Politics 2020 Debate part 2

[MarAzul]

What do people who like Biden actually like about him?

 

[MarAzul]

'Obama sucked'.

You have learned quickly.

 

[Lanny]

What do people who like Biden actually like about him? Also, who are they? I haven't talked to a single person who supports him. Granted it's not the biggest sample size but still.

I like him.
Of course, I like anyone with warm blood flowing through their body who would run against Trump.
There are about four or five of the Democratic candidates whom I would prefer over Biden but if he gets the nomination then I'm all for him. He's in fifth or sixth place out of the 20 who've been in the debates in my book.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I like him.
Of course, I like anyone with warm blood flowing through their body who would run against Trump.
There are about four or five of the Democratic candidates whom I would prefer over Biden but if he gets the nomination then I'm all for him. He's in fifth or sixth place out of the 20 who've been in the debates in my book.

That's fair. I was thinking more about people who have him as their #1 choice though.

 

[Hoopguru]

True. I ignored him because he has so many points that losing or gaining one doesn't matter too much. Clearly still way out in the lead, I am beginning to wonder if there is anything that will dislodge him. A few months ago I assumed he was a temporary front-runner; seems I was very wrong.

barfo

I think the reason they say he's still the front runner is that "the good old boy" politics is still preferred by majority of dem voters.

 

[barfo]

What do people who like Biden actually like about him? Also, who are they? I haven't talked to a single person who supports him. Granted it's not the biggest sample size but still.

You should talk to old people, because the polls say that his supporters skew older.

He's not my first choice, but to try to answer:
1) name recognition
2) return to normal; safe
3) viewed as being able to win in rust belt states

barfo

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You should talk to old people, because the polls say that his supporters skew older.

He's not my first choice, but to try to answer:
1) name recognition
2) return to normal; safe
3) viewed as being able to win in rust belt states

barfo

That makes sense. I thought of the old person thing after I posted. The only old person I talk to is my mom and she loves Buttigieg and hates Biden. But she's not normal

 

[barfo]

That makes sense. I thought of the old person thing after I posted. The only old person I talk to is my mom and she loves Buttigieg and hates Biden. But she's not normal

Yo mama and I...

both support Pete.

barfo

 

[calvin natt]

I don't understand why people got their underwear in a bunch just because candidates attacked Obama.
Obama was a far better president than Trump is currently. But he certainly wasn't perfect and made his fair share of mistakes.
Pretending like he was would lead to the same mistakes being made in the 2020 election as Democrats made in the 2016.

Because this is a game, with strategy. It’s about winning or losing. And to me (and some others), being critical of an extremely well liked, well respected man like Obama seems like a bad strategy if you are wanting that mans party to win. To me, it seems like now is the time to convince those people who are on the fence between voting Trump again or not, because he’s not the man they hoped he’d be. Those people are out there. And if Democrats don’t appeal to them, especially in states such as MI, WI, PA, FL, this election is OVER and Trump wins again. So maybe spend time laying out your plans, bashing Trump, and explain how your plans get done. If it’s unrealistic to people, those moderate voters are going to be too skeptical to change their votes. And if they hear that Obama did this or that wrong, they might think “yeah, that’s true, I didn’t like that last time so I voted Trump”. It’s not about Obama being perfect. He was not clearly. It’s about winning.

 

[H.C.]

Because this is a game, with strategy. It’s about winning or losing. And to me (and some others), being critical of an extremely well liked, well respected man like Obama seems like a bad strategy if you are wanting that mans party to win. To me, it seems like now is the time to convince those people who are on the fence between voting Trump again or not, because he’s not the man they hoped he’d be. Those people are out there. And if Democrats don’t appeal to them, especially in states such as MI, WI, PA, FL, this election is OVER and Trump wins again. So maybe spend time laying out your plans, bashing Trump, and explain how your plans get done. If it’s unrealistic to people, those moderate voters are going to be too skeptical to change their votes. And if they hear that Obama did this or that wrong, they might think “yeah, that’s true, I didn’t like that last time so I voted Trump”. It’s not about Obama being perfect. He was not clearly. It’s about winning.

You might think he's well-liked & respected.
He may very well be.
But it's a losing strategy to attempt and make him infallible.
99% of those who took issue with candidates taking shots at Obama will vote Blue to the end of their lives.
Those people while they matter and their votes need to be relied on for the party.
Just getting those votes is a losing strategy. See 2016.

The undecided voters/the voters who refused to vote at all. Are the voters the Dem's need to get back.
Pretending like Obama was perfect and a god-president. Is a way to lose.

Hillary tried to align herself as close as possible with Obama and she lost to the worst president of my lifetime.
Biden is able to align himself even more with Obama.
If you don't learn from history, it's destined to be repeated.

 

[H.C.]

Agreed.

As long as Biden holds Obama up as a shield, other candidates will have to punch through that shield in order to make Biden bleed.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do that (from the party point of view) though.
The right way is 'It is no longer 2008, we need to look to the future and learn from the past'.
The wrong way is 'Obama sucked'.

barfo

You're not trying to win party votes. You're trying to win undecided.
Attacking Obama's record is fine.
Pretending like he was perfect is trying to give the country 8 years. Instead of 4.

 

[dviss1]

Could you elaborate on that?

barfo

Gladly.

It's the same smarmy argument the right has about Social Security. Those that have the means shouldn't get it.

See, I believe John McCain, regardless of how much money he earned privately, deserved every bit of the $58K he got annually from Social Security. He paid into the program.

On it's face, the argument almost seems logical. But really it's attempting to change an insurance program into a welfare program. We all know what happens to welfare programs, they get cut.

UBI isn't a welfare program. Saying who deserves it based upon income makes it welfare.

 

[MarAzul]

I love watching the Democrats promise what they will do. The health care promises are especially interesting. Obama in his lame attempt to create health care utopia. took the employer provide health care away from perhaps 20 million retirees. Not many were pleased to say the least.

Now the dems are going for broke, take away the health care of all Americans that get health care provided by their employer. Prior to Obama care, the percentage of people that get heath care with their employment was about 67% of the total population. That fell to around 56% of the population during the Obama care years. It is now nearly back up to 60% of the total population, or perhaps 200 million people when you consider the dependents.

I just can't imagine voters that have health care through their job voting for one of these dudes that promises to take that benefit away and replace it with some thing unknown or something known like medicare. Medicare is so bad , you really need other insurance to actually have something. Then there is the reality that no doctor can survive with 100% medicare patients, because the payments do not cover cost, forget about providing income.

Taking the employers out of the healthcare picture does not save any insurance company profits, as most are self insured.
This is a mathematical loser for everyone and quality health care loser for the working people. Both the workers and the Company owners will see this as a downer. All of these candidates promise the employers health care costs to be replace with much higher taxes to cover the costs of healthcare for more people beyond their own employees.
Who the hell will support this? I love the attempt. MAGA!

 

[barfo]

You're not trying to win party votes. You're trying to win undecided.
Attacking Obama's record is fine.
Pretending like he was perfect is trying to give the country 8 years. Instead of 4.

No, this is the primary. You are trying to win democratic base votes.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Gladly.

It's the same smarmy argument the right has about Social Security. Those that have the means shouldn't get it.

See, I believe John McCain, regardless of how much money he earned privately, deserved every bit of the $58K he got annually from Social Security. He paid into the program.

On it's face, the argument almost seems logical. But really it's attempting to change an insurance program into a welfare program. We all know what happens to welfare programs, they get cut.

Ok, so you aren't against welfare programs per se, but against means testing for programs that aren't welfare? Can't argue with that.

UBI isn't a welfare program. Saying who deserves it based upon income makes it welfare.

Right, that's why I'm against Yang's version. It's means tested welfare for the middle class and rich, nothing for the poor.

barfo

 

[calvin natt]

No, this is the primary. You are trying to win democratic base votes.

barfo

Normally I would agree. Not this time around.

 

[barfo]

Normally I would agree. Not this time around.

You don't agree it's the primary?

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Over my years of voting, nearly 50, Ive never voted a straight party line ticket like so many have over the years, and thats really ok. Was a born & bred a democrat and mostly voted that way and then I voted republican for some years, and currently am an independent as I will not jump on any one band wagon anymore as the parties are both to one way or the highway.
I agree with both winning the base and the undecided's. I would guess that most mid west, se and southern dem's are undecided at this point but it's still early, but a good percentage will, imo, embrace a more moderate/centrist candidate as the only way too win back the wh. Union Dems in the area's I mentioned will not embrace a democratic socialist candidate at this point in time. So, Joe imo has the percentages in his favor.

 

[dviss1]

Right, that's why I'm against Yang's version. It's means tested welfare for the middle class and rich, nothing for the poor.

I'll read it closer. It's a start I'll say that.

 

[crandc]

Don't normally do two dinner parties in a week but tonight was planned long before debate schedule. (Im)peach galette

 

[RipCityDSCPL]

Politics suck!

Fuck all the Candidates!

 

[MARIS61]

The idea that anybody would select any one of these clowns to be the leader of the free world is mind-boggling.

My favorite moment was Warren completely losing her sanity and decorum, hopping up and down, sputtering drool from her mouth while Delany pointed out the simple math that proved her ideas would actually bankrupt the country, in the unlikely event she could ever get them enacted.

I wonder how she'd represent America if Putin mocked her a bit?

And Sanders seems to hate the entire world, hanging on the edge of having a stroke every time he "speaks".

Tulsi and Biden absolutely eliminated Harris from serious contention, but Tulsi's homophobia and China Joe's bribes and senility will eliminate them.

2020 is more than secure for Trump, it's guaranteed.

 

[barfo]

The idea that anybody would select any one of these clowns to be the leader of the free world is mind-boggling.

My favorite moment was Warren completely losing her sanity and decorum, hopping up and down, sputtering drool from her mouth while Delany pointed out the simple math that proved her ideas would actually bankrupt the country, in the unlikely event she could ever get them enacted.

I wonder how she'd represent America if Putin mocked her a bit?

And Sanders seems to hate the entire world, hanging on the edge of having a stroke every time he "speaks".

Tulsi and Biden absolutely eliminated Harris from serious contention, but Tulsi's homophobia and China Joe's bribes and senility will eliminate them.

2020 is more than secure for Trump, it's guaranteed.

I liked the part where they all ripped their clothes off and ran screaming into the audience, slashing them with machetes and lapping up the blood.

That happened in MarisWorld, right?

barfo

 

[H.C.]

No, this is the primary. You are trying to win democratic base votes.

barfo

How did that work for Hillary once the general rolled around?
Oh right she lost to Trump.

Wait. That's because she was a woman and a man would've beat Trump with the exact same strategy right?

 

[Lanny]

Yo mama and I...

both support Pete.

barfo

Pete is probably tied for first place along with two or three others in my book. In fact, I'd say he holds a very slight lead at this point in my opinion.

 

[barfo]

How did that work for Hillary once the general rolled around?
Oh right she lost to Trump.

Wait. That's because she was a woman and a man would've beat Trump with the exact same strategy right?

I'm not sure what you thought your point was, but yes, sometimes someone who wins the primary doesn't win the general. But someone who doesn't win the primary never wins the general.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Pete is probably tied for first place along with two or three others in my book. In fact, I'd say he holds a very slight lead at this point in my opinion.

Lanny, do you see him as really, having a chance to win the dem nomination?
He seems like a decent and very smart person, Im just notb sure most dems would see him winning the WH?

 

[barfo]

Lanny, do you see him as really, having a chance to win the dem nomination?
He seems like a decent and very smart person, Im just notb sure most dems would see him winning the WH?

I'm not Lanny, but I'll answer too.

Pete has several hurdles.

One is 'electability'. Right now nobody sees why he'd be an obvious candidate to beat Trump. I think he has a case to make there - for instance Biden is considered to have electability for (among other reasons) he comes from Scranton and that gives him rust belt credibility. But Pete is mayor of the original rust belt city - Studebaker closed the factories there more than 50 years ago. He's also the polar opposite of Trump, and voters often correct by electing the opposite of what they had before. Black man followed by a white nationalist. Yang claims the title of Trump-opposite, but I think Pete has a better case to make: gay, military vet, Rhodes scholar, government experience...

Another is non-white voters. He has roughly 0% support among non-whites, and he can't win the nomination unless he finds a way to change that. I have no idea whether he can or not, or what it would take to do so.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

The End of The American Dream of Home Ownership
The Deep State has been using healthcare as a weapon to bankrupt the middle class and has been the leading cause of repossessions of homes since 2010. The big banks have become big landlords through thousands of shell companies renting homes. But Trump's economy has nearly stopped them in their tracks. People are buying homes again, especially minorities who were formerly unemployed.

The Deep State's Hail Mary is socialized medicine. Everything they control they do so through the government or the media. This is huge for them and they will do whatever it takes including starting a race war to prevent Trump's re-election.

But are there really enough Ameerican citizens of voting age that are stupid enough to fall for it?

Justin Haskins: How much would 'Medicare-for-all' REALLY cost the middle class? The answer is shocking

By Justin Haskins | Fox News
2020 Democrats are 'losing everybody' with their unpopular policies, Sen. Rick Scott says

During the most recent round of Democratic presidential debates, nearly all the leading candidates reiterated their commitment to transition the U.S. health insurance industry to a "Medicare-for-All," government-run model. Some promised to do it more quickly than others, but in the end, the result would be the same: the federal government would control health care within a decade.

Single-payer health care systems are plagued by countless problems that should make them an unattractive option for lawmakers—including rationing, service shortages, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. But perhaps the question most important to many 2020 voters, especially those with full-time jobs, will be how Democrats plan to pay for a gargantuan government takeover of health care, one that would include paying for nearly all health care services, reproductive care, and even pharmaceuticals.

Many of the leading presidential candidates—from Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker to Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren—have repeatedly and adamantly denied their single-payer plans will raise health care costs for the middle class. In fact, they have promised it will save middle-income earners thousands of dollars.

However, my new analysis of the costs of single-payer health care, which is based on well-established existing studies from think tanks on both sides of the aisle, shows that tens of millions of American families would end up paying significantly more for health care under a model similar to the "Medicare-for-All" plan proposed by Sanders and endorsed or slightly modified by most of the other leading presidential candidates.

My analysis is straightforward. Using IRS data, I calculated how much in additional taxes each IRS income bracket would need to pay to cover the costs of "Medicare-for-all" in 2022, the first year of full implementation under the legislation previously proposed by Sanders. I assumed Democrats would require tax filers to cover roughly the same proportion of the costs for "Medicare-for-All" as they paid for total federal income tax revenues prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I also assumed businesses would pay $400 billion in new taxes in the first year of implementation, a figure that’s in line with Sanders’ own estimates.

If "Medicare-for-All"’s total cost for the first 10 years is in line with projections produced by the American Action Forum, Mercatus Center, and Urban Institute—roughly $32 trillion to $38 trillion—I estimate 40 million to 60 million households would end up paying more in new taxes than they would receive in health care benefits. Millions of these households would lose more than $10,000 annually, even if it is assumed they would otherwise need to pay a full health insurance deductible and some out-of-pocket expenses under a private health insurance model.

Contrary to the claims made by the leading Democratic candidates, millions of middle-class earners would be hit particularly hard under "Medicare-for-All." For example, filers earning $50,000 to $75,000 would likely need to pay on average $7,773 to $9,171 more in new taxes. Those families earning $75,000 to $100,000 would pay $12,612 to $14,880 more. Most households with more than $100,000 income would pay close to or more than $20,000 in additional taxes.

In many cases, these costs far outweigh the projected average employee contribution for employer-provided health insurance—about $1,965 for individuals and $6,752 for families.

Although some proposals would offset these costs by imposing wealth taxes and additional business taxes not included in my analysis, I found that these would have a relatively small effect on the tax burden imposed on individuals and families. The wealthy and businesses simply do not have enough money to cover the massive costs of single-payer health care.

To illustrate this reality, consider the following: Even if the federal government were to confiscate every penny belonging to every single one of the richest 400 Americans—including billionaires like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos—it would only amount to less than $3 trillion, which is less than 10 percent of the cost of single-payer health care in the first 10 years alone, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

"Medicare-for-All" wouldn’t only create significant problems for the health care industry, it would financially decimate millions of middle-class households, many of whom already have access to health insurance plans they like.

So, why would Democrats support such a disastrous policy? The answer should be obvious to anyone who has been paying close attention to the Left’s array of recent radical policy proposals: because they are primarily concerned with increasing the power of the elites in Washington, D.C., not providing people with affordable health care.

 

[MARIS61]

Stephen Helfer, a former library assistant at Harvard Law School, in a letter to the Cambridge Wicked Local, asserted that Warren failed to support library staff who faced layoffs in 2009[9]:

Cambridge —Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren says she is a “fighter” for moderate-income Americans (“Warren wins U.S. Senate seat,” CambridgeChronicle, Nov. 8). When given the opportunity to stand up for low-income employees at Harvard three years ago, however, where she has been a tenured professor for almost 20 years, Warren did nothing of the sort.

In 2009, at the depth of the recession, Harvard’s endowment, because of its high-risk investing, decreased 30 percent. The university proclaimed it needed to cut costs and warned low-paid staff of layoffs. Many on campus asked the administration to follow the example of institutions like Beth Israel hospital and request faculty and other high earners to take pay reductions as a means to save jobs.

Several employees at Harvard Law School circulated a petition asking all law school members, who could, to make such a sacrifice. Warren and her husband (also a Harvard Law professor) have combined yearly incomes in the $1 million range and she earned another $200,000 for work she called “part-time” in Washington. During this uneasy period when across campus staff feared for their livelihoods, Warren remained silent.

Harvard president Drew Faust — whose own salary is close to $1 million — and university administrators ignored requests for pay reductions. Ultimately 275 lower-income employees lost their jobs and many more were persuaded to retire. Harvard professors, ever fond of inveighing against “corporate greed” and voicing slogans like “shared sacrifice,” suffered no inconvenience.

Warren now vows to go to Washington to fight for the middle class. But, like so many academics, she is more adept at feathering her own nest than truly helping Americans in need.

–Stephen Helfer, Crawford Street

Helfer served as a library assistant at Harvard Law School for 22 years and retired in 2009.