http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archiv...octrine/471525/

 

Link to article I referenced.

Breitbart Reporter Files Criminal Complaint Against Top Trump Aide

 

Claiming that the aide assaulted her after she asked a question about affirmative action at a Trump event in Florida earlier this week.

Absolutely idiotic remark by Clinton praising the Reagans for their work on AIDS. I get it's someones funeral, but their record on that was horrendous. It's pretty much saying "heckuva job, Brownie"

Didn't his "work" on it while in office consist of not really acknowledging the problem for years and having religious ideologues within the administration try to undermine C. Everrett Koop's legitimate efforts to educate the public?

Nancy Reagan did a lot of good things. Lots to praise. The AIDS work is not among them.

 

Didn't his "work" on it while in office consist of not really acknowledging the problem for years and having religious ideologues within the administration try to undermine C. Everrett Koop's legitimate efforts to educate the public?

 

I mean, my God, look at the national panic at Ebola and it's 1 death in the US, and use that frame of mind to imagine the 80s. It is only understandable when you group in the homophobia at the time. They point to them giving money to it, but it was a plague at the time, and if it had happened to any other group the country would have thrown every resource possible at it.

The first lady who looked away: Nancy and the Reagans' troubling Aids legacy'

 

Ronald Reagan, who died in 2004, was president for nearly five years before he said the word “Aids” in public, nearly seven years before he gave a speech on a health crisis that would go on to kill more than 650,000 Americans and stigmatize even more.

 

In recent months, published reports have revealed an administration that laughed at the scourge and its victims and a first lady who turned her back on Rock Hudson, a close friend, when he reached out to the White House for help as he was dying from an Aids-related illness.

 

Dr Marcus Conant got a closeup view of the Reagan administration’s beliefs about Aids and the gay community, not once, not twice, but three times. Conant, who is a clinical professor of dermatology emeritus at UC San Francisco, was one of the first physicians to diagnose and treat Aids.

 

His first bird’s-eye view was a 1983 meeting about the Aids epidemic in Washington DC, with the White House liaison for medical care. Conant and his colleagues “were going on and on about how this was a disease, an infectious disease”, he recalled. Reagan’s representative wasn’t buying it.

 

“Her response was [that] this was a legal problem, not a medical problem,” Conant said. Simply because of who gay men with Aids were and who their sexual partners were, she told him, “these people were breaking the law”.

 

Around 1987, Conant wrote to the president. By that time, about 21,000 people had died of the epidemic in the United States alone.

 

This is more or less how Conant remembers his letter: “Dear President Reagan, I have all these patients and they are dying and no one’s doing anything. It is incumbent on your administration to direct the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health to begin efforts to find the cause and treatment for this disease.”

 

Reagan wrote a letter back, Conant recounted: “It said, quote, ‘Nancy and I thank you for your support’.”

At the time, he said, he was furious. At so much death, so much wasted humanity, so much government foot dragging. But these days, he realizes that “Ronald Reagan was the president of the United States in more than just name.”

 

“He represented the view of the majority of the American people,” Conant said. “‘We’re going to look the other way.’ If you say to me, what do I think of Ronald Reagan? He was doing exactly what his constituents wanted him to do – look the other way – and he did it with great finesse.”

Nancy Reagan did a lot of good things. Lots to praise. The AIDS work is not among them.

Yeah, it came right after legitimately praising her for her advocacy on Alzheimer's and stem cell research.

I'm reassured that after Cruzs comments last night he is clearly more interested in governing this country than Trump. We can survive a Cruz presidency, it will be bad but we've had bad. This trump thing is just terrifying territory now.

I'm reassured that after Cruzs comments last night he is clearly more interested in governing this country than Trump. We can survive a Cruz presidency, it will be bad but we've had bad. This trump thing is just terrifying territory now.

 

As a republican I can't disagree enough. Trump isn't a religious zealot who's threatened to eradicate major departments like Education. Now, I can agree with downsizing and shifting responsibility to state/local agencies, but still.

 

Cruz is far scarier to me because he is probably more equipped to get things done. Trump would just be an embarassment. Embarassment doesn't change our day to day lives.

As a republican I can't disagree enough. Trump isn't a religious zealot who's threatened to eradicate major departments like Education. Now, I can agree with downsizing and shifting responsibility to state/local agencies, but still.

 

Cruz is far scarier to me because he is probably more equipped to get things done. Trump would just be an embarassment. Embarassment doesn't change our day to day lives.

Do you know what made Nixon a terrible president?

 

Policy so obviously unworkable and bad is extraordinarily difficult to get done.

 

Using your power to settle bets, create a cult of personality and eliminate opposition is so much worse than bad policy.

Do you know what made Nixon a terrible president?

 

Policy so obviously unworkable and bad is extraordinarily difficult to get done.

 

Using your power to settle bets, create a cult of personality and eliminate opposition is so much worse than bad policy.

 

I find it very difficult to believe Trump could find any support in Washington. Everyone dislikes him.

You found it difficult to believe he'd be the nominee as well. He'd be the president. He'd hire the executive positions.

I find it very difficult to believe Trump could find any support in Washington. Everyone dislikes him.

I believe more "Washington people" on your side have endorsed Trump than Cruz at this point.

 

Unless of course you mean the population of the city itself, not the "political class".

I believe more "Washington people" on your side have endorsed Trump than Cruz at this point.

 

Unless of course you mean the population of the city itself, not the "political class".

 

Yeah but that's right now, as an anti-Hillary, i'll support the Republican nominee-type endorsement. It remains to be seen if they'll sponsor/vote for nonsense like deporting all Muslims.

What does your sentence mean? You'd be willing to support trump if the RNC supports as long as they say their against his Muslim comments?

I think he's saying that the RNC types are giving an "anti-Hillary, i'll support the Republican nominee-type," not speaking for himself, and that they wouldn't necessarily go along with his actual policy positions if he were elected. Still, the executive branch is plenty powerful on its own.

Oh. That's not really a good response to "what made Nixon a bad president".

Oh. That's not really a good response to "what made Nixon a bad president".

 

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you comparing egos?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/p...0312-story.html

 

"Hillary Clinton proudly lists Mayor Rahm Emanuel as one of her leading mayoral endorsers," Sanders said at a downtown news conference. "Based on his disastrous record as mayor of the city of Chicago, I do not want Mayor Emanuel's endorsement if I win the Democratic nomination. That is not the kind of support I want. We want the endorsement of the people who are fighting for social and racial justice. We do not want the support of people who are indebted to Wall Street and the big money interests."

 

There's a dude with some stones.

Probably a pretty good move for the democratic primary. Rahm has never been well liked by the liberal base.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/p...0312-story.html

 

 

 

There's a dude with some stones.

 

Except that Rahm's Chicago is probably closer to Bernie's vision of America than Hillary's anyway.

Everybody is doing the line comparison time lapse now.

 

 

https://twitter.com/pdpj/status/709043056100528128

Except that Rahm's Chicago is probably closer to Bernie's vision of America than Hillary's anyway.

I'm pretty genuinely confused by what you mean here. Rahm is criticized from the left in ways that align pretty well with Sanders campaign.

Except that Rahm's Chicago is probably closer to Bernie's vision of America than Hillary's anyway.

 

Come on now this statement is just absolutely absurd. If you are going to make these claims at least throw out some reasons why.