Joe Biden issues new statement on the transgender debate

Biden is socialist? That's hilarious

Well what do you call someone who wants to tax the rich to give to the poor.
And we all know what happens when governments try to tax the rich.
The rich leave or they hire tax accountants to reconfigure their earnings do the state get $0 to less than they are getting atm

Biden is all for free college but there is something distinctly off about the wording and his vision.

Only 2 years free at a community college then transfer to a 4 year college. I really didn’t think there was any need to mention Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions.
It makes it sound like that these colleges are the only ones that will be guaranteed funding.

NRatched - I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that Boris is all 'nice and smiles' or not a racist. I think he clearly is a racist (though less overtly so than Trump).

But the difference between him and Corbyn was that headlines had been focusing - rightly - for years on Corbyn's anti-Semitism. Labour is being investigated by the EHRC for institutional racism. And the kind of people who are likely to vote Labour are likely to particularly care about racism and be turned off by a party leadership that is overtly racist, as Corbyn's was.

So yes, of course Johnson is/was racist. But this is/was less obsessional - it appears like being anti-racist is something Johnson has no interest in, whereas Corbyn clearly appeared to actually target Jews, less apparent, less reported, and Tory voters care less about racism anyway and are less likely to change their vote based on it as a factor.

College debt is a big issue for many Americans, and really holds them back from launching middle class type lives

I’m in favor of freezing interest or something like that, not total loan forgiveness.

Free college to me seems like a total waste of money. I don’t want to subsidize a bunch of useless (and way overpriced) college degrees. I’m not sure why it can cost 40,000+ a year for a liberal arts degree. Surely making them free on ‘Uncle Sam’ is not going to help with lowering costs ....

I’d only really be in favor of free college if you severely limit the spots, and have to prove you can do the course by passing an exam. Maybe allow more intakes for degrees that are considered critical.

However, the way things are going in the US, it’s hard to imagine mass support for rationing college degrees when the emphasis has always been on getting more into college.

Already you see some radicals wanting to get rid of anything that objectively measures student achievements (like the SATs/ACTs) but this is really the only way to ensure fairness.

A green new deal sounds great too, but again the details

A Green Nuclear Deal is the only thing I’d support and the only thing really proven to reduce emissions by a large factor (well, actually, natural gas replacing coal is another low-hanging fruit that does really reduce emissions)

There's no reason though why elements can't be brought in. Future proofing infrastructure while creating employment even on small localised scales would be a step forward. Even done privately but the govt stepping in with tax rebates on qualifying projects. It doesnt need FDR for that, couldn't that be expanded at state or even city level?

Yep, could definitely be done at a State level and would probably be most effective done that way.

I would be pro those policies, I suppose the devil is in the detail though.

College debt is a big issue for many Americans, and really holds them back from launching middle class type lives. I'm using middle class in what I think is the American sense, as in get on the property ladder, start a family.

A green new deal sounds great too, but again the details.
There's no reason though why elements can't be brought in. Future proofing infrastructure while creating employment even on small localised scales would be a step forward. Even done privately but the govt stepping in with tax rebates on qualifying projects. It doesnt need FDR for that, couldn't that be expanded at state or even city level?

And most importantly, Sanders was put before the Democratic electorate - twice - in primaries and, ultimately, they didn't go for him. You may think they were wrong but that's democracy

Yes it’s hard to imagine he could win the general if he could not convincingly win the primaries.

I have to admit though, I’m not all that familiar with Sanders policies but what I hear is enough to turn me off: free college, college loan forgiveness, Medicare for all, Green New Deal.

I know that those policies appeal to a lot of people, but not enough of them to make a difference in the primary.

Biden is socialist? That's hilarious!

I would have definitely said Biden is a socialist.
I heard a speech from him a few months ago about what he wanted to give the American people.

My thoughts were he was Jeremy Corbyn mark 2.

@shamalidacdak - yes.

It's frustrating that there isn't a perfect Democratic candidate, but when I watch UK political leader races it hardly feels like the Battle of the Titans either.

Sanders polling: Goosefoot is right : there was a poll ages ago that suggested that Sanders might have done better than Clinton against Trump. However there were many caveats about that - one that Sanders had not been vetted . The Trump campaign had lots of oppo research on Sanders (which sort of hilariously they are now trying to use against the present nominee by calling Biden 'socialst') In their Sanders attacks they would have brought out things like (I am putting these in the most negative light, as they would have done): his long period out of work, being a deadbeat dad, his wife's financial dealings with a university which caused it to close, some dodgy misogynistic college writings, his pro-Sandinista past -- see here for that particular bit: nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/bernie-sanders-pro-sandinista-past-problem.html) That would certainly be their spin on him and that would be a problem for lots of US voters.

If you are interested, here is a more recent analysis from the Washington Post, which after discussing Sanders' weakness with swing voters says:

'Another line of argument centers on the idea that Sanders’s record isn’t well known and his politics is of limited appeal. Most Americans say they wouldn’t vote for a socialist for president. Sanders isn’t a socialist, as he will remind you, but he has consistently been positioned as one by his primary opponents and the president. As voters start tuning in, the difference between “socialist” and “Democratic socialist” may get blurry.'

You can read the full article here: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/24/who-would-win-trump-sanders-election/

And most importantly, Sanders was put before the Democratic electorate - twice - in primaries and, ultimately, they didn't go for him. You may think they were wrong but that's democracy.

And I guess, in a couple of weeks, we'll see what it has in store for us.

I can't quite imagine the response if I told any black person I know that I wouldn't have a serious or spirited political discussion with them because they are black. Or I can, but it wouldn't be a nice thing to imagine.

It's just a bit Robin Diangelo.

But they wouldn't vote for Clinton. With they vote for Biden - maybe, it's a lot more likely than Clinton even without considering that they may well have been put off by the Trump administration. A lot of them felt very let down by Obama and how he dealt with unions though and Biden may carry that baggage with him to some extent.

In a lot of cases in the last decade or so it seems like they have preferred outsider candidates, whatever their leanings, and Obama used that to his advantage. I'm not sure how the Clinton team missed that, they actually played up her establishment credentials. I'm not sure how that will help Biden either - I know many feel it might win over more traditional Republican voters. But will it will over the rust belt workers - I'm not so sure about that.

BelleHathor was suggesting that when a group is taken for granted by a party as voting for them it can mean they stop really looking out for the interests of that group, which made me think of the McWhorter article which touched on some similar thoughts. It resonates somewhat with a larger these in this discussion which is about how much weight to put on the ideology or personal opinions of candidates, as opposed to what you think the pragmatic outcomes of their policy might be.

The Democrats have continues on with the Reagan paradigm of globalism, loosening market regulations, free trade, and everything associated with those. Which has been very bad for the very same sector of society that used to be reliable Democrat voters and no longer are (the other being Catholics.) Why anyone is surprised the former group didn't keep on voting for them I don't know.

Everyone votes for the person they think is most likely to improve things according to their own set of priorities. So I don’t understand why so many people (including posters on this thread) think insults is are the best way to win people over. All that achieves is what happened in the last uk election - voters for one party (Tories) keep quiet about their intentions and the other party are shocked when they don’t win.

2 weeks sounds good. Look forward to it. I've already told my family in America to do so, but if you have the chance stock up on some supplies (dry foods, tinned goods etc). The current atmosphere is febrile and regardless of the results there are likely to be riots 💐

*what

Let's all reconvene in 2 weeks and see that the exit polls tell us.

I don't agree, you're basically saying don't discuss politics with someone you may disagree with on the grounds of race.

Well. Actually. I do agree. Don't discuss politics with someone you disagree with. Regardless of race. Less unpleasantness all round.

Loved that article Goosefoot especially this paragraph: "In this elevation of racist sentiment as a quintessential deal-breaker, there is a degree of what can only be termed a religious approach in many of today’s thinking Americans. As I have argued elsewhere, antiracism has come to parallel Christian faith in many ways. That faith—as we saw with, in fact, the Faith-Based Initiatives—has its downsides, and these Trump voters of color would seem to have rejected it. Trump hardly offered what anyone would call a platform for black America, but his call for “law and order,” and claims that he would create jobs for less educated people, struck these people as more important than anything the punditocracy said about him. It would be hard to say that these black and Latino people themselves “sanction” bigotry against their own people. Rather, they voted on the basis of the “change” Trump offered."
From the Black forums that I post on there is a massive divide between Black women and men this year. Black women are mostly Biden whereas a sizeable amount of the Black men are leaning towards not voting or Trump due to Biden being responsible for the Crime Bill which led to the mass incarceration of Black men. Also prison reform and the economy.

blavity.com/amp/trumps-strategy-to-win-over-black-men-is-working-heres-how-democrats-need-to-fight-back?category1=opinion&category2=politics

But seriously, white Americans telling Black Americans how to vote is bad no matter the party.

Touché.

Everyone tells everyone else their voting habits arent good for them, fgs.
We're all doing it on this thread, its the basis of every political debate ever!

Like why would many Americans who have been utterly betrayed by continuously voting for Democrats continue to do so?

But I don't think they feel that their option is the GOP or Trump. People who feel let down by the Democrats are far more likely to have primaried Bernie Sanders, who now has sided w/ Biden. My own political ideology falls into the Elizabeth Warren camp (minus the insanity of her trans ideology), but I actually campaigned for Amy Klobuchar because I thought she'd be a woman who was moderate enough to beat Trump, plus she's younger, sensible, smart and experienced.

@Iminthewrongstory agree completely. Nothing more paternalistic than white people telling Black people that their voting habits aren't good for them.

I don't mean to be rude, Goosefoot, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking.

Are you saying that black or women voters should not worry about losing their health care, ignore the racist and misogynistic dog whistles, endure the daily chaos and the poor handling of the pandemic for the pragmatic gains of.....what? An average job growth? A tax cut?

And is it your thinking that you know better what is right for the black community than they do themselves? That, say, civil rights heroes like John Lewis and Elijah Cummings who served as Democrats were just Reagan-lite? There are Democratic plans to help people and if you are interested, it's not hard to research them.

Here's just one: www.forbes.com/sites/wesleywhistle/2020/10/15/report-joe-bidens-free-college-plan-would-pay-for-itself/#3cfecdd87d5b

But politics isn't magic and a weakness overall of the American system is that because it involves getting things through the House and Senate there is a lot of compromise. Obama could write a book about it. Wait, I think he did.