So, Why Is Russia Today Featuring an Attack on Cory Booker?

[TomCADem]

A majority of Senators voted against this bill to allow the importation of drugs. Yet, Russia Today features Cory Booker with a progressive sounding headline. Are the Russians looking ahead to 2020?

https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/373665-booker-pharma-giuliani-cybersecurity/

https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/373664-obamacare-corbyn-wages-uk/

Cory Booker votes to save Big Pharma

Thom talks with the Daily Caller’s Alex Pfeiffer and 99Rise’s Kai Newkirk about the House of Representatives’ move to repeal Obamacare, Cory Booker’s vote against cheaper prescription drugs for Americans, and Jeremy Corbyn’s push for a ‘maximum wage’ in the UK. Then, Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research joins Thom to discuss what’s in store for President Obama’s signature healthcare initiative.

For more information on the stories we've covered visit our websites at thomhartmann.com and freespeech.org

Likewise, you have a Youtube channel of a "progressive" defending Russia and attacking Cory Booker from the left:

[skylucy]

1. Wow. Pretty obvious that the Russia isn't done helping Trump and the Republicans.

GOParty of Putin. Cause Putin really cares about our drug prices.

[Charles Bukowski]

2. Russia's divide and conquer strategy worked brilliantly during the election.

Why wouldn't they keep it up?

The Far Left is rapidly turning the instrument of their own demise... and taking us all with them.

[Z_California]

97. The "far left" is the future of the Democratic Party

Scenario B is the Democratic Party keeps losing. You choose.

[otohara]

107. Tell That To Voters In Blue CO

who rejected healthcare for all by a whopping 80/20 and Sanders pick Morgan Carroll

It's no wonder Mike Coffman felt comfortable sneaking out of his town hall yesterday.

[yurbud]

135. there is a difference between being centrist & knowing constituents vs

Kowtowing to corporate donors (and future employers).

The first kind of centrist might exist, but they are few and far between.

[Hekate]

111. Not even a little bit, as long as they keep falling for every propaganda trick in the book....

....and undermining Democrats because they are not 100% pure on what the "far left" thinks.

Booker is not a "corporatist," any more than Hillary Clinton is. It's a convenient and unthinking slur meant to provoke a kneejerk reaction and destroy the chances of any Democrat who might appeal to those beyond a narrow slice of the electorate.

Hillary WON the actual vote by 3 million; how did she do that if she was such a corporatist? She actually appealed to a broad range of voters, and was brought down by smears and lies and voter suppression. The big lies and the little ones. I read here repeatedly that she had "no plan" for this that and the other thing related to jobs and the safety net, when in fact she gave speeches, ran ads, and published her detailed plans widely.

When the Left in this country can have the backs of Democrats when they are attacked from the Right, we can talk about the future. I am sick to death of Dems being encouraged to eat their own, specially when it comes from sectors who often don't bother to register Dem.

[CajunBlazer]

114. The "far left" makes up at most 13% of the American electorate

They are not the future of anything.

[Z_California]

126. Keep telling yourself that at your peril

[link:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/jbyv3j/picture44665026/ALTERNATES/FREE_640/20151112_Clinton_Sanders|

[CajunBlazer]

132. Your graph should scare the shit out of you

Note, only one group 18-29 (the least reliable voters) went for Sanders and they were bribed by his proposals for free college and escape from crushing college debt. Also note that even with those promises that 42% of young voters did not favor Sanders and that a large majority of young Sanders voters also voted for Clinton in the general election. Poll after poll illustrates that, even including young people, only 13% of the population of voting age describe themselves as far left or ultra liberal.

Note that you guys are even a minority in the progressive Democratic Party. In not one primary did more registered Democrats prefer Sanders over Clinton. Not one! When you throw in centralist independents and Republicans, you comprise a very small percentage of the entire electorate. You guys get noticed only because you are louder than everyone else.

Don't fall into the trap in which many on the far left find themselves in time after time when they refuse to recognize facts simply because you don't want them to be true. It seems to go with the territory.

[Z_California]

157. "You guys"

Us guys, you mean the ones who would like to be able to pay the same price for prescription drugs as Canadians? Who want Universal health care like the rest of the civilized world? We who would like to get rid of Citizens United and so-called "free trade" agreements? Is that who you mean?

Yeah, us guys definitely disagree with "you guys". Maybe we don't belong in your party any longer. We'll find out.

[CajunBlazer]

167. I have found that the while the objectives of most progressives are pretty much identical....

....there are two very distinct types of progressive individuals in their manner is which they think and how they seek they go about achieving their objectives. There those progressives who on the far right and those who are more centralist in their thought processes and their tactics.

These are the attributes of those of the far left or ultra liberals that I have seen demonstrated. They totally believe that their cause is just and the only "right path". They believe that everyone who disagrees with them is totally wrong (they are not big on empathy). They have a tendency to refer to others, even fellow progressives with more centralist stands than themselves, as "misguided", or worst "conservatives". They hate compromise; they believe that compromising constitutes a rejection of their values. They disdain gradual progress towards their goals, they speak of "revolutions" because with them it is all or nothing. Because of their deep reluctance to compromise, they seldom win in the give and take of politics. Because they usually lose, they begin to look for reasons for outside reasons for their failures; they know it can't be their fault because their hearts are pure. Ultimately they conclude that "the system is rigged" and begin to believe in all manner of conspiracy theories.

Strangely enough many of those on the far right think and act in a very similar manner while supporting totally opposite political views. See "Horseshoe Treaty".

President Obama in his address at the commencement ceremonies at Howard College was warning the graduates not to follow the lead of the far left or ultra liberals when he said:

"And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want. And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged. And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair. And that's never been the source of our progress. That's how we cheat ourselves of progress."

Now this is my definition of the the far left or the ultra right. I suppose everyone has a slightly different description. Now I don't know if you fit this description, but if the shoe fits, you are free to wear it.

[Z_California]

170. I'm with the group of ultra left

who wishes our Democratic Senators would have voted for this amendment when it was in reach.

Guess that makes me a radical!

[CajunBlazer]

178. No, that makes you idealist of the Ultra Right

...who never will understand that "politics is the art to the possible" not the impossible. That's why you have rarely won real political battles, and probably rarely will. (See my explanation why in my previous post.)

Getting back to the original discussion - you are part of a small percentage of the electorate which will never be the future of anything in this country. Ultra Liberals may be able to dictate the Green Party agenda, but they are far from being a majority in the Democratic Party. That's unlikely to change.

And don't count too much on the young people coming up. Like everyone else, perhaps even more many other age groups, they are mostly concerned about what's in for them. Few are ultra liberal, but most of them will grow a bit more conservative as they settle down, pay taxes, get married and have kids of their own. It's they way things are.

I grew up in the sixties and I can point to so many of the wild hippies who are now buttoned down suits and pillars of society. I don't think that most of the younger generation will become conservatives, but I don't think don't think that they will be ultra liberals either. That distinction is reserved for privileged white people and the occasional "true believers".

It is what it is.

[Z_California]

182. It is what it is and they are what they are.

As are our losses in most elections. Good luck with the "nothing is possible anyway" strategy, I'm sure it will catch fire with "centrists".

[CajunBlazer]

184. Losses - really?

Democrats have occupied the White House 16 out of the last 24 years. If you include H. W. Bush - 16 out of the last 28 years. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will go down in history as successful Presidents. H. W. could win reelection and his son will be regarded as an utter failure.

Donald Trump is the accidental President. Not only did he win the EC by razor thin margins in three states, he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. He wouldn't have won at all if it weren't for FBI and Russian meddling in the election process. Hillary lost in those three states by less votes than Jill Stein received in each of those three state so I guess we could blame the loss on the ultra liberals as well.

In addition the Republicans lost seats in both the House and the Senate. If this time around we are deemed to be losers, it would be that Republicans rallied around the most despicable people in American History, while ultra liberal never could bring themselves to truly rally around a decent person by comparison. Go figure. As usual part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Z_California]

185. Oops my bad.

Yes, the Democratic Party has had amazing electoral success, that's why they control both houses of Congress and the majority of state and local governments too.

This message board has become weirdly non-factual.

[CajunBlazer]

186. True, no thanks to the the ultra liberals...

.... that would rather be ideologically pure than win. The most upstanding Republicans lowered themselves to vote for a despicable deplorable, but ultra liberals wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because they deceived themselves into believing that she was as bad as Trump.

There is only one train and in the future we had all better get on an shovel coal because if we don't we will continued to lose.

[yurbud]

134. the corporate wing thinks they can browbeat progressives into line

But it won't work anymore

[otohara]

155. Another Repeat of November

to look forward to.

Reminiscing how giddy progressives were when the Russians hacked the DNC.

[CajunBlazer]

183. No, we know that you can't browbeat people who believethat only they have all of the answers

The browbeating usually happens in reverse, and it's not very effective in that direction either.

It is the fervent hope of more centralist Democrats like President Obama that the ultra left will come to its collective senses and realize that there won't be a revolution and incremental progress is the only way forward, but we don't hold out a lot of hope, especially when they start repeating Putin's talking points.

Never were therd truer words spoken than those in President Obama's commencement address at Howard University. It is obvious he was speaking to ultra liberals when he said:

And democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100 percent right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right, and you still are going to have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral purity, but you’re not going to get what you want. And if you don’t get what you want long enough, you will eventually think the whole system is rigged. And that will lead to more cynicism, and less participation, and a downward spiral of more injustice and more anger and more despair. And that's never been the source of our progress. That's how we cheat ourselves of progress.

[yurbud]

187. which wing of the party is calling the others traitors and foreign agents?

[CajunBlazer]

191. I don't know....

....I don't think I have done anything to deserve to be accused of being those things. Nor have I accused anyone or implied that that anyone else of guilty of such offenses.

I do cringe when supposedly good Democrats repeat the talking points used by Russia Today to create fights within the Democratic Party.

Great news! This board will shut down Friday. No more refighting the primaries!

[Charles Bukowski]

152. If the Bernie Bro Jimmy Dore ideological Puritans

are our future, we're dead meat already. How the hell are we supposed to recruit them when no Democrat can ever meet their impossibly high standards? They were even shitting on Bernie and Warren in the waning days of the election FFS.

How about these dubious progressives meet us rational center-left Democrats halfway? I'm tired of being told I have to "listen to them". Listen to us for a change.

[mcar]

3. Interesting, isn't it?

[TomCADem]

7. A Lot of Republicans Voted Against The Bill...

...yet Russia Today chooses to feature Cory Booker.

[mcar]

10. As did 12 other Democrats

Ya gotta wonder why only Booker is held out for scorn.

[sheshe2]

13. I will hazzard a guess...

He is black. Russia loves black people almost as much as tRump does.

[mcar]

15. Also he's gotta be considered a front runner in 2020

[sheshe2]

16. Yup.

That too. They are working on 2020 as well, may their souls be damned to hell.

[mcar]

17. Sad to see it, everywhere

[HarmonyRockets]

35. Because some people

on the left actually want him to be the candidate in 2020. Real progressives will fight a corporatist like Booker tooth and nail. We can do better. I say bring on Elizabeth Warren.

[delisen]

54. Divide and Conquer! Attack Dems! Focus 2020 not 2018! Be Faux Progressive!

[mcar]

72. Right now, I do not care about 2020

I'm more concerned with the present and 2018. Running down any Democrat at this point hurts us.

[delisen]

89. Well said. I agree completely. n/t

[Quixote1818]

63. Because Booker is a household name who has received more big pharma money than anyone else

and because he has been floated as a possible 2020 candidate. Every fricking news article about this mentions Booker specifically. It's common sense not some Russian conspiracy. Be honest here, when you first looked at the list of Democrats and Republicans who did you focus on? The names that stood out for me were in this order:

1. Booker
2. McCain
3. Cruz
4. Rand Paul
5. Heinrich (only because he is my senator)

Snip>

That Booker has been floated as a possible 2020 candidate and still votes this way is further proof the Democrats have learned nothing from their mistakes. I hope he’s excited for eight years of Trump, because that’s what will happen if the Democrats don’t end their addiction to Big Pharma money and start running on single-payer.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/314949/democratic-senators-vote-down-canada-pharmaceutical-amendment/

[CajunBlazer]

75. Okay, but aren't you agreeing with Russian propaganda?

How is that a good thing?

It seems to me that the Russians want Democrats to have a big nasty fight among ourselves in 2020 so that the ultimate Democratic nominee will be substantially weakened when he/she goes against Trump, as Hillary was after the battle with Sanders.

The more that the centralists or the progressives in the Democratic party are dissatisfied and uninspired by the Party's ultimate nominee, the better chance Donald Trump will be awarded a second term.

We cannot have an all out food fight like we did this last time around - that would be stupid. I don't know who I will ultimately back in the 2020 campaign, but I am sure as hell going to discourage the nasty internal bickering that occurred here on DU and throughout the rest of the country. Will that do any good? Probably not - but if enough like minded people join together in that effort, it might

We need to be absolutely united against Trump next time around. Given the absolute danger he represents, we would stupid to do anything else. That is if he doesn't self destruct before then as I believe he will.

[Quixote1818]

98. It's not Russian propaganda, it's progressive folks calling out those not looking out for the people

as they should. Thom Hartmann doesn't answer to RT, he has his own show and has been holding corporatism Democrats in check his entire life. How about guys like Booker do the right thing instead of selling out? Maybe that would unite the party too. Look, the Tea Party had a big old nasty fight with Republicans, got their man Trump and they won the presidency. It's not division, it's disagreements which have gone on since the beginning of politics.

[Hekate]

105. Thom Hartmann broadcasting "his own show" from RT means he is getting a paycheck from RT....

....which is a Russian State propaganda outlet.

He needs to quit that gig, period.

[Quixote1818]

113. I agree it looks bad and under the present circomstances he should seriously consider leaving RT

and just keep his show on Free Speech TV. But again, the way the contract is set up they can't tell him squat and them caring about Cory Booker is extremely doubtful. As I said, dozens of American news sites put the heat on Booker just as Hartmann did and we know Russia is not influencing them.

I will say that Thom sometimes seems a bit reluctant to go after Russia so yes, he really needs to say goodbye to that platform especially with how things have heated up with Russia.

[bettyellen]

108. Gotta love how everyone else is a shill for a contribution yet their paycheck doesn t matter?

Also Sanders was a top recipient of pharma money last year and none of you all talk about that. Not a peep.
Funny.

[mcar]

121. I'd like to hear some of the Sanders supporters comment on that

While they are busily criticizing Booker.

[Starry Messenger]

127. +1

[emulatorloo]

158. I posted the link to opensecrets below before I saw your post

Here it is in black and white:

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H04&cycle=2016&recipdetail=S&mem=Y&sortorder=U

As I said I have no problem with Bernie and those contribs. However I am starting to have problems with folks who buy into any anti-dem propaganda they see on Putin TV.

[emulatorloo]

156. Fact: Bernie received $309,575 from pharma in '16. He's #3 in the top 20 Senators

Booker isn't in the top 20.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=H04&cycle=2016&recipdetail=S&mem=Y&sortorder=U

I'm a Bernie primary supporter and I have no problem with that. However I don't pretend Booker took more pharma money that Bernie did. Because he didn't.

I'm not a Booker fan but he's not who Putin TV says he is. Naive people eating up bullshit from RT is what got us in the current mess.

[Cha]

19. Yes, I wonder why.. could it be they see him as a potential

threat in 2020?

[2naSalit]

23. Most likely.....nt

[Quixote1818]

59. Most liberal sites went after Booker for that vote not just this smothered RT article

Last edited Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

that was hardly "featured". I had to dig for it from their home page.


Booker got hit because he is a high profile Dem who has been floated for 2020, who is supposed to be a leader on populist issues like this. Of course news programs are going to focus on it being Sanders vs Booker because they are the big names and it gets people to click on the article.

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

[TomCADem]

70. Classic Trolling. Cory Booker is #12 Most Progressive Senator

Yet, this vote becomes the "true" test? A vote, which would allow importation of cheaper goods from abroad, which many on the left were against with TPP because it would result in the loss of American jobs? Also, why was it cheaper? Due to U.S. IP laws, which in another context, many on the left supported the artist efforts to fight piracy?

http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

This reminds me of the long effort to brand Hillary Clinton a DINO even though her voting record in the Senate was actually more progressive than President Obama's. Put another way, if this wasn't the vote, it would be another one. Yet, because Cory Booker is voting differently than Bernie, this becomes the vote.

My take is that if Bernie had come out against this bill on the grounds that it permitted importation of cheap goods from abroad, and Cory Booker had come out in favor of consumer choice, then this would still be raised as some sort of false touchstone of progressive thought.

A Senator from West Virginia is going to be supportive of the coal industry. A Senator from Louisiana is going to supportive of oil. A Senator from New Jersey is going to be supportive of the pharmaceutical industry. Finally, a Senator from Vermont will likely oppose bills making gun manufacturers liable for product defects.

[CajunBlazer]

76. I have no problem with liberal sites going after Booker

I have a problem with the Russians going after Booker.

[NCTraveler]

100. I have a problem with them singling him out. nt.

[bettyellen]

109. And calling it Sanders bill when a woman wrote it- this is drawn as a cartoon battle of hero VS

Villain in case anyone didn't notice!

[NCTraveler]

110. Politics of division. nt.

[Hoyt]

4. Read much worse right here.

[Cha]

20. Right.. not just Russia that's singling him

out.

[CajunBlazer]

77. I have no problem with Democrats going after Booker

I have a big problem with the Russians going after Booker.

[Blanks]

163. Booker needs to stand up to this scrutiny...

If he wants to be on the ticket in 2020 or be a Democratic Party leader of any type.

He made news for his attack on Sessions, and he's gotten attacked on this. It looked to me like he embraced the 'Sessions news' while shirking this.

He needs to get out in front of it. These are the things that will define him, and he needs to be proactive on it.

We shouldn't have to defend him, he needs to justify his vote and let people decide. It's obvious he was targeted because he has a future in the party. How he handles this will determine whether he actually has a future in the party.

He can't hide from it. It's getting traction whether it deserves it or not.

[CajunBlazer]

168. I don't disagree

I am only saying that we don't need to again start fighting among ourselves at the urging of Russia Today.

[Blanks]

177. I completely agree with that...

I'm just saying that Booker may not be the national leader that many think that he could be if he doesn't handle this properly.

[CajunBlazer]

180. The Russians are apparently afraid of him....

...and in my book that may be a badge of honor. But maybe they are into reverse psychology.

If so, some people apparently aren't buying the "reverse" part, because they are already out attacking Booker in hopes that they will be able to install a more liberal nominee in 2020. They are apparently afraid of him as well.

Talk about politics making strange bed fellows.

[grantcart]

36. and not as well written either

[yardwork]

71. When the talking points get passed along they lose a little each time.

[Tanuki]

5. It has certainly leaked over into DU the past couple of days.

The tactic is depressingly similar to what we have seen around here before.

[etherealtruth]

6. Their interference has worked thus far. No reason for them to stop pushing the ...

... Russian Agenda

[TomCADem]

8. True. Heck, Donald Trump Is About To Reward Them...

...and is already talking about rolling back sanctions, so Russia is reciprocating the love.

[otohara]

11. So Effing Snarky

The wingnuts have FOX (although Glenn Greenwald/Julian Asange are frequent guests on FOX lately) - while over on the left we have Russia Today , DemocracyNow.org, TYT...or the the liberal elites as I like to call them.

[HarmonyRockets]

34. Yeah...

The people on Democracy Now and TYT who actually care about poor people's ability to afford healthcare and have zero instead in the hero worship of Cory Booker because he might run in 2020 are the "elites."

As a progressive this thread is making feel sick.

[Maru Kitteh]

48. They don't give a FUCK about the poor. They proved that in 2016 by helping throw the vote to Trump.

They own a share in his election, along with all the other "progressive" bags of excrement that shilled for Stein, or suggested sitting out, or said that Trump probably wouldn't be "that bad," or said there wasn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans.

So yeah. Fuck them.

[Blanks]

160. Shilled for Bernie for that matter...

How much support was provided to the 'democratic socialist' by our very own 'liberal Russian Media'.

We've been snookered by the Russians too.

Right here at DU. I've always questioned how many Bernie supporters posting here are actually conservatives sowing the seeds of discord, lately I'm wondering how many were convinced to oppose Hillary by Russian owned media personalities, or personalities created by the Russians to oppose Hillary.

Even Robert Reich's Facebook cheerleading squad keeps singing the same anti-Hillary song. They flatter him for his views and I think he laps it up. Unwittingly undermining the future success of democratic candidates.

[otohara]

96. If That Were True

they wouldn't have spent 15 months demonizing Hillary Clinton.

These oh so smarter than us folks surely knew the poor would suffer more under Trump. Muslims would be attacked more under Trump...women would suffer more under Trump...and yet they kept trashing Hillary.

Maybe they will trash Cory Booker daily too and we'll have a GOP senator from the great state of NJ in 2020.

[delisen]

12. Ed Schultz Papantonio/Ring of Fire & Russia Today Propaganda Machine

Russia Today is state-owned. It works for Putin and broadcast Democrats bashing Democrats

Russia Today does not broadcast Republicans bashing Republicans

Ring of Fire was attacking Corey Booker on that Pharma vote, probably to turn Dems against a possible 2020 candidate or just to drive a wedge between us and elected officials in order to prop up Trump.

Russia Today is ant-Democracy and anti-Democratic party

We are in a war. Russia is winning while barely using guns and bombs.

Some progressives being paid by RT are modern day equivalents of the old "Tokyo Rose" style of propaganda.

Why are Schultz and Papantonio inside RT attacking Democrats instead of outside RT demonstrating against the Russia/Republican takeover of our country?

As for Thom Hartmann it would be nice if when he points out that American Democracy no longer works, he also points out that Russian democracy is almost non-existent.

[dalton99a]

14. +1

[skylucy]

25. +100 Great post!

[HarmonyRockets]

31. Maybe, just maybe

People like Papintonio and Hartmann are attacking Booker for voting on behalf of Big Pharma instead of poor Americans who are suffering and need lower drug prices. You think Papintonio and Thom Hartmann have been progressives their entire lives just to all of a sudden work for Russia and and "prop up Trump?" Good God this is stupid.

[Quixote1818]

67. Thanks you for your sanity!

See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8480887

Talk about a feeding frenzy over nothing.

[Quixote1818]

66. LOL, you fail to mention dozens of other mainstream news organizations focusing on Booker

Tell me Mr. McCarthy does RT run all these sites as well who ripped Booker for being a sell-out?

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

Did it occur to you that perhaps Booker is part of the problem?

[CajunBlazer]

80. Well said!

[Fla Dem]

83. Does she post on JPR as well?

I'm not happy with Booker's vote on the importation of drugs. I'm sorry he chose the big Pharma companys' interests over those of all Americans. But I can understand the position he's in with big pharma a big player in his state providing a ton of jobs. As far as him being a candidate for president in 2020, that may be but he hasn't yet shown me he has the chops to lead.

But I have to laugh at this person producing the video. I found it telling that the Booker video she pulled up was on the "Daily Caller" web site, an alt-right web site. If I recall correctly her videos were posted a number of times during the primaries in support of Bernie Sanders. Not saying she was an actual Sander's supporter, but the objective was to slander and smear HRC, thus undermining her support.

Yes, they are starting early to divide and conquer. Which just means we need to be more vigilant and make our voices heard. We have to make more noise and drown out these foreign interlopers who want noting more than to divide and destroy the progressive/liberal movement.

[Fast Walker 52]

145. I can't stand that person in the youtube vid. She's super anti-HRC

a friend on FB kept posting to her stuff, but it is all very negative hard-core bernie or bust crap.

As far as Booker, the story is a bit more complicated and it sounds like he was set up for criticism on this bill.

I'm getting leery of Bernie these days.

[yurbud]

136. you've never heard Hartman criticize Republicans?

[roamer65]

18. RT is the propaganda arm of the Kremlin.

Since Dump and the Rethugs are in bed with Pootie, you get garbage meant to undermine American democracy.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Agree, RT should be happy assisting Trump to win the presidency with their fake

Stories but they continue to attack Democrats.

[m-lekktor]

21. OFFS this place has lost its collective mind. Any criticism of a DEM is a Russian plot.nt

[TomCADem]

24. Why Single Out Booker and Give Republicans a Free Pass?

That is what is odd. Russia Today opens up with a progressive headline, but manages to ignore all of the Republicans who voted against the proposed bill.

[HarmonyRockets]

26. Because Booker is supposed to be a Democrat

The guy should start acting like one. This is to be expected from the GOP. It is utterly amazing that people on this board are acutally changing their opinion on Big Pharma issues just because Booker voted like a Republican and great progressives like Thom Hartmann are rightly criticizing him. What is happening to this board is scary.

[NYC Liberal]

33. And the other Democrats who voted against it?

Only ONE Democrat out of many is singled out.

[HarmonyRockets]

39. The other Democrats that voted for it

need to be criticized too. Those senators have been corporatist Dems for years though. Their votes were not very surprising. The reason that Booker is being singled out is because some people on the left actually believe this guy should be our 2020 candidate or at least a party leader. Some misguided people are starting to worship him as some sort of progressive hero when he just isn't that. If people were to start pumping up one of the other corporatist Democrats for 2020 I'd hope people would start criticizing them as well.

[uponit7771]

92. Of course, single out the guy we're exited about in 2020... even though its a bullshit critique the

... type that was used during the primaries.

Fuck that we should NOT give dem bashing the benefit of the doubt AT ALL !!!

The dem bashing RARELY tells all the story and leaves out the full picture

[otohara]

124. He Doesn't Support The NRA

and please don't give me the D rating excuse...5 times he who shall not be named didn't give much thought to those who die at the hands of guns though did he?

[TomCADem]

141. Aren't Dems Against Cheap Imports, Now?

Given that NJ is the center of the US Pharmaceutical industry, isn't the better question why other Dems are suddenly pro-free trade?

[Ace Rothstein]

44. Because some have been pumping him up for 2020.

We're going to run into the same issue with Booker as we did in 2016 if he's the nominee and progressives stay home.

[JI7]

50. anyone who stayed home in 2016 is not a progressive

[mcar]

123. Exactly

[melman]

57. Yep

It's insane. And stupid.

[wishstar]

22. We can expect targeted hits to knock out any Dem seen as future potential Pres or VP candidate

Obviously RT and pro-Trumpers don't want Booker to get any traction as a future candidate for higher office in 2020.

Also part of the Russian strategy is to encourage anti-establishment Dems and Indies who don't like Hillary Clinton/moderate centrism to turn against Booker. (and in the future any other potential Dem leaders that might have some bi-partisan centrist appeal)

I expect pre-emptive strikes to be a regular pattern whenever an opening occurs to attack a Dem who is a possible 2020 candidate.

[HarmonyRockets]

28. So anyone who criticizes Booker is pro-Trump?

If a Democrat like Booker votes like a Republican the best thing progressives can do is criticize him. Booker is not the best candidate we have for 2020.

[Hekate]

32. Booker does not "vote like a Republican." ffs

[ananda]

43. He did vote for big pharma.

People really do need a shot at lower prices
for prescriptions..

[TomCADem]

46. Thought He Voted Against Imports...

...while others voted for importing cheap goods from abroad? Thought undercutting domestically made goods was not progressive.

[Renew Deal]

62. 11 republicans voted for the amendment

Including Cruz and Lee. If the most extreme right wingers support it, how good could it be?

[Quixote1818]

68. They voted for it because Trump has indicated he wants to lower drug costs

This would give them cover: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/actually-trump-could-succeed-in-lowering-drug-prices-commentary.html

[Renew Deal]

69. And yet they voted against the Wyden amendment. What's the rationalization for that?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00021

Knowing them, they supported the Sanders amendment because it didn't include safeguards.

[CajunBlazer]

78. No, but understand that the Russians are trying to stir up a fight in the Democratic Party

It's okay to Democrats to disavow Booker's vote if it is done respectively, it is not okay for the Russians to mettle in our election system. Don't you agree?

[pnwmom]

179. Booker is a liberal who is nothing like DT. He, like Patty Murray and others,

voted against the reimportation amendment because it was deeply flawed -- not because they are against cheaper drugs.

No bill should be passed that doesn't protect consumers from fake drugs at the same time that it lowers prices.

[yardwork]

27. Kick

[Hekate]

30. Someone reads DU and sees the opportunity to divide us even further, seeing as how....

...some have already fallen enthusiastically for this shit and have banished Booker to the outer darkness, rising Democratic star be damned.

So, they read here and they post here, and they use us just as much as we let them.

Let us at least TRY not to be used.

[CajunBlazer]

81. Well said!

[dawg]

37. We've got to stop eating our own.

I disagree with Booker's vote. But that doesn't make him a corporatist or a sell-out or a conservative. He's a Democrat who I occasionally disagree with.

He'd make a fine president.

[yurbud]

40. Booker's vote is more important than who points it out. If he wants a bright future, he needs to

learn to say no to people with money sometimes.

[dawg]

42. I'm sure he sometimes does.

But no one is going to vote the way we want them to do all the time. Especially on something like this that was never going to become law anyway.

We can disagree on votes, and even on entire issues, without labeling each other as unacceptable.

On many issues, Hillary would have been the most liberal President in our history. But by far too many, she was falsely labelled a corporatist.

[yurbud]

86. On core issues of economic survival like drug costs, we can't afford those who defer to large donors

anymore.

[yardwork]

90. This is the kind of thinking that got us Trump.

[yurbud]

101. taking the Democratic Party base for granted got us Trump. Also, if corporate Dems said NO to their

big donors on some major high profile issues, their less than admirable votes elsewhere would be more forgivable.

[yardwork]

102. I strongly disagree.

[yurbud]

131. please explain

[yardwork]

139. Democrats need to show more loyalty to our candidates, not less.

While too many Democrats were wringing their hands over various imperfections in our candidates, Republicans voted for Trump. Democrats need to stop the purity tests and start sticking up for our party and our candidates. Once we get back in power, THEN we can start demanding more.

[dawg]

106. What we can't afford to do, is to render all of our available options "unelectable".

This sort of shit being hurled at Secretary Clinton, one of the most liberal people ever to run for the office of President, depressed our turnout just enough to result in President Trump.

We've got to stop this. Or else get used to being ideologically pure losers.

[yurbud]

116. We have to figure out which parts of being "liberal" are non-negotiable. For example, on K-12

education policy, Obama picked a secretary of education who pursued the same privatization agenda any Republican would.

On K-12 education, Rahm Emanuel has done at least as much damage as a Republican would.

Likewise, when Ronald Reagan put more bankers in prison for the S & L crisis than Obama did for the 2008 crisis caused by blatant fraud that did more damage than any terrorist attack, we need to get our house in order.

The appearance right now is Democrats will take care of average people when it either A) also profits their major donors or B) at least doesn't offend them.

Democrats need a new definition of toughness, different from the GOP one, which is essentially ignore your constituents and make war on smaller countries.

A tough politician stands up for the people he represents even in the face monied interests who can take him down.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

130. maybe you'd like to see a congress full of Joe Manchins, Max Bauccuses and Bill Nelsons...

not me.

[flamingdem]

38. Maybe Glenn Greenwald?

Vaguely remember him griping about Booker

[tirebiter]

41. How Putin Played the Far Left

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/13/how-putin-played-the-far-left.html

In the aftermath of the U.S. intelligence community’s recent report on the Russian-directed hacking of the Democratic National Committee, it’s easy but misleading to conclude that the Russian government’s propaganda strategy lies solely in advancing the careers of conservative Republicans in the United States. Backing Donald Trump’s candidacy, via steady leaks of stolen communiques to organizations like WikiLeaks, was but one prong of the Kremlin’s assault on American liberal democracy. Part of its campaign to vilify Hillary Clinton involved catering to her rivals on the far-left and pushing any number of crankish conspiracy theories that appeal as much to “anti-imperialists” as to neo-Nazis.

There’s nothing new in that, really.

Perhaps the starkest case in point is Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her constituency. In December 2015, the Kremlin feted Stein by inviting her to the gala celebrating the 10-year anniversary of Kremlin-funded propaganda network RT. Over a year later, it remains unclear who paid for Stein’s trip to Moscow and her accommodations there. Her campaign ignored multiple questions on this score. We do know, however, that Stein sat at the same table as both Putin and Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Trump’s soon-to-be national security adviser. She further spoke at an RT-sponsored panel, using her presence to criticize the U.S.’s “disastrous militarism.” Afterward, straddling Moscow’s Red Square, Stein described the panel as “inspiring,” going on to claim that Putin, whom she painted as a political novice, told her he “agree[d]” with her “on many issues.”

Stein presents herself as a champion of the underclass and the environment, and an opponent of the surveillance state and corporate media, and yet she seemed to take pleasure in her marriage of true minds with a kleptocratic intelligence officer who levels forests and arrests or kills critical journalists and invades foreign countries. Their true commonality, of course, is that both Putin and Stein are dogged opponents of U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, her pro-Kremlin stance wasn’t limited to merely praising Putin’s amicability. Stein joined the Russian president and Kazakhstani dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev in describing Ukraine’s 2014 EuroMaidan revolution as a “coup,” and claimed, bizarrely, that NATO is currently “fighting… enemies we invent to give the weapons industry a reason to sell more stuff.”

For good measure, she also asserted in September that “Russia used to own Ukraine,” by way of defending its colonization. She even selected a vice-presidential candidate who, when asked whether the downing of Flight MH17—a massacre almost certainly caused by Russian-supplied separatists in eastern Ukraine—was a false flag, responded, “[T]hat’s exactly what has happened.”

Green Party officials across Europe slammed a “delusional” Stein for her views, with leading Russian environmental activists saying they were “deeply shocked” by her comments during her Moscow trip.


----------------------------------------------

And after these recent successes why quit now?

[JHan]

45. Rigid thinkers are easily manipulated.

That's one of the best assessments of 2016 I've read.

[Docreed2003]

65. This should be posted again and again until the truth sinks in...

Stein is an opportunist. She didn't even wait for Bernie's endorsement speech of Hillary to finish before she was tweeting out for support from BoBs. The Russian connection is all the more disturbing, and, quite frankly, makes a helluva lot of sense in the context of how things played out.

[CajunBlazer]

115. Please make this an OP

or please give me your permission to do so.

[DFW]

47. Why? Maybe getting in some early practice for 2020?

Who do you think Russia is going to attack, after all? Mitch McConnell? Jason Chaffetz? Никогда !!

