-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Biden: "If I'm elected president [...] we're going to cure cancer."
- Thread starter makingmusic476
- Start date
I don't think we've ever seen a Democrat win the presidency by exclusively appealing to the 60+ crowd to the exclusion of everyone else.
Biden is...bad at this.
The ONLY reason he's viable is the fact that his opponent (should he win) would be Trump.
But my fear, every day, is that the American populace are (once again) confusing Trump's idiocy with being an easy candidate to beat. And yes, Trump is a damn moron, but racism is still a powerful drug in the US, and Trump taps that vein like no other.
Democrats do ourselves no favors by running a guy who does everything to turn off the activist portion of our base. Wasn't that the lesson of 2016? With Hillary, a candidate who had even higher favorable ratings than Biden before the primaries?
Biden is...bad at this.
The ONLY reason he's viable is the fact that his opponent (should he win) would be Trump.
But my fear, every day, is that the American populace are (once again) confusing Trump's idiocy with being an easy candidate to beat. And yes, Trump is a damn moron, but racism is still a powerful drug in the US, and Trump taps that vein like no other.
Democrats do ourselves no favors by running a guy who does everything to turn off the activist portion of our base. Wasn't that the lesson of 2016? With Hillary, a candidate who had even higher favorable ratings than Biden before the primaries?
Several reasons.
- Humans have dealt with cancer for as long as humans have existed. It's not going anywhere. Meanwhile, rapid human-driven climate change is relatively new, and absolutely has to be solved in the next few years in order to continue life as we know it.
- Using the term "cure" is either a play to the misinformed, or is itself misinformed. Because cancer cannot be cured. I'm not talking about that it hasn't yet been cured, but that fundamentally it's incurable (in the same way that you can't make an engine that never wears down). What we can do is be better at preventing it by detecting it earlier and developing better treatments, but those are categorically separate from cure. Also, cancer comes in thousands upon thousands of forms. We have and continue to develop more effective treatments for various forms of cancer, but there's no one blanket treatment that will work against all types of cancers.
- Finally, even if there was a miracle treatment that worked highly effectively against most forms of cancer, that doesn't even touch on the subject of accessibility. An enormous amount of people go bankrupt every year trying to pay for their cancer treatments. This has even been the subject matter of multiple popular TV shows (e.g. Breaking Bad). So a magic treatment does nothing for a lot of people if they can't pay for it. Meanwhile everything done to help against climate change helps everyone in the world.
Claims of simply being able to "cure cancer" have never been anything but irresponsible and harmful. For those of us in cancer research, it furthers unrealistic expectations and misinformation in the public and people with cancer. It has never done any good in the long term.
No they said it was shameless.
Which it is, it's trying to evoke the moonshot of the 1960's for a goal which anyone with a solid grounding in the subject will tell you is a red herring. Given how dismissive he is of M4A how is it not a shameless dodge to try and find a transformative goal which has no real intermediary result when there are social crises which do.
Sadly, yeah. I'm 30 and I figure we might have a cure for some cancers in my lifetime. Therapies have gone very far since I've been alive. TBH I feel like we have a better shot at avoiding the most catastrophic features of climate change than curing all cancers.
Funny you should mention that because after reading that OP I was thinking to myself:
Curing cancer doesn't work like that but we have signs that we potentially could cure alzheimers disease in 5 years so try aiming for that instead.
energy may be a big part of it but its not the only reason climate change exists.
climate change is made up of a wide variety of problems that impact the environment differently
1) not really a reason to not try to "cure" cancer. you're just stating the obvious
2) so Biden invented the saying "cure for cancer" now? he says he wants to cure cancer and the overwhelmeing response is "THERE ARE A LOT OF CANCERS YOU IDIOT, SHUT UP." Look at that bitch eating her crackers if there ever was an example of this.
3) "curing" cancer and solving climate change isn't mutually exclusive. you can do both at the same time. accessibility is another issue entirely -- can't even get insulin for a reasonable price, so there's going to have to be a separate solution for that.
moreover its a personal issue for him. saying nothing about trying to solve (since we can't say "cure" without being called a con man) cancer would just illicit people saying he's an asshole since his son died of cancer and he's doing nothing about it.
but yeah next time someone says they want to cure cancer just call them an idiot
The IPCC has recommended in order to keep warming to 1.5C our CO2 emissions need to fall 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and then to zero by 2050.
What needs to be done is actually really clear.
There's no comparable roadmap to "cure" cancer, they aren't comparable issues.
People already are searching for more and better treatments for cancer. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. And it's currently unclear how much more could presently be done to speed up research into it. So it costs a politician nothing to promise they'll revamp cancer research because most people wouldn't be able to notice any changes.
