General Politics Discussion (V) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1662

That’s a bad take. Saying you prefer tacos, but if all you can get is a burrito in the meantime you’d accept it, is not saying you don’t prefer tacos. (It’s been Bernie’s same position. No way he vetoes a public option.)

 

Some of these people that choose to purposefully misunderstand basic things is going to fucking ruin my brain the next two years.

 

not like there’s a shortage on actual stuff to criticize Kamala for too

 

The questions this leaves me with are:

Why even do the initial backtrack/"signal" if your main plan is to eliminate (or largely so) private insurance? The idea that you can support less radical proposals symbolically in the past or are willing to compromise if the negotiations turn out that way in congress seems self evident, don't know why that would require 'signaling' unless it is to calm insurance companies which...you shouldn't want to do if you're going to go after them.

Is the quote from the third paragraph a reaction to the reporting of the initial "signal" or is it part of it? This is also important because if it is the latter then I think the "signal" is being reported poorly, because that quote doesn't seem to at all say what is described in the first paragraph. If it is the former, i come back to the first question.

Finally, the actual quote - the only one from a Harris rep in the whole CNN article - says "Medicare-for-all" is the plan, but doesn't say if "Medicare-for-all" specifically means eliminating, or largely so, private insurance. Are there details of her plan available in print? I wouldn't imagine so, it's very early, and I can't find it on her site. Of course you could take her on her word at the town hall that it does, but then I come back to why backtrack at all initially? (Assuming the quote is, again, a response to the initial backtrack and not part of it.)

I am left very confused and thus distrusting

 

I also don't understand Chris Murphy's tweet for example. I thought the backlash was in response to her "signal"/'backtrack.' Who is saying anything about her previous senate votes?

 

I LOL'd pretty hard at this, hahaha

 

I guess this answers #3

Still don't know why you "signal".

 

Just a heads up, private insurance is not going away

 

You don't have to tell me lol

 

i'll take my job covering dental.

also jus went to the dentist. no cavities

 

The next two years are going to make me age thirty years.

 

They answered it the same way they always have. Basically if Schumer can only pass a portion of what they want, they’d sign it even if that’s not what they prefer. Which I think is perfectly right to say. (Cause getting the votes for eliminating private insurance is gonna be a mother fucker, and is worth fighting for even if you’d also be willing to do other steps.)

I don’t think they signaled anything, I think they simply gave the same answer they have for a long time and people decided to be disingenuous with it and call it things it wasn’t. “Backtracking” — ie created a controversy where there is none.

 

Currently -23 here in Minneapolis, and I just went on a Target run, about 5 minutes each way, and it wasn't that bad. Before I left I did see the contrails of a jetliner that had just taken off from the MSP airport, which I've never seen before. Now going to try boiling some water and throwing it outside to watch it freeze right away

 

I’m eligible for insurance through my work in six months, til then my parents are paying out the ass for me to be on COBRA and take every chance they can to remind me how much they pay for me to have insurance

 

Interesting interview.

 

The vast majority of people get insurance through their employer, right? Does anyone know how that historically developed? And is that not as big of a political hurdle for anyone wanting single-payer as it initially seems to me?

 

Fuck Fox

 

Meme!

 

Can't wait to wake up to 400 different versions of this tomorrow.

 

The replies to FuckJerry’s tweet are delicious.

 

Nooooo Jake Tapper would never lie