Hillary's Old Lapdog Blames Congressional Democrats For Loss in Virginia

But not for the reasons you think! :rofl:

It’s not that Democrats love dressing up in black face or as white supremacists. It’s not that voters rejected teaching their children that they’re inherently awful because of their skin color. It’s not that the Left wants to punish anyone who doesn’t toe their dumbass lines.

It’s that progressives and moderates want to be too pure, or that Dems just didn’t wanna give poor old Sniffy a win. It’s anything except that they lied through their implanted teeth about making anything better for anyone (except for the lonely little peons who still obsess over the Orange Phantom in their head, there’s no mean tweets today).

Don’t think for a moment these 2016 tantrums won’t start right back up - frothier than ever - by this time next year. :wink:

1 Like

Meanwhile the squad blaming the moderates for Virginia lost.


You know what’s trending? The left blaming anyone and anything but themselves. :wink:


i suggested in another thread that democrats didnt want him to win which is why he didnt

otherwise he would have made to “win”

can’t rule it out

1 Like


Isn’t a democrat blaming congressional democrats “the left blaming themselves”?

Well, he did say those words. I’m falling behind on leftist talk, but I think you have a solid point there. lol

1 Like

So…maybe this should be another thread, but I’ll throw it out here…

The liberal left could make this argument…the few chances you have the majority, you have to go bold. It will pay off dividends, both political, and more importantly, improve america, in the long run.

As evidence, consider Obamacare. Barely passed. And led to short term political loses.

Long term, the law has never been more popular, with nearly 60% approval rating.

Going bold now…what’s the worst? You lose some elections now? Well, we did that anyway. And ten years from now, people might well favor your actions…

I don’t know…just being contrarian, because my initial reaction was, had the Ds compromised and passed the two bills, they would have won VA.

But is that worth it? Maybe being bold is a better call long term.

(Putting aside of course disagreements on the acutal bills. Just talking the politics of the election here…)

i just know how corrupt and unscrupulous democrats are…

like rabid dogs

1 Like

Hyenas are dogs, right? :thinking:

1 Like

It was amazing and sad to see the dems politicians and their corporate cable news media shills all chant the same talking points again. " It’s because we didn’t pass the infrastructure bill". They are incapable of change.


the worst kind

1 Like

Wait, you think not spending a lot more money, nobody would have pocketed by election day would have carried the day? That’s why they lost? Might want to check the exit polling.

1 Like


My point is, we lost anyway. Why not at least have passed a bold bill that will help people in teh future, so we could, like now with the ACA, point at it and say “see? you give us the chance, we do the right thing, even if it hurts us politically”.

Because the only way to do so would be by removing the filibuster, that has long term consequences you probably wouldn’t enjoy the next time republicans are in charge, that’s why.

1 Like

I blame Terry’s really bad dancing and that weird lipstick. This loss sticks a fork in the Clinton era. If he would have won they would be running again in 2024.

1 Like

No. We could have passed the second bill through reconciliation. We would just have needed the moderate Ds to go along with the further left members.

(Not arguing the virtues, just arguing the politics.)

They could have, if reality didn’t get in the way, obviously, no they couldn’t. So the only real way would have been nuking the filibuster which is why they are talking about it again.

It seems like a brilliant move and a stroke of luck (squad saying both or nothing) that McConnell and GOP said they would not vote for the first infrastructure bill but would not oppose it either. It would force them to use reconciliation on first bill which in turn as I understand it they wouldn’t be able to use it on the second. What I don’t understand is why the smaller one had to be first. Is there some procedural rule forcing that?

Because when you say “bold”, you actually mean chock full of lies and pork, and 5 trillion dollars is a lot of lies and pork that even moderate Democrats didn’t want to give up their careers over.

What you Libs lack the capacity to understand is, people really are sick of Democrat arrogance in telling us that they know better than we do what’s best for us. If the bills Libs want are so good for us then why do they hide what’s in them? Why do we have to “pass them to see what’s in them”?

1 Like

They won’t have 50 either way for the full package.