Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Felya]

And Trump is objectively progressive when standing next to Hitler.

You just proved my point... need me to explain?

[Huehuecoyotl]

I'm not going to get into the argument about who to vote for, but I do have one question for the Americans here.

Someone mentioned that 70% of voters are in favour of universal healthcare instead of the nonsense that you have to suffer at the moment. Assuming that statistic is correct (and not just pulled out of somebodies ass) how can you be heading towards an election that will be between two candidates, one of whom is perfectly happy to keep healthcare like it is, and the other who wants to make it worse?

How, with healthcare being such an important thing, can you end up with two candidates that don't represent such a huge number of voters? Doesn't that make it clear that the process of selecting the candidates is significantly flawed?

[starlord]

how hard is it to criticize dems without making up blatant lies and spreading misinformation?

i see the "totally leftists bro" still keep spreading alt right talking points. how completely unexpected.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not going to get into the argument about who to vote for, but I do have one question for the Americans here.

Someone mentioned that 70% of voters are in favour of universal healthcare instead of the nonsense that you have to suffer at the moment. Assuming that statistic is correct (and not just pulled out of somebodies ass) how can you be heading towards an election that will be between two candidates, one of whom is perfectly happy to keep healthcare like it is, and the other who wants to make it worse?

How, with healthcare being such an important thing, can you end up with two candidates that don't represent such a huge number of voters? Doesn't that make it clear that the process of selecting the candidates is significantly flawed?

actually one candidate does want to expand healthcare.
this is an example of misinformation being spread as fact.

[Felya]

I'm not going to get into the argument about who to vote for, but I do have one question for the Americans here.

Someone mentioned that 70% of voters are in favour of universal healthcare instead of the nonsense that you have to suffer at the moment. Assuming that statistic is correct (and not just pulled out of somebodies ass) how can you be heading towards an election that will be between two candidates, one of whom is perfectly happy to keep healthcare like it is, and the other who wants to make it worse?

How, with healthcare being such an important thing, can you end up with two candidates that don't represent such a huge number of voters? Doesn't that make it clear that the process of selecting the candidates is significantly flawed?

Because people don’t want to lose their existing coverage. Biden was a VP when ACA passed, so saying he supports the current, doesn’t make sense. The current resulted in millions losing their coverage, who had it with ACA.

Edit: Biden supports the current, worked 3 years ago. After the 3 years of Trump, we need to work to get back to current of 3 years ago.

[AntiFascistVoter]

You need better tankie sources. But lies and deception seem to be your thing.



Of course Jordan Uhl cropped the bullet point right before this one.

Just because it's fun to dunk on wingnuts like Jordan Uhl.

He's also the spox for people that think "meat causes autism".


Please, steal from better twitter feeds.

[Louisa Bannon]

If you're voting for someone without any chance of winning the general, for President, it's a wasted vote that means nothing and you may as well have not voted.

If I vote third party, perhaps next time that same third party gets better recognition and more play. If I don't vote at all, the side that expected my vote doesn't get it and perhaps loses. Decisions, decisions...

You sure seem interested in things not strictly pertinent to your own concerns as a Canadian. What exactly tickles you so much about my voting for a party that won't even try to get us over here a national health service? In what way do they deserve my vote? I know something about the Canadian response and it makes me wonder why you, in particular, think I should be so happy to vote for corporatist assholes that won't try for anything meaningful.

[starlord]

If I vote third party, perhaps next time that same third party gets better recognition and more play. If I don't vote at all, the side that expected my vote doesn't get it and perhaps loses. Decisions, decisions...

You sure seem interested in things not strictly pertinent to your own concerns as a Canadian. What exactly tickles you so much about my voting for a party that won't even try to get us over here a national health service? In what way do they deserve my vote? I know something about the Canadian response and it makes me wonder why you, in particular, think I should be so happy to vote for corporatist assholes that won't try for anything meaningful.

you don't have to vote for anyone. or even make up spurious reasons not to.
and yet you are here posting about them to the public in an effort to... what?

[Muzjhath]

If I vote third party, perhaps next time that same third party gets better recognition and more play. If I don't vote at all, the side that expected my vote doesn't get it and perhaps loses. Decisions, decisions...

You sure seem interested in things not strictly pertinent to your own concerns as a Canadian. What exactly tickles you so much about my voting for a party that won't even try to get us over here a national health service? In what way do they deserve my vote? I know something about the Canadian response and it makes me wonder why you, in particular, think I should be so happy to vote for corporatist assholes that won't try for anything meaningful.

