HomeUncategorized7/31 News Roundup & Open Thread

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
48 Comment threads
65 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
wi61BennyhumphreyWindDancer13polarbear4 Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of


The two-night setup left Warren and her fellow top-tier candidate at the left end of the spectrum, Sen. Bernie Sanders, with no opportunity to debate the only viable manifestation of centrism in the race. Instead, they spent the night fending off a platoon of mini-Bidens.

Delaney, judging by airtime, appeared to be CNN’s preferred mini-Biden. But the network also served up Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper to perform the same television-drama function as pragmatic foils to the lunatics Sanders and Warren. Each had marginal differences in emphasis that, when assembled, created the effect of a Biden Voltron: Delaney was the “business solutions” Biden proxy, Ryan the “heartland” one, Bullock the “pragmatism wins red states” one, and Hickenlooper … John Hickenlooper was on the stage.

Especially in the first hour of the debate, the moderators just read critiques of left-wing policy ideas like single-payer health insurance or the decriminalization of unauthorized entry into the country, asked Warren and Sanders to defend them, and encouraged the mini-Bidens to sic ’em.


It’s likely that they will continue to team up against Biden down the road.


Tuesday night was Bernie and Liz vs. the world.

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren sharpened their knives on a pack of second-tier candidates during the second round of Democratic debates, a sign that they may continue to team up to push the party left and take on the moderates who have a better shot at the nomination.

Warren and Sanders parried attack after attack from a number of centrists desperate to claw their way into the next debate, counter-punching hard as they defended their stridently progressive policies.

Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, told VICE News Sanders and Warren made an effective tag team against candidates he identifies with the corporate wing of the party.

“There’s still this lingering sort of corporate wing of the party which is hanging on. It’s on life support but it’s dying and withering away,” Weaver said. “What you didn’t see on the stage tonight were other leading candidates who are much more of the corporate wing of the party and people, I think, will have the opportunity to see those debates in the future.”

Still, after Tuesday’s debate, one thing is clear: The distinction between Sanders and Warren will not be revealed in direct attacks between the two, as debate moderators may have hoped. Liberal-minded voters will instead have to decide for themselves who is a better spokesperson for progressivism — and they were both pretty damn effective Tuesday night.

Sanders’ wrecking ball mockery and Warren’s incisive scorn, both directed at one-percent polling candidates who have likely seen their last presidential debate stage, elevated their vision for the party and their individual candidacies.

The question of whether they can continue that streak against more formidable candidates, such as former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, will have to wait until the next debate in September.


I hope they do continue to team up. No better advertisement for progressive policy.


It would be sort of like if the NDP (New Democratic Party) and the Green Party of Canada joined forces to beat the Liberal Party up north. That’d be good.


Bernie and Liz were well aware of what was coming from CNN


A few minutes after Tuesday’s presidential debate, as reporters waited for interviews in a tent down the street from Detroit’s Fox Theatre, Faiz Shakir put on a breathless mock tone and held up his hand like a microphone.

“Why didn’t they attack each other!?”

Shakir, the campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, directed his pretend questions to a colleague, senior adviser Jeff Weaver.

“Why didn’t Bernie Sanders draw contrasts with Elizabeth Warren!!??” Shakir went on.

“Why didn’t they go on the attack so we can actually do the stories we wanna write!!!???”

Weaver, laughing along with this game, replied into Shakir’s mimed tape recorder that Sanders and Warren, two icons of progressive politics, didn’t “follow through” on the primetime, debate-stage rivalry that, in their faux telling, political reporters were salivating to see on Tuesday evening.

Few really expected Warren and Sanders, the highest-polling candidates on stage in the first of two Democratic debates this week, to go after each other here in Detroit. The two senators, both dominant and at ease on stage, instead worked in lockstep at points to bat back moderate critics, even as moderators attempted to incite a conflict between the two big-name progressives.

A spokesperson for CNN did not immediately return a request for comment on the recurring pattern during the debate of moderators asking moderates to critique progressives.

Weaver, the senior Sanders adviser, cast the debate as a fight over the future of the party: “about whether it’s going to be a progressive party that speaks to the needs of people and marginalized communities,” he said, or one “beholden to special corporate interests.”

“And I think the corporate interests tonight took a thorough lashing,” Weaver added. “Bernie Sanders certainly spoke to the principles he’s stood for for decades. And Elizabeth Warren spoke to her principles.”


And I think the corporate interests tonight took a thorough lashing

Yep. Between Bernie pointing out that pharma ads would run during the debate and both of them talking about how Delaney has profited off the health care racket.

Will capitalism have some defenders tonight?


Besides “I wrote the damn bill” the Pharma ads beat up CNN as well. Way to go Bernie!!!


CNN and the other weapons of mass deception didn’t get the war between Bernie and Warren they wanted, they certainly did try.


Well the CNN mods had to please their overloards or face unemployment. Ed Schultz used to use the phrase for everyone who showers after a hard days work on his show before they fired Ed and went R lite


That was so unjust the way they threw Schultz overboard. He was so good. I can only imagine what he’d be making of things nowadays.



Those hoping for an underdog candidate to run away with Tuesday night’s debate did not get their wish. The winners — at least in the initial assessment — were the night’s two front-runners, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Mr. Sanders was a forceful presence throughout the night, especially on health care, one of his signature issues.

Early in the debate, he had a blunt, audience-pleasing response to former Representative John Delaney of Maryland, who has said it would be “political suicide” to eliminate private insurance: “You’re wrong.” And later, rejecting Mr. Delaney’s characterizations of what “Medicare for all” would do, he bellowed: “I wrote the damn bill!”

“+1 for Bernie. ‘You’re wrong!’ Guaranteed to be in the video summary of this debate.” — Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics

“Bernie is utterly dominating the healthcare issue. John Delaney should admit defeat and wait for a new topic.” — Frank Luntz, Republican consultant and pollster



Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Detroit was widely expected to pit the two leading progressives in the field against each other. Instead, Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts had each other’s backs in fending off the other eight aspirants onstage.

They gave as good as they got, and emerged at least as strong as either was going in. That was particularly good news for Sanders, who had been perceived as ceding ground to Warren in recent months.

It began when all 10 candidates were introduced by the CNN moderators, who brought them out in the order they qualified for the event (based on polling and donations).

Sanders was first, followed immediately by Warren, who clapped him on the back and shook his hand with an air of shared determination. It was as if their body language said “it’s us against them” from the outset.

As the full 150-minute marathon unfolded, Sanders and Warren were often beset literally from all those on either side of them. The framing was largely determined by the CNN moderators, who wanted to know if the other candidates thought Sanders’ and Warren’s ideas about “Medicare for All” and aggressive action on climate change were out of the mainstream — or just too pronounced to attract swing voters in 2020.



One thing is absolutely certain coming out of the first night of the CNN Democratic debates in Detroit: Despite months of chin-scratching punditry pitting “electability” against strong progressive views, by the end of the night Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts showed that they’re not just the most progressive candidates on stage, they’re also the most electable.

As I predicted, Warren and Sanders did not turn on each other, although CNN moderator Jake Tapper repeatedly tried to bait them into it. Instead, they backed each other up and faced off against the moderates that made up the rest of the stage. The tag-team strategy allowed both Warren and Sanders to walk away as winners at the end of the night. Contrary to my initial concerns, it also made for an exciting debate — and one that bodes well for future debates, when the pointless candidates are finally winnowed out and these two will take on former Vice President Joe Biden.

They didn’t have Biden to kick around on Tuesday evening, but Warren and Sanders were given the gift of former Rep. John Delaney, whose bug-eyed eagerness to paint the sorts of generous social programs that are standard in most other developed countries as total crazypants provided an excellent foil. It was straight-up weird that CNN’s moderators gave so much talking time to Delaney, a millionaire businessman who briefly rented a Maryland congressional seat and is polling below 1%. But he made a wonderful heel for Warren and Sanders, who spent most of the night dunking on him deliciously.

