Ftfy
Printable View
Can someone explain to me why some Democrats hate having majorities in either or both chambers of Congress?
https://twitter.com/lbarronlopez/sta...85916748431361
This is about the stupidest idea that I've ever seen. Manchin is a Democrat who represents West Virginia and you just aren't going to get a liberal flamethrower elected there. All you're going to do is hand the Republicans a seat in the Senate that we currently have. Arizona makes a bit more sense, but still. That is still very much a purple state. It's not solidly blue despite the recent electoral gains. I just don't see any gain by pressuring Manchin to move more to the left or to lose his seat.
In a system that allows for only two viable parties, how is it then that differing voices can be heard other than in primaries?
Sanders is no democrat, but he was realistic enough to know that a progressive voice would only be heard by America (people, media) if he ran in a democratic primary.
I suppose his dishonest and insurrection inspiring rhetoric and organized attempts to overthrow the factual and lawful results of the Presidential election just sorta conveniently coincided with the motivation of anti-American terrorists violently raiding the government and condemning the entire Republican party that still stands by said terrorists and their leaders.
lol GOP supporters have seriously brainwashed themselves at this point. Literally anything but the truth is the most ****ing appealing option.
Again with your mentally impaired gymnastic demand for semantics.
What do you think the violent insurrectionist protest was about? Not violent insurrection?
Yeah, thought so.
You think his anti-American overthrow democracy rhetoric inspired those who protested, but not those who were violent? Like you think the people who were violent, killed people, and wanted more people dead were like "Ted Cruz only inspired me for the protest part, this violent part that I happen to be doing at the protest is totally separate from that!" ?
What a bizarre and deranged argument. You're utterly divorced from reality.
now do your side after the 2016 election, completely on topic in comparison to what happened here. quite relevant.
the factual and lawful results of the Presidential election that fairly elected Trump as President, that one side fought against.
that even includes Democrats rejecting the electoral college.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...allenge-233294
Quote:
A challenge by several House Democrats to Donald Trump’s election on Friday collapsed when they failed to persuade a single Democratic senator to join their protest.
The short-lived, doomed-from-the-start effort — spearheaded by Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas and Barbara Lee of California — came during a joint meeting of the House and Senate to certify Trump’s Electoral College victory. Without sufficient support to challenge Trump’s victory, the Republican-led Congress moved ahead with an easy confirmation of Trump’s presidency.
stop pretending only one side objected to results.Quote:
There was no expectation that the protests would succeed — backers acknowledged that the Republican-led House and Senate would never act to impede Trump’s imminent presidency. But it’s a continuation of efforts by Democrats to poke Trump in the eye before he takes office and undermine what his team has described as a “mandate” to govern. Democrats have routinely cited Trump’s 2.9 million-ballot popular vote loss to Hillary Clinton and pounced on Russian meddling in the election to undermine Trump’s victory.
Jackson Lee and her allies argued that widespread voter suppression in states won by Trump tarnished the results. They also pointed to research provided by a team of independent lawyers that found dozens of Republican electors were technically ineligible to serve. But their arguments failed to persuade their Senate colleagues to step forward.
yes.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/us/mi...deo/index.html
Quote:
Michael Brown’s stepfather at rally: ‘Burn this ***** down!’