|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
And quick note about "aim for the leg." I have been on the shooting range with cops, they are not good enough shots to pull this off. They are definitely not good enough shots to do it while their adrenaline is pumping and they're surrounded by noise and screaming. And a bullet to your leg is potentially as fatal as being shot anywhere else. Bullet wounds are incredibly tramautic and your body responds poorly to having metal punch through it at high velocity, and you have some very big arteries in your legs that will bleed you out quick if they get nicked. And this of course ignores that the cops aren't murdering knife wielding lunatics charging the Thin Blue Line, which is a mythical scenario best left in masturbatory RaHoWa fiction, and left out of the mouth of politicians. The pigs are strangling unarmed black men to death while they beg for their lives. They are not defending themselves, or their communities. They are practicing terror, and Joe is too ensconced in his privilege and too desperate to be seen as one of the "good guys" to ever truly recognize that.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Majorian posted:He does sound different, and that's not nothing. Rhetoric from a president does matter to a degree. But talk is still cheap compared to action, particularly when you've got a long, troubling record of supporting a militarized, leashless, "warrior-mentality" police force. If Biden is going to continue to run on his experience in the Obama Administration, he's going to carry the baggage of that administration's policies towards policing. When you say Biden is better than Trump on this issue, can you honestly say that is the case to a degree that will be felt by anybody suffering directly from these policies right now? It doesn't need a big drop anyway, just dribs and drabs here and there to take it in range of an electoral loss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Well, not quite. He said that peaceful protests are "utterly American." He immediately followed that up by saying violence is universally wrong, the unspoken assertion being that violence is un-American (lol at that idea), and basically pleaded for the protests to be toothless so they could get immediately memory-holed like Occupy and Ferguson Putting aside for a moment questions of morality or anything like that, from a practical standpoint, what sort of politician is going to get elected on a platform of "electoral politics and peaceful protests are worthless. Bring the revolution!"? They're not going to get votes, and somebody who believes that probably isn't going to want to run for office anyway. Here's a link to the full Biden/Bethel AME event that was referred to above? https://www.c-span.org/video/?472655-1/joe-biden-meeting-community-leaders-wilmington-delaware
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Thanks for mentioning this - I went looking and was able to find the actual words, with a video and everything: From context I'm understanding him to be suggesting the policy of shooting to wound instead of kill when the danger isn't a gun that many European law enforcement agencies use. It's something that has been repeatedly brought up in D&D as a wish-list item during past discussions on police violence and often spawned heated arguments because it is antithetical to gun safety as it's taught in the US. I used to be strongly against it for that reason but after doing more research and seeing it used to good outcome in Europe frequently over the intervening years I'm starting to think it's a good idea as long as it's still treated as lethal force and held to the standards (lol) of lethal force. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Jun 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:However when it comes to national voting record in criminal justice and civil rights, I think it is quite easy to see the difference between the two parties, since they are much closely followed by resources like this: On the other hand, we have quote:Part of the reason Hillary Clinton failed in 2016 was due to the reevaluation of her and Bill Clinton’s atrocious record on criminal justice, which for decades has devastated the black communities whose votes she and the Democrats desperately want. Well, Joe Biden makes Hillary Clinton look like Michelle Alexander. But this doesn't count for some reason, now does it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
To clarify, I feel like leaning on gaffes or thinking they're substantial is exactly the mistake the Clinton campaign made (among others). The "grab them by the pussy" comment was so gross that many Democrats assumed it was a death knell. It's kind of inconceivable that it wasn't. But the fact is, it wasn't. I've been seeing quite a bit of people posting Twitter comments where it's sort of sounds like maybe Biden said a word incorrectly, or the frankly ridiculous snippet or someone claimed it sounded like he farted. There was a time where Dukakis getting photographed with a stupid helmet was crippling, but I just don't think it has that kind of novelty anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:From context I'm understanding him to be suggesting the policy of shooting to wound instead of kill when the danger isn't a gun that many European law enforcement agencies use. Thank you for sharing that, I wasn't aware of this and it is absolutely, as you mentioned, antithetical to how gun safety is taught in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I mean, he says some stuff sometimes, with varying degrees of success, but I think that's been pretty much what the plan for his campaign has been since Super Tuesday, and coronavirus made it way more practical for him to do so. He's not going to do anything positive on the campaign trail that offsets the 10-15 "You ain't black" level gaffe nightmares we're going to get over the next five months. I think he's been a little more active this week because it's a pivotal moment in American history and he would pretty dumb if he said nothing, but this has to be weighed against the fact that he also usually looks dumb when he says something. Maybe but his high polling right now is in the midst of him mostly being out of the public eye. I don't think anyone really expects much out of him other than getting rid of Trump and a general idea of a return to "good" governance. When he comes out and says whatever ridiculous thing that pleases no one (there's no way the police want to have to deal with limb shooting) it just seems like why waste the effort?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Pick posted:To clarify, I feel like leaning on gaffes or thinking they're substantial is exactly the mistake the Clinton campaign made (among others). The "grab them by the pussy" comment was so gross that many Democrats assumed it was a death knell. It's kind of inconceivable that it wasn't. But the fact is, it wasn't. That's because gaffes (and just flat-out monstrous statements that accurately reflect a politician's views) tend to hurt Democratic candidates more than Republican ones. Trump's base likes that he's a misogynist, racist, authoritarian, corrupt piece of garbage. Biden's strategy, on the other hand, depends on him not alienating key voter demographics like, oh I dunno, black people. Clinton saying that she was going to put a lot of coal miners out of business (even though yes, that quote was taken out of context) almost certainly hurt her more in important states than Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment hurt him. It's an unfair set of rules, in which Republicans have it way easier than any other type of candidate, but hey, them's the breaks. Electoral politics suck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's because gaffes (and just flat-out monstrous statements that accurately reflect a politician's views) tend to hurt Democratic candidates more than Republican ones. Trump's base likes that he's a misogynist, racist, authoritarian, corrupt piece of garbage. Biden's strategy, on the other hand, depends on him not alienating key voter demographics like, oh I dunno, black people. Clinton saying that she was going to put a lot of coal miners out of business (even though yes, that quote was taken out of context) almost certainly hurt her more in important states than Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment hurt him. It's an unfair set of rules, in which Republicans have it way easier than any other type of candidate, but hey, them's the breaks. Electoral politics suck. I understand your perspective, but I don't feel like that has particularly borne out lately. I do agree it occurred with Republicans first. However, now Trudeau in Canada and Northam in Virginia both experienced blackface scandals that got a lot of press but as far as I can see did not significantly impact their polling or their electoral success. And that's two things: outright racism and a photo (where I tend to see photos as more damning than words).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Putting aside for a moment questions of morality or anything like that, from a practical standpoint, what sort of politician is going to get elected on a platform of "electoral politics and peaceful protests are worthless. Bring the revolution!"? They're not going to get votes, and somebody who believes that probably isn't going to want to run for office anyway. Lee Carter was in the protests, literally pushing against the police line when they attempted to knock him down. Biden doesn't need to call for Chase Bank to get torched and he doesn't have to condone looting. But his response shows that he doesn't understand the root causes and instead wants to focus on whether or not the protestors are protesting the "right way." Newsflash: there is no right way for black people to protest. Maybe his statement should have pointed that out? Maybe he could make a statement saying that these protests are the results of pushing people too far? Maybe he could have proposed some sort of action that isn't yet another feckless oversight board that will prepare a memo after an appropriate review period? Like there's a whole universe of responses one could make in this moment, but he chose platitudes and lectures about proper protest etiquette. He called on people to come together to... uh... what was the call to action in his statement again? I guess it was to vote for him, but I was looking for something that might demonstrate some leadership, while Joe and his team were more interested in writing a campaign ad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Pick posted:I understand your perspective, but I don't feel like that has particularly borne out lately. I do agree it occurred with Republicans first. However, now Trudeau in Canada and Northam in Virginia both experienced blackface scandals that got a lot of press but as far as I can see did not significantly impact their polling or their electoral success. poo poo, in Northam's case the scandal basically forced him to govern to the left. It's been a wild few years in Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Could we also point out that even by the most generous interpretation, Biden is re framing the victim as a dangerous criminal? George Floyd was not rushing the cop. He was not in any way a threat. He was on the ground unarmed and subdued when he was murdered over nine minutes while he begged for his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:08
|
|
|
