DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
LOST said:
How many people in NJ are employed by pharmaceutical companies? Wouldn't one expect a Senator to support a principal industry and employer in that Senator's State?
Now if you want to advocate government takeover of the industry OK. But we do live in a Capitalist Country.
Well, if you want to look at it that way, then don't complain when they hike up the price of insulin 500% and when they prevent people from going to Canada to get needed drugs (as Booker has tried to do). If supporting Big Pharma means not really supporting Medicare for All, than maybe it's time to stop worrying about the Drug Companies getting enough support. Booker is also supported by the tear gas maker who supplied to tear gas used at the boarder. The act that Booker went down to protest.
https://tyt.com/stories/4vZLCHuQrYE4uKagy0oyMA/5SOyM3cJ5mA4e26c4EeqOO
When will his hypocrisy be enough to convince some of you that he is not really on your side? Yes, it is difficult to run a campaign without lots of money and the backing of the establishment media--but that does not mean you just have to vote for these corrupted politicians. There are people running grassroots campaigns and maybe it is time to really listen to what they are saying and not believe propaganda thrown against them. Maybe we need someone who has more than good looks and a nice personality and the right gender/race and a D after their name (some people running as D's are really R's). These should be the last things we consider when choosing a candidate--who they take money from and how they do that donor's bidding should be #1 or 2.
jamie said:
nan - who is your choice if Sanders doesn't run?
Have to see who is running. Don't like Biden, Guillebrand, Harris, Booker, et al. Not feeling Beto either (Big Oil guy and he lost to lyin' Ted--don't get the enthusiasm). Not a big Warren fan either, but I guess I could vote for her, maybe. The others make me understand why people don't vote. The candidate has to be believably for Medicare for All. That's a huge priority for me. No excuse for the Democrats not embracing that now.
nan said:
jamie said:Have to see who is running. Don't like Biden, Guillebrand, Harris, Booker, et al. Not feeling Beto either (Big Oil guy and he lost to lyin' Ted--don't get the enthusiasm). Not a big Warren fan either, but I guess I could vote for her, maybe. The others make me understand why people don't vote. The candidate has to be believably for Medicare for All. That's a huge priority for me. No excuse for the Democrats not embracing that now.
nan - who is your choice if Sanders doesn't run?
So, with all your idealism and passion for idealogical purity, you are willing to COMPROMISE on universal healthcare by accepting the Medicare for All stuff! Why not true universal healthcare, like Hillary tried to do in the 90"s? Hypocrite !
Nan
The list of whom you could not support is rather extensive. I do not believe that there is anyone who could win the Democratic Party nomination who could get your support.
I suggest you use your efforts to either build up a Third Party with the actual potential to influence the Democratic Party or you give up on Electoral Politics altogether.
annielou said:
Warren will be easy pickin’s for Trump.
I do not agree. She made on mistake and I'm sure she has learned from it. She is arguably the smartest of the bunch.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:So, with all your idealism and passion for idealogical purity, you are willing to COMPROMISE on universal healthcare by accepting the Medicare for All stuff! Why not true universal healthcare, like Hillary tried to do in the 90"s? Hypocrite !
jamie said:Have to see who is running. Don't like Biden, Guillebrand, Harris, Booker, et al. Not feeling Beto either (Big Oil guy and he lost to lyin' Ted--don't get the enthusiasm). Not a big Warren fan either, but I guess I could vote for her, maybe. The others make me understand why people don't vote. The candidate has to be believably for Medicare for All. That's a huge priority for me. No excuse for the Democrats not embracing that now.
nan - who is your choice if Sanders doesn't run?
I don't hear anyone calling for true universal healthcare. I'd probably be fine with that.
LOST said:
Nan
The list of whom you could not support is rather extensive. I do not believe that there is anyone who could win the Democratic Party nomination who could get your support.
I suggest you use your efforts to either build up a Third Party with the actual potential to influence the Democratic Party or you give up on Electoral Politics altogether.
annielou said:I do not agree. She made on mistake and I'm sure she has learned from it. She is arguably the smartest of the bunch.
Warren will be easy pickin’s for Trump.
