If you look at Hillary’s broader statements, she has always favored universal single-payer healthcare. She worked her ass off to get a plan passed in 1994, and she was relentlessly attacked for it.

The last time Democrats got successful movement on healthcare was March 2010 with a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a popular new president in the White House. Even then, only a relatively tepid compromise bill was passed, with even the “public option” stripped out (thanks Joe Lieberman).

Will conditions change in the future? Quite possibly, especially as our health care becomes increasingly unaffordable. Maybe it’s not so helpful to have senior politicians telling voters something is impossible and potentially affecting the Overton Window. But Hillary’s warning, that Bernie Sanders’ plan hadn’t a chance of getting passed, was a good reality check.

Biden supported a 1994 crime bill that is considered racist today.

Some context is required there, though. The 1994 crime bill did have significant support among Black leaders and activists. It was seen as an imperfect solution to a critical issue that disproportionately affected Black neighborhoods at the time.

Yeah… I would put a lot more stock in that quote if Kamala Harris’ poll numbers among Black women weren’t relatively low for a Democrat. I’m sure some people will be upset, but if she is picked I know a lot of people will consider that a slap in the face in another way. Polls have shown for a long time that she’s unpopular in a way that has nothing to do with race or gender. It would be handing the election to Trump almost as certainly as running Biden.

Come on, don’t bug the old man. He’s just trying to catch a few winks between “old man yells at clouds” rants.

Hong Kong was always going to happen because that was an agreed upon conclusion. China violated promises that it made (one country, two systems my ass), but Hong Kong was a part China. Taiwan has never been under the control of the current government of mainland China. At this point Taiwan would likely be a separate country if it didn’t have China’s dagger at its throat telling it that even a breath of declaring independence will result in immediate invasion.

The president is a civilian and other decisions ultimately lie in civilian hands. While it’s common for presidents to have some level of service in some form of armed forces, it’s usually low ranking. There are some notable exceptions: Washington, Eisenhower, and Grant. So yes, killing them is political violence. But targeting leaders in the armed forces is not.

And yes, Iran fought ISIS, a lot of players held common cause against ISIS. Cool. Doesn’t excuse what they’ve done elsewhere.

Criticize it if you want, but the Soleimani assassination wasn’t political violence. He was a top ranking military leader who arranged terrorist operations that killed a lot of people.

Yeah, it was super fucked.

Nazi Germany, we pass law, now super safe for Jews!

Blahaj cannot speak, therefore Blahaj cannot give consent.

Why you torture blahaj?