Even nominees- the administration is so disorganized that they haven’t made close to the number of nominations it should have by now, so they’re not even really succeeding there.

I agree that a lot of it is context. From a member of the military, I wouldn’t blink at that phrase. Even as a civilian CIC, another commenter brought up the phrase “our generals” - changes the tone drastically and suggests unity.

The “our generals” is such an easy way to improve the optics of this 1000%. But no, it’s not...

Are you a member of the military? It seems more natural as a member of the military community rather than its civilian leader. It’s also not the phrase itself so much as it is the implications that rhetoric creates that I find troubling.

Putin cut off adoptions in response to US sanctions, specifically the Magnitsky Act, that are costing a lot of money. It prohibits the use of US banks for individuals involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer and auditor who was denied medical care and then beaten to death in a Russian prison. By…

The super-authoritarian use of “my generals” never fails to disturb.

It’s also a way of slipping in laws that are awful, but less face-value insane. Ohio did it by submitting a “heartbeat” 8-week abortion ban and a 20-week ban simultaneously. When Kasich didn’t sign the 8-week ban, but did sign the 20-week ban, there was relief rather than further outrage.

I can’t imagine anyone who thought about policy positions voting for Trump, or at least choosing Trump’s stances. He’d have to possess a firm enough grasp of issues to have them.

Three of the four things you think are issued Dems can compromise on - one will kill Syrians, one will kill women, and one will kill everyone. If you’ve been involved in politics for more than a year and a half, you’d learn that some things you move on and some you don’t. Minimum wage? You want to try to move around…

And putting anti-choice Dems in place, which is a huge leap because this isn’t a viable strategy anyway, accomplishes what? You think they’re going to stand against TRAP laws, that are presented under the guise of safety anyway?

They can’t win this way. It’s a stupid strategy to go after the Republican base’s voters, something the DNC can’t accept will never happen. The idea that there are all of these liberals who’re voting Republican because they’re anti-abortion, but can get around the pro-capital punishment, anti-social safety net,…

So how many Democrats who support the reinstatement of Jim Crow laws would be okay with you? Is it okay if there are a few who support “gay conversion therapy” or the Muslim ban? What about a few pro-slavery Senators? What about a few who are anti-wage equality?

Someone should tell the DNC that bipartisanship is working with elected officials who are Republicans, not working to elect Republicans. Human rights is not an area for a “big tent” - Democrats are supposed to be for them.

That’s probably true about policies hat protect the LGBTQ community as well - lose those, pick up some bigot votes, Dems! That’s not a fucking win!!!

Now that’s just good sense.

If it comes to one candidate that ensures women get fucked and one candidate that ensures everyone gets fucked, I’ll vote for everyone to get fucked. I’m all about equality.

I wish they all were, too. Hope is good. It’s a lot more productive than crushing cynicism.

He’s the 90's sitcom version of himself at this point.

It helps. Although I watched President Bartlett’s reelection and wept. I may be full-on delusional about it now. But it’s better than reality.

That’s true and why it’s necessary to cultivate relationships with the good ones. Eventually, the horror show of sociopaths will fall out of favor. If we’re able to work with the good Republicans and create programs that improve lives, it will become more obvious much faster that the most right wing, defiantly evil…