CORN POP, GET OUT OF THE POOL! CUT THE MALARKY!
CORN POP, GET OUT OF THE POOL! CUT THE MALARKY!
Kinda feel like if Bernie would drop out, it'd be curtains for Biden, and Warren would get the nom fairly easily. But he'll stay in and block Warren and help Biden get the nom. I think it'll cause resentment against Bernie from progressives in this scenario.
That’s how you look when you haven’t had a hard days work in your entire life.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
Basically been in academia her entire career then politician.
Idk, Bernie hasn't worked a day in his life and he looks 90Quote:
Originally Posted by TexterThat’s how you look when you haven’t had a hard days work in your entire life.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
Basically been in academia her entire career then politician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT thisIdk, Bernie hasn't worked a day in his life and he looks 90Quote:
Originally Posted by Texter
Being married to a woman will do that to you.
So much for the Warren lesbian rumorsQuote:
Originally Posted by TexterQuote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
Being married to a woman will do that to you.
i really don't understand why you think that other countries can do this successfully, but americans can't. i think i'm more optimistic than you about our capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWouldn't have to turn into Venezuela.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
Picture this:
Socialized medicine passes.
Medical profession totally not ready for it, and idiot politicians didn't expect the various complications of such a switch. Tons of fail occurs. Utilization goes WAY up (as it will), causing 6-month-type wait lists for doctor visits, tests, and procedures, except in dire emergencies. People cannot see the doctor when they need to, and pretty soon the media picks up on this and there's a tremendous backlash. Everyone just wishes they could go back to the old system. Democrats keep saying to give it time and wait for the kinks to be worked out, but the fail continues, and the waits to get an appointment are staggering.
Next election comes. Republicans hammer this hard. Democrats have little to say other than "lol it works in Europe and Canada, just give it time and it'll be great". People don't buy it. Big win for Republicans on the promise this will all be repealed. They repeal it quickly and return it to some form of the old system.
but aside from that fact, can you cite a government handout that was given to americans that was later taken away?
druff: "republicans will repeal it quickly and return it to some form of the old system." -- are you hearing yourself?
trump couldn't even repeal even obamacare with an entirely republican government, even though that was his core campaign promise. and you think they'll come up with an entirely new system to replace a vastly more complex socialized medicine program -- after the insurance companies will have likely been made obsolete?
single payer would have to be an unbelievably catastrophic fail for that to happen.
Obamacare sucks and wasn't implemented well, but it's not a catastrophe. I can still see doctors quickly and can still get tests done quickly, and I get similar coverage. It's just WAY more expensive (by like a factor of 4 now) in premiums, and the selection of good doctors is immensely reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei really don't understand why you think that other countries can do this successfully, but americans can't. i think i'm more optimistic than you about our capabilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
but aside from that fact, can you cite a government handout that was given to americans that was later taken away?
druff: "republicans will repeal it quickly and return it to some form of the old system." -- are you hearing yourself?
trump couldn't even repeal even obamacare with an entirely republican government, even though that was his core campaign promise. and you think they'll come up with an entirely new system to replace a vastly more complex socialized medicine program -- after the insurance companies will have likely been made obsolete?
single payer would have to be an unbelievably catastrophic fail for that to happen.
But if we get to the point where it's a 6 month wait to see a specialist, then yes, the people will demand an immediate change.
And it's not that we CAN'T have socialized medicine done the same way as the other countries -- it's just that we won't. Look how badly Obamacare was bungled. They rolled out a non-working website (for $560 million, no less) and health plans were canceled because they didn't have maternity care for men (this actually happened to me).
So there's no chance that a socialized system in the US would involve a complete redo of the compensation structure which would fully emulate the other countries. It would just shift the bill to the government. This is also why Bernie, Warren, and company aren't claiming we're going to get big savings from any kind of restructure -- only that we're cutting out the middleman and its profits. Which, as I pointed out, is almost meaningless.
Also, Americans aren't used to waiting months to get appointments with specialists or certain tests. They're also not used to getting declined for certain tests they want. These are realities in a socialized system. I used to talk about it on forums and Facebook, and people in those countries would scold me and tell me I was just repeating right wing American talking points. I almost believed they were right, until I joined Facebook groups for people with actual health issues (ones similar to mine last year), and I saw frequent complaining about how difficult it was for them to see doctors and get tests approved. These weren't people arguing politics -- it was people who just wanted to get tested and get better. I remember seeing it and realizing that, as much as Obamacare sucks, I felt lucky at that moment to be American.
It’s a very complicated issue and interesting to read the debate.
I have a hunch the US system went irretrievably off the rails when employers started offering health insurance.
My recollection is that it was a dodge of the wage freeze during the Great Depression (not 2008 - the other one).
“I can’t give you more money to attract you but I will offer you a benefit”
Thank the Democrats and Roosevelt for the unintended consequences you suffer
Some shit just can’t be fixed without revolution. You fucked up - you pay the price
The assumption that the US must be better than other countries is amusing egocentrism
Carry on
"Also, Americans aren't used to waiting months to get appointments with specialists or certain tests. They're also not used to getting declined for certain tests they want."
Plenty of Americans aren't used to having proper or even adequate healthcare, let alone tests they need.
Tests should be about what is needed, not wanted by the patient.
The healthcare being offered by employers began in an age when people were typically with a company for a long time (or for life), and the company was seen as taking on a parental role. The company would give you health insurance (which covered almost everything), dental insurance, vision insurance, and sometimes even help with your children's education expenses (which were also much cheaper at the time, even adjusted for inflation.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
The idea was, "You're giving us 40 hours a week for your entire working life, we are going to take care of you like you're family."
This is obviously no longer the case with most people. People switch jobs often. Companies are less loyal to employees, and employees are less loyal to them. This is all fine, and it's a natural change over the progression of time and society, but the health insurance portion remains, and it's kind of a relic of the old way of thinking.
You are correct that some of the health insurance costs are an indirect result of it. With employers paying the premiums, and with little out-of-pocket expenses for the typical patient, there was no pain felt by the average person for high medical bills. Insurance companies would foot the bill, which in turn would be passed along to the employers in the form of higher premiums.
In 2000, the small company I worked for had to switch from a "reimbursement of your health insurance bill" model to a small-group-insurance model, when a few newer employees couldn't qualify for individual insurance. The CEO of the company, who loved to come into my office at the end of the day and talk to me about politics and other general life stuff, told me that he was shocked at how expensive the small group plan was, and how he felt the company was being gouged. It was tremendously more expensive that the individual plans -- like staggeringly more. The reason? Back then, individual insurance was only granted to healthy people not expected to incur large medical bills. Once you cover everyone, the true cost of health care is revealed, and it had already spiraled out of control.
That was 19 years ago. Today it's a far worse version.
When you're at a buffet, do you worry about how much each individual item you're taking costs the owner? I doubt it. You just grab what you think looks possibly good, and shove it on your plate. If you had to pay for each item, you wouldn't eat this way. Health insurance is the same way, but it's even worse. Imagine that, each time you grab something you want at the buffet, the owner not only has to pay for the food itself, but super-inflated costs for the silverware, the plates, the napkins, and even the ketchup or other condiments you use. That's basically US healthcare. The consumer just grabs what he or his doctor want, the prices are super-inflated and piecemeal, and nobody cares because the vast majority of the bill is being paid by insurance. As you might guess, moving this burden to the government will just make things worse, not better.
Correct. Tests should be about what's "needed", and I agree that there's a lot of waste there in the US. However, the long waits and denials in socialized medicine countries come from overutilization. There's only so many facilities and test machines to go around, so if there's high demand, there's a wait. And when there's such a long wait, uncomfortable decisions have to be made regarding "need". And since medicine is very subjective regarding the need for tests (there's rarely an absolute standard of such a thing), some people are wrongfully denied access to such tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_Aus
You also say "plenty of Americans aren't used to having proper or even adequate healthcare".
:wrong
Obamacare actually fixed that. Almost all Americans can now get health insurance. The poor get it free. Many working people get it through their jobs anyway. The middle-class and above can afford the premiums anyway (though they are too high, due to the high costs). The lower-middle-class can get subsidies and just need to budget properly to pay the rest (many Americans are notoriously bad at budgeting, but they should pay their premiums if they are reasonable for their income level.)
