I was looking, and I can’t find the part where she fired people on television to humiliate them.
AKA Catch-22 for all the Heller fans out there!
according to someone who saw it happen, though the staffer said the senator did not intend to hit anyone with the binder when she threw it.
Neither does a toddler, but most people grow out of being a toddler sometime before their 50’s. I don’t know if these abusive bosses think they’re being “tough” or they just lack impulse control, but they come off like overgrown spoiled brats throwing temper tantrums. You’re not impressing anyone with your lack of self-control, you’re just throwing away your dignity.
If these allegations are true, she should not be the Democratic nominee. We don’t need another damn overgrown child in the White House.
Ah, yes, that excuse also works when you’re three.
I agree, abusive bosses are soft. A truly tough person doesn’t need to throw temper tantrums in lieu of good leadership.
If these allegations are true - and she absolutely deserves an impartial investigation, but I refuse to simply ignore the staffers making allegations of abuse - she’s unfit for office. Shit-canning Al Franken was the correct move in every way. Double-standards are unethical and perpetuating bully culture is toxic. Everyone who commits abuse needs to be held to account.
Emulating Republicans’ lack of standards of character is not the way forward. Nor is rushing to judgement. If Senator Klobuchar really does abuse her staff, she is the wrong nominee.
I don’t like all of her policies, and people should definitely sleuth out what’s happening there.
But it should also happen for the jerks responsible for here:
(Images From The NY Times) we have a lot of choices. I wouldn’t freak out too much at this point about one of them being kind of a jerk.
It’s totally de rigueur for Democrats in the congress to support any war initiatives of a Democrat in the WH. Klobuchar is no different.
Wake me when we get some Democrats who are interested in taking the war powers back from the Presidency. It’s pretty damn irritating to have to give a half hearted cheer for Rand Paul for occasionally mentioning this.
Adults learn to keep a supply of Snickers Bars handy.
Now step back and ask what possible value is there is following the example set by the recent Republican nomination process? I reject your thesis based on real world results, it has only been shown to be destructive for the Republican party and our government institutions. If this didn’t work for their party, why on Earth should the liberal institutions copy the model? There is absolutely no good reason to continue the norm. We do not need to tear each other down in order to win, this simply gives in to our worst base instincts.
As I stated I have no reason to defend any particular candidate. But if all this site has to add is amplifying negative stories about progressive politicians, then there needs to be serious thought about the common mission. While I understand the need for news sources reporting on candidates suitability, I do not see this media platforms value in simply amplifying negative stories directed towards progressive candidates.
Put simply, if you’re the guy in the scene that has nothing more to add then negative opinions on everyone else, then frankly you aren’t adding anything of value. This wasn’t interested in starting or continuing a discussion, it simply amplified a (clearly) political hit piece. It’s simply destructive by nature, and therefore has limited value to the collective movement. If this is all we have left to add then it’s time for a real conversation about our objectives.
Yep. The senate has effectively given up its veto with the ongoing AUMFs, and The house gave up its veto a lot longer ago. Up until WW2, the US maintained a peacetime standing army of 3-5% the manpower it would use in a war. This core would train a new army when a war was started, but the President had to get funding from the house before he could put the army on a wartime footing. We’ve been on a constant wartime footing since then, so the House gave up its veto to the eternal war party.
No one has to do anything special to follow their example. The process is already set up to be horse-racey. If Democratic candidates don’t show any public fight, then groups of voters won’t see them as good proxies in the fights they want them to have.
Evangelicals backed godless Trump, because they knew he was a good attack dog who could bloody the noses of the people they don’t like.
Progressive voters will ultimately show up for anyone who looks like they can get a good thing done, and that will be someone who has gotten in the news enough for the voters to recognize them passing challenges. People didn’t challenge Lincoln Chafee very much. I don’t think that helped him.
…the common mission…
…the collective movement…
…it’s time for a real conversation about our objectives.
It’s people considering candidates. A policy of “no hard criticism of our candidates” has never been a political winner ultimately. Hagiography and ignoring problems only soothes egos before an election, it’s not a winning habit.
Put simply, if you’re the guy in the scene that has nothing more to add then negative opinions on everyone else, then frankly you aren’t adding anything of value.
Okay, great, don’t be that guy. I have no idea what positive suggestion you are making. Contesting ideas and candidates in a public forum is currently hard-baked into the system.
shocked shocked to find that gambling is going on in this casino
I agree, it’s a pretty strong list of choices already that “one of them being kind of a jerk” is not that big of a deal. Me, I am more concerned about whether BuzzFeed is doing a good job of verifying their stories, whether this is an actual ratfucking attempt or not, and whether this is as big a deal as some are acting.
There are plenty of people who think she’s a crappy Senator; she’s deep in the pocket of hollywood, terrible on IP issues and environmental ones, she’s a fake progressive, she trots out Veteran issues as her “hey look what I’m doing”, and generally keeps her head down so we don’t notice the nothing she does.
She also never answers queries in a timely fashion, and when she does, it’s completely dismissive and ignores every point about proposed legislation.
She’s got a streak of authoritarianism too.
She certainly seems to be more centrist than my taste - but I doubt she’s very Hollywood in Minnesota - you don’t have many films produced there.
Is this a thing? Is it some metaphor or code for something? What do you mean by this?
She cosponsored and supported PIPA, SOPA, and hung around with Fritz Hollings and Orrin Hatch, two lovers of anti-consumer IP legislation.
That and she takes quite a bit of $ from entertainment concerns.
I see. Thanks.
If it’s porn, you can just say porn.
Ain’t nothing wrong with snowshoe porn