Poll of the Day > Do Joe Biden voters actually like him, or do they just want to defeat Trump?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also note that Bernie wants publicly financed elections, so all this stuff about lobbying (from PACs super PACs or individual donors) is going out the window if we get a constitutional amendment banning private funding of all politicians and mandating public financing. And you can tell he means it because that system didn't benefit him at all getting elected.

---

Probably the latter. People dont vote for who they want, they vote for who is most likely to win over who they dont want. And its stupid and irresponsible.

---

Hes the first pick of one of my coworkers but the others are in the anyone > trump mindset. And as for the poll i dont vote.

---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

since i'm in ca, it literally doesn't matter. whichever dem becomes the nominee will win the state, regardless if i vote for them or not

This

---

streamofthesky posted...

Have you ever heard a Trump speech?

How is sentences just meander for ever into nonsense? Trump's at least as senile as Biden. Which I guess is why it usually feels like a Mike Pence presidency, with the rigid absolute adherence to the religious right on everything.
Whoever Biden picks as VP will probably have a strong influence on his agenda, too.

now they are fear mongering this. in the first term they were trying to instill that trump is a hot head and will go to war with north korea now the tactics have changed.

---

The_tall_midget posted...

Stop stating facts, it's annoying to the Marxists.

Internment camps for latin murikans started under billy clinton... According to google archives and wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States

Funny coming from the guy who did NAFTA.

---

A lot of people are at the point they just want Trump gone and would vote for their neighbors dog if it meant no more Trump.

Yellow posted...

Also note that Bernie wants publicly financed elections, so all this stuff about lobbying (from PACs super PACs or individual donors) is going out the window if we get a constitutional amendment banning private funding of all politicians and mandating public financing. And you can tell he means it because that system didn't benefit him at all getting elected.

I don't really like this idea as it basically eliminates the possibility of anyone outside of the establishments and super rich from being able to run. Not much difference from the current system except now there are more problems. Those being now the taxpayers are footing the bill while the establishment are likely handpicking who gets funding

ArvTheGreat posted...

now they are fear mongering this. in the first term they were trying to instill that trump is a hot head and will go to war with north korea now the tactics have changed.

Trump may be a blowhard but I just dont see the dementia that many claim he has. In fact, for a 73 year old dude, he seems to have a lot of energy

Revocation68 posted...

A lot of people are at the point they just want Trump gone and would vote for their neighbors dog if it meant no more Trump.

a dog president would be so cool

hed just chase ducks and bark at birds all day

---

ArvTheGreat posted...

now they are fear mongering this. in the first term they were trying to instill that trump is a hot head and will go to war with north korea now the tactics have changed.

https://youtu.be/xXUNVfjG_Sg?t=315

Mead posted...

depends on the voter

This.

Anyone over 40 probably legit likes him, or believes he is a decent candidate.

Anyone under 40 understands the guy is a huge dumbass and champion of status quo, but cannot stomach another 4 years of Trump

---

OhhhJa posted...

I don't really like this idea as it basically eliminates the possibility of anyone outside of the establishments and super rich from being able to run. Not much difference from the current system except now there are more problems. Those being now the taxpayers are footing the bill while the establishment are likely handpicking who gets funding

The "establishment" has the most money in this system, they can donate the most, they have the most power over our politicians. You are 100% wrong that private funding favors poor people and I find it repulsive that you would say something like that just because I said Bernie Sanders opposes it.

---

Yellow posted...

The "establishment" has the most money in this system, they can donate the most, they have the most power over our politicians. You are 100% wrong that private funding favors poor people and I find it repulsive that you would say something like that just because I said Bernie Sanders opposes it.

Holy lack of reading comprehension. I don't know how you gathered from my post. I said neither system benefits the poor. Poor people dont win anywhere globally. Have fun counting on your boy to change that

It's kind assumed who gets to run would be based on popularity and not "establishment cherry picked"

---

Yellow posted...

It's kind assumed who gets to run would be based on popularity and not "establishment cherry picked"

And how do candidates attain popularity? Wait for it... They have adequate funding to campaign with which means... You guessed it. Only the super wealthy are going to be able to succeed. This is why private campaign contribution are a good thing in theory

OhhhJa posted...

And how do candidates attain popularity? Wait for it... They have adequate funding to campaign with which means... You guessed it. Only the super wealthy are going to be able to succeed. This is why private campaign contribution are a good thing in theory

Your whole argument is that preventing politicians from being bought is hard so we should just allow them to be bought. There's no difference between the worst case of my scenario and the best case in yours. Other countries do what Bernie proposes, he never proposes anything that hasn't been tried already. The UK and many other first world countries do public elections.

If you allow private contributions the people with the most money have an unfair advantage. Working people should not have to be forced to vote with their hard earned money to compete with billionaires who just empty a little pocket change.

---

Yellow posted...

Your whole argument is that preventing politicians from being bought is hard so we should just allow them to be bought. There's no difference between the worst case of my scenario and the best case in yours. Other countries do what Bernie proposes, he never proposes anything that hasn't been tried already. The UK and many other first world countries do public elections.

If you allow private contributions the people with the most money have an unfair advantage. Working people should not have to be forced to vote with their hard earned money to compete with billionaires who just empty a little pocket change.

I feel like you're only reading what you want to read. But I don't see how you think people can run a campaign without contributions. Do you think Bernie would have enough money to run a successful campaign if it wasn't for all his contributions? I mean hes definitely wealthy but not as wealthy as the other candidates

That's honestly a good question, and I don't think any system that Bernie would come up with would be perfect in that regard, how do you prevent money from becoming a factor at all? But there are a few things that can be done that will definitely improve it, and it mostly involves limiting the maximum donation and barring corporations from donating. It's a little more complicated than what I can summarize and involves a lot of small changes.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-out-of-politics/

• Ban all corporate contributions to the Democratic Party Convention and all related committees, and as President he would ban all corporate donations for inaugural events and cap individual donations at $500.
• Abolish the now-worthless FEC and replace it with the Federal Election Administration, a true law enforcement agency originally proposed by former Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold.
• Enacting mandatory public financing laws for all federal elections.
• Updating and strengthen the Federal Election Campaign Act to return to a system of mandatory public funding for National Party Conventions.
• Passing a Constitutional Amendment that makes clear that money is not speech and corporations are not people.

---

Yellow posted...

PACs, super-PACs, lobbyists. It's all documented. Not legally corruption. Corporations and billionaires have him over to discuss things on the regular after they donate to him and he's very open about it.

Conflating PACs with corruption? Priceless!


---

Zeus posted...

Conflating PACs with corruption? Priceless!

corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

bribe: persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

---

Yellow posted...

Passing a Constitutional Amendment that makes clear that money is not speech and corporations are not people.

About fucking time.

---

As corrupt as elections are with super-pacs, it was very satisfying to see Bloomberg gloriously implode after riding the coattails of money-backed support.

It goes to show that even borderline limitless money-backing (though indeed helpful) isn't going to guarantee any outcome. At some point, the candidate has to open his or her mouth without sounding like a dumbass.

---

Zeus posted...

Conflating PACs with corruption? Priceless!

Yea who could call rampant bribery corruption?

I agree that a dog as president would be very good

---

Mead posted...

I agree that a dog as president would be very good

Mr. Peanutbutter already ran for Governor, so why not President?
---