I know you have me on ignore. Party before country right comrade?

I can cut, copy and paste as well.

"Psaki, a former CNN pundit who is typically praised by the mainstream media, needs to tread lightly if she's probing reporters for the wrong reasons, according to DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall.

"The White House press office needs to balance this matter carefully. It does make sense, on one level, for the press secretary to be prepared in advance to best respond to topics on reporters' minds. On the other hand, gathering questions in advance could well appear to veteran reporters that press secretary Psaki is pre-screening questions or pre-preparing spin," McCall told Fox News."

Imagine the blow up if this had happened DAILY like it is with this clown show regime.

ncsualum05 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can you imagine if Trump's press secretary did this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-reporters-biden-team-020024623.html

---

It doesn't matter though b/c they're on the same team. It might as well be an internal staff meeting to brief the daily issues... they just do it publicly and on camera. This is a farce just like the whole presidency itself, our election system this past go round, the law, the constitution... pretty much everything else is a sham at this point.

---

Manchin is the only thing between freedom and single party rule. He is going to be forced to pick a side in the next week or so. That will determine the fate of this country.

---

Will Manchin be the Susan Collins of the democrats? Let's hope so. When it was the other way the GOP had no less than 5 senators including Collins who would put a stop to something and cross the aisle. But I've not seen a single democrat break rank... not once for anything big.

---

Party before country with the SOCIALIST PARTY. Now they have their Queen at the helm and her lackey they are going to run this country into oblivion unless Manchin, maybe Sinema, one of them stop the BS.

If not... there's going to be about 75 million people ready for a change.

I don't think the Democrats would put forward anything big without Manchin and Sinema on board. There's nothing they can do big without all 50 Democrats and then at least 10 Republicans. Everything else is just Budget and Judges, unless I'm mistaken.

statefan91 said:

---

I don't think the Democrats would put forward anything big without Manchin and Sinema on board. There's nothing they can do big without all 50 Democrats and then at least 10 Republicans. Everything else is just Budget and Judges, unless I'm mistaken.

---

You are absolutely mistaken. All they have to do is eliminate the filibuster.

BBW12OG said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I don't think the Democrats would put forward anything big without Manchin and Sinema on board. There's nothing they can do big without all 50 Democrats and then at least 10 Republicans. Everything else is just Budget and Judges, unless I'm mistaken.

---

You are absolutely mistaken. All they have to do is eliminate the filibuster.

---

Which many democrats have already said that they want to do

Not a Democrat.

Manchin and Sinema have already said and said recently that they're very much against the filibuster. I do think if McConnell and Republicans won't negotiate in good faith for things like covid relief, then you'll see Manchin and Sinema think differently since their state's need help.

**edited to add: You mentioned Democrats not wanting to do what's popular. When is the last time there was a truly bipartisan bill pushed through, outside of the initial COVID relief package? I'm not being pedantic, I really can't think of many in recent memory.

statefan91 said:

---

Not a Democrat.

Manchin and Sinema have already said and said recently that they're very much against the filibuster. I do think if McConnell and Republicans won't negotiate in good faith for things like covid relief, then you'll see Manchin and Sinema think differently since their state's need help.

---

Not sure you understand what the filibuster means. If Manchin and Sinema were against it then they would eliminate it. Maybe you got the message wrong you are trying to convey.

Manchin and Sinema, along with a few others behind the scenes, are against ELIMINATING the filibuster.

cowboypack02 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I don't think the Democrats would put forward anything big without Manchin and Sinema on board. There's nothing they can do big without all 50 Democrats and then at least 10 Republicans. Everything else is just Budget and Judges, unless I'm mistaken.

---

You are absolutely mistaken. All they have to do is eliminate the filibuster.

---

Which many democrats have already said that they want to do

---

Eliminating the filibuster does not have required support to pass, and at this time isn't really even close.

