Biden for President?

[Meadmaker]

Is your only complaint that he didn't say the right things?

And his "little racist travel ban" was the right call.



This is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that you can't actually answer the question. You have no idea what we should have done, do you? Even before we reach the point of trying to prove what the optimal (or even better) course of action would have been, you can't even describe it.



Look in the mirror.

On January 31, he implemented travel restrictions. Good call, if you ask me.

But why did he do that? Let's think about this. He did it because he knew that this could result in a deadly pandemic. If it got into the US and started reproducing this would be bad. Very, very, bad. And he obviously knew that on January 31. That's obvious, because he reacted to it on January 31.

So, if I were President, and I knew there was a possibility of a deadly pandemic, which Trump obviously knew by January 31, here are some things I would do.

1. Build as many tests as I possibly could. Call the CDC. Find out how many test would be available. Check to see if that's enough. Immediately start making more if not enough. By "start making more", I mean find out who needs to get contracts. Who can do it. What regulations need to be cut to get them out faster because this was not an ordinary situation.


2. Find out if the medical community is prepared. If they say they need PPE, start building PPE. (Same procedures as above.)

3. Find out if ordinary citizens should be wearing masks, like they did in South Korea. Start building masks. (Same procedures as above, except enlist individuals and small businesses. Spread the word to the masses to get involved.)

4. This will cost money. Call Congress today.

The passing of the travel restrictions proved he was aware of the pending problem. He knew, or should have known, that the travel restrictions were, at best, something that bought time. The virus could not be kept out of the United States, but it might be delayed a bit. He knew that it was a threat on January 31, because he did something about it on January 31. He knew, or should have known, that a lot more steps would be necessary if there was any hope of containment.

What did he do on February 1?


In fact, when was the next time he did anything of significance?

Unless you can find answers to those questions, you already have your answer to what proof there was that he was asleep at the wheel.

 

[johnny karate]

If we are going to play the “let’s see how the other side reacted when accusations were made” game, I think Biden is already disqualified according to the recent Dem playbook. He is eminently qualified according to the Repub playbook.

I don’t recall anyone arguing that Trump was unqualified simply because he’d been accused of sexual assault and for no other reason.

Do you have a cite to this “playbook” to which you’re referring?

IOW:

If Trump is OK for Repubs, Biden isn’t even a blip on the radar; there’s barely anything there. Shouldn’t concern them at all.

But if Franken and Kavanaugh are judged so harshly by the Dems, then so should Biden be. So should be Biden. Biden also should be. Whatever.

Point being: I think we just judge each thing on its own, independent of our politics, if possible.

Sure, okay.

 

[LSSBB]

On January 31, he implemented travel restrictions. Good call, if you ask me.

His travel ban was nowhere near total. Planes were coming straight from China well into March.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I should add another obvious possibility: Even though the attack never occurred, the accuser filed a formal complaint with Biden's office. As an act of good faith, Biden should allow for an independent investigation. You hire the same type of people who went through Michael Cohen's documents to see which would fall under attorney-client privilege.

If nothing is found, Republicans will predictably say that it's a cover-up (like with the additional Clinton e-mails 11 days before the election). It's better to deal with this now than later.

The evidence against Biden is at least as convincing as the evidence against Kavanaugh. Since Biden has not been elected yet (or even formally nominated), there's not as much to lose. An alternative is to sweep this away because the stakes are too high. That's what Republicans did with Trump. That's what they did with Kavanaugh. It's worked. I guess Democrats could try to be more like Republicans. They've been doing it for years.

Where did you get that highlighted idea?

Multiple people reported the 'drunk dick in the face'. The whole calendar nonsense as a fake alibi. And the insulting crap in a college year book that could have been from a middle school year book. etc etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is your only complaint that he didn't say the right things?

And his "little racist travel ban" was the right call.

This is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that you can't actually answer the question. You have no idea what we should have done, do you? Even before we reach the point of trying to prove what the optimal (or even better) course of action would have been, you can't even describe it.

Look in the mirror.

You're just repeating the same schtick. Nothing new in these denials and pivoting to "he didn't say the right words" as if that were the measure.

Not going down your rabbit hole. It's a wasted exercise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump was asleep at the wheel.

https://thebulwark.com/warnings-ignored-a-timeline-of-trumps-covid-19-response/

Clearly Zig has seen the evidence multiple times.

IT'S A TACTIC TO KEEP PRETENDING HE HASN'T SEEN IT.

 

[LSSBB]

Deleted

 

[Delvo]

Trump hasn't been asleep at the wheel. Biden would be asleep at the wheel. Trump has deliberately veered off the road and into the mud and then continued pushing into deeper & deeper mud to try to reach the lake, all while claiming there's no mud and no lake.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On January 31, he implemented travel restrictions. Good call, if you ask me.

But why did he do that? Let's think about this. He did it because he knew that this could result in a deadly pandemic. If it got into the US and started reproducing this would be bad. Very, very, bad. And he obviously knew that on January 31. That's obvious, because he reacted to it on January 31. ...

Acknowledging the rest of your thoughtful and valid post, let's look at this action that I called his "little racist travel ban".

This is important because the Trump campaign [on topic hopefully] is already touting this as an important action that prevented deaths. It was not and did not.

He only stopped Chinese nationals traveling from China.


AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s inaccurate boasts on China travel ban

First fact, he didn't institute the ban against opposition.

Alex Azar... said, "Trump made the decision in late January after accepting the “uniform recommendation of the career public health officials here at HHS

The WHO was and is against travel bans as mostly ineffective.

Most major airlines had already suspended flights to China prior to the announcement on Jan. 31, following the lead of several major international carriers that had stopped due to the coronavirus outbreak. Delta, American and United cited a sharp drop in demand for the flights, and an earlier State Department advisory told Americans not to travel to China because of the outbreak.

So did it actually stop the virus in any significant way?

There were plenty of gaps in containment.

Trump’s order did not fully “close” the U.S. off to China, as he asserts. It temporarily barred entry by foreign nationals who had traveled in China within the previous 14 days, with exceptions for the immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Americans returning from China were allowed back after enhanced screening at select ports of entry and for 14 days afterward. But U.S. scientists say screenings can miss people who don’t yet show symptoms of COVID-19; while symptoms often appear within five or six days of exposure, the incubation period is 14 days.

Useless because of this which Trump made no effort to address:

... the likelihood that a large number of people exposed to the virus had already been traveling internationally without being detected.

Then there was this:

For weeks after the first U.S. case of the coronavirus was confirmed in January, government missteps caused a shortage of reliable laboratory tests for the coronavirus, leading to delays in diagnoses.

Trump's "bold step" was nothing more than window dressing.

Again, this matters because the Trump campaign is using that ban to cover up and distract from his very significant failures.
Factcheck: The Facts on Trump’s Travel Restrictions

A study in the journal Science found the various travel limitations across the globe initially helped to slow the spread, but the number of cases worldwide rose anyway because the virus had already begun traveling undetected internationally.

Not a ban, not made against opposition.

“We don’t have a travel ban,” Klain said. “We have a travel Band-Aid right now. First, before it was imposed, 300,000 people came here from China in the previous month. So, the horse is out of the barn.”

“There’s no restriction on Americans going back and forth,” Klain said. “There are warnings. People should abide by those warnings. But today, 30 planes will land in Los Angeles that either originated in Beijing or came here on one-stops, 30 in San Francisco, 25 in New York City. Okay? So, unless we think that the color of the passport someone carries is a meaningful public health restriction, we have not placed a meaningful public health restriction.”

Indeed, on Jan. 24, a week before the travel restrictions, the CDC confirmed two cases of the novel coronavirus in the U.S. from people who had returned from Wuhan, China, where the outbreak began.

And cases were already here by then which Trump ignored.
And yes, the ban was racist and along with the following ban on travel from Iran which clearly pandered to his base.

 

[johnny karate]

This is a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that you can't actually answer the question. You have no idea what we should have done, do you? Even before we reach the point of trying to prove what the optimal (or even better) course of action would have been, you can't even describe it.

Seriously, how can you not know any of this?

Do you just not care?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Seriously, how can you not know any of this?

Do you just not care?

Sophistry doesn't allow him to acknowledge any of that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump hasn't been asleep at the wheel. Biden would be asleep at the wheel. Trump has deliberately veered off the road and into the mud and then continued pushing into deeper & deeper mud to try to reach the lake, all while claiming there's no mud and no lake.

Pete Seeger, Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

 

[Segnosaur]

I think they should investigate Biden as hard as they investigated Kavanaugh.

Even investigate him harder...

Investigate him for 2 weeks (twice as long as the FBI was given) and ask five irrelevant witnesses (more than they interviewed wet Kavanaugh).



Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[Ziggurat]

Seriously, how can you not know any of this?

Do you just not care?

When people won’t answer questions but simply insist that I should already know why they are right, it’s generally a tell that they aren’t.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're just repeating the same schtick. Nothing new in these denials and pivoting to "he didn't say the right words" as if that were the measure.

It’s the only measure you gave.

 

[Cain]

Where did you get that highlighted idea?

Multiple people reported the 'drunk dick in the face'. The whole calendar nonsense as a fake alibi. And the insulting crap in a college year book that could have been from a middle school year book. etc etc.

Wasn't he pushed? Admittedly, I remember the incident about as well as the alleged victim. But I'll revise: The evidence against Biden from this accuser is better than Dr. Ford's against Kavanaugh.

Apart from the sexual allegations, Kavaungh should not have been confirmed for reasons owing to his ill-tempered behavior at the hearings (plus he probably lied about drinking games).

 

[Segnosaur]

The Larry King phone call means that it isn't likely to fall apart. At the very least, it means she told the story when it happened, even if she didn't come forward. So, we're stuck with a believable story for which there is insufficient evidence.

I don't think its as compelling as some people are thinking.

Yes, it establishes that Reade was working for Biden, and gives an approximate time-line for the incident. But I don't remember anyone complaining that Reade couldn't be trusted because she did couldn't remember dates.

And yes, it establishes that Reade talked to other people at the time about the incident. But its not that surprising that she did.

What it does NOT establish is what exactly she told her mother at the time....whether she told her mother "I was assaulted/forcefully penetrated", or whether she told her "That creepy guy tried to touch my shoulders". The mother just doesn't go into details.

So there are several possibilities:

- She told her mother "I was raped" but the mother didn't go into details in the phone call to King

- She was assaulted, but only told her mother part of the story

- She was not actually assaulted, although Biden likely did his creepy inappropriate touching/shoulder rub thing (i.e. enough to say "I was harassed) and it was only later that Reade came up with the assault story.

 

[Segnosaur]

Where did you get that highlighted idea?

Multiple people reported the 'drunk dick in the face'. The whole calendar nonsense as a fake alibi. And the insulting crap in a college year book that could have been from a middle school year book. etc etc.

Wasn't he pushed?

Pushed? By who and When? Over what?

Pushed at the time of the incidents? Well, if that's the case and he's covering up for things now, then he's a liar.

Pushed during the hearings? Well, the purpose of the hearings was to establish facts. They are supposed to push when the facts are not forthcoming.

Admittedly, I remember the incident about as well as the alleged victim. But I'll revise: The evidence against Biden from this accuser is better than Dr. Ford's against Kavanaugh.

Errr... not really.

First of all, in the Reade/Biden case, you have the issue where the "story" that was told has shifted significantly over time, going from inappropriate touching to penetration. And while she claims she "told people the true story" at the time, those people have not really been vetted. One person is anonymous, one (her brother) himself has changed his story, and her mother has died. .

In the Ford/Kavanaugh case, the central details of her story have not significantly changed.... She never deviated from "I was at a party, Kavanaugh and others tried to assault me, I left". (Some Trump supporters have tried to nitpick, for example by pointing to her therapist notes who said "4 people were involved" instead of 2, but that was likely a reference to the number of people at the party.)

Secondly, you have the nature off the defendant. During his hearings, Kavanaugh have said things that were pretty obviously a lie... his definition of a "devil's triangle" (which was contradicted by his peers at the time) as an example.

While I certainly don't think Biden is perfect, nothing that he has said seems to rise to the level of deceipt that Kavanaugh's statement did.

Thirdly, there are some aspects of Reade herself that might make people question her credibility... that she was a Sanders supporter, her little love letter to Putin (followed by her attempts to cover it up), that she made pro-Biden statements after the assault (It is not totally unheard of for a victim to maintain that type of attitude, but to many people it seems strange... "I was assaulted... but I'll say positive things about my attacker... now I'm telling most people that I wasn't actually assaulted...but now I'm going to support his opponent and I will say more things about the assault").

Compared to that? Ford has lead a pretty straight-forward, unremarkable life. She appears to be fairly apolitical, without any of the controversies or weird missteps that have plagued Reade.

Then there is the calendar... Kavanaugh supposedly brought it up as some sort of defense, but ironically it actually provides evidence against him... he claimed that he recalled no party as described by Ford, but the calendar itself has an entry that describes the exact type of party that the attempted assault happened at. Far from being an alibi, it actually seems to bolster the accusations against him.

A couple of other details: Ford has taken a lie detector. (Admittedly they are imperfect, and is not legally admissible in courts, but she was still willing to risk her credibility in taking one.) And during the hearings, Kavanaugh was asked if he would support a full investigation into the allegations, a question he evaded and did not answer.

So, to summarize:

In Ford/Kavanaugh: a claimant with a relatively stable story made allegations against someone who during his defense, perjured himself, and then brought evidence that actually provided evidence to support the claimant.

In Reade/Biden: A claimant with a questionable history made allegations that appear to have shifted radically over time, against someone who is admittedly flawed but who has no other similar allegations against him.

So which of those 2 cases sounds more solid?

That does not necessarily mean that Reade is lying about the assault. Just that her allegations should be viewed with a little more skepticism than those made by Ford.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm always amazed.

Somehow, a politician who wants to provide free college, expand access to health care, and increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy is "right wing".

You really have to wonder what you think the "political spectrum" really looks like.

I can understand the confusion here. Biden sounds pretty progressive, when you dig into certain topics or look up certain policies on his campaign page.

Nope, no confusion here... just an ability to actually look at what is happening in the political landscape.

It's not that he isn't saying the right things, it's that there is no credibility that he plans to follow through on any of these things.

Progressives got burned by Obama, there's no two ways about it. His 2008 campaign hit all the progressive talking points square on the head. His landmark election lead to 8 years of disappointment. Not all of that is Obama's fault, but plenty of it was.

You DO realize that Obama had to contend with a republican party that dominated congress for 6 years of his tenure. (And not only were they republicans, they were republicans that adopted the mandate of "We will oppose everything Obama does".) Not really sure what you think ANY politician could have done, given those circumstances.

Well, I'm sure you think that Saint Bernie could have used his magic powers to somehow make Congress bend to his will. But for the rest of us, we recognize that deadlock was inevitable.

Progressive promises on his campaign page come into screeching dissonance when we see Biden out there acting like a Neo-Con warhawk in regards to China.

Really? Is he talking about starting a war against China? That's news to me.

China was deceptive over some of their actions with regards to Covid-19. I don't think it should be that controversial to think maybe they should be held to account for that.

Of course the ad that you are likely referring to spend the bulk of its time pointing out Trump's faults. The fact that you are fixated on the china stuff shows that you sort of missed the point of it.

Biden's instincts and intuition are conservative. When the going gets rough, he retreats to the right, not the left.

Thank you for more evidence that BernieBros just don't understand the whole Political spectrum thing.

By the way, you do realize that Progressives do not make up the majority of the electorate, right? I don't even think they make up the majority of the Democratic party. Whomever becomes president represents all Americans, including people who might not be part of their base (even people who might ot have even voted for them). Now, the republicans have basically abandoned pretext of compromise/bipartisanship, but have still maintained power, but they have done so largely by cheating and luck (gerrymandering, voter suppression, favorable electoral college). If the democrats take a similar extreme position, but fail to adopt the same dirty tactics, they may find themselves frozen out of power.

 

[Segnosaur]

People can and do change their positions on political issues.

Yeah, I know you might find that a bit shocking.

Sometimes its due to changes in society. Sometimes its the political landscape. Sometimes its due to personal events. Sometimes its due to a need to compromise. Yet for some reason you only seem to condemn Biden for that.

I've never had a problem with people changing their minds or said that I did.
I have sometimes not believed that they had actually changed their minds when they claimed to have positions different from what they'd had before...

That is probably because you are reflexively anti-Biden and tend to reject evidence you do not like, not because there are logical reasons to, but because they interfere with your "Saint Sanders" mentality.

especially during campaign promise season

Except of course many of his policies did not just come about 'during campaign promise season". He was part of establishing Obamacare a decade ago. His proposal of free college likewise stems back to his time in the Obama administration.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
What Biden said is he wants to expand health care coverage.

What he said he would veto was a BernieCare Medicare-for-All program.
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
considering that of all the health care options, BernieCare (single payer/no private options) is the least popular

Even if the latter were true

Hint: it is.

, it would not be relevant to the topic at hand. For the former...

The veto comment was about the specific scenario in which the latter had already made it to the point of sign-or-veto. Vetoing it in that circumstance is, in fact, vetoing the health care expansion option that's immediately right in front of your face. Other hypothetical alternative methods of doing it have no relevance to that scenario because the aren't the ones waiting to be signed or vetoed.[/quote]
You are of course making the rather foolish assumption that congress would attempt to pass any sort of health care law without paying attention to what the president would actually accept and what he would veto.

In reality, either the president would be involved in helping to craft legislation, or at the very least the congress-critters would be smart enough to think ahead and decide "President biden will veto BernieCare... maybe we had better do something to make it more acceptable before we pass it.".

Furthermore, any plan that preserves & protects the insurance middlemen is ultimately working against real universal coverage anyway, at least in this country. I'm not sure how it's been in other countries that still somehow have insurance companies plus government guaranteed systems

Actually the whole public+private health care system works pretty darn great... better than it works in Canada (the one country that has actually implemented BernieCare, and has wound up with a system that is worse than pretty much every other western health care system that allows private insurance.) But hey, I'm sure Sanders has some sort of magic power that will somehow make things different.

or what might make insurance companies behave differently from this

Give a good public option, and private companies will be forced to offer decent service at decent prices. Otherwise they lose customers.

And any company that has a reputation for kicking people off for making claims, they probably will find themselves out of business.

Oh and by the way... keep in mind that people who get their health insurance through work won't necessarily be "kicked off", since I doubt that insurance companies are powerful enough to tell employeers "you must fire this guy... he's costing too much".

ETA: One more thing... It is a common trope to assume insurance companies are some sort of greedy mega-corporations eager to screw the little guy. But the fact is, health insurance companies have profit margins in the 4-5% range. It isn't bad, but there are other sectors of the economy that are much more profitable.

The fact is, there will always be limits to what can be offered in terms of health care, so there will always be a need for some sort of 'gatekeeper' to decide what is normally covered, and when something falls under the 'allowed' category. Even in a public system they will have to decide "We will fund this many hospital beds/MRI machines/etc., and we will pay for this treatment but not that". And those decisions to affect patient care.