Porque no los dos ?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's all well and good, but good luck doing those things with a conservative majority SCOTUS.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Super curious how much money
@GreenfieldIowa's campaign would have if they actually banned corporate PAC's. At this point she's taken a pretty big chunk from them!#IApol#IAsenhttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/12/corporate-pacs-route-to-democratic-senate-challengers/ … -
Obviously you didn’t read it. She didn’t take money from corporate PACs. But all big money should be removed from politics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No Democratic challenger in a 50-50 race is going to say before the election they are for adding justices. So you get statements like this ... because they have to say something.
-
Exactly. That statement is conspicuously not a "no."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I mean, I think the whole point is that the Supreme Court is going to make it impossible for any of that to happen?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fine but it won’t be enough if they approve Trump’s SCOTUS pick
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Theresa is absolutely correct. The $ spent on ads in Iowa makes me sad, could've been spent on better causes. As is, the priority for a candidate is $, not qualifications. Also, Pete's supreme court plan is designed to decrease partisan control of the court. Let's do both.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not an either/or. We need court reform AND election reform.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.