Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Fudbucker]

Ummm, ...

Just in case you have not gotten the news, there has been a considerable problem with income/wealth inequality for about the last 10,000 years.

"The poor you will always have with you."

Income inequality, as you know, ebbs and flows. Since 1970 or so, it's been getting progressively worse, and it's particularly bad right now. Do you think with a thriving middle class Trump would be the nominee? When the rich get rich and the poor stay poor long enough, you get things like Trump and Brexit.

 

[Tony Stark]

Which ones?

Germany and Switzerland off of the top of my head.

If you really didn't know that universal healthcare was done in some countries without single payer, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and your opinion is worthless.

 

[Tony Stark]

"The poor you will always have with you."

Income inequality, as you know, ebbs and flows. Since 1970 or so, it's been getting progressively worse, and it's particularly bad right now. Do you think with a thriving middle class Trump would be the nominee? When the rich get rich and the poor stay poor long enough, you get things like Trump and Brexit.

[qimg]http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png[/qimg]

Trump's the nominee because a huge number of Republicans are crazy stupid bigots just like him.

 

[Crossbow]

"The poor you will always have with you."

Income inequality, as you know, ebbs and flows. Since 1970 or so, it's been getting progressively worse, and it's particularly bad right now. Do you think with a thriving middle class Trump would be the nominee? When the rich get rich and the poor stay poor long enough, you get things like Trump and Brexit.

[qimg]http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png[/qimg]

The point is that there has always been a great disparity between the rich and the poor.

Of course, when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, then political upheavals often result.

 

[Fudbucker]

Germany and Switzerland off of the top of my head.

If you really didn't know that universal healthcare was done in some countries without single payer, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and your opinion is worthless.

I knew there were a few, I didn't remember which ones.

Did you notice that Switzerland and Germany don't have a problem with uninsured people? The mandate to have insurance under the ACA is very weak. You can even avoid paying the mandate penalty if you do your taxes such that you don't get a refund.

Of course you knew this and doubtless you also knew there are still over 30 million uninsured people in this country. So, if you want to continue a system where tens of millions of people remain uninsured, I guess Hillary's who you want.

 

[Fudbucker]

The point is that there has always been a great disparity between the rich and the poor.

Of course, when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, then political upheavals often result.

I'm not seeing your point. It sounds like you agree income inequality can be a major problem. Do you dispute that it is currently a major problem and needs to be addressed immediately? The top 20 richest people in America have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million. Haven't we reached the point where we have to do something about that? I think we reached it awhile ago.

Anyway, one of the Dem candidates would have made income inequality a priority. The other gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. For people who actually care about this issue, the choice was obvious.

 

[Bob001]

Which ones?

Many countries provide universal health care through private insurance companies and worker co-ops that are closely regulated, like public utilities, with subsidies for low-income people. Some of the problems in the U.S. could be reduced if the government could negotiate prices for services with all insurers and providers (as they do for Medicare enrollees) and for drugs with the pharmaceutical companies (which is legally prohibited).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

 

[Tony Stark]

I knew there were a few, I didn't remember which ones.

Did you notice that Switzerland and Germany don't have a problem with uninsured people? The mandate to have insurance under the ACA is very weak. You can even avoid paying the mandate penalty if you do your taxes such that you don't get a refund.

Of course you knew this and doubtless you also knew there are still over 30 million uninsured people in this country. So, if you want to continue a system where tens of millions of people remain uninsured, I guess Hillary's who you want.

Hillary wants to expand it so so it is universal coverage like Germany or Switzerland. You saying she is against universal healthcare is just a flat out lie.

The obstacle to universal healthcare are the worthless scum Republicans. They are unanimously against it. Even Obamacare would cover many more people if not for those evil pieces of crap. Many of them in red states literally turned down free federal money that would cover millions of people simply because they are evil trash who care more about making Obamacare look like a failure than they do about their own citizens.

Your purity tests are stupid, ridiculous, and counterproductive. If you want real change, focus on the real enemy, the Republicans.

 

[Crossbow]

I'm not seeing your point. It sounds like you agree income inequality can be a major problem. Do you dispute that it is currently a major problem and needs to be addressed immediately? The top 20 richest people in America have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million. Haven't we reached the point where we have to do something about that? I think we reached it awhile ago.

Anyway, one of the Dem candidates would have made income inequality a priority. The other gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. For people who actually care about this issue, the choice was obvious.

Originally you were talking about voting for Warren.

I have simply pointed out to you the obvious fact that even if Warren, Sanders, Clinton, or anyone else got the Democratic Nomination, then there would still be a considerable disparity betweent the rich and the poor.

 

[Fudbucker]

Hillary wants to expand it so so it is universal coverage like Germany or Switzerland. You saying she is against universal healthcare is just a flat out lie.

The obstacle to universal healthcare are the worthless scum Republicans. They are unanimously against it. Even Obamacare would cover many more people if not for those evil pieces of crap. Many of them in red states literally turned down free federal money that would cover millions of people simply because they are evil trash who care more about making Obamacare look like a failure than they do about their own citizens.

Your purity tests are stupid, ridiculous, and counterproductive. If you want real change, focus on the real enemy, the Republicans.

We will never have universal coverage in this country with the ACA because SCOTUS ruled the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, which is easily avoided:

"But the text of the ACA is very clear in stating that taxpayers who don’t pay their ACA penalty are not subject to levies, liens, or criminal prosecution.

The only way that the IRS can collect the ACA penalty is if you pay it voluntarily, or if you’re owed a refund."
https://www.healthinsurance.org/faq...for-not-having-health-insurance-is-this-true/

Unless the ACA plans come WAY down in cost (and they're set to rise 10% next year), with a weak unenforceable mandate, you will always have people who will choose to go without insurance. The ACA was never more than a stopgap solution.

So congrats, no matter what Clinton does, we'll still have millions of uninsured people.

And stop pointing out Trump will be worse. Of course he will be. That's not the point. The point is Hillary is also a terrible candidate: disliked, distrusted, and status quo.

Turnout will be key and by playing it safe on policy and dogged by this stupid email scandal (which was entirely preventable), a lot of Democrats will just stay home or write-in Mickey Mouse.

 

[RobRoy]

And stop pointing out Trump will be worse. Of course he will be. That's not the point. The point is Hillary is also a terrible candidate: disliked, distrusted, and status quo.

So the takeaway is that we can vote for Clinton, we just can't like her.

 

[Tony Stark]

We will never have universal coverage in this country with the ACA because SCOTUS ruled the penalty for not having insurance is a tax, which is easily avoided:

"But the text of the ACA is very clear in stating that taxpayers who don’t pay their ACA penalty are not subject to levies, liens, or criminal prosecution.

The only way that the IRS can collect the ACA penalty is if you pay it voluntarily, or if you’re owed a refund."
https://www.healthinsurance.org/faq...for-not-having-health-insurance-is-this-true/

Unless the ACA plans come WAY down in cost (and they're set to rise 10% next year), with a weak unenforceable mandate, you will always have people who will choose to go without insurance. The ACA was never more than a stopgap solution.

So congrats, no matter what Clinton does, we'll still have millions of uninsured people.

And stop pointing out Trump will be worse. Of course he will be. That's not the point. The point is Hillary is also a terrible candidate: disliked, distrusted, and status quo.

Turnout will be key and by playing it safe on policy and dogged by this stupid email scandal (which was entirely preventable), a lot of Democrats will just stay home or write-in Mickey Mouse.

That's your opinion. It is still a flat out lie to say that Hillary is against universal healthcare. She isn't. Why do you have to lie to make your argument?

BTW, even if Bernie became President, the status quo would remain. Because the real obstacle are the evil scum Republicans.

Your purity tests are stupid, ridiculous and counterproductive.

 

[Fudbucker]

So the takeaway is that we can vote for Clinton, we just can't like her.

The takeaway is that Clinton is a terrible establishment candidate who is hated and distrusted by over half the electorate. But you Democrats wanted her and allowed the coronation to happen, so congrats. Trump still might win this.

 

[Tony Stark]

The takeaway is that Clinton is a terrible establishment candidate who is hated and distrusted by over half the electorate. But you Democrats wanted her and allowed the coronation to happen, so congrats. Trump still might win this.

Do you think Elizabeth Warren is also some establishment hack that is beholden to Wall Street and doesn't care about Americans? She is a very enthusiastic Hillary surrogate. How about all the other Senate Democrats that endorsed her? President Obama?

 

[Fudbucker]

Originally you were talking about voting for Warren.

I have simply pointed out to you the obvious fact that even if Warren, Sanders, Clinton, or anyone else got the Democratic Nomination, then there would still be a considerable disparity betweent the rich and the poor.

Warren or Bernie would make it a priority to narrow the disparity. Clinton may say that, but her actions suggest she doesn't view it as a serious issue. Clinton would be like an Obama third term.

Bernie or Warren giving paid speeches to Wall Street would be the equivalent of Clinton giving paid speeches to the National Right to Life Committee. If they did, nobody would take them seriously on issues of economic fairness. If Clinton cared at all, she would never have set foot in Goldman Sachs. Or if she did, she would have taken their money and just eviscerated them during her speech.

 

[Fudbucker]

Do you think Elizabeth Warren is also some establishment hack that is beholden to Wall Street and doesn't care about Americans? She is a very enthusiastic Hillary surrogate. How about all the other Senate Democrats that endorsed her? President Obama?

She's obviously angling for a VP slot, and is on Clinton's short list. It's a little risky, but what are white males who don't like women going to do, vote for Trump twice? Picking Warren would certainly energize the base.

And what do you expect leading Democrats to do when Trump is the opponent? NOT be enthusiastic? Clinton could give speeches to ExxonMobil and still be cheered at the convention.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She's obviously angling for a VP slot, and is on Clinton's short list. It's a little risky, but what are white males who don't like women going to do, vote for Trump twice? Picking Warren would certainly energize the base.

I doubt it, that choice makes little sense.

 

[Tony Stark]

Warren or Bernie would make it a priority to narrow the disparity. Clinton may say that, but her actions suggest she doesn't view it as a serious issue. Clinton would be like an Obama third term.

Bernie or Warren giving paid speeches to Wall Street would be the equivalent of Clinton giving paid speeches to the National Right to Life Committee. If they did, nobody would take them seriously on issues of economic fairness. If Clinton cared at all, she would never have set foot in Goldman Sachs. Or if she did, she would have taken their money and just eviscerated them during her speech.

A third Obama term is the best that could be hoped for even if Bernie was President. Because, again, the GOP scum are the real obstacle. Yet you insist on these stupid purity tests.

You say third Obama term like it is some terrible thing. Democrats disagree as the vast majority of Democrats like him. And the majority of the American people for that matter.

And evidence proves that politicians at least try to do what they say they will. Your insinuation that Hillary is going to suddenly change her tune when she becomes President is baseless.

 

[Fudbucker]

I doubt it, that choice makes little sense.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being formally vetted as a possible vice presidential pick for Hillary Clinton, according to a source familiar with the process.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-...lary-clinton-vice-president/story?id=40161546

Here is a list of each potential candidate and what we know:

TOP TIER

Tim Kaine

...

Elizabeth Warren

...

Sherrod Brown
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/here-s-who-hillary-clinton-could-pick-her-vp-n598011

 

[wareyin]

The takeaway is that Clinton is a terrible establishment candidate who is hated and distrusted by over half the electorate. But you Democrats wanted her and allowed the coronation to happen, so congrats. Trump still might win this.

Clinton is a better candidate than Sanders, yet you keep calling her terrible. What does that say about the guy you keep championing (who already lost big time)?