If I were a salaried Vox reporter I would spend more time asking why only two Democrats voted “No” last week on the 161st judge Trump has appointed to a district court than I would about the 1.07% of the popular vote Jill Stein got four years ago.
Let’s simplify this for the highly respected political pundits among us: If you believe someone is an “existential threat to our democracy,” you do not vote to confirm their judicial appointments.
Again for the highly respected political pundits in the room: If you believe someone is an “existential threat to our democracy,” you do not vote to give them a $738 billion war budget and the permission to militarize outer space.
And a third time to the highly respected political pundits, who are so full of shit they’re tripping on it: if you believe someone is an “existential threat to our democracy,” you do not vote to fund his anti-immigrant gestapo.
I am of the opinion that pundits who spend more time attacking people without power than they do questioning people with it are weasel-brained narcs who don’t deserve your attention unless it’s to dynamite their takes into oblivion and laugh at the debris.
Also, for the sake of interest, it was Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal who voted No on the judicial appointment. A few Democratic Senators abstained from voting, including Kamala Harris.
In short: I criticize Democrats not because I believe Trump isn't a threat; I criticize them because I do think he is, and I wish they did, too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
