The Joe Biden 2020 tracker thread (9 Viewers)

UncleTrvlingJim said:

Why not? We're giving them money they couldn't earn themselves right? If they go out of business a more efficient business owner will buy it up and then make money. That's the way the free market works.

I'm not against giving farmers money, but it is absolutely welfare. They can't earn the money on their own, so we have to prop them up.

Do you think the rest of the working poor don't effect your world Joe? You don't think it affects education levels in their children? Healthcare, which drives up your rates? What about crime rates? You don't think poverty levels effect crime rates?

Poverty effects everyone, whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

For one thing.. A person that doesn't want to work and collects welfare is not the same as a person that works daily but their income is decided by politics and economics, sanctions and tariffs.

I can't even conceive how someone as intelligent as you can even think that way.

Crime does affect us all... But we have laws and police to stop it... But the Poor does not provide a necessity like farmers do.

I think he was referring to the working poor, Joe. Not healthy individuals who refuse to work... Unless I missed it.

Joe Okc said:

For one thing.. A person that doesn't want to work and collects welfare is not the same as a person that works daily but their income is decided by politics and economics, sanctions and tariffs.

I can't even conceive how someone as intelligent as you can even think that way.

Crime does affect us all... But we have laws and police to stop it... But the Poor does not provide a necessity like farmers do.

Click to expand...

I think it's important to realize that the amount of people like the first person you mentioned vs. the second is very, very small.

More people having to get on food stamps should incite the question of the economy, not the 'attitude' of individuals. Most people want to work and succeed, and that's a fact. The whole anger around all of these folks who supposedly 'don't want to work and just want to sit on their porches and collect welfare' is blown out of proportion. Study after study confirms that.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-...-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs

Once that is recognized, we can get more of both parties turning our attention to an economic system that..let's face it..is not predicated on improving the livelihood of the everyday working man or woman.

Heathen said:

I think it's important to realize that the amount of people like the first person you mentioned vs. the second is very, very small.

More people having to get on food stamps should incite the question of the economy, not the 'attitude' of individuals. Most people want to work and succeed, and that's a fact. The whole anger around all of these folks who supposedly 'don't want to work and just want to sit on their porches and collect welfare' is blown out of proportion. Study after study confirms that.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-...-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs

Once that is recognized, we can get more of both parties turning our attention to an economic system that..let's face it..is not predicated on improving the livelihood of the everyday working man or woman.

Click to expand...

It never has been and never will be. .
It’s the elites vs. the non elites. IMO.

Humperdoo said:

I can point out so many examples of the S word not working. But you already know them all as you’re no dummy.

Click to expand...

I don't think there are a ton of folks that want the US to go full blown socialist....I do think there are alot of folks that want the US (including the current administration) to get dangerously close to full blown capitalism....

What works best in the US IMO is a decent and reasonable balance between the two....and anyone who can't recognize that the balance is in jeopardy are basically kidding themselves (or more likely think they have something to gain from it....says my pessimistic side).....

Brandon13 said:

I think he was referring to the working poor, Joe. Not healthy individuals who refuse to work... Unless I missed it.

Click to expand...

Heathen said:

I think it's important to realize that the amount of people like the first person you mentioned vs. the second is very, very small.

Click to expand...

Even if you took those that sit on their porch and collected welfare out of the equation.. It still does not compare...

A person that works but need extra help does not compare to what is given to maintain the food supply... For example... Lets take a lower paid income job and use it as an example. All Fast food workers could go on strike and we as a nation would get by without fast food tacos and cheeseburgers.... But if all farmers went on strike our nation did not have any food, the nation could get close to anarchy.


There is a huge difference in lending a helping hand, and keep one of our nations vital sources in operations.

Humperdoo said:

I can point out so many examples of the S word not working. But you already know them all as you’re no dummy.
And I don’t disagree with much of your post. Hope you’re well my friend, even if we don’t always think alike I very much respect your take on most things.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Well, in the U.S., the poster child for "Socialism doesn't work" is Venezuela. But Venezuela, like many other countries, has a mixed economy. The government owns oil production and a farm system, but there's also a private sector. The problem with Venezuela is not Socialism, it is mismanagement and corruption. Hugo Chavez decided to put all of the Venezuelan eggs in the oil basket, and then tossed the basket over a cliff.

In contrast, you have France, which I don't think downright owns any sort of production (I'd have to look it up) but owns stakes in many companies which deliver basic goods and services (water, electricity, aviation, etc... ) Or the aforementioned Sweden, which major form of Socialist aspect is income redistribution through taxation, or Denmark and free education... and they are doing very well.

Joe Okc said:

Even if you took those that sit on their porch and collected welfare out of the equation.. It still does not compare...

A person that works but need extra help does not compare to what is given to maintain the food supply... For example... Lets take a lower paid income job and use it as an example. All Fast food workers could go on strike and we as a nation would get by without fast food tacos and cheeseburgers.... But if all farmers went on strike our nation did not have any food, the nation could get close to anarchy.


There is a huge difference in lending a helping hand, and keep one of our nations vital sources in operations.

Click to expand...

What about the guy who delivers produce to stores right now? LOL.. I don't make much per hour but I'm killing it on overtime right now.

Brandon13 said:

What about the guy who delivers produce to stores right now? LOL.. I don't make much per hour but I'm killing it on overtime right now.

Click to expand...

lol.. right.. While it's really not a laughing matter... I am glad to see you guys finally are getting the recognition that you deserve.. and I sincerly mean that... Maybe one day there may be a Strip Club DJ Strike and I'll be appreciated too...

I hope that this supply chain delema makes us all aware of our dependence on foreign imports and that change is crutial to us... Thank goodness we still manufacture toilet paper in America.

Humperdoo said:

I can point out so many examples of the S word not working. But you already know them all as you’re no dummy.
And I don’t disagree with much of your post. Hope you’re well my friend, even if we don’t always think alike I very much respect your take on most things.



Is he going to take our AR-14’s???? Lol.
Greta post. I’ve been an independent my whole life as well. Politics and big issues socially are just too fluid for me to stubbornly pick a ‘side’.

Then sit in my figurative foxhole lobbing verbal grenades at anyone that dares think differently, as people on both ‘sides’ do.

If we’d get out of those foxholes and try to actually listen to the other side, once in awhile, meet in the middle....we’d all be much much better imo.

Just as stories usually have three sides, and the truth lies in the middle, so too do issue in politics. Same with social issues imo. Fluid. Therefore I believe we should be fluid as well in our decision making.

Click to expand...

You might not think you’ve picked a side, but your words/arguments tell a different story
You gave labeled things in ahistorical ways to make it seem like you have no other choice but what you’re left with. But it seems pretty clear you have reframed questions to reach the conclusion you already find yourself standing in

You make slight allusions to ‘socialism’ though it’s unclear if you fully understand it (you seem to imply that socialism is giving things away to people who don’t have your work ethic),
But your hackles seem to be raised mostly about what BF thinks is cultural Marxism- as far as I can tell cultural Marxism is ‘the status quo should be the only thing defining ambiguous terms’

If people being abl to define themselves bothers you that much, cool - just stick with that- but don’t wrap it up in ‘moderate’ or misunderstanding of Dem platforms

GMRfellowtraveller said:

You might not think you’ve picked a side, but your words/arguments tell a different story
You gave labeled things in ahistorical ways to make it seem like you have no other choice but what you’re left with. But it seems pretty clear you have reframed questions to reach the conclusion you already find yourself standing in

You make slight allusions to ‘socialism’ though it’s unclear if you fully understand it (you seem to imply that socialism is giving things away to people who don’t have your work ethic),
But your hackles seem to be raised mostly about what BF thinks is cultural Marxism- as far as I can tell cultural Marxism is ‘the status quo should be the only thing defining ambiguous terms’

If people being abl to define themselves bothers you that much, cool - just stick with that- but don’t wrap it up in ‘moderate’ or misunderstanding of Dem platforms

Click to expand...

And there is the condescension. Put me in whatever box you choose to. It matters not to me.
I’ve already stated I’m so disgusted with the left (while still respecting their right to feel as they do ) that I’ve been pushed right. I’ve been an independent moderate my whole life, but I do thank you for telling me what I am and am not. Also for telling me what I do and don’t understand.

Humperdoo said:

And there is the condescension. Put me in whatever box you choose to. It matters not to me.
I’ve already stated I’m so disgusted with the left (while still respecting their right to feel as they do ) that I’ve been pushed right. I’ve been an independent moderate my whole life, but I do thank you for telling me what I am and am not. Also for telling me what I do and don’t understand.

Click to expand...

maybe you see more condescension in my approach than yours, but there is plenty in yours as well
you know i love you deeply, and that none of this is coming from malice
but i feel fairly certain that the flaws in the arguments of what you are for are more accessible than the wrongs you see in the things you're against

Joe Okc said:

Even if you took those that sit on their porch and collected welfare out of the equation.. It still does not compare...

A person that works but need extra help does not compare to what is given to maintain the food supply... For example... Lets take a lower paid income job and use it as an example. All Fast food workers could go on strike and we as a nation would get by without fast food tacos and cheeseburgers.... But if all farmers went on strike our nation did not have any food, the nation could get close to anarchy.


There is a huge difference in lending a helping hand, and keep one of our nations vital sources in operations.

Click to expand...

Joe love you bro

But when you make the problem and the remedy is to give them a handout is the problem. A failed cruddy tariff without thinking about the effects on everything.

Just the same as the nation's largest employer Walmart is responsible for a huge percentage of people needing public aid. That is a forked business model.

If you had a business that could not afford to pay a living wage I would also consider your business a failed business.

I love that everyone brings up the lazy or cheating the system guys but that is sold to you so you miss the real problems. Yet forgets the handouts to huge corporate entities. Oil needs no help, Amazon needs no help, and for damn sure they get corporate welfare!

Joe Okc said:

For one thing.. A person that doesn't want to work and collects welfare is not the same as a person that works daily but their income is decided by politics and economics, sanctions and tariffs.

I can't even conceive how someone as intelligent as you can even think that way.

Crime does affect us all... But we have laws and police to stop it... But the Poor does not provide a necessity like farmers do.

Click to expand...

Brandon13 said:

I think he was referring to the working poor, Joe. Not healthy individuals who refuse to work... Unless I missed it.

Click to expand...

Joe Okc said:

Even if you took those that sit on their porch and collected welfare out of the equation.. It still does not compare...

A person that works but need extra help does not compare to what is given to maintain the food supply... For example... Lets take a lower paid income job and use it as an example. All Fast food workers could go on strike and we as a nation would get by without fast food tacos and cheeseburgers.... But if all farmers went on strike our nation did not have any food, the nation could get close to anarchy.


There is a huge difference in lending a helping hand, and keep one of our nations vital sources in operations.

Click to expand...

As Brandon pointed out, I was talking about the working poor, b/c let's face it, the idea of people just sitting around collecting a welfare check is more fantasy than reality. Do some people abuse the system, absolutely. But I'm sure you know there are farmers abusing their subsidies as well, right?

The fact of the matter is, the small farmer is a failed business model. It is inefficient and unable to respond to changing market conditions. If we let them fail, we won't have food shortages. A bigger, more efficient business with more automation will take them over, and food production will continue. That's the way the free market works.

But you, and others (myself included), have a qualitative preference for the small family farmer. But it's more of a romantic attachment than an economic one.

They need welfare, and you're willing to give it to them, but you aren't willing to give it to others who are working but are struggling? Why is that?

GMRfellowtraveller said:

maybe you see more condescension in my approach than yours, but there is plenty in yours as well
you know i love you deeply, and that none of this is coming from malice
but i feel fairly certain that the flaws in the arguments of what you are for are more accessible than the wrongs you see in the things you're against

Click to expand...

If I’m coming across as condescending my apologies. It’s something I detest so I definitely don’t want to appear that way myself.
I am intending no such thing, I agree you.

Humperdoo said:

That’s a very nice post imo. Although we seem to have different perspectives you do not come across as bigoted or condescending there. Thank you for that, sincerely, not being facetious.

I absolutely cannot stand the way Trump carries himself in many many ways. He’s a terrible speaker, he’s very quick to visible anger, I could go on and on. However, to me he is much more fit for the office than any of the candidates I see opposing him. In a world where it seems most politicians now are pushing for something akin to the ‘S’ word (which I wholeheartedly loathe) he’s about all I have left. I wish there were better but I do not see it.

For instance, look at O’Rourke. Apologizes for being White. Heck he apologizes for just about anything and everything, trying to prove he’s ‘woke’ by pandering. As a white person that makes me sick. I will never apologize for being born white. As I’d never expect anyone to apologize for being born, however they are.

To me, the left is comparable to the old U.S.S.R in their ideology. If the far left does indeed take over, as I predict they will in 2024, I see things such as free speech and capitalism going bye bye. Which I think is a terrible thing. I try to ride the middle in politics as things are too fluid for me to just toe a company line. Some issues I lean left, some I lean right. I wish more would try and do the same. These are not static issues, we must have an open mind. IMO.

I am no Republican nor am I a Democrat. I’m just a human that watches and reacts as best I can to an ever evolving fluid world. (Politics)

Click to expand...

So, I find it interesting that you think O'Rourke apologizes for being white - I tried to find the actual quote for him, but I just a bunch of op-eds accusing him of apologizing for being white. I do see examples him of acknowledging that being white has given him some advantages that others not born white might have had -- is that what you're talking about? If so, what do you find irksome about believing that on average, white people are less likely to have disadvantages because of their race than non-white people? I can show you statistics that back that up if it would help.

What do you think makes Trump fit for office? Was it his stellar business career? His even keeled response to criticism? His maturity? His kindness? I know you said you only turn to him based on his opposition, but let's say compare him to Biden - why do you think Trump is more fit for office than Biden?

I also think it's problematic to define yourself based on the supposed opposition. You're not the only one who I've heard say they've become Trump backers to some degree based on statements made by Democrats. That seems a little weird to me -- that you'd back a person that you might think is loathsome because his opponents have said things you disagree with. It seems to me the logical thing to do would be to back someone completely different.

What specifically about positions of Democrats do you think will lead to the worst parts of the USSR? Are you sure that you're looking at them not from a right leaning op-ed but from the source. Would you consider it fair if someone compared Trump's policies to Nazi Germany?

UncleTrvlingJim said:

They need welfare, and you're willing to give it to them, but you aren't willing to give it to others who are working but are struggling? Why is that?

Click to expand...

I NEVER said that... I did not even come close to even insinuating that. And I have to ask why you would even falsely accuse me of such a thing.

What I said exactly was, and what I have maintained all along is this.

Joe Okc said:

Honestly Jim.. You cannot compare the Poor to Farmers, nor Welfare to Farm subsidies.

Click to expand...

Now can you explain to me that with this being my stance that you have concluded that I think it's ok to not give welfare to people that are working but struggling?