Sanders attacks top AIDS activist, partners with anti-PrEP group

UPDATE: The Sanders campaign did it again, launching a visceral personal attack against longtime AIDS activist Peter Staley. Coincidentally, Staley will appear in tonight’s AIDS episode of CNN’s series “The Eighties.”

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is facing yet another outcry from the LGBT community after one of his top campaign aides viciously criticized longtime AIDS activist Peter Staley.

Staley was attacked by the Sanders campaign for joining a group of other top AIDS activists in criticizing Sanders for lying about a recent meeting in which the activists asked Sanders to oppose a drug pricing initiative in California. Sanders left the meeting and immediately issued a press release implying that the activists supported Sanders’ call to pass the same initiative they had just asked him to oppose.

In response, the activists — a mix of both Sanders and Clinton supporters — issued a public letter criticizing Sanders for twisting their meeting and using it to help him in the upcoming California primary.

One of Sanders’ top campaign officials, Warren Grunnels, responded to the letter on Twitter by attacking Staley, and claiming that the AIDS activist was in the pocket of Big Pharma, which he most certainly is not. This led lead LGBT activist Dan Savage, among others, to leap to Staley’s defense.


The California initiative that Sanders is supporting is being sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), an organization that is a vocal critic of the anti-HIV drug PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). Sanders’ younger supporters might be surprised to learn of the Senator’s cozy relationship with the anti-PrEP movement. Staley said this morning on MSNBC that Sanders’ “big drug companies” smear came from the anti-PrEP group.

Sanders is no stranger to controversy over HIV/AIDS. His campaign was criticized two months ago for not including even a mention of HIV on the campaign Web site’s LGBT page; and it was only after such criticism that Sanders finally came out with a last-minute plan to fight HIV should he become president. Sanders further enraged the AIDS community when he backed out of a meeting with them last month, at the last minute, and refused to reschedule, giving the appearance that he no longer saw any political gain in listening to the AIDS community’s concerns.

For his part, Staley is one of America’s top AIDS activists, and has been for decades. Staley was working for JP Morgan in NYC in 1985 when he was diagnosed with what was then called AIDS-Related Complex, or ARC. Two years later he joined a new AIDS activist group called ACT UP, and participated in its first-ever protest. I’m going to share a bit more of Peter’s Wikipedia page to give you the full force of just who this guy is:

American AIDS activist Peter Staley.

American AIDS activist Peter Staley.

Staley was diagnosed with AIDS-Related Complex (ARC) in 1985, after seeing a doctor for a persistent cold. In 1987, after being handed a flyer on his way to work prior to the first demonstration by ACT UP (AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power), he decided to attend the next meeting. Although he had come out to his family, Staley remained closeted at work, working as a bond trader by day and chairing ACT UP’s fundraising operations by night, before coming out at work and going on disability leave. On March 24, 1988, he took part in an ACT UP demonstration on Wall Street on the first anniversary of the group. At that demonstration, he was in one of the first waves of people sitting in the street to block traffic, and was interviewed by a local TV station who broadcast his image with the caption “Peter Staley, AIDS victim.”

On April 25, 1989, Staley and three other activists barricaded themselves in an office at Burroughs Wellcome in Research Triangle Park, NC to protest the price of AZT (at the time priced at $8,000-$10,000 per year). The four protesters used power tools to bolt metal plates to the door of an unoccupied office and had planned to drop a banner that would be visible from the nearby highway, Interstate 40, before authorities cut their way through a wall. The protestors then chained themselves together, and were cut apart and charged with trespassing and property damage. Staley, who at the time had been in talks with AZT developer David Barry to lower the price on the drug, would make peace with the company years later, following their $1 million donation to AIDS clinical trials programs in 1992.

On September 14, 1989, Staley and six other activists staged another demonstration to protest the rising cost of AZT, this time in the New York Stock Exchange. Dressed in suits and carrying fake credentials, they chained themselves to a balcony above the trading floor before unfurling a banner that read “Sell Wellcome”, drowned out the opening bell with airhorns, and dropped fake $100 bills that read, “Fuck your profiteering. We die while you play business.” on the traders below. Within days, Burroughs Wellcome lowered the price of AZT by 20%.

In 1989, he was part of a group that stormed the Fifth International AIDS Conference in Montreal, at the time a members-only event for doctors and HIV/AIDS researchers. They took over seats reserved for dignitaries, and released their first Treatment and Data report calling for speedier access to AIDS drugs, although coverage of the demonstration was overshadowed by the events at Tiananmen Square. The next year, Staley was a featured speaker at the Sixth International Conference on AIDS in 1990, held in San Francisco. Staley would be involved in many more demonstrations and protests, ultimately being arrested 10 times, although due to the work of pro bono lawyers, he doesn’t have a criminal record.

This is not the life’s work of a sell-out.

Staley’s colleagues in the AIDS activist movement were swift to criticize the Sanders move. Here’s Sanders’ supporter and longtime AIDS activist Gregg Gonsalves:

by default 2016-05-29 at 11.25.04 AM

I also spoke with Alan Klein, a founding member of ACT UP/NY; co-founder of Queer Nation; and a partner at Public Impact Media Consultants:

A real political and social movement demands commitment and sustained action in order to effect change. Over the last three decades, the AIDS activist movement changed the face of the AIDS crisis by saving countless lives here and abroad. Fellow AIDS activists like Peter Staley have never wavered on that commitment. It is a travesty that the Sanders campaign so cynically played politics with HIV/AIDS by ignoring history and by misrepresenting noted AIDS activists.

This isn’t just about Peter. Peter represents a movement of LGBT people, a real political revolutionary movement that actually changed the face of health care, saved millions of lives, and did that work over three decades for no pay. We did it because we cared, because our friends were dying, because it was necessary to act. That’s the real political revolution. You have to put in the time to actually have an effect, and we did that. And to come out and say that Peter Staley has ulterior motives is a horrible misrepresentation. The fact is that without the work of AIDS activists, HIV would not today be a chronic manageable disease, and there would be millions more dead.

Joy Reid covered the controversy this morning on MSNBC. She had Peter Staley as a guest, and invited the Sanders campaign to comment, but they refused.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

216 Responses to “Sanders attacks top AIDS activist, partners with anti-PrEP group”

  1. hoosiercub88 says:

    Universal healthcare in our country would provide free PrEP so no, not entirely.

  2. intheivy says:


  3. WampusKat says:

    Wrong. “Bernie’s Past With the Far Far Far Left”

    Sanders actions aren’t the actions of a Democratic Socialist. I’m a Democratic Sociailist (from Germany). This isn’t how we operate. Sander’s continuous attacks on actual progressives are quite numerous at this point and I find his frequent lying and vicious behavior disturbing, as should anyone referring to themselves as progressives.

    “Smells of ultra-leftism” was spot on.

  4. intheivy says:

    I disagree.

  5. Grace says:

    Against Universal Healthcare? Where do you think that term came from? SMH

  6. Grace says:

    Actually Sanders is anti anything that questions him or his beliefs. There is a huge difference between standing up for what you believe in and just being arrogant. I am not sure what part you are missing when he carries on about corporate greed and how all politicians are bought, but himself or when screams that all democrats are “capitalistic vultures” Maybe he just putting on a show to get people’s attention? I am thinking that is what he believes it. And under Marxist 101, it states to discredit anyone who opposes your beliefs. And that is what he is doing. He really doesnt care about the people, he cares about getting his way

  7. canucanoe2 says:

    “The Speaker of the House of Representatives is more powerful than the President when it comes to legislation. ”
    Really? Any legislation that gets through the house can be vetoed by the president, so explain to me how the speaker is more powerful. The president has executive orders and regulation changes in his tool box. Explain to me exactly WHAT congress can do without executive permission.
    Over the last 80 years the power of the executive branch has expanded. Show me one article that describes a general expansion of congressional powers. I doubt you will find any.

  8. Joan Opyr says:

    The people? The people have given us the system and politicians we have now. Get out there and meet the people. Try to imagine the people in the checkout line at Walmart or in your classes or at the football game comprising a unified, effective “voice of the people.” That sound you hear? That’s probably the people calling for Donald Trump. Or maybe Kim Kardashian. I have little confidence in “the voice of the people.”

  9. Badgerite says:

    No. Bill Clinton made the decision not to strike a foreign country with cruise missiles because 1) intelligence was not certain and 2) the strike would have resulted in high civilian casualties.
    And it is kind of beyond me what Gore’s failure to take Tennessee in 2000 has to do with anything, actually. Al Gore won the national popular vote by 5 million votes. It was a national election. No candidate is required to win their home state to win the election. And the state that was crucial in the contest was, of course, Florida which was made close enough to steal by the candidacy of Ralph Nader. To list all of the obstacles that Al Gore did not overcome without noticing that he overcame quite a lot and won the national vote is a way to excuse Nader for any responsibility for one of the only times in American history when the winner of the popular vote, and decisively so, in a presidential election, did not win the office. One can absolutely thank Ralph Nader for that and all that flowed from that including Citizens United, 9/11, the Iraq War, the failure of FEMA during the Katrina disaster. The list is endless.
    Well, Ralph Nader and ‘Jeb!’. One candidate’s brother controlled the state election apparatus in Florida and it showed. A lot.
    The “he didn’t win Tennessee thing” is really one giant “look over there”.
    I’m not looking over there. I’m looking at Nader, Jeb and the Supreme Court. Al Gore won the election. He just didn’t win the tally.