Pick posted:I understand your perspective, but I don't feel like that has particularly borne out lately. I do agree it occurred with Republicans first. However, now Trudeau in Canada and Northam in Virginia both experienced blackface scandals that got a lot of press but as far as I can see did not significantly impact their polling or their electoral success. And that's two things: outright racism and a photo (where I tend to see photos as more damning than words). Trudeau and Northam got elected and were in office when their scandals broke though. We're talking about a candidate who has yet to get elected to the office he's running for, and who needs black people and other POCs to turn out for him en masse if he doesn't want a repeat of 2016. And this isn't just one discrete fuckup as it was with Trudeau or Northam. This is one link in a chain of fuckups from Biden. They're going to keep happening, because he's both incapable of and uninterested in learning from his mistakes. Will it be enough to mute the turnout he needs in critical states? Well, I guess we'll just have to see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
I feel like Biden getting the nomination is sort of an acknowledgment that it may not be a huge problem. I know I've used the phrase "baked in" a fair bit, but I don't think anybody at this point is unaware that Biden is a "gaffe machine" (his words). That was his reputation before his selection in 2008 for the vice presidency. I also think it may not be bad for him because I still think that there is a streak of anti-intellectualism in the electorate right now. I think Biden makes more sense to stage as the rival to Trump than someone who is extremely polished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
Apologies if this is a bid long winded or seems pedantic, but I think this strikes right at one of the basic divergences in worldview and analysis that make these debates so difficult to have in the first place. I think you're misdiagnosing who the "country's most right wing elements" are. If I am understanding you correctly then what you're doing here is viewing contemporary American politics through a sort of Red State/Blue State perspective and saying that the most right wing element in the country's political system are diehard Trump voters. I think that this is either incorrect or correct but only in a trivial way. It seems as though your analysis locates the driving force of contemporary movement conservatism in the voting populations of Red State America; the MAGA chuds, etc. This ignores the much more significant role played by individual wealthy families, powerful corporations and the affluent class of managers and professionals that serve those groups. These are the constituencies that dominate and control both parties and which have spent many billions of dollars and decades of intensive effort to shift the coordinates of the country to the right. While there is undeniably an organic rightward movement in America that you can trace back to various culture and civil conflicts during the 20th century you really cannot ignore the fact that virulently racist and misogynistic voices and policies have been consistently platformed and elevated for decades as part of a concerted political project designed to undo the social democratic policies of the New Deal. The most significant right-wing elements in American society are the people who subsidize the culture war and platform its most odious actors as a way to manage the population. Their personal values and attitudes really aren't that significant. Dick Cheney might be a lot more personally accepting of his lesbian daughter than some redneck Trump voter would be but in any sensible analysis the Dick Cheneys of the world are the more significant political force. Democrats and Republicans do have somewhat differing coalitions of supporters but both of them are deeply entwined with the corporate state which has been weaponizing the culture war. I hasten to add that this is not meant to imply that all cultural conflicts or instances of racism and sexism are directly caused by corporate America, because that is obviously not the case. But when you consider the corporate ownership of the media and both political parties or consider the role of large corporations in driving American foreign and domestic policy then I think it becomes difficult to sustain the idea that the primary cause of America's right wing society are actually the backward opinions of the MAGA chuds. If we want to trace back the history and look at the emergence of the culture war then we can see that while there was definitely an organic conservative reaction to the 1960s, the political elevation of this reaction and its weaponization was carried forward by pro-business and anti-communist elements who need to enlist some large scale social forces in their war against the New Deal and its legacies. Obviously I'm condensing a lot of history into a few paragraphs to try and make this point and we could quibble with some of the details I've set forward here but this seems to me like one of the things that divides a leftist view of American politics from a liberal one. I see the current hard right trajectory of American society as being largely attributable to its political economy and to the tactics adopted by wealthy Americans who borrowed right-wing ideas and rhetoric to legitimize their counter attack on the state in the last quarter of the 20th century. Helsing fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jun 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Trudeau and Northam got elected and were in office when their scandals broke though. We're talking about a candidate who has yet to get elected to the office he's running for, and who needs black people and other POCs to turn out for him en masse if he doesn't want a repeat of 2016. And this isn't just one discrete fuckup as it was with Trudeau or Northam. This is one link in a chain of fuckups from Biden. They're going to keep happening, because he's both incapable of and uninterested in learning from his mistakes. Will it be enough to mute the turnout he needs in critical states? Well, I guess we'll just have to see. Northram probably only survived because in a comical series of events every Democrat in the line of succession had a scandal break out right after his and the national calls for him to step down ended abruptly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Pick posted:I feel like Biden getting the nomination is sort of an acknowledgment that it may not be a huge problem. That's a really short-sighted assumption to make, IMO. Clinton dominating among black primary voters in 2016 didn't prevent her from losing due, in no small part, to a significant dropoff in black and brown voters in key states. As I pointed out a few pages back, this dropoff can't be fully explained by things like voter suppression measures, when there weren't any new voter suppression measures on the books in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Florida. The fact that he's got old, conservative black people (and old, conservative Democrats in general) in the bag does not mean he has black people, writ large, in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a really short-sighted assumption to make, IMO. Clinton dominating among black primary voters in 2016 didn't prevent her from losing due, in no small part, to a significant dropoff in black and brown voters in key states. As I pointed out a few pages back, this dropoff can't be fully explained by things like voter suppression measures, when there weren't any new voter suppression measures on the books in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Florida. The fact that he's got old, conservative black people (and old, conservative Democrats in general) in the bag does not mean he has black people, writ large, in the bag. Especially given that poo poo is liable to only get wilder from this point onward, on the streets and I can't see Biden avoiding stepping in the obvious poo forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
I think his message of "shoot unarmed people" resonates well with his base. George Floyd wasn't loving shot. He was choked to death. I genuinely don't see how anyone can consider this an acceptable talking point from any vantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
are we certain joe biden is not simply johnny knoxville in his old suit making a new movie in the bad grandpa series: bad candidate
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:On the other hand, we have I already mentioned the past failures of Democrats, so yeah, it counts. Learn to read and maybe you won´t shoot yourself in the leg next time. This is it again?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I already mentioned the past failures of Democrats, so yeah, it counts. Learn to read and maybe you won´t shoot yourself in the leg next time. Well, you have me there, if only I weren't the one shouting myself red in the face telling everyone and their cousin to vote for the guy, but you do you I guess! On a more serious note, does anyone think Biden will do anything besides not being orange?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
I see your point Helsing and largely agree, but to some extent the two contingents are codependent and there's unique blame in how it expresses itself as a codependent relationship. The corporate right doesn't probably personally care that much if lgbt+ persons get wedding cakes but they leveraged pre-existing prejudices and reinforced them for their benefit. But they're being promoted and reinforced because they work because the sentiment was there. They're both using one another to the country's overall detriment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Well, you have me there, if only I weren't the one shouting myself red in the face telling everyone and their cousin to vote for the guy, but you do you I guess! I think it really depends on winning the Senate, and winning the Senate to a degree that Joe Manchin isn't the lynchpin of all possible legislation. If we end up, miraculously, +3 or something in the Senate then we'll have a great shot at passing sweeping voter protection legislation at the very least. If you're asking if I think Biden will be the driving force behind policy proposals...well I don't know. His campaign platform has a lot of good in it, but I don't know how hard I think he'll fight for it in office. I am much more certain that he'll sign whatever bills a (D) House and Senate send to his desk, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
How are u posted:I think it really depends on winning the Senate, and winning the Senate to a degree that Joe Manchin isn't the lynchpin of all possible legislation. I appreciate your optimism, but isn't mister Biden the one with a noted history of doing gently caress-all with a (D) congress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I appreciate your optimism, but isn't mister Biden the one with a noted history of doing gently caress-all with a (D) congress? More to the point, Reid had to intervene to stop him giving poo poo away to the repubs in negotiation. Do you expect someone with a history like that to lead well, let alone the mountain of other things?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:I already mentioned the past failures of Democrats, so yeah, it counts. Learn to read and maybe you won´t shoot yourself in the leg next time. Past? George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis. Minneapolis, which has a democratic mayor and 0 republicans on the city council. Which is Hennepin county, that has a sheriff who was endorsed by democrats and a democrat as county DA. Which is in Minnesota, which has a democratic governor. His predecessor was also a democrat, by the way. In other words, there's no "democrats used to be bad but now they changed." The relevant comparison here isn't what Trump has done, it's what democrats have done when they have power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I appreciate your optimism, but isn't mister Biden the one with a noted history of doing gently caress-all with a (D) congress? Biden actually has a shockingly massive legislative record; that link will take you to bills he sponsored including those which did not pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Pick posted:Biden actually has a shockingly massive legislative record; that link will take you to bills he sponsored including those which did not pass. Rappaport is referring to Biden's role in a Democratic administration which had a clear mandate from voters, and a supermajority in Congress, and yet did extremely little with those advantages. Democrats have not shown themselves to be terribly adept at using power when it falls into their laps.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
You're referring to the period in which votes hinged on Joe Lieberman?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I appreciate your optimism, but isn't mister Biden the one with a noted history of doing gently caress-all with a (D) congress? Well, Joe Biden wasn't the President, he was the Vice President, and the Obama admin spent a hell of a lot of time and effort in those first 2 years passing some pretty comprehensive healthcare reform, which I wouldn't really call gently caress-all. So, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Pick posted:Biden actually has a shockingly massive legislative record; that link will take you to bills he sponsored including those which did not pass. It’s very interesting that when we talk about Bernie’s legislative record, the only thing liberals want to talk about are the bills that he both wrote and passed, which is how we get the “did nothing but name post offices” talking point. Now that we’re talking about Biden, though, bills he didn’t write that also didn’t pass are apparently an important part of the record. I wonder why that is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Reminder that Joe pledged to veto any health care legislation that raised taxes on the middle class, which he seems to define as households earning up to $400k a year. And he has pledged to return corporate tax rates to 7% below where they were when he was VP. So I wouldn't hold my breath for a whole lot of progressive legislation from Joe even with a Dem Congress. And yes I've seen what some intern wrote on his website. I doubt Joe knows or cares what is on there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:00
|
|
|
How are u posted:Well, Joe Biden wasn't the President, he was the Vice President, and the Obama admin spent a hell of a lot of time and effort in those first 2 years passing some pretty comprehensive healthcare reform, which I wouldn't really call gently caress-all. Calling it "pretty comprehensive healthcare reform" is overly-generous. The administration went into those negotiations already signaling that it was ready to compromise, and then continued to compromise until the outcome was something incredibly weak and easily hamstrung in the ensuing years. I get that Biden was VP, which is often a mostly-powerless role, but hey, he's the one running on his record in the Obama Administration. Either he keeps doing this, and gets laden with the baggage of the administration, or he doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Eminai posted:It’s very interesting that when we talk about Bernie’s legislative record, the only thing liberals want to talk about are the bills that he both wrote and passed, which is how we get the “did nothing but name post offices” talking point. Now that we’re talking about Biden, though, bills he didn’t write that also didn’t pass are apparently an important part of the record. I wonder why that is. It's because that's how that website is set up. Biden had the greatest number of enacted bills for which he was primary sponsor, in the 2020 Democratic primary race, with 42. Sanders had seven. I recommend govtrack.us for details.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
How are u posted:Well, Joe Biden wasn't the President, he was the Vice President, and the Obama admin spent a hell of a lot of time and effort in those first 2 years passing some pretty comprehensive healthcare reform, which I wouldn't really call gently caress-all. The Affordable Care Act saved a lot of lives, there's no mistaking that. At the same time, mister Biden has repeatedly stated that he does not favour a more public health care option, an opinion that he seems to share with a Nancy Pelosi. This seems like misguided policy at best, throwing Americans lives down the sink at the worst.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Reminder that Joe pledged to veto any health care legislation that raised taxes on the middle class, which he seems to define as households earning up to $400k a year. And he has pledged to return corporate tax rates to 7% below where they were when he was VP. https://twitter.com/schwartzbCNBC/status/1266472419537162257 Joe Biden will not be moved to the left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I get that Biden was VP, which is often a mostly-powerless role, but hey, he's the one running on his record in the Obama Administration. Either he keeps doing this, and gets laden with the baggage of the administration, or he doesn't. Oh totally. I think the difference is that a very small group of people (probably you? don't want to put words in your mouth) look back at the record of the Obama admin and think "nothing but failures and betrayals" while the vast, vast majority of people think "responsible governance, trying to do good, stymied by 6 years of stonewalling nihilistic Republicans".
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:The Affordable Care Act saved a lot of lives, there's no mistaking that. At the same time, mister Biden has repeatedly stated that he does not favour a more public health care option, an opinion that he seems to share with a Nancy Pelosi. This seems like misguided policy at best, throwing Americans lives down the sink at the worst. https://joebiden.com/healthcare/ quote:I. GIVE EVERY AMERICAN ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE Quite literally the very first point on his healthcare platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2020 20:11
|
|