The Joe Biden Presidency II : He's too old...or something like that!

The guy's obviously just trolling at this point.

 

I love how the FBI instigation theory also has the ending of..."and they let everyone go home after springing the trap!"

Like....my brother in Allah...that's not how entrapment works. They arrest everyone on the spot. Not let them beat up hundreds of cops, try to murder a few Congresspeople, the VP, secret service...and let them all go home.

 

Ah, but that's how sinister they are and how convoluted the 9 dimensional chess they use, is.

 

Why do so many Trump voters / conservatives seem to be looking for validation? Did their fathers neglect them? I guess if you were raised in a patriarchal family that is all important.

 

President Biden says it was 'stupid' not to put name on COVID checks like Trump did
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...upid-leave-name-off-covid-checks/76892475007/

Really, Joe, you don't fcuking say ...

 

That was indeed....Dems need to realize the majority of the American electorate is deeply unserious and frankly stupid....They need to be dealt with accordingly.

 

I think the point you made in that first post was correct... that it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't make a virtue of how stupid they were... how that decision somehow proved how much more moral and worthy they are.

There's an old saying in business that anyone who might come into contact with a customer is involved in the sales effort. Whether people are in tech support or ringing customers up chasing payment, they're ALL part of the sales effort.

Some people on the left don't seem to get that. That's also why this lecturing and scolding of voters is so damaging.

You might think your customer, (or potential customer or voter), is a total imbecile, crook or fascist... but you don't fecking tell him that.

 

Isn't the truth that, at the end of the day, these people are just a bit dim?

I watched another one of those pod save america things the other day and they were discussing the murder of the healthcare CEO guy and, as part of that discussion, they made the point that '81% of people give their healthcare insurance a rating of excellent or good'.

This gives similar figures, (although I think it was another poll they were talking about)...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...ms-with-costs-quality-and-access-to-services/



Leaving aside the issue of the political machinations around passing specific changes to healthcare, (which is a function of the political realities at that time), the thing that surprised me was that they didn't seem to grasp the fact that the question, 'Do you like your existing healthcare plan', is a different question to whether they think that a completely different system, that wasn't based on profit, would be preferable.

Also, presumably, people's existing healthcare insurance was either chosen by them or they chose to work in a particular job that had a specific plan... so it comes to the same thing,

IOW asking people if the thing they chose is what they like, is a pretty dumb question. Of COURSE they're going to like it... they chose it.

But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't also like, for instance, a medicare for all option if they chose that, as apparently Pete Buttigieg had suggested.

My point is they seem primed to accept that 'we can't do anything' because the voters will push back against anything they suggest, almost before they start.

Also, regarding that figure of 75-80%... if we ask, what does that indicate... well, maybe it just indicates that the vast majority of people don't need healthcare because they're not ill? IOW their healthcare insurance plan is acting mostly in the same way their car or house insurance does... as a backstop.

If we look at this study here...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1127305/

...

If the results are projected nationwide, 326441 bankruptcies last year were related to an illness or injury to the filer or a family member, and 267575 other filers had substantial medical bills though they also listed other reasons—or gave no reason—for their bankruptcies.​

So maybe it's just showing that 99.9% of people haven't yet found out that their cherished insurance backstop, isn't a backstop at all and fondly imagine it will save them when it won't.

This is the thing that amazes me. That these people, who are supposedly so smart, seem ready and willing to accept almost ANY obstacle placed in their way. They seem to want ANY excuse not to do something and that's why they constantly fail to even achieve what they want.

I can imagine Donald Trump signing an executive order making a medicare option for anyone who wanted it and fighting it through the courts, daring people to oppose him but with the democrats they seem to want to roll over and have their tummies tickled, preferably with a nice big healthcare insurance company check to boot.

Of course, he wouldn't do any such thing.

He's more likely to offer 'Trumpcare', the bigliest and bestest healthcare plan the world... no, the universe, has ever seen.

 

With the incumbency factor, probably not a lot but I think it's emblematic of the sort of cloth-eared hopelessness of the democrats over the years.

It's like they think voters are always switched on to what's going on and aware of even the most minor policy issue when that is definitely not the case.

 

I used to tell kids when I coached, you play like you practice. Messaging discipline starts small.

 

Maybe not, but the reality is that the Biden administration has been absolute rubbish at communicating and advertising itself.

 

Actually, yes, I think it would make more than "an ounce of difference" if Democrats knew how to take and claim credit for benefits that people get due to their actions and policies.