Do you wanna know what kind of changes people can notice? Shit like Canada banning single-use plastics. Shit like Germany closing all of their coal-based power plants. Concrete changes you can point to as both a reference for the works you're doing, and as an inspiration to other people to try and do similar.
Biden didn't invent the fantasy that cancer can be cured, but he seems to have no problem spreading it. You don't seem to understand: cancer biologically cannot be cured, because it's not something where the problem is curable. It's not just a matter of how many cancers there are, but what cancer even is in the first place. It'd be like trying to cure broken bones. The problem isn't foreign agents that need to be quelled, but natural systems breaking down in malignant fashions.
Accessibility is not a separate issue because Biden is vocally opposed to medicare for all. So what's the point of developing improved cancer treatments if more people aren't going to be able to get them?
People don't want a president with a personal issue. We want a president who represents the people they preside over. We can't afford to have someone who's getting caught up in personal vendettas.
So, you've just already decided in your head that people who don't like Biden are being mean to him, and now all of our well-reasoned explanations for being upset with him are getting added to your nag pile, "look at that bitch eating crackers" style.
No not really. He's in front now but we'll see in 3 months after he has one of these stupid gaffs every other day. He's already had like, 8 this month.
OP
OP
Somebody earlier said that "even the OP" wished they hadn't posted this topic.
I had rethought it, but I'm still okay with having made it, because this needs to be seen.
I appreciate the attention Biden gives this topic, and the emotion he's poured into it given the death of his son in 2015. I know he cares more than most given how it's personally affected his family. However, expanding access to treatments that are available *now* is far more realistic than attempting to cure that which is essentially incurable.
How can Biden claim to want to cure cancer while giving little regard to national health insurance? What's the point if so many can't access treatment?
I had rethought it, but I'm still okay with having made it, because this needs to be seen.
I appreciate the attention Biden gives this topic, and the emotion he's poured into it given the death of his son in 2015. I know he cares more than most given how it's personally affected his family. However, expanding access to treatments that are available *now* is far more realistic than attempting to cure that which is essentially incurable.
How can Biden claim to want to cure cancer while giving little regard to national health insurance? What's the point if so many can't access treatment?
Last edited:
Remember when Joe Biden leaked his own son's dying words (a.k.a that Joe needs to run for President) to the press in an attempt to further his political career? Yeah, the man is a 'politician' through and through and has already used his personal tragedy in an attempt to garner sympathy and boost his political chances, so it's worth keeping this in mind while we scrutinize the statements he makes on this topic:
Source: Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459
I mean, I'm trying.
Joe Biden was one of the first people in Congress to lead the charge against climate change. Over 30 years ago. He is not a climate change denier and has issued his plans to tackle it.
Of course please disagree with it by all means, but it's weird to say that's not his platform. But for him to make a (completely unlikely) goal that continues his and Obama's promise from 2016 and is something that he's not only passionate about but resonates with many people who either have suffered through it or have been affected by it in some way. Joe Biden failing in this goal will still lead to significant investment and strides in cancer research and treatment. And that is a benefit to many people around the world.
I was going to dig deep in my pettiness to liken your casual "cancer is rooted to humanity" to some form of "climate change is rooted in Earth's history" but there's no need to fight about the two.
We can make progress in cancer research and treatment as well as climate change.
Biden has so many flaws, why die on this hill to mock him?
OP
OP
OP
OP
The article you cite doesn't even...I swear this is getting dirty.
He told publications that his son who was leading the charge for him to run for president wanted Joe to run despite his condition and you're attempting to use that to vilify him? He wrote a fucking book about his decision.
When Trump doesn't touch a subject, you should know where you stand.
Christ.
The current rapid rate of climate change is the result of human carbon emissions. This isn't really an ambiguous topic. You want to limit climate change? You limit carbon emissions. The extent of what we can do and the effects of our emissions/the climate can be debated, but if you're going for anthropogenic climate change, there's a pretty clear target right off the bat.
Cancer is the result of a series of errors in a subset of our cells and those errors and cells can vary wildly from person to person. There is no clear answer to cancer because it's really a huge variety of different "diseases", all of which are made from the same cells as the patient. Our current treatment of cancer is basically to carpet bomb the affected area and hope we preferentially target the traits that distinguish the cancer cells. While we can improve our identification and treatment of certain types of cancer (Childhood leukemia is the most famous example of this), we're still not dealing with a foreign agent, but rather a "broken" part of a body that is practically designed to break down.
We already put a ton of money into cancer research and treatment. It's unclear exactly what we could be doing to improve it.
Last edited:
Democrats are so screwed this election. We can't even get behind fucking funding cancer research because we've got such a hard-on to hate each other.
Pretty myopic to equate an opposition to a ridiculous promise to cure cancer with cancer research.
"We're going to spend money on medical research" isn't as catchy as "We're going to cure cancer."
It's an aspirational statement that anyone should be able to get behind. In practical terms it translates to increased funding for projects that could save lives or benefit countless people in unforseen ways.
But sure, let's scoff at federal money being put to good use because a politician chose not to bum everyone out by describing why "curing cancer" isn't realistic.
What's next, refusing to vote for someone who wants to "roll back the calendar on global warming"?
It's an aspirational statement that anyone should be able to get behind. In practical terms it translates to increased funding for projects that could save lives or benefit countless people in unforseen ways.
But sure, let's scoff at federal money being put to good use because a politician chose not to bum everyone out by describing why "curing cancer" isn't realistic.
What's next, refusing to vote for someone who wants to "roll back the calendar on global warming"?
More money for cancer research and treatment is an excellent electoral pitch. What I can't understand is why do you think it's smart to bullshit on stuff you'll inevitably be called on.
He can make the hopeful promise of curing cancer but won't try the difficult yet more worthwhile endeavour of Universal Healthcare, which would ensure a cure for cancer would always only be available to the rich. Hmm.
I mean, I guess I sorta figure I can read between the lines during a presidential election. He's saying he'll fund research to try and "cure" it. Biden isn't saying that he's going to spend his days as president in a biology lab, staring at beakers and taking blood samples Tony Stark style. Maybe your're confused about that. Joe Biden is not a scientist or a medical professional.
Joe Biden told the story of his personal tragedy as a reason (excuse) for why he was considering running for President in 2016. Joe set that up as early as August 2015 via a story he told to the press in order to lay the foundation for this potential bid to become the Democratic Primary Nominee. The article I linked runs this process down quite clearly. I'm not entirely what point you're making?
He was clearly concerned against going up against Hilary, so he gave this whole "my dying son told me I had to run against Clinton" thing to a journalist who he knew had an axe to grind against Hilary (Dowd). The journalist then published her article on the subject (which of course includes attacks on Hilary) and ends in a "what would Beau do?". In other words, he planted the story in an attempt to see what support this would give him among them public. Depending upon the result, he would then use that information to inform his decision to try running against Hilary.
It's not simply someone telling the story of a personal tragedy to the press. It's that he specifically used his son's dying's wish to be that "Joe, you have to run for President to keep out Clinton". He put those words into his son's dying mouth. That's a despicable move, as it shifts the story from a tragedy into one of political motivation where the focus becomes Joe's political career and his 'need' to run for President.
The man is a politician, using every angle to try and get a win. It's important to keep this context in mind when discussing the subject of this thread.
Last edited:
You don't think Biden will try to get more money budgeted for cancer research?
Eh, for people who understand what cancer is it's still basically the equivalent of saying you're going to punch out death.
It's funny how most of the candidates don't explain how they're going to get their plans through Congress (a few exceptions) or how they're going to pay for their policy proposals, but Biden saying he's going to have a big push to cure cancer gets shit on.
That's probably more likely to happen than a lot of other things that get proposed.
Lots of other things to bash Biden for if he's not your favorite candidate (he isn't for me even though I'll gladly vote for him if he wins the Dem primary).
That's probably more likely to happen than a lot of other things that get proposed.
Lots of other things to bash Biden for if he's not your favorite candidate (he isn't for me even though I'll gladly vote for him if he wins the Dem primary).
Not to be a conspiracy person but gharmaceutical companies gets millions over Cancer drugs so a cure to them is not a good outcome is it?
Maybe.
Though I always think if someone makes a promise that's basically undeliverable you're standing on shaky ground when you infer it really means it's actually a promise to do something else.
LOL "false hope" when not a single person so far actually believes him
I'm already about as tired of hearing from this fucking crank as I was Trump this early into his candidacy.
It's funny how we have all this debate about how much we should incorporate political realities in our policy goals, and then Biden comes and promises things likely outside the realm of reality even if the presidency was a dictatorship, while still stopping short of doing what's needed for threats of climate change, healthcare, and homelessness.
I don't know how far a moonshot spending spree on cancer research can get you, but it really feels like he'll spare no expense addressing the problems of the rich, to the point of achieving what seems impossible, and everyone else can at most hope for some scraps along the way.
I don't know how far a moonshot spending spree on cancer research can get you, but it really feels like he'll spare no expense addressing the problems of the rich, to the point of achieving what seems impossible, and everyone else can at most hope for some scraps along the way.
