>

Archive Link
Here's what I don't understand.  Why would I think Jim Jordan, who claims he didn't know that a major sex scandal was happening all around him, is qualified to investigate anything beyond the boogers in his nose? >

He can't even find a suitcoat in his own closet, how is he going to find skeletons in other people's closets? >

Snap. >

Good article.

Second, it is hard for Republicans to explain to an audience not already seeped in right-wing conspiracy theories what they heck they are talking about.
Each time a Republican screams that the government has been “weaponized,” Democrats should be prepared to go through the litany of real GOP abuses and outrages while in power: the failure to audit Trump’s taxes, the Justice Department’s pointless John Durham investigations, GOP governors transporting of unwary asylum seekers out of state and the abusive arrests of African American voters in Florida, to name a few. Simply because these issues are not the majority’s designated topics does not prevent Democrats from talking about them in hearings.

So much this, “because these issues are not the majority’s designated topics does not prevent Democrats from talking about them”. Democrats need to focus on messaging and put it on repeat. They need to be the broken record. Minimize the firehouse of bullshit. >

Its the problem with holding nuanced opinions. Complex problems cant really be put on a bumper sticker. >


Chuck, but let me just finish this. Twenty-five parents get reported on that snitch line. They all get investigated. FBI shows up to their door and guess how many have been charged. How many have been charged? Zero.

Here’s a wild idea, don’t threaten to murder officials and the FBI won’t show up to your house. If only there was a “snitch line” when you were ignoring rape at your school and helped enable it because you didn’t care but joked about it instead. >

He would much rather the FBI go after little girls seeking medical care in the aftermath of being raped