I just read that one of the Democrats said none of that is true and there was no deal
I think you may have just read my quote and not the article< or there’s a misunderstanding here.
What exactly do you mean “none of that is true”?
The quote doesn’t say there was a deal, just that a vote was taken…
“I will say that a vote was taken,” Wild said. “As many of you know, this committee is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans — five Dems, five Republicans — which means that in order to affirmatively move something forward, somebody has to cross party lines and vote with the other side — which happens a lot, by the way, and we often vote unanimously.”
If you’re wondering who these politicians are that agree across party lines on ethical issues:
Republicans
Chairman Michael Guest, Mississippi
David P. Joyce, Ohio
John H. Rutherford, Florida
Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
Michelle Fischbach, Minnesota
Democrats
Ranking Member Susan Wild, Pennsylvania
Veronica Escobar, Texas
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Deborah K. Ross, North Carolina
Glenn F. Ivey, Maryland
For some reason I just got a shit ton of notifications all from your account…
All with just a period.
What are you doing?
Is this intentional and you’re fucking with people?
The “all” figure is influenced by the fact that Biden is old and has been through many election cycles.
Compared to all the sprin chickens on the list like Mitch McConnell?
Well, let’s see what Chuck Schumer probably thinks…
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=S
Number 7 on one of the few bipartisan lists in DC, nestled right between hos buddies Mitch McTurtle and Rafael “Ted” Cruz…
One of the few areas Biden is really head and shoulders above the rest though.
But Israel pays way too much money to both parties for either party’s leaders to actually do what’s best for America.
They’re gonna do what’s best for their campaign donations.
Edit:
Since some people may be surprised number 2 doesn’t sound familiar, it’s this guy:
One of the most corrupt Dems to ever be held accountable (technically the trial is still happening).
He was Hillary’s co-campaign chair in 07 when she lost to Obama, and then Obama made him chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for some fucking reason. He was indicted shortly after in 2018, but charges were then dropped for 5 years till 2023 when he was committing crimes and accepting bribes from foreign government with a legitimately trumpian level of skill at hiding his crimes.
Like, at one point I remember him trying to argue that storing gold bars inside of the suits in his closet was a totally normal thing and not related to him googling how to smuggle gold bars into America while he was in Qatar and just accepted gold bars as bribe…
Yeah, it was a single judge, and multiple Dems are gone too, Kamala is apparently in Hawaii, so a tie would have lost.
Every single fucking person with a D by their name needs to be in DC madly scrambling around the clock to do any and everything possible to mitigate imminent damage right now.
Like, I won’t lie. A single judge is more than I expected, and I’m happy we got it.
But fuck it, we have the Senate, a single vacancy when Biden hands over the keys is too much.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies
45 vacancies, 15 pending…
And one got voted today when they have the numbers?
I don’t say it enough, but Chuck Schumer is a fucking problem and shouldn’t be in a party leadership position. Compare him to the Republican counterpart Mitch McTurtle. That dude spent decades saying courts was the number 1 priority, literally all thru Chuck Schumer’s political career.
It’s been wildly effective but also done in an unethical manner
And yet when Trump is about to move in with a Senate majority, and we have an ethical manner to fill every vacancy…
Why aren’t we?
I have zero idea why everyone expects shit to go smoothly after it took what, like 19 votes to get a House Speaker? It might have been even more.
Everyone just expects this gaggle of sycophants and psychopaths to agree on shit?
If someone gets anything, the rest are going to sabotage them so they get replaced. So even if they all want to do something, they all want the credit and will prevent the person next to them from doing it.
Crabs in a bucket.
He went on to address the allegations against him, saying he deems them “worth less than nothing.” “Under our laws, a man is considered innocent until proven guilty. If AG Garland (an unprincipled D-bag) could have secured a conviction against Gaetz, he would have, but he knew he could not. Case closed,” Musk added.
This probably a biggest eason why Garland was the absolute stupidest choice for AG Biden could have made.
Obama nominated him for SC, because he knew no one would get a hearing, it literally didn’t matter.
Obama didn’t really want Garland on the SC, because it would be a wasted appointment compared to what Republicans seat in the bench.
But Biden’s old ass didn’t understand what was happening. So he actually appointed Garland as AG, and seemed to honestly have expected Garland to do anything.
And trump supporters never know what’s happening, they knew the name from before Trump took office as Obama’s SC pick. Assumed that meant Garland was hyper partisan, ignored everything he did say, and when no one was held accountable, used it as “proof” that there was no evidence
The only people that was ever happy with Garland as AG, was Garland and neo liberals who also rarely understand what’s happening.
The rich 100% would.
But it doesn’t matter, because the narrative of that happening would translate to more votes than literally any advertising all the money in the world could buy.
Seriously, absolutely nothing could ever help a Dem become president more than all the wealthiest people in the country losing their shit over just the possiblity that a Dem becomes president.
An alien invasion wouldn’t unite American voters as much as that would.
The reason Dems keep losing, is we’ve lost the “anti-establishment vote”.
The party turning their back on them would be all people would talk about, it would fill the news cycle the entire campaign.
And even though media would present it as a terrible idea…
That’s how they presented trump to, look at how that worked out.
“following politics” is not the same as “voter engagement”.
Someone that never pays attention but votes R every two years like clockwork for example.
They’d be “do not follow closely” on that, but if they 60 years old and voted R every election since they’re were 18…
How exactly are they “politically disengaged”?
They’re still voting, just not paying attention.
Like, there are loads of over things we’re going to have to clear up for you to understand, but getting that difference is step 1.
If you understand this mistake, we can probably move forward and cover other stuff. But if you don’t get this comment, nothing past it is going to be productive.
A lot of this is coming from the horrible headline that co flates the two, and is outright false.
So far trump has the most votes, he literally won with the politically engaged, because those are the people who voted.
You should try reading more than just headlines…
Because people who only read headlines, are the ones to blame for these clickbait headlines even on genuine scientific articles.
In all likelihood the author had nothing to do with the headline, and the only reason the headline is there is so the article gets shared by people who won’t click talking about how dumb it is.
And then the few who actually read articles correct them.
More comments mean the post gets seen more, and people talking about how the article isn’t as bad as the headline gets more to click on it.
You’re the reason they have to use shit headlines, and they’re exploiting your behavior to compensate for it.
It’s honestly genius, but my guess is you’re going to get mad they’re able to predict people like you so well.
Article takes it further.
It’s not egg before chicken
It’s egg before multicellular life.
Which is groundbreaking and is pretty shocking.
This just seems like another example of a great scientific article, that just had a random clickbait headline thrown on it by the editor or maybe some intern to generate clicks.
Yeah, but even if Kamala wins the popular vote, this is going to be the closest a republican has gotten in…
Decades?
Maybe longer?
But the DNC is going to latch onto this and try to claim if they had moved just a little more right they’d have won.
Regardless of what happens, the DNC will always say the answer is moving to the right.
What’s crazier is when WB bought CNN and literally said Faux News was the plan for what they wanted to do, and loads of journalists resigned from CNN over the changes…
People still think any media organization owned by billionaires has a chance to be “on the left”.
If a billionaire (or group of billionaires) own a media company, it’s only to manipulate people into blaming anyone except billionaires for the current state of affairs.
Like, it’s great you’re realizing it now…
But the merger was two years ago…
None of this was done in the shadows, they came right out and said it. Publicly and repeatedly.
What you want to happen is happening. The Dems are getting their own versions of that shit.
The problem is they’re getting it for the same reason: to trick us into voting against our own interests.
The irony that you can’t see she’s saying the same thing I am is too much bub
If you really think me and her are disagreeing, then me repeatedly explaining this won’t help anyone
My advice would be asking someone else for assistance, maybe how I’m explaining it is the problem. But I don’t think it is.
Edit:
So no one else has to click on a twitter link:
I’m afraid that you’re organizing people into a burning house. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it would rather have Republicans win than to disappoint its donor class & actually embrace the policies that would make the material improvements to those people’s lives that you’re talking about. There’s a reason why Kamala Harris would not support an arms embargo. She took more money from Raytheon than even Donald Trump did. She’s a part of an administration where the secretary of Defense was a Raytheon board member. These are material realities that are constraining the politics of the Democratic Party, & no nice lady coming along or nice man coming along who loves his grandkids & eats an ice cream cone, & put sunshades on and hangs out with Barack Obama can change that reality."
When election day rolled around, she still did the same as me:
Advocating for mitigating damage when that was the only other option.
When talking about next election, she says we need a better candidate. Same thing I’ve been saying.
Like, I understand that we agree, but trying to get you to understand that has been insanely frustrating
It’s worse than that.
The current DNC determines who gets leadership positions by who brought the most in
Bring in 10 million from lifelong Dem voters who show up rain or shine and volunteer?
Sorry, someone just got 250 million from a fossil fuel corporation to get Dems to be pro-fracking, so now they’re leading the party.
What’s crazy is so many people defending the DNC on this and insisting we have to keep doing anything the rich ask, even though their money will never get back all the votes being pro-fracking get us.
It’s not just that either, Sam with border wall, funding genocide, and lots of other shit.
Both parties cater to the wealthy, because both parties care more about money than votes.
…
How are you using exit polls to find out about why non-voters didn’t vote?
Did everyone say they were politically engaged as they were leaving a polling location?
Or are you using logic to determine everyone that just voted was politically engaged, and those who didn’t are politically disengaged?
Cuz like, yeah, obviously that’s true…
But what matters is why they’re politically disengaged and how we can get the to engage again.
A very very easy way, would be to make sure the next candidate agrees with Dem voters more than Republican voters.
Right.
But one thing we should also know is that running a bad candidate who is better than the only other option isn’t enough to decisively beat even the worst possible Republican.
Voters should have all voted for Kamala even though they didn’t want her to be president due to her policies. That would have mitigated the damage.
They didn’t do it in 2016 either, and Biden only squeaked thru because Trump was actively in office and Bernie stayed till the end to pull Biden left. If either of those didn’t happen, the strategy would be 0 out of 3.
It’s clearly not an effective strategy compared to running a candidate who already agrees with Dem voters
So rather than stomp our feet and being mad at the people we need in 2028, maybe spend the next four years bringing them back into the fold and running a candidate that people actually want to win the election?
Like, we’ve tried stomping our feet for 8 years now since Hillary, do you think any of that has helped?
Because to me, it looks like all it accomplishes is increasing donations from people who want Dems to lose, and turning dlteliable Dem voters into non-votets.
Stop worrying about if you’re right.
Start worrying about what can win 2028, and if that will actually translate to fixing shit
For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.
Wait…
You’re surprised people are blaming the candidate that lost and her campaign team that was paid millions of dollars and spent over a billion and still couldn’t beat trump?
Why?
What is the logic where the people whose literal job was to win the election, aren’t at fault for losing the election?
And I’m scared to even ask, but:
Since you think they’re blameless, does that mean you really want us to do the same shit in four years again and hope this time screaming at people will be effective?
Cuz buddy, it’s never been effective at anything besides letting some shitty republican into the Oval
One of the big downsides to pretending 100% of Holocaust victims were Jewish is that the 50% who weren’t were sent to the camps for other reasons.
Like being Trans, or any other kids and of LGBT. The problem was even “the good guys” were anti-lgbt back then, just look at how they treated their war heroes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Homosexuality_and_indecency_conviction
And then America, who had taken in all types of Nazis scientists, denied Turing entry just to fucking take a vacation.
I think this is why so many people are shocked by trump winning, people actually believed Americans were inherently good, and they believed it.