DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Primaries

Elizabeth Warren Has Reversed On Super PAC Support: "That’s How It Has To Be"

Warren, who has campaigned against money's influence in politics, said the day after her debate she would not disavow a super PAC supporting her.

LAS VEGAS — Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a longtime critic of the big-money organizations known as super PACs — and of candidates who are supported by them. But she reversed course on Thursday and refused to disavow a super PAC, called Persist PAC, created to support her presidential campaign.

It was a change so sudden that Warren's own campaign website still said the Massachusetts senator "rejects all super PACs" and "would disavow any super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary." She had criticized other candidates for them as late as last week on the debate stage in New Hampshire.

Warren told reporters she had called "dozens" of times for other candidates to agree not to accept the support of super PACs, with no success.

"So here’s where I stand: If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in — I’ll lead the charge," she told reporters at a campaign stop Thursday. "But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t."

She connected the issue directly to gender, noting that the Democratic field was stocked with male candidates who were either billionaires or backed by big-money organizations.

"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.

"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"

Bernie Sanders has a big-money group, Our Revolution, that functions similarly to a PAC, and is able to raise unlimited sums of money on his behalf. As a nonprofit, it does not have to disclose its donors, unlike super PACs. He's also supported by the country's largest nurse's union, National Nurses United, whose super PAC spent $5 million backing him in 2016.

Persist PAC booked nearly $800,000 in television ads for Warren this week, as her own campaign faces tight finances in the wake of disappointing finishes in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

She got a much-needed personal infusion of cash after a dominant debate performance Wednesday, raising $2.8 million — her campaign's biggest fundraising day by far. But she will need much larger sums of money to compete on Super Tuesday in early March, when big, delegate-rich, and expensive states like California and Texas will go to the polls.

Super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums of money for candidates, are by definition independent; they are legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns. Technically, candidates have zero control over the groups. But practically, candidates can hamper them by openly disavowing them or calling for them to stop spending money on their behalf. Some campaigns have also found ways for years to skirt regulations to guide a super PAC's direction.

Just a few months ago, Warren took a different stance with an outside group supporting her campaign. When dark money group Women.Vote bought ads backing Warren in Iowa, her campaign disavowed the organization's activities to Politico. The campaign, a spokesperson said, “was not aware of this and asks that those involved immediately stop purchasing advertisements of any kind. Elizabeth Warren believes democracy is undermined by anonymous, dark-money attempts to influence voters — whether that influence is meant to help or hurt her candidacy.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaign

I was simply pointing out that it's not the quality of care that Americans have an issue with. It's the cost of that care. That isn't the way you represented it.

You see, we aren't #1 in healthcare. Many nations with single payer health insurance are ahead of America with much lower costs per patient. Those are just facts.

I'm not saying it will work here. I have no idea. It's a better system in some nations and a worse system in others. Right now we have a bunch of people going around trying to make this sound like the best thing since sliced bread.

And it could be. It could also be an epic failure. That would all depend on how it's implemented.

But never fear. For all of the raging we hear in this forum, the plan will never pass the senate. It's never going to happen. The pharmaceutical industry and healthcare insurance companies use their money to buy our politicians. It's the same thing with big tech and military contractors.

So don't worry, politicians aligned with big business will never allow any of this to happen. I mean that is the current system you seem to endorse. It used to be called a conflict of interest but it seems some of you have forgotten how that concept works.

https://nationalfile.com/report-51-senat...and-healthcare/

I try to make this post once every year or so when we're talking about healthcare. I usually fail to clearly articulate my point, but I keep trying because I think people don't really understand the problem, and that's critical for coming up with a viable solution.
The problem is that many parts of healthcare are unreasonably costly. The training of personnel in HC is expensive, the tools/devices are expensive, the facilities are expensive, etc. When what you're paying for is unreasonably expensive, who or how it's paid for is irrelevant. Single-payer healthcare simply shifts who pays for what. The root issue is still there.

I work (and have worked my whole relatively short career) in the medical device field. I've worked for huge companies, and I've worked for startups. It's insanely expensive to adequately run a med device company. The amount of regulation and oversight that translates to more overhead is crazy. Pharmaceuticals is 10x worse (I currently work at a company making a combo device, which is giving me a window into that world). For big med-device companies (I've worked for JnJ, Medtronic, and BD) it's a ton of work to implement a simple cost-savings update to a product, to the point where it's usually not worth it. For a commodity-type product (like an infusion set that tons of people make) that cost savings is always passed on to the customer in order to keep them from going to competitors.
From my time working at startups, I can tell you that the revenue tax that was once part of Obama-Care would have been a death sentence for both of the places I worked at.

Long story short... the way I see it is a shift to Single-Payer Healthcare, while feeling like we've done good, is still just kicking the can down the road. Still doesn't address the main issues with the cost of healthcare in this country.

You bring up a point that I totally agree with. Until the regulatory restrictions and costs associated with healthcare are overhauled, we will all be on the losing end no matter how healthcare is funded.

To be clear, I'm not saying med device and other med-related companies should just be given free reign, but the level of regulation and how it's carried out is ridiculous.

Something I've oft-repeated on here and in conversation. In all med device companies you have the normal functions (R&D, manufacturing, finance, supply chain). You also have a relatively large (compared to non-regulated industries) Quality group, which is tasked with ensuring designs and devices are reliable and safe and do what they're supposed to do, and a Regulatory group that makes sure you comply with applicable regulations.
A whole extra department to make sure you comply with regulations, on top of your quality group that makes sure the product is good. Think about that.

I think we are both pretty much in agreement in the general sense. Regulations are certainly needed in a lot of industries, to protect our environment and the general well being of our people. But as with most things it seems the extremes rule. People either want no regulations or things are regulated to death. Moderation and common sense have no place in the conversation.

I worked in medical device sales for awhile myself, specifically, in spinal hardware and related products.

We were billing hospitals and receiving PO#s for anywhere from $950-$1600 per pedicle screw. We manufactured the screw for around $12. An average single level lumber fusion was billing out around $8k-$10k in hardware and (hopefully, the surgeon used your companies allograft as well) per case.

Look what happened when Medtronic came out with their BMP product (bone morphogenic proteins) and they has surgeons putting BMPs in everyone that was getting a fusion when the FDA had only approved for use via an ALIF procedure (anterior lumbar interbody fusion) which are not typical. Surgeons were using the product off-label and the product worked "so well" bone was growing in peoples spinal column causing serious complications. Medtronic paid millions and millions to manipulate the BMP studies. Medtronics InFuse BMP were also outrageously expensive, so thankfully, for the patient's sake the quantity being used was being limited per surgery instead of per the manufacturers guidelines.

Also, who could forget when Medtronic's allograft supplier was found to have been illegal harvest bone from cadavers risking the health of numerous future patients receiving the bone.

I was working at the time when the DOJ levied huge fines on medical device companies for basically paying surgeons to use their products under the guise of "consultants" under the anti-kickback statute. I believe the company I worked for was fined ~$29M

DePuy's Charite artificial disc was being marketed to surgeons as disc replacement surgery. Meanwhile, lawsuits were mounting from patient complications to the point there was talk of the Charite was going to be recalled. I believe Medicare quit covering payments for the surgery which was arounf $40k-$50k, if I recall.

Yes, there is a lot that goes into R&D, but medical device companies, sales reps and surgeons were getting greedy and really pushing things to the limit. The Government was almost forced to enact more oversight

My previous job was working as an engineer in a manufacturing facility for a large spine company. The materials for the screws are probably $12. The money spent to get that $12 screw to market was much, much more (which is ridiculous because it's a screw with a pivoting, rotating tulip head). Don't even get me started on the cost of raw medical grade PEEK. That $12 also doesn't cover the cost of quality incurred via inspection and scrap for non-functional/cosmetic stuff.

I can't speak for sales as I'm only intimately familiar with what goes on up until the product gets shipped out. I know there has been significant recent legislation against incentivizing surgeons to use your products.

Your example of the BMP off-label use is actually a perfect example of what I'm trying to explain. Use of those types of products (allograft, autograft, synthetics) is the same regardless of which approach a surgeon is using (anterior, posterior, lateral). The goal of using something like BMP is only to help stimulate bone growth... It doesn't matter whether a surgeon cut from the front or the side or the back.

Bernie Sanders briefed by U.S. officials that Russia is trying to help his presidential campaign

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump.

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

“In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.”

A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign declined to comment on the briefing by U.S. officials on Russia’s efforts.

Sanders has frequently warned about the threat of foreign interference in U.S. elections and criticized Trump for not doing enough to stop it.

“Let me be clear: We must not live in denial while allowing Russia and other state actors to undermine our democracy or divide us,” the senator in January. “Russia targets the divisions in our society; we will work to heal those divisions.”

Sanders’s opponents have blamed some of his most vocal online supporters for injecting toxic rhetoric into the primaries. At a Democratic candidates debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, Sanders indirectly blamed Russia, saying it was possible that malign actors were trying to manipulate social media to inflame divisions among Democrats.

“All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up,” Sanders said. “I’m not saying that’s happening, but it would not shock me.”

Also this week, a senior U.S. intelligence official said Russia had “developed a preference” for Trump in the 2020 campaign — an assessment that infuriated the president. Trump lambasted his acting intelligence director, Joseph Maguire, and DNI staff for sharing that information with lawmakers, believing that Democrats would use it to hurt Trump in the election.

Despite Trump’s skepticism of Russian efforts to damage American democracy, officials in his administration have repeatedly warned that Russia has ongoing plans to interfere in U.S. elections and foster divisions among Americans, part of a strategic goal to undermine U.S. standing in the world. Some analysts believe the Kremlin’s goal is to cause maximum disruption within the United States and that it throws the support of its hackers and trolls behind candidates based on that goal, not any particular affinity for the people running.

After Sanders’s remarks at the debate, some social media analysts were skeptical of the notion that Russians already were masquerading as the candidate’s supporters.

“We have seen no evidence in open sources during this election cycle that an online community of Sanders supporters, known as Bernie bros, were catalyzed by what Sanders suggested could be ‘Russian interference,’ ” said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council, which tracks disinformation on social media sites. “Any candidate or public official casually introducing the possibility of Russian influence without providing any evidence or context creates a specter of interference that makes responding to real interference harder.”

It now appears, however, that Sanders may have had a reason to suspect Russia was again injecting itself into the U.S. electoral process, repeating some of what occurred in 2016.

In a February 2018 indictment of 13 Russian individuals and three companies that were alleged to have orchestrated the 2016 social media scheme, prosecutors alleged that the group “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Prosecutors alleged that in February 2016, while Clinton and Sanders were locked in a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, an internal memo was circulated at the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which prosecutors said led the online effort, instructing their paid online trolls to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).”

The Internet Research Agency was bankrolled by a Russian oligarch close to President Vladi­mir Putin, according to U.S. officials.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...2a77_story.html

Notice how a real leader comes out and tells them to stop, promising they won't get away with it after he becomes President. Meanwhile Trump calls it a dem disinformation campaign.

That’s how a man of integrity responds to that.

This is for the posters that don't seem to understand socialism, communism, and capitalism vs. social democracy and you know who you are:

And the results...

National Socialism


Communism

Trump rips Democrats' 'reality show', says Bloomberg spent $500M to 'get embarrassed by Pocahontas'

It's obvious you didn't watch the video I posted. Then you roll out fascism (Trump admin) and communism as the result. You are not a thinking man, but you do a fine job of parroting.

Already posted and he told Putin to stop and said when he becomes President he will make sure it never happens again. Meanwhile Trump got mad that his own intelligence reported the russians were helping him again and that the dems were informed and called it a dem misinformation campaign today...

I'm aware of what the goal of BMPs were/are and yes a lot goes into the development side.

What I'm telling you is, being the one in the field and in surgery with the surgeon, there was a lot of price gouging going on and surgeon kickbacks going on. There's a reason before I left the business that hospitals started capping prices and forcing medical device companies to either follow suit or they would no longer be a vendor at the hospital. We used to be able to strong arm the hospitals and have surgeons you had consulting agreements with or strong relationships with to move as many surgeries to a different hospitals. Thus forcing, the hospital to go back to the high prices. The DOJ lawsuit kind of squashed a lot of that

When I left, because of price capping and Stryker trying to gobble large market shares, pedicle screw prices were down to ~$250-$300/ea at area hospitals.

Another issue was patients typically have no idea, nor would they be expected to, if their surgeon had a financial interest in the product going into their body or a bone growth stimulator used afterwards.

NuVasive was a company that was relatively new to the market and was throwing money at surgeons hand over fist to use their monitoring equipment during surgery. The surgeons could bill separately/additionally to use it.

As one surgeon told me when I got into medical device sales, "You're about to see a side of medicine you never knew existed."

My only point after all that is that, yes, R+D is very expensive and costly to bring a new product to market, but let's not pretend everyone involved wasn't laughing all the way to the bank.

*Note, I left the business around 2009 or 2010 and I'm sure things have clamped down even tighter since that time.

**Also, didn't mean to sidetrack from the premise of the thread.

....

I see OCD is putting lipstick on his pig again .... how sweet ....

Thanks, Milk.

What an eye-opener.

No idea what you are talking about. You are like talking to and dealing with a 10 year old.

"I Lived In Soviet Russia When Bernie Sanders Visited, And He’s A Communist Dupe"

The Federalist

Bernie Sanders, a man who could be led astray so easily by KGB minders and a Potemkin tour of the USSR, should never be president of the United States.
Katya SedgwickBy Katya Sedgwick
FEBRUARY 21, 2020
Democratic presidential front-runner Bernie Sanders likes to market himself as a wise old man who just happens to have clown hair but is right about everything, such as the War in Iraq. Yet his opposition to the Iraq War was dictated not by cool-headed geopolitical calculations, but the lifelong habit of romancing American enemies — as is typical for communism-lovers.

The recently surfaced press conference Sanders gave following his return from his honeymoon in Yaroslavl, USSR, is a great example of leftist naïveté about totalitarian regimes. For Bernie to fawn over Soviet culture the way he did indicates a staggering degree of incuriosity. I was only 15 and growing up in Kharkiv, now Ukraine, when the couple visited the USSR, and I’m not impressed when I watch Sanders sing Moscow’s praises

Start with the metro. Sanders said at the time, “The stations themselves were very beautiful, including many works of art, chandeliers that were beautiful. It was a very, very effective system.”

It’s slightly creepy that Joseph Stalin initiated the tradition of building chthonian palaces underneath Soviet cities. The stations are beautiful, no doubt, but effectiveness is a whole different matter. Coverage was so-so, and the rush hour commute was a nightmare, so Sanders’ classification of the stations as “effective” is puzzling. People stuffed into trains like sardines.

More importantly, metros were only built in cities with populations exceeding one million. Investing money into extravagant projects makes sense if the goal is to dazzle foreigners, but it’s also highly unwise considering that the condition of roads across Russia has always been atrocious. Traveling in the USSR, especially in provincial towns such as Yaroslavl, Sanders, an American man with a driver license, would take note of the state of the infrastructure — one would think.

Free Theaters That Nobody Wants to Visit
Bernie continued:

Their palaces of culture for the young people, a whole variety of programs for the young people, and cultural programs which go far beyond what we do in this country. We went to a theater in Yaroslavl which was absolutely beautiful, had three separate stages. Their cultural programs were put together by professional actors and actresses, including a puppeteer area. And the cost, the highest price of the ticket you can get was equivalent of $1.50.

It’s true that the Soviet Union subsidized all sorts of cultural programming for children, such as theaters and youth culture palaces with after-school enrichment programs. Unfortunately, in a socialist economy, that type of institution existed without any feedback from the markets.

I was part of the generation that took yearly field trips to the Theater of The Young Viewer. Ticket costs aside, there was just one such stage in the city, plus the Puppet Theater for the younger kids, and not a lot of demand for the shows. I don’t think American cultural programming is in any way inferior, albeit the cost to the consumer might be higher.

When I was 10, I started taking the metro across town to a children’s palace where the after-school activities were offered. The palace, a beautiful pre-revolutionary structure, was named after Stalin’s henchman Pavel Postyshev. Postyshev presided over Red Terror, purges, and Holodomor, before himself falling victim to Stalinist repressions.

Toward the end of his life, the executioner, by then an alcoholic, was displaying symptoms of paranoia. He once decided that the flame drawn on the box of matches resembled the profile of Leon Trotsky and that sausages, when cut, have swirls similar to swastikas. He ordered the confiscation of all matches and a purge of the grocery.

My generation of Soviets came of age knowing that the USSR was built on tyranny and lies. We are the most cynical generation in Russian history. Once the country crumbled, our lives spun out of control. As a result, Russian speakers my age suffered through high rates of substance abuse, low life expectancies, and through-the-floor birth rates. On the plus side, we grew up with gaudy chandeliers in public places.

The Incurious Nature of Bernie and Jane
Bernie’s bride, Jane, picked up where her husband left off:

We were astounded with the openness, the optimism, the enthusiasm in the nation. … What struck me the most was the way that they dealt with children, and the cultural life of their community. As Howard [another man on the trip] mentioned, they put the money into public facilities, and they have palaces of culture which are paid for strictly by trade union dues, and those have movies and dances, and those have a lot of artistic outlets for people — for instance, they might become members of an orchestra and study to play an instrument and perform, and when they go off on performances, it seems not as — not something as they are doing on their own, and they need to take vacation time from work, but it’s seen as providing and contributing to the community life, so it becomes part of their work instead of compartmentalizing their life into job and hobbies. It’s all interrelated, and it’s all under the banner of community involvement.

The First-World problem Jane is trying to solve here is called “the fractured modern man,” and you wouldn’t know it was a problem until you took a fair number of college classes. I mean, is it really that bad to have a job and a hobby?

Her talk of “community involvement” is rather ridiculous, considering she visited a country with a very low level of trust, no meaningful civic culture, and lots of alcoholism. When the workday was over, most Soviet people didn’t go to culture palaces that they viewed as an extension of their work life. They didn’t practice violin. They went moonlighting, making money on the side, or shopping, a time-consuming process, or otherwise cared for their families.

Also drinking or maybe watching a foreign movie at the cinema — the USSR bought a limited number of those, but drinking was a favorite pastime. Alcohol consumption doubled from 1955 to 1979.

Nobody knows what paid for the construction and maintenance of Soviet culture palaces. In a planned economy with its web of subsidies and bribery, such things are not transparent. The trade union fees, however, were levied on everyone enrolled in a trade union, meaning every worker, because all those employed by the government were automatically enrolled in one, and everyone worked for the government — or at least pretended to. As the Soviet joke went, “We pretend we work, and they pretend they pay us.”

To be in awe of those palaces of culture performances in the late ’80s, a visitor would have to be really, really — I mean really — incurious. I understand the Sanderses went on their honeymoon surrounded by the KGB minders, but wow! The newlyweds were shown performance venues, but did they make an effort to meet an artist? Their tour was literally a Potemkin excursion through the Soviet Union: the best of architecture, no real people.

The Watchful Eye of the Censor
The late ’80s was a difficult time, when the economy had suffered as the country struggled to compete with U.S. military spending. But it was also an incredibly exciting time because Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost provided an opportunity to learn about the country’s past and discuss a whole universe of new ideas. Jane Sanders is right that there was much enthusiasm and openness in the country, and ordinary people were eager to meet Americans. The Sanderses let them down by staying with their minders.

And the culture palaces? Through most of Soviet history, those were the sanctuaries for second-tier Soviet culture — amateurish and produced under the watchful eye of the censor. Top-level Soviet performers didn’t start in provincial adult education classes; they were groomed in major cities starting in early childhood.

The kind of entertainment Soviet people wanted most wasn’t created by youth puppeteers, either. A handful of officially produced Russian-speaking stars remained popular among people of all ages. Many of those born after World War II developed a preference for Western performers and homegrown underground acts. Recordings of banned performers were bootlegged from friend to friend and sometimes pressed on X-ray vinyl film — “na kostyah” or “on the bones.” A few Western performers, most notably David Bowie, were allowed to tour the USSR. Soviet bands usually played concerts in apartments.

After a smuggled recording of Soviet underground rock was released in the West, Gorbachev reportedly said, “Why can’t we do it here?” Shortly after, artists featured on the recording got contracts with the sole Soviet recording company, Melodia. Stadiums and other official performance venues opened for musicians who had endured years of prosecution, including being fired from work, expelled from official youth organizations, and sentenced to prison terms.

Bernie Sanders Is Hopelessly Naive
That was happening when Bernie went to the USSR. Yet with all his excitement about chandeliers, puppeteers, and the KGB-sanctioned rehearsal spaces, he completely missed the zeitgeist. The Vermont communism-lover was as close to liberation as he could ever get, but he chose to bond with his minders. And millennial hipsters think he’s cool.

He is a special kind of tourist known to Russians. The “tell me something nice about your country” tourist, the “surely the bad things I’ve heard are all CIA propaganda” tourist, which is one grade below the “let’s be nuanced about your situation” tourist.

That said, the attitude toward those types of people was generally positive. They were still American, still in blue jeans, and they could tell us a thing or two about the music. We believed them to be basically well-intentioned but hopelessly naïve.

After moving to the United States, I no longer believe Bernie-types to be well-intentioned. Regardless, the man who could be led astray that easily should never be the president of the United States.

Katya Rapoport Sedgwick is a writer from San Francisco Bay Area. She has published at The Daily Caller and Legal Insurrection. You can follow her @KatyaSedgwick on Twitter.

Propaganda hit piece. The guy you support loves Putin. He's working with Putin to win reelection right NOW! But hey, Bernie's a commie. GMAB. smdh

When you can’t find what you want in fox or brietbart, you go even lower.

The debate set a viewing record. And more watched than the Grammy’s and Golden Globes.
And the early voting alone in Nevada almost passed the total votes from 2016.

Bloomberg's why they tuned in and he didn't disappoint, well except his followers.

There has been a lot of change since right before I started my career (2008) until now.

Still, that's eye-opening. I have very little knowledge once product leaves our dock. Thanks for sharing.

The only candidate who I truly support is Bernie. If Warren won the nomination, I wouldn't be too disappointed, but she is def a 2nd choice rather than 1st.

If any of the other jokers win the nomination I will be voting Green and know that I can sleep easy doing what my morals and conscience tell me is the right thing to do. And, as I live in a blue state I also don't have to worry like those who live in a swing state do.

Sadly, I suspect the fix is in and the DNC are going to do whatever they can to get Biden, Pete B. or Bloomberg the nomination.

I watched the debate and I saw a bunch of "Adults" acting like children, not a great example for our youth ...

I saw a lot of squabbling, for sure. However, nothing compares to the 2015/16 Republican debates. That was literally like a bunch of 4th graders on a playground or worse...a Yahoo comments section. It sunk so low that even wives were insulted. Just terrible. Sadly, that behavior hasn't changed since 2016 as it continues to this day, but unfortunately it now comes out of the WH.

j/c

This may be a problem......



I wonder why people would try to overthrow a dictator who controls the military?

Agreed for the most part. You forgot to add bloomberg and his ads in this situation. Billboards saying "Trump Cheats at Golf", really doesn't do much one's platform.

Cheating on all three of his wives and lying about paying off a porn star didn't do much either.

Yet enough people still voted for him to be President.

And that's sad. Used to be Republicans would never consider a person like that.

That "used to be" list, is really long and not attractive for any group.

This is an entire new depth that we've never seen before. He'll even attack veterans and service members if they disagree with him.

But were they voting for him, or against her?

Bloomberg sucks and easily the worst of them all. It is totally disgusting how much $$$ he has spent and will continue to spend. I just read in our local alternative paper that Bloomberg has thus far spent 2.9 million on tv ads just in Portland! Steyer has spent $29k. The others....a whopping $0.00!

Posting this crap from a GOPer channel? lmao. What he said is that just because we Americans hated Castro and communism that doesn't mean the people that he actually done things for like healthcare and schools early on were going to hate him or want to overthrow him...

Looks like Bernie is gonna absolutely dominate Nevada, which is a much more diverse state than Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bernie will probably cruise to the Nomination. I’m actually really looking forward to bernie Vs trump on the debate stage.

If trump doesn’t throw a hissy fit and actually shows up, of course.