Voted for Clinton, can't vote for Biden

Mithrae said:

I don't understand your reasoning here: In order to have some kind of right to whine about a perceived bad candidate, you have to vote for a different perceived bad candidate instead? Perhaps folk in Somalia are also repugnant if they complain about one warlord, unless they are actively supporting a different warlord instead.

And this approach - messaging to the duopoly that they can be as crappy as they please as long as they are the 'lesser evil' in the eyes of their base - is supposed to be the laudable and pragmatic thing to do, in your opinion?

I would have thought that Clinton's loss (to Trump of all people, how fed up must the American people be to make that decision!) would be taken as a wake-up call, not a justification to double down on attitudes that helped drag politics that low in the first place.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that if you take the "both candidates suck" approach and you don't vote or you vote for a third party candidate, then you don't really have a right to complain. Because it means that you stood on the sideline when you had a chance to do something about it.

Kerry Won Ohio said:

And your point is? What was said during previous elections doesn't matter. None of the previous Presidents were nearly as bad as Trump.

Click to expand...

Has Trump launched any invasions of sovereign nations on the opposite side of the world, killing hundreds of thousands and destabilizing the region? Mind you from what I've heard plenty of Democrats supported those invasions too, not to mention escalating drone warfare.

Kerry Won Ohio said:

If you can't see that, then you simply don't understand the threat that Trump poses. It's not all about you and your self-absorbed, nonsensical liberal purity tests.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that when you've got some liberals saying that they'll vote for a candidate they actually want to vote for, and others chanting "If you're not with us you're against us" it shouldn't be all that difficult to determine which if any are the ones trying to implement a 'purity test'

And before you froth up even further, I'm an Australian. It says so just above my lean. So yeah, totally self-absorbed to be mildly interested in US politics :lol: I know next to nothing about Biden; if he wins the nomination and you think he's a good candidate or even just 'good enough' then you should go ahead and vote for him. Makes no difference to me whatsoever. I'm just a little bemused by these personal attacks against people who have decided that he isn't a good candidate, or even good enough, for their vote.

Dans La Lune said:

The 2016 election was a dumpster fire. I almost didn't vote, but ended up pulling for Clinton because she signed on to much of the platform Bernie wrote. And for a few other reasons.

I can't and won't vote for Biden under any circumstances. He's demonstrably worse than Clinton in every way. And yes, while Biden is better than Trump, the calculation is not sufficient to get me on Biden's team. What sealed it for me was the last debate.

His suggestion that black people don't know how to raise their children was just out-and-out racist, and his answer from then veered into an incoherent ramble on Venezuela. If this is the best Dems can do, I'm out. Let the moderates save the country from Trump, if they can.

Biden's incoherent ramble...

...

Nina Turner's epic response.

Click to expand...

Truthfully biden is terrible, he has plenty of baggage and is a walking gaffe machine. Warren has nearly no known baggage other than the indian thing which is not likely enough to turn any election against her. Gabbard this election stands out for me as best to win much like last election primary I viewed webb the same. Both webb and gabbard are more moderate, and took sensible positions many americans support rather than just wedge issues. However in 2016 hillary was supported to be the winner before the contest started, and 2020 looks to be in the same direction.

Biden may be what people call the most electable, but in reality what is considered most electable usually loses, as most electable usually translates into party shill who does not excite anyone. Trump has a very excited base, and is good at mobilizing his support, something few other candidates have touched, and biden is certainly not energizing anyone.

Mithrae said:

Has Trump launched any invasions of sovereign nations on the opposite side of the world, killing hundreds of thousands and destabilizing the region? Mind you from what I've heard plenty of Democrats supported those invasions too, not to mention escalating drone warfare.



Seems to me that when you've got some liberals saying that they'll vote for a candidate they actually want to vote for, and others chanting "If you're not with us you're against us" it shouldn't be all that difficult to determine which if any are the ones trying to implement a 'purity test'

And before you froth up even further, I'm an Australian. It says so just above my lean. So yeah, totally self-absorbed to be mildly interested in US politics :lol: I know next to nothing about Biden; if he wins the nomination and you think he's a good candidate or even just 'good enough' then you should go ahead and vote for him. Makes no difference to me whatsoever. I'm just a little bemused by these personal attacks against people who have decided that he isn't a good candidate, or even good enough, for their vote.

