If I asked you once if you thought Assad and Putin were good cats I know how you would respond. She’s been asked repeatedly and answers the same every time by changing the subject.
After like three times fumbling this one would think she would learn what works and what doesn’t but alas babble on
Asking if Putin or Assad are good guys is an incredibly dumb thing to ask someone who’s running for president. It’s totally irrelevant and unrelated to the actually valid question of what our foreign policy towards Syria and Russia ought to be. And it should have nothing to do with what sort of guy Putin is. It’s irrelevant.
It matter because at some point she’d have to deal with the consequences of the actions of these despots. If you can’t even say they aren’t bad on a meta level then what would happen when they use chemical weapons? (And yes I am aware of how badly Obama fumbled this issue)
You want to give potential voters as much info as possible by clearly stating your positions. And she imo has done exactly that
I mean if you’re honestly positing that the answer to any “Is this clearly bad person actually bad?” question is irrelevant in your eyes because the question itself is irrelevant then I guess we will have to agree to disagree because I can’t see a bridge to that divide.
Her position is that she should work with these leaders because they’re the leaders of these countries and that’s the reason you need to work with them. Same with Kim. Same with everyone. Saying they’re bad hombres just because…I don’t even know why, what’s the benefit of saying how bad they are? Doing that undercuts your ability to actually work with them.
Working with them <> stanning for them
When did Tulsi do the latter?
Go read her twitter feed where she’s all white knuckles over Syria’s sovereignty! My god dude
It’s the exact same thing as Trump’s “both sides” garbage wrt Charlottesville, applied internationally.
You seem to be reading Neera Tanden paraphrasing Tulsi’s twitter feed
No it’s literally in her feed. She’s gravely concerned over Assad’s sovereign lands that aren’t called “Golan Heights” just go look
This?
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1184929676046651393
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1184942902608195584
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1184942904424271872
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1184963863931805696
I dunno man. I agree with this, it’s a reasonable position.
In before Kosovo was a regime change war and Slobodan Milosevic was a swell guy
In Hillary’s youth, she protested war. When it was Tulsi’s turn, she signed up.
I don’t get it… her loyalties lie with 1-800-FLOWERS? Dove knee lotion?
A point that I think is overlooked and needs to be brought up when discussing M4A…
The fundamental way insurance works is that they mitigate risk in exchange for a fee. That’s how they profit. If it is determined that your average cost of healthcare for a year is $5000, insurance will charge you $6000/year (made up numbers obviously). If you are an average person this helpful when you have bad luck with your health. If you are a billionaire, insurance is a waste. No medical bill will overwhelm your finances and you have no need to lower your variance for a fee.
The point of M4A is that the government will eliminate variance without being a for-profit industry. They certainly can be the banker. It’s inherent that the elimination of private health insurance will reduce costs.
Single payer is about muuuuch more than the profit margins of private health insurance companies.
I agree. This is about an argument against the “how will you pay for it” questions. Instead of money going into insurance CEOs and stockholders, it will go directly from people back into their healthcare efficiently.
The right argument to ‘how will we pay for it’ is to rhetorically punch them in the nose. Obviously taxes will be going up but costs will fall dramatically overall. It’s not even strictly accurate to say that costs will go up for the very wealthy… because honestly to the extent that they pay for their employees health insurance premiums they will probably pay quite a bit less overall as well. There’s a trillion dollars a year in savings to go around. There are going to be winners and losers, but the former will massively outnumber the latter.