  10. intheivy says:

    Nice partisan diatribe.
    Gore’s loss of Tennessee had nothing to do with the conservative south- remember, Tennessee chose him as a Senator.

  11. Badgerite says:

    Bill Clinton MIGHT have had an opportunity to take out Bin Ladin, if he was actually there, and a lot of other civilians who happened to be in the way. He decided against that. At the time, Bin Ladin had not killed 3000 Americans. That came later.
    The World Trade Center bombing of 1993 killed 5 people while the rest were safely evacuated and the perpetrators were caught by the FBI shortly after when one tried to get back a deposit on a van they had used. I believe there were five involved in the plot who were all arrested as well as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman ( the blind sheik), who was an Egyptian and radical Iman who had helped in the planning for that attack as well as others that had not yet occurred. They are all still serving time in the American prison system.
    When the USS Cole was attacked while refueling in Yemen, the then Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, headed an investigation in Yemen that eventually tracked down and imprisoned or killed all the men involved in that plot. At that time, Al Qaeda was a little known, shadowy and insular entity that no one knew anything about. This investigation put Al Qaeda on the radar of US and international intelligence services and intelligence gathering on the organization began in earnest. Which is why, during the summer of 2001, US intelligence services were trying frantically to warn the Bush administration of an imminent attack of this group on American soil.
    And as Dick Cheney has often said, they did not “take the warnings seriously”. I think he makes an understatement there. The gathering of intelligence and focus on Al Qaeda which resulted in those warnings was started during the Clinton administration.
    And Al Gore would have taken the warnings seriously. There is no doubt of that. I don’t know about having a beer with him but I sure as hell would have wanted him in charge the summer of 2001.
    Actually, Clinton and Gore losing their home states in an electoral contest does have a lot to do with the GOP and its Southern Strategy. They are, and I don’t know if you know this, liberal and pro civil rights and pro gay rights. And there you go.
    Bill Clinton campaigned on investment in the country’s infrastructure. But, as always seems to be the case when there is a Democrat in the White House, the GOP was beset with Balanced Budget Amendment fever. In fact, after the mid terms of 1994 when Newt Gingrich and the GOP took the House, they shut down the government twice over Bill Clinton’s refusal to go along with cutting Medicare and Social Security. They did force him to go along with welfare ‘reform’ but he held the line on the New Deal programs. And then, of course, they impeached him. He was a little busy, what with

  12. Badgerite says:

    Bill Clinton MIGHT have had the opportunity to take out Bin Ladin …..and a whole lot of other civilians as well. He didn’t “flub” it. He decided against it at that time because of the civilian presence nearby.
    The culprits responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, which killed 5 people while all others were evacuated to safety, were apprehended by the FBI when one of them tried to get a refund of his deposit on a van they had used. A group went to prison along with the Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who was implicated in its planning as well as planning for other plots that had yet to occur. They are all still in prison in the United States.
    I’m not quite sure how that could be characterized as “flubbed” but…..
    Actually, the Director of the FBI at the time, one Louis Freeh, led a task force that went to Yemen to investigate and hunt down the killers. It took years to do so but all were eventually arrested or killed. The killers were Al Qaeda and not attached to any state. This was when Al Qaeda first surfaced on the radar of American intelligence and it was still a shadowy and little known entity at that time. Bill Clinton most assuredly did not do nothing. By the time that GW Bush took office in 2001, the investigations started during the Clinton administration had amassed enough intelligence gathering capability on this group to be warning GW all through the summer of 2001 that an attack by this group on American soil was imminent. Having that kind of intelligence on a shadowy and insular group like Al Qaeda at that time was hardly “nothing”. And Al Gore would have known enough to take those rather urgent warnings that GW was getting seriously. And as Dick Cheney has admitted often enough, the Bush administration did not.
    Why Al Gore and Bill Clinton failed to win the their home states in elections? Well,,,,,Duh. They were and are liberals. There was that gay rights thing and all. And in the South I believe that is considered close to treason. As to the budget, there was during the Clinton presidency and still are in GOP think tanks, proposals for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Bill Clinton headed this off by bringing the budget into balance every year of his presidency. He came into office promising to spend on infrastructure but then ran into the mid terms of 1994 which put Newt Gingrich and the GOP in charge of the House and the power of the purse. And that was the end of that. As it was, Gingrich and the GOP shut down the government I believe twice in an attempt to force Bill Clinton to accede to their demands that he make deep cuts in the Medicare program. Bill Clinton did negotiate with them over welfare provisions but held the line on the basic New Deal programs.
    And the GOP, of course, spent their time trying to impeach him.
    After 1994, it was the GOP who controlled the budget. Not Clinton.
    I agree that Glass Steagall should not have been signed into law.
    But the country probably would have been alright if there had been any enforcement whatsoever of existing laws. But George Bush, actually all Bushes, are devotees of the ‘voluntary compliance’ form of regulatory law. Christopher Cox was put in charge of the SEC and he basically took a nap and left a message to ‘wake him when his term is up’.
    And regulators who actually did try to enforce the law were waved off by the Bush administration as happened with the California electricity crisis of 2001 which later gave rise to criminal charges against the companies involved one of which was Enron, a big contributor of GW’s.
    And as I understand it, home loans were not the culprit that alone brought about the economic meltdown of 2008 ( again, that year is 2008 which of course is a full 8 years after Bill Clinton was no longer in office)
    but the practice on Wall Street of bundling and selling mostly subprime mortgages ( bad mortgages that were likely to default) with what would have to be considered a fraudulent AAA rating. They were marketing these investment vehicles as a very safe and sound investment when in fact they were exceedingly risky and almost guaranteed to fail. And, indeed, some smart investors who actually looked within the bundles at the individual mortgages realized this an made use of credit default swaps to bet against the bundles. And when the mortgages started defaulting, the owner of the bundles turned around and marketed them as safe to other investors and so on. Basically, it was a lot of fraudulent practices on Wall Street that brought about the eventual collapse. Not the mortgages themselves.

  13. Badgerite says:

    Well, yes. Except for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a pressure point in the system. It can, by just changing emphasis on wording,of a phrase in the Constitution, change the fundamental rules that we live by.
    There were a lot of cases making their way up to the Court when Scalia died and like Citizens United, they had the potential to redefine fundamental ideas of what is and is not constitutional. One man, one vote representation and gerrymandering cases especially can tilt the playing field in politics for a generation or more. I will settle for the Senate and the White House for now.

  14. intheivy says:

    Bernie Sanders is not anti-corporations, or anti-capitalism, or anti-money; Bernie simply wants the US government officials to work for the best interest of the people– not the lobbyists, the corporations, foreign interests, or self-interests. Bernie is willing to fight for #MedicareForAll; what could be better for all of us?

  15. Amyllim says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti879ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti879u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBugGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti879o….,.

  16. Amyllim says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti879ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti879u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsBugGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti879o….,..

  17. Cam says:

    Forgive me, I was wrong and jumped to conclusions. I spent to much time in comment sections the day I posted that comment and I was at my breaking point. Kinda got sucked into the craziness. Sorry.

  18. Cam says:

    I had no clue who he was but I got rid of my original statement. Im not on social media and as soon as I realized it said fake before his name I assumed it was a fake account. And we all know what that makes me lol. I just know theres an army of trolls online and jumped to a conclusion. I probably should have done some research before letting loose like that.

  19. John Metal says:

    no, you weren’t. troll.

  20. John Metal says:

    you were never hardcore anything

    maybe a hardcore douche.

  21. John Metal says:

    Thanks for the specious headline. Warren Gunnels is not Sanders and this blogger is a corporate shill.

  22. intheivy says:

    Hillary has her eye on Latin America; she’s already done a good job of militarizing Honduras.
    Sanders has made no indication that he seeks a military solution to foreign issues.

  23. Moderator3 says:

    I guess it’s a matter of practice. You average 4 comments a day. There number of flags are not a surprise either. Do you comment between classes or instead of classes?

  24. dieter heymann says:

    Standard deceiving no-response: Changing issue. Not very original. Can’t you come up with something better? Apparently not. Sad.

  25. dieter heymann says:

    Going to war? Pray, in which part of the world where we are not already at war would a Clinton POTUS go to war? Russia? On that one Clinton and Sanders are on the same aggressive line. China? Really, China? Where else? Pakistan? Oops, we are already bombing in Pakistan. Wait. I forgot Lebanon and Egypt. How about another attack on the Suez Canal?

  26. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    That’s a possibility. Perhaps it betrays oceans of uncertainty about Clinton. If we have major doubts about her, doesn’t it make sense to share them?

  27. dieter heymann says:

    Your memory of our history is patchy. Social Democratic reforms were enacted by the FDR administration when there was no “robust growing economy” but the Great Depression. Remember Social Security?

  28. intheivy says:

    A Hillary Clinton POTUS would go to war; if you are pro-war, vote Clinton; if you are anti-war, don’t vote for Clinton.

  29. dieter heymann says:

    You have been exposed to the standard response of Sanders supporters. You write a comment which is mildly critical of Sanders. The standard response begins with “But Clinton….” even if you are possibly equally critical of Clinton which the responder cannot know. That standard response is kindergarten-style discussion. It betrays an ocean of uncertainty.

  30. intheivy says:

    Pro-Hillary people don’t understand that we aren’t doing this for Bernie, we’re doing this for America. This is a foreign concept for Hillary’s supporters, because most of them are supporting Hillary because she’s a woman and “WE OWE IT TO HER.” Well, the ONLY thing that I owe to Hillary Clinton is her Miranda warning.

    Hillary actually supports the TPP––
    Hillary Clinton called the #TPP the “Gold Standard.”
    The truth is, the #TPP Is “Disastrous for Working Families”

    H ––– IS FOR HAWK
    Hillary Clinton promises a more muscular foreign policy as president

    Hillary is bigoted––

    Hillary’s racist “joke” about Gandhi

    Hillary’s race/religion smear on Obama

    Hillary’s racist “off the reservation” comment

    Hillary Clinton on marriage

  31. dieter heymann says:

    The Speaker of the House of Representatives is more powerful than the President when it comes to legislation. For that reason it is more important to have a DEM majority in the House than whether Sanders or Clinton become the next President.

  32. intheivy says:

    Hillary has said that single-payer is unrealistic.
    Hillary hasn’t been fighting for single-payer; Hillary takes money from drub companies, insurance companies, and other medical-related corporations.
    Bernie’s press release wasn’t a lie, it was just poorly worded; I did not make the same assumptions that were made by the group of people who wrote the letter.
    The only coincidence that is inexcusable is the questionable actions taken by people connected to Hillary Clinton.

  33. intheivy says:

    Asinine assumptions and a Clinton-esque ego.
    Hillary Clinton has not “clawed her way” anywhere.

  34. CalBears12 says:

    Because “it’s too hard lets not do it” is kind of a crappy political ideology?

  35. CalBears12 says:

    What a privileged position to be able to set your sights so low and then feel comfortable, happy even, to achieve the illusion of incremental success.

    How sad though for the others in our society who are truly suffering, who see a candidate actively trying to change the political narrative away from “We can’t fundamentally help people because of ____” to “We have to fundamentally help people.” and have an entire liberal base laugh it off as youthful naivety.

    Your cynicism and privileged complacency is almost scarier to me than any reverent right wing radical.

  36. ray jones says:

    HC has nothing to do with this fight. It was Bernie’s own staff who screwed this up and Bernie is once again tone deaf. Bernie’s campaign looks like his personality is why in Congress people like him until he shows an indifference to anyone’s else point of view.

  37. Ryan says:

    That’s a problem with a reflexive anti-corporation stance: things get evaluated by whether they help a corporation rather than whether they help people.

  38. intheivy says:

    Bill Clinton had an opportunity to take out Bin Laden, and he flubbed it.

    Bill Clinton flubbed the response to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

    Bill Clinton did virtually nothing when the Cole was bombed.

    There is a reason that Al Gore lost his home state, and that reason has everything to do with Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and nothing to do with the GOP.

  39. stevelittle says:

    Thanks for the link to the open letter.

  40. Andy Theodosiou says:

    Not only did Bernie cancel the meeting, his reps refused to even attempt to reschedule. They return calls until the AIDS activists publically came out and said what was going on. Until the calls were never returned, no one went public with any cancellation or attempts to reschedule. Then, Bernie waited until after Clinton met with the activists for his own meeting.

  41. Webster says:

    You really have difficulty paying attention, don’t you?

  42. Webster says:

    What is it about the plurality of “our agenda” that eludes you? The progressive movement is the Bernie campaign — the status-quo movement is the Hillary campaign. If you’re happy with stagnation, kindly get out of the way and let the people who care about the country do their work.

  43. Richard Wright says:

    “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!gd298ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !gd298u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCompetitiveGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!gd298u….,……

  44. Richard Wright says:

    “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!gd298ur

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !gd298u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCompetitiveGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!gd298u….,….,.

  45. lilyhammer says:

    Also, no Citizens United. No Iraq War.

  46. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Supporting someone who is not for free college education and single payer health care will definitely not get those things accomplished. We are aware of the political obstacles and the economic obstacles, but we are not going to roll over and play dead like you seem to think is the correct thing to do.

  47. Michael Rectenwald says:

    Sanders’s supporters are naive. They imagine that merely being “for” free college education and single-payer health insurance will make it so. Not only do they utterly ignore the political obstacles but more importantly they haven’t a clue about the economic obstacles to social democracy as such. The kinds of reforms that Sanders is proposing would require a robust and growing economy, the likes of which we haven’t seen in 50 plus years! Sanders himself is either disingenuous or naive. In ether case, he’s blowing smoke up his supporters’ asses.

  48. intheivy says:

    I don’t understand your comment, “…with reality as it is;” we have the power to alter the trajectory of our country– to create the reality that we want, not the reality that is chosen for us.

    Hillary Clinton promises a more muscular foreign policy as president

  49. Mipster says:

    For the love of god talk to any gay veterans you can find from that era, please.

  50. intheivy says:

    I did not infer accord when I read the press release; I thought the press release was clumsy, but not misleading, and I did not think that the activists necessarily agreed with Bernie (and vice versa) on any particular issue.

  51. intheivy says:

    I say, never say never.

  52. argarg says:

    Most dems won’t even show up for midterms, which means change will never really happen. Add to that the fact that now these “democrats” are proud to say they won’t even vote in the presidential race (bernie or bust) and wow– these bernie supporters sure are serious about change, I mean if they don’t get their way with one guy (because the president will been omnipotent) to change the world then they suddenly dont care about change.

    FUCKING NEWS FLASH: if all you bernie supporters voted in teh midterms and state and municipal elections this “movement” would have happened decades ago. You have to take responsibility more than once every 4 years to push change through. Fucking idiot kids.

  53. argarg says:

    WTF do you think one man can really do? Change takes local and state governments you jackass. You have to have everyone rally…that doesn’t happen when one person (bernie or bust afterall) hijacks a movement. The presidency isn’t capable of overhauling the government, it was fucking built that way so the Trumps or Reagans of the world couldn’t destroy the planet on a whim. You have to get these ignorant jackass bernie supporters to…I don’t know…actually fill out the rest of the goddamn ballot and retake the house, otherwise your stupid ideology just hurts the progressive movement. Which of course you’ll never take responsibility for.

  54. Blogvader says:

    No, it was not.

    Read up on Executive Order 9981, please.

  55. argarg says:

    if that were true then you’d be rallying every voter in the US during the midterms and out in your city encouraging people to vote in municipal and state elections where legislation that matters actually happens instead of tear apart the party a la Ralph Nader just to push your ideal figure head and spread hate speech about (coincidentally) the only women who has managed to claw her way into the worlds biggest boys club. Go back to 11th grade government and learn how much power a president actually has to implement domestic change. Then maybe you’ll put your effort where it matters, at the local level, and STFU instead of destroying the only progressive/practical political party the US has.

  56. Mipster says:

    DADT was a necessary intermediate measure to save LGBTs from being hounded out of the military. Are you a gay veteran?

  57. intheivy says:

    You have enlightened me, and I thank you for it! I knew that it felt like an overblown cat fight, but I didn’t know the way the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
    The letter can be found using a link in the article.
    I’ve attached the URL here–

  58. Mipster says:

    Hillary Clinton cares enough to do the work of getting work done. Like struggling to push through healthcare for a lot of low-income kids. I
    You run from her if you want to. I’m fine with the person who works with reality as it is.

  59. Mipster says:

    Yes. But no law will be written, ever, that says everyone gets every medication they want. Check out European formularies. Rightly or wrongly, they are much more limited than we get here.

  60. Mipster says:

    HIV/AIDS activists as a group have been trying to reach the campaign for a while. The last meeting was canceled with 2 days notice by the campaign.

  61. Fataah Ewe' says:

    Interesting that this comes up now. If anyone wanted Bernie to be hip to it all they could have got his ear.

  62. Joe knows who I am. says:

    It’s Sanders own people now who are making him disliked. I was a hardcore Sanders supporter. After this and especially Acuna, not any more.

    Not any more.

  63. Houndentenor says:

    Yes, but unfortunately those 60% are not a majority in over half the Congressional districts or over half the states, so 60% doesn’t mean you can get over half of Congress to vote for single payer. And that’s before the barrage of scare ads that the insurance industry will put out.

  64. NGC says:

    Hillary trolls are at it again. Embellishing lies.

  65. stevelittle says:

    Nice job of click-baiting, America Blog. “Sanders aide” would definitely not have been as controversial as indicating that Sanders himself typed in the tweet….

    Really, this seems to me, based on a Washington Blade article, that this is really a case of Sanders stepping into the middle of a gay AIDS activist cat fight. Sanders decided to go with the director of the largest national AIDS organization there is, AHF, not knowing that they are hated by most other AIDS activists. Dr. (ha ha ha) Weinstein of AHF is the first to call out Staley on money he is (was?) taking from big pharma. Well, not an AIDS organization exists that doesn’t take money from big pharma. There is nothing you put into your mouth at an AIDS conference that was not paid for by big pharma. So, for one to call out another on this is ridiculous. For this Gunnels person to tweet what Weinstein has been saying just indicates that he (and the Bernie campaign) is just not that familiar with how these organizations operate (like Hillary and the Reagans). And for this to be taken as some horrible personal insult to Staley (and by extension the entire AIDS community) is silly when you consider he is parroting the leader of the biggest AIDS organization of all.

  66. stevelittle says:

    I agree about the press release. I read it. Misleading or just badly written trying to get all Sanders policy points in there at one time? Haven’t been able to find the letter written by Staley et. al. yet.

    Really, this seems to me, based on a Washington Blade article, that this is really a case of Sanders stepping into the middle of a gay AIDS activist cat fight. Sanders decided to go with the director of the largest national AIDS organization there is, AHF, not knowing that they are hated by most other AIDS activists. Dr. (ha ha ha) Weinstein of AHF is the first to call out Staley on money he is (was?) taking from big pharma. Well, not an AIDS organization exists that doesn’t take money from big pharma. There is nothing you put into your mouth at an AIDS conference that was not paid for by big pharma. So, for one to call out another on this is ridiculous. For this Gunnels person to tweet what Weinstein has been saying just indicates that he (and the Bernie campaign) is just not that familiar with how these organizations operate (like Hillary and the Reagans). And for this to be taken as some horrible personal insult to Staley (and by extension the entire AIDS community) is silly when you consider he is parroting the leader of the biggest AIDS organization of all.

  67. Badgerite says:

    Works for me. I frequently dream of the world that would exist now had Al Gore taken the presidency in 2000. For one thing, 9/11 would not have happened. Know why. Al Gore would have taken the warnings of his intelligence services seriously during the summer of 2001. Far from being an impossible attack to prevent, all GW had to do was keep these guys from getting on a plane. That does not strike me as impossible.
    Bill Clinton left a budgetary surplus and a FEMA that actually functioned. Al Gore would have kept the country on that path. Instead we got the human disaster that was the FEMA response to Katrina and the economic meltdown of 2008 that would have, had GW gotten his way legislatively on the issue, decimated Social Security as well.
    Yeah. I’ll take that. Works for me.

  68. Badgerite says:

    Like Nevada? That worked out well. I believe the figure was 90 percent of the public that supported tightening of gun control rules after Sandy Hook and yet somehow that did not come about. Go figure.
    I believe that we saw an abbreviated version of “the revolution” at the Nevada Convention. And, you know, if they tried that kind of stunt with a Congress, they would simply get arrested or get visited by the FBI.
    And I still haven’t heard how he would sell an 8% tax increase to the middle class. For me, that would be the difference between being able to put some money into savings and not being able to put money into savings. All I hear is that I wouldn’t mind because I would be making more money. I don’t see how that would occur. Ours is a consumer driven economy. If people like me have no extra money to consume anything, how does the economy grow? These are questions proposed to Sanders and his supporters and you never get an answer you just get insinuations that you are a plant being paid by someone, a “neo-liberal shill” ( my personal favorite as I was a liberal long before most of the Sanders people existed) etc. If they could manage to answer a question with reference to their own noggin that would be great. The standard response is to impugn your integrity or in the alternative to refer you to the website with the ‘rose colored’ glasses. So, how would breaking up the big banks actually affect the economy? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
    On this, I’ll defer to Krugman. I trust his expertise, his judgement, and his integrity.

  69. Badgerite says:

    He “caved” is what the left hollered a lot. But Dave Obey was Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee at the time that the ACA was working its way through Congress and according to him the votes were simply not there for a public option and that was when the Democratic Party had a bit of a majority in the House which, of course, is not the case now and probably won’t be for a few years at least.
    So, how would you propose to get the public option. Oh no, don’t tell me. You would try the kind of stupid shit that worked sooooo well in Nevada.
    Dave Obey represented this district forever. I can assure you, he did not “cave”. And I would trust his word far more than I would trust Alternet or whatever.

  70. Badgerite says:

    Well, there you go again. I don’t care that she is “for” the death penalty. Know why? Because the federal death penalty is a product of what Congress enacts not the president and has had one modern day usage and that would be Timothy McVeigh. And the death penalty as applied through the state penal codes of which their are FIFTY are a product of state law and can only be altered at the national level through a decision from the Supreme Court as to the failure of state law to comport with the Constitution of the United States. And where that is concerned, appointments to the Supreme Court, Bill Clinton, the Great Evil Triangulator, is two for two. Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer both would support a Constitutional challenge to the death penalty as applied by the states. A few more appointments to the Court by a “triangulator” such as him and we might just get somewhere, as opposed to, oh, I don’t know, making a movie.
    I know that Hilary Clinton is “for” carrying on the progress made under the Obama administration and all its various international treaties both in terms of nuclear armaments and climate change. I know that she will carry forward the Dodd Frank Reforms and hopefully with someone like Elizabeth Warren continue in that vein.
    No I don’t care that Bernie is “for” breaking up the banks and Clinton is not. I would defer to Krugman on this as he knows a lot more about it and I trust him and his opinion.
    I don’t care what he is “for”. I’m for “world peace”. So what?
    I care what he can actually get done.

  71. Richard Biever says:

    Because he immediately caved on the public option. We couldn’t even get that.

  72. Richard Biever says:

    How? The people insist that their legislators vote for it. It’s this thing called “the voice of the people.” They must get in the faces of Congress and if they resist, vote them out. You do realize that over 60% of the American public desires a single-payer plan? Bernie would need to mobilize that majority.

  73. Richard Biever says:

    Well, there you go. You don’t care what he’s “for.” Wow. I presume you don’t care what Hillary is “for” either.

  74. Badgerite says:

    I’d place a bet. What’s more, it is the GOP we are talking about.
    They live in an alternate universe of Fixed News hysteria, misinformation and, well, white grievance. The base is desperate.
    Barack Obama was a very good president who won two terms and moved the progressive ball down the field a good distance. The demographics are changing in this country and that is likely to bring a more inclusive society and it is not one they are comfortable in, apparently. Trump is their shot in the dark. An act of desperation.
    But, you know, if you want to throw the election to the Trump Monster with the ridiculous orange weave on his head and who can’t decide or won’t say who or what is actually hiding behind that Clown suit, feel free. It is your future more than it is mine.

  75. Badgerite says:

    No it would not. A constitutional Amendment is not easy to repeal.
    And the Supreme Court of the United States would have no authority to reverse it. It becomes part of our fundamental law. And this is the problem with Sanders supporters. “I would prefer ( fill in the blank) to…..” In other words, my view of myself as this supremely moral being is more important to me than being moral and achieving moral aims in our laws. And if their idea of how you get things done in this country is what they tried to pull in Nevada, well that would not work with Congress. I believe anyone who made threatening statements toward a member of Congress would get a visit from the FBI.
    And I suspect that is their idea and Sanders of how he would move things along. Legislatively.
    It seems to me that Sanders idea is that people would support his ideas to such an extent that the obstacles in Congress and at the state level would not matter. He would win the public debate. But I don’t really think that is the case. Still, even with the reservations I have about him and I have quite a few, I would vote for him over any GOP candidate and certainly over Donald Trump.
    But then, I would vote for a lamp post over The Orange Weave.
    At least Sanders is coherent and his heart is in the right place.
    I think.

  76. Blogvader says:

    Badger, in a year when [email protected]#$face Von Clownstick won his party’s nomination in a landslide, and Hillary can’t even manage that (much less beat him in a poll), I’d shy away from making bold predictions.

  77. Badgerite says:

    Dream on. Their high point was 2000. I believe with Nader on the ticket they reached 2%.

  78. 2karmanot says:

    Best stop fluttering your fan Ms Scarlet or your ya’lls will get the vapors.

  79. 2karmanot says:

    Exactly. Where are the reasoned supportive posts on the wonders of Hillary’s policies and proposals for the future?

  80. 2karmanot says:

    exactly so

  81. maraleia says:

    The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is also trying to shut down the adult industry in CA and every HIV/AIDS activist I talk to here in Chicago says they are a pox on the movement and should be shut down. Why Bernie is supporting them is beyond me and also very scary.

  82. Sam Osborne says:

    Will neither vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, nor any candidate for another office that supports either one of them. An attempt to make Bernie disliked serves to remind me of my the contempt have for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s total lack of integrity:

  83. Aquaria says:

    I understand what you’re trying to say here, but LBJ is seriously the
    last President you can accuse of simply letting Congress do its thing while he waited for the results. He was without peer at making Congress dance to his tune. What LBJ wanted from them, LBJ tended to get, one way or another. He was a one-man bulldozer through the legislative branch during his brief tenure in office, and that was no more evident than what he did to get civil rights legislation through the process.

    A better way to make the point would be that Clinton did not have the connections and the history of arm-twisting with Congress that LBJ did. LBJ had been in the legislative branch close to 20 years, and was a former Senate majority leader. That experience had everything to do with what he was able to accomplish as POTUS.

    Clinton did not have that luxury. His political career basically consisted of being a governor of Arkansas, and thus essentially a DC outsider. His intelligence and political savvy were not enough to help him with pushing legislation through Congress with the same speed or efficacy as LBJ. There was just no way he would know what arms to twist and how in comparison to a former Senate Majority Leader like LBJ.

    His lack of experience with the legislature is why Clinton was not able to do as much as he might have. It’s why he had to be more conciliatory with Congress, and compromise more. I think if he had been a Congressman for ten years, or a Senator for even two terms, he would have been much more effective in getting what he wanted from Congress.

  84. qnetter says:

    The sole extent to which it was discussed at the meeting was when the activists brought it up – Bernie did not – to explain why most legitimate HIV/AIDS organizations, other than the AIDS profiteers at AHF, either had misgivings or were outright opposed. By saying it was discussed at the meeting and including Bernie’s endorsement of it, it strongly suggests the activists were for it.

