Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties. And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments. At least Romney made his gaffe in private. Clinton put her disdain for the electorate out there for all to see.

I really wish people would start recognizing that they nominated a dud. You could have picked Bernie, you didn't, and you lost. Time to move on. Let's pick a better candidate next time, FFS

None of that stopped Trump though.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Come on. Why do people believe that Bernie would have done better? He was an independent who registered Democrat just for the primary and when he lost, he left the party. Democratic support for him was not there. Why do people believe that the savage presidental campaign would not have ripped him apart? He never felt the brunt of the republican machine. The avowed socialist? Do you think he would have won the debates?

I am trying to see why people think that he would have done any better with the force of Republican party against him.

I really don't know if Sanders would have done better, worse, or the same. It's interesting to think about, but we will never know for sure.

But he was anti-establishment and viewed as authentic in an environment where anti-establishment-ism and authenticity were highly prized. The Democrats picked pretty much a status quo candidate where millions were in the opposite mood.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:


None of that stopped Trump though.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

So I hear Alex Jones is going to get a seat at the White House press table. Take that in for a moment.

I hope this isn't true.

 Vash108 wrote:
So I hear Alex Jones is going to get a seat at the White House press table. Take that in for a moment.

I hope this isn't true.

Isn't he based in Texas? I don't see how he'd have time to crawl out from his tin-foil lined bunker, travel to D.C. to attend press briefings, and still do his show.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Come on. Why do people believe that Bernie would have done better? He was an independent who registered Democrat just for the primary and when he lost, he left the party. Democratic support for him was not there. Why do people believe that the savage presidental campaign would not have ripped him apart? He never felt the brunt of the republican machine. The avowed socialist? Do you think he would have won the debates?

I am trying to see why people think that he would have done any better with the force of Republican party against him.

I think you overestimate what the republicans could've done. What, they would've called him a socialist? Something he's open about and that is part of his appeal? Being genuine, outside the political elite and demanding universal healthcare would weigh a lot more than whatever the people backing the actual Donald J Trump could say. Plus he would've been able to mobilise demographics that otherwise wouldn't vote and that's something the democrats could've used their resources and connections for.

 jasper76 wrote:
Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties.

And Trump is...any better on these counts? A New York Billionaire, who had Clinton at his wedding, who has rubbed shoulders with the likes of Goldman Sachs and other such firms since Hillary Clinton was a nobody, has heavily invested his family in his business empire and is moving through on plans to do so with his government administration, and who tirelessly advocated for military action and even the use of Nuclear weapons "because we have them".

And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments.

While true, it's amusing that Clinton makes the one gaffe like this while Trump makes grossly offensive, false, or incomprehensible statements against vast swathes of the citizenry, media, government leaders (foreign and domestic), including direct personal attacks, in public and on through multiple different channels, on an almost daily basis...but Clinton is the divisive one...

Really?

Can't make that gak up...


Clinton was a turd sandwich, and most people agree on that, I didn't vote for Clinton for many of these exact reasons, but lets be real, on almost all of these counts, from being a Wall Street candidate to insulting swathes of the citizenry and being a Hawk, she wasn't even on par with, much less worse, than Trump. If people turned to voting Trump (as opposed to a third party or write-in) on these counts over Clinton, then they were being either willfully blind or weren't going for her no matter even if she was the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan (and were going to vote for whoever had the R next to their name anyway). Looking at 538's polling data, you can see Clinton had a strong lead up until one point, and that is the Comey release two weeks before the election that turned out to be literally nothing, but marked a notable decline in poll ratings from then on.

I'll just note that because I think Clinton was a bad candidate, doesnt mean i think Trump was a good one. In fact, at the time I was telling anyone who would listen not to vote for Trump. Too cozy with the Russians, too little experience. I pounded on about it at great length, and I held my nose and voted for Clinton to try and keep him out.

The thing with Trump is, he'd say what's on his mind and he showed he had a spine when dealing with his opponents and the media. That, combined with his populist message is what flipped those States.

It doesn't matter that Trump is worse than Clinton when it's in degree rather than nature and when you're talking to people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. For a lot of people it was a choice between voting for Clinton and not voting at all. It's hard to get excited for a warhawk and Wall Street pawn, particularly when they don't even campaign in key states. Let's not forget that Clinton fethed up.

Rosebuddy wrote:
It doesn't matter that Trump is worse than Clinton when it's in degree rather than nature and when you're talking to people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. For a lot of people it was a choice between voting for Clinton and not voting at all. It's hard to get excited for a warhawk and Wall Street pawn, particularly when they don't even campaign in key states. Let's not forget that Clinton fethed up.

Ironic because trump is cozying up to Wallstreet and on the campaign trail was advocating for war crimes (which it seems like he might of done killing all those civilians) and trying to generate a war with Iran and China

 Vash108 wrote:
So I hear Alex Jones is going to get a seat at the White House press table. Take that in for a moment.

I hope this isn't true.

Not after Joe Rogan he won't

I'm still giggling. Golden episode. Huge JRE fan and he let Alex RUN IT.

IIRC he has a low level press pass for the white house and spoke with trump for 10~ minutes. Nothing absurd - but again everything he does is absurd and comedic in his own way. ITS JUST APPLE JUICE WANT ANOTHER CUP JOE?

Did DeVos get voted in? I've been banned off facebook for a day for spamming the live stream filibuster

 Breotan wrote:
The thing with Trump is, he'd say what's on his mind and he showed he had a spine when dealing with his opponents and the media. That, combined with his populist message is what flipped those States.

Saying what's on your mind isn't good if it's the mind of an insipid, childish conman. Has Frederick Douglass gotten back to Trump yet? How's his feud with SNL going?

And what strength? He picks on the weak and immediately folds when confronted. How, exactly, did Mr. Never Settles handle his Trump U case? How about his interaction with President Nieto, when he ran from Mexico with his tail between his legs, then claimed victory when he was back in the safe space of his followers? Where's that special prosecutor for Clinton?

 jasper76 wrote:
Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties. And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments. At least Romney made his gaffe in private. Clinton put her disdain for the electorate out there for all to see.

I really wish people would start recognizing that they nominated a dud. You could have picked Bernie, you didn't, and you lost. Time to move on. Let's pick a better candidate next time, FFS

She was bad. Trump is worse. I know i take bad flue over brain cancer any day

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-unreported-terror-attacks-list_uk_58997467e4b076856216f46a?i3rmsfu5rti6bt9

Donald Trump’s ‘Unreported Terror Attack’ List Contains More Typos Than Actual Unreported Terror Attacks

Spelling mistakes were widespread in the White House document, with the word attacker misspelt “attaker” 27 times.

Denmark appears once as “Denmakr” and San Bernardino as “San Bernadino”.

Trump really does hire the best people, just the best. On the plus side, as that is an official government document isn't it required to be kept for records? So years from now people will be able to look back and read it and see that the President hired people to be the spokespeople of his presidency who couldn't spell.

Denmakr kind of sounds like how actual Danes would spell it. . .

yea thats embarrassing as a US citizen.

 Frazzled wrote:
yea thats embarrassing as a US citizen.

Shouldn't that be a "UD citesin"?

That's what happens when you let Russians write your English language stuff.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
yea thats embarrassing as a US citizen.

Shouldn't that be a "UD citesin"?

"I'm an AmeriCAN not an AmeriCan't"
-Genghis Connie

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Our democracy has survived far worse than Trump so I am not that fearful that Trump is going to have much if any adverse effect on our govt.

I posted to say I agree with you that talk about this being the first step on the way to Tyrant Trump was hyperbole, but I then said that doesn't make it okay as it a degradation of a practice that is there to ensure the judiciary is secure from politicians. It doesn't have to be Trump who takes advantage of that in order for it to be a step in the wrong direction.

Since then you've made two posts, both of which begin and end with the idea that this doesn't mean Trump isn't going to become a tyrant. This appears to be all you have to say on the issue, and all you are willing to consider about this issue. Makes any more conversation on this a bit of a waste of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think the big reason why Trumps bumbling campaign didn't hurt him is media coverage. Go check out medi reports from Republican friendly sources that would likely be the gonto media for aTrump supporters and Republicans and see how they covered Trump.

There was certainly a large portion of media that was very friendly to Trump, and looked to support or even create defences for his various screw ups. In contrast Clinton didn't have that. One of the biggest sources for the endless Clinton email stories was the NYT. This is because while the broad, overall position of the NYT may be much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, they remain an actual news service that first and foremost. They're chasing stories, big headlines and attention first, then accuracy second, and then actual important stories third.

Compare this to FOX, which is first and foremost dedicated to packaging events in a way the pleases their audience, with exciting stories second, and accuracy a distant third.

But at least that's better than the new wave of internet services like Breitbart, which drops accuracy off their list entirely.

In regards to this specific thread I think what we're seeing is a lack of Trump support on Dakka. Posters like me and others who didn't like Trump as a candidate and didn't vote for him and don't agree with all of his actions so far are going to pick and choose our moments to disagree with arguments/complaints against Trump. I'm never going to try to argue the point that Trump is a good president but I will argue the point that Trump won't be the straw that breaks the camels back in regards to our system of governance and civil order. I will argue the point that not everything that people object to that Trump does is worthy of national outrage or is unprecedented or the worse ever or will destroy our nation. So we can not have much debate about some of Trumps negatives because there might not be much disagreement about the perception that those particulars about the Trump administration are bad.

Sure, but what you're missing is that everyone picks and chooses their battles. Even hardline Trump supporters will engage on issues where they believe their argument is strong, or at least good enough. Why didn't Trump's charity shenanigans attract as much media as Clinton's? I'd argue that it's because, counterintuitively, there was actual substance behind the accusations against Trump and his charities. So when those allegations were made against Trump, the Trump supporters lacked any kind of response so they just didn't make a response. The issue dropped out of debates. In contrast, every time the Clinton Foundation was brought up there was always a whole pile of people on the left ready to argue the issue. This isn't to say one charity was good and another bad, but it explains the incredible phenomenon in which Clinton's charity was well known as a controversial issue, while Trump's was barely known despite there being far more substance to the charges against him.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances.

Sort of. I agree that talk of a Trump dictatorship is hyperbole, and you're right about separation of powers limiting Trump's response, but you're wrong in thinking it then becomes merely an issue of unprofessionalism and rudeness. There are very good reasons that direct attacks like this are unacceptable coming from presidents. The president holds vast power, beyond the limits of his formal power there vastly more informal, coercive power. Beneath any president, even one as isolated as Trump, there is a vast network of political reps and staffers, lobbyists, and headkickers to make sure the right people are on board with the presidents.

While Trump almost certainly lacks the ambition and ability, it is by this coercive power that tyrants usurp normal democratic processes. As such, even the suggestion of a president targeting a judge for direct criticism must be absolutely unacceptable to everyone.

This is the real danger of Trump, that he may degrade democratic norms, so that in future a more skilled, better organised and truly ruthless president will find it that much easier to actually dismantle US democracy.

There is no danger that Trump will degrade our democracy. Trump can be rude and antagonistic towards the judiciary, he can even go as far as questioning their integrity but he can't control Federal judges. The judiciary is shielded from the executive by the legislative branch. No president can remove a federal judge from the bench. A federal judge can willfully resign or be impeached by Congress (articles of impeachment passed by the House and found guilty after a trial in the Senate). Congress has to confirm any new appointment to a Federal court bench. Any Federal judge has a lifelong job unless they resign, die or get impeached so they are insulated against the pique of the President.

What would a President do with their informal power to influence a Federal judge? Target them for harassment from Federal agencies? Have the NSA or DoJ tap the phones and put them under surveillance and try to obtain information for blackmail? If we're going to seriously consider that kind of criminal activity then yes Trump could order Federal agencies to commit illegal activities to unduly influence Federal judges but that hypothetical has always been possible. Hypothetically Trump could get involved with Watergate type operations to get dirt on political rivals or judges and try to cover it up but even that wouldn't result in some kind of structural damage to our system of governance. Nixon's crime was inexcusable and awful but the worst consequence of it was an erosion of trust in the government. Of course distrust of the govt is part of American character so I don't think there's a lot of people who have blind faith in an administration regardless of who's PotUS. Trump's statements and mean tweets may hurt the level of civility in his administration but Andrew Jackson was remarkably uncivil during his term and the govt wasn't harmed, we didn't slide down a slippery slope into more drunken house parties on the White House lawn or having presidents questioning the legitimacy of an election become a common occurrence.

In regards to the Trump foundation scandal vs the Clinton foundation scandal I think you have to take into consideration that Hillary was the presumed nominee for the entire process and it wasn't until late in the primary season that people realized that Trump was a legitimate frontrunner for the nomination. The Clinton foundation scandal was already established dating back to her time as SecState, even Obama went on record with rules he set for her to avoid conflicts of interest, so there was already a level of awareness for that storyline that got amped up because Clinton's nomination was inevitable. Trump got a lot of news coverage during the Republican primary race but a lot of that coverage was devoted to the horse race of the primary process and the surprising performance of Trump more so than actually digging into Trump the candidate. By the time Trump's nomination was assured and the media scrutiny of his candidacy intensified it was during a compressed window of time leading up to the general election. At that point it's easy for the Republicans and other Trump supporters to dismiss the scandals or have them get lost in the noise of the campaigns. In the months leading up to Election Day there are always scandals that come up, mud gets slung and flung everywhere and base of both parties adopts their bunker mentality that the other side are promoting "fake" or overblown scandals against their candidate while the scandals targeting the opposition are all legitimate and horrible. That's just where we are in regards to presidential politics now, the stretch run to Election Day gets filled with scandals, real and imagined, it's the expected norm so it takes something that's unprecedented, like the FBI getting involved, to make people really take notice and really pay attention to the merit of the scandal.

I wouldn't certainly say there is no risk Trump won't degrade US democracy. He doesn't seem like he would mind continuing and expanding voter suppression.

Prestor Jon wrote:

There is no danger that Trump will degrade our democracy. Trump can be rude and antagonistic towards the judiciary, he can even go as far as questioning their integrity but he can't control Federal judges. The judiciary is shielded from the executive by the legislative branch. No president can remove a federal judge from the bench. A federal judge can willfully resign or be impeached by Congress (articles of impeachment passed by the House and found guilty after a trial in the Senate). Congress has to confirm any new appointment to a Federal court bench. Any Federal judge has a lifelong job unless they resign, die or get impeached so they are insulated against the pique of the President.

What would a President do with their informal power to influence a Federal judge? Target them for harassment from Federal agencies? Have the NSA or DoJ tap the phones and put them under surveillance and try to obtain information for blackmail? If we're going to seriously consider that kind of criminal activity then yes Trump could order Federal agencies to commit illegal activities to unduly influence Federal judges but that hypothetical has always been possible. Hypothetically Trump could get involved with Watergate type operations to get dirt on political rivals or judges and try to cover it up but even that wouldn't result in some kind of structural damage to our system of governance..

A dead judge can't sit on a bench. He can simply have them killed. If none under his direct command are willing he has scores of true believers ready to do his dirty work. He was already publicly calling for Clinton's assassination during the election as insurance against a loss. While I certainly wouldn't bet on it happening, I'd hardly be shocked if he starts having more opponents that are corpses than breathing ones. Keep in mind exactly who this man idolizes and who helped put him in power.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

There is no danger that Trump will degrade our democracy. Trump can be rude and antagonistic towards the judiciary, he can even go as far as questioning their integrity but he can't control Federal judges. The judiciary is shielded from the executive by the legislative branch. No president can remove a federal judge from the bench. A federal judge can willfully resign or be impeached by Congress (articles of impeachment passed by the House and found guilty after a trial in the Senate). Congress has to confirm any new appointment to a Federal court bench. Any Federal judge has a lifelong job unless they resign, die or get impeached so they are insulated against the pique of the President.

What would a President do with their informal power to influence a Federal judge? Target them for harassment from Federal agencies? Have the NSA or DoJ tap the phones and put them under surveillance and try to obtain information for blackmail? If we're going to seriously consider that kind of criminal activity then yes Trump could order Federal agencies to commit illegal activities to unduly influence Federal judges but that hypothetical has always been possible. Hypothetically Trump could get involved with Watergate type operations to get dirt on political rivals or judges and try to cover it up but even that wouldn't result in some kind of structural damage to our system of governance..

A dead judge can't sit on a bench. He can simply have them killed. If none under his direct command are willing he has scores of true believers ready to do his dirty work. He was already publicly calling for Clinton's assassination during the election as insurance against a loss. While I certainly wouldn't bet on it happening, I'd hardly be shocked if he starts having more opponents that are corpses than breathing ones. Keep in mind exactly who this man idolizes and who helped put him in power.

I liked your ridiculous far right persona better. This far left one is too close to some people I actually IRL.

Welp looks like yet again it was proven that how much money you give is more important than actually knowing what you're doing

Sad day.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/betsy-devos-senate-vote/index.html

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

There is no danger that Trump will degrade our democracy. Trump can be rude and antagonistic towards the judiciary, he can even go as far as questioning their integrity but he can't control Federal judges. The judiciary is shielded from the executive by the legislative branch. No president can remove a federal judge from the bench. A federal judge can willfully resign or be impeached by Congress (articles of impeachment passed by the House and found guilty after a trial in the Senate). Congress has to confirm any new appointment to a Federal court bench. Any Federal judge has a lifelong job unless they resign, die or get impeached so they are insulated against the pique of the President.

What would a President do with their informal power to influence a Federal judge? Target them for harassment from Federal agencies? Have the NSA or DoJ tap the phones and put them under surveillance and try to obtain information for blackmail? If we're going to seriously consider that kind of criminal activity then yes Trump could order Federal agencies to commit illegal activities to unduly influence Federal judges but that hypothetical has always been possible. Hypothetically Trump could get involved with Watergate type operations to get dirt on political rivals or judges and try to cover it up but even that wouldn't result in some kind of structural damage to our system of governance..

A dead judge can't sit on a bench. He can simply have them killed. If none under his direct command are willing he has scores of true believers ready to do his dirty work. He was already publicly calling for Clinton's assassination during the election as insurance against a loss. While I certainly wouldn't bet on it happening, I'd hardly be shocked if he starts having more opponents that are corpses than breathing ones. Keep in mind exactly who this man idolizes and who helped put him in power.

I would extremely doubt anything of the such would happen, Trump's comments in the election race were to self-inflate his image and get the media to focus on him as a strong individual. Although he carries the same views, the Donald Trump we will see as President over the next 4 years will be toned down from how he presented himself on his campaign. If Trump could do it, it would be a better policy to argue with the public opinion that judges matter. Instead of trying to 'get rid' of them as you suggest, surely it would be just as productive in the name of democracy to instate more judges to these panels, specifically Republican judges to once more tip the favour of balance his way. People forget pretty much every President chops the people against them and then replaces them with individuals who support their cause. So far Trump has only been replacing the Obamacrats who conversely replaced the Bushlicans.

 Chongara wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

There is no danger that Trump will degrade our democracy. Trump can be rude and antagonistic towards the judiciary, he can even go as far as questioning their integrity but he can't control Federal judges. The judiciary is shielded from the executive by the legislative branch. No president can remove a federal judge from the bench. A federal judge can willfully resign or be impeached by Congress (articles of impeachment passed by the House and found guilty after a trial in the Senate). Congress has to confirm any new appointment to a Federal court bench. Any Federal judge has a lifelong job unless they resign, die or get impeached so they are insulated against the pique of the President.

What would a President do with their informal power to influence a Federal judge? Target them for harassment from Federal agencies? Have the NSA or DoJ tap the phones and put them under surveillance and try to obtain information for blackmail? If we're going to seriously consider that kind of criminal activity then yes Trump could order Federal agencies to commit illegal activities to unduly influence Federal judges but that hypothetical has always been possible. Hypothetically Trump could get involved with Watergate type operations to get dirt on political rivals or judges and try to cover it up but even that wouldn't result in some kind of structural damage to our system of governance..

A dead judge can't sit on a bench. He can simply have them killed. If none under his direct command are willing he has scores of true believers ready to do his dirty work. He was already publicly calling for Clinton's assassination during the election as insurance against a loss. While I certainly wouldn't bet on it happening, I'd hardly be shocked if he starts having more opponents that are corpses than breathing ones. Keep in mind exactly who this man idolizes and who helped put him in power.

At first I was like What? then I was like Wow then I was like TDR Terminal Case then I saw MSNBC has caught the illness.

Watch out TDR is spreading!
MSNBC’s Tur Suggests Trump Will Be Responsible for ‘Suspicious Deaths’ of Journalists
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/02/06/msnbcs-tur-suggests-trump-will-be-responsible-suspicious

 Chongara wrote:
He was already publicly calling for Clinton's assassination during the election as insurance against a loss.

Wow. How did I miss that? Got a link? I'd love to read the article about this.

 Breotan wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
He was already publicly calling for Clinton's assassination during the election as insurance against a loss.

Wow. How did I miss that? Got a link? I'd love to read the article about this.

Likely referencing the "we got lots of 2A folks to sort that out" nonsense Donnie was dribbling.

Rosebuddy wrote:
I wouldn't certainly say there is no risk Trump won't degrade US democracy. He doesn't seem like he would mind continuing and expanding voter suppression.

How would he do that? He needs Congress to pass any new federal election laws and regardless of whom he gets appointed to run the DoJ he can't make Federal laws like the Voting Rights Act go away. States and political parties are still going to retain the majority of the control over voting processes.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Welp looks like yet again it was proven that how much money you give is more important than actually knowing what you're doing

Sad day.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/betsy-devos-senate-vote/index.html

The DoEd is screwed. At least Pence will havr to own this as well, but jesus...this is absolutely inexcusable.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Welp looks like yet again it was proven that how much money you give is more important than actually knowing what you're doing

Sad day.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/betsy-devos-senate-vote/index.html

But of course. It's been proven time and time again that if you don't have money, the Republican party doesn't care about you.