Crooked Hillary Clinton likes to talk about the things she will do but she has been there for 30 years - why didn't she do them?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2016
This doesn't make any sense, like most things Trump, who, if he understood basic civics, would know how dumb this sounds. In two of her positions, her job was to enact the will of the President. As a senator, Clinton was one of 100, in the minority party for over half the time she was there, and, when she was in the majority, she was either in the fever swamp of post-9/11 politics or she was facing an historic use of the filibuster by the GOP minority in the 110th Congress; double the filibusters occurred in the Senate than in the previous Congress, when, you know, the GOP was the majority. I know that Republicans think Clinton is a witch, but she couldn't just wiggle her nose and make a bill a law. That goes against the Constitution and Schoolhouse Rock.
So Trump wants to know why Clinton didn't do anything about health care costs? Well, in 2007, she cosponsored the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which would have allowed Medicare to bargain with drug companies for lower prices. The House had passed it. And then the Senate killed it with a filibuster.
She cosponsored a bill to require the president to remove troops from Iraq starting in 2007. It was filibustered. She cosponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage. It was filibustered. This is not to mention the bills she sponsored or cosponsored that were vetoed or didn't even get out of committee, like expanding health care for children.
Trump uses this ignorant, fact-free attack especially frequently when it comes to the treatment of veterans, with him constantly asking why she didn't do anything. Staying with that 110th Congress, with something that did pass, Clinton was a cosponsor of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. That was seen by vets groups as a major success in improving the health care, including PTSD treatment, that returning soldiers received. Another cosponsor? Barack Obama. That seems to be completely the opposite of what Trump asserts. But I'm just someone who does research and uses that to make his points, silly as that might seem.
This is a ludicrous, useless argument. It doesn't get at anything of substance and that's because Trump can't argue substance. He can only argue slogans, and he locks onto something and won't let it go, despite facts, despite its failure as an argument, because, in the end, he has nothing but the promise that he'll be the best with no record to prove that. So, as is his way, he has to make it seem as if Clinton has no record either.
History, very recent history, proves him wrong on Clinton. But his idiot hordes think history starts and ends with their imbecile emperor.
