The Daily Jot: THIS JUST IN! CHER SHOWS SOMETHING MORE SHOCKING THAN HER ASS TATTOOS!

Monday, February 17, 2020

THIS JUST IN! CHER SHOWS SOMETHING MORE SHOCKING THAN HER ASS TATTOOS!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CHER LOVES HER SOME JOE BIDEN. REMEMBER IN 1992 WHEN CHER LOVES HER SOME H. ROSS PEROT?

OH, CHER. YOU DISAPPOINT SO BADLY.

WE THOUGHT YOU CARED ABOUT PEOPLE. BUT MEDICARE FOR ALL DOESN'T MEAN A THING TO YOU.

DO YOU THINK THE REST OF US CAN JUST DO A FAREWELL TOUR ANYTIME WE HAVE MEDICAL BILLS?

OH, CHER.

WE DON'T THINK EVEN SONNY COULD HAVE DISAPPOINTED US THIS MUCH. WE GET IT. YOU'RE NOT A LEFTIST. YOU'RE A CENTRIST -- A CORPORATIST CENTRIST.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In the United States, the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. War Hawk Joe Biden has maintained that he only has to win South Carolina. He's lost Iowa (coming in fourth) and Iowa (coming in fifth). Somehow, Joe insists, if he can just eek out a win in South Carolina, that will prove he's electable.

No, that's not logical. It's also increasingly doubtful. Briana Stewart (ABC NEWS) reports:

South Carolina state lawmaker Rep. J. Todd Rutherford told Raddatz he’s strongly leaning toward endorsing Bloomberg.
“I am excited about the prospect of getting Donald Trump out of the White House. And I believe at this point, the only way to do it is to go with somebody that has the resources necessary to make it happen,” Rutherford said.
This election is "not about Democrats falling in love," he added. "This is about Democrats making sure that Donald Trump can no longer be the president. And people are so focused on that. Joe Biden's support here is starting to wane only because he'd limped out of Iowa, he'd limp out of New Hampshire. And we are not interested in somebody that cannot win.”
While Biden was competing with other front-running candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, Steyer has taken advantage of having South Carolina largely to himself.
Since launching his 2020 bid in July, the billionaire activist has built a robust team of 102 staffers. He spent upwards of $178 million in campaign advertisements with $18.7 million targeting black voters in South Carolina, according to Kantar/CMAG.

Peter Schorsch (FLORIDA POLITICS) says it's time for Joe to drop out of the race:

Look at the facts. You didn’t just lose Iowa, you were shellacked. You were supposed to give U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders a run for his money in New Hampshire, but you not only were forced to cede defeat days out, you ended up in a distant fifth place. Fifth! Not to dwell too much on that, but you received less than half the votes of the little-known Senator from Minnesota who came in third.

And now your numbers in Nevada are beginning to cave which, at this stage, surprises exactly no one.

And so now you are putting your hope in the South Carolina comeback?

Recall, Joe, that your message, nay your underlying rationale, for why Democratic primary voters should support you was your electability. Forgetting for a moment that one running on an “electability” theme should win elections, the fact the you are hoping for a win because South Carolina has more than 60% African American voters is the opposite of an “electability” message.

There is no doubt that black voters are an important bloc in the Democratic primary and a vital part of our republic, but in order to beat Donald Trump come November, you simply must extend your base well beyond African Americans.

Further, new polls not only show you on a steady downhill slide, not even Democrats believe anymore that you are the most electable (that honor now goes to Sanders by a comfortable 10-point margin.)

As losses begin to pile up, your polling numbers dip and your electability drops, you have become the spoiler.

Joe wasn't electable when he made that the only thing he was running on. Now voters know he's not electable and he still has nothing else to offer them. Joe's real good at shooting down everyone else's plans and proposals, he's just not too good at coming up with anything of his own. Maybe he could crib from some of Neil Kinnock's proposals during the Thatcher era?

In the meantimes, COMMON DREAMS notes:

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday applauded a new study published today by a team of epidemiologists in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet, which found that Medicare for All will save Americans $450 billion and prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths each and every year.
“This study confirms that Medicare for All will save the American people $450 billion on health care costs and will prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths – each and every year,” Sanders said. “In other words, guaranteeing health care as a human right by creating a Medicare for All system will cost substantially less than our current dysfunctional health care system. It will save working class families thousands of dollars and it will prevent tens of thousands of Americans from dying each year. While the CEOs in the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry may not like it, we will end their greed and enact Medicare for All when I am president.”
According to the study, by replacing premiums, deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket costs with a progressive tax system, Medicare for All will save the average family thousands of dollars each year and will provide lower-income households the greatest relief.

Struggling hospitals serving low-income communities would be particularly helped by Medicare for All by eliminating uncompensated care, increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to Medicare levels, and reducing administrative overhead, according to the study.
The study also debunks several attacks on Medicare for All from the private health care industry that made well over $100 billion in profits last year. Doctors and hospitals would see large savings in cost and time from streamlining our bloated and inefficient administrative and billing system, allowing doctors to spend more time with patients, the study found.
The study is the latest in a series of studies conducted over the past three decades that have found that guaranteeing universal health care through a single-payer health care system would not only dramatically improve the health and well-being of the American people, it would cost less than our current dysfunctional health care system that puts profits over people.

Last month, another medical journal found that 19 out of 22 studies done over the past 30 years concluded that moving to a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system would cost less than our current health care system in the first year, and all of the studies showed that it would cost less within a decade of implementation.

While Bernie promotes programs that would help the American people, Mike Bloomberg tries to buy off those who might criticize him. COMMON DREAMS reports:

Billionaire Republican-turned-Democrat Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg was hit with two damaging front-page headlines Saturday.
The Washington Post reported, "Bloomberg for years has battled women’s allegations of profane, sexist comments."

"Now, as Bloomberg is increasingly viewed as a viable Democratic candidate for president and the #MeToo era has raised the profile of workplace harassment, he is finding that his efforts to prevent disclosure are clashing against demands that he release former employees and complainants from their nondisclosure agreements."

"The allegations that he tolerated a hostile office culture could undercut his ability to criticize President Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct and efforts to keep such claims private."

And in a headline titled "Bloomberg’s Billions: How the Presidential Candidate Built His Influence" the New York Times exposes the corruption of two faux-progressive DNC-affiliated organizations, Emily's List and the Center for American Progress who sold out their organization's missions in return for millions of Bloomberg's influence buying:

"In the fall of 2018, Emily’s List had a dilemma. With congressional elections approaching and the Supreme Court confirmation battle over Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh underway, the Democratic women’s group was hosting a major fund-raising luncheon in New York. Among the scheduled headline speakers was Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor, who had donated nearly $6 million to Emily’s List over the years."

"Days before the event, Mr. Bloomberg made blunt comments in an interview with The New York Times, expressing skepticism about the #MeToo movement and questioning sexual misconduct allegations against Charlie Rose, the disgraced news anchor. Senior Emily’s List officials seriously debated withdrawing Mr. Bloomberg’s invitation, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."

"In the end, the group concluded it could not risk alienating Mr. Bloomberg."

And the Times on the Center for American Progress:

"In interviews with The Times, no one described being threatened or coerced by Mr. Bloomberg or his money. But many said his wealth was an inescapable consideration — a gravitational force powerful enough to make coercion unnecessary."

"“They aren’t going to criticize him in his 2020 run because they don’t want to jeopardize receiving financial support from him in the future,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the good-government group Common Cause."

"That chilling effect was apparent in 2015 to researchers at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy group, when they turned in a report on anti-Muslim bias in the United States. Their draft included a chapter of more than 4,000 words about New York City police surveillance of Muslim communities; Mr. Bloomberg was mentioned by name eight times in the chapter, which was reviewed by The Times."

"When the report was published a few weeks later, the chapter was gone. So was any mention of Mr. Bloomberg’s name."

"Yasmine Taeb, an author of the report, said in an interview that the authors had been instructed to make drastic revisions or remove the chapter, and opted to do the latter rather than “whitewash the N.Y.P.D.’s wrongdoings.” She said she found it “disconcerting” to be asked to remove the chapter “because of how it was going to be perceived by Mayor Bloomberg.”"

"No, Jill, he's the ass of the family -- the ass"
"THIS JUST IN! JILL BIDEN'S AS NUTS AS THE REST OF HER FAMILY!"

The Daily Jot

Monday, February 17, 2020

THIS JUST IN! CHER SHOWS SOMETHING MORE SHOCKING THAN HER ASS TATTOOS!

About Me

Links

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot

The Daily Jot