So Biden-Haters: why Trump over Biden?

[lil devils x]

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?!"

The ballooning medical costs are a serious issue that has to be addressed at every level of the supply chain. I had addressed how we could reduce the costs of medical supply and equipment AND maintain a healthy government stockpile by having the US government buy the equipment at cost in bulk and passing on those savings to hospitals and clinics. Of course the GOP adamantly opposes this as it knocks out the middlemen being able to profit on the markups. The markups on equipment costs are so ridiculously extreme, clinics are forced to do without equipment and basic supplies because they simply cannot afford them. Hell, even on something as simple as a flag system was so expensive, I said screw it and made my own for the clinic so we would not have to pass those added up little expenses on to patients because they really do add up just to be able to maintain the building and equipment necessary to remain operational.

All of the burden to fix this is placed on Democrats and republicans pretty much get a free pass to break everything without consequence since everything is already skewed in their favor. The only option I see available right now is to keep GOP out of power at all, then we can start shifting left after that. Trump already ran off republicans that opposed him, thus why many have left republicans all together now.

 

[tippy2k2]

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho, am I right fellas!?!?

 

[lil devils x]

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho, am I right fellas!?!?

And this was why they needed Hillary, and not Biden her reform plan was actually pretty good..and YES, sadly, this is still an improvement over Trump. Maybe Biden should let Bernie design his police reform plan? They are supposed to be doing this united front thing with Bernie helping design policy, looks like Biden could really use his help in this area. When you think this is bad, then you look to trump who wants to be able to use military force against the people, Trump STILL makes Biden look good.

 

[ObsidianJones]

#VoteBlueNoMatterWho, am I right fellas!?!?

And this is legitimately the problem.

This is the actual quote.


"there's an unarmed person comin' at 'em with a knife or something to shoot 'em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing."

People latched on to the unarmed person aspect of it. That was a flub, which he's admittedly prone to do. But he said with a knife or something, and that the person was coming at a police officer.

It's unrealistic with guns at its base. As anyone with firearms training will tell you. That's my actual issue with it. Even the leg is fatal because of the femoral artery. That can cause you to bleed out in record time.

I'll never say he doesn't say stupid things. And he needs to learn how to flub less. But if you actually find out the information and listen to what he says, what he said had a direct threat to the police in his scenario.

 

[lil devils x]

And this is legitimately the problem.

This is the actual quote.


"there's an unarmed person comin' at 'em with a knife or something to shoot 'em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing."

People latched on to the unarmed person aspect of it. That was a flub, which he's admittedly prone to do. But he said with a knife or something, and that the person was coming at a police officer.

It's unrealistic with guns at its base. As anyone with firearms training will tell you. That's my actual issue with it. Even the leg is fatal because of the femoral artery. That can cause you to bleed out in record time.

I'll never say he doesn't say stupid things. And he needs to learn how to flub less. But if you actually find out the information and listen to what he says, what he said had a direct threat to the police in his scenario.

Yea, like you can have a knife and be trying to stab an officer and be unarmed at the same time. Go figure.

 

[tippy2k2]

And this is legitimately the problem.

This is the actual quote.


"there's an unarmed person comin' at 'em with a knife or something to shoot 'em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing."

People latched on to the unarmed person aspect of it. That was a flub, which he's admittedly prone to do. But he said with a knife or something, and that the person was coming at a police officer.

It's unrealistic with guns at its base. As anyone with firearms training will tell you. That's my actual issue with it. Even the leg is fatal because of the femoral artery. That can cause you to bleed out in record time.

I'll never say he doesn't say stupid things. And he needs to learn how to flub less. But if you actually find out the information and listen to what he says, what he said had a direct threat to the police in his scenario.

I did listen to it (I would never post something that I didn't personally watch/listen to/read) and I took it to mean him saying "a unarmed person" OR "a person coming at the cop with a knife". As in, someone coming at the cop armed or unarmed should be shot in the leg instead of the heart.

So half of my irkness is him saying to shoot a unarmed person and half of my irkness (which granted I did not put in my post) is how stupidly unrealistic what he is saying is. If you have the time to decide "I'm going to shoot this person in the leg", you have failed to use proper force. If you are ever using a gun on someone, you are shooting to kill because you have no other options. You never ever pull the trigger on someone you don't expect to kill. Making a choice to knee cap someone instead means you had at least some time to make that decision and therefore your use of force was excessive. Then you stated, the strange thought that there is a safe place to shoot someone because every part of your body has shit that if hit with a bullet, will kill you (usually it's an artery that will make you bleed out real quick if it gets severed by a bullet tearing through it).

Real life isn't Hollywood Joe and while I can forgive an ordinary citizen who has never used a gun before to think that Hollywood is correct, I expect someone trying to become president to know the difference. Am I expecting too much from someone trying to become President of The United States?

 

[lil devils x]

I did listen to it (I would never post something that I didn't personally watch/listen to/read) and I took it to mean him saying "a unarmed person" OR "a person coming at the cop with a knife". As in, someone coming at the cop armed or unarmed should be shot in the leg instead of the heart.

So half of my irkness is him saying to shoot a unarmed person and half of my irkness (which granted I did not put in my post) is how stupidly unrealistic what he is saying is. If you have the time to decide "I'm going to shoot this person in the leg", you have failed to use proper force. If you are ever using a gun on someone, you are shooting to kill because you have no other options. You never ever pull the trigger on someone you don't expect to kill. Making a choice to knee cap someone instead means you had at least some time to make that decision and therefore your use of force was excessive. Then you stated, the strange thought that there is a safe place to shoot someone because every part of your body has shit that if hit with a bullet, will kill you (usually it's an artery that will make you bleed out real quick if it gets severed by a bullet tearing through it).

Real life isn't Hollywood Joe and while I can forgive an ordinary citizen who has never used a gun before to think that Hollywood is correct, I expect someone trying to become president to know the difference. Am I expecting too much from someone trying to become President of The United States?

No, however, we already have that and worse actually AS president of the United States as we speak, calling for using MORE force to be used on unarmed people than is already being used. We need to hold both the current president and those opposing him to the same standard and look at the whole picture here. It would be great if we had a candidate that would not want them to shoot people at all, we do not have that option though is our reality. Whether we like it or not, we only get two choices here. Letting the guy who wants MORE force than is currently being used keep calling the shots though isn't helping the situation either. AT least Biden, with all his faults, he may say some stupid things, he then will sit down and listen to others and allow others to put together plans that are far more reasonable. With Trump, none of that will happen, and this only gets worse. Trump doesn't let anyone make more reasonable plans, he thinks he knows better than everyone else with his " genius brain" and does what he wants regardless.

 

[ObsidianJones]

I did listen to it (I would never post something that I didn't personally watch/listen to/read) and I took it to mean him saying "a unarmed person" OR "a person coming at the cop with a knife". As in, someone coming at the cop armed or unarmed should be shot in the leg instead of the heart.

So half of my irkness is him saying to shoot a unarmed person and half of my irkness (which granted I did not put in my post) is how stupidly unrealistic what he is saying is. If you have the time to decide "I'm going to shoot this person in the leg", you have failed to use proper force. If you are ever using a gun on someone, you are shooting to kill because you have no other options. You never ever pull the trigger on someone you don't expect to kill. Making a choice to knee cap someone instead means you had at least some time to make that decision and therefore your use of force was excessive. Then you stated, the strange thought that there is a safe place to shoot someone because every part of your body has shit that if hit with a bullet, will kill you (usually it's an artery that will make you bleed out real quick if it gets severed by a bullet tearing through it).

Real life isn't Hollywood Joe and while I can forgive an ordinary citizen who has never used a gun before to think that Hollywood is correct, I expect someone trying to become president to know the difference. Am I expecting too much from someone trying to become President of The United States?

To be fair, a knife is a lethal instrument. Anyone who has training in Kali will tell you that in a second (Much love to my Escrima/Kali siblings). You're not coming at someone with a knife to subdue or to knock unconscious. You are trying to open those very same arteries. So if someone's coming to you with lethal force, the force should be met in kind.

This is a point I want to make ardently clear. I Am Not Oppose To Cops Using Justifiable Lethal Force. I can not stress that enough. But to be justifiable, certain measures have to be met. The Police officer can never be the aggressor. They must be reactionary. And it must be provable. That's it. Protect your lives and the lives of others.

We should expect much, much more than we've been getting for our President. However, Biden has shown the ability to acknowledge when he messes up, apologize, and at least attempt to do better in the future. Which is light-years better than what we get now. A President who handles the nation ripping itself apart not with leadership, but deriding governors to being too weak.

Yes, I much rather have a president who gets things wrong, apologies, and tries to fix his mess up versus a president who just doubles down on the rhetoric that has got us over the edge.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

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.

M4A is how you pull those prices down, along with lifting a few regulations on Medicare like their inability to negotiate prices. The reason why medical procedures are so expensive in America is because hospitals can charge it and insurance companies have to comply since they don't have enough of a client base to negotiate. That precise and specific problem is one that's solved with a correctly implemented single payer health system, and exacerbated with the ACA.

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.

While there are of course die hard conservatives who strongly oppose any of these more social thinking ideas, their numbers and power are expanded in the minds of liberal pundits so you think there's no way to win but to cater to them. And it's used to paper over the inadequacies of liberal candidates.

Trump didn't win on some surge of conservative support, he didn't even get as many votes as Bush did in 2004. On paper Hillary got as many votes as Obama did in 2012. But you can see where the votes shifted, you are correct that you have to appeal to a broad group, because Hillary's margin of victory over Trump is entirely made of excess votes from NY and California. If Hillary got as many votes as Obama did in those 2 states, she'd have lost to Trump in the popular vote as well.

My end point is, if you want electability, which is what the Dems are trying to feed you with Biden and Hillary and the rest, you don't want Biden and HIllary and the rest. These are very poor candidates who aren't very electable. They have huge draws in safe places who would vote any Dem, and no appeal across the rest of the country, thus by your argument the wrong choice.

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?!"

Well asking Dem voters to fix the Republican party isn't quite going to work. But more than that, the Dem message is that the Republicans are absolutely unfit to lead, above and beyond being ideological opponents. They kind of have to since they largely have the same ideology. But if that's how you paint your opponents, why would you then expect people to demand they reform? You've just said they're institutionally stupid and incompetent. You spent your post calling their base morons.

I'm not a Republican, asking me to reform their party is silly. And Republican voters are too dumb to vote in their best interest, asking them to reform their party is just as silly. If Democrats want to be the party of paternalistic rationality, then they should expect to be questioned on their wisdom.

 

[lil devils x]

M4A is how you pull those prices down, along with lifting a few regulations on Medicare like their inability to negotiate prices. The reason why medical procedures are so expensive in America is because hospitals can charge it and insurance companies have to comply since they don't have enough of a client base to negotiate. That precise and specific problem is one that's solved with a correctly implemented single payer health system, and exacerbated with the ACA.



While there are of course die hard conservatives who strongly oppose any of these more social thinking ideas, their numbers and power are expanded in the minds of liberal pundits so you think there's no way to win but to cater to them. And it's used to paper over the inadequacies of liberal candidates.

Trump didn't win on some surge of conservative support, he didn't even get as many votes as Bush did in 2004. On paper Hillary got as many votes as Obama did in 2012. But you can see where the votes shifted, you are correct that you have to appeal to a broad group, because Hillary's margin of victory over Trump is entirely made of excess votes from NY and California. If Hillary got as many votes as Obama did in those 2 states, she'd have lost to Trump in the popular vote as well.

My end point is, if you want electability, which is what the Dems are trying to feed you with Biden and Hillary and the rest, you don't want Biden and HIllary and the rest. These are very poor candidates who aren't very electable. They have huge draws in safe places who would vote any Dem, and no appeal across the rest of the country, thus by your argument the wrong choice.



Well asking Dem voters to fix the Republican party isn't quite going to work. But more than that, the Dem message is that the Republicans are absolutely unfit to lead, above and beyond being ideological opponents. They kind of have to since they largely have the same ideology. But if that's how you paint your opponents, why would you then expect people to demand they reform? You've just said they're institutionally stupid and incompetent. You spent your post calling their base morons.

I'm not a Republican, asking me to reform their party is silly. And Republican voters are too dumb to vote in their best interest, asking them to reform their party is just as silly. If Democrats want to be the party of paternalistic rationality, then they should expect to be questioned on their wisdom.

M4A does not cover all the costs of treatment, and it does not reduce the overall costs of the facility as it does not actually address the factors that impact what the medical facility itself needs to remain open. IF we implemented M4A without simultaneously supplementing costs for hospitals and clinics, many of those facilities would actually be forced to closed. This actually needs to be addressed at so many different points, just trying to fix it on one end does not change the other factors causing the problems on the other end. The current Medicare system actually relies on the for profit insurance system and periodical tax money injections into the facilities themselves in order to keep them operational. The costs that are not covered under our current medicare are " tacked on to" the cost of other procedures paid for by insurers. Currently, medicare is part of the cause that increases costs to insurers to compensate for what is not covered under our current medicare system.

EVEN with the increased costs to insurers, we still have shortages that would have closed many of our public hospitals already if local and state taxes had not swooped in and saved the hospitals to keep their doors open. Without these additional tax injections, many hospitals would be forced to closed all together:

Yet Another Rural Texas Hospital is in Jeopardy After Anti-Tax Activists Kill Funding Proposal

As rural hospitals struggle across the state, local voters killed a proposition to create a hospital taxing district meant to keep a facility in La Grange open for the foreseeable future.

www.texasobserver.org

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-04-01/hospital-closures-complicate-coronavirus-care-in-rural-areas

Rural Hospitals Say ‘Medicare For All’ Would End Up 'Closing Our Doors'

Hospital administrators from Texas to Maine say adopting a single-payer government health care program that covers all Americans would force more rural hospitals to close.

www.wbur.org

The reality is we had at least 47 hospitals closed in 2019, and unless we actually increase medicare/ medicaid reimbursement costs prior to expanding the programs, we will then be forced to deal with more hospitals closing at higher rates. There is much we have to fix in regards to medicare before we can effectively expand the program to solve the problems and not create more problems in the process. Medicare and medicaid actually need to pay more than they currently do at the moment because of the other factors that are impacting the rising costs of healthcare that are not being addressed to be able to bring down the overall costs on the provider end. The medicaid expansion when implemented under the ACA failed to address the problem of medicaid underpayment which then in turn leads to providers not having the revenue to keep their doors open at all. Even when we overcharge insurers to make up for the medicaid underpayments, they are still not enough to offset to revenue loss. The insurance payments to providers were not the cause of these shortages, it was actually caused by medicaid not covering the providers actual costs to treat the patients in the first place.

 

[Silvanus]

Excuse me, what?

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

You said it's silly to argue that we can't hold an attempt to cut the budget against him if it failed; I replied that I didn't do that, and I didn't.

Biden stated that he'd be willing to put "everything on the table" in negotiations for the Grand Bargain, including social security and medicare. So... what does this translate to? It indicates a willingness to cut (or to hold off on expansion)... to what extent?

If it were consistent with the most severe cut to Medicare & Social Security spending from his record (the 1984 Freeze), that means approximately 45 billion. But in order to consider the Democrat and Republican platforms equivalent, it would need to be in excess of 500 billion.

I said we cannot gauge the hypothetical impact. How would you do so? If you want to base it on the worst of his record, that'd put it as... 355 billion more invested than under the Republicans.

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.

Not a single policy: I've repeatedly brought up the broader records on medicare and environmental protection, noting multiple votes and stances on each (the very worst of which is nowhere near the average from the Republicans, and the balance of which isn't even comparable).

The fact of the matter is that the comparison doesn't bear scrutiny if we look at single policies or if we look at broader records. It only has legs if we don't look at policy in any detail at all, broad or otherwise, and focus only on broad sweeping (and very vague) language, as above.

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.

Biden's record includes various actual environmental protections. Not as far-reaching as necessary, but overall balanced towards regulation. Trump's record solely involves repealing them and accelerating the damage.

This is the point on which it's frankly inarguable. Time is exceptionally important on this, and it's a matter of survival of the species. You allow the worse of two evils on climate change, you can't bide time for a better option in the future; the pace of climate change accelerates and we lose any time we might have had.

The overwhelming scientific consensus does not see an equivalence. There is no equivalence on this. One squanders what time we have; the other represents, at this point, a slowing of the pace of damage. And, I might add, the people who are already bearing the brunt of this-- the ones facing ever increasing disastrous weather patterns, ecological damage, deforestation, mass animal extinction-- are the poorest communities.

Give up 4 years of meagre, not-quite-enough environmental protection under a Democrat, in favour of intense acceleration under Trump, and we hurtle further into this fucking abyss.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You said it's silly to argue that we can't hold an attempt to cut the budget against him if it failed; I replied that I didn't do that, and I didn't.

No

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

You're lying. You're flat out lying, I won't let you drop this, I won't let you change the goal posts, I won't let you gaslight. Direct whole quote from you. There was nothing else to this. Don't fuck around, I won't hear it. I won't care about anything you say if you're dishonest.

If my point is that he would cut social security, and there is an instance of him trying to cut social security, it corroborates what I say. When there is a 50 year pattern of it, it corroborates my point very fucking well.

If my position is that we shouldn't cut social security, then telling me to vote for someone who wants to cut social security is just plain wrong.

PRETENDING LIKE AN ATTEMPTED CUT TO SOCIAL SECURITY DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT FAILED IS LUDICROUSLY DISHONEST.

No.

And until you can be honest in this discussion, all I'll say to the rest of your post is "you're wrong". That's all the rest of it deserves at this moment.

 

[Avnger]

No



You're lying. You're flat out lying, I won't let you drop this, I won't let you change the goal posts, I won't let you gaslight. Direct whole quote from you. There was nothing else to this. Don't fuck around, I won't hear it. I won't care about anything you say if you're dishonest.

If my point is that he would cut social security, and there is an instance of him trying to cut social security, it corroborates what I say. When there is a 50 year pattern of it, it corroborates my point very fucking well.

If my position is that we shouldn't cut social security, then telling me to vote for someone who wants to cut social security is just plain wrong.

PRETENDING LIKE AN ATTEMPTED CUT TO SOCIAL SECURITY DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT FAILED IS LUDICROUSLY DISHONEST.

No.

And until you can be honest in this discussion, all I'll say to the rest of your post is "you're wrong". That's all the rest of it deserves at this moment.

yikes

 

[SupahEwok]

yikes

Yeah, these new formatting options are great, right?

 

[Avnger]

Yeah, these new formatting options are great, right?

Compared to the content of the post, the formatting options it shows off could even be described as "amazing."

 

[Silvanus]

No



You're lying. You're flat out lying, I won't let you drop this, I won't let you change the goal posts, I won't let you gaslight.


Direct whole quote from you. There was nothing else to this. Don't fuck around, I won't hear it. I won't care about anything you say if you're dishonest.

If my point is that he would cut social security, and there is an instance of him trying to cut social security, it corroborates what I say. When there is a 50 year pattern of it, it corroborates my point very fucking well.

If my position is that we shouldn't cut social security, then telling me to vote for someone who wants to cut social security is just plain wrong.

PRETENDING LIKE AN ATTEMPTED CUT TO SOCIAL SECURITY DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT FAILED IS LUDICROUSLY DISHONEST.

No.

And until you can be honest in this discussion, all I'll say to the rest of your post is "you're wrong". That's all the rest of it deserves at this moment.

"Gaslighting", Jesus Christ.

I am well aware the attempt to cut social security happened. I referred directly to it in the post you just quoted, in the part you snipped out:

Biden stated that he'd be willing to put "everything on the table" in negotiations for the Grand Bargain, including social security and medicare. So... what does this translate to? It indicates a willingness to cut (or to hold off on expansion)... to what extent?

If I understand this latest accusation right, you're saying this is me changing the record from this;

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

To make it clearer: I was saying that since we have scarcely any details on the "Grand Bargain", we can't use it to gauge the scale or nature of the cuts that would have been implemented. I was not saying that it therefore isn't an attempt to cut at all, because I thought that was obvious.

Ok, maybe that original line should've been clearer. But this is misunderstanding on a forum, not fucking gaslighting. It's not really above-board to throw around terms for psychological abuse to describe forum misunderstandings.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

"Gaslighting", Jesus Christ.

I am well aware the attempt to cut social security happened. I referred directly to it in the post you just quoted, in the part you snipped out:



If I understand this latest accusation right, you're saying this is me changing the record from this;



To make it clearer: I was saying that since we have scarcely any details on the "Grand Bargain", we can't use it to gauge the scale or nature of the cuts that would have been implemented. I was not saying that it therefore isn't an attempt to cut at all, because I thought that was obvious.

Ok, maybe that original line should've been clearer. But this is misunderstanding on a forum, not fucking gaslighting. It's not really above-board to throw around terms for psychological abuse to describe forum misunderstandings.

I disagree completely with the logic, but I'm willing to admit the misunderstanding. I used that term because that's what it felt like, thinking you were just flat out denying you said something before. And I have been getting good use out of my ignore feature for other instances of abuse on here.

As to the logic of it, Social Security is on the path to insolvency, so quibbling about how much a particular candidate cuts it doesn't change the fact that at this rate it'll go insolvent long before people like me will get it. At that point it'll be dead and basically have to be rebuilt from scratch. So Biden's cuts to it are unacceptable.

We can quibble about the environment too, that one's a bit harder since climate change is a self reinforcing system and depending on who you ask, may already be too late to stop. What I know for sure is that Biden's stances on climate change are unacceptable.

There might be a difference in how they treat financial regulation, but that's really Biden's wheelhouse for fucking things up so he's unacceptable there too.

A common theme of Biden is that he's an unacceptable candidate, basically no matter what I consider important policy wise, Biden is not my candidate. I see no reason to support him. I see no reason to support Trump either, so I won't vote for either of them.

 

[Silvanus]

I disagree completely with the logic, but I'm willing to admit the misunderstanding. I used that term because that's what it felt like, thinking you were just flat out denying you said something before. And I have been getting good use out of my ignore feature for other instances of abuse on here.

That's fair enough. I can also see how my first response, just saying "No I didn't", was a bit petty & dismissive on my part.

As to the logic of it, Social Security is on the path to insolvency, so quibbling about how much a particular candidate cuts it doesn't change the fact that at this rate it'll go insolvent long before people like me will get it. At that point it'll be dead and basically have to be rebuilt from scratch. So Biden's cuts to it are unacceptable.

We can quibble about the environment too, that one's a bit harder since climate change is a self reinforcing system and depending on who you ask, may already be too late to stop. What I know for sure is that Biden's stances on climate change are unacceptable.

There might be a difference in how they treat financial regulation, but that's really Biden's wheelhouse for fucking things up so he's unacceptable there too.

A common theme of Biden is that he's an unacceptable candidate, basically no matter what I consider important policy wise, Biden is not my candidate. I see no reason to support him. I see no reason to support Trump either, so I won't vote for either of them.

Well, I think we've probably said all we have to say on the subjects of voting record & such.

I think Biden's a terrible candidate, and one of the worst choices the Democrats could have made for this campaign, not least because he inspires so little enthusiasm that he's liable to fail to get out the vote. If that happens, a huge slice of culpability will rest on those who chose to field such a self-destructive candidate.

I will note, though, what an incredible record the international Left has for self-destructive factionalism and infighting. Right-wing parties-- including the Republicans in the US, and the Tories in the UK-- are so much more effective at getting behind the candidate their party puts forward whether they like him or not, and getting into line when a campaign launches.

And looking at the state of politics in both of those countries (lurching ever right-wards) I can't help but think that that mentality is far more effective at actually getting an agenda done in the long-term. That "falling into line" thing the Right does is remarkably effective at dominating the political discussion.

 

[lil devils x]

That's fair enough. I can also see how my first response, just saying "No I didn't", was a bit petty & dismissive on my part.



Well, I think we've probably said all we have to say on the subjects of voting record & such.

I think Biden's a terrible candidate, and one of the worst choices the Democrats could have made for this campaign, not least because he inspires so little enthusiasm that he's liable to fail to get out the vote. If that happens, a huge slice of culpability will rest on those who chose to field such a self-destructive candidate.

I will note, though, what an incredible record the international Left has for self-destructive factionalism and infighting. Right-wing parties-- including the Republicans in the US, and the Tories in the UK-- are so much more effective at getting behind the candidate their party puts forward whether they like him or not, and getting into line when a campaign launches.

And looking at the state of politics in both of those countries (lurching ever right-wards) I can't help but think that that mentality is far more effective at actually getting an agenda done in the long-term. That "falling into line" thing the Right does is remarkably effective at dominating the political discussion.

Republicans, Tories and other right wing parties usually seem to think rallying around " cuts to the poor" is more important than any of their other ideological differences and will put aside other factors in order to unify in order to get their majority, then will argue about their differences after the fact because they know without gaining a majority, they are just wasting their time being there at all really. The majority government calls the shots. Progressives, democrats other liberal governments have not yet fully understood the importance of unifying just to obtain the majority being priority over ALL other disagreements and instead point blame at one another for not doing anything to stop it. That will continue to happen until they finally deem having the majority as being important enough to put aside all else to accomplish.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

That's fair enough. I can also see how my first response, just saying "No I didn't", was a bit petty & dismissive on my part.



Well, I think we've probably said all we have to say on the subjects of voting record & such.

I think Biden's a terrible candidate, and one of the worst choices the Democrats could have made for this campaign, not least because he inspires so little enthusiasm that he's liable to fail to get out the vote. If that happens, a huge slice of culpability will rest on those who chose to field such a self-destructive candidate.

I will note, though, what an incredible record the international Left has for self-destructive factionalism and infighting. Right-wing parties-- including the Republicans in the US, and the Tories in the UK-- are so much more effective at getting behind the candidate their party puts forward whether they like him or not, and getting into line when a campaign launches.

And looking at the state of politics in both of those countries (lurching ever right-wards) I can't help but think that that mentality is far more effective at actually getting an agenda done in the long-term. That "falling into line" thing the Right does is remarkably effective at dominating the political discussion.

Yes, but it's also the exact reason why the right has an image of uninformed voters, voting against their self interest. It's why I so vehemently disagree with vote blue no matter who, it's the road to the death of political awareness.

The right's method of just having people mindlessly vote for them is effective electorally, but it's of no help to the majority of the voters who support them. And the attempt by the Democrats to try that model of voting is a naked attempt to normalize candidates like Biden or Hillary, ones who only remain left of radical Republicans and no one else. If you lose by winning, you didn't win.