Click to expand...

I never said Biden was an ideal candidate and he definitely isn't my first choice. But he is a helluva lot better than Trump.

Biden won't be in the race come March.
So what's next? You won't vote for "X" because you're disgusted by X, you won't vote for "Y" because you don't like Y?
Shall we try for Z? How about third party?

My point is, if Biden's out, are you still lofting the same purity pony arguments or will you finally help us rid the country of the orange cancer.
And when you rationalize that "he's not so bad", you do realize it convinces a lot of folks that you live the kind of life few get to have, one which might be comfortably insulated.

I wish I was so lucky, so do my wife and kids.

I guess it is time to dust off this nearly three year old screen grab and recaption it:




This time it should read "I don't care what you say, Biden is worse than Trump!"

For the record, I don't want Biden in the race at all, I don't want Biden to be President.
My support is currently behind Elizabeth Warren and I hope she can find a moderate running mate with lots of character.

I don't like Biden's 1990's record, or his record in the 1980's either.
I don't like his lack of transparency on issues either.

But our family is being directly affected by Trump's policies.
I can't stand another four years of this.
I'm pretty lucky but our luck is beginning to run out thanks to Trump, and we are vulnerable.

I already heard the Hillary is worse than Trump excuses, and I rubbed that excuse in their face every single time they complained about Trump. Some of them won't speak to me anymore, no skin off my back.

This is the political equivalent of burning down your own neighborhood because you hate that the local supermarket isn't carrying your favorite brand of tofu. In fact, if Trump wins again, it will be because folks have burned down their own neighborhood TWICE in a row.
And my neighborhood will have caught fire twice in a row.

We're running out of insurance coverage for fires.
We ran out a while ago...we as a people.

"Whether ours is to continue to be a nation of laws and not of men is now for the Congress, and the American people, to decide."

---Archibald Cox

Kerry Won Ohio said:

I never said Biden was an ideal candidate and he definitely isn't my first choice. But he is a helluva lot better than Trump.

Click to expand...

Yes, rhetorically, and a little on policy. Is that enough? I don't really know, and I'm happy with my decision never to vote for him. It could easily be argued that political apathy (aka Centrism) is worse than having a motivation for real change.

Vowing Not to 'Demonize' the Rich, Biden Tells Billionaires 'Nothing Would Fundamentally Change' If He Was Elected | Common Dreams News

Dans La Lune said:

The 2016 election was a dumpster fire. I almost didn't vote, but ended up pulling for Clinton because she signed on to much of the platform Bernie wrote. And for a few other reasons.

I can't and won't vote for Biden under any circumstances. He's demonstrably worse than Clinton in every way. And yes, while Biden is better than Trump, the calculation is not sufficient to get me on Biden's team. What sealed it for me was the last debate.

His suggestion that black people don't know how to raise their children was just out-and-out racist, and his answer from then veered into an incoherent ramble on Venezuela. If this is the best Dems can do, I'm out. Let the moderates save the country from Trump, if they can.

Biden's incoherent ramble...

...

Nina Turner's epic response.

Click to expand...

IF it makes you feel better, its looking less and less like Biden will be the nominee

He has too much smear on him as a result of this Ukraine thing and has lost the optics he needs.

tacomancer said:

IF it makes you feel better, its looking less and less like Biden will be the nominee

He has too much smear on him as a result of this Ukraine thing and has lost the optics he needs.

Click to expand...

It does make my job easier. Now to get rid of Warren. *clutches hands evily*

Checkerboard Strangler said:

President Trump thanks you.
Sorry, but that is the reality.
Hey, I feel the same way about Biden, he's an idiot.
But I don't think we can afford another four years of Trump, it's just that simple.

Click to expand...

True, but I'm even more afraid that we can't afford four years (or more) of what the current D party candidates are pushing for....

JasperL said:

The point was if there are going to be a lot of cost savings, which is the promise, that means hospital closings, 10s of thousands or more lost jobs in healthcare, zeroing out or gutting several health insurance companies that employ maybe 500,000, definitely lower wages for lots of providers, not just doctors. The fiction is that this can all be done by only hitting the wealthy, or the greedy insurers, without also hitting lots of workers. $billions in savings means job losses, fewer services, closed rural hospitals. If not that then there won't be significant cost savings.

And I don't have a problem with MFA, but the bottom line is if you promise and get 'free' healthcare for everyone, no copays, etc. then not everyone will pay lower premiums ($0) and pay less in taxes. It's impossible and the wealthy aren't a big enough group to finance all that, and free college, and the rent control bill, and all the rest of the social services like EBT, EITC, and more. So lots and lots of those in the bottom 80% will pay more in taxes than the premium savings. We need to be honest about that, because if we're not then it will be made crystal clear in the general when those insurers looking at literally $100s of billions in lost premiums, lost market value, will flood the airways with examples.

Where you have UHC and generous social welfare programs, you also see, invariably AFAIK, high VAT taxes - generally 20-25%, which are equivalent to sales taxes and highly regressive. And the reason is the base is huge - basically all consumption of goods and services - and that with relatively high rates is how you sustainably finance generous social welfare programs. No one does it with just higher income taxes on the wealthy or corporations. Like it or not the TJCA got corporate tax rates down to basically world norms at this time.

Click to expand...

While I openly recognize we have a real problem with how we, as a nation, collectively pay for health care (not just health insurance), I have (I think) realistic fears that it'll be the working class (not the 'poor' or '1%') who will end up paying for it over and over. Add all the other 'free' to 'me' things being floated and, as a realist, I see the writing on the wall. Me and mine will end up being, well, the slaves, handing over more than half of what we make. When the day comes, that the government gets more of my paycheck than I do...is when I'll seriously wonder what the heck happened to our country...and make me sorry I ever had children to carry on.

Four more years of Trump trashing everything sacred in the US.

Dans La Lune said:

It does make my job easier. Now to get rid of Warren. *clutches hands evily*

Click to expand...

waldo is a brunette ....

tacomancer said:

waldo is a brunette ....

Click to expand...

In Soviet Russia, Comrade Waldovich is a blonde.

SomeCents said:

True, but I'm even more afraid that we can't afford four years (or more) of what the current D party candidates are pushing for....



While I openly recognize we have a real problem with how we, as a nation, collectively pay for health care (not just health insurance), I have (I think) realistic fears that it'll be the working class (not the 'poor' or '1%') who will end up paying for it over and over. Add all the other 'free' to 'me' things being floated and, as a realist, I see the writing on the wall. Me and mine will end up being, well, the slaves, handing over more than half of what we make. When the day comes, that the government gets more of my paycheck than I do...is when I'll seriously wonder what the heck happened to our country...and make me sorry I ever had children to carry on.

Click to expand...

Jasper is arguing about socialized health care, so his argument makes no sense, because the United States does not need nor will it ever need a socialized system. We already HAVE the infrastructure in place. The only issue is how it is paid for, how much and who does the paying and how the payments are collected and distributed.

So why did Canada erect their system? Why did UK build theirs out the way they did?
Simple, Canada was a tiny handful of medium and small cities and a lot of rural wilderness. They NEEDED a hand in building infrastructure to serve their people, much of whom were spread out.
UK had a failing patchwork of small and differing council systems, and in the end much of their healthcare network was BOMBED into the Stone Age by Herr Hitler. The UK set up their system amongst the rubble and ashes of World War Two.

Both of these are historically different than our experience by a wide margin, so an American solution CANNOT be a copy of CA or UK.
Let me repeat that:

The USA will NEVER set up a fully socialized health care system, because it is not needed and it is not a good fit for our society.
No one is advocating for a socialized system. NOBODY.

What we come up with will most likely be a HYBRID system that allows for co-existing market based and co-existing subsidized care working together.

And as for what you pay out of taxes, you forget that you will not be paying out of pocket for premiums the way you do now.
If there are premiums, they will be smaller. You say you will wonder what became of us "when the day comes, that the government gets more of my paycheck than I do...is when I'll seriously wonder what the heck happened to our country."

What happens when the day comes when you're paying an even LARGER amount than that to your health insurance company?
That's what my wife and I are doing right now and we only have two kids to pay for because both of us are on the VA system.
Just our two kids are costing us over twenty thousand a year in premiums.
What do you call that?
Yes, both of them have built-in health issues...but it could be the both of us instead. No difference.

Dans La Lune said:

Everyone in the Democratic party is a socialist. Obama was a socialist, remember? Obama, who implemented Republican ideas, who chased every Republican negotiation to the right and ceded virtually every argument before it began.

The label is absurd to begin with, and is now fully useless as a scare tactic . Republicans then just scare-monger whatever Dems are calling themselves next. *yawn*

I respect Bernie and AOC for standing their ground. They have the actual qualities of a leader, regardless of what you think of their policies.

Click to expand...

Polarization.
Sorry Dans, but as much as I normally respect what you have to say, this one time, you are no different than Grandpappy.
Well, maybe a little different...He's red-baiting and exhibiting attention-seeking behavior and you're not.

But in the end the result is exactly the same anyway: Grandpappy and the rest of the Trumpers are fully polarized and tribalized on that side, and you are fully polarized on the purity pony side, in that Biden isn't perfect enough, so you won't vote for him.

Result: Grandpappy and Trump win, if millions like you decide the same thing.
To which I can only say, perhaps Trump hasn't hurt you enough yet.
Consider yourself lucky because if he hasn't then you ARE NOT the CANARY IN THE COAL MINE AT ALL.

I am, we are, my wife and family are.
Sorry but will all due respect, this is you instead, a year from now:

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Polarization.
Sorry Dans, but as much as I normally respect what you have to say, this one time, you are no different than Grandpappy.
Well, maybe a little different...He's red-baiting and exhibiting attention-seeking behavior and you're not.

But in the end the result is exactly the same anyway: Grandpappy and the rest of the Trumpers are fully polarized and tribalized on that side, and you are fully polarized on the purity pony side, in that Biden isn't perfect enough, so you won't vote for him.

Result: Grandpappy and Trump win, if millions like you decide the same thing.
To which I can only say, perhaps Trump hasn't hurt you enough yet.
Consider yourself lucky because if he hasn't then you ARE NOT the CANARY IN THE COAL MINE AT ALL.

I am, we are, my wife and family are.
Sorry but will all due respect, this is you instead, a year from now:

View attachment 67265621

Click to expand...

I actually don't believe anything close to that will happen. If the worst happens with Roe V. Wade, then it goes back to the states.

If Trump wins, I had nothing to do with it. Literally. As much as I'd like to think my opinion matters, it doesn't. I cannot mobilize ten people, much less millions. And if I don't speak my mind about Biden, my opinion matters even less.

Biden is a danger to the Democratic party and the only way Trump could win is through Biden. That's my warning.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Jasper is arguing about socialized health care, so his argument makes no sense, because the United States does not need nor will it ever need a socialized system. We already HAVE the infrastructure in place. The only issue is how it is paid for, how much and who does the paying and how the payments are collected and distributed.

So why did Canada erect their system? Why did UK build theirs out the way they did?
Simple, Canada was a tiny handful of medium and small cities and a lot of rural wilderness. They NEEDED a hand in building infrastructure to serve their people, much of whom were spread out.
UK had a failing patchwork of small and differing council systems, and in the end much of their healthcare network was BOMBED into the Stone Age by Herr Hitler. The UK set up their system amongst the rubble and ashes of World War Two.

Both of these are historically different than our experience by a wide margin, so an American solution CANNOT be a copy of CA or UK.
Let me repeat that:

The USA will NEVER set up a fully socialized health care system, because it is not needed and it is not a good fit for our society.
No one is advocating for a socialized system. NOBODY.

What we come up with will most likely be a HYBRID system that allows for co-existing market based and co-existing subsidized care working together.

And as for what you pay out of taxes, you forget that you will not be paying out of pocket for premiums the way you do now.
If there are premiums, they will be smaller. You say you will wonder what became of us "when the day comes, that the government gets more of my paycheck than I do...is when I'll seriously wonder what the heck happened to our country."

What happens when the day comes when you're paying an even LARGER amount than that to your health insurance company?
That's what my wife and I are doing right now and we only have two kids to pay for because both of us are on the VA system.
Just our two kids are costing us over twenty thousand a year in premiums.
What do you call that?
Yes, both of them have built-in health issues...but it could be the both of us instead. No difference.

Click to expand...

I'd say the historic, crippling inefficiency of the US healthcare system is an exigent crisis on par with the UK and Canadian historical experiences that would and should motivate, and in fact is motivating a singlepayer system in its own right.

A hybrid system is only a better fit in so far as powerful vested interests, such as health insurers, would be less opposed to it, being less of an existential threat to them.

Perhaps no one is advocating a full on socialized system in the sense of the UK's NHS (which is one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the developed world no less), but the preponderance of advocacy for healthcare reform is definitely not for a hybrid system in terms of allowing for insurers to play anything beyond a supplemental role. If you want to argue hybrid in the sense that providers and suppliers will still be private, sure.

Dans La Lune said:

If my vote is the deciding factor, America has bigger problems than Trump.

Click to expand...

By that logic, I don't know why you ever bothered voting.

Surrealistik said:

I'd say the historic, crippling inefficiency of the US healthcare system is an exigent crisis on par with the UK and Canadian historical experiences that would and should motivate, and in fact is motivating a singlepayer system in its own right.

A hybrid system is only a better fit in so far as powerful vested interests, such as health insurers, would be less opposed to it, being less of an existential threat to them.

Perhaps no one is advocating a full on socialized system in the sense of the UK's NHS (which is one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the developed world no less), but the preponderance of advocacy for healthcare reform is definitely not for a hybrid system in terms of allowing for insurers to play anything beyond a supplemental role. If you want to argue hybrid in the sense that providers and suppliers will still be private, sure.

Click to expand...

I wasn't disputing the fit, I am talking about the likelihood of success. Will Medicare get expanded? Yes, probably so.
Will some form of single payer become reality? Yes, probably, but it will most likely have to coexist alongside a private sector model of some kind.
We can talk about dreams all day long but when the rubber hits the road, we are up against trillions invested in the current system.
Some adjustments favorable to working families will be made if we win the needed majority but it will still be market based to some extent, because politics is the art of the possible.

You would SAY that "the historic, crippling inefficiency of the US healthcare system is an exigent crisis on par with the UK and Canadian historical experiences" but no bombs fell on US cities in WW2 except for Hawaii. We did not dig a hundred plus major hospitals out of the rubble.
And we passed the thirty million population mark back when some of the Founders were still alive.

And don't rag on hybrid systems so much. A lot of other countries do fine with theirs. Better than we are doing.

Slavister said:

By that logic, I don't know why you ever bothered voting.

Click to expand...

For my part I vote because it's important to me to have my say. That my single vote never swings an election one way or another trivializes my vote only a little: But turning my vote into some grotesque caricature of 'support' for someone I'd consider a bad candidate whose primary, perhaps sole redeeming feature is being a little less atrocious than someone else would make it truly pointless to vote at all.
Apparently many folk felt the same way in 2016.

Thank God that Australia has preferential voting.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I wasn't disputing the fit, I am talking about the likelihood of success. Will Medicare get expanded? Yes, probably so.
Will some form of single payer become reality? Yes, probably, but it will most likely have to coexist alongside a private sector model of some kind.
We can talk about dreams all day long but when the rubber hits the road, we are up against trillions invested in the current system.
Some adjustments favorable to working families will be made if we win the needed majority but it will still be market based to some extent, because politics is the art of the possible.

Click to expand...

Every great reform starts out as an improbable dream that people of strength and conviction forge into reality; not by wishing for it, or being undermined into despair by assertions of impossibility or naysayers, but by casting them aside like the nuisance drek they are and imprinting their will upon the world through action, hard work and sacrifice. It can be done.

Singlepayer that exists alongside a private sector model is essentially the Canadian system; I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with private insurers continuing to exist in some substantive way outside of a supplemental capacity; you can make a German-esque system work, but I am deeply concerned about the private insurance lobby ultimately weakening or rendering lame any public option by legislation like the nonsense, Orwellian named 'Medicare Modernization Act' signed under the Bush presidency which precluded Medicare, but not private insurers, from negotiating drug prices.

You would SAY that "the historic, crippling inefficiency of the US healthcare system is an exigent crisis on par with the UK and Canadian historical experiences" but no bombs fell on US cities in WW2 except for Hawaii. We did not dig a hundred plus major hospitals out of the rubble.
And we passed the thirty million population mark back when some of the Founders were still alive.

Click to expand...

Canada's healthcare system didn't emerge from the ruin of war; this is true of many healthcare systems worldwide. In fact, the US situation is probably more dire than a majority of formative events that jarred healthcare reform in other countries; a blight that has featured absurd and rapidly growing expense and cost since the 80s, being an agonized crisis that has stretched out over nearly 40 years of suffering.

And don't rag on hybrid systems so much. A lot of other countries do fine with theirs. Better than we are doing.

Click to expand...

Hybrid systems like Germany's can work; however, that's not where the advocacy is at.

Thank you, CS, for your thoughtful reply. As a new poster, I appreciate the thoughts from a veteran member. My apologies for this late reply and the selected, but hopefully within context, snipping. Life...intervenes. And, while I'll try to keep my comments brief, I can and will discuss them further in the separate Health Care forum...so I can get back to the thread's premise.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Jasper is arguing about socialized health care, so his argument makes no sense, because the United States does not need nor will it ever need a socialized system. We already HAVE the infrastructure in place. The only issue is how it is paid for, how much and who does the paying and how the payments are collected and distributed.

Click to expand...

Yes, herein lies my greatest concern regardless of if it's a M4A or NHS scheme.

And as for what you pay out of taxes, you forget that you will not be paying out of pocket for premiums the way you do now. If there are premiums, they will be smaller.

Click to expand...

No, I have not forgotten that such a nationalized (but not necessarily socialized) system might mean no or low(er) premiums and no or low co-payment at the POS. No one's plan is fleshed out and the last thing I'd like to see is another ACA debacle with thousands of pages of law, even more of regulation, and no one knowing what they're actually voting on. I also don't want some false promise of if you like your doctor or your plan...you can keep them.

You say you will wonder what became of us "when the day comes, that the government gets more of my paycheck than I do...is when I'll seriously wonder what the heck happened to our country."

What happens when the day comes when you're paying an even LARGER amount than that to your health insurance company?

Click to expand...

Not sure I follow. Do you really think there will be a day when 50%+ of a middle income wage earner's paycheck will have to go towards medical insurance? If (doubtful in my mind) and when that day comes, I'll wonder the same darn thing....what the heck happened to our country?

That's what my wife and I are doing right now and we only have two kids to pay for because both of us are on the VA system.Just our two kids are costing us over twenty thousand a year in premiums. What do you call that?

Click to expand...

Expensive. And without getting into details, makes me wonder why. High cost of living area? Or, since you the parents are in/on the VA system, are you having to purchase on the open/private market just for your dependents who admittedly have health issues? And, despite that seemingly high premium, does your family receive at least that amount in benefit? No need to answer but just wanted you to know I'm hearing your comments. Insurance is an Actuarial's game that our family has lost on for the decades we've been playing. But I get it, our day may come.

But finally, to the question: I did not vote for Clinton. I did not vote for Trump. While both had a few policies that resonated with me, neither one had the personal integrity I felt crucial to the position to garner my vote so I wrote in "None of the Above" to register my official disgust. Probably won't vote for Biden, if it comes to that. Not sure what's worse: Saying (a) Something you don't mean but say anyway (like Biden...that makes me question his mental status) or (b) Something you mean (like Trump...that makes me cringe/denounce/abhor).

I eagerly watched both sides in 2015 -- and was bitterly disappointed with both party's choice of candidate. Clinton seemed the anointed one and I still can't figure out how the Rs ended up with Trump. The Leap to the Left and Run to the Right...have abandoned those of us in the Middle.

I'll ignore the national politics at the moment and focus on the in-state races we have here in Virginia. Every State Senate and House of Delegate representative...as well as all of our locality's Board of Supervisors and School Board members are up for (re)election. That's where the real politics takes place...and makes the most difference in my everyday life.

Many Regards,
s¢