I've got to question, what exactly was the take away from my post that lead you to believe I'm not level-headed? Simply stating my opinion, warrants attack from Democrats does it? Haha. Alright alright alright.
Also, bobbie, don't forget the Dems overcame your FREEDOM loving guys gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics to pick up iirc 39 seats. Pls explain how voter suppression does not infringe on the FREEDOM of all Americans to vote.
LOL hilarious, but I'm sure you know that they were set to take much more than just 39 seats before they were foolish enough to embarrass themselves with the Kavanaugh nonsense and only manage to energize the Republican base that was pretty complacent before that. I'm not going to comment about InfoWars quality conspiracy theories about voter suppression or Russian interference. That kind of think is best left to the tin foil hat crowd IMO.
I've got 6 years of laughing boyo. Thankfully Trump has picked up the Ws while the Rockets can't. Back to your safe space you go.
That's right, nobody can dislike Trump or his actions as President unless they are some sort of pinko-snowflake-Democrat-whatever that you think is an actually meaningful slur.
you mean russian interference deniers like you ARE part of the tinfoil/INFOWARS crowd In May 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee released the interim findings of their bipartisan investigation, finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump gain the presidency. In a statement jointly issued by Senator Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Senator Mark R. Warner, the Democratic vice chair of the committee, the committee stated: "Our staff concluded that the [intelligence community's] conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton."[203] In affirming the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, and Senate Intelligence Committee rejected the conclusion of House Republicans.[203] The US Justice Department warned that the public release of a classified memo alleging abuses in FBI surveillance tactics would be "extraordinarily reckless".[204] On January 10, 2018, Senator Ben Cardin of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee released, "Putin's Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for U.S. National Security."[205] According to the report, the interference in the 2016 United States elections was a part of Putin's "asymmetric assault on democracy" worldwide, including targeting elections in a number of countries, such as Britain, France and Germany, by "Moscow-sponsored hacking, internet trolling and financing for extremist political groups".
You missed the point of what I was saying. I never denied that the Russians operated troll farms or that they attempted to interfere with the election....they just didn't have any real effect. The reason Hillary lost is because she was likely the worst possible candidate that could have been picked, the Russia nonsense was just an excuse for why she lost so that no one had to blame themselves for screwing up, not a legitimate reason. The same is true for allegations of voter suppression. It's nothing more than an excuse made by sore losers. So I'd ask you to try harder to keep it in your pants and not jump to conclusions next time.
so you agree with the May 2018 bipartisan investigation report of the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections correct?
Sure, in some small way, why not? I mean, I imagine it's pretty much the same every election. The only thing new was that one candidate was so but hurt about losing that she tried to blame her loss on that which is hilarious.
lol Bobbie, voter suppression is infowars conspiracy stuff. Pls explain why felons have been much more likely to be banned from voting in the Old Confederacy than other states. For your info a great many of them were felons due to mar1juana and the disparity of powdered cocaine vs crack. While you are at it, pls explain how this application of drug laws and incarceration is compatible with your allegedly FREEDOM !! loving "libertarian" vision.
I would think that this is a thread a D&D moderator would have killed at birth. The poll is completely disingenuous. "What non-constructive thing will the Democrats do in the 2019-2020 session?"
I still wish that Pelosi had been replaced, as she will inevitably be a top target for GOP/Fox propaganda in 2020 (that's what it is, as distasteful as I find the term, because Fox is now thoroughly in the bag for the GOP), but I'm very glad that the things you mentioned were given 1st priority in the new Democratically controlled House in January.
The GOP will do the whole attack meme with whomever the Dems may replace her with- even if the replaced her with a blue dog billionaire sucking DINO. Did they give Obamas break when he tried to put the near Republican Merrick Garland on the S. Ct? Have you noticed that the big money conservative "libertarian" lol guys are now starting to invest directly in blue dog Dems (when a rightie Repug) looks like a loser) as they see that the Dems are starting to turn to the old FDR (Bernie Sanders) wing that was so successful for 40 years. . The billionaire class can see that the Clinton/Obama neoliberalism thing is on the wane. Ps. Surely you realize Fox and Rush has always been a GOP organ.
Where does everyone else stand on these top priorities? my views in bold House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal Campaign finance Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under Sarbanes’s vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. “If you give $100 to a candidate that’s meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get another $600 coming in behind them,” Sarbanes told Vox this summer. “The evidence and the modeling is that most candidates can do as well or better in terms of the dollars they raise if they step into this new system.” - personally, i'm weary of publicly financed campaigns and want to see further explanation Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline (RI) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public. - on board Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Mark Warner (VA), which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money of political ads on their platforms, and share how much money was spent. - on board Ethics Requiring the president to disclose his or her tax returns. - curious to see these but don't feel like this needs to be a top priority Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases or buy first-class plane tickets. - good idea Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements. - on board Create a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law. - need more info Voting rights Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting and online voter registration would also be promoted. - seems like a good idea Restoring the Voting Rights Act, part of which was dismantled by a US Supreme Court decision in 2013. Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging. - probably a good idea Beefing up elections security, including requiring the Director of National Intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats. - many years too late, so yes https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...se-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi
Don’t let the other side define your leader . I would be more concern about what she is capable of doing for legislation, how the dem folks view her including the new energy side (younger folks) of the party, and then how everyone else that’s not already a rush limb fan view her. Also very glad that the first focus is anti corruption. It should be a sustained theme in face of everyday corruption, big $ influence, and unethical behaviors as norm. P.s. If Jesus was a leader of the dem party, he would be portraited as a very naive, nasty, and dangerous socialist.
