Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Some HRC supporters are as fact aversive [View all]JohnnyRingo
(20,396 posts)59. The same can be said about Sanders' supporters.
ie: "Some supporters are fact aversive".
Sanders is promising to pull rabbits out of his hat to circumvent congress which will undoubtedly work to restrict him to anything other than picking out his own necktie, let alone sweeping social changes.
Imagine an administration that kills off insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross to institute govt health care. How can Congress possibly stop him?
Can you see a future where Wall Street knuckles under because a democratic president wants to end corporate greed? Who would oppose that besides most of the Senate?
What kind of magic wand would guarantee free college for all without raising sin taxes on the middle class?
There's no word if David Copperfield is available as a running mate.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
122 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I suspect not -- the only google hits refer back here and involve conspiracies about Israeli ties.
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#8
Her whole angle on the ACA smacks of Burkean conservative incrementalism. I think the centrist
Ed Suspicious
Jan 2016
#2
What a strange question. What relevance does that have to the present discussion?
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#7
Why should I or the OP answer your question when you can't answer how it is relevant to the OP?
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#12
The OP presents a few adorned facts that may or not be relevant to the primary.
LuvLoogie
Jan 2016
#14
What effect does a hypothetical scenario where she won the primary have on our choices when voting..
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#24
Nobody is obligated to say whom they would vote for before an election
passiveporcupine
Jan 2016
#58
Yes you are. You have been told no over and over again yet you won't let up.
passiveporcupine
Jan 2016
#75
You are like the sixth person to initiate a discussion with me in this thread.
LuvLoogie
Jan 2016
#80
In various ways you've asked the question or demanded an answer nine times in this thread
passiveporcupine
Jan 2016
#82
Harassment? I am responding to questions posed and restating my position in response to
LuvLoogie
Jan 2016
#85
Which states that some Hillary supporters are as fact aversive as Republicans.
LuvLoogie
Jan 2016
#77
The purpose of the OP is to impugn Hillary and her supporters using a set of facts.
LuvLoogie
Jan 2016
#112
The OP states that some Hillary supporters are as aversive to facts as are Republicans.
LuvLoogie
Jan 2016
#37
ah 2 of the 3 D's of Hillsbara distract and divert I guess distort isn't really possible here
azurnoir
Jan 2016
#56
That doesn't answer my question about the Chelsea/Peterson connection you posit.
hedda_foil
Jan 2016
#32
200,000 is not a golden parachute for a retiring president of a college. lol nt
retrowire
Jan 2016
#60
Yes, they used to be called pensions and a few of us are still lucky to get something at all.
Fearless
Jan 2016
#81
FDR was born to his wealth. He was not paid by powerful lobbyists to speak to their meetings
Ford_Prefect
Jan 2016
#61
I assume that the people who pay her $200,000 and more per speech are investing in her future
Ford_Prefect
Jan 2016
#72
HRC makes 15 million a year, 200,000 is a drop in the bucket for her... she's underpaid
uponit7771
Jan 2016
#91