Democrats criticize Romney for 'unemp...

Democrats criticize Romney for 'unemployed' joke

There are 255 comments on the KSRO-AM Santa Rosa story from Jun 16, 2011, titled Democrats criticize Romney for 'unemployed' joke. In it, KSRO-AM Santa Rosa reports that:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a group of out-of-work Floridians Thursday that "I'm also unemployed," quickly drawing criticism from Democrats who said it showed the former Massachusetts governor and multimillionaire was out of touch.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KSRO-AM Santa Rosa.

Ayreshire

Alamogordo, NM

#237 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Sadly Hitler called himself many things including the father of his nation, etc., etc., and "socialism" in the 20's and 30's is defined much differently today than it was then.
You cannot galvanize support for world domination an the extinction of entire races of people by stating this agenda uprfront, so the benign ideology of "socialism" was used, as politicians and despots use language to fleece the people into voting for them and once in office, gradually consolidate power as Hitler did after being democratically elected.
You apparently had no idea this took place.
George Tush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and a million dead in the middle east at his hands would probably disagree- if they weren't dead.
Obama ran as a "progressive liberal" which is untrue, since his governance has been conservative and far to the right of those who elected him.
FDR ran as a moderate democrat and ended up for us, happily, a farther to the left socialist who was the right person at the right time.
Shape-shifting the language to suit a political agenda is part and parcel of the Fascis Right, of which I can name dozens if you like-
You can basically say anyone who self-identifies as a Fleabagger, Republican, is a fascist today, since if they did't align themselves with the agenda of the party, they'd be liberals or progressives.
And the agenda of the Fascist Right is all about wealth redistribution from the bottom-up, corporate control of America and it's public institutions, as evidenced by what is happening in a dozen states without divided government currently, such as Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Kansas, Texas, etc.
And FYI, ALL historical documentation pertaining to WWII up to the point of Newscorp sponsored authors such as Jonah Goldberg and others refer to NAZI FASCISM as a right wing, anti-democratic, anti-American ideology, of which the Republican party today identifies and emulates.
Not that a handful of co-opted "blue dog" Democrats haven't fallen for the lies and spin of the Republican Fascist Right, they have, but it doesn't make them Democrats anymore.
So if I were you, I'd rely less on labels steeped in a hardbitten political agenda, and let clarity and the truth of what's happening with the schism in your party and what amounts to it's final death throes, from which it will emerge a bitterly divided set of gradations of ideoogy, all of which are considered too extreme for the liberal voting majority in America.
It's getting real deep in here!! Lots of hogwash but plenty of laughter.
Ayreshire

Alamogordo, NM

#238 Jun 25, 2011
I hate to tell you this Ms. Know-it-all Carryabooboo but these corporations you hate so much supply a good portion of the private sector jobs in this country. Furthermore, we have unions in this country that demand so much from companies to the point of putting them out of business. A perfect example is UPS right here in Alamogordo. A friend of mine was making over 30 dollars an hour at a time when UPS was on strike for more pay and benefits and was upset about it. In a town where its workers make one third that amount in hourly wages, I understood his point. This is exactly why these companies take their business to foreign countries and if you owned any kind of business, you would know that. It’s not the fact that their greedy. Most of it has to do with survival. When large corporations are taxed to death they will move around even to another foreign country and there is nothing you can do about it. I don’t blame them one bit. The problem with you and those that think like you is the fact that you’re not getting a piece of the pie when this happens. For some reason you think they owe you something when you have not done anything to deserve one dime of their money. If you think it’s bad here, trying living in another country. I have and it’s not a pretty sight. We are now seeing riots develop all over the place because countries have gone overboard on their entitlements and cannot keep up with the demand. In conclusion, the Republicans did not leave this country to a financial disaster. That’s an out and out lie. Your party (The Democratic Party) did it on its own. The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009. It was actually January 3rd 2007. It was the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those of you who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is Bush's Fault, think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5 percent
The Unemployment rate was 4.6 percent
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Now let’s go back to January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? It’s the BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES run by Barney (Elmer Fudd) Frank and Dodd! Bush asked Congress numerous times to look into Fannie & Freddie starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Why it was Obama. And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? It was OBAMA (as part of the Black Caucus) and the Democratic Congress. You can thank Democrats for taking us from a 4.6% Unemployment to levels we have not seen in 30 years and a tripling of the deficit. So when someone tries to blame Bush remember January 3rd, 2007. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS! Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Since: Dec 09

Westford, MA

#239 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Private companies have no place in government, and Wall Street has proven it can tank our economy when left unregulated, so until we realize that corporations exist at the pleasure of the government and it's laws and regulations, then we are truly doomed.
Market bubbles require a large expansion of money and credit; in this country, unconstitutional money. The Federal Reserve, which was the primary cause of the Great Depression, then, as twice in the last decade, played that role in the boom and bust cycle. Ironically, you're right; the Fed is nominally a private entity, and should be abolished.

The housing boom was exacerbated not only by longstanding tax incentives, but also by government regulations that practically forced dishonest loans to be extended.

An immoral people cannot remain free. The Wall Streeters who sold fraudulent investment products should've been sued and prosecuted for fraud, which was already illegal. Pretending to address the problem with micromanagerial regulations doesn't have any positive effect. This downspiral of regulation has the effect of only partially hobbling immoral people, but of binding moral people in chains.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#240 Jun 25, 2011
TDavidHudson wrote:
<quoted text>
Market bubbles require a large expansion of money and credit; in this country, unconstitutional money. The Federal Reserve, which was the primary cause of the Great Depression, then, as twice in the last decade, played that role in the boom and bust cycle. Ironically, you're right; the Fed is nominally a private entity, and should be abolished.
The housing boom was exacerbated not only by longstanding tax incentives, but also by government regulations that practically forced dishonest loans to be extended.
An immoral people cannot remain free. The Wall Streeters who sold fraudulent investment products should've been sued and prosecuted for fraud, which was already illegal. Pretending to address the problem with micromanagerial regulations doesn't have any positive effect. This downspiral of regulation has the effect of only partially hobbling immoral people, but of binding moral people in chains.
I'll take micromanagement over NO management any day of the week.

The Fed is a problem, as is the lack of regulation, and staffing alphabet agencies tasked with oversight with corporate insiders is also antithetical to agenda of righting this failed ship of state.

Removing all lobbying money from campaigns and publicly financing all state and national level elections is the only way out, until that basis is achieved, we will cease to exist as a democratic republic.

Since: Dec 09

Westford, MA

#241 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
"socialism" in the 20's and 30's is defined much differently today than it was then.
No, it isn't. Socialism, economically speaking and without accidental features particular to its instantiation, is government -- or at least communal -- ownership of the means of production. To socialize means of production is to bring its ownership to a society as a whole. The fact that, on a large scale, this has to be delegated to an oligarchical nomenklatura or to a partially-corporate hierarchy is lost on shallow people.

In case you're in the least bit interested in the truth, here's the primary definition from Webster's 3rd, severely dumbed down from Webster's 2nd: "any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods." Webster's 2nd had a very much longer definition, and much more explanatory material that included a mention of German socialism, but in essence it was the same.

It doesn't matter whether that ownership is overt, as in the outright seizure of property, or covert, via regulation. Ownership consists in control over something. Where control is absent, so is ownership. If you knew anything non-trivial about history, you'd know that socialist theorists understood this, even to the point where private property could be abolished by means of regulation.

As far as racism is concerned, it was rampant among socialists of the early 20th century. The Progressives were not only racist, but advocates of involuntary eugenics.(The irony that in their opposition to freedom they themselves were unworthy of procreation was lost on them.) Wilson segregated the military. Barely-concealed antisemitism among the Communist leadership of Russia remained well into the 20th century.

