Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Zaydin]

Yeah, good thing we have Biden as our candidate, notorious for his stellar support for the social safety net!

Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security from the moment the ink of FDRs signature was drying on the bill when he signed it.

The GOP is constantly trying to shred the social safety net, so your weak whataboutism is noted and ignored.

[Thee ANCOM]

Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security from the moment the ink of FDRs signature was drying on the bill when he signed it.

The GOP is constantly trying to shred the social safety net, so your weak whataboutism is noted and ignored.

except Joe Biden in particular has voiced his desire to gut social programs.

[Edge-]

except Joe Biden in particular has voiced his desire to gut social programs.

*checks date*

What year is it, again?

[Thee ANCOM]

*checks date*

What year is it, again?

this is a year with a global health crisis the likes of which we haven't seen in a century. which is probably the only reason Biden and the Democrats won't touch it until this pandemic is over [if that ever happens] at the very least. I don't trust them, but I know they aren't stupid either.

[Edge-]

which is probably the only reason Biden and the Democrats won't touch it until this is over at the very least.

Because the Democratic party platform has been to gut SS and social safety nets? When did they make this their stated policy? Has Biden talked about making cuts to SS in the past like, I dunno, decade even?

[Pendulous]

Ruh roh, Kamala made a totally apt comparison, about how only 2 people died from Ebola under Obama/Biden.....and now conservatives are freaking out.

The point being that the Right excoriated Obama for those two deaths and said he should be impeached for it, and their response to 165k deaths under Trump has been praiseworthy, or lukewarm at worst.

Ya know who really dug on Obama for those two deaths?

Oh, you got it, I don't have to say who it was.

[Kaleredar]

H
Looks like 2018 was the last time. Gee I am sensing a pattern. I forget so many here don't think past votes and pushing for policy changes don't mater at all.

Mmm hmm, and what are Trump's current policy stances on such things?

[cubby]

How many decades did he push for it again,and again, and again?



Looks like 2018 was the last time. Gee I am sensing a pattern. I forget so many here don't think past votes and pushing for policy changes don't mater at all.

Just because you don't understand the difference between cuts and holds, doesn't mean we have to explain it to you. But we will, because we're awesome.

Also - remind us again how 2018 was for the Democrats? Did they have a name for the ass-kicking the GOP took during that election cycle? Blue-something.... Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Blueller....

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

It's ironically amazing and hilarious to see the people who were stuck on Biden like a pimple on the cheek to see them post negative and shout dog whistle terms about Kamala Harris.

Thing is, she's his best chance at winning and the strongest one. If you wanted Hillary to win and Obama year 3 then this is your ticket. Warren was weak, a liar, and a fraud. Susan Rice was and still is BORING, female TIM KAINE.

Kamala wins, the first female President of the US will be Black. This is enough for all the racists to zip their mouths SHUT and send them packing for YEARS.

I'm all for Harris. But Biden? No. But for her to be Vice President and defeat racism another time in history?

I will see.

[Zaydin]

How many decades did he push for it again,and again, and again?



Looks like 2018 was the last time. Gee I am sensing a pattern. I forget so many here don't think past votes and pushing for policy changes don't mater at all.

The GOP has fought since the moment Social Security was law to kill it.

Democrats have fought to protect Social Security from the moment the GOP first tried to kill it.

[cors8]

It's ironically amazing and hilarious to see the people who were stuck on Biden like a pimple on the cheek to see them post negative and shout dog whistle terms about Kamala Harris.

Thing is, she's his best chance at winning and the strongest one. If you wanted Hillary to win and Obama year 3 then this is your ticket. Warren was weak, a liar, and a fraud. Susan Rice was and still is BORING, female TIM KAINE.

Kamala wins, the first female President of the US will be Black. This is enough for all the racists to zip their mouths SHUT and send them packing for YEARS.

I'm all for Harris. But Biden? No. But for her to be Vice President and defeat racism another time in history?

I will see.

You mean the "concern" trolls? Anyone who's seriously been with Biden hasn't had their mind changed and is fine with Harris.

[Zaydin]

Looks like the GOP might get a president that wants to right along with them.

If you think that Biden would actually go after Social Security, you're an idiot. Assuming Biden even did go after Social Security, which he likely won't, a Democratic Congress wouldn't let him.

[Kaleredar]

Oh you must have missed the part were I was talking about Biden. Trump is a piece of shit that I'd never vote for.

Well either he wins or Biden does.

So as I said... how do Trump's policies stack up against Biden's, progressive-wise? Are they more or less progressive?

[Edge-]

Looks like 2018 was the last time. Gee I am sensing a pattern. I forget so many here don't think past votes and pushing for policy changes don't mater at all.

Holy shit are you real?

He talks about the top 1-10% who take social security. That's a pretty common aspect of pushes for social security reform, allowing wealthy people to "opt-out" so that their SS money can be redistributed into the greater pool.

He also talks about raising taxes to keep SS around, which is another major part of the push for SS reform. This can be done multiple ways, either via eliminating the cap on SS income or by, as he hints at with a pro-growth progressive tax code, scaling SS income tax by income. It could also simply mean a slight uptick in the overall SS tax, because we gotta figure out a way to make it solvent somehow because it wasn't designed to operate as it's operating now with people living into their late 90's.

The "worst" thing he said is that SS still needs adjustments. And that's literally a neutral statement.

Edit: And the 2007 clip is literally saying that he'll look at all the options to address longterm SS insolvency which...sounds good to me? I mean, the fixes may not exactly be popular, that's why nobody wants to fuckin do it because they know it will kill their party politically. But I'd rather have a president that looks at all his options rather than one that tells me that he can fix a deeply flawed program without making anyone mad.

[eschatological]

Less than 24 hours after Kamala is announced as VP candidate, a dumbass op-ed writer for Newsweek (who once lost to Kamala in an election but isn't mentioned by Newsweek or himself) launches Birtherism 2.0, claiming Kamala might not be eligible to be VP despite BEING BORN IN FUCKING OAKLAND:

https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/st...41246489649154

"Is Kamala Harris eligible for the office of Vice President? Here's my article, published by Newsweek, exploring the issues. Short answer: It depends!"


He's basically claiming she's an anchor baby because neither of her parents were American citizens when she was born - even though they were both here legally and working here legally. It's settled law that being born on U.S. soil is enough to be considered a natural-born citizen, and this has already been rated "Pants on Fire" false.

[Edge-]

It's settled law that being born on U.S. soil is enough to be considered a natural-born citizen, and this has already been rated "Pants on Fire" false.

Haven't Republicans been spending the past half decade complaining about Chinese tourist that come over to the US specifically to give birth to children so that they can have US Citizenship?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ush-got-right/

“What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there’s organized efforts—and frankly it is more related to Asian people—coming into the country, having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship. I support the 14th Amendment. Nothing about what I’ve said should be viewed about derogatory towards immigrants at all.”

— Former Florida governor Jeb Bush (R), speaking in McAllen, Tex., Aug. 24, 2015

Rrriiiiggghhhhtttttt.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ille...ry?id=13302328

And it goes way earlier, too.

Well that's awkward. Either all those children aren't legally citizens because "jus soli" doesn't exist, consequently meaning "birth tourism" and "anchor babies" are literally just racist strawmen, or Kamala Harris is indeed obviously a natural born US citizen. Or they're hypocritical racist pieces of shit, and that's kinda what I'm leaning towards right now.

[ati87]

How many decades did he push for it again,and again, and again?



Looks like 2018 was the last time. Gee I am sensing a pattern. I forget so many here don't think past votes and pushing for policy changes don't mater at all.

Lets be fair though. Biden goes towards the Republicans which has been the criticism he got.
You can see this with allot of "issues" and policies back in the 80s and 90s. Being tough on crime was a result of Republicans bashing Democrats for being soft on crime so you have people like Biden and Clinton who overcompensate to some degree.

But yea, you aren't winning any argument when Trump is trying to destroy Social security and Medicare today while Biden might have destroyed it in 30 years ago.

[Felya]

Yes but neither of her parents are white!

Her not being black is also a Trump supporter meme...

[Zan15]

How many decades did he push for it again,and again, and again?



Looks like 2018 was the last time. Gee I am sensing a pattern. I forget so many here don't think past votes and pushing for policy changes don't mater at all.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-attack-biden/

Wow that thing is cut to shit, 5 minutes here , few minutes there....

maybe you are confused between a budget freeze and actual cuts?

You know that what he was proposing would not have effected SS in anyway that would be considered a cut in SS.

did you even watch that fucking video? Adjustments are now cuts? Who knows they cut so much out of the video you don't even know the context in which he is speaking.



Actual things that did happen

“In 1983, Biden pushed to raise the Social Security retirement age.”

“Biden suggested a gradual increase in the retirement age would help improve the Social Security system.” This was not a controversial position at the time. Two months after these comments, large bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate agreed to the Social Security amendments of 1983, which included raising the retirement age to 67 and increasing payroll taxes to improve the solvency of the program.


Also missing from this picture are the many votes Biden took to increase certain Social Security benefits or block GOP plans; the Biden campaign provides a list of nearly 50 votes from Biden’s long Senate career.

In the 1970s, Biden supported increases in Social Security benefits.

In the 1980s and 1990s, he supported a one-year freeze in benefits.

In the 2000s, he opposed benefit cuts, protected Social Security from automatic budget cuts, and supported a change that would reduce benefits by about 4.5% over 40 years.

Today, Biden supports higher benefits.


In 2003, Biden sponsored a Senate resolution opposing cuts in the cost-of-living increases for Social Security benefits.



Worst thing i can find he tried to do:
In 1984, Biden co-sponsored a proposal with two GOP senators to broadly freeze federal spending. The proposal would have meant no Social Security cost-of-living adjustments for one year, but it was defeated. In 1996, Biden suggested cutting the cost-of-living adjustment by one percentage point.

During the Obama administration, he was on board with a proposal that would have reduced benefits about four percentage points over four decades. That was in the context of a sweeping budget deal, and ultimately, it went nowhere. But also during those years, Biden was part of efforts to protect Social Security from automatic cuts under sequestration.

2 tenths of a percent a year for 40 years. You understand how little on an indivdual basis that would be.
And how little moves like this would prevent being only able to pay 74% of your benefits come 2034.

[Omega10]

Less than 24 hours after Kamala is announced as VP candidate, a dumbass op-ed writer for Newsweek (who once lost to Kamala in an election but isn't mentioned by Newsweek or himself) launches Birtherism 2.0, claiming Kamala might not be eligible to be VP despite BEING BORN IN FUCKING OAKLAND:

https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/st...41246489649154

"Is Kamala Harris eligible for the office of Vice President? Here's my article, published by Newsweek, exploring the issues. Short answer: It depends!"


He's basically claiming she's an anchor baby because neither of her parents were American citizens when she was born - even though they were both here legally and working here legally. It's settled law that being born on U.S. soil is enough to be considered a natural-born citizen, and this has already been rated "Pants on Fire" false.

This is good news. The fact that they have so little on Kamala that THIS is what they are trying to attack is awesome.

BUT HER EMAILS was also stupid, but it worked. So this is not a guarantee. But right out of the gate the attack they planned for Kamala is quite lame