Booker says he's "put a pause" on accepting contributions from drug companies

[Blue3]

so he's admitting it's a problem, but only going to "put a pause" on it?? This is the worst of both worlds.

"I'm going to put a pause on being corrupt."

[hueylong]

Ugh. I understand why this has become such an issue, but it would be nice if faux progressives would stop losing their minds at every single corporate dollar infused into our party's finances. Pragmatism is better than constant outrage and dissatisfaction, but the latter usually proves more satisfying so many choose that. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty out there who genuinely care about campaign finance reform and rejecting dark/corporate/PAC money; they're the true progressives who care more about substance than outrage. But I get the impression (and maybe I'm mistaken) that many others just want to find reasons to be angry and critical. If Booker turned into a perfect, model candidate according to whatever the prevailing 'progressive' standards are nowadays, some would still be unhappy. There's no pleasing certain people.

Does accepting money from drug companies potentially hinder one's ability and willingness to sign/pass legislation which may adversely affect that industry? Of course. But at the same time it's simplistic and reductionist to label Booker 'corrupt' just because he does. He's hardly unique in this regard, by the way, but many seem to have it out especially for him.

I suppose what I'm saying is, if the choice is between politicians like Booker, who may not be perfect but nonetheless at least try to aspire to some standard, and politicians like the majority of Republicans who gladly accept contributions from people like the Koch brothers and rake in obscene amounts of money from super PACs, I'll choose the former every time. I don't think the two situations are at all comparable. One party has a way worse record on this than the other.

[publicunofficial]

If Booker became the perfect progressive candidate it would require such a massive shift in viewpoint and personality as to be transparently craven and opportunistic. The whole appeal of Sanders (And to a greater extent, Corbyn in the U.K.) is that he didn't just become progressive when the base demanded it, he's always been on the right side of issues. I don't get the "There's no pleasing you!" argument when there are multiple other Democrats I've said I would vote for. Just because I decide for myself whoI want to vote for instead of whoever the party tells me whose "turn" it is?

Many politicians take pharma money yes, and they all suck. The difference is, none of them are front runners to be the next president. Saying "but everyone takes pharma money!" is an excuse that only satisfies beltway hacks and wannabe beltway hacks.

The choice you present between pragmatic centrism and the Republicans is a false one. The main thing I learned from 2016 is that people are fed up with traditional Washington, and that everything the establishment says a candidate has to have in order to suceeed is a complete falsehood. The base should go into 2020 demanding the most radical candidate possible, and dare tbe establishment to meet them halfway.

[hueylong]

The 'establishment' is not pushing anyone down your throat. Many Democratic insiders did think it was Hillary's turn. Obviously she thought so herself. She got roughly 3.7 million more votes than Bernie in the primary, so I guess they weren't alone in that assessment. More recreational outrage and rebellion.

[publicunofficial]

The 'establishment' is not pushing anyone down your throat. Many Democratic insiders did think it was Hillary's turn. Obviously she thought so herself. She got roughly 3.7 million more votes than Bernie in the primary, so I guess they weren't alone in that assessment. More recreational outrage and rebellion.

Keep treating anyone who actually has emotions about their politics like a petulant toddler. It's a really endearing quality that people love in Democrats.

[hueylong]

The 'establishment' is not pushing anyone down your throat. Many Democratic insiders did think it was Hillary's turn. Obviously she thought so herself. She got roughly 3.7 million more votes than Bernie in the primary, so I guess they weren't alone in that assessment. More recreational outrage and rebellion.

Keep treating anyone who actually has emotions about their politics like a petulant toddler. It's a really endearing quality that people love in Democrats.

I get emotional about politics too. I just don't see any point in getting angry and criticizing every little thing. It's unproductive. And I don't like the self-righteousness from many self-described progressives who are so quick to condemn anybody who isn't able to pass their ideological purity tests. "Oh, you've accepted money from drug companies. You MUST be horribly corrupt." That is unfair and unrealistic.

[hueylong]

That's the thing, though. The Democratic Party HAS moved to the left. Maybe not enough for your liking, but it has. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform was the most progressive platform we've ever seen, due in no small part to Bernie's candidacy. So I think you mean you want it to move even further left, and that you want to change it even more. Stop pretending like you've had no influence whatsoever. 

[publicunofficial]

That's the thing, though. The Democratic Party HAS moved to the left. Maybe not enough for your liking, but it has. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform was the most progressive platform we've ever seen, due in no small part to Bernie's candidacy. So I think you mean you want it to move even further left, and that you want to change it even more. Stop pretending like you've had no influence whatsoever. 

The platform so good that Hillary never mentioned it or ran on it!

[7,052,770]

Isn't it cute how centrist Democrats whine about leftists who vote for the Green Party (a joke organization, by the way - I'm not defending it) say stuff like "Don't vote third party if you want change! Work within the Democratic Party and try to change it from within", yet if you try to do so, you're branded a "purity progressive"? Come on, guys, make up your minds.

The idea is that when our candidate loses to theirs in the primary, we get over it and support the nominee in the general, even if we're not crazy about him/her, and they do the same to us when the tables are turned.

[hueylong]

That's the thing, though. The Democratic Party HAS moved to the left. Maybe not enough for your liking, but it has. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform was the most progressive platform we've ever seen, due in no small part to Bernie's candidacy. So I think you mean you want it to move even further left, and that you want to change it even more. Stop pretending like you've had no influence whatsoever. 

The platform so good that Hillary never mentioned it or ran on it!

[publicunofficial]

You know there is a difference between campaigning on an issue and giving it a blurb on your campaign website nobody reads?

[hueylong]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

[publicunofficial]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

It really is amazing someone named "Huey Long" considers a half-assed endorsement of a $15 minimum wage to be bold progressivism.

[RINO Tom]

ITT, people who hate the pharma industry for stupid reasons normal Democrats.

[Technocracy Timmy]

ITT, people who hate the pharma industry for stupid reasons.

You're in for a really long and agonizing 7+ years man

[Friend]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

Obama promised to 1. Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
2.Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes 3. Allow imported prescription drugs 4. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. And many other things that could have been passed during his first two years. He and the dem establishement did nothing. Why would Hillary , a longtime establishment hack, do any different? These people lie to get votes, just like Republicans. But you know who always gets theirs?? The special interests. But hey lets keep doing the same thing, she said so on her website!

[Deblano]

I'm gonna put a pause on voting for him in 2020.

[hueylong]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

Obama promised to 1. Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
2.Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes 3. Allow imported prescription drugs 4. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. And many other things that could have been passed during his first two years. He and the dem establishement did nothing. Why would Hillary , a longtime establishment hack, do any different? These people lie to get votes, just like Republicans. But you know who always gets theirs?? The special interests. But hey lets keep doing the same thing, she said so on her website!

Look up who Joe Lieberman is and tell me more about how it was Obama and the 'establishment Dems' who ruined healthcare reform.

You don't even know who you're rallying against. But keep being angry.

By the way, huge difference between campaigning and governing. Anyone with even a tenuous grasp on politics understands that distinction, and doesn't get incensed when a president doesn't implement every single change they proposed or even promised on the campaign trail. Reasonable people allow room for changing circumstances and understand that the world is messy and things aren't always black and white.

[GoTfan]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

Obama promised to 1. Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
2.Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes 3. Allow imported prescription drugs 4. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. And many other things that could have been passed during his first two years. He and the dem establishement did nothing. Why would Hillary , a longtime establishment hack, do any different? These people lie to get votes, just like Republicans. But you know who always gets theirs?? The special interests. But hey lets keep doing the same thing, she said so on her website!

Look up who Joe Lieberman is and tell me more about how it was Obama and the 'establishment Dems' who ruined healthcare reform.

You don't even know who you're rallying against. But keep being angry.

By the way, huge difference between campaigning and governing. Anyone with even a tenuous grasp on politics understands that distinction, and doesn't get incensed when a president doesn't implement every single change they proposed or even promised on the campaign trail. Reasonable people allow room for changing circumstances and understand that the world is messy and things aren't always black and white.

Except Obama buckled on healthcare reform twice even with a supermajority.

[hueylong]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

Obama promised to 1. Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
2.Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes 3. Allow imported prescription drugs 4. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. And many other things that could have been passed during his first two years. He and the dem establishement did nothing. Why would Hillary , a longtime establishment hack, do any different? These people lie to get votes, just like Republicans. But you know who always gets theirs?? The special interests. But hey lets keep doing the same thing, she said so on her website!

Look up who Joe Lieberman is and tell me more about how it was Obama and the 'establishment Dems' who ruined healthcare reform.

You don't even know who you're rallying against. But keep being angry.

By the way, huge difference between campaigning and governing. Anyone with even a tenuous grasp on politics understands that distinction, and doesn't get incensed when a president doesn't implement every single change they proposed or even promised on the campaign trail. Reasonable people allow room for changing circumstances and understand that the world is messy and things aren't always black and white.

Except Obama buckled on healthcare reform twice even with a supermajority.

Very good chance we would have had public option if it weren't for Lieberman's bullsh**t. He deserves a huge amount of blame for what happened.

[Cory]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

It really is amazing someone named "Huey Long" considers a half-assed endorsement of a $15 minimum wage to be bold progressivism.

Goalpost: moved.

[GoTfan]

Many people did read the website, and putting it on there showed with perfect clarity her acceptance of the position outlined in the platform. People don't put policy positions on their official campaign website if they're not ready to endorse and defend them fully. They just don't. She also repeatedly (even before the platform was adopted) stated that she supported efforts like Fight for $15 and encouraged localized efforts on the part of states/cities to raise their own minimum wage.

Obama promised to 1. Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax
2.Create a $10 billion fund to help homeowners refinance or sell their homes 3. Allow imported prescription drugs 4. Allow medicare to negotiate drug prices. And many other things that could have been passed during his first two years. He and the dem establishement did nothing. Why would Hillary , a longtime establishment hack, do any different? These people lie to get votes, just like Republicans. But you know who always gets theirs?? The special interests. But hey lets keep doing the same thing, she said so on her website!

Look up who Joe Lieberman is and tell me more about how it was Obama and the 'establishment Dems' who ruined healthcare reform.

You don't even know who you're rallying against. But keep being angry.

By the way, huge difference between campaigning and governing. Anyone with even a tenuous grasp on politics understands that distinction, and doesn't get incensed when a president doesn't implement every single change they proposed or even promised on the campaign trail. Reasonable people allow room for changing circumstances and understand that the world is messy and things aren't always black and white.

Except Obama buckled on healthcare reform twice even with a supermajority.

Very good chance we would have had public option if it weren't for Lieberman's bullsh**t. He deserves a huge amount of blame for what happened.

Yes. One Senator out of how many?

[hueylong]

That's the key point people miss, or more likely intentionally misstate, because they want to criticize Obama. The truth is, Dems really didn't have a supermajority, or at least not for any worthwhile amount of time. A supermajority is a filibuster-proof majority, i.e. 60 members. We never actually reached that threshold due to a variety of unfortunate incidents and technicalities, and you can't say "oh well, you were close enough", because every single vote counts when you're trying to implement significant reforms related to healthcare and the economy.

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fleeting-illusory-supermajority

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Sick of this talking point constantly reappearing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The ObamaCare reconciliation bill only needed 50 Senators to vote for it.

[hueylong]

The only part of Obamacare that was passed via reconciliation was a set of tiny alterations. The bulk of the legislation - the stuff that actually mattered - was passed via regular order, and in order to accomplish that Dems had to capitulate to the demands of people like Lieberman.