***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Sinema has clear contempt for the leftwing caucus, even in Arizona.

Look at this line in here OP-Ed...

Arizonans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate: to be independent — like Arizona — and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results.

This is utter nonsense. Arizona having a high amount of registered independents doesn't negate the fact the Democratic voters, liberal activist, and the Democratic Party worked their asses off to get you elected. Arizonans elected a Democrat. They elected Mark Kelly by a wider margin who has more left-wing politics.

Like I said before, Sinema is the kind of scumbag people thought Hillary would turn out to be.
 
If she truly thinks Arizonans elected her to be a brick wall she's gonna be surprised when she's not re-elected in favor of someone to the left of her
 
Republicans in Arizona have allowed conspiracy theorists to conduct a ******** election audit just to give credence to Trump's ******** election claims.

The "results" of this audit will be used to normalize the practice of state legislature stealing elections

Sinema is a clown because if she is gonna run again she is gonna have to deal with a primary challenge. If she survives that she will [ut herself in the position where she might run behind Biden, and even if she wins the legislature might declare the GOP the winner.

This woman is drunk of Trader Joe's wine and delusions of grandeur

Ole girl is the Mehgan McCain of the Democratic caucus
 
So has Sinema replaced Manchin as the progressive’s persona non grata du jour?
What the hell are you even talking about

People have been complaining about her for a while now

You were too much of a coward after the election that only comes in here to troll, so maybe you missed it.

Or you are just being your useful pathetic trolling self and looking to antagonize

Oh and I'm sorry, is it only progressive that care about protecting the voting rights of African Americans? I would think a person like you that claimed to care would be pissed at her for allowing the Republicans you voted for to continue to attack voting rights. Oh, also free speech in schools.

Look how principles get left behind when there is a chance to antagonize.
 
What the hell are you even talking about

People have been complaining about her for a while now

You were too much of a coward after the election that only comes in here to troll, so maybe you missed it.

Or you are just being your useful pathetic trolling self and looking to antagonize

Oh and I'm sorry, is it only progressive that care about protecting the voting rights of African Americans? I would think a person like you that claimed to care would be pissed at her for allowing the Republicans you voted for to continue to attack voting rights. Oh, also free speech in schools.

Look how principles get left behind when there is a chance to antagonize.

I think we share the same annoyance. I just said progressives because it was an easy-enough identifier.

If you recall, a lot of my election analysis was based on getting certain legislation past an obstructive GOP-led senate. I clearly underestimated the obstruction from moderate Democrats.
 
So has Sinema replaced Manchin as the progressive’s persona non grata du jour?

you gotta troll better, you get 2 sinemas for effort

1624389717740.png
 

Kyrsten Sinema Once Called Joe Lieberman “Pathetic.” Now He’s Coming to Her Defense.
A decade ago she criticized the Connecticut senator for holding the Democratic agenda hostage. Oh, how times have changed.



In a Washington Post op-ed published late Monday night, Kyrsten Sinema offered her most detailed statement yet on why she does not support abolishing or reforming the filibuster—the Senate rule that requires 60 votes to bring a piece of legislation to the floor for a final vote. While acknowledging that some measures she supports, such as the For the People voting-rights package, are almost certain to be filibustered, Sinema argued that the long-term benefits of keeping the supermajority requirements outweigh the drawbacks. “The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles,” she wrote.

Sinema’s stance won’t win her more friends among Democrats in Washington or her home state (where activists protested outside her office on Tuesday). But she drew praise from a source that would have once seemed unusual. In a visit to his old office, the former Connecticut Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman told reporters that Sinema was right to defend the filibuster, even if he believed it was a fight she’d lose in the end.

Few moments illustrate so perfectly the personal and political evolution of Arizona’s junior senator. When Sinema was first becoming active in state politics as a lefty political activist—she ran as a Green Party member and as an independent before finally joining the Democratic fold—she viewed Lieberman as the embodiment of Washington sellouts. As I reported in a profile of Sinema for the magazine, Sinema even protested outside of a Lieberman campaign event when the senator was running for president in 2003.


“He’s a shame to Democrats,” she told a reporter from the Hartford Courant at the time. “I don’t even know why he’s running. He seems to want to get Republicans voting for him—what kind of strategy is that?” Lieberman, she added, was “pathetic.”

Sinema famously adjusted her rhetoric and her tactics as she climbed the political ladder, but the disdain for Lieberman lingered. Even in 2010—after she’d written a manifesto called Unite and Conquer about using radical acceptance to put aside personal differences and work across the aisle—she continued to take shots at Lieberman. At a town hall that year in Sedona after the party lost a Senate special election in Massachusetts, she tried to spin the loss of the Democrats’ filibuster-proof supermajority as a positive, in that it would eliminate the need to keep Lieberman on board. They could just come up with a process that netted them 50 votes.

“So what does that mean? Well, in the Senate, we no longer have 60 votes. Some would argue we never had 60, because one of those was Joseph Lieberman,” Sinema said, making a look of disgust, for comic effect. “But that’s—whatever. Yeah, and [Ben] Nelson too, but really”—she lowered her voice and shook her fist—“Lieberman.”

“So now…there’s none of this pressure, this false pressure to get to 60,” she continued. “So what that means is the Democrats can stop kowtowing to Joe Lieberman and instead seek other avenues to move forward with health reform. And so it’s likely that the Senate will move forward with a process called reconciliation, which takes only 51 votes.”

This woman is a certified clown
 
For years, a decade, as long as I can remember, I've always resented people who are politically ignorant for labeling the Dems as "do nothing Democrats" or a variation on that term. Because Republicans were always the ones blocking any bills due to having power in one of the chambers. But man, I really have no argument this year after the way Sinema and Manchin have shown their whole asses on every issue. Instead of going after Trump's tax returns, can we see these twos returns? Clipping every possible bill except the symbolic ones makes less logical sense than anything the GOP did the past 8 years. At least with that side you know they're trying to hurt people on purpose. Karen and Male Karen are really making life difficult for hundreds of millions of people for NO reason except to do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom