I agree, the EC being a big one, given its role in entrenching white minority rule.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
I agree, the EC being a big one, given its role in entrenching white minority rule.
Sure and I don't disagree with that, I just take issue with saying Trump isn't an urgent problem. We can actually deal with that one in months so it makes it feel pretty urgent to me.
For that matter, I think defeating him does a heck of a lot to hasten the GOP's demise. Effective and charismatic fascist leaders aren't a dime a dozen. I'm struggling to think of another Republican who could command the cult like he can.
There are layers. If you manage to get Puerto Rico and D.C. statehood, then Republicans will have to shift to win. But they'll still win within the next 10 years, guaranteed. Voters get complacent, others build grudges, yet others pay no attention and just vote for the other guy just cause no party will reign forever and racism and religious bigotry isn't gonna be scrubbed away by M4A. The moment you run a boring candidate or one weighed down by years of attacks, they will lose.
So, it's basically a matter of who does it, not a matter of the action. OK.
I remember hearing that republicans electing him in the primary would be the GOP's demise.
Bernie's been consistent as hell over the years. He might have changed to civil unions at the time to fight for what was achievable, which sucks but it is what it is. At this point in time however, he can't back down on trans rights. It's ingrained in the movement.
Klobuchar however? She isn't being held accountable in the same way. I'm not saying it's a guarantee that she's gonna go states rights on abortion, but I don't see what's stopping her from doing that. Her entire campaign message is "I'll get the republicans AND the democrats to vote for me" "You'll vote for me because I'll get rid of Trump".
I'm just saying, we're playing with fire with her.
I agree - I hated the time Amy Klobuchar went, campaigned for an anti-abortion Democratic candidate for Mayor, then said, "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about," then followed up by saying, I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."
Of course it does. We're talking about trust. I trust Sanders, I don't trust Amy. We can't prove who's going to do what in the future.
Indeed, but that's different, because you Can Trust Bernie, but you can't trust the woman with a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.
I want to go back to a post/linked item earlier today about Amy Klobuchar:
Klobuchar: ‘We need to build a big tent’ for anti-abortion Democrats
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on Tuesday said that the Democratic Party should be a “big tent” for people of different beliefs, including those …thehill.com
Now it's important to note here that she's pro-choice, would 100% put in pro-choice judges, fully fund planned parenthood, get rid of the terrible gag rule, etc. Basically be indistinguishable from any other Democrat in practice.
There are going to be places in the country that elect conservative Democrats that are against abortion personally-maybe even horrified by it-but still pro-choice for all the reasons that makes sense to the rest of us. They speak about it in complicated terms to their constituents because it's a complicated issue, and their constituents understand because they are nuanced and complicated on it too. Their supporters aren't single-issue abortion voters, because people are generally complicated and not one-dimensional. But if you ask those voters "are you OK with abortion, yes/no?", they would flat out say "no, I hate it". And the most important policy positions on abortion are on flashpoint issues that are hard to talk about without shutting people out.
Is there room for elected officials and even rank and file members like them in the party? Does the "big tent" apply? Would the party ever seriously consider compromising to pass something that is a huge leap forward, such as federal law cementing Roe vs. Wade or getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, so that we can have a bill that passes and helps cover the exposed flank of our party that is living in areas where abortion is unpopular?
edit: I know this is a flashpoint, distorting mess of an issue, but the reaction to that article blew my mind in the other thread and I still don't know what to make of why listening and trying to include people who disagree on the issue was an immediate non-starter to the point of immediately disqualifying a candidate for suggesting that we don't shut them out.
"I hate abortion but damned if I'm going to tell a woman what to do with her body" I think is the position of the average Democrat. Is that what you mean or do you mean Democrats who are actively anti-choice? With regards to those, Lipinksi is a shit-hole because any Democrat can win in the Chicago suburbs. If a Dem has to be anti-choice to win in a particular district/state though, I won't like it and won't vote for them in a primary but I'd vote for them in a GE and I'd hope they would beat whatever Republican they are up against.
Biden's Healthcare Page
Buttigieg Healthcare Page
Klobuchar's Healthcare Page
It's fine if you prefer Sander's plans to all of them but they all want universal healthcare and all of them believe healthcare is a human right. Also, Warren did not back off the subject at all.
I don't like that JBE is anti-choice and so pro-police but I like having a Dem governor in the state (though I'm not a Louisianian) and I figure most Louisiana Democrats do as well.
Yeah I hate it when Bernie Sanders does shit for the DNC too. It's beneath him.
Edit: Full article
Bernie Sanders Defends Campaigning For Anti-Abortion Rights Democrat
Sanders endorses Heath Mello for mayor of Omaha, Neb., and tells NPR, "In some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue."
www.npr.org
If you're looking at multiple candidates and they all probably have similarly harsh stances on abortion, you could make the argument for holding the nose, but it shouldn't be a default party stance that Dems are fine with. Such cases are fringe to begin with.
Well I mean maybe if you beat the drum for 4 years that Trump is the big problem and once we get the bad man out of office for anybody else, and that candidate doesn't actually improve their life in any substantial way, they're going to be less likely to vote. So we should be careful about what kind of candidate we elect, and what structural changes we implement to help stop minority rule, and increasingly get more people involved.
Yeah I hate it when Bernie Sanders does shit for the DNC too. It's beneath him.
Edit: Full article
Bernie Sanders Defends Campaigning For Anti-Abortion Rights Democrat
Sanders endorses Heath Mello for mayor of Omaha, Neb., and tells NPR, "In some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue."
Except, as linked in that article, Bernie made the same basic argument Amy did - that, in some areas of the country, you need somebody who will materially help people, even if you disagree on a single issue. Now, for some reason, you trust Bernie Sanders, the person with the 100% Planned Parenthood rating, over Amy Klouchbar, another person with a 100% Planned Parenthood rating.
Bernie Sanders could pass M4A, the GND, end student debt, raise taxes on the rich, and do a everything on the left-wing wish list and....Republican's would still get 47% at a minimum in the next Presidential race.
Well, Warren did back off it but in context of my post I meant she's no longer a viable candidate to win the election.
Also, please don't just post random health care plans and try to claim they guarantee healthcare as a human right when they clearly don't.
Yeah, because he was helping the DNC.
Has he endorsed any other anti-abortion candidates of his own free will?
Rhetorical. Question.Yeah I hate it when Bernie Sanders does shit for the DNC too. It's beneath him.
Edit: Full article
Bernie Sanders Defends Campaigning For Anti-Abortion Rights Democrat
Sanders endorses Heath Mello for mayor of Omaha, Neb., and tells NPR, "In some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue."
You Bernie Bros never listen.
Why didn't Bernie, as part of the Unity Tour he agreed to with Tom Perez, agree to campaign for an anti-abortion candidate? I'm sure there were other red state visits Bernie could've done a stop for instead.
But, I'm not surprised Bernie gets a pass, while a Bernie opponent gets slammed for having the same exact position.
Why did Tom Perez assign him an anti-abortion candidate to campaign for?
Probably because Tom Perez, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders, because they're all smart politicians, recognize that in certain very limited places in the country, a pro-choice candidate simply has zero chance to create a coalition that can win.
Personally, I have zero issues with Bernie Sanders doing this. I completely agree with the quote I included above. It's Bernie Sander's supporters, such as yourself, who have attacked Klobuchar, who disagree with Bernie, and his quote that basically matches up with what Klobuchar said. Both Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar are rated 100% by Planned Parenthood, and I see zero reason to have any worry about reproductive rights with either of them in the White House.
Um...well its hard to have a conversation with you if you're going to straight up say the candidates aren't saying that they very clearly are saying LOL. So I guess I'm just going to take my leave and wish you a good night.