The big problem in the US right now is a combination of super-high costs and a doctor shortage.
Converting to a socialized plan will worsen both.
Fix costs first, perhaps address the doctor shortage as well (there are ways), and THEN talk about who pays for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
My intuition is the bar for what we call a doctor might be lowered. Most general medicine is rote. Marry a little AI and the virtual (online) doctors visit and we’ve made great strides in cost and efficiency and sacrificed little.
But everyone has an association or a union so progress will be fought
It’s not an issue I invest too many calories on.
The doctor shortage and anything associated with it is mostly a AMA/AAMC issue. They fucked up trying control supply and to begin with they had diametric interests to patients. To keep their premium salary they've limited the number of new doctors from schools and immigration. Those two sources keep the balance if you let them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
My intuition is the bar for what we call a doctor might be lowered. Most general medicine is rote. Marry a little AI and the virtual (online) doctors visit and we’ve made great strides in cost and efficiency and sacrificed little.
But everyone has an association or a union so progress will be fought
It’s not an issue I invest too many calories on.
Medicine is something that is well suited to computers and AI... especially diagnosis.Quote:
Originally Posted by SanlmarQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
My intuition is the bar for what we call a doctor might be lowered. Most general medicine is rote. Marry a little AI and the virtual (online) doctors visit and we’ve made great strides in cost and efficiency and sacrificed little.
But everyone has an association or a union so progress will be fought
It’s not an issue I invest too many calories on.
Though I suspect you will need a professional to input high quality data, and assessing symptoms.
I think computer diagnosis will be far superior then human doctors in the not too distant future. They will be always up to date with the latest developments and they don't forget.
Maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Salty_AusMedicine is something that is well suited to computers and AI... especially diagnosis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanlmar
Though I suspect you will need a professional to input high quality data, and assessing symptoms.
I think computer diagnosis will be far superior then human doctors in the not too distant future. They will be always up to date with the latest developments and they don't forget.
At the moment, the current doctor/patient model is flawed (everywhere), in that it's too old school, and not in a good way.
You go to the doctor, you tell them your symptoms, and he quickly tries to go through his brain to guess at what you have. Sometimes he's right (if it's obvious or common within his specialty), and many times he will be wrong. Many times it will be impossible diagnose but a guess will be made because patients hate hearing "I don't know", and potentially harmful tests are ordered and/or prescriptions written.
I always felt the best model was to tell the doctor what's wrong, he leaves the room, he looks up the symptoms on the internet or some electronic medial database, and then uses his training and expertise to make a decision as to what you most likely have. Kind of like the same way we look up our own symptoms on google, but having someone with expertise to interpret what it spits out.
Unfortunately I have to "sanity check" every diagnosis given to me, and decide what I actually want to do. Fortunately I have a brother who is a doctor, and he can give me advice (though he's far away and can't examine me in person), but most people don't have that.
Politics aside, here are my impressions of the 10 candidates in the last debate, from a personal standpoint:
Biden - Doesn't mean badly, but kind of an out-of-touch, somewhat strange old guy who can't even come close to fitting in with modern times. Not all that bright, but has some street smarts.
Warren - Very smart, mostly honest with her beliefs and intentions, but also has a sneaky side to where she will bend her morals in order to get what she wants.
Bernie - Very passionate and genuine in his beliefs, and has an unwavering commitment to what he feels is right. However, he's also grouchy, loud, uncompromising, and hard for people to relate to on a personal level.
Harris - Cold, calculating bitch who sometimes struggles to put on a phony warm, likable persona. Not above lying or manipulating to achieve her goals. In some ways similar to Hillary Clinton, though not as shady.
Beto - Freak and a weird dude, who seems to reinvent himself every five seconds. Has a dark side which many don't realize exists.
Kloubachar - Mostly reasonable and straightforward midwesterner, and probably a decent person. Thinks some of her opponents are insane, but is afraid to say it.
Yang - Fun tech/entrepreneur type whom I'd probably enjoy having as a boss, provided he didn't work me too hard. Probably too into crypto for his own good.
Castro - Arrogant asshole who suffers from short man syndrome.
Booker - Also kind of an arrogant asshole, but not quite as off-putting as Castro. Thinks very, very highly of himself.
Buttigieg - Very passive-aggressive, and not nearly as nice as he tries to seem. Never wants to tell you what he really believes or where he stands, unless he thinks it sounds good.
Has everybody forgotten all the stories about her huge temper problem and violent tendencies with her staff? And she didn't even deny the allegations! I swear there was a whole cycle about this shortly after she announced she was running, and now nobody is talking about it. Probably because her poll numbers make her irrelevant. But now people are branding her as "nice"?? WTFQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yeah I remember that. I don't think it's a big deal though unless she called them a bunch of faggots or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT thisHas everybody forgotten all the stories about her huge temper problem and violent tendencies with her staff? And she didn't even deny the allegations! I swear there was a whole cycle about this shortly after she announced she was running, and now nobody is talking about it. Probably because her poll numbers make her irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
She also ate a salad with a comb.
Lol yes, I had forgotten about that. She's a serious freak and a weird dude (and she's also quite young).Quote:
Originally Posted by duped_samaritanYeah I remember that. I don't think it's a big deal though unless she called them a bunch of faggots or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
She also ate a salad with a comb.
Are you giving her a pass because she's a women? If a man was throwing stuff at his staffers constantly and degrading them, he'd have resigned already
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...t-says-n974746
Guess a lot of people agree with Druff on Castro. Also, Bernie should just drop out now. His campaign is floundering
Guess her seemingly reasonable, calm Midwestern persona fooled me. I will admit that I knew little about her until recently. I was just posting my impressions of each candidate, trying to put my disagreement with their politics aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
It's funny because when I first saw a picture of her, I thought to myself, "This woman kind of looks like a bitch", but then I saw her speak and felt bad for thinking that, as she seemed okay.
Maybe my first impression was correct.
so is the left going to bring up the fact that warren pretended to be an american indian and literally called herself 'the first tenured woman of color tenured professor at Harvard Law'?
because im pretty sure the rights going to bring it up for the duration of the election and probably not even bother to bring up anything else.
Pocahontas said what???
Don't judge a book by it's cover Druff. Without reading this forum most would not guess that you are a classist, a misogynist and a soft taco racist. A person who's priorities in life don't seem to include his neighbors andQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffGuess her seemingly reasonable, calm Midwestern persona fooled me. I will admit that I knew little about her until recently. I was just posting my impressions of each candidate, trying to put my disagreement with their politics aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIT this
It's funny because when I first saw a picture of her, I thought to myself, "This woman kind of looks like a bitch", but then I saw her speak and felt bad for thinking that, as she seemed okay.
Maybe my first impression was correct.
countrymen.
Yeah, 100% that's going to come back up very aggressively if she becomes the Dem candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
I think a lot of Democrats believe that issue is done and buried. It's not. The right has just put it on hold until they see if she will be the one they need to attack.
Warren definitely exploited the Native American thing in order to make herself seem more interesting at Harvard, and nobody questioned it because... well, academia is why. She didn't think about how it might come back to bite her if she ran for office one day.
The right likes to say that she got her job at Harvard by falsifying her racial identity, but that's not true. She was hired first, and a few years later submitted a change form to go from white to Native American in their official records. This wasn't a "get myself hired under a quota" move, it was a "pretend to be a minority because a white person in academia doesn't get you noticed" move.
She actually could have nipped this in the bud a long time ago by simply claiming that family lore confused her, and that upon researching it further, she realizes that it might have just been a legend. She could have apologized to Native groups, said that she felt proud at the time believing she was one of them, and that she never meant any harm. That would have been that.
Instead she foolishly doubled down on the whole thing with the DNA test, which just made her look like even more of a liar.
But yeah, if she's the candidate, this is far from over.
Would Hillary be a viable out of nowhere VP candidate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypt
I know Presidents are limited to two terms but I'm thinking Trump would make a great Vice President under Elizabeth Warren. He would be forbidden from speaking but after the meetings he could take heads of state sight seeing to his hotels and golf courses.
What if the ticket was Biden (wink wink) Obama.
.
.
.
.
You had the first part right about what it wasn’t, but Warren’s excellent scholarship didn’t require her to do anything to get noticed in academia. I mean, for fuck sake, Druff, she was already being lauded by her peers by that time and had already joined the ranks of the top tier law professors in the country by becoming a Harvard Law faculty member. If anything, at that point, she wanted to inspire younger law professors who identified as having Native American heritage to believe that they, too, could achieve such success. That is based on how she would take time to try to meet up such folks at conferences, network with them, but not because *she* needed the attention or increased opportunities; she already was in the top tier by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYeah, 100% that's going to come back up very aggressively if she becomes the Dem candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
I think a lot of Democrats believe that issue is done and buried. It's not. The right has just put it on hold until they see if she will be the one they need to attack.
Warren definitely exploited the Native American thing in order to make herself seem more interesting at Harvard, and nobody questioned it because... well, academia is why. She didn't think about how it might come back to bite her if she ran for office one day.
The right likes to say that she got her job at Harvard by falsifying her racial identity, but that's not true. She was hired first, and a few years later submitted a change form to go from white to Native American in their official records. This wasn't a "get myself hired under a quota" move, it was a "pretend to be a minority because a white person in academia doesn't get you noticed" move.
She actually could have nipped this in the bud a long time ago by simply claiming that family lore confused her, and that upon researching it further, she realizes that it might have just been a legend. She could have apologized to Native groups, said that she felt proud at the time believing she was one of them, and that she never meant any harm. That would have been that.
Instead she foolishly doubled down on the whole thing with the DNA test, which just made her look like even more of a liar.
But yeah, if she's the candidate, this is far from over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyYou had the first part right about what it wasn’t, but Warren’s excellent scholarship didn’t require her to do anything to get noticed in academia. I mean, for fuck sake, Druff, she was already being lauded by her peers by that time and had already joined the ranks of the top tier law professors in the country by becoming a Harvard Law faculty member. If anything, at that point, she wanted to inspire younger law professors who identified as having Native American heritage to believe that they, too, could achieve such success. That is based on how she would take time to try to meet up such folks at conferences, network with them, but not because *she* needed the attention or increased opportunities; she already was in the top tier by then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Man, I don’t know why she did it other than wanting to fit in. I’d like to think it was altruistic because I like her, but that doesn't pass the smell test. Some great student sitting on the reservation gets a sit down with Elizabeth Warren and she starts on about I made it, you can too, and that kid is wondering what the crazy pale face lady is babbling about. We’re mutts in America, but you need to be significantly something to claim it for those motivational purposes.
Mumbles is being very naive about academia.
Even back in the 70s, you got a lot more credit on campus if you were a successful minority than a successful white person.
Warren probably heard the family stories and thought, "Yeah, I can probably claim this, it will get me some more positive attention", and she did so.
She actually applied to work at Harvard listed as a white person, and then changed to Native American years later.
Do you think she had a vision quest where she realized she was Native all along? Obviously after being on campus a few years, a light bulb went over her head that she could exploit the "I'm part Native" thing for more recognition.
In fact, I knew idiots like this at my college. They weren't professors, but they would brag about being "1/16th Cherokee" as if that separated them from being an evil/boring/ordinary white person. Like somehow they also got to be part of a victim class. And this was back in the early '90s, when identity politics were far less prominent.
Let's face it. She exploited a family tale in order to selfishly gain '70s woke points, and now it's biting her in the ass. Too bad, so sad.
big fucking deal druff look at all the shit your hero Trump has said and done . Funny you right wing nuts nit pick on little shit like this yet forgive a complete manaic like Trump who has done and said so much shit it would literally take and hour to type outQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Druff, do you remember who you are debating this matter with??? I was in academia as a full-time finance professor for 7 years, and spent 5 years before that at a graduate school. In that time, I saw and learned of cases of when someone used a unique/special demographic status to gain an advantage or special privilege within the university. And as I straight white male competing in that environment a dozen years, I have all the demographic-checkbox reasons to be angry/upset if some opportunities didn’t come my way because of affirmative action. So, your claim that I am being “naive” about academia is a ridiculously ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And regarding Elizabeth Warren, as a finance professor in the middle 2000s, I was aware of and impressed by some of her work on bankruptcy law before I left academia related to the change in the federal bankruptcy law that passed during George W. Bush’ first term in office. So, yeah, she was a “big deal” in law academia absent any consideration of her long-distance minority demographic heritage.
Yeah, I don’t believe her, I think she did it for woke academia reasons, but it isn’t some dealbreaker for me between her and trump. Trump’s whole life narrative is a complete fabrication. It’s a dealbreaker between her and Bernie to me, if I think it’s going to be a problem in the general, and I suspect it is going to be an issue. It’s going to be a year straight of Pocahontas shit instead of a debate on the direction of the country. I think amongst old swing voters, misogyny, or more just a discomfort with women running shit, is more prevalent than racism, and they’re almost looking for a reason not to vote for a woman. I’d prefer not to give them one.
Comments
big dick: doesn't matter he will continue to debate you even though you have him crushed.
Lol wow what an endorsement of mumblesbadly
I never said that Elizabeth Warren's work was substandard, or that she needed to fake a minority identity to be thought of as competent.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyDruff, do you remember who you are debating this matter with??? I was in academia as a full-time finance professor for 7 years, and spent 5 years before that at a graduate school. In that time, I saw and learned of cases of when someone used a unique/special demographic status to gain an advantage or special privilege within the university. And as I straight white male competing in that environment a dozen years, I have all the demographic-checkbox reasons to be angry/upset if some opportunities didn’t come my way because of affirmative action. So, your claim that I am being “naive” about academia is a ridiculously ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And regarding Elizabeth Warren, as a finance professor in the middle 2000s, I was aware of and impressed by some of her work on bankruptcy law before I left academia related to the change in the federal bankruptcy law that passed during George W. Bush’ first term in office. So, yeah, she was a “big deal” in law academia absent any consideration of her long-distance minority demographic heritage.
From an actual work standpoint, I'm sure that Warren, whom I concede is very intelligent, did plenty to distinguish herself.
However, academia is a different work environment than any other type of place. You're not only judged on your actual work, but also by your story. If you do a lot of great work but are just a plain ol' heterosexual white female, your work might be lauded, but your story won't interest many people. If you do great work AND you are of some underprivileged or victim class, then your story becomes a huge inspiration and the level of admiration is far greater. Warren knew that the only "victim" box she checked at the time was being female, but female professors were common enough in academia, even in the mid-70s. That's why she pushed the Native American thing, so any story about her would be peppered with "Harvard's only Native American professor" or whatever.
Why do YOU think she changed her race a few years into her time at Harvard? Doesn't it seem odd to you that she'd just do that out of nowhere, unless there were a practical reason for it?
Much of this is true, but don't you think Bernie will turn off most non-Bernie-Bros with his "grumpy, yelling old man" persona?Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
He's also too dogmatic with his extreme left positions, and isn't shy about it. In a general election, where the competition is no longer who can out-left the other, this will be a huge problem.
Bernie has zero chance of getting the nomination, but the problem for Warren is that a lot of his fans are "Bernie or bust" types. He has his solid core supporters, but not much room to expand. His polling numbers basically haven't fluctuated at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffMuch of this is true, but don't you think Bernie will turn off most non-Bernie-Bros with his "grumpy, yelling old man" persona?Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
He's also too dogmatic with his extreme left positions, and isn't shy about it. In a general election, where the competition is no longer who can out-left the other, this will be a huge problem.
actual quotes from rudy giuliani tonight during an interview with chris cuomo
Cuomo: "Did you ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?”
Giuliani “No, actually I didn’t."
Cuomo: “You never asked anything about Hunter Biden? You never asked anything about Joe Biden to the prosecutor?
Giuliani: “The only thing I asked is to get to the bottom of how it was that the guy who was appointed dismissed the case against Antac."
Cuomo: “So you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden."
Giuliani: “Of course I did."
https://www.mediaite.com/news/must-w...cnn-interview/
i just can't with old people anymore