BBW12OG said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Can you imagine if Trump's press secretary did this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-reporters-biden-team-020024623.html

---

It doesn't matter though b/c they're on the same team. It might as well be an internal staff meeting to brief the daily issues... they just do it publicly and on camera. This is a farce just like the whole presidency itself, our election system this past go round, the law, the constitution... pretty much everything else is a sham at this point.

---

Manchin is the only thing between freedom and single party rule. He is going to be forced to pick a side in the next week or so. That will determine the fate of this country.

---

King Manchin, huh?

No one person is powerful or enough to determine the fate of this country, not even a president with strong autocratic tendencies.

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I don't think the Democrats would put forward anything big without Manchin and Sinema on board. There's nothing they can do big without all 50 Democrats and then at least 10 Republicans. Everything else is just Budget and Judges, unless I'm mistaken.

---

You are absolutely mistaken. All they have to do is eliminate the filibuster.

---

Which many democrats have already said that they want to do

---

Eliminating the filibuster does not have required support to pass, and at this time isn't really even close.

---

It is closer than you think. I am guessing there are 4-5 hold outs. All it takes is for the Ice Cream Queen to start putting the screws to Spineless Schumer and things will get interesting.

The SOCIALIST PARTY wants to fundamentally change this country and turn it into a single party globalist run welfare state. If anyone doubts it all they have to do is look at the EOs Sleepy Joe is signing. Or at least appearing to be signing. The blank pages for all he knows are nothing more than autographs for his fans.

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

I don't think the Democrats would put forward anything big without Manchin and Sinema on board. There's nothing they can do big without all 50 Democrats and then at least 10 Republicans. Everything else is just Budget and Judges, unless I'm mistaken.

---

You are absolutely mistaken. All they have to do is eliminate the filibuster.

---

Which many democrats have already said that they want to do

---

Eliminating the filibuster does not have required support to pass, and at this time isn't really even close.

---

Your taking liberties with what I said....I didn't sat that it had the support to pass.....I said that many democrats have said that they want to eliminate it

Here is a list of democrat presidential candidates that want to remove the filibuster:
Steve Bullock
Pete Buttigieg
Jay Inslee
Seth Mouton
Tom Steyer
Eric Swalwell
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang

And here is a list of democrat presidential candidates that said that they were open to it:
Corey Booker
Julian Castro
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke
Bernie Sanders
Marianne Williamson

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/eliminate-senate-filibuster/

Out of this list Warren, Booker, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Klobuchar, and Sanders are senators that can vote to remove the Fillibuster.

Chuck Schumer, Jon Tester, Richard Durbin, Angus King, Tim Kaine, Tammy Ducksworth, Maize Hirono, Chris Coons, Gary Peters, Michael Bennet, and Tina Smith are all democrat senators who have said that they are open to get rid of the fillibuster.

By my count that is at least 18 democrat senators who are open to get rid of it.....I read two CNN articles and one Washington Post article to find those 18. Imagine what I could find if I actually went digging...

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't it require all the Democratic Senators to vote for it since there are 50? At least that's my understanding.

statefan91 said:

---

Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't it require all the Democratic Senators to vote for it since there are 50? At least that's my understanding.

---

It does....

This was my initial comment in regards to the filibuster: "Which many democrats have already said that they want to do"

I haven't stated that it would be overturned. I stated that many democrats have said that they wanted to and then provided a partial list of those democrat senators.

Never said that it would be overturned.

Now imagine if Pence had bailed out the idiots that stormed the Capital or contributed large amounts of money to the group(s) that bailed them out what would happen.

All the naysayers and my detractors on here will not address the facts that I present to them because I don't wrap them up in butterfly kisses and unicorn glitter. I'm pretty sure if the things that are being done in broad daylight were being done by a member of the GOP he or she would be getting shredded by the members of the SOCIALIST PARTY on this site.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bail-fund-kamala-harris-thomas-moseley

I'll anxiously wait for them to justify Horizontal Harris' contributions to this.

cowboypack02 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Seems like a bad pick from the articles I was able to find. It requires Senate confirmation so hopefully there are enough people on both sides of the aisle to tank this nom.

---

Would you be willing to bet a $100 vs a two day old stale doughnut she gets through with every. single. SOCIALIST will voting "yes" on her nomination?

It's about the power. It's not about anything more or anything less.

Owning the GOP has been the battle cry since Reagan was elected.

---

Unlike republicans the democrats stick together.....You could be nominated by Biden for Secretary of War and every single democrat would vote on you

---

I'd love to see a non-partisan analysis of this. Democrats say this about Republicans all the time. I've seen it a half dozen times since last week.

Both sides seem to think the other side always sticks together and their side doesn't.

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

statefan91 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Seems like a bad pick from the articles I was able to find. It requires Senate confirmation so hopefully there are enough people on both sides of the aisle to tank this nom.

---

Would you be willing to bet a $100 vs a two day old stale doughnut she gets through with every. single. SOCIALIST will voting "yes" on her nomination?

It's about the power. It's not about anything more or anything less.

Owning the GOP has been the battle cry since Reagan was elected.

---

Unlike republicans the democrats stick together.....You could be nominated by Biden for Secretary of War and every single democrat would vote on you

---

I'd love to see a non-partisan analysis of this. Democrats say this about Republicans all the time. I've seen it a half dozen times since last week.

Both sides seem to think the other side always sticks together and their side doesn't.

---

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/votes_new.htm

Lots of information here. McCain obviously is the one that sticks out but there are several instances where Republican Senators have sided with the former Democratic Party. I have looked back several decades to find a Democrat vote that swung major legislation for the GOP. I have yet to find one.

I'll let you do some research and see what you find. I don't think a Democrat has ever decided the fate of a GOP bill. Just like I don't think a Democrat has ever blocked the passage of a Democrat sponsored bill.

Let us know what you find out.

TheStorm said:

---

I was paying $1.75 / Gallon down here at the same exact gas station that I always go to for the entire 2nd half of the summer (July, August, September, October)... then it was parked at $1.85 for a couple of weeks... now it's $2.35... post whatever historical ten (10) years of prices you want.

You'd be better off just not commenting when you don't know what you are talking about...

---

OK. Then instead of state averages ,I state again, my gas station went down .02 since this weekend @ $2.16 and extra $.05 off prepaying in store $2.11.

Yours is still $2.35. Sorry your station and town is so high.

Racism is ok if you're a Democrat. Amazing how blatant they are.

They are just saying outloud what they have always thought and wanted. With all three branches of government under the SOCIALIST PARTY rule they feel emboldened and unstoppable.

Hell, even the uber liberal Washington Post is finding it hard not to see the blatant misuse of power just 13 days into what could possibly be the beginning of an autocracy.

cowboypack02 said:

---

Guess the Biden administration is all about family leave and things along those lines.....unless they didn't like who you worked for

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-aides-made-request-team-214738904.html

---

The vindicitiveness of this clown show of an administration should show Americans exactly who they are and what they stand for.

In two years they will once again reap what they have sowed.

Never doubt the Socialist Party's ability to **** things up with a made hand.

cowboypack02 said:

---

Guess the Biden administration is all about family leave and things along those lines.....unless they didn't like who you worked for

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-aides-made-request-team-214738904.html

---

I think they should have extended the Parental Leave. I have to ask though, did this person think their benefits would continue after losing their job? That's not the way it works in the world unfortunately. Maybe this person would be interested in medical care that isn't tied to their employment status, maybe something like Medicare for All?

statefan91 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Guess the Biden administration is all about family leave and things along those lines.....unless they didn't like who you worked for

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-aides-made-request-team-214738904.html

---

I think they should have extended the Parental Leave. I have to ask though, did this person think their benefits would continue after losing their job? That's not the way it works in the world unfortunately. Maybe this person would be interested in medical care that isn't tied to their employment status, maybe something like Medicare for All?

---

I think it's pretty clear this person thought this benefit would continue after the change. Did you read the article? It was agreed to by the commerce department. The Biden administration, however, is more interested in scorched earth on anything Trump though apparently. Family leave be damned.

Of course I read the article, it's a good practice before commenting.

Quote:

---

Ambrosini is among a number of ex-Trump political officials who lost their parental leave when Joe Biden was sworn into office. It's a byproduct of the field they're in: Their boss (the president) may have been the one let go, but his departure has meant that they, too, lose their jobs and benefits. Still, they argue that the Biden administration should have honored their leave by keeping them on payroll until the end of it a request that, emails reviewed by POLITICO show, the Biden transition did not grant.

---

It sounds like the Commerce Department under Trump approved it in December. The Commerce Department under Biden let her go as part of the turnover of administrations, and since the Department was no longer under Trump then the approvals under his administration were no longer valid.

I totally feel like the Biden administration should have extended the leave. But this person sounds like they had zero plan for what would happen when the administration turned over since they weren't interviewing for other positions and had to know that their position would not be continued in a new administration.

I think it sucks that parental leave and healthcare are tied to your employment. As the article mentioned, luckily this person has the option of going on their partner's healthcare, signing up for insurance, or using COBRA.

And the fact that it was "family leave" makes it more obvious that it is a scorched earth vindictive move against everything Trump.

Karma is an undefeated ***** and I'm looking forward to this biting them in the ass ( again ) soon. No matter how hard they try they are just to eat up with hate to ever successfully run the Government.

Has to be a miserable life waking up each day trying to come up with new ways to "stick it to Conservatives, Bible thumpers, rubes, rednecks and uneducated morons."

Pathetic.

Is anyone that voted for Biden regretting it yet? This is such a ****show so far. Exactly what I expected but I can imagine a lot of you are caught by surprise.

ncsualum05 said:

---

Is anyone that voted for Biden regretting it yet? This is such a ****show so far. Exactly what I expected but I can imagine a lot of you are caught by surprise.

---

Can you elaborate?

statefan91 said:

---

Of course I read the article, it's a good practice before commenting.

Quote:

---

Ambrosini is among a number of ex-Trump political officials who lost their parental leave when Joe Biden was sworn into office. It's a byproduct of the field they're in: Their boss (the president) may have been the one let go, but his departure has meant that they, too, lose their jobs and benefits. Still, they argue that the Biden administration should have honored their leave by keeping them on payroll until the end of it a request that, emails reviewed by POLITICO show, the Biden transition did not grant.

---

It sounds like the Commerce Department under Trump approved it in December. The Commerce Department under Biden let her go as part of the turnover of administrations, and since the Department was no longer under Trump then the approvals under his administration were no longer valid.

---

Apologies. It was surprising to see you ask if she expected the benefit to continue when it said in the first couple of paragraphs that she did, if you read the article. It's unfortunate that Biden is being so vindictive, even with people trying to take already approved leave for having a child. I'm certain the coverage, and more likely your response, would be quite different had this action been done by his predecessor.

I guess it's confusing that someone would expect a benefit to continue after losing their employer provided healthcare. I agree though, I think it sucks that she doesn't have that leave anymore and it should have been extended. Maybe we could find a way to decouple health coverage and parental leave so it's not dependent upon a vindictive boss or company deciding to cut its costs.

statefan91 said:

---

I guess it's confusing that someone would expect a benefit to continue after losing their employer provided healthcare. I agree though, I think it sucks that she doesn't have that leave anymore and it should have been extended. Maybe we could find a way to decouple health coverage and parental leave so it's not dependent upon a vindictive boss or company deciding to cut its costs.

---

We do have it... Its called: call the local insurance agent and pay for Health Insurance privately! Or pay out of pocket when you go to the doctor...