1128 Comments
User's avatar
Lori Brown's avatar

If Collins and Manchin are so easily duped, they should not be Senators.

Expand full comment
Patrick Daniels aka Cromulent1's avatar

We’ve known all along that Collins, Manchin, along with many of this countries elected, are unctuous derps! It’s time democrats act like the leaders they chose to make those who voted for them believe, and lead!!

Expand full comment
judi schimke's avatar

get out and. vote

Expand full comment
James Michael Kelly's avatar

Never, ever, vote for a republican, for any office, in any election ......... EVER!

Expand full comment
Janette's avatar

This is my screed for today:

The current Republican Party is poison for the US and the World. Until Republicans find and apply an antidote for the poison, STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS. VOTE FOR EVERY DEMOCRAT YOU CAN. And if you want to vote for third party candidates make sure your vote does not end up making space for a Republican. I will give a nod of sympathy to those Republicans who were attracted to the party when it was truly the party of Lincoln. However, that party is now moribund. There is only one party with any power that is at all interested in Democracy, the common good and basic human decency. Although DEMOCRATS are not perfect, they are just SO MUCH BETTER than the opposition.

Expand full comment
Philippe Roussel's avatar

I would not argue that the Republican party is, as you say, a poison to the country and the world. I would argue, however, that the Democratic party is definitely not the antidote. Except for those who do not accept PAC money, all other democrat politicians are, as shown by their constant unwillingness to go to war for the common good, corrupt. Voting for them in the hope that anything will change is delusional. We need to do more by replacing them with uncorrupt candidates. What do you think?

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

If democrats had appointed the justices instead of trump, we wouldn't be facing the overturn of Roe. Democrats are better and there isn't another alternative. If you are seeking perfection, you will never find it. Who will you support?

Expand full comment
Philippe Roussel's avatar

William, It is not about seeking "perfection," it is about seeking action. Your argument could be turned around: If we did not have the Democrats that we have, the American people would have been delivered on basic needs they almost all agree on (free college education, minimum wage, maternity leave, common-sense gun laws, etc.) and we would not have had Trump in the first place. Trump became president because too many people had been thinking for too long "No one is there for me in Washington!"

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

Where are you going to find these people and how are you going to get them elected. Our population is not particularly well educated and many have little interest in politics. They don't take issues like the environment seriously until their house is washed away. Who are you voting for in elections?

You also have the problem of idealistic people like Sinema getting into the big time and finding out they can sell their votes to the highest bidder.

They say they want things like minimum wage but then get swayed by issues like you are going to be replaced or the government favors the blacks and latinos. I like what you are saying but don't see it as doable anytime in the near future. If things go as predicted, the republicans will be taking over again.

Expand full comment
Philippe Roussel's avatar

Thanks for your reply. Getting money out of politics is the answer to renewing the political staff. Excluding all forms of financing for mainstream media other than individual subscriptions would solve the issue of them never speaking truth to (corporate)power. As soon as people will see that politicians start to deliver for them and that they can access investigative journalism, they will come around. The public world as echoed on TV and in the alleys of power will sound more like their world. Ok, this is all too general, I know, but it seems to me that these are two essential lines to follow.

I understand that you want to believe that someday, somehow, Democrats will do the right thing and that, in the meantime, they at least prevent the worst to come true. But we are past that. The Democrats are fully embedded in the power system that has now been in place for decades; they have a vested interest in the political passivity of the population (that’s called “electoral politics”). Have you ever wondered why the main motivation we are given for voting Democrat is that Republicans are bad? Why not a positive, constructive one, instead of a negative one? Where is the fight if we let the fascist party call all the shots?

It might be hard to hear but the hope of good people like you that Democrats will change the status quo they benefit from is what kills this country. We should neither hope nor despair. We are not a flock of sheep and no Democrat has the right to make this country an abstraction that we can just “hope” for. But I hope, myself, that you will forgive me. I did not intend to preach; I am just passionate about these questions.

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

Art Buchwald disagreed with you about being a Nation of Sheep. I've been an advocate of public financing for a long time and no one can opt out. Unfortunately, today we have the likes of fox and newsmax who are literally arms of the republican party, as is the supreme court so they somewhat neutralize the effect of public financing.

Philippe, I'm 81 years old and I've been seeing the situation just keep getting worse. I admire AOC and the squad and have donated to them but all sides attack them. They are the ones standing up for what you believe but their opponents are rolling in money. It's probably a question of time until some of them get defeated. Money talks. One of the worst decisions the supreme court ever made was Citizens' United. It just opened the floodgates.

The media does a poor job. They don't want to be seen as taking sides so they decided to report what people said. They didn't distinguish between what is true and a lie so both carried equal weight. It's difficult for an honest politician to survive in this atmosphere and if they are honest, the money will roll in against them. The monied people want someone they can control.

I am puzzled why they continue to donate to the extreme right wing. I know the monied has always liked the Christian Nationalists because they support an unfettered capitalism. They preach that god controls everything, so if someone is rich, it is because god favors them. I suggest reading The Family by Jeff Sharlett. They also tell people that their reward will come in the next life and they should just accept what happens to them here. There couldn't be a more perfect philosophy for the rich.

All the right wing groups, even the neo-nazis and white supremacists believe the government shouldn't regulate anything which, again, is good for the rich. They are totally anti-government.

I understand why they like that but aren't they smart enough to realize what we are doing to the environment? Can't they see we are making the world unlivable? Most of them are well educated and not stupid but they are willing to risk the world for short gain profits. I don't understand it. They don't seem to care about what happens to their children and grand children. I just don't understand. I could go on but it wouldn't do any good.

Expand full comment
Ginnie's avatar

I love your passion! Thanks for your rant.

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

In view of this, I don't know where you are going to find people to vote for progressive issues. The republicans have offered nothing but hate and division.

A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party's gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.

But nowhere is the shift more pronounced — and dangerous for Democrats — than in the suburbs, where well-educated swing voters who turned against Trump's Republican Party in recent years appear to be swinging back. Over the last year, far more people are switching to the GOP across suburban counties from Denver to Atlanta and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Republicans also gained ground in counties around medium-size cities such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Augusta, Georgia; and Des Moines, Iowa.

Ben Smith, who lives in suburban Larimer County, Colorado, north of Denver, said he reluctantly registered as a Republican earlier in the year after becoming increasingly concerned about the Democrats' support in some localities for mandatory COVID-19 vaccines, the party's inability to quell violent crime and its frequent focus on racial justice.

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

I agree - unfortunately the democrats are now only republican (fascist) enablers similar to the main parties in Germany that enabled (through the enababling act) for the minority Nazi party to take over. The progressives who fought against this were then either killed or booted out of the country. The democrats to me are now as dangerous as the republicans. Since we seem to be stuck in a two-party system, possibly the only solution would be for the progressives to take over the democratic party. Otherwise we are doomed unless a third independent progressive/libertarian-like party can finally get traction to defeat this corporate-owned duopoly.

Expand full comment
CJ Turpin's avatar

Please do NOT assume Libertarians are progressive. Progressives believe that taxation of those extremely wealthy individuals and Corporations should be taxed, in order to pay for any program that benefits the working class like paid family leave, public education preschool to 4 years of college/trade school, universal healthcare, a living wage automatically calculated as cost of living increases, automatic scheduled infrastructure updates (maintenance), effective mass transit like bullet trains (can be an environmentally friendlier alternative more gridlock on interstates, roads, streets and bridges) to more subways, and effective bus systems…. The list can go on and on. An well throughout “Windfall profits tax” can prevent the massive increase in profits and buyback of stock, we have witnessed, in the last year and reduce the resulting inflation we have witnessed. The list goes on and on!

Expand full comment
James Michael Kelly's avatar

Libertarians do not believe our government should own anything, other than the tanks, bullets and bombs of our military. Libertarians believe that our precious National Parks should be sold off to American oligarchs and their multi-national, tax-dodging corporations, because what could be better than some profit generating liquor stores, strip malls and all-inclusive resorts in Yellowstone and Yosemite?

Expand full comment
CJ Turpin's avatar

Libertarians are anti-taxes of any kind!

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

There are also middle of the road and left-wing libertarians that very few people talk about since the far-right libertarians get most of the attention. Libertarian simply means anti-authoritarian that spans the spectrum from left to right - just like there are left-wing authoritarians (communists) and right-wing authoritarians (capitalists) that unfortunately include both the democrats and republicans with republicans obviously being more right-wing, but corporate democrats are not far behind in this sickness.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

OMG. How did you come to this conclusion about Dems? I really need to know, before my brain bleed starts.

Expand full comment
Sandra Trimble's avatar

This is sooooo right!

Expand full comment
Elle's avatar

Agreed

Expand full comment
Michealene RISLEY's avatar

And yet people vote against their own interests. Every. Single. Day.

Expand full comment
Lisa Flynn's avatar

Mind-blowing

Expand full comment
Elle's avatar

Agreed! Never have.. never will!

Expand full comment
Christy's avatar

I agree that the problem why all these R voters trumpet supporters believing all these same exact R in office apparently don't understand that these R don't have to be held accountable for their involvement Bec the voters have allowed them to get away with it for some many decades by only worry about voting in president races . Then foolishly not voting in their state elections or voting for the same exact R that able to some how keep power in their state elections even though they do nothing for most of the people in them states but make sure the people at lowest level only people in their circle gets everything at expense of rest of the people

Expand full comment
Sandra Trimble's avatar

I’m a Never Republican!

Expand full comment
Donald Hodgins's avatar

4-20-- No not that, it's the date. In anticipation of the Supreme Court's position on a lower court's decision to consider the abortion pill an illegal and unsafe drug. My gut feeling is that their decision will follow their previous sentiment concerning abortions. It's really sad to think the highest court in the land is ignoring the country's stance on an issue that will affect the lives of millions of women. I was raised to understand a major principle that runs through all matters in our country is the premise that "the majority rules," a fundamental theme in our democracy. How can the Supreme Court make a decision that goes directly against that ideal? The root cause of their position is the religious background the Justices bring to the court. How can this be? The idea of separation of church and state dictates religious views that might influence political decisions have no place in our government or in any of its branches. That being said, those who object, what do they object to? Medically induced abortions account for over 50% of all pregnancies that end intentionally. This method is a safe and effective alternative to the actual procedure which can be rather expensive. Women have the right to determine their own futures with respect to the well-being of their bodies. The World Health Organisation has endorsed "mifepristone" wholeheartedly, along with 90 other countries thought out the world. The only position to have on the abortion issue is Pro-choice. If you don't like the procedure don't do it, but remember "no" minority has the right to dictate policy to the majority. Shame on our Supreme Court for standing behind an obvious minority with their short-sighted decision that will affect the future health of women in this country, at least until the people in power regain their sanity. The conservative justices came to their conclusions while sitting in a pew, not from behind the bench. 

   After hearing their decision, it isn't over. They should have told the lower court in Texas to go pound sand and leave women's rights alone.

Expand full comment
William Kresge's avatar

Absolutely all that is required, if the true silent majority of the country take part in the most fundamental responsibility required of living in a democratically elected representative form of government then we can start cleaning up this mess.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Got to lock up Collins, Lisa Murkowski.

But my feeling is that even if it passes, becomes law, SCOTUS will consider it as a Constitutional challenge, declare it unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution allows Congress to amend the constitution by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress or if two-thirds of the states request one. The amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This has been used to override Supreme Court decisions in the past.

BTW, I keep asking pro-lifers whether they oppose the child tax credit, enacted into law in 2021 in the American Rescue Plan, which cut childhood poverty in the United States by 40%. It didn't receive a single Republican vote, and when it came time to extend it, it had no Republican support.

Anecdotally, most women, life or choice, support it. Get Collins, Murkowski on board.

Expand full comment
Herb Oringel's avatar

It starts with nullifying the Filibuster

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

Why can't we check the heart? I agree!

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Can it be a problem with an aged Mac computer? I'm using my old one b/c the new one makes me crazy. Generally , I prefer old things anyway, husband, furniture, flowers, fashion styles...but Mac has its own plans for my life. You, Jeannie?

Expand full comment
Maggie Rose's avatar

Hell - they wouldn't even vote for emergency funding for baby formula!!!

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

Why can't we check the heart? I agree!

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

I'm having that same problem...????

Expand full comment
m leftwich's avatar

I CANNOT CHECK THE HEART ICON ON THIS SITE

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

So am I, & I periodically have for a number of comments, but not all. Rather odd

Expand full comment
BARBARA HOSKINS's avatar

THEIR TRUE COLORS!

Expand full comment
SeekingReason's avatar

I don’t believe the Supreme court could overturn a federal law. Congress legislates. Robert? What if Congress passes a federal law making abortion legal? Why does everything the left wants to change, takes years and years to get to SCOTUS. But right wingers snap their fingers and SCOTUS makes decision in a week.

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

I agree. Kind of tired off not being able to use the heart when we like a comment. It's almost like certain comments are not gonna be recognized because they might be too popular. PLEASE fix this glitch!

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Good question. Thanks for asking it....I wondered.....

Expand full comment
KATIE PEARLMAN's avatar

Please do not use the term ‘pro life’. They are Anti Abortion!

Expand full comment
Marksjc's avatar

Try Subjugators of Women or Christian Fascists, hard but more frighting and real

Expand full comment
Ginnie's avatar

Absolutely correct. They’re not interested in preserving life when they support polluting the very air and water that a pregnant person needs to support a healthy pregnancy, or raise a healthy baby. Ohio is legalized zing radio-active fracking waste to spread around its citizens. Not so pro-life a State for any fetus or 10 yr old girl.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

I'd heart this if I could. Thanks for pointing it out, Katie. It really must be a thrill for ppl to change the lives of so many so easily.

I think they are also again sex outside of marriage, and in favor of stern intimacy regulations controlling everybody else's personal lives. When it comes back bite them, it will still be somebody else's fault.

I think of the people I know who have lived many years in unhappy marriages b/c they worried about supporting their kids or falling out of favor with their business/social circle or had the obligation to support children they might not have wanted in the days before birth control. Pre-marital pregnancy still happens, but some cannot allow "those people" to deal with it on their own, w/o the interference of the state. And what about the men who hate women for one reason or another. Lordamighty, the end of life on earth looms and ppl are consumed with making others "do right."

Expand full comment
K McGady's avatar

I wonder what "pro-lifers" offer for children who are born to people who do NOT want them, or who cannot afford to raise feed or house them? DO they have any idea how to care for these kids? How to help moms or families who are not able to support these kids? Are these "pro-lifers" willing to "allow" access to birth control methods, so only those kids who are wanted may be conceived and carried through to birth and beyond? We already have trouble with hosting migrants who are fleeing political oppression, or crop failure and the threat of famine, so why would we want forced-birth kids who are the result of rape or incest or contraception failure...and don't tell me contraceptive don't fail...they CAN and sometimes DO!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Ginnie's avatar

Or how about the poisoning of moms and babes by oil and gas industries through fracking. Add that to their “pro-life” agenda-Forcing births into the toxic soup of dirty energy.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Heart this.

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

Wards of the state, If lucky kids get adopted.

Expand full comment
K McGady's avatar

So their plan is for these unwanted kids to be adopted...how does that help anything? And...wards of the state cost money. Are they planning on funding these poor kids? I'm betting not, because they are greedy, self-serving, power hungry creeps (just keeping it clean. My opinion of these people is lower than whale poop at the bottom of the ocean).

Expand full comment
Daniel Solomon's avatar

This was what it was like before Roe and Doe.

Expand full comment
K McGady's avatar

Oh, I am well aware of that. Conditions were awful then, and are returning to that awfulness now. Do you remember people carrying signs showing a bloody wire hanger enclosed in a crossed out circle? The bloody wire hanger was how some people sought to terminate unwanted pregnancies, often to dire results. We swore: NEVER AGAIN, and lo, here we are. I think this is a dire result of voter apathy over the past 5 decades, where we allowed religious fanatics and forced-birthers to fill elected office up and down the line. Shame on us...oh, sorry...I am monologuing. My bad...

Expand full comment
BARBARA HOSKINS's avatar

AMEN! THE BLOOD MONEY WILL DRIP FROM THEIR HANDS! THEY SOLD THEIR SOULS TO THE DEVIL!

Expand full comment
Marksjc's avatar

Never give the Supreme Court a pass. Demonstrate until their building shakes then if they try, pass the amendment. Throwing out a decision for these losers is easy, the argument to overturn a law is different. Roberts would switch sides and Thomas could resign or tire of his own corruption. We need a full ERA and a bodily autonomy section or universal standalone amendment, stopping forced prison labor, arbitrary solitary confinement (condemmed by UN and all peaceful people), end capital punishment, it acomplishes nothing but retribution and kills innocents and children. Now the USSC is tired of last minute whiners begging to live (same 6 papists)

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

yes - this is true, but the purpose of our government is checks and balances and at least 2/3s (congress and executive) of the power needs to step up and check on the insane 1/3 (supreme court) now before it is too late - possibly stack the court??

Expand full comment
Frankom's avatar

Hope yesterday turns the tide to a deep loss for republicans.

Expand full comment
Shari Sirkin's avatar

AND corporate Dems! This thing would have been done already if it weren't for two Democrats: Manchin & Sinema.

Expand full comment
Elle's avatar

They should be ashamed of themselves.. traitors and in bed with the money!

Expand full comment
Krissy Floyd's avatar

That’s what I’m hoping for too! It could be just what the Dems need in a mid-term election.

Expand full comment
Frankom's avatar

One would think the dems had enough months ago to win decidedly. Next hurdle is who will be at top of ticket for dems in 2024.

Expand full comment
Bill's avatar

Michelle is a perfect way out of this mess.

Expand full comment
Elle's avatar

Me too.. if it doesn't- I will be shocked and angrier than I am now!

Expand full comment
James Michael Kelly's avatar

FDR had a Democratic majority in the House and a veto proof Democratic majority in the Senate. If he hadn't, we would not have Social Security nor unemployment insurance today. Republicans have been working to dismantle both ever since.

Expand full comment
john terence king's avatar

That's right, James. Republicans have been trying to undo everything FDR did in the 30's and 40's. Now the Supremes are helping kill the New Deal or what is left of it.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Bet they will get away with it now.

Expand full comment
BARBARA HOSKINS's avatar

VOTE BLUE & SAVE YOUR DEMOCRACY! SAVE ALL YOUR GIRL CHILDREN'S LIVES!

Expand full comment
S howard's avatar

It's time we.gave the dems the ability to represent us. Vote only 4 democrats majority

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

I agree that democrats haven't been strong enough but I also recognize reality. The reality is they don't have the votes. As long as Sinema and Manchin block them on the filibuster (which they've been well paid to do) the democrats can't do much.

We need people to vote more democrats into office. I keep reading about how divided the country is but on Roe vs. Wade, that's not true even though we are constantly told it is. The problem is that we've fallen into minority rule. Even if they aren't ruling and they are terrible at governing, they can block everything, something they are very good at doing.

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

I wish you were correct, but the democrats are not getting the job done since they are also owned by corporations. We have to vote for non-corporate people-funded progressives and not corporate funded democrats. We saw this with Obama when he had 60 democratic votes and still only sided with corporations. Time for people-funded candidates to take over the democratic party or create a 3rd party that includes both progressives and libertarians (by this I mean moderate libertarians and obviously not the far right-leaning libertarian nutcases). This is currently the majority of the country in terms of the independent vote that now exceeds both democrats and republican votes if they just had a candidate to vote for - someone like a younger Bernie Sanders would be ideal.

Expand full comment
Marksjc's avatar

Libertarianism in the places it is established in the US is more like Selfish Anarchy and commuities without money disintegrating. Without a multi-party system (like every other country in the world) people like Bernie cannot drive change.

Expand full comment
Carl Hujet's avatar

carl hujet I agree weened to vote for progressive,/ liberal people. not corporate dems. only vote for something if they KNOW the other house will not vote for it

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

And how many of them are you going to find who are electable. I deal with reality. I find too many independents easily persuaded at the last moment by emotional issues.

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

We've had several already with the obvious choice of Bernie Sanders. It took lies and big corporate dollars to stop his power of overtaking the democratic party. Assange is now being tortured because the democrats will not stop the madness of trying to extradite him to the US simply for doing his job by exposing the truth as a great journalist is supposed to do - shame on them for hating someone who simply told the truth about the Clinton lies simply because she was clearly not as good of candidate as Bernie - anyone knows this - all you had to do was attend the rallies to see who was by far the better candidate and it certainly wasn't Warhawk Hillary. This was a big reason I've left the democratic party permanently for independent status. The democrats are now as bigoted as the republicans. Why would you vote for either party?

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

I don't agree with you. There are many good democrats trying to do the right thing but they aren't the majority. If democrats were in control, we wouldn't have this right wing court and Roe would still be the law of the land. Many democrats are trying to do good things for the environment but are blocked by a solid republican resistance with a few democrats. Yes, there are bad democrats but it isn't the whole party. With the republicans, it is the whole party.

The democrats are much better on civil rights.

If the republicans take over, you will see just how bad it can get. I was a Bernie fan but he got into the race rather late against Hillary and he could never win over that black vote. Yes, Hillary was much to war like for me but I could never accept a crook like trump.

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

I agree that Trump was the worse possible outcome, but I'm quite sure that if Bernie was nominated this would not have been the case. With the corrupt DNC forcing the nomination of Hillary through lies and deception and not backing Bernie that would have garnered the black vote was way too risky and we have now all paid the price of losing our rights including Julian. Our biggest mistake of the century was nominating Hillary over Bernie in my opinion - possibly even worse than citizens united since Bernie was able to get people-powered funding that matched the corporate funding. I don't agree Bernie started too late. I was greatly surprised and became hopeful that democrats could finally do the right thing by bringing in such a quality candidate - possibly the best we've ever had in the history of the US in terms of equality, anti-war, and human rights. We have to get another quality candidate like him for 2024 or I think we will be doomed based on the fact that we are stuck with an insane supreme court - unless they stack the court to stop the madness.

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

I agree about Bernie. The reason I won't denigrate all democrats is that I see people like the Squad standing up and fighting while getting death threats daily. Sherrod Brown as been a fighter for the working man his whole career. Elizabeth Warren is fighting for financial equality and there are many others. Like Pelosi or not, she's been masterful at holding the house together and passing many progressive bills that the senate can't pass.

The republicans have been good at tagging democrats as extremists or socialists and in America that is damning. I remember what they did to George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey.

I don't know whom the nominee could be. Who do you think would be best?

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

At one point, I had hopes for Tulsi Gabbard, but looks like she has changed a lot of her stances away from being progressive - even to the point of being right wing. Very strange to me! For president, I'm not so sure of a good candidate at this point, but I do think there are a lot of good candidates in the democratic primaries. Unfortunately, mostly corporate democrats win those primaries due to the corporate funding advantage unless the candidate has Bernie-like skills to raise people-based funding. At least a few progressives are making it through - possibly similar to how women (starting with Pelosi and others) are slowly getting up to the 50% representation that is long overdue. We need at least one more female justice to get the court close to being balanced, but cannot be like our crazy handmaid justice, ACB evolving us into the handmaid's tale under direction of an even more insane justice Thomas!

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

Also we need to elect candidates this year similar to Bernie for all elected positions down to the local level. That to me could be doable task over this decade until we get up to at least 50% of the democratic party as true and not fake progressives.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Warlike? Hilary? You think she would have been worse than what we had with Afghanistan and wherever else we'e tried to interfere?

We have been set up to fold when China decides to move on the west coast. THAT would not have happened with Hilary. Remember I warned you. You will be begging her to save our bacon.If any of us live long enough for that. She cannot stave off the results of global warming. Another issue she would have tackled w/o being bought off.

Expand full comment
T Walker's avatar

Hillary has an extensive warlike and violent record. Look it up. Even Trump is better than her concerning war considering he finally brought the troops home, luckily with the help of Biden. This is the only decent thing that Trump and Biden have done. I can't stand Hillary, Trump and Biden - they are all nothing but buffoons who work for the billionaires and the war profit machine now concentrated in Ukraine. We had our chance to at least elect a decent person who is much less of a war monger - and that person was Bernie. I'd hate to say it, but we blew it at the presidential level. Now we have to go to grass roots and elect people with integrity like Bernie from the ground up starting with local elections and working our way up to the federal level. We will also have to take to the streets everyday to revolt against these corporate-owned democrats and republicans who work together to undermine the people and democracy. If we don't do this starting now - they will only continue on this path to complete destruction you mention - particularly around inaction towards the impending global climate change disaster and potential for nuclear war. Just wait till January when the doomsday clock is reset - my guess much less than 100 seconds due to the disgusting work of Hillary (as Sec State), Trump and Biden! They are a complete disaster and everyone should know it.

Expand full comment
Diana Hembree's avatar

Hearting your comment although I do think Biden has done some good things on the domestic front; I agree that it is wrong and dangerous to support the war machine and lurch us toward WWIII. What happened to diplomacy as a way of stopping wars?

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Hmmmm.Quite an indictment. I guess we can equate the integrity of Clinton, Biden, and 45 on the same scale. I think not. I do agree Bernie would have been good for the country, except for the unwillingness of Rethugs to do anything to interrupt their takeover of govt. They have been working that project since the 1930s, and the result shows their resilience, persistence, and conformity to the long-term plan. Gotta give 'em credit for unrelenting working w/o pause, to own the nation. But not long yet. As the seas and temps work w/ them to come to a complete takeover of the country. Right before the light go out. Serves us right.

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

I agree. I didn't say there weren't many others warlike, even more so than her. She would have been infinitely better than trump. I don't understand your comment about China's move on the west coast. Are you expecting them to attack us?

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

One never knows. I read that some people did expect somesuch as happened at Pearl Harbor. Sadly, so often the prescient are ignored or ridiculed. I'll see if I still have that partcular book, though quite a few have been sent to book heaven since i got old and "downsized." Now Im having trouble with my laptop and some days it won't work on this particular site. If it's not one @@@@ thing, it's another. I always have preferred books to computers/electronics.

Expand full comment
Marksjc's avatar

Hillary lied no more than any pol does (except maybe Bernie) but painting her guilty is false and GOP propaganda, plus James Comey's

unhinged rant he was ordered not to give. Every ethical standard about Justice not influencing elections wa broken by Comey and FBI and that is unexcusable. Ordered by his boss to stand down he condemed her for 20 minutes

Expand full comment
SPW's avatar

Unctuous derps? 😂

Expand full comment
Cindy's avatar

I love that! Made me laugh!

Expand full comment
Margarete Schels's avatar

"unctuous derps"...too nice a way of saying they are "schmoozing idiots"

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Can't be idiots if they keep winning.

Expand full comment
SPW's avatar

Got it. Thnx

Expand full comment
Philippe Roussel's avatar

Why would elected democrats act like leaders when they have a huge incentive through the financing of their campaigns to not listen to the wants and needs of ordinary people?

Expand full comment
K McGady's avatar

Oh, I really like calling those two unctious derps!!! Perfect!!! Bravo! You actually made me smile in recognizing how awful they are.

Expand full comment
Christopher Foxx's avatar

Collins and Manchin were NOT duped. People have GOT to stop accepting their obvious lies as if they were truths.

Collins and Manchin KNEW that Kavanaugh and the others were lying and would reverse Roe as soon as they could.

Collins and Manchin were NOT duped. They knew exactly what they were getting and were looking forward to it.

So it’s not a matter of scolding them for being duped, but of calling them out for being as big a pack of liars as the justices they confirmed.

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

They've very good at pretending their innocence. I haven't believed a thing they've said so far.

Expand full comment
Christopher Foxx's avatar

But they aren’t good at it. It’s obvious that they’re lying.

And yet, people continue to willingly become coconspirators with them.

We need to stop standing on the sidelines saying, “Gosh, I guess you got me, you little scamp.“ instead of pointing an accusing finger, declaring “You’re lying!!”, and holding them to account for their shit.

We need to stop going along with their excuses.

Expand full comment
Cindy's avatar

Yes, how bout CONSEQUENCES!

Expand full comment
john terence king's avatar

We need to put some consequences on they asses.

Expand full comment
Michealene RISLEY's avatar

There has never been consequences

Expand full comment
S howard's avatar

Here here . I 2ND

the motion.

Expand full comment
Shari Sirkin's avatar

Agree 100%. How could they NOT know?

Expand full comment
Kathy Schroeder's avatar

I so agree with you - naive, stupid or both? Can we please elect smart people with integrity?

Expand full comment
Norm Conrad's avatar

or simply dishonest

Expand full comment
john terence king's avatar

Norm .....Dishonest is right. A couple of lying jerks.

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

Any of the 3 is shameful.

Expand full comment
Kevin's avatar

I agree. But candidates like this are seemingly harder to find. It seems these elected officials put their own priorities ahead of their constituents issues. It takes mass shootings to awake the country, or other calamity for most of these politicians to act or issue comments. And with trump having been elected with rage and beliefs in his promises, he enabled a host of elected republicans to follow him irregardless of what he says or does. It really feels that there is a damning split between blue and red states.

Expand full comment
Doneroamin4Now's avatar

The parties won't allow it.

Expand full comment
john terence king's avatar

Those two are not dupes. They are corrupt. Manchin is a piece of human excrement.

Expand full comment
Elle's avatar

Agree… as is Collins and Sinema

Expand full comment
Sandra Trimble's avatar

Collins and Manchin failed the Democrats. What does it say about the state of the American people when they vote for all the liars like trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Boebert, Ron Johnson, Hershel Walker, and the entire list of GOP candidates?

Expand full comment
john terence king's avatar

They think the Trumpers will help them keep their comfortable positions in society, or they are just racist and dumb. They want to impose their religious and cultural values on the rest of us.

Expand full comment
Sandra Trimble's avatar

I meant Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin not Collins! It must have been my editor because I know better.

Expand full comment
BARBARA HOSKINS's avatar

GET RID OF THEM!

Expand full comment
Stephen W Blackburn's avatar

Well! What can you do when people lie especially if you tell the truth!

Expand full comment
Christopher Foxx's avatar

Continue to call them out on their shit, unrelentingly and loudly.

Much better approach than throwing up your hands and giving up.

Expand full comment
john terence king's avatar

Hang them I say. Hang them high, high, and higher.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

We knew that. Too bad their voters were so easily duped and betrayed.

Expand full comment
Betty Ruppel's avatar

Them and most of the remaining 98.

Expand full comment
Christopher Foxx's avatar

“Most” ??!

You think the 45 Senators that voted AGAINST Gorsuch and the 48 that voted AGAINST Kavanaugh we’re all actually duped into supporting them?

Really?

Expand full comment
Timothy Anton Ash's avatar

Who says they were duped... Their votes pacified the anti-choice crowd and their lock step colleagues.. now that the new justices duplicity is clear they can say they had no idea the new justices were that dishonest. Sometimes they say you can't have it both ways, but it looks like they have.

Expand full comment
Gene Martinez's avatar

YES! And Schumer must bring that bill to the floor immediately! Manchin, Sinema, Collins and Merkowski, it is time for actions not excuses. Quit hiding behind 60 votes needed. It’s NOT!

Expand full comment
juliet's avatar

I’m a huge advocate for abortion rights, but I think Schumer needs to prioritize environmental legislation bc it might be our last chance for a long time to get funding we need in the short term for America to do anything remotely adequate about climate.

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

Why not both. Keep the Senate in session. They've had enough vacation time under the guise of needing to be in their districts. If they do their jobs they won't have to worry about raising money. I only contribute to people like Sherrod Brown...even when I disagree with him.

Expand full comment
juliet's avatar

I agree Congress does not need a vacation of such length especially. I am dubious that walking and chewing gum at the same time is a wise strategy. Social issues are still solvable in five years, but much climate change happening now is our inheritance for tens of thousands of years. You’d think the actual threat of extinction and at the least mass starvation and thirst and mass extinction of animals leading to a complete assault on nature’s balance would turn more heads.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

All these religious nuts don't mind watching humanity die off. They are special, you see, and are seriously propagandized to think they will come out of the end of life on earth as the only survivors. That happens, they will eat each other.....I can only hope......

Expand full comment
Peter's avatar

I've been an environmentalist for over 20 years and well aware of climate change since the 1990s. I'm responding here because it may not be all gloom and doom. The Earth has a 400 year water cycle driven by the sun that's needed to refresh the oceans. We're now in a period where the climate will gyrate between extremes. To hot, too cold, too much water, to little water, huge wild fires, etc. This will last about 10 years and then we can expect to enter a cooling period. The Earth has experienced many climate changes and this one is not the end of humanity. The ice cores and tree rings tell a much bigger story.

We still need to cleanup our act. You can't have healthy humans in a sick environment. We need cleaner air and water. We need to be better prepared for extreme climate events to avoid mass human casualties. Ice storms and more fires are coming.

Fear, giving up, or demonizing others is not preparation. I believe there's hope and we have work to do. You are free to examine the evidence and believe whatever you want. I hope you'll consider which beliefs will serve us better.

Expand full comment
juliet's avatar

Just happened on this article. We promise funds but don’t deliver them when the issue is as urgent or more so as war. We need legislation to appropriate funding for climate measures in all kinds of arenas…I don’t know if in this case we need legislation, but our lack of apt prioritization is the whole problem in this case: Can the International Community Avert Disaster in the Red Sea?

Expand full comment
juliet's avatar

Shoot the link didn’t work. Well, one can Google it

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

I'm kinda glad it does not. Humankind is a failure and I see no useful purpose in its survival.

Expand full comment
Marksjc's avatar

Thats a judgement I would leave the living youth and speak of my own genes only.

Expand full comment
Mary Hooper's avatar

Your choice.

Expand full comment
Mary Vosburgh's avatar

I agree. They don't listen to the people when they are in their home States anyway. And they take their foreign vacations when under the guise of working when they are not.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Too late on climate. W/ arctic and antarctic melting and the ice breaking up, tides rising, etc. it's too damn late. Get used to it. Talk about global warming. How many degrees C do you suppose Russians have added to the global temps? If we cant take the war love out of people, we are going to be finished before too long. Face it. We are toast. At least I;ve had my fourscore. No hope for ten more. But it does not make me feel any better about the end of life on earth w/i the lifetime of my great-grands.

Expand full comment
Carlos's avatar

Not so. It's not too late. Michael Mann, an atmospheric scientist that I respect, says in his very recent book, THE NEW CLIMATE WAR, that "Doomism" is the new form of denial vis a vis Global Warming. It goes like this: Climate disasters are here now and so it's too late to do anything about them. This theme is being promulgated by the fossil fuel industry to forestall our efforts to mitigate carbon emissions by changing to clean renewables for energy sources which, of course, would cut into the industry's lucrative bottom line. This I call "Profits Over Civilization."

True, we are late "to the party" but there is plenty we can do to prevent the worst effects of Global Warming. That is the overarching theme of Professor Mann's book -- very highly recommended. It's upbeat and hopeful without being pollyann-ish.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Thanks for that info, I'm so old that I have no doubt i will drop off the twig before this is all settled.That;s the worst part...not knowing how it will all turn out.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

It's already too late, Juliet. Human beings --overall--are just to greedy, selfish, and obnoxious to live. We could just quit using electricity and oil, but that is discouraged because there's lots of money to be made by getting folks NOT to change their ways. Life would be harder, but humanity would survive and our food supply would come back if everybody had to trap their own dinner. But I read too much sci fi.........

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Good. Humanity has proven self-destructive. The earth can handle a start-over if we all just get out of the way. Coming soon.......

Expand full comment
juliet's avatar

It’s not ok. The suffering involved already has been too great. I am talking primarily about animal suffering. And, besides, there are good things about us. I would hope at least Shakespeare might live on…but couldn’t without us(?)

Expand full comment
Mary Hooper's avatar

You get to my age and remember how it used to be and see how the corporations now own us all, and profits rule over life and safety, it's all just too much. I regret humanity has not accounted for all our grands and great grands who will die having never seen the earth as we early and mid-20th centurions once saw it--damaged but fixable. Not to mention the end of the trail for some forms of animal life. I'm done crying over the mess the earth and the people are in, as they die in the heat of Arizona, burn in the forests of California, and drown in the historic level floods, & so on and so forth. It's just too too much. And folks just party on........You and I , JUliet, remain helpless.....Shakespeare has no words anymore.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Collins knew Kavanaugh was lying…the world knew he was lying. Republicans have lying and backstabbing down to an art

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

Yes! you also are correct and she just wanted to believe the lie. I want to puke when i see her and listen to her whine.

Expand full comment
Read Between The Lines's avatar

Collusion. She just hides and lies.

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

And thinks she's fooling the people!

Expand full comment
SPW's avatar

Yet Mainers keep sending her to D C for some reason 🤯. I’m sure they have their reasons?

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

I am so disappointed in Mainers for THIS. My own family members up there seem not to understand that we are facing the end of human life on earth and they don't appear to care how much the politicos screw up. Of course, there are plenty of other states in the same boat. The mind boggles.

Expand full comment
S howard's avatar

Collins is a whack-a-mole

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

And we knew she was lying.

Expand full comment
S howard's avatar

Yes Republiars.

Expand full comment
Miriyam Gevirtz's avatar

It is long past time to impeach the six for lying in their confirmation hearings.

Expand full comment
Carlos's avatar

Yes, and even if unsuccessful, it would drive our point home. No one likes the stigma of having been impeached; except "you know who."

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

You are correct

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jun 25, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Norm Conrad's avatar

Yes, the House can do that and has at least started doing that before.

Expand full comment
Carlos's avatar

From memory, often suspect, a long time ago a SuCt justice was impeached, but not successfully, I'm thinking. Answer your question?

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

Somewhere around 1970. The name Abe Fortas comes to mind, but I think he may have been involved in some other controversy close to the same time. I think it was more likely somebody else whose name would ring a bell as soon as it's mentioned.

Expand full comment
Shari Sirkin's avatar

I don't know why that isn't the daily call. Kavanaugh especially so deserves to be impeached. What are we waiting for?

Expand full comment
Miriyam Gevirtz's avatar

That's a really good question and always was after the good doctor woman's testimony at the Senate hearings on his confirmation.

Expand full comment
WILLIAM CASH's avatar

We don't have the votes. That's why they feel invulnerable. They know the republicans will protect them.

Expand full comment
Jan goroff's avatar

Time to end the filibuster.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I believe a new federal law should be passed and implemented which bans filibusters at all levels of government. They are antidemocratic and unethical, and I believe also unconstitutional.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

The constitution is used only when it suits the lies republicans…and seditious politicians…want voters to believe

Expand full comment
jesse salisbury's avatar

same goes for states rights .

Expand full comment
Norm G.'s avatar

Let's go even further and abolish the Senate, the most undemocratic institution in the world, short of the legislatures of Russia and China. Even at 52 Rs + DINOS to 48 Ds, the Democrats still represent many millions more actual citizens. Land doesn't deserve a vote, people do.

Wake up, people. America cannot be saved under the current laws and 200 year old constitution. This is just like Germany 1932 and the legislative Enabling Acts that gave Hitler total power despite the fact he never got more than 37% of the vote.

After 1932, if you wanted to stay alive, you joined the Nazi party and did the salute. And you never ever criticized the regime lest someone overhear, turn you in and the SS came for you in the middle of the night to take you to the concentration camp. Where you disappeared.

The entire Republican party from top to bottom, local to federal, must be destroyed. The same way Germany now has laws to make the Nazis illegal.

It is too late now for America. The GOP has been hard at working since RayGun to make America a fascist, authoritarian, theocratic, white supremacist, misogynistic, gun nut oligarchy. Welcome to the American Taliban.

The smartest move you can make if you don't want to live in a dictatorship is to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE COUNTRY. If you own a home, you probably have equity. Sell everything of value, you'll need to be able to live for a few years on your savings, unless you are already a digital nomad. Get some good immigration advice, pick a country that will take you, and LEGALLY LEAVE.

I saw this coming the night Trump was elected. I left America in 2018. I am still a citizen with a U.S. passport& I have business relationships in America, pay taxes if I owe them in America. I just choose not to live in a sh**hole country.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I do agree with your idea to abolish the Senate, but I object to your other actions. We need to stay here and reform the country, not run away. A good start is to outlaw the filibuster. Then legally subvert the Electoral College through the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Expand full comment
Stan of Stanistan's avatar

Yes, if we leave, who will stand up to injustice?

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Yeah, right, how well have we done keeping Rethug legislators honest so far? There are books written about the grand plan to take over the country, which was hatched in the early 20th. They worked the plan decade after decade. And now they own us. I fully expect slave labor camps for all rebels against the Rethugs new nazi-ism.

Expand full comment
Stan of Stanistan's avatar

As a person of average income, I don’t have enough money to spend to prevent the Reptilians from doing damage. And so to compensate, I’m doing volunteer work for our Democratic US congressional candidate. Her yard signs say, “Let’s be neighbors again.” We hope this approach will attract Republicans who are sick of Drumpfism and the resentment it feeds on.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Stan: Wishing you all good results in this election. I don't believe I've met even one Rethug who admits souring on 45. There do seem to be fewer rebel flags in the environment. But I rather expect that to change as we approach the end of summer and the gearing up of political campaigns..These days, after watching my govt take such blows it has, I don't hold up much hope for a civil & polite election ever again. I'm too old to volunteer for much, in any case. But you go for it.

Expand full comment
Stan of Stanistan's avatar

On my street here in zip code 32951, all homeowners are Republicans or seem to be. My Nextdoor neighbor will host a bbq for the street on 4 July. Meanwhile I have posted my campaign sign: “Let’s be neighbors again.” Fingers crossed for the best.

Expand full comment
Stan of Stanistan's avatar

Yes, I am too old to volunteer for Ukraine. Fifty years ago I might have.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

And ppl who leave and don't renounce citizenship DO pay taxes. USA (a laugh that, right now) is, I understand, the only country that taxes the income of its citizens living in a foreign country. We are not United and it looks like we won't ever be again. Those of us who trusted our legislators have learned a bitter lesson in homegrown nazi-ism. Fake prez 45 put the bullet right in our hearts.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

That would go a long way to restoring democracy.

Expand full comment
Norm Conrad's avatar

The Senate, itself, is anti-democratic. IMO, we need to go well beyond getting rid of the filibuster.

Expand full comment
jesse salisbury's avatar

yes, the founding father never thought that we would have 1 state hold the population greater than 26 states or only have the same voice as a state that has a population 1/8 as large as 1 of its cities .

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I actually agree with you that we should abolish the Senate, but that will take much longer. A progressive step would be to outlaw filibusters and that could and should be done within the next four years.

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

You are correct and it has been time for years, but we have had spy Republican in our part by the name of Manchin.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Politicians walk to the tune of money…..people be damned

Expand full comment
David Parrish's avatar

That’s one of the main reasons behind the Tea

Party and then the MAGA’s

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

Actually it's past time to end the filibuster. I do approve of Biden and am glad I voted for him, but this time the President MUST verbally, and loudly, support ending the filibuster.

Expand full comment
jesse salisbury's avatar

at least get rid of the non-speaking filibuster ! make them work for it ! make them tell us WHY they are obstructing every damn bill .

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

That would be insufficient if the 60 votes are still required to move forward.

Expand full comment
Frederick Jackson's avatar

But Senator McConnell’s choice to eliminate the filibuster in confirmations of SCOTUS justices (following upon Harry Reid’s dropping the filibuster for other presidential appointments as precedent) has led directly to the current far-right ideologues — vetted by the Federalist Society — on the court. If there had been no filibuster for SCOTUS nominees forty years ago, Judge Bork would have been confirmed as a Justice. Beware of unintended consequences.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

Overall, eliminating the filibuster would do far more benefit than harm. We can't let ten senators control the work of the entire senate. That is undemocratic, unethical, and probably unconstitutional. I don't give a damn about Bork now.

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

We're so close to elections we need to temporarily suspend it. If the Republicans get majority we will want them to need 60 votes

Expand full comment
James Michael Kelly's avatar

The filibuster will be eliminated the instant republicans have the Senate majority and run up against the filibuster when voting to eliminate our Social Security and Medicare.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I hope you are correct and that the elimination is permanent. Whichever party is in power should eliminate this irrational undemocratic procedure.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I totally disagree. The party in power needs to take the lead in eliminating the filibuster. Over the long run that will produce excellent results. The filibuster is obviously undemocratic and unethical, probably unconstitutional.

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

Or if kept, only in the original talking form, which is probably easier to do. This form slows down the process, but usually does not stop it, & senators have to put out some significant effort. Jeff Merkley spoke for around 16 hours in a talking filibuster against the confirmation of Gorsuch.

Expand full comment
Norm Conrad's avatar

Which obviously accomplished nothing other than to take up several hours of HIS time. For most of that time, he was probably the only senator or one of only a very few Democratic Party senators on the floor that whole time. Another filibuster revision I have heard about would require some form of a quorum during the filibuster so that the party must have sufficient numbers (41 at least) on the floor to prevent cloture.

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

It's a way to call attention to an issue -- in this case, the steal of a Supreme Court position from an Obama nominee -- & to show that this really matters to you, & I admire him for going beyond the norm to make such a statement. The more senators that join, the more effective it can be, although it rarely completely derails the outcome.

I have heard of the version you mention, & it would be an improvement to the current state.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I disagree. Keeping the filibuster in any form would be a mistake. Either it obstructs or it prevents democratic action. There should be a fixed time limit for debate on any bill. When the time expires, then voting should begin.

Expand full comment
Jaime Ramirez's avatar

It may be the compromise that can be made in the short run.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I think an attempt should be made now to pass a bill which bans the filibuster. Get all the reps and senators on the record. This record then can be used as a reason to vote for or against a candidate. But if the effort to pass the bill is unsuccessful, then I'd favor your attempted compromise.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

The filibuster is a Senate "Rule" not a law. It cannot be undone by the House or the President. It can be disposed of by a simple majority of the Senate (51/49). At the moment we have 48 for sure votes. To overturn the filibuster we need to retain both Senators from Georgia, all our current Democratic Senators, and Bernie Sanders, plus three more by replacing current Republican Senators with Democrats, or Independents.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I already responded to this. Don't forget passing a federal law, or a constitutional amendment, or a SCOTUS decision. There is more than one way.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

Absolutely the preference is to do away with it all together. But if we lack the votes (or the will power) to end this ridiculous "rule" reverting to the speech necessity might just bring them around. Just think, if they started the filibuster on say, Thursday afternoon, how many Senators would willingly give up their 3 day usual weekend to maintain it. As soon as they stop talking they have to vote.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

Do as much as can be done at the present moment, but when the Democrats are in power in the House, Senate, and presidency, eliminate the filibuster permanently!

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

To end the filibuster it is the Senate we need to control. The House and Presidency have no control of the Senate.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

Well, we do need Senate control. However, the House and Presidency do have some control over the Senate. All three -- House, Senate, and Presidency -- should pass a federal law banning all filibusters at all levels of government permanently. A constitutional amendment would also be great.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

I agree if they won't end it as a threat, then make them revert to the original talking format. On some occasions the party that started the filibuster gave in after more than twenty-four hours of continual speeches and agreed to allow an up/down vote.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

Allowing the talking format would be a waste of time and would not guarantee respect for a straight majority vote.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

I agree. We need to end the filibuster. However it is a "rule" not a law. The only way to get rid of it is for progressive Democrats to control the Senate. The filibuster rule can be overturned by a simple majority (51/49), but only the Senate can do it. That means we have to maintain both current Senators from Georgia, add at least three more Senators from currently Republican States. One to get control of the Senate, and two more to overcome Manchin and Sinema. A daunting task.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

FR1: I agree. We need to end the filibuster. However it is a "rule" not a law.

GW1: Yes, it is a rule rather than a law, but that does not invalidate my proposal.

FR1: The only way to get rid of it is for progressive Democrats to control the Senate.

GW1: Only? No, that is simply false. There are three ways to get rid of it: 1) More than half the senators would need to vote to get rid of it. 2) The House, Senate, and President could pass a law to abolish filibusters in all cases. Or 3) The SCOTUS could declare filibusters unconstitutional.

FR1: The filibuster rule can be overturned by a simple majority (51/49), but only the Senate can do it.

GW1: Two of the three methods I mentioned require what you state here. But progressive Democrats are not necessarily required, as you stated earlier.

FR1: That means we have to maintain both current Senators from Georgia, add at least three more Senators from currently Republican States. One to get control of the Senate, and two more to overcome Manchin and Sinema. A daunting task.

GW1: Difficult, but I am confident that it will eventually occur. I think the new SCOTUS ruling against abortion rights is actually going to make it more likely.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

GW I sincerely hope you are correct in your reasoning on Senate rules. If so, another rule that needs to be broken is the one allowing the Senate Majority Leader to be the SOLE decision maker on whether any House bill can go to the Senate floor for discussion.

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

I agree with you on that point. It seems to me that every House bill should be debated and voted on in the Senate, perhaps in chronological order. There should be time limits for debate and voting.

Expand full comment
Fay Reid's avatar

Other points on which we differ:"2) The House, Senate, and President could pass a law to abolish filibusters in all cases." and 3)SCOTUS could declare filibusters unconstitutional." Per the Constitution only the Senate and the House of Representatives can initiate (write) a law. The Constitution further restricts the type of legislation that can originate in each House of Congress. The President cannot write any legislation, the President may suggest, or request legislation but neither House is compelled to act on the President's suggestions or requests. The President's only legislative function is to approve or veto legislation sent for signature. Rules are not mentioned in the Constitution because they usually only set up the orderly function of a group of persons and have no weight in law. I am not a lawyer, while I consider myself a Constitutional scholar based upon multiple readings of the Constitution and continual references to it. My son in law is a practicing attorney so I will ask his opinion on rules vs laws. Of course if any lawyer in our group wishes to enlighten me I would greatly appreciate that too.

As to the Supreme Court, their only Constitutional function is to determine adherence to the Constitution of Laws past by Congress or the State Legislatures. They are not supposed to make laws themselves, The some members current Supreme Court seem to be ignoring their Constitutional duties in favor of enacting a Country under the rites of their particular religious dogma

Expand full comment
Gary Whittenberger's avatar

FR: Other points on which we differ:"2) The House, Senate, and President could pass a law to abolish filibusters in all cases." and 3)SCOTUS could declare filibusters unconstitutional."

GW: I doubt that we will disagree when you fully understand those two points.

FR: Per the Constitution only the Senate and the House of Representatives can initiate (write) a law.

GW: Yes, the Congress initiates bills and if passed there, they go to the president for signature. So, the House, Senate, and President could pass a law to abolish filibusters in all cases, just as I said.

FR: The Constitution further restricts the type of legislation that can originate in each House of Congress.

GW: Irrelevant to my point. A bill against filibusters could originate in either the House or the Senate. It would not matter.

FR: The President cannot write any legislation, the President may suggest, or request legislation but neither House is compelled to act on the President's suggestions or requests.

GW: We agree on that point, but it does not invalidate either of my proposals.

FR: The President's only legislative function is to approve or veto legislation sent for signature.

GW: True, but irrelevant to my proposals.

FR: Rules are not mentioned in the Constitution because they usually only set up the orderly function of a group of persons and have no weight in law.

GW: True, but irrelevant.

FR: I am not a lawyer, while I consider myself a Constitutional scholar based upon multiple readings of the Constitution and continual references to it. My son in law is a practicing attorney so I will ask his opinion on rules vs laws. Of course if any lawyer in our group wishes to enlighten me I would greatly appreciate that too.

GW: I am not a lawyer either, but I feel confident that I am correct in my proposals.

FR: As to the Supreme Court, their only Constitutional function is to determine adherence to the Constitution of Laws past by Congress or the State Legislatures. They are not supposed to make laws themselves, The some members current Supreme Court seem to be ignoring their Constitutional duties in favor of enacting a Country under the rites of their particular religious dogma

GW: I agree with all those points. However, after reading the Constitution the other day, I have concluded that there are provisions of it which are violated by the filibuster rule in the Senate. I believe the SCOTUS can and should declare filibusters in the Senate unconstitutional.

Expand full comment
Lizabelle's avatar

Action speaks louder than words. Let’s see real action concluding in a signed law.

Expand full comment
Maureen Mathews's avatar

Exactly! They should work together and pass that Bill NOW!

Expand full comment
Daniel H Laemmerhirt's avatar

I honestly do not know why Biden doesn't just start signing a flurry of executive actions??? The overwhelming majority of Americans support him over any conservative!

Expand full comment
Lizabelle's avatar

Because executive orders are subject to Republican lawsuits based on allegations of exceeding authority---the problem Obama had with respect to his immigration related orders.

Expand full comment
Diane B's avatar

So what. Do it now so we have some protection, then let the courts decide. It buys time. The GOP do it all the time. Time to fight fire with fire. We are at war.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

What do I think? What I KNOW is that this country has become unrecognizablefor the one I learned about in school so many decads ago - I am a senior. Totally unrecognizable and getting worse by the day, maybe by the hour. Is it that the schools these days are so busy teaching things that get in the way of learning about citizenship and how to keep an dimprove this democracy? All I Know these days is fear and I am not easily scared. We have to be careful that in all the uproar it is not allowed for a would-be dictator to sneak in. So many things so badly wrong and that is perfect entree time for such a person. Be advised - the women in your life, guys, are NOT your handmaidens.

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

You are correct Ellen, I too am a senior of 90 years and I saw and said (maybe 50 or so years ago) that the Bible thumpers were on a mission to make this nation what we are today. Religion in government and government in religion has ruined this nation.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

Thank you and great to hear from a guy in my own generation. There was a reason for installing the wall between religion and and government in the beginings of this country, right?

Expand full comment
Patrick Daniels aka Cromulent1's avatar

Freedom from religious oppression, a significant thought from our founders and especially Jefferson.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

Absolutely and my own education was heavily influenced by the fact that I grew up in Virginia and only a handful of miles from his famous home of Monticello and, even then, his influence could be strongly felt in the area and then reinforcd by graduating nursing school at the university he founded thee, UVA........he was not perfect and no one was or is even now but they did a bang-up job of founding this country,even with some mistakes, and I fear for this country now. Thank you!

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

Right. We were taught civics, which has been removed from school curriculum. No longer taught! That explains a lot! How can you graduate people from high school who know nothing about how our government works? Well we got the great uneducated masses. Who think it’s cool to be stupid.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

You nailed it! In my case we had to take a senior level course, in government after earlier eighth grade civics, and pass it to graduate. I was worried enough when my two children finished high schoohl in the 1980s . etc but nowadays??? I have tried to find out exactly what really goes on in classrooms and no one can tell me, not even recently retired teachers. It is beyond scary.............

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

I'm not going to live as long as you have already ,Ellen, but I do remember the day they told us to add Under God to the pledge. That was back around 1950 and I have NEVER used those two words in the pledge. I'm an immigrant from a country where religion was a big factor in who ruled and being of the "wrong " religion could mean a death sentence. I shall die never having said those two words.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

I remember the same time they added “ under God” and I do the same as MJ z hopper. I never say it. It’s not in the pledge of allegiance that I learned and do not believe it belongs there . And I was born here.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Nice to know I'm not alone in this.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

I think the reason was that some ppl wanted to stop the churches from taking over, particularly the RC Church.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Absolutely!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

Agreed. I was a teen and early twenties during the fifties. It was horrible being a woman with no rights. I was miserable and chalked it up to hormones and my age. But I no longer think that’s true. Men were predators-always touching, chasing you around desks at work. I finally joined the Beats in San Francisco to escape.

The thought of the fifties returning is appalling.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

Yes - pregnant hirls in homes for unwed mothers , often forced to give up babies for adoption, their own lives severely upended with questionable futures and on and on. Girls dying from botched abortions due to no way to get safe ones and on and on and on............

Expand full comment
Sally Daugherty's avatar

Michael, ROE our boat ashore

Today I feel

like a leaf blown

far off course,

all I had worked for

mocked by that decision

This means war

on our backs now a target;

FAIR GAME thus

no need for welfare

child care, a tax credit

Force motherhood and

free labor will result

It's so cheap;

Corporations are grinning

Wall Street is happy

Sisters get ready

to help each other

Refuse to hear

that media bull shit;

just follow the money

We deserve justice

No more second class citizenship

Revive the ERA and

pull those Washington weeds

Our truth_ their poison

SD 6-25-2022

Note: I finished this at 11:45 on the national day of protest following the Supreme Court announcement that it had eliminated our constitutional right to abortion in the United States. At the age of 85 I am no longer able to join my sisters and march in protest. Instead I offer this as a token of my solidarity. SD

Expand full comment
Donna Olson's avatar

Creative and true. The point about "free labor" and happy corporations is so exactly the ultimate goal of too many people and too few jobs and poverty wages. Desperate single moms working at jobs that don't even pay enough to provide child care. Woman trying to break the cycle of their own desperate upbringing but having little to no choices.

Expand full comment
Emma Goldman's avatar

Yep you have that right sister the stock market up yesterday.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

Wisdom! And, so appreciated, I recognized you in sharing it with others.

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

It is everyone for themselves.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

Absolutely Not! It’s time for mass collective awareness, efforts and resolve to mitigate, reverse and put America on equitable, fair, principled and sustainable footings across the spectrum of life. Remain mindful, “Together We Stand, Divided We Fall”

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

Lovely.

Expand full comment
Diane B's avatar

So they still haven’t figured out the the GOP ALWAYS lies? Gimme a break. We seriously need an IQ test with a minimum score to run for office.

Expand full comment
Lois Brooks's avatar

Plus a civics test and a background check.

Expand full comment
Jim Remedes's avatar

I completely agree with tests that MUST be passed PRIOR to their name being put on a ballot to be "representatives" of the people. It is beyond comprehension that these "representatives" appear ONLY to be able to be of age and breathing to hold office. I suggest first a citizenship test just like the test that immigrants take to become citizens of this country. You cannot pass that; you cannot hold office. By looking at the trash currently holding office (Greene, Boebert, Gaetz, etc), many of these folks would not be in office today. We do NOT need people WITHOUT a college degree or accused of sexually molesting young people. Second, definitely a background check to assure people who have been convicted of serious crimes are eliminated from being able to hold public office. Psychological tests should also be administered to those seeking office to assure those people with serious mental health issues are weeded out. These Republicans regularly state "government should run more like a business". Well, businesses HR departments regularly apply these tests, so wake up government! These tests are desperately needed to assure that the people who want to represent us are ethically and morally upstanding people. (What is VERY troubling is that it appears the RNC and DNC, who funds and supports these candidates, have NOT implemented these tests themselves. Why? BTW - During this election cycle two CONVICTED FELONS, that is right, CONVICTED, are running for congressional offices in Florida. (Look up Jason Mariner (R) and Corrine Brown (D))

Expand full comment
Jim Smith's avatar

I disagree with the college degree. Everyone one of the 6 Justices has multiple degrees. It means nothing if you have no integrity and want to carry out an agenda. The Christian Taliban is on the march in the U.S.

Expand full comment
Jeannie Strausburg's avatar

Agree. Would rather have a HS Grad who can pass an American History test than a person whose parents paid for them to get into college, graduate and has no idea of the words to God Bless America, let alone how our country should be governed...or can't speak intelligently and act appropriately. Additionally everyone needs term limits. Finally the Electoral College needs to be eliminated and party affiliation eliminated on the ballot.

Expand full comment
Jim Smith's avatar

Jeannie, Thanks for your feedback. Removing party affiliation does not do what we hope it would do. Big Dark Money knows who they are paying for, and research on elections where this has been done shows that the Right-Wing scoundrels win by out spending progressives, framing the issues, and still come to dominate local and state political institutions. Sad but apparently true.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

And Xtian Talibanists hold the power in DC.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

As it is, those we elect to govern are the only people on the planet who do not require qualifications to do the job. Think about it. Unless you’re an entry level worker at McDonalds, you must present a resume with education that qualifies you for the job. These dweebs likely can’t get real jobs. So they sidle up to the public trough.

Expand full comment
Lisa Flynn's avatar

Also, they should have to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and actually be tested on it. Trump not only proved time and again (outside of his obvious lies) to not even knowing how our country and government worked. And he was president? I'm sorry, but anyone running for any kind of elected office should not just take an oath, but first be tested that they actually know and understand what that oath means!

Expand full comment
Lisa Flynn's avatar

And a person doesn't need any kind of degree for this, bit I'm all for the mental health check!!

Expand full comment
Judith Johnson's avatar

The primary thing we need to do is get rid of the factors that are used to prevent democracy. Gerrymandering must be prevented. Obstructions to convenient voting must be eliminated. Voting machines must be standardized and must eliminate all of the recount problems we have seen in the past. We must ensure democracy.

All of the measures you list above are anti-democratic. I’d like to see IQ tests and we’ll -educated candidates too, but subjecting potential candidates to a bunch of prerequisites is anti-democratic.

Once you ensure clean democracy, you must accept the results. A citizen of the United States should not have to pass litmus tests either to vote or to be elected to office, if the majority of the people want to elect him or her; the consequences are theirs. You have to hope in a democracy that the voters have good walking-around sense. That’s the irony of any democracy. Its results are a reflection of the will and good sense of the people. If you believe in democracy you have to accept the results.

BUT I would ban political parties, and I would eliminate all political contributions or other ploys to tilt the results. I’m not sure I would enact term limits— when you’ve got a good, experienced public servant in office, it would be a shame to lose such a person. But power should not be allowed to accumulate; it does nothing but compromise and corrupt.

Money and power must be removed from politics. Holding public office should not enrich the office-holder. People should not run for office in order to advance the interests of any entity but the public.

Then the public must decide, based on what they see of the candidates for office, whom they want to hold that office.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

You should not need a litmus test to vote, but holding office is a different matter. I don’t think it’s unconstitutional to require candidates for office to be literate or to fully understand the constitution and the bill of rights. Look at what we have now. This may not be true but someone told me that a junior republican congresswoman said she was driving to Europe.

Expand full comment
Jim Remedes's avatar

I agree that the root of all of the problems in our political system is private bribes, I mean donations. ALL elections should be publicly funded, and media time for them to discuss what they would do FOR the American citizenry offered for FREE. Also, NO gerrymandering and other ways to tilt political outcomes. I am against the one, I mean "two party" system currently in place. The Reps and Dems are both blatant corporatists because their money primarily comes from corporations and oligarchs. They will NOT bite the hand that feeds them, and they will do what their donors instruct them to do. That is why the issue of immigration has not been resolved when either political party has had complete control of government. Large corporations WANT the cheap labor to oppress wages in this country. Hillary stated that TPP was the "Gold Standard" in trade deals. What she did NOT share was that there was a companion piece of legislature going along with that trade deal for one hundred million dollars to RETRAIN AMERICAN WORKERS WHO WOULD LOSE THEIR GOOD PAYING JOBS!! And you wonder why we got Trump?? Trump's election, if anything, should have told you that people are "Fed Up" with the current system. Out of over 350 million people, the best that the RNC and DNC can foist on Americans was those two?? If I can google and find that Leonard Leo has been stacking the "supreme" court for decades with catholic extremists, why haven't the Democrat "representatives" been able to see this, expose it for all to see, and do something to stop the march into the dark ages?? Why?? Until such time that private money is out of our political system, I am completely in FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS for ALL elected and appointed positions. I find it very irresponsible that eighty-year-old people are running the country. Really? Do you believe their cognitive ability is as sharp as say a thirty-year-old? Or maybe it does not have to be if you are being told and given what to say and do. (By the way, it has been proven that most incumbent politicians are re-elected based on name recognition.) Interesting that it would also be much more expensive for the Corporations and Oligarchs to find and fund new puppets, I mean politicians, every ten years or so. By the way, the Constitution does NOT say Supreme Court Justices have lifetime appointments. The Constitution states that they may keep their jobs if they continue to have good standing, or words similar. (Currently I do NOT find their output as that.) As usual, men interpret the words, just like in the Bible, to say what they want them to say, then repeat the lies often to the people who, after hearing it so many times, believe it as the truth. Corporate media (FOX, CNN, MSNBC) stopped telling the whole TRUTH (both sides of a story) a long time ago and, as a result, people have become much more cynical of their self-serving rhetoric. They are nothing more than the paid cheerleaders for the "Red vs. Blue" team. Why are foreigners (Murdock - Australia) allowed to own media corporations in this country? The damage inflicted on our citizenry is profound. Money does corrupt. And our "representatives" legally allow DARK MONEY, money where you do NOT even know who the donor(s) are??? Scary stuff. This country needs many stronger political parties, as in Europe, that would provide choices, and voices, to the citizenry. In addition, we need to have votes of "no confidence" to remove politicians promptly for their bad deeds (weed out the corruption) instead of waiting for the next election and letting the damage continue ON the American people. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, significant the Democrats do as more human rights are taken away, as suggested by Thomas. The spotlight is on them now. The march towards fascism is well on its way.

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

I think a litmus t

Expand full comment
Maggie mac's avatar

Yes! Before they are allowed to run.

Expand full comment
Francis/Clare's avatar

An integrity test would be great or maybe just a lie detector!

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Especially in the case of MTG and Boebert…

Expand full comment
Lois A Edwards's avatar

And how about a lie detector test! Of course, some of them could lie their faces off and still pass the test.

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

You are correct

Expand full comment
Carol Christ's avatar

If only IQ tests were valid, I could agree.

Expand full comment
Eric Coates's avatar

If you want a blue wave in November, it seems we have the right materials to start with. Attempting to enact reproductive rights and failing due to Republican resistance would set up the blue wave even further.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

We need leaders!!!!!! Democrats, like Hillary Clinton, who can face the gop trash!!!!!!

Expand full comment
David Parrish's avatar

Warren, Sanders, Jayapal, AOC, plenty of leaders. We just need to follow.

Expand full comment
Cynthia Mick's avatar

I have been saying we need a Savior-not religious, definitely could be female. Someone honest & charismatic.

Expand full comment
MJHooper's avatar

Remember the power of Faux tv. The propaganda will persuade the people who don't have the education/brains/ability to do modern work in a high tech environment that it will be good to get women out of the workplace. Just as long as govt helps pay for the necessities for the least educated. If that stops, there will be fury in the streets as families lose benefits. And just think of how mad women will be who do know how to function in the workplace...as they are dissed and dismissed and told to go home. There will be winger pressure on corporations to hire only men for highly responsible jobs. .

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Women will lose ALL rights, hard fought for, since the 40s, 50s

Expand full comment
Emma Goldman's avatar

Nice it would set up a red wave.

Expand full comment
Nancy Brewster's avatar

Collins snd Manchin both owe their constituents and their party a huge debt. They had to have known that this would happen. The rest of us certainly did. Shame on them both if they refuse to clean up this enormous disaster they have created.

Expand full comment
Dewey Funkhouser's avatar

You are correct, but they will not do that. It is not in their thought process.

Expand full comment
Nancy Brewster's avatar

You also are correct. What the should do and what they WILL do are diametrically opposed.

Expand full comment
Laura Warner's avatar

I think Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett should be removed for perjuring themselves.

Expand full comment
Marsha's avatar

I’m sick of Manchin especially. I have no knowledge that he’s coordinating with Republicans, but he couldn’t have hurt President Biden any worse that he has. On Build Back Better & For the People Manchin sabotaged the Biden Agenda, the Democratic Party & the American people. He needs to lose his Chairmanship of Energy.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

Just be careful about the term Build Back BEtter as it is , foremost, associated with the hopes of those who want to enforce the NWO. Be very careful.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

America cannot continue on the path republicans are trying to get Americans on…their new world order…sounds like sci-fi…

Expand full comment
Patrick Daniels aka Cromulent1's avatar

Sadly, the goings-on by the SCOTUS this week are reversing the progress of the past 100 years of this Republic!!

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

I was referring to the oen also known as The Great Reset which involves some prominent Americans as well as notables from literally all over the world. Scary times.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Will do a little research-sounds like the 50s ..thanks

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jun 25, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

i did not expect the outpouring of replies to me and my head is spinning. Do not recall writing penguin, or did I misspell something but Great Reset can be found by connecting with Dr. Mercola's website toll free number and they can tell you how to find his writings which are proving to be correct. Each post he has, daily, is up for two days before he has to remove it. Urge you to do that. Thanks and Thanks for writing to me!

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jun 25, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

Your choice. It is interesting, though, how correct he is turning out to be. But I have signed off for the evening.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

My infromation was largely gleaned from a dear friend from high school years with whom I am still in close contact. She first learned of all this going on from Dr. Mercola who has a daily online column and all this began coming out during the pandemic. He still has a daily column that can be read online but is "removed" after day 2. Suggset you find his site with phone number and they can tell you how to get caught up on all this and he is one of a quite large group are doing their best to sound the alarm. As a reitired RN I have found him to be totally honest and careful with his research. Suggest you connect with his toll free number to get conencted if you wish to learn more.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jun 25, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

NWO = new world order

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

nwo=new world order

Expand full comment
Eric Coates's avatar

I think that Chris is asking what New World Order that might be. We have had, after all, so many of them.

Expand full comment
Ellen Lawson's avatar

The one that goes by the name of The Great Reset

Expand full comment
Louise Janelle's avatar

Susan's a liar.

Expand full comment
Diane B's avatar

Well she’s a Republican, so most definitely. And an idiot.

Expand full comment
P A BAKER's avatar

Sure as heck not as gullible as she presents herself

Expand full comment
Tim Luebbert's avatar

There are four justices that need to be held accountable for lying to the senate. Thomas should be impeached.

Expand full comment
M McConlogue's avatar

I think they should do it. They'd better because the other option is the sex police will make their own law of the land.

Expand full comment
Vicki Behrens's avatar

Especially since the self-appointed police force can open carry.

Expand full comment