I'm not willing to accept a phony partial solution in place of what's desperately needed, though, and will happily let everyone drown in their own medicinethe most vulnerable members of society deal with the fallout.
I don't trust Hillary to use her veto in critical areas even though she may use it in some places that I would certainly agree with. I'm not willing to accept a phony partial solution in place of what's desperately needed, though, and will happily let everyone drown in their own medicine.
I'm not willing to accept a phony partial solution in place of what's desperately needed, though, and will happily let everyone drown in their own medicinethe most vulnerable members of society deal with the fallout.
Ftfy
Seeing as I'm dying thanks to the joke we have in place of healthcare, I'm not far from this demographic myself although temporarily far more comfortable. I've lived in subsidized housing. I've applied for food stamps (and been denied because I was working 32 hours a week at minimum wage. I couldn't afford to buy shoes and wore a pair that was a size too small.)
Those people are going to suffer under a Hillary administration nearly as badly. The difference is that the middle class gets to pretend they fixed something if Hillary gets elected and go back to sleep.
I don't trust Hillary to use her veto in critical areas even though she may use it in some places that I would certainly agree with. I'm not willing to accept a phony partial solution in place of what's desperately needed, though, and will happily let everyone drown in their own medicine.
So what will you do if she's nominated?
I will either write in Bernie or I will vote for Trump. It's not as though it actually matters in my state anyway.
Because the GOP totally got in the way of healthcare reform being all that it could be, and that is (in part) causing you to suffer, you are going to vote for the golgothan with a bad haircut who belongs to the party trying to fuck you up more.
Health care is an odd issue to dislike Clinton for. As first lady she was on the front lines for health care reform, and in many ways was the political antecedent for the ACA. It's one of the few things I actually trust her to deliver on. I'm hesitant to vote for her, but not because of any of that.
Health care is an odd issue to dislike Clinton for. As first lady she was on the front lines for health care reform, and in many ways was the political antecedent for the ACA. It's one of the few things I actually trust her to deliver on. I'm hesitant to vote for her, but not because of any of that.
For real. Her attempt was far from a perfect solution, but in the political climate of the time it would have been revolutionary.
She fought hard, and lost a lot of political capital, fighting for health care reform. It was obvious she cared personally about the issue, and held on to the fight long after it was clear she had lost.
Because the GOP totally got in the way of healthcare reform being all that it could be, and that is (in part) causing you to suffer, you are going to vote for the golgothan with a bad haircut who belongs to the party trying to fuck you up more.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
There was not a single GOP vote in favor of the ACA even after all of the gutting, so while I agree that they made it far more difficult to pass, who exactly was compromised with?
Not the GOP. One fucking dude. Joe Lieberman. The Democratic Party couldn't find a way around one dude?
Health care is an odd issue to dislike Clinton for. As first lady she was on the front lines for health care reform, and in many ways was the political antecedent for the ACA. It's one of the few things I actually trust her to deliver on. I'm hesitant to vote for her, but not because of any of that.
For real. Her attempt was far from a perfect solution, but in the political climate of the time it would have been revolutionary.
She fought hard, and lost a lot of political capital, fighting for health care reform. It was obvious she cared personally about the issue, and held on to the fight long after it was clear she had lost.
She's as fake as a 3 dollar bill and I reject this entire narrative of her as some sort of staunch advocate for compassionate government programs.
She's as fake as a 3 dollar bill and I reject this entire narrative of her as some sort of staunch advocate for compassionate government programs.
What do you mean fake?
What, is she going to invade Iran, gut the ACA, shut down Planned Parenthood, expand the 2nd amendment, and take the vote away from women? What in fuck do you mean by "fake," differentiating what you say from ANY other viable politician in national US politics?
Health care is an odd issue to dislike Clinton for. As first lady she was on the front lines for health care reform, and in many ways was the political antecedent for the ACA. It's one of the few things I actually trust her to deliver on. I'm hesitant to vote for her, but not because of any of that.
For real. Her attempt was far from a perfect solution, but in the political climate of the time it would have been revolutionary.
She fought hard, and lost a lot of political capital, fighting for health care reform. It was obvious she cared personally about the issue, and held on to the fight long after it was clear she had lost.