Certainly, the CNN moderators tried hard to tip the debate against the progressives, with Tapper continually framing questions about single-payer health care in terms of a tax increase, even though Warren, Sanders and even Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, explained that most people won’t care about a tax raise if they are relieved of paying health insurance premiums at the same time.

It simply didn’t work. The topline takeaway of the night is that Warren and Sanders came across as the only candidates who had both the vision and the courage necessary to take on Trump in a general election.

We can only hope this debate will help undermine this nonsense narrative that pits electability against progressive politics. Indeed, by defending themselves against attacks from centrists all night, Warren and Sanders displayed that they not only have the fortitude to go against Trump, but that they were the only candidates on that stage with such fortitude.



From painfully canned lines to paint-by-the-numbers tales of personal triumph in the face of adversity, last night’s Democratic debate in Detroit bore every hallmark of the genre. But amid scripted and focused-grouped flourishes (“wish list economics!”, “bold AND realistic!”, “Medicare for all…who want it!”, “not left and right but new and better!”), there was little doubt about one thing: the two candidates charting a more transformative and confrontational course for the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, set the terms of the evening.

Despite media predictions of a clash between Warren and Sanders, their joint presence on the stage proved mutually reinforcing, polarizing issue after issue and compelling the remaining field of mostly centrist candidates to offer endless variations on the theme of “no.” Ironically, this meant more airtime for decidedly right-leaning figures like Johns Hickenlooper and Delaney, whose onslaughts against Sanders and Warren often left the likes of media darlings Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Beto O’Rourke sounding vague and unfocused.

CNN’s moderation of the debate only exacerbated this dynamic, with hosts (particularly Jake Tapper) grafting a conservative frame onto key questions surrounding healthcare and immigration. In theory, this should have aided the self-proclaimed moderates; in practice, it tended to reinforce the basic polarity between those treating the 2020 election as a political and moral crusade and those approaching like an eighteen-month job interview for a position in upper management.



One of the most compelling things about Tuesday’s Democratic debate – which featured Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, and a host of lesser known candidates – was to see just how much of Sanders’ 2016 progressive agenda is dominating the party in 2019 and just how uncompelling the centrist replies to it still are.

John Delaney, an unknown former congressman who has spent millions running a campaign no one’s heard of, was the unlikely gladiator willing to take it on. Despite statistically insignificant support, he got plenty of airtime, saying his progressive opponents (both Sanders and Warren) were committing political suicide and that they didn’t stand a chance in a general election.

But while Delaney and others, like the Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar, spoke about what they wouldn’t do, what they wouldn’t support, Sanders talked about getting “rid of the profiteering of the health insurance and drug companies”, about jobs, and free education, about basic rights that belonged to everyone. And Elizabeth Warren asked: “Why go through the trouble of running for president and then talk about what we can’t do and won’t fight for?”


So predictable from WaPo. Warren a winner but not Bernie even though they basically acted in concert. Even Delaney was tagged as a winner.



And then there’s Jennifer Rubin. Matt Taibi took care of her best, I think.


takes the cake.


I had to look up Ibogaine! Sounds kind of intriguing actually. I’m reading that some think the substance could be very helpful in helping to break opioid addiction. But it’s not legal here (natch).

Commonly used in initiatory ceremonies in western Central Africa and harvested from the Tabernanthe iboga plant, ibogaine is a psychoactive alkaloid. In the United States, the Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, currently considers ibogaine a Schedule I controlled substance with no accepted medicinal uses and a high potential for abuse and dependency due to its hallucinogenic properties.

According to Mash, and published by BBC World Service, all patients showed an effect on their addiction from the ibogaine treatment and 70 percent remained in recovery for months and years after treatment. However, it is unclear if Mash compared her results to patients using an alternative treatment. *Researchers today are attempting to isolate noribogaine, one of the metabolites of ibogaine, and hoping to test its effectiveness as a potential legal alternative to ibogaine for addiction treatment.


*at which point I imagine some drug company will scoop it up and patent it etc..


