As recently as August 1st she has said:

It's an overstatement to say that I cast skepticism on vaccinations. On the issue of vaccinations, I'm pro-vaccination. I'm pro-medicine and pro-science."

She tries to play both sides on it, she's back tracking now trying to downplay previous quotes on the issue. She also tried to claim mandatory vaccination was akin to abortion rights.

She is saying clearly and specifically that she is pro vaccination.

I don't think that is trying to play both sides.

She is categorically sceptical about the requirement for widespread, unquestioned prescription of drugs manufactured and marketed by "predatory big pharma".
She highlights the strength of the influence that the pharma lobby has on politicians and the fact that FDA oversight and regulation relies predominantely on trust that pharma companies are upfront about the scope, standards and results of clinical trials.

I think that it is legitimate to be sceptical on that front and to shine a spotlight on the deficiencies in the drugs approval process.

I think she's back tracked to that position but her initial statements were far less measured and while intentional or not added fuel to the anti-vaxxers by using their rhetoric about being sceptical of "big pharma" when it comes to vaccinations.

Anyway its all academic as she hasn't a hope of getting the nomination. Overall she's not bad but she has her blindspots on some health issues. Still 100 times better than Biden and his clones though.

Exactly, streets ahead of Biden.
I was suggesting her as VP candidate though, the anti Pence part of the equation

Qwiss! wrote:

‘poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids’

I love how American politicians who have dozens of assistants and years of media training always manage to fuck up and show their true colours inadvertently at some point.

y va marquer wrote:

Exactly, streets ahead of Biden.
I was suggesting her as VP candidate though, the anti Pence part of the equation

Does Williamson have much of a constituency she can bring to Warren that she wouldn't already have? Not that I think running mates really make a huge difference. I mean who remembers anything about Tim Kaine?

Qwiss! wrote:
y va marquer wrote:

Exactly, streets ahead of Biden.
I was suggesting her as VP candidate though, the anti Pence part of the equation

Does Williamson have much of a constituency she can bring to Warren that she wouldn't already have? Not that I think running mates really make a huge difference. I mean who remembers anything about Tim Kaine?

She takes discussions in a different route, has a less conventional perspective, analyes issues in an alternative way.

I don't think she has a hope in hell of making it even as a running mate as she's been pigeon holed and dismissed as some kind of new age flake.

Warren needs a new campaign logo if she gets the nomination.

a month later

He hasn't a hope. US Presidents are almost always over 6 foot. Jimmy Carter is the exception in living memory and he gets no respect.

Carter gets no respect because he was a dove in foreign policies mostly. His height didn't help either to be fair.

Too short to start a war.

20 days later

Not sure how I feel about Bernie playing RW. 

😆 

Kamala as the midfield enforcer

Some real lack of ideas in that midfield.

I would be worried about the lack of pace down the right hand side.

I also fear Warren will be muscled off the ball very easily if asked to play with her back towards the goal so she'll have to function more like a false nine the way Spain used to play with when Torres and David Villa dropped off. Hopefully she can occupy space and make room for Yang who will have to beat his man and cross into Beto and Kamala who at this point should be bombing inside the penalty box. I don't particularly like our chances but that does seem our best course of action.

CB pairing is too short.

A bit of invention at left wing

11 days later

It's simply brilliant how they've dug up and made Hunter Biden and his business the main story all over-they present it with such concern in the straight news channel that is Fox- while the other side is Trump. It's really something else.

And that Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow. 😆 What is this McCarthyism?

Muswell Hill Gooner wrote:

Clinton also said she thought Jill Stein, the Green Party’s 2016 presidential nominee, was a Russian asset: “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset – I mean, totally.

At this point you'd be forgiven for thinking Clinton is a Trump asset.

Also what about the embarrasing state of that Guardian article. The author/Clinton asset should go back to writing for her high school newspaper, certainly writes and looks that way.

Is there any distinguishable difference between NBC and Fox News, aside from the technicality that they produce propaganda for different parties?

12 days later
17 days later

Obama showing his true colours (as if anyone was surprised). I remember thinking in his early years he was a guy who genuinely wanted to fix his shithole country and just couldn't because of Republicans running the house and key positions. Not even the Change garbage but his speech at Al Azhar for instance

Now he wants to curb the Change (TM) before it even starts looking remotely likely, because the centrist horseshit peddled by Hillary worked so great last time. Instead of Change now you're looking at Chanegieg

Obama is a right winger, always was, he's admitted he's a Reaganite.

As for Hillary she's come out as a TERF this week. How can anyone stand these people?

Qwiss! wrote:

Obama is a right winger, always was, he's admitted he's a Reaganite.

Link? Not questioning, just curious.

It's was a little ironic coming from someone who's campaign slogan was 'change'. I've always defended Obama's lack of substance, I mean he could barely get Obama care throug, but I don't quite understand why he'd actively warn against "revolution" as he calls it. Aside from his own views, I'd say the evidence suggests that he is wrong, the poloarisation in America (and here in the UK), suggests to me that there's a decent appetite to move towards more radical ideas.

They're not radical. The current status quo is radical, the alleged revolution are bog fucking standard social democratic ideas which have been the norm all over the West until Hayek and Friedmans seeds started growing in the 70s.

Qwiss! wrote:

Obama is a right winger, always was, he's admitted he's a Reaganite.

As for Hillary she's come out as a TERF this week. How can anyone stand these people?

I never even heard of the term TERF. This is like when I learnt there are Ukrainian born Jewish Nazi groups in Israel

Hillary is not a feminist. She's a piece of shit who bar some posturing will immediately pull the ladder up behind her as soon as she's in power because her allies are male. I'm glad people are starting to realise her true nature by now wasn't that long ago that I got called out for calling her out.

Maybe, but I'm talking about perception. The point is, I think it suits the likes of Sanders (and Trump) to frame their policies as being 'radical' and a significant shift away from the status quo regardless of whether or not that's the case. It's a tactic being utilised all across the globe.

goon wrote:

Maybe, but I'm talking about perception. The point is, I think it suits the likes of Sanders (and Trump) to frame their policies as being 'radical' and a significant shift away from the status quo regardless of whether or not that's the case. It's a tactic being utilised all across the globe.

I don't think it helps Sanders at all. I hear Americans who self describe as being left wing call Bernie crazy for his policies. It allows someone like Warren to come in and offer watered down versions of his policies and call herself reasonable. Jones is right, if we take a look at Bernies actual platform its not revolutionary at all by European standards. And even Europe has moved severely to the right over the last 30 years.