Michelle Obama urged to run for California seat in Senate | Page Six
Her prequel to running for prez in 2020.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Where the heck has this writer been the last six years? She probably has a nice ole bathing suit for just that kinda pool.
Can anyone just put some TNT along the San Andreas fault and get rid of her and all the other mandate happy sycophants?
I find it hard to imagine anyone who's not an O-Kool-Aid drinker ever wanting trash like her in office. Yes, she would fit in well in Illinois or California... because IL is corrupt from top to bottom and CA is stupid from top to bottom.
Would you like Hillary in the WH in a few years? I'm betting that the US electorate is stupid enough to make THAT happen, too!
[so, ask me how I REALLY feel about her?]
:)
:)
Are you kidding? Hillary is like Kryptonite for Republicans' brains
¿án? ¿Teclado mexicano? :)
"She said businesses don 't create jobs."
Yeah, that's nuts.
"Are you personally happy with how ACA has been working out?"
Yes. It's supposed to spread the risk better than the "system" we had before. All those sick people are going to sign up, and premiums increase. It's far from perfect, but it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do-- keeping people from freeloading medical care and spreading the risk of getting sick even to people who already have been sick. It's working as expected, expect for those who expected those sick people to get treatment w/o anyone paying.
"How can you on one hand support liberty and on the other support a political party that embraces large government? "
Both mainstream parties support large intrusive gov't, so anyone supporting mainstream candidates at least indirectly supports a party that embraces large gov't. The other option is to to follow the corporate media and think about how $hitty life is and how any prosperity people create for one another is some kind of illusion.
It's obviously a huge problems that "factions" (parties) formed and even worse that both support a large intrusive gov't. Now anyone who supports a mainstream candidate "supports a party that embraces large gov't."
"Yeah, that's nuts."??? Noooo SHE'S nuts...and so are you.
Who said any of us support either "party"? Why did you even attempt to go there to make a point?
Your wife is a big fan of Hillary??? What is there to be a fan OF? Benghazi? Fake women inequality rants? Being good friends with George Soros? Being married to Bill? Blaming the "evil republicans: for the "rumors" about Monica? She's a telephone pole in a pant suit who tries to convince idiots that they're broke. WHAT'S TO LIKE??
I don't like blaming "evil epublicans/Democrats", but that's politics. I didn't say any one (except maybe I) support a party.
I admire Soros. From what I read in his book I would be friends with him. I never met him or even anyone who knows him though.
All the progressives want to do is take, whether by stealth or overtly, what ISN'T THEIRS TO TAKE!!
The First Lady hag M is attempting to micromanage people's lives. She is so out of her depth, and so far removed from what liberty and free will are, which the country was founded on, and I cannot fathom how ANY RATIONAL PERSON would possibly wish her in any office where she has a say in any form of governance.
We had a "system" of freeloading medical care before. ACA has its organized freeloading element. It's not perfect.
It's almost no different from medical care subsidizing the poor and irresponsible, except in this case people pay their own way instead of making some other buyer of medical services pay.
If you're comparing it to a hypothetical system in which people who fail to plan for needing medical care just don't get medical care, that's a different question. I've never lived under such a system. All my life someone had to pay for the irresponsible. Now we're trying to make people pay their own way.
The ACA was 'sold' to Americans as a cost-saver. Undeniably so. And anyone who's dumb enough to believe that adding thousands or millions of MORE consumers into a system can, in any way, IMMEDIATELY lower overall costs for the delivery and insurance parts of that marketplace is, well... in some kind of reality distortion field. The universe doesn't EVER work that way.
But it was rarely, if ever, sold or described as a 'long term savings' in terms of getting a ton of people locked out of the system to GET to medical facilities so that, in the LONGER run, they can get better care and cost themselves and the entire system LESS by getting and staying healthier!
And the mainscream media never raised a flag or a voice to try to change misunderstandings like that.
It was a cluster-fk of misinformation and misunderstanding and mis-set expectations.
And by the time any real numbers surface, most of the creators of the debacle will have someone else in office to pin the blame on.
And it's not just the red or blue side... BOTH/EACH 'team' lies regularly but never takes any blame or responsibility for their actions or mistakes. VERY UN-Gulchy, y'know?
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-bo...