On Reddit, r/joebiden shadow bans anyone who doesn't fall in line. If you question Biden's fitness or faltering polls, you're gone. And they're too much of cowards to even tell you that you're banned.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
You're just saying libertarian in more words.