Biden for President?

[Delvo]

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

He doesn't. He might have a website now that claims he does, but it's inconsistent with what he's actually done before, so it would be foolish to believe that was an actual change of heart instead of just an attempt to fool the gullible or inattentive... especially when he's still quite vocal about deliberately making himself an obstacle to that second item right now. He's not only sworn to veto it even if a bill were at the Oval Office waiting to be put into effect (seriously, how much more solidly republican can you get than that), but also trotted out a "lower the age limit a nearly-useless tiny smidge with no changes in how well it really covers even those who are eligible" suggestion which can't really do, and thus can't really be meant to do, anything but get in the way of the real thing. (And even as an alleged "olive branch" to lefties, which, BTW, only somebody who's pretty far from the left would even need in the first place, it's strategically useless even for that function, since it represents a rightward shift since even Hillary's campaign and the group he does so horribly with and is in need of a way to draw is not the 60-64 age range but the under-40 range. Even when all he's doing is a transparently obvious pretense for no purpose but pandering, he can't even do that competently. But ELECTABLE!!!!)

Bottom line: when he put out this "China bad, hating China good, not hating China bad" ad attacking Trump from his right, people who'd already been pointing out The Senator From MBNA's rightward tendencies all along were not surprised, while those who've been caught off-guard and left to flounder for excuses for it are the ones who've been denying or ignoring those tendencies all along. The prior description of Biden that said this was exactly what to expect in the first place is thus demonstrated to be the more accurate one, the one that made the correct prediction.

... That is an intriguing claim. If you happen to have a link handy, I'd love to see it in context.

There is this:

From: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13046794&postcount=557
"Actually, on military expeditionism, Biden and Trump aren't the same. Biden's worse."
- Delvo

...which, although an accurate quote, does not support the accusation, which was general, not issue-specific. The accuser might have seen me say something like that on another issue or two as well, but, if so, then (s)he is also perfectly well aware that I've also gone the other way, not only on other specific issues, but also as a general overall net-balance conclusion. Those facts just don't get brought up because they don't fit the accusation (s)he feels like making whether facts fit it or not. (But oh no it's the "Bernie Bros" who are the evil disunityish monsters, not the people who keep lobbing accusations like that at them, no never not them!)

 

[theprestige]

I'm with Delvo on this one. He's identified one or two specific policy areas where he thinks Trump does better than Biden. Debatable, yes. But not the same as claiming Trump is overall better than Biden.

I reject wareyin's overbroad claim. Better luck next time!

 

[BobTheCoward]

He doesn't. He might have a website now that claims he does, but it's inconsistent with what he's actually done before, so it would be foolish to believe that was an actual change of heart instead of just an attempt to fool the gullible or inattentive... especially when he's still quite vocal about deliberately making himself an obstacle to that second item right now. He's not only sworn to veto it even if a bill were at the Oval Office waiting to be put into effect (seriously, how much more solidly republican can you get than that), but also trotted out a "lower the age limit a nearly-useless tiny smidge with no changes in how well it really covers even those who are eligible" suggestion which can't really do, and thus can't really be meant to do, anything but get in the way of the real thing. (And even as an alleged "olive branch" to lefties, which, BTW, only somebody who's pretty far from the left would even need in the first place, it's strategically useless even for that function, since it represents a rightward shift since even Hillary's campaign and the group he does so horribly with and is in need of a way to draw is not the 60-64 age range but the under-40 range. Even when all he's doing is a transparently obvious pretense for no purpose but pandering, he can't even do that competently. But ELECTABLE!!!!)

Bottom line: when he put out this "China bad, hating China good, not hating China bad" ad attacking Trump from his right, people who'd already been pointing out The Senator From MBNA's rightward tendencies all along were not surprised, while those who've been caught off-guard and left to flounder for excuses for it are the ones who've been denying or ignoring those tendencies all along. The prior description of Biden that said this was exactly what to expect in the first place is thus demonstrated to be the more accurate one, the one that made the correct prediction.

...which, although an accurate quote, does not support the accusation, which was general, not issue-specific. The accuser might have seen me say something like that on another issue or two as well, but, if so, then (s)he is also perfectly well aware that I've also gone the other way, not only on other specific issues, but also as a general overall net-balance conclusion. Those facts just don't get brought up because they don't fit the accusation (s)he feels like making whether facts fit it or not. (But oh no it's the "Bernie Bros" who are the evil disunityish monsters, not the people who keep lobbing accusations like that at them, no never not them!)

Imsorty., You lost me when you said he didn't want to expand health coverage, and then described his support for a plan that expands coverage.

 

[wareyin]

I'm with Delvo on this one. He's identified one or two specific policy areas where he thinks Trump does better than Biden. Debatable, yes. But not the same as claiming Trump is overall better than Biden.

I reject wareyin's overbroad claim. Better luck next time!

Three claims were posted, and Delvo admitted to making more (at least one or two), but ok, you weren't convinced.

Eta: So right now, it's 4-5 areas that Delvo has stated Trump is better than Biden (at least 2 of which appear to be important issues to Delvo) and...... 0 policies that Delvo has stated Biden is better at, and 0 instances that Delvo has claimed Biden overall is better. Yeah, I can see why you aren't convinced.

 

[wareyin]

He doesn't. He might have a website now that claims he does, but it's inconsistent with what he's actually done before, so it would be foolish to believe that was an actual change of heart instead of just an attempt to fool the gullible or inattentive... especially when he's still quite vocal about deliberately making himself an obstacle to that second item right now. He's not only sworn to veto it even if a bill were at the Oval Office waiting to be put into effect (seriously, how much more solidly republican can you get than that), but also trotted out a "lower the age limit a nearly-useless tiny smidge with no changes in how well it really covers even those who are eligible" suggestion which can't really do, and thus can't really be meant to do, anything but get in the way of the real thing. (And even as an alleged "olive branch" to lefties, which, BTW, only somebody who's pretty far from the left would even need in the first place, it's strategically useless even for that function, since it represents a rightward shift since even Hillary's campaign and the group he does so horribly with and is in need of a way to draw is not the 60-64 age range but the under-40 range. Even when all he's doing is a transparently obvious pretense for no purpose but pandering, he can't even do that competently. But ELECTABLE!!!!)

Regarding the highlighted, have you forgotten how that was already shown to be wrong several times before?

 

[theprestige]

Three claims were posted, and Delvo admitted to making more (at least one or two), but ok, you weren't convinced.

Eta: So right now, it's 4-5 areas that Delvo has stated Trump is better than Biden (at least 2 of which appear to be important issues to Delvo) and...... 0 policies that Delvo has stated Biden is better at, and 0 instances that Delvo has claimed Biden overall is better. Yeah, I can see why you aren't convinced.

Three narrow claims were posted. An overbroad generalization was also posted. Better luck next time!

 

[wareyin]

Three narrow claims were posted. An overbroad generalization was also posted. Better luck next time!

Ok, semantics in order to pretend victory it is! Whee!

 

[Segnosaur]

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

He doesn't.

So basically the bulk of your argument comes down to "He's not Sanders so I will ignore all his policies in favor of whatever I can make up that makes him look bad".

He might have a website now that claims he does, but it's inconsistent with what he's actually done before, so it would be foolish to believe that was an actual change of heart instead of just an attempt to fool the gullible or inattentive...

Psssst... let me in on a little secret...

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.

Its common in politics. (Heck, its common in everyone.) Even St. Sanders has changed positions on some issues. (For example, once voting against gun control legislation, but now pushing for background checks. And his position on immigration has changed.) Does it mean I think Sanders isn't sincere when it comes to those issues now? No... I respect the fact that his positions have evolved.