[Hekate]

49. Absolutely, and with the enthusuastic help of the blind-to-consequences on the Left

Woohoo! Let's make sure all our best Democratic politicians are irreparably damaged by 2020! Maybe we can replicate our experience with Hillary by piling on fake scandals and nothingburgers!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. Yup. And some useful idiots on our side will be blindly played

[bagelsforbreakfast]

52. Must be Disinformation!

Does anyone really believe Cory Booker would vote against a measure to help US citizens trying to get life-saving drugs from Canada at reduced prices from Big Pharma and the Martin Shkreli's of the world? Of course Cory wouldn't.

What?

He did?

Ok, nevermind. Must have been a propaganda move of the mainstream liberal press.

What? There is no liberal mainstream press? Just CNN, MSN, FOX and the other corporate outlets...?

Surely The Daily Show disproves that? It's not really supposed to be your main source of news?

Oh, well.

Never mind. Keep voting for Trump. All is well.

[LovingA2andMI]

53. P/S: Please Understand This....

The So-Called "Sane Progressive", "Tim Black" and "H.A. Goodman" are working for the OTHER side. That side likely being the Fake News Russia propaganda side. When anyone is posting their beyond stupid videos here on D.U. -- Please Realize You Are Helping To Spread Their BS. Point, Blank, Period.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

55. We need an FDR/Huel Long clone. Booker not so much...

Huey Long (1893-1935) was a powerful Louisiana governor and U.S. senator. ... He entered the U.S. Senate in 1935, where he developed a fervent following for his promises of a radical redistribution of wealth. ..

[JHan]

84. We need FDR majorities in Congress.. that is all.

[Hekate]

117. This is a marvellous misreading of history

[Cha]

56. I don't trust one thing those ******* say.. why should I

[Quixote1818]

58. The New Republic, Slate, Huff Post, MSNBC and a dozen other liberal sites ripped Booker too

So is Russia Today influencing all of these sites as well?



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

Plenty more where these came from

[melman]

60. That's because he deserves to be ripped

No matter how much people here cry about it.

[Quixote1818]

64. Agree 100%

Trying to make this into a Russian conspiracy is cracking me up.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

129. Agree - Interesting all the Corporate Democrats whining...

about a potential compromiser-in-chief outed for a less than stalwart defense of the "little" people who can't afford life-saving drugs. Gotta keep sucking up to that lobbyist $ when you can... Greed knows no party.

[QC]

171. OMG!!!11 The Russians have even gotten to you!!!1

[CajunBlazer]

82. Didn't you post this above? Wasn't once enough?

I will post the same reply I posted on you original post - it is fine with me if Americans disagree publicly with Cory Booker. It is NOT okay for the Russians to mettle in our politics. PERIOD! END OF SENTENCE!!!

[JHan]

87. Amazing how RT cares so much about an amendment...

I'm sure they're just genuinely fascinated by the legislative maneuverings our reps. engage in and I'm certain they genuinely care about prescription drug pricing in the US, You know..given Russia's sterling record where healthcare is concerned ....In fact I'm sure I'll find some balanced reporting about Russia's own healthcare challenges in RT, yes I'm sure of it..

[Quixote1818]

103. That show is entirely owned by Thom's company, which has contractual editorial control

Russia Today can't tell him jack shit and for the millionth time, he isn't saying anything different than dozens of other American news sites. Cory Booker selling out was the story of the day. No conspiracy, just Booker being a typical politician and a story that will be off the charts in two days. Yes, Russia if fucking with us in other areas but not here. If Hartmann's show was the only one calling Booker out you might have a point but virtually every news outlet following the story had the same story line so there is nothing to see here period. Hartmann has been holding Politicians feet to the fire for his entire career because he is a good an decent person who cares about corruption.


Snip>

The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann is an American TV talk/news show owned, hosted and produced by political commentator and radio host Thom Hartmann, and Hartmann's production company (which also produces his radio show), Mythical Research, Inc., and is represented by WYD Media, Inc. The Big Picture started in 2008 in Portland, Oregon, as a half-hour TV show and was originally syndicated exclusively on Free Speech TV.

Over the next few years, more community TV stations and cable systems picked it up, and Hartmann moved to Washington, DC, taking both his radio show and The Big Picture with him. With that move, he expanded the show to an hour, and also licensed the show to RT, partially in exchange for use of their television studios and facilities. While the show carries the RT bug, it is entirely owned by Hartmann's company, which has contractual editorial control over the program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Picture_with_Thom_Hartmann

[CajunBlazer]

112. All of that crap aside, the fundamental question remains:

Aren't you more concerned about the fact that Russia Today (and you can bet at Putin's direct instructions) is trying to interject itself into our political discussions and cause Democrats to fight among ourselves so that Trump can have a clearer path at a second term.

Isn't that clear to you? Are you that naive?

[Quixote1818]

118. I agree that Hartmann needs to think about leaving RT because it looks bad

See my post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8481963

However, I still don't think what he said about Booker had anything to do with pressure from Russia. When a dozen American news outlets say the same thing as Hartmann there is no fire. Politicians need to be held accountable by the press and that is as deep as this goes. Booker screwed up and now he is taking the heat from everyone from Huff Post to the New Republic to Slate to Thom Hartmann.

[CajunBlazer]

122. BS: Russia Today is a Russian propaganda machine

Nothing comes out of the organization without a good reason. Hartman was dead to me when he started writing for RT. As for you, if you find yourself repeating the same story as RT, you need to start asking yourself whether you are acting in the best interest of the Democratic Party by trying to pit Democrats against one another. It is very clear that is what RT is trying to do and their reasons are obvious.

They have already successfully manipulated a large segment of progressives to weaken Clinton by releasing those emails right before the Democratic convention and now they are trying to do again. Don't you care that you are attempting to do exactly what the Russians want you to do - to help sow detention in our party?

Naive?

[yurbud]

137. this blame Russia for everything stuff is getting embarrassing and will backfire big time.

[emulatorloo]

162. Dunno, RT apologists are pretty embarrassing

I don't get the appeal of this murderous ex-KGB thug, but to each his own I guess.

[yurbud]

169. when you're talking about Thomas Hartman or Ed Schultz..

They were speaking out about Bush administration crimes while corporate Dems were still giving him a blank check.

Shultz was fired for not shutting up about the TPP. If RT wanted him to say something he didn't believe or tried to censor him, he would be equally willing to be fired.

[emulatorloo]

172. Thom's great. IMHO RT is using and exploiting him. And sullying his reputation

I've suggested to his intern who posts here under Hartman's name that Thom could hire some TV production students to produce the shows. and then distribute through YouTube as TYT does.

Crickets.

IMHO he needs get off Putin Today as soon as he can.

As I am sure you know, there is nothing 'liberal' or 'progressive' about Putin.

[yurbud]

188. What if he was broadcasting from one of our allies like Uzbekistan or Saudi?

[emulatorloo]

189. Pretty implausible hypothetical, don't you think?

Have a great week.

[yurbud]

190. good dodge

[Renew Deal]

61. Now you know where the "criticism" on DU is coming from.

It amazes me that they see Booker as their greatest threat.

[TomCADem]

74. The Racist Russian Republican Right Wing Plays the Long Game

Particularly when they are being a sock puppet. It is one thing if they attacked Republicans AND Democrats, but to specifically target more prominent Democrats who may be seen as future rivals to Trump? That is not being a progressive. That is being a sock puppet when Republicans and Trump are given a free pass.

[uponit7771]

93. +1, its most likely because DU likes him... I'll watch for it... anyone we like they hate

[Coventina]

73. Only Putin's "useful idiots" defend Russia Today.

Good catch!

[BainsBane]

79. Because the more divided Democrats are

the weaker the opposition to Trump and the stronger the Kremlin's hold over the US.

[Docreed2003]

154. Amen...that's the truth

[Tatiana]

85. This stinks to high heaven.

So people seem to be singling Cory Booker out over the other 11 Dems that voted against the measure, why?

I know Big Pharma owns Booker -- they actually own a significant bit of our Congress and pay millions to lobby on the Hill.

Why Booker and not any of the other dozens of Congressmen and women that are owned by Big Pharma?

Clearly, they see Booker as a threat. Which makes him that much more attractive to me. I do think he's essentially a good guy.

We have to find a way to get Dems off the corporate $$$ gravy train.

[dogman]

144. Because M$M is already pushing him for 2020.

What is wrong with holding him accountable for his vote? He broke with Democratic leadership. There is so much gnashing the teeth over Sen. Sanders being an Independent, even though he is actually in the Democratic Senate leadership, while defending this anti-Democratic vote by a Democrat who plays coy when asked about 2020. The people should force his hand now instead of fighting this battle down the road. Even Sen. Manchin, often derided as a DINO and a major Pharma$ recipient, voted for it.

[flamingdem]

88. Because Ed Faux Schulz told them too?

What a pile of crap, we need to get our US folks OFF of RT

[Z_California]

91. There's not gonna be room in this tent for most of us

This kind of tripe I see every day on DU is going to destroy the Democratic Party.

Can we assume any objection of corrupt behavior by a politician with a D next to their name will result in being accused of being a Russian agent? The lobbyists and paid political posters have completely overrun this message board.

[TomCADem]

94. Russia Today IS Paid for By the Russians

RT stands for Russia Today. They are about as Russian as you can get. The fact that folks continue to defend RT as an unbiased news source is amazing.

[Z_California]

95. So anything Thom Hartmann says is invalidated?

I didn't need RT to tell me a group of Democratic Senators stabbed us in the back followed by lobbyists and staff trying to cover their tracks with bullshit. I got that from Cspan.

[TomCADem]

104. If Russia Today Features Something...

...that Thom Hartmann says, then you need to ask why. It is like Fox News featuring any Democrat or progressive who attacked President Obama.

It did not mean that President Obama is perfect, but it means that you need to be especially careful about the ulterior motives of the outlet. In this case, Cory Booker who has as liberal a record as any Senator is getting singled out while many other Senators are ignored. You have to ask why?

[Quixote1818]

120. Fair enough but Hartmann isn't saying anything a dozen American news programs aren't already saying

If he and the other Americans on RT were the only ones putting heat on Booker your point would go a lot further. I agree it is good to keep an eye on any show coming out of RT and I will even admit that it seems like Hartmann sometimes seems a bit reluctant to go after Russia. In the current climate with Putin he really needs to leave the RT platform. But Cory Booker's prescription drug vote is likely not on Russia's radar.

[NCTraveler]

99. The "Sane Progressive" would have benefited greatly from a Clinton Presidency.

Clintons plan to expand mental heath access to more people.

[radical noodle]

119. It was my understanding that Booker

and others voted for a different amendment regarding lower priced drugs. They're trying to create a split in the Democratic Party... as if we needed any help in that regard.

[Z_California]

161. Yes they did!

And it went down in a party line vote just like everyone knew it would. This is called "political cover" and it's how business is done is Washington. Any chance to do something real for regular people is handled this way.

[Else You Are Mad]

125. As a life long New Jersey resident...

Cory Booker is not the squeaky clean Democrat that everyone thinks he is. You do not become the mayor of Newark then a senator for New Jersey if you are not deeply in the pockets of Wall Street and the extremely wealthy (including big pharma). I do not dislike Booker at all and I think he is a good Senator, but he would not survive the vetting and opposition research of the Republicans should he run for president.

[TomCADem]

140. Given that Many Pharmaceutical Companies Are Based in NJ...

...do you support Booker's vote against allowing cheap imported goods to undercut NJ made goods?

[Else You Are Mad]

142. I do.

Because I prefer saving lives over helping pharma company's make even larger profits. There are people that have to choose between Rx prices and rent/food/mortgage. I don't mind if a pharma company makes a few billion less.

[TomCADem]

143. Isn't That The Pro-NAFTA/TPP Argument? Imports Are Pro-Consumer?

Hasn't Bernie Sanders forcefully argued that we should save American jobs? There are people that have to choose between food, clothing, etc. Thus, why should we mind if a manufacturing jobs are lost, since consumers win?

[Else You Are Mad]

146. No, its not.

Most of drugs that are made in the US are shipped to Canada. So, in that case, it won't make a difference. And, most of the generic drug companies -- which are owned by the same company that makes the name brand drug -- that sell drugs here are made abroad and imported anyway. So, that is not an issue either.

[TomCADem]

149. Study: U.S. Generic Drugs Cost Less Than Canadian Drugs

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/EmergencyPreparedness/BioterrorismandDrugPreparedness/ucm134441.htm

If you think all drugs from Canada are cheaper than U.S. drugs, think again. In the United States, generic drugs--roughly half of all prescriptions--are often cheaper than both Canadian brand-name drugs and Canadian generic drugs, according to a study by the Food and Drug Administration.


I think you are referring to certain patented medicines. The generic comparison is important because more than 80% of all medicines sold in the U.S. are generic, which is the highest among the industrialized countries. In contrast, generics represent 60% of all medicines in Canada, 50% in the EU, and only 30% of all medicines in Japan.

[Else You Are Mad]

150. Not all drugs have generics.

The most expensive drugs tend not to have generics. That is either because the patent isn't up or they are a niche drug that costs more because of low demand even if their patent has run out. Think chemo drugs or the Pharma Bro, comparatively few people need them, so the Pharma companies charge hundreds of thousands because they can. What is so wrong for importing drugs from Canada. It is not illegal to fly to Canada and physically purchase prescriptions, why should it be illegal for people to import the same drugs? If Canadian drugs were so dangerous, why would the US let people physically go to Canada to buy drugs? And, why aren't Canadians dying from using inferior drugs?

Sometimes people's lives are more inportant than profits.

[TomCADem]

151. So, Why Protect The Corporate Profits of U.S. Car Manufacturers?

If corporate profits are bad, then why didn't President Obama/Sanders, etc. just let GM, Ford, Chrystler die? Likewise, millions of poor children are hungry and lack access to clothing and food in the U.S. Rather than protect the corporate profits of domestic U.S. jobs lets expand NAFTA and the TPP, because sometimes people's lives are more important than profits.

[Else You Are Mad]

153. You really are missing the point.

For one, the pharma corporations aren't going to lose profits if Americans buy from Canada. This has nothing to do with NAFTA/TPP, but I am guessing nuance isn't your strong point. In fact it was George W. Bush that made it illegal because he was in the pockets if big Pharma. But, let me put it this way: if a poor person doesn't buy the newest car from GM/Ford/Chrysler Fiat because they cannot afford it, they will not die. If a poor person cannot afford a drug that costs upwards of $100,000 a year, they will die. What is wrong with allowing someone to buy the same exact drug that costs tens of thousands of dollars a year less?

Unless you don't mind poor Americans dying because they cannot afford their medicine.

[TomCADem]

175. NPR - As Pharma Jobs Leave N.J., Office Space Ghost Towns Remain

What I do not understand is why do folks have such a tough time with the idea that a New Jersey Senator might be protective of an industry that is central to his State. It is one thing if Booker was voting on a bill that really is not all that relevant to his State. But, we are talking about an industry that is central to his State. Does not mean we have to agree with his decision, but his job is to be responsive to the needs of his constituents.

http://www.npr.org/2014/07/30/336337115/as-pharma-jobs-leave-n-j-office-space-ghost-towns-remain

New Jersey used to be known as "the nation's medicine chest," but over the past two decades, many of the state's pharmaceutical industry jobs have dried up or moved elsewhere, and left millions of square feet of office space, warehouses and laboratories sitting empty.

One of those sites is the 116-acre corporate campus of the Swiss drugmaker Roche in Nutley, N.J. There are dozens of buildings on this campus, 10 miles west of midtown Manhattan. In fact, there are enough bio and chem labs, offices and auditoriums to fill up the entire Empire State Building. But since December, all of that space — 2 million square feet of it — has been vacant, the laboratories dark and the sidewalks deserted.

"When this was a thriving site, this sidewalk would have been busy with folks walking up and down," says Darien Wilson, one of just 38 Roche employees still working at the site as the company tries to sell the property. "We had great amenities for people, like on-site child care. You had dinners to-go where you could order food by lunch and take it home with you if you were working late. We had dry cleaning," she says.

Five years ago, Roche acquired Genentech, moved its management to San Francisco and started to slowly withdraw from New Jersey. That's a pretty typical story for what's been happening in the state. In the past 20 years, New Jersey went from having more than 20 percent of U.S. pharma manufacturing jobs to less than 10 percent.

[Z_California]

165. One of us is in the wrong party

Let me get this straight: Price gouging GOOD because CORPORATE PROFITS.

Just wow.

[TomCADem]

173. Why Are You Against Protecting American Workers from Cheap Imports?

By saying that you are against corporate profits, and for consumer choice, it is suddenly okay to be for cheap imports to undercut domestic goods? You can pretty much call any support for any domestic industry and American workers as being for "CORPORATE PROFITS."

[Z_California]

164. That's some gymnastics there, wow.

I'm pretty sure you're aware what Sanders and real progressives believe when it comes to health care and the profit motive. Are you seriously in favor of the price gouging taking place in the pharmaceutical industry? That doesn't sound like even an "establishment" Dem position but it seems like that's where we're going in this party.

[TomCADem]

174. Why Won't You Stand Against Job-Killing Cheap Imports?

Are you going to suggest that Bernie was simply trying to protect corporate profits?

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/17676/

During the news conference, Sanders cited examples of how bad trade deals have hurt Pennsylvania. In 2013, General Electric announced that it would eliminate 950 jobs at its Pennsylvania locomotive plant in Erie moving many of these jobs to Mexico.

Allegheny Technologies shut down two steel plants in western Pennsylvania last year, laying off 600 workers due to a surge in cheap imports from China.

Hershey in 2009 shut down its York Peppermint Patties plant in Reading. Three-hundred jobs were lost when the plant was moved to Monterrey, Mexico, where workers are paid a fraction of what they were paid in Pennsylvania.

Sony closed the last television manufacturing plant in the United States in 2008 when it closed a Westmoreland, Pennsylvania, plant that employed 560 workers and moved the plant to Baja, Mexico. Sanders has a consistent record in Congress fighting job-killing trade deals.

[hrmjustin]

128. How anyone can be a part of that propaganda outfit I don't know!

[Bradical79]

133. Yes

Booker has had a lot of buzz around a future presidential run, so they're starting in on him early. I doubt he'd be my choice in the primaries if he runs, but I think it's pretty obvious what's going on. There's a brand of progressive who is so unbelievably angry and focused on class division, it makes them easy to manipulate. It was insane to me seeing the proping up of RT and Russian appologism from people on another website railing against Wall Street and oligarchs. There's a reason Russia would give support to polar opposites like Jill Stein and Donald Trump.

[dembotoz]

138. WTF Thom Hartman is now considered a enemy

Perhaps if the left ever supported liberal media like ever....

Sorry they seem not to make the purity cut around here

Has it already been decided that Booker is next in line to replace Hrc...Did I miss that memo again???

[TomCADem]

148. Russia Today - "Cory Booker votes to save Big Pharma"

Now, I am sure you will argue that Cory Booker was hardly the focus of Thom Hartman's show, and that if I listened to the whole show, I would hear that Hartman may have talked about Trump, climate change and other things on that program.

Maybe I would hear about Hartman pumping an upcoming war with China:

The coming war on China: https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/369860-john-pilger-china-wwiii/

Or, perhaps questioning whether Facebook really should try to filter out Fake News being funneled to its users:

What’s the fake news freak out really about?: https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/372225-fake-news-facebook-censor/

Now, you might complain and say, "Wait, Hartman did not write all of those headlines! You are being unfair. Those headlines were really written by Russia Today."

Well, if that is the case, then Hartman is being used as a tool in the same way that Fox News used Alan Comes as a prop for Sean Hannity. I believe Alan was sincere in his liberal beliefs, but he was being used as a tool and a prop to set-up attacks on Democrats. Likewise, the headlines and editing of Russia Today speaks for itself. Hartman bears responsibility if he is allowing himself to be used as a tool to attack Democrats from the left while his more anti-Republican stances are given less visibility on RT.

Again, take a look at RT. In the discussion of climate change, only Bernie Sanders is mentioned even though most Democrats acknowledge that it is real, and have supported actions to mitigate climate change. Also, do you see any reference to Trump's stance on climate change on Hartman's RT page? Again, is Hartman giving Trump a free pass, or is this Russia Today?

[emulatorloo]

166. IMHO RT is using Thom. He needs to get out, they are sullying his reputation.

[dembotoz]

181. Trust Thom more than I trust most Dems including booker

The dem tent is getting smaller and smaller

[Fast Walker 52]

147. my guess is they view him as a chance for 2020 and are starting the lefty disinfo campaign

like they did to Hillary.

[Z_California]

159. Now this is "disinformation"?

Wow, we better keep an eye on CSPAN because I heard about this there too. Probably also compromised.

[Generator]

176. RT sucks monkey balls

No to propaganda.