RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
I Work in a Nursing Home. Here's Why My Colleagues Are Skipping the Vaccine. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58357"><span class="small">Asif Merchant, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 February 2021 14:02

Merchant writes: "As we learned more about the virus - treatments, proper infection control - conditions improved. Then the vaccine offered our first real hope that this pandemic would eventually end. I got my shots in January, as soon as I could. But I soon realized that not everyone shared my enthusiasm."

A nursing home resident receives a shot of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine at King David Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, a nursing home facility, on January 6. (photo: Yuki Iwamura/Reuters)
A nursing home resident receives a shot of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine at King David Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation, a nursing home facility, on January 6. (photo: Yuki Iwamura/Reuters)


I Work in a Nursing Home. Here's Why My Colleagues Are Skipping the Vaccine.

By Asif Merchant, The Washington Post

14 February 21

 

n almost two decades working in nursing homes, I’ve never been through a time as dire as last spring. Facilities like mine, in the greater Boston area, were working with minimal to no protective gear, very little infection-control training, limited laboratory services and constantly changing public-health guidelines. Residents with covid-19 deteriorated so quickly that they’d crash right in front of me, before we even got their test results.

Staff members got sick, and others stayed home because they were scared to get sick. While many doctors stopped going into nursing homes out of fear for their own safety, my team of physicians and nurse practitioners felt it was our duty to continue seeing patients every day. The need was so great: Units that usually had one certified nursing assistant for every eight to 10 residents suddenly had one person in charge of 30 to 40; we were also short on nurses. People weren’t getting their meals or personal care on time; they suffered from dehydration, bedsores and social isolation. It was a heartbreaking time. I lost over a hundred patients.

As we learned more about the virus — treatments, proper infection control — conditions improved. Then the vaccine offered our first real hope that this pandemic would eventually end. I got my shots in January, as soon as I could.

But I soon realized that not everyone shared my enthusiasm. About half the staff in the four facilities where I serve as medical director said they would not take the vaccine. This might seem shocking: We work in the medical field, and we saw some of the worst ravages of this disease up close. And yet, despite the misery we’d witnessed, my colleagues were wary of the one intervention that offered a light at the end of the tunnel.

Health authorities across the country have reported widespread vaccine hesitancy among nursing home staff. Uptake among residents is high. But a national survey of certified nursing assistants late last year found that nearly 72 percent didn’t want to be vaccinated. The governor of Ohio reported in late December that around 60 percent of his state’s nursing home staffers had elected not to take the vaccine yet. Last month, a union representing nursing home staff in Maryland and D.C. estimated that up to 80 percent of its members opted not to be vaccinated in the first push at their facilities. One Miami health system found that only half its employees wanted to get vaccinated immediately; about 15 percent said they were not interested in getting vaccinated at all.

Those statistics are much less surprising when you consider who works in nursing homes. A lot of the certified nursing assistants I work with are people of color. Their mistrust has deep roots: The United States has a long, ugly history of doctors experimenting on Black people without regard for their consent or needs. And working with the elderly — another population our society marginalizes and neglects — has done little to shore up my colleagues’ faith that the government is acting in their best interests. Nursing homes were among the first and hardest-hit settings in this pandemic, and we never had enough N95 masks or even simple surgical face coverings. So when nursing home employees are informed that they’ll be among the first to get the vaccine — that they’re in the highest-priority group — they’re skeptical. It doesn’t help that many of the most widely available educational materials about the vaccine are produced only in English, shutting out my co-workers who primarily speak Spanish or Haitian Creole.

I started running town halls, in person and over video, to talk to the staff in various Massachusetts nursing homes about the vaccine. Some people come with questions about their specific situations: autoimmune conditions, allergies to food or medicine, pregnancy. I’ve heard more lurid worries, too. Some people thought the shot had a GPS tracker in it that would allow the government to follow their movements. Others claimed that the vaccine changed your DNA and that any future children could inherit the mutation.

No matter how outlandish some fears seem, I can’t shrug them off. People’s concerns aren’t totally random; it’s counterproductive to just dismiss them. Instead, I try to figure out where their understanding went wrong and to offer an explanation for that misunderstanding. For example, vaccines definitely don’t contain GPS-enabled chips, but the Pfizer boxes carrying the doses do have a tracking device so that we can follow shipments to our facilities. After I show the staff videos of the boxes and their bar codes, that seems to assuage their fears. I also talk about the differences between RNA and DNA — people often confuse the two, I say, but the vaccine won’t affect the latter.

Some people have more general concerns: Did some stringent standard fall by the wayside to speed up the development and approval process? A nurse asked me: “So, Dr. Merchant, was there any point in time when you didn’t want to take the vaccine? And at what point did that change?” It helped, I think, that I could answer honestly: Yes, I was skeptical, especially in the spring of 2020. It seemed like President Donald Trump was making unrealistic promises about the timeline for a vaccine and the whole development and approval process might be politicized. But as more data emerged about the vaccines’ efficacy, and as I read up on their safety, the more I trusted the science behind them.

I also talk about why I took the vaccine: I see covid-19 patients every day. I got the shot to protect myself, of course, and to protect my family members — especially my parents, who are elderly and live at home with me. I also want to keep my nursing home residents and co-workers safe; I have a responsibility to my community. And, I add, I’m tired of all the precautions that have become life-or-death necessities in the pandemic. We all want normalcy. Vaccine uptake is our ticket there.

These conversations are incredibly time-consuming — hours that I could’ve used elsewhere, seeing to patients — but they’re worth it. Usually, at the end of the town halls, at least a couple of staff members will say they now feel more comfortable with the vaccines. Others say that they’ll at least consider taking it, or that they don’t want to be the first in line but they’ll get the shot the next time it’s available to them. When you talk to people, when you take them seriously, you can change their minds. I really believe that. I have to believe it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
An Open Letter to Biden From Indigenous Peoples Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58359"><span class="small">On behalf of Land is Life, In These Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 February 2021 14:01

Excerpt: "The Trump administration has done enormous harm over the past four years to the relationship between the U.S. government and Indigenous peoples, not only in the United States but also around the world. It is of the utmost importance that your administration and the 117th Congress take urgent action to repair this damage."

Protesters march against the Dakota Access Pipeline on March 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Protesters march against the Dakota Access Pipeline on March 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. (photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)


An Open Letter to Biden From Indigenous Peoples

By On behalf of Land is Life, In These Times

14 February 21


Trump wrecked the relationship between the U.S. government and Native nations. Here’s how the Biden Administration can repair this damage.

ear President Biden,

Congratulations to you and Vice President Harris on your historic election. We pray for the success of your administration and your efforts to confront the Covid-19 pandemic, reduce global conflicts, respond to challenges presented by global climate change, and restore the ecological integrity of the planet.

Today, as we begin the work of Building Back Better, we are confident that you and Vice President Harris recognize and will honor the fundamental role of Indigenous peoples in addressing the world’s most urgent challenges, including global climate change, biodiversity loss, extreme poverty, and other social and environmental conflicts.

The Trump administration has done enormous harm over the past four years to the relationship between the U.S. government and Indigenous peoples, not only in the United States but also around the world. It is of the utmost importance that your administration and the 117th Congress take urgent action to repair this damage.

Domestically, this means restoring government-to-government relations with Tribes; honoring the government’s treaty and trust obligations; investing in Tribal health, education, and economic development programs; and promoting Tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

Internationally, the United States must become a champion for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and, in our foreign policy and foreign assistance, engage Indigenous Peoples as partners?—?through their own social, political, and legal institutions?—?in addressing the world’s most urgent challenges and in advancing security, prosperity, sustainability, and peace.

As we begin the work of Building Back Better, we humbly, hopefully, and insistently urge your administration to carry out the following actions in the first 100 days of your presidency:

1. Draft a National Action Plan for implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

2. Secure permanent protection for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and halt construction of the Dakota Access and Enbridge Line 3 pipelines.

3. Secure permanent protection for the sacred sites Mauna Kea, Bears Ears National Monument, and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

4. Reengage and revitalize the Trilateral Working Group on Violence Against Indigenous Women and Girls (U.S., Canada, Mexico).

5. Commit to engaging and supporting the work of United Nations bodies that address Indigenous peoples’ rights, includingUN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and provide funding for the UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples.

6. Make Indigenous Peoples’ issues a standing agenda item at the UN Security Council.

7. Commit to transforming USAID’s development model to one that is based on human rights, a model that?—?with regard to Indigenous peoples?—?invests in strengthening their collective rights to lands, territories, and resources; recognizes and respects their right to self-determination; and embraces a standard of free, prior, and informed consent.

8. Commit to promoting and implementing effective actions for the protection and respect of the human rights of Indigenous defenders globally.

9. Confirm that Indigenous Peoples will have a prominent, meaningful space in the 2021 Global Summit for Democracy.

10. Pardon and free Leonard Peltier.

Nominating a daughter of the Laguna Pueblo, Rep. Deb Haaland, as the next Secretary of the Department of the Interior is an inspired, important choice. We believe that she is uniquely qualified for this position, and we are confident that she has the vision and wisdom needed to usher in a new era of true government-to-government relations between the United States and Native American Nations; an era that not only recognizes but also celebrates the role of Native Americans in creating a stronger, more sustainable, more resilient USA.

Revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline on your first day in office also fills us with hope, but, as you know, there is so much more work to do.

As you asserted in your inaugural address to the nation, “there’s much to repair, much to restore, much to heal, much to build, and much to gain.” For Indigenous Peoples, these words carry enormous significance. Only a strong resolve, together with bold and visionary actions, will enact systemic change and stop the long historical process of dispossession of Indigenous lands and violations of their rights.

Amanda Gorman, the youngest inaugural poet in U.S. history, said during your inauguration ceremony, “While we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.” President Biden, you have the unique opportunity and power to change history and set strong foundations to begin moving toward a future where Indigenous peoples are allowed to assume their rightful role as partners in creating a more just and sustainable world; where they are self-determined, and their collective rights to territories, resources, and knowledge are recognized and respected.

We are prepared and motivated to collaborate with your administration in moving forward toward this brighter future.

Signed by:

Brian Keane, Former Member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), Former Advisor?— Indigenous Peoples’ Issues?—?USAID and Land is Life Co-Founder and Board Member
Casey Box, Executive Director, Land is Life
Mariam Wallet Aboubakrine, Tin Hinane Association?—?Mali, Former UNPFII Chair, Land is Life Board Member
Marcos Terena, Inter Tribal Committee (ITC)?—?Brazil and Land is Life Co-Founder and Board Member
Cecilia Baltazar Yucailla, Kichwa Indigenous leader from Ecuador and Land is Life Board Member
Gleb Raygorodetsky, Land is Life Board Member
Bernadette Demientieff, Gwich’in Steering Committee Executive Director
Gregorio Mirabal, Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA)
Jiten Yumnan, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur – India
Jackson Shaa, Narasha Community Development Group, Kenya
Daniel Kobei, Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program (OPDP), Kenya
Gloria Ushigua, Sapara Indigenous activist from Ecuador
Alicia Weya Cahuiya, Waorani Indigenous activist from Ecuador
Killa Becerra, Inga Indigenous activist from Colombia
Olé Kaunga, IMPACT Kenya and PARAN Alliance
Basiru Isa, The Network of Indigenous Peoples and Local Population for the Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystem in Central Africa (REPALEAC)
Nicolas Salazar Sutil, Forest Guardians
Elias Kimaiyo, Sengwer Indigenous Community, Kenya
Tezera Getahun, Pastoralist Forum Ethiopia (PFE)

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Beauty of Jamie Raskin's America, on Display at Trump's Impeachment Trial Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35861"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 February 2021 12:50

McKibben writes: "The first time I remember meeting Jamie Raskin it was dark, and we were standing atop the great steps of Harvard’s Widener Library, looking out over a sea of candles."

Bill McKibben. (photo: Wolfgang Schmidt)
Bill McKibben. (photo: Wolfgang Schmidt)


The Beauty of Jamie Raskin's America, on Display at Trump's Impeachment Trial

By Bill McKibben, The New Yorker

14 February 21

 

he first time I remember meeting Jamie Raskin it was dark, and we were standing atop the great steps of Harvard’s Widener Library, looking out over a sea of candles. I was a reporter for the Crimson, the student daily; he was an undergrad organizing against the Reagan Administration’s involvement in Central America, and had just pulled off an enormous rally in Harvard Yard. He’d given a burning, powerful speech; the crowd of students, not an easy audience, had roared and roared.

I thought of that moment on Thursday, as I listened to Raskin, now the Democratic representative from Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District, close out the prosecution presentation in Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial. Raskin had opened the arguments on Tuesday with a personal, passionate speech that described his family members hiding from the rioters in the Capitol on January 6th; it was as powerful and effective as the speech he gave on that long-ago Cambridge night. But his speech on Thursday was even more important: it was, I think, a classic defense of American history, even of the exceptionalism of American history. That it was left to the left—because Raskin is very much a man of the left—to make that case is telling. Although constantly accused of undermining American pride, of debasing American history, progressives are, in fact, the ones who actually understand the nation’s story.

Raskin grew up in the left—his father, Marcus, after a few early years in the Kennedy Administration, quit to set up, with Richard Barnet, the most important progressive think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies. Marcus was a stalwart of the antiwar movement—he co-edited “The Vietnam Reader,” which was used at teach-ins across the nation, and he stood trial, alongside Dr. Spock and William Sloane Coffin, for urging resistance to the draft. When Daniel Ellsberg stole the Pentagon Papers, he handed them to Raskin père. Marcus Raskin later chaired the group that led the nuclear-freeze campaign.

Like father, like son. Jamie Raskin, a former law professor and resident of Maryland’s Takoma Park (a.k.a. Granola Park, Berkeley East), served as general counsel to Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. Before this week, his most famous public remark came in 2006, when, during a debate about gay rights, he reminded a Republican state senator that “when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.” Later that year, Raskin was elected to the Maryland State Senate, where he worked to legalize same-sex marriage and marijuana.

It was to the Constitution that Raskin returned, via the Gettysburg Address and the Declaration of Independence, in his closing remarks on Thursday. He noted that democracy—government of, by, and for the people—is the exception on this planet, and always has been. Ours, of course, was utterly imperfect from the start, and utterly imperfect it remains: a “slave republic,” as Raskin put it, that is still a place where George Floyd can be murdered by authorities in broad daylight. But the basic insight of the Founders, the idea that “all men are created equal,” had, Raskin insisted, allowed us to unleash “waves of political struggle and constitutional change and transformation,” so that we could become “the world’s greatest multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic constitutional democracy, the envy of the world.” These Founders had, at the start, one great fear, he said, “Presidents becoming tyrants and wanting to become kings.” That’s why, he explained, they wrote the oath of office into Article II of the Constitution, with its pointed insistence that the President’s job is to uphold and defend that very document.

I was reminded, as I listened, of Gordon Wood’s classic history “The Radicalism of the American Revolution,” published in 1991, and its argument that it is hard for us to understand today what a remarkable break with the past the founding of this nation represented: “Living in a monarchical society meant, first of all, being subjects of the king. This was no simple political status, but had all sorts of social, cultural, and even psychological implications.” The universe was ordered and hierarchical; each man had his “betters,” and those betters exercised patriarchal authority. Replacing inherited power with merit; the idea that we could govern ourselves; that ordinary people could rise to do the governing, but that as they rose they could not force submission on those around them—these were the great American notions, never fully realized but always honored, at least, as ideals.

Until, of course, Donald Trump: the man who said, of our nation’s problems, “I alone” can solve them; the man who insisted that the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want.” The man who installed his family in positions of high power, and who used occasions of state to line his pockets. The man who, ultimately, put himself above our system of self-governance when it finally rejected him, refusing to abide by the outcome of an election, even after the courts and the states made it clear that he had lost. The man who, on January 6th, tried to end that long history of self-governance.

On Thursday, Raskin, arguing gamely for a conviction that everyone knows he cannot win, had to pretend that his audience of senators shared his assumptions about democracy. But, of course, many of them didn’t—many had truckled to Trump precisely in order to maintain position and privilege. Is there anyone who thinks that a 1776 version of Lindsey Graham would have been fighting alongside Sam Adams and Tom Paine? It’s much easier to imagine him as a bewigged and bewildered gent ordering the servants to pack the household baggage for the move back to London with the other Tories. That members of the party that licked Trump’s spittle called themselves “Republicans” and pretended their subservience was somehow an attack on “élites” is a reminder of the power of the idea that they have done their best to wreck.

One has to stand up to that privilege and rank and vested interest constantly, so Raskin’s case was made for history—a case against Trump, and the next Trump, and the Trump after that, if we’re lucky enough to endure as a country to see those challenges. And, if we are that lucky, it will be because new generations of Raskins will keep standing up to power, very much in the progressive tradition that goes back to our founding. American history is full of ugliness, but there is beauty at its core, as well, and that was what illuminated this week’s proceedings.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
I've Seen McConnell Pull a Lot of Shameless Tricks, but This Is One of the Worst Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 February 2021 09:21

Reich writes: "McConnell wrongly claims that it is unconstitutional to impeach a president after he's left office."

Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)
Robert Reich. (photo: Getty Images)


I've Seen McConnell Pull a Lot of Shameless Tricks, but This Is One of the Worst

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

14 February 21

 

itch McConnell has announced that he will vote to acquit Donald Trump. McConnell wrongly claims that it is unconstitutional to impeach a president after he's left office, despite overwhelming evidence that the Framers of the constitution intended impeachment to be used against former officials. Remember, Mitch McConnell is the same person who delayed Trump's impeachment trial while he was still in office.

I've seen McConnell pull a lot of shameless tricks over the years, but this is one of the worst of all. If Trump goes unpunished, it will open the door for more attacks against our democracy in the future. Shame on McConnell and Trump remaining enablers.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Left Them to Die. 43 Senate Republicans Still Licked His Boots. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51492"><span class="small">Dana Milbank, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 February 2021 09:20

Milbank writes: "In the end, the darkest truth of Donald Trump's crime came to light."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (photo: Susan Walsh/AP)


ALSO SEE: What History Will Say About Trump's Acquittal

Trump Left Them to Die. 43 Senate Republicans Still Licked His Boots.

By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post

14 February 21

 

n the end, the darkest truth of Donald Trump’s crime came to light.

As his marauders sacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 in their bloody attempt to overturn the election, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy called the then-president and pleaded for Trump to call off the attack.

Trump refused, essentially telling McCarthy he got what he deserved. Trump was, in effect, content to let members of Congress die.

That damning account, in a statement Friday night from Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), a Republican who defended Trump during his first impeachment, momentarily threw the Senate’s impeachment trial into chaos on its final day.

Trump’s lawyers, in their slashing, largely fictitious defense, claimed that Trump was “horrified” by the violence, hadn’t known that Vice President Mike Pence was in danger and took “immediate steps” to counter the rioting.

But Herrera Beutler revealed such claims to be a lie. When McCarthy “finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol,” she wrote. McCarthy, she continued, “refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.

Her account wasn’t seriously or substantively refuted. On Saturday afternoon, senators agreed that Herrera Beutler’s statement would be entered into the trial record as evidence.

Even knowing this, most Republican senators, as long expected, voted to acquit Trump, a craven surrender to the political imperative not to cross the demagogue. But the impeachment trial was not in vain, for it revealed the ugly truth: Trump knew lawmakers’ lives were in danger from his violent supporters, and instead of helping the people’s representatives escape harm, Trump scoffed.

Republicans scrambled to limit the damage of Herrera Beutler’s revelation. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who had feigned being open to conviction, abandoned the pretense and, minutes before the Senate convened Saturday, emailed his Republican colleagues that he would vote to acquit.

On the Senate floor, Trump counsel Michael van der Veen, a personal-injury lawyer by day, tried in every way to demonstrate his indignation at the late revelation. He shouted. He growled. He gesticulated madly. He pounded the lectern. He stomped. He spat out words: “Antics.” “Rumor.” “Report.” “Innuendo.” “False narrative!” He actually declared that “it doesn’t matter what happened after the insurgence into the Capitol building.” So what if Trump scoffed at McCarthy’s desperate entreaty to save lawmakers’ lives?

Sputtering like the Looney Tunes character Sylvester the Cat, van der Veen declared: “Nancy Pelosi’s deposition needs to be taken. Vice President Harris’s deposition absolutely needs to be taken. And not by Zoom. None of these depositions should be done by Zoom. We didn’t do this hearing by Zoom! These depositions should be done — in person, in my office, in Philly-delphia!”

Sufferin’ succotash!

Laughter broke out in the chamber.

“I don’t know why you’re laughing,” he responded. “It is civil process. … I’ll slap subpoenas on a good number of people.” He seemed to think he was arguing a slip-and-fall case in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

Republicans joined the theatrics.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), an always-Trumper, was seen pointing at Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) and saying “blame you” in a raised voice. Romney was one of five Republicans who joined all 50 Democrats in voting to allow witness testimony.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah), another Trump ally, interrupted a presentation to complain that the House impeachment managers “said something that’s not true” — never mind that the Senate had sat in silence during hours of falsehoods from Trump’s team.

After Herrera Beutler’s revelations sparked a vote for witnesses, Senate leaders brokered a compromise to keep the impeachment trial from spiraling into endless discovery. Herrera Beutler’s statement would be admitted as evidence, but this would “not constitute a concession by either party as for the truth of the matters asserted by the other party.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the lead impeachment manager, claimed that “this uncontradicted statement" provided “further decisive evidence of [Trump’s] intent to incite the insurrection.”

Van der Veen, in response, howled about due process and fairness being “violently breached” — interesting words, given what his client did.

When the yeas and nays were counted, seven Senate Republicans joined Herrera Beutler in her courageous stand, voting along with all 50 Democrats to convict Trump. The other 43 Republicans, some of whom, like McConnell, feebly denounced Trump’s conduct even as they acquitted him, now have the cowardly distinction of licking the boots of the man who left them to die.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next > End >>

Page 200 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN