|
Biden as a centrist
I am thinking that it would be nice to have Biden as president because he is rather a centrist, and that is exactly what the nation needs at this point: someone to try to bring people together. There are plenty of extremists both right and left these days, but also lots and lots of "middle of the road" Americans who would love to see someone to start a dialogue between reasonable people of both sides.
Biden grew up in politics for a couple of decades when, indeed, Democrats and Republicans had different policy goals but still remained friends with the other side and could have a meal with them and discuss policy items in a pleasant manner. That's where he comes from, that's where his political traits lie. Bring people together. Try to solve problems without calling the other side names. Be pleasant to the other side in spite of policy differences. Wouldn't that be nice? And it would probably get things done that the American people want. |
He is not centrist:
https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/ Reading through his list, I see trillions (plural for a reason) of dollars worth of proposals and no way to pay for them. For example, he wants to put Bidencare on top of Obamacare by creating another insurance company (besides CMS) that people can buy insurance from. It's not far removed from universal health care the liberals are pushing. Just different in name only, really. Another example is what he wants to do in regards to guns. He wants to let people sue gun manufacturers. That's like suing GE because some idiot got sucked into the intake of a running jet engine. No, no one sued GE because of that. Limiting "high capacity magazines" is a non-starter because anyone that used a firearm in a self-defense situation knows regular capacity is hardly enough. He wants to create a registry of property for sales made decades ago; another non-starter. He wants to create a buy back program like Australia did; Biden loves spending money that isn't his. Oh, and best one? Literally limit people's right to firearm property by limiting the number they can own; a direct violation of the 2nd amendment and 4th amendment. I'm only 15% down the page too! These proposals are downright draconian, not centrist at all. Trump is more centrist than Biden. Remember, Trump was a Democrat until the party went far left (two examples of that above). |
Sure, Trump's a centrist. He believes he's God. Can't hardly get more centrist than that.
|
In all sincerity, I consider Biden to be a cardboard cut out propped up by his "handlers" to run against trump. He's the worst candidate in history to run for president and I actually pity him. I think he is being used.
But the bottom line is that I always chuckle when ANYONE even goes there - regarding what Biden believes. He's a placeholder for the D's and nothing more. What he believes or says is completely irrelevant. They are just praying to whatever demon they worship that enough people will vote AGAINST trump for whoever they prop up - and today that would be Biden. If only AOC was old enough. :D |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hillary is the worst in the same way I saw her as worse than her husband when he was president. Bill basically just wanted to get laid and would come to actual agreements with the republicans. It's how we got welfare reform. Hillary has an actual agenda (and I think it's terrifying) and is ruthless. So the only question is, what is the agenda and ruthlessness of the people behind Biden. For starters, they are ruthless enough to prop him up as their face. And if that face is better than the real face, this could be even more terrifying than Hillary. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
They are many repubs who are anxious to get rid of Trump. They view him as an hijacker, an usurper. They loathe him. |
Quote:
FordGT90 as I said to Insane, the alternative is tRump. |
Quote:
The wealthy Republicans who want to oust Trump in November's election ...but don't count the chickens until the eggs hatch. Trump's supporters were mostly silent in 2016 and there is no reason to believe they won't remain silent in 2020. It explains why Trump isn't raising as much money but it still can't predict how the election will go. I don't think anyone can because of COVID-19 mixing things up as well. Quote:
Republican: Trump Democrat: Biden Libertarian: Jorgensen Green: Hawkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_...ntial_election Constitution: Blankenship Alliance: De La Fuente So************************m and Liberation: La Riva Prohibition: Collins Bread & Roses: Segal Legal Marijuana Now: Reyes Unity: Hammons Birthday: West Brock Pierce Jade Simmons American Solidarity: Carroll Plenty of choices. |
Quote:
I'm not talking so much about Biden's age, but about where that age leaves him in his ability to function at all. |
Quote:
It's why we have folks like Romney badmouthing trump. He's an outsider. He's not a part of the Uniparty - and that is why so many people love him. They love what he is doing and the more he pisses off the left and ESPECIALLY the RINOs, the more they love him. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Conservatives: I'd vote for the candidate against Hillary unless it was satan himself. Leftists: I'd vote for the candidate against Trump even it it was satan himself. It kinda sums up a lot of the differences between the two world views. Fortunately the latter is mostly kids - who eventually grow up to become the former. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
No, he is not centrist at all. |
Quote:
And it is actually Trump who has "handlers". Basically, he never really has an original thought. His "handlers" are the FOX commentators. He watches them in the early morning and probably often through the day and definitely at nite so that he knows what to "think" and what his policies should be. Even his every-present tweets are mostly just reruns of what he has heard on FOX. And yes, many have noted that Biden is expected to be a place-holder to give the younger Dems a chance to establish themselves in preparation for the next time. I'm sure that he knows that and is fine with it. And here I thought that you claimed not to do ad hom. So what exactly is "praying to whatever demon they worship" if not also a generalized slur against Democrats. Whatever happened to thoughtful discussion? |
Quote:
"Ruthlessness of the people behind Biden....." And now the conspiracy theories. Another modus operandi of the right wing. |
Pretty sure it's the same people behind Biden that were behind Clinton. Establishment Democrat: the superdelegates.
Ummm, yes. It's the Democratic Party. Who do you expect them to be "behind"? DOH! |
Quote:
And as far as I can tell, the term RINO (used repeatedly by the right-wingers of the Republican party) actually means someone who is thoughtful and reasonable and does not spend their time on Newt-type hatefulness towards others just because they are Democrats. OH THE HORROR! *L* |
"This just goes to show how the Republican primary is a fair, legitimate election where the Democratic primary is not. Reince Priebus stayed neutral throughout the 2016 election until Trump secured enough delegates to take the nomination. That's the way it is supposed to be."
That's the way it is in the Democratic Party, too. You are probably talking about Bernie in 2016. Uh, HILLARY GOT THE MOST PRIMARY VOTES! What do you and the other right-wingers not understand about that????????? |
Quote:
What Republicans wanted to do since the 90s is private health savings accounts; not insurance. The idea is to put cost pressures on providers so providers drive their operating costs down. They're also not funds the government can take and there's no profit/loss component of them. It's mandatory savings account because as most people age, their need for healthcare goes up. If they've had a productive life, they'll have a big pool of money to use for end of life care. If they haven't, that's why we have Medicaid and Medicare. Quote:
Republicans and Democrats agreed bump-stocks are a technology covered under the spirit of the National Firearms Act so they passed a law to include bump-stocks as a modification which turns a semi-auto rifle into a full-auto rifle; therefore banned. That is a centrist proposal and it passed because it was centrist and almost everyone agreed something should be done about it. By the way, the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by pistols which the Heller decision made explicitly clear government cannot deprive people of (unless felon). Quote:
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
http://politicalchat.org/attachment....1&d=1595928561 The momentum was behind Sanders and against Biden; then suddenly Biden was taking all the states. How does this make any sense whatsoever? And where is the drop that supported Biden's surge? It should have come from other candidates, no? Oh right, they all got out and threw their lot in with Biden. Almost all at once too. Totally legit. Totally. |
Quote:
As one pundit said, it used to be that the D's and R's had the same goals, but with different takes on how to reach those goals. Now, they are like Isrealis and Palestinians. They have completely different goals. They have little in common. But it's obvious that one is governed more by emotion and the other more by logic and reason. One needs only compare the BLM and other "protests" to the TEA party protests. Hell, the TEA party even cleaned up their mess when they were done. It was more like a real block party than a "protest". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Maybe you're just naïve. |
I have reason to be concerned:
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC Got a better explanation? |
Quote:
|
Nope. Two republicans (including Bill Weld whom ran as Gary Johnson's running mate in 2016) challenged Trump and got <1% of the vote. If a candidate announces intent to run for a second term, the party usually doesn't challenge it.
Whether or not he can win a second term is up in the air. Before COVID-19, Trump was almost certain to win. After COVID-19 odds are against him. At the same time, COVID-19 is interfering with how people vote. I have no idea what the federal government is going to look like in 2021. |
Quote:
|
Biden wants to do what didn't work (Obamacare) in an even bigger, more expensive way. The only difference is that the insurance company he wants to set up will be public instead of private. How is that going to drive prices down when health exchanges accomplished nothing? Public can't beat private unless it is supplemented with taxpayer money, which it shouldn't be, because the private businesses can't compete. His entire proposal is nonsense. It's a waste of effort.
Profit. Private companies are for PROFIT. Take that out of the picture and it is indeed possible to lower overall medical prices. What Republicans wanted to do since the 90s is private health savings accounts; not insurance. The idea is to put cost pressures on providers so providers drive their operating costs down. They're also not funds the government can take and there's no profit/loss component of them. It's mandatory savings account because as most people age, their need for healthcare goes up. If they've had a productive life, they'll have a big pool of money to use for end of life care. If they haven't, that's why we have Medicaid and Medicare. HSAs are the typical ELITIST Republican "answer", just as in so many other cases. HSAs are only good for those who have an income that allows for extra monies to be put into such savings. Problem is that most of those who do not have insurance are at the lower economic levels, and thus the HSAs do them not a bit of good. This is a "solution" that only makes the problem worse and give those of better income more breaks, as usual with Republican proposals. Upside down. |
Biden isn't talking about anything that is Constitutional, never mind remote feasible.
Republicans and Democrats agreed bump-stocks are a technology covered under the spirit of the National Firearms Act so they passed a law to include bump-stocks as a modification which turns a semi-auto rifle into a full-auto rifle; therefore banned. That is a centrist proposal and it passed because it was centrist and almost everyone agreed something should be done about it. By the way, the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by pistols which the Heller decision made explicitly clear government cannot deprive people of (unless felon). You don't know that it is unconstitutional. There are literally thousands upon thousands of gun laws on the books both federally and in the states and cities. And the fact is that the assault-type weapons with fast fire and very large magazines are the "go to" for a great many mass murderers because of their ability to kill people quickly. And if it is pistols that are the problem, there could be laws that would help in that regard too. Except any attempt to bring ANY gun sanity law into being is totally opposed by the NRA, whose slogan should actually be "any gun, anywhere, any time". |
Quote:
Quote:
Employers would contribute to HSAs as they do now with health insurance. |
Quote:
Quote:
1) Trigger assembly. According to the National Firearms Act: only semi-auto are permitted to be sold to the public without special licensing. "Therefore, a pistol and an "assault-type" weapon have the same capacity to fire: one. at. a. time. 2) Barrel. This includes type and length. NFA requires barrels on shotguns and rifles to be above a specific length. The reason for this is to forbid them from being concealable. Long barrels tend to mean higher muzzle velocity because the gases coming from the shell have a longer period of time to act on the bullet. The barrel also often has rifling which imparts a spin on the bullet increasing accuracy. Larger diameter barrels usually result in higher kinetic force of the round fired but also adds to weight reducing the handling of the gun. 3) Magazine. How many rounds the firearm holds in a state ready to be fired in rapid succession. All guns have a standard magazine that's strongly tied to the overall effectiveness of a gun. Long rifles, for example, tend to have a small magazine because one shot is intended to kill the target. Short rifles tend to have 30 because there's a minor component of "spray and pray" when using it. Pistols are usually somewhere in between the two: simply because people are drawn to pistols that look nice so they design it to hold as many rounds as will fit in the look of it (usually handle). Belt fed weapons and drum magazines are used for suppression (firing in the general direction of an enemy to make them keep their heads down) which is why they can carry in excess of 100 rounds. 4) Stock. This used to not matter much but with the invention of bump stocks, they do. Since bump stocks are controlled now, there's not too much to be said here. Stocks in general increase accuracy of follow up shots by reducing recoil. Put bluntly, NFA already forbids all "assault weapons" to the public. When SWAT or SEALs assault a building, they have full-auto or bursting MGs or SMGs. Those scary carbines are just oversized pistols. Their capacity to kill depends on the user. Quote:
|
Quote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Given that authoritized well regulated present day state militias are issued standardized arms, it can be argued that the 2nd is an anachronistic obsolescent portion of the Constitution with no clear present day purpose, other than a justification for armed insurrection for any grievance against authority. |
There is no sane reason for owning a military style weapon capable of sending rounds down range. A magazine of more then a few rounds is all that is ever needed.
After all only a foolish person would still think a citizen or group with a firearm can stand up to modern responses by authorities. A drone at 20K' with a 500lb'r or hellfire can take care of a lot of issues. Face it the firearm is just a toy! If what is to be believed intended in the 2nd. The why stop at firearms? Allow full auto grenades C4 mortars for that matter nukes! Remember this, much like racism was ignored played down until a boiling point was reach such as now. When a movement growing almost uncontrollable presently with little real solutions in sight. So to the gun issue will someday reach a point where it moves to a reactive one. |
Quote:
To give an example. Imagine two men with the exact same three primary focuses in their life: Family Job Health So they "agree". Except one guy orders them thusly: 1. job 2. Health 3. Family And the other orders them thusly: 1. Family 2. health 3. Job Those two men will live completely different lives and actually have very little in common, even though their top three priorities in life are the same, just in a different order. This is what is happening with the abortion issue, the "justice" issue, infrastructure, etc. They prioritize them differently. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.