Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Elegiac]

This conversation chain is why I'm more and more convinced Bernie managed to deeply wound the country just as much as Trump.

Real change is hard and takes time. Bernie managed to hoodwink people to believe in a fantasy system that doesn't align with reality. They just become more and more obstinate.

Why? It's abundantly clear that person isn't an actual left winger. The talking points are all recycled from primary era social media posts, there is constant attention being drawn to hating Biden rather than actual support of progressive ideology, and hints in every other thread that they actually hold pretty reprehensible social opinions that doesn't jive with someone supposedly concerned with the plight of people for lack of healthcare.

The "left wing tea party" trajectory was successfully aborted, this is just sockpuppetry.

[Edge-]

I wouldn't say it would be a magic bullet, that's just you constructing a straw man, it would be a unified approach with singular resources etc.

It would not be in the slightest, because that's not what M4A is. M4A is just the government paying the bills. Lack of test kits, lack of effective test kits, lack of PPE, lack of ICU beds etc. wouldn't change.

This is why it's hard to take you seriously with the M4A discussion, because you seem to have this fantasy notion of what it is that doesn't reflect any reality.

We had a thread about the Canadian response, which I started. Seemed like a very rational approach.

Indeed. With a unified government that largely supports their health care system, which doesn't exist in the US as we have a party that's actively been trying to dismantle the ACA.

When will you be willing to look down and admit that you are eating a shit sandwich because there really are powers with greater political pull than the people that make it so?

We know this. And many of us are actively working with groups to enact the change that we want, rather than just complain on forums about it. We understand that we can work towards these more lofty goals, while compromising to do what we can to lay the groundwork for these eventual broader changes.

I like to mention Glass-Steagall because it just seems such an obvious necessary act in furtherance of looting the taxpayer via the financial sector. There's reasons that legislation existed and reasons it was taken away. It's not accidental.

Yes, and this has been discussed. Including how Democrats already passed HR1 to try to reduce the influence of money in politics, which is protected as "Speech" thanks to the conservative leaning SCOTUS.

It ain't perfect, but it's a start.

[Felya]

This conversation chain is why I'm more and more convinced Bernie managed to deeply wound the country just as much as Trump.

Real change is hard and takes time. Bernie managed to hoodwink people to believe in a fantasy system that doesn't align with reality. They just become more and more obstinate.

It’s not Bernie... even this poster said Bernie is now a traitor to his cause, for working with Biden. Bernie asked them to tone down the rhetoric, so he could win the south. They didn’t care...

[Louisa Bannon]

Bernie managed to hoodwink people to believe in a fantasy system that doesn't align with reality.

Right, because for reasons too numerous to mention here the U.S. cannot have a national health service as does every other modern nation of the world.

Just keep telling yourself that, I am sure it's very comforting.

[Felya]

Right, because for reasons too numerous to mention here the U.S. cannot have a national health service as does every other modern nation of the world.

Just keep telling yourself that, I am sure it's very comforting.

Only one candidate in this election has a national healthcare service in his stated plan. The nothing you claim to vote for has no plan... Green Party hasn’t nominated a candidate to have their plan. Explain how voting against the only person with a national healthcare plan, is supposed to create a healthcare service?

Edit: ‘4 more years of Trump stripping healthcare from people and they will demand Medicare for all’ is a silly plan, because we had 30 years of nothing, until ACA. Now we will need 30 more to bring it back?

[Edge-]

Right, because for reasons too numerous to mention here the U.S. cannot have a national health service as does every other modern nation of the world.

Just keep telling yourself that, I am sure it's very comforting.

Can't have it now, or in the near future. Not just for political reasons, but for purely practical and logistical reasons too. This has been explained multiple times. You just don't like the answers, which is kinda like...tough shit.

So what are you doing to fight for it, other than posting on internet forums?

[Felya]

So what are you doing to fight for it, other than posting on internet forums?

It feels like we skipped a step, when ACA is argued as the norm, that needs to be abolished. Do people already not remember what we had before? Did we forget what Trump is returning us to?

[cubby]

Why should we discuss the minute details of a broken system? Okay, so Obama let a lot of people out, so now we are only torturing 20% the number of people we were torturing before, we should be so proud...it's still a broken promise across two terms of office.

And yeah, you also avoid topics that don't interest you. Dodging, you 100% blame Trump for a global pandemic and its predictable results given we don't have a national health service nor the necessary safety nets to keep people afloat. 40 million unemployed, but stocks are up. That doesn't strike you as ridiculous?

But sure, the U.S. political system system works. Okay, I typed it out for you. Does it make it true?

