in 2008, during the old MSNBC show "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" hosted by David Gregory, Scarborough gave Maddow a dressing down, essentially for disagreeing with him and hurting his male pride. Scar stomped off the set before the segment was done.

He hasn't had much good to say about her in ages. Actually, he seldom mentioned her!

Help the Dem Party locally:
https://events.mobilizeamerica.io/dnc/

Multiply your vote by volunteering:
https://multiplyyourvote2018.paperform.co/

Anyone who hasn't registered yet or needs to has a choice of online registration sites:
https://www.vote.org/ (also allows you to check your registration, shows what's on your ballot, sends reminders)
https://iwillvote.com/
https://www.rockthevote.org/resources/online-voter-registration-tool/
https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote

For anyone who lacks his/her state's required voter ID, here's an excellent group for helping voters get IDs:
https://www.voteriders.org/

From the Town Hall Project (@townhallproject):

If I wanted a candidate I agree with 100 percent, I'd vote for myself.

But let's face it, most policies stated by candidates are more aspirational goals than specific plans for achieving them. And even fewer address how they plan to enact policies when 60 votes are needed in the Senate.

So, instead, I'm looking for:

1. Someone who can take on Trump without trying to out-Trump Trump, preferably with dignity, class, and especially humor. (For ex.: like JFK, Lincoln, and Rep. Ted Lieu)

2. Someone who knows how to work the levers of Government to take on Mitch McConnell and get stuff done. (For ex.: like LBJ and Pelosi)

3. Someone with that undefinable "IT" factor that can inspire and empower a nation to be its best version of itself. (For ex.: Obama, obviously, as well as Howard "You have the power!" Dean [Yes, I'm a Deaniac still.])

4. Someone who speaks the truth --- even unpopular or inconvenient truths --- rather than spin or obfuscation. I may disagree with him/her, but I respect a candidate who is honest and candid rather than a panderer. (A couple current candidates show signs of meeting this criterion.)

5. Someone who offers a storehouse of experience, knowledge, and wisdom to handle the minutiae of office, as well as crises with global consequences. Basically, someone brainy enough to know at least as much about a subject as does the reporter asking him/her about it. (For ex.: like either Bill or Hillary Clinton or, ideally, Pres. Josiah Bartlett)

All that said, as a Marylander, I don't vote in the primary until the Dem candidate is all but finalized. So, if I do settle on a candidate that meets my criteria, I'll be voting early with my wallet.

...when the economy crashed and the government had to bail out all those Wall Street banks and businesses that were "too big to fail."

Back then they just shrugged and chanted "We're all Socialists now. Ha ha!"

But now when liberals talk about health care for all or a few regulations to keep billionaires and corporations from grabbing up the entire pie, THEN they begin whining that "the Dems will turn America into VENEZUELA!!!"

The hypocrites want socialism for the rich and Laissez faire capitalism for the rest of us.

https://ivn.us/2017/08/03/meet-5-lawmakers-voted-against-russia-sanctions-bill/

Probably a good portion of them are Russian trolls, but they are repeating some long-refuted claims about him being a "DINO Pharma supporter." I am proudly undecided, but I will defend ANY of our great Dem candidates from attacks like these.

For anyone else running into these bogus arguments, here are some good resources:

A fact-check defending his record on a health care vote:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

Booker's career Campaign Finance file on Open Secrets showing Pharma is not a big supporter.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00035267&cycle=CAREER&type=I

The Progressive Punch ranking of Senators by their Progressive Score (Booker is #4):
https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

Source: ProPublica

Secret portions of a lawsuit allege that Purdue Pharma, controlled by the Sackler family, considered capitalizing on the addiction treatment boom — while going to extreme lengths to boost sales of its controversial opioid.

Not content with billions of dollars in profits from the potent painkiller OxyContin, its maker explored expanding into an “attractive market” fueled by the drug’s popularity — treatment of opioid addiction, according to previously secret passages in a court document filed by the state of Massachusetts.

In internal correspondence beginning in 2014, Purdue Pharma executives discussed how the sale of opioids and the treatment of opioid addiction are “naturally linked” and that the company should expand across “the pain and addiction spectrum,” according to redacted sections of the lawsuit by the Massachusetts attorney general. A member of the billionaire Sackler family, which founded and controls the privately held company, joined in those discussions and urged staff in an email to give “immediate attention” to this business opportunity, the complaint alleges.

ProPublica reviewed the scores of redacted paragraphs in Massachusetts’ 274-page civil complaint against Purdue, eight Sackler family members, company directors and current and former executives, which alleges that they created the opioid epidemic through illegal deceit. These passages remain blacked out at the company’s request after the rest of the complaint was made public on Jan. 15. A Massachusetts Superior Court judge on Monday ordered that the entire document be released, but the judge gave Purdue until Friday to seek a further stay of the ruling.


Read more: https://www.propublica.org/article/oxycontin-purdue-pharma-massachusetts-lawsuit-anti-addiction-market?utm_content=buffer2c3c1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=buffer

---

From ProPublica's Twitter feed:

"Scoop: In internal correspondence beginning in 2014, Purdue Pharma executives discussed how the sale of opioids and the treatment of opioid addiction are “naturally linked” and that the company should expand across “the pain and addiction spectrum.”

https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/1090703716427186182

...and other would-be candidates who believe their vast wealth is a superior alternative to mere experience in government:

"Billionaire Boys Club." It needs to be a hashtag.

Credit goes to "The Guardian" and their recent article, "Billionaire boys club': the challengers lining up to face Trump in 2020":
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/16/trump-2020-challengers-billionaires-tom-steyer-bloomberg-howard-schultz

Apparently, the winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College makes a successful third-party POTUS candidacy a near impossibility (so says something political scientists call "Duverger's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).

So with all the talk about whether a Howard Schultz Independent candidacy would make him a worthy contender or a Trump-aiding spoiler, I looked into just how successful third-party POTUS candidates have been in gaining electoral votes.

The short answer is: Not very.

Some the most famous third-party candidates in recent years --- Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, H. Ross Perot, John Anderson, and Ralph Nader -- never earned a single electoral vote.

Ron Paul, Rand's dad and the Libertarian candidate in 1988 and a write-in candidate in 2008, won a single electoral vote, but not in those years. It was in 2016, apparently the work of a "faithless elector."

Going back a full century, the only third-party presidential candidates on the ballot to earn electoral votes were the following folks:

> 1924 - Robert LaFollette (Progressive Party) - 13 votes (2.4%)

> 1948 - Strom Thurmond (States' Rights Party) - 39 votes (7.3%)

> 1968 - George Wallace (American Independent Party) - 46 votes (8.6%)

> 1972 - John Hospers (Libertarian Party) - 1 vote, by a faithless elector (0.2%)

So, are third-party POTUS candidates legitimate contenders or just spoilers? In light of their dismal record for winning the White House, I vote "spoiler."

Even Teddy Roosevelt, running as the Progressive Party candidate in 1912, couldn't pull off a win.

Sure, other countries manage more than just two parties, but they don't have the Electoral College.

I'm all for eliminating the Electoral College, but only because it enables GOPers to win and therefore hinders Dems.

If anyone's interested, here's a couple of sources I found most interesting:

"Third Party Presidential Candidates":
https://www.presidentsusa.net/thirdparty.html

"List of people who received an electoral vote in the United States Electoral College"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_received_an_electoral_vote_in_the_United_States_Electoral_College