Does Schumer get dizzy with all that bowing and scraping to Rs?

Looking for crumbs that might fall off the table.

and that's what he meant

why is anyone outraged about this.

by the way, i knew this without even clicking on this link. it's just the sensible think for Schumer to want.

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2016, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Or are you just sprouting anti D nonsense?

Google his position when Netanyahu pulled that crap against the President by appearing before Congress.

I'm from NY and am not unfamiliar with Schumer.

Than I would like, but it is just one position in keeping with the state he represents.

I'm finding it impossible to remember him rolling over for them unless he had literally no other choice.

who are STRONGLY supportive of Israel. That's his job and why we elected him. That's not rolling over for the pubs. Try again.

And that includes most Jewish New Yorkers.

BUT that is NOT rolling over for the pubbies. That's not airing our differences when the choice was already made. You said he's ALWAYS been too weak against the pubs and I asked for examples. This is the only thing you can come up with to make your point? That would make for a strange definition of ALWAYS.

to back up your ALWAYS.

And in my book, OFTEN is too much.

Often or always - doesn't really matter since YOU conveyed you have oodles of examples. I asked for more than 1 (as did other posters) and now you're laying it on us to google rather than back up your post. That's pretty pathetic.

but one bullshit example that doesn't really prove a thing. Just what I suspected. I couldn't really ask for better confirmation than you throwing it back on others to do YOUR work for you. YOU made the charge, it's up to YOU to back it up.

was not a good start. He should want just as many hearings on the Russians hack the election as the repugs held on Benghazi.

Be strong about it, no soft-peddling.

It was OBVIOUS he meant it shouldn't be another bullshit, partisan 14 investigations to find absolutely nothing hearing. He wants an ACTUAL hearing - not the bullshit we got from the the benghazi imbeciles. So fucking obvious to anyone without a pathetic anti-democratic agenda, that is.

I can and will make my opinions known when I disagree.

I've seen your screen name many times and I've sure you've seen mine. I've agreed with you on some issues and disagreed on others but never went gutter-level by saying you have an anti-democratic agenda.

If you don't want pushback, don't make unsupportable accusations against a senator. That doesn't seem to be much to ask.

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2016, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

To meet YOUR expectations on ONE issue that has nothing to do with the GOP.

HA

IMO that's a pretty good indication of what we're in store for.

I hope I'm wrong and he leads the Dems to use the filibuster.

including most Jewish New Yorkers, were against the nasty, unprecedented repug/Netayahu insult of President Obama.

IMO, not a good resume item for a Dem leader.

And as for others, you can google, right?

But you are twisting it into something else entirely.
That's as honest as the "always" crap.

Since you think this one thing makes him sooo very always bad!

Shumer will be tested. Let's see it he has it in him to lead the Dems to use the filibuster against Trump's agenda.

I hope so, but IMO, "not wanting this to become another Benghazi" was not a good start, a poor choice of words.

Hell, I want as many hearings on this as the repugs held on Benghazi. It's that important and shouldn't be soft-peddled.

Get to the real issue of Schumer not coming out strongly in favor of investigating the Russian hacking thoroughly.

If he meant he wanted it out of the House, say that, not some wishy-washy "I don't want it to become another Benghazi" bs which can be easily misunderstood.

2) they'll find actual wrongdoing.

Group is better at handling this, than house committees chaired by republicans??

If the Russians installing their chosen candidate into the White House, what does it fu_king take for him to want a full-scale investigation like Watergate?

He bears watching.

Forget like Benghazi though, as that was nothing but a repug, showboat scam they kept going to damage Hillary.

and not an obvious bullshit partisan waste of everyone's time.

And he's right.

We really need him to conquer his tendency to cave and use the filibuster like the repugs did when the big SCOTUS votes come up.

and we're more than likely to lose seats. Most of the House seats are so gerrymandered as to be safe. We should be focusing more on state level races in 2018 IMO. Not as "sexy", but very important, and more likely to be successful.

Nice fantasy, though. The whole lot of them in Gitmo getting waterboarded would suit me just fine.

why dems can't have nice things.

Because the Democrats are just supposed to take it and take it and take it, and never dish it out? Are we even sure that he's really a Democrat?

Way to make our party completely irrelevent.

the core lessons from the attack.

I don't want the Russia Inquiry turning into the Benghazi Investigation either.

if they're in the minority?

And, Benghazi was a Bullshit scandal in the first place - one investigation was justified because an ambassador died, but not anything more than that. But, 8 or 9 investigations was just to rile up their base and drag Clinton's name through the mud each time.

but it won't carry the authority of the Senate or House. I'm assuming that means they won't have subpoena power. McConnell and Ryan have said they want to look into the problem though.

Do you not see the difference? Allow Hillary and President Obama to explain it to you.

Thoroughly disappointed in this.

Is this our best advocate? Schumer?

FUCK!!!