elderly already have to have supplemental insurance or pay heavy out of pocket costs. We have to actually do a good amount of work to fix medicare before we can expand it, though Biden at least is willing to push for lowering the age for the time being to at least provide some relief to those that are falling through the cracks pre retirement age.

It's maximum lifetime benefits caps are a serious issue when you lower the age due to how quickly this would run out before they even reached the retirement age due to how it is currently designed for seniors.

 

[Worgen]

It's not something to be singular tired of the Democrats for when it's just part and parcel with politics. It's like Tstorm's getting tired of Worgen because of his height, yet he isn't tired of me. And Worgen and I are both 6'2 (I don't know if Worgen is also 6'2. If he is, that would be weird).

I'm between 5'11 and 6 foot depending on which convenience store I'm in.

Neither political party really represents me, but I know which one doesn't and I would rather be politically effective then ideologically pure.

 

[lil devils x]

I'm between 5'11 and 6 foot depending on which convenience store I'm in.

Neither political party really represents me, but I know which one doesn't and I would rather be politically effective then ideologically pure.

That is sort of how I look at it. Neither party represents me either, but only one of those parties that has a chance in hell to do anything about the problems I want resolved has people who are working in it to accomplish those goals. I want to help them do that rather than put more obstacles in their way. I look at our options for a clear path forward to accomplish these goals in our lifetime and only see a few viable options here, and none of those options exist at all as long as republicans retain control. That is the most important obstacle that has to be eliminated in order to solve anything.

 

[tstorm823]

It's like Tstorm's getting tired of Worgen because of his height, yet he isn't tired of me. And Worgen and I are both 6'2 (I don't know if Worgen is also 6'2. If he is, that would be weird).

I'm between 5'11 and 6 foot depending on which convenience store I'm in.

My apologies, Worgen. I have to take back most of the bad things I've said about you.

 

[Silvanus]

Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years

“I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980s to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything,” Biden said in 1995.

theintercept.com

Biden Announces Deal with Hospitals to Cut Medicare, Medicaid Payments by $155 Billion

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced an agreement in which three associations representing the hospital industry agreed to Medicare and Medicaid cuts totaling $155 billion over 10 years as part of a health overhaul that assumes coverage of 95 percent of the American people.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Biden vs. Sanders on Social Security and Medicare - FactCheck.org

Sen. Bernie Sanders says former Vice President Joe Biden has a long history of supporting cuts to Social Security. Biden says the opposite is true. We sort through some of the competing claims.

www.factcheck.org

Joe Biden Tried to Cut Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare for 40 Years

Joe Biden was once a New Deal Democrat. Then he “evolved” and starting backing decades of Republican plans to cut Medicare and Social Security.

www.jacobinmag.com

No, expanding safety net programs is deeply against his electoral history as well. If the platform includes debt forgiveness, that'd be against his history too.

So, let's take a look at the actions taken, as referenced in the links above. The 1984 domestic spending freeze; the 1995 "balanced budget" resolution; and the Obama-era "Grand Bargain".

As Fact-Check notes, the Grand Bargain never came to pass so we can't really use it to gauge what he would do. He voted for the 1995 resolution, though he first proposed an amendment to exempt social security, and the final resolution never mentioned it anyway. That leaves the 1984 freeze, which was to last one year. Pretty shitty, definitely.

So, some shitty budget-cutting, fiscal-conservative measures (though at other times, as I noted, voting for various rebates and cost-lowering measures). But you're using this to argue that the platform will do equal damage to a 500 billion cut over 10 years? There's nothing even approaching the severity of the Republican plan. There's also nothing even approaching the severity of the Republican plan on environmental regulation.

As for the party reneging, I do believe they generally would because they have before.

The Democratic Party's deceitful game

They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

www.salon.com

Isn't one of the oldest rules in politics to not just blindly believe campaign promises? Isn't that the domain of suckers?

Hence why I'm not. I'm asking for critical appraisal, rather than kneejerk dismissal.

It would be a sucker's game, too, to assume that a party platform is literally 100% lies, beyond anything ever attempted in American political history. Yet that's what's necessary to believe in order to reach equivalence between the candidates.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So, let's take a look at the actions taken, as referenced in the links above. The 1984 domestic spending freeze; the 1995 "balanced budget" resolution; and the Obama-era "Grand Bargain".

As Fact-Check notes, the Grand Bargain never came to pass so we can't really use it to gauge what he would do. He voted for the 1995 resolution, though he first proposed an amendment to exempt social security, and the final resolution never mentioned it anyway. That leaves the 1984 freeze, which was to last one year. Pretty shitty, definitely.

So, some shitty budget-cutting, fiscal-conservative measures (though at other times, as I noted, voting for various rebates and cost-lowering measures). But you're using this to argue that the platform will do equal damage to a 500 billion cut over 10 years? There's nothing even approaching the severity of the Republican plan. There's also nothing even approaching the severity of the Republican plan on environmental regulation.

Well first off, saying you can't hold an attempt at budget cutting because it failed is a bit silly, isn't it? The point here is that he would try and be in a better position to succeed now. Secondly a lot of little cuts add up, and he's definitely far more on the side of cutting than expanding. Which further I should point out, rebates and cost-lowering measure aren't cuts, but they aren't expansions either. The trajectory he goes on is definitely to cut social safety nets, and then make it run more 'efficiently'. And in that regard, he's no different from a Republican.

Hence why I'm not. I'm asking for critical appraisal, rather than kneejerk dismissal.

It would be a sucker's game, too, to assume that a party platform is literally 100% lies, beyond anything ever attempted in American political history. Yet that's what's necessary to believe in order to reach equivalence between the candidates.

I do have a critical response, I just don't bend over for crumbs, when the overall trajectory of policy goes against even those crumbs. The Democrat party is the party of supporting any popular measure up until it can actually happen. What I fear happening is what happened the last time we voted for a bunch of Republican (D)s, an expansion of previous right wing policies with some left wing social concession that has no impact on people's livelihoods to placate the populace.

It's going to be really bitter if Biden gets elected, goes further right than Trump, then everyone praise him for not going as far as Trump would his second term.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

I'm between 5'11 and 6 foot depending on which convenience store I'm in.

Neither political party really represents me, but I know which one doesn't and I would rather be politically effective then ideologically pure.

Well I'm 6'7" so I'm glad that means I don't fit into either convience store and the only recourse I have is insurrectionary communism.

 

[Revnak]

Well I'm 6'7" so I'm glad that means I don't fit into either convience store and the only recourse I have is insurrectionary communism.

The real Antifa supersoldier right here

 

[Lykosia]

1. If people are voting based on principles I don't see how that makes sense

2. Even assuming someone wanted to do this sort of tactic, how would it even effectively communicate your message properly? At the least voting a third party shows where popular support exists. Voting Trump does not send a message of what you want, it sends a message that people like Trump.

Vote for Biden? Sanders Supporters Say It’s ‘Up in the Air’ (Published 2020)

In interviews, some of Bernie Sanders’s primary voters saw Joe Biden as a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton. Others didn’t think he could win. Nearly all were unenthusiastic.

www.nytimes.com

Sanders base isn't overly keen on Biden. Sanders should've demanded some concessions from Biden, but didn't, betraying his base. Some people are quite disappointed and angry.

And yes, few are even considering Trump like in 2016.

 

[lil devils x]

Vote for Biden? Sanders Supporters Say It’s ‘Up in the Air’ (Published 2020)

In interviews, some of Bernie Sanders’s primary voters saw Joe Biden as a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton. Others didn’t think he could win. Nearly all were unenthusiastic.

www.nytimes.com

Sanders base isn't overly keen on Biden. Sanders should've demanded some concessions from Biden, but didn't, betraying his base. Some people are quite disappointed and angry.

And yes, few are even considering Trump like in 2016.

That's not true. Sanders did receive concessions.

Biden Likely to Embrace Some of Sanders’s Foreign-Policy Ideas, Especially After the Pandemic

The former vice president’s team is already in touch with the Sanders camp about a unified platform, operatives say.

foreignpolicy.com

Biden campaign reaches deal to allow Bernie Sanders to retain hundreds of delegates, maintain influence over party platform at the convention

The campaigns of former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders reached a deal that allows the progressive stalwart to keep delegates he would have forfeited.

abcnews.go.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-moves-closer-to-sanders-on-health-care-and-student-debt/2020/04/09/7ca45ce2-7a70-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html

Biden's Health Play In A COVID-19 Economy: Lower Medicare's Eligibility Age To 60

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden proposes letting 60-year-olds enroll in Medicare. He'd pay for the expansion out of general tax revenue, he says, not the Medicare fund.

www.npr.org

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are building new, policy-focused task forces

The unity task forces could have a big hand in shaping Democratic policy in 2020. Here’s who’s on them.

www.vox.com

 

[Silvanus]

Well first off, saying you can't hold an attempt at budget cutting because it failed is a bit silly, isn't it?

I didn't do that.

The point here is that he would try and be in a better position to succeed now. Secondly a lot of little cuts add up, and he's definitely far more on the side of cutting than expanding. Which further I should point out, rebates and cost-lowering measure aren't cuts, but they aren't expansions either. The trajectory he goes on is definitely to cut social safety nets, and then make it run more 'efficiently'. And in that regard, he's no different from a Republican.

This is falling back on broad, sweeping language to make the point. Nobody critically appraising the two records can come to the conclusion that they're equivalent on this; a year-long freeze, while shitty, is leagues and leagues below 500+ billion over ten years. They're not in the same ballpark.

Ditto environmental regulation. The records are both poor, but in terms of scale they're not remotely comparable as soon as you look in any detail. I notice nobody has approached that particular point.

It's going to be really bitter if Biden gets elected, goes further right than Trump, then everyone praise him for not going as far as Trump would his second term.

Similarly, it's going to be bitter as hell if Trump is reelected, carries out precisely what he says he'll do-- gutting what few environmental protections exist, destroying medicare-- and then left-leaning defeatniks log on to tell us this all would have happened anyway and we were powerless to stop it because Biden voted for a much smaller rollback 30 years ago.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I didn't do that.

Excuse me, what?

As Fact-Check notes, the Grand Bargain never came to pass so we can't really use it to gauge what he would do.

I'm really going to have to ask you to be consistent.

This is falling back on broad, sweeping language to make the point. Nobody critically appraising the two records can come to the conclusion that they're equivalent on this; a year-long freeze, while shitty, is leagues and leagues below 500+ billion over ten years. They're not in the same ballpark.

If you want to compare a single policy to a single policy. If you want to point out that Biden has a long record of killing the program through cuts, I'd call them pretty equivalent.

Ditto environmental regulation. The records are both poor, but in terms of scale they're not remotely comparable as soon as you look in any detail. I notice nobody has approached that particular point.

Well it's good low hanging fruit because it illustrates the precise problem with just settling for the lesser of two evils. There is a very harsh binary of not doing enough vs doing enough, and both fall on the 'not doing enough' side. This isn't a case where we can pat ourselves on the back for agreeing to a non-binding treaty instead of rejecting it, this is an area where there has to be dramatic steps yesterday to say we're doing anything at all. In that regard I really don't care if Biden is better than Trump on the environment, the end result really will be the same.

Similarly, it's going to be bitter as hell if Trump is reelected, carries out precisely what he says he'll do-- gutting what few environmental protections exist, destroying medicare-- and then left-leaning defeatniks log on to tell us this all would have happened anyway and we were powerless to stop it because Biden voted for a much smaller rollback 30 years ago.

In that case, it's bitter because it's true. We've been burned before, Obama was by and large worse than Bush, and people noticed. And the Republican party moved further right, and the Democrats have moved further right. Just electing any Democrat does not further left wing policy, and in fact depending on the Democrat it can further right wing policy. Biden is very clearly in the 'further right wing policy' section, and since I don't support right wing policy, I don't support Biden.

 

[Buyetyen]

Ditto environmental regulation. The records are both poor, but in terms of scale they're not remotely comparable as soon as you look in any detail. I notice nobody has approached that particular point.

And they never will. The point isn't getting a better conclusion, it's burning the whole thing to the ground out of spite.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Vote for Biden? Sanders Supporters Say It’s ‘Up in the Air’ (Published 2020)

In interviews, some of Bernie Sanders’s primary voters saw Joe Biden as a weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton. Others didn’t think he could win. Nearly all were unenthusiastic.

www.nytimes.com

Sanders base isn't overly keen on Biden. Sanders should've demanded some concessions from Biden, but didn't, betraying his base. Some people are quite disappointed and angry.

And yes, few are even considering Trump like in 2016.

How does *any* of that have anything to do with what I said? It does not address either point one or point two, it feels like you're just preaching for Trump votes, not actually listening to anything I said.

 

[ObsidianJones]

The problem is M4A plans that are floating around (like Sanders) are paid for. They're meticulously planned and budgeted so him asking for them to 'paid for' is code for 'he doesn't want it'. I mean it makes sense, he's an austerity Republican when legislating, it's why he cuts social security every chance he gets. But he's already said that he doesn't believe in Sander's M4A proposal and just says it's price without mentioning that Sanders has already planned how to pay for it. What Biden wants is a 'balanced budget' bill, where any expenditures mentioned in an M4A bill are balanced within that bill with taxes or cuts elsewhere.

As for their reliance on being 'not Republicans' getting old, that list of positions are held by Democrat voters, however not the politicians. That's the problem, you listed a lot of good ideas that aren't shared by the Democrat party when they get around to actually legislating. And we know this because despite calling for it, it never happens, and we find examples of the Democrats themselves waffling on it when it actually comes up to a vote that might win. The Democrats have an image issue of being full of hot air and just paying lip service to their platforms.

Finally on why it seems more okay if you don't vote for Biden now, I don't know. Here on the forums it's the same people in the same positions, but outside the forum all I can think is the disillusionment for the Dem party has grown, understandably, with the DNC taking the lesson of 2016 to be 'go further right'.

But for how long?

Today, we're still living for the age old question: Will Social Security Still Be around in even 15 years? This was a plan that was set up in 1935 where that amount of money could have helped you live in some fashion. At least better than it does now. Now, social security barely covers anything in this nation and it's getting threatened with the axe more and more.

If we have the money now, will it last? Will it cover the ever-increasing cost of hospital procedures and medial care? While I do love the idea of medicare for all, services for everyone who needs it, frankly we're dealing with the wrong end. People don't want to touch or 'hinder' medical care by saying you can not charge these insane prices because you're literally killing people who would rather let things fester instead of getting it treated when symptoms occur, or to get preventative care to keep these issues at bay.

Stitches can cost up to https://health.costhelper.com/stitches.html]500-3000 dollars. I do not dispute the skill that is needed to do the procedure, but there's no reason why a person should be charged the amount they are for [/B]sterilized needles and twine. The medical world is full of over charging horror stores. Such as paying 214 with insurance for a doctor's visit, and then being hit with a non-negotiable line of $2,824 for just being in the ER.

Medicare for All, Insurance, the like... They are not the solution. They are just a numbing agent for an out-of-control industry that has little to no financial regulation that wouldn't be controlled if M4A happened tomorrow.

Seeing government programs fail left and right is a cautious thing. I am a Bernie Backer. And I too had questions about his plan. Still do. At best, it would always be a hold over until Medical Prices are pulled down under control.

Besides, the stress to the medical infrastructure would be massive. This isn't Canada. We're 10 times the size of that population, and they have a gigantic wait time. The amount of hospitals and medical professionals that would have to be created to meet demand would be mind blowing.

And to be frank, the truth is that "Vote Blue No Matter Who" and "Either Red or Dead" is the core of what America is. We've just seen that it doesn't matter the majority of votes, it matters where the votes are. And because of how this nation is made up and the stupid electoral college, Republicans have a distinctive advantage. They don't need the voters, per se. After redistricting and gerrymandering, they have the districts. That's why we have who we have.

To win the presidency, you have to play your hand for all Americans, or at least as much as possible. If blanket good ideas were enough, we wouldn't even have differing opinions. But we have uneducated Republicans voters who are making minimum wage convinced that it's better that they make less money per hour because the way they could get more would be via socialist means, therefore 'Un-american' means. That makes no sense, but they are convinced anything non American is wrong. You don't have enough words in the english language to convince zealotry like that.

So how to win? Play the game. As disgusting as you and I find it, that is politics. He's playing the game. Biden can't yell "More Minorities in positions of power, More Socialist ideals in play, Women get to rule their damn bodies no matter what and you'll like it, cutting out the chemicals we pump into food, this will be before for you". Because while it might be true, no one wants to hear that. Because you're essentially telling the zealots that their entire mindset is wrong. And no one wants that.

Therefore you mute your ideals to a much more widely palpable speech. You get them to think you're not bad and you bring them over to your style of thinking. That's it. That's how politics have been played since forever. Biden is in Politics. I have no idea why people hate him for doing the thing that every politician has done since the dawn of the idea. I'm not in love with him for it. I barely even like him. But I see the other side played that game and won and we lost for it. A leader who is no where in sight while our nation is literally burning. Every day with him is more dangerous than the last. Trump has to go.

Lastly, I''m just fascinated about how the mainstream republican politicians more and more become cronies for Trump, and there's not as much disillusionment for their party. People just shrug and look at the democrats to pick up the slack. I am personally a progressive, and I recognize that we've stemmed from the democratic party, but I have no real love loss for the party. I just want to know why instead of taking republicans to task for their fucking up, it seems like people see their actions and then look at Democrats and go "So... what are you going to do to fix this?!"