And it literally hasn't made a bit of difference.
What sort of difference were you hoping for ? Watching Trump led away in shackles ?
And it literally hasn't made a bit of difference.
Sources? All I've heard is people 'hearing' from other people that the allegations are legit.
Conjecture, unverified allegations, paranoid conspiracies fueling both the liberals, cuckservatives, and Trump-ets. What a time to be alive.
What sort of difference were you hoping for ? Watching Trump led away in shackles ?
Conjecture, unverified allegations, paranoid conspiracies fueling both the libtards, cuckservatives, and Trump-ets. What a time to be alive.
If you are doing this, do it right.
Fortunately we have the wisdom of Glenn Greenwald to liberate us towards the truth.
That's wonderful.
Check out the date on this
And then this when someone noticed!
And that's fair enough. The shit sounds fcukin crazy! Let's see how this unfolds... But there is definitely no smoke without some kind of fire here.Trump being friendly with Russia because of business interests/connections seems more likely to me rather than him actually being blackmailed. I don't believe all these allegations until they're fully confirmed.
Bernie's got the balance about right.
“You gotta walk and chew bubble gum [at the same time],” said Sanders. “Russian intervention into an American election is of some significance. But the nominees we’re opposing, we’re opposing on issues like health care, the environment, education. What we’re trying to do is show the Republicans that it would be great political mistake to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”
All the Dems and left-leaning journos I follow have been focusing on all of the above as well, not just Russia.
Edit. I actually think the Dems should start referring to the wall as a racist monument.
In fairness I'm not sure they are winning issues for the Democrats otherwise they would have like... you know... sorta... wonThey need to keep hitting the Russian stuff but also attack on Obama care (20m people to lose coverage) as well as the idiocy of a Mexican funded wall. Collectively, all three are winning issues for the Dems.
In fairness I'm not sure they are winning issues for the Democrats otherwise they would have like... you know... sorta... won
Reports that both the Israeli and British intelligence services will restrict sensitive information shared with a Trump-led intelligence service for fear of information falling into Russian hands.
“When I was chair of the all-party Russia group the embassy helped organise to have me removed. I heard back from various other Conservative MPs who are friends of mine saying that the problem is that Putin hates you and they want rid of you.”
Bernie's got the balance about right.
“You gotta walk and chew bubble gum [at the same time],” said Sanders. “Russian intervention into an American election is of some significance. But the nominees we’re opposing, we’re opposing on issues like health care, the environment, education. What we’re trying to do is show the Republicans that it would be great political mistake to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”
All the Dems and left-leaning journos I follow have been focusing on all of the above as well, not just Russia.
No rational American irrespective of party wants to lose their healthcare
They need to keep hitting the Russian stuff but also attack on Obama care (20m people to lose coverage) as well as the idiocy of a Mexican funded wall. Collectively, all three are winning issues for the Dems.
Isn't this the reason why he was voted President? plus banning Muslims as well. Nothing is going to happen until those red States people start losing their welfare checks and medical benefits, then shite will hit the fan. Trump could come and declare that he is a Russian spy and nothing will happen until then.
Yes, why not invent all sorts of stuff that you think happened instead.
I think the fact that Cory Booker voted against a cheaper-medicines deal that fecking Ted Cruz supported should have been bigger news.
Booker, like all senators, voted to protect his home state’s interests
The irony of this backlash is that it actually doesn’t make a lot of sense to see Booker’s vote on the pharmaceutical amendment as a direct result of the money that’s been poured into his campaign war chest.
Instead, the much simpler explanation is that Booker was following the predictable, longstanding pattern of elected officials to try to protect the jobs and industries that dominate their home states.
“Almost any member of Congress from New Jersey — either a senator or House member, no matter how liberal or conservative — will be fiercely protective defense of pharmaceutical industry,” says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.
Just compare the vote totals with the industry’s contributions. The senator who received the most money from the pharmaceutical industry since 2010 is Arizona Republican John McCain, who received $1.2 million in campaign contributions. McCain voted for the Sanders-Klobuchar amendment. Pharma has donated $800,000 to Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley — who also voted for the amendment.
Similarly, the Democrat who has received the most from the pharmaceutical companies, according to OpenSecrets, is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. But Schumer, like McCain, also voted in favor of the Sanders-Klobuchar amendment. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has received more than $600,000 from pharmaceutical companies — more than three times that received by Booker — and also backed the amendment. (So did Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, who received two times as many donations as Booker.)
The pharmaceutical industry has a “massive” presence in New Jersey, Baker says. It’s almost unheard of for a New Jersey politician to go against pharmaceutical companies — it’d be like a politician from Maine arguing for onerous new regulations on fisheries, or an Iowa Republican voting against ethanol subsidies.
The vote on the pharmaceutical amendment alone shows that the phenomenon is hardly limited to Booker. Washington state Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell — among the more progressive members of the caucus — voted against the proposal.
Meanwhile, Democratic moderates like Michigan’s Gary Peters and Virginia’s Tim Kaine voted for it. Peters and Kaine are hardly more “progressive” than Murray and Cantwell — but they represent states that do not host a heavy concentration of pharmaceutical companies.
I fully realise as I type how ridiculous this question is, but what are the odds on a Trump apology to Lewis? Such a dumb thing to say "all talk and no action".