This is what we could have had

[still_one]

First, Hillary will work with governors to expand Medicaid in every state, so that access to care no longer depends on where you live. It is a disgrace that 19 states have left 3 million Americans without health insurance because their states have refused to expand Medicaid. It is wrong that Republican governors and legislatures are leaving too many Americans without health insurance even though they qualify for coverage. Hillary will launch a national campaign to enroll people who are eligible but not already enrolled. She will expand access to affordable health care to families regardless of immigration status by allowing families to buy health insurance on the health Exchanges regardless of their immigration status.

Second, Hillary will get health care costs under control so that those who have health insurance can afford the health care they need. She will not stand for unjustified health premium increases – she will make sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to block or modify unreasonable health insurance premium rate increases so that coverage is more affordable. Hillary has comprehensive plans to address increasing out-of-pocket and prescription drug costs. She will cap prescription drug costs that people have to pay out of pocket, and limit excessive out-of-pocket costs for families. And Hillary will work on long-term solutions to reduce consumer costs of prescription drugs so that these drugs are affordable for all, while not stifling innovation that produces life-saving and life-extending scientific breakthroughs.

Third, consistent with her previous proposals on public options, Hillary will pursue efforts to give Americans in every state in the country the choice of a public-option insurance plan, and to expand Medicare by allowing people 55 years or older to opt in while protecting the traditional Medicare program.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/07/09/hillary-clintons-commitment-universal-quality-affordable-health-care-for-everyone-in-america/

This is what her campaign was about

[apcalc]

1. She's a worker!

[Jonny Appleseed]

2. I hate to be a bummer but it's unlikely given the (R) house and Senate that she'd be able to

Do much besides keeping the government from collapsing like it is now. It could've backfired if the GOP propaganda and MSM depicted it as her "doing nothing" and we ended up losing more seats in 2018.
Call me an optimist but letting America see what a republican government is like could be the best thing for us. I can't imagine pollution regulations being looser than China's will turn out well. People will get sicker and sicker and republicans won't notice and keep trying to take away their healthcare.

[still_one]

3. Noam Chomsky addressed your last point very clearly

"Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

If the Comey/FBI interference didn't occur, not only would we be in the WH, but we would have taken back the Senate also

[Jonny Appleseed]

6. I voted for her

But I can't think of a tougher political climate for her to be president. And if this ends up killing the GOP's hold in the house and Senate for at least 10 years I think it'll be worth it in the long run.
Like when parents catch a kid smoking a cigarette and they make them smoke the whole cartoon so they'll never want to smoke again.

[still_one]

8. I wasn't referring to you, and apologize if that is how it came out. The point I was making

was that the argument that if things get bad enough, people will look for alternatives.

That is far from certain. There are enough trump supporters out their who voiced concern about losing their healthcare with the republican repeal/replace atrocity, but still support trump.

The 2000 election lessons were not retained.

I understand your point, and obviously hope your assessment is right, but in my observation, some people vote against their own interests.

That is what the thesis behind "Whats the matter with Kansas" was about.

I have become pretty cynical I guess

[dawg]

12. I think your optimism, and faith in the American electorate, is misplaced.

George W. Bush's Republican party lied the country into a disastrous war that needlessly killed thousands of U.S. service members (and untold thousands of Iraqi non-combatants).

He fiddled around while a major U.S. city drowned, demonstrating to the world the real-life consequences of the Republicans' disdain for government.

His willingness to turn a blind eye to the exploits of big business resulted in fraud after fraud after fraud: Tyco, WorldCom, Enron.

And finally, on his watch, the U.S. suffered the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Voters returned his party to power two years after he left office.

[Jonny Appleseed]

15. There has to be a breaking point.

Republican presidents/elected officials get increasing stupid and incompetent as a general trend. I trust even the fringes of those with human intelligence to take a step back and say "hmmm... maybe these guys are just dicks" before they elect an inanimate log with googly eyes on it into the presidency.

I think a lot of it has to do with the brand contamination associated with the name "Democrats" that years of propaganda has done. Just my two cents but the democratic party would really benefit from those PR firms that help disgraced celebrities. Those people are good at their jobs.

[dawg]

18. I think they'll dodge the blame this time, yet again.

It's going to be all Donald Trump's fault. (And he wasn't a *real* Republican, anyway.)

[still_one]

36. Americans seem to have short memories

[DK504]

38. That was a disaster.

When W.'s brother the governor of Florida turned the election and made sure the vote wasn't counted.

I do have to wonder when Americans will get sick of so much corruption.

[NurseJackie]

35. That was Susan [blank] Sarandon's stupid [blank] claim.

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

But instead, their failure to support Hillary has become a source of deep and bitter division within the party. These whiny "I-can't-vote-for-Hillary" (so-called) progressives continue to attack and smear Democrats.

They wanted to "teach the party a lesson" and create a rallying point? That's a big fail. The (so-called) progressives who voted for Stein (or Johnson, or their "write-in" gag name, or anyone other than Hillary) are idiots and traitors.

I guess there's a reason that they're not welcome here and have sought refuge at some other (so-called) progressive site. Although, I've seen a few of those (so-called) progressives return here (only to be outed and banned again).

[truebluegreen]

41. Hmm. One would almost think that the Democratic Party

doesn't need the left.

Apparently that is not the case.

[synergie]

46. That one should try actual thinking, since the Democratic Party is the left, even if it's not

pure enough by some "ones". It would be really nice if more people would think, instead of stopping at "almost" thinking and saying things that are blatantly silly. It's just this "almost thinking" that has allowed external forces to sow chaos.

Those of us who think fully need to correct these ones who "almost think" these things, it's how we fight, it's how we Resist and how we stay Indivisible among the many forces whose sole aim apparently is to divide.

[truebluegreen]

48. The left compared to what?

Batshit insane Republicans, or some other standard?

[synergie]

50. What standard is being used by those who insist that they are the very epitome of the "left"

as they use some rather Right wing tactics, talking points and stances, but calling themselves the leftest of the left.

Political spectrum is circular, there is little difference between the extremes of either side.

[truebluegreen]

52. Um, no.

The political spectrum is not circular. It is defined by adherence to policies, not by tactics or talking points. The "leftist of the left" is pure communism, the rightist of the right is the equally mythical free market. Ne'er the twain shall meet.

What's important to decide is where we want to be on that spectrum--indicated by polling on policies without labels attached to them--as contrasted with where we are.

[Hortensis]

34. We likely would have gotten control of the Senate

on the wave that would have put her in office, plus a number of seats in the house. Plus a bunch of state offices and judgeships. She wouldn't have had an open road, but we would have been more empowered than the GOP is now with a broken house majority.

Thanks for the post, Still One. We need to remember and remind what government should be doing.

[Kimchijeon]

57. yeah what's done is done,

looking on the positive side, since we are forced to witness the worst horrors of a republican (headed by fascists) govt, people are going to be forced to take action and real change can happen now.

No use wistfully imagining the "could have beens" but instead, focus on the positives we can bring from this pile o'shit. As we all know shit does make good fertilizer for a flourishing garden!

Sorry, that sounded kinda lame. lol

[oberliner]

4. Except the Republicans in Congress would've voted against all of it

And none of her initiatives would get passed.

[still_one]

5. Obe, if Hillary won the WH, we would have taken the Senate. Comey/FBI is what turned both

of those. As for the House, if the same effort that was exerted by us in calling our representatives regarding the ACA repeal was done, it would have been an uphill battle, but there might have been a chance

At least it would have been on the table, and definitely an issue for 2018

[oberliner]

7. Can you imagine what the RW noise machine would be doing in that case?

Trump and his minions would have said the election was stolen. Investigations into HRC would continue as RWers hound her incessantly. Not to mention the flank of our own party that would be going after HRC for being too moderate, pro-business, war-mongering, etc. It would've been really ugly.

But obviously, infinitely better than the current situation and a battle very much worth fighting (nasty and vicious as it would've been).

The whole political system right now is so messed up and it's all very depressing.

[still_one]

9. Well, you just made me depressed now. but I will still fight the good fight

[mcar]

10. It still breaks my heart

[still_one]

11. me too mcar. I still have a lot of anger about what happen

[mcar]

13. I'm delighted and heartened that so many people are making their voices heard

But even as I reveled in the Women's March on D.C. and felt such solidarity, a part of me wondered how many attendees had voted 3rd party.

They are with us now and that's great, but when I think of where we could be now...

[Cha]

14. What an awesome reality that would have been for people to

actually get health friendly care of value.

She said she would expand on Obamacare like what was meant to happen.

But, nooo.. rampant brainwashed ragers went with the Lying Hatemongers.. more important to them than reality.

Mahalo, stillone

[still_one]

16. ................................................

[Cha]

17. ..

[brer cat]

19. "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated"

vs here is how we fix the problems. It grieves me that so many will suffer needlessly.

Thank you for this post, still_one.

[krispos42]

20. Yeah, well, it was far more important to ban rifles with protruding pistol grips

Goddamnit, this pisses me off and has been since Election Day.

And here's the background on this, before I get flamed.

I'm a dedicated listener to podcasts, and over the past few years, of the array of podcasts that I subscribe to, I've caught up on some, and stay reasonably current in that I don't fall more than two or three weeks behind. Best of the Left, Real Time, The Bugle, WTF, Judge John Hogman, and Wait! Wait!. Oh, and Freakonimics.

There are two that I'm behind on: The Majority Report with Sam Sedar, and the audio podcast of Rachel Maddow. I'm listening to those, in order, trying (and probably failing) to catch up. I don't have all of the Rachel stuff... MSNBC only offers one podcast at a time so what I have is Sam, occasionally interspaced with Rachel.

In my personal catch-up land it's the end of April, 2013. The Boston Bombing was a couple of weeks prior, the post-Sandy Hook Shooting gun-control bills were just filibustered, and the sequester is on-going. And the Democrats, flush from their election victory over Romney and telling everybody of the demographic changes that are strangling the GOP and turning them into a permanent and regional minority party.

Contrast that with late March, 2017. President Cheeto and the vast collection of RW assholes. I don't have to detail how terrible this this; there are and have been a plethora of threads on this discussion the last 5 months.

But the way the gun-control movement, particularly as represented by weekly Sam Sedar guess Cliff Schecter, is off the rails, particularly when the bills get filibustered. He portrays everything in the failed bills as things that will saves your children, anybody that opposes them as terrorist-supporting Judases (literally; he mentioned "30 pieces of silver" quite a bit) and only reluctantly admits that there is an individual right to own guns because of a terrible Supreme Court decision. Him and Rachel both spent some time gloating about the NRA's very low return-on-investment for the 2012 election. Oh, how terrible it was! They wasted all that money on all these losing pro-gun candidates! And that special election in Chicago for the House! It went to a Democratic candidate that proudly flaunted her "F" from the NRA!!!

He names Democrats that need purging, vows to make gun control a single issue for candidate support, and is generally worked up to the point where if I was there in person, I would simply back away rather than engage in debate because his temper was that of your angry uncle at Thanksgiving.

And now it's 2017. ObamaCare is under attack (trust me, it's not over), and other, vast portions of the safety net are at risk. Millions of lives are at risk. President ^^^^^ wants to throw 24 million people off of health insurance, killing thousands or tens of thousands per year. As a start to his agenda! That's before the wars or any other cuts to things like Planned Parenthood and Meals on Wheels.

So was it worth it? Was it worth it? Hell no it wasn't!

One thing that conservatives know pretty well is how guns work. They may not know much about social programs or the Bible or how economies work or how much President ^^^^^ shits on them, but they have a pretty good idea how a gun works. And when they see progressives gleefully, practically drooling, at the thought of getting their "sensible" gun control laws passed, they could smell the bullshit. Particularly about "assault weapons".

Too many people on the gun-control sides don't know and don't care what an "assault weapon" is, and they just want to ban them "to make a statement" or something. I had a long discussion about this with my anti-gun mom, and that's what it boiled down to.

So every week, I whipsaw back in time 4 years and get very upset at what the efforts of 2013 gave us in 2017. And it's crazy and upsetting and aggregating. The demands for purity, that you can't be a Democrat or a progressive unless you're anti-gun, etc.

Well, the number of bodies that are going to be generated by ^^^^^, Ryan, and McConnell are going to be orders of magnitude higher than those generated by rifles with protruding pistol grips. And watching the slow-motion train wreck that is my America under the hand of ^^^^^ and his cronies, well...it's going to be bad. I'd say invest in funeral homes, but the people that die probably aren't going to have that kind of money floating around.

[Hoyt]

40. Oh BS, Trump supporters scared of losing their guns are likely ignorant white wing racists anyhow.

They wouldn't have voted for Clinton if she offered all of them a free rifle signed by George Zimmerman.

[brer cat]

43. Nailed it, Hoyt.

for the free Zimmerman rifle dig.

[krispos42]

54. Yeah, you keep saying stuff like that.

You advocate strongly for taking away large segments of the firearm market for purchase, then claim that gun-owners are ridiculous for thinking "you're coming for our guns". Gee, I can't figure out why gun owners are concerned about you doing exactly what you say you're going to do...

And ya know what, despite pro-control advocates like Cliff Schecter stating repeatedly statistics like "92% of people support universal background checks" and "85% of people support bans on assault weapons" (or whatever the exact numbers were in early 2013) WE STILL FUCKING LOST.

So, either those numbers are way the hell off, or the DEPTH of importance of those beliefs is significantly less than other things. Let me put it this way... those ideas ranked well below other ideas when it came time to cast a ballot. In case you didn't notice, Hillary didn't get 92% or 85% of the vote.

Yeah, there are lots of other factors involved, but this insistence on getting the vapors over rifles with pistol grips is ONE MORE FACTOR that works AGAINST US. And it gives them that many more votes (particularly in key states like Pennsylvania) that can tip things over the edge.

[Hoyt]

55. Well, I'm sure most gunners voted for Trump over fear Clinton would make them

actually prove they are responsible. Talking about "vapors," would you vote for Trump over your guns?

[krispos42]

56. I doubt that was it.

After all, the general policy goals of your side is not "Okay, you can have an 'assault weapon'* but you need to have extra scrutiny", it's "you can't have an 'assault weapon'* under any circumstances, period."

And I'm not voting for Trump. Full stop.

The problem here is that the Democratic Party is making this a binary choice when it doesn't have to be, and when a large percentage of the people think neither part is particularly helpful to them, then "guns" wins.

Remember, WE LOST, so thinking your rigid binary choice will win us something isn't, apparently, working very well.



*definition of "assault weapon" subject to change arbitrarily at any time and for any reason

[Hoyt]

58. Sorry, anyone who would vote for Trump over a dang "assault weapon" is ignorant and likely a racist.

[krispos42]

59. Keep up that black and white thinking. I'm sure it will pay off for you one day.

You keep implying that either those votes don't exist, or that they don't matter.

Well, who's running things right now?

Jesus, we're fighting for the vote of the mushy middle, and you keep handing them a very solid thing to bite down on.


And, on a slightly different tack, if it's NOT important, then why don't the gun-control groups drop it and move on to something else?

Your side is hell-bent on getting a new AWB into law, so obviously it matters a great deal to some of you. Not as many as you think, because we LOST the last election, but to some of you.

So, if it matters SO MUCH to you, then why is it the province of racists and the ignorant if it matters equally as much to them?

Hell, it matters MORE to them because they actually own the rifles in question. If a person does not want to own guns, period, then a ban on certain types of guns really doesn't affect them at all, does it?

[Hoyt]

63. You just want/need your gunz, admit it. You'll use any rationale to keep them.

Some uneducated gun nut isn't going to vote for a Democrat, even if they promise to give them more guns; pass more laws that allow folks like George Zimmerman to carry in public, stalk, and kill an unarmed kid; appoint gunners' friend -- Teddy Nugent -- as special liaison with the racist, white wing NRA; and god knows what else gunners want. Most are not potential Democrats, nor do I want the Democratic Party polluted with white wing gun nuts.

Next, are you going to tell us how we need to capture new voters by making abortion illegal, repeal all anti-discrimination laws, letting banks do whatever the heck they want, promoting more wars, and gutting Medicare and SS?

[krispos42]

65. And there it is... you don't want the Democratic Party "polluted"

A nice purity test you have there.

Gun owners used to vote for Democrats, before the Third Way decided that gun control made a marketable alternative to traditional Republican law-and-order efforts.

Of course, I'm talking about the ban on rifles with pistol grips and you went way off course. And guess what, Hoyt? BECAUSE we're not in charge, there ARE more pro-gun laws being passed! North Dakota just went the way of no-license concealed carry. What's this, the 5th or 6th state in the Union to have this now? A decade ago there was ONE state.

Nice to see that you're SO confident in the rightness of all gun-control laws that even debating the merits of them and maybe altering the party platform is considered "pollution".

Less than three hundred people are murdered with a rifle every year. ALL rifles, not just "assault weapon" rifles. Commodore Carrot wants to throw 24,000,000 million off of Obamacare in the next decade, with thousands or tens of thousands dying per year as a result. But hey, I guess that's worth it to avoid "pollution". And I'm sure that, like the Sandy Hook victims' parents', they'll be comforted to know that their children we murdered with a rifle that's not an "assault weapon".

[Hoyt]

66. Gun owners voted for Dixiecrats -- who are now GOPers. Now, we know what you want.

Murders are just part of it. Wounded matters, those intimidated by gunners matter, armed white wing militia groups matter, and worse.

Admit it, this is what you want everywhere:

?width=960

[krispos42]

67. The Dixiecrats voted for.... The Dixicrat Party, if memory serves.

And let's not forget the 50's, 60's, and 70's, either, when the Democratic Party ruled the House.

We're had this discussion before, but you're too busy being hysterical and hyperbolic to give a crap.

I am quite content with open carry being illegal, or confined to outside of city/ town limits. But in case you haven't noticed, our opinions don't matter because YOU and people like you put THEM in charge.

It's not like you have some kind of basis in fact that your precious AWB will save a single life, or that it will make any kind of statistically significant difference in the country.

You simply hate gun owners so much that you want to use the law to hurt them emotionally, to make some fictional and ineffective "moral stand".

Well, the people you hate are running things on multiple levels of government and enacting laws that hurt EVERYBODY in a very large, wide, deep, and physical way.

The way you are attacking ME, personally, is simply a way to deflect blame away from you and your attitude.

[kcr]

68. Hey Krispos. Did you vote for Trump?

No? Then you just wasted all that typing for nothing. Anyone who would vote for Trump because of something like that would vote for him anyway, and if they're claiming they voted for him because of that, they're full of shit.

If you did? Then shame the fuck on you! And what the hell are you doing here?

[krispos42]

69. Really? That's your view?

So the other 535 elected Federal representatives, their races don't count either?

Jesus, you guys elevate gun-control laws to the status of being worth of being a single-issue-voter item, then you're slack-jawed in surprise that the opposition often takes the same attitude. All over a DLC Third-Way political plan. One that's not even (apparently) able to be examined critically either on merits or on broader political implications.

After the GOP got spanked in 2012, they at least spent some time doing an autopsy on why they lost. Maybe they ignored the results, but at least they looked.

Back when the GOP primaries were still in Clown Car mode, a single glance was enough to tell me my vote was going to the Democrats, as it has for a couple of decades now. If you're interested, I pulled the primary lever for Bernie and the general lever for Hillary.

[Left-over]

21. AMEN...AMEN....AMEN....AMEN

Instead of worrying about our healthcare we could be secure in taking better jobs, our companies would not be robbed by the insurance giants, and we could be much more competitive in the global markets. Bring on single payer. It would simplify things. It would also mean that older people might get hired because the cost of our healthcare costs keeps the most experienced group out of the job market. They say there is no age discrimination but it is one of the most hidden dark secrets in our society and the main reason is the cost of healthcare coverage.

[George II]

22. People think that Medicare is a freebie for those above 65. It's not....

...there is a monthly premium assessed to each person on Medicare that is established by the SSA by working with insurance companies to determine the appropriate rate. Last year is was $126 per month, this year it's a few dollars lower. In addition, the insurance companies (United Healthcare in our case) provide insurance coverage for the ~20% that is not covered by Medicare. Last year it was $29 per month, this year down to only $25. The Medicare premium is automatically deducted from the monthly Social Security check.

These rates are established by looking at the competitive situation out there, overall costs, and are sensibly set by a "partnership" between SSA and the insurance companies.

If anything, expanding Medicare to a larger group (i.e., between 55 and 65) most likely those rates would go down even more.

So anyone trying to claim that healthcare premiums are going UP and that expansion to a greater group won't work are not looking objectively at the issue.

[still_one]

24. You are absolutely right George. Not only is there a premium for Part B, still everything isn't

covered, and to do that people have to either buy a Supplemental Plan or sign onto an Advantage plan. Medicare Part D is also extra, unless it is included in an advantage plan, and dental also.

For those who cannot afford Medicare Part B, that is where Medicaid would come in.

It is also important that people sign up for Medicare when they are eligible, or they will be penalized if they sign up later

[BainsBane]

23. Kick and Rec

[DavidDvorkin]

25. That's what the majority of Americans voted for.

[Binkie The Clown]

26. I like looking for silver linings. Maybe, just maybe...

...this whole debacle will make people wake up to the fact that the Republicans simply can't govern. Maybe those who vote against their own interest will wake up to the fact that they are being played for suckers. Maybe. ... We can hope.

[Turbineguy]

27. As Biden said,

none of that came out because whenever she said something, the media went for something stupid or outrageous that Trump said or did.

[Kath2]

28. It kills me to think of what we could have had.

<img src="" alt="Image result for hillary sign women's march"/>

Very ashamed of the Predator In Chief.

[NurseJackie]

29. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) is someone who makes me proud to be a DEMOCRAT! She totally ROCKS!!

I wish she'd had more support during the General Election.

[Kath2]

30. "I wish she'd had more support during the General Election."

Exactly!

[ismnotwasm]

39. I know!

She is completely awesome and an incredible fighter!!

[Kath2]

47. And she understands we are Stronger Together!

<img src="" alt="Women's March"/>

[sarcasmo]

31. HRC would have worked the weekend.

[Cha]

32. She would have worked until the job was

done.. and there's always something to do when you take your job seriously as POTUS.

[George II]

33. And I don't think she's ever picked up a golf club. She's a working dynamo.

[Jamaal510]

37. K&R

[Initech]

42. Hillary also wouldn't nominate a tool like Gorsuch to SCOTUS.

[sheshe2]

44. Sad K&R

Thanks, still_one.

[Gothmog]

45. K&R

[NastyRiffraff]

49. What a missed opportunity for our country!

We could have had a president who CARES about America, and more important, Americans. We could have had someone who LISTENS to good advice, who STUDIES the issues and makes sure what she says is true.

She still cares, and she still studies, but she should have been in the White House.

[lunamagica]

51. For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been John Greenleaf

For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been ~John Greenleaf Whittier

So true, so true...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. What we could have had right now, America.

But....emails!

[Cha]

60. Mahalo again, still_one!

[Starry Messenger]

61. k&r

[sheshe2]

62. Another K&R!

[R B Garr]

64. K&R

She had the right stuff. And not just empty smears against others.

Great thread.