File: 1603424353505.jpg (634.84 KB, 730x1000, 73:100, Yuki-Yuna-is-a-Hero-DVD-Bl….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Trump seemed more composed this time. A much better performance than the first debate.
File: 1603431544689.png (299.16 KB, 616x1046, 308:523, diana____by_devil_vox-d961….png) ImgOps Google
>>7405>I was busy and missed it.
You can still watch it on YouTube! (Links in the OP.)>How would you say it went for Biden, or overall?
Other than "Poor Boys", he did fine.
I never really got the big deal with that, personally. last I heard it's pretty much exactly what everyone expected, when it comes to rich people who have access to accountants and lawyers.
Unless there's some secret million dollar handover from the Illuminati, I just don't really see why it matters all that much. Maybe it's just me
>Supreme Court Justice/Health Care
Trump eliminated the individual mandate, which I don't like, and say they're keeping the pre-existing conditions part, which I do like. It's not ideal, 'cause I still want a supreme overhaul of the concept of insurance, but I'll take it.
Biden says he'll ensure there's more competition amongst insurers, which sounds good, but I don't know if that one'll work. He's still saying he supports private insurance, but I still get the feeling it's only because the insurance companies are paying him, and I don't actually like those companies. That part of his platform is keeping private insurance companies around, to the point that it's front and center when asked a question, is still very troubling to me.>Socialized Medicine
Just a boogeyman topic that Biden has to deny and Trump has to prove. Biden's plan doesn't strike me as fully socialized medicine, which I don't think would even be that bad. Trump didn't make me think that Biden was pushing forward the thing that I wouldn't mind if Biden was pushing forward, so...point Biden, I guess?>>7428
I'd agree, it's just notable that he's not even really responding to some of the questions.
Fair. I didn't much pay it mind, and figured he didn't have good answers for something fairly mundane.
But maybe that's just me.
As far as healthcare goes, I think both of them aren't great. Obamacare didn't help my family at all, and actually was a net negative thanks to the fine it imposed on anyone who couldn't get it. I assume there's some bracket for low enough incomes or whatever, but we weren't low enough for that, nor high enough to pay it.
Trump's lot seems to still leave us without coverage, but at least we lack the fine.
Personally, I think government ought to just get out of the insurance thing, start its own free clinics, and allow nonprofit manufacturing for said clinics as far as medicine goes to get around the patents nonsense.
But I'm sadly not in charge
File: 1603484328128.jpg (391.03 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 1409974072035.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7431>Biden responded "Yes, because we're going to have to bail out small businesses.">>...I'm not following his logic like
Maybe Biden meant something like: Since the federal government is going to be bailing out small businesses anyway (due to COVID-19), we might as well increase the amount of the bailout to cover the increased minimum wage. (For the record, I do not support increasing the federal
minimum wage. I think this is something that should left to the several states.)
>Do you understand why African American parents are fearful for their chilren?>Joe: Yes.
Uh...okay. Great, I guess?>Trump: Okay, but remember the "super predators" thing? Also I'm better than Abraham Lincoln.
After that he gave a much better answer about what he'd do to resolve the situation, which is better than Joe's "yes", but boy what an opening, ouch.
In the end, both of them talked about reducing federal prison stuff, but I'm not convinced either are going to. At every point except this debate, they've shown they want to expand it.>>7433>Obamacare didn't help my family at all, and actually was a net negative thanks to the fine it imposed on anyone who couldn't get it.
Similar for me, my family, and a lot of people I know. Obamacare was not a great plan, and I don't know if I want to even say it was good intentioned. I'm still suspicious it was to pay off insurance companies after some donations.>>7434
I suppose it could be, but yeah I don't know if that's a good situation, either.
>Joe's old awful crime bills
He says they're a mistake, but again...do I trust that? He says he's gonna fix all this stuff he's done that was awful, but it's been like 40 years, Joe.>>7437
Well the first way is just by not having both of them. I'm not terrified of socialized medicine, but I'm also not actively seeking it. The only thing I'm seeking is the open borders.
That said, the biggest issue people bring up with "socialized medicine" is who's paying for it, we're all worried the government can't pay for it, or a taxpayer doesn't want to pay for someone else's health care. But that's actually already what happens, just in a more roundabout way. If you're signed up for insurance, you're paying for everyone else who's on that insurance. If you're uninsured, the government has to step in to cover costs for hospitals so they don't shut down. If a hospital has a lot of people coming in that can't pay, they already have to treat them, so now they raise prices for everyone else, mainly the insurance companies, who are then passing on the costs to all the people on insurance. In short, we kind of just have really poorly socialized medicine right now, it's not a nice free market sort of thing.
Immigrants already aren't exempt from that. If some guy is brought into the hospital after a car accident and he's got no papers and can't speak English (if he's even able to speak after the car crash) the hospital's still treating him, right now, regardless of whether they can pay, and those costs are then funneled to everyone else in the web I described earlier. We're still paying for that.
Finally, beyond that, the easiest dial to turn is just to not give all of our welfare for citizens to non-citizens. I support allowing everyone into the country, maybe living and working here, but not necessarily granting them full citizenship and rights. That's still something they'll have to earn over time. That's where I've personally set the line on immigration.
And just so we're clear "not full rights" doesn't mean beating them or the police can gun them down or whatever, I'm just talking like the right to vote and our welfare stuff.
>>7438>If some guy is brought into the hospital after a car accident and he's got no papers and can't speak English (if he's even able to speak after the car crash) the hospital's still treating him, right now
Isn't that the problem, though? I thought that's why you have guys like Trump saying we need to secure the border.
As far as the cost goes, personally, I think our current system is terrible anyway, and so I'd rather switch it to one that better helps everybody here, over leaving the borders open.
I guess I just don't really see any reason to open them, or how it benefits anyone, except maybe those coming in I suppose. Even then I'm not really sure, between effects to the country they go to, the country they're coming from, and building a class of the lowest.
Maybe it was better than what they had at home, but, I don't feel what happened with the Irish, for example, was ideal. And they at least had the luxury of speaking the common language of the nation they were going to.
>>7441>Isn't that the problem, though? I thought that's why you have guys like Trump saying we need to secure the border.
It could be viewed as a problem, but it's part of the larger problem of people in general doing that, including actual American citizens. I don't really have numbers on how many of those would be foreign as opposed to domestic cases, but I'm willing to assume for now that a majority is domestic and the foreign cases are too small a problem to respond to with closed borders.>I guess I just don't really see any reason to open them, or how it benefits anyone, except maybe those coming in I suppose.
I imagine the benefts for those coming in are more obvious, and it's true that maybe it isn't an ideal life, but any steps forward are good. I'm also generally a supporter of some of the awful factories you hear about in some places, because without them there's just nothing coming in to their town at all. As bad as those conditions are they're still an improvement. Or so I assume, again, hopefully these aren't being forced upon the people directly, I'd like to imagine that nothing is keeping these people from simply not participating if they think it's a bad situation. The same would go for crossing our borders.
As for how it benefits those locally, generally having more people is a boon. Generally people produce more than they consume, and that leads to more growth. Every immigrant that comes over is not just another worker filling in empty jobs, but also another customer that creates more jobs to be filled. Every participant in the free market uplifts the free market. The more participants the more competition the more advancement, it's all positive.
A nation at least has obligation to its citizens.
I don't think the same ought to apply to those of other nations. At least as far as things like open boarders go.
Half-hearted responses get half hearted results.
If we're going to save the world, we ought to simply invade their countries and fix them ourselves.>I'd like to imagine that nothing is keeping these people from simply not participating if they think it's a bad situation. The same would go for crossing our borders.
I'd say you underestimate the human inclination to assuming the grass is greener on the other side.
Especially when basically everyone tells you it's the land of opportunity, where anyone can make it big. I'm personally skeptical such presumptions are true, living here.>Every participant in the free market uplifts the free market.
I am not so convinced. Any market when flooded with a good will end up inevitably losing value on that good.
Turning the job market from where the seller has the greater power, to where the buyer has the greater power, just means lower pay and worse conditions for those of us who are not so fortunate as to sit on the higher racks.
Nor am I convinced more people is inherently better. Major cities seem to have horrific problems I've never come across in my life, by virtue of never living in one. Yes, there are some advantages, but none that I have seen to less populated areas. Jobs are the only ones people seem to cite, and yet, your cost of living is so insanely high, it's a moot point.
I can persist comfortably on a minimum wage here, where I would likely be on the street with double the pay in a place like New York.
Yeah, those are fair criticisms, I don't really have any rebuttal for most of those.>I am not so convinced. Any market when flooded with a good will end up inevitably losing value on that good.
To some extent that one is still good, though. Like in theory the ideal
is that all
goods have no value. We want to reach that point of post-scarcity. This, of course, would require further adjustments to how our society functions, but in the long term and with proper support, floods of goods is good.
I'm not so sure. There's use in value. I can't imagine the world where nothing is valued. One where basic survival needs are unvalued, sure, but everything?
How a society like that would even function on the basic level without turning to some serious eccentricity I cannot fathom.
But, in any case; people are at least one thing we shouldn't have as without value.