Khan

The same scenario would play out with Buttigieg as the nominee. That might not seem important at the moment, with Biden, Warren and Sanders leading the pack. However, the "little man in the stomach" -- the same dude who told me that Trump would get elected three or four years ago -- is telling me more and more that Buttigieg COULD be the so-called "dark horse," who pushes through as Biden and Sanders continue to stumble (health-wise as well as race-wise); cracks begin to appear in Warren's campaign and facade; and Harris struggles to sustain momentum. That's why, as I said upthread, my dream scenario is a 2024 race between Buttigieg and Mike Pence. Because, even if "Mayor Pete" doesn't become the nominee this time around, I feel he will have built up enough of a following that will be there for him (provided, of course, he doesn't blow it on something stupid...like getting caught in a sex scandal...with a woman) if and when he chooses to try again. Plus, I must admit, the part of me that's perverse af would get a huge kick out of seeing the homosexual (who's actually bisexual, if you ask me, but I digress) and the homophobe (who's so obviously in the closet -- but again, I digress!) duking it out on the national political stage, with the homosexual coming out on top (...so to speak). Exactly. We're all thinking it could be Biden, Warren, or Sanders. But it COULD be Buttigieg. Or Harris. Or Booker. Or Beto. Or Tulsi. Or (God help us) Marianne Williamson. Nothing is off the table. Oh, and another thing: Betty Crocker didn't lace her cake mixes with drugs. You're getting her mixed up with Duncan Hines.

Oh, dear. That isn't saying much.

@DRW50 -- at least, I think it was @DRW50 -- made this excellent point not too long ago: Republicans can throw out these dubious proposals all day long, and no one in the media ever asks them to elaborate. Yet, because we've been conditioned to see Democrats as naive wussies, when one of THEM says he (or she) has in mind a plan to do something -- in this case, a plan to help get more Americans covered on life insurance through a program such as MFA -- the very first question the media asks is, "How do you plan to pay for it?". I'm not saying Warren is my candidate of choice, but...why should she (or any Democrat) be made to answer such questions, when hardly anyone ever asks the same from their Republican counterparts? "How do I plan to pay for MFA, you ask? Let's just say I know a guy. Now, Mr. Callison, are you satisfied?"

Meanwhile, Facebook proves, once again, they are trash: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/business/zuckerberg-facebook-free-speech.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Well, I apologize, @Vee, for over-generalizing progressives and for lumping them in with "Bernie's Kids." I just feel like, where the Democratic Party is concerned these days, the centrists are getting a very bad rap simply for being pragmatic.

Yup. Progressives and conservatives have one thing in common: both believe in all-or-nothing propositions. If either group doesn't get everything they want -- and I mean everything -- they'll burn it all down, regardless of how that might affect the rest of us. Those two groups never understand that compromise and consensus are crucial in any political system where more than one party participates. That's why I hate how the Democratic Party has co-opted some of the progressives' platforms in order to bring them into the tent. To me, it's like giving into a spoiled toddler who wants his woobie Right! Now!, instead of telling him to stop crying "or I'll give you something to cry about!".

That...wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Amen!

There's no "probably" about it: Donald Trump WILL be reelected. At this point, only death will stop that horrible man from enjoying another four (or more!) years in the WH. The MSM has done a bang-up job -- and, I might add, in almost record time -- in tarnishing Joe Biden with the same, proverbial, Ukrainian-manufactured brush that continues to tarnish what remains of the Trump administration. Come next year, when it's time to actually VOTE, millions will face a "dilemma" that will be familiar to the one they faced in the last election: should they vote for the candidate they hate, but has had four years to prove how unfit he is for the job; for the candidate they ALSO hate, but whom the media has convinced them (on absolutely no tangible evidence whatsoever) would be just as bad as the first guy; for the third-party outlier (should one come along), thereby "throwing away" their votes; or for no one at all (which is essentially the same as voting for the first guy, as I have come to realize)? "BUT HER EMAILS!" has been replaced with "BUT HIS SON!". And I don't like it one bit. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Let. Bernie. Run. Forget about Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Forget about Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke. They're all fantastic candidates -- and, if I'm being perfect and frank, each one could offer a lot more to this country than Bernie Sanders ever could, or will. However, none of the other Democratic candidates inspire the sort of freakish loyalty among their voters that Sanders does among his. His followers, like Trump's followers, are ready and willing to immolate themselves (and the rest of us) for him. They sabotaged Hillary Clinton's chances in 2016, because "their man" didn't get to be the nominee. Believe me, no matter what any polls at the moment might suggest, they're ready to do the same in 2020. Look at it this way: if Sanders runs against Trump and actually wins, then, at the very least, we'll be rid of Trump. (Barring, of course, any attempts on Trump's part to delegitimize the election results and remain in power -- which I see happening regardless, lol). True, a Sanders administration would present its' own, unique set of challenges to the nation. Again, if I'm being perfectly honest, I think much of his so-called platform is pie-in-the-sky crap that, at best, is not doable; and, at worst, is as potentially destructive to our government as anything the Trump administration has foisted upon us. However -- and I cannot stress this enough -- four years of life under the oppressive, pseudo-dictatorial regime of Donald J. Trump has, if nothing else, made Americans more equipped to cope with just about anything else that will come our way. But...if Sanders runs and LOSES, which I believe would be the more likely outcome, then it would prove my point about the man. Namely, that no matter how much people obnoxiously sing his praises, to the point that the Democratic Party has had to adjust its' official platforms merely to appease his devotees, pushing us ever further to the left as a result, Bernie Sanders does NOT have what it takes to win an election of this magnitude. It won't matter what his most hard-core supporters have to say about him OR his ideals after he loses against Trump. As far as the rest of the Democratic Party and the nation will be concerned, all questions will have been answered, and all doubts will have been removed.

DJT: "I got to see first hand the strength, passion and wisdom of this highly respected political leader." Was that before or after you called his city a rat-infested slum, Mr. President?

It's amazing to know they're still together after all these years.

I would have preferred seeing her as Emily Norris, Ken and Janet's daughter, Holly's niece and Blake's cousin. That way, she would have had more familial connections in Springfield.

Yup. Mike Pence is as dangerous to us as Donald Trump. However, Pence doesn't inspire the level of loyalty among Americans that Trump does. No one's AS likely to, say, gun down an entire Walmart full of customers because they support his stance on immigration. Ergo, for the Democrats, it'd be almost like a cakewalk. My dream scenario: in 2024, it's Pete Buttigieg vs. Mike Pence, with Buttigieg becoming our first gay president.

My heart goes out this morning to Cummings' loved ones. As it says in the Bible, he fought a good fight. I studied enough sociology in high school to know that men like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are no better than men like Jim Jones and Charles Manson, ESPECIALLY in how they inspire an all-consuming loyalty among their followers. They derive their powers from the impressionable and the weak. In more certain times, Americans would have been able to push aside the Bernie Sanderses and Donald Trumps whenever it came to politics. Now, however, we're so beaten and battered that we're left with the possibility of voting one into office as president JUST to get rid of the other. Not that I think Bernie will make it that far. But, as Chuck Berry once said, you never can tell.

These days, whenever I watch Trump, it's like I hear Merle Haggard's song, "If We Make It Through December," playing in my head. Because, that's where we are with this man. It'll be the mother of all Christmas miracles if he gets through the rest of 2019 without losing what's left of his mind and wandering off from the WH in a haze.

And now we know why Buttigieg ain't ready to throw in the proverbial towel just yet.

I guess Neil Cavuto is picking up where his former colleague, Shepard Smith, left off? Whatever he or anyone else at FNC/FBC says, it doesn't matter, though. They had their chance to speak truth to power. Instead, all they wanted to do was spread lies about the Obamas and the Clintons, and to hell with what a Trump presidency could do and has done to the country. AFAIC, everyone at FBC and FNC who wants to criticize the president now can stay seated. So, thousands of years ago, before Christopher Columbus' shitty sense of direction inadvertently united the Old World with the New (and brought about the systematic marginalization and ruination of much of our nation's indigenous peoples), the Native Americans and the ancient Romans were each other's ride-or-die? Say wha, Mr. President? That's because he WAS about to faint. Do you know how toxic the fumes from most self-tanning machines can be?

No, Obamacare wasn't/isn't perfect (although, in its' defense, it COULD have been better had the GOP not done everything they could to gut it). As I've said on numerous occasions, however, Obamacare was better than what we had before, which was a bottle of hydrogen peroxide and a package of band-aids.

[!@#$%^&*] all the Democratic candidates currently running. REDDFOXX 2020! But seriously. I wish the government WOULD raise the Medicaid income threshold. Mama Khan earns approximately $2500/mo. from Social Security -- which is good money, I must admit. (Papa Khan, whose benefits she received upon his passing several years ago, worked at AT&T for 37 years). And from that amount, Medicare takes roughly $150/mo. for her Plan D supplemental insurance. However, by the time she pays for groceries, monthly utilities, and the mortgage on our house (which we have had since 1987, and have had to borrow against several times for various reasons), her bank account is Wiped. Out. Yet, because of the guidelines, she doesn't qualify for Medicaid. Nor do *I* qualify, because I live with her; and according to Medicaid, she makes enough each month to support us two.

Agree! Besides, I've always said that the solution to this crisis -- it's not an issue, IMO, it's a crisis -- lies not in revolutionizing how we, as consumers, pay for our health care, but in reforming how the healthcare industry operates financially. We wouldn't have to worry about paying high premiums if the hospitals, pharmaceutical and insurance companies didn't charge so much for the least little expense. I hope I'm making myself clear when I say all that, lol.

That makes sense. I started looking into this issue yesterday after a friend of mine posted the following on FB: Buttigieg is too smart not to know that his health plan will only give people the ability to "choose" who they pay their premiums to, not who they can see for their care. If you've ever had to deal with high medical expenses, know that Mayor Pete doesn't care about you. Hence, my stupid questions.

I must admit her reputation among staffers is pretty awful. However, whenever I hear about a woman who has been branded as "difficult" by those who work or have worked for her, I always wonder whether these same individuals would still complain if the she were a he. So, how is that different from Buttigieg's "Medicare for All Who Want It"? And why does it seem like so many other candidates are proposing variations on "Medicare for All," when the concept's basically the same? Thanks, @DRW50!

Trump is always so quick to call the MSM "the enemy (of the people)." However, if the s.o.b. were to read an actual newspaper or watch a network other than Faux News, he'd see just how favorable the MSM tends to be toward him and his party. I hope so. PBS is shaping up more and more to be the only news source I can trust. Would someone please explain the difference to me between "Medicare for All" and "Medicare for All Who Want It"? Because, the more I look into these separate plans, the more confused I become.

Well, I am DELIGHTED by the news. Just yesterday, Mama Khan was singing Trey Gowdy's praises. She even compared yours truly TO him, which made me leave the room for the rest of the night, lol.

I'm hearing that Trey Gowdy is already off Trump's legal team. Is that true?