Lost, I don't have an extensive list -- it's just that the long list are all cookie cutter variations on the same theme. There is really very little choice, especially if you are against war and want to reduce the military budget. There are few differences between Biden, Gullibrand, Harris, Booker, et al. People pick the black version, the woman version, the fun Pride of Scranton guy version--whatever they are in the mood for. They are all corporate Democrats who will take lots of money and pretend to care about voters and then let Citigroup pick their cabinet (like Obama did). They will be better than Trump, but they will not change the system so the endless wars will continue and the austerity and in four years there will be another fake populist like Trump, but even more to the right, ready to win them over. This is the pattern seen all over the world. We need major change and unless we get it we are on a huge decline. The Democrats are not going to change though--so they will pick the nominee (like they did last time) and it will be one of those clones and you will all be mad at me when I don't want to vote for them. Instead, you should be mad at them for only allowing certain kinds of candidates to run, trying to sabotage others and basically caring more about doing what the donors want than winning. If they really wanted to win, they DNC would adopt Medicare for All as their platform--cause everyone wants it, even Republicans and Trump has done crap on healthcare so that would really give an advantage.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
nan said:So, with all your idealism and passion for idealogical purity, you are willing to COMPROMISE on universal healthcare by accepting the Medicare for All stuff! Why not true universal healthcare, like Hillary tried to do in the 90"s? Hypocrite !
jamie said:Have to see who is running. Don't like Biden, Guillebrand, Harris, Booker, et al. Not feeling Beto either (Big Oil guy and he lost to lyin' Ted--don't get the enthusiasm). Not a big Warren fan either, but I guess I could vote for her, maybe. The others make me understand why people don't vote. The candidate has to be believably for Medicare for All. That's a huge priority for me. No excuse for the Democrats not embracing that now.
nan - who is your choice if Sanders doesn't run?
Isn't Medicare for all Universal Health Care? What's the compromise?
nan said:
LOST said:Lost, I don't have an extensive list -- it's just that the long list are all cookie cutter variations on the same theme. There is really very little choice, especially if you are against war and want to reduce the military budget. There are few differences between Biden, Gullibrand, Harris, Booker, et al. People pick the black version, the woman version, the fun Pride of Scranton guy version--whatever they are in the mood for. They are all corporate Democrats who will take lots of money and pretend to care about voters and then let Citigroup pick their cabinet (like Obama did). They will be better than Trump, but they will not change the system so the endless wars will continue and the austerity and in four years there will be another fake populist like Trump, but even more to the right, ready to win them over. This is the pattern seen all over the world. We need major change and unless we get it we are on a huge decline. The Democrats are not going to change though--so they will pick the nominee (like they did last time) and it will be one of those clones and you will all be mad at me when I don't want to vote for them. Instead, you should be mad at them for only allowing certain kinds of candidates to run, trying to sabotage others and basically caring more about doing what the donors want than winning. If they really wanted to win, they DNC would adopt Medicare for All as their platform--cause everyone wants it, even Republicans and Trump has done crap on healthcare so that would really give an advantage.
Nan
The list of whom you could not support is rather extensive. I do not believe that there is anyone who could win the Democratic Party nomination who could get your support.
I suggest you use your efforts to either build up a Third Party with the actual potential to influence the Democratic Party or you give up on Electoral Politics altogether.
annielou said:I do not agree. She made on mistake and I'm sure she has learned from it. She is arguably the smartest of the bunch.
Warren will be easy pickin’s for Trump.
Any thoughts about Sherrod Brown?
drummerboy said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:Isn't Medicare for all Universal Health Care? What's the compromise?
nan said:So, with all your idealism and passion for idealogical purity, you are willing to COMPROMISE on universal healthcare by accepting the Medicare for All stuff! Why not true universal healthcare, like Hillary tried to do in the 90"s? Hypocrite !
jamie said:Have to see who is running. Don't like Biden, Guillebrand, Harris, Booker, et al. Not feeling Beto either (Big Oil guy and he lost to lyin' Ted--don't get the enthusiasm). Not a big Warren fan either, but I guess I could vote for her, maybe. The others make me understand why people don't vote. The candidate has to be believably for Medicare for All. That's a huge priority for me. No excuse for the Democrats not embracing that now.
nan - who is your choice if Sanders doesn't run?
Medicare for all is still a for-profit system involving private businesses, health insurance companies, and uneven costs for participants. UHC would be a true single-payer system, financed 100% by tax revenues, with equal care parameters for all. Medical personnel would be employed by the system, not in private practice with it's need for profit. The difference is in the profit-making influences in the MFA system, as opposed to a zero-profit UHC system.
Morganna said:
nan said:Any thoughts about Sherrod Brown?
LOST said:Lost, I don't have an extensive list -- it's just that the long list are all cookie cutter variations on the same theme. There is really very little choice, especially if you are against war and want to reduce the military budget. There are few differences between Biden, Gullibrand, Harris, Booker, et al. People pick the black version, the woman version, the fun Pride of Scranton guy version--whatever they are in the mood for. They are all corporate Democrats who will take lots of money and pretend to care about voters and then let Citigroup pick their cabinet (like Obama did). They will be better than Trump, but they will not change the system so the endless wars will continue and the austerity and in four years there will be another fake populist like Trump, but even more to the right, ready to win them over. This is the pattern seen all over the world. We need major change and unless we get it we are on a huge decline. The Democrats are not going to change though--so they will pick the nominee (like they did last time) and it will be one of those clones and you will all be mad at me when I don't want to vote for them. Instead, you should be mad at them for only allowing certain kinds of candidates to run, trying to sabotage others and basically caring more about doing what the donors want than winning. If they really wanted to win, they DNC would adopt Medicare for All as their platform--cause everyone wants it, even Republicans and Trump has done crap on healthcare so that would really give an advantage.
Nan
The list of whom you could not support is rather extensive. I do not believe that there is anyone who could win the Democratic Party nomination who could get your support.
I suggest you use your efforts to either build up a Third Party with the actual potential to influence the Democratic Party or you give up on Electoral Politics altogether.
annielou said:I do not agree. She made on mistake and I'm sure she has learned from it. She is arguably the smartest of the bunch.
Warren will be easy pickin’s for Trump.
Don't know much, but my impression is that he is something of a Progressive or used to be one, but basically another variation on establishment Democrat, as listed. Maybe kinda like Warren who has one foot in being a Progressive, but usually chickens out.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
drummerboy said:Medicare for all is still a for-profit system involving private businesses, health insurance companies, and uneven costs for participants. UHC would be a true single-payer system, financed 100% by tax revenues, with equal care parameters for all. Medical personnel would be employed by the system, not in private practice with it's need for profit. The difference is in the profit-making influences in the MFA system, as opposed to a zero-profit UHC system.
Dennis_Seelbach said:Isn't Medicare for all Universal Health Care? What's the compromise?
nan said:So, with all your idealism and passion for idealogical purity, you are willing to COMPROMISE on universal healthcare by accepting the Medicare for All stuff! Why not true universal healthcare, like Hillary tried to do in the 90"s? Hypocrite !
jamie said:Have to see who is running. Don't like Biden, Guillebrand, Harris, Booker, et al. Not feeling Beto either (Big Oil guy and he lost to lyin' Ted--don't get the enthusiasm). Not a big Warren fan either, but I guess I could vote for her, maybe. The others make me understand why people don't vote. The candidate has to be believably for Medicare for All. That's a huge priority for me. No excuse for the Democrats not embracing that now.
nan - who is your choice if Sanders doesn't run?
The reason private companies are involved with Medicare is due to deficiencies on Medicare. So many, instead of being in standard Medicare they buy supplemental Medicare or Medigap plans. Plans that limit yearly out-of-pocket and cover things that standard Medicare does not such as vision exams.
Bernie Sanders wants as a start to lower Medicare eligibility to age 55 and remove many limitations of standard Medicare by adding Dental and,Vision coverage. Over subsequent years he wants to continue lowering the age eligibility in 10 year increments.
To me fixing Medicare would be UHC.
Nan is correct about the innate corruption of both parties. One party is simply much worse than the other. But de facto they're factions of the same party, the market.
I know some are gushing over Obamacare. It has its good points such as covering pre-existing coverage. So the public is thrown their nibble which is considered a joke by Europeans and others in nations who have REAL healthcare. Its expensive, major premiums being paid by the healthy (out-of-pocket or supplemented with their tax dollars), where after paying thousands in premiums nothing is paid (high deductibles), etc. Obamacare has supposedly made our nation healthier. Well, the lowering life expectancy in the US has put a lie to that. Has it helped our nation with healthcare costs? No. As escalating medical bankruptcies have shown us.
Some of you are also gushing over Pelosi as house speaker to be. What's so wonderful about her? She's a great fund raiser for some members of congress but she doesn't get her funds through crowd sourcing as some did. Does anyone wonder from where she gets the money and what is promised in return? A promise to keep the liberals quiet, not to have waves while allowing the 1% to accumulate? Why is she so adamant in keeping the house speakership? She's known to so seriously threaten and reward for that position that many Democratic members of congress are afraid. Why does she act she is indispensable?
Both parties play the American public. Which is why we don't have UHC, decent free college education, a good social safety net. They're engaged ensuring the health and welfare for the 1%.
BG9 said:
Nan is correct about the innate corruption of both parties. One party is simply much worse than the other. But de facto they're factions of the same party, the market.
I know some are gushing over Obamacare. It has its good points such as covering pre-existing coverage. So the public is thrown their nibble which is considered a joke by Europeans and others in nations who have REAL healthcare. Its expensive, major premiums being paid by the healthy (out-of-pocket or supplemented with their tax dollars), where after paying thousands in premiums nothing is paid (high deductibles), etc. Obamacare has supposedly made our nation healthier. Well, the lowering life expectancy in the US has put a lie to that. Has it helped our nation with healthcare costs? No. As escalating medical bankruptcies have shown us.
Some of you are also gushing over Pelosi as house speaker to be. What's so wonderful about her? She's a great fund raiser for some members of congress but she doesn't get her funds through crowd sourcing as some did. Does anyone wonder from where she gets the money and what is promised in return? A promise to keep the liberals quiet, not to have waves while allowing the 1% to accumulate? Why is she so adamant in keeping the house speakership? She's known to so seriously threaten and reward for that position that many Democratic members of congress are afraid. Why does she act she is indispensable?
Both parties play the American public. Which is why we don't have UHC, decent free college education, a good social safety net. They're engaged ensuring the health and welfare for the 1%.
What a bunch of bull. We have one party that wants to do away with protection of people with pre-existing conditions, is against any expansion of health insurance coverage, and has not produced a single constructive idea about how to increase health care coverage and reduce cost. We have another party that has been trying to improve health care coverage for decades, is forced to compromise, and came up with Obamacare as at least a concrete step in the right direction. Obama and HRC repeatedly said they'd rather have single payer or another solution, but they didn't think it could pass so they were willing to compromise. The idea that both parties are to blame is just a bunch of crap.
gerritn said:
BG9 said:What a bunch of bull. We have one party that wants to do away with protection of people with pre-existing conditions, is against any expansion of health insurance coverage, and has not produced a single constructive idea about how to increase health care coverage and reduce cost. We have another party that has been trying to improve health care coverage for decades, is forced to compromise, and came up with Obamacare as at least a concrete step in the right direction. Obama and HRC repeatedly said they'd rather have single payer or another solution, but they didn't think it could pass so they were willing to compromise. The idea that both parties are to blame is just a bunch of crap.
Nan is correct about the innate corruption of both parties. One party is simply much worse than the other. But de facto they're factions of the same party, the market.
I know some are gushing over Obamacare. It has its good points such as covering pre-existing coverage. So the public is thrown their nibble which is considered a joke by Europeans and others in nations who have REAL healthcare. Its expensive, major premiums being paid by the healthy (out-of-pocket or supplemented with their tax dollars), where after paying thousands in premiums nothing is paid (high deductibles), etc. Obamacare has supposedly made our nation healthier. Well, the lowering life expectancy in the US has put a lie to that. Has it helped our nation with healthcare costs? No. As escalating medical bankruptcies have shown us.
Some of you are also gushing over Pelosi as house speaker to be. What's so wonderful about her? She's a great fund raiser for some members of congress but she doesn't get her funds through crowd sourcing as some did. Does anyone wonder from where she gets the money and what is promised in return? A promise to keep the liberals quiet, not to have waves while allowing the 1% to accumulate? Why is she so adamant in keeping the house speakership? She's known to so seriously threaten and reward for that position that many Democratic members of congress are afraid. Why does she act she is indispensable?
Both parties play the American public. Which is why we don't have UHC, decent free college education, a good social safety net. They're engaged ensuring the health and welfare for the 1%.
Seems reasonable, but when you look closely the Devil is in the Details. Instead of Medicare for All, Democrats went for a right-wing healthcare plan (based on Romneycare) that did not cover everyone and was financially unafordable for many and unsustainable. I don't buy the blaming on the Republicans either--there were periods when Dems had he majority and they did not put things through. HRC famously said that we will NEVER get single-payer. I don't think they were serious about single-payer and they are not screaming for it now. Nancy Pelosi is against it. These and other neoliberal strategies (like growing wealth inequality, NAFTA, ignoring the working class in favor of the professional class) is why so many in the rustbelt turned to a fake populist like Trump. And they will again if the Dems don't do something drastic, which they won't. So, yes, the Democrats are corrupt, and that's one of the reasons we now have Trump.
gerritn said:
What a bunch of bull. We have one party that wants to do away with protection of people with pre-existing conditions, is against any expansion of health insurance coverage, and has not produced a single constructive idea about how to increase health care coverage and reduce cost. We have another party that has been trying to improve health care coverage for decades, is forced to compromise, and came up with Obamacare as at least a concrete step in the right direction. Obama and HRC repeatedly said they'd rather have single payer or another solution, but they didn't think it could pass so they were willing to compromise. The idea that both parties are to blame is just a bunch of crap.
Not bull.
The Democrats gave you your little nibble of healthcare reform. And many are worshipfully happy and thankful. Whereas, the reality, its considered a joke by those in the other industrialized nations. You've been played and will continue to be played.
As Nan, said, Democrats had opportunities when they had the majority. Where's the real reform?
Another reason why we have Trump is that he lied A LOT.
I like Steyer's 5 right's platform. Something like this is a good base for any candidate:
the right to an equal vote in a fair democracy; the right to clean air and clean water; the right to learn, from pre-K through college and advanced skills training; the right to earn a living wage; and the right to health.
nan said:
gerritn said:1. Instead of Medicare for All, Democrats went for a right-wing healthcare plan (based on Romneycare) that did not cover everyone and was financially unafordable for many and unsustainable.
BG9 said:What a bunch of bull.
Nan is correct about the innate corruption of both parties.
2. I don't buy the blaming on the Republicans either--there were periods when Dems had he majority and they did not put things through.
3. HRC famously said that we will NEVER get single-payer.
4. I don't think they were serious about single-payer and they are not screaming for it now. Nancy Pelosi is against it.
These and other neoliberal strategies (like growing wealth inequality, NAFTA, ignoring the working class in favor of the professional class) is why so many in the rustbelt turned to a fake populist like Trump. And they will again if the Dems don't do something drastic, which they won't. So, yes, the Democrats are corrupt, and that's one of the reasons we now have Trump.
1. Democrats did not 'go for' Romneycare. They passed what they could.
2. You really believe it's that simple? There was a very short (like weeks) of filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
3. From this you conclude she is against it?
4. There is a difference between opposing a thing and believing it is unattainable in this climate.
Of course you know all of this but would prefer to obfuscate. If your goal is to keep handing control to people who hate you you're doing an awesome job.
BG9 said:
gerritn said:Not bull.
What a bunch of bull. We have one party that wants to do away with protection of people with pre-existing conditions, is against any expansion of health insurance coverage, and has not produced a single constructive idea about how to increase health care coverage and reduce cost. We have another party that has been trying to improve health care coverage for decades, is forced to compromise, and came up with Obamacare as at least a concrete step in the right direction. Obama and HRC repeatedly said they'd rather have single payer or another solution, but they didn't think it could pass so they were willing to compromise. The idea that both parties are to blame is just a bunch of crap.
The Democrats gave you your little nibble of healthcare reform. And many are worshipfully happy and thankful. Whereas, the reality, its considered a joke by those in the other industrialized nations. You've been played and will continue to be played.
As Nan, said, Democrats had opportunities when they had the majority. Where's the real reform?
Absolute bull. Obama said the ACA was not perfect, but would be a step in the right direction and should be improved upon (of course the republicans did nothing than chip away at it, after 8 years of yelling they would come up with a better alternative they have done nothing but sabotage it, trying to remove protections for people with pre-existing conditions, and of course their 'better alternative' never came about). Is the ACA perfect? No. Should it be improved? Yes. Was it better than what we had before: Absolutely.
Here is a quote from the Kaiser Family Foundation:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) led to historic gains in health insurance coverage by extending Medicaid coverage to many low-income individuals and providing Marketplace subsidies for individuals below 400% of poverty. Under the law, the number of uninsured nonelderly Americans decreased from 44 million in 2013 (the year before the major coverage provisions went into effect) to less than 28 million as of the end of 2016.
Suggesting that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans when it comes to healthcare reform is just being dishonest.
jamie said:
Another reason why we have Trump is that he lied A LOT.
I like Steyer's 5 right's platform. Something like this is a good base for any candidate:
the right to an equal vote in a fair democracy; the right to clean air and clean water; the right to learn, from pre-K through college and advanced skills training; the right to earn a living wage; and the right to health.
This is all meaningless crap with no context. We all have the right to own a Porche too. They need specific things people can get excited about --Medicare for All, Free College, A ban on fracking, A Green New Deal. Is Steyer on for any of these? Last I heard, he was spending millions just trying to get Trump impeached. Wrongheaded as can be.
Red_Barchetta said:
nan said:1. Democrats did not 'go for' Romneycare. They passed what they could.
gerritn said:1. Instead of Medicare for All, Democrats went for a right-wing healthcare plan (based on Romneycare) that did not cover everyone and was financially unafordable for many and unsustainable.
BG9 said:What a bunch of bull.
Nan is correct about the innate corruption of both parties.
2. I don't buy the blaming on the Republicans either--there were periods when Dems had he majority and they did not put things through.
3. HRC famously said that we will NEVER get single-payer.
4. I don't think they were serious about single-payer and they are not screaming for it now. Nancy Pelosi is against it.
These and other neoliberal strategies (like growing wealth inequality, NAFTA, ignoring the working class in favor of the professional class) is why so many in the rustbelt turned to a fake populist like Trump. And they will again if the Dems don't do something drastic, which they won't. So, yes, the Democrats are corrupt, and that's one of the reasons we now have Trump.
2. You really believe it's that simple? There was a very short (like weeks) of filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
3. From this you conclude she is against it?
4. There is a difference between opposing a thing and believing it is unattainable in this climate.
Of course you know all of this but would prefer to obfuscate. If your goal is to keep handing control to people who hate you you're doing an awesome job.
Yes, they embrace Incrementalism, and always say, we can't do it now--you have to wait. They have a million excuses, but you don't see them even fighting for Medicare for All. Nancy Pelosi is not for Medicare for All. Why are we even arguing over this--we should all know that Medicare for All is in the Democratic Platform. Why did they not push it through when they had the majority? They roll over and work with the Republicans. Obmacare is very similar to Romneycare, which was developed by the Heritage Foundation. It is unsustainable at this point because of cost. Every other country has a variation on Medicare for All. The time for excuses is over. You can make the case that the Democrats are much better than the Republicans, but realize that going along with wimpy, corrupt Democrats is going to get more Trump-like Republicans elected down the road. Working people are done with the Democrats, who promise things and never deliver and then make lame excuses. They feel betrayed and they will go with a far-right demigod just to get even.
The Democrats, even in the "Progressive Caucus" are not working for you. Take a close look at the leadership of the Democratic Party.
The ACA was the greatest social welfare program enacted since Medicare. Period. It was historic. (and it is not perfect. But the next time you find a perfect government program, let us know.)
Some of you think, for some reason, that it was not an achievement. That's because you're extremely naive about how politics works in this country. There is no modern democracy which faces as many veto points as the U.S. does. You try to enact universal health care when you have senators like Lieberman and Max Baucus standing in your way.
And, by the way, "RomneyCare" was a system created by Democrats, not by Romney. He signed it because he pretty much had no choice.
Also, the ACA was not a "right-wing" program. Those of you who think it was based on some old conservative proposal are, yet again, completely wrong.
Get your facts straight.
nan said:
The Democrats, even in the "Progressive Caucus" are not working for you. Take a close look at the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Well, I put more trust in Nancy Pelosi, or progressives in the Democratic party than in Jill Stein, or Julian Assange, if that's what you are getting at.
I think Nancy Pelosi is quite a remarkable woman. At 78 she continues to work diligently. She’s accomplished a lot.
galileo said:
I think Nancy Pelosi is quite a remarkable woman. At 78 she continues to work diligently. She’s accomplished a lot.
In 2005, when Bush was pushing for Social Security privatization, he was getting some supporting words from leading Democrats. Some Dems were thinking about offering a counter-proposal to Bush, which still would have weakened SS. Pelosi put her foot down and said 'no way, jose'. She probably did more to foil Bush's plans than anyone. We should all be eternally grateful.
As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan.
“Never. Is never good enough for you?” Pelosi defiantly said to one member.
Hey nan, since you think republicans and democrats are equally corrupt, I got another great candidate for you!
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
How many people in NJ are employed by pharmaceutical companies? Wouldn't one expect a Senator to support a principal industry and employer in that Senator's State?
Now if you want to advocate government takeover of the industry OK. But we do live in a Capitalist Country.