General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerican Conservative Union Lifetime Ratings: 2.67 Booker, 6.31 Sanders (Lower is better)
Progressive Punch Lifetime Ratings (higher is better)
97.99 Booker
96.87 Sanders
http://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate
http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=2015&chamber=13&state1=0&sortable=7
Booker is reliably more "progressive" than Bernie Sanders when it counts. Not just speeches and campaigns, but in the Senate. So tell us again why we should embrace Bernie and dismiss Cory.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Their ratings are extremely close. Are we somehow required to choose one over the other? What am I missing here?
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)You're not missing anything.
yardwork
(61,588 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Facts don't matter to haters.
yardwork
(61,588 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)We have our meme and we're sticking to it.
struggle4progress
(118,275 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Measurements are easily and conveniently ignored when not validating our own biases... so yeah, you shouldn't care at all about them.
struggle4progress
(118,275 posts)the numbers reflect the organization's current political strategies, but are disguised as of they were somehow objective
It's idiotic to think we can rank our friends by inverting ACU ratings
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,324 posts)I don't know what to make of it.
I hadn't seen this chart untill now.
I know there was a lot of grumbling from people on the left about him being such a conservative Democrat.
What does your un-biased opinion make out of that choice? Considering this chart?
ProfessorGAC
(64,995 posts)I'm not willing to peruse the rating system criteria of that gang of blockheads, but downthread we see that Tim Kaine got a zero. Tim Kaine is more progressive than Sanders or Booker? I can virtually guarantee that Sanders rating is influenced "upward" by this "think tank" because a guy from Vermont is more circumspect regarding gun control. Absent that, Sanders would probably rate zero, too.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
yardwork
(61,588 posts)demmiblue
(36,841 posts)Any feminist/Pro Choice advocate would laugh this shite off.
And any liberal/progressive wouldn't use this as a source:
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conservative_Union
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)So it is useful. And a Liberal perspective was also included in the OP.
dogman
(6,073 posts)I don't care who rates him, his vote shows who he supports.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)I don't care who rates him, his vote shows who he supports.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Enough to rack up more votes. So the ratings is statistical bullshit, in any case.
Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)But this is what people want to argue about. The very first post had it right.
dogman
(6,073 posts)How did Sen. Booker's vote support the people?
JHan
(10,173 posts)And antagonistic spin.
Booker is pro-choice, he supports gay marriage, he is in favor of raising taxes on "the top 1%" and he wants to increase Government funding of the social safety net - he's also in favor of infrastructure programs.
Yet one vote on a flawed amendment is enough to smear his entire record in the eyes of some.
"Sure, this was a non-binding budget amendment, and some will argue that things could have simply been cleaned up later on. But it was ostensibly designed to be a funding mechanism, and instead, it read like a milquetoast resolution. There were a number of other amendments introduced that very day that included provisions for the Food and Drug Administration; Sanderss didnt, and it needed to.
In making the case for this legislation, Sanders spoke almost exclusively about the re-importation of patented American pharmaceuticals, and to be fair, that is an enormous part of the equation; its also what most American consumers demand. However, it doesnt capture the entirety of the market. In some cases, American consumers may turn to Canadian compounding pharmacies for cheaper specialized medications; in others, Americans may want to purchase generic medications that are no longer patented and can be manufactured independently at a lower cost. And thats why we need FDA oversight and compliance."
https://cenlamar.com/2017/01/14/if-bernie-sanders-cares-about-cheaper-drugs-he-should-stop-smearing-his-colleagues-for-rejecting-his-flawed-amendment/
So a strong senator is now getting heat for an amendment that could have been better conceptualized - this is now the standard for besmirching our allies?
dogman
(6,073 posts)His choice was for the people's interests or for Corporate interests. He made his choice. That is not spin that is fact.
JHan
(10,173 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)I'm not attacking him, I'm attacking his choice of Corporations over people. I'm not accepting a rating from organizations who have an agenda. Trump is about to be sworn in and Booker sided with Pharma over the leadership of his Party, He even abandoned Sen. Schumer. Even Sen. Manchin voted for this.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)that that particular amendment didn't solve the problem of Americans getting fake drugs from Canada -- which has no regulations affecting the drugs that are produced somewhere else, but sent via online pharmacies purporting to be in Canada.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8482281
dogman
(6,073 posts)This nonsense has been touted since people first went to Canada years ago. Where are the protections from getting fake drugs in America now? It happens too. How are we able to import food from these countries? They are concerned with their donors.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)without solving the problem of fake drugs being imported through Canada, or from fake Canadian web sites, would put millions of lives at risk.
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.
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post
dogman
(6,073 posts)It has happened in our system, do you think this would be any riskier than, say, the fake Lipitor that was sold in the US? I would like to at least pay less for those fake drugs.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)there was something different about their prescriptions -- and the pharmacists could take them (and all the real Lipotor) off the market.
And any consumer who had been hurt by the fake medication had legal recourse.
But the fact that problems have occurred in the US with fake medication is not a good argument for adding to the risk with millions of prescriptions filled online from unregulated pharmacies purporting to be in Canada.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB110080301615678176
dogman
(6,073 posts)"For instance, about 40% of all over-the-counter and generic drugs used in the United States are produced in India. In response to this and other factors, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act was passed in July of 2012. Part of the law involved changes to generic drug user fees. Companies looking for approval now need to pay some extra money to allow for better inspection of production facilities.
And in India, those inspections are bearing fruit.
Last year, inspectors from the FDA looked at 160 drug plants there. What they found was often quite concerning. Drugs were sometimes adulterated or contaminated. Facilities were often filthy or infested with bugs. They also caught some executives lying to them, leading to felony charges.
As you can imagine, this is leading many pharmaceutical companies to question whether India is a safe and reasonable place to manufacture their drugs. India's drug industry is in a panic.
They should be. The World Health Organization has, for years, monitored the use of falsified or counterfeit medicines, and some of the problems have been in the United States. The New York Times documents many instances in many countries where improperly made or counterfeit drugs led to serious consequences, including deaths."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/opinion/carroll-drugs-imported-safety/
Do you think Canada is unreliable, why do we import food from there? People who have such fears are free to pay more and keep the money flowing to the politicians. Maybe some would miss those great commercials that would scare me from taking their drugs in the first place.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)but merely pass through Canada; or merely pretend to pass through Candada.
Yes, we already have a problem -- which we are trying to address through inspections in the countries that are legally producing the drugs we bring into the US.
We shouldn't exponentially increase the problem by assuming that all drugs that pass through Canada to get here are safe. Canada doesn't inspect them, so we don't know whether they are safe and made to standards or not.
dogman
(6,073 posts)"The new package satisfies a few Democratic goals. It would allocate $4.8 billion to the NIH for research on personalized medicine, Alzheimers disease, adult stem cells, and Joe Bidens Cancer Moonshot. It would also provide $1 billion in grants to fight the opioid epidemic and $500 million for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are also some popular proposals that would reform foster care and treatment of mental illnesses.
But this relatively meager set of provisions shields the real objective: New sources of cash for corporations. The Cures Act would severely undermine the FDA by altering its drug and medical device approval process to value speed over accuracy and profits over health and safety. In response to corporate complaints that FDA approvals are costly and time-consuming, the bill would reduce standards, streamline reviews, secure automatic approval for certain devices and drug therapies without rigorous screening, and allow the use of real world evidence of drug effectiveness rather than more credible randomized clinical trials. Third parties could certify certain medical devices, avoiding the FDA entirely. Even articles from medical journals could be used as evidence, despite an uptick in retractions in these publications in recent years."
http://prospect.org/article/cures-act-bad-medicine-nih-fda
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)regulate or inspect drugs that are made elsewhere and pass through Canada on the way to the U.S.?
dogman
(6,073 posts)Sen. Booker voted for it. Looking for consistency, but it's not there. Safety is either a concern or it isn't. He sides with Pharma, that's what.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)Are you saying he is against helping kidnapped children? Same logic applies: either you want to help them, or you don't.
Sanders had reasons for voting against Amber Alert (even though it set him apart from the Democrats), just like Booker had reasons for voting for the Cures Act to fund research.
But I don't think Sanders is against helping kidnapped children, just that he didn't like that particular bill. And I don't think Booker is against drug safety, merely because he supported the Cures Act. It accomplished important goals -- allocating billions to important NIH research.
Which is why Obama supported it, too.
KPN
(15,642 posts)out of 48 Dems. What's the point here other than to continue besmirching Bernie?
To provide context and objectivity, here are a few other progressive ratings for some other Dems from blue or swing States:
Kaine, Tim 70.24
Schumer, Chuck 90.68
Murray, Patty 87.07
Klobuchar, Amy 81.40
Feinstein, Dianne 78.02
Why are you conflating Booker with Bernie?
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's that Democrats are under fire for disagreeing with Bernie. That Bernie's standard is the standard upon which every Democrat's record is being judged. Even though I disagree with Bernie Sander's solutions to a bunch of problems, I would never question his liberal cred. ....but that is precisely what he and his most ardent supporters did when they attacked a strong Democrat over a flawed, symbolic amendment with no teeth. That is what people are reacting to - the hate isn't coming from me or from the OP , the hate and smears are coming from them.
TomCADem
(17,387 posts)...if you ignore those, Bernie is far more liberal.
pnwmom
(108,975 posts)Quixote1818
(28,928 posts)This one is from 2015 and has Sanders 1st and no mention of Booker. To be fair Booker hasn't been in the Senate long so he doesn't have very many votes: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/senator-sanders-seven-surprises
delisen
(6,042 posts)Steve Hilton, British entrepreneur, Crowdpac is a money making venture.
I am told its like an online dating serve that matches action-oriented voters with candidates.
I don't know how that might influence their rating system, if at all.
They do have a "Run for Office" product. Interesting, the world of politics evolves.
mcar
(42,300 posts)Or something.
dogman
(6,073 posts)He certainly is not the only Corporate Dem but he has raised his profile as a leader. We are certainly entitled to reject it.
"Indeed, as Jones notes, no senator has raised more money from Wall Street than Booker. In 2012, then mayor of Newark, Booker memorably criticized President Obama for going after Mitt Romneys record at Bain Capital calling the attacks on private equity ridiculous and nauseating. Hes worked closely with Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg and education reformer Michelle Rhee on improving Newarks schools a decision thats been criticized by some for allowing private industry to influence public schools."
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/14/14262732/cory-booker-senate-democrats
Quixote1818
(28,928 posts)mcar
(42,300 posts)and the midterm elections to gear up for. WTH does anyone care about 2020?
Also, Bernie Sanders takes lots of money from Big Pharma. Why isn't he criticized for that?
dogman
(6,073 posts)As you say, we have to deal with problems now. Sen. Booker's vote is a problem. I don't care to see us fail again in 2020 and face even 4 more years of GOP destruction.
Sen Booker spoke very strongly against Session's nomination but that means nothing because he (along with 12 other Democrats) voted against one flawed bill?
dogman
(6,073 posts)Answer to the voters not the donors.
Quixote1818
(28,928 posts)I don't trust him in the least.
progressoid
(49,978 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)This was all hashed out during the Primary.
I like Booker too, but Bernie is the one standing up for health care reform and he has a following of tens of millions.
Please stop taking shots at Bernie. It doesn't help at all.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)I only support Democrats.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Who is the Chairman of outreach for the Democratic Senate? It's time to overcome your fear.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)I don't trust independents. They don't support Democrats, and I only support Democrats.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)And now we have Cheeto Von Tweeto thanks to that.
As a lifelong registered Dem, even I know the Independent vote brings the keys to the Whitehouse. Get with the times...get off the corporate dem teat...or get used to losing.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)What an odd little thing to say.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)You're a supporter of corporate Dems and you have no constructive reply.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Is you assume. And we'll we all know of where that ends up.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)If a politician has taken large contributions from big industry...and then votes respectively how their donors want them to vote...that is a corporate politician. And I you support that politician, it's accurate to say you support corporate bought politicians.
No assuming whatsoever here.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,841 posts)are they really progressive?
I'm getting quite tired of the trashing of Bernie Sanders.
You do know he'd have won the election. All the polling showed it, but the DNC was firmly behind Hillary, regardless of her flaws. He was absolutely the more progressive of the two, but he was almost totally ignored by the MSM, and even so he went from single digits in the polling to nearly winning the nomination.
When the first Catholic nominee ran for President, those who were paying attention pointed out that if he lost (which he was almost undoubtedly going to do) it would be more than a generation before another Catholic could credibly run for President.
This past election season we had the first Woman Presidential nominee, and a few small voices pointed out that if she lost (and most of those voices also pointed out what a flawed candidate she was), then it would be at least a generation before another women could credibly run for President.
Al Smith was the first Catholic Presidential candidate. He ran in 1928. John F. Kennedy was the next Catholic to run. He ran in 1960.
Hillary Clinton was the first Woman Presidential candidate. She ran in 2016. I'm not going to speculate as to the next woman candidate. Except to suggest it will be a very long time.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)Bush 1 was a bad president, but it wasn't enough to kill Bush 2's chances, and he got into office only 8 years later.
Bush 2 was a failure as a "businessman" president, but that didn't stop Trump, a failed businessman, from getting elected only 8 years later.
Right now, if you polled Democrats, I would guess that Elizabeth Warren would be among the top choices for the nomination for 2020. I strongly suspect you will be seeing a crap ton of negative stories and/or fake news on Warren, and other leading Democrats, for the next 4 years in the RW's attempt to divide Democrats and depress turnout in 2018 and 2020. They did a great job of it with Clinton (with 25 years of fake stories) and Sanders and Trump still barely beat Clinton.
betsuni
(25,458 posts)Bettie
(16,089 posts)I'll support them, but also not shut up when I think they are wrong.
It is OK to think that people are wrong on things sometimes. It doesn't negate the many things that person may be right on, it just means you (general you) disagree with the issue at hand.
I wasn't aware that disagreement was no longer permitted.