 

I asked you elsewhere. What did the FBI stand to gain. When the feds infiltrate things it is because they stand to gain something or a program initiative does. Infiltrate a terrorist organization so you know their moves and save lives and get more funding. To do that, your director and the president that appoints him would have to be on the same page? Do you remember how people questioned Secret Sevice communications and before you know it, all thos communications had be wiped on Jan 7th.

You are trying to stretch your distrust of government in a Jan 6th conspiracy. The commander in chief was Trump, the BLM protests where under Trump so infiltration there makes sense, it doesn't make sense to make Trump's people look bad when Trump was the leader. LE agencies focus on preventing chaos or creating it in a way where they seem the hero. The heros that day were the Capitol police and not the feds so how can we give them credit.

 

The dems can't fight the RW eco system. It is hard to breakthrough so annouce and boast your wins when eyes are on you. That was a big win, they should have announced.

Honestly, I am a fan of investing in billboard advertising again because people have to see it. Even if it leads to a website.

 

California does this a lot, after a fashion. Everytime there is construction work that a proposition paid for, then you will see big signs at the site saying something like "This school is being built with Measure A funds".

 

Liberals are inherently institutionalists and believe deep in their souls that the way things are isn't so bad and just need minor course corrections. It's how they see the world and grasping things outside that can be hard (for anyone with any worldview, mind).

Healthcare has been this way for a century and just needs a course correction and oh look, the biased question gave a biased result, but we can't see that bias so everything is ok and it just requires better PR or tweaks. Hooray!

 

Most people are happy with their insurance companies because most people don’t actually “use” their insurance companies. The overwhelming majority of customers are profitable for an insurance company…meaning what they pay in premiums exceed what the insurance company pays for their care. I’d be willing to bet way more than 80% of unprofitable customers hate their health insurance companies.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/12/biden-grants-largest-single-day-clemency-in-us-history-with-1500-sentences-commuted#:~:text=Biden grants largest,Trump takes over

Biden grants largest single-day clemency in US history, with 1,500 sentences commuted
US president under pressure to pardon huge numbers of people, including those on death row, before Trump takes over


He's picking a hell of a time to sack up.

 

Yeah, like I said, most people aren't ill so it's neither here nor there. It simply provides a sort of 'security blanket' for them to feel better. Also, as I say, those chose the damn thing... of course they're going to 'like it but that doesn't mean they wouldn't also like another option that gave them the feeling of security but at much lower cost and which didn't mean they have to jump through hoops if they do need care.

 

Well, I realise you're referring to them as 'my fave guys' to be provocative

But, in truth, I have a lot of respect for them and the amount of knowledge of the subject they have. It just seems to me that they're typical of a certain type of person 'on the left', (in that phrases widest sense), who are quite happy to take 'no' for an answer instead of being aggressive in pursuit of their aims.

The right has always been prepared to play hardball like the old Willie Horton ads back in the day...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/us/politics/bush-willie-horton.html

Whether you win or not is sometimes not the issue. The point is you need to move the conversation to a question of why an opposition politician, (including Lieberman on that occasion), was happy to let little Johnny Smith die from lack of care, (accompanied by pictures of little johnny playing with his favourite toy car), because the alternative meant he could take money from the health insurance industry.

Of course, as I say, that would also mean that none of your politicians could take money from them but that's just part of the message discipline needed to be a winner... y'know, as opposed to be determined losers like those guys, (at least inasmuch as their broader aims).

Yeah, that was what Buttigieg mentioned as well and those guys discussed it, albeit briefly.

Basically you have a public option... almost everyone, over a period, transfers to it as long as it's properly run, (including reducing the costs of drugs by aggressive price negotiations), and the private health insurance industry rots on the vine or is only used by a handful of millionaires and billionaires who probably won't need it anyway as they don't need it.

As they were discussing it they didn't seem to get as far as mentioning why that wasn't pursued further. It was just, like, 'Oh, we couldn't get that done for.... er... reasons!'

Like I say, they seemed primed to be failures as they have little to no clarity in their thinking.

 

In the case of Obamacare it wasn't pursued further because it didn't have the Democratic votes. The whole thing might have failed had that been pursued further.

And that was a watershed moment in our politics; the Medicaid expansion was supposed to herd millions more of the uninsured in, but for about the first time ever state pols refused large sums of money for their state merely in order to prevent the appearance that a black man of the wrong party had provided desperately needed services to their citizens...

Nobody anticipated quite that level of callousness even in the post-Gingrich era.