2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

So...Mayor Pete then?

Pete is Mouser from Super Mario 2 (or what that was in NES)

 

[Sommerswerd]

What I'd really like to do is make a Bernie version of this video

Spoiler alt-right memes :

Don't talk about it, be about it.

Can Biden be VP again? I don't think anyone would nominate him, I'm just curious what the constitution says on it.

IIRC the limit's on presidents only.

Having not served as president for two terms he is just as eligible to serve if called to step up as he was before, so, yeah he could be VP again.

Correct... Per the almighty, all-knowing Wikipedia:

The term of office for both the vice president and the president is four years. While the Twenty-Second Amendment sets a limit on the number of times an individual can be elected to the presidency (two),[59] there is no such limitation on the office of vice president, meaning an eligible person could hold the office as long as voters continued to vote for electors who in turn would reelect the person to the office; one could even serve under different presidents. This has happened twice: George Clinton (1805–1812) served under both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; and John C. Calhoun (1825–1832) served under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.[19]

So sayeth Wikipedia, so let it be done.

Another interesting bit of trivia... according to the same paragraph... Obama could be on the ticket as VP

Additionally, neither the Constitution's eligibility provisions nor the Twenty-second Amendment's presidential term limit explicitly disqualify a twice-elected president from serving as vice president. As of the 2016 election cycle however, no former president has tested the amendment's legal restrictions or meaning by running for the vice presidency.[60][61]

 

[Farm Boy]

Since a lot of these candidates are in their 70s, and it's theoretically up to 8 years, that Obama thing could be worth a look.

 

[amadeus]

I had to look up Amy Combsalad to see how old she was: she’s 59.

 

[Kyriakos]

I realize that Trump and Netanyahu have been tight lately ("Here, let me show you how to beat corruption investigations, Benny"), but an Israeli organization is trying to take down the only Jewish candidate* in the presidential race?

*yes technically there's Bloomberg too, but nobody cares about him anymore

It's always Яussia.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

On the standard political reality front...

Any time a candidate gets a windfall, it gives them opportunities to get exposed to people who they previously haven't, and nine times out of ten when they "expose themselves" it goes exactly as badly as that sounds.

"You are now being proclaimed as "clear frontrunner" and "presumptive nominee" so here's your chance to go on Sixty Minutes and appeal to people who are not your sycophantic followers or the people that those followers are constantly bombarding with your videos."

"Cool."

"You should probably be prepared for softball questions like 'what are you proposing?' 'how much would something like that cost?' 'how would you suggest the government pay for that?' the usual. Sixty Minutes isn't hard hitting news trying to grind into details or trip you up."

"Cool."

<on air>

What do you propose?
Great stuff.
What's that going to cost?
No one knows.
How will it get paid for?
We have a plan.

Wait...how can you have a plan to pay for something if you just said no one even knows what it will cost?

Uhhhhhh...is that camera rolling?

Pretty easy to guess why Trump says he is afraid to run against that.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

On the standard political reality front...

Any time a candidate gets a windfall, it gives them opportunities to get exposed to people who they previously haven't, and nine times out of ten when they "expose themselves" it goes exactly as badly as that sounds.

"You are now being proclaimed as "clear frontrunner" and "presumptive nominee" so here's your chance to go on Sixty Minutes and appeal to people who are not your sycophantic followers or the people that those followers are constantly bombarding with your videos."

"Cool."

"You should probably be prepared for softball questions like 'what are you proposing?' 'how much would something like that cost?' 'how would you suggest the government pay for that?' the usual. Sixty Minutes isn't hard hitting news trying to grind into details or trip you up."

"Cool."

<on air>

What do you propose?
Great stuff.
What's that going to cost?
No one knows.
How will it get paid for?
We have a plan.

Wait...how can you have a plan to pay for something if you just said no one even knows what it will cost?

Uhhhhhh...is that camera rolling?

Pretty easy to guess why Trump says he is afraid to run against that.

America has a larger military budget than some country's GDP alone, I don't believe for a second that we couldn't afford any of Bernie's suggestions.

The older generations have failed us, the elite of the DNC have failed us, but not only that, they refuse to acknowledge their role in where we are at the moment, I have no faith in the DNC to do what is right, to do what must be done to solve decades of ignoring certain problems; be they racial, economic, social, environmental, healthcare etc.

We cannot rely on those above to promote, let alone defend, our own interests.

It's not whether we can afford it; it's whether we can afford to NOT do it and in the environmental context alone, we cannot, nevermind racial or economic. Attempting to compromise with the far-right democrats and average Republican has failed, they are not interested in anything other than the status quo.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

America has a larger military budget than some country's GDP alone, I don't believe for a second that we couldn't afford any of Bernie's suggestions.

The older generations have failed us, the elite of the DNC have failed us, but not only that, they refuse to acknowledge their role in where we are at the moment, I have no faith in the DNC to do what is right, to do what must be done to solve decades of ignoring certain problems; be they racial, economic, social, environmental, healthcare etc.

We cannot rely on those above to promote, let alone defend, our own interests.

It's not whether we can afford it; it's whether we can afford to NOT do it and in the environmental context alone, we cannot, nevermind racial or economic. Attempting to compromise with the far-right democrats and average Republican has failed, they are not interested in anything other than the status quo.

Sanders would have been better off sending you onto Sixty Minutes in his place, perhaps.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Sanders would have been better off sending you onto Sixty Minutes in his place, perhaps.

Why can we continue to fund an incredibly bloated, killing machine but not fund a health-care system comparable to other western democracies?

And why is funding for the former never questioned but the latter always is?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why can we continue to fund an incredibly bloated, killing machine but not fund a health-care system comparable to other western democracies?

And why is funding for the former never questioned but the latter always is?

Beats me...but the latter always is. So for a candidate to break the barrier onto Sixty Minutes and obviously not have an answer prepared is absurd.

 

[Rashiminos]

I don't know who needs to hear this but if you want to maintain the world's American-led order you need to fund a vast array of international defense agreements. If.

We could certainly cut funding if we decided NATO was no longer a good idea, or that we did not want to mediate between North and South Korea, or patrol shipping lanes against pirates (particularly in the gulf), etc...

 

[Hrothbern]

Why can we continue to fund an incredibly bloated, killing machine but not fund a health-care system comparable to other western democracies?

And why is funding for the former never questioned but the latter always is?

Why is a better health care system in the US connected with the notion that it will cost more ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Why is a better health care system in the US connected with the notion that it will cost more ?

Because the number one spokesman for it goes on Sixty Minutes unprepared to answer the most basic softball questions about it, so the opposition is given complete uncontested control of the narrative. Therefor the political allies of said spokesman are put in a position where pushing it through against that narrative will end their political careers. They might do it anyway, but you run out of willing allies pretty fast that way.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Why is a better health care system in the US connected with the notion that it will cost more ?

A part of the better health care system is making sure everyone is fully covered for their healthcare costs. There are currently tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured or under insured and their health care needs to be paid for somehow. There are offsets such as employer based health care costs would be eliminated if America went to a government based health care system but estimates on what the net amount of it costing varies wildly.

John Oliver had a good segment on this recently

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Because the number one spokesman for it goes on Sixty Minutes unprepared to answer the most basic softball questions about it, so the opposition is given complete uncontested control of the narrative. Therefor the political allies of said spokesman are put in a position where pushing it through against that narrative will end their political careers. They might do it anyway, but you run out of willing allies pretty fast that way.

Our "allies" are not even advocating for anything other than a weak-concession and certainly not in good faith.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why can we continue to fund an incredibly bloated, killing machine but not fund a health-care system comparable to other western democracies? And why is funding for the former never questioned but the latter always is?

The answer to the first question is … jobs, defense contracts, arms sales/foreign military aid (and the control that goes along with it) as well as maintenance of military hegemony. You get none of that from universal healthcare... except maybe the jobs.

The answer to the second question is "welfare queens"... as in "Why should my tax dollars go to provide free healthcare to some lazy, dirty black, Mexican, white-trash, with no job and their zillion illegitimate kids?" Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Why is a better health care system in the US connected with the notion that it will cost more ?

Because people have been hearing and/or anecdotally experiencing the adage "You get what you pay for" and "If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is" since they could say their ABCs. You're not going to break through that kind of entrenched conventional wisdom with blank stares, sheepish shrugs, or vague and/or complicated, convoluted, psudo-economic technobabble. You need some equally truthy conventional wisdom that is packaged in similar obvious sounding, easily repeated soundbytes, like:

America has a larger military budget than some country's GDP alone, I don't believe for a second that we couldn't afford any of Bernie's suggestions.

Which is why @Timsup2nothin suggested that you would have been a better spokesperson. This is literally the best answer to that question and its all that needs to be said... and it should be said over and over and over again anytime the "But hows you goins to pays for all dems goodies?" gets asked... Quick, easily remembered, easily repeated, truthy, conventional wisdom.

Here's another one... off the top of my head... "If Donald Trump can divert billions of dollars allocated to the military to his ridiculous, wasteful, racist Wall, we can do the same to give hardworking American families the healthcare they deserve."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Our "allies" are not even advocating for anything other than a weak-concession and certainly not in good faith.

Most of your most likely allies saw their careers flushed down the toilet in 2010 in a manner very similar to what is being asked of the rest of them.

 

[Rashiminos]

Why is a better health care system in the US connected with the notion that it will cost more ?

The costs of providing healthcare to people who have previously done without, often because they are uninsured.

Walls are relatively inexpensive reasons to raid the defense budget. Healthcare isn't.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Why is a better health care system in the US connected with the notion that it will cost more ?

He should have gave an answer like he did in 2016 and mention disappearing premiums. Government spending will increase, but most people will spend less as although they pay more taxes, but spend less on premiums and out of pocket for healthcare.

 

[Fippy]

I did read that..well i can just link it.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/health-care/article240476806.html

My opinion about U.S. systems is not improving.