Vote third party/whatever down ballot. Join that party and organize for them on a local level. Then once they exist in several state legislatures and got a couple of 10s of millions of voters across the nation. Go and join the federal races.
But until they've got enough grassroot and state support. Vote for what is against your interest the least federally. Or you'll be screwing over yourself. Since getting your "amazingly best no corporate shills here!" into congress and the whitehouse won't matter shit if the judiciary is created by Mitch McConnel.

[Noxx79]

These identity politics don't interest me that much. Just fix it in Title 42 and be done with it.

In fact, what annoys is how these issues are used purely for the sake of expediency, and the hypocrisy of our glorious leader be damned. I have read articles explaining to me how I can still vote Biden even though he's probably as big a sexual assault fuckup as Kavanaugh. Personally, I'd prefer to have people with cleaner hands as either a justice on SCOTUS or the person sitting in the oval office.

“The stuff that changed doesn’t count because it doesn’t fit my narrative”

[Endus]

If I vote third party, perhaps next time that same third party gets better recognition and more play. If I don't vote at all, the side that expected my vote doesn't get it and perhaps loses. Decisions, decisions...

Whether you vote third party or not has basically no meaning, not unless you're actively supporting that third party in campaigning or the like. And not voting at all isn't about denying someone an expected vote; your vote isn't "lost", it doesn't exist.

You sure seem interested in things not strictly pertinent to your own concerns as a Canadian.

The welfare and future of our major trading partner and long-time strongest single ally is somehow "not pertinent to my own concerns"?

What exactly tickles you so much about my voting for a party that won't even try to get us over here a national health service? In what way do they deserve my vote? I know something about the Canadian response and it makes me wonder why you, in particular, think I should be so happy to vote for corporatist assholes that won't try for anything meaningful.

Because framing the Democrats that way is a lie. A flat-out, deliberate lie.

They've expanded health care coverage in the last decade (the ACA), they've been talking about doing a lot more. There's a lot of support for that among Democrats. Even Biden supports doing more than the ACA, and building up on that baseline. Do I agree that it's the best possible option? Nah. I liked Warren's approach better, but she's not an option any more. But that's not the question, any more.

The question is "will Biden be better for America on this issue than Trump?"

And that has a pretty simple, obvious answer, and if you're gonna "both sides are bad" me on that, I'm going to state unequivocally that you're lying and you're not entering the discussion here in good faith to begin with.

[Louisa Bannon]

Someone mentioned that 70% of voters are in favour of universal healthcare instead of the nonsense that you have to suffer at the moment. Assuming that statistic is correct (and not just pulled out of somebodies ass)...

70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all—here’s how single-payer could affect you
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most...e-tuition.html

Two years ago, I imagine the numbers are at least the same or even higher now.

...how can you be heading towards an election that will be between two candidates, one of whom is perfectly happy to keep healthcare like it is, and the other who wants to make it worse?

Because the people have spoken. Or fuck, I dunno, the system is totally corrupt and there exists a multi-factional set of marriages between the monied elite, the political leadership they control, and the media which is now consolidated and owned by perhaps 4-6 different corporate entities. I guess, we could ask Jeff Bezos, or Endus. Endus knows everything...

How, with healthcare being such an important thing, can you end up with two candidates that don't represent such a huge number of voters? Doesn't that make it clear that the process of selecting the candidates is significantly flawed?

Yes. But I am told that "the people" have had their say. Go ask, Endus. He knows everything...

- - - Updated - - -

Whether you vote third party or not has basically no meaning, not unless you're actively supporting that third party in campaigning or the like. And not voting at all isn't about denying someone an expected vote; your vote isn't "lost", it doesn't exist.

When the vote came up the other day on an Anti-Surveillance Amendment in the U.S. Senate it lost by one vote. I am trying to explain this since you are Canadian.

Whose vote was it? (IIRC, I think 2-3 actually did not vote, but one was a notable person)

Was it meaningless?

You say such stupid things quite a lot. I suppose nobody calls you out on it. Do I have to explain what a vote is and how it works and who gets to decide to cast it or not to you?

- - - Updated - - -

“The stuff that changed doesn’t count because it doesn’t fit my narrative”

We can fix it with Title 42, and done. Boom. That's all I the political capital I have for that specific 3.5-4.5% of the population.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

“The stuff that changed doesn’t count because it doesn’t fit my narrative”

That's the long and short of this entire discussion. The Democratic Party, in particular, is a coalition party. If you don't come to share your toys or poo-poo someone else's priorities you don't get to share in the sandbox at recess. It's also why a lot of these kids aren't really all that leftist.

[Edge-]

70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all—here’s how single-payer could affect you
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most...e-tuition.html

Two years ago, I imagine the numbers are at least the same or even higher now.

Looking at the Reuters article (where this is sourced from), it seems that their M4A question is extremely generic, asking about the "idea" of M4A rather than any practical applications. The numbers look great until you start getting specific about it.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public...care-coverage/

As Medicare-for-all becomes a staple in national conversations around health care and people become aware of the details of any plan or hear arguments on either side, it is unclear how attitudes towards such a proposal may shift. KFF polling finds public support for Medicare-for-all shifts significantly when people hear arguments about potential tax increases or delays in medical tests and treatment (Figure 10). KFF polling found that when such a plan is described in terms of the trade-offs (higher taxes but lower out-of-pocket costs), the public is almost equally split in their support (Figure 11). KFF polling also shows many people falsely assume they would be able to keep their current health insurance under a single-payer plan, suggesting another potential area for decreased support especially since most supporters (67 percent) of such a proposal think they would be able to keep their current health insurance coverage (Figure 12).

And they link to their polling.

It's not remotely as black and white as you make it out to be, and that's why, for example, reactions to say, Warren's M4A plan were extremely mixed when folks saw the price tag and what it entailed.

Because the idea of M4A is pretty universally approved. But the reality of practical M4A plans and applications is considerably more messy.

[Machismo]

70% of Americans now support Medicare-for-all—here’s how single-payer could affect you
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most...e-tuition.html

Two years ago, I imagine the numbers are at least the same or even higher now.


Because the people have spoken. Or fuck, I dunno, the system is totally corrupt and there exists a multi-factional set of marriages between the monied elite, the political leadership they control, and the media which is now consolidated and owned by perhaps 4-6 different corporate entities. I guess, we could ask Jeff Bezos, or Endus. Endus knows everything...


Yes. But I am told that "the people" have had their say. Go ask, Endus. He knows everything...

- - - Updated - - -


When the vote came up the other day on an Anti-Surveillance Amendment in the U.S. Senate it lost by one vote. I am trying to explain this since you are Canadian.

Whose vote was it?

Was it meaningless?

You say such stupid things quite a lot. I suppose nobody calls you out on it. Do I have to explain what a vote is and how it works and who gets to decide to cast it or not to you?

- - - Updated - - -


We can fix it with Title 42, and done. Boom. That's all I the political capital I have for that specific 3.5-4.5% of the population.

And that's the problem... your utter indifference to the changes that have been made in the party. It undermines your entire argument about them not changing. They did change, you just don't care to recognize those changes.

[NED funded]

I'm not going to get into the argument about who to vote for, but I do have one question for the Americans here.

Someone mentioned that 70% of voters are in favour of universal healthcare instead of the nonsense that you have to suffer at the moment. Assuming that statistic is correct (and not just pulled out of somebodies ass) how can you be heading towards an election that will be between two candidates, one of whom is perfectly happy to keep healthcare like it is, and the other who wants to make it worse?

How, with healthcare being such an important thing, can you end up with two candidates that don't represent such a huge number of voters? Doesn't that make it clear that the process of selecting the candidates is significantly flawed?

The public understands universal healthcare as a public option not as medicare for all (which some polls show that they understand medicare for all as a public option). That is why Biden gets the support of these groups and why he is ok for me. The main criticism against public option that you can leverage is that it doesn't go 100% of medicare4all?? Seems silly

[Edge-]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...f-basic-facts/

Just dropping this here, it's a Pew survey about public trust in scientists and the advice of medical professionals relating to the coronavirus.

There's a stark difference in how one views facts and the advise of medical professionals based on party.

This is what the election is about. This is not just some ideological question, it's about whether or not America is willing to accept reality or reject it. One party, Republicans, repeatedly seem determined to reject it, and as a consequences we're quickly approach 100,000 dead Americans due to a mixture of the inaction of the leaders of their party and how many member of the party not just ignore the advise of medical professionals, but actively reject it with disdain.

[Felya]

Looking at the Reuters article (where this is sourced from), it seems that their M4A question is extremely generic, asking about the "idea" of M4A rather than any practical applications. The numbers look great until you start getting specific about it.

https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public...care-coverage/



And they link to their polling.

It's not remotely as black and white as you make it out to be, and that's why, for example, reactions to say, Warren's M4A plan were extremely mixed when folks saw the price tag and what it entailed.