    As for the act itself, it does not cap costs – only what the state is permitted to pay. The companies are free to refuse to sell, and it doesn’t help (and likely raises prices for) anyone not setting it via a state program.

  85. Bill_Perdue says:

    We Forget What It Was Really Like Under the Clintons – NAFTA failures; deregulation of banking and ENRON’s rise; “Welfare Reform” that led to more poor people. This and more is what the Clintons gave us.

    After their racist attack on welfare and other attacks on working people like NAFTA, the Clintons went on to hire 100,000 new trigger happy cops and the Dixiecrat Empress Presuntive tells us why –

    The funds come from what may have been Bill Clinton’s most ballyhooed domestic program: Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, which he inaugurated in 1994 with a promise that, through federal grants for hiring recruits and buying equipment, it would put 100,000 new police on the streets. As crime rates declined during his time in office, he frequently claimed credit for COPS. In political terms, it was pure gold. By pushing the then old-fashioned conservative idea of cracking down on bad guys with armies of men in blue, Clinton did a huge amount to steal the law-and-order issue from Republicans.

  86. intheivy says:

    Hillary doesn’t care- she’s a “by hook or crook” kind of person. Hillary wants power, she wants to be the 1st female POTUS, and she knows that people have short memories (if we didn’t have short memories, We’d all be running from the Clintons.)

  87. intheivy says:

    From the outset, Bernie has said that we must work together to make it happen. I’m ready to fight for #MedicareForAll!

  88. Jim Kennedy says:

    Bottom line is Sanders is losing and is desperate. I used to be one of his supporters. Can hardly believe the difference in him from a year ago.

  89. intheivy says:

    No, the press release doesn’t say that, and it doesn’t imply that; it gave a synopsis of Bernie’s plan and what, in relation to his plan, was discussed at the meeting. It’s a press release, nothing more.
    I also read the letter from the activists; it was polite and respectful, but I realized that the authors of the letter and I had interpreted the press release differently.

    The only “bad” thing that I saw was the tweet from Warren Gunnels (IDK him.) I don’t know the context of the tweet, but the tweet itself was harsh.

  90. intheivy says:

    I think that it’s the tweet from Warren Gunnels (whoever he is.)

  91. Calvinius says:

    He put out a press release falsely implying that this group of AIDS activists agreed with him about that California bill.

  92. intheivy says:

    It would if the law says that it would.

  93. intheivy says:

    I read the press release and the letter, and I did not read into the press release what the authors of the letter read into the press release. The Sanders campaign issued a campaign press release– that’s what campaigns do; if anyone thinks that another campaign would have issued something other than a press release, please let me know. The letter written by the activists was polite and straightforward; I may not share their interpretation of the Sanders press release, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate their perspective6rte. My point is this- both sides put their own spin on the meeting, and I saw nothing wrong with either the press release or the respectful letter. This being said, NO ONE should have attacked anyone; if the attacking parties haven’t apologized, they should do so, asap.

  94. Domhnall Trump says:

    I still don’t see how that gets anybody free single-payer healthcare, or in the words of the OP “ACCESS FOR ALL”.

  95. Bill_Perdue says:

    I asked you to to prove that there was even a hint of that and you can’t becasue there wasn’t.
    Perhaps now it is better for you to change the change the subject again and run away, since you lost the arguement.
    Sayonara Democrat.

  96. manart says:

    I really wish you trolls read the comments better. I said “then they *would* make an Amendment.

    If you read the origins of DADT, you will see they were ready to oass a federal law keeping the ban.

    It is not that much of a stretch to say they would not attempt it.

    But it is obvious you are just here to troll by using those tired ass catch phrases that have been spoon fed to you.

    I am not going to keep this up with someone like you.

    Enjoy your deluded and unfounded bigotry.

  97. Bill_Perdue says:

    I’m very familiar with DADT, and use the debate arohjd that question to expose the bigotry of the Clintons but your link provided no evidence that there was a proposed “Constitutional Amendment forfeiting any executive order and making it forever illegal to be gay and serve this country.” Not at all. Kindly prove it or retract your comment.

  98. Bill_Perdue says:

    If you did some digging then prove that there was a “Constitutional Amendment forfeiting any executive order and making it forever illegal to be gay and serve this country.”

    When it’s a question of fact I always prove citatations or links that lead to them. Here’s a long discussion by one the bigot Bill Clintons chief supporters in the LGBTQ communities regarding DADT

    First you talked about a purported ‘Constitutional Amernedment’ and when challenged seem to have ignored the challenge and criticized the military. Make up your mind about what point you’re tryinhg to make.

  99. manart says:

    Prove it?

    What are you, 12?

    You simply have to Google DADT and the whole history of it is there. How Congress and the Joint Chiefs of Staff we strongly opposed to Clinton lifting the ban and were set to create an Amendment.

    It’s there for you to find it.

    Do some digging.

    I sure as Hell did.

  100. Bill_Perdue says:

    Prove it.

  101. manart says:

    Yes. I do not think that some if these people ate old enough to remember and are getting their accounts of things screwed up.

    I was in the Navy in 1988 and I know that being gay was harder for me than it was for people 10 years later.

    Also, the country’s view on homosexuality has changed. Before, BOTH sides of Congress had the same outlook on gays in the early 90’s.

    Today, there is less of a chance of making veto-proof legislation againsts gays now.

    Some people think that the left has always been for LGBT issues.

  102. Bill_Perdue says:

    Sadly, yes. Not unexpected behavior from Democrats, absolutely.

  103. Bill_Perdue says:

    Bill Clinton caved to the bigots on DADT and then became a bigot himself by campaigning for, promising to sign and then gloating about DOMA.

    Period. End of story. Move along, nothing new to see here, folks.

  104. manart says:

    Seeing how I both live in a military town and had the fortune of working at a gay bar before and after DADT, let me tell you a bit of history.

    Before DADT, Shore Patril and MPs used to camp out in the parking lots of gay bars, taking down plate numbers of every car with military stickers on them. They did this so as to get the name of the owners of the vehicles so they could set them in front of a military panel and ask for names of other gays in the service.

    THAT is a witch hunt.

    When DADT was passed, the owners and employees of these establishments had the power to order these Shore Patrol and MPs OFF of their property, so I really do not see where your witch hunts come into play.

    What did happen was that gay servicepeople were scrutinized and then discharged for baseless reasons.

    You need to remember something very important here that people keep neglecting:


    Gore had the presidency stolen from him because George’s brother fixed the election in Florida (the state he was governor of at the time).

    DADT was NEVER meant to stay as long as it did, but GWB was too worried about making a war for profit.

    Had Gore taken over like he was supposed to, DADT would have been brought up and the ban on gays would have been lifted sooner.

  105. Uhhhhh, I am making the case that this site is turning into something as vile as Michelle Malkin’s.

    You remember that look of horror and disgust on McCain’s face when he met the crazy “Obama is an Arab!” lady, and he realized, “This is the type of person I attract?”

    This site is turning into that crazy lady…

    and pitting Democrats against each other in a most nasty, ugly way. It makes me wonder if I’d rather lose than win with people that are so mean as to duplicitously denigrate others (who at least used to be) on our side.

  106. ray jones says:

    How is Obama care a copout? It has saved lives and made people have hopeful. It cost Obama untold political capital!

  107. “Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funds cannot pay for PrEP as the person using PrEP is not HIV infected and therefore not eligible for Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funded medication.”

  108. ray jones says:

    That easy to sa 20 years later. Many people feared the other side would have the votes to create an amendment. You do get how difficult to overturn an amendment over a law. Please stop preaching about how it only took guts. Many leaders in the gay community agreed with Clinton at that time.

  109. Bill_Perdue says:

    We can pay for that plus interest free housing and good wages and retirement benefits for workers and single heads of households by

    1) withdrawing all US military, naval, air, mercenary and spy forces to the US mainland and demobilizing them, and

    2) imposing a 100% tax on business profits including any sums paid to stockholders

    3) a 100% tax on any personal income over $150,000.00 a year from all sources except profits made from the sales of homes by workers and limiting the pay of managers at all levels to the amount paid to union workers

    4) the confiscation of all the assets, without compensation, of any person or business hiding assets overseas

    5) investing trillions in infrastructure, greening the economy, etc with all jobs going through union hiring halls and paid at the highest trade union levels with equal opportunities for immigrant workers

  110. Badgerite says:

    I don’t care what he’s “for”. This is a man who can’t even work with the party he claims to want to lead. I kind of doubt he would have much luck with a Congress run by the GOP.
    I know this may come as a shock to Bernie supporters, but legislation does not come from the President’s office to be enacted by fiat. I remember when the ACA was working its way through Congress. There was a tape I saw of Dave Obey being ambushed in the hall way by his office in Congress by two guys who just insisted he put in the bill what they wanted. I think it was the public option. He just kept telling them, “We don’t have the votes”, over and over again because they simply would not leave him alone. Like if they harassed him enough somehow the votes would fall out of his pocket or something.
    The ACA has been in place for all of two years now. It is still subject to legal attacks in the courts by GOP governors and groups. Bernie Sanders, were he to be elected and take the oath would be half way to 76 and at best, he would be working with a divided Congress with the House, that would be the legislating body, in the hands of the GOP that have attempted to repeal the ACA innumerable times. Exactly how would he propose to get this done?
    Oh, that’s ok. You don’t have to answer. You can just call me a “neo-liberal shill”.
    That’s the usual response.

