If leftists are willing to let Trump win because they see Biden as equally bad, then they should really just put all of their energy into voting with their feet and moving to a European country. Immigrating is not easy but with enough time and motivation would be possible for most people on this forum one way or another.
The idea that we will get to a Bernie like candidate without first going through Biden or a similar candidate while the country’s demographics slowly change is just never going to happen. Maybe in 8 years when AOC is old enough to run, she can catch lightning in a bottle Obama style. She certainly has the charisma for it, but that’s the only foreseeable shot and her opportunity is significantly diminished if Trump, McConnell, and company have 4 more years to shape the judiciary and further entrench gerrymandering and disenfranchisement tactics. No alternative forms of activism are going to make a dent in USA politics without first chipping away at the right’s gerrymandering and riggage.
Additionally, Republicans have perfected targeted misinformation, wedge issues, and straight denial of reality. The idea that the lower income right wing voters of the USA can be turned to rally around class warfare against the rich in sufficient numbers if their situation gets worse just isn’t tethered to reality. For that reason I just don’t see activism as a substitute for vote instead of a supplement to voting.
Still seems like most people on this board are really only saying they’re not going to vote for Biden because the electoral college renders their vote worthless, and I guess I don’t have a problem with that.
I don’t think anyone’s disputed that Biden is indeed the lesser of two evils. This thread is about rejecting the idea that that alone is a sufficiently compelling reason to vote for him. And I already live in a European country
AOC is technically old enough to run in four years IIRC, though it’s probably not practical. The rest of your post I don’t really see as addressed by the Presidency at all. The Republicans kept up their gerrymandering and disenfranchisement solidly, if not in fact all the more frenziedly, throughout Obama’s two terms. It’s a downballot issue and if it’s solved electorally, it’ll be solved by downballot voting, not by Presidential voting.
Merrick Garland proves, I think, that who holds the Presidency is no longer the primary factor in Court appointments, or at least not when the President is a Democrat. I don’t think that norm is going to be restored anytime soon.
Again, the position laid out ITT is not an accelerationist one. I have no earthly clue why people keep thinking that.
Judiciary is affected by presidency + senate. Ideally Dems get both, both presidency alone is enough to at least stop the flood of culture warriors flowing to the bench today. Winning the senate alone is probably not because if Trump wins and Dems somehow get 50 senators (not likely) then Republicans only need to turn the weakest Senator to get any judge through. They will of course be able to do this over and over again and it would be a parade of guys worse than Kavanaugh.
Ultimately the courts will be the key to the gerrymandering question. If Republicans have the judiciary, right wing gerrymanders will all be constitutional and any left leaning state will be unconstitutional. Same with contested elections. What happened to Stacy Abrams in Georgia will just embolden Republicans to push the envelope further and further which will all work fine for them if they control the courts. There is just no way to bring many swing states back into play with these electoral advantages.
I don’t think nearly enough of the current crop of Dems have what it takes to do anything but ameliorate the Republicans’ excesses, though. I suspect that under Biden (or any comparable Dem), the Republicans will just start nominating out-and-out white supremacists, and that once the WS candidate has been blocked, the Dems will do their Washington Generals routine and agree to whatever candidate the Republicans offer who falls just short of that.
90% of dems in the house voted for ACA and every single dems in the senate vote for it. Funny way to act for a party whose main purpose is propping up the medical insurance industry.
Of course he would. It’s a 100% lock. He Is not vetoing a m4a passed by a democratic house and senate. Ever. In fact, I’ll announce a $100 free roll for victoar if this ever happens.
So, what you’re saying is that focusing on M4A as a priority won’t work and we should focus on anti-corruption as a priority before tackling health care?
Given how politics works, it seems likely that if you could actually get a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and you could pass a M4A bill, then Biden wouldn’t be able to stand in the way of that. It doesn’t matter what Biden has said before. The political landscape would have to change significantly for that to happen and Biden will ultimately be a party loyalist who isn’t likely to stand in the way. If he threatened to, Dems should take a hostage and threaten to kill his beloved Amtrak as retribution if he doesn’t deliver.
That being said, if some version of M4A were to pass while Biden is president, it would probably have to be more like Warren’s compromise version that attempts to address the “how will you pay for it” question that Biden signaled was important to him rather than Bernie’s version.
Insurance companies are huge donors. Blue Cross is the biggest donor among insurance companies. They donate 60/40 in favor of Democrats. Biden and the Democrats don’t want you to not have health care per se, but they will not kill the health insurance industry under any circumstances. See Obamacare. Need health care? Mandate private insurance.
Funny how every time he promises something progressive he is so obviously lying only a moron wouldn’t see it but here it’s so obvious he is telling the truth. This one is NEVER political gamesmanship I tell you. This is the one time he is speaking from his soul I tell you.
It’s been covered on this very site many times and 2 seconds googling will answer you. When they were posted here you laughed saying he was obviously lying.
We have covered this many items. Only reason I brought it up is it seems a little convenient for some people’s worldview to call him a pathological liar but then a week later cite a promise of his as gospel.
Ok. While it’s ridiculous to say with any certainty that he would never veto M4A, he may or may not. It will depend on the political calculation at the time. It’s definitely absurd to be certain that he wouldn’t veto Dem legislation though.
