The Senate is now in Democratic hands.....let's see what the hell they're gonna do? Senate Watch Thread
- Thread starter Politic Negro
- Start date
One thought about Tuesday's election
This newsletter is about accountability journalism, not political punditry. But today I do want to share my thinking about the outcome of Tuesday's elections — and the ensuing discourse.
Post-election analysis often assumes that the political environment will remain static over time. It looks at the political dynamics that propelled the winner and speculates that they will create persistent "challenges" for the loser.
For example, the 2004 election resulted in President George W. Bush winning a second term, a Republican-controlled House, and a Republican-controlled Senate. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Ron Brownstein wrote that Democrats faced "a long-term disadvantage in future races for the White House and battles for Congress." He suggested that it would be very difficult "mathematically" for Democrats to regain control of the presidency or Congress because of their inability to compete in the south:
In 2012, Obama won reelection while Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate. In the New York Times, reporter Michael Cooper laid out the case that "demography" meant that Republicans would never win another presidential election while trying to appeal to older white men.
Tuesday was a bad day for most Democratic candidates. And it was particularly striking to see Republicans win the Governor's race in Virginia just a year after Biden won the state handily. But a shifting political landscape shouldn't be a surprise.
My point is not that Democrats will do better in 2022. I don't know what will happen then. My point is that 2022 will be very different than 2021. Politics is much more dynamic than the coverage suggests. The only thing that is constant is change.
popular.info
| Judd Legum | 1 hr ago | 17 | 27 |
This newsletter is about accountability journalism, not political punditry. But today I do want to share my thinking about the outcome of Tuesday's elections — and the ensuing discourse.
Post-election analysis often assumes that the political environment will remain static over time. It looks at the political dynamics that propelled the winner and speculates that they will create persistent "challenges" for the loser.
For example, the 2004 election resulted in President George W. Bush winning a second term, a Republican-controlled House, and a Republican-controlled Senate. In the Los Angeles Times, columnist Ron Brownstein wrote that Democrats faced "a long-term disadvantage in future races for the White House and battles for Congress." He suggested that it would be very difficult "mathematically" for Democrats to regain control of the presidency or Congress because of their inability to compete in the south:
Four years later, Barack Obama was elected with 365 electoral votes, including Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Democrats also increased their margins in the House (which they recaptured in 2006) and took control of the Senate, winning races in Arkansas, Louisiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.
In 2012, Obama won reelection while Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate. In the New York Times, reporter Michael Cooper laid out the case that "demography" meant that Republicans would never win another presidential election while trying to appeal to older white men.
Four years later, Donald Trump was elected running precisely the kind of campaign that these strategists claimed would never work again. Republicans were also able to maintain control of the House and Senate. By 2020, things were much different.
Tuesday was a bad day for most Democratic candidates. And it was particularly striking to see Republicans win the Governor's race in Virginia just a year after Biden won the state handily. But a shifting political landscape shouldn't be a surprise.
My point is not that Democrats will do better in 2022. I don't know what will happen then. My point is that 2022 will be very different than 2021. Politics is much more dynamic than the coverage suggests. The only thing that is constant is change.
One thought about Tuesday's election
This newsletter is about accountability journalism, not political punditry.
popular.info
Good morning. Democratic struggles with working-class voters seem to be getting worse.
Supporters of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia.Carlos Bernate for The New York Times
Culture over money
They are among the most affluent places in America: Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, in Northern Virginia; Upper Montclair, N.J.; Scarsdale, N.Y.; Wilmette, Ill.; Palo Alto and Malibu, Calif; and Mercer Island, Wash.
In each, six-figure incomes are the norm, and seven-figure incomes are not rare, which means that many residents would pay higher taxes if Democratic proposals were to become law.
And yet these places vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Even this week, which did not go well for Democrats, many affluent suburbs were colored blue on election maps. In Arlington, Va., Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for governor, won about 77 percent of the vote. Last year, President Biden won a similarly large share in Scarsdale and some other high-income towns — and about 90 percent in several California and New England suburbs. (Look up your town.)
Democrats often lament that so many working-class Americans vote against their own economic interests, by supporting Republicans who try to cut health care programs, school funding and more. A 2004 book summarized the liberal frustration with the title, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”
But working-class conservatives are hardly the only voters who prioritize issues other than their financial situation. The residents of the affluent towns I mentioned above — and I could have listed dozens more — also do. Which raises a different question: What’s the matter with Scarsdale?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Pocketbook issues aren’t the only reasonable ones to decide a person’s vote. Other subjects, like climate change, civil rights, religious rights, abortion, immigration, crime, education and Covid-19, are important, too.
As Democrats try to make sense of this week’s disappointments and look anxiously ahead to next year’s midterms, one problem looms others: the party’s struggles with working-class voters. Defined as people without a four-year college degree, these voters make up a majority of the electorate. And they tend to be more religious, more outwardly patriotic and more culturally conservative than college graduates.
From a survey of 2,508 people, conducted in Sept. 2021.Source: Public Religion Research Institute
A Virginia trouncing
For much of the 20th century, Democrats were the party of the working class, while Republicans were the party of suburban professionals. In recent decades, however, politics has changed.
People vote based less on their income and more on their cultural attitudes, as my colleague Nate Cohn has explained. Sometimes, these attitudes are related to specific matters of policy, like immigration or abortion. Other times, they involve more personal subjects, like religion or patriotism.
“As they’ve grown in numbers, college graduates have instilled increasingly liberal cultural norms while gaining the power to nudge the Democratic Party to the left,” Nate wrote. “Partly as a result, large portions of the party’s traditional working-class base have defected to the Republicans.”
The defections have increased over the past decade. Barack Obama won voters without a bachelor’s degree in both of his presidential victories. Biden lost them narrowly last year. In Virginia this week, McAuliffe was trounced — by between 10 and 20 percentage points, depending on the exit poll — among voters without a bachelor’s degree. He particularly lost ground with white working-class women, according to CNN.
Race plays an important role here. Republicans — including Donald Trump, but not limited to him — have won more working-class votes partly by appealing to white identity. In Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor-elect, used a version of this strategy. He went so far as to release an ad in which a white mother complained about her son’s high school class reading a classic novel by Toni Morrison.
But many Democrats have made the mistake of believing that the working-class shift is all about racism. It’s not. Consider that the contemporary Democrat who fared best with the white working class was Obama. Or that some divisive cultural debates, like those involving religion, don’t map neatly onto race.
The clearest sign that the shift involves both racial and other causes comes from recent election results: Democrats are no longer doing as well as they once did in Asian, Black and Latino communities. Trump fared better with voters of color in 2020 than in 2016. In Virginia, some of McAuliffe’s most disappointing totals came in heavily Hispanic precincts, according to Nate’s analysis.
This year’s mayoral election in New York offered a similar lesson. Eric Adams beat more liberal Democratic candidates with an anti-crime message that appealed to a multiracial coalition of working-class voters across the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. The only borough Adams lost in the primary was affluent, highly educated Manhattan.
Values, not white papers
I don’t mean to suggest that there are easy answers for the Democratic Party. The rightward drift of workers has been an international phenomenon. Yet unless Democrats try to address their working-class slide — which has room to become worse — they may struggle to hold power in coming years, especially in the Senate.
What are their options? Democrats can’t win over the working class by talking about only economic issues, any more than Republicans can win Scarsdale simply by saying “Tax cuts now!” Policy proposals, of any kind, may not even be the full answer: Some political scientists believe that Democrats talk too much about policy and not enough about values. Regardless, Democrats likely do need to write off some voters because of their racial attitudes.
Still, that would leave tens of millions of working-class Americans who are open to voting for Democrats without being loyal to the party. These voters span racial groups. They tend to be worried about crime and political correctness, however they define it. They have mixed feelings about immigration and abortion laws. They favor many progressive positions on economic policy. They are skeptical of experts. Most believe in God and in a strong America.
If Democrats are going to win more of these voters, they will probably need to listen to them and make some changes, rather than telling them that they’re irrational for voting Republican. Over the past generation, Democrats have won over more college graduates by listening to them — and then creating a party that reflects their views on almost every issue. Politics is hard, but it is not always mysterious.
Supporters of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia.Carlos Bernate for The New York Times
Culture over money
They are among the most affluent places in America: Arlington, Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, in Northern Virginia; Upper Montclair, N.J.; Scarsdale, N.Y.; Wilmette, Ill.; Palo Alto and Malibu, Calif; and Mercer Island, Wash.
In each, six-figure incomes are the norm, and seven-figure incomes are not rare, which means that many residents would pay higher taxes if Democratic proposals were to become law.
And yet these places vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Even this week, which did not go well for Democrats, many affluent suburbs were colored blue on election maps. In Arlington, Va., Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate for governor, won about 77 percent of the vote. Last year, President Biden won a similarly large share in Scarsdale and some other high-income towns — and about 90 percent in several California and New England suburbs. (Look up your town.)
Democrats often lament that so many working-class Americans vote against their own economic interests, by supporting Republicans who try to cut health care programs, school funding and more. A 2004 book summarized the liberal frustration with the title, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”
But working-class conservatives are hardly the only voters who prioritize issues other than their financial situation. The residents of the affluent towns I mentioned above — and I could have listed dozens more — also do. Which raises a different question: What’s the matter with Scarsdale?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Pocketbook issues aren’t the only reasonable ones to decide a person’s vote. Other subjects, like climate change, civil rights, religious rights, abortion, immigration, crime, education and Covid-19, are important, too.
As Democrats try to make sense of this week’s disappointments and look anxiously ahead to next year’s midterms, one problem looms others: the party’s struggles with working-class voters. Defined as people without a four-year college degree, these voters make up a majority of the electorate. And they tend to be more religious, more outwardly patriotic and more culturally conservative than college graduates.
From a survey of 2,508 people, conducted in Sept. 2021.Source: Public Religion Research Institute
A Virginia trouncing
For much of the 20th century, Democrats were the party of the working class, while Republicans were the party of suburban professionals. In recent decades, however, politics has changed.
People vote based less on their income and more on their cultural attitudes, as my colleague Nate Cohn has explained. Sometimes, these attitudes are related to specific matters of policy, like immigration or abortion. Other times, they involve more personal subjects, like religion or patriotism.
“As they’ve grown in numbers, college graduates have instilled increasingly liberal cultural norms while gaining the power to nudge the Democratic Party to the left,” Nate wrote. “Partly as a result, large portions of the party’s traditional working-class base have defected to the Republicans.”
The defections have increased over the past decade. Barack Obama won voters without a bachelor’s degree in both of his presidential victories. Biden lost them narrowly last year. In Virginia this week, McAuliffe was trounced — by between 10 and 20 percentage points, depending on the exit poll — among voters without a bachelor’s degree. He particularly lost ground with white working-class women, according to CNN.
Race plays an important role here. Republicans — including Donald Trump, but not limited to him — have won more working-class votes partly by appealing to white identity. In Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, the Republican governor-elect, used a version of this strategy. He went so far as to release an ad in which a white mother complained about her son’s high school class reading a classic novel by Toni Morrison.
But many Democrats have made the mistake of believing that the working-class shift is all about racism. It’s not. Consider that the contemporary Democrat who fared best with the white working class was Obama. Or that some divisive cultural debates, like those involving religion, don’t map neatly onto race.
The clearest sign that the shift involves both racial and other causes comes from recent election results: Democrats are no longer doing as well as they once did in Asian, Black and Latino communities. Trump fared better with voters of color in 2020 than in 2016. In Virginia, some of McAuliffe’s most disappointing totals came in heavily Hispanic precincts, according to Nate’s analysis.
This year’s mayoral election in New York offered a similar lesson. Eric Adams beat more liberal Democratic candidates with an anti-crime message that appealed to a multiracial coalition of working-class voters across the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. The only borough Adams lost in the primary was affluent, highly educated Manhattan.
Values, not white papers
I don’t mean to suggest that there are easy answers for the Democratic Party. The rightward drift of workers has been an international phenomenon. Yet unless Democrats try to address their working-class slide — which has room to become worse — they may struggle to hold power in coming years, especially in the Senate.
What are their options? Democrats can’t win over the working class by talking about only economic issues, any more than Republicans can win Scarsdale simply by saying “Tax cuts now!” Policy proposals, of any kind, may not even be the full answer: Some political scientists believe that Democrats talk too much about policy and not enough about values. Regardless, Democrats likely do need to write off some voters because of their racial attitudes.
Still, that would leave tens of millions of working-class Americans who are open to voting for Democrats without being loyal to the party. These voters span racial groups. They tend to be worried about crime and political correctness, however they define it. They have mixed feelings about immigration and abortion laws. They favor many progressive positions on economic policy. They are skeptical of experts. Most believe in God and in a strong America.
If Democrats are going to win more of these voters, they will probably need to listen to them and make some changes, rather than telling them that they’re irrational for voting Republican. Over the past generation, Democrats have won over more college graduates by listening to them — and then creating a party that reflects their views on almost every issue. Politics is hard, but it is not always mysterious.
GOP billionaire Ken Langone says he will hold a fundraiser for Democrat Joe Manchin, who has worked to shrink Biden's agenda
www.cnbc.com
GOP billionaire Ken Langone says he will hold a fundraiser for Democrat Joe Manchin, who has worked to shrink Biden's agenda
Republican billionaire Ken Langone says he will hold a fundraiser for Joe Manchin after the conservative Democrat opposed elements of Joe Biden's agenda.
Excellent post. Proves both sides are the same and politics is about quid pro quo. Too many of our people are too emotional to understand how the game worksGOP billionaire Ken Langone says he will hold a fundraiser for Democrat Joe Manchin, who has worked to shrink Biden's agenda
GOP billionaire Ken Langone says he will hold a fundraiser for Democrat Joe Manchin, who has worked to shrink Biden's agenda
Republican billionaire Ken Langone says he will hold a fundraiser for Joe Manchin after the conservative Democrat opposed elements of Joe Biden's agenda.
So no mention of the infrastructure bill being passed huh
That was always gonna pass. The House was just holding it hostage as a bargaining chip to get what they wanted in the Build Back Better plan.
Wait.....can't even call it that no more. It's name is officially, the Joe Manchin "You gone get what I give you or allow you to have" plan.
That shit prolly won't get thru til Xmas. And they still gotta deal with the debt ceiling in a few more weeks. Expect a govt shutdown next month.
Damn
Mufuckas could pass for brothers
Dem Sen. Kyrsten Sinema stands to applaud Trump as Gillibrand, Harris stay seated at SOTU
By Sam Dorman
Published February 5, 2020
www.fox10phoenix.com
By Sam Dorman
Published February 5, 2020
Dem Sen. Kyrsten Sinema stands to applaud Trump as Gillibrand, Harris stay seated at SOTU | FOX 10 Phoenix
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., earned praise from some right-leaning figures on Tuesday as she stood to applaud the opportunity zones President Trump created under his tax reform bill.
Speaking of this C_NTDem Sen. Kyrsten Sinema stands to applaud Trump as Gillibrand, Harris stay seated at SOTU
By Sam Dorman
Published February 5, 2020
Dem Sen. Kyrsten Sinema stands to applaud Trump as Gillibrand, Harris stay seated at SOTU | FOX 10 Phoenix
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., earned praise from some right-leaning figures on Tuesday as she stood to applaud the opportunity zones President Trump created under his tax reform bill.
I get tired of being ahead of the curve.in favor of what other party?
mind you I'm not saying this is a bad idea I'm asking what are the choices?
People think the democrat party is one big thing and its not...
AOC: 'In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party'
its left in the political spectrum but democrats are left leaning to varying degrees.
The Super Progressives
The Very Progressives
- Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment. (Anti-establishment is a very fuzzy term, but in this piece, what I’m referring to is people who see part of their role as not just attacking Republicans, but also highlighting what they see as shortcomings of the Democratic Party itself.)
- Prominent examples: Ocasio-Cortez , Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
The Progressive New Guard
- Very liberal on economic issues, fairly liberal on identity issues, skeptical of the Democratic establishment.
- Prominent examples: Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.
The Progressive Old Guard
- Liberal on both economic and identity issues but also somewhat concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence after Barack Obama was elected president.
- Prominent examples: Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Beto O’Rourke.
The Moderates
- Solidly center-left on both economic and identity issues, but very concerned about the “electability” of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence before Obama was elected president.
- Prominent examples: Joe Biden, Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.
Conservative Democrats
- More conservative and business-friendly than other Democrats on economic policies; somewhat liberal on cultural issues; anti-establishment.
- Prominent examples: Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.
- Skeptical of liberal views on both economic and cultural issues; often supportive of abortion limits; generally from conservative-leaning areas.
- Prominent examples: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.
The Six Wings Of The Democratic Party
There’s a lot of news right now about conflicts within the Democratic Party, and similar stories will likely continue to pop up for the next two years. Much of …fivethirtyeight.com
This what you have to deal with...
I been saying what AOC has been saying, at least since before Obama’s administration.
Each party has a minimum of 3 parties inside of it, which is why I don’t understand the “woe are we” indoctrination of “It’s a two party system so we have to…” Have to do what, be Black and die?
Man, it’s “We the people.” Now, I know they didn’t mean us, but we have to do it the way we do democracy: make it so.
We been taking lumps, so, take the lumps via the necessary steps to splinter these two parties AND create an indigenous party that speaks to all the needs of all the Black people in the diaspora in America.
We can garner international support and never be beat.
When? I can’t remember this ever happening. Black folks don’t sit out elections, as a rule.
Let…that…binary…thinking…go.I guess the republicans have our best interest in mind.
Who knew.
Think bigger.
Evolve your mindset.
Last edited:
Ideological conferences[edit]
Ideological congressional caucuses can represent a political party within a political party. In the United States two-party dominant political system, these congressional caucuses help congregate and advance the ideals of a more focused ideology within the two major relatively big tent political parties. Some caucuses are organized political factions with a common ideological orientation.[3] Most ideological caucuses are confined to the House of Representatives:
- On the Democratic side:
- Blue Collar Caucus (BCC) – pro-labor and alter-globalization Democrats
- Blue Dog Coalition (BDC) – conservative Democrats
- Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) – progressive and New Deal Democrats
- Expand Social Security Caucus (ESSC) – pro-social security Democrats
- Medicare for All Caucus (MAC) – pro-Medicare for All Democrats
- New Democrat Coalition (NDC) – centrist New Democrats
- On the Republican side:
- Freedom Caucus (FC) – conservatives affiliated with the Tea Party movement
- Liberty Caucus (LC) – libertarian Republicans
- Republican Main Street Partnership (MSP) – centrist Republicans
- Republican Study Committee (RSC) – conservative Republicans
- Tuesday Group (TG) – centrist Republicans
Caucuses of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
This is dope.Ideological conferences[edit]
Ideological congressional caucuses can represent a political party within a political party. In the United States two-party dominant political system, these congressional caucuses help congregate and advance the ideals of a more focused ideology within the two major relatively big tent political parties. Some caucuses are organized political factions with a common ideological orientation.[3] Most ideological caucuses are confined to the House of Representatives:
Known caucus membership in the House of Representatives of the 117th United States Congress↓
- On the Democratic side:
- Blue Collar Caucus (BCC) – pro-labor and alter-globalization Democrats
- Blue Dog Coalition (BDC) – conservative Democrats
- Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) – progressive and New Deal Democrats
- Expand Social Security Caucus (ESSC) – pro-social security Democrats
- Medicare for All Caucus (MAC) – pro-Medicare for All Democrats
- New Democrat Coalition (NDC) – centrist New Democrats
- On the Republican side:
- Freedom Caucus (FC) – conservatives affiliated with the Tea Party movement
- Liberty Caucus (LC) – libertarian Republicans
- Republican Main Street Partnership (MSP) – centrist Republicans
- Republican Study Committee (RSC) – conservative Republicans
- Tuesday Group (TG) – centrist Republicans
Caucuses of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Had no idea there was more than one caucus, which I ironically don’t see on this list, the useless and hugely symbolic Black Congressional Caucus.
The link contains all of the current caucuses(including Black) above is just the ideological ones(the ones that are creating or solving the most issues. IMO).
She Speaks!!!!
Sen. Sinema Responds To Criticism
Sen. Sinema Responds To Criticism
Smh
The bill finalized Tuesday authorizes $768 billon for national defense, of which $28 billion funds Energy Department nuclear weapons programs........
The bill authorizes $25 billion more than the Biden administration’s budget request. In there are 12 F/A-18 Super Hornets that were not requested; five more Boeing F-15EX jets than the request for 17 total; and 13 ships total ― including two attack submarines and two destroyers ― for five more than the request.
The bill has been passed 60 years in a row, and defense lawmakers warned that failing to clear the bill this year would stymy Pentagon modernization efforts in the face of China’s growing military might.
FOH
Senate backs Biden admin weapons sale to Saudi Arabia
At issue was whether to punish the kingdom for its human rights abuses and its involvement in Yemen’s civil war.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO
12/07/2021 08:25 PM EST
Senate backs Biden admin weapons sale to Saudi Arabia
At issue was whether to punish the kingdom for its human rights abuses and its involvement in Yemen’s civil war.
www.politico.com
The Senate on Tuesday gave a bipartisan vote of confidence to the Biden administration’s proposed weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, blunting criticisms from progressives and some Republicans over the kingdom’s involvement in Yemen’s civil war and its human rights record.
In a 67-30 vote, the Senate handily defeated an effort to block a $650 million sale of air-to-air missiles and related equipment to Saudi Arabia, a longtime U.S. strategic ally.
The munitions, the White House said, are necessary “to defend against aerial cross-border attacks,” most notably from Iran-backed Houthi rebels. But opponents of the sale said it would embolden the kingdom’s human rights violations and hamper efforts to end Yemen’s bloody civil war, where the Saudi-led coalition is fighting against the Houthis in what has devolved into a humanitarian crisis.
“Exporting more missiles to Saudi Arabia does nothing but further this conflict and pour gasoline on already raging fires,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who introduced the legislation with Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah).
The vote split the Senate Democratic Caucus, but the vast majority of GOP senators voted to back the Biden administration’s proposed sale.
“Saudi Arabia is literally surrounded by violent threats conceived, funded and orchestrated by Iran,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “A vote to block the sale of defensive military systems to Saudi Arabia would undermine one of our most important regional partners.”
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has opposed weapons sales to Riyadh in the past, said the Trump administration “was all too happy to sell to the Saudis” while the Biden administration “has largely suspended” sales of offensive weapons.
“Make no mistake, the Saudi-led coalition bears the brunt of the responsibility for the devastation in Yemen,” Menendez said. “Yet I, along with most members of this body, have always supported the use of weapons systems in defense of civilian populations.”
Former President Donald Trump faced criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike for his willingness to back Saudi Arabia’s coalition in the Yemen civil war, and for his public backing of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s denial of involvement in the brutal 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump and his national security deputies consistently pressured Congress to abandon efforts to crack down on Saudi Arabia.
President Joe Biden was similarly criticized earlier this year when he declined to impose sanctions on the crown prince even after releasing an intelligence report stating that the Saudi leader approved the killing of Khashoggi.
Worth pointing out that the defense bills what 70% more than the build back better plan everyone lost their shit over 
Worth pointing out that the defense bills what 70% more than the build back better plan everyone lost their shit over
The US spent $300 million per day for a total of $2.3 Trillion for the 20 years it spent in Afghanistan.
Imagine what America could get done, for all its citizens to improve their quality of life with that money?
And what do we have to show for it Afghanistan?
Really fucking disgusting and sickening homie.
I don't even blame half of the people eligible to vote for not even participate in this farce
So basically the "intellectual" white people have kidnapped the Democratic Party? If white people with money control your party hiw is that good for black people?
Seems to me a lot of DNC black like the fact that "educated whites" vote the same as they do. Then the same "liberal" play dumb everytime a permanent/real solution is needed for black issues.
They aren't going to fun your education/health without debt. The goal is to keep you a permanent working class with no ownership or self determination. As long as you fall into the trap of always facing white people as an individual and not a group you will continue to fail.
democrats
Senator Joe Manchin’s Yacht
#votebluenomatterwhoSenator Joe Manchin’s Yacht
And before they say it, as I've already pointed out earlier, they're just the "rotating villains" of this congressional round.
Nothing more nothing less.
Why they making Joe Grizzly seem like he Bezos or some shit. Ol' boy got a nice houseboat, not a luxury yacht.Senator Joe Manchin’s Yacht
Why they making Joe Grizzly seem like he Bezos or some shit. Ol' boy got a nice houseboat, not a luxury yacht.
It looks more like a commercial ferry you see being used in NYC crossing the East River.
HaHa!!!
The major news outlets are not talking about it.
The Senate adjusted the filibuster to pass the debt ceiling.
It shows money is more important than voting rights, abortion and anything that benefits regular Americans living paycheck to paycheck.
Senate Democrats raise debt ceiling after filibuster deal
thehill.com
The Senate adjusted the filibuster to pass the debt ceiling.
It shows money is more important than voting rights, abortion and anything that benefits regular Americans living paycheck to paycheck.
Senate Democrats raise debt ceiling after filibuster deal
Senate Democrats raise debt ceiling after filibuster deal
Senate Democrats on Tuesday voted to raise the debt ceiling, bypassing a GOP filibuster as part of a deal struck by congressional leaders. Senators voted 50-49 along party lines to raise the d…
thehill.com
It's always about money.The major news outlets are not talking about it.
The Senate adjusted the filibuster to pass the debt ceiling.
It shows money is more important than voting rights, abortion and anything that benefits regular Americans living paycheck to paycheck.
Senate Democrats raise debt ceiling after filibuster deal
Senate Democrats raise debt ceiling after filibuster deal
Senate Democrats on Tuesday voted to raise the debt ceiling, bypassing a GOP filibuster as part of a deal struck by congressional leaders. Senators voted 50-49 along party lines to raise the d…
Similar threads
