Biden Out of Race

Healthcare jobs with pay you can see.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
rowsdower88 said:
View attachment 403131

It's going to be hard to ever care about Democrat corruption in the future.

www.cbsnews.com

Trump family's net worth has increased by $2.9 billion thanks to crypto investments, new report says

As the Trump family's crypto ventures increase their wealth, the president's administration pauses a dozen federal crypto probes.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

So fascinating and sad to me Americans don’t seem to care about this crypto grift. Or DJT Jrs. half million membership ‘nightclub’. But mention Hunter Biden’s artwork and maga froths at the mouth.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Southpaw said:
So fascinating and sad to me Americans don’t seem to care about this crypto grift. Or DJT Jrs. half million membership ‘nightclub’. But mention Hunter Biden’s artwork and maga froths at the mouth.
Click to expand...
I haven't really followed it but honestly it's hard for me to give a crap about someone losing money investing in Trump family crypto in the first place... sorta like I don't get outraged by people blowing their money on the lottery or local casino (although at least in those cases they theoretically are contributing to tax revenue).

Now I don't like it overall as a potential way to bribe politicians by putting money in these coins though but I don't see that much differently than speaker fees, book deals or the artwork stuff which as you've pointed out I don't imagine the crypto is really breaking new ground here.
 
HemeOncHopeful19 said:
I haven't really followed it but honestly it's hard for me to give a crap about someone losing money investing in Trump family crypto in the first place... sorta like I don't get outraged by people blowing their money on the lottery or local casino (although at least in those cases they theoretically are contributing to tax revenue).

Now I don't like it overall as a potential way to bribe politicians by putting money in these coins though but I don't see that much differently than speaker fees, book deals or the artwork stuff which as you've pointed out I don't imagine the crypto is really breaking new ground here.
Click to expand...

More referring to Trumps ‘top two hundred buyers of my meme coin get dinner w me’ or giving DJT Jr half a million to get access to Trump and his cabinet.
 
HemeOncHopeful19 said:
I haven't really followed it but honestly it's hard for me to give a crap about someone losing money investing in Trump family crypto in the first place... sorta like I don't get outraged by people blowing their money on the lottery or local casino (although at least in those cases they theoretically are contributing to tax revenue).

Now I don't like it overall as a potential way to bribe politicians by putting money in these coins though but I don't see that much differently than speaker fees, book deals or the artwork stuff which as you've pointed out I don't imagine the crypto is really breaking new ground here.
Click to expand...
Yea its a direct bribery system that can be used by anyone regardless of nationality with 0 tax accountability. If Pelosi was getting paid to sign books or give speeches in moscow or Beijing you can bet people would give a **** but under this system there is functionally no way to know who is bribing him or how much. We do know it is orders of magnitude higher than anything Hunter got but again that no longer matters because Trump is the one doing it so we are all OK with it. We have moved on from winks and nudges to open criminality and nobody is blinking an eye but that is a recurring theme for the never ending descent of the Republican party.
 
chessknt said:
Yea its a direct bribery system that can be used by anyone regardless of nationality with 0 tax accountability. If Pelosi was getting paid to sign books or give speeches in moscow or Beijing you can bet people would give a **** but under this system there is functionally no way to know who is bribing him or how much. We do know it is orders of magnitude higher than anything Hunter got but again that no longer matters because Trump is the one doing it so we are all OK with it. We have moved on from winks and nudges to open criminality and nobody is blinking an eye but that is a recurring theme for the never ending descent of the Republican party.
Click to expand...
Trump is teflon don
 
www.theguardian.com

Trump says he doesn’t know if he needs to uphold constitutional due process

President also says he sees himself as leaving office at the end of his current term and not seeking a third one
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


“Donald Trump said “I don’t know” when asked if he needed to uphold the US constitution when it comes to giving immigrants the right of due process as he gave a wide-ranging TV interview broadcast on Sunday.“

Oath of office is meaningless to him.
 
www.yahoo.com

Trump blasts Mexico's Sheinbaum for rejecting offer to send US troops into Mexico to fight cartels

