Trumpville 1 - September 17 – Life goes on, the biased get more biased, hate blossoms, and stupidity reigns supreme.

Sad to say but things seem to keep getting worse in the war of words, the battle of emotions, and the intellectual constipation on all sides of the nonsense.  One might call it freedom of speech but that implies someone is telling the truth, or a breakdown of fact checking to where the fact checkers have to be checked, or a matter of politicians and journalists drowning on their own egos.

The fake and biased reporting by the so-called news media has gotten sooo bad it is an insult to the Constitution and the First Amendment.  Nowhere does it say lies, rumors, innuendo and smear campaigns are protected by the Constitution.  Nowhere does it say anonymous sources are guaranteed rights.

Perhaps the most unethical and blatant case of lying by the media is the claim of many of them that they adhere to fair and balanced reporting.  Are you kidding me?  NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Huffington Post among others are the defenders of the left, often the advocates of liberal and progressive causes, and in truth are hardcore Trump haters.

One should ask why?  Did they love Hillary so much they hated any opposition?  Are they in on the many secrets of the Obama administration and figure if Trump sets his sights on paying back the Clinton and Obama machines once he gets through the maze of investigations, that their idols will be put to shame?

Are the liberal news media so dependent on encouraging the theft of government secrets through Obama, Clinton, and anti-Trump sources within the administration that if Trump investigates and cuts off the leaking faucet, the media will lose more ratings thus more money?

The same can be said of the Republican establishment.  They have many secrets to hide and Trump, whose GOP loyalty is subject to constant change, is considered a danger to some of them as well.  As for the conservative press, mainly Fox News, it is about as unbiased as CNN.

The truth in America has not been hijacked by the Russians, Chinese, Iran or North Korea, it was stolen by a rather large group of media and politicians who think they know better what is good for America.  For shame.

The dumbest of the dumb mistakes by all these parties to polarization, hate, lies and disruption is their clear attitude that the American public is so dumb they can be fooled by the Slick Willies in Washington and NYC.  I would add California but they live in another dimension from us, out beyond La La Land.

In the early Twentieth Century New York City was the hotbed of socialism, communism, liberalism et al. In the Twenty-first Century California has replaced NYC as the core of the far left in America, the defender of sin, the home of the technology slave masters of the future, a haven for Hollywood sex trafficking, and challenger to the Constitution.

In fact, California is such a bulwark and backbone of liberalism that if California did not vote in the last election, Trump would have won the election by millions of votes in all the other states and territories.  California is either a safety zone or prison for far-left progressives.  Now that liberal Obama henchman Rahm Emanuel is being driven out of Chicago there may very well be another surge in liberals moving to California.

So that is today.  We await the conclusion of the Supreme Court nominee.  The Cory Booker Bluff failed when he forgot to tell the truth, then like a truth denier of truth he lied about his untruth.  As the Guardian Newspaper described him, “Cory Booker: the inexorable rise of Newark’s neoliberal egomaniac.”

As for the last-minute Democrat inspired and managed sexual misconduct charge, well, if we were all accountable for things that happened 37 years ago there might be no one left on the streets.  Odd that a nominee for supreme court is attacked for something from 37 years ago but no mention by the liberals of the lack of prosecution of serial sexual abuser Harvey Weinstein of Hollywood and Democrat fame.

Ivy league statesman and former senator John Kerry has jumped into the sandbox with shenanigans one might expect from, uh, Trump, and certainly that is not becoming of his view of himself in the mirror.  When one plays in Trump’s sandbox they have become a hostage to their own egos.

Once upon a time the Ivy League was above such gutter tactics but I guess everything changes in the modern world.  The Ivy League, which has now provided us thirty-two straight years of presidents (at the end of Trump’s first term) from Yale, Harvard and Penn, seems a bit perplexed.

 

Some historic achievements the quite liberal leaning Ivy League is providing includes the only president to graduate from both Harvard and Yale, surprisingly George Bush, Jr., the first elected president to be impeached from Yale, Bill Clinton, Obama (Harvard) shattered the color barrier for the presidency, while Trump (Penn) broke a twenty-eight-year stranglehold by Yale and Harvard on the presidency (1988-2016).

Of the 45 men who have served as President of the United States, 16 have graduated from an Ivy League university. Of them, eight have degrees from Harvard, five from Yale, three from Columbia, two from Princeton and one from Penn. Twelve presidents have earned Ivy undergraduate degrees. 

  

Obama has recently moved from financing the war against Trump to publicly attacking Trump as he continues to try to united the world in a New World Order.  Since he had few accomplishments his eight years as president beyond breaking the color barrier to the presidency, which was an amazing and historic feat in and of itself, he continues to travel the world while also taking shots at Trump.

Look forward to the next installment of Trumpville and an overview of how anything that happens in our nation’s capital may be of interest to anyone.  Since nearly half of the Coltons Point Times readers are from outside the USA this may help you understand how the American political game may affect you.

Top New Jersey comedians besides Cory Booker.

Jerry Lewis

Danny Devito

Abbott and Costello

Calista Flockhart

 

Jane Krakowski

Flip Wilson

 

Bruce Willis

Anne Hathaway

Hillary says she is most proud Republicans are her enemy. Compares members of the GOP to NRA, health insurance companies, drug companies, and the Iranians.

.

If Republicans are her proudest enemy, what does that make Independents?

In the most recent Democratic Presidential candidates debate at CNN, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked, "which enemy are you most proud of?"

Clinton replied

“In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, probably the Republicans.”

Never has a presidential candidate demonstrated such polarization toward an entire group of politically affiliated people as Hillary did when she condemned the entire Republican party to being her enemy.

As for the Independents who are already fed up with political polarization, Hillary seems to have slammed the door on them as well.  Independents are already fed up with politicians and after Hillary spoke we know why.

Most polls show 50-75% of the voters are still somewhat undecided on who to vote for in the general election.  Well Hillary sent a clear and concise message to the Republicans and Independents in that category that she considers them the enemy.

Of course, that is just one half of the impact from what she said as her statement also included a holier than thou claim health insurance and drug companies are also enemies and she is proud of it.

As you will also note from the following articles, the health and drug companies have showered Hillary, and Bill, and the Clinton Foundation with millions of dollars in contributions.  Perhaps she should have said "now that I fleeced the health and drug companies, they no longer serve me any purpose.  I got the millions!", cackle, cackle.

Did anyone else note that she has developed a cackle like the Wicked Witch of the West?  I first noticed it in the debate.  You take millions and condemn the donors.  With all accounts paid up why not, it keeps the progressives and liberals from looking at her contributors since she is the newly incarnated Queen of Progressives, at least until she wins the democratic nomination.

Once she takes the big primary prize then she will start becoming a conservative like her husband who stole the Republican platform in 1992 to run on and to use while president.

It worked once for the Clintons, why not work again?  Still, there is something to be said for a little laughter in politics and the bevy of photos in this article show you the lighter side of the Washington drama kings and queens.

Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From ‘Enemies’

Clinton named the drug and insurance industries among her “enemies,” but has accepted millions in donations from them.

By Kimberly Leonard Oct. 14, 2015 | 4:25 p.m. EDT

When asked during the Democratic presidential debate what enemies she was most proud to have made, Hillary Clinton named pharmaceutical and health insurance companies at the top of her list. But that hasn’t stopped the Democratic front-runner from accepting millions of dollars in campaign cash from both industries in the course of her political career, financial disclosure records show.

Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clinton’s lone financial disclosure filed in July.

Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clinton’s largest donors this year.  

In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006.

The insurance industry – which includes health insurers and also car, life and property insurance – donated $1,260,400 to her 2008 campaign, making her the third-highest recipient of cash from the industry that year and also in 2006, when she raised $397,110 for her re-election to the Senate. During her first bid for the Senate in 2000, she raised $167,550 from the industry.

She was the second-highest recipient of cash in 2008 from the health services sector and HMOs, receiving $636,670, and the highest earner in 2006, at $183,770. In 2000, she raised $70,575. 

More recently, the Clinton Foundation has also benefited from these groups’ donations. Donors and grantors who have given between $1 million and $5 million include Pfizer, the Procter & Gamble Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and Humana Inc.

But Clinton seems to have turned on the pharmaceutical industry in particular in recent weeks, releasing a plan to improve on President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, by tackling drug costs. The plan includes allowing Medicare, the government’s health plan for adults over 65 and disabled Americans, to negotiate lower drug costs – a measure the industry heavily opposes.

Her policy proposal also stated that she plans to reduce the amount of time a pharmaceutical company has exclusive rights to biologics, which are drugs made of living cells that are expensive to develop and can be difficult for patients to afford. Though she supported the bill that led to a 12-year exclusivity while in the Senate, her new proposals say she would reduce the patent to seven years, allowing the drug to be copied by other manufacturers and therefore reducing its price. Drugmakers are against this proposal, saying they need to recoup the massive costs of developing the drugs and to invest in new treatments and cures.

When Clinton was secretary of state, she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes provisions that strengthen patent protections for drugmakers. Last week, however, she said she opposes the deal.

When asked for a response to Clinton calling the pharmaceutical industry “enemies,” Tina Stow, a spokeswoman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said the group has a long history of supporting and working with candidates and policymakers on both sides of the aisle.

“We will continue to do so as we look to advance a pro-patient, pro-innovation, pro-jobs agenda,” she wrote in an email. PhRMA has publicly come out against Clinton’s plan for prescription drugs, saying it would restrict patients’ access to medicines, result in fewer new treatments, would cost jobs and would end the country’s standing as a leader in biomedical innovation.

It’s unclear to what extent insurers and drug companies will continue to support her campaign, particularly after the comments during CNN’s debate, although it would not be the first time Clinton has been at odds with the industries.

Asked to explain the financial relationship between Clinton’s campaign and the industries, campaign officials pointed to the contentious war fought against Clinton when she was first lady and head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform in 1993. The health insurance industry ran millions of dollars of ads against a health care plan she championed that would have overhauled the system, playing a large role in ultimately killing it. They also point out that her positions to tackle drug costs have been unpopular among pharmaceutical lobbying groups, which could help to demonstrate she ultimately isn’t beholden to the industry’s interests.

In total, Clinton raised $245.8 million for her 2008 presidential run, $51.6 million for her 2006 Senate campaign and $30.2 million for her 2000 Senate bid.

Pharmaceutical companies and insurers are typically generous with members of both parties, giving slightly more to Republicans. Clare Krusing, press secretary for America's Health Insurance Plans, says its political action committee supports candidates of both parties and, in particular, candidates who support policies aligned with the industry's priorities around affordability.

In recent years, both industries have contributed more to Democrats. Obama was the top recipient during the 2008 presidential election, and again during his re-election in 2012, with his Republican opponents – first Mitt Romney, then Sen. John McCain – receiving slightly less from pharmaceutical companies.

 International Business Times

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 As of 7:52 AM EDT

Democratic Debate 2015: Hillary Clinton’s ‘Enemies’ In Pharmaceutical and Insurance Industries Have Supported Her Campaigns, Foundation

By Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC andrew.perez@ibtimes.com
David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com on October 14 2015 12:42 AM EDT

Bill Clinton famously tried to parse what the meaning of “is” is -- and now his wife, Hillary Clinton, seems to be challenging the precise definition of “enemies.”

In an exchange toward the end of the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on Tuesday, the candidates were asked who their biggest enemies had been over the course of their careers. Clinton responded by saying, “In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians -- probably the Republicans.”

It is true that the National Rifle Association and the Republicans have been Clinton’s nemeses, and she has been involved in tense negotiations about international policy toward Iran. But health insurance companies and drug companies have been some of her biggest financial supporters.

In 2008, Clinton was the among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. In all, the watchdog group reports that she raised $738,000 from employees of pharmaceutical manufacturers and companies classified as “Pharmaceuticals /Health Products.” The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.

On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

In 2011, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- the primary trade association representing drug companies -- paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech, as the organization was lobbying the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. Last year, the Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies Association, a trade group whose members include major pharmaceutical companies, paid her a $250,000 speaking fee.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation has received between $1 million and $5 million worth of donations separately from drug manufacturers Pfizer and Procter & Gamble, and from health insurers Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. Some of those companies made donations as recently as this year, according to the foundation’s website.

That largesse was part of a friendship forged after those industries opposed her 1993 health care initiative -- and which continued after she won reelection to the Senate in 2006.

As secretary of state, Clinton repeatedly championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics say includes provisions that strengthen patent protection for drug manufacturers. (Last week, she declared that she now opposes the trade deal.) As a presidential candidate in 2008, she promoted the idea of a federal mandate effectively requiring Americans to buy private health insurance.

Those Clinton positions were strongly supported by the same drug and insurance industries that she now calls “enemies.”

.