Sanders Changing Postion Gun Control (Vox)
Sanders changing postion on Immigration (Vox)

The fact is, Biden was in the white house when Obamacare was passed (a plan that greatly expanded accessibility to health care). And his partially-free college education plan goes back at least as far as his time in the white house (so its not some recent revelation.) No reason to assume he wouldn't want to continue building on what was done and proposed before.

especially when he's still quite vocal about deliberately making himself an obstacle to that second item right now. He's not only sworn to veto it even if a bill were at the Oval Office waiting to be put into effect

You still need some education.

What Biden said is he wants to expand health care coverage.

What he said he would veto was a BernieCare Medicare-for-All program.

What you fail to understand is the fact that you can actually expand medical coverage to more Americans without actually adopting BernieCare. Not really sure why that concept is so difficult for you to grasp. But, considering that of all the health care options, BernieCare (single payer/no private options) is the least popular, and the only time it has been tried in a western world it has resulted in perhaps the second worst medical system, his opposition is understandable.

(seriously, how much more solidly republican can you get than that),

What an idiotic statement. Truly moronic.

The Republicans (under Trump and Moscow Mitch) have seen the number of people with health care drop. They have pushed to see Obamacare dismantled. There proposed plan would have seen huge cuts to medicaid.

Biden's plan is to, you know, strengthen Obamacare. He actually wants to increase the number of people on Health care. He has plans to expand the role of government funding.

In other words, just because he hasn't bought into the concept of BernieCare does not make him "just like a republican".

Its a shame you see the world in such a black-and-white manner.

There is this:

From: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=557
"Actually, on military expeditionism, Biden and Trump aren't the same. Biden's worse."
- Delvo

...which, although an accurate quote, does not support the accusation, which was general, not issue-specific.

Actually it (as well as the claim that Trump is better than Biden at health care because "he once said he'd like medicare for all") does support the accusation.

You have done all you can to suggest Biden is "Just a republican", and accused him of everything short of kidnapping the Lindberg baby. And health care and foreign policy are 2 pretty significant aspects of a candidates platform.

Plus, I believe you have said you do not intend to vote for Biden now that he is a nominee.

 

[Delvo]

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... especially during campaign promise season, and especially when the very same person not only doesn't say "I changed my mind on this and here's why" but also still keeps letting slip indicators of a lack of any real change, such as telling young people they don't really have any actual problems (which of course goes along with planning to do nothing about them) and the veto thing I will get to below.

What Biden said is he wants to expand health care coverage.

What he said he would veto was a BernieCare Medicare-for-All program.

considering that of all the health care options, BernieCare (single payer/no private options) is the least popular

Even if the latter were true, 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. There's no way out of the fact that vetoing that in the given scenario is vetoing the health care expansion you could have gotten while you could have gotten it. So either that's what he meant he wanted to do, or he was experiencing another "Program Not Responding" error, but I've been told those haven't actually been happening to him at all.

And the real-world context we're in right now is a bit closer to that than it is to the perfectly neutral "which of two or more do we pick" situation you propose. The conversation/discussion/debate/screamfest today begins with "do we go all the way to the full real thing or not" and all other positions are defined in terms of how much they hold back from that; the question then is whether the rest restrict themselves to merely half-measures or quarter-measures or as-little-as-I-can-get-away-with-measures. And in that setting, Biden's gone for just about the most extreme case of withholding that anybody could, relative to the range in which Democrat suggestions/arguments typically fall, offering even less than Hillary's underwhelming 2016 proposal (dropping Medicare age to 50/55, not just 60) after the rest of the party's conversation/shriekfest/whatever since then has shifted toward how much more we can do, not less. Is it precisely identical to any particular Republican proposal? (Other than the fact that Obamacare was a Republican plan?) Probably not exactly, but that's the direction he's pulling, while the rest of what's ostensibly his own party pulls at least some little bit (or more) the opposite way.

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, or what might make insurance companies behave differently from this, but at least here, as long as the insurance middlemen exist, they will continue to be what they already are: dedicated to providing as little real coverage as they can and bribing politicians to keep it that way, while also sucking as much money as they can out of the overall system. It's what they exist for. They are defined by nothing else.

Give them a mere "alternative" of universally available government medical coverage to compete with, and they'll use that to make the situation even worse: shutting out the people who need it the most (with the most severe needs and the least money) so those disproportionately burden the government system and make it look inefficient & ineffective so it's set up for endless attack by politicians pointing out what a failure it is, so then when they end up getting it cancelled it will stand as a lesson for future history of "well, we tried, and we found out that doesn't work".

Maybe in a country where bribery were actually illegal it could work otherwise(?), but changing that factor alone is a whole other separate question, and even if we did, I'm still not seeing what about that would budge their simple straightforward profit motive of "take as much as possible while providing as little as possible". And that's the nature of the system Obamacare (and Biden's less-than-Obamacare proposals) was designed to protect, not fundamentally alter.

 

[Robin]

Even if Biden sucks, surely he sucks less than Trump?

 

[wareyin]

Even if Biden sucks, surely he sucks less than Trump?

Not to some lefties! We get a laundry list (riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods) of why Biden is bad, and list of why Trump is better.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

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. He administered significantly to the right of how he presented himself during the campaign. He fought hard for the ACA, but other issues he allowed to wither on the vine without comment. He made token efforts to make them happen, but didn't dig in for the long fight. His priorities were clearly elsewhere.

The progressives aren't interested in getting played again. Talk is cheap. Hell, many of these things Biden supposedly supports he barely even talks about publicly. Being told "go to the website" to read policies that the candidate doesn't even prioritize enough to mention frequently in interviews does not instill confidence that he is committed to the long political fight to make these things happen.

I very much believe that a Biden administration will make a token effort to make these promises happen, fail, and move on quickly to other things. He has no interest in fighting tooth and nail for free college, universal healthcare, or any other progressive issue.

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. Biden's instincts and intuition are conservative. When the going gets rough, he retreats to the right, not the left. His hemming and hawing about the M4A veto hypothetical, citing taxes on the middle class, reveal that he is still heavily influenced by third-way liberal politics.

Progressives fell for the bait-and-switch before and are much more wary this time around. Biden doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Delvo]

Even if Biden sucks, surely he sucks less than Trump?

As a net result overall, yes. The biggest thing that comes to my mind right now to swing it against Trump is his illegality & dictatorishness. Biden would harm the country too, but he'd harm it legally, which is at least not adding a whole second layer of harm on top of the original. I just want Democrats to honestly face the reality of what they're doing to themselves, not just for the sake of honesty/accuracy but also for pragmatism/practicality, because pushing empty husks like Biden is exactly how they get us trumps and mcconnells.

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.

And worse yet, even on subjects where he might (currently) have the right position, there's the question of how hard he will work to push for things. Suppose, for example, we live in an alternative world where he hasn't sworn to veto a universal medical care bill if it's just the wrong kind of universal medical care bill by being too actually universal for him; even if he would actually sign it, would he be the guy who had been fighting & pushing to get it to him in the first place? No, he'd sit back & wait & see whether somebody else got it to him. Most Democrats act like this isn't the case, but things in politics need to be fought & pushed for before they even get that far.

Suppose, for another example, we live in an alternative world where he hasn't sworn that there's nothing wrong with the economy, especially nothing that particularly hits younger adults, so nothing needs to change economically; even if he would sign a bill to help with that, would he have been leading the charge for it & demanding to be sent such a bill & using his influence to get legislators to write it the right way & vote for it? No, he'd sit back & wait & see.

There's a difference between merely being willing to sign something on arrival and using any of your own resources or energy actually supporting it.

I'm sure there are a list of Trump executive orders he thinks are bad, too, but will he even bother to write & sign his own reversing them? Maybe one or two, then he'd stop in fear that some Republicans might think he was going too far. There's a difference between thinking X would be better than Y and actually investing some personal time & energy in acting to make X happen instead of Y while you still think pleasing the supporters of Y is the most important thing in the world.

Progressives got burned by Obama... He fought hard for the ACA, but...

Even on that, his idea of "fighting hard" was perpetual piece-by-piece retreat, most notably the piece that would have been the promised "government/public option" which ended up not even being included for debate. Starting your negotiations from what's already a major compromise that the other side didn't even need to say a word for is not negotiating; it's voluntary losing.

Talk is cheap. Hell, many of these things Biden supposedly supports he barely even talks about publicly. Being told "go to the website" to read policies that the candidate doesn't even prioritize enough to mention frequently in interviews does not instill confidence that he is committed to the long political fight to make these things happen.

I didn't know you were about to say about the same thing I just said when I said it.

I very much believe that a Biden administration will make a token effort to make these promises happen, fail, and move on quickly to other things. He has no interest in fighting tooth and nail for free college, universal healthcare, or any other progressive issue.

The last few things he really put any energy into vociferously pushing for were huge cuts to social services, making borrowing & debt as hard on the peasants as possible, and making sure women known not to say anything about harassment at work, at least not when it's by a precious all-important Republican judicial appointment, which the country clearly couldn't do without. Progressiveness that he now (sometimes, in some ways) wants people to think he supports would be what he was not only fighting against throughout his career (which was what he was picked as VP for) but also still opposing as foolish just as recently as the debates. It will last exactly as long as it takes for whatever industry would be affected by the next bill to bribe him again, like when he said before that he supported M4A until he got "contributions" from insurers pharmaceutical producers.

 

[uke2se]

As a net result overall, yes. The biggest thing that comes to my mind right now to swing it against Trump is his illegality & dictatorishness. Biden would harm the country too, but he'd harm it legally, which is at least not adding a whole second layer of harm on top of the original. I just want Democrats to honestly face the reality of what they're doing to themselves, not just for the sake of honesty/accuracy but also for pragmatism/practicality, because pushing empty husks like Biden is exactly how they get us trumps and mcconnells.

And worse yet, even on subjects where he might (currently) have the right position, there's the question of how hard he will work to push for things. Suppose, for example, we live in an alternative world where he hasn't sworn to veto a universal medical care bill if it's just the wrong kind of universal medical care bill by being too actually universal for him; even if he would actually sign it, would he be the guy who had been fighting & pushing to get it to him in the first place? No, he'd sit back & wait & see whether somebody else got it to him. Most Democrats act like this isn't the case, but things in politics need to be fought & pushed for before they even get that far.

Suppose, for another example, we live in an alternative world where he hasn't sworn that there's nothing wrong with the economy, especially nothing that particularly hits younger adults, so nothing needs to change economically; even if he would sign a bill to help with that, would he have been leading the charge for it & demanding to be sent such a bill & using his influence to get legislators to write it the right way & vote for it? No, he'd sit back & wait & see.

There's a difference between merely being willing to sign something on arrival and using any of your own resources or energy actually supporting it.

I'm sure there are a list of Trump executive orders he thinks are bad, too, but will he even bother to write & sign his own reversing them? Maybe one or two, then he'd stop in fear that some Republicans might think he was going too far. There's a difference between thinking X would be better than Y and actually investing some personal time & energy in acting to make X happen instead of Y while you still think pleasing the supporters of Y is the most important thing in the world.

Even on that, his idea of "fighting hard" was perpetual piece-by-piece retreat, most notably the piece that would have been the promised "government/public option" which ended up not even being included for debate. Starting your negotiations from what's already a major compromise that the other side didn't even need to say a word for is not negotiating; it's voluntary losing.

I didn't know you were about to say about the same thing I just said when I said it.

The last few things he really put any energy into vociferously pushing for were huge cuts to social services, making borrowing & debt as hard on the peasants as possible, and making sure women known not to say anything about harassment at work, at least not when it's by a precious all-important Republican judicial appointment, which the country clearly couldn't do without. Progressiveness that he now (sometimes, in some ways) wants people to think he supports would be what he was not only fighting against throughout his career (which was what he was picked as VP for) but also still opposing as foolish just as recently as the debates. It will last exactly as long as it takes for whatever industry would be affected by the next bill to bribe him again, like when he said before that he supported M4A until he got "contributions" from insurers pharmaceutical producers.

Well, hey, the alternative is four more years of Trump. What's the worst that could happen, right?

 

[LSSBB]

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.

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. He administered significantly to the right of how he presented himself during the campaign. He fought hard for the ACA, but other issues he allowed to wither on the vine without comment. He made token efforts to make them happen, but didn't dig in for the long fight. His priorities were clearly elsewhere.

Obama was, and is, a Cook County politician. Words are the colors they paint with, not promises they engrave in stone. That, above all, is why I never voted for him. Does Biden come from a similar political breeding ground?

 

[wareyin]

As a net result overall, yes.

My my, this is the first time I've seen this sentiment from you. Thank you for finally clearing up the confusion.

The biggest thing that comes to my mind right now to swing it against Trump is his illegality & dictatorishness. Biden would harm the country too, but he'd harm it legally, which is at least not adding a whole second layer of harm on top of the original. I just want Democrats to honestly face the reality of what they're doing to themselves, not just for the sake of honesty/accuracy but also for pragmatism/practicality, because pushing empty husks like Biden is exactly how they get us trumps and mcconnells.

The hilighted appears to be solely believed on the far left fringes. For the rest of us, Trump is a result of the backlash to Obama. The Obama presented to the Right Wing News Machine audience was a radical leftist socialist, not to mention a black man who was hostile to the white race.

We didn't get Trump as a backlash to an empty husk, we got Trump as a backlash to a perceived progressive who had the gall to be black and give marriage to them homosexuals and give us that socialist Obamacare (which was much worse than the ACA!)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The hilighted appears to be solely believed on the far left fringes. For the rest of us, Trump is a result of the backlash to Obama. The Obama presented to the Right Wing News Machine audience was a radical leftist socialist, not to mention a black man who was hostile to the white race.

We didn't get Trump as a backlash to an empty husk, we got Trump as a backlash to a perceived progressive who had the gall to be black and give marriage to them homosexuals and give us that socialist Obamacare (which was much worse than the ACA!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters

Obama was, and is, a Cook County politician. Words are the colors they paint with, not promises they engrave in stone. That, above all, is why I never voted for him. Does Biden come from a similar political breeding ground?

I don't share your Cook county based reasoning for distrusting Obama, but you would come to a pretty bad result if you used the same reasoning applied to Biden.

Biden has a long record, as the Senator from the notorious tax-haven state of Delaware, of working to advance the interests of large financial institutions that incorporate in his home state. He has been called the "Senator from MBNA", referencing one of the large banks that just so happened to employ his son in a very lucrative executive position. Biden is the poster child for the "captured regulator" phenomena.

I see no reason, based on Biden's history, to expect him to be willing to take action that would damage his longtime supporters in big business. Warren's criticisms of Biden, although notably absent from her presidential run this primary, are very correct.

 

[theprestige]

Well, hey, the alternative is four more years of Trump. What's the worst that could happen, right?

Twenty years from now, the world will be trundling along much the same as it would have without the Trump presidency. And you'll still be insisting that 2016 was the year the world ended.

 

[wareyin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters

Yes, from your link these voters were/are socially conservative (anti-gay marriage), against immigration, and largely wanted the ACA repealed. Thank you for supporting my claim.

 

[wareyin]

Twenty years from now, the world will be trundling along much the same as it would have without the Trump presidency. And you'll still be insisting that 2016 was the year the world ended.

Right now the world is vastly worse than it would have been without a Trump presidency, so are we hoping Biden wins and gets us back on track?