She's as fake as a 3 dollar bill and I reject this entire narrative of her as some sort of staunch advocate for compassionate government programs.
Being "fake" is part of politics. I don't subscribe to the "all politicians are fake" school, but there's a reason most people have never heard of Henry Wallace or Gene McCarthy. Even Lincoln had to fudge some of his platform to appeal to swing voters.
She's as fake as a 3 dollar bill and I reject this entire narrative of her as some sort of staunch advocate for compassionate government programs.
What do you mean fake?
What, is she going to invade Iran, gut the ACA, shut down Planned Parenthood, expand the 2nd amendment, and take the vote away from women? What in fuck do you mean by "fake," differentiating what you say from ANY other viable politician in national US politics?
She's clearly been building this clever narrative since she was first lady, planning ahead for her 2016 presidential run by making it look like she supported these things by doing things that looked very much like supporting them, so that you'll all just be fooled into thinking she supported it! You Rubes!
She represents her sponsors and that's it. Same as any GOP member. The healthcare thing, who knows. I don't agree that it cost her political capital. It was probably an attempt at bolstering her credibility as a progressive. She's a weathervane at best. Not interested.
She represents her sponsors and that's it. Same as any GOP member.
Except for that whole universal health insurance thing, the price controls on prescription drugs, the abortion thing, the gay rights bit, that whole paid maternity leave proposal, the 12/hour minimum wage, her support for a tax on risk, and the rest of her platform.
But other than that, Hillary is the same as Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.
She's a weathervane at best. Not interested.
I'd be more concerned if she didn't change her stance on issues. That's what I want in a candidate, someone whose opinion changes depending on the information available to them.
You're absolutely right that generally she's very much in favor of making marginal changes of debatable utility (or demonstrably none) that don't threaten the power or profit margin of her stable of corporate donors while continually enriching herself. She's been very consistent about that. Hillary is not disruptive in the slightest. We very, very badly need somebody who is. You can't get any more lipstick on this pig.
I'd take you a lot more seriously if you weren't using a good dozen "warning flag" turns of phrase that I basically only ever hear from far right pundits and chain emails.
She's as fake as a 3 dollar bill and I reject this entire narrative of her as some sort of staunch advocate for compassionate government programs.
What do you mean fake?
What, is she going to invade Iran, gut the ACA, shut down Planned Parenthood, expand the 2nd amendment, and take the vote away from women? What in fuck do you mean by "fake," differentiating what you say from ANY other viable politician in national US politics?
She's clearly been building this clever narrative since she was first lady, planning ahead for her 2016 presidential run by making it look like she supported these things by doing things that looked very much like supporting them, so that you'll all just be fooled into thinking she supported it! You Rubes!
She's been planning a presidential run basically forever so that isn't so much of a joke. As for supporting progressive policies: not really. Extremely lukewarm at best and without much to show for it. I guess she's not calling for concentration camps like Trump so you've got that.
Also dafuq is a weathervane? As it relates to politics, as I know some of you want to make the Airplane! joke.
You know those things you'd see in gardens or on roofs as a decoration? Usually marked with NESW, often with a rooster on top? That's a weathervane. The large flat design on it makes it spin on it's axis to face into the wind. They're mostly decorative.
The implication is that a politician - and democracy - just follows which way the societal winds are blowing at the time.
For example, say you're a senator with an anti-gun control record, you sponsor bills protecting manufacturers from litigation, you vote against waiting periods, and you vote against the Brady bill, and then suddenly during a presidential campaign where gun control is a big issue to better match national voters rather than your own anti-gun control trending electorate, you flip and suddenly are all for gun control, that's the sort of thing that would merit an accusation of being a weathervane politician.
She's been planning a presidential run basically forever so that isn't so much of a joke. As for supporting progressive policies: not really. Extremely lukewarm at best and without much to show for it.
Mups, if Sanders said eating horseshit was delicious and nutritious, you'd be sprinting about the farmyard with a bowl and spoon shouting about how Hillary is such a pissweak politician that she eats something so foolish as cooked food. I'm not interested in discussing it with you, at the very least until you produce that evidence than CNN is objectively favoring Hillary that we're all still waiting for. Or admit it was just your opinion, and you have no evidence, that's okay too.
I'd take you a lot more seriously if you weren't using a good dozen "warning flag" turns of phrase that I basically only ever hear from far right pundits and chain emails.
I'm just not willing to dig into her record and produce a bulleted list for an already hostile audience. She just doesn't impress me and neither does her weak echoing of Bernie's campaign at the end of every week. I'm not really looking for converts. I'm just tired of settling for the marginally better candidate and then losing insane amounts of ground on the back end. Social progress is great but when it's undercut by economic disaster it's kind of a Pyrrhic victory.
Also dafuq is a weathervane? As it relates to politics, as I know some of you want to make the Airplane! joke.
You know those things you'd see in gardens or on roofs as a decoration? Usually marked with NESW, often with a rooster on top? That's a weathervane. The large flat design on it makes it spin on it's axis to face into the wind. They're mostly decorative.
The implication is that a politician - and democracy - just follows which way the societal winds are blowing at the time.
Except politically it's more about wedge issues and pop politics than deep seated and intransigent issues that both sides would like changed but everyone is too distracted to talk about. Wedge issues ARE important or else they wouldn't be effective political fodder, but there are plenty of social and economic issues that both sides agree are trouble that don't make exciting prime time news or good SNL sketches. Hillary couldn't care less about those and neither does the entire GOP field. No hay to be made.
Except politically it's more about wedge issues and pop politics than deep seated and intransigent issues that both sides would like changed but everyone is too distracted to talk about. Wedge issues ARE important or else they wouldn't be effective political fodder, but there are plenty of social and economic issues that both sides agree are trouble that don't make exciting prime time news or good SNL sketches. Hillary couldn't care less about those and neither does the entire GOP field. No hay to be made.
Or, I was giving him a simple explanation and a simple example, because he didn't know what a weathervane was, and presumably how it related to politics. I don't think he needs a deep understanding of the intricacies of political terminology to understand what a fecking weathervane is or what Rym was getting at.
Have you ever chosen between medication for either you or your kid? Or between medication or groceries? Clinton probably looks great to people who have been comfortable their whole lives.
Comments
Those people are going to suffer under a Hillary administration nearly as badly. The difference is that the middle class gets to pretend they fixed something if Hillary gets elected and go back to sleep.
Because the GOP totally got in the way of healthcare reform being all that it could be, and that is (in part) causing you to suffer, you are going to vote for the golgothan with a bad haircut who belongs to the party trying to fuck you up more.
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
She fought hard, and lost a lot of political capital, fighting for health care reform. It was obvious she cared personally about the issue, and held on to the fight long after it was clear she had lost.
Not the GOP. One fucking dude. Joe Lieberman. The Democratic Party couldn't find a way around one dude?
OK.
What, is she going to invade Iran, gut the ACA, shut down Planned Parenthood, expand the 2nd amendment, and take the vote away from women? What in fuck do you mean by "fake," differentiating what you say from ANY other viable politician in national US politics?
But other than that, Hillary is the same as Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. I'd be more concerned if she didn't change her stance on issues. That's what I want in a candidate, someone whose opinion changes depending on the information available to them.
Also dafuq is a weathervane? As it relates to politics, as I know some of you want to make the Airplane! joke.
The implication is that a politician - and democracy - just follows which way the societal winds are blowing at the time.
For example, say you're a senator with an anti-gun control record, you sponsor bills protecting manufacturers from litigation, you vote against waiting periods, and you vote against the Brady bill, and then suddenly during a presidential campaign where gun control is a big issue to better match national voters rather than your own anti-gun control trending electorate, you flip and suddenly are all for gun control, that's the sort of thing that would merit an accusation of being a weathervane politician. Mups, if Sanders said eating horseshit was delicious and nutritious, you'd be sprinting about the farmyard with a bowl and spoon shouting about how Hillary is such a pissweak politician that she eats something so foolish as cooked food. I'm not interested in discussing it with you, at the very least until you produce that evidence than CNN is objectively favoring Hillary that we're all still waiting for. Or admit it was just your opinion, and you have no evidence, that's okay too.