Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Politics » When Biden becomes president do you think he should try to tear down Trump's wall to get even with Trump trying tear down Obama's Obamacare?

When Biden becomes president do you think he should try to tear down Trump's wall to get even with Trump trying tear down Obama's Obamacare?

Posted - June 11

Responses


  • 14031
    Trump has only put up 6' of new wall.  It would probably cost more to take it down than it's worth.  He should leave it alone.  What I'd like to see Biden do is reinstate some of the environmental and business reforms that Trump reversed.  Repeal the executive order allowing the killing of animals in national parks.  
      June 11, 2020 9:58 PM MDT
    6

  • 8915
    Yes...
      June 11, 2020 10:00 PM MDT
    2

  • 4283

    If Biden wishes to relax the border, he need only ease the access via the gates.
    The wall will rust away in under 20 years.

    Agreed on all your other points.

    I'm very happy to see so many people anticipating Biden's success.
    But I'm worried that people might take it for granted.
    Remember, at the last election, Trump got it because young Democrats didn't bother to vote.
    Many states have made it harder to vote, so everyone is going to need to be determined to make their vote count.
      June 11, 2020 10:29 PM MDT
    3

  • 14031
    It's absolutely disgusting how our electoral process has become so compromised.  It is becoming easier to register to vote, but not to actually vote.  Young people are cynical about voting - it seems they feel nothing changes, so why bother.  Obama brought out the young voters.  Maybe his support of Biden will bring them out again.  
      June 12, 2020 5:23 AM MDT
    1

  • 4283
    Much as I prefer Democratic policies, I think Biden will be at best a mediocre president.
    He won't change much. He won't be nearly as proactive as Obama was.

    His latest sally against Trump is extraordinary.
    Even if he really believes it, he's taking a huge risk claiming that Trump would not accept the outcome of the election if it goes against him.

    Trump is on record as having declared that all postal votes are invalid (even as he appeared on TV voting for himself by post) - and that is worrying.

    It's true that many states have enacted legislation to make it much harder to vote, and might skew the results unless Americans are determined to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

    So what's Biden's game?
    Is he trying to manipulate Trump into declaring that he will accept the vote of the people no matter what it is?

    Why bother?
    If it was true that Trump would refuse to leave office and would have to be forcibly escorted out, why not say nothing and let Trump's behaviour do all the shaming?

    What if the Democrats win and Trump accepts with unexpected grace, or with some typically narcissistic quip?
    Then Biden would have mud on his face at the very outset of his role - not an auspicious start.

    If someone behaves foolishly, it's far better to let them hang themselves that to try to erect a noose for them.

    This makes me very worried about Biden. It's not a sign of good political strategy.

    And yet, he has survived decades. He has a vast team of resources behind him.
    So what's the game behind the game?
      June 11, 2020 10:09 PM MDT
    5

  • 8213
    No. He should lead us in looking and moving forward. There is nothing to be gained by looking backward and trying to "get even" for perceived slights. And what was good about Obamacare has survived. People can still purchase health insurance on the federal and state exchanges with financial help available via the APTC - advance premium tax credit, which amounts to a government subsidy. Trump was successful in eliminating the onerous Shared Responsibility Payment, which was a tax penalty for people above a certain income level without insurance. Lots of folks are happy about that, which is one of the few good things Trump has done.

    And realistically, it's a matter of if, not when, Biden becomes president. We can hope and those of us here in the US can vote, but he is no more guaranteed to win than Hillary Clinton was in 2016. This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at June 12, 2020 7:06 AM MDT
      June 11, 2020 10:19 PM MDT
    5

  • 14031
    I think the time has come to abolish the Electoral College.  The reasons for it no longer exist.  At the very least,  electoral votes should be apportioned rather than some of the states having an all-or-nothing policy.   If this is  a government of, for and by the people, then we should be electing our president by popular vote.  
      June 12, 2020 5:32 AM MDT
    4

  • 8213
    But that would require an amendment to the Constitution. Even if it were proposed, it would need to be ratified by 38 states, which is unlikely to happen, and it certainly isn't happening in time for this year's election. This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at June 12, 2020 9:25 AM MDT
      June 12, 2020 6:51 AM MDT
    3

  • 14031
    Yes, it would and no, 38 states won't ratify it, but that's what needs to happen.  
      June 12, 2020 9:25 AM MDT
    2

  • 8213
    But isn't it pointless to argue that something needs to happen when it can't? And speaking of what's best for the majority of people, you would never get agreement on this issue. There will always be people who want the Electoral College to exist.
      June 12, 2020 9:55 AM MDT
    2

  • 14031
    If you never speak up about things that need to change, you will never change them.  There may come a time when enough people realize that the Electoral College is detrimental to a fair and truly representative election.  
      June 12, 2020 2:27 PM MDT
    0

  • 22701
    The penalty applied to all who did not have insurance not just those who made above a certain level.   I know plenty of poor people who did not qualify for Medicaid nor afford private insurance who paid it.
      June 12, 2020 2:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 10743
    Pointless, given that less than a linear mile of it will be completed. Just reinstate the good things that he had a part of as Veep that Trump has destroyed - environmental protection, the global health response directorate etc.
      June 12, 2020 2:56 AM MDT
    4

  • 8213
    "Just" reinstate? How, by fiat? And may we have a list of those things that "everyone" can agree on?
      June 12, 2020 4:57 AM MDT
    2

  • 14031
    Weren't most of the rollbacks that Trump enacted done by Executive Order?  If so, then all Biden has to do is reverse them the same way.  There will never be a time with "everyone" agrees on anything.  It's what is best for the majority of the people in this country.  
      June 12, 2020 5:37 AM MDT
    4

  • 8213
    And good luck getting agreement on "what is best for the majority of people in this country." You make it seem so simple, but on what planet are things that simple?
      June 12, 2020 6:53 AM MDT
    4

  • 14031
    Agreed, but I'm pretty sure there are some things we can agree are best for the majority of people.  Access to decent health care, protection of the environment, protection of endangered species.  Trump couldn't care less about any of that.
      June 12, 2020 9:24 AM MDT
    1

  • 8213
    I am not so sure about agreeing. I believe that if you could ask one person in each state what is best for the majority of people, you would get 50 different answers.
      June 12, 2020 9:43 AM MDT
    2

  • 14031
    If you gave them each a list of 10 items which they could tell you were most important to them, I believe you would find at least two or three of them that the majority would accept as important.
      June 12, 2020 2:30 PM MDT
    0

  • 36434

     

      I’m sure every US president past, present and future has had, has, and will have certain issues that he (or she) that while implicitly important to others, are not important to the president. With the vast majority of issues that are potentially important to some, it’s impossible to assume that every issue has the same importance to every person, and that includes presidents. I am not diminishing the importance of any particular issue, nor am I saying it’s right or wrong for any president to decide where to place a priority on any particular issue. The very nature of leading a large country practically guarantees that someone will disagree with the leaders’ decisions on at least some topics.
    ~

      

      June 12, 2020 10:03 AM MDT
    2

  • 14031
    I would agree with that, but in my personal opinion, Trump's priorities lean towards those that will benefit Trump, his family and the 1%. This post was edited by SpunkySenior at June 12, 2020 3:55 PM MDT
      June 12, 2020 2:25 PM MDT
    1

  • 8213
    Which specific ones?
      June 12, 2020 3:55 PM MDT
    1

  • 14031
    The tax cuts are one.  I'm sure his sons will benefit from roll-back of hunting in national parks.  The PPP program gave most of the money to big corporations.  Removing us from the Iran Nuclear treaty, removing us from the clean air treaty.  When you roll back protections, businesses get away with doing things that harm the environment and ultimately people, but make more profit for the business.  
      June 13, 2020 5:58 AM MDT
    2

  • 22874
    thats up to him
      June 13, 2020 2:21 PM MDT
    0