|
Pedro De Heredia posted:This is pretty revisionist. Most liberal commentators (who had been presumably talking to the Clinton campaign) said the speech was about highlighting the racist appeal of Trump. Clinton's campaign said, numerous times, that they welcomed a conversation about Trump's supporters being deplorable. The whole thing was being sold as a strategically sound way of highlighting that a lot of Trump's support was terrible, because the campaign was focusing on Trump being terrible. I would argue that this is a prime example of the Clinton campaign (which mind you is more than Hillary herself) utterly failed to control the narrative. That is absolutely not what the speech is. It goes out of it's way to say that racists aren't the only ones voting Trump, people who feel lost and unrepresented are too. And yet here is the campaign blundering into that minefield of "yep we called Trump voters racist, oh maybe I didn't mean half but yeah gently caress 'em." Like they were right, and I stand by that assessment, but that's secondary to how dumb of a move it was and how horrible their message control was. The whole speech is terribly ordered and phrased to fall right into that "you just called half of America racist you BIGOT  " trap and whoever wrote it should be exiled to write speeches for Republicans for the rest of time.Edit: Though I stand by my opinion that it wasn't comparable to the 47% debacle. That one was bad specifically because it was a glance into Romney's private opinions we knew were true because he didn't think he was being publicly recorded. The Deplorables speech was public and a clear attempt to define a narrative intentionally, they just backed down and mishandled their narrative when challenged and folded like a cardboard box. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Nov 13, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That is absolutely not what the speech is. It goes out of it's way to say that racists aren't the only ones voting Trump, people who feel lost and unrepresented are too. And yet here is the campaign blundering into that minefield of "yep we called Trump voters racist, oh maybe I didn't mean half but yeah gently caress 'em." Like they were right, and I stand by that assessment, but that's secondary to how dumb of a move it was and how horrible their message control was. I don't think so. The speech did not fall into a trap. It was intended to highlight the 'deplorables'. I believe this because it is what everyone involved in the speech, in Clinton's campaign, and people briefed by Clinton's campaign said. The speech says that racists aren't the only ones supporting Trump because no poo poo, you have to say that if you're a politician seeking higher office. There's nothing weird or unusual about that. The weird or unusual thing is the 'deplorables' part, which, again, Clinton's campaign said numerous times was a deliberate strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The problem with mincome, which I do support, is that while it gives people economic security it does not give them economic power. Or, at least, they do not perceive it as such. A handout from the state is a thing that can be taken away at any time, or reduced. It is (they feel) totally out of their control. Of course it is within their control totally, via the ballot box, both that is both abstract and also insecure as if the majority wants to reduce their basic income then that's what would happen. the resolution to this is almost forgot to switch to american rhetorical style
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:I don't think so. Well yeah. My theory is that it was an attempt to say "hey guys we know you're desperate but do you really want the guy endorsed by David Duke?" But they mangled it so badly and then when the press was like whoa dude you just poo poo on a lotta dudes she immediately backpedaled and apologized. It was just generally a farce. Also I remembered one of the really important points I left off of that big dumb post: Progressives need to take the lessons of the Tea Party. The Tea Party was successful despite beginning as an astroturf attempt because it attracted ideologues and crazies who were ready and willing to primary the ever-loving poo poo out of regular old Republicans. This is good and the threat of primarying motherfuckers that step out of line is good. Like Chuck Schumer, and his head that is sadly not yet on a pike. However, they also went primary-happy and installed a bunch of stupid fucks into office who are completely unruly and don't actually do anything if they 100% don't get what they want. Meanwhile this made regular Republicans run way far to the right and refuse to moderate for fear of primarying. As such, since we know we won't be able to primary everyone (Schumer's head, pike), we need to be careful of perfect is the enemy of the good. This loops back to why I said we need to be able to compromise with the conservative wing, and why that point feels incomplete. We should be ready and willing to primary motherfuckers, make no mistake. But we can't put ourselves in a position where we're so far left of the electorate we can't get anything done and get blamed for nothing happening. Make the conservatives feel like they need to bargain, but then don't throw the bargain back in their faces if they only offer us 90% of what we wanted instead of 100%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
Also Schumer isn't up for reelection until 2022.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Also Schumer isn't up for reelection until 2022. We should've Edit: Anyhow the point is, both the thing with primarying conservative Democrats and Bernie's primary loss are intertwined. We won't have the connections or base to primary anybody if we don't even belong to the party, work for leadership positions, and cultivate talent and candidates. Progressives who want to just stay outside of the party and sulk when the party doesn't respond to their desires are bizarrely silly. At the same time we can't go overboard and try and run a guerilla campaign against the party from within. The goal is to run the table, not make it so the party just elects a bunch of shitstains who do nothing all day because of ~ideological purity~. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
The Clinton camp seems to be placing most of the blame for the loss on the Comey letters. I wonder if "losing your boss the presidency" is something Huma can use in the divorce battle with Wiener.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
twoot posted:The Clinton camp seems to be placing most of the blame for the loss on the Comey letters. I mean I don't think we can realistically deny the Comey letters had an effect. Millions of voters didn't stay home because of them, but I bet a few hundred thousand did and we lost by less than 150,000. Hillary might have been a bad candidate for the perception of her and the email thing might have been a dumb unforced error, but Comey literally stepping in two weeks before the election to be like "oh yeah btw guys Hillary is definitely evil just thought I'd put that out there" with zero actual evidence was preposterous. At the same time if that's the only lesson they learn then  we're doomed.Also it's proof that Republican members of the government will absolutely use their positions to poo poo on Democratic candidates. That is the level of political discourse in this country. As such we should never appoint Republicans ever again to anything, period. gently caress Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
In all seriousness if Schumer is the minority leader (he will be / is - the election for that was last summer), and if therefore the leader of the Senate Democrats is some establishment dork with his fingers in all the pies, I'm content with that provided the House is filled with Full Communism Now motherfuckers fueled by the fury of the working class. It especially helps if Progressives have a strong voice in the Senate and they do in Sanders and Warren, et al. I mean the House is supposed to be the seat of populist fervor, and the Senate is where cooler heads prevail. That's a stupid system, IMO, but if we come out of 2018 with that sort of makeup, inshallah, then at least we can say "works as designed".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
I doubt she believes it was the only reason she lost, so much as it was a complete breach of protocol that deserves maximum attention. That is a floodgate that needs to be sealed regardless of the current political winds and it is worth her using strong rhetoric if it results in action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Hey i just wanna apologize to the world for being so blatantly dumb and thinking  was going to win in a landslide and shouting 'show your map' etc when that was challenged. This new dark reality is a bit too much punishment for hubris though I mean come on.Also I've been trying to contact my local democrat chapter since Wednesday with no response. Apparently this is a thing - anyone else having this issue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
I just realized what bothers me about framing it as "establishment vs. anti-establishment" instead of "progressive vs. conservative." The establishment/anti-establishment framing makes it about experience and membership in leadership positions, and essentially implies being a nobody idiot who has no connection to the traditional leadership (i.e. Donald Trump) is more valuable than being somebody who can actually do the job and knows everybody involved (i.e. Hillary Clinton). Whereas, the problem shouldn't be that somebody has been there for a long time and knows what they're doing, the problem should be on where they stand politically. Bernie's been in office for longer than I've been alive, he is an establishment politician. He just also is still a progressive in spite of that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
speng31b posted:It's ok Keith Ellison, I know you have to say this and I still like you. From forever ago, but why does he have to say that? The Republicans started out saying they'd fight Obama tooth and nail and look where it has gotten them. Are the Democrats basically trying to prove how ineffectual they are at governing? Because that's what it will look like when poo poo's getting done after absolutely nothing for 6 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
When I think "establishment" I think "allied with the ruling class" but maybe that's just me. I don't think of Sanders as an establishment politician. And if you say something like "GOP establishment" or "DNC establishment" that's just referring to the established power structure within that party. Its members need not be old-timers (though they often are).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I just realized what bothers me about framing it as "establishment vs. anti-establishment" instead of "progressive vs. conservative." The establishment/anti-establishment framing makes it about experience and membership in leadership positions, and essentially implies being a nobody idiot who has no connection to the traditional leadership (i.e. Donald Trump) is more valuable than being somebody who can actually do the job and knows everybody involved (i.e. Hillary Clinton). Whereas, the problem shouldn't be that somebody has been there for a long time and knows what they're doing, the problem should be on where they stand politically. Bernie's been in office for longer than I've been alive, he is an establishment politician. He just also is still a progressive in spite of that. No dude we should have term limits. Also every 5 years all doctors, lawyers, teachers, truck drivers, astronauts and nuclear engineers should be fired and replaced with the Common Man to mitigate corruption. No one is able to tell me what the gently caress the 'establishment' is. It's a loving boogeyman word on par with some alex jones bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:When I think "establishment" I think "allied with the ruling class" but maybe that's just me. I don't think of Sanders as an establishment politician. Perhaps, but that's not how a lot of people see it. Like people classified Donald Trump as anti-establishment. Donald Trump, a rich white man born into money from New York City who is famously a real estate mogul, reality TV personality, and massive lying con man. I think that for a lot of people being "anti-establishment" goes hand in hand with being anti-intellectual and I think this is born out by the whole "coastal elites" (lmao where is Donald Trump from again?) thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Perhaps, but that's not how a lot of people see it. Like people classified Donald Trump as anti-establishment. Donald Trump, a rich white man born into money from New York City who is famously a real estate mogul, reality TV personality, and massive lying con man. I think that for a lot of people being "anti-establishment" goes hand in hand with being anti-intellectual and I think this is born out by the whole "coastal elites" (lmao where is Donald Trump from again?) thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:If Hillary wins the nomination, there's no chance of her winning the election. Put her against any Republican candidate and Democrats will sit on their hands while right-wingers come out in record numbers to make sure 'anybody-but-Hillary' wins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
skylined! posted:No one is able to tell me what the gently caress the 'establishment' is. It's a loving boogeyman word on par with some alex jones bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
What is the likelihood of the dreaded Balanced Budget Amendment passing in Trump's first term?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What is the likelihood of the dreaded Balanced Budget Amendment passing in Trump's first term? 0. The Republicans don't want to balance the budget, they just use deficit hawkism as a cudgel against liberals. Attempting to balance the budget even with Paul Ryan's preposterous plans to privatize the welfare state is impossible because they want to kill taxes and buy more aircraft carriers simultaneously. Ryan got hosed in the rear end for this in 2012 when his dumb budget came out and Republicans, including Ryan, had to repudiate it because it was manifestly horseshit. They only want poo poo like that when Democrats are in power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:What is the likelihood of the dreaded Balanced Budget Amendment passing in Trump's first term? I would say zero or close to it, given all evidence of the GOP not actually interested in governing, but I have been wrong about literally everything up now so probably it will be passed before Obama leaves office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean I don't think we can realistically deny the Comey letters had an effect. Millions of voters didn't stay home because of them, but I bet a few hundred thousand did and we lost by less than 150,000. That's a complete assumption. I could equally assume that the Comey stuff got people out to vote who wouldn't have otherwise because they were pissed at the FBI blatantly attacking Clinton and wanted to stick it to the man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Yes an excellent example of why you should never turn to anonymous goons for your political strategy. Trump had less votes than Romney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
blue squares posted:That's a complete assumption. I could equally assume that the Comey stuff got people out to vote who wouldn't have otherwise because they were pissed at the FBI blatantly attacking Clinton and wanted to stick it to the man. The last time emails came up, in September, it correlated to a drop in Hillary support. Emails worked on Bernie supporters (because of the DNC leaks, and the primary "any day now" bullshit) and on undecided voters. People might have been sick of hearing of them, but every time Republicans found an excuse to bring them up again Hillary's numbers dropped like clockwork. Polling was still showing her winning on the day of the election. Her underperforming her polls but Trump also not doing well indicates people stayed home, not that they voted against her. I don't think that with these two points combined it's unreasonable to assume that at least some Hillary supporters stayed home because of Comey's hatchet job, and when our margin of loss was 150,000, some people staying home is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
It is also very reasonable to say that Democrats stayed home (or were unenergized) because of years of EMAILS BENGHAZI
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
the dnc leak really pissed off hardcore bernie fans because they'd been told over and over that hillary had won fair and square and they needed to support her instead, but the emails created the idea that she'd been supported behind closed doors by pretty much everyone who mattered and their choice didn't count at all. which was true btw lol at caucuses
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Like I don't think it was the main thrust of his campaign or anything don't get me wrong. But a lot, a lot, a lot of progressives get hung up on "bringing the jobs back" and "punishing outsourcing," and while I'm all for making GBS threads on corporations there's a strong undercurrent of "I only care about issues that affect America." holy poo poo this is poorly thought out  a lot of progressives get hung up on bringing jobs back and punishing outsourcing because the people HERE, who VOTE IN THE US ELECTION want jobs and they want them back. i'm glad your heart bleeds for the third world (but for some strange reason not enough to stop capitalist parasitization of their developing countries), but third worlders don't vote for us, and we've got a facist in office cause pissed off first-worlders wanting jobs voted for a guy who promised to bring the jobs back. you wanna talk about issues that don't necessarily effect america, that's fine. but they naturally and inevitably take a backseat to american issues in an election
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:the dnc leak really pissed off hardcore bernie fans because they'd been told over and over that hillary had won fair and square and they needed to support her instead, but the emails created the idea that she'd been supported behind closed doors by pretty much everyone who mattered and their choice didn't count at all. I mean in retrospect DWS' DNC was an absolute, unmitigated disaster. I would argue that most of the evidence we actually have points to the DNC attempting to collude with Hillary's campaign and not the other way around, but yeah in general they were dipshits. That said, of all the evidence of general fuckery by the DNC, I still don't think it was anywhere near "this is why Bernie lost territory." Hillary won by a fairly sizeable margin and they didn't do nearly enough to produce a win by nearly 10%. She would've won even if superdelegates didn't exist. Dismissing the primary as "it was rigged" means we will fail to learn two important lessons. First being that we have to organize and campaign for poo poo well in advance. Hillary was campaigning and working for that position since 2008, and arguably well before with certain minority communities. Say what you will about her, but she worked her loving rear end off to win that primary and Bernie showing up a year out and just expecting everyone to be like "wow you're awesome" was naive. We have to put in that level of work if we want to win primaries. Second was that there's a lot of people who aren't necessarily on board with progressivism yet. That's not immutable but the truth is, centrist Democrats aren't going away and we need them too. Attempting to go scorched earth on the conservative wing will just burn bridges with people we really, really need the votes of. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for ourselves or fight, but if our response is simply "lol, nah" to any and all conservative Democrats we're going to be living in a Republican America until global warming kills us all. Condiv posted:holy poo poo this is poorly thought out Those jobs aren't coming back. What part of that is so loving difficult? The factories that have come back are robot-focused. We can't give these people back the 1950s, no matter what they demand. I don't know why you think I don't want to stop us making GBS threads on the Third World or what I said to lead you to that conclusion. Poor Third World people are victims of our economy just as much as poor white working class people are. The point is that the American left would trip over itself to rush into anti-immigrant and isolationism if we let it. I don't think these are good things. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
What's more important - winning elections, or ideological purity? At this point, I'm willing to bet on the former.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
It's one thing to say that Hillary should have walked back the deplorables line because it was hurting her (and it's kinda funny coming from the "Hillary is too poll-tested" crowd), but it's another thing to say that Hillary should have walked it back because it was wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's one thing to say that Hillary should have walked back the deplorables line because it was hurting her (and it's kinda funny coming from the "Hillary is too poll-tested" crowd), but it's another thing to say that Hillary should have walked it back because it was wrong The deploreables speech was 100% spot on but at the same time is basically going to be the poster child for the "Hillary is a meanie who wouldn't coddle white people's feelings and called them all racist" because it's very easy to twist into that. It was a good idea done by a horrible speechwriter and then spectacularly poorly messaged by the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Those jobs aren't coming back. What part of that is so loving difficult? The factories that have come back are robot-focused. We can't give these people back the 1950s, no matter what they demand. please actually provide decisive proof factory jobs are gone and never coming back. cause to me it sounds like you're parroting the same neo-liberal propaganda that just lost an election. the part that is difficult about this for the left is you have not actually proven poo poo like "unions are dead and are never coming back, midwest jobs are dead and are never coming back". what neoliberals like the clintons have done is kill jobs intentionally with trade agreements designed to undercut our workers and never set up any way for them to continue living the life they were. also, america is already anti-immigrant as hell, and I doubt something like repealing nafta would make it worse. Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I just realized what bothers me about framing it as "establishment vs. anti-establishment" instead of "progressive vs. conservative." The establishment/anti-establishment framing makes it about experience and membership in leadership positions, and essentially implies being a nobody idiot who has no connection to the traditional leadership (i.e. Donald Trump) is more valuable than being somebody who can actually do the job and knows everybody involved (i.e. Hillary Clinton). Whereas, the problem shouldn't be that somebody has been there for a long time and knows what they're doing, the problem should be on where they stand politically. Bernie's been in office for longer than I've been alive, he is an establishment politician. He just also is still a progressive in spite of that. I agree that experience is important. I'm not too interested in experience when said experience is in paying lip service to people (both minorities and the working class) only to abandon them immediately and push neoliberalism when they get into office. It's becoming establishment/anti-establishment because people understand the current system is loving them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:please actually provide decisive proof factory jobs are gone and never coming back. cause to me it sounds like you're parroting the same neo-liberal propaganda that just lost an election. Factories are coming back, with much fewer job openings that are generally higher education requirements because of robots. The point is, there's a lot of things we can do for these people and we can give them jobs, but we can't give them the same jobs their parents had. Unless you're brilliant plan is to outlaw robots. Frankly they should own the robots collectively, but that would be socialism and we can't have that. Ah yes, let's resign ourselves to immigrants getting poo poo on, it's not like this country was built on the backs of slaves and immigrants working for nothing or anything. Edit: I see you changed it. quote:the part that is difficult about this for the left is you have not actually proven poo poo like "unions are dead and are never coming back, midwest jobs are dead and are never coming back". what neoliberals like the clintons have done is kill jobs intentionally with trade agreements designed to undercut our workers and never set up any way for them to continue living the life they were. I specifically said the opposite of "unions are dead and are never coming back." The thing is, working in a factory was largely lovely rear end bullshit work that was deemed lower class. Labor laws and unionization made it into better jobs. We could do that for modern jobs that are actually relevant, like service industry stuff. People can work and they can make a decent wage working. It's just that specific type of job isn't really tenable. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:the dnc leak really pissed off hardcore bernie fans because they'd been told over and over that hillary had won fair and square and they needed to support her instead, but the emails created the idea that she'd been supported behind closed doors by pretty much everyone who mattered and their choice didn't count at all. Agreed, caucuses are super dumb and incredibly undemocratic and we should not let them determine who gets to be a presidential nominee. We should change everything to open primaries, or maybe semi-open, I can see good arguments for that. Reminder that Bernie sanders did best in caucuses, the only form of primary controlled directly by the party
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:please actually provide decisive proof factory jobs are gone and never coming back. cause to me it sounds like you're parroting the same neo-liberal propaganda that just lost an election. Why are factory jobs desirable? Is it because of what they do, or because of the security and money they represented? If we moved into simply having everything produced by robot labour, as we seem to be moving towards, no-one would really care to do the dangerous or dirty or smelly jobs. It is the fact of purpose and security and the ability to purchase things. Unions may well experience an upswing, I hope they do. But the world simply is more connected, unless you want to get into full on trade wars and going "raise tarrifs", because that didn't work so well back in the 1920's either. But it wouldn't make it or anything else any better either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
conservative PA here 1. Clinton was uninspiring and represented corporate interests that we don't understand and aren't employing us 2. Hard work equates to patriotism here. We love building poo poo. We love sitting on a back hoe. We love manual labor. Democrats used to protect blue collars. Now they deplore us. 3. "Retraining" is a dog-whistle for "losing my job." Don't ever use that word unless its coupled with programs a construction worker understands: how to build poo poo or make something. 4. We're racist in the sense of knowing that identity politics addresses poo poo in the city and leaves us out in the rain. gently caress Philly. 5. We're not racist in the sense of we don't give a poo poo if the other guy on the back hoe is black. He's got my job, I've got mine. We don't even care if the foreman is black and lives next door as long as he knows what he's doing and works hard like me. And mows his lawn. 6. Free trade means selling poo poo we make and buying poo poo we make. We don't understand why that car plant moved to Mexico - that poo poo should be penalized somehow. 7. Give me a factory to work in or freight to carry. Sitting at a desk isn't real work. 8. Obama care is a dog whistle for health care for people who aren't working. We'll buy into it when it feels like we're earning it busting our backs building something. 9. Where did the loving union jobs go? We depended on the Dems to protect that poo poo. We liked union jobs. We loving loved union jobs. 10. Immigration is ok when there's work for everybody. Immigration is stupid when me and my neighbor can't find work unless it's service work. That poo poo is for the wife and kids. And immigrants until they learn how put up sheet rock like me. I'll work on the same crew with the fucker if he knows his job. 11. Change to you means something different from change to me. 12. I know Trump is a con-man. But at least he draped himself in a flag and talked about poo poo I can understand. 13. We really don't give a poo poo about gays and other weird people. Do not loving care. They can do whatever the gently caress they want - this is America right? But if you focus on them while I'm feeling excluded because there's no work for me, gently caress 'em. 14. Best case scenario? Trump gives me a factory to work in and the Dems give me a union to belong to. (paraphrasing rural PA neighbor talk - we don't really use words like dog-whistle)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
ironically obamacare very specifically doesn't give health care to people who aren't working on account of you still have to pay for it
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:07 |
|
|
the popes toes posted:conservative PA here Ah, so they really are dumb as poo poo. "Where did my unions go?!" *votes for right to work advocates because blacks get healthcare* "Also we're not racist"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 15:54
|
|