  111. ray jones says:

    Hillary are was single payer from 93 until now. What do you think she was fighting for all those years.The talking points and hatred HC receives even today was created in the GOP labs over single payer. It’s funny they called her a socialist at the time. The other issue here is why does Bernie’s campaign keep meeting with groups who want to remain neutral yet his campaign continues to make false press releases which are dishonest…lies. This has happened too often to be a mistake, this entire bad situation. Bernie’s campaign response is always the other side is in big money. In this case this is just crazy again.

  112. Blogvader says:

    Well, we’ll have to disagree.

    I’d much rather my vote go to give the Greens the 5% they need for nationwide ballot eligibility than to support a person who is already prepared to sell the middle class down the river.

  113. Phil in FLL says:

    I would like to expect that, but it has been so many decades of American history since we’ve had a president like that. I really meant it in all of my previous comments when I said (from January) that I would be happy to vote for Bernie if he won the nomination. The best that he could do now is push Hillary to pick a progressive running mate and influence the party platform. Yes, I’m waiting for another Truman or FDR too.

  114. Blogvader says:

    And, I’d add, a constitutional showdown would have been preferable to a president allowing the witch hunts that occurred after DADT was approved.

  115. Blogvader says:

    Why shouldn’t we expect a president to use the power they have to do the right thing?

  116. Phil in FLL says:

    Truman’s order to integrate the armed forces, I think. Yes, Bill Clinton could have done that. I think Congress would have passed a law about DADT, and then there would have been a constitutional showdown that would have gone to the Supreme Court. Actually, that would have been grand. I agree with you on that. Few presidents, however, would have been willing to expend that much political capital at the very beginning of his term. But I agree with you that the whole constitutional showdown would have been historic.

  117. Blogvader says:

    Phil, please research Executive Order 9981, and then try to tell me that Clinton didn’t have the power to do the right thing.

    Thank you.

  118. Phil in FLL says:

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed both houses of Congress before LBJ signed it. Civil rights law has to begin in Congress as you know. So what about DADT? There were enough votes in Congress in 1993 to pass an even worse law than DADT and override any possible veto from Bill Clinton. You know all of this, yet you pretend that you don’t.

    But let me go further. Why was there such overwhelming support in Congress for DADT or something even worse? Who put all those congressmen into office? Well… um… the next time you see your extended family at Thanksgiving dinner, why don’t you ask them those questions?

  119. 2karmanot says:

    “Are you really that impressed with empty promises?” After Obozo—no.

  120. Webster says:

    It’s not my agenda, it’s our agenda, if you’re willing to fight for ìt, that is. Your “facing reality” sounds suspiciously like a cop-out to me. Either you want to make the world a better place or you don’t. How many chances do you think we get in a lifetime? They’re rare, and it’s important to act when they appear. There might not be another in my lifetime … I have no choice but to fight as hard as I can for as long as it takes.

  121. Blogvader says:

    The courageous way is never easy,

  122. Blogvader says:

    Could be, but it would have been better than watching a president give approval for the witch hunts that followed.

  123. danolgb says:

    But Max’s claims of universal healthcare would mean free PrEP is proved false by this. Also, the irony here is the campaign has hooked up with the anti-PrEP AHF and using the same talking points Weinsten does with anyone he disagrees with.

  124. manart says:

    And then Congress would have made a Constitutional Amendment, forfeiting any executive order and making it forever illegal to be gay and serve this country.

    That was the threat Bill was facing.

  125. Houndentenor says:

    Maybe you aren’t old enough to remember how that went down, but the country had a shit fit and Congress was mobilized to override him on that and put the anti-gay policy into law AND override any veto. So would you rather than have gone that way but with “courage”?

  126. Blogvader says:


    He wasn’t wrong. The Democrats are just as willing to go full O’keefe as Republicans are. It’s actually quite sad.

  127. David Hamburger says:

    Except that the guy who faked the video was actually a Bernie supporter. But, hey, why let reality get in the way of a good tirade?

  128. hoosiercub88 says:

    To be fair, PrEP isn’t widely accepted as an acceptable form of use for the drug Truvada in most countries around the world.. This is more about policy, not price fixing. We’re one of few

  129. Blogvader says:


    I’d have preferred the president have the courage that Truman had when he issued Executive Order 9981.

  130. Houndentenor says:

    It’s not about throwing up my hands. It’s about facing the reality of Congress for the next few election cycles. Democrats stayed home in 2010 and that allowed a takeover of state legislatures who redrew the districts making it harder than ever for Democrats to retake the House. Where was all this getting together back then? Yes, push for your agenda, but realize that accomplish it means voting in several election cycles and for local and state elections and not just for the presidency.

  131. Houndentenor says:

    I hate defending Bill on DOMA and DADT. I’m still pissed about both of those. But the reality of 1993 was that there were enough votes to pass a much worse bill than DADT and override his veto. So he agreed to what he thought was something that was at least better. In some ways it was and in some it wasn’t. It sucked. We did not have the votes to support any pro-gay national legislation at the time. Would you have preferred the worse bill codifying the witch-hunts that were going on in the military at the time into law rather than just policy?

  132. Houndentenor says:

    Not so long as so many Democrats sit out midterm elections.

    I’m not giving up. I’m just dealing with the reality of a GOP controlled house for several more elections. Prove me wrong and elect a Democratic majority in the House.

  133. Houndentenor says:

    That wasn’t my point but I think you already know that.

    My point was that it’s ridiculous to favor Sanders of Clinton, or vice versa, because of legislative agendas that will not be enacted. No, the Republicans aren’t going to work with either of them which is why back in February I stopped paying attention to such matters as I decided who to vote for in the primary.

  134. Ivyjmurray says:

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!ti471u

    two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !ti471u:➽:➽:.➽.➽.➽.➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsAppleGetPay$98Hour…. .★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★::::::!ti471o….,

  135. Webster says:

    They’re not “empty promises” if we all get together and actually work toward achieving them. Or, like Hillary, are you just willing to throw up your hands at the beginning, give up, and declare “It’s not going to happen.” I don’t give up that easily…I won’t.

  136. Blogvader says:

    People don’t care.

    That, or they don’t have the conscientiousness to look across the pond and realize that our allies have free college and universal health care, or look across our northern border and learn that Canada has a 12.00 minimum wage.

    This is what happens when fear is your only motivator.

  137. Robyn Greenberg says:

    They don’t get it. Maybe they weren’t paying attention until election time began. President Obama always began his negotiations from the middle and they wouldn’t even compromise with him. I voted for HRC in 2008. You want to know why we lost then? Because Obama said yes we can. That’s a winning message. That’s a message of inspiration and hope. We’re not getting that this year. We’ll all be voting against someone. Is that really the legacy that Hillary wants? She was elected because we feared Trump more? That is what the history books will tell…

  138. Robyn Greenberg says:

    Do you honestly believe that a GOP congress will work with Hillary? They can’t! If they do, their constituents will oust them. Whether right or wrong, they hate her. They have vile and irrational hate for her. . This argument is ridiculous. They aren’t going to work with any of us! Either one of them. Or have you forgotten the last 8 years?

  139. Blogvader says:

    I’m impressed with the will to fight for them, plain and simple.

    It’s been a long time since we’ve had an LBJ or FDR, and the nation’s worse off for it.

  140. Robyn Greenberg says:

    It’s his tone. Always his tone.

  141. Robyn Greenberg says:

    It’s all nonsense. Everyone in this has an agenda… California is about to vote. Lots of us lgbt folks out here. What better way to distort the real issues! This isn’t about some activist who doesn’t like his tone. This is about health care for all. This is about investing in education. But here we are again… It’s just another attempt to stifle the real issues facing Americans.

    Bernie isn’t against health care and he isn’t against PREP. Do your homework. I held my tongue for months. I disputed the conspiracy theories. But after Hillary worked with Charles Rangel to block Sanders from meeting at any black churches in Brooklyn… After a Hillary supporter volunteered for Bernie’s black outreach coordinator and didn’t return anyone’s phone calls… After Dolores Huerta accused Bernie’s campaign of yelling English First. .. I’m over all of you. I’m over this mega attempt to pave the way for Hillary. I voted for her in the past, but I won’t be this time. If she has to rely on these people to mount such an all out deception about him, maybe she’s not that strong of a candidate.

  142. brando5111 says:

    Issues much?…Mommy or Daddy? LOL

  143. Houndentenor says:

    How do big ideas that will never actually happen help?

    Are you really that impressed with empty promises?

  144. quax says:

    If this was supposed to be satire it couldn’t be more spot-on.

  145. Blogvader says:

    I love this argument.

    “Our candidate has preemptively conceded on big ideas, so there!”

    This is supposed to be a selling point?

  146. Webster says:

    Perhaps you see solid plans as “pixie dust,” perhaps you are willing in your partisan blindness to overlook a way forward into a better way of addressing the problems that face us in the 21st century. If you can live with that, fine. On your conscience be it — fortunately there are others willing to bet on a workable and meaningful vision…

  147. danolgb says:

    Except universal health care doesn’t mean you have access to the universe of all drugs.

  148. AdmNaismith says:

    Thank you

  149. Amwatching2c says:

    Pixie dust!

  150. Steffen Gliese says:

    This is the press release, it does only say, who actually supports the ballot:

  151. Steffen Gliese says:

    This is the Sanders press release, and it says nothing of what he is accused or. It notes, who endorses the ballot initiative, without mentioning those who do not.

  152. Houndentenor says:

    You don’t know who Dan Savage is?

    Yes, that’s his real account. Someone already had @dansavage so he jokingly took @fakedansavage as his twitter account. If you knew anything about him you’d be amused.

    How does anyone not know who Dan Savage is?

  153. Houndentenor says:

    And Bernie’s plan gets through a GOP-controlled Congress how?

  154. Cedar Cat says:

    Where is the Sanders “attack”? Sanders is supporting a drug cost cap bill in California. What is he fuss exactly? He speaks in every rally about the LGBT community and universal healthcare. What is Staley’s issue?

  155. BeccaM says:

    I can come up with any number of pros and cons regarding the initiative, including some I outlined in my comment above. Floyd’s link to the Santa Cruz Sentinel article has some good info.

    Pro: It might reduce some drug costs and reduce drug inflation to some degree. Con: Drug companies might just push the VA harder on their rates and eliminate discount programs. And as I noted, one of the concerns raised by other HIV/AIDS advocacy groups is they’re worried there’d be HIV drug shortages in California as a result.

    You remember the old anti-inflation price controls of the early 1970s? In practice, limiting price increases seemed like a good idea. The effective result, unfortunately, was manufacturers and gas producers cut supplies and warehoused their products, which made the shortages even worse. It’s one thing to limit prices, but you can’t then force someone to make the product available if they think they’ll do better selling it later or elsewhere.

    As for AHF… hoo. That’s a blog post all by itself. Weinstein is himself quite a piece of work and seems to think gay people should be celibate or 100% monogamous. For example, AHF took out full-page ads and billed PrEP as a “party drug”, and that if you were a gay man, you should fear sleeping with anybody who claimed to be on it. Ignoring the fear-mongering (and borderline anti-gay) angle of the 2nd part, for Truvada to be effective, a person can’t just pop one pill and have it work. You have to take it on a daily regimen. The WHO and CDC recommend it for sexually active persons who are likely to have sex with HIV+ individuals. But not AHF, which advocates condom use only.

    Here’s a couple links:

  156. danolgb says:

    It’s a fair question considering a super majority of his own supporters even before his campaign went off the rails didn’t support paying the taxes required for his proposals.

  157. BeccaM says:

    Save yourself a few micro-calories next time because I don’t give a damn what you care to ‘inform’ me about.

    p.s. I was a Sanders supporter until a month ago. People like yourself are doing a great job of ensuring I don’t regret stopping that support when his path to the nomination became statistically impossible on April 26th.

  158. BeccaM says:

    As we well know, Phil, accusing people of being paid to have their opinions is just about the lowest form of ad hominem attack. I’m not going to blame Sanders personally for this, but I’m more than happy to express extreme displeasure for that Grunnels guy’s uncalled-for remarks.

  159. BeccaM says:

    I’m aware of all those things. I’d also read accounts that AHF apparently tries to steer HIV+ patients into their healthcare org and some potentially shady stuff about erring on the side of false positive diagnoses. However, I don’t know how legit the allegations are.

    I figured I’d not write a full-length blog post and just try to stay focused on the specific conflict here. Which was the Sanders’ campaign misrepresenting the position and implied endorsement of these non-AHF groups.

  160. Moderator4 says:

    Dan Savage’s Twitter account is, in fact, @fakedansavage. His husband Terry Miller’s Twitter account is @fakedanshusband.

  161. McEnlightenment says:

    Actually you don’t. You get prep for free under the Federal Ryan White Program which existed long before Obama.

  162. Tee Ess says:

    Though I get my PreP at no cost, I know plenty of people that have to pay for PrEP. Free for some isn’t free for all…

  163. Moderator3 says:

    Being gay is not a prerequisite for commenting on this blog. Perhaps you passed up a golden opportunity to educate in a non-threatening, friendly manner. Just so their is no question about my motives, I am closely involved with the HIV community.

  164. Dewzer says:

    You are being irrational and disrespectful. Sorry, Bernie wouldn’t know what to do if we are attacked in SF by ISIS. Has a terrorist attack ever crossed your “marxist” mind???

  165. Dewzer says:

    Are you aware the AHF is being sued by the United States of America for misusing federal funds with Medicare???? And the CEO only believes that condoms alone will prevent HIV because his first love died from bareback sex. We have been fighting to keep AHF out of San Francisco. Also AHF medical methodology is the leading cause of HIV infections in Atlanta, GA among the African American population. AHF can rot in hell.

  166. Dewzer says:

    Your a fucking idiot. We already get PrEP for free under Obamacare!

  167. Phil in FLL says:

    Actually, three people prominently featured in the nasty Tea Party video above are:

    (1) Harry Reid, the Democratic senator who is the current minority leader of the Senate
    (2) Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic congresswoman who is the current minority leader of the House
    (3) John Kerry, who is the current secretary of state

    That would mean that you want them out and replaced by Republicans. No reasonable reader is going to interpret your reply to mean anything else. You can twist yourself into a pretzel, but it’s not going to convince anyone. As far as whether the Republicans will get to pick the new secretary of state, Senate majority leader and speaker of the House… well… we’ll see. Don’t count your Republican chickens quite yet.

  168. Floyd says:

    You don’t know who Dan Savage is? And you comment on it without knowing a damned thing. Google is your friend. For one thing, you’d find out that Dan Savage was the one who Google-bombed Rick Santorum such that now Santorum has the meaning of “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”. You know nothing of the gay community, you know nothing of the work that Peter Staley and the rest of these activists, representing some 70 groups, have done to save lives. Maybe you should learn something before making a fool of yourself.

  169. Amwatching2c says:

    How does he pay for free college and universal health care? Pixie dust?

  170. Floyd says:

    I believe AHF is against PrEP because the more people who seroconvert, the more patients they get, the better for their bottom line. Every action they take, including multiple lawsuits everywhere, is all about their bottom line. That and their president, Michael Weinstein, is a sex-negative jackass who is reviled by virtually everyone in the community. As to what the problems are with the initiative, here is one article. But the fact that not one single AIDS Service organization in California besides AHF has supported this initiative, and there are many, should tell you something.

  171. Kirk Linn says:

    AIDS healthcare foundation actually is pissed off at Gilead maker of Truvada because they wouldn’t lower their prices for them, so this is pretty much tit for tat

  172. Kirk Linn says:

    For one the California legislature would have a problem with being able to actually do it exactly therefore Micheal Wienstein and AHF will basically sue the state of California for not forcing it because they can’t do what the bill would require them to. Perfect catch 22

  173. Max_1 says:

    Good thing Hillary is against the Universal Health Care that Bernie if for…
    … Because WITH Universal Health Care, one could get PrEP, however with Hillary’s plan, your future is still determined by the Big Pharma that she just quit at the front of her campaign.

    Hillary’s plan = DRUG FIXING
    Bernie’s plan = ACCESS FOR ALL

  174. Phil in FLL says:

    I just thought Harry’s comment with the video from was on the wrong blog. Do you disagree? Then surf on over to and let us know what you think.

  175. Max_1 says:

    Harry R. Dohl isn’t responsible for the sHilling found on this site.
    And the lies behind the sHilling, UNFORGIVABLE!!!

  176. If there’s anything we’ve learned recently, it’s to trust that the pharmaceutical companies will do the right thing.

    Why, heavens, anyone concerned about access to meds for the poor is a darned fool!

  177. Phil in FLL says:

    OK, a few shout-outs are in order. First to Harry R. Sohl, who has graced us with a video from Harry, I hope you realize that is a conservative blog that pushes the Tea Party agenda. Your comment, celebrating the defeat of the Democratic Party and, therefore, the victory of the Republican Party would be more at home on Free Republic, don’t you think?

    The second shout-out goes to karmanot, who is in the habit of hitting the wrong key when he “likes” a post (for example, the “like” below for the video. I’m simply pointing out that “liking” a video from a right-wing Tea Party blog is… um… questionable. I think that’s a reasonable assessment. But are you going to call it (in your words) “disrespectful bullshit”? I think the only disrespectful bullshit is getting on a progressive blog and cheering for a pro-GOP video from And when I said “put down the pom-poms for the Republican Party on a previous thread, that was only figurative. I had no idea you would take that phrase literally. The idiot in the is actually holding two pom-poms.

  178. Max_1 says:

    Defend a gung-ho pro-sHillbot that smears Dem candidates, if you must…
    Desperation IS writing about a lie? Only to walk it back because it IS a lie?
    Then continue to throw shade at the Dem candidate? More lies… not desperate?

    Again, when was the last positive article about Hillary Clinton on this site?
    IF this site supports her, WHERE IS THE POSITIVE REPORTING ON HER???

  179. Max_1 says:

    Reflections of has beens…

  180. I heard he put a”Did” at the front of the tweet and a “?” At the end and everyone knows that makes it OK around here.

  181. Yes – this is almost exactly what happened yesterday when John said all these insulting and awful things about Bernie.

    And we know how his apology came out.

  182. Phil in FLL says:

    Republican troll video. I’m sure you’ll feel quite at home on the Americablog comment pages since there are a number of like-minded trolls who are here aaaaaaaall the time.

  183. Phil in FLL says:

    Deleted comments? Your comments are everywhere on this thread.

    Now as far as your username, thebrutalkremlin. Trump has made it clear how much he admires Putin… but I’ll bet you already knew that.

  184. Phil in FLL says:

    So different people who are involved with AIDS activism have different opinions and strategies regarding the proposed bill. That’s understandable and to be expected. What is not understandable or expected is for the Sanders campaign to lie about the consensus of the 19 organizations at the meeting for political gain. What is not understandable or expected is for a Sanders campaign official to misquote Peter Staley to make him look bad (“a campaign of hate”) and to accuse him of being a bribed profiteer instead of a longtime AIDS activist. Once again, I repeat Harry Truman’s description of the office that Bernie is seeking:

    “The Buck Stops Here”

    I’m waiting for Bernie to take that attitude to heart.

  185. AdmNaismith says:

    Any more information about the Drug Price Initiative (Pros, Cons, any links)?

    On the face of it it seems like a good idea- the VA may be the only governmental organization that has any leverage on the price of drugs.

    Why is the AHF against PrEP?

  186. Cam says:

    Whole article is a hack job. I don’t know who Dan Savage is but I doubt his real twitter account is @fakedansavage. Correct the record has to be behind this propaganda bull****. Just like they were behind posting porn (in one case kiddie porn, DISGUSTING) to Sanders social media accounts to crash his supporters pages. Just like they crawl and slither through comment sections everywhere spewing hatred, half truths, and lies. Just like they pose as Sanders supporters and say dumb $hit to make them look like Berniebros. Her whole campaign is built on lies and modern day propaganda and this article is certainly part of that machine.

  187. Phil in FLL says:

    Tweet from Gunnels:

  188. Phil in FLL says:

    Scandalous? Do you mean the tweet below from Gunnels (below) or the letter signed by all 19 organizations attending the meeting that the Sanders campaign was misrepresenting them for political gain? I think your quarrel is really with the 19 organizations that met with Sanders, not with John Aravosis. John is only acting as a journalist here. And in case you think that getting John to “obey” you will do any good, just Google the terms “Bernie,” “aids” and “meeting.” The content of John’s post is plastered all across the Internet.

    BTW, Sweet Pea, didn’t you say in a recent comment that you were going to spend less time commenting on Americablog?

  189. Tim Walstrum says:

    It has to raise huge questions though when these same people are on the same side as Big Pharma who are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat the measure. There are legitimate questions for example do any of these AIDS organizations receive money from these pharmaceutical companies? I have heard reports these do which does give an appearance of conflict of interest.

  190. “Attack?”

    Butch up, sister.

    You are damaging your brand with this shrill drama-Queen bullshit. Perhaps beyond repair…

    It reads like Twitchy. And that ain’t good.

  191. thebrutalkremlin says:

    Follow the trail: Hillary tips her hat to Big Pharm at Reagan’s funeral; Staley, brother of Jess Staley, head of Barclays, suddenly whips up this non-story. The AARP back the intiative along with tons of other reputable groups to lower drug prices. Big Pharm is spending millions to fight it. Hillary > Staley x 2 > Wall Street > Big Pharm. Any questions?

  192. Hata H. Zappa says:

    And ya’ll ignornace to bash Hillary is super duper dog evident. See, you’re not the only one that can play the home game of superlative hopscotch. Ya’ll are looking to be the desperate ones.

  193. Hata H. Zappa says:

    Bitchy queen sez wut?

  194. Hata H. Zappa says:

    Take a seat and hush ya mouth, queen. It is not a “desperate load of horse shit,” it’s the damn truth, and trying to read in all caps won’t change that, Ms. Thing.

  195. Hata H. Zappa says:

    Yep, attack anything counter to your view as “yellow.” Who could actually speak on this that you’d listen to? Would even God count?

  196. Floyd says:

    You are full of crap yourself. Every word of that story is accurate, but you aren’t involved with the HIV community so you wouldn’t know. Half of the people who signed the letter were Bernie supporters. I was until this and others have felt betrayed by him. He is siding with an organization whose sole purpose is increasing its bottom line, even if that means more people will seroconvert. And attacking one of the leading HIV activists with lies is over the line. Way over it.

  197. thebrutalkremlin says:

    Load of trash. Sorry to inform you we will NEVER support your goddess Hillary, expecially after the Reagan funeral.

  198. thebrutalkremlin says:

    Yeah go ahead an delete our comments – this yellow rag DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL GAYS. You’re wrong, and this is a desperate move by #hillary supporters. News Flash”: we ain’t buying it.

  199. thebrutalkremlin says:

    THIS IS A LOAD OF HORSE SHIT AND A DELIBERATE SMEAR FROM THE ‘SHE’S INEVITABLE” GAY SHILLARY SUPPORTERS. You do not speak for all of us. ‘Attacked’, yeah right. A setup plain & simple.

  200. Blogvader says:

    People were making fun of me yesterday for saying: “Look at Bernie’s record, the video must be a mistake.”

    Then it turns out it wasn’t. It was a fake.

    The swift boating of Bernie Sanders by Hillary supporters became obnoxious a long, long time ago. Now it’s getting to the point where it’s just sad to watch.

  201. BeccaM says:

    The AIDS Health Foundation (AHF), headed by Michael Weinberg are in favor of an initiative on the California ballot which would peg drug prices to what the Veteran’s Administration is paying. The criticism, by some (including Staley and many others), is this would cause drug companies to stop selling needed drugs in California (and only California) due to lower profits. The idea being companies like Gilead, not bound by national price regulations, would just load their meds onto trucks and sell them in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon instead, for example.

    The Sanders campaign was late in coming out with LGBT (in general) and HIV/AIDS-related positions. When they did, they basically just endorsed the AHF position, and assumed all the HIV/AIDS groups were in agreement.

    Staley and these other groups with him wanted to meet with Sanders to talk about a number of LGBT issues, including many health ones, and only at the end of the meeting was it brought up that support for the drug price initiative in California was NOT supported by all the HIV/AIDS activist groups. Moreover, of the 19 groups attending the meeting, many of them were not California based and therefore didn’t have a position one way or another.

    The coalition mainly wanted to push HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and ongoing research, as well as measures to stop anti-LGBT discrimination — including access to health care in general. As they said in their letter of complaint after the meeting and the campaign press release:

    We are grateful that you took time to sit with us this week to discuss a broad range of issues related to the fight against HIV/AIDS. Our group represents a larger coalition of over 70 organizations and advocates from across the country who hope to use this opportunity to push forward the national conversation, which is sorely missing, about HIV/AIDS. While we were optimistic following what we felt was a productive meeting, our optimism quickly turned to disappointment when your campaign issued a news release misrepresenting the meeting with HIV/AIDS leadership entitled “Sanders Backs California Ballot Initiative to Rein in Drug Prices at Meeting with HIV/AIDS Advocates.” As 19 representatives of the coalition, nearly half of whom are either based in or affiliated with organizations in California, we are deeply concerned as this may now appear as if we were exploited for short-term political gain leading up to the imminent California Presidential Primary Election.

    Your campaign’s release title and the bulk of its content mislead readers and the press to believe that our May 25 meeting was primarily focused on your endorsement of a California ballot initiative on HIV drug pricing. By extension, it also implies that our national HIV/AIDS coalition also fully endorses this initiative. Both these characterizations are inaccurate.

    During the meeting, we raised the issue of the California ballot initiative with you toward the tail end of the discussion, not to support or endorse it, but to relay to you that a number of stakeholders in California have serious concerns about the initiative. There is no general consensus in the HIV/AIDS community in support of the California ballot initiative, which is why we requested that you meet with those stakeholders. Prior to our meeting, numerous California organizations have tried to reach your campaign with these concerns, without any success.

    The letter was signed by head representatives of all 19 of the attending groups and individuals.

    Regardless how you yourself might feel about the California initiative, the fact is Sanders and his campaign in their press release portrayed the meeting as if they were a faceless bunch of people — none of which were named in the release — nodding at the only raised issue of any importance at the meeting, which was Sanders endorsing the California drug price initiative. Which again, the groups said there is no clear consensus on.

    Grunnels’ remarks afterward were really classless. When it comes to someone like Peter Staley, you don’t put the label of Activist in irony quotes, nor make it seem like he’d ever said Sanders was running a “campaign of hate” when Staley never said those words. Staley and the other 19 groups were angry at having been misrepresented and apparently exploited by the Sanders campaign in advance of the California primary. Attacking Staley is basically an ad hominem response and really ought to be beneath the Sanders campaign.

  202. Max_1 says:

    ^^ THAT ^^

  203. Max_1 says:

    “Another outcry”…

    Please write that article about that gap in Bernie’s teeth.
    It WILL have more bite.

    Your eagerness to smear Sanders is evident. You’ll even plant trash in you blog and call it a ‘story’ only later to walk the story back… time and time again. When will you stop? You look desperate, and here’s why; You lack articles touting what Hillary will bring us, do for us.

    When was the last good article you wrote about your candidate?

  204. mark_in_toronto says:

    Now you’re REALLY reaching.

  205. Jbrooks9 says:

    AHF and Michael Weinberg ARE the face of the AIDS industry. How dare Sanders side with such opportunist slime. Bernie I voted for you in the primary, but you have been showing your true colors for months now. Your campaign is an embarrassment and I wouldn’t vote for you. Period.

  206. Webster says:


  207. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Oh, Jeez!

  208. 2karmanot says:

    This is scandalous. You’ve hit the lowest bar imaginable John. How sad and disappointing.

  209. Gerard L. says:

    Ranbaxy = Clinton.

  210. TheAngryFag says:

    Here we go again….

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS