|
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 | ||
|
Ruzihm posted:Why bother announcing tepid compromises with Bernie if his foremost objective is to court conservatives? Clearly he is willing to at least appear like he has progressive interests. I think it's not out of the question for him to announce at least one cabinet member who is not to the right of Ed Markey. It's pretty much electoral suicide to explicitly break a promise like that. That and his rep for dealmaking well making him centrist trash also holds them to the end of that. Though it wouldn't be enough to prevent my other scenarios or let the congress veto them.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Rockit posted:his rep for dealmaking His rep for dealmaking is, quite explicitly and directly, bending over to give Republicans whatever they want. If they wanted him to bend the knee and renege on his promises and, let's pick an extreme example, just straight re-appoint Trump's cabinet, what meaningful incentive is gonna convince him do otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Why bother announcing tepid compromises with Bernie if his foremost objective is to court conservatives? Clearly he is willing to at least appear like he has some progressive interests. I think it's not out of the question for him to announce at least one cabinet member who is not to the right of Ed Markey. His campaign just announced that his Latino outreach person is going to be a literal Republican with literal family ties to the contras. I don't think he cares too much about appearing to care about progressives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
Rockit posted:It's pretty much electoral suicide to explicitly break a promise like that. If we assume pandering to conservatives is a reliable path to electoral victory, then wouldn't revealing that he wants to keep progressives from power improve his chances? Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Oh and keep screaming rapist because it's a broken record at this point with no substance. Hell there isn't any new info on that as is since June. still catching up with the thread but god drat man. like, you can have a political opinion without protecting joe biden same with everyone coming in here screaming about neverbiden types. a number of you voted for bernie for obvious reasons so stop sticking up for the people you clearly don’t like anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Somfin posted:His rep for dealmaking is, quite explicitly and directly, bending over to give Republicans whatever they want. Also party nepotism at least for your extreme example . Also to be frank i think he's an genuine ideologue than just a corrupt rear end in a top hat with nothing behind him. He probably really thinks he's giving his friend a good deal even when in practice it's dogshit. I don't see why he wouldn't give a few token positions that wouldn't change poo poo to otherwise good people. Ruzihm posted:If we assume pandering to conservatives is a reliable path to electoral victory, then wouldn't revealing that he wants to keep progressives from power improve his chances? That being said i don't disagree with the broad premise it's just isn't the "He will deceptively lie over something he's already got in the bag."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
I think there is reason to believe that people will have an actual breaking point with Biden, for instance nobody is voting for him or is enthused about his presidency. Unfortunately a large part of the Trump backlash has almost nothing to do with his horrendous actions and policy, but rather is about having politics shoved into the public's face 24/7. Biden can be as bipartisan poo poo as he wants just as long as the top headlines aren't always about him and the results of his actions. People really, really, want the idea of a President Sleepy Joe that they don't have to think about. Which is a significant part of why it's such a stupid nickname for Donny to have gone with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:Do you seriously believe in that Biden has any interest in implementing a single progressive policy? People bring up his worthless platform a lot and it seems wildly dishonest to me when they all know very well that it's meaningless. sexpig by night posted:I actually want an answer to this too, what progressive policy do the Joe Team in here genuinely believe he'll actively fight for? Joe Biden, the dude who thinks the crime bills he wrote were good and couldn't even agree to legalizing weed or M4A, two incredibly popular things. What will Biden's actual agenda be? Sorry, these are from several pages back but I had stepped away for a bit. It's not that I think Biden himself will fight for any progressive policies. Rather, he's going to sign whatever progressive bills the Dems (assuming they also gain control of Senate) put in front of him. This includes a potential M4A bill or a Green New Deal bill. It also includes less progressive but still very good stuff like a public option bill. Biden himself may be more conservative than Obama but I doubt very strongly that he would stand in the way of a progressive Dem caucus. If Dems don't win the Senate, he will still surround himself with competent people, and that alone will go a long, long way towards fixing the federal government and its agencies. He will also get to nominate at least one SCOTUS judge. I mean, look, don't get me wrong: Biden is going to take over a very broken government and an extremely polarized country. Generally speaking, it's much easier to break things down than to build/repair them, and to divide than to unite, so he has an uphill battle. He will fail at many, many things. He will also succeed in a lot of things. What he fails at and what he succeeds at remain to be seen, especially since we still have six more months of Trump and god knows what other damage he will cause and whether he will go away quietly if/when he loses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This includes a potential M4A bill Why do you think that he didn't mean what he said when he promised that he would veto an M4A bill?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Sorry, these are from several pages back but I had stepped away for a bit. I'm sure he'll do some good things. Probably more than what the rest of thread thinks but they are right in pointing out how big assumptions you are making about how good his administration/congress is .
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
In not seeing how the guy who said he'd veto Medicare for all and promised that nothing will fundamentally change if he's elected should be trusted to be anything but an impediment to any and all actual progressive efforts put forth by any other branch of the government. I don't believe that he'd even appoint a supreme court judge that isn't an insane conservative, or even a straight up republican, based on his bizarre obsession with how the GOP is apparently a valuable asset to the American government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
Rockit posted:The dem Establishment doesn't sound like what one would call competent at fixing the federal government and it's agencies nor would they necessarily be capable or willing to pass even the less progressive bills. Both Clinton and Obama had a technocratic bent and placed a premium on competence and expertise. There's no reason at all to think Biden will be different in this respect, whatever you think of him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:In not seeing how the guy who said he'd veto Medicare for all and promised that nothing will fundamentally change if he's elected should be trusted to be anything but an impediment to any and all actual progressive efforts put forth by any other branch of the government. I don't believe that he'd even appoint a supreme court judge that isn't an insane conservative, or even a straight up republican, based on his bizarre obsession with how the GOP is apparently a valuable asset to the American government. That's only an argument for him to not go full partisan with it. One can view something as an valuable asset without intending for that thing to take over. The fact the "Something" is trash you shouldn't put it anything is loving horrible but doesn't make those view points indistinguishable
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Sorry, these are from several pages back but I had stepped away for a bit. This doesn't read as insane on first blush, but why does it feel so saccharine? Seriously, after I got done reading this it feels like I downed an entire bag of Skittles in one go. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Sorry, these are from several pages back but I had stepped away for a bit. The president has a crucial role in guiding discussion and public opinion on these topics. An actual left-wing president could essentially force the issue by openly pushing for something like MfA and forcing other Democrats to either support it or make themselves look really bad by directly opposing it. The media can't ignore the president in the same way they can most other politicians. But since congressional Dems will be more than happy to not pass those bills, all that matters is that Biden won't push for them himself. Basically, "if it reaches his desk he'll pass it" is like saying "if we lived in a socialist country Biden would probably be socialist." It is contingent upon something that isn't and won't be true. Part of the reason why nominating Bernie was so important is that the only realistic way to get bills like MfA or the GND passed is to have an extremely public advocate for them as president. There isn't a chance in hell of replacing enough of Congress to achieve those things in the next 10+ years. (I'm ignoring the whole "he said he was veto MfA" thing here, since even though that's definitely true I realize that it's a losing fight to convince anyone who has faith in the Democratic Party about future events) enraged_camel posted:I mean, look, don't get me wrong: Biden is going to take over a very broken government and an extremely polarized country. Generally speaking, it's much easier to break things down than to build/repair them, and to divide than to unite, so he has an uphill battle. He will fail at many, many things. He will also succeed in a lot of things. What he fails at and what he succeeds at remain to be seen, especially since we still have six more months of Trump and god knows what other damage he will cause and whether he will go away quietly if/when he loses. The problem with this is that the things he'll succeed at are either things that hurt a bunch of people or things that help a small fraction of the people he hurts. People are asking about specific policies/bills because the only reasonable way to approach this question is to look at the actual effects of the various things in question. All good and bad things aren't equal, and doing something that helps 10,000 people doesn't make up for doing something that hurts 100,000. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Both Clinton and Obama had a technocratic bent and placed a premium on competence and expertise. There's no reason at all to think Biden will be different in this respect, whatever you think of him. Rockit fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Sorry, these are from several pages back but I had stepped away for a bit. the president is the head of the party, his agenda is the party agenda, if he's not fighting actively and passionately for these things they won't happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
Rockit posted:So that means they can only fix Trump's fuckups the same way and extent they did Bush's? That's hardly the proof of "competence and expertise" you frame it as. It took until last week for him to pledge to stop construction of the loving border wall, and he absolutely isn't pledging to tear it down "Fix" isn't really something they want to do. "Stop making them actively accelerate" is as far as they'll go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:People are asking about specific policies/bills because the only reasonable way to approach this question is to look at the actual effects of the various things in question. All good and bad things aren't equal, and doing something that helps 10,000 people doesn't make up for doing something that hurts 100,000. Looking at the legislation passed in Virginia since the dems took over the legislative and executive there would be a good place to start if you're curious what full dem control looks like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:12
|
|
|
the problem i see with biden’s handling of covid is that he’ll probably say good things but no matter what he says or does it’s really going to come down to what makes the money lines look good. i mean, i really think that if one candidate is more likely than the other to continue this pandemic through their whole term it’s trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Looking at the legislation passed in Virginia since the dems took over the legislative and executive there would be a good place to start if you're curious what full dem control looks like. Whatever collation is in Virginia is going to be different than the collation in congress proper. Will the squad have that same kind of hold the more radical Virginia dems do? I haven't seen the full breakdown but i don't think most of the new congress in a full dem control aren't going to be squad members. Pointing at one example doesn't exactly prove it's results are inherent in every case. Federal system and state are under different pressures and group dynamics just aren't going to inherently the same even if all parties are in good faith. Rockit fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Why do you think that he didn't mean what he said when he promised that he would veto an M4A bill? I think he promised to veto an M4A bill because he genuinely doesn't see an M4A bill as a possibility, which is, let's face it, true. Not only does such a bill require Dem control of the Senate, it also requires heavily courting conservative/moderate Dems and getting their buy-in. So promising to veto a bill that will almost definitely not come into existence, much less put in front of him for signature, was a low-cost way of differentiating himself from his at-the-time top rival, Bernie. Here's what he said back in March: quote:Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden said that if a "Medicare for All" bill got to his desk as president, it would not automatically earn his signature. In other words, just like I said, Biden acknowledged that it would be miracle for such a bill to arrive at his desk, and while he wouldn't immediately veto it, it also wouldn't be an automatic signature either. I don't agree with his logic (as it ignores massive cost savings that would offset the tax increases) but I also understand why he said it the way he did: that healthcare should be a right, but that M4A isn't necessarily the only way or the best way to get there. However, the circumstances that will make an M4A bill possible are also the same ones in which Biden has come on board with it (i.e. right-leaning and moderate Dems having given their support). So I don't see it very likely that he would veto it. Ytlaya posted:The problem with this is that the things he'll succeed at are either things that hurt a bunch of people or things that help a small fraction of the people he hurts. At this juncture it's not possible to discuss specifics because doing so requires a crystal ball that shows the future. So we can only discuss hypothetical scenarios. Rockit posted:The dem Establishment doesn't sound like what one would call competent at fixing the federal government and it's agencies nor would they necessarily be capable or willing to pass even the less progressive bills. Rockit posted:So that means they can only fix Trump's fuckups the same way they did Bush's? That's hardly the proof of "competence and expertise" you frame it as. Well, as I said, it is easy to break things. All you need is a hammer or some other tool, and to smash the thing into pieces with it. It is much harder to repair what has been broken, especially when it comes to the extremely complex machinery that is the federal government. So yeah, I think it absolutely requires competence and expertise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
 Hold on a moment we found the trump pivot! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I think he promised to veto an M4A bill because he genuinely doesn't see an M4A bill as a possibility, which is, let's face it, true. Not only does such a bill require Dem control of the Senate, it also requires heavily courting conservative/moderate Dems and getting their buy-in. So promising to veto a bill that will almost definitely not come into existence, much less put in front of him for signature, was a low-cost way of differentiating himself from his at-the-time top rival, Bernie. Sure but my point is if past history is indicative Biden's group will not have what it takes to repair things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Democrats won't vote for poo poo because they don't think it will pass. Republicans vote for poo poo because they vote for poo poo. I.e bengazi and defunding Obama care. Neither passes but dems look useless as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
The idea that Biden is indifferent to M4A and only making public statements against it out of political convenience is ridiculous. His delegates to the DNC all voted against putting M4A in the platform, a purely symbolic move. The person in charge of vetting his VP is Chris Dodd, who was once called "the senator from Aetna." His campaign chairman is a former BCBS and American Hospital Association lobbyist. His first fundraiser was hosted by a BCBS exec. Biden wouldn't veto a M4A because he would have made every effort to kill it before it went anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Rockit posted:Whatever collation is in Virginia is going to be different than the collation in congress proper. the amount of donor money being shoveled at the squad (seriously aoc is only outraised by pelosi normally, and schiff post-impeachment, and even then just barely) has absolutely gotten them very outsized influence. AOC doesn't even bother doing traditional fundraising and she still out-raises basically every one of her peers by a mile. That influence is why bernie is headlining the convention. one of the funny things about bernie's campaigns is that as much as some people emotionally checked out after he didn't get the nomination, he set a very substantial political movement in motion that didn't just evaporate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:the amount of donor money being shoveled at the squad (seriously aoc is only outraised by pelosi normally, and schiff post-impeachment, and even then just barely) has absolutely gotten them very outsized influence. AOC doesn't even bother doing traditional fundraising and she still out-raises basically every one of her peers by a mile. That influence is why bernie is headlining the convention. The assumption that fundraising correlates to influence especially influence that will lead to an sincere collation feels like something one can't just assert and be believed. Color me skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I think he promised to veto an M4A bill because he genuinely doesn't see an M4A bill as a possibility, which is, let's face it, true. Not only does such a bill require Dem control of the Senate, it also requires heavily courting conservative/moderate Dems and getting their buy-in. So promising to veto a bill that will almost definitely not come into existence, much less put in front of him for signature, was a low-cost way of differentiating himself from his at-the-time top rival, Bernie. How is this not a complete indictment of Biden? "Yeah he recognizes that M4A is going to be monumentally hard to pass Congress, that's why he's assuring you that even in that unlikely scenario he'd still kill it off at the very end!" And we're supposed to be impressed he's differentiating himself by showing us he's right-wing? I don't understand how you typed that out and still thought it would convince anyone that Biden is somehow for the thing he said he's against?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Rockit posted:The assumption that fundraising correlates to influence especially influence that will lead to an sincere collation feels like something one can't just assert and be believed. Color me skeptical. picture yourself as some generic 60 year old succdem: you have two options cold call bankers offering sloppy political blowjobs hoping they'll cut you a check and making lovely tweets that get 200 engages. or you can be minimally less lovely, have a couple populist positions and in exchange you get to roll in cash without having to beg donors for it, you get 100k likes on your tweets, your kids don't refuse to talk to you. The game is clearly changing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:The idea that Biden is indifferent to M4A and only making public statements against it out of political convenience is ridiculous. His delegates to the DNC all voted against putting M4A in the platform, a purely symbolic move. The person in charge of vetting his VP is Chris Dodd, who was once called "the senator from Aetna." His campaign chairman is a former BCBS and American Hospital Association lobbyist. His first fundraiser was hosted by a BCBS exec. Health insurance stocks skyrocketing after Biden clinched the nomination was apparently just because those execs don't know just how much Biden truly supports M4A.z These people all still argue that Harris and Warren are M4A supporters so arguing the Biden actually would support it in the hypothetical world where the House and the Senate choose to pass it without any prompting or indication of support from the White House is par for the course. And even better it's an argument that's completely and totally un-falsifiable; they'll never have to back up their statement because the conditions they're arguing will never come to pass. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:it won't pass congress, are you insane sorry sorry sorry Biden's plan is poo poo, but since when does "it won't pass congress" an argument against policy here? The vast majority of Bernie supporters during the primaries were saying it didn't matter if a plan couldn't pass Congress, it was a starting point, and that your platform shouldn't necessarily be made on what will pass, but what is morally right. So...why does congressional viability matter for policy now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:picture yourself as some generic 60 year old succdem: you have two options cold call bankers offering sloppy political blowjobs hoping they'll cut you a check and making lovely tweets that get 200 engages. or you can be minimally less lovely, have a couple populist positions and in exchange you get to roll in cash without having to beg donors for it, you get 100k likes on your tweets, your kids don't refuse to talk to you. Getting half-way to a populist position probably isn't the way to get the money and likes after all. Maybe if they manage to make m4a morph into just a public option but isn't in the card yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
Euphoriaphone posted:How is this not a complete indictment of Biden? "Yeah he recognizes that M4A is going to be monumentally hard to pass Congress, that's why he's assuring you that even in that unlikely scenario he'd still kill it off at the very end!" He didn't say he would kill it off, though? In the snippet I posted, he very clearly avoids saying he would veto M4A — he just says he wouldn't automatically sign it, then proceeds to speak in terms of principles such as whether M4A would and what it would cost (like I said, I don't like the latter part, but he is no Bernie so it can't be helped). Here's Politifact's take: quote:"Look, my opposition isn’t to the principle that you should have Medicare. Health care should be a right in America. My opposition relates to whether or not a) it’s doable, 2) what the cost is and what consequences for the rest of budget are. How are you going to find $35 trillion over the next 10 years without having profound impacts on everything from taxes for middle class and working class people as well as the impact on the rest of the budget?" quote:Our ruling I mean, if you remember the primary season, one of the main criticisms regarding Bernie, from everyone to the right of him, was that he was making lofty promises with no idea about how those things would be paid for. Biden was, once again, differentiating himself from Bernie. If there's another interview where he does actually say he would definitely veto M4A, that's a different story. But all the search results on Google are talking about that March interview. Euphoriaphone posted:And we're supposed to be impressed he's differentiating himself by showing us he's right-wing? I don't understand how you typed that out and still thought it would convince anyone that Biden is somehow for the thing he said he's against? I didn't say Biden is for M4A, I said he probably wouldn't veto it if it actually , by some miracle, arrived at his desk. That does not make him right-wing. I mean, he said healthcare should be a right. That is the polar opposite of right-wing ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:sorry sorry sorry Because there's a fundamental difference between someone willing to fight for something, repeatedly pushing it and refusing to back down, and someone who will try once, fail, shrug and move on because they never wanted to do it in the first place. This may come as a shock but Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders have very different policy stances. Joe will give up on things like student loan relief or a public healthcare option or immigration or a thousand other things at the first sign of resistance (and often that resistance will have been prepared in advance so that Joe doesn't have to be the bad guy). Bernie has a history of pursuing these things, even when they were highly unpopular, and would have been a strong, consistent advocate. Now, Joe also has a history of pushing for things that are unpopular and get him a lot of flack, but those things are massive foreign wars and large cuts to the social safety net, so we're understandably less willing to believe him when he says he wants to help poor people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
So he doesn't outright say "I'll kill it", but when talking about M4A he immediately starts whining about costs? That doesn't set my mind at ease. I've pointed out before how obnoxious it is that there's never the concern trolling over costs when it comes to corporate bailouts, but let someone like Bernie propose a leftist policy that will actually help people and the corporate wing of the party comes out to suddenly wring their hands about how "pie in the sky" it is to give people health care. This is one reason why I dislike Biden so much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I didn't say Biden is for M4A, I said he probably wouldn't veto it if it actually , by some miracle, arrived at his desk. That does not make him right-wing. I mean, he said healthcare should be a right. That is the polar opposite of right-wing ideology. So when he says he'd veto it we should ignore it. What other things has Joe said that I should ignore? I get your argument: he didn't say he'd veto M4A, he said he'd veto anything that raised taxes on the middle class or that took healthcare away from people. That these are the exact arguments he's made against M4A are immaterial; he has not said the words "I would veto M4A" so his exact thoughts on the matter are inscrutable. But see, I hear that argument and can't help but think you're either lying to us, or to yourself, and I'm not sure which is more annoying. Maybe you're just incredibly gullible? Maybe you're new to politics? Not sure. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:So when he says he'd veto it we should ignore it. What other things has Joe said that I should ignore? Look, I went out of my way to explain the context of his M4A comment in detail, and provided links. I cannot help you if you'll continue to engage in this type of bad faith, low effort discourse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Look, I went out of my way to explain the context of his M4A comment in detail, and provided links. I cannot help you if you'll continue to engage in this type of bad faith, low effort discourse. Oh I provided an edit that explains why I think you're completely insane. You want bad faith, low effort discourse, though? Responding to "Joe said he would veto M4A, also his entire history of political action backs this up" with "ah, but what if I very pedantically point out that he never said the words "I would veto M4A," and then argue that the future is unknowable and unpredictable! Have you considered that the man that has always served the interest of capital and never once backed up the poor and the downtrodden might suddenly pull a 180 under a very narrow set of circumstances???" If your premise demands that we forget everything we know about Joe Biden I would argue it's not a very good premise. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:So when he says he'd veto it we should ignore it. What other things has Joe said that I should ignore? That he didn't rape a women. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 02:21
|
|