T and R, LD!! I didn’t watch last night. After CNN’s stunt with the poll numbers, their less-than-zero cred went down further w/me. So, I read several commentariat threads. Looks like the Bernster did very well. 🙂 Liz? Does she want to be Bernie’s VP since she blew it with $hrill?


Undoubtedly my best contribution to last night’s debate:

Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death

Love it.


Haha, you cultist! 😂😎

Don midwest
Don midwest

CNN’s Debate Fail
The Democratic debate was an inevitable by-product of turning news into an entertainment and cultural product.

Though ideology wasn’t necessarily the point, the fact that Warren and Sanders stood pre-eminent above everyone led to persistent right-wing assumptions in every question. Tapper led off by asking whether taxes would have to go up to pay for Medicare for All, and whether 180 million people should have their insurance coverage taken away from them—a nice, objective, down-the-center series of questions. Tapper, of course, is the same guy who took the Mercatus Center’s sideby enabling the Koch Brothers-funded think tank to lie about their own report, which clearly showed that overall national health expenditures would go down under a single-payer system.

Tapper then tried to cleave unions from the Democratic Party by saying that national health care would take away hard-earned benefits, as if unions would not then seek to renegotiate contracts with higher wages. His next muddled question: how candidates could support decriminalizing border crossings, a policy so etched in stone that it’s been in place since way back in 2006. Then there was a long section that asked candidates to play pundits and explain why liberal ideas are bad and wrong.

Don midwest
Don midwest

a couple of tweets from Matt Stoller



im tellin ya. lol. maybe I should go easy on him, maybe he has bugeyes naturally, but I swear he looks hopped up.

Don midwest
Don midwest

election interference cover up until whistle blower outed intelligence

I know that the dems have been focused on Russia, Russia, etc and read lots of stuff, but I missed

The result was last week’s stunning report on Russian election interference from the Senate Intelligence Committee, a GOP-led panel. It revealed for the first time that the Russian 2016 operation targeted election systems in all 50 states, that hackers had the ability to change key data in Illinois and that, in the words of the New York Times, this was “an effort more far-reaching than previously acknowledged and one largely undetected by the states and federal officials at the time.”

That lack of either acknowledgment or detection is precisely the reason that Reality Winner risked everything to blow the whistle.

As blogger Marcy Wheeler pointed out last week, it took both the Winner leak and subsequent prodding from Democratic members of Congress for either VR Systems or the FBI to take Russia’s apparent 2016 computer break-in of that vendor’s software seriously. Investigative efforts by Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, revealed that despite some back-and-forth between VR Systems and the FBI before the 2016 general election, the vendor didn’t hire a contractor — FireEye — to investigate until after Winner’s disclosure (and, thus, long after the election).

In order to ensure that there is no contact with Reality Winter, there is a total gag order on her and her prison term, a record setting term, is set to end after elections.

Dems should make this an issue

Russian election-hacking probe proved that it’s way past time to free Reality Winner | Will Bunch

It was not until her disclosure that they started looking into the issue


free reality and can we pleez now haz HAND MARKED PAPER BALLOTS?


that hackers had the ability to change key data in Illinois

1. is there any hard evidence of that?
2. what “data” are we talking about exactly?
3. were all of those hackers Russian? Or, for ex, maybe Romanians, or something else non-Russian, hired by Russians?
4. do they know for sure that the “Russian 2016 operation” was conducted by the Russian govt?
5. re: the hackers having “the ability”-did they actually do it?

As you can tell, I remain somewhat skeptical about Russiagate. (I welcome any kind of closure about it though, so am keeping my ears open for now)

But of course I would love to see a much higher level of security in our voting systems! We need that badly.

And paper receipts.





The title of Bruni’s piece: “Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Marooned Together on Fantasy Island” He loves Buttigieg and prefers Warren to Bernie.

I read his autobiography “Born Round.” Boy that guy is so impressed with himself.


One of the many dissenting opinions in the comments:

Fantasy island is where people still believe that our current system is working.





Good one!



TomP’s diary on this at DK. No 1 on Rec List.








CNN inadvertently showcased the establishment’s biggest nightmare: a possible Sanders/Warren ticket and the American people seeing progressives as the smartest people in the room.

Wow, I hadn’t thought of it quite like that. Interesting.


And seeing older progressives…not inexperienced.


The pair is what occurred to me after the debate too, but I’m not sure she would do it. I still don’t trust her, and this harmony could be simple self-preservation. But look at the percentage of Dem votes you would get, sheesh.



And they were mad, those entitled people, thinking they had us all under their control.


Except for Williamson, she gained. (more on that later)

And I’d have to say Buttigieg seemed to gain a little bit.



so they had better be tried for murder.



Oh My! How time has changed one’s opinion.



It gives me great pleasure to say this: Paul Krugman is a talking whelk.



Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper said that 2020 rivals Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are “demonizing” business in America, arguing that it’s going to make it harder for the progressive candidates to get elected.

“I think in a more general way, (Sanders is) demonizing business,” Hickenlooper told CNN’s Poppy Harlow on “Newsroom” Wednesday after the first night of CNN’s Democratic presidential debates. “Both he and Senator Warren are consistently saying the problem is business.”
Warren, who represents Massachusetts, has proposed breaking up big tech companies while Sanders, who represents Vermont, has railed against the pharmaceutical industry and supports importing drugs from other countries.

“They’re careful to try and tackle only large businesses,” Hickenlooper said on CNN Wednesday. “Every large business started as a small business and every small business wants to get larger.”



comment image?resize=807×807


It’s not so much “Moscow Mitch” as it is “Beijing Mitch.” His wife is Elaine Chou–corrupt ties right to China.






But on the stage at the Fox theater Tuesday night, the candidates who had to fight to justify the righteousness of their path were not the tag-teaming progressives demanding sweeping changes — to health, tax and environmental policy. Rather it was the raft of milquetoast moderates, preaching caution and incrementalism, who had to defend themselves from challenges of being callous, cold hearted, and out of touch. The questions that hit home were not “how can we possibly afford these changes?” but rather, given the challenges Americans face, “how can we possibly afford more of the same?”

If this new dynamic holds for the second night of the debates, it promises to put Joe Biden — whose campaign promises a reversion to the path he helped chart with Barack Obama — on the defensive. Can the former vice president who once campaigned under the slogan “Yes We Can” explain to America why in fact we really can’t?

By luck of the draw, the first night debate stage was anchored by the two strongest change agents in the 2020 race, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Instead of attempting to differentiate themselves, one from the other, the duo locked arms, and made the fierce case for the agenda they agree on: Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and new taxes on the wealthiest.

America has seen bold, visionary Democrats on the debate stage before. But even prominent ones — Jesse Jackson in 1988 comes to mind — had to go it alone, swimming upstream against a current of knowing and complacent voices, soberly explaining why it’s too much too soon.

But the celebrity, charisma and moral clarity of Sanders and Warren — he leading with statistics (“49 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent”), she connecting with stories about Americans like ALS sufferer Ady Barkin (“This is somebody who has health insurance and is dying. And every month, he has about $9,000 in medical bills that his insurance company won’t cover”) — gave the pair unprecedented gravity on stage.


At first I wasn’t so thrilled that Bernie and Liz were sort of peeled off like that and put into the first night. But now it seems that a tone has been established that tonight’s contenders might need to contend with.



In a lengthy radio interview Tuesday, AOC expounded on a huge range of Jewish topics — from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to anti-Semitism to Jewish social justice activism to her use of the term “concentration camps” to her possible Jewish ancestry to Jews of color in Israel to Bernie Sanders.

Ocasio-Cortez is critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposes Israel’s occupation of the West Bank — but framed it as a criticism of Israeli policy, not of Israel’s existence. She said that doesn’t mean she’s anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. She gave a shoutout to the leftist Jewish group IfNotNow, which opposes the occupation and is controversial in many parts of the Jewish community for not taking a stance — for or against — Zionism, the Israel boycott or the “question of statehood.”

She also accused the Trump administration of anti-Semitism. She defended her use of the term “concentration camps” to describe detention centers on the border. She praised New York City Jews for standing up for minorities. She discussed Ethiopian Jews protesting in Israel.

“[I] love Bernie and I love Elizabeth Warren. Those are not just my politics, but I think they really in a big way check off that box in advocating for the things that I think can win a presidential election,” she said. “But there are a lot of other really great people out there.”


“But there are a lot of other really great people out there.”

Name one. The only other credible candidate I see in the whole field is Jay Inslee. I certainly don’t see “a lot” of other really great ones.


Too diplomatic if you ask me. Just tell the damn truth that most of the rest suck big time.


Bernie Sanders Bashes CNN For Pairing Drug Company ‘Talking Points’ With Its Ad Money

“The health care industry will be advertising tonight on this program,” Sanders told moderator Jake Tapper. “They will be advertising tonight with that talking point.”

Like clockwork, it happened:

Subsequent commercial breaks featured an ad paid for by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) that celebrated drug breakthroughs and an ad redirecting to a website that discusses “what the biopharmaceutical industry is doing to make medicines more affordable.”



Boy I bet those stickers are flying off the shelves!🤣🤣🤣


By contrast, seemingly prepared lines from Delaney and Ryan — both polling at roughly 1% — received a tepid audience response.

“You don’t have to yell,” Ryan told Sanders after the Jewish Brooklynite delivered an impassioned speech on the greed of Big Pharma.

Though the line landed with only muted laughter, Ryan’s campaign adopted it as a slogan. It now sells stickers with “YOU DON’T HAVE TO YELL” in block capital letters.




Jennifer Rubin certainly will buy one.😜🙄


Does anyone have any plans to begin a debate thread? I certainly can do that if you want! Have some interesting polling data to share too.


Go for it!


give me a few minutes then meet you there sweetie!


This piece by Cillizza is a hint:

Marianne Williamson is the newest internet darling

During Tuesday’s CNN Democratic debate in Detroit, Google tracked which of the 10 candidates on stage were being searched the most on its platform during the proceedings. In Montana, it was home state Gov. Steve Bullock. In the other 49 states? Marianne Williamson.

Williamson made her name as a self-help author and spiritual guru/adviser. According to Amazon, seven of her dozen books have made The New York Times bestseller list and four went all the way to No. 1.

In the broadest strokes, Williamson preaches a sort of semi-secular gospel of love. (Her most recent book, called “A Politics of Love” and released in April 2019, “confronts the cancerous politics of fear and divisiveness threatening the United States today, urging all spiritually aware Americans to return to—and act out of—our deepest value: love.”)

Throughout her decades of writing and speaking — Williamson is 67 — she has attracted a considerable following, particularly in the celebrity set.

Williamson has been a spiritual adviser to Cher. Bette Midler is a devotee. Gwyneth Paltrow, in a Goop podcast interview with Williamson last year, called Williamson a “spiritual legend.” Williamson officiated Elizabeth Taylor’s marriage to her seventh husband — shout out Larry Fortensky!! — at Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch. (Taylor and Fortensky divorced after five years.)

Uh oh

Williamson has also had some peripheral connection to politics. In late 1994, Williamson was one of a handful of new age spiritual gurus invited to Camp David by Bill and Hillary Clinton as the president and first lady sought to grapple with the massive losses for Democrats in the midterm elections and find a new way forward over the second half of his first term.

Two decades later, Williamson decided to enter politics in her own right, running as an independent for the open 33rd district in California — a congressional seat that includes hugely affluent communities like Santa Monica, Malibu and Brentwood.

Williamson’s celebrity devotees turned out in droves. Nicole Richie, Katy Perry and, yes, Kim Kardashian have all supported her. Alanis Morissette wrote a song for her campaign. This is true! It’s called “Today.”


That stuff is more worrisome to me than anything. Guess we’ll see how all that shakes out!


Anyone or anything related to Gwyneth Paltrow and GOOP aka GLOP is another New Age scam. Williamson sounds like a practiced flake who has made beaucoup of Benjamins.


Mags has posted a new Thread.


Thank you Humphrey!

Skip to toolbar