General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Booker bashing is why we lose.
And why we will continue to lose.
20 million people got their health care removed in a single vote and the biggest story was how a Senator in a state with lots of ties to big pharma voted with his constituents. Wyden makes shitty votes on Trade, Warren made a shitty vote regarding the medical device tax. Shit happens.
The focus is seriously fucking fucked up beyond all recognition. We will not get out of this shit any time soon.
We need another Obama. But one that is able to keep the party from eating its own so easily.
doxyluv13
(247 posts)Sorry, Corey is no Obama, he's completely in the pocket of the financial services industry and Pharma--the 2 biggest business in NJ.
Have you looked at his contributors page:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=I&cid=N00035267&newMem=N&recs=20&cycle=2014
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)of the financial services industry? So they donate to him because they're Dems and they live there.
And most of those individual donors aren't one-issue voters; like the rest of us, who they work for is just one aspect of their lives.
By listing all the donations by employer, OpenSecrets gives the incorrect impression that employees of a corporation vote in lock-step. They do not. But Open Secrets does finally acknowledge:
doxyluv13
(247 posts)Plus I'm from NJ.
But you logic is wacky. Many more Garden Staters consume pharmaceuticals than produce them, so why is our Democratic Senator siding with Corporate Power? Is it not ok with you to bemoan that?
You may think that's understandable and okay, but I hope you will admit its a matter of opinion. To call someone who points this out a "Basher" or "Throwing Corey Under the Bus" is unfair. And in the "Under the Bus" case if just means the poster doesn't even know want "To throw some under the bus" means. It means causing someone else to take the responsibility for or consequences of someone else's actions.
BTW He also decimated the public education system in Newark, undermining the teachers union, a major support of our Democratic Party.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)because the bill is flawed.
We've already had a problem in Seattle with adulterated drugs coming through Canada. The problem is that while Canada has high standards for the drugs they produce there, they have no regulation of drugs that are produced in other countries and sent through Canada to the U.S. So postal inspectors in Seattle have discovered shipments of fake and adulterated drugs that came from Canada but were produced in other countries.
The bill those 12 Senators voted against wouldn't have solved that problem.
Patty Murray said that she likes the idea of reimportation, but that bill had flaws. But my personal opinion is it won't work, period. The Canadian system is 1/10th the size of ours. Do you really think the drug companies will be cooperative in shipping ten times the product they're now shipping to Canada, so that we can them reimport it at much cheaper prices here? And if they won't greatly increase their exports to Canada, then who will fill the gap? Countries without the standards and regulations that Canada and the US have, who will be happy to sell their fake products at a reduced price.
Our Federal government should be negotiating prices with the drug companies, just like they do in every other civilized country, not trying to piggyback onto the much smaller Canadian system.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The effect of importation will be minimal at best. But boy do we fall for the shit narrative that the Republicans no doubt orchestrated.
There's bipartisan support for this bill. It'll pass. Have little overall effect.
And we'll have just overlooked that Obamacare got repealed.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Thanks.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)And I've added a relevant link from the FDA.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#582b57a6bd3d
In August of 2003, during the earlier drug importation debate, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examined mail shipments of imported drugs flowing to U.S. consumers through Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Carson, CA. Investigators found that 88% of the drugs they examined did not meet FDA standards. The packages often contained dangerous, unapproved, or counterfeit drugs.
A second inspection blitz in November of 2003at the Buffalo, Dallas, Chicago and Seattle mail facilities and the Memphis and Cincinnati courier hubsrevealed similar problems: 1,728 unapproved drugs among the 1,982 parcels inspected. The unapproved drugs included foreign versions of FDA-approved drugs, recalled drugs, drugs requiring special storage conditions, drugs requiring close physician monitoring, and animal drugs not approved for humans.
Former FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, under whose leadership the investigations took place, warned that drug importation creates a wide channel for large volumes of unapproved drugs and other products to enter the United States that are potentially injurious to public health and pose a threat to the security of our Nations drug supply.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115171.htm
From a public health standpoint, importing prescription drugs for personal use is a potentially dangerous practice. FDA and the public have no assurance that unapproved products are effective or safe, or have been produced under U.S. good manufacturing practices. FDA cannot assure the public that re-imported drugs made in the U.S. have been stored under proper conditions or that they are even the real product, because the Agency does not regulate foreign distributors or pharmacies. Therefore, unapproved drugs and re-imported approved medications may be contaminated, subpotent, superpotent, or counterfeit. In addition, some websites based outside the U.S. offer to dispense prescription drugs without a prescription by a licensed practitioner or a physical examination, bypassing the traditional doctor-patient relationship. As a result, patients may receive inappropriate medications due to misdiagnoses, they may fail to receive appropriate medications or other medical care, or they may take a product that could be harmful, or fatal, if taken in combination with other medicines they might be taking.
azmom
(5,208 posts)by political considerations. Case in point, Marijuana being classified as a schedule I drug.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)it from one country to another, so we can't know what we're getting if we get it from Canada.
And it just doesn't make sense that US drug companies would cooperate in sending much more product to Canada than Canada needs, so it can be reimported cheaply here.
azmom
(5,208 posts)that voted for the amendment are not aware of this or don't care?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)but I think Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, and Cory Booker (among others) were correct. And part of that might be because of the experience here in Seattle, where fake drugs via Canada have already been a problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#582b57a6bd3d
Canadian health authorities have warned the United States that Health Canada will not take responsibility for the safety of drugs exported from Canada to the United States.
If you think Internet drug sellers are safe because their Web sites display the Canadian flag, youve been fooled again, says Lew Kontnik, co-author of the book Counterfeiting Exposed. Canadian authorities do not inspect medicines that are transshipped through their country bound for U.S. consumers, which opens a huge loophole for counterfeiters to sell us fake medicines masquerading as Canadian prescription drugs. These Canadian drugs are likely to be produced in India, Bangladesh, or Ghana.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8479306
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Canada wasted $15 billion over the last five years on highly priced prescription drugs, in part because of questionable drug company sales tactics, according to exclusive research and a hidden camera investigation by the fifth estate.
