On one hand, have better control of your dogs in public
On the other, that's one good biiiig boi
You have me fantasizing a Warren / Pete ticket now.the annoying thing is I think most of them them think they can get to 60 votes!
only Mayor Pete and Warren are going, hm, maybe not.
Yeah that joke's in poor taste, but I don't think it indicates his political leanings either way. Lots of people I know including myself have made numerous "build the wall" jokes despite being 100% against it.
Yeah that joke's in poor taste, but I don't think it indicates his political leanings either way. Lots of people I know including myself have made numerous "build the wall" jokes despite being 100% against it.
So the plan involved using money that was already spent? Genius.
I was too.That's also from May 2016. Even I was making naive dumb wall and MAGA jokes back then.
Staples receipts showing that Klobuchar doesn't even purchase office supplies (can't throw it if you don't own it).
Twist: She orders from WB Mason.Staples receipts showing that Klobuchar doesn't even purchase office supplies (can't throw it if you don't own it).
Ooh...
I forget what exactly she teased a few nights ago (Deutche Bank stuff?) but it should be juicy.
Chris Hayes: So what are you going to do about the fillibuster?
Sen. Sanders: Well Trump wants to get rid of it so we should NOT do that. Also even if we had 51 Dem Senators not all of the would be progressive (the last point is true TBF to Sanders.)
Chris Hayes: Ok but if you're not sure you can get 51 Dem Senators on board how do you expect to get 60 total Senators on board?
Sen. Sanders: If millions RISE UP we can get the Congress to do what we want (I'm paraphrasing)
UGH. Most of the interview was fine but this and the previous point I posted about stuck out like sore and terrible thumbs >_<
Alright, here I am again watching Maddow hoping for something actually explosive. Don't let me down again Maddow."Explosive new set of facts" on "a White House scandal" inbound on Maddow...
For real, even as a fan of her show, if it's important and actually breaking, it'll break as soon as it's done, not times for a cable news show.If you hear about it before it happens it's fucking nothing. Never forget this.
As in Nixon's Agnew?So the tee-off story is about Agnew trying to get Saudi help against his "Zionist enemies."
He closes the letter by congratulating their jihad against Israel.
If you hear about it before it happens it's fucking nothing. Never forget this.
Yes. She's always on about him, he must work there or something.
edit: too slow.
It's an interesting piece of news that wasnt known prior and involves Saudi Arabia giving him money to fight the jews. I dont know maybe we should just forget about reporting on all history like you say.Breaking is reported as it breaks, not 30 minutes into someone's regularly scheduled tv show.
He's dead, so not much is going to happen to him. Also, it was 40 years ago, And he's still dead.
Breaking is reported as it breaks, not 30 minutes into someone's regularly scheduled tv show.
He's dead, so not much is going to happen to him. Also, it was 40 years ago, And he's still dead.
Did she really break into another persons broadcast with breaking news on a person who is dead and has no big enough legacy to be talked about in politics?