Clyde_Style wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Rep. James Clyburn is one of the biggest recipients of big pharma money. Hmmm
says the biggest inhalant of weed money
I’m a small pharma supporter. Speaking of which, where TF is my guy?
Moderators: dakomish23, mpharris36, j4remi, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, HerSports85, Deeeez Knicks
Clyde_Style wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Rep. James Clyburn is one of the biggest recipients of big pharma money. Hmmm
says the biggest inhalant of weed money
HarthorneWingo wrote:Phish Tank wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:
I didn’t know that. Thanks. But how badly do poor South Carolinians need healthcare?
I do not believe that South Carolina expanded Medicaid under the ACA.
the republican governors (Nimrata Randhawa aka Nikki Haley, Henry McMaster, etc.) certainly didn't help. But they really need it badly.
Nimrata?
HarthorneWingo wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Rep. James Clyburn is one of the biggest recipients of big pharma money. Hmmm
says the biggest inhalant of weed money
I’m a small pharma supporter. Speaking of which, where TF is my guy?
HarthorneWingo wrote:Phish Tank wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:
I didn’t know that. Thanks. But how badly do poor South Carolinians need healthcare?
I do not believe that South Carolina expanded Medicaid under the ACA.
the republican governors (Nimrata Randhawa aka Nikki Haley, Henry McMaster, etc.) certainly didn't help. But they really need it badly.
Nimrata?

Phish Tank wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Phish Tank wrote:
the republican governors (Nimrata Randhawa aka Nikki Haley, Henry McMaster, etc.) certainly didn't help. But they really need it badly.
Nimrata?
clowns get referred to by their government names.
Clyde_Style wrote:Fat Kat wrote:Stannis wrote:Are we allowed to talk about how the Clinton campaign tried to smear Obama by circulating photos of him wearing African garbs?
At least it wasn't cyber-bulling though
Had his full name “Barack Hussein Obama” on that photo I think.
Even if I would never vote for him, I did respect McCain for this:
Clyde_Style wrote:
These are the people you want in the foxhole with you? Geezus
BKlutch wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:Fat Kat wrote:
Had his full name “Barack Hussein Obama” on that photo I think.
Even if I would never vote for him, I did respect McCain for this:
This was still a time when you could be fierce political enemies but not invent lies that you peddle as the truth, and when you could recognize the humanity of another who is opposed to your views.
Of course, there were always liars, thieves, and fascists in politics, but we never had one as president in recent memory, until now.
Clyde_Style wrote:BKlutch wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:
Even if I would never vote for him, I did respect McCain for this:
This was still a time when you could be fierce political enemies but not invent lies that you peddle as the truth, and when you could recognize the humanity of another who is opposed to your views.
Of course, there were always liars, thieves, and fascists in politics, but we never had one as president in recent memory, until now.
I'd say Dick Cheney was a fairly evil President.
Trump takes the cake hands down though

HarthorneWingo wrote:Rep. James Clyburn is one of the biggest recipients of big pharma money. Hmmm

GONYK wrote:
This was going to be my question as well, so I'm glad you answered it for Phish.
I'm not sure I'm subscribing to the logic that a Warren endorsement would have solidified things for Bernie though.
In December, the polling on who was the 2nd choice for Warren voters showed the split like this:
Bernie - 30%
Biden - 20%
Pete - 15%
So based on the result of Warren dropping out, Bernie slightly overperformed with Warren voters. If she removed herself from Super Tuesday, and Bernie wins 2 out of the 4 close states that you referenced above, what does that change other than the narrative, slightly?
Biden still ends the night as the delegate leader, and still racks up his wins on Super Tuesday II.
I totally agree that Liz should have dropped when everyone else did and give Bernie a clear shot at Biden, even if it probably doesn't change much. Her staying in was pointless, and once it became clear the party was coalescing to stop Bernie, she should have done her part as a progressive. I do think she was right to withhold her endorsement though, strictly speaking from the POV of her own ambitions to steer the direction of the party down the line.
Getting back to the Clyburn thing, I didn't mean that Bernie should have given a token request for the endorsement. I mean Bernie should have pursued it all out and performed some coalition building to secure it. He was never going anywhere in the primary without the black vote. That was a major takeaway from 2016, IMO.
I think that would have taken his campaign from conditional circumstances (needing the field to stay crowded, relying on the youth vote, hoping new voters show up) to something that has a real foundation.
Was such a thing possible? I don't know, but I doubt Bernie made the effort.
While Biden seems to benefit the most from Bloomberg dropping out, Sanders is the candidate who would most likely benefit from Warren ending her campaign. Forty percent of likely Democratic voters who support Warren said Sanders would be their second choice, according to a Morning Consult poll of 13,428 likely Democratic voters conducted in late February. Biden was the second choice for 16 percent of her supporters.

K-DOT wrote:Warren took away as many votes from Bernie as Bloomberg took from Biden, so it was really evened out
I still think it was a mistake to not rally around her when she started surging. Would've been a real compromise candidate between the progressives and moderates, plus she's young enough to go for a 2nd term
I'm gonna keep saying she should be Biden's VP, then she can run in 24 and we get 12 years of a Dem president, which hasn't been done since FDR/Truman
But also, I've been a big Warren fan from the start, so I'm a bit biased
j4remi wrote:HarthorneWingo wrote:Rep. James Clyburn is one of the biggest recipients of big pharma money. Hmmm
Yeah, I think it would have been a completely wasted effort to push hard for Clyburn's endorsement, it wasn't in the cards.
BKlutch wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:BKlutch wrote:This was still a time when you could be fierce political enemies but not invent lies that you peddle as the truth, and when you could recognize the humanity of another who is opposed to your views.
Of course, there were always liars, thieves, and fascists in politics, but we never had one as president in recent memory, until now.
I'd say Dick Cheney was a fairly evil President.
Trump takes the cake hands down though
Technically, Cheney was not legally recognized as President by anyone other than Bush.