The research conducted for the fifth estate by health benefits company Express Scripts Canada shows employer-funded private insurance plans in Canada wasted more than $3 billion per year between 2011 and 2015 by covering the cost of expensive drugs that have cheaper options, as well as paying for unnecessary dispensing fees.
That's nearly 20 per cent of the $81 billion spent on drugs over those five years by private insurance companies in Canada.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)But no one should trust the online drugs that appear to come from Canada.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)for sale on the internet site that is a huge internet shipper like Amazon.
BTW, the more I have been involved in inspections, the less faith I have. They are only as good as the government that cares and is willing to SPEND THE MONEY to make it work.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)How do you know it was the real thing? that's the problem.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)China proud. 100 Kilogram/Kilograms min.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Gabapentin_50025924276.html
dionysus
(26,467 posts)your constituents lies. take manchin, for example. i'lltake a guess and wager you're over here with me sayin, look at that friggin DINO, in the pocket of Coal, he might as well be a rethug!
But, as much as it makes us cringe, many ofthose constituents voted for him precisely because of the fact he was forcoal...
so what is the guy really supposded to be doing the most, supporting his party platform (for us it would be renewables, clean energy, ect), or representing what the constituents want (coal, baby coal)?
ostensibly he's supposed to be doing the will of his constituents...
in cases like that, doing what your constituents want can run exacly opposite of your party's platform!
what are your thoughts on my sunday morning ramble?
BunkieBandit
(82 posts)Sometimes the good guys are handcuffed.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)He obviously has way more constituents that would benefit from lower drug costs than constituents that would somehow benefit from higher ones, like CEO's of pharmaceutical companies. I mean seriously, does anyone think NJ really has more pharmaceutical CEOs than poor and middle class citizens? Booker wasn't against the amendment because he has more constituents that would benefit from voting against it. It's because the tiny group that would suffer from the Sanders/Klobuchar amendment has way more $$$.
JI7
(89,276 posts)doxyluv13
(247 posts)Democrats are supposed to represent the voters, not their bosses.
JI7
(89,276 posts)aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)seaglass
(8,173 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)That's a lack of focus. Fuck that shit. If Sanders got shit on for the F35 program as hard as Booker, then the hypocrites who went after Booker might have some integrity. It's still an irrelevant thing that shows a complete and total lack of focus.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)One of the reasons the attacks on Dems from that direction have little credibility.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It's extremely effective.
We are so fucking fucked.
treestar
(82,383 posts)people's interests. Reminds me of when Biden voted for a bill favoring the credit industry at a time a huge bank was here employing a lot of people.
Most people do not knee jerk against "the corporations."
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)You'll note I'm not making excuses for his vote.
Yes, there are people pissed off about his vote. I'm pissed off about his vote. I was pissed off when Warren voted against the medical device tax, which weakened the ACA. I am pissed off Wyden, one of the most liberal Senators in Congress, supported TPP.
It sucks. But I don't throw them under the buss for their shitty votes.
Singling out those votes is what kills us. It kills us so badly.
Obama banned contributions from lobbyists for 8 years for the DNC. The DNC, then, lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. And no, it wasn't because some head of the DNC defended fucking payday lenders. It's not one single thing.
That's the problem. It's not one single thing but we make it one single thing. We single shit out and our focus is completely fucked because of it. We're fucked because of it.
You gotta fight fire with fire. If the GOP is taking big money, we gotta take it. We damn sure aren't getting the laws changed. So you got to fight back the same way they're completely obliterating us. It's tactical.
It fucking sucks. But what else are you going to do?
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)You need small money and lots of votes
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Meanwhile the RNC funneled millions into state races and won them hand over fist, one after another, destroying state legislatures for a generation.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)but if Booker is going to vote against something that practically all of the democrats voted for, then he needs to make a statement supporting his vote. I voted against this legislation because...
Instead he came out with both guns blaring at Sessions.
This is why we lose.
Yes, they are the representatives of their constituents, but they shouldn't try to overshadow votes that they know are unpopular by bragging on something else. They need to own it.
I'm not a big fan of the 'Canadian drugs' thing anyway (it's a band aid on the problem) it's the trying to distract from an unpopular vote by pointing to something popular (that he is doing) that I am not impressed with.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Because I know damn well that the FDA thing was just a cop-out. (Yes, there's a legitimate need for the FDA to oversee it, and getting that as part of the bill would be useful, but it's not the reason.)
The bill will pass as part of Trump's mitigation of repealing Obamacare and Booker knows that. So he voted against it as one last nod to big pharma. Drug price negotiation will come next. Booker might vote against it, too. Again, as a nod to his constituents. That's just how it is.
If he really did come out and say "I got 200k in individual contributions from people who work in pharmaceuticals and I voted that way, on a vote that was irrelevant, to send them that I still support them," it would come off so bad optically that it's a joke. It'd be said that he's bought and paid for, etc, etc.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Do they really need that? How about a shoutout to the little people that actually use drugs to survive til the next day? Because they need that.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)A shoutout to the little people? Yes, that is the vote that we are discussing.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)The cost without insurance would be thousands. There are certain drugs that I don't get because they are not covered and my insurance company has directed me to taking less effective, less proven, newer drugs, with more potential side effects. There are other drugs that I would like to take that are not covered. I would pay for these out of pocket if they were cheaper. I could care less if they came from Canada. So my problems are not your problems. Hopefully you will never get to the point where they are. But isn't fighting for the problems of the little guy the point of being part of something bigger?
azmom
(5,208 posts)bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)But the Corporate Democrats don't care. And obviously the Republicans don't. But keep on being Trump-lite fellow-travelers Bookerites.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,381 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)betsuni
(25,645 posts)Sienna86
(2,150 posts)The majority of voters want someone who they feel puts their interests first.
JI7
(89,276 posts)Sienna86
(2,150 posts)I'm open to that discussion.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Maybe he'll lose his seat over a vote that was irrelevant and didn't change the outcome one bit. Because that's for damn sure what the game plan is for the Republicans. Keep shitting on Dems. Get Dems to get on Dems. Keep the division going. Keep our eyes off the goal. Keep us unfocused. Keep us lost and in despair.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)What's the point of keeping people like Booker around if they are just going to vote like a Republican? I say primary the guy. The Democratic Party can do better. And I'm sorry your suffering and lost and in despair because people are criticizing Booker. You know who is really in despair? Poor people that are suffering or dying because they can't afford healthcare and medicine.
treestar
(82,383 posts)anything with Republicans in power. So why does dividing up the Democratic party help?
Response to Sienna86 (Reply #6)
Post removed
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...and it allows for imports every single one of you who singled him out for being "like a Republican" won't apologize, and won't support him.
And the damage will already be done.
That's why we lose.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)Kinda like voting for the death penalty but offering to amend it to drawn & quartering during some fanciful future reconciliation, when no doubt the trade will be even worse.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)Look at what Trump is doing. Are you seriously suggesting that Corey Booker is just as bad?
God help us.
mcar
(42,376 posts)Booker is like Trump, Pence, Ryan and McConnell? Are you really saying that?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hekate
(90,829 posts)Just for one godsdammed day can the members of my party keep their eyes on the prize?
The GOP, which is now rotten to the core, has leaders and string-pullers and billionaires who maintain a 30 year plan -- and that's how they got where they are. They get their rank and file out to vote every two years, not every four years.
Meanwhile, the Dems not only can't keep their minds on the long game, they can't motivate the rank and file to get out oftener than every four years. So the GOP got to draw the district lines. Hillary WON, but thanks to the GOP's gerrymandering every district from dogcatcher to schoolboard to Congress, we ALL LOST.
As for another Obama in our lifetimes -- we should be so lucky. We abused him when we had him, both the Left and the Right. And it was unbearable at DU.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)received 98% of the vote, he/she WOULD STILL LOSE.
Ace Rothstein
(3,186 posts)crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)So no gerrymandering beyond state lines.
(Bob Casey also voted against it).
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Republicans are sheep. That is their strength.
Democrats are independent thinkers and, therefore, we argue.
A vast majority of America agrees with many of our views. We lose because of messaging.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)chwaliszewski
(1,514 posts)then why doesn't he propose a bill, like the one Bernie did, but with the changes that would be needed for it to get all Dems on board?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)He better come up with a better idea. He seems to ph#ck something up at the wrong time like he did when he went on Meet the Press and talked against Obama for going after Mitt Romney about Bain Capital.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)A non- binding amendment anyway
melman
(7,681 posts)"Shit happens" ?
Fuck that.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And you're concerned about a fucking bullshit vote that means nothing on the scheme of things. We're fucked.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Then vote right, does not cost anything more.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)We don't know what he got out of it but 13 Republicans crossed the isle. There was obviously some back room discussions about what they wanted to trade off for it. We may never know the exact details and if it does come out, like on an article on The Hill, no one will talk about it or care.
The bill is going to pass.
But we lost Obamacare.
We're more concerned about a non-vote than we are about the repeal of Obamacare.
That's why we lose.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)Vinca
(50,310 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Feingold lost because of this pure lack of focus, this politics of the personal. This disregard for party loyalty. This disregard for results. This disregard for achieving goals and focusing on irrelevancies.
Booker's vote had zero relevance to the outcome. Now, instead of being supported, he's got his back against the wall, playing defense, rather than being supported like he should be.
The Republicans have one of the if not the single worst President elect in American history and yet time and time again he is defended for the worst shit he does on social media.
I can't even imagine the political capital Obama would've had if we spent a 10th of the time defending him and supporting him that the Republicans are the worst person to ever hold the office. Instead we shit on Obama for 8 years over shit he never even did, just stuff he proposed, and holy shit, look at what we got for it. We deserve this shit until we learn better.
Vinca
(50,310 posts)I can't support a vote that will prevent me from buying affordable prescription drugs from Canada and I won't support Booker's vote on it. Boo hoo if his back is against the wall. Vote like a Democrat.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)The vote didn't matter and it obviously came with political trades (13 Dems voted against, 13 Republicans voted for). The bill will pass but instead of giving Booker credit for whatever deals went on that we'll never know about, he will always be remembered as the "horrible Democrat" that voted against it "that one time."
There's bipartisan support for this bill. It will pass.
And guess fucking what? Trump will get credit. And everyone will still shit on Democrats over it.
We will never fucking learn. We will never fucking learn. We will never fucking learn.
Meanwhile, the ACA just got fucking repealed and 20 million people are without health care.
But oh, Booker voted against a bill that one time.
That's why we lose. That's why we will continue to lose.
Vinca
(50,310 posts)people who can't afford to buy prescription drugs. That's what the appearance is. That's what affected us in the presidential election. Hillary was unfairly billed as the Goldman Sachs candidate (what irony here). If you haven't learned that facts don't matter from the election of Trump, you haven't been paying attention.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)Unless he abandons the seat for higher office.
Bob Menendez should be more worried about his senate seat due to the charges he's facing.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)Votes like Booker's, to the extent it was driven more by the need to appease campaign contributors rather than sincere policy considerations, don't help. They aren't fatal; voters understand that politicians aren't saints, but they feed cynicism.
Booker's taking a lot of flack because he wants to be the nominee in 2020. That's healthy. People also remember when the Obama campaign made Bain Capital an issue in 2012, Booker initially stood up for Bain. Booker was also among the last Dems to get on board with the Iran nuclear agreement. He needs to understand that people are watching. I have no problem with him getting his butt kicked on this. It will make him a better nominee if he's the guy in 2020 if his own positions becomes less muddled.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)There is bipartisan support for this bill and it will obviously pass. It's the "trade off" for the total and complete repeal of Obamacare. The Democrats have their backs against the wall so they want to get something out of it. Having FDA oversight over reimported drugs may or may not be a cop-out but it's not a big deal.
The point is that we have no focus here. We focused on shitting on Booker for 3 fucking days over an irrelevant vote that changes nothing. He'll get his FDA verbiage in there. The bill will pass.
And Donald Trump will get credit for finally repealing Bush's fucking law.
It's all a fucking game.
And we lose because we have failed at playing it.
BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)I don't think it's a problem if he's reminded of it. I do think part of the intensity has to do with where we all are at this most unfortunate moment. You just might be overreacting to an overreaction.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Booker's vote made not one whit of difference so it was 'safe' for him to vote for the industry. If political observers on DU don't understand that by now, they don't understand politics. Period.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)But I understand your point about the vote not meaning anything so it was safe. Still, made him look bad.
randome
(34,845 posts)I would think that casting a vote you know will lose is as carefully considered as any other vote.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But he knows that there's bipartisan support for it so he basically voted one last time for it to give his constituents a nod.
"Hey, we're going to be voting for importing drugs, so here's one last vote to say I got your back."
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He knew he'd get blowback for it. The problem is that we fall for it.
This damn bill is going to pass, there's obviously bipartisan support for it, and there needs to be something done to mitigate the complete repeal of Obamacare. This is part of it.
And of course, DU was all for the SCOTUS repealing Obamacare, so, well, the Republicans won on that count, too. It's insanity land.
I expect liberals to keep losing until they learn.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It seems there were more than just the one Amendment being voted on. More than Sanders' Amendment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/13/1620234/-So-the-LEFT-is-outraged-over-votes-against-Klobuchar-Amendment-What-about-the-Wyden-s
From Dailykos User Pentathera:
Wydens amendment, on the other hand, had it passed, would have prevented any healthcare initiative that did not lower drug prices as part of the initiative from being passed in the Senate without a 60 vote majority. It would have actually accomplished something by making it harder for the repeal of the ACA to happen, and also would have made it much more likely that any initiative would have had to actually lower drug prices IN THIS COUNTRY in order to pass.
All Democrats voted for Wydens amendment. Some Democrats were concerned about the safety issue with online drug purchases from Canada. There are also other possible problems with the effort to allow Americans to buy Canadian drugs. Will it negatively effect the supply of drugs in Canada, which has a much smaller population than the US? While Canada has price controls on drugs sold in Canada, would that prohibit Canadian pharmacies from selling drugs to US citizens above those prices. My guess would be not. They could sell for whatever the market would bear in the US, unrestricted by the law in regards to the price for Canadian sales. Thus any bill could potentially have a safety issue due to online sales, plus possibly negatively impact the supply of drugs to Canadians while not producing a significant savings for Americans.
Wydens amendment would have tackled the issue of high drug prices in the US, rather than attempting to bypass the problem by allowing Canadian imports. So why are people attacking Senate Dems for disagreements with the Klobuchar amendment when they were unanimous in supporting the Wyden amendment which was much more important and tackled the problem head on? I really wish people would do the research for themselves instead of just blindly believing the latest phony outrage, regardless of who is promoting it.
oasis
(49,410 posts)NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)the OP should have linked to it as well.
Here's another one:
https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/
Cory Booker is one of the few charismatic young Democrats out there that could turn out the voters enough to challenge Trump. Is he perfect, no? But, nobody is perfect.
But, the past 40 years have shown that the more charismatic candidate wins the presidential election:
1) Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter in 1980. Carter is smarter and far more competent, but Reagan was the Hollywood "star"
2) Reagan over Mondale in 1984. Mondale was smart, a good guy and very able. However, he got swamped by the more charismatic Republicans of the modern era.
3) In 1988, neither Bush nor Dukakis were charismatic. But, Dukakis was a real dud at the national level.
4) In 1992 and 1996, the charismatic young Bill Clinton managed to beat Bush and then Bob Dole, neither of whom had charisma
5) In 2000, Al Gore was very smart and very able, but aloof, stiff and out of touch vs the "down home" George W Bush
6) In 2004, Kerry was similar to Gore in 2000 - smart, able, but and aloof and stiff elitist vs Bush.
7) In 2008 and 2012, the charismatic young Barack Obama defeated old and stiff John McCain and the out-of-touch elitist Mitt Romney.
8) In 2016, the media loved Trump and built him up. He had that smarmy con-man charisma about him. Clinton was very smart and very capable as well, but like Gore and Kerry, she did not have that charisma.
randome
(34,845 posts)Thanks for doing the research!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)down to reflect reality and not his self-promotion and duplicity.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)not to excuse Booker but we need to stop this crap
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantrell both Democrats from Washington state voted against the measure as well. They both are getting shit for it, but the stated objection seems to be that as it was devoid of safety standards, the bill just wasn't good enough. All the bullshit hyperbole over it is not only why we lose, but jumping right on the "big pharma" owns everything and everyone rolling cart, thus simplifying to cartoon sketches any motivation other that CT woo shit.
Murray, at least, says she wants to work with Sanders to lower drug costs.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But the Democrats that wanted to get something out of it will only be remembered for voting against it to get something for it.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)It was a grandstanding gesture. It's looks like a hastily written sloppy bill (I don't think it was-that's what it came our looking like) that didn't take enough facts into consideration-easy fodder for Republicans, and now, progressives who want their utopia yesterday.
I am NOT afraid to criticize my Democratic senators, BTW, but Murray especially is a powerful voice for liberal values. Not tossing her under the bus for this.
AllaN01Bear
(18,443 posts)maor squee attack.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)I was not surprised but I know many who were.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Those who take issue with his sell out are to be quiet or we lose?? lol
No, that's not how it works.
I knew this sort of thing would happen when I saw all the swooning over his DNC speech (which will forever puzzle me but no matter). He ain't what lefty dreams are made of so I knew rude awakenings would be on the horizon. And here they are!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)that Sanders signed onto was not the only Amendment.
Please read a little more about this. I know you to be a thoughtful DU'er.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Thank you.
Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)If you think they are, then alert on the post.
I don't want to be like a Republican, and be a cipher who mindlessly supports whatever party members do, no matter what. If the price of being a DUer is to be a mindless cheerleader, then I'll be out of here.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)Both would have been infinitely better than Drumpf.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)-------------------
Some say "So Bernie deliberately introduced an amendment (non-binding) that Cory Booker couldn't vote for just so he could bad mouth him"
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Looks like Sanders is grandstanding yet again.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/1/13/1620234/-So-the-LEFT-is-outraged-over-votes-against-Klobuchar-Amendment-What-about-the-Wyden-s
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)His ego is just as big as any politician. He's no saint.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)R B Garr
(16,985 posts)through the primary and continues today! At least now Sanders' is being called a fraud, and this great post shows his duplicity yet again. Now he's smearing more good Democrats as being for Big Pharma when the reality is that he is smearing them for his own self-promotion. Where have we seen that before. I so agree with this post -- we cannot do this for four years.
JHan
(10,173 posts)they're hooked on outrage.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)who killed the Sanders bill. Their feet need to be held to the fire on every single bill. Particularly after we have lost control of all 3 branches
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)kjones
(1,053 posts)It would be plastered everywhere.
And I'm sure it's even more complicated than that, but, ugh, just...
ugh.
I'm so sick of that pandering ego tripper.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)oasis
(49,410 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)Had to vote that way to be re-elected, saying he would much rather have Booker in the Senate than any Republican replacement.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Trust me, more voters want cheaper drugs than want pricier drugs.
mopinko
(70,238 posts)and when they find out they are getting drugs that arent safe, their heads are gonna explode. they just assume. like the anti-vaxxers, they forget what it was like to have polio and diphtheria rampant in the country.
and i dont think there is a bigger concern than keeping their jobs.
many here love to bash "pharma", but when they get sick, they depend on them to be there to take care of them.
i know people who work for drugmakers, and they are proud of the work they do. they have beefs w the employers actions sometimes, but they are good hearted people working for a better, healthier world.
their votes count. their senator should represent them.
HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Or to paraphrase, perfect is the enemy of better than taking nothing.
I think that I went through 6 kinds of hypertension medication before finding one where the upside outweighed the downside.
People do not know this, but they can be taught.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)...same way I was with Joe Biden's bankruptcy bill vote, given that he represented Delaware.
But Booker also criticized Obama for being too mean to Wall Street and bankers.
He's also a staunch charter school advocate.
This one vote was not the only reason people have issues with Booker.
Also, I am one of his constituents so I have every right to be pissed off by his vote. And I have family who work or these pharmaceutical companies.
This isn't what's best for his constituents its whats best for the shareholders of businesses that happen to be in his home state, many of those shareholders not even living here.
demmiblue
(36,898 posts)I didn't like Obama's choice of Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education due to his support of charter schools (as well as Rahm Emanuel). And now we have Betsy DeVos carrying the torch.
I would never vote for Booker in the (hypothetical) primary if there were a more progressive/liberal opponent, but I would vote for him in the GE.
I find it so odd that some feel that we can't have/express opinions regarding members of our party.
I would vote for Booker in the GE but never in the primary.
This whole "clap louder for tinkerbell" approach we have is absurd. I'm fine minimizing complaints and differences during a general election campaign, but forcing people to pretend we don't have legitimate complaints about our candidates is part of the reason we are here. People seem to honestly believe that if we don't say anything bad, then people won't notice certain things and all will be well.
CanonRay
(14,119 posts)He needed a shot across the bow.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)intheflow
(28,504 posts)To say anyone who disagrees with and/or condemns Booker's vote is "bashing" him is akin to suggesting we all walk in lockstep. I'll leave the goose-stepping to the Republicans, thanks you, and welcome true and open dissent in the Democratic party. The idea that we should all walk in lockstep is what made the Democrats lose this election (not that we really lost, but you know what I mean) - we alienated the wing that wants to call us out when our actions don't match our stated ideals.
demmiblue
(36,898 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,647 posts)And is seen by many as a rising star/torch bearer. Disillusionment makes sense if that's the case.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)So the question is why progressives keep falling for the bait Greenwald tosses us from his publication?
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)there were 11 or 12 other Senate Democrats that voted with Booker... could it be that he's black?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)the 2 female Senators from my state -- who had good reasons for voting against the bill, because Seattle has had a problem with fake drugs being shipped here from Canada.
intheflow
(28,504 posts)The more visible the person is, and how large their transgression is, the more likely they are to be singled out.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)is why we lose.
Booker and the other 11, including my two Senators, have good reasons for voting against that particular amendment. And they ALL voted for a better amendment by Wyden.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)What does the intercept have to do with a lame-assed vote against importing cheaper (American-made) drugs from Canada? I'm all ears.
You did notice, did you not, that the Wyden amendment failed ON A STRAIGHT PARTY LINE VOTE, whereas on the Klobachar amendment 12 Republicans crossed over to vote for it, and 13 putative Democrats crossed to vote against, and against the American people. It is, and should be embarrassing for those Democrats. imho.
I am sick of fucking excuses for these people. And my Senator just happens to get a shit-ton of money from big pharma, and voted against. I am capable of drawing my own conclusions.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)The Democrats who voted against it, like Booker and Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, had sound reasons for doing so.
It's not a workable plan and could put sick people at risk.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)or any posts on that subject here.
What would be the danger to sick people? You are not repeating the long-term RW excuse regarding the safety of importing drugs from abroad are you? That's the boilerplate Cory Booker trotted out and it doesn't happen to hold water: Canada is such an unregulated hell hole, don't you think? Especially when they are re-selling American-made drugs that their government negotiates a lower price on.
Would that we had such a government...but I guarantee we won't get it without Democrats standing up to corporations. And that is definitely not what happened here. Again, it is true all Democrats voted for the Wyden amendment--that was a safe vote. They knew it wouldn't pass so they could afford to be principled and unified. But when the rubber hit the road 13 of them bailed. This has happened far too often and for far too long to just let it go because they say they have "sound reasons." I am sure that is very comforting to you. It isn't to me, or to anyone who has to pay highway robbery prices for meds.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)fake drugs that went through Canada on the way here.
What you don't seem to realize is that even though Canada has high standards for its own products, it has no regulations or standards for the drugs that pass through the Canada from one country to another. And it is very easy for these fakes to be sold through online websites with Canadian addresses.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/03/16/drug-importation-equals-unsafe-drugs-mr-trump/#582b57a6bd3d
If you think Internet drug sellers are safe because their Web sites display the Canadian flag, youve been fooled again, says Lew Kontnik, co-author of the book Counterfeiting Exposed. Canadian authorities do not inspect medicines that are transshipped through their country bound for U.S. consumers, which opens a huge loophole for counterfeiters to sell us fake medicines masquerading as Canadian prescription drugs. These Canadian drugs are likely to be produced in India, Bangladesh, or Ghana.
MORE HERE:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8479306
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I will say this, though: you (apparently) have a knee-jerk reaction to anything from the Intercept but Forbes is OK? And GWB's FDA? That seems odd.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)for seeming to back the reimportation idea.
But Forbes is just one source. Did you see Kittywampus's OP today? She and others have also posted information from different sources that explains why this reimportation isn't the panacea some think it is.
And that's why responsible people like Patty Murray -- not from a Big Pharma state -- supported Wyden's amendment and the general concept but not this amendment, because it doesn't deal with safety concerns.
This is on her Facebook page:
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)pnwmom
(108,995 posts)Canada only has 1/10th of our market. Why would Big Pharma cooperate in sending to Canada many times the product they need, simply so it can be reimported to the US at lower prices than if it was bought here?
And if they don't succeed in doing that, who is likely to fill the gap? The unregulated producers in the countries who are already shipping fake drugs through Canada.
We should be negotiating our own drug prices with producers, like every other civilized country. This idea of piggybacking on Canada's system just doesn't make sense (and I say this even though I like Patty Murray and she supports the idea.)
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Why even offer that up with the current Congress? What a pity that we didn't do that when we could have.
As for big pharma's cooperation, I would welcome putting them on the spot. The bigger the spotlight the better. They deserve it, don't they?
Why are we doing things or not doing things out of fear what might happen? Reacting instead of acting? Are we hoping they will see the error of their ways?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)that I referred to earlier, in case you missed it. I hope you will read it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8477228
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a huge majority in the House.
Yes, I know it was only for a few months. But somehow, nothing ever gets done that might piss off somebody's donors. Does it?
I don't think it is any mystery that we have been sheddding Senate seats, House seats, governorships etc. almost ever since. Which brings us full circle to where this conversation started, doesn't it. Democrats making self-serving votes.
Gotta go. It is way late here.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)And the ACA.
Concerning reimportation, I found this article from 2003. We've already seen what Big Pharma will do when Americans get drugs from Canada -- they shut off supply to Canada.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20030526&slug=canadadrugs26m0
Both rely on asthma inhalers and other drugs manufactured by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which in March became the first drug maker to cut back sales to Canadian pharmacies that ship medicine to Americans. A second major pharmaceutical company quickly followed suit, and others are expected to do the same.
Those restrictions are beginning to choke off the supply of some drugs, which means seniors accustomed to Canadian bargains may once again have to pay higher American prices.
SNIP
Though most Canadian drugs are identical to those sold in the U.S., Internet pharmacies are more difficult to regulate than conventional pharmacies and may be getting some of their drugs from foreign suppliers around the world, said Don Williams, executive director of the Washington State Pharmacy Board. That raises the possibility that counterfeit, adulterated or less potent medications may be shipped to American customers.
"As supplies from Glaxo and AstraZeneca dry up, we believe these (Internet) companies will turn to international suppliers from Eastern Europe, from Asia places that haven't been approved by the FDA or the Canadian government and don't recognize patents," Williams said.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)or not very well since the stimulus passed in the first month of Obama's presidency and the Senate filibuster-proof majority didn't happen until summer (after Al Franken was finally seated and before Teddy Kennedy died).
Eta: do you seriously want to cite the ACA as something proving Democratic care for their constituents above all? After they gave away the public option, early Medicare buy in and a host of other things in order to get Republican votes...how many Republicans voted for that, again? Oh, right: none.
A Heritage Foundation plan passed by Democrats...who then got to defend that very flawed plan. Yea. Better than a sharp stick in the eye, yes. Good, no.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)have a public option was because that 60 vote majority we had for a few months included the Independent, Joe Lieberman -- who refused to consider any bill that included it a public option.
We were only able to pass a Senate bill that Lieberman would vote for, and the items on your wish list weren't on his.
After we had that bill passed, the intent was to go to the House where a more liberal bill with a public option could be passed -- and then the conference committee between the two houses were expected to agree on a bill more like the House bill.
But something happened that changed everything: Kennedy died. The ONLY way to get anything passed at that time was to take the Senate bill, INTACT, just as Kennedy had voted on it, to the House, and to get the House to pass it AS-IS.
So that's how we wound up with the more conservative Senate bill. We had no choice because we lost our 60 votes when Kennedy died -- and we were stuck with the version that got approved when he was alive, that was limited by what Lieberman would agree to.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)would have been a good fit with the ACA?
We keep coming back to the same old story: Democrats voting along with their donors' wishes, not their constituents. I expect that from Republicans.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)and what HE would agree to.
And you might not remember this, but he was an Independent at the time, not a Democrat any longer.
melman
(7,681 posts)Grace-Marie Turner bio:
President of the Galen Institute, a non-profit research organization focusing on market-driven health policy, and a co-author of Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Galen_Institute
http://unfashionablesentiments.blogspot.com/2011/01/who-is-grace-marie-turner.html
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/health/counterfeit-medications/
The World Health Organization estimates as many as 50% of illicit online pharmacies are selling counterfeit medications.
And in a 2014 annual report, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy in the United States concluded after sampling more than 11,000 Internet pharmacies that a staggering 96% of those pharmacies did not comply with NABP patient safety and pharmacy practice standards, or state and federal laws, and were deemed by the NABP as "not recommended."
SNIP
That heart medication being advertised at a fraction of the price might contain rat poison. The cholesterol lowering drug you are taking could be filled with brick dust. And the antibiotic may be filled with other toxic chemicals such as paint or inkjet material.
SNIP
The online sellers are clever, often advertising themselves as Canadian to ease the consumer's mind about the source of the drugs. But many of those websites are phony, and the drugs are coming from counterfeiters all over the world. The countries topping the counterfeit drug manufacturing list are India and China.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/abc-news-investigation-counterfeit-prescription-drug-operations-us/story?id=31077758
A popular way many customers get cheaper prescription drugs is to try to order them online from Canada. There are numerous small storefronts across the country with names like Canada Drugs or Canada Direct, advertising inexpensive drugs, but there are questions over whether the medicines being sold are pure, or even from Canada.
I was one of several ABC News producers to investigate these stores, using real prescriptions from our doctors for four different drugs -- Viagra, Zocor heart medication, generic Cialis and generic Propecia for hair loss -- to see if what we received from these stores was authentic.
SNIP
But while all of these stores advertised a Canada connection, Howard Sklamberg with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Global Regulatory Operations, who is also a former prosecutor, said in reality only a small percentage of drugs coming through these storefronts are actually from Canada. He said most of the medicine ordered from these storefronts do not meet FDA standards.
They could have dangerous contaminants, he said. And that's just a really, really, really big risk to take with your health. Federal authorities point multiple examples of where these counterfeit drugs actually come from Columbia, Peru, even China. ABC News had all four drugs the Viagra, Zocor, generic Cialis and generic Propecia tested at a variety of labs, from the Custom and Border Protection Lab in Newark, New Jersey, Eli Lillys Lab in Indianapolis, Indiana and the University of Montreals Department of Chemistry.
The generic Cialis and generic Propecia both arrived in packages from India and both came back containing impurities. In fact, a chemical test on the generic Propecia tablet revealed an unknown ingredient and unknown properties mixed in with the active ones.
SNIP
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/08/11/Canadian-pharmacy-accused-of-selling-fake-cancer-drugs-to-US-doctors/3611439325784/
HELENA, Mont., Aug. 11 (UPI) -- U.S. prosecutors have accused a Canadian pharmacy of selling some $78 million in counterfeit, misbranded and unapproved drugs -- including those that treat cancer -- to U.S. doctors.
In an indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Montana, the company and its affiliates have been charged with smuggling, money laundering and conspiracy. The indictment was returned by a grand jury in November 2014, but a redacted document wasn't unsealed until July.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/10/save-money-by-ordering-drugs-from-canada-not-so-fast/index.htm
The most prevalent financial problem Americans face month in month out is the inability to afford their medicines. Thats according to a monthly national poll by Consumer Reports National Research Center. Indeed, medication in the U.S. can cost up to twice as much as it does in other parts of the world, so many bargain hunters turn to the Web seeking discounted, name-brand prescription drugs from Canada or other countries. But recent analysis has found that buyers should beware: Only a fraction of online pharmacies are legitimate. Our medical consultants say that given such risks, ordering from foreign websites should be avoided altogether.
Of the more than 8,300 online pharmacies reviewed in July 2011 by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), which accredits online drugstores in addition to representing state pharmacy boards across the U.S., just over 3 percent appear to be sound. It considers the rest to be rogue operations.
SNIP
And for those seeking safety by ordering specifically from Canadian websites, theres something else to consider. Many of the Canadian sites arent Canadian at all, says Carmen Catizone, NABPs executive director.
While there are legitimate online Canadian pharmacies regulated by Health Canada, a government agency similar to the FDA, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription medication to the U.S. arent subject to Canadian regulatory authority, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
A spokesperson for Health Canada declined to assess the specific risks posed by these websites to Americans but did point out the Canadian governments own warnings to its citizens about the risk of purchasing drugs on the Internet.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4105729/
Discussion
The issue of counterfeit drugs has been growing in importance in the United States, with the supply of these counterfeit drugs coming from all over the world. Innovation is important to economic growth and US competitiveness in the global marketplace, and intellectual property protections provide the ability for society to prosper from innovation. Especially important in terms of innovation in healthcare are the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries. In addition to taking income from consumers and drug companies, counterfeit drugs also pose health hazards to patients, including death. The case of bevacizumab (Avastin) is presented as one recent example. Internet pharmacies, which are often the source of counterfeit drugs, often falsely portray themselves as Canadian, to enhance their consumer acceptance. Adding to the problems are drug shortages, which facilitate access for counterfeits. A long and convoluted supply chain also facilitates counterfeits. In addition, the wholesale market involving numerous firms is a convenient target for counterfeit drugs. Trafficking in counterfeits can be extremely profitable; detection of counterfeits is difficult, and the penalties are modest.
Conclusion
Counterfeit drugs pose a public health hazard, waste consumer income, and reduce the incentive to engage in research and development and innovation. Stronger state licensure supervision of drug suppliers would be helpful. Technological approaches, such as the Radio Frequency Identification devices, should also be considered. Finally, counterfeit drugs may raise concerns among consumers about safety and reduce patient medication adherence.
You linked to an op-ed written by a pharmaceutical industry shill. One who wrote a book bashing Obamacare
Did you not? Yes, you indeed did.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)the fake drugs were uncovered, and it was reported at the time.
Fake drugs ARE a problem, as has been fully documented by MSM, Consumer Reports, the NIH, and others.
JHan
(10,173 posts)coco22
(1,258 posts)he thinks he's going to be another Obama and whether he does or not I don't like him.
mcar
(42,376 posts)So said President Obama many times.
You are correct, Josh. The demand for purity among some means that no politician will ever gain their support. I firmly believe that, had Sanders won, some of his supporters would now be decrying his cabinet picks and his reaching out to Republicans (which he would be doing).
nini
(16,672 posts)There's not one politician I agree with completely and many I really like have disappointed me from time to time. I didn't like his vote either but i will be god damned if I'm going to ignore everything good he does either and want to destroy him.
I've said it before - the purity test for our candidates is toxic to the big picture. It's getting old and quite frankly it's dangerous considering what is going on right now.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Some people are happy with that. They are not Democrats and want to see the Democratic Party defeated.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Party in 2006.
We don't need Lieberman type Democrats. Lieberman was a corporate whore Democrat most of his senate career.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Always finding a way to rationalize the pro-corporate votes of Senators and Representatives is why Democrats lose.
The hopeful sign here is that good progressives and liberals are calling out a guy like Brooker early-on in this Trumpian era. Democrats/progressives/liberals want to stand for something: the working people of America.
And we are done with corporate shills of all varieties.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)These internecine symbolic squabbles aren't helping.
Bucky
(54,075 posts)The PR against him is certainly payback for standing against Sessions, but him helping pharmaceutical companies to screw us is part of the public record. no calls for loyalty can change that, especially when he just showed who he himself is loyal to
immoderate
(20,885 posts)He voted for the insurance companies.
--imm
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)He never has been.
We need to keep looking.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Nothing like proving the OP's point.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... bashing the benefit of the doubt any longer?
ecstatic
(32,733 posts)Sowing division and misinformation. SMH. We need to be smarter this time.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)Response to joshcryer (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Move on!
doc03
(35,382 posts)big business the same as Republicans.
Ms. Toad
(34,100 posts)to take what small steps we can to provide assistance. We need to work on demanding ACA not be repealed without an equivalent program in place. BUT we also need to do what we can when there is support to ease the burden as much as we can.
The ability to buy drugs from Canada would save my daughter $13,000 a year on ONE medication - it is not the only medication she takes. Her entire annual income is $13,000.
So sorry if I think calling a Senator to task who voted to prohibit that access to medication - who received substantial contributions from an industry with a vested interest in prohibiting cross-border purchases - isn't "seriously fucked up beyohnd all recognition."
azmom
(5,208 posts)Why are you distracting from the real issue?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)If the Democrats were standing together fighting for minorities, fighting for women, and fighting for poor and working people, we would never lose.
Instead we have the Cory Bookers, the Joe Liebermans, and the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes playing footsie with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. We see our principles getting shelved. We see the ritual handwringing, the rotating villain show, the kabuki dances, and here we are, wondering why so many people who should be benefiting from Democratic governance ended up voting for a bullshit artist who's fucking them with no lube.
dawg
(10,624 posts)It's a shame.
Half a loaf is infinitely better than a turd sandwich.
liberal N proud
(60,346 posts)And yes it is why Democrats lose.
Quixote1818
(28,979 posts)apcalc
(4,465 posts)SAFETY ISSUE.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)napi21
(45,806 posts)trying to look fair to our constituents, while the Pubs spend THEIR TIME working on Crosscheck, and getting governorships so they can redraw district lines and guarantee their reelection! Until we are willing to fight them with the same outrageous statements and "fight a knife fight with a GUN", (no I don't mean shoot them) we will continue to lose elections at every level of government.
Start acting like you're pied off, because of your not you SHOULD BE! Get vocal & outrageous so we grab the media coverage!
Response to joshcryer (Original post)
riderinthestorm This message was self-deleted by its author.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Our legislators depend on support and money from special interests. Some interests are better than others, of course, but we pay a price, no matter where our representatives get their money. They are sometimes unable to vote in the public intetest, in our interest, because the special interests that made them could also break them. There's not much point in complaining about particular votes. It's much more important to look at patterns of behavior.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Now we have to love Booker because he loves Big Pharma?
jfern
(5,204 posts)DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)This is nothing new. He sided with the banks when Obama attacked them during the 2012 election. He's anti-public school. He's pro-privatization in a lot of contests. His positions are bad and he is not a good Democratic representative.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)If the lesson democrats have learned from this election is that we should all march in lockstep and never question or criticize a democratic politician, then we have lost our goddamned minds.
Quixote1818
(28,979 posts)As though Thom Hartman's show on RT is the only source attacking Booker for his vote. Never mind practically every liberal news site on the web did the same thing. Here are just a few:
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-friend
https://theslot.jezebel.com/for-some-reason-cory-booker-and-12-other-dems-killed-a-1791116094
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/14/14262732/cory-booker-senate-democrats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-rush-to-prove-trump-right-on-big-pharma_us_5877edd4e4b0b3c7a7b05c29
http://thepoliticus.com/content/4-reasons-why-cory-booker-huckster-fake-progressive-who-needs-be-ridiculed
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/01/12/americans_want_to_buy_cheaper_medicine_from_canada_why_did_12_democrats.html
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/13/bernie-sanders-pharma-bill-vote-reveals-new-battle-lines-commentary.html
Quixote1818
(28,979 posts)https://concisepolitics.com/category/cory-booker-total-sellout-to-his-race-and-americans-took-most-bribes-from-wall-street/
http://www.cynicaltimes.org/articles/cory-booker-wall-streets-newest-political-hooker
Renew Deal
(81,877 posts)So you're assertion that Booker "is not a good Democratic representative" is in the words of Joe Biden "malarkey."
And by the way, the infallible Bernie Sanders is 6.31. He's almost 3 times more conservative than Booker.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Measuring ideology is a lot tricker, but sense the Senate Democratic Party occupies the political center (unless you want to argue Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are socialists) then aligning with that doesn't equal a measure of ideology.
Maybe Booker is a good Democrat, if we accept that the Democratic Party is not a Left party.
bagelsforbreakfast
(1,427 posts)Trump won@! Right in line with Booker's vote.
coco22
(1,258 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and being so unforgiving of one vote. It's not working.