Single-payer was never going to happen then. It’s still nearly a Sisyphean task now. Maybe in a decade or two...

I mean, yeah, it ain’t great, but IMO it’s better than giving him an executive cabinet post like Attorney General where he can make policy unilaterally like Sessions did.

Well, yeah, I definitely get that, that implies ownership.

Wow, really? HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!! I coulda sworn you’ve been around longer than a year, I guess that’s because you guys create so much entertaining content. Thanks, and keep it up!

Oh HELL no!

This was in the late 90's / early 2000's mostly... I’m in my late 30's. I’ve been an activist on the left for a couple decades now, and this is the first time I’m hearing an issue with this.

I’m seriously not trying to be a dick here, but this confuses me quite a bit...

Well said.

You realize the ACA as it stands (and stood at the time,) was a HUGE giveaway to the healthcare industry, right? That Pelosi helped shepherd it through the House isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of her “P”rogressive bona fides. It was great that it passed, and it was certainly the best we could hope for at the…

BTW, I didn’t post this same comment 3x... I’m not sure why it’s showing up like I did, but it has nothing to do with me.

not joking here, I seriously want to know why it’s offensive. I have no idea.

Yay! A post about the speakership that makes sense!

They haven’t “done it already.” They haven’t even come CLOSE to having done it already. It’s a whole new fucking world on Capitol Hill. If you can’t understand that, and why it takes someone who has AT LEAST a single term under their belt to run the whole damn party in the House, I really feel no need to continue to…

I feel ya, dudebra.

The House would eat either of them alive. These aren’t rational people. These are people who love power for power’s sake. A Newbie isn’t going to be able to walk in there on her first day, crack the whip, and make everyone fall in line, especially since they’re kind of outliers as far as political perspective is…

Maybe I’m just old, but I’m not sure what the issue is here... Is “females” incorrect because it’s gender-specific? What’s the problem with calling a self-identified female human a “female?” I mean, I’d understand if he said “lady,” or “girl,” but “female?” Really?

Maybe I’m just old, but I’m not sure what the issue is here... Is “females” incorrect because it’s gender-specific? What’s the problem with calling a self-identified female human a “female?” I mean, I’d understand if he said “lady,” or “girl,” but “female?” Really?

Maybe I’m just old, but I’m not sure what the issue is here... Is “females” incorrect because it’s gender-specific? What’s the problem with calling a self-identified female human a “female?” I mean, I’d understand if he said “lady,” or “girl,” but “female?” Really?

I get where you’re coming from, but CA’s State economy is the 5th largest economy in the world, so thinking the CA blueprint works anywhere else is hopeful, at best.

They may not deserve it, but they’ve paid for it, and paid a lot since the industrial revolution. Ignoring that fact, and expecting a cut-off of influence is fucking naive.