Will Manchin and Sinema crack?

[Anonymous]

^Keep ignoring the booming economy, Republicans. Inflation is because of demand, and wages going up. Those are a GOOD thing. If on the other hand the economy were crashing, wages were low and there was no demand then maybe you'd have a point.

But I guess in the meantime you will have nothing else but to lie about the economy and shriek "inflation" as loudly as you can.

[Anonymous]

Inflation is just like alcoholism. The good effects come first; the bad effects only come later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inflation is just like alcoholism. The good effects come first; the bad effects only come later.

And, like alcoholism, poorer people suffer the consequences more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin is a loss. But Sinema is easily replaced. And Dems could potentially pick up the PA Senate seat and possibly a few more. I think the best revenge against Manchin would be for Dems to get a majority that doesn't include him.

Sigh.

A) Sinema is NOT up for reelection until 2025.

B) There is a vulnerable Senator in Arizona. His name is Mark Kelly and HE is up for reelection 2022.

C) You'll be lucky to keep the House at this rate. Keep ignoring inflation.

We will remember Sinema. Make no mistake, we will remember.
As for Mark Kelly he's a g_dam ASTRONAUT and national hero. And he is NOT in that much trouble in AZ. Good luck topping Kelly.

You might want to remember what happened with Susan Collins in 2020. I believe the Dems promised to bury her. Guess whose still in Congress?

As for Kelly - and? So he’s an astronaut. His fellow Congressman representing North Carolina is a high school dropout who beat a federal administrative judge and veteran. The collective American public are idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflation is just like alcoholism. The good effects come first; the bad effects only come later.

And, like alcoholism, poorer people suffer the consequences more.

Yup, inflation is a tax that disproportionately affects the poor. But hey, Biden can keep sending cash transfers to keep AOC and co. happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inflation is just like alcoholism. The good effects come first; the bad effects only come later.

And, like alcoholism, poorer people suffer the consequences more.

Yup, inflation is a tax that disproportionately affects the poor. But hey, Biden can keep sending cash transfers to keep AOC and co. happy.

There wouldn’t be so many working poor if Republicans didn’t oppose unions, living wages, health care that isn’t yoked to a job and workers rights. When push comes to shove, you guys effectively prove you want a permanent underclass and you really don’t care about poor people. I’m not sure why you think anyone believes you care about poor people; we’ve all read you complaining that since they don’t pay income tax, they “have no skin in the game.” Seriously. You guys were arguing that on here with a straight face not even a year ago.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Someone sounds bitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone sounds bitter

And you sound like a psychopath. What jerk cheers for the GOP refusing to protect voting rights? “Moderate dems,” probably, so “douchey Republicans who know their party can’t win without multiple layers of cheating.”

[Anonymous]

A reminder that Robert Reich served in Bill Clinton's cabinet.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A reminder that Robert Reich served in Bill Clinton's cabinet.....

Wow, but of course this will just dissipate into nothing because a Democrat said it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone sounds bitter

What an absolute lunatic.

52-48 wins. Why on earth didn't the Democratic strategy revolve around gaining the support of the two senators they knew would be decisive?

They thought they could steamroll them and found out the hard way that they can't. They look like fools because they are fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A reminder that Robert Reich served in Bill Clinton's cabinet.....

Wow, but of course this will just dissipate into nothing because a Democrat said it.

How very anti-women's rights of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone sounds bitter

What an absolute lunatic.

52-48 wins. Why on earth didn't the Democratic strategy revolve around gaining the support of the two senators they knew would be decisive?

They thought they could steamroll them and found out the hard way that they can't. They look like fools because they are fools.

Fascism is lunacy, but here you are plumping for it.

Two tweets from the voting thread:

First, they did coddle the two dumb cluck Democrats. Second, regarding majorities and voting:

It is literally insane that you defend this in the context of how many people are having their voting power diluted:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone sounds bitter

What an absolute lunatic.

52-48 wins. Why on earth didn't the Democratic strategy revolve around gaining the support of the two senators they knew would be decisive?

They thought they could steamroll them and found out the hard way that they can't. They look like fools because they are fools.

Fascism is lunacy, but here you are plumping for it.

Two tweets from the voting thread:

First, they did coddle the two dumb cluck Democrats. Second, regarding majorities and voting:

I don't know why this is suddenly the Dems wet-dream, disenfranchising the areas of the country with a smaller population, but its distasteful. You household has 11 people in it and mine has 4, therefore your 11 makes the decisions for the next 25 years? Not how this country works.
It is literally insane that you defend this in the context of how many people are having their voting power diluted: