bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't like his stance on reparations either, but I'd still vote for him.

How many people know much about Whitmer or Newsom? I've had people on political subreddits tell me that Newsom is too liberal, when he's always run as a pro-business, conservative Democrat.

Polling is useless until they're on a big stage and people know them. Biden is well known and has been trending down since April. Have Newsom as the nominee and come out swinging at Trump, now the he's too old argument plays well. I just don't know who is voting for Biden but not Newsom.

My reading on the subject, which is far from authoritative obviously, was that Biden can direct the funds anywhere he wants, he has the final say on where they go. Either to Harris's campaign, a Super PAC, or the DNC.

I understand what you're saying, but at the end of the day the campaign is going to put out press releases for what they're focusing on at that time. While they can't coordinate, they can just read the press releases that are released to the public and do ad spends based on them.

However, for reasons no one can quite explain, only one of them is being called to drop out of the race.

No one can explain? He got on a debate stage in front of the entire world and looked like a confused, doddering, and feeble old man. Any party would call for their candidate to step down after that.

As for why Trump doesn't get the same treatment, it's because the Republicans are no longer a political party, but have become a cult of MAGA. Hell they have people holding signs that say real men wear diapers.

This is an incredibly bad position. Saying that donors decide is nothing like saying "Jews run the world". It's not a conspiracy theory, it is a recognition that campaign funds are integral to a presidential election. If Biden can't bring in money then his campaign will fold.

But the current polling says Biden will lose to Trump, and he's been shedding independents.

This is simply untrue. He cannot give more than the maximum to another campaign, but he can give the balance to the DNC or a Super PAC to elect a new nominee.

Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don't allow it they are enslaved.

Congratulations, you just said the dumbest thing I've read on the Internet in a very long time. That's impressive!

I pay for the military, for roads, for schools, for police, for fire departments...and I can't opt out of any of that. So am I already a slave? If so, then I might as well get some healthcare out of the deal.

If I'm not already a slave then universal healthcare isn't making me a slave either. No one would be forcing you to use your healthcare either.

Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

Oh no they didn't. They went along with them.

What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

Neighbor: Why does this dog eat so much corn!?!

Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

They responded

You're saying "they", but it's you. And no you didn't, repeating what you said before isn't addressing the issues.

Adressed twice.

Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn't address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.

According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that "investment to lower cost" will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That's simply a ludicrous assertion.

You think US products won't have spyware?

I don't think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.

You're literally just talking to yourself, ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue, with spyware being a close 2nd.

Americans get cheaper EVs...

For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

...and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

I don't pay attention to the news (haven't for many years now) and I firmly believe it's okay that I don't.

I also don't vote because, at this point, I'd consider myself the definition of an uninformed voter.

You're essentially keeping yourself ignorant, and then saying you're too ignorant to take action. Just ridiculous.

So much of what's presented by the media doesn't impact my day-to-day life in the slightest.

Trump was elected and as a direct result: Roe was overturned, pregnant women are having their lives risked over non-viable pregnancies, others are forced to have children they don't want, gun control has been struck down, Christian Nationalism is heavily asserting itself at a time when fewer and fewer people are religious, the pandemic was bungled leading to thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths, $2t was given away to the uber-wealthy, air and water quality standards were rolled back, ultra-conservative judges have been instituting national bans from the 5th circuit, gay and trans rights have been rolled back...and on and on...and that's without getting to all the states banning books and destroying the social safety net.

I guess you could not be a woman, not know a woman, not care about getting shot, or know anyone who you don't want to see get shot, like oppressive religious tenets foisted upon you, not worry about dying of communicable disease, or know anyone that you wouldn't want to see die of communicable disease, be ok with your tax dollars being given to the rich, and not be gay or trans or care about anyone who is....but you must at least breath air and drink water, right?

It all affects you, you're just too ignorant to realize how. Your apathy and indifference are what allows shitty people to hurt others. But if you don't care about that, no one can force you.

How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who's harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients' interests, period.

The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn't nearly the longest case I've had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we've been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.

Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?