I really hope what she has to say is "In hindsight, I sure was wrong about having a private email server and using it for government work. I don't know why, but it took me until Elon Musk started running private servers at government offices to realize that only fully vetted government servers should be used on government networks."
Does Musk have a security clearance? Has he accessed documents for programs that he hasn't been read in? I would go to jail if I did the latter. Our country's security is being compromised and no one is doing anything.
You mean the Hillary Clinton who said that it was okay to have different public versus private opinions on things, as an elected official, who got PAID to give speeches to wall Street, who used her influence to get the apparatchiks of the party to tip the scales in 2016 to ensure that SHE would be the nominee instead of an anti neo liberal who could have put up an amazing contrast to djt instead of her neoliberal centrism? The one who insisted that SHE needed to be president, and who very much helped us to get into the situation we find ourselves in today?
Oh, cool. I am very much interested in what she has to say, because of course she holds the interests of the country above her own
who said that it was okay to have different public versus private opinions on things, as an elected official
I mean, I actually agree with this in theory. An elected official may not personally agree with something, even if they’re willing to vote it in. That’s just the nature of politics, because a representative should actually represent the people who voted them in, even if they don’t agree with every single fine detail. Sure, it’s worth examining whether their private opinions are affecting their public voting record. But at least in theory, there’s nothing wrong with voting differently than what your personal opinion would dictate.
For instance, what if a closeted racist gets voted in, but votes for DEI initiatives because it’s what their voter base would want? Sure, that’s a rare example, but it would be possible and should even be encouraged in that instance. In practice, it’s more likely that the closeted racist would get elected and then try to enact racist policies that align with their racist views. But at least on paper, the idea of “representatives shouldn’t have to agree with every single thing they vote for” is sound.
This is great. Yes, I hate Hillary with the white hot heat of seven suns too.
We need anyone with influence to be shining a light on this. She will reach a portion of the people that aren’t following reason. Hell, I applauded Joe fucking Rogan for a critical piece on Trump.
Oh he’s awful alright. He’s a notoriously soft interviewer who gives his large platform to misinformation, but he also pressed Trump over “having the election stolen,” and agreed to disagree.
That doesn’t mean anything to you or me, but it may add uncertainty to a brain dead Rogan/Trump follower.
It's interesting how no matter what level of depravity the Republicans are doing currently and how many news outlets are talking about it ad naseum, Microwave always finds the angles that pit progressives against liberals and centrists. He's more transparent than Kanye's date's dress at the grammys.
Hmm gee why would anyone post articles that are vaguely negative about the Democratic establishment. Right now they're fighting the blatent corruption going on in our country by doing:
Don't forget all the things they did to protect federal workers like:
But of course you can't forget the ways they got popular policy enacted when their man was in office. Policy like:
It could be that Microwave is seeking such takes out because he's trying to control the conversation in that way, or it could be that such takes are the easiest to find because the mainstream media is trying to control the conversation in that way.