Because the idea of M4A is pretty universally approved. But the reality of practical M4A plans and applications is considerably more messy.

I don’t have the poll, it was posted by a Bernie bro a while ago. But, the same study found that majority do not want government control. The problem medicare for all faces, is what ObamaCare and HillaryCare tried to get around... not losing your coverage. It’s why Obama ‘you can keep it’ became such a lightning rod, when insurance companies chose to close plans, instead of using the grandfather provision.

[Endus]

I don’t have the poll, it was posted by a Bernie bro a while ago. But, the same study found that majority do not want government control. The problem medicare for all faces, is what ObamaCare and HillaryCare tried to get around... not losing your coverage. It’s why Obama ‘you can keep it’ became such a lightning rod, when insurance companies chose to close plans, instead of using the grandfather provision.

Really, Americans just need to put on their big-boy and big-girl pants and stop being scared of their own shadows. That's why health care reform doesn't move forward; Americans are (largely, not speaking to individuals) too cowardly to try and fix a broken system. That's why "losing their coverage" is a lightning rod; they can't hear "because you'll have better 'coverage' when everything's covered" because they're too busy panicking and twisting their knickers in fear.

It's a seriously stupid issue to balk over. You're worried about losing your bad qualified partial coverage, to enable you to get better full coverage with no qualifications? The kinds of stuff people fearmonger about, like "they might not give you a liver transplant if you need one and you're still drinking a bottle of scotch a day", that's already frickin' true in your terrible private insurance. Nobody's going to waste a healthy liver on someone who's going to ignore medical advice and destroy it. That's the case no matter what system you're in, because resources are never infinite.

But here's the bit they consistently ignore; right now, your private insurance determines coverage based on protecting their own profit margins. A universal health care system determines care based on medical need, and that's it.

But "OMG CHANGE SCARY PANIC" and nothing gets done. Because Americans are too frightened of any change to accept positive change.

"We want better healthcare. But don't change the bad shit we've had to put up with for decades. Make it better while keeping all that bad shit. And don't tell me this is stupid because I don't want to engage my brain, I want to hug my teddy and hide under the sheets."

[starlord]

Really, Americans just need to put on their big-boy and big-girl pants and stop being scared of their own shadows. That's why health care reform doesn't move forward; Americans are (largely, not speaking to individuals) too cowardly to try and fix a broken system. That's why "losing their coverage" is a lightning rod; they can't hear "because you'll have better 'coverage' when everything's covered" because they're too busy panicking and twisting their knickers in fear.

It's a seriously stupid issue to balk over. You're worried about losing your bad qualified partial coverage, to enable you to get better full coverage with no qualifications? The kinds of stuff people fearmonger about, like "they might not give you a liver transplant if you need one and you're still drinking a bottle of scotch a day", that's already frickin' true in your terrible private insurance. Nobody's going to waste a healthy liver on someone who's going to ignore medical advice and destroy it. That's the case no matter what system you're in, because resources are never infinite.

But here's the bit they consistently ignore; right now, your private insurance determines coverage based on protecting their own profit margins. A universal health care system determines care based on medical need, and that's it.

But "OMG CHANGE SCARY PANIC" and nothing gets done. Because Americans are too frightened of any change to accept positive change.

"We want better healthcare. But don't change the bad shit we've had to put up with for decades. Make it better while keeping all that bad shit. And don't tell me this is stupid because I don't want to engage my brain, I want to hug my teddy and hide under the sheets."

in america, "government -----" anything is also a byword for cheap, low quality, and insufficient.
so when you tell them "government healthcare for all! no exceptions!!" its like saying "school cafeteria food for all! no exceptions!! restaurants only care about profit!"

there's also the stellar reputation of things like veteran's healthcare.

its not from ignorance, rather familiarity.

[breadisfunny]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...f-basic-facts/

Just dropping this here, it's a Pew survey about public trust in scientists and the advice of medical professionals relating to the coronavirus.

There's a stark difference in how one views facts and the advise of medical professionals based on party.

This is what the election is about. This is not just some ideological question, it's about whether or not America is willing to accept reality or reject it. One party, Republicans, repeatedly seem determined to reject it, and as a consequences we're quickly approach 100,000 dead Americans due to a mixture of the inaction of the leaders of their party and how many member of the party not just ignore the advise of medical professionals, but actively reject it with disdain.

so what exactly is there to believe? why is that not at least 80% or higher on either side? this is sad.(not directing this at you edge but at the people polled).