[munk-a]

Just to note, the full interview transcript is here[1] and the reply to

> It comes to your desk. Do you veto it?

he replied with

> I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of healthcare being available now. If they got that through in by some miracle or there`s an epiphany that occurred and some miracle occurred that said, OK, it`s passed. Then you got to look at the cost.

Unlike on hackernews politician's statements shouldn't be read charitably and in the best light possible because not saying "no" is a clear signal to a lot of the folks listening to the interview. I think reading it in the light of "yes" is fair, but he at least waffled a lot more than was warranted.

1. http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/the-last-word/2020-03-09

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

On the contrary, reading your side's politicians the way you expect (charitably) and the other side's politicians the way you expect (uncharitably), you end up with the divisions we have now. I'd suggest reading both charitably regarding interpretation, then being cynical regarding whether it'll really happen/whether it's honest.

[edit: (charitably) and (uncharitably), not (charitably) and (charitably)]

[munk-a]

I think that is a noble stance to take and for a long time I was in that pack - but politicians lie a lot so now, whenever it sounds like a politician is leaving themselves an out I will assume they are doing so if they have a past track record of such (even if it is relatively rare).

Additionally, I don't take the words I hear from politicians on my side (if that's really an accurate term) charitably either. I err on reading both interpretations cynically, and one needs look no further than the "hyperbole" of trump's primary rallies to see where a charitable reading fell far short of the truth.

[6gvONxR4sf7o]

There's a difference between what they mean and whether they're telling the truth. If Trump says something that you could interpret uncharitably as "I eat babies every night" or charitably as "I eat caviar every night," then it's best to interpret it charitably. But then you call him on his bullshit that no he doesn't eat caviar every night.

Charitable interpretation, cynical trust.

[RosanaAnaDana]

You bring up a good point and I agree, the offering undue charity to persons arguing from a position of bad faith is why were are here.

Biden would veto the bill.

[bscphil]

Thanks for providing the context. I agree that it's very difficult to read this as anything other than a carefully worded statement that he would at the very least consider a veto. His statements elsewhere suggest that he thinks the cost is in fact prohibitive.