its hard, but understand this is out of touchSerious question, give it to me straight:
What if the senate actually votes to remove?
they have to be seeing the same numbers we all see, and that's that trump is definitely losing 2020 and that Dems might even get a 51/49 senate.
Why not just "be the good guys" and end this circus?
This parnas shit is bad
The public's reaction to Iran and Baghadadi was bad
These fuckos have to be thinking beyond 2020
Serious question, give it to me straight:
What if the senate actually votes to remove?
they have to be seeing the same numbers we all see, and that's that trump is definitely losing 2020 and that Dems might even get a 51/49 senate.
Why not just "be the good guys" and end this circus?
This parnas shit is bad
The public's reaction to Iran and Baghadadi was bad
These fuckos have to be thinking beyond 2020
we've heard those words before. this is actually a screenshot from of an exchange between Hyde and allegedly another Trump weirdo named Anthony deCaluwe; Hyde claimed he wasn't spying on the ambassador but rather forwarding along "copy and paste bullshit" from this other dude to Parnas.
hyde's video from earlier claiming it was copy and paste
Whoever called that "Weekend at Rudy's" a few pages ago was right on the damn money. Fake Edit: thanks Sexy Fish
Every Republican gets primaried immediately if Trump gets removed. Probably even including ones who would vote to acquit.Well, probably because getting rid of Trump basically kills the GOP in a worse way than keeping him with a 2020 loss.
Every Republican gets primaried immediately if Trump gets removed. Probably even including ones who would vote to acquit.
I'm sure it works better for them than telling the truth! Point is, that's all they have for people regarding healthcare: lies.Remember Oct. 18? How they baldfaced lied about being pro-healthcare and still got wrecked? Should work super!
In that Emerson poll, the candidate with the firmest support is....Klob.
Probably out of fear.....
Lmao
The people on twitter making the weak defense "Trump takes pictures with people all the time! This means nothing!"
And then the pictures keep coming. And coming... And seem more and more intimate strangely... For all these guys that dont know each other
In 2016 I remember reading that the Sanders campaign sponsored bus trips for Iowa college students to go back to their home districts specifically to mitigate this issue. (I assume they'll do this again)Let me preface this by saying, I absolutely LOATHE caucuses and this is one of the reasons why....
But I've been thinking. We all know Bernie's support is hyper concentrated among the youth. Because of how caucuses work, winning a caucus site by 1 person or 900 people doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I wonder how that's going to cost him (or if it will) overall. I can totally envision him winning some of the college precincts pretty easily, but then getting 3rd or worse in some of the other caucuses where there aren't as many youths.
Ahead of Feb. 1, the day Iowa voters finally have their say, the Sanders campaign is activating "Go Home for Bernie," a plan to dispatch a fleet of rental cars, vans and buses, if necessary, to carry students who are from Iowa back to their hometowns, where they will have maximum impact on the caucuses.
...
The campaign has at least one representative, essentially a precinct captain, on 38 Iowa college campuses, where students will spend the final days calling likely voters, holding caucus training camps and figuring out how to get the greatest number of supporters to the largest number of precincts.
College students will be in school, but concentrated in precincts around the universities where he is already expected to do well. The Sanders campaign has to persuade students who come from other parts of Iowa to go back to their home precincts, where a few votes could be the difference.
I remember that now.In 2016 I remember reading that the Sanders campaign sponsored bus trips for Iowa college students to go back to their home districts specifically to mitigate this issue. (I assume they'll do this again)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/...nders-courts-elusive-voters-young-iowans.html
This year Iowa Dems are also reporting the raw voter numbers (both the initial pre-nonviability culling round and the final count), so I kinda feel like that opens the door for campaigns to spin things positively depending on which result looks best.
That's because you hate democracy.
Democracy is fine, as long as I am the only one allowed to vote.
im always saying thisDemocracy is fine, as long as I am the only one allowed to vote.
I mean, it's not like the veep is a real job anyway.Someone needs to ask him whether that's still an option for Warren, it would be immensely helpful in smoothing tensions between the campaigns with this still in her favour.
At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn't believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn't beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work.
But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN's sources could have come from outside the campaign.
In chat groups and in private conversations with people outside the campaign, Warren aides have insisted that they were not the source of the leak, and only learned about it in the midst of debate prep, contributing to the delayed response. The first time the campaign saw Sanders's on-record denial was in print in the CNN story.
i dont think anyone sane doubts it. i feel like the meat of the debate is in whether or not itll pay off for her. which i guess well find out in the coming daysI'm actually kinda shocked if it's not a leak from Warren's camp to some degree.
I mean, this is coming from The Intercept, a supporter of Sanders...
So there goes that talking point.
Somewhere Dick Cheney's 6th heart just skipped a beat
They did kind of bury the lede. Don't care about seeing if Warren could be VP and Treasure Sec.I mean, this is coming from The Intercept, a supporter of Sanders...
.
They're talking about the campaign swearing that they didn't leak the story and the Intercept confirming it.So Jounalistic integrity only counts when it's convenient:P
Washington Post also corroborated Sanders account, or rather that of the sources they spoke with (two) one said that Sanders had never said that a Woman couldn't be president.
They're talking about the campaign swearing that they didn't leak the story and the Intercept confirming it.
Y'all didn't want the youngs so now we stuck with Pete and the oldsSomewhere Dick Cheney's 6th heart just skipped a beat
EDIT:
HOLY MOTHER OF WE ARE FUCKED: Dick Cheney is 78
WHY OR WHYYYYY are our front runners 70+?!
shoulda been Beto.
I'm specifically mentioning the talking point that was "Warren purposefully leaked it, #snake" and The Intercept of all people saying probably not.So Jounalistic integrity only counts when it's convenient:P
Washington Post also corroborated Sanders account, or rather that of the sources they spoke with (two) one said that Sanders had never said that a Woman couldn't be president.
I'm specifically mentioning the talking point that was "Warren purposefully leaked it, #snake" and The Intercept of all people saying probably not.
Just came to say that Tfritz your Rina Sawayama rec was on point. Comme Des Garçons has been added to regular rotation.
True.The story does say she told a dinner full of journalists directly about it but said it was off the record. To be frank, that seems like kind of a dumb thing to do if you don't want the story published because, although they won't publish you saying it at the dinner, eventually some journalist will get enough parallel sources to publish it, which is apparently exactly what happened.
Which again puts to rest the "Warren was behind the leak, because she's a snake, and she only did it because she anticipated she'd be falling behind Biden and Sanders before Iowa, well over a year ago, as a 'tactical' leak", to rest. Unless she was playing 15-dimensional Sorry! against a game of Candy Land.This also helps clarify why Warren's statement reiterated the story and then said to put it behind her — even if she wanted to lie and deny it, she couldn't, because a whole bunch of journalists had already heard it directly from her!
Quick question.
During a senate trial, are witness able to say "I don't recall" or "I believe" before their answers as a way to get out of telling the truth?
Of course. I genuinely don't even see how one would be barred from an answer like that. While I acknowledge that most of the time, "I don't recall" is probably BS, there's literally no way to disprove it.
Which should give it more weight, not less.I'm specifically mentioning the talking point that was "Warren purposefully leaked it, #snake" and The Intercept of all people saying probably not.
Give what more weight? That Warren purposefully leaked it or that because The Intercept which is Bernie slanted by far is saying it's not true that it's not true.
The second one.Give what more weight? That Warren purposefully leaked it or that because The Intercept which is Bernie slanted by far is saying it's not true that it's not true.
wrong about what?It's waaaaaaay too late to sit the internet Sanders mob down and explain how they were wrong.
That Warren is the snake who released this and not an overly opportunistic clickbaiting CNN.