P.S. Other countries manage universal healthcare without a full single-payer system. There are other models to follow than just Canada and Britain.
Preview of the Bernie fundraiser
I read this in Bernies voice and it was heavenly.
Every candidate has a stated policy goal and backing plan (since it's the most important item to their voters ) of ensuring access to health care for everyone that's affordable, available (rural healthcare in this country is a huge crisis) and won't cause them hardship to access.
What is the bar for what plans are not "health care is a human right?" Just curious, because where the candidates really differ is how they plan on addressing our health care costs (note: Bernie is super good on talking about this).The universal access to health care isn't the interesting bit to look at, in comparison.
What is the bar for what plans are not "health care is a human right?" Just curious, because where the candidates really differ is how they plan on addressing our health care costs (note: Bernie is super good on talking about this).The universal access to health care isn't the interesting bit to look at, in comparison.
I don't trust Klobuchar. She's running to the right of most of the field and her feeling the need to publicly announce her intentions to court anti-abortion voters scares the shit out of me. I'd be at least a little worried if I were you.
Not if we nationalize the news organizations.
Public option is not universal healthcare.
If you want to not trust Klobuchar on racial issues, debt forgiveness, or a wide variety of issues, that's totally understandable. But again, she's been consistently getting strong ratings from Planned Parenthood for her entire political career. She wants publicly funded abortions and is opposed to parental notification. This is getting back to the "Joe Biden will totally put a Republican on the Supreme Court" arguments people were making.
She's not announcing her intentions to court anti-abortion voters. She's saying that somebody who is pro-life shouldn't automatically be considered somebody who shouldn't be part of the Democratic Party.
Again, her statement and Bernie's statements are basically the same.
Are you actually advocating for state media? Proper (nominally independent) public broadcasting is fine, we have that here. State media monopolies will only lead to situations like in Hungary or China...
Netherlands isn't like France, Japan, Australia, or Germany. Actually, Australia is probably a little more similar to Netherlands than the others. France, Japan, and Germany have sickness funds that do not market, cherrypick, set the premiums or set rates for the providers. They don't have investors or earn profits. They're all-payer systems where they all pay the same price for whatever medical procedure there is. It is more efficient than our current system which should reduce costs.
Netherlands would be the more apt route as they have for-profit insurance companies now. And according to OECD statistics, they do have good health indicators compared to UK, Australia, France, Germany, and Japan relative to price. They look more or less equal going by the data.
In any case, there are multiple ways to achieve better healthcare as you said. I think what it comes down to his how much power the insurance companies have compared to overseas, and how hard your candidate will fight for those big regulations to bring those costs down.
Most candidates are for a public option, but have not said they would want an all payer system like Germany, France, and Japan. They're not advocating for turning those insurance companies into social sickness funds. They just want the public option to be there and out compete the corporations as is.
Single Payer looks more attractive to me.
Last edited:
Wow, PoliERA had a mass Bloomber panic attack that almost took down the whole topic....Lol
I've made no secret my personal highest priority is beating Trump and being as competitive as possible winning the Senate back. That said, I do put some thought on what a Presidency would look like with these candidates. And with the exception of two of them, it's almost impossible to know.
Bernie Sanders - No idea what a Sander's Presidency would look like. Somewhere between a Bernie Revolution and the realities of a Republican Senate. The midterms would probably be a bloodbath.
Elizabeth Warren - No idea what a Warren Presidency would look like. Somewhere between a myriad of of Warren plans and the realities of a Republican Senate. The midterms would probably be a bloodbath.
Pete Buttigieg - Absolutely NO idea what a Booty Presidency would look like. Who knows what skin change Pete will take on once he's President. It seems his main ideology is winning, so it's hard to predict what he'll do. He could either end up being clever as a fox cruising to reelection on a center/left or progressive lite agenda or he could end up being a weasel, shifting around so much that everyone hates him and we get toasted in 2024.
Tom Steyer - Absolutely NO idea what a Steyer Presidency would look like. He seems like a friendly billionaire, but he's the least experienced person left in the field by far. I personally think a Steyer Presidency would probably be a disaster because he has zero governing or government experience.
Michael Bloomberg - No idea what a Bloomberg Presidency would look like. He could run the Presidency anywhere between Center/Left, Complete Centrist, and Center/Right. Those racist comments he made were just 5 years ago. That's not long at all, I still remember what I had for breakfast 5 years ago. This means he's not a natural ally of minorities and would have to keep a constant eye on him. Having a strong black woman VP who can call him out on his shit might help... but if they're just Pence-Lite then it would be a disaster.
The only somewhat known quantities are the following:
Amy Klob - She's never claimed to be anything but pure Center Left. There's no revolution, there's no plans. There's no excitement. But her Senate record and campaign rhetoric have been blandly consistent. I imagine it would be like the third season of the Obama show, nothing ambitious just expanding on popular Obama programs. But if she keeps throwing staplers at her staff in the oval office, there could be a lot of in-fighting scandals.
Joe Biden - He's a known quantity. Similar to Klob he hasn't made any big promises and mostly just wants finish the things Obama tried to finish and fix the things Republicans tried to destroy. I have a feeling his mental acuity would be a constant issue though. He absolutely would not be running for a second term, so while I strongly feel he'll win us back the Senate, 2024 could be challenging because the VP will need to have the gravitas of an incumbent.
It's a bit unselling that the vast majority will be complete unknown quantities once in office. I guess it's a symptom of party activist wanting a change candidate and the moderates putting all their eggs in the Biden basket for the first 12 months. The reason why this could be a problem is because a good chunk of the electorate could go with the "devil they know" if it seems too uncertain what the new guy/gal will bring to the table. Personally I think "change" candidates work best in open election cycles like 2000, 2008, and 2016. When you're trying to unseat an incumbent, the challenger has to show they'll bring greater competency and stabilization to the Presidency. After all, it's a referendum on the incumbent. And even then, it's still a tall mountain to climb.
I've made no secret my personal highest priority is beating Trump and being as competitive as possible winning the Senate back. That said, I do put some thought on what a Presidency would look like with these candidates. And with the exception of two of them, it's almost impossible to know.
Bernie Sanders - No idea what a Sander's Presidency would look like. Somewhere between a Bernie Revolution and the realities of a Republican Senate. The midterms would probably be a bloodbath.
Elizabeth Warren - No idea what a Warren Presidency would look like. Somewhere between a myriad of of Warren plans and the realities of a Republican Senate. The midterms would probably be a bloodbath.
Pete Buttigieg - Absolutely NO idea what a Booty Presidency would look like. Who knows what skin change Pete will take on once he's President. It seems his main ideology is winning, so it's hard to predict what he'll do. He could either end up being clever as a fox cruising to reelection on a center/left or progressive lite agenda or he could end up being a weasel, shifting around so much that everyone hates him and we get toasted in 2024.
Tom Steyer - Absolutely NO idea what a Steyer Presidency would look like. He seems like a friendly billionaire, but he's the least experienced person left in the field by far. I personally think a Steyer Presidency would probably be a disaster because he has zero governing or government experience.
Michael Bloomberg - No idea what a Bloomberg Presidency would look like. He could run the Presidency anywhere between Center/Left, Complete Centrist, and Center/Right. Those racist comments he made were just 5 years ago. That's not long at all, I still remember what I had for breakfast 5 years ago. This means he's not a natural ally of minorities and would have to keep a constant eye on him. Having a strong black woman VP who can call him out on his shit might help... but if they're just Pence-Lite then it would be a disaster.
The only somewhat known quantities are the following:
Amy Klob - She's never claimed to be anything but pure Center Left. There's no revolution, there's no plans. There's no excitement. But her Senate record and campaign rhetoric have been blandly consistent. I imagine it would be like the third season of the Obama show, nothing ambitious just expanding on popular Obama programs. But if she keeps throwing staplers at her staff in the oval office, there could be a lot of in-fighting scandals.
Joe Biden - He's a known quantity. Similar to Klob he hasn't made any big promises and mostly just wants finish the things Obama tried to finish and fix the things Republicans tried to destroy. I have a feeling his mental acuity would be a constant issue though. He absolutely would not be running for a second term, so while I strongly feel he'll win us back the Senate, 2024 could be challenging because the VP will need to have the gravitas of an incumbent.
It's a bit unselling that the vast majority will be complete unknown quantities once in office. I guess it's a symptom of party activist wanting a change candidate and the moderates putting all their eggs in the Biden basket for the first 12 months. The reason why this could be a problem is because a good chunk of the electorate could go with the "devil they know" if it seems too uncertain what the new guy/gal will bring to the table. Personally I think "change" candidates work best in open election cycles like 2000, 2008, and 2016. When you're trying to unseat an incumbent, the challenger has to show they'll bring greater competency and stabilization to the Presidency. After all, it's a referendum on the incumbent. And even then, it's still a tall mountain to climb.
Last edited:
The only reason 2018 was a wave election with extremely high turnout was because Trump exists. If Trump was a Generic Republican no one would have a chance to beat him as an incumbent in 2020 in a low unemployment environment. By all rights he should be sleep-walking his way to re-election. Not leveraging that is dangerous.
from 2008 to 2016 medical bankruptcies decreased by 60%, and medical bankruptcies were the most common form of bankruptcy. Wall street got tighter regulations than ever before. Republicans after the ACA was passed paralyzed Congress to prevent the law from being built on, and also prevented anything further from being passed legislatively. And then Trump was elected anyway.
Well then you should support Pete as structural electoral reform is the issue that's been top of the ticket for him and he's willing to go farther than anyone else on the ticket for him!
I'm not voting for Pete.
All I'm saying is that thinking there's a "win" state where the country is fundamentally and forever past Republicanism is dangerously naive.
John Kelly fluff by The Atlantic:
www.theatlantic.com
John Kelly Finally Lets Loose on Trump
The former chief of staff explained, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings about Trump’s behavior regarding North Korea, immigration, and Ukraine.
www.theatlantic.com
Over a 75-minute speech and question-and-answer session, Kelly laid out, in the clearest terms yet, his misgivings with Trump's words and actions regarding North Korea, illegal immigration, military discipline, Ukraine, and the news media.
Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, said that Vindman is blameless and simply followed the training he'd received as a soldier, migrants are "overwhelmingly good people" and "not all rapists," and Trump's decision to condition military aid to Ukraine on an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden upended longstanding U.S. policy.
Vindman was rightly disturbed by Trump's phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July, Kelly suggested. Having seen something "questionable," Vindman properly notified his superiors, Kelly said. Vindman, who specialized in Ukraine policy at the National Security Council at the time, was among multiple U.S. officials who listened in on the call. When subpoenaed by Congress in the House impeachment hearings, Vindman complied and told the truth, Kelly said.
"He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave," Kelly told the audience at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. "He went and told his boss what he just heard."
------------------------------
"Through the Obama administration up until that phone call, the policy of the U.S. was militarily to support Ukraine in their defensive fight against …. the Russians," Kelly said. "And so, when the president said that continued support would be based on X, that essentially changed. And that's what that guy [Vindman] was most interested in."
When Vindman heard the president tell Zelensky he wanted to see the Biden family investigated, that, for Vindman, was tantamount to hearing "an illegal order," Kelly said. "We teach them, Don't follow an illegal order. And if you're ever given one, you'll raise it to whoever gives it to you that this is an illegal order, and then tell your boss."
Throughout the appearance, Kelly laid out his doubts about Trump's policies. Trump has held two formal summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, hoping to scuttle the country's nuclear program through personal diplomacy. Kelly said the effort was futile.
"He will never give his nuclear weapons up," Kelly said. "Again, President Trump tried – that's one way to put it. But it didn't work. I'm an optimist most of the time, but I'm also a realist and I never did think Kim would do anything other than play us for a while, and he did that fairly effectively."
------------------------------
Responding to questions from the audience, Kelly faulted Trump for intervening in the case of Eddie Gallagher, a Navy Seal who was convicted last year of posing with the corpse of an ISIS fighter. Trump reversed a Navy decision to oust Gallagher, in a chain of events that led to the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer.
"The idea that the commander-in-chief intervened there, in my opinion, was exactly the wrong thing to do," Kelly said. "Had I been there, I think I could have prevented it."
The audience applauded.
When a woman in the crowd said that Trump had "elevated" Gallagher, Kelly looked out at the crowd.
"Yep," he said.
Nobody is doing anything in the 4 years unless they are willing to compromise with Republicans in Senate.
Nobody is doing anything in the 4 years if they have to compromise with Republicans in the Senate. Well, besides high-profile continuing resolutions.
[
There is no "compromise" with the modem Republican Senate. They will not pass legislation for a Dem president to sign, that much is clear from the past 8 years. Unless you count budget compromises as wins.
There is no "compromise" with the modem Republican Senate. They will not pass legislation for a Dem president to sign, that much is clear from the past 8 years. Unless you count budget compromises as wins.
BDN Politics on Twitter
“Susan Collins: Trump ‘angered’ — not emboldened — after impeachment acquittal https://t.co/O3Ee00B1Fi via @circleboom”
twitter.com
That John Kelly article...
I'm now convinced proximity to Trump causes one to mutate into a cultist zombie creature. The closer the proximity the greater one becomes a zombie husk. But if one gets far enough away from the Trump nuclear fallout zone, for some the human DNA slowly starts regenerating.
Nice words by Kelly now, but he was an asshole and a liar the first 6 months on the job and the latter months he completely checked out and didn't stop Trump from doing anything.So no, I don't think he would be a stabilizing force. He'd either be hiding in an underground bunker or be a zombie husk.
I hate to admit it, but only John Bolton has shown any proof of a high level offical in the Trump admin that had a Zombie Resistance strain in them. And that's because Bolton was way more focused on his own NeoCon agenda, everything else was secondary.
I'm now convinced proximity to Trump causes one to mutate into a cultist zombie creature. The closer the proximity the greater one becomes a zombie husk. But if one gets far enough away from the Trump nuclear fallout zone, for some the human DNA slowly starts regenerating.
Nice words by Kelly now, but he was an asshole and a liar the first 6 months on the job and the latter months he completely checked out and didn't stop Trump from doing anything.So no, I don't think he would be a stabilizing force. He'd either be hiding in an underground bunker or be a zombie husk.
I hate to admit it, but only John Bolton has shown any proof of a high level offical in the Trump admin that had a Zombie Resistance strain in them. And that's because Bolton was way more focused on his own NeoCon agenda, everything else was secondary.
Something funny here-- Klobuchar actually repeats the same thing twice
Don't know if that says more about where healthcare is on her list of priorities or where she thought she'd be in the race at this point lol
But also I do think it's fair to say that Warren is walking back her messaging a bit. It's not dissimilar to what Pete did throughout the campaign. He most recent tweet where she switches to "affordable healthcare" is pretty dire, these terms don't exist in a vacuum you know?
He will be commented on with no ability to defend himself. Either he's brought up and discussed while he's on the stage or while he's curiously absent. No way he doesn't get discussed though.
julie k. brown @jkbjournalist
BREAKING: Miami Herald parent company files for bankruptcy. A very sad day for local news. https://twitter.com/mlcalderone/status/1227927843092471809 …
7:18 AM - Feb 13, 2020
BREAKING: Miami Herald parent company files for bankruptcy. A very sad day for local news. https://twitter.com/mlcalderone/status/1227927843092471809 …
7:18 AM - Feb 13, 2020
"While this is obviously a sad milestone after 163 years of family control, McClatchy remains a strong operating company and committed to essential local news and information," said Kevin McClatchy, chairman of the company that has carried his family name since the days of the California Gold Rush. "While we tried hard to avoid this step, there's no question that the scale of our 75-year-old pension plan – with 10 pensioners for every single active employee – is a reflection of another economic era."
The filing has no immediate impact on McClatchy's employees or its 30 newsrooms in 14 states, including the Kansas City Star, the Miami Herald, the Charlotte Observer, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Sacramento Bee. The company said it has secured $50 million in new financing from Encina Business Credit to ensure it can continue to operate while in bankruptcy and hopes to emerge with its balance sheet equipped for the future.
Since Bernie is the frontrunner people should start preparing because there is no way in hell that single payer is going into the party platform. Of all the things that I'm worried about is that the fight over that plank is going to lead to a massive rift.
Jake Sherman on Twitter
“— AMAZINGLY, BLOOMBERG takes credit for impeachment, saying he provided the money to help @SpeakerPelosi win back the House.”
twitter.com
Is it confirmed that Klobb wears Kohl's? I know Bernard said he does.
This is very important.
That's because Vermont has no solid clothes options. It's basically Kohl's, Walmart, and as of last year Target (although our Target sucks).
Burgess Everett @burgessev
Joe Manchin thinks President Donald Trump abused his power and voted to remove him from office. But he also thinks Trump can still be a "tremendous president" and is eager to reconcile. And he's not ruling out supporting Trump's re-election campaign.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/joe-manchin-trump-reelection-impeachment-114679 …
"I don't rule anything out. I really don't rule anything out," Manchin said in an interview in his office. "I'm always going to be for what's best for my country. Everybody can change. Maybe the president will change, you know? Maybe that uniter will come out, versus the divider"
may defy logic that Manchin could support a president he voted to kick out of office, Manchin sees things differently. Trump tried to defeat Manchin in 2018 and Manchin forgave him a week later.
"I'm asking him to do the same thing I did," Manchin said. "He tried to remove me."
Senate Republicans are annoyed that Manchin denied Trump a bipartisan acquittal. But Graham has spoken to Trump about needing Manchin's vote later this year
Trump "doesn't believe it today. But there will come a time when we need Joe tomorrow," Graham said.
8:09 AM - Feb 13, 2020
Joe Manchin thinks President Donald Trump abused his power and voted to remove him from office. But he also thinks Trump can still be a "tremendous president" and is eager to reconcile. And he's not ruling out supporting Trump's re-election campaign.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/joe-manchin-trump-reelection-impeachment-114679 …
"I don't rule anything out. I really don't rule anything out," Manchin said in an interview in his office. "I'm always going to be for what's best for my country. Everybody can change. Maybe the president will change, you know? Maybe that uniter will come out, versus the divider"
may defy logic that Manchin could support a president he voted to kick out of office, Manchin sees things differently. Trump tried to defeat Manchin in 2018 and Manchin forgave him a week later.
"I'm asking him to do the same thing I did," Manchin said. "He tried to remove me."
Senate Republicans are annoyed that Manchin denied Trump a bipartisan acquittal. But Graham has spoken to Trump about needing Manchin's vote later this year
Trump "doesn't believe it today. But there will come a time when we need Joe tomorrow," Graham said.
8:09 AM - Feb 13, 2020
Bernard buying Kohl's is very on-brand for him. You're not gonna see a socialist in designer clothing.
My boy is playing the game beautifully.
We know he would actually never in a million years support Trump.
- Status