You must remember that Hitler's National Socialists were an order of magnitude less murderous than their half-brothers, the Communists. It's quite strange that fascists acquired so much worse a reputation than their fellow socialists, the communists. Perhaps this, along with the collapse of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, was the incentive for lying about the nature of the fascists, and for other socialists' attempts to dissociate themselves from them.

Since: Dec 09

Westford, MA

#242 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing all lobbying money from campaigns and publicly financing all state and national level elections is the only way out, until that basis is achieved, we will cease to exist as a democratic republic.
The Romans were just as shortsighted, in their passage of numerous campaign-related laws before the fall of the Republic, but they at least had the excuse of not having had any precedent from which to learn. There were, at times, two ulterior motives for such laws:(1) acquiring a reputation for cleanness by seeming to advocate it; and (2) tying up one's opponents in a web of rules. It was a reneged-upon exception to the rules that led to Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, BTW.

Anti-freedom campaign laws have the effect of passing control over the political process into large, standing organizations. Would anyone sane want to have the same unions that destroyed a good part of the auto industry (ignoring the bondholder and taxpayer rape that brought them back to life for a while), along with their apologists and supporters, in control of politics??

It's even worse, now, with mindless, joint-press-conference pseudo-debates having supplanted debates. You can't advocate an unconventional position, and convince an electorate why it's right, if you're forbidden to sail outside the dead zone.

Since: Dec 09

Westford, MA

#243 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take micromanagement over NO management any day of the week.
You don't get it. Micromanagement doesn't stop non-market activity, e.g. terrorism, theft, fraud, and the trade of illegal drugs. The incentives are too big. It only diverts these activities into other channels. The War on Drugs is thoroughly moronic, and should be ended, but there are criminal penalties for other depredations. If the disincentives for predatory criminal activities aren't strong enough, increase them.

Bush's asinine ban on knitting needles and antique scissors aboard airplanes hasn't stopped box cutters from being used to hijack airplanes; this sort of attack was never going to succeed again. It's harmed only good people.

The government's micromanagement of loans has been disastrous in shutting good, solvent businesses down.

But if your goal is to turn a recession into an unprecedented depression, by all means, micromanage! It's not as if the American people, in having supported politicians pushing that agenda, haven't earned it.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#244 Jun 25, 2011
Your various screeds touch on myriad subjects and I will address them as I see them.

We are living in a strange, though not unique time in our political history- your take on micromanagement is all good and well, and I said I'd prefer oversight, any oversight over unfettered capitalism, as we have evidence of just how disasterous self-policing from multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations really is.

You fail to address this point, so I'm left to guess your position is to allow casino capitalism to run roughshod over our democratic process.

Your point on the so-called "war on drugs" is one I share, and as far as I'm concerned, all drugs should be legal and available to those who wish to use them, including end of life assistance where lethal drugs are required, or desired.

Rome's demise was not due to campaign finance reform.

OUR body politic is so awash in corporate money that we no longer have representative democracy.

Publicly financing election at the state and national level is the only way to restore this system of government.

Karl Rove's "Citizen's United" decision by the activist right wing members of the Supreme Court, which amazingly was fast tracked to a decision along ideology lines, allows the Chamber of Commerce and other Fascist Right Wing organizations to launder foreign money, some from terrorist sources, to Republican candidates.

Now with the full-bore frontal attack on the middle class and unions by the dozens of PAC's owned and operated by a litany of Fascist Right Wing run corporations, the principals of which include Koch Industries, Amway, Monsanto, ADM, big oil, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies, Walmart, and a dozen other retailers who own the means of production of the lion's share of their goods coming from communist China, our politics are so corrupted and awash in this unlimited campaign cash, that the voters have little to remind them of what a representative democracy once was.

Now, if you are willing to explain why, and admit that government owned and operated by private, for-profit corporations is somehow "good" for America, I'm all ears.

The union busting activities of Fascist Right wing governors like Walker, Kasich, Christie, Snyder, Scott, and a dozen others is a concerted effort, driven by the PAC's I mentioned above, to begin the process of wealth redistribution from the bottom-up. Using taxpayer financed private take-overs of publicly owned assets nationwide.

This is unconscionable, and won't be tolerated by liberals, and anyone belonging to a union.

Your take on unions being responsible for the demise of the auto industry is laughable, and quite wrong.

Offshoring of jobs for cheap labor, and complicit trade arrangements which refuse to slap tarrifs on goods produced by communists, and autos from foreign manufacturers have all contributed to the demise of the auto industry, in addition to poor design and performance for a couple of decades.

Germany and Japan are the most highly unionized nations on earth, and for their size, the most productive. Unions aren't the problem- management, and a national trade policy is.

Your take on "socialism" which we all are, and arguably have been since 1913 when we went to a progressive income tax, is also flawed. Nazi Germany was a fascist state- the means of production was largely owned by the state, and what wasn't, was partnered with foreign corporations, notably Brown-Brothers-Harriman, once steered by Prescott Bush as it's CFO when dealing with Hitler and the Thyssen Bornemizas.

Hitler could not have achieved what he did without foreign intervention and investment. His "national socialists" were smokescreen to galvanize support from a nation interested in socialism after years of dejection after the Versailles Treaty. It was his open door to eventually consolidating power.

Dictators don't get elected as Hitler did by showing his cards- George Tush labeled himself a "compassionate conservative" too.

WH Commie StumbleBum

Thailand

#245 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
We are living in a strange, though not unique time in our political history.
Correct.

Communist progressive subversives feel perversely empowered because one of their own is attempting to usurp the US Constitution and bring about the ruin of the United States.

But you'd be wrong, commie, if you think that your corrupt fraud of a muslim commie whackjob -- along with the likes of you -- have even a remote shot at succeeding.

Which isn't to say that you don't suck seed. Or use it as face cream.

Dasvidania, commie.
WH Commie StumbleBum

Thailand

#246 Jun 25, 2011
Caribou Barbie wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take micromanagement over NO management any day of the week.
Aw come on now, commie. Now you're just repeating the words of your prison therapist. We all know that micro commie brains like yours need micro-management.

Along with a competent firing squad.

Since: Dec 09

Westford, MA

#247 Jun 26, 2011
Socialism is a reactionary political philosophy, against the Enlightenment realization that free people prosper.

If we were to place socialists and our Founding Fathers in the National Assembly, whence the terms right and left evolved, the Founding Fathers would've been in the anti-monarchist factions, not on the right. Socialists would've been spread all over; on the one hand, they prefer to live in serfdom, and on the other, they tend to abhor monarchy unless it's disguised as a dictatorship.

Suppose that a mere two centuries ago, people had been in the habit of turd-eating. Along came philosophers and statesmen, whose supporters showed that people could prosper without turd-eating. And for a while, they did, bringing about historically unprecedented health. But thanks to pseudointellectuals like Marl Karx, and uncomfortable with the rapid changes that a better diet had brought about, people began again to long for the good old days of turd-eating. Factions developed, with the Fs advocating turd-eating in a style compatible with traditional forms, and the Cs advocating turd-eating in new, ostensibly "scientific" forms. Power-hungry politicians, seeing the aggrandizement of power concomitant with compulsory turd-eating, jumped on the bandwagon. And so a new century of turd-eating began, slowly returning people to the conditions of starvation and poverty from which their new diet had lifted them.

It would be utterly dishonest to conflate the Fs with people who advocated a traditional, albeit a healthful and historically recent diet, instead of classifying them, per their essential turd-eating characteristic, with the Cs.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#248 Jun 26, 2011
TDH, you still haven't answered the core question I posed earlier- are you for unfettered, unregulated free market capitalism with no government oversight?

