Biden's Problematic Record

[Felya]

Yes, a politician that makes empty promises with no intention to follow through or even try...right alongside his very passionate and lengthy support of the existing ACA.

Than why doesn’t he just promise medicare for all, regardless of cost? Why doesn’t he empty promise that?

Edit: You can’t demand he promises something, while at the same time claiming it’s empty promises. That’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. That’s bias...

- - - Updated - - -

I hope this thread is going to be around when the Title VII decision (maybe Monday) drops. Going to look hilariously quaint and privileged in the decision runs against us.

They don’t care... violence against women act... they don’t care... public option... they don’t care...

[Nellise]

Yes, a politician that makes empty promises with no intention to follow through or even try...right alongside his very passionate and lengthy support of the existing ACA aka RomneyCare.

I understand.

I only said "appears to" because I hadn't read his plan fully to understand the details. That was simply me hedging my bets that I might've misread it. But it seems like you've already made up his mind that whatever plan he has as long as it's not called "Medicare for All" isn't going to be good enough for you even if it does the exact same thing. I mean, this is a whole section under Biden's healthcare page: "IV. ENSURE HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT FOR ALL, NOT A PRIVILEGE FOR JUST A FEW".

[Acidbaron]

Which means we go back to the argument. If you are prevented to vote, it's not your fault, you are not aiding trump. It will help him, but it's not by your aid. Same as if you abstain your vote... that means neither of the parties get a vote. That's +-0. Thinking people should vote against their interests to counterweight malpractices is shifting blame on the wrong person.

Also, to add to that, the entire argument is the wrong way around... it's not lower turn outs that's causing republicans to win. It's republicans supressing specific voters that causes a low turn out of a specific demographic, by the sound of it. Add to that there are voters that also just don't like democratic choice and thus won't vote for them, nor will they vote for trump.

The republican practise is so that there is voter suppression as it benefits them, the way the US voting system works with the electoral college that means that lower vote turn out in specific regions and demographics aid them more than in other places.

Votes in the US are not equal one vote in a specific region can count for more than that of another region, so it's not a zero sum game.
Lower turn out does benefit them as the republican base is shrinking, you have to remember that trump did not won the popular vote.

[Felya]

I only said "appears to" because I hadn't read his plan fully to understand the details. That was simply me hedging my bets that I might've misread it. But it seems like you've already made up his mind that whatever plan he has as long as it's not called "Medicare for All" isn't going to be good enough for you even if it does the exact same thing. I mean, this is a whole section under Biden's healthcare page: "IV. ENSURE HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT FOR ALL, NOT A PRIVILEGE FOR JUST A FEW".

Even further... if Biden promises Medicare for all, it’s just an empty promise. It’s a catch 22...

[snoodloost]

I hope this thread is going to be around when the Title VII decision (maybe Monday) drops. Going to look hilariously quaint and privileged in the decision runs against us.

Yeah what we need is a man with a history of supporting segregation and homophobia to fight back for civil rights.

What colour is the sky in your world?

[Louisa Bannon]

... it's not lower turn outs that's causing republicans to win.

I think this is incorrect.

There are significant youth and minority voters that do not vote because Democrats no longer court their favor. These voters are passionate when they have something for which to actively vote and apathetic/absent when their policy concerns go ignored.

I am not young, but I am probably considered in a minority group. The OP in this thread explains the problem: apathy, nothing here to vote for. Biden is an empty vessel and has a long record of opportunistic bullshit. Career politician all the way, and the worst kind too.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

They don’t care... violence against women act... they don’t care... public option... they don’t care...

Which is also why they lost the primary. I've really yet to see any sort of actual, workable progressive response to the upcoming decision or the fact that SCOTUS granted cert to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

[snoodloost]

So, why hasn't Sanders managed to get M4A through in all his years in power?

Because stupid Americans install politicians who vote against their interests due to corporate brainwashing, then blame the few people that do.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Yeah what we need is a man with a history of supporting segregation and homophobia to fight back for civil rights.

What colour is the sky in your world?

This color. How about yours?

Edit: And this color too. How about the color of a US passport with my corrected gender on it? Thanks Hillary Clinton!

[snoodloost]

Which is also why they lost the primary. I've really yet to see any sort of actual, workable progressive response to the upcoming decision or the fact that SCOTUS granted cert to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

Your response is to elect a homophobic segregationist warmonger bigot in the pay of wall st. Is that you mean by "workable"? The exact opposite of what progressives believe in?

[Felya]

Which is also why they lost the primary. I've really yet to see any sort of actual, workable progressive response to the upcoming decision or the fact that SCOTUS granted cert to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.

For reference:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...-pennsylvania/

I think they lost for the same reason Hillary lost... pretend the rust belt and south doesn’t exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Your response is to elect a homophobic segregationist warmonger bigot in the pay of wall st. Is that you mean by "workable"? The exact opposite of what progressives believe in?

You should read this:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...-pennsylvania/

[Louisa Bannon]

Even further... if Biden promises Medicare for all, it’s just an empty promise. It’s a catch 22...

I base my mistrust of Biden on his record and overall dishonesty as enumerated in the OP of this thread. How many lies does a politician have to tell before you simply assume he's lying a good deal of the time?

[Machismo]

Because stupid Americans install politicians who vote against their interests due to corporate brainwashing, then blame the few people that do.

It would appear that M4A isn't such a high priority.

[Kumorii]

I think this is incorrect.

There are significant youth and minority voters that do not vote because Democrats no longer court their favor. These voters are passionate when they have something for which to actively vote and apathetic/absent when their policy concerns go ignored.

I am not young, but I am probably considered in a minority group. The OP in this thread explains the problem: apathy, nothing here to vote for. Biden is an empty vessel and has a long record of opportunistic bullshit. Career politician all the way, and the worst kind too.

I explained it, maybe poorly however, dunno. Lower turn out is a result of malpractices as well as democrats losing people who tends to vote vote for them. Yet people shift the blame on people who don't want to vote for either because it causes a "lower turn out" which means republicans win. Focusing on the wrong aspects. instead of focusing to get people to vote for you, which increases turn out, they focus on trying to increases turn outs, in hope they get the votes.

as in this case "you should vote for the guy you dislike because it increases turn out and thus OUR chances of winning". Which is just not how democracy should work. As well as it's just wrong. It increases turn out yes, but the fact it increases their chances is because the vote is on their guy, not due to turn out.

[Machismo]

-snip-

Evidence, please.

[Acidbaron]

I base my mistrust of Biden on his record and overall dishonesty as enumerated in the OP of this thread. How many lies does a politician have to tell before you simply assume he's lying a good deal of the time?

Has to be quite a lot considering you find trump to be "not worse than Biden".

Also still awaiting you to elaborate on your support of the greens in the US, in case you have forgotten?

[GreenGoldSharpie]

Your response is to elect a homophobic segregationist warmonger bigot in the pay of wall st. Is that you mean by "workable"? The exact opposite of what progressives believe in?

So, the dude who wrote the forward to the autobiography for the first trans woman to speak at a national convention and ran comms for the Human Rights Campaign, whose son helped her pass anti-discrimination legislation in Delaware, and whose Secretary of State changed the rules on spousal support for LGBTQ spouses and allowed trans people to change their gender marker without surgery is... anti-trans?

[Felya]

I base my mistrust of Biden on his record and overall dishonesty as enumerated in the OP of this thread. How many lies does a politician have to tell before you simply assume he's lying a good deal of the time?

But, you are the one being dishonest about Biden and medicare for all. I’m voting Biden, because I pay attention to the lies. You on the other hand claim Trump’s actions are bipartisan and assert that despite any objective comparison on lying... that Trump might be better. Not buying your shit...

[snoodloost]

Evidence, please.

His wikipedia page or any other basic source of biographical information. As i've posted dozens of times before.

How do you manage to turn on your computer?

- - - Updated - - -

I’m voting Biden, because I pay attention to the lies.

Freudian slip there.

[Felya]

I explained it, maybe poorly however, dunno. Lower turn out is a result of malpractices as well as democrats losing people who tends to vote vote for them. Yet people shift the blame on people who don't want to vote for either because it causes a "lower turn out" which means republicans win. Focusing on the wrong aspects. instead of focusing to get people to vote for you, which increases turn out, they focus on trying to increases turn outs, in hope they get the votes.

as in this case "you should vote for the guy you dislike because it increases turn out and thus OUR chances of winning". Which is just not how democracy should work. As well as it's just wrong. It increases turn out yes, but the fact it increases their chances is because the vote is on their guy, not due to turn out.

I disagree, but I get it. Your commentary is appreciated. Thank you!