[Discussion] Welcome to the Biden Administration!

Anything related to Biden and his upcoming administration. May this thread be less active and controversial as that last guys thread.

Though to be fair, most Dem state parties nationwide have mostly given up on more rural areas.
The MN DFL is sort of attempting to fix that, but it will take a bunch of work.

I am in support of Democratic grass roots everywhere. It is the only way to prevent the constant seesaw of finally gaining back majorities only to turn them back over in 2-4 years and dealing with the ensuing 10-20 years of oppression, judgment, illogic and hate.

You’re not wrong, OG, but if it helps there’s some glimmers of hope. I worked in the same network as a bunch explicitly, aggressively anticapitalist Appalachians back before Redneck Revolt crumbled, and they definitely expressed hope in gaining ground in WV.

Btw, the messaging to rope in poor rural Appalachian whites to the left is both super simple and also functionally impossible: abandon gun control advocacy.

Their only hope in some of these red states would be a ban on Fox News and Facebook to deprogram the GQP base.

Stele wrote:

Their only hope in some of these red states would be a ban on Fox News and Facebook to deprogram the GQP base.

I am pretty sure in 50 years when historians in India and/or China discuss the fall of the US that Facebook will be cited as a major factor. Heck it might get its own chapter.

There are already some good books on the effects of the Republican media manipulations on US politics, Farley. Not like it's a secret... They are proud of it. Heck, Frank Luntz is appalled by what was done with his work but he's still doing focus groups.

West Virginia is also tied financially and historically to coal and the Republican Party there has been really successful in tying the decline of the industry with the environmentalists in the Democratic Party

True, but you can't really compare Luntz's focus groups and rebranding the estate tax the 'death tax' to the type of micro targeting and manipulation Cambridge Analytica did on Facebook. Luntz is a medieval barber letting blood compared to the brain surgery CA was doing.

That’s right, OG, but he was the first one to weaponize language on a systematic basis in American politics, with his memo to Republican members of Congress on how to methodically demonize Democrats. This was back in the early 90’s.

Language has always been weaponized in politics, Robear.

Dewey dropped the 'ic' on the Democratic Party in 1940, a practice that was continued by Leonard Hall, the RNC Chairman in the 50s, because Hall thought "...their claims that they represent the great mass of the people, and we don't, is just a lot of bunk."

McCarthy openly referred to the Democratic Party as the 'Commiecrats' in 1950.

In 1981 Lee Atwater explained the art of dog whistling and how Republicans could be as racist as they wanted to be...just as long as they didn't openly say the n-word.

Reagan branded the entire government as being not just bad, but patently unhelpful, and painted all Black people as grifters who were stealing from honest, hardworking Whites.

Luntz is just one spin doctor in a long line of spin doctors. He just happened to be attached to Newt Gingrich when he was at the peak of his political power. That GOPAC memo was written because Gingrich was embarrassed by how bad Republicans sounded in interviews, not as part of a master plan to demonize Democrats.

I mean the memo itself it was a very crude form of media training: use positive and active words to describe what you (and the GOP) are doing and "contrasting" words for your political opponents. And Luntz's words for Democrats didn't exactly break new ground. They just trod on well-established political tropes: welfare, unions, spending, taxes, waste, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's always been people in campaigns and administrations who's job it is to help market the candidate and their policies. Luntz was one of them.

But his impact pales in comparison to the effect that Fox News had or what's possible now on social media. I mean CRT literally went from nothing to thousands and thousands of mentions a month in the conservative media bubble in the blink of an eye. It's that targeted spread and relentless repetition that matters most, not the guy who came up with a catchy turn of phrase.

We are feeling the pain of the inadequacy of the 2-party system. Dems are centrist if you want to be generous, so the issue of the government or parties no longer representing the people is apt. Power is so out of touch, and frightened. And they should be! They're outdated, stale, stagnant, and unwanted by many so they're ratchet-affecting their way towards fascism trying to maintain order that they're mistaking for balance that weighs heavily in their favor regardless of outcome.

Impassioned Biden signs order on abortion access

AP News wrote:

President Joe Biden on Friday condemned the “extreme” Supreme Court majority that ended a constitutional right to abortion and delivered an impassioned plea for Americans upset by the decision to “vote, vote, vote vote” in November. Under mounting pressure from fellow Democrats to be more forceful in response to the ruling, he signed an executive order to try to protect access to the procedure.

The actions Biden outlined are intended to head off some potential penalties that women seeking abortion may face after the ruling, but his order cannot restore access to abortion in the more than a dozen states where strict limits or total bans have gone into effect. About a dozen more states are set to impose additional restrictions.

Biden acknowledged the limitations facing his office, saying it would require an act of Congress to restore nationwide access to the way it was before the June 24 decision.

“The fastest way to restore Roe is to pass a national law,” Biden said. “The challenge is go out and vote. For God’s sake there is an election in November!”

Biden’s action formalized instructions to the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to push back on efforts to limit the ability of women to access federally approved abortion medication or to travel across state lines to access clinical abortion services. He was joined by Vice President Kamala Harris, HHS secretary Xavier Becerra and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco in the Roosevelt Room as he signed the order.

His executive order also directs agencies to work to educate medical providers and insurers about how and when they are required to share privileged patient information with authorities — an effort to protect women who seek or obtain abortion services. He is also asking the Federal Trade Commission to take steps to protect the privacy of those seeking information about reproductive care online and establish a task force to coordinate federal efforts to safeguard access to abortion.

Biden is also directing his staff to line up volunteer lawyers to provide women and providers with pro bono legal assistance to help them navigate new state restrictions.

The order comes as Biden has faced criticism from some in his own party for not acting with more urgency to protect women’s access to abortion. The court’s decision in the case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Since the decision, Biden has stressed that his ability to protect abortion rights by executive action is limited without congressional action, and stressed that Democrats do not have the votes in the current Congress to do so.

“We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house to codify Roe,” he said. “Your vote can make that a reality.”

Biden for the first time last week announced his support for changing Senate rules to allow a measure to restore nationwide access to abortion to pass by simple majority, rather than the usual 60-vote threshold required to end a filibuster. However, at least two Democratic lawmakers have made clear they won’t support changing Senate rules.

It's something but not really enough.

He could set up clinics on federal lands, or allow civilians access to military bases for treatment. Even USPS, for the drugs, cannot be interfered with by the states. He could guarantee access to meds in every state.

Stele wrote:

It's something but not really enough.

He could set up clinics on federal lands, or allow civilians access to military bases for treatment. Even USPS, for the drugs, cannot be interfered with by the states. He could guarantee access to meds in every state.

He'll only do that if you vote, vote, vote for Democrats in November.

Stele wrote:

It's something but not really enough.

He could set up clinics on federal lands, or allow civilians access to military bases for treatment. Even USPS, for the drugs, cannot be interfered with by the states. He could guarantee access to meds in every state.

Since 1980 the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the use of any federal funds to pay for abortions. Having the federal government set up abortion clinics on federal land would be using federal funds to pay for abortions.

It would serve no purpose to allow civilians access to military bases for treatment because 10 USC 1093 explicitly prohibits the DoD from using any of the funds allocated to it to provide abortions. Soldiers themselves can't get abortions on military bases. They have to get them through a 3rd-party, their Tricare insurance, and the procedure has to be done at a private facility.

Back in December the Biden administration had the FDA change its regulations to allow abortion pills, specifically mifepristone, to be prescribed through telehealth consultations with providers and mailed to patients in states where permitted by law. Previously women had to pick up the pills in-person.

The "where permitted by law" is the kicker because conservative state legislatures have been busy figuring out ways to make the Biden administration's changes moot, such as by forcing women to have to physically come to a doctor and require the drug be taken in front of them:

Washington Post wrote:

Loosening the federal restrictions will not change abortion access in many states with stricter regulations on the pills. Nineteen states have banned receiving the drugs through telehealth appointments, making the relaxed FDA rules irrelevant in places including Alabama, Arizona and Missouri. Some states impose other limitations on medication abortion, including allowing only physicians to prescribe the drug and mandating that patients take the pills under a doctor’s supervision rather than at home.

As federal officials have moved to ease restrictions on the drug, many states have tightened access. At least 16 states have proposed new restrictions on medication abortions this year, said Elizabeth Nash, state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute.

“State legislatures have been watching very carefully what happens at the federal level,” Nash said.

The highest-profile limitations were enacted in Texas, where lawmakers made it a felony to provide abortion pills after seven weeks of pregnancy and outlawed sending the drugs through the mail. Texas also banned nearly all abortion within the state by making any form of abortion illegal after about six weeks of pregnancy, though that law is being challenged in the courts.

So, no, Biden can't magically guarantee access to medication in all states or even declare that states can't interfere with abortion medication delivered through the mail. Because its not spelled out in existing legislation the battle has to be fought in the courts.

Back in June Sen. Warren and two dozen Senate Democrats wrote Biden a letter outlining the actions they wanted him to take to defend abortion rights.

They included the following:

-- Increase access to medication abortion.
-- Explore opportunities to provide resources for individuals seeking abortion care in other states, such as vouchers for travel, childcare, etc.
-- Establish an HHS ombudsman that would analyze HHS data about access to reproductive services and educate the public about said services.
-- Enforce Medicaid's "Free Choice of Provider" requirement that lets women to seek family planning services from their provider of choice.
-- Clarify protections for health and location information.
-- Analyze the types of reproductive health services that could be provided on federal property.

How does that list stack up with Biden's EO?

For increasing access to medication abortion Biden's EO orders just that: the HHS should protect and expand access to abortion care, including medication abortions, and to protect and expand access to the full range of reproductive healthcare services, including actions to enhance family planning services such as access to emergency contraception.

For providing resources for people seeking care in other states Biden's EO has the Attorney General jumpstart a nationwide group of pro bono attorneys and public interest organizations to represent and assist people seeking reproductive care, the providers of that care, and related third parties. Providing voucher or money is very likely going to slam directly into the Hyde Amendment and will absolutely, 100% be challenged by the anti-abortion crowd.

While not specifically creating an ombudsman Biden's EO does order the HHS to increase outreach and education about access to reproductive healthcare services, such as sharing information about how to obtain free or reduced cost healthcare services through Health Resources and Services Administration-Funded Health Centers, Title X clinics, and other providers, promoting awareness of and access to the full range of contraceptive services (know-your-rights campaign), and ensuring that women receive the full protection for emergence medical care afforded under the law (specifically the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395dd).

For privacy protection Biden's EO orders the FTC to protect consumers' privacy when seeking information about and provision of reproductive healthcare services. It also orders the FTC to join with the Attorney General to consider options to address deceptive or fraudulent practices related to reproductive healthcare services, including online, and to protect access to accurate information. The EO has HHS looking for ways to strengthen and clarify privacy protections under HIPAA and joining forces the the Attorney General to educate consumers about how to protect their health privacy.

Biden's EO goes further and requires the AG and the Department of Homeland Security to get together and figure out ways to protect patients, doctors, clinics, pharmacies, etc. from the pro-life crazies who have already shown they'll kill and destroy property to get their way.

The only item of Warren's letter not specifically addressed is looking into what services might be provided on federal lands, but Biden's EO does call on the HHS to create an interagency federal task force to "identify and coordinate activities to protect and strengthen access to essential reproductive healthcare services" and "coordinate Federal interagency policymaking, program development, and outreach efforts to address barriers that individuals and entities may face in seeking and providing reproductive healthcare services."

Again, the Hyde Amendment explicitly forbids federal money to be spent on abortion, so the best this might be is giving private reproductive healthcare clinics a sweet deal (within law) on a lease of federal lands. That's something I'd expect the HHS Secretary to work out with the interagency task force.

So, as much as the current feeling on this forum is to mock calls by Democrats to contribute to election campaigns and vote for Democratic candidates, the only real solution to SCOTUS's decision is exactly what Biden said: "We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house to codify Roe." People are too busy hating the player when they should be hating the game, which requires at least 50 Senators.

Hell, y'all just slept on the fact that Biden--for the first time ever--threw his support behind ditching the filibuster to protect abortion rights.

OG_slinger wrote:

So, as much as the current feeling on this forum is to mock calls by Democrats to contribute to election campaigns and vote for Democratic candidates, the only real solution to SCOTUS's decision is exactly what Biden said: "We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house to codify Roe." People are too busy hating the player when they should be hating the game, which requires at least 50 Senators.

Hell, y'all just slept on the fact that Biden--for the first time ever--threw his support behind ditching the filibuster to protect abortion rights.

While I'm not shooting down that the EO is a nice step, explain to me how Manchin and Sinema got to be Senators again? I mean, they were both Democrats and were voted in because the options available were supposedly even worse.

So, this all just goes back to the argument of saying put the right people in the right positions, but if we need two pro-choice senators and a pro-choice house.

Where are our options for those candidates and has the Democratic party really put their support behind those candidates in the past? Now that it is a hot button issue, now we'll see this type of support, but was it really there in the past?

This isn't saying not to vote, this isn't ignoring what has been done already, but just saying "we need pro-choice senators" is the same message as "vote blue" in my mind.

Also, this bit from Kate Bedingfield is super cool to hear:

"“Joe Biden’s goal in responding to Dobbs is not to satisfy some activists who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party. It’s to deliver help to women who are in danger and assemble a broad-based coalition to defend a woman’s right to choose now, just as he assembled such a coalition to win during the 2020 campaign,”

IMAGE(https://y.yarn.co/23980bb5-b52e-49f6-9e0e-c6a6c6774cf9_text.gif)

CptDomano wrote:

While I'm not shooting down that the EO is a nice step, explain to me how Manchin and Sinema got to be Senators again? I mean, they were both Democrats and were voted in because the options available were supposedly even worse.

Manchin worked his way up the West Virginia state legislature, serving both in the House and Senate. He served over 20 years there before he became Secretary of State in 2003 and Governor in 2005. When Sen. Byrd died in 2010 Manchin won the special election for the seat and has held it since then.

In that first special election for the US Senate seat Manchin's only Democratic challenger was a former US Representative who had last served as West Virginia's Secretary of State from the mid-80s to 2001. He was 95 at the time.

Manchin was primaried in 2018 by Paula Jean Swearengin, an anti-mining activist. Swearengin lost the primary to Machin by 40 points. (Swearengin then ran for West Virginia's other Senate seat in 2020 and lost by 43 points. She then left the Democratic Party in 2021, joining the People's Party, and left that a year later after a internal purge happened when the head of the party, Nick Brana, was accused of sexual harassment and then claimed that liberals were trying to take over the party.) Manchin squeaked out a win in the 2018, defeating his Republican challenger by less than 20,000 votes.

Manchin's up for re-election in 2024. No word on if he's going to be primaried or by who.

Sinema mostly followed in Manchin's footsteps. She first ran for the Arizona House in 2002 under the Arizona Green Party and only won 8% of the vote. She switched to the Democratic Party in 2004 and defeated a Democratic incumbent. She then served the Arizona House for three terms. She then successfully ran for state Senate in 2010.

During that term she decided to go national and campaigned for the US House in 2012 and won that seat. She became the first openly bisexual person and second openly LGBT woman in Congress. She won the next two elections, running unopposed by any Democrats. She drifted away from her Green Party origins in Congress, joining the moderate Blue Dog Coalition and a bi-partisan group called the Problem Solvers Caucus.

In 2018 she ran for Senate after Republican Jeff Flake announced he wasn't going to run again (Flake, referring to Trump and the MAGA crowd, said "there may not be a place for a Republican like me in the current Republican climate or the current Republican Party.").

Sinema largely ignored her Democratic challenger, defeating her by nearly 60 points in the primary, and went on the win the general election.

My understanding is that the political image Sinema crafted was much more progressive than how she ended up voting and that pissed a lot of people off.

The latest polls have her with a 25% approval rating *among Democratic voters* in Arizona and show her losing in at least four theoretical head-to-head match with Democratic challengers. The Arizona Democratic Party moved to censure her and, already, large Democratic donors are openly saying they will back primary challengers.

Unless something radical changes, Sinema will get primaried in 2024 and very likely lose.

CptDomano wrote:

Where are our options for those candidates and has the Democratic party really put their support behind those candidates in the past? Now that it is a hot button issue, now we'll see this type of support, but was it really there in the past?

That's a whole separate, but very important, discussion because it involves the competing priorities (and resource constraints) of the DNC and all the state Democratic Parties. State parties want investment and support to develop deep candidate benches that could pay off down the road and the national party is looking for the best races to spend time and money on *now* (and, a lot of the time, that means effectively abandoning deep red districts).

CptDomano wrote:

Also, this bit from Kate Bedingfield is super cool to hear:

"“Joe Biden’s goal in responding to Dobbs is not to satisfy some activists who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party. It’s to deliver help to women who are in danger and assemble a broad-based coalition to defend a woman’s right to choose now, just as he assembled such a coalition to win during the 2020 campaign,”

Bedingfield got the "she's leaving to spend more time with her family" treatment over the weekend so that gives you some sense of how Biden feels about her statement. Doubly so because she's been on Biden's comm team since 2015.

Biden admin looks to protect doctors providing emergency abortions, and warn those who don't

Politico wrote:

The Biden administration released updated guidance on Monday, reminding doctors around the country that they’re protected by federal law if they terminate a patient’s pregnancy as part of treatment in an emergency circumstance — and threatening to fine or strip the Medicare status from hospitals that fail to do so.

The action, announced just over two weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, comes in response to reports of widespread confusion in states that have enacted bans about when doctors can perform abortions without risking prosecution. It’s one of many demands that progressive activists and lawmakers have made of the administration in recent weeks.

“Providers are mystified right now about what they can and can’t do,” NARAL President Mini Timmaraju told POLITICO, citing reports she has heard of patients being turned away.

The text of the federal law in question — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA for short — is not changing, a senior health official told reporters on a call on Monday. But the new guidance around it seeks to provide clarity and assurances to health care providers about whether they can treat serious medical conditions related to pregnancy, including ectopic pregnancy, hypertension and preeclampsia under some states’ increasingly restrictive laws.

“Today, in no uncertain terms, we are reinforcing that we expect providers to continue offering these services, and that federal law preempts state abortion bans when needed for emergency care,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Under the law, no matter where you live, women have the right to emergency care — including abortion care.”

Notably, the administration’s memo reminds hospitals and individual doctors that EMTALA violations carry stiff penalties — including fines and, potentially, termination from the Medicare program. It also emphasizes that the federal law protecting doctors’ ability to provide an abortion under those circumstances trumps any state ban and seeks to give doctors wide latitude to use their medical judgment on what constitutes an emergency.

RE the Hyde Amendment.

Elie Mystal was where I got those suggestions from a recent video. But he wrote an article when the draft dropped, see link.

And even the Hyde has exceptions for rape and incest. The GOP state laws appear to be violating it so f*ck em.

Everything is cool. Keep voting Democrat you'll get awesome people like this who absolutely have the best interests of Americans at the top of their prioriy list. Clearly Manchin was the best candidate to choose from at the time

But hey, he'll probably be voted out in 2024, so we'll only have to deal with this type of obstruction for the next two years.

EDIT: Just to be clear, despite my opposition to the Democratic party, I am also not someone who will not vote or throw my vote away. This is not apathy about voting, it is just expressing frustration about the inadequacy of a two party system where neither party really represents the will of the people.

The Republican Party absolutely represents the will of some people. They're just assholes.

Mixolyde wrote:

The Republican Party absolutely represents the will of some people. They're just assholes.

Ah, fair point.

Manchin torpedoes Democrats' hopes for passing sweeping climate action and tax hikes

It just isn't working when one person can prevent what the majority of Americans want. That isn't democracy.

I think that's the story CptDomano meant to link. Instead he just linked back to this page of the thread.

NSMike wrote:

I think that's the story CptDomano meant to link. Instead he just linked back to this page of the thread. :D

LOL oh god yep, that's exactly what happened. Trying to post from my phone instead of a computer was maybe not the best thing to do.

EDIT: Huh. When I edited the post, it has the link going to a Washington Post article about it, but something must have gone screwy when I posted it?

farley3k wrote:

Manchin torpedoes Democrats' hopes for passing sweeping climate action and tax hikes

It just isn't working when one person can prevent what the majority of Americans want. That isn't democracy.

I mean...

The Congressional Oath of Office wrote:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If everyone who violated that oath didn't get to keep their seats in Congress anymore, things might be very different, but we barely even bother to pay lip service to it anymore.

But to your point, it's not "one person" preventing the majority of what Americans want. It's a couple people, plus an entire political party determined to bring down our Democracy and replace it with a system where they have absolute control over everything without dealing with pesky things like "public opinion" or "voters".

Manchin's a convenient scapegoat, a selfish prick, and a terrible person, and it's appropriate to hate him for playing Lucy And The Football on this. But he's not the real problem here, and we all know it - that would be the fact that the people that control literally half of the Senate are trying to overthrow our entire government, and we're basically just stuck sitting here and waiting for it to happen.

Keldar wrote:

Manchin's a convenient scapegoat, a selfish prick, and a terrible person, and it's appropriate to hate him for playing Lucy And The Football on this. But he's not the real problem here, and we all know it - that would be the fact that the people that control literally half of the Senate are trying to overthrow our entire government, and we're basically just stuck sitting here and waiting for it to happen.

I think the real problem is the system. The idea that people representing way less than half the people in a supposed democracy can do this shows (to me) that the system was flawed from the get go. And I honest don't assign malic or incompetence to them - the founding fathers (oh how I hate that term) simply couldn't imagine a world like it is exists now. They just didn't have a frame of reference.

I have seen a few comments in other places saying that Jefferson thought the Constitution should be re-written or at least revised every 20 years or so because things change. He was right. It needs changing especially the rules for the Senate. However lots and lots of people are deeply entrenched in seeing things stay this way and I don't think they will change without revolution.

farley3k wrote:

It just isn't working when one person can prevent what the majority of Americans want. That isn't democracy.

51 senators are blocking this. Manchin is one of them. Many of them are easier to replace than Manchin is, especially this year. I'm particularly annoyed that the committed anti-vaxer Ron Johnson is ahead in early polling, although Wisconsin does have a late primary so the campaign hasn't really started.

Yes, this is another "keep voting" post. I know you all love these. I can't guarantee that "everything will be fine" if you do, but I can guarantee that there is no possibility that anything will be fine if Democratic-leaning voters stop turning out.

Oh, I doubt sincerely that my vote will make a difference in replacing Chuck Assface -- I mean, Grassley. I'm still going to vote, but I've been trying to vote out this disgraceful waste since I moved here in '96 to no avail so far.

farley3k wrote:
Keldar wrote:

Manchin's a convenient scapegoat, a selfish prick, and a terrible person, and it's appropriate to hate him for playing Lucy And The Football on this. But he's not the real problem here, and we all know it - that would be the fact that the people that control literally half of the Senate are trying to overthrow our entire government, and we're basically just stuck sitting here and waiting for it to happen.

I think the real problem is the system. The idea that people representing way less than half the people in a supposed democracy can do this shows (to me) that the system was flawed from the get go. And I honest don't assign malic or incompetence to them - the founding fathers (oh how I hate that term) simply couldn't imagine a world like it is exists now. They just didn't have a frame of reference.

I have seen a few comments in other places saying that Jefferson thought the Constitution should be re-written or at least revised every 20 years or so because things change. He was right. It needs changing especially the rules for the Senate. However lots and lots of people are deeply entrenched in seeing things stay this way and I don't think they will change without revolution.

I advocated using some... less then legal means of Biden whipping his own party into line to get the changes we needed, while denying the changes the R's were trying to make, somewhere else. The results weren't pretty.

I am of the firm mind that most of the Democratic party at the national level has sold us out in exchange for golden parachutes and safety for them and their families. I was laughed at. Presidents in the past, Lincoln, Wilson, etc have used sharp elbows and very creative tools to get what they wanted in times of national crisis.

The fact remains that Biden and his band have a multitude of legal tools he could use at even this late junction to blunt and even reverse this course our nation is on. I brought up the idea of using RICO laws to unravel the Jan 6 conspiracy, and even against the GOP itself. The Republicans commit crimes against our country in broad daylight and the Democrats expect us to believe the only way we can empower them to do anything is vote and donate.

Its laughable.

Its not all bad news though. When the impact of the laws being passed and the edicts passed down are fully felt, I think its going to make things hot for the GOP.