I know this is an insanely dumb question, but how the fuck does Kellyanne Conway have a job? She's terrible at hiding her racism and homophobia.
Those sound like positives for her current employer.
I know this is an insanely dumb question, but how the fuck does Kellyanne Conway have a job? She's terrible at hiding her racism and homophobia.
She's a loyal henchpersonI know this is an insanely dumb question, but how the fuck does Kellyanne Conway have a job? She's terrible at hiding her racism and homophobia.
You're doing it wrong (based purely on your username). Kidding! It was there and I had to take it.
Her boss is a rascist and homophobic ... and her boss is the president of the United States.
Who is going to hold her accountable for saying shit on TV/twitter?
i dont think i've ever seen/heard it used, but i mean, the minute i read it i knew what i meant.
This whole Bernie vs The Media nonsense is exactly why I would be worried about him being President. He has good ideas and I would obviously vote for him if that's what it came to, but it's just bad leadership. There is clearly a sizable strain of Bernie supporters who see themselves as separate and above the rest of the Democratic coalition and see Bernie as the only viable option. They also think people who don't support Bernie are actively trying to sabotage him. Everyone on the left thinks the media sucks, and Bernie stoking the Us vs Them mentality where it's Bernie vs The Democrats again is just really irresponsible and not what is needed at this time. You can stoke the flames and maybe ride that sentiment to the White House but then what happens when it doesn't play out exactly like his supporters expect?
It's really easy for me to imagine a scenario where Bernie is elected, the plan of "we will march in the street until Mitch McConnell passes M4A" predictably doesn't work, and then nothing gets done while Bernie and his supporters blame those shill centrist fake progressive DC Democrats for not supporting Our Revolution hard enough.
Even if by some miracle Bernie won the presidency and we got the Senate....a lot of his agenda wouldn't get passed because there aren't the votes for it. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to destroy private insurance. No amount of "We're gonna have a revolution" is going to change that.This is SUCH a fucking strawman. Nothing would get done no matter WHO the president is if the GOP retain Congress.
Yep, IMO the successful road to single payer is a long slow "boil the frog" strategy of offering optional government backed insurance plans that aggressively compete with private insurance that lets the business ideology of "increase profits at all costs" render them economically unviable. That way we have a stable transition with minimal disruption in medical care.To add onto this- every state that has looked into doing single payer has abandoned it because of the massive tax increase on the middle class it'd require.
Because they'd be voted out of office nearly immediately if they went for it.
Even if by some miracle Bernie won the presidency and we got the Senate....a lot of his agenda wouldn't get passed because there aren't the votes for it. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to destroy private insurance. No amount of "We're gonna have a revolution" is going to change that.
With 50 Democrats? Hopefully a lot because she understands the need to compromise. She's already signaled that a single payer system is the end goal. Bernie has never showcased in his entire career a willingness or ability to moderate and compromise. Not once. Bernie's entire brand is based on how right he is about every damn thing, and never admitting to being wrong. (see his entire history on guns, for example.)Okay, and what would Warren "get through" that Bernie wouldn't? Not a damn thing.
So why is this worth discussing?
With 50 Democrats? Hopefully a lot because she understands the need to compromise. She's already signaled that a single payer system is the end goal. Bernie has never showcased in his entire career a willingness or ability to moderate and compromise. Not once. Bernie's entire brand is based on how right he is about every damn thing, and never admitting to being wrong. (see his entire history on guns, for example.)
She's got a point in the sense that Beto at the top of the ticket would likely help whoever's running for Senate more than just say, Biden running at the top and Beto downballot, I think the problem is more that Beto's not gaining any traction in the primary. Like "But if Beto wins the primary he helps our chances" right but that's not happening.
All the same, if the Texas Democratic Party wants to truly build on last year's gains they can't just rely on Beto making a run for every competitive seat in the state. Same with Georgia and Abrams. Democrats need to support Hegar and Tomlinson with everything they've got.
lol? it's the logical extreme of the "being a billionaire is immoral" argument.
Then GET the 50 votes. That sounds like it's a problem with the Democratic party, not a problem with Sanders.
If memory serves, the limp wrist/flicking of a limp wrist was part of the standard 90s routine for making fun of gay people. At least, I remember it from my Alabama middle school days.i dont think i've ever seen/heard it used, but i mean, the minute i read it i knew what i meant.
I'm not talking about compromising with the Republicans. If a policy doesn't have the votes within the Democratic caucus, you have to be willing to moderate your position and bring it in line with what votes you have. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of private insurance. This has zero to do with "corporate interest" boogie mans. It's simply bad policy and bad politics.I think there are certain things that shouldn't be compromised on at all, especially with the godforsaken GOP. Any good initiative should be assumed will only pass with zero of their support. They'll vote against anything just to spite the Democrats. You can't rely on them.
The bigger obstacle is getting centrist Dems to actually put American citizens in front of corporate interests.
Yeah, the actual legislation that would pass under a Democratic President probably doesn't change much no matter who wins the nomination, just because you have the reality of dealing with senators like Manchin and Sinema who want to keep a moderate reputation.Even if by some miracle Bernie won the presidency and we got the Senate....a lot of his agenda wouldn't get passed because there aren't the votes for it. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to destroy private insurance. No amount of "We're gonna have a revolution" is going to change that.
This has always been one of the things I've had against Bernie Sanders for years and years .I do not trust him to build consensus. I do not trust him to moderate his positions...because he's literally never had to. He's never been responsible to any party because, as he likes to say, he's been an Independent forever. Part of good governance is being flexible in the way in which you want to achieve your policy aims. With healthcare, the goal should be universal coverage, not one specific version and everything else is neo-liberal pro corporate :insert whatever else here :.Yeah, the actual legislation that would pass under a Democratic President probably doesn't change much no matter who wins the nomination, just because you have the reality of dealing with senators like Manchin and Sinema who want to keep a moderate reputation.
It's important to note that this is as much a point against Sanders as it is against literally anyone else, but then the question becomes "who is best equipped to leverage executive authority" and in that regard I find Warren vastly superior, even if I prefer some of Sanders' plans on paper.
Clinton was the same way - anything in her plans that involved congressional approval was DOA, but her plans were structured around circumventing obstructionism. The public option? Not gonna pass Ryan's House, so instead she made a point of working with blue state governments to implement it statewide, which is something they can do under the ACA. Contrast that to Sanders' "we're gonna get a million college students to march on Washington" plan and it's easy to understand why some progressives preferred Clinton.
If memory serves, the limp wrist/flicking of a limp wrist was part of the standard 90s routine for making fun of gay people. At least, I remember it from my Alabama middle school days.
I would put it differently. Billionaires are vastly more implicated and complicit in the system and are therefore more responsible for its worst aspects.
It's not a problem with the party, it's a problem with an immediate transition to single-payer being less popular than repealing the ACA.Then GET the 50 votes. That sounds like it's a problem with the Democratic party, not a problem with Sanders.
I'm not talking about compromising with the Republicans. If a policy doesn't have the votes within the Democratic caucus, you have to be willing to moderate your position and bring it in line with what votes you have. There are not 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of private insurance. This has zero to do with "corporate interest" boogie mans. It's simply bad policy and bad politics.
Compromise is essential to good governance. (Again not with the GOP necessarily!) If the two options on the table are a public option and cost control measures vs doing absolutely nothing....then yes one is superior to the other by a magnitude of about a billion. You do not get brownie points for being rigid in adherence to some policy.
limp wristed I've heard of but I didn't make the explicit connection to wrist-flickers which sounds like a method for playing paper football.
Edit: *tired sigh*
How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
This is absurd and sounds petty as all hell. Can billionaires be bad? Sure. The idea that ones bank account balance, be it high or low makes one intrinsically good or bad is absurd.
It's not the sole reason as many other countries have perfectly good multipayer models. But this has been discussed a million times before.How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
If you're a millionaire that has employees making minmum wage than you're evil. And it goes double if you're Vince McMahon or Jeff Bezos. Triple if you're Comcast or Disney spending 50 to 70 billion to buy Fox. Quadruple if you're Apple.
I don't care your doing charity to lower your taxes
I dont know if its even worth it honestly.I didn't mean to make this a "eat the rich or else" thing; I'm just saying it's messed up if you become a billionaire via exploitation (see the McMahons or the Walmart family), and if you have starving people but also millionaires and billionaires, your country's got a whole bunch of policy problems.
That's all.
Many EU countries have universal health care that incorporates private insurance into a multipayer system. They aren't clamoring to get rid of private insurance, because their current setup works well for them. They are a far better transition model than the UK style systems which are radically different than our own and which would require a much more difficult transition.How is abolishing private insurance bad policy? It's the sole reason our country spends more than any other nation on the planet on healthcare and gets absolutely LESS out of it than anyone else. Insurance companies are absolute middleman leech garbage, and the sooner our nation gets over their Stockholm syndrome of loving getting ripped off the better.
If you're a millionaire that has employees making minmum wage than you're evil. And it goes double if you're Vince McMahon or Jeff Bezos. Triple if you're Comcast or Disney spending 50 to 70 billion to buy Fox. Quadruple if you're Apple.
I don't carw your doing charity to lower your taxes
Define "good." She's made an awful lot of money promoting con artists and pseudo-scientists, giving them platforms and producing their shows. I'd say she's plenty exploitative of her audience.Oprah is a billionaire, and by all accounts a good person. Worked her ass off, too.
Ironically, one of the reasons I support Warren is because she can talk about policy positions I disagree with in a way that I do agree with. (if that makes any sense.) That is, I don't necessarily agree 100% with her solutions to the problems, but I agree with how she talks about them.Warren at least has been attacking it a bit smarter with the wealth tax.
Same, my only gigantic difference with her is on trade.Ironically, one of the reasons I support Warren is because she can talk about policy positions I disagree with in a way that I do agree with. (if that makes any sense.) That is, I don't necessarily agree 100% with her solutions to the problems, but I agree with how she talks about them.
Daniel Dale @ddale8
Trump is proudly recounting how he asked African-Americans during the campaign what the hell they had to lose, since they had "the worst crime rates, the worst education, the worst everything."
2:42 PM - Aug 13, 2019
Josh Dawsey @jdawsey1
The president's speech about energy policy does not seem to be much about energy policy.
2:50 PM - Aug 13, 2019
mine, I like to argue with myself