She told Schumer first before making the announcement. He said it wouldn’t impact her committee assignmentsDoes this now change the Senate committee assignments?
She told Schumer first before making the announcement. He said it wouldn’t impact her committee assignmentsDoes this now change the Senate committee assignments?
Yeah, that is a good analogy. I remember at first when Lieberman bucked Obama and the party, I thought it might just be actual policy disagreement as Lieberman had always been a hawk. Then he tried to gum up the works on a very moderate health care bill, when he had always been left on domestic policy, and I knew it was all about ego. Sinema is just saying, "look at me. Look at me. I'm bucking my own party." Like she's "above" partisanship. She will be largely forgotten by history.
This should not be allowed while someone is serving.
Sorry, I thought you meant in the last congress where Schumer had literally zero leverage.@fskimospy
Schumer's leverage is that he makes committee assignments. Put someone else in her place on the committees she serves on.
She can still caucus with the Democrats, she has nowhere else to go.
^^^ Forever (Neil) Young!I could be happy for the rest of my life without the Sinema girl.
I love the one note lead...simple and it fits perfectly.^^^ Forever (Neil) Young!
Got a great beat, and it's easy to dance to.I love the one note lead...simple and it fits perfectly.
She says she will still caucus with the Democrats so if that’s the case this doesn’t seem to change anything. I think this is more her trying to avoid the 2024 primary that she knows she will lose.
I disagree. One of the problems we have is voters completely ignoring the personality, ethics, morality, history, and anything/everything else that makes up the candidate, and just voting based on their party affiliation.If a person switches parties it should trigger another election for that seat. If someone votes for a democrat, republican or whatever that person should be required to be that until the end of their term. The f'n governor of WV pulled the same crap to kiss Stump's ass when he was visiting. It's not fair to the voters since many people vote for a particular party rather than the individual. Unfortunately sometimes you have to hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils which means voting for your party.
Policy over personality at least until they cross into criminal territory. I don't care if someone is a sadist partaking in nightly BDSM orgies or worshipping Satan on the Congressional floor as long as they vote for good policy. I'd even excuse a lot of criminal behavior at this point before I'd vote for a Republican.I disagree. One of the problems we have is voters completely ignoring the personality, ethics, morality, history, and anything/everything else that makes up the candidate, and just voting based on their party affiliation.
If your party's candidate is a piece of crap, but you have to vote for them because the other party is worse, then yes, that sucks. But the solution would have been for your party to field better candidates and the voters to select the best ones during the primary.
Obviously, a politician of a particular party is not required to always vote with that party (and I don't think we want that anyway), so forcing a politician to remain in a party is effectively meaningless. Having another election is a lot of work to produce a solution that should be worse than the one you have now.
Americans are told that we have only two choices – Democrat or Republican – and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have been pulled further and further toward the extremes.
Most Arizonans believe this is a false choice, and when I ran for the U.S. House and the Senate, I promised Arizonans something different. I pledged to be independent and work with anyone to achieve lasting results. I committed I would not demonize people I disagreed with, engage in name-calling, or get distracted by political drama.
Everyday Americans are increasingly left behind by national parties’ rigid partisanship, which has hardened in recent years. Pressures in both parties pull leaders to the edges, allowing the loudest, most extreme voices to determine their respective parties’ priorities and expecting the rest of us to fall in line.
In catering to the fringes, neither party has demonstrated much tolerance for diversity of thought. Bipartisan compromise is seen as a rarely acceptable last resort, rather than the best way to achieve lasting progress. Payback against the opposition party has replaced thoughtful legislating.
Oh you’re from Arizona. That explains a lot.I agree with her 100% on this point, and why I registered as independant over a decade ago:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I'm registering as an independent (msn.com)
FYI I voted for Sinema last election.
What does that mean?Oh you’re from Arizona. That explains a lot.
I agree with her 100% on this point, and why I registered as independant over a decade ago:
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I'm registering as an independent (msn.com)
FYI I voted for Sinema last election.
Both.You agree with 2018 Sinema or 2022 Sinema?
Both.
edit: which is why I voted for her last election, and likely next election.
Yep.How could you. They aren’t the same people?
Question: were you cool with her saving the carried interest loophole?
Yep.
edit: Im staunchly against tax increases regardless of income.
I like anything that reduces taxes legally for anyone regardless of income.this was closing a loophole. so you like LOOPHOLES for the uber wealthy.
amazing take.
