• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Presidential Election: Biden v. Trump

Y’all are seriously whitewashing Bush’s legacy. Between the Great Recession, Iraq - millions dead and for what exactly? absolutely nothing outside of raw profit - and the gleeful destruction of civil liberties, dude is in elite company when it comes to true motherfuckers in US history. Trump is a crass idiot running a 19th century-style kleptocracy with some room left to go, but Bush 2 and Jackson are the two worst US presidents in my book.
 
Sorry to divert from your "Ackshwully.... George W. Bush wasn't that bad!!!" circle jerk.

But the executive editor of the New York Times flat out admits the recent story on the alleged Biden sexual assault was modified after his campaign complained.

You can't make this shit up... but props to the NYT for at least publicly admitting a double standard exists (not that this was even in doubt) when 'reporting' on sexual assault allegations against a Dem.

 
This is as opposed to TWENTY-THREE women who say Trump sexually assaulted them and Trump admitting on camera he routinely sexually assaulted women.
 
Cute whatabout. So it's ok to whitewash, immediately dismiss, or ignore these allegations because of TWENTY-THREE women & ORANGE MAN BAD?

I'm old enough to remember 'Believe All Women'. Or does that only apply when the accused has a (R) following his name?
 
Cute whatabout. So it's ok to whitewash, immediately dismiss, or ignore these allegations because of TWENTY-THREE women & ORANGE MAN BAD?

I'm old enough to remember 'Believe All Women'. Or does that only apply when the accused has a (R) following his name?

So what would you have all of us on the dreaded "Tunnels Left" do, Angus? Force Biden to resign so your boy Trump can win an easy victory, in spite of his own even more serious allegations of sexual assault? Any suggestions? You should be happy, Angus. If Biden wins the election you'll no doubt be able to bring this subject up on a regular basis, just like you scream NORTHAM! at every opportunity whenever another GOP racist and bigot rears his or her ugly head. And if Trump wins, we all know that you'll be thrilled anyway.
 
Cute whatabout. So it's ok to whitewash, immediately dismiss, or ignore these allegations because of TWENTY-THREE women & ORANGE MAN BAD?

I'm old enough to remember 'Believe All Women'. Or does that only apply when the accused has a (R) following his name?

Bless your heart...
 
So, the accusation is that, under pressure from theBiden campaign, they changed the wording to more accurately state what they meant to communicate?
 
Y’all are seriously whitewashing Bush’s legacy. Between the Great Recession, Iraq - millions dead and for what exactly? absolutely nothing outside of raw profit - and the gleeful destruction of civil liberties, dude is in elite company when it comes to true motherfuckers in US history. Trump is a crass idiot running a 19th century-style kleptocracy with some room left to go, but Bush 2 and Jackson are the two worst US presidents in my book.

Is this just going to be a thing where liberal society convinces itself that each successive Republican President is worse than the last? I know that Bernie's quote started this conversation, but I really don't understand why we can't just condemn Trump for being awful without washing over GWB war crimes and body count. In regards to Dubya and destruction of Iraq, why won't the charges stick? Liberals are so keen on letting him slide for that. I don't get it
 
Y’all are seriously whitewashing Bush’s legacy. Between the Great Recession, Iraq - millions dead and for what exactly? absolutely nothing outside of raw profit - and the gleeful destruction of civil liberties, dude is in elite company when it comes to true motherfuckers in US history. Trump is a crass idiot running a 19th century-style kleptocracy with some room left to go, but Bush 2 and Jackson are the two worst US presidents in my book.

There's no whitewashing of his presidency going on. It was crap. The only comparison most are making is that trump is a worse human in part because he knows what he is doing is only to benefit himself and friends at the expense of the country.

The bush HIV work has largely been post presidency and that stuff, to me, points more to his ineptitude in office and the people around him taking advantage.
 
Cute whatabout. So it's ok to whitewash, immediately dismiss, or ignore these allegations because of TWENTY-THREE women & ORANGE MAN BAD?

I'm old enough to remember 'Believe All Women'. Or does that only apply when the accused has a (R) following his name?

If I have to chose between handsy and rapey, I’m picking handsy every time.
 
You're not giving Trump enough credit here. He's trying hard to catch up to W's body count and he's at almost 3 1/4 years.

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending W, you can't blame the Iraq War solely on him. A large part of the push for war was good old fashioned American blood lust and revenge fueled policy. The Iraq War doesn't happen without broad support from us as individuals and institutions. W and his administration provided flimsy cover for what we wanted.

Can't forget Cheney.

Lol you guys are conveniently leaving out a couple key figures
 
Is this just going to be a thing where liberal society convinces itself that each successive Republican President is worse than the last? I know that Bernie's quote started this conversation, but I really don't understand why we can't just condemn Trump for being awful without washing over GWB war crimes and body count. In regards to Dubya and destruction of Iraq, why won't the charges stick? Liberals are so keen on letting him slide for that. I don't get it

I believe it is part of the “return to normalcy” fantasy that people are dreaming of in nominating Biden. Most of the country has deluded them selves into believing the Trump is the problem and just getting rid of him will return us to normalcy, when the rot within the GOP has been there since at least Nixon, getting worse and more pervasive all along. I am really glad Bush helped fight AIDS in Africa, but remember it was 10 years after his father and Regan spent 12 years pretending AIDS didn’t exist.
 
This proposal considers an incremental expansion of Medicare that, instead of lowering the entry age, starts by focusing on children and young people from age 0-25. It also makes the important point that true M4A includes expanding benefits to already age-qualified people to ensure premium free healthcare and eliminate work requirements: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.or...expansion-of-medicare-should-begin-with-kids/

The end goal of Medicare for All advocates is to see the Medicare area (black) swallow the rest, ushering in a seamless, comprehensive national health insurance system.

Most bills that aim to do this move everyone onto Medicare over a few years in big chunks. The precise chunks, and their sequencing, differ from bill to bill, but these differences don’t matter much because the bills all terminate in the same outcome.

If you are not going to pursue a bill like that, but instead pursue a bill that adds just one chunk of people to Medicare, then the precise chunk you use matters a lot. And you need to be very thoughtful in making your chunk selection.

The chunk you choose should at minimum (1) benefit the group you are politically courting, (2) create conditions that plausibly promote further expansion of Medicare, and (3) fit reasonably well within the logic of the prevailing Medicare system.

Biden’s plan to expand Medicare to ages 60 through 64 fails on all counts, which is perhaps why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described it recently as “insulting.”

It fails criteria one because Bernie voters are overwhelmingly young adults. His support among ages 60 through 64 is vanishingly low. To give a crumb to Bernie voters, you need to do something that includes the youth.

It fails criteria two because this particular type of expansion is not likely to spur support for further expansion. Indeed, as Matt Yglesias and Ryan Cooper point out, the 60 to 64 age group is actually more likely to increase their opposition to Medicare expansion once they are benefiting from it. Furthermore, as a technical matter, moving the Medicare eligibility age downward is a strategy that hits a hard limit pretty quickly. You can’t, for instance, bring everyone over the age of 50 onto the Medicare rolls because that creates a wild asymmetry between old working-age adults whose only contribution to the health care system would be payroll taxes and young working-age adults who would be contributing the same payroll taxes and paying full freight for their own private plan.

It fails criteria three because the logic of the current Medicare system is to provide health insurance to people who are not expected to work, specifically elderly people and disabled people. The idea is that workers should contribute a portion of their earnings to a central fund that takes care of people who cannot work. But nondisabled people between the ages of 60 and 64 can work, do work, and are expected to work within our current public understanding of when retirement should occur. Bringing them in breaks the logic of the program and, as noted already, creates hard-to-justify asymmetries between workers.

Medicare for Kids — defined as a program of free health care for everyone between the ages of 0 and 25 — satisfies these three criteria quite beautifully.

It directly benefits Bernie supporters, both because many of those supporters are between the ages of 18 and 25 and because many of those beyond that age have children (or will soon) who they pay quite substantial amounts of money to privately insure.

Medicare for Kids also creates conditions that should push further Medicare expansion as individuals who age out of Medicare will be an obvious constituency for finishing the job and bringing in the remaining 26 to 64 age group.

Finally, it fits within the logic of Medicare, and thereby avoids problematic asymmetries, because we do not expect children to work and, in the case of ages 18 to 25, we do not expect them to pay for their own insurance. Indeed, the logic of including kids in Medicare is so obvious that it was part of some of the initial proposals for the program under the name Kiddiecare.

To be sure, expanding Medicare to kids is not the only thing we should do to shore up the program. As I noted in my Cleaning Up the Welfare State paper, there are many things that should be done to improve Medicare and, as is relevant here, to make sure it actually serves all of the constituencies that it is supposed to serve. That means, at minimum, insuring that everyone who is age 65 or older is eligible for premium-free Medicare regardless of their work history and eliminating the two-year waiting period to receive Medicare benefits for individuals who are on Social Security Disability Insurance or other Social Security programs where the two-year waiting period is in place.
 
W's premises for starting the war were certainly faulty, but he still toppled a regime that tortured and murdered an estimated 250,000 of its citizens. And not to trivialize the casualties of the Iraq War, but most estimates are far lower than the million being thrown around here. The WHO study estimated 151,000 deaths for example.
 
hell yea baby regime change for good am i right
 
Lol you guys are conveniently leaving out a couple key figures

I said “W and his administration.” Who did I leave out? Do you disagree that we were also to blame?
 
This proposal considers an incremental expansion of Medicare that, instead of lowering the entry age, starts by focusing on children and young people from age 0-25. It also makes the important point that true M4A includes expanding benefits to already age-qualified people to ensure premium free healthcare and eliminate work requirements: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.or...expansion-of-medicare-should-begin-with-kids/

I like this a lot, on a number of levels. Medicare for kids would be great policy and great politics.
 
Between Sanders endorsing Biden yesterday and Trump's increasingly bizarre, impossible-to-defend press conferences, Fox has apparently decided to haul out the big guns early. Today's banner headline on the Fox News website? "BAD NEWS BURIERS: CNN ignores Biden's sex assault allegation, in stark departure from Kavanaugh standard." And other top-of-the-page stories: Brit Hume calls out the liberal msm Biden/Kavanaugh double standard, a story about Biden accuser Tara Reade saying that she'll never vote for Joe Biden in a national election, and a story about a "revolt" from Sanders campaign workers who still refuse to support Biden and are still attacking him. I figured Fox would wait until the summer, or the start of the fall campaign, to use the sexual assault story. If guess if you can't defend Trump's actions right now, go on the attack.
 
Last edited:
No western country has "free" healthcare. You pay for through taxes with most having employers participating.

BTW, there is a huge difference between Biden's current dropping Medicare to age 60 and a full public option and Hillary's dropping Medicare to age 50. Biden's will lead very quickly to universal coverage without being threatening. Hillary's had nothing for people under 50.
 
I said “W and his administration.” Who did I leave out? Do you disagree that we were also to blame?

Hint: running for president with a D next to his name.
 
Back
Top