President Donald Trump on Sunday said Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected his proposal to send U.S. troops to Mexico to help thwart the illegal drug trade because she is fearful of the country's powerful cartels. The comments by Trump came a day after Sheinbaum confirmed that Trump...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Curious what Trump voters think of this? US troops going to fight Mexican cartels? I’m withholding an opinion but certainly the foreign policy of MAGA has been isolationist (stop helping Ukraine; stopping with the endless unsuccessful wars of our history) with the exception of Israel (which both parties seem willing to support unconditionally). Also news out of Israel is they now plan to take all of Gaza.

apnews.com

Israel plans to capture all of Gaza under new plan, officials say

Two Israeli officials says ministers have approved a plan to capture the entirety of the Gaza Strip and remain in the territory for an unspecified amount of time.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
Southpaw said:
Curious what Trump voters think of this? US troops going to fight Mexican cartels? I’m withholding an opinion but certainly the foreign policy of MAGA has been isolationist (stop helping Ukraine; stopping with the endless unsuccessful wars of our history) with the exception of Israel (which both parties seem willing to support unconditionally).
Click to expand...

There is a pretty significant difference in the conservative isolationist movement and its impact on strictly foreign policy compared to the transnational threat of cartels, which have established a footprint of influence within US borders, and contribute directly to violence and loss of life through illegal operations in our country.

Putting US troops in Mexico is by no means the right answer. However, previous Mexican administrations have been more receptive to cross border cooperation in terms of intelligence gathering, asset sharing, and joint operations.

Regardless there has to be a middle ground between a “hugs not bullets” campaign and the wanton destruction and collateral damage that would ensue with US military backed intervention.

Our posturing on the southern border like what’s going on in El Paso, is a part of a stepped measure to put pressure on Sheinbaum to increase efforts in focusing on corruption and direct anti-cartel action. Again, a middle ground between bugs not bullets, and burn everything to the ground.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MirrorTodd said:
Oh you know, just removing the odd general here and there. Absolutely nothing to be concerned about.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-reduce-4-star-positions-by-20-official-says-2025-05-05/
Click to expand...

Up to 12 compromised Signal chats as well from Hegseth, who is still our Secretary of Defense.

www.newsweek.com

Pete Hegseth had at least 12 Signal chats for Pentagon business: Report

Hegseth and other members of the national security team have drawn scrutiny over their use of Signal to hold sensitive talks.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
Screenshot_20250505_212910_Bluesky~2.jpg


Recently declassified documents from the National Security Council suggest the Maduro regime is not involved in directing Tren de Aragua.

This runs counter to the Trump administration's explicit claims in court to the contrary. This should be a big deal because it was a major argument they used to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act with TDA as essentially an agent of the Maduro regime. In a sane world, this would also result in questioning the basis behind imprisoning those in our El Salvador gulag.

"The Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
 
rowsdower88 said:
View attachment 403206

Recently declassified documents from the National Security Council suggest the Maduro regime is not involved in directing Tren de Aragua.

This runs counter to the Trump administration's explicit claims in court to the contrary. This should be a big deal because it was a major argument they used to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act with TDA as essentially an agent of the Maduro regime. In a sane world, this would also result in questioning the basis behind imprisoning those in our El Salvador gulag.

"The Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
Click to expand...
Their goal is destabilizing the governments of other countries and undermining public safety through their regime’s activities. That is what the report says. Maybe you should take some into your home and assess their character. They seem like upstanding citizens.
You’re on here defending terrorist regimes as if they are perfectly nice and innocent victims. You want them in our country for what purpose? You and other Democrats consistently defend the most violent criminals at the expense of the safety of our own citizens. This is the basis of why your candidates (and their supporters) are losing the trust of the average American citizen.
 
Gern Blansten said:
Their goal is destabilizing the governments of other countries and undermining public safety through their regime’s activities. That is what the report says. Maybe you should take some into your home and assess their character. They seem like upstanding citizens.
You’re on here defending terrorist regimes as if they are perfectly nice and innocent victims. You want them in our country for what purpose? You and other Democrats consistently defend the most violent criminals at the expense of the safety of our own citizens. This is the basis of why your candidates (and their supporters) are losing the trust of the average American citizen.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt some people are doing what you say, but I think its a small minority.

Most of us just expect solid due process before we deport people to a foreign prison. That's literally it, and I hardly think that's a big ask.

I'd prefer at least a perfunctory hearing with a judge before we deport someone back to their home country, but even that I don't think most of us feel too passionately about.
 
Gern Blansten said:
Their goal is destabilizing the governments of other countries and undermining public safety through their regime’s activities.
Click to expand...

Whose goal? TDA? Maybe? Maduro's? Maybe as well. But according to the NSC, the two aren't connected.

Gern Blansten said:
You’re on here defending terrorist regimes as if they are perfectly nice and innocent victims.
Click to expand...

Point to where I've defended a terrorist regime. I'm truly at a loss here. I'm quoting the NSC, are they defending a terrorist regime with their assessment?

I think this assessment should absolutely question the legitimacy of invoking the Alien Enemies Act.

Gern Blansten said:
You want them in our country for what purpose? You and other Democrats consistently defend the most violent criminals at the expense of the safety of our own citizens.
Click to expand...

I think in general they deserve more due process rights than they're currently getting because, for some reason, mistakes keep happening and they seem to be getting worse. (Now we're seeing American citizens being deported without their full due process rights.) Pointing out these mistakes is good. Maybe pick an example instead of being vacuous?

I'll get you started. I think there may have been an argument to deport Abrego Garcia after he had a TRO placed by his then gf. I think with the passage of time and with his "do not deport" status in place at the time of his deportation and imprisonment (with the Trump administration's admission of that mistake) the argument for his deportation/imprisonment becomes much worse. And... to be clear... Abrego Garcia has never been accused of a crime, he's not a violent criminal.

Gern Blansten said:
This is the basis of why your candidates (and their supporters) are losing the trust of the average American citizen.
Click to expand...

MAGA voters are responsible for Trump.

What makes someone a MAGA voter is, for the most part, independent of the actions of Democratic politicians IMO.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what the MAGA argument is other than ‘we trust Trump no matter what’. There’s severe legacy media manipulation going on (especially on the maga side) that seems to be driving this boat bc unfortunately many Americans don’t seem willing to look at this issue beyond what state media tells them.

There are millions of American citizens I don’t want in my home and wouldn’t trust around my wife or kids. Does that mean they don’t deserve due process?

I don’t follow the argument here really. Trump seems to be saying ‘they’re all very bad people, trust me on it, and it’s fine to send them to foreign prisions’. I’m really shocked a majority of Americans are okay with it. Seems a sad state if you ask me.
 
rowsdower88 said:
I think in general they deserve more due process rights than they're currently getting because, for some reason, mistakes keep happening and they seem to be getting worse. (Now we're seeing American citizens being deported without their full due process rights.) Pointing out these mistakes is good. Maybe pick an example instead of being vacuous?
Click to expand...

American CITIZENS are not being deported. Stop this nonsense.

Due process, absolutely. There is a valid question as to what that looks like and ifthere are legal avenues to streamline and make the process more cost effective. I think they should receive full due process, and the country of origin should pay for it.
 
DocMcCoy said:
American CITIZENS are not being deported. Stop this nonsense.

Due process, absolutely. There is a valid question as to what that looks like and ifthere are legal avenues to streamline and make the process more cost effective. I think they should receive full due process, and the country of origin should pay for it.
Click to expand...

At least one American citizen child was deported with her immigrant mother to her immigrant mother's home country.

In at least one specific case, the American child's (and father's) due process rights were violated.

You don't like that the American citizen was deported. Why are you defending this nonsense?

www.aclu.org

ICE Deports 3 U.S. Citizen Children Held Incommunicado Prior to the Deportation | American Civil Liberties Union

Families disappeared and isolated without legal access; one child with cancer deported without medication and pregnant mother deported as well
www.aclu.org www.aclu.org

www.pbs.org

ICE deported 3 children who are U.S. citizens, their families' lawyers say

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have in recent days deported the Cuban-born mother of a 1-year-old girl — separating them indefinitely — and three children ages 2, 4 and 7 who are U.S. citizens along with their Honduran-born mothers, their lawyers said Saturday.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

If these allegations aren't true, I would change my opinion on the matter.

"Gracie Willis of the National Immigration Project said the mothers, at the very least, did not have a fair opportunity to decide whether they wanted the children to stay in the United States.

“We have no idea what ICE was telling them, and in this case what has come to light is that ICE didn’t give them another alternative,” Willis said in an interview. “They didn’t gave them a choice, that these mothers only had the option to take their children with them despite loving caregivers being available in the United States to keep them here.”
 
Last edited:
rowsdower88 said:
At least one American citizen infant was deported with her immigrant mother to her immigrant mother's home country.

In at least one specific case, the American child's (and father's) due process rights were violated.

You don't like that the child was deported. Why are you defending this nonsense?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Look up the specifics of the cases. I don’t like the apparent due process violation and ambiguity that resulted in us citizen minors being caught up in the immigration debate. But, they weren’t deported. Stop pushing that nonsense and I’ll stop defending it.

You can tell the type of media one consumes by the way they frame this entire argument. Check out how the non-liberal media is handling it.

The children were not prohibited from entering the US, they are also free to return. That by definition means they weren’t deported.

It’s too bad you guys want to frame the argument that way, because there actually is a really good conversation to be had about the due process which was in these cases apparently clearly violated. More importantly, this wasn’t a mistake or a clerical error. However, that gets lost in the noise with the sensationalism and factually inaccurate headlines that US children are being deported.

It appears true that the process in these cases were intentionally rushed and possibly an obstruction of justice and/or violation of rights. In the end it was a choice for the mother to return to the country of origin with their children (so claims the gov). Coercing that decision is wrong. But by no means was a US citizen denied entry into the US in any case.

Here is what about as close to a non-partisan, bias in check article looks like on the topic (from CNN of all places), with an appropriate headline and fair coverage.

amp.cnn.com

What happens with US citizen children caught up in Trump’s deportation push | CNN Politics

The Trump administration’s removal to Honduras last week of three children who are US citizens underscores how its push to carry out a historic deportation campaign can result in extraordinary circumstances and violations of internal policies and due process rights intended avoid such...
amp.cnn.com amp.cnn.com
 
rowsdower88 said:
If these allegations aren't true, I would change my opinion on the matter.

"Gracie Willis of the National Immigration Project said the mothers, at the very least, did not have a fair opportunity to decide whether they wanted the children to stay in the United States.

“We have no idea what ICE was telling them, and in this case what has come to light is that ICE didn’t give them another alternative,” Willis said in an interview. “They didn’t gave them a choice, that these mothers only had the option to take their children with them despite loving caregivers being available in the United States to keep them here.”
Click to expand...

Allegations, not facts. And the children are not prohibited entry to the US, they are under no deportation order, nor are they under their own open ICE investigation.

“Various Trump administration officials have claimed that the mothers said they wanted their US citizen children to go with them, including Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, who said earlier this week that the mothers made a “parental decision” to leave the country with the minors.” - approve posted CNN article

“In both of these cases the mothers had a final order of deportation. Rather than separate their families, ICE asked the mothers if they wanted to be removed with their children or if they wanted ICE to place the children with someone safe the parent designates. Both mothers choose to deport with their children.” -DHS.gov
 
Last edited:
DocMcCoy said:
Allegations, not facts. And the children are not prohibited entry to the US, they are under no deportation order, nor are they under their own open ICE investigation.

“Various Trump administration officials have claimed that the mothers said they wanted their US citizen children to go with them, including Trump’s border czar Tom Homan, who said earlier this week that the mothers made a “parental decision” to leave the country with the minors.” - approve posted CNN article

“In both of these cases the mothers had a final order of deportation. Rather than separate their families, ICE asked the mothers if they wanted to be removed with their children or if they wanted ICE to place the children with someone safe the parent designates. Both mothers choose to deport with their children.” -DHS.gov
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that I believe deportation is permanent or something? Or that I'm deliberately miscontruing the events that have taken place. I'm not. You just don't like framing what has occurred as a deportation.

I don't trust Homan or the Trump admin on this, at all. We need to begin with a presumption of irregularity with this administration.
 
DocMcCoy said:
The children were not prohibited from entering the US, they are also free to return. That by definition means they weren’t deported.
Click to expand...

You seem arbitrarily focused on this.

I think it's fair to say that it is the families' contention that by violating their due process rights they were prevented from staying in the United States. I think that meets the colloquial definition at least. If you want to get hard over a legal definition, I'm not going to fight you anymore.
 
rowsdower88 said:
You seem to be suggesting that I believe deportation is permanent or something? Or that I'm deliberately miscontruing the events that have taken place. I'm not. You just don't like framing what has occurred as a deportation.

I don't trust Homan or the Trump admin on this, at all. We need to begin with a presumption of irregularity with this administration.
Click to expand...

Your definition of “deportation” is not compatible with the definition historically used in any way, shape, or form, by the US government. The children were not deported. There is no other way to frame it.
 
DocMcCoy said:
Your definition of “deportation” is not compatible with the definition historically used in any way, shape, or form, by the US government. The children were not deported. There is no other way to frame it.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a better word we can use for what they're describing.

It's their contention that ICE prevented these American citizens from remaining in the country.

What word(s) do you want to use for that?
 
DocMcCoy said:
Your definition of “deportation” is not compatible with the definition historically used in any way, shape, or form, by the US government. The children were not deported. There is no other way to frame it.
Click to expand...
If you want to play the definition game, they were kidnapped and trafficked to a country they are not citizens of.

Another term could be exiled.

But you and I know why the administration is using deported, because they don't believe in birthright citizenship. They don't believe these kids are citizens.
 
maxxor said:
If you want to play the definition game, they were kidnapped and trafficked to a country they are not citizens of.

Another term could be exiled.

But you and I know why the administration is using deported, because they don't believe in birthright citizenship. They don't believe these kids are citizens.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure exiled has an even stronger connotation of "not being allowed to come back".

For now, the administration says they can come back.
 
rowsdower88 said:
Maybe there's a better word we can use for what they're describing.

It's their contention that ICE prevented these American citizens from remaining in the country.

What word(s) do you want to use for that?
Click to expand...

I’ve used the phrase several times -A potential obstruction of due process.


maxxor said:
If you want to play the definition game, they were kidnapped and trafficked to a country they are not citizens of.

Another term could be exiled.

But you and I know why the administration is using deported, because they don't believe in birthright citizenship. They don't believe these kids are citizens.
Click to expand...
Exiled doesn’t fit, again because there is. Nothing barring them from returning.

The administration is DEFINITELY NOT using the term “deported” regarding these kids. Where did you get that? Again, it’s a sensationalist tagline devoid of truth, I guess you would agree because you do believe in birthright citizenship I presume?
 
DocMcCoy said:
I’ve used the phrase several times -A potential obstruction of due process.
Click to expand...

Lmao. A term that completely hides the fact they were brought to another country arguably against their interests? Alright bro, no optics maxing there.

Colloquially, deportation is acceptable. If I was a lawyer in court I would be more cautious.

The argument is that they were prevented from remaining in the country.
 
Last edited:
DocMcCoy said:
I’ve used the phrase several times -A potential obstruction of due process.



Exiled doesn’t fit, again because there is. Nothing barring them from returning.
Click to expand...
Bro, the judge investigating one of these cases used the term deported in his filing.


I still like trafficked or kidnapped, because those are crimes which should be prosecuted.

DocMcCoy said:
The administration is DEFINITELY NOT using the term “deported” regarding these kids. Where did you get that? Again, it’s a sensationalist tagline devoid of truth, I guess you would agree because you do believe in birthright citizenship I presume?
Click to expand...

So...you don't believe in birthright citizenship?

Guess you'll be cheering when I and half the medical staff are deported.
 
rowsdower88 said:
Lmao. A term that completely hides the fact they were brought to another country arguably against their interests? Alright bro, no optics maxing there.

Colloquially, deportation is acceptable. If I was a lawyer in court I would be more cautious.

The argument is that they were prevented from remaining in the country.
Click to expand...

That’s the crux. Would have been interesting if the mothers did not to taken their children back with them. If they did in fact choose to take them, it’s a moot point.
But, the conditions under which they made that choice ARE absolutely relevant.

We disagree here. You acknowledge you would use the term more cautiously in some scenarios. You (the left) admittedly used these cases of “mistakes” and “missteps” to demonstrate how too many errors are occurring to justify the administrations immigration agenda. Deportation means something very specific in this contest, we both know that. At the very least we can agree that “deportation” of these kids is not the same deportation their mothers faced?
 
DocMcCoy said:
That’s the crux. Would have been interesting if the mothers did not to taken their children back with them. If they did in fact choose to take them, it’s a moot point.
But, the conditions under which they made that choice ARE absolutely relevant.

We disagree here. You acknowledge you would use the term more cautiously in some scenarios. You (the left) admittedly used these cases of “mistakes” and “missteps” to demonstrate how too many errors are occurring to justify the administrations immigration agenda. Deportation means something very specific in this contest, we both know that. At the very least we can agree that “deportation” of these kids is not the same deportation their mothers faced?
Click to expand...

Too many "mistakes", "missteps" and errors ARE occuring. That is my political view. Pointing to these errors is political, as is your desire to rationalize them away.

There is of course a difference between the childrens' deportations and the mothers'.

@maxxor does make a good point with the judge in question using the term deportation to describe what occurred. Maybe he was just referring to the physical action of bringing someone from one country to another against their interests? Or maybe another colloquial use. 😉
 
Last edited:
maxxor said:
Answer the question.

Do you or do you not believe in birthright citizenship?
Click to expand...

“The administration is DEFINITELY NOT using the term “deported” regarding these kids. Where did you get that? Again, it’s a sensationalist tagline devoid of truth, I guess you would agree because you do believe in birthright citizenship I presume?”


Sigh. The word PRESUME, compared to say, assume, in my post has a significant linguistic relevance. It would imply one (including myself) would default to belief in birthright citizenship.

You can add it to the list of things you demand the right to vocalize agreement with.
 
DocMcCoy said:
“The administration is DEFINITELY NOT using the term “deported” regarding these kids. Where did you get that? Again, it’s a sensationalist tagline devoid of truth, I guess you would agree because you do believe in birthright citizenship I presume?”


Sigh. The word PRESUME, compared to say, assume, in my post has a significant linguistic relevance. It would imply one (including myself) would default to belief in birthright citizenship.

You can add it to the list of things you demand the right to vocalize agreement with.
Click to expand...

I am ESL so can you make it simpler?

Yes or no?
 
Here’s your due process conservatives…

Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court, because that’s another system. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms – they saw everything – to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second
Click to expand...
 
Rough account of what it’s like to teach at the University of Florida right now in the NYT. Anti-woke ideology isn't pro-free speech.

"In the three years since Ron DeSantis set out to rid Florida's universities of woke ideology, my campus changed significantly. Professors suddenly worried about what they could say and teach. Some started avoiding terms like "racism." One student recently told me that when someone used "intersectional" in class, the instructor told her not to use that word. Soon this could be the case in schools across the country."

"Several professors have been subjected to efforts at entrapment. Last year a man posing as a student tried to encourage Muslim faculty members to criticize Mr. DeSantis and Israel. A similar incident happened to me. In October 2024 my department chair called me into his office to tell me that someone claiming to be a student in my Religion and Science class had complained that I spent 20 minutes talking about specific candidates, including who I was voting for and why. I was stunned. That never happened in that class or any other; it is antithetical to the way I teach. Fortunately, the dean's office assured me that a single, unsubstantiated accusation was not grounds for disciplinary action."

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | How Anti-Woke Ideology Transformed My College

Trump’s assault on higher education could get worse — far worse.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Biden guilty on all counts
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
6K
DocMcCoy
DocMcCoy
G
Backing out of a locum assignment
Replies
8
Views
1K
SRYSPAC
S
A
Anesthesia out of network, facility and surgeon in network
Replies
24
Views
3K
JStarMD
J
MirrorTodd
Ins and outs of a production based model?
Replies
28
Views
3K
AppTrail
AppTrail
S
Ins and Outs of Locums Search
Replies
45
Views
3K
SRYSPAC
S
Top