not because of Obama, but during Obama. i'd swear on whatever you like that the degradation was slower because of Obama.
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime @birnbaum_paul
but a credible promise of an alleviated yet steady and implacable rate of decay is a really hard thing to get excited about.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
Shit. Then toss out the ones who are responsible for that decay...not reward them with an ally in the White House!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @birnbaum_paul
enh, well. the choice was between which of their allies you wanted in the White House.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
HRC would be no "ally" of obstructive-to-Progressive ideals Republicans. Trumpster is 100 years of anti-Progress!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @birnbaum_paul
she's a superbly staunch ally of the finance sector and the war industry, though. but yes, yes he is.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
oh...that's such bs. And it tells me that you did not understand her message....
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @birnbaum_paul
do you know the campaign's organizing principle for it? i do. it was "ladders of opportunity".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @birnbaum_paul
do i have to explain what a monumentally failed choice of metaphor that is?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
clearly it failed with enough. But those three words weren't the totality of her platform or detailed plans.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
sure. but to the extent there was a central narrative at all (another major problem), for the economy they were it.
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.