A big hot steaming cup of, corruption, of all the power abusers and dis-info agents personalities in society, I believe he is the one. He is who you goto to bully your way up socially.

His ignorant face in power is a disgusting thought.

jgill
402
I am 83, and from my perspective both Biden and Sanders are too old for the presidency. The Democratic choice for vice president is far more important. Biden may win the top job, but the VP will gradually take over behind the scene. So who might that be? :chin: — jgill

I, too, am 83...and I wish the Democrats had chosen someone younger. But in my opinion, Biden is fit enough for the job. And after the horror of the abomination now in office, he is the kind of personality I want to see in that job...someone who at least has a chance to appeal to our better natures.

His choice of VP will be monumental...and undoubtedly will disappoint at first. But she will eventually win over people after a bit of reflection.

What absolutely MUST happen is to be rid of the ignorant, uninformed, supercilious, CLASSLESS boor that now occupies the office.

A big hot steaming cup of, corruption, of all the power abusers and dis-info agents personalities in society, I believe he is the one. He is who you goto to bully your way up socially.

His ignorant face in power is a disgusting thought. — ztaziz

That sounds like Trump.

And since you elected Trump, what's the problem?

And you elected Trump, so what's the problem? — ssu

The problem is that the right has all sorts of dogmas that excuse Trump's corruption, even make it a good thing.

For instance, Randians may see Trump's corruption as simply "following self interest" which is a good thing in their system. Of course, the immediately use the left's standards of corruption and the idea "greed is bad" when criticizing the left or government in general. So Hillary is a corrupt greedy and basically evil politician, like all bureaucrats and politicians, but Trump is a savvy business person who knows how to make the system work for him, and if he does it corruptly and gets ahead that's just winning, and of course he is bringing that savviness into his new life as a politician to enrich himself. This world view basically reduces to the dogma that business people being naturally greedy creates good but bureaucratic being naturally greedy not only creates bad but makes them evil; without any attempt to resolve these two groups are coming from the same homogeneously greedy humanity that is postulated nor resolve what happens when "good greedy business people" get involved in politics or bureaucratic processes.

Likewise, the evangelical right have created a dogma that Trump is literally or metaphorically the reincarnation of an old testament king, which God worked through to do the good. Trump is behaving as they'd expect an old testament king to behave (an old testament king does what they will, takes the women they want, the money they want, isn't accountable to anything) so therefore this is evidence of the theory working.

However, the left doesn't have similar dogmas to justify corruption on the left. There is a legitimate self criticism in the desire to reduce and remove corruption as well as a legitimate response to criticism from the right. The right can therefore use the left's standards of right and wrong against the left, because the left tends to believe those are real legitimate standards (not just politically expedient value signalling that can be resolved by the talking points of the day regardless of even a surface scrutiny of those talking points nor if they contradict yesterday's talking points).

Pointing out the right is hypocritical in using "greed is bad" with regard to left politicians and not right politicians, and hypocritical of assuming Trump can be the reincarnation of an old testament king (to do good mysteriously through doing bad, basically) but not Obama (who's literally the anti-Christ) doesn't help win an election.

What helps winning an election is nominating someone who can be easily defended against charges of corruption (due to a long track record easily explained by a lack of corruption) and who doesn't have super cringe videos of interaction with children (the argument Biden is simply not self-aware doesn't help, nor the argument that it's actually normal stranger-child interaction that "happens to have bad optics for a politician" as people can verify in their own lives that no one interacts with children in these ways; the constant touching and prodding of children even fathers don't do, much less grandfathers much less strangers; normal touching is holding hands, a pat on the head or some sort of fun game that involves touching like tag; the idea that these videos aren't a major problem for the Democrats is crazy; they'll be circulated and recirculated and the emotional impact will be enormous; the idea he's an out-of-touch, not self-aware, hyper-doting pan-grandpa to a creepily cringe level isn't a good argument, which is basically what apologists for Biden about these videos argue; nor the argument he's just trying to "get a good photo" stand-up to 1 second of thought, as he's not the photographer nor actually looking at what he's adjusting, and no one normal thinks "oh, this child may ruin the picture, I need to be continuously on this problem" to begin with). What's the apology? "Oh, no, no, no, Biden's not a pedophile, he just loves children so much!" Yeah, sure, maybe, but choosing a candidate where scrutiny starts at such a statement is sub-optimum strategy.

True, on some level "what about Trump" can justify supporting Biden in a pick-your-poison analysis, even if the worst accusations about Biden are true, but whataboutism doesn't win new converts, it just helps keep existing converts in the cult, and Trump win's handily if it's about who has the bigger cult following, and so the progressive left concludes that nominating Biden demonstrates the DNC rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie (or any candidate remotely credible, due to legitimately being not corrupt); Trump's given all the donor class huge tax breaks, he's pretty good if things are looked at objectively from the donor class point of view. And progressive leftists have been saying this for a while; Biden is just an ultimate confirmation for this point of view.

The problem is that the right has all sorts of dogmas that excuse Trump's corruption, even make it a good thing. — boethius

The basic problem is that far too many people are simply totally partisan, total hypocrites and have absolutely no interest whatsoever to hear what are the points of the other side. Hence every criticism made of Trump is made just by those with Trump derangement syndrome. The other side is portrayed in the worst way. Just pick the most craziest most eccentric view and treat it as being what they all are saying. End result, discussion is meaningless. The Republicans outperform the Democrats in this way, but the democrats aren't so far away, really.

It is personal, it is emotional and it won't go away. It's the post-truth world where everything is thought to be just propaganda.

With Trump some of his supporters genuinely wanted a change. But who the f*k cares that actually the left and the right both are opposed to corruption. Both see just the attacks against their side from the other side. And the fact is that Trump supporters have created their own fantasy of Trump. The Trump that is doing great with North Korea. The Trump that is building the wall and making Mexico pay for it. The Trump that is great in handling the pandemic. They simply won't admit that Trump is as inept as everybody said, better just assume he is doing a fine job. Hence with Trump supporters, they don't care what Trump is actually like. And if he's rich and connected? No problem, the elite circles hated the guy. That the liberals and the democrats and the establishment seem to hate Trump is enough for them. He has to be doing a lot of good.

And many people simply don't understand how much hatred there was for Hillary Clinton. For eight years the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton. They impeached him. He is a serial womanizer. And it wasn't just the Republican party that was critical about Clinton. I remember The Economist having it's front cover with the word "just resign". So how do you think the Republicans thought when the wife of this politician waltzes into the candidacy even after having previously lost to Obama?

If it's hard to understand, how do you think after the misery eight years of Donald Trump the democrats will feel when the GOP nominates Ivanka Trump for the Presidential Candidate? Hey, she's a young woman! A mother. Wouldn't it great to have a woman President? And why so upset about the idea, just listen to what Ivanka says and will do...

I agree with the major points.

However, the Trump camp really is made up of people with beliefs that seem caricatural. Granted, they have conditions and concerns motivating these beliefs that we can empathize with, but there simply isn't any significant amount of Trump supporters that can't be described as "the most craziest most eccentric view" around.

Trump is simply crazy and eccentric, from a governing point of view -- not necessarily from enriching himself and cultivating a cult following point of view. For instance, tweeting out support for insurrection against the government that he is the highest official of. For his cult though, it's just bad ass and a great move.

But I only wanted to mention this to point out Joe Biden doesn't have a cult following and so the mudslinging is not symmetric.

Joe Biden and his supporters simply don't have the ability to neutralize genuine criticism. Republicans respond well to "well, their corrupt too!" without realizing that if they don't do anything to remove corruption on their side they are de facto supporting it. People on the left simply don't respond well to the argument that "corruption on the other side excuses corruption on our side", they don't want to see corruption on either side and they can do something about the corruption on their side.

Furthermore, the ideologies that led to simply legalizing most of what corruption means originated with the Republicans; it's Republican judges that ruled money is speech, that gerrymandering is a "political issue" that judiciary can't remedy, and that bribery cannot be implied with a wink and nod, or giving money while having a public campaign making it clear what you want, but requires explicit recorded quid pro quo. So, when Republican politicians take advantage of legal corruption it doesn't create a sense of frustration for Republicans, these were all "Republican victories"; it does, however, create frustration on the left regardless of who is doing it.

So yes, the right is also frustrated with corruption, but they no longer really have an idea of what corruption is and why it's bad. Corruption on their side is easily viewed as "winning". An example outside of politics is the multi-millionaire pastors who raise money to buy private jets; all of these pastors are on the right, essentially campaign for Trump, point out Trump's just winning like their winning, as they both have God's blessing.

Whereas on the left, not only are there no multi-millionaire pastors herding leftists around -- though it would be a mistake to say there are no Christians on the left -- but there's pressure on politicians to "not take corporate money"; this was a big part of Bernie's identity and argument. Corruption in a reasonably defined way, legal or not, is a big issue on the left.

So, why did the establishment choose Joe? Why can't the DNC find a candidate that is centrist but not easily accused of corruption, perhaps legal corruption, but still corruption?

This is the heart of the DNC problem, they are the party of "can't we have bit of the corruption" and so they, basically by definition, can't easilly find politicians who want to defend the corrupt setup of the status quo but who aren't themselves corrupt. The Republicans realized that, corruption long term is only sustainable if you build ideologies where the corruption is seen as a good thing, whereas the Democrat establishment have not done so, they are just an elite aristocracy detached from their constituents; but they can't just step aside, that's just not how corruption works, so they are content to just lose thousands of seats in State level legislatures, lose to Trump, lose the supreme court, let the republicans play hardball in every inning and just whimper around in response, and content to lose to Trump again.

So, why did the establishment choose Joe? Why can't the DNC find a candidate that is centrist but not easily accused of corruption, perhaps legal corruption, but still corruption? — boethius

This is the long term problem with the Democrats and the institutional problem with the US with the two party system. Why on Earth did they choose Hillary? Many people hated the Clintons. Hillary lost to Obama already. So in 2016 it was now "her turn"? Now in a similar fashion the young candidates were brushed aside and the enthusiasm of the Bernie supporters was put aside also. The DNC leadership is old and simply hasn't got the feel to the pulse of the nation. It genuinely lacks vision and understanding of it's voters and the situation. (Neither did the GOP either actually: Trump was just a train wreck that suddenly caught the party by total surprise with even a bigger surprise that he won.) It lacks ability to get people excited.

The DNC has been controlled by the centrists, the "New Democrats" as both of the two latest presidents have come from this group in the DNC (after Hillary lost and Obama went on to become the President, this was the camp that Obama opted for). The conservative wing is dead (I guess) and the progressive wing has been kept out. And nothing is as more counterproductive now than a "third-way" pro-globalization type centrism is the current situation, that will pick the same old faces to run things as during the Clinton and Obama years.

I guess the only way for Joe Biden to win is to pick a progressive vice-president nominee, perhaps Elizabeth Warren or even another geriatric, Bernie. Otherwise they really can loose.

Yes, I agree.

The DNC leadership is old and simply hasn't got the feel to the pulse of the nation. It genuinely lacks vision and understanding of it's voters and the situation. (Neither did the GOP either actually: Trump was just a train wreck that suddenly caught the party by total surprise with even a bigger surprise that he won.) It lacks ability to get people excited. — ssu

Both parties (pre-Trump) continued to function on the idea the "internet just doesn't exist", and they simply ignored it.

Fox News has fallen in line now, and internet Trump groups now drive Fox news rather than the other way around, but there were multiple times Fox tried to bury Trump and just not talk about him anymore.

Conservative media have accepted their place on the totem poll Trump > Trump online networks > Them.

Why they accept it is that, though they don't like Trumpian politics (they prefer a polite and "respectable" mascot), there is no actual alternative governing ideology on the right; so it's not really a threat to have Trump and online Trumpians drive the discussion. The slogan for this group has become "I don't like Trump, but I love his policies! Tax breaks, woohooo!"

The problem with the progressives is that they do have a coherent alternate governing ideology ready to go. This governing ideology has been proven to be workable in dozens of countries (still lot's to debate, lot's of policy variations, but it clearly can work).

The "job" of democrat centrist is to keep this ideology out of government.

With Hillary, progressives were split on the subject of whether the DNC is ready to lose power to fulfill their donor mandate to keep progressive ideas out of real power.

Yes, Hillary had a lot of flaws and legitimate examples of (highly likely) corruption such as her foundation shenanigans. But she did have a lot going for her, such as she won a majority of women voters and won the popular vote.

But already, nearly all the progressive American voices I listen to are unanimous that the DNC would rather lose with Biden than let progressives share power in any meaningful way.

A key point of course is that they orchestrated a "rally around Biden" right before super Tuesday (but keep in Warren just long enough to split votes with Bernie), not to mention Ohio had clear admitted to vote rigging (DNC lawyers just claimed it was fair vote rigging to make simple math errors in summing votes, as it's in broad daylight).

Not to say Bernie had no chance of winning despite these odds, but DNC preference is clear they don't want a situation where progressives have any power (they'll change votes, and do whatever necessary to avoid a contested convention with progressives).

The writing's on the wall of course, younger generations use the internet, but it's clear they will hold on tooth and nail to power, even if it means playing second fiddle to Trump.

I guess the only way for Joe Biden to win is to pick a progressive vice-president nominee, perhaps Elizabeth Warren or even another geriatric, Bernie. Otherwise they really can loose. — ssu

I'm not sure.

A good running mate (the left actually likes) helps, but the general wisdom is that it mostly comes down to the candidate. A good running mate adds more momentum to a good candidate, but doesn't really help a bad candidate.

Of course anything can happen (even replacing Joe somehow), but as it stands, Joe seems like a long shot candidate. It's repeating Hillary 2016 but somehow worse.

Hence every criticism made of Trump is made just by those with Trump derangement syndrome. The other side is portrayed in the worst way. Just pick the most craziest most eccentric view and treat it as being what they all are saying. End result, discussion is meaningless. The Republicans outperform the Democrats in this way, but the democrats aren't so far away, really.

It is personal, it is emotional and it won't go away. It's the post-truth world where everything is thought to be just propaganda. — ssu

If I criticize Trump I have TDS? Criticism is manifestation of craziness? That's some generalization. And were it true it has a self-destructively self-referential boomerang effect. But plainly it isn't. So why make it? You're a smart guy: why write something so silly? Of course functionally it slashes the tires on criticism of Trump and it poisons the well for criticism itself. Is that what you're about? One way out is you're one of the crazies - that's an excuse that holds water, at least for a while. But some of us are not in the crazy group. It's a version of the emperor's clothes: dress him as you will, in terms of any criteria of the good man, Trump is naked as a jaybird, and disgusting to see.

Are others subject to criticism? Of course they are. But when you turn criticism into a blunt and ultimately meaningless object, then your criticism has all the merit of a mob stoning - or a lynching. Or another way: if criticism has a surgical-medical function, then you have hammered the scalpels' edges to a jagged, tearing roughness that does no good at all and much harm. And with what you write, you're part of the problem

If I criticize Trump I have TDS? Criticism is manifestation of craziness? That's some generalization. — tim wood

I think @ssu is saying that polarization and "post-truth" politics leads Trump supporters to dismiss all criticism of Trump with the euphemism of TDS.

I think ssu is saying that polarization and "post-truth" politics leads Trump supporters to dismiss all criticism of Trump with the euphemism of TDS. — boethius

That's charitable, and I'll accept it. Maybe @ssu will confirm.

That's how I understand it.

Also note, neither @ssu nor I characterize all Americans as extreme partisans, but rather that extreme partisanship (where small extreme groups hold disproportionate power) is a feature of the US electoral system.

The relevant issue vis-a-vis Joe Biden is that Trump has more extreme partisans than Joe Biden, and the reality is that criticism of Joe Biden will more likely land simply because less people on the left are an extreme Joe Biden partisan. In otherwords, Joe Biden is a terrible candidate for the current electoral mood and for the fact the internet is very much a thing now (people can watch Joe Biden with children; the mainstream media ignoring the issue doesn't magically make the issue not matter).

And more generally, the extreme partisan game is simply less powerful on the left. Lot's of people on the left had legitimate corruption concerns about Hillary, because there's simply important evidence about her foundation, purpose for even having a private mail server in her basement, and "private and public position" ideology (private position ... benefiting who?). There were extreme Hillary partisans that engaged in the same reality denying games as Trump supporters do now, but they were a minority; so, for a significant part of the US left the argument for Hillary is "a lesser of two evils", and maybe analytically correct (who know's; certainly Hillary would have been better for US empire than Trump, but US empire may not be ultimately a good thing and Trump is doing the Lord's work by dismantling it through inept management and extracting value from it for personal gain wherever possible), but, in terms of winning elections, "lesser of two evils" is not a motivating reasoning, so even if it's correct it may not help you actually win.

The right doesn't have this problem. A larger proportion of Trump supporters believe he's great, and there's lot's of positive reasons to vote for him on top of the democrats being crazy socialists, more swampy, or pure evil.

It's a big advantage, and the best way to compensate Trump's advantage is with a good candidate that genuinely can deal with criticism due to clearly not being corrupt, womanizer (touching lots of women uncomfortably as the Times reported and then deleted), bizarre child "doter" (why Trump was most afraid of running against Bernie; these criticism don't land on Bernie, they do land on Biden because there's lot's of smoke and thus reason to suspect fire).

Apologists for Biden already arguing "yeah, maybe he sucks, but he's better than Trump"; maybe they're right, maybe wrong (maybe Biden is king of some pedophilia cult and Trump is, despite incredible moral failings not also a pedophilia king, and is, incredibly, the lesser of two evils), but what I think we all agree on is that running a weak candidate is not a good strategy to win.

You make sense (most of the time, and even when I do not agree, you've provided something meaty to disagree with - but I wish most of your posts were shorter). My own view is that Joe Biden might just be the second worst possible candidate, but he's running against the worst, and between them there's no comparison. By now, everyone has a pretty good fix on who and what Trump is. Caveat, some people do not understand the nature of the bad man: they think he's their bad man, and by their upside-down logic therefore a good man, but that is not how it works. If we elect him again, that could be very bad news for everyone, both short and long term.

What is striking, i.e., worthy of notice, is how the attacks coincide with events. Biden a viable candidate for president of the USA? Time to run ads accusing him of being venal, corrupt, a serial rapist/sexual harasser/abuser/pedophile. The irony is that's almost Trump's exact curriculum vitae.

And Elizabeth Warren as VP? In no order I like her, Patrick, Booker, Castro, Hickenlooper, and even Bill Weld. But age is against Warren. Imo, as long as she's got it, she'd be outstanding. But there are VPs for a reason, for the long run, and I'm not sure she has the legs for it. Weld too, but he's 74.

You make sense (most of the time, and even when I do not agree, you've provided something meaty to disagree with - but I wish most of your posts were shorter). — tim wood

Thanks you for appreciating my arguments; unfortunately, it takes a lot more work to make an argument shorter. I too appreciate people who disagree with me but are being honest with their views at any given time; not just how we learn, but also how we learn what humanity is really like.

My own view is that Joe Biden might just be the second worst possible candidate, but he's running against the worst, and between them there's no comparison. — tim wood

The problem with the lesser of two evils argument (why Hillary didn't easily win) is that it is the nature of evil to be deceptive, so it's not logically possible to "know for sure" how evil compares to evil. So, you can always imagine the "second worst option" has hidden things making them actually worse.

So, as soon as you admit to using a lessor of two evils approach, there's no solid argument to make that it's true. It's entirely consistent to suspect being just better deceived by what appears as the 2nd option.

What happens is that people with a bias one way can just go with that bias, and people with a bias another way go with their bias. A Democrat saying to a Republican "look, I've got the lessor of two evils here", it's completely reasonable for the Republicans to worry it's a trick.

To be clear, most Americans agreed Hillary was the best of two bad options, but for US elections we need to contextualize things in the fact minority popular vote can win the office.

Republicans have been playing the "win with a minority" game really well. For Democrats to win they need to overcompensate this disadvantage, and this is a difficult game to play; to succeed when the odds are stacked against you, requires accumulating every advantage possible: using the primaries to get to the strongest candidate available; even if that means a brokered convention where progressives have some power.

This is why I am so harsh on the DNC here; there was no need to orchestrate all the candidates dropping out to rally around Biden, use Warren to split the vote, in a panicked backroom horsetrading coup, there were other strong candidates relative Biden; and if a brokered convention would select Bernie, maybe he's just the strongest candidate and Bernie in the white house is not the end of the world. Furthermore, Bernie has serious problems too, mainly being super old now, so may have been willing to support a younger compromise candidate. In otherwords, the DNC could have chosen to engage with politics.

Indeed, had the DNC not orchestrated a premature end to the race (there's only a "clear winner" from everyone else dropping out), then there would have been younger candidates in this time of Covid. Both Bernie and Biden are in the high risk group for Covid of nearly 80. How do you campaign in isolation? How do you campaign without isolation if it may kill you?

Younger candidates wouldn't have had to worry so much, giving rise to the possibility that both Joe and Biden agree on a compromise candidate and "pass the torch". A moving moment that brings the Democrats together. Instead, the DNC orchestrated a strategic catastrophe.

Not that I'm saying the election is already decided, but it's really depressing to see a genuinely vibrant primary with lot's of good points of view and candidates, narrowed to just Biden for no reason ... then Covid happen (which was already inevitable for anyone paying attention) and Biden in even worse position (the weakest on healthcare, easiest to attack, old and very vulnerable to Covid itself).

hat is striking, i.e., worthy of notice, is how the attacks coincide with events. Biden a viable candidate for president of the USA? Time to run ads accusing him of being venal, corrupt, a serial rapist/sexual harasser/abuser/pedophile. The irony is that's almost Trump's exact curriculum vitae. — tim wood

Definitely, the irony can't be more palpable.

My own view is that Joe Biden might just be the second worst possible candidate, but he's running against the worst, and between them there's no comparison. — tim wood

My own view is that Joe Biden is the BEST possible candidate TO BEAT TRUMP. There are several other candidates who far better meet my personal criteria for where I want a leader to lead us...but to be honest, they just do not have a chance of being elected.

A younger Bernie Sanders type would be my preference...but I am convinced a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is unelectable in today's America. Our country is just not ready for that hard left lurch...although I suspect dealing with all the crap that came up due to the pandemic might just push our nation much further left.

If I had my wish, America would turn its entire healthcare system totally socialistic within 2 - 3 decades. I would love to see all medical training, for doctors, dentists, nurses, aides, and all other healthcare workers to be 100% paid for by the government...with a healthy stipend for people entering the field. he price of the free education would be a commitment to work for government hospitals and clinics for a period of 10 -15 years...at a very decent pay.

We ain't gonna get that...but that would be my wish.

If I had my wish, America would turn its entire healthcare system totally socialistic within 2 - 3 decades. I would love to see all medical training, for doctors, dentists, nurses, aides, and all other healthcare workers to be 100% paid for by the government...with a healthy stipend for people entering the field. he price of the free education would be a commitment to work for government hospitals and clinics for a period of 10 -15 years...at a very decent pay.

We ain't gonna get that...but that would be my wish. — Frank Apisa

I use eye-drops for glaucoma. Two-and-a-half milliliters, .005%(!) solution. Retail USD$70. Assuming the medicine is where the cost is, and packaging and delivery non-material, the medicine itself - the active ingredient - per liter (slightly more than a quart), works out to 400 x 20,000 x $70 = $560,000,000 / liter! Or about 2.25 billion dollars per gallon. Do the math yourself. And that's just eye-drops. When I asked my doctor about this, he gave me the same look a pet dog would give - interest without comprehension. And nothing at all unusual here.

And doctors? Next time you go, determine the cost of the visit against time spent with the man (or woman). Rates near two thousand dollars per hour are not unusual and go up from there. All of which reassures me that you very likely will get exactly your wish, although at your professed age it will be your children and grandchildren who get the benefit.

I use eye-drops for glaucoma. Two-and-a-half milliliters, .005%(!) solution. Retail USD$70. Assuming the medicine is where the cost is, and packaging and delivery non-material, the medicine itself - the active ingredient - per liter (slightly more than a quart), works out to 400 x 20,000 x $70 = $560,000,000 / liter! Or about 2.25 billion dollars per gallon. Do the math yourself. And that's just eye-drops. When I asked my doctor about this, he gave me the same look a pet dog would give - interest without comprehension. And nothing at all unusual here.

And doctors? Next time you go, determine the cost of the visit against time spent with the man (or woman). Rates near two thousand dollars per hour are not unusual and go up from there. All of which reassures me that you very likely will get exactly your wish, although at your professed age it will be your children and grandchildren who get the benefit. — tim wood

Yeah, at my age...I'm not going to see it. I hope future generations do...and that it happens soon. It is long over-due in America.

I use ear-drops that cost about the same as your eye-drops. The price is outrageous.

We gotta handle it...SOON.

I would love to see all medical training, for doctors, dentists, nurses, aides, and all other healthcare workers to be 100% paid for by the government...with a healthy stipend for people entering the field. — Frank Apisa

As a young USAF officer, I was sent to the U of Chicago to qualify me as a meteorologist. All expenses paid plus a decent salary at the time. I knew of MDs and one lawyer who had been entirely supported as I had been. The lawyer remained in the Air Force and retired a Colonel - he's now the district attorney where I live. The others put in a few years and left the service, as I did.

That was in the 1950s. I assume such programs still exist. Actually, I'm in favor of free education all the way, provided the recipient is serious and studious and not simply sponging off the US government. As a former professor I have unfortunately seen that happen.

I'm not sure I'd trust this guy to watch my cat when I'm away, much less run the country.

As a young USAF officer, I was sent to the U of Chicago to qualify me as a meteorologist. All expenses paid plus a decent salary at the time. I knew of MDs and one lawyer who had been entirely supported as I had been. The lawyer remained in the Air Force and retired a Colonel - he's now the district attorney where I live. The others put in a few years and left the service, as I did.

That was in the 1950s. I assume such programs still exist. Actually, I'm in favor of free education all the way, provided the recipient is serious and studious and not simply sponging off the US government. As a former professor I have unfortunately seen that happen. — jgill

Yes to everything you said here but especially the notion that ANY government supported education should require very good grades from a recipient.

I also was in the USAF during the 1950's. I processed many officers into the service at Sampson AFB in 1954 through 1956. I then transferred to a small SAC support base in England.

I'm not sure I'd trust this guy to watch my cat when I'm away, much less run the country. — Hanover

"That guy" (Joe Biden) will "run the country" 1000 times more effectively than the classless incompetent now attempting to do so.

From a commentator I follow on social media:

"If you look at Joe Biden's central role in expanding the prison industrial complex, shepherding university students into debt peonage, and pushing the U.S into war with Iraq, it seems clear that he is responsible for as much (if not more) death and social misery as Trump. The liberal push to get people to support him as a "lesser evil" is not harm reduction; it is harm legitimation. Rather than asking "why isn't the Left backing Biden?", we should ask: "why are so many liberals so deeply invested in normalizing cruelty?"

Someone else in the comments mentioned that it was policies of the likes which Biden pushed and supported that effectively spawned Trump anyway - which I think is entirely on point and makes laughable the idea that Biden is alternative to Trump rather than a condition and an accelerator of Trumpism. Either one belongs to one pole in two-sided, mutually implicating death spiral.

"That guy" (Joe Biden) will "run the country" 1000 times more effectively than the classless incompetent now attempting to do so. — Frank Apisa

Biden had no idea where he was. Isn't that cause for some concern, even if Trump is classless and incompetent? Why should either get a pass?

Hanover
5.4k
"That guy" (Joe Biden) will "run the country" 1000 times more effectively than the classless incompetent now attempting to do so.
— Frank Apisa

Biden had no idea where he was. Isn't that cause for some concern, even if Trump is classless and incompetent? Why should either get a pass? — Hanover

He was finishing a TV bit. Have you ever done TV? The end of one of those things usually requires a fade out of some sort...and the "talent" is told to hold still. Which is what he was doing...even if the camera was stationary and unmanned. Then his wife came up and he kissed her.

The nonsense that Joe "had no idea where he was" is an absurdity.

In any case, I would take him over Trump any day of the week.

In November, that will be the choice.

Next time you go, determine the cost of the visit against time spent with the man (or woman). — tim wood

Or better yet, try to figure out the cost before you go so that you can price shop. It's nearly impossible. You're going to have to get a doctor's fee, a facility fee, an anesthesiologist fee, a pathology fee, and who knows what else fee. Some can lock down a price, other's won't get back with you. Others have varying fees, depending upon whether you have insurance. I was quoted a much higher price if I used my insurance (although it didn't approach my deductible) than if I said I was uninsured. It would seem the cost should be the cost regardless of my affiliation.

It would seem that if the US is committed to this privatized model, transparency in pricing is a necessary component. How can competition exist if no one knows the price?

The capitalist fix to price gouging is having a competitor charge less (as opposed to government regulation). It would seem someone really committed to making the capitalistic model needs to work on transparency in pricing.

This is just to say there is something in between public healthcare and whatever it is we have now that we ought to give a try, but if the left keeps fighting for public healthcare and the right keeps saying no to everything, so we're just stuck in a pretty ridiculous status quo.

The availability of private insurance for those who don't get it through their employer has been at a crisis stage for a long while, even for those who are in the middle class. It needs to be addressed, and I'd listen to either side that has an idea that could actually get passed.

Biden had no idea where he was. — Hanover

He was just at the end of his speech.

Time for a steaming hot cup of... Nah.

Biden will be hit with some misleading ads, but there's plenty of fire behind the smoke.

By no means is Biden even close to perfect.

But unless something very unfortunate happens, it will come down to a choice between Trump and Biden...and anyone choosing Trump in that match-up is just not thinking about the welfare of our country or the world in general.

That's charitable, and I'll accept it. Maybe ssu will confirm. — tim wood

Boethius got my point, I'll confirm it. You see, far too easily we assume that people are just repeating the talking points of one side. People aren't stereotypes (even if stereotypes tell a lot about people).

One can see that many people who have not and never will vote Trump are critical about Biden. And I think that it's totally normal: anyone using their own head will likely come to the conclusion that they agree with some issues and disagree on others when it comes to one specific politician.

That's charitable, and I'll accept it. Maybe ssu will confirm.
— tim wood
Boethius got my point, I'll confirm it. — ssu

I misread ssu, my bad and I apologize and repent in sackcloth and ashes. I'll read more closely next time.