since 5 years, 10 months ago
13 of 13
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
What are the differences?
Joe Biden isn't bogged down from 20 years worth of negative media. He's more open about himself while Hillary Clinton always felt like she was holding herself back. Probably because of the sexism.
But he is bogged down with 30+ years of a voting record, and pushing through a crime bill that locked up hundreds of thousands on BS charges to make it look effective. He also would make cuts to social security and Medicare. And he thinks weed is evil. He is the definition of old man yells at cloud.
The one that ended up locking up most of the them?
You're right Biden's more center lane and is likely to attract even less of the progressive vote.
Yes the center policies of checks notes a public option, $15 minimum wage, encourage unionization and collective bargaining, tuition free Jr college, and gun control. Well, he looks to be as center-left as Clinton.
Not really all that progressive. Nice but ultimately a feel good proposal that may ultimately hamper future pushes for M4A if it ends in disaster. Nor has he really expanded much on his ideas to implement that. It at best will provide a good platform for M4A if he even goes to implement it.
Nice but that alone doesn't make you progressive.
A good compromise yes, this is arguably one of his only arguably progressive stances along side 15/hr.
Pretty moderate position tbh. This is not at all unique to progressives. Most democrats are pro gun control expansions.
Now that those are covered lets look at what makes him a more center lane pick overall!
His fracking proposal only includes banning future proposals. Trump's recent allowances will be permanent law. This is bad for the climate. Given he's got Oil Lobbyists campaigning for him he's unlikely to change that stance.
Increased defense budget! A pretty right wing stance.
Opposes M4A entirely.
Against marijuana legalization
Supports some limitations on Abortion.
A "feel good" proposal the effectively covers every low income American, add competition to the healthcare market, and officially gives the country universal coverage.
Which is why I lisited out other progressive in the comment, right?
I'm starting to think you never visited his website. How many centrist or right-wing policies can you spot?
And it's a progressive stance. Just 'cause it's popular, does not dillute its "progressiveness".
Current fracking has helped defeat coal. A far worse polluter than natural gas. You can thank fracking and general low oil prices in helping defeat coal along side deteriorating prices of solar panels.
Uuuhhh no? There's nothing inheriantly right-wing in wishing to keep your military in tip top shape. Espeicialy a hegonious power like the U.S. that relies on it's military to support its many allies and internal trade. For a US president to want to decrease the military budget, reduce the size of military and risk hurting its hegemony would be dumb.
Because it's a shitty proposal that's way too expensive. It covers thing most universal healthcare systems in the world don't cover. It just doesn't solve the fundamental problems of the US healthcare system. It just passes its massive costs on top of tax payers.
And he has further evolved from his stance on abortion for months. Just as Bernie's Stance on gun control has evolved.
Key word 'Low income'.
Healthcare isn't an issue strictly for the lower class. This is another 'feel good' stance that isn't going to help the shrinking middle class at all.
We're going to be right back here still talking about healthcare reform and a shrinking middle class again in another 4-8 years with this plan. Only the issues will be worse, the moderate wing smaller and the progressive wing larger.
You're completely conflating the definition of 'moderate'
moderates are for some change but are against more radical change.
gun control is far from a radical stance today.
Wrong.
Most moderates advocate for at the least maintaining our current budget.
Also our budget is higher than the next 3(?) nations below us. We don't need to increase that budget. In fact we could easily increase that budget and still be on top of the rest of the world. Not to mention that your logic only really applies when we're looking at facing a major world conflict--we're not at this time.
Lol,
The climate crisis has evolved much past the point where we can afford to choose the 'lesser of two evils approach'. This stance dooms us all. Also solar price is destined to go down regardless as means of efficient means of production become more available, demand increases, and thus supply and marketshare increases.
Banning new fracking measures while keeping the old is again, just a feel good proposal. We won't just be talking about it this time though but reaping what we've sown to some degree in 4-8 years.
Economic analysis proves you dead wrong on this front There are many more than just this source as well.
Ah yes. Welfare for the middle-class. Because they need it just as much as the poor. By the way, the public option is also on the cheap for middle-class and he plan on helping them afford it in his plan. Additional tax credits is good and using public options bargaining power to reduce prices is also good for the middle-class. It's also cheaper than medicare for all while being far more progressive of a system.
That's cool that you think that. Doesn't change that progressive-ism today aligns with gun control.
We also do not spend the highest per capita on military spending and the vast majority of nations aren't busy protecting 10+ allies and international trade. The United States is in a unique position with its military.
And natural gas has continued to help bring down one of the worst polluters to economic irrelevancy. Heck, it's not like these big oil companies are foreign to the idea of clean renewable energy. Basically, I'm not gonna fault someone for buying a hybrid rather than a full electric vehicle. And ease on the doom saying. The world will dramatically change, the human race wont go extinct.
What? Are you saying that having, quite possibly, the most generous single-payer healthcare system, if Sanders were to design it, in world is going to magically conjure up savings? The UK's NHS doesn't cover specticals and Canada doesn't cover dental or vision. I think Sanders' plan covers therapy, which also isn't covered by most countries. This economic analysis comes before Sanders revealed is full plan in 2019.
If you earnestly believe middle class workers can afford to be put upwards of 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars in debt for expensive medical procedures you're either utterly privileged and speaking from an ivory tower or just utterly clueless to the realities of he world. Perhaps even both.
Per capita is a pretty bad arguing point point when our military is already smaller, more efficient and perfectly capable of achieving it's goals during this time of relative peace. There's really no good argument to increase current defense budget.
I think you belong over in /r/conservative bud...
But we're still racing towards an unmanageable climate crisis.
Again we cannot afford to take middle of the road policies anymore, we missed that boat 20/30 years ago.
Ah the ol' 'I won't be harmed so why care' approach. Sure, if you're a midwesterner or someone in a cooler climate you'll probably be more or less 'okay' damaged, but 'okay', but the world doesn't exist in the midwest and the entire planet doesn't enjoy a cooler planet. Believe it or not there does exist living breathing people and ecosystems outside of your immediate neighborhood and state that will be catastrophically effected by climate change.
But you're essentially saying 'fuck you' to countless people in warmer climates who will likely be displaced, countless ecosystems that will be destroyed as a results and are shrugging at the thought of countless coastal communities that will be displaced as well.
I'm so glad that your entitled viewpoint considers all of these people's lives and that you care so much more about economic profits. Who will think about the rich natural gas tycoons amirite?
You're quite a catch here my dude. All I gotta say is don't bitch when these people start seeking refuge in the US and possibly in your hometown.
EDIT:
Here's some light reading on climate change predictions thus far, many have so far proven to be absolutely correct;
NASA
study proving accuracy of these predicitons
Article on the number of people already displaced or flung into poverty and what we can expect in the future
Another article estimating the number of displaced peoples to be in over 140 mil by 2050
Need I provide more proof? Sure, we won't go extinct but you're definitely using that the minimize what will happen to us.
I'm... not the one who wrote the study bud...
If you have an issue with the economist's methodology feel free to dig into the study yourself and engage in debate with those economists directly.