|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 05 2017 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Clinton will not run again in 2020, that would require such hubris and stupidity that I don't think even she has. She was groomed by the party for years to do exactly what she did. The whole thing was so well planned that they had too much momentum to adapt and win Wisconsin. The party gave her the perfect opportunity. Its hard to imagine her having an easier election.
Which would play exactly into Trumps hands. And piss off the Democratic base that voted against her even more.
|
On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Next time around the Democrats should push universal healthcare rather than an ultimately short-sighted slop of compromise. They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP.
The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan.
On January 05 2017 08:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:13 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 08:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Clinton will not run again in 2020, that would require such hubris and stupidity that I don't think even she has. She was groomed by the party for years to do exactly what she did. The whole thing was so well planned that they had too much momentum to adapt and win Wisconsin. The party gave her the perfect opportunity. Its hard to imagine her having an easier election. Which would play exactly into Trumps hands. And piss off the Democratic base that voted against her even more.
Like I don't know, inexplicably hiring/campaigning for DWS right after she resigned (and while she was pushing for predatory lenders) for a job she easily could have waited until after the election to announce?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Damn Greenwald pulling out the "useful idiot" concept for the Washington scribes. Time to bust out some Upton Sinclair metropolis style commentary on these news outlets.
|
On January 05 2017 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 06:54 Doodsmack wrote:Republicans are just getting started on their years-long dream of repealing Obamacare, and already, there are fears that things are moving too fast.
Some Republicans are cautioning against repealing the Affordable Care Act too quickly and urging the party take the foot off the accelerator. The reason: there's no plan on how to replace what they roll back. And while GOP lawmakers are eager to please their base with headlines of Obamacare's repeal, they don't want to be blamed for leaving people without health insurance and chaos in the healthcare market.
Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday that he supports taking a slower approach to repealing the law, saying he is "always worried about something that took a long time in the making and we've got to concentrate our efforts to making sure that we do it right so that nobody's left out."
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, told CNN that a big risk for Republicans is getting blamed for taking away people's health coverage. CNNThe onus is on Republicans to fix not just Obamacare, but healthcare in the US. That is the mantle they've been handed. Will be interesting to see what their replacement is. They've already committed to not getting rid of pre-existing conditions and the other blatant enormous issues pre-ACA, so whatever. As long as people aren't straight up dying and going bankrupt from unpreventable illness, I won't grumble too heavily.
No individual mandate or Medicaid expansion but still forcing companies to ignore pre-existing conditions will quite possibly be worse than healthcare pre-ACA, especially for truly sick people.
|
On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Next time around the Democrats should push universal healthcare rather than an ultimately short-sighted slop of compromise. They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan.
That's what I just said.
|
Lol Hillary is 100% done. If there's something the American public can't stand it's losers, and in 2016 she's up there with Ronda. Toast.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 05 2017 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 06:54 Doodsmack wrote:Republicans are just getting started on their years-long dream of repealing Obamacare, and already, there are fears that things are moving too fast.
Some Republicans are cautioning against repealing the Affordable Care Act too quickly and urging the party take the foot off the accelerator. The reason: there's no plan on how to replace what they roll back. And while GOP lawmakers are eager to please their base with headlines of Obamacare's repeal, they don't want to be blamed for leaving people without health insurance and chaos in the healthcare market.
Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday that he supports taking a slower approach to repealing the law, saying he is "always worried about something that took a long time in the making and we've got to concentrate our efforts to making sure that we do it right so that nobody's left out."
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, told CNN that a big risk for Republicans is getting blamed for taking away people's health coverage. CNNThe onus is on Republicans to fix not just Obamacare, but healthcare in the US. That is the mantle they've been handed. Will be interesting to see what their replacement is. They've already committed to not getting rid of pre-existing conditions and the other blatant enormous issues pre-ACA, so whatever. As long as people aren't straight up dying and going bankrupt from unpreventable illness, I won't grumble too heavily. No individual mandate or Medicaid expansion but still forcing companies to ignore pre-existing conditions will quite possibly be worse than healthcare pre-ACA.
It is actually the pathway towards zero insurance providers in the individual market.
Now it is debatable whether or not you think that insurance providers is a good thing or a bad thing, but if we are to head down this pathway, it would be best done with awareness of the consequences.
|
On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Next time around the Democrats should push universal healthcare rather than an ultimately short-sighted slop of compromise. They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said.
Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line?
|
On January 05 2017 07:44 RealityIsKing wrote:
The notion that Hillary Clinton to run again in 2020 also depends on weather or not President elect Donald Trump assigns a special prosecutor to throw her in jail or not.
You probably didn't hear it in your echo chamber but one of the first things Trump walked back on after winning was jailing Hillary. It was toothless publicity stunt for yokels like you.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 05 2017 08:29 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 05 2017 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 06:54 Doodsmack wrote:Republicans are just getting started on their years-long dream of repealing Obamacare, and already, there are fears that things are moving too fast.
Some Republicans are cautioning against repealing the Affordable Care Act too quickly and urging the party take the foot off the accelerator. The reason: there's no plan on how to replace what they roll back. And while GOP lawmakers are eager to please their base with headlines of Obamacare's repeal, they don't want to be blamed for leaving people without health insurance and chaos in the healthcare market.
Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday that he supports taking a slower approach to repealing the law, saying he is "always worried about something that took a long time in the making and we've got to concentrate our efforts to making sure that we do it right so that nobody's left out."
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, told CNN that a big risk for Republicans is getting blamed for taking away people's health coverage. CNNThe onus is on Republicans to fix not just Obamacare, but healthcare in the US. That is the mantle they've been handed. Will be interesting to see what their replacement is. They've already committed to not getting rid of pre-existing conditions and the other blatant enormous issues pre-ACA, so whatever. As long as people aren't straight up dying and going bankrupt from unpreventable illness, I won't grumble too heavily. No individual mandate or Medicaid expansion but still forcing companies to ignore pre-existing conditions will quite possibly be worse than healthcare pre-ACA. It is actually the pathway towards zero insurance providers in the individual market. Now it is debatable whether or not you think that insurance providers is a good thing or a bad thing, but if we are to head down this pathway, it would be best done with awareness of the consequences.
True. If it fails catastrophically within the next decade it would be probably be one of the main things to push to (if Republicans are in power) Nixon/German style system with national minimal coverage with a luxury insurance market or (if Democrats are in power) a full Canadian/possibly NHS model.
With the ACA in place this was probably not going to happen for at least another quarter century, probably more.
|
On January 05 2017 08:26 TanGeng wrote:
Damn Greenwald pulling out the "useful idiot" concept for the Washington scribes. Time to bust out some Upton Sinclair metropolis style commentary on these news outlets.
This is what happens when the press becomes the sycophant of a particular politician or political party.
|
On January 05 2017 08:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 06:57 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 06:54 Doodsmack wrote:Republicans are just getting started on their years-long dream of repealing Obamacare, and already, there are fears that things are moving too fast.
Some Republicans are cautioning against repealing the Affordable Care Act too quickly and urging the party take the foot off the accelerator. The reason: there's no plan on how to replace what they roll back. And while GOP lawmakers are eager to please their base with headlines of Obamacare's repeal, they don't want to be blamed for leaving people without health insurance and chaos in the healthcare market.
Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday that he supports taking a slower approach to repealing the law, saying he is "always worried about something that took a long time in the making and we've got to concentrate our efforts to making sure that we do it right so that nobody's left out."
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, told CNN that a big risk for Republicans is getting blamed for taking away people's health coverage. CNNThe onus is on Republicans to fix not just Obamacare, but healthcare in the US. That is the mantle they've been handed. Will be interesting to see what their replacement is. They've already committed to not getting rid of pre-existing conditions and the other blatant enormous issues pre-ACA, so whatever. As long as people aren't straight up dying and going bankrupt from unpreventable illness, I won't grumble too heavily. No individual mandate or Medicaid expansion but still forcing companies to ignore pre-existing conditions will quite possibly be worse than healthcare pre-ACA, especially for truly sick people.
That is why people were so surprised when the GOP came out saying they wanted to keep it, and that prices would not go up despite promising to cut the taxes that fund the ACA. its utterly impossible.
|
On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Next time around the Democrats should push universal healthcare rather than an ultimately short-sighted slop of compromise. They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line?
I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly?
|
On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Next time around the Democrats should push universal healthcare rather than an ultimately short-sighted slop of compromise. They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly?
But they didn't. So why would people on the other side fall in line for them?
|
On January 05 2017 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They didn't have enough democrats supportive of universal healthcare last time, but hopefully we see a somewhat Bernie'esque rebirth so the party can get away from the era of Clinton. Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? But they didn't. So why would people on the other side fall in line for them?
I know they didn't. I'm the one who said so initially. Who's "on the other side"? "fall in line" for what? What are you arguing?
|
On January 05 2017 08:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 05 2017 07:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Not if Kwiz/Mag has anything to say about it. I'm telling you, Clinton's running in 2020 if her health holds up. I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? But they didn't. So why would people on the other side fall in line for them? I know they didn't. I'm the one who said so initially. Who's "on the other side"? "fall in line" for what? What are you arguing?
I think his point is that democrats were not able to pass single payer for reasons that had nothing to do with republicans?
|
Bernie has it right. Start blowing up individual tweets and throwing them on poster board to parade around. Hold Trump and the Republicans to the fire with the Presidents own words.
Twitter is going to be a major problem with this presidency, for obvious reasons. It's much more likely to bring his presidency down than prop it up. China already getting pissy about his twitter tantrums. Turns out 140 character foreign policy, or any policy for that matter, is not smart. Who would have thought?
|
I honestly think the quickest way China could punish Trump is fuck him over economically.
|
Trump now planning to revamp the CIA and other intelligence agencies? Siding with Assange over them? Any doubts that he was going to let his vanity influence policy should be long gone lol.
|
On January 05 2017 08:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2017 08:43 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:38 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:28 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 08:16 kwizach wrote:On January 05 2017 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2017 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm fairly certain neither Kwiz nor Me have argued for Clinton to run again. Us asking you for evidence when you make wild claims and accusations doesn't really count as us suggesting Clinton run again. No, you haven't directly, but you both have defended her wing of the party's positions. I don't remember which, but I vaguely remember one of you making the case that universal healthcare wasn't stopped by Democrats or whatever. I've defended not making demagogic pie in the sky promises founded on faulty analyses and populist slogans, and not displaying a glaring lack of knowledge and a general incompetence on matters essential to the president's job, if that's what you're referring to. Also, saying "universal healthcare was stopped by Democrats" removes all context, namely that projects for a universal healthcare system were pushed by Democrats, including HRC, and failed to garner enough votes because of some conservative Democrats and because of complete opposition by the GOP. The truth is there were enough Democrats to pass whatever they wanted, but not enough Democrats (elected officials anyway) actually wanted it. 73% of Democrats/leaners want the ACA replaced with a federal plan. That's what I just said. Yeah, so shouldn't they have fallen in line? I obviously wish those Democrats who defected had supported it, yes, like I've said throughout the years. What are you arguing exactly? But they didn't. So why would people on the other side fall in line for them? I know they didn't. I'm the one who said so initially. Who's "on the other side"? "fall in line" for what? What are you arguing? I think his point is that democrats were not able to pass single payer for reasons that had nothing to do with republicans?
The issue is that democrats felt that burning political capital by letting the decision linger for months and months was worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