No - the question is why should we discuss the minute details of a broken system in this thread? We shouldn't. This thread is for the General Election, not to generate a treatise on the issues facing America. Sure, those are related, but not in the way you want to discuss them.

Perhaps you could create a separate thread to discuss those issues?

[Foindist]

No - the question is why should we discuss the minute details of a broken system in this thread? We shouldn't. This thread is for the General Election, not to generate a treatise on the issues facing America. Sure, those are related, but not in the way you want to discuss them.

Translation "It makes me uncomfortable to discuss the reality that voting Democrat doesn't change anything. I desperately want to go back to saying "Trump is bad" whilst pretending Biden's policies are not largely the same"

[Daelak]

Show me one poll that samples Republicans and democrats within a 3% range of each other. Just 1, without the coveted +/-. If you are going to try using 538 you better look somewhere else. Nothing points to anyone winning or losing in November. If you want to play that game, Joe Biden not knowing how guns work points to him losing in Novemeber. Feel free to give a poll that is reality and not just want you want to read. Reality. Not your hopes and dreams of people telling you what you want to hear...because that worked out real well in 2016 didn't it. Hillary landslide.

Check the latest state polling in Texas, Florida, Arizona

[Zan15]

Show me one poll that samples Republicans and democrats within a 3% range of each other. Just 1, without the coveted +/-. If you are going to try using 538 you better look somewhere else. Nothing points to anyone winning or losing in November. If you want to play that game, Joe Biden not knowing how guns work points to him losing in Novemeber. Feel free to give a poll that is reality and not just want you want to read. Reality. Not your hopes and dreams of people telling you what you want to hear...because that worked out real well in 2016 didn't it. Hillary landslide.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/098uixfv...e_toplines.pdf
Democrat 31% Republican 28%

Approve 43%
Disapprove 52%


Though I am not sure where the 3% even comes from, why did you pick this number?



you really don't understand how polls work do you??




Weighting The sample was weighted based on gender, age, race, education, news interest, and 2016 Presidential vote. The weights range from 0.201 to 6.526, with a mean of one and a standard deviation of 0.912.


This survey uses statistical weighting procedures to account for deviations in the survey sample from known population characteristics, which helps correct for differential survey participation and random variation in samples. The overall adult sample is weighted to correct for differential probabilities of selection among individuals who are landline-only, cell phone-only or dual users. Results are also weighted match the demographic makeup of the population by sex, region, age, education and race/ethnicity according to the latest Current Population Survey Social and Economic Supplement.



if the poll had 38% v 30%, the 30% would be weighted 1.0 and the 38% would be weighted .8%....as an example, so that the %'s would be aligned with the actual voting population party affiliation based on 2016 results. (faked numbers to use as an example btw)


if you look at the actual details of some of the polls you can easily see how the numbers are weighted to fix any substantial over weight in a given category.

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-ins...us_060220.pdf/



I would tell you to go to Rasmussen to see the effects of an unweighted poll and why they always come out way more positive for Trump, but they charge for you to access their details.

[Louisa Bannon]

Bernie asked them to tone down the rhetoric, so he could win the south. They didn’t care...

If you mean when Sanders asked his former supporters to tone down their criticism of Biden, then yes Sanders can go straight to hell. I laughed at the suggestion that we would all just stop caring about the major policy issues that concern us and accept the small scraps from the table being offered instead. When I originally supported Warren, the thing that attracted me was her her endless and thoughtful plans for all manner of things too. If both of them drop those policy concerns, they can both go to hell. Just two more politicians bought and undermined.

And sure, it's anecdotal, but I've never spoken to anyone supporting either Warren or Sanders for whom it was some sort of cult of personality thing - it was always policy concerns.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you could create a separate thread to discuss those issues?

I think I did, and it was shut down.

[TigTone]

If you mean when Sanders asked his former supporters to tone down their criticism of Biden, then yes Sanders can go straight to hell. I laughed at the suggestion that we would all just stop caring about the major policy issues that concern us and accept the small scraps from the table being offered instead. When I originally supported Warren, the thing that attracted me was her her endless and thoughtful plans for all manner of things too. If both of them drop those policy concerns, they can both go to hell. Just two more politicians bought and undermined.

And sure, it's anecdotal, but I've never spoken to anyone supporting either Warren or Sanders for whom it was some sort of cult of personality thing - it was always policy concerns.

- - - Updated - - -


I think I did, and it was shut down.

They change you want won’t happen as long as Boomer gen and the older Gen-X are still voting for their outdated beliefs and policy’s.

Culture change is fucking slow.

The civil rights act was in 1964.
That was just 56 years ago.
Those racist and ass backward politicians and people are still mostly alive.
They raised their children same way they were raised.

People who want good change for all have a Mount Everest of a fight up wards.

[cubby]

I think I did, and it was shut down.

If you're talking about this one, yeah, it was shut down, because it was just a why-you-hate-Biden thread. What you should think about creating is a thread about the problems facing the current and future political climate of the United States, and then how we could go about fixing them - either politically or socially or other all of the above.

Try this thread. I would welcome a conversation on that very large topic. I know others would as well. It's just not for this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

If you mean when Sanders asked his former supporters to tone down their criticism of Biden, then yes Sanders can go straight to hell. I laughed at the suggestion that we would all just stop caring about the major policy issues that concern us and accept the small scraps from the table being offered instead. When I originally supported Warren, the thing that attracted me was her her endless and thoughtful plans for all manner of things too. If both of them drop those policy concerns, they can both go to hell. Just two more politicians bought and undermined.

You laughed because you won't or can't see the big picture. Any of those policy initiatives are irrelevant if Biden loses. Irrelevant, immaterial, and possibly lost for good. Biden winning gets us Warren and Sanders at the table, discussing policies. It might get SecTreas Warren and SecHHS Sanders - both of whom would bring major and long standing change to those departments.

So why don't you want that to happen?

[Felya]

If you mean when Sanders asked his former supporters to tone down their criticism of Biden, then yes Sanders can go straight to hell.

No, I mean when Bernie was leading in the primary, with a big round in the south, including Florida coming up. His active supporter toxicity was largely blamed on voters turning away. He asked to tone it down, they didn’t listen.

I laughed at the suggestion that we would all just stop caring about the major policy issues that concern us and accept the small scraps from the table being offered instead. When I originally supported Warren, the thing that attracted me was her her endless and thoughtful plans for all manner of things too. If both of them drop those policy concerns, they can both go to hell. Just two more politicians bought and undermined.

No, Bernie understands what 4 more years of Trump means, just like he understood that his supporters were going to cost him the election.

And sure, it's anecdotal, but I've never spoken to anyone supporting either Warren or Sanders for whom it was some sort of cult of personality thing - it was always policy concerns.

Because few of them are not voting Biden...

[Gestopft]

This conversation chain is why I'm more and more convinced Bernie managed to deeply wound the country just as much as Trump.

Real change is hard and takes time. Bernie managed to hoodwink people to believe in a fantasy system that doesn't align with reality. They just become more and more obstinate.

I don't think that's the case at all; Sanders was clear about the amount of work it would take, and that it is a ground-up project not a top-down one.

[Felya]

I think I did, and it was shut down.

You were told to move the discussion here... but you shut down all attempts at it. When faced with being wrong, you just fall on... Biden must be lying...

[Gestopft]

I laughed at the suggestion that we would all just stop caring about the major policy issues that concern us and accept the small scraps from the table being offered instead.

That's not what the suggestion ever was. The reality, no matter how much it sucks, is that those things aren't happening in the next four years. Biden won't change the system. But he won't actively build a roadblock to real change the way Trump will. Think about more than just the next four years.

[kaelleria]

I don't think that's the case at all; Sanders was clear about the amount of work it would take, and that it is a ground-up project not a top-down one.

Sanders sort of was, but his most staunch followers thought he could wave a magic wand and things would change. Now they won't listen to reason.



My mistake on who our current agitator supported, I get bad faith posters mixed up.

[Gestopft]

That framework doesn't really exist in the USA, and States have far more independence.

Yes, and overall I agree with the state-by-state method in principle, but in practice building it up might not be able to work the same way it did in Canada. While the states are more independent, Medicare and Medicaid are already federal programs, and there would be a multitude of legal questions and wrangling over how the federal and state programs would interact. For example, if California has a comprehensive plan that its residents prefer, would California get to opt out of paying Federal Medicare/Medicaid taxes? If donor states start managing their own healthcare, you can bet the 'recipient' states would sure as hell have something to say about that. While starting at the state level might be far easier politically, ironically I think that expanding and updating the existing federal program would be less complicated from a policy and legal perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

Sanders sort of was, but his most staunch followers thought he could wave a magic wand and things would change.

I think this is probably true of voters across the spectrum (most people don't necessarily understand the process that well), but I think the big differences with Sanders supporters are a) how many are highly policy-driven- i.e focused on very specific and drastic changes, and b) how many are young and new to the process. He brought a lot of new people into the fold, and mainstreamed a lot of new ideas. Despite some of the "I like what he is saying and I'm not prepared to settle for less," I don't think that's in any sense 'wounding' the country, especially not in the way Trump is doing. There's a big generational divide; it'll sort itself out, and new platforms and priorities will emerge.