Let's not forget that the DNC CHANGED their own rules(regarding number of individual donors required per candidate) JUST so Bloomberg could get a seat(or a box ) at the next round of debates
Socialist Bernie(the king of small donations) vs Billionaire Bloomberg(who came in late to the race and basically seems to be trying to buy his way to the nomination)
Attorney General Bill Barr, from an interview just conducted with ABC News:
“I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody-whether it’s Congress, newspaper, editorial boards... or the president -I’m gonna do what I think is right and... I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
Rumours abound that if - and probably when - Warren drops out of the race, she'll endorse Klobuchar. Which kind of makes sense. I don't think most people believe Warren was ever genuinely a socialist - she just jumped on the Bern-wagon in a politically opportune move. Warren is as establishment as they come. Bernie will likely have to woo Yang and Gabbard(when she likely eventually drops out) to get their - and their supporters - support. Then Buttiegeg and Klobuchar will fight it out for the moderate vote. Could be a close affair
Just a thought: could the DNC be thinking long-term and actually WANT Bernie to get the nomination - thinking that he'll suffer a big defeat and that that will be a huge setback to the democratic socialist wing on the Left??
DNC head Tom Perez says he’s calling for recanvass in Iowa ‘in light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan.'
What the hell? Is he asking for a do-over of the whole process?
Agreement is one thing. Pushing falsehoods is another. All 18 witnesses(which the House Democrats used) were available to the Senate, along with the thousands of pages handed over by the executive branch. It was not - and is not ever supposed to be - the job of the Senate to "re-do" the job of The House. The House declined to issue subpoenas to Bolton and others, claiming "urgency" and "overwhelming evidence of guilt" as they proceeded to vote to impeach after a wholly unfair(and possibly illegal) process that they controlled completely. The Senate did it's job in that it looked at the case provided - the one alleging not a single crime - and rightly voted to acquit. One surprising thing is that no Senate Democrats voted to acquit. A few of them for sure will find out they made the wrong choice when they are next up for re-election.
@2maybe it was their job to try the case PROVIDED THEM BY THE HOUSE
Which is exactly what they did. 2 nonsense articles of impeachment, a sham House process devoid of fairness or even legitimacy(since there was never a formal vote to get it started)
Democrats' crybaby "screams" to try and get the Senate to re-do their pathetic effort, just sums up what a shambolic affair it had been. This is going to cost Democrats big in November.
The Senate did the job it's designed to do - to shut down unconstitutional articles of impeachment borne out of partisan rage. Time to get back to the people's business.
Bernie surging prior to caucuses. Final polls where Bernie is supposed to show a healthy lead are pulled after a complaint from a Pete supporter. Pete campaign shown to have paid $42,500 to the company that developed the app that is having 'problems' tabulating the voting totals. Pete 'declares' victory despite no results having been released. 62% of precincts showing reported with Pete in a 'surprise' lead. Final results to follow.
RE: I've Not Seen Merc Here Lately - (aka "A Prior Chatting Blog")
Madame Payne? I guess some people would be into that kinda shît?