The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020

[gonzoron]

 

 

[gonzoron]

Why It’s Time for Joe to Go

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/drop-out-joe-biden-democratic-primary-884047/?fbclid=IwAR11BJgkfhD0GpuLsoeNMZD39K6PuRLERtGOVb9aPeX0Ws2asMhFNRNbJxo

Take Beto, Bernie and E. Warren with you.

[Muda69]

36 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Why It’s Time for Joe to Go

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/drop-out-joe-biden-democratic-primary-884047/?fbclid=IwAR11BJgkfhD0GpuLsoeNMZD39K6PuRLERtGOVb9aPeX0Ws2asMhFNRNbJxo

Take Beto, Bernie and E. Warren with you.

So Mayor Pete is your guy?

[gonzoron]

16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

As is you and Night Hawk's de-facto forum stalking of me.  It's what we've come to expect.   

Hypocrite.

14 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So Mayor Pete is your guy?

I didn't say that.

[Howe]

2 hours ago, gonzoron said:

 

 

The Obama administration did far more to artificially influence the 2016 presidential election than any foreign nation. It was the job of the Great Hussein's intelligence agencies to protect the integrity of our elections instead of spying on a candidate.

 

[gonzoron]

4 hours ago, Howe said:

The Obama administration did far more to artificially influence the 2016 presidential election than any foreign nation. It was the job of the Great Hussein's intelligence agencies to protect the integrity of our elections instead of spying on a candidate.

 

 

[Howe]

Gun Store Runs "Beto Special" On AR-15's. Sells Out In Less Than 4 Hours.

https://pluralist.com/beto-orourke-special-phoenix-ar-15s//44486

[Impartial_Observer]

BHO was the best gun salesman the world has ever seen. 

[gonzoron]

15 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

BHO was the best gun salesman the world has ever seen. 

Yep, the gun/ammo manufacturers keep flying those false flags to bolster sales.

[Impartial_Observer]

Just now, gonzoron said:

Yep, the gun/ammo manufacturers keep flying those false flags to bolster sales.

I think Francis has proved that wrong. 

[gonzoron]

12 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I think Francis has proved that wrong. 

In this case, I agree. O’Rourke should have watched this video before making such a bonehead statement(as if the arm flailing hadn’t already decided it for us): 

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by gonzoron

[swordfish]

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/firearms-sales-soared-60-during-obamas-presidency

If one of President Obama's executive goals was to keep more guns out of the hands of Americans, he can pretty safely mark that one as a failure.

According to data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, widely considered to be the best metric in measuring firearms purchases in the United States, gun sales soared 60 percent under Obama's eight year stint in office compared to the number of firearms sold during President George W. Bush’s two-term presidency.

Of the roughly 157 million firearms-related background checks that were processed during Obama’s presidency, more than 50.6 million (nearly one-third) were processed in the last two years alone, during which Obama and other left-wing politicians continued to push for tighter gun restrictions.

Does anyone remember the "I hope he fails" words uttered by Rush Limbaugh referring to BHO's liberal socialist agenda?  

[gonzoron]

25 minutes ago, swordfish said:

BHO's liberal socialist agenda? 

LOL

[Muda69]

Why must it be government's job to "lift people out of poverty" in the first place?

 

[Muda69]

Biden Does Not Know U.S. Population; Forgets Who He Rallied With Earlier This Year: https://www.dailywire.com/news/51909/watch-biden-does-not-know-us-population-forgets-ryan-saavedra

Quote

Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden appeared to have no clue as to what the U.S. population was during a talk on Tuesday and later forgot who he rallied with earlier this year.\

Biden, while speaking at the Workers' Presidential Summit in Philadelphia, said that his proposed $8,000 child tax credit would "put 720 million women back in the workforce."

"You get a tax break for a race horse. Why in God's name couldn't we provide an $8,000 tax credit for everybody who has childcare costs?" Biden said. "It would put 720 million women back in the workforce. It would increase the GDP—to sound like a wonk here—by about eight-tenths of one percent. It would grow the economy."

The current U.S. population is approximately 330 million people so it's unclear where Biden got the notion that there are hundreds of millions more people living in the United States.

At another point during the event held by the AFL-CIO, Biden could not accurately remember who he rallied with earlier this year in Boston.

“When I went up to the Rite Aid strike, I looked out in that parking lot when I was talking with the folks when I was walking the picket line, up in Boston — and what happened? I looked out there, and I'll bet you 40 percent of the people there were non-union,” Biden said.

The Boston Globe noted that the rally was force thousands of Stop & Shop workers who went on strike in April.

"Biden, who is now considered the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary, attended the boisterous rally in Boston after some 31,000 Stop & Shop workers, many of them part-timers, went on strike after months of negotiations between the company and their union failed to reach a new contract agreement," The Boston Globe reported.

Biden has drifted further and further to the far-left during the Democratic primary race, criticizing Republicans' desire to allow churchgoers to arm themselves so they are not the victims of mass shootings to supporting socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-NY) $93 trillion "Green New Deal."

Biden has also faced mounting questions about his mental health, including from members of his own party, after continued struggles with his memory and increasingly common gaffes become a theme of his campaign.

....

I think Sleepy Joe is phoning it in, just going through the motions now.  

[Muda69]

Kamala Harris and the Cult of the Presidency: https://mises.org/wire/kamala-harris-and-cult-presidency

Quote

Kamala Harris wants you to join her cult. But don’t worry: membership is voluntary — that is, unless a plurality of your fellow voters wants to join, in which case you’ll be automatically enrolled.

You see, Harris’ cult is the “cult of the Presidency.” Coined by Gene Healy, the phrase describes the worship that so often accompanies what many Americans consider to be a grand, magisterial office from which all good things flow, and all evil seeks to corrupt. In their peculiar astronomy of this mindset, the Oval Office occupies the center of the universe. Everything revolves around it.

Congress Who?

The Presidency is a jealous god. It tolerates no competitors to its power. And neither does Kamala Harris.

Over the course of her campaign, she has repeatedly promised to bypass Congress and take unilateral action on a whole host of intensely divisive issues. On immigration, she has vowed to issue an executive order granting citizenship to “Dreamers” (migrants brought to America illegally by their parents). On the environment, she says she will declare a “state of water emergency” and force the country to re-join the Paris Climate agreement. She also wants to ban the use of fracking.

Many observers have noted how dictatorial these statements sound, and rightly so. To follow through on any one of these proposals would be deeply suspect, but the sheer number of them, coupled with Harris’ brazenly peremptory attitude, must leave no doubt as to her authoritarian ambitions.

For Harris, Congress is at best merely an advisory body. As a kindly gesture, the President may ask Congress for permission to do something, but he or she does not really require their assent. During a CNN town hall, Harris said she would deliver an ultimatum to Congress on gun control:

pon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. And specifically what I’ll do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns.

Essentially, Harris would ask Congress to rubber-stamp her gun-control policies in order to give them the appearance of legitimacy. But if they refuse to comply, she can simply forgo such formalities.

At worst, Congress is a frustrating (and ultimately vestigial) obstacle to Harris’ domestic policy goals. They have, for example, stubbornly failed to pass the “Green New Deal,” a massive government-enforced overhaul of the economy intended to fight climate change. Should they continue to remain idle on this issue, Harris warns, she will get rid of the filibuster. How she plans to do this is unclear: the filibuster is an internal Senate procedure and therefore not constitutionally subject to presidential decree. But the Cult of the Presidency knows no limitations.

The Constitutional Road Less Traveled

Harris’ attitude is unfortunately emblematic of America’s obsession with the presidency. We have become accustomed to organizing society around the president, whoever it may be. If the stock market goes up, we praise the president; if it goes down, we criticize him. When there’s a natural disaster, we expect the president to be directly involved in the relief efforts. When there’s a mass shooting, we expect him to visit the survivors and memorialize the victims.

Our society’s obsession with the president is both a cause and a consequence of his immense power. Public policy today is almost exclusively directed from the Oval Office and so of course we end up paying a lot of attention to the chief executive.

But at the same time, this cult-like attention helps to feed the behemoth that is the imperial presidency. After all, everyone can name the president, but very few know who their own congressional representative is. Fewer still can name the Speaker of the House. It is only natural, then, that folks look to the president for everything: he is often the only national political figure they are even remotely familiar with.

On a practical level, many of Senator Harris’ political ilk have acquiesced to the use of executive power simply because it’s the easiest way to get things done. Unlike the hyper-partisan “do-nothing” Congress so often derided by Harris, the president, by virtue of being a single person, is not hampered a lack of consensus. If left unimpeded by a passive Congress and deferential courts, the president as head of the executive branch may simply enforce the nation’s laws in any way he pleases. Under these circumstances, it should come as no surprise that presidents are increasingly pushing their luck and creating new laws unilaterally.

On the other hand, Harris is deeply critical of how President Trump has been governing. But rather than lead a fight from the Senate to reassert the authority of Congress, and thereby limit the damage a bad president can inflict, as she certainly could, Harris has been campaigning to increase the president’s power. Her main critique is not that the president is too powerful, but merely that the wrong person is in office.

The cult of the Presidency is getting stronger and the Constitution is getting weaker. And that should concern us all.

It certainly concerns me and others who value freedom and personal responsibility.   Unfortunately there are many, some represented here on the GID, who would champion the U.S. Congress being subservient to the POTUS, to merely be a "advisory body".  Of course that depends on who the POTUS actually is at the time.................

Edited September 23, 2019 by Muda69

[Muda69]

Be careful what you wish for: Impeachment inquiry poses risks for 2020 Democrats: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-2020/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-impeachment-inquiry-poses-risks-for-2020-democrats-idUSKBN1WA13U

Quote

The crowded field of Democratic presidential candidates were nearly unanimous in praising House Democrats’ decision to begin an impeachment inquiry into Republican President Donald Trump over accusations he sought foreign help to smear a political rival.

Now comes the hard part.

With impeachment set to overshadow the Democratic presidential primary race, how will candidates draw attention to their key policy issues, ranging from universal healthcare to income inequality?

After months of resisting pressure from fellow Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the launch of a formal impeachment effort on Tuesday, accusing Trump of seeking foreign help to damage Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden ahead of the November 2020 election.

Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July 25 phone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter, who had worked for a company drilling for gas in Ukraine.

The impeachment inquiry ensures a partisan fight in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail in the coming months.

Kurt Meyer, Democratic party chairman for three rural Iowa counties north of Des Moines, the state’s most populous city, said he expects the impeachment proceedings to energize the Democratic base.

“If a highly motivated person drags her mother and her husband and her second cousin twice removed to the polls, then it makes a difference,” Meyer said.

But in a sign the probe could energize Trump’s base as well, his re-election campaign raised a quarter of a million dollars in just 15 minutes on Tuesday in the immediate aftermath of Pelosi’s announcement about the probe.

Trump was quick to portray himself as the victim of partisan Democratic attacks, while his campaign sent repeated fundraising appeals to his supporters on Tuesday pegged to the impeachment launch.

There is also a risk that any substantive policy discussions among the 19 Democrats running for the party’s nomination to take on Trump in the 2020 election will be drowned out in the growing battle between allies and foes of Trump, several Democratic strategists and experts said.

“Trump has been the elephant in the room, but the democratic debates so far have been really policy centered. I think impeachment now takes center stage,” said Erin O’Brien, associate professor of political science at University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Doug Heye, a Republican strategist who worked with congressional leaders, said Republican messaging just got simpler, if less positive.

“For Democrats running for president, breaking through on healthcare or the economy just got a lot tougher,” he said. “Impeachment will be the dominant topic for a long time.”

....

Yep, just the distraction the uni-party needs.   

 

[Impartial_Observer]

[swordfish]

On 9/25/2019 at 10:51 AM, Muda69 said:

Be careful what you wish for: Impeachment inquiry poses risks for 2020 Democrats: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-2020/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-impeachment-inquiry-poses-risks-for-2020-democrats-idUSKBN1WA13U

Yep, just the distraction the uni-party needs.   

 

Trump has em right where he wants em......

[Muda69]

Elizabeth Warren's 'Wealth Tax' Is Punishment, Not Taxation: https://reason.com/2019/09/30/elizabeth-warrens-wealth-tax-is-punishment-not-taxation/

Quote

With four well-chosen words, Vice President Biden summed up the most important ideological dividing line in the Democratic presidential primary.

The comment came at the third of three fundraisers Biden held on Thursday, September 26, in Los Angeles County. Usually Biden sticks pretty tightly to his stump speech, and usually he keeps his schedule a bit lighter than three public events in a day. So perhaps it was the candor that comes with fatigue. Perhaps it was the intimacy that came with the unusually small event— a crowd of about 50. Or maybe Biden was hoping, even subconsciously, that someone would notice and get the message.

Biden joked with the well-dressed and apparently affluent crowd that they shouldn't expect a tax cut from him. Then, according to the pool report from Matt Pearce of the Los Angeles Times says, came the four words that tell a long story: "But! No punishment, either."

The clear, if implicit, contrast was with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). Warren and Sanders each have proposed a "wealth tax" that is accompanied by a punitive exit tax on anyone leaving the country to escape the wealth tax.

Democrats have been toying with these exit tax proposals for some time. The rates they float keep climbing. An expatriation tax already applies on those renouncing U.S. citizenship—they have to pay capital gains tax on the accumulated gains on their assets, reflecting a "deemed sale" at a mark-to-market price even on assets that have not been sold.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D–N.Y.) proposed an exit tax at a 30 percent rate in 2012. Hillary Clinton, as a presidential candidate in 2015, proposed an exit tax that would have hit corporations at the 35 percent corporate income tax rate that then applied. And, here in 2019, Warren and Sanders have both proposed exit taxes at the confiscatory rate of 40 percent, with the Sanders plan climbing to 60 percent on assets above $1 billion for individuals seeking to avoid his annual wealth taxes of up to 8 percent.

Biden is correct that threatening to seize 60 percent or 40 percent of the property of a member of an unpopular minority group who wants to leave a country is functionally not taxation, but punishment. The number of people subject to such a tax is small enough that it could be subject to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition, in Article I, against a bill of attainder.

Whether the exit or wealth tax is, by definition, a tax or a punishment turns out to be one of the fundamental issues in whether it is constitutional. An opinion by Chief Justice Warren, discussing the Constitution's Bill of Attainder clause in the 1965 Supreme Court case United States v. Brown, cited Alexander Hamilton: "If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense."

The clause, Justice Warren wrote, "was not to be given a narrow historical reading (which would exclude bills of pains and penalties), but was instead to be read in light of the evil the Framers had sought to bar: legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or group."

Justice Warren quoted an earlier decision, United States v. Lovett: "Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution."

Justice Warren noted "It was not uncommon for English acts of attainder to inflict their deprivations upon relatively large groups of people, sometimes by description, rather than name." In this case the description would be "billionaires."

What an ironical historical twist it would be if a policy of President Elizabeth Warren ended up struck down on the basis of a precedent by Chief Justice Earl Warren—and on the basis of an accurate description by Vice President Biden that the proposed tax amounts to a "punishment."

Beyond the legal questions, interesting though they are, are moral and prudential ones. Does economic success—which usually, if not always, involves hard work, risk-taking, and creating a product or service that many people find valuable enough to voluntarily pay for—deserve to be punished? The Democratic Party will have to answer in the coming primaries. Biden is on the correct side of it. His challenge will be to articulate a case that goes beyond his four words in Los Angeles, which were a fine start.

 

[Muda69]

Elizabeth Warren Is Wrong about Payday Lenders: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/10/14/elizabeth-warren-is-wrong-about-payday-lenders/

Quote

Last week, I had an interesting conversation with a man who used to work in automotive lending. Do you know who the car-finance guys really miss? “Saab,” he said. “The Saab customer was the best.” The people who bought Saabs turned out to be as sensible and practical as the people who designed them — good credit, appropriate incomes, sensible down payments. “It wasn’t like Porsche or Land Rover,” he said. “Nobody bought a Saab because it fulfilled some fantasy.” But fantasy moves a lot of cars, too. I used to know a guy who owned a used-car dealership, one of those buy here, pay here, your job is your credit! places that cater to the low end of the market. Not the Saab buyer. One afternoon, he sold a flashy 280ZX to an obvious no-money scrub. But he wasn’t worried. “I’ve already sold that car nine times,” he told his friends, “and when this guy misses his payment, I’ll repo it and sell it again.” 

Saab is long gone, but there are still Saab types out there. A lot of them, in fact, and lenders love doing business with them — not only automotive lenders but other kinds of consumer lenders, mortgage lenders, credit-card companies, commercial banks, etc. People with banged-up credit, negligible savings, lower incomes, etc. may present more tempting investments on paper, because they pay higher interest rates and more fees, but you have to do a lot of work to collect that extra revenue, and that work costs money — which is, of course, why it’s only the Saab guys who get to borrow on Saab-guy terms. But not everybody is a Saab guy, and the alternative for the scrubs isn’t some magical regulatory solution that empowers them to borrow on Saab-guy terms — the alternative is little or no access to credit at all. 

Elizabeth Warren has the soul of a Saab guy — and a constituency of Saab guys who think they know what’s best for the scrubs. 

Senator Warren has made a crusade of interfering with the business of payday lending, a high-risk, high-interest portion of the consumer-credit game in which borrowers with few or no alternatives take out unsecured short-term loans intended to tide them over until the next payday. Typically, a payday loan has a repayment period of a couple of weeks. (The term “payday loan” is a figure of speech, with repayment rarely actually connected to paydays.) The fees may be modest in absolute terms, say $13 on a $100 loan paid back in two weeks, but that $13 two-week fee ends up looking absurdly usurious when expressed as an annualized rate of several thousand percent. It’s especially bad if you assume compounding debt, i.e., that the borrower will go back and borrow again on the same terms every two weeks to cover the principal and accumulated interest. When you read about a payday loan with an APR of 34,125 percent or something approximately that outrageous, that’s what you are reading about. 

It looks like a terrible arrangement, until you ask the always-relevant question: Compared with what? 

People do not turn to payday lenders because they temporarily misplaced their American Express Platinum cards. Borrowers turn to payday lenders because those are, as the borrowers calculate, their best alternative — maybe their best bad alternative, but their best alternative nonetheless. All that silly talk about “predatory” lenders is little more than rhetorical cover for the patronizing insistence that poor people are too stupid or dysfunctional to make their own financial decisions. (And maybe they are; if that’s your argument, say so.) But first take reality into account: As the payday lenders themselves are eager to point out, their allegedly usurious interest rates compare pretty favorably with the plausible alternatives: bank-overdraft fees, or late fees and penalties on credit-card debt, utility bills, and housing payments. The real-world near competitors to payday lending — pawn shops and car-title loans — do not have a great deal to recommend them, and in many cases they are worse for borrowers than payday loans are. And because so many low-income and bad-credit borrowers already have bad debt in collection, gentler and more orthodox alternatives — lines of credit through a bank or credit union, short-term lending in the guise of “overdraft protection” — often are off the table. So unless you have something worth selling or borrowing money against, the choice ends up being a payday loan or informal borrowing from friends and family. (That the latter option apparently is unavailable to so many people speaks to a broad and significant failing in American civil society.) Or risking eviction or having the lights turned off. Or not being able to provide something immediately needful to your children. 

Being poor sucks, and no regulation is going to change that. 

Senator Warren’s immediate target is the likely repeal of a 2017 rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the regulatory love child of her and the Obama administration, that requires payday lenders to perform much of the same loan underwriting that a bank would when extending consumer credit: verifying employment and income, analyzing the borrower’s existing obligations and assets, and then lending exclusively to those who meet a certain standard described as “ability to repay.” (Willingness to repay is a big part of the lending equation in the real world, but never mind that for now.) The problem is that borrowers who can satisfy ordinary bank-underwriting standards can just go to banks, and those who go to payday lenders do so because they can’t — and also because the bank-lending process is more invasive, time-consuming, and, in many cases, humiliating, especially for the tens of millions of Americans who have no bank account and rarely if ever set foot in a bank. In fact, the Pew Charitable Trusts — not remarkably friendly to payday lending — found in a survey that many borrowers turned to payday lending particularly to avoid those things. (And many of them ended up turning to more conventional lending to pay off their payday loans.) 

In a slavishly cheerleading piece on Senator Warren’s campaign, Emily Stewart of Vox accurately described the senator’s fundamental agenda: empowering a “cadre of energetic, ideologically committed regulators.” (That Vox apparently believes “ideologically committed regulators” are to be preferred to regulators whose commitment is to the law rather than to ideology says a great deal about the state of the progressive mind circa 2019.) But ideology does not trump math. Of course, the government can lean on lenders to make more credit available on easier terms to scrub borrowers. That’s a big part of what created the subprime-mortgage meltdown, and what is likely to produce the next one. The same thinking helped create that $1 trillion–plus in student-loan debt and encouraged tuition inflation at the same time. Risk comes with a price, and somebody is going to pay it — either the borrower, or someone else, or everybody else. 

In the short term, the question is whether our laws will be made by our lawmakers in Congress or whether they will be cooked up by Senator Warren’s “cadre of energetic, ideologically committed regulators,” which is what the CFPB was designed to be, and is. If the federal government wants to preempt the states in the matter of regulating payday lending (which already is prohibited outright or severely limited in many states), then it should at least go through the motions of passing a law. And then the people’s elected representatives can bear whatever political price there is to pay for cutting poor people off from the credit that, defective though it may be, is what they have.

But in the long term, we are going to have to answer the question of just how patronizing we intend to be toward people with low incomes and modest means. If we allow the market to produce credit products for them, then we can be quite confident that the market will charge them relatively high prices, reflecting the relatively high risk of lending to people without much in the way of money or good credit. We could enact proactive measures such as forced-savings programs that would tax the earnings of the poor and then make these funds available on an emergency basis subject to the approval of their masters. We could distribute maps to the nearest food pantries and homeless shelters on the theory that would-be payday borrowers are better off relying on philanthropy than on credit. 

Or we could have some more vague politicians’ talk about the “rigged economy,” as though people could be shriven of responsibility for their own financial condition by the ministrations of senators and presidents. That’s what we’ll get from Senator Warren, and from other patronizing, self-appointed tribunes of the plebs. 

Of course, there are a lot of broke-ass suburbanites driving around in Land Rovers they cannot really afford. It is not only the poor who make bad financial decisions. (I could produce a conspectus of my own.) But the poor always have less room for error, and for their errors, as for most things, they pay a proportionally higher price. Simply cutting the poor off from credit is one way to keep them from going more deeply into debt, but that will produce consequences nobody will much like, the poor themselves least of all. If the payday lenders are regulated out of existence, Senator Warren et al. will find someone else to blame, a new scapegoat. They’ll probably end up creating one, in fact, without ever intending to or quite understanding that they have.

 

[swordfish]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-78-canceled-events-notice-hospitalized/story?id=66003850&fbclid=IwAR0cNpouxF1Ob2uyAUyJ1Ss1jYngW7RVlfCAaSqv-0Y3QXtiU1sNWQiVad0

"During a campaign event yesterday evening, Sen. Sanders experienced some chest discomfort. Following medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents were successfully inserted. Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits. He will be resting up over the next few days," said Sanders’ senior adviser Jeff Weaver on Wednesday in a statement. "We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice, and we will continue to provide appropriate updates.”

[Muda69]

24 minutes ago, swordfish said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-78-canceled-events-notice-hospitalized/story?id=66003850&fbclid=IwAR0cNpouxF1Ob2uyAUyJ1Ss1jYngW7RVlfCAaSqv-0Y3QXtiU1sNWQiVad0

"During a campaign event yesterday evening, Sen. Sanders experienced some chest discomfort. Following medical evaluation and testing he was found to have a blockage in one artery and two stents were successfully inserted. Sen. Sanders is conversing and in good spirits. He will be resting up over the next few days," said Sanders’ senior adviser Jeff Weaver on Wednesday in a statement. "We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice, and we will continue to provide appropriate updates.”

Sounds like the heart procedure performed on Mr. Sanders happened within hours of the diagnosis.    How long would Mr. Sanders have had to wait for the same heart procedure under the socialist healthcare system he champions?  Heck, now long would he have had to wait for the test(s) needed to confirm the diagnosis?

 

 

[swordfish]

13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sounds like the heart procedure performed on Mr. Sanders happened within hours of the diagnosis.    How long would Mr. Sanders have had to wait for the same heart procedure under the socialist healthcare system he champions?  Heck, now long would he have had to wait for the test(s) needed to confirm the diagnosis?

 

 

[Impartial_Observer]

40 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Sounds like the heart procedure performed on Mr. Sanders happened within hours of the diagnosis.    How long would Mr. Sanders have had to wait for the same heart procedure under the socialist healthcare system he champions?  Heck, now long would he have had to wait for the test(s) needed to confirm the diagnosis?

 

 

He'll be fine, he's got congressional insurance provided by the taxpayers, not the stuff us peasants have to buy.