Chuck needs to fight harder and dirtier than Moscow Mitch, knowing that stopping Trump’s soulless, religious nutcase nominee is worth it.
I hope everyone recalls that Obama rolled over and basically let Orrin Hatch select Merrick Garland, with Obama pleading for a suggestion for a nominee that Moscow Mitch would treat fairly.
It’s time for payback, Chuck.
If you don’t have the courage or fire, then resign and let Bernie be the Senate minority leader.
If chuck were to treat Mitch in kind he would first have to cup his hand and slap him across the ear, and while his head was ringing and he was seeing stars, bend Mitch over a table and give him a no lube pounding.
Of course that may not work either, as word is that’s how Mitch likes it. He’s a catcher after all.
An article like this is an insult to readers with even a modicum of discernment.
Chuck kisses the same asses as Mitch.
The kabuki theater they play roles in is owned by the oligarchy.
Everyone knows it – that’s how we got a grifter president like Trump.
Enough former Obama/Biden voters got desperate for a disruptor – and who can blame them?
We need systemic change: Mitch, Chuck, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Obama, the Clintons, Romney, the Bushes, and the Cheneys are all here to make sure we don’t get it.
Chuck needs to get another mani/pedi and buy a new suite. That seems to be all he’s good for.
“Cryin chuck Schumer” - love that name, trump is good at one thing at least.
Schumer to play “hardball”? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He and Pelosi represent the rot that dominates the Demos who should be a genuine opposition party but decide to appease their rich donor base instead. Barrett, the Bible-thumping right-wing zealot, will make a 6-3 bulletproof majority that will then help Trumpo the Traitor get rid of the “disaster” of Obamacare (Trump’s way to get back at Barry for making fun of him at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner all those years ago), along with the ongoing Rethug agenda to attack Social Security, Medicare and Roe v. Wade. This is a dark time for what is left of our republic.
We must prepare to rid ourselves of every one of these corporate cretins after this election. I be focused on eco-socialist agendas.
I agree for one but see this for after the election as we prepare to shut the whole damn machine down.
not about to hold my breath waiting for the toothless Dems to act in any manner that actually protects the people–that said I hope I’m wrong
I have not heard that about Garland before. McConnell had already pledged to refuse a hearing on all Obama nominees and bills long before the Garland nomination.
Again, and endlessly, you demonstrate no perspective whatsoever. Schumer, whether in the minority or majority, has never stooped to violating his oath of office as has McConnell. When, oh right wing seer, has Schumer ever denied a hearing to a republican president’s nominees, or refused to allow bills either into or out of committee?
Yes, of course , Schumer, like Pelosi, like Biden even, are corporate democrats, instrumental in moving their party further right.
But you , whether intentionally or simply blindly, demonstrate no perspective whatsoever. You relish another four years of Trump and company, all fascists , all the while shedding crocodile tears like a typical libertarian. Your avowed libertarian party is 99.9% white male by the by, which speaks volumes about credibility.
OK, Chuck, this is your moment of redemption, put up or shut up-resign. A donkey with a spine, wouldn’t that be something.
Yup, we are in an era of lawsuits in place of discussion. Trump has sues about anything he didn’t like. Our turn to stall in the court system.
So then you’re against Chuck taking a page from Mitch’s playbook?
He should just remain a Mr. Nice Guy?
The thrust of this article means squat to you?
“…avowed libertatian party?” Dude, you’re in some kind of delirium. As usual.
Sure, it’s always AFTER something or other. After Clinton, after Obama, after Biden?
How about we use Trump’s ineptitude to do it now?
Hell, I see Biden praying for Trump and his staff instead of castigating people like known spreader of the Herman Cain virus, McEnany, and potential spreader, Pence, for not quarantining – he should demand the debate on Wednesday be cancelled.
I would say that democrats always bring a knife to a gunfight, but that presumes that there is a fight. I expect to hear “There was nothing we could do” repeated daily following the democratic rollover and the eventual confirmation of the judge who will roll us all back to the 1800’s.
But you’ll keep voting for them anyway.
So when you’re pondering the status quo, look in the mirror, friend.
Please. Do you have evidence that @SkepticTank is a libertarian? If not, then it is intellectually dishonest to make that accusation.
It is an accusation, isn’t it? You are trying to cast an insult at SkepticTank, aren’t you?
You and @Terry49 use the same dishonest rhetorical tactic. You know that most CommonDreams readers take a dim view of libertarianism. So you falsely label those you disagree with as “libertarians,” hoping that few readers will notice that the label is wildly inaccurate and inappropriate. Your tactic is unethical and reprehensible.
You know fully well that SkepticTank is not a “libertarian,” just as Terry49 knows fully well that I am not a “libertarian.” The fact that you and Terry49 rely on such a scurrilous rhetorical tactic exposes both of you as disingenuous and deceitful. You and Terry49 seem to believe that the end (dissing your interlocutors) justifies the means (playing fast and loose with accusations and labels).
But okay. Let’s play your little game. I’ll pose the same question to you that I posed to Terry49 when he accused me of being a “libertarian.” Let’s pretend that SkepticTank is a libertarian. Now, please explain what kind of libertarian you believe SkepticTank to be. Surely you know there are many kinds of “libertarians.” Robert Nozick was a “libertarian.” Karl Popper was a “libertarian.” Murray Bookchin is considered an “eco-socialist libertarian” (or “libertarian eco-socialist”). Heck, even John Locke and Henry David Thoreau are frequently called “libertarians.” There is also, of course, the vulgar libertarianism of corporate think swamps like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and of slimy little ratfuckers like Rand Paul.
Surely you know that these versions of libertarianism are all distinct. Broadly speaking, there are market libertarians (market fundamentalists) and there are civil libertarians. Civil libertarians tend to prioritize civil liberties over market liberties. Some civil libertarians are comfortable with government programs like publicly-subsidized health care and education for all, because they view these kinds of programs as protections and augmentations of the average person’s civil liberties. Market libertarians, of course, dogmatically valorize “market freedoms” over all other freedoms.
Okay. Now, please consider your reply carefully. Which type of “libertarian” do you fancy SkepticTank to be? Which of the thinkers mentioned above, if any, do you believe his comments are reminiscent of? Is SkepticTank a civil libertarian or a market libertarian? Is he a follower of Henry David Thoreau or a follower of the Cato Institute?
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply! @rolson FYI
Don’t expect anything more than endless quips that only inflame and stir the pot.
Never anything to fight for from old skeptic.
Just accept his omniscient always correct perspective.
Mitch’s tire tracks are all over Schumer’s face.