Do you really think after the 30 years of failed Reagan/Tush "trickle down" economics, of which both Alan Greenspan AND David Stockman have admitted was a failure- that we are simply to "trust" Wall Street and banks not to behave badly?

Well, Europe isn't taking that chance again- the European Central Bank has just proposed mandating all banks have a fatter cushion of cash on hand, in a lockbox, there to quell the possibility of another American caused finincial crisis.

Our founding fathers in the modern sense of the word were indeed "socialists" they could not have organized a very loose and disparate grouping of states into the collective known as the "United States of America."

Even our nation's motto "E Pluribus Unum"- "From Many, One" smacks of unionization.

Our Constitution is filled with references to collectivism as WE define it, not as the Rethuglican Reich defines it in terms of Marx- all designed to propagandize the term "socialist" into something "dirty" which it is not.

I am an avowed socialist, and freely admit it, but then again, all Americans are socialists as well, that is if they willingly pay income taxes, contribute to Social Security, pay into Medicare, or use the VA.

You have a gift for turning simple associations into complex, circular arguments which I believe are designed to confuse and force an agenda of corporate fascism and repeal the democratic process as is being attempted in a dozen states currently by one party rule from the Reich.
William

Port Saint Lucie, FL

#249 Jun 26, 2011
WH Commie StumbleBum wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw come on now, commie. Now you're just repeating the words of your prison therapist. We all know that micro commie brains like yours need micro-management.
Along with a competent firing squad.
It is soooo easy to lable Lil' Debbie and Crappy Barbie DMFs. In fact on another level, thats probably exactly what they are. But, we must look at the facts. Lil' Debbie is the House and national voice for the Libs/Dems. She is in lockstep with Obama. It is well known he is hellbent on destroying the country most of us love. THEREFORE, one must assume Lil' Debbie agrees with him. Therefore, Lil' Debbie is attenmpting to destroy the USA ALSO and Crappy Barbie is cheering them on!

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#250 Jun 26, 2011
William wrote:
<quoted text>It is soooo easy to lable Lil' Debbie and Crappy Barbie DMFs. In fact on another level, thats probably exactly what they are. But, we must look at the facts. Lil' Debbie is the House and national voice for the Libs/Dems. She is in lockstep with Obama. It is well known he is hellbent on destroying the country most of us love. THEREFORE, one must assume Lil' Debbie agrees with him. Therefore, Lil' Debbie is attenmpting to destroy the USA ALSO and Crappy Barbie is cheering them on!
So, Fascist, how's "Jail Bird Rick" the new unpopular governor workin' out for ya?

Apparently he's the lowest rated Rethuglican corporate fascist governor among many in America right now.

I particularly loved the removal of all EPA regulations, so now the mythical companies he's courting to move to bankrupted, backward Florida, can dump whatever they want in the Everglades.

I'm out- I'll be posting from my new "northern exposure" soon- Florida is finished, sadly, nothing left to do but turn out the lights.
Chuckie

Broken Arrow, OK

#251 Jun 27, 2011
Romney knows nothing about the working class or being unemployed. Only stupid ignorant working middle class would vote for Romney. He laid off more people than jobs he has ever created. He is just another Republican Corporate Special Interest candidate.
William

Port Saint Lucie, FL

#252 Jun 27, 2011
Chuckie wrote:
Romney knows nothing about the working class or being unemployed. Only stupid ignorant working middle class would vote for Romney. He laid off more people than jobs he has ever created. He is just another Republican Corporate Special Interest candidate.
Even if we allow that all you say is true,(which of course it is not) how is that worse than Obama?

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#253 Jun 27, 2011
TDavidHudson wrote:
<quoted text>
If and had at least a modicum of reading comprehension, you'd know that I indicated that these client-system measures are essentially communist in nature, as I'd indicated, to the extent that their aim is to bring into the government an entire industry. They've been destroying this country for a long time. But they do not yet amount to a *single* payer; large parts of the market are free, to the extent that they're not crippled by regulation.
I hadn't said anything about Social Security, which is simply a welfare program, as are the others, to some extent; it is neither an insurance program nor an investment program, and makes no attempt to take over an industry. If you knew anything about history, you'd know that an analogue of Social Security was advocated by Hitler's National Socialists, and that it had its roots in Prussian socialism; it was broadly accepted in Germany at the time. So, it would not be at all far-fetched to describe Social Security as a fascist program -- which I'd neither said nor implied, since it would be misleading.
The VA has had an awful reputation for many years. Too bad; it makes sense, where the military is part of the government, to have specialized treatment in the same place. But it's played a very well-defined role, so its communal nature is not a risk to the general populace.
And Social Security, FWIW, is a colossal failure. It was intended to be a safety net. How many times have dishonest politicians pretended to save it? It has seduced people into squandering their potential savings, into counting on their fellow citizens to bail them out. No money contributed to it is saved; it is simply stealing from the living and from the yet-to-be-born-into-serfdom. And it is on course to bankrupt the country, unless it is greatly scaled back; demographics are doom. It's no safety net; it's a downdrafting driftnet.
This country has cursed itself in having come to believe it just to covet and to steal, in flagrant violation of the intent of the Constitution. The consequences are becoming obvious even to dullards. The only question, besides whether it is too late or not, is whether they'll ever understand how they've brought those consequences down upon themselves. Romney's unrepentant defense of RomneyCare shows that even fairly educated people are clueless.
So, if, as you say, Hitler proposed a form of "social security" why all of a sudden is it a "fascist" program when you stated previously that Hitler was a "socialist" he can't be both.

You also called Social Security in this country a "welfare program"- obviously you know nothing of how this social contract is structured, and are simply reciting ideological fascist right wing talking points.

Everyone PAYS INTO Social Security, and reaps what they sow at retirement- I believe the definition of "welfare" would be a handout, free, without skin in the game.

You know, your arguments are like a brick wall- one with so many gaping cracks in it, it's about to collapse.

Welfare is NOT a problem in this country, when only 2% of the population participates in it- however, it will be a problem as the Fascist Right continues down this road of wealth redistribution from the bottom up, offshoring jobs, gambling with our mortgages and investments, and tanking our economy in what amounts to an open season of casino capitalism designed to further those goals of wealth redistribution.

In an atmosphere of chaos, Rethuglicans can steal- they did it with the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, designed to steal oil, and they did it on Wall Street, designed to take property, investments, and jobs.

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Chuckie

Broken Arrow, OK

#254 Jun 28, 2011
William wrote:
<quoted text>Even if we allow that all you say is true,(which of course it is not) how is that worse than Obama?
It would be no improvement over Obama.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#255 Jun 30, 2011
Chuckie wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be no improvement over Obama.
How could having someone in the White House who likes the US not be an improvement?
Chuckie

Broken Arrow, OK

#256 Jul 1, 2011
saxd45 wrote:
<quoted text>How could having someone in the White House who likes the US not be an improvement?
There is someone there now. Opposition is mostly bashing downgrading and they may not really like the US. They may say anything to get elected. Face it politicians are all liars.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tim Ryan: Zika fight costly for Democrats in 20... Nov '16 Cheech the Conser... 4
News GOP establishment plans Trump takedown (Aug '15) Nov '16 Impeach Ivana 749
News Contradicting FBI view, Clintona s leaked speec... Oct '16 YouDidntBuildThat 1
News Heckled offstage, Wasserman Schultz now seeks r... Oct '16 C Kersey 11
News News 10 mins ago 8:00 p.m.Marco Rubio wins Flor... Sep '16 WelbyMD 2
News Putin says DNC hack was public service, Russia ... Sep '16 Dee Dee Dee 2
News Wasserman Schultz fights to hold onto House sea... Aug '16 DR X 8
More from around the web