Joe Biden- why?

[Fahrenheit]

That must be relative from your political viewpoint.

Clinton and Obama were left of center. Obama got Obamacare passed for instance.

Neither were, seems like your political viewpoint is the one skewed. Sanders and Warren are the only two politicians of noteworthiness that are truly left of center. Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), Biden, Obama are all solidly centrists leaning towards right of center. The ACA was the right of center compromise on healthcare, not some left wing scheme.

[Ghostpanther]

Cutting medicare, social security and medicaid, repeal and replace, better deal (insert everything he broke), the magical middle class tax cut before the mid terms that vanished etc etc.

- - - Updated - - -



Obamacare WAS REPUBLICAN PLAN BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND NEWT GINGRICH /facepalm

How did he cut medicare? And social security and medicaid? The tax cut has helped a lot of people. It helped me.

[Hobb]

How did he cut medicare? And social security and medicaid? The tax cut has helped a lot of people. It helped me.

Trump's 2020 budget calls for 1.2 trillion in cuts to medicare and 26 billion in social security.

It however needs to pass Congress and the House Democrats will thankfully block it.

[Fahrenheit]

How did he cut medicare? And social security and medicaid? The tax cut has helped a lot of people. It helped me.

In every budget he's proposed he's wanted to cut all those social programs, but the GOP Congress has stopped him from slitting his own throat.

The 'Tax and Jobs Act of 2017' is only beneficial to the average Joe in the most superficial of ways. In essence the benefits you or I received are tantamount to the jingling of keys in our face to distract while the real beneficiaries make out like bandits out the back door. Have some respect for yourself and call a spade and spade.

[Draco-Onis]

How did he cut medicare? And social security and medicaid? The tax cut has helped a lot of people. It helped me.

And that is really all that matters to you, the tax cut took away from social programs, his repeal Obamacare had 1 trillion dollar cut to medicare and medicaid and his 2020 budget makes even more severe cuts to all the programs. Maybe you should spend more time looking at what Trump does and less what he says.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump's 2020 budget calls for 1.2 trillion in cuts to medicare and 26 billion in social security.

It however needs to pass Congress and the House Democrats will thankfully block it.

Don't worry he got his tax cut so who cares.

[Ghostpanther]

And that is really all that matters to you, the tax cut took away from social programs, his repeal Obamacare had 1 trillion dollar cut to medicare and medicaid and his 2020 budget makes even more severe cuts to all the programs. Maybe you should spend more time looking at what Trump does and less what he says.

- - - Updated - - -

Appears this is what is termed as political maneuvering. You ask for some cuts as a starting point. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...ity-cut-i.aspx the cuts are not a basic reduction of the benefits for the average retiree. In other words, if you work until you are eligible when you reach a certain age, then you will still receive what you are entitled to and there is no call for a decrease in the cost of living formula. Some in Congress do want that however.

Contained within the president's budget were calls for about $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next 10 years, which would be achieved by moving payouts to block grants; an $845 billion reduction to Medicare spending over the next decade that targets a decrease in wasteful spending via lower prescription drug costs; and -- surprise -- a roughly $26 billion decrease in Social Security spending over the next 10 years.

Seems he wants to cut wasteful spending. But my social security benefits and the vast majority who are receiving it, will not be reduced. Those who are on SS disability however, there would be some adjustments as to when and a tightening of who can get those benefits. And from personal experience, I can see where that needs to be done.

[Vash The Stampede]

You are simply showing yourself to be a Bernie fanboy.. and that's fine. You are free to not like his policy choices, or his character.

I'm fine with Elizabeth Warren as well.

I mean, if you think that embracing socialism is good for the Democrats, then you are clearly not paying attention to the tone of this nation right now.

Embracing Biden is also embracing Socialism, just for the wealthy. Or do you think more than $30,000 in donations from corporate interests is just for good will? Biden’s presidential campaign is full of lobbyists as well. That doesn't come without some corporate welfare.

So, in the end, you are admitting to being ignorant, then are upset that someone offered you a little bit of information, and don't like that it's not literally everything. Don't blame your ignorance on others.

That was rhetorical. I know enough about Biden not to give him the time of day. He's what the Democrat establishment has chosen, not what the people have chosen. He's basically Hillary 2.0, penis edition.

[Machismo]

I'm fine with Elizabeth Warren as well.

Embracing Biden is also embracing Socialism, just for the wealthy. Or do you think more than $30,000 in donations from corporate interests is just for good will? Biden’s presidential campaign is full of lobbyists as well. That doesn't come without some corporate welfare.

That was rhetorical. I know enough about Biden not to give him the time of day. He's what the Democrat establishment has chosen, not what the people have chosen. He's basically Hillary 2.0, penis edition.

Sure, you can be fine with Warren as well. The issue is that her and Bernie are not likely to win the nomination. They simply don't appeal to independents and moderates in an effective manner, and they are both trailing Biden.

Biden is a pretty standard Democrat. He's pro-union, boring as hell, and mainstream. And yes, I don't see a Democrat winning who isn't pro-business. That doesn't mean he has to be for corporate welfare. I'm sure it will, as will Bernie or Warren. Yes, things like renewable energy subsidies are also corporate welfare.

As of now, the polls have Biden winning by a decent margin, so it would appear that the people also want him. Sure, it's not a majority, not yet. As for Hillary v. Bernie... the establishment did choose her, as did the people. She still got more votes than Bernie did. And, if you want to complain about superdelegates, be my guest. They are an affront to the democratic process. Of course, you can say the same thing about caucuses, where Bernie did quite well.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ination_polls/

The people are choosing Biden, at least so far.

[JohnBrown1917]

I'm fine with Elizabeth Warren as well.

Embracing Biden is also embracing Socialism, just for the wealthy. Or do you think more than $30,000 in donations from corporate interests is just for good will? Biden’s presidential campaign is full of lobbyists as well. That doesn't come without some corporate welfare.

That was rhetorical. I know enough about Biden not to give him the time of day. He's what the Democrat establishment has chosen, not what the people have chosen. He's basically Hillary 2.0, penis edition.

Its an insult to Clinton to even put her on the same level as somebody as conservative as Biden. I would prefer her over Biden, any time of time. Atleast she is not as racist and sexist as Biden is, not to mention how much of a creepy fuck he is. So pretty much for the same reasons she was slighly better than Trump, so I actually have no idea what makes Biden any better than Trump, aside from the whole judge thing. But that shows a broken system if judges are that political.


Thankfully, i'm not from the US, so I can go back to not caring if turns into Biden vs Trump.

[Independent voter]

Biden can bring in the black vote cause Biden is a close ally of Obama.

Black people hate Bernie.

[Draco-Onis]

Appears this is what is termed as political maneuvering. You ask for some cuts as a starting point. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...ity-cut-i.aspx the cuts are not a basic reduction of the benefits for the average retiree. In other words, if you work until you are eligible when you reach a certain age, then you will still receive what you are entitled to and there is no call for a decrease in the cost of living formula. Some in Congress do want that however.

Contained within the president's budget were calls for about $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next 10 years, which would be achieved by moving payouts to block grants; an $845 billion reduction to Medicare spending over the next decade that targets a decrease in wasteful spending via lower prescription drug costs; and -- surprise -- a roughly $26 billion decrease in Social Security spending over the next 10 years.

Seems he wants to cut wasteful spending. But my social security benefits and the vast majority who are receiving it, will not be reduced. Those who are on SS disability however, there would be some adjustments as to when and a tightening of who can get those benefits. And from personal experience, I can see where that needs to be done.

So you approve of cutting the social safety net but the fact remains he flip flopped that's not even going into the biggest one of all, How the whole Mexico paying for the wall thing going?

[cubby]

The only relevant question is if those Democrats who won't vote because Biden isn't "social-democrat enough" live in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. They seem to not.

If progressive Democrats stay home in New York on election day 2020, it doesn't matter. Their vote does not matter to the electoral college.

I'm still so ashamed of the Electoral College. I understand that states are close to having legislation passed in 270+ electoral number states that will automatically give their votes to the popular vote winner in an election.

[Deletedaccount1]

I'm still so ashamed of the Electoral College. I understand that states are close to having legislation passed in 270+ electoral number states that will automatically give their votes to the popular vote winner in an election.

Even if the compact happened, the loser would just take it to the Supreme Court who would shut it down.

[Donatello Trumpi]

I'm still so ashamed of the Electoral College. I understand that states are close to having legislation passed in 270+ electoral number states that will automatically give their votes to the popular vote winner in an election.

Electoral College: Totally fine for 230+ years but became a problem when Hillary Clinton lost to Trump.

[cubby]

Even if the compact happened, the loser would just take it to the Supreme Court who would shut it down.

You have absolutely no data or case law to back that statement up.

[Elegiac]

Electoral College: Totally fine for 230+ years but became a problem when Hillary Clinton lost to Trump.

People have been criticising the electoral college since it became a thing, so stop lying.

[cubby]

Electoral College: Totally fine until Hillary Clinton lost.

Lol, same old argument from the GOP/Trumpistas. The Dems have never liked the EC, regardless of who wins - and they are on record demonstrating that point. Over several decades.

The GOP has always loved the EC, because it's the only way they can get someone into the White House. The GOP hasn't won a popular election since 1988 (Bush2 in 2004 doesn't count, because he lost the popular vote in 2000).

[Donatello Trumpi]

People have been criticising the electoral college since it became a thing, so stop lying.

Weird, I cant find any liberals mass protesting it in 2008.

[cubby]

People have been criticising the electoral college since it became a thing, so stop lying.

That's all the Trumpsters have at this point - lies and deflection and making points without evidence/facts/reality. The EC argument is a perfect example. If they understood that a vote from someone in Delaware is worth four* times the vote from someone in Texas, they would shit their pants with outrage. But Trumpsters aren't interested in facts.

*approximately

[Deletedaccount1]

You have absolutely no data or case law to back that statement up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...Compact_Clause

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.