WHY REPUBLICANS WANT TO RUN AGAINST HILLARY

Why do Republicans (and the media)  frequently mention Hillary and say little or nothing about Bernie when reporting on General Election match-ups?



Republicans believe that Hillary will lose the election regardless who she runs against in November. Her loss is almost guaranteed because she will lose the Independents and Crossovers who will cast their votes for "anyone but Hillary."



They see Hillary as the gift that keeps on giving when the GOP attack dogs begin to feast on her. The baggage she carries is "huuuge" (as Bernie would say) and her opponents will have a field day tearing down her (and her husbands) reputation(s). The theme is obvious; can she be trusted? Is she honest? And, there's plenty of evidence to support that she loses on both counts.



There's her secret email accounts that she shared classified information. There's the secret speeches she made to Wall Street bankers who make up the bulk of her donor base. There's the hundred of millions of dollars her and Bill have pulled in for doing nothing more than peddling their influence and connecting power brokers.



Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, scares Republicans because he comes to the race with almost no baggage and is unshakable when it comes to his position on the issues Americans care about; the economy, healthcare, education, the infrastructure, income inequality, immigration, and political corruption.  These are issues Republicans would rather not talk about because they; as well as Establishment Democrats, are a part of the problem and have no solutions.



In a General Election Bernie not only wins the votes of the majority of Millennials who are coming out in droves to vote for him, but also Independents and Crossovers that his message rings true with.



High turnout was reported among Democrats in all three states, with voters waiting hours in line in a few locations and some complaining that officials had not opened enough caucus sites or polling places.

Even after Arizona was called for Clinton, Sanders urged voters to stay in line, hoping to narrow the delegate gap in a state in which Democrats award them proportionally. In fact, Clinton’s Arizona margin narrowed as the night wore on—and Sanders’s dominating performances in Utah and Idaho allowed him to claim the majority of delegates who were up for grabs on Tuesday.

Clinton wins Arizona primary, but Sanders takes Utah and Idaho contests - LA Times

With Donald Trump on track to become the Republican nominee, Sanders has highlighted polls that show him beating the New York businessman in a general election by a wider margin than Clinton.

“There is no question that you are looking at the strongest Democratic candidate,” he said Monday.



His campaign team has repeatedly described the primary calendar as skewed in Clinton’s favor for the first half of the nominating contests and expect Sanders to pick up steam in western states, such as Washington, which holds its Democratic caucuses Saturday.



“We’re at halftime here, and we agree we’re behind, but we think we’re going to win this game,” said Sanders strategist Tad Devine last week.



Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, expressed frustration with the sentiment that Clinton was already locking down the nomination, calling it a “media drumbeat to essentially disenfranchise half of the Democratic voters.”

AMERICA'S "DOCTOR DRIVEN" DRUG CARTEL; BIG PHARMA

The media makes banner headlines about notorious Mexican Drug lords who invade the US peddling their nasty drugs with little or no mention that there is an enormous "demand" from Americans for these drugs. Why such a big demand you might ask?

It turns out that the  reason(s) for the drug epidemic can be laid at the door of  our  very own "home grown" medical doctors who, are defacto drug dealers for  none other than Big Pharma.

How did doctors, who pledge to do no harm, let the use of prescription narcotics get so out of hand?

As it turns out this cozy relationship between doctor(s) and drug manufacturers has existed for decades but the boom came  in the prescribing of narcotics by outpatient doctors, driven partly by the pharmaceutical companies that sold those drugs. Between 1999 and 2010, sales of these “opioid analgesics”—medications like Vicodin, Percocet, and OxyContin—quadrupled.



By 2010, the United States, with about five per cent of the world’s population, was consuming ninety-nine per cent of the world’s hydrocodone (the narcotic in Vicodin), along with eighty per cent of the oxycodone (in Percocet and OxyContin), and sixty-five per cent of the hydromorphone (in Dilaudid).



As narcotics prescriptions surged, so did deaths from opioid-analgesic overdoses—from about four thousand to almost seventeen thousand. 

Studies have shown that patients who receive narcotics for chronic pain are less likely to recover function, and are less likely to go back to work. The potential side effects of prescription narcotics include constipation, sexual dysfunction, cognitive impairment, addiction, and overdosing. 

When patients receive narcotics for long periods, they can even become more sensitive to pain, a condition called hyperalgesia. (J. David Haddox, the vice-president of health policy at Purdue Pharma—the manufacturer of OxyContin—acknowledged “opioid analgesics have sometimes been associated with diminished pain relief in the face of increasing doses.”)

What’s more, no medication reliably eliminates pain in all patients, and narcotics are no exception. And there isn’t good evidence that the prescription of narcotics to treat chronic, non-cancer pain is effective over long periods: most studies of prescription narcotics last only twelve to sixteen weeks.

CDC Issues Opioid Guidelines for 'Doctor-Driven' Epidemic

HILLARY; A "NATURAL" BS ARTIST!

Will the real Hillary please stand up.



One Hillary wants us to believe that she is just an average American struggling to the top with the best of intentions; helping fellow Americans with their struggles.



The image she conveys is a warm fuzzy.



Clinton acknowledged during Wednesday’s Democratic debate that she was “not a natural politician” and expanded on the theme in an interview with the SiriusXM radio show “The Mayor” the following day.

“This is harder for me,” she said. “I admire the skills my husband and President Obama have. They’re charismatic and they’re compelling and they’re great orators. I do get up every day and say, ‘What can I do to try make someone’s life better?’”

Hillary Clinton takes new tack to boost her image 

Now, let's compare that with the other Hillary. The one who when asked about the millions of dollars she is pulling in for making speeches to the rich and powerful;

Anderson Cooper: "But did you have to be paid $675,000 [for three speeches to Goldman Sachs]?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know. That's what they offered."

Even the most ardent Clinton supporter should be asking; Is Hillary being "truthful" with us?

Hillary Clinton is taking a new tack to boost her image in the Democratic presidential campaign.

Clinton acknowledged during Wednesday’s Democratic debate that she was “not a natural politician” and expanded on the theme in an interview with the SiriusXM radio show “The Mayor” the following day.

“This is harder for me,” she said. “I admire the skills my husband and President Obama have. They’re charismatic and they’re compelling and they’re great orators. I do get up every day and say, ‘What can I do to try make someone’s life better?’”

Few objective observers view such comments as spontaneous moments of candor. Rather, they see them as part of a strategy to warm up perceptions of the Democratic front-runner, who is seen suffering an enthusiasm deficit by comparison with her rival Bernie Sanders.

“It’s an attempt — maybe successful — to get people to see her less as a politician and as more of a personality,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist who has worked for Clinton in the past but has no involvement in the current campaign. “She is attempting to remove herself from an elite class of people who tend to be disliked right now — professional politicians.”

Clinton has an uphill climb ahead if she is to freshen up her public image, however.

Polling shows that while voters respect her experience and toughness, many find her untrustworthy.

Given Hillary's track record it's understandable why voters are suspicious;

Hillary is veering from the truth when she suggests her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered."

It was not what they offered -- it was what Team Hillary demanded.

A review of her 2014 tax return posted on her website shows that $225,000 was her minimum fee.

She received $225,000 for 34 of the 41 speeches listed on her tax return. Of the remaining 7 speeches, two were for 250,000 and the others for $265,000, $275,000, $285,000, $305,000 and $400,000. In total she received $9,680,000 for these speaking engagements in 2013.

Wall Street firms funded 14 of her 41 talks. In addition to Goldman Sachs, the list includes Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity Investments UBS and Bank of America. Her benefactors also include hedge funds and private equity firms like Apollo Management and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts.

Why did Hillary Take the Money?

Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame and Hillary biographer, commented on CNN that the White House is "horrified that Clinton is blowing up her own campaign." He said they can't believe she took the money and didn't see the ethical problems that would dog her.

It is not credible for her to argue that she took the money because she wasn't sure she was going to run for president or that she was "dead broke." She and Bill hauled in $139 million from 2007 to 2014.

It seems enormously difficult for Hillary to explain, even to herself, why she took the money. One possibility is that she wanted to send a message that she would not use populist rage against Wall Street during her campaign. That instead she would work with Wall Street to solve financial problems for the good of the country. We will find out more when (if) her transcripts are ever found and released.

But the boarder reason may lie in the fundamental relationship between the Clintons and their wealthy friends and benefactors. Hillary, Bill and Chelsea (whose husband is a hedge fund partner) believe that Wall Street is a vital part of economy, composed mostly of very bright, honorable and talented people, like their classmates at Yale and Stanford. Sure, every now and again there are a few bad apples, but the barrel is fundamentally sound.

How could she be so politically tone deaf on this issue?

It's because she still lives in world surrounded by so many of the best and brightest in and around Wall Street. Attacking them would be like attacking her community of friends and financial supporters. How could taking money from such decent, talented and productive people be wrong? Isn't it fair to earn a $225,000 speaking fee, given that's what Wall Street elites earn per hour?

So What's Wrong with Taking Money from Wall Street?

The pundits point out that she has created a "perceived" conflict of interest, whether real or imagined. In essence they are saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with taking the money. It's not really tainted.

Hillary states that she never changed her vote due to campaign contributions. But evidence is mounting via previous accounts by Elizabeth Warren, that Hillary may have switched her position on bankruptcy laws to please her Wall Street contributors after becoming the Senator New York.

But these attacks miss the most basic question: Is money tainted? Is it blood-money?

Sanders believes it is by arguing that "the business model of Wall Street is fraud."

There is considerable data to support him.

Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees