No, you're being overanalytical and trying too hard. Again, whether she's #1 or #3, it is arguable that she is the most admired woman in the world. And that respect will only go UP, when she becomes POTUS
But it's not arguable when she isn't #1 in the WW poll
I am asking you (and anyone else in here) how HER plans are so realistic since everyone keeps saying that, yet her website reveals the opposite. Throwing out these big numbers to fund programs with no way to get the money is NOT realistic. Just because her plans are "moderate" does not make them realistic. There is a difference. Why can't this question be answered without mentioning someone else?
Marvin, the numbers do not matter. Quite frankly, her plans are realistic because she is approaching it from an incrementalist point of view.
Yes, that's important. Our entire country's fabric is not set up for radical change. It's set up for incremental change. Change happens in increments. Rather than proposing free tuition, or 100% medical coverage, Hillary is wanting to work with something that already exists like the ACA and works towards improving it and building on top of it. And, most importantly, making sure that Republicans do not get rid of it. How that is unrealistic is beyond me. Please explain to me how that is unrealistic.
Do not look at the numbers and how they have no source. They're not supposed to. They're estimations, proposed numbers, they don't have to be proven because they haven't been enacted, so there is no way to get 100% perfect numbers. That's a stupid argument on your part.
Marvin, the numbers do not matter. Quite frankly, her plans are realistic because she is approaching it from an incrementalist point of view.
Yes, that's important. Our entire country's fabric is not set up for radical change. It's set up for incremental change. Change happens in increments. Rather than proposing free tuition, or 100% medical coverage, Hillary is wanting to work with something that already exists like the ACA and works towards improving it and building on top of it. And, most importantly, making sure that Republicans do not get rid of it. How that is unrealistic is beyond me. Please explain to me how that is unrealistic.
Do not look at the numbers and how they have no source. They're not supposed to. They're estimations, proposed numbers, they don't have to be proven because they haven't been enacted, so there is no way to get 100% perfect numbers. That's a stupid argument on your part.
Marvin, the numbers do not matter. Quite frankly, her plans are realistic because she is approaching it from an incrementalist point of view.
Yes, that's important. Our entire country's fabric is not set up for radical change. It's set up for incremental change. Change happens in increments. Rather than proposing free tuition, or 100% medical coverage, Hillary is wanting to work with something that already exists like the ACA and works towards improving it and building on top of it. And, most importantly, making sure that Republicans do not get rid of it. How that is unrealistic is beyond me. Please explain to me how that is unrealistic.
Do not look at the numbers and how they have no source. They're not supposed to. They're estimations, proposed numbers, they don't have to be proven because they haven't been enacted, so there is no way to get 100% perfect numbers. That's a stupid argument on your part.
I tried explaining yesterday that it would be silly for a candidate to release a detailed legislative budget before they are even elected, but they wouldn't listen!
Marvin, the numbers do not matter. Quite frankly, her plans are realistic because she is approaching it from an incrementalist point of view.
Yes, that's important. Our entire country's fabric is not set up for radical change. It's set up for incremental change. Change happens in increments. Rather than proposing free tuition, or 100% medical coverage, Hillary is wanting to work with something that already exists like the ACA and works towards improving it and building on top of it. And, most importantly, making sure that Republicans do not get rid of it. How that is unrealistic is beyond me. Please explain to me how that is unrealistic.
Do not look at the numbers and how they have no source. They're not supposed to. They're estimations, proposed numbers, they don't have to be proven because they haven't been enacted, so there is no way to get 100% perfect numbers. That's a stupid argument on your part.
waitwaitwait I don't agree with this at all. I think those numbers are important.
Marvin, the numbers do not matter. Quite frankly, her plans are realistic because she is approaching it from an incrementalist point of view.
Yes, that's important. Our entire country's fabric is not set up for radical change. It's set up for incremental change. Change happens in increments. Rather than proposing free tuition, or 100% medical coverage, Hillary is wanting to work with something that already exists like the ACA and works towards improving it and building on top of it. And, most importantly, making sure that Republicans do not get rid of it. How that is unrealistic is beyond me. Please explain to me how that is unrealistic.
Do not look at the numbers and how they have no source. They're not supposed to. They're estimations, proposed numbers, they don't have to be proven because they haven't been enacted, so there is no way to get 100% perfect numbers. That's a stupid argument on your part.
But where are those numbers coming from? How do we know that it's possible to get that money from these unknown sources? How do we know that it's even close enough to the amount that's needed? Her plan is not detailed enough to even know if it makes sense and therefore just a pipe dream (!).
The ACA is broken and trying to put a bandage on it will only make it worse in time. I don't know why we can't just accept that and move on to trying an objectively better system.
waitwaitwait I don't agree with this at all. I think those numbers are important.
The numbers dispute came up from Marvin making an argument saying that Hillary coming up with estimations on her website for proposals make her entire plans unrealistic. It's different when economic analysts propose that Bernie's plans would cost $14 billion dollars. That's different. But, in the context of Hillary being criticized for proposed numbers that Bernie also does, I will call you out on it.
Mickey, I think numbers are important, but you have to take it with a grain of salt when you're referencing their website.
Queen Rania of Jordan: "In the US, when Mrs. Clinton's name is brought up it's usually in the context of politics. But for the rest of the world [to Hillary], I don't even think YOU recognize the impact that you've had on women and children all over the world. Not only through the work that you've done, but also in the symbolism of what you've achieved in your life. Both personally and professionally."
How could anyone watch this and support Bernie over her? LOL
But where are those numbers coming from? How do we know that it's possible to get that money from these unknown sources? How do we know that it's even close enough to the amount that's needed? Her plan is not detailed enough to even know if it makes sense and therefore just a pipe dream (!).
Bernie does the exact same thing though... That's standard...
Quote:
The ACA is broken and trying to put a bandage on it will only make it worse in time. I don't know why we can't just accept that and move on to trying an objectively better system.
You do realize the ACA has saved lives, right?
It has flaws sure... But never in history do you pass a perfect piece of legislation. You pass a ****** one and then go on to improve it to be a good piece of legislation. The entire federal government shut down over the ACA, do you think it was going to be a strong piece of legislation from the get-go??
But it's not arguable when she isn't #1 in the WW poll
No, it is. After all, that was only one poll done in many countries to show how respected she is. Who knows what would happen if they added five more countries or polled more people. It's arguable, sorry. Go back to trolling.
Queen Rania of Jordan: "In the US, when Mrs. Clinton's name is brought up it's usually in the context of politics. But for the rest of the world [to Hillary], I don't even think YOU recognize the impact that you've had on women and children all over the world. Not only through the work that you've done, but also in the symbolism of what you've achieved in your life. Both personally and professionally."
How could anyone watch this and support Bernie over her? LOL
Queen Rania of Jordan: "In the US, when Mrs. Clinton's name is brought up it's usually in the context of politics. But for the rest of the world [to Hillary], I don't even think YOU recognize the impact that you've had on women and children all over the world. Not only through the work that you've done, but also in the symbolism of what you've achieved in your life. Both personally and professionally."
How could anyone watch this and support Bernie over her? LOL
Queen Rania of Jordan: "In the US, when Mrs. Clinton's name is brought up it's usually in the context of politics. But for the rest of the world [to Hillary], I don't even think YOU recognize the impact that you've had on women and children all over the world. Not only through the work that you've done, but also in the symbolism of what you've achieved in your life. Both personally and professionally."
How could anyone watch this and support Bernie over her? LOL
Omg... That quote is brilliant... Adding that YouTube video to my Watch Later...
No, it is. After all, that was only one poll done in many countries to show how respected she is. Who knows what would happen if they added five more countries or polled more people. It's arguable, sorry. Go back to trolling.
I tried explaining yesterday that it would be silly for a candidate to release a detailed legislative budget before they are even elected, but they wouldn't listen!
