Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[zenkai]

ftfy, hth, gg

Except that's bullshit. But it's what I expect from people who believe things based on feelings rather than facts.

[DocSavageFan]

And it's a great piece of legislation.

Healthcare costs are always increasing, but under the ACA that rate of increase is at historic lows, and the uninsured rate has plummeted to the lowest ever. People who would be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions are getting care, lives are being saved.

The ACA is working splendidly in most places, especially large or Democratic states that helped not hindered sign-ups. The areas of concerns are spiteful GOP governors refusing the Medicaid expansion that would have covered poor people, and lack of competition in some small markets.

Trump's plan to rip up the ACA is a plan to rip up insurance from 20M people and to kill or bankrupt many of them.

Well that's certainly one perspective. Another is that premiums are increasing significantly and markets are dropping out of the exchanges. UnitedHealth is dropping out of 27 States citing $500,000,000 in expected losses in this year alone. Another large player (Humana) has abandoned several markets after posting a 46% drop in earnings. Health insurance companies lost as much as 11% on their exchange plans in 2015...more than double the amount they lost during 2014 (the exchanges’ 1st year)...and the amount of expected losses this year is signaling large rate hikes for 2017. 13 of the 27 exchanges have failed so far resulting in billions of dollars of losses to taxpayers. People in Alabama and Alaska who previously had access to at least 7 insurers before ACA will just have 1 next year. Similar trends are occurring in Arizona, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

While I do like some aspects of ACA such as coverage until 26 and pre-existing conditions, the reality is that it has done little to address the number of uninsured...


...and it's not saving lives either as you apparently believe.

First Rise in U.S. Death Rate in Years Surprises Experts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/he...cade.html?_r=0

Sorry to pop your bubble, but ACA is NOT "a great piece of legislation".

[Endus]

I'm just curious if support for one candidate has made you more hawkish. Like maybe you agree with Clinton that Israel should not have a freeze on settlements, and that Obama has been too lenient on the Palestinians. For many people, Clintons neocon-esque foreign policy positions would seem disqualifying.

From my post history;

Nobody's saying that Clinton's not hawkish. It's one of the things I dislike about her.

I'm not exactly a fan of Hillary to begin with. She's a little hawkish and too neoliberal for me..

While the first is from a few days ago, the other's from March. Of 2015. So no, my views haven't really changed about her in that year and a half.

I've never been a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. Largely because she's too right-wing for me. I would've preferred Sanders get the nod, or if someone like Warren or Kaine had come forward to run. If someone like Kasich had gotten the Republican nomination, while I might disagree with him more than I do Clinton in terms of ideology, I wouldn't have an issue with his candidacy or those voting for him, the way I do with Trump. That would be a much tighter race.

But in the matchup you folks actually have to deal with? I don't think it's a real choice. You've got hawkish center-right Clinton, and far-right fascist demagogue semi-sentient Cheeto, Trump. In that matchup, Clinton's pretty much a gimme.

[Felya]

Trump is running against somebody who's politics are more like Dick Cheney, which is why I find it nuts that so many people here who were bleeding hearts about bombing the middle east are supporting Clinton.

That is objectively false. Hillary is not the one running on fear of terrorist and makes regular speeches with "bomb the shit out of them and give their oil to Exxon. They are great people." You know, not only following the Carl Rove playbook with catch phrases written by Frank Luntz, just as Chaney did, but also saying exactly what conspiracy theorist said about Chainy's intent.

Do you support regime change in Syria?

As long as it's by the people, without an actual declaration of war by the US, indeed I do. I'd prefer they got bread and shelter to impower them, instead of guns. But, that's not a solution either candidate has stated...

- - - Updated - - -

...and it's not saving lives either as you apparently believe.

First Rise in U.S. Death Rate in Years Surprises Experts
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/he...cade.html?_r=0

Sorry to pop your bubble, but ACA is NOT "a great piece of legislation".

Liar liar pants on fire...

WASHINGTON — The death rate in the United States rose last year for the first time in a decade, preliminary federal data show, a rare increase that was driven in part by more people dying from drug overdoses, suicide and Alzheimer’s disease. The death rate from heart disease, long in decline, edged up slightly.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that's bullshit. But it's what I expect from people who believe things based on feelings rather than facts.

You don't get to say this... sorry, your history renders the above meaningless...

[Masark]

While I do like some aspects of ACA such as coverage until 26 and pre-existing conditions, the reality is that it has done little to address the number of uninsured...

Are you sure you linked the right image? Because the one you have here shows that the number of uninsured is less than half what it was. That's a long damn ways from "done little".

[Venant]

While the first is from a few days ago, the other's from March. Of 2015. So no, my views haven't really changed about her in that year and a half.

So, if you were theoretically trying to convince somebody to support Clinton who had these same disagreements with her neoliberal positions, what would you say was the most important thing to point out? Suppose that this person felt that both candidates had such high negatives that saying 'well she's not Trump' is not an effective argument for the audience you are trying to convince.

[DeadmanWalking]

FOX news VP debate: "Mr. Trump, tell us what you think of the Nuclear Triad."
Trump, "I love it, I love it."
Fox News, "What exactly do you love?"
Trump, "The whole thing, the whole... the Destruction of it all, I love it, love the sheer destruction of it. It's Amazing, great... destruction."
Trump Supporters, "YAY!"
Fox News, "Cruz, same question."
Cruz, "The Nuclear Triad is submarines, Missiles fired from battleships and transcontinental ballistic rockets. The way we fix it is to increase spending on the Military and update all three branches of the Nuclear Triad so we will never be found to be weak with an aging defence system."
Trump supporters, "BOOOOOO! Fucking insiders!"

[Endus]

So, if you were theoretically trying to convince somebody to support Clinton who had these same disagreements with her neoliberal positions, what would you say was the most important thing to point out? Suppose that this person felt that both candidates had such high negatives that saying 'well she's not Trump' is not an effective argument for the audience you are trying to convince.

Trump's utter lack of decorum and qualification for the position is all the argument you need. And that for any of those positions I mentioned, Trump is significantly worse.

This isn't about who would be the best hypothetical candidate if we could get anyone. It's about which of those running is the most capable.

[DocSavageFan]

Are you sure you linked the right image? Because the one you have here shows that the number of uninsured is less than half what it was. That's a long damn ways from "done little".

Only 4.1 million of the 22.8 million reduction can be attributed to ACA...that's what I call "done little".

- - - Updated - - -

Liar liar pants on fire...

The mortality rate is higher under ACA. More people are dying due to mental and physical health issues...not less. If you have compelling evidence that refutes this, now is the time to present your facts instead of resorting to juvenile insults.

[Edge-]

FOX news VP debate: "Mr. Trump, tell us what you think of the Nuclear Triad."
Trump, "I love it, I love it."
Fox News, "What exactly do you love?"
Trump, "The whole thing, the whole... the Destruction of it all, I love it, love the sheer destruction of it. It's Amazing, great... destruction."
Trump Supporters, "YAY!"
Fox News, "Cruz, same question."
Cruz, "The Nuclear Triad is submarines, Missiles fired from battleships and transcontinental ballistic rockets. The way we fix it is to increase spending on the Military and update all three branches of the Nuclear Triad so we will never be found to be weak with an aging defence system."
Trump supporters, "BOOOOOO!"

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2...debate-sot.cnn

So you made me dig this up, looks like in his more recent praise he levied at nuclear proliferation he forgot that he was against it during the primaries.

In his long, rambling, incoherent response that in no way addressed or even acknowledged what the nuclear triad is, or anything remotely close to the moderators question. Despite the moderator literally laying out what the triad is when asking Trump the question.

Presidential fucking material.

The mortality rate is higher under ACA. More people are dying due to mental and physical health issues...not less. If you have compelling evidence that refutes this, now is the time to present your facts instead of juvenile insults.

Sauce? Or is this one of those other times Trump supporters make an allegation and then act personally offended when they're asked to back it up with evidence.

[Endus]

Only 4.1 million of the 22.8 million reduction can be attributed to ACA...that's what I call "done little".

1> 4 million is still huge.
2> That's from the ACA marketplace, the other adjustments are largely tied into the ACA as well, in other ways.

[Masark]

Only 4.1 million of the 22.8 million reduction can be attributed to ACA...that's what I call "done little".

You are aware that the PPACA expanded eligibility for Medicaid (in states that accepted it), right?

And that it introduced an employer mandate that requires 50+ employers to offer health insurance to their employees or face tax penalties?

Is there any particular reason, besides blind partisanship, that you don't want to include those categories in the PPACA's effects?

[Kujako]

So you made me dig this up, looks like in his more recent praise he levied at nuclear proliferation he forgot that he was against it during the primaries.

Much like how he forgot he criticized his republican opponents and the sitting president for being unpatriotic by not paying enough taxes.

[Garnier Fructis]

Only 4.1 million of the 22.8 million reduction can be attributed to ACA...that's what I call "done little".

To just the marketplace.

[DeadmanWalking]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2...debate-sot.cnn

So you made me dig this up, looks like in his more recent praise he levied at nuclear proliferation he forgot that he was against it during the primaries.

In his long, rambling, incoherent response that in no way addressed or even acknowledged what the nuclear triad is, or anything remotely close to the moderators question. Despite the moderator literally laying out what the triad is when asking Trump the question.

Presidential fucking material.

Oooh Ooh, Trump is about to speak!? What did he say? I don't know but I am crying... must of been amazing! I'm totally voting for him cause he says it like it is!"

[DocSavageFan]

You are aware that the PPACA expanded eligibility for Medicaid (in states that accepted it), right?

And that it introduced an employer mandate that requires 50+ employers to offer health insurance to their employees or face tax penalties?

Is there any particular reason, besides blind partisanship, that you don't want to include those categories in the PPACA's effects?

Please. Do you want discussion or do you want to trade insults?

[LaserSharkDFB]

Only 4.1 million of the 22.8 million reduction can be attributed to ACA...that's what I call "done little".

- - - Updated - - -


The mortality rate is higher under ACA. More people are dying due to mental and physical health issues...not less. If you have compelling evidence that refutes this, now is the time to present your facts instead of resorting to juvenile insults.

Out of curiosity, even if what you claim is true, how exactly - and I do mean exactly, please be as specific as possible - do you think more than halving the number of uninsured has resulted in increased mortality rates? I have an inkling of what you mean, but our recent experience has taught me to never assume what you're thinking. Whatever argument you want to make, please provide the reasonable evidence to back it up.

[Venant]

Trump's utter lack of decorum and qualification for the position is all the argument you need. And that for any of those positions I mentioned, Trump is significantly worse.

This isn't about who would be the best hypothetical candidate if we could get anyone. It's about which of those running is the most capable.

I suppose you have to admit that when you find yourself in a situation where you are supporting a candidate that you can make no positive argument for electing, that the system has utterly failed. At some point, you have to question whether the failure of this system is intentional, and whether everyone is being manipulated by forces working against their interests.

[Edge-]

I suppose you have to admit that when you find yourself in a situation where you are supporting a candidate that you can make no positive argument for electing, that the system has utterly failed.

It's flawed, absolutely, but not failed.

At some point, you have to question whether the failure of this system is intentional, and whether everyone is being manipulated by forces working against their interests.

Nope, it's "failed" because the Democrats put up a highly flawed candidate and the Republicans couldn't stop their base from voting in a complete lunatic.

Sometimes Democracy doesn't lead to fantastic results, that's a risk that comes with that form of government (well, democratic republics).

[Endus]

I suppose you have to admit that when you find yourself in a situation where you are supporting a candidate that you can make no positive argument for electing, that the system has utterly failed.

Nah. Clinton's a highly experienced candidate, with time as both a First Lady, and more importantly, as a State Senator and the Secretary of State. Her lifetime of working in public service speaks for itself. She's a highly qualified candidate, and there are plenty of reasons to support her.

That I, personally don't align with her in every ideological respect does not change that.

Nor is this "because she's a Democrat". There are plenty of Republicans I'd say similar things about, while having (even greater) ideological issues with their views.

Trump, however, is not one of those people.

At some point, you have to question whether the failure of this system is intentional, and whether everyone is being manipulated by forces working against their interests.

I can't take you seriously if you're going to start ranting about the Illuminati or whatever.