Sometimes (super rarely) the GOP is right. The good news is that Trump jumped the gun dramatically targeting Biden. We don’t have to defend Biden to attack Trump. Biden isn’t the nominee and probably won’t be, at least partly because Trump decided to attack him massively prematurely.
I’m sorry but stuff like Hunter Biden’s entire work history is a major cause of what’s wrong with America. To think otherwise is silly.
We need our next candidate to have nothing like this that Trump can attack. That way our candidate can target his entire family, his many violations of common decency, norms, and the emoluments clause without him saying ‘sure I’m a bit dirty but so are you, look at Hunter Biden taking money from Ukrainian fossil fuel firms!’
I can tell you, when I’m elected POTUS there will be no cabinet secretary who is not intimately familiar with their department. POTUS, VP, and Congressperson should be the only political stooges in the federal government.
Biden probably isn’t going to be the nominee because he isn’t a very good candidate, but the GOP isn’t right here. The only rule they are applying here is attack dems. Hillary’s emails, Rev Wright, Whitewater, Bernie’s wife’s questionable loans or Burisma the details don’t matter. They will be used for attacks if needed
Some attacks are more legitimate than others. A LAG with a range that contains 100% of hands will have AA sometimes. The Biden attacks are close to the top of their range. It really couldn’t get better without actual criminality… which Trump was willing to commit crimes to manufacture lol. The idiot wasn’t even smart enough to realize that the Ukrainian natural gas company was good enough without needing to flop a set.
I actually think Trump’s instincts were, for once, correct here. Hunter just being on the board wasn’t enough to be a damaging scandal. He really did need the Ukraine to announce an investigation related to it.
He’s running ads attacking M4A. He’s attacking Warren for M4A. He’s taking a lot of healthcare lobby money to do that. He’s a shitty sell out and he’s gone from someone I’d support in future campaigns to someone who I actively dislike.
He’s using awful ‘how will we pay for it’ arguments that are straight from the healthcare lobby. They aren’t GOP talking points, they are establishment talking points… and they are ouright lies. Anyone who asks us how we should pay for something that is 50% cheaper than what we’re doing now deserves nothing but our scorn. Sorry not sorry.
And there is no chance that MFAWWI will lead to MFA. The healthcare lobby will dilute it down to the point where nobody wants it.
The point of single payer isn’t to get everyone covered. That’s a nice ancillary benefit. The point of single payer is to say ‘we are spending 12% of GDP on healthcare and not a penny more, all healthcare services must fit into this cost structure and we’ll figure out what fits in the budget by doing cost benefit analysis on individual services’. It’s about cost. Nothing else. Yes this model will probably put a lot of for profit healthcare companies out of business, and that’s a feature not a bug. We setup government run healthcare services everywhere there’s an unmet need that pencils out.
I’m on the side of basic economics and math over political expediency. Healthcare is the hill I’ll gladly die on, because it’s huge. It’s more important than any of the other hills and if we don’t win it the rest don’t matter very much.
Your favorite candidate wants to give up this crucially important hill for the sake of his own political advancement. That’s because he’s a piece of shit who has been measuring the drapes at the White House his whole life.
I’m sorry but there are things that actually matter more than a politicians career and those two things are healthcare and climate change. You can run on watered down versions about which normal people might disagree, but I draw the line at actively attacking the very obviously right answer out of expediency. That’s where you cross the line into intentional friendly fire and that makes you into my political enemy.
Except he is arguing he can’t support M4All because it would cost trillions we can’t afford, so he doesn’t support M4All.
Your defense would be valid if he said these are the R dishonest talking points that would make M4All hard to practically implement so I want to take the safer route politically, but instead he is adopting R talking points as his own w/ relish.
I’m going to go talk to my single-issue voter sister in law, I’ll get about as far with her, but at least I have no illusions that we’re on the same side.
This is a great idea and I really hope it comes to fruition. Your voice/messaging ability in particular deserves to be heard beyond the confines of this website. I may be able to do some of the proof reading and editing when the time comes depending on my workload.
It’s stated that he is against M4A because he spends millions of dollars and time on the debate stage attacking M4A. He doesn’t say M4A is a good option but I don’t think it’s feasible so here’s my compromise, he says that it is a bad thing to take away people’s private insurance and that we can’t afford M4A.