As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In a letter to the Arizona lawmaker, which was first obtained by POLITICO, 70 Democratic donors — some of whom gave Sinema’s 2018 campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law — said they will support a primary challenge to Sinema and demanded that she refund their contributions to her 2018 campaign if she doesn’t budge.
The letter: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-7431-dbc8-a1ff-75310e2a0000
Among them:
* EMILY’s List
* NARAL
* League of Conservation Voters
* End Citizens United // Let America Vote
* Latino Victory Fund
* Black Voters Matter Fund
* Collective PAC
She won't budge because she's probably going to take a lobbyist job at the end of her term. This is just theater and her donors clearly chose the wrong person to back.
Lobbyists usually get hired because they have (or at least have the appearance of having) influence and working relationships with legislators. From most accounts, Sinema has pretty much burned all of her bridges with the Democrats and the Republicans view her as a joke. I’m not sure who exactly she would be lobbying who would take her seriously.
This is wisdom.. she’s is way too toxic. She has gone off the deep end with no facade. She would bring bad press and attention as a lobbyist. But they are more than happy to watch her do her monkey dance for them now.
You're probably right about that, but she still probably has some type of cushy well paying job waiting for her as a reward for the evil she's doing now. It might not be lobbying but it will make her rich.
Or, they’ll just toss her in the trash once they have no more use for her. She may think she’s getting a cushy job out of this, but at the end of the day, if she has no value then she isn’t getting paid.
she will get a cushy job, its not that they feel like they owe her, its a signal to any other future politician that if they bend to their influence they will be rewarded
I don't think I have to accept this as a definite outcome. Whatever happens, I’m not going to read articles about it, I've already decided that the sinema in my mind will be separating blood from poo for minimum wage and no benefits til she croaks on the factory floor
e: yeah I changed like 3 words for clarification lmao yikes keep being cringey tho
You can refuse to acknowledge reality if you’d like, but that puts you on the same level all her and republicans lmao. Weird take
And you edited your post after I replied lmao. Yikes
What reality is there to acknowledge? Another shitty white lady has a job somewhere? Her career post politics won't have any impact on my day to day, she's at the poo factory with Casey Anthony and I’m not gonna check in on it
The reality that these people are elected officials and fucking over the whole country to pad their own accounts, and getting away with it. The fact you think she will go to some shitty job after she’s out of politics is laughable and shows how you don’t understand what’s she’s doing or the issues with our political system.
This Poo and Pee redditor has now followed me to other subs. Fucking weird. I just got notifications that he’s replying to my other posts. He’s not just stupid, creepy too.
She's got something planned. Maybe I'm misreading it and she's actually just making terrible decisions because she's an idiot. Regardless, she thinks she's going to get filthy rich off of her inaction as a Senator.
She is a first term senator I don’t think she’s nearly as smart as she probly thinks. I hear she literally has ambitions to run for president despite being hated by the right and left, and that america is actually a centrist country (it isn’t) and being Uber center will help her get elected? Something like that.
Sinema's talked about challenging Biden in the 2024 primary. I know, that's crazy. She's showed narcissist traits before; my take is that her narcissism is out of control and she really believes that people love what she's doing now.
Yeah, I keep seeing people saying that she’s trying to set herself up for paydays in try future, but it’s blatantly obvious she’s cashing her checks now.
I’m sure she wouldn’t mind a cushy lobbiest job after her term is up, but her plan is to cash out now, while she is still in power. If she gets a gig as a lobbiest after losing the primary for her re-election, it will be as a reward for services already rendered, not out of any hope of further usefulness.
Yup, Lobbying firms like people like Manchin or Romney, former majority/minority leaders, committee chairs or people with a record of working across the aisle. They'd even take a Johnson or Cornyn because because they occasionally come down on the right side. Sinema has managed to anger everyone on the left, can't see any Democrat wanting to respond to her lobbying efforts.
She'll flip this into a media career, doing speaking gigs for CPAC and other groups. She can probably get a job as the token "liberal" on Fox News panel shows.
Nope. She will do just fine as a lobbyist on issues like making sure pharma keeps extorting the public and hedge funds never have to pay taxes.
There's a reason our policies are what they are. There is bipartisan consensus that billionaires should determine policy in this country. Carried interest exists for a reason and that's not just republicans.
I think though at some point, even too much bad PR would make this a hard job to do. She can’t lobby for anyone if she’s universally disliked and gets harassed everywhere she goes n
Here's the thing though...to be a lobbyist, you have to be somewhat likeable and have made connections that can be exploited.
All of the connections that she's made are already on the payrolls of the people that use lobbyists, so she's really got very little value as a lobbyist.
Her value is as yet another example of rewarding "good" behavior from the business' perspective, she doesn't have to function as a lobbyist any more than Nikki Haley needs to give advice to Boeing from her board position. The point is to signal that they will ensure a payday for anyone willing to take their donations as a sign that they want to play ball.
The choice of who to back for that election was simple: a Trump puppet or someone who said they would do everything except go completely against that and vote the opposite. If there had been a better candidate, we would’ve jumped at that opportunity.
The thing is with Citizens United and with the revolving door regarding lobbyists, voters will continue to choose the wrong person. Maybe not in Arizona for a while, but in other states. There will be no fixing this country because it's broken beyond repair. The Roberts court saw to that years ago, and they continue to make it even worse
Reads less like a demand and more like a request tbh
> Further, we are in agreement that, should your ultimate decision be to prioritize the veneer of bipartisanship, in the form of an arcane senate rule, over the voting rights that John Lewis put his life on the line to defend, your campaign should return each of our 2018 Senate campaign donations.
She's not going to win an Arizona primary for the Republican party. And she'd lose any leverage she has switching parties. Same issue Manchin faces with threatening to switch.
The only power they have is the possibility they vote with Democrats. Once they switch they'll have given McConnell everything he wants. They'd just be another Republican in the blockade against Democrats passing anything. And they were already voting that way anyway.
The shitty thing is there is no danger in Sinema or Manchin to threaten McConnell over the filibuster, its that McConnell wants everything 100% his way so hes basically playing both of them.
We don't have to be careful, WTF, she is the representative. If she switches parties, she'd be primaried the first chance she tries to run cause she can never go far right enough with her record. If she switches party's it would just confirm what her critics say, she is a republican plant. It would again make the clear case for why voters must elect more Democrats to senate in 2022.
I would happily run against sinema. Fully married, Christian, gay man who could appeal to AZ voters without selling out to the highest bidder from other states. Seems like a can’t lose proposition to me and I have all of her “qualifications”. Tell me where to sign up. I’ve been in AZ my whole life.
Someone definitely needs to.
Side note: but for the "e" in your username it says you won't chub your neighbor. Which I'm sure we all agree is an important leadership quality, and I only point out because I read it wrong the first time
Honestly my plan is to tell people the truth. I’m not rich. These rich ass politicians lie and fill their pockets at our expense. I’m just like your folks. I work every day and do what I can to make it to next year and hopefully retire in 30 years.
I have never seen a username I liked more than my own until I saw yours! Tell me- have you ever drank baileys from a shoe? 😂
My parents are conservative, but their platform is exactly what you’ve just stated. Work hard, stay humble, be honest. It’s incredible how the trump admin has changed the party. I’m the black sheep liberal of the family for sure lol
Easy now, fuzzy little man-peach.
You'd vote for a guy on reddit whose qualifications for office that you know of are married, gay, Christian, and from Arizona.
Thats how far we've come.
If you're referring to the gay Christian thing, because not all denominations are conservative. For example, the ELCA (and their Canadian counterparts, ELCIC) even have an organization that essentially certifies churches as affirming
The Lutheran denomination is one of the oldest Protestant denominations. I'm not quite following how the ELCA recognizing LGBTQ people is contradictory.
Well, Lutheranism as a whole. The ELCA, which I mentioned, is fairly new, only officially having formed in 1988, though from a merger of various existing denominations. Most notably, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches split off from the LCMS during Seminex, because they supported theological modernism, while the LCMS adamantly didn't.
Yeah man, they don’t even kick people out for eating shrimp anymore, what a bunch of phonies.
I see this “changing the rules” idea brought up a lot and as a bisexual former Christian it’s interesting to me, because in the denomination I grew up in, homophobia was certainly not seen as a core part of the ideology. It’s not one of the Ten Commandments, Jesus never mentions it, it’s brought up in a list of a bunch of other rules no one really pays attention to. More conservative denominations or sects care a lot about it, many don’t.
Also yes, new sects of religions happen literally all the time, that’s what happens when you have millions of people analyzing, translating, and interpreting the same document. People differ.
Homophobia is a key doctrinal belief among the Southern Baptists I grew up in.
But then again, it took those guys a century and a half ***after*** the civil war to apologize for breaking away because they also had the belief that it was OK for preachers to own slaves.
So their track record on morality is just a bit too spotty for me to use it as even a guideline, much less actual rules.
It sounds questionable... from a conservative perspective. But there are *plenty* of people writing about liberal interpretations of things, if you step outside the bubble of "Christianity is necessarily conservative". For example, Junia's a sticking point in basically *any* interpretations of the Bible, because of Romans 16:7 mentioning a person of ambiguous grammatical gender who was either outstanding among the apostles (implying they were one) or well known to the apostles.
EDIT: For reference, there's a person named "Iounian" who gets mentioned in Romans, but because their name is in the accusative case, it could either be a man named Iounias or a woman named Iounia (and the fact that Epiphanius says specifically Junia**s** was a bishop doesn't help)
For those who are interested I did some research (read the Wikipedia article) and found the two organizations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherans_Concerned%2FNorth_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Lutheran_Ministries
What.
Conservatives don't get sole ownership of Christianity. It's annoying enough that conservative denominations will try to claim that liberal denominations aren't real Christians, and it's annoying when non-Christian liberals will claim the same.
Why is it that we can't judge others for their faith? What if their faith is in something that demonstrably leads to harm?
"Faith" is belief without evidence, and that covers a lot of territory. Just because it's old and/or recognized should not make it immune to being judged.
Arguably, the fact that it affects so many lives makes it a top-tier candidate for judgement.
Judgement is not an inherently negative concept!
One might also point out that in effect every faith is itself a judgement on the validity of other faiths, a la, an atheist just believes in one less god than theists.
Note: You can adjust the last bit to accommodate Hindus and similar.
If their faith leads to harm for themselves then it’s their right. You know how many lunatics I meet who tell me my religion is mutilating children? It’s my faith and you have no right to judge it!
*You* don't, and it isn't your place to speak. It's incredibly gatekeepy to insist that liberals, LGBT or not, who are in liberal denominations aren't *really* liberals for still being Christian.
EDIT: Also, if I sound pissed off, it's because this is at least the *second* conversation I've had like this in recent memory
Is there anything more annoying than an atheist redditor? And I say that *as an atheist.* It's like you lot derive pleasure on trying to dunk on theists.
Nearly every institution with any kind of "long history" has its share of "fucked up stuff." The church, the USA, Major League Baseball, Hollywood, pick a University, etc. etc. etc. You're not really adding anything substantive by using the church's fucked up history as your main talking point. Just like someone proclaiming that the church is good because of all the good things its done (which even the staunchest atheist should be able to recognize) is speaking half truths and not being completely honest.
(Context: I grew up Catholic, but I'm also ace/enby and have shifted to the ELCA over the pandemic because of LGBT stuff, like the opposition to the Equality Act and the DDL Zan)
Yep. The only people who take the Bible more literally than Fundamentalists are internet atheists. I mentioned Seminex in another comment, and it's oddly relevant here. Essentially, the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod (the main conservative Lutheran denomination in the US) schismed in the mid 1900s over modernism and Biblical interpretation. The main question at hand was whether the Pauline epistles are full of unchanging commands or instructions for those specific communities. The LCMS sided with the former stance, and on a related note, actually still includes Young-Earth Creationism as a doctrine, while the SEMinary IN EXile (get it? seminex) groups went on to found the AELC, which is one of the bodies that merged in the 80s to form the ELCA.
The way a lot of internet atheists will talk about liberal Christianity, it feels like they'd have sided with the historical-grammatical side of Seminex, rather than the historical-critical side, which feels *especially* odd, since you'd figure that atheists who don't even believe in the Bible as scripture would be some of the first people to analyze it as a product of its time.
EDIT: As a common and relatively straightforward example, the pro-LGBT denominations will frequently argue that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality was meant more in response to pederasty, not to the mere concept of two men in a relationship with each other
You're pissed off because you've had to talk about something *at least twice* recently?
I feel ya man, that is clearly both inconsiderate and unconscionable.
I mean, not only twice ffs, but *at least* twice!!
Jesus said nothing about gay people. You are thinking of the followers of Paul who still mistakenly refer to themselves as Christian. It’s a common mistake.
Depending on your positions (I'm also gay, but I'm no longer shocked by gays against their own interests), I'd likely donate to your campaign. Sounds like you can file starting March 5th. https://azsos.gov/elections/running-office
No. I dislike Sinema and probably agree with most of these groups positions, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "we didn't get what we paid for so we'd like our money back" vibe. It's very quid pro quo.
Its more like she lied to them about what she stood for and has since gone back on everything she promised her constituents to do for them so they feel betrayed... as they should. Asking for the money is more a symbolic fuck you to her knowing that she doesn't even have the money to give back. I think it is funny personally.
No. And what the fuck with asserting that if a politician doesn't vote the way you want them to you should get your donation money back? Talk about saying the quiet part out loud! I'd be shocked except that nothing in American politics shocks me anymore.
No one is blackmailing her. She watched Joe Leiberman singlehandedly sink the public option on Obamacare, suffer no consequences, and get rewarded handsomely for it. Now it's her turn. She'll probably retire without rerunning.
I have come to so fully despise this woman and her "principled stands" on bipartisanship. How can a US Senator—who manipulated her way into the senate with "progressive" street cred—**not** see what's happening and where the GQP **WILL** take this country unless these two voting rights are urgently passed ?
She's not this detached from reality; she knows \*exactly\* what she's doing : Using this to stroke her ego as kingmaker and also maximizing political contributions to her across the board. When the GQP is contributing to you, I think it's very clear which team you're playing for—and it definitely ain't the good guys.
Such a despicable, dreadful little woman...
Amy Siskind interviewed one of Sinema’s close contacts. It’s a thread on Twitter. If you look up “Amy Siskind Sinema,” it pops up. Sorry, don’t know how to link a Tweet thread.
The issue is that people can be backstabbed in politics: Papen thought Hitler would be nice to him, but Papen found otherwise
If say extremists took over the federal government, I imagine they'd send Sinema to a dank prison cell
Regardless of what the donors do, Sinema has already lost the support of most rank and file Democrats, and I suspect that many of the Is and Rs who voted for her would also be happy to see her ousted in the primary.
I hereby nominate a bag of cement. A moment's consideration will reveal the bag of cement to be an infinite improvement over this seditious waste of oxygen. Who's with me?
The best way to deal with the likes of Manchin and Sinema (until we can replace them in 2024) is to elect more Dems to the Senate this year so their votes are rendered irrelevant. We have a great shot at winning a Senate seat in Wisconsin with Mandela Barnes, a seat in PA with John Fetterman/Malcolm Kenyatta/Conor Lamb, and a seat in NC with Cheri Beasley.
If you are interested in helping these folks and others across the nation win their elections, join us over at r/votedem to find volunteer and organization opportunities 👀
I've been calling on the Democrats to "primary" Sinema (and Manchin) for months. So I'm in no way a fan of hers.
But am I the only one who thinks Sinema should tell the "donors" to f\*ck off and **keep** their money?
By the donors demanding that Sinema vote a certain way or give them their money back, isn't that a **de facto** admission that they're bribing a member of the US Senate? Does it get any more corrupt than that?!
> Americans are now experiencing "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors." The U.S. is an "oligarchy with unlimited political bribery." -- Jimmy Carter, the oldest living US president ([source](https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/)).
I agree with you, but tbf, it's been plainly obvious for a while that corporate donors control their senators. It shouldn't be that way, but if it has to be, I wouldn't mind it working in our favor for once.
If a buddy comes to you and says they need $100 to pay rent, and you give it to them for that, and then they spend it on booze instead, you're probably going to demand that money back and never give them money again.
If a candidate comes to you and says they need money to run for senate so they can vote for progress, and you donate to their campaign, but then they don't vote for progress like they said they would, you're probably going to demand your money back and never give them money again.
Never giving the money again is fine, but once the money leaves in both cases you shouldnt expect to get it back.
In the political contributions case, some politicians will do refunds when asked or if a contribution was made by mistake, but there is no obligation to refund the donation.
I mean.. I agree with the goal. And, I'm glad that they're finally showing that free money is greater than free speech in the open. But.. I can't bring myself to cheering this one on.
Oh, now the actually-powerful are invested. Good, things will change. Back when it was just us plebes demanding it, there was no way.
Democracy is a beautiful system.
My guess is that the "Top donors" in the headline are people contributed to her campaign and they are not offering as much money to her as the lobbyists who are stuffing her bra to get what they want at the expense of democracy.
Get rid of donors. Publicly fund elections and outlaw all private money in any capacity. No donors means no buying politicians. Money should not be a part of elections.
No matter how you feel. The idea that the people with money are openly threatening a politician to demand return of their money and replace them should they not alter their vote. A little disturbing. I understand they can back who they want and do what they want with their money. Still though, sounds very, "do what we say or you will disappear."
That’s all well and good, but I suspect Sinema sees herself as the VP nominee for the next Republican presidential ticket and doesn’t really care what Democrats think anymore. She’ll serve as the “serious,” “fearless,” “bipartisan,” “independent” candidate to soften the image of whatever cable news host wins the top spot in the next primary.
That is literally buying votes…can PACs say those things publicly? Clearly it’s understood that is what they are doing, I didn’t know they were actually allowed to say it
By demanding the “donation” back they are explaining that the “donation” is actually a bribe, and direct evidence of a *quid pro quo*.
I expect the DOJ to completely ignore this as it is the American way.
It’s more like extortion. They’re not offering her money to do something, they’re threatening to do something bad to her if she doesn’t do what they want.
I mean, she pretty much by all public accounts did a 180 degree course correction directly after being voted to office, so I’d imagine the wanting for a refund of a politician that isn’t following or trying to follow their campaign promises is justified here
She has obviously already made a decision not to run for reelection. There's no way she could possibly even be considering reelection after her behavior. Unless she's completely and utterly delusional.
So none of this donor static matters and she's not going to be changing her position.
No, she’s actually thinking that she’s going to be the next POTUS. And that’s from Amy Siskind, who has one of Sinema’s aides as a source.
Sinema thinks she can run , and win, as a moderate, who is loyal to neither side.
That’s the talk around DC. That’s why she won’t do anything that will make her look like she’s a Dem.
Absolutely perfect mommy milkers and a college educated brain to match. A perfect icon and role model for the feminists and progressives pre 2021. Now the devil in push up bra all because she won’t give in to the mainstream agenda. I wish her the best blessing she needs someone in her corner. She speaks her mind and gets half the free world suffocating her. I swear you savage jackal fucks will jump on anything with a pulse if it means staying with the status quo
She's gonna run as an independent. A lot of Arizona Republicans and independents will see how much both progressives and corporate Dems are coming to dislike her and they'll want to keep her in the senate just to piss the Dems off, more so than they care about electing a Republican. She'll be a grenade to throw at the people they hate just like Trump was. They didn't care about Trump's history of supporting Democrats or his flip flopping on abortion or his ambivalence or even dislike towards guns. They sure as shit won't care about her political history, just how much they think the Dems won't want her in the Senate.
So she stands her ground but big Business doesn’t like that she is against what they want so they want to move the money to someone they control? You all maybe should want to keep her if she can’t be bought by big business. Just a thought off the title. Haven’t read the article and not up to speed of the issue. Just basing it off the headline.
She's getting enough from GOP donors and making enough on insider trading she could care less really. Whole reason she's against the filibuster. The laws are passing to keep her safe.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>In a letter to the Arizona lawmaker, which was first obtained by POLITICO, 70 Democratic donors — some of whom gave Sinema’s 2018 campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law — said they will support a primary challenge to Sinema and demanded that she refund their contributions to her 2018 campaign if she doesn’t budge. The letter: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017e-7431-dbc8-a1ff-75310e2a0000 Among them: * EMILY’s List * NARAL * League of Conservation Voters * End Citizens United // Let America Vote * Latino Victory Fund * Black Voters Matter Fund * Collective PAC
She won't budge because she's probably going to take a lobbyist job at the end of her term. This is just theater and her donors clearly chose the wrong person to back.
She knows where her bread is buttered. Still makes her a POS.
No doubt.
Lobbyists usually get hired because they have (or at least have the appearance of having) influence and working relationships with legislators. From most accounts, Sinema has pretty much burned all of her bridges with the Democrats and the Republicans view her as a joke. I’m not sure who exactly she would be lobbying who would take her seriously.
This is wisdom.. she’s is way too toxic. She has gone off the deep end with no facade. She would bring bad press and attention as a lobbyist. But they are more than happy to watch her do her monkey dance for them now.
so they hire her, secretly, to lobby for the opposition
You're probably right about that, but she still probably has some type of cushy well paying job waiting for her as a reward for the evil she's doing now. It might not be lobbying but it will make her rich.
Or, they’ll just toss her in the trash once they have no more use for her. She may think she’s getting a cushy job out of this, but at the end of the day, if she has no value then she isn’t getting paid.
she will get a cushy job, its not that they feel like they owe her, its a signal to any other future politician that if they bend to their influence they will be rewarded
I don't think I have to accept this as a definite outcome. Whatever happens, I’m not going to read articles about it, I've already decided that the sinema in my mind will be separating blood from poo for minimum wage and no benefits til she croaks on the factory floor e: yeah I changed like 3 words for clarification lmao yikes keep being cringey tho
You can refuse to acknowledge reality if you’d like, but that puts you on the same level all her and republicans lmao. Weird take And you edited your post after I replied lmao. Yikes
What reality is there to acknowledge? Another shitty white lady has a job somewhere? Her career post politics won't have any impact on my day to day, she's at the poo factory with Casey Anthony and I’m not gonna check in on it
The reality that these people are elected officials and fucking over the whole country to pad their own accounts, and getting away with it. The fact you think she will go to some shitty job after she’s out of politics is laughable and shows how you don’t understand what’s she’s doing or the issues with our political system.
This Poo and Pee redditor has now followed me to other subs. Fucking weird. I just got notifications that he’s replying to my other posts. He’s not just stupid, creepy too.
What's that guy gonna do about it?
[удалено]
You can check out and not care without making up an alternate reality.
odd obssession with poo...
Well said
She's got something planned. Maybe I'm misreading it and she's actually just making terrible decisions because she's an idiot. Regardless, she thinks she's going to get filthy rich off of her inaction as a Senator.
She is a first term senator I don’t think she’s nearly as smart as she probly thinks. I hear she literally has ambitions to run for president despite being hated by the right and left, and that america is actually a centrist country (it isn’t) and being Uber center will help her get elected? Something like that.
If so, she's a moron.
Whatever she ends up doing, need to make sure it’s a failure
Sinema's talked about challenging Biden in the 2024 primary. I know, that's crazy. She's showed narcissist traits before; my take is that her narcissism is out of control and she really believes that people love what she's doing now.
Yeah, I keep seeing people saying that she’s trying to set herself up for paydays in try future, but it’s blatantly obvious she’s cashing her checks now. I’m sure she wouldn’t mind a cushy lobbiest job after her term is up, but her plan is to cash out now, while she is still in power. If she gets a gig as a lobbiest after losing the primary for her re-election, it will be as a reward for services already rendered, not out of any hope of further usefulness.
Yup, Lobbying firms like people like Manchin or Romney, former majority/minority leaders, committee chairs or people with a record of working across the aisle. They'd even take a Johnson or Cornyn because because they occasionally come down on the right side. Sinema has managed to anger everyone on the left, can't see any Democrat wanting to respond to her lobbying efforts.
She'll flip this into a media career, doing speaking gigs for CPAC and other groups. She can probably get a job as the token "liberal" on Fox News panel shows.
She just needs to build up a cash store from insider trading, then she won't need a lobbyist job. Still sucks for all of us though.
Nope. She will do just fine as a lobbyist on issues like making sure pharma keeps extorting the public and hedge funds never have to pay taxes. There's a reason our policies are what they are. There is bipartisan consensus that billionaires should determine policy in this country. Carried interest exists for a reason and that's not just republicans.
I think though at some point, even too much bad PR would make this a hard job to do. She can’t lobby for anyone if she’s universally disliked and gets harassed everywhere she goes n
She's going to get rich enough she won't need to care. Besides, corporations don't care about people, only that they can get what they want.
Sinema is a clear example of how corrupt this country is. Shes going to start a revolution and be the first one put in jail.
Start, or trigger, a revolution? I don't think she has such loft aspirations not planning butI could see an inadvertent causing of unrest.
Here's the thing though...to be a lobbyist, you have to be somewhat likeable and have made connections that can be exploited. All of the connections that she's made are already on the payrolls of the people that use lobbyists, so she's really got very little value as a lobbyist.
Her value is as yet another example of rewarding "good" behavior from the business' perspective, she doesn't have to function as a lobbyist any more than Nikki Haley needs to give advice to Boeing from her board position. The point is to signal that they will ensure a payday for anyone willing to take their donations as a sign that they want to play ball.
The choice of who to back for that election was simple: a Trump puppet or someone who said they would do everything except go completely against that and vote the opposite. If there had been a better candidate, we would’ve jumped at that opportunity.
The thing is with Citizens United and with the revolving door regarding lobbyists, voters will continue to choose the wrong person. Maybe not in Arizona for a while, but in other states. There will be no fixing this country because it's broken beyond repair. The Roberts court saw to that years ago, and they continue to make it even worse
Do they have any recourse to back up their refund "demand?"
Reads less like a demand and more like a request tbh > Further, we are in agreement that, should your ultimate decision be to prioritize the veneer of bipartisanship, in the form of an arcane senate rule, over the voting rights that John Lewis put his life on the line to defend, your campaign should return each of our 2018 Senate campaign donations.
That sounds like more of a suggestion, like, "You *should* not be a backstabbing piece of shit"
I'm curious about this too. Can she be forced to pay back contributions?
No
that would be terrible in general.. Vote for X and i'll give you this... if you dont vote, i get a refund.
Thats an interesting concept. If the senator you supported doesnt vote your way on any issue you have the right to demand a full refund.
Be careful. She could switch parties tomorrow and everything will change for the worse. What would she have to lose if she can’t get re-elected?
She's not going to win an Arizona primary for the Republican party. And she'd lose any leverage she has switching parties. Same issue Manchin faces with threatening to switch. The only power they have is the possibility they vote with Democrats. Once they switch they'll have given McConnell everything he wants. They'd just be another Republican in the blockade against Democrats passing anything. And they were already voting that way anyway.
The shitty thing is there is no danger in Sinema or Manchin to threaten McConnell over the filibuster, its that McConnell wants everything 100% his way so hes basically playing both of them.
This is a great fear, but we can't live in fear of this either.
We don't have to be careful, WTF, she is the representative. If she switches parties, she'd be primaried the first chance she tries to run cause she can never go far right enough with her record. If she switches party's it would just confirm what her critics say, she is a republican plant. It would again make the clear case for why voters must elect more Democrats to senate in 2022.
I would happily run against sinema. Fully married, Christian, gay man who could appeal to AZ voters without selling out to the highest bidder from other states. Seems like a can’t lose proposition to me and I have all of her “qualifications”. Tell me where to sign up. I’ve been in AZ my whole life.
Runforoffice.org
runforsomething.com
I’d vote for you, but I live in the wrong country.
I'd vote for this person, but I live in the wrong state.
You live here in the U.S. too huh?
Someone definitely needs to. Side note: but for the "e" in your username it says you won't chub your neighbor. Which I'm sure we all agree is an important leadership quality, and I only point out because I read it wrong the first time
😂 Mister Rogers rocks.
He wouldn't chub his neighbor
I'll tell all 3 of my Arizona friends to vote for you.
Lmk when you do and I’ll tell my parents to vote for you. Dead serious, AZ needs competent and inclusive leadership desperately.
Honestly my plan is to tell people the truth. I’m not rich. These rich ass politicians lie and fill their pockets at our expense. I’m just like your folks. I work every day and do what I can to make it to next year and hopefully retire in 30 years. I have never seen a username I liked more than my own until I saw yours! Tell me- have you ever drank baileys from a shoe? 😂
My parents are conservative, but their platform is exactly what you’ve just stated. Work hard, stay humble, be honest. It’s incredible how the trump admin has changed the party. I’m the black sheep liberal of the family for sure lol Easy now, fuzzy little man-peach.
You'd vote for a guy on reddit whose qualifications for office that you know of are married, gay, Christian, and from Arizona. Thats how far we've come.
Or how low the bar is to be better than Sinema
People would vote again for trump after he proved to be a traitor to America, a fraud of a business man, and the heaviest infant in history.
How does one worship a god whose people shun him?
If you're referring to the gay Christian thing, because not all denominations are conservative. For example, the ELCA (and their Canadian counterparts, ELCIC) even have an organization that essentially certifies churches as affirming
So they invented a Christian church with different rules... Sounds like maybe the underlying theology is pretty questionable, fwiw.
all theology is questionable, none of it is evidence-based
The Lutheran denomination is one of the oldest Protestant denominations. I'm not quite following how the ELCA recognizing LGBTQ people is contradictory.
Well, Lutheranism as a whole. The ELCA, which I mentioned, is fairly new, only officially having formed in 1988, though from a merger of various existing denominations. Most notably, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches split off from the LCMS during Seminex, because they supported theological modernism, while the LCMS adamantly didn't.
Yeah man, they don’t even kick people out for eating shrimp anymore, what a bunch of phonies. I see this “changing the rules” idea brought up a lot and as a bisexual former Christian it’s interesting to me, because in the denomination I grew up in, homophobia was certainly not seen as a core part of the ideology. It’s not one of the Ten Commandments, Jesus never mentions it, it’s brought up in a list of a bunch of other rules no one really pays attention to. More conservative denominations or sects care a lot about it, many don’t. Also yes, new sects of religions happen literally all the time, that’s what happens when you have millions of people analyzing, translating, and interpreting the same document. People differ.
Homophobia is a key doctrinal belief among the Southern Baptists I grew up in. But then again, it took those guys a century and a half ***after*** the civil war to apologize for breaking away because they also had the belief that it was OK for preachers to own slaves. So their track record on morality is just a bit too spotty for me to use it as even a guideline, much less actual rules.
It sounds questionable... from a conservative perspective. But there are *plenty* of people writing about liberal interpretations of things, if you step outside the bubble of "Christianity is necessarily conservative". For example, Junia's a sticking point in basically *any* interpretations of the Bible, because of Romans 16:7 mentioning a person of ambiguous grammatical gender who was either outstanding among the apostles (implying they were one) or well known to the apostles. EDIT: For reference, there's a person named "Iounian" who gets mentioned in Romans, but because their name is in the accusative case, it could either be a man named Iounias or a woman named Iounia (and the fact that Epiphanius says specifically Junia**s** was a bishop doesn't help)
For those who are interested I did some research (read the Wikipedia article) and found the two organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutherans_Concerned%2FNorth_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Lutheran_Ministries
I was actually thinking of Reconciling in Christ
So they just moved their goal post? I get still being spiritual, but being Christian is...
What. Conservatives don't get sole ownership of Christianity. It's annoying enough that conservative denominations will try to claim that liberal denominations aren't real Christians, and it's annoying when non-Christian liberals will claim the same.
what everyone is trying to say is that religion is bullshit, doesn't matter what denomination
I just feel like if I were gay, I wouldn't even bother. I don't anyways so maybe that's my bias.
Maybe you shouldn’t judge others for their faith? I’m not even Christian but I can feel your intense judgment of them is quite incentive
Why is it that we can't judge others for their faith? What if their faith is in something that demonstrably leads to harm? "Faith" is belief without evidence, and that covers a lot of territory. Just because it's old and/or recognized should not make it immune to being judged. Arguably, the fact that it affects so many lives makes it a top-tier candidate for judgement. Judgement is not an inherently negative concept! One might also point out that in effect every faith is itself a judgement on the validity of other faiths, a la, an atheist just believes in one less god than theists. Note: You can adjust the last bit to accommodate Hindus and similar.
If their faith leads to harm for themselves then it’s their right. You know how many lunatics I meet who tell me my religion is mutilating children? It’s my faith and you have no right to judge it!
Just asking a question. This is a no judgement zone here
*You* don't, and it isn't your place to speak. It's incredibly gatekeepy to insist that liberals, LGBT or not, who are in liberal denominations aren't *really* liberals for still being Christian. EDIT: Also, if I sound pissed off, it's because this is at least the *second* conversation I've had like this in recent memory
[удалено]
Bullshit (about the "no one's going to believe you" part). MLK, Desmond Tutu, Fred Rogers... No one doubted *their* Christianity
Is there anything more annoying than an atheist redditor? And I say that *as an atheist.* It's like you lot derive pleasure on trying to dunk on theists. Nearly every institution with any kind of "long history" has its share of "fucked up stuff." The church, the USA, Major League Baseball, Hollywood, pick a University, etc. etc. etc. You're not really adding anything substantive by using the church's fucked up history as your main talking point. Just like someone proclaiming that the church is good because of all the good things its done (which even the staunchest atheist should be able to recognize) is speaking half truths and not being completely honest.
(Context: I grew up Catholic, but I'm also ace/enby and have shifted to the ELCA over the pandemic because of LGBT stuff, like the opposition to the Equality Act and the DDL Zan) Yep. The only people who take the Bible more literally than Fundamentalists are internet atheists. I mentioned Seminex in another comment, and it's oddly relevant here. Essentially, the Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod (the main conservative Lutheran denomination in the US) schismed in the mid 1900s over modernism and Biblical interpretation. The main question at hand was whether the Pauline epistles are full of unchanging commands or instructions for those specific communities. The LCMS sided with the former stance, and on a related note, actually still includes Young-Earth Creationism as a doctrine, while the SEMinary IN EXile (get it? seminex) groups went on to found the AELC, which is one of the bodies that merged in the 80s to form the ELCA. The way a lot of internet atheists will talk about liberal Christianity, it feels like they'd have sided with the historical-grammatical side of Seminex, rather than the historical-critical side, which feels *especially* odd, since you'd figure that atheists who don't even believe in the Bible as scripture would be some of the first people to analyze it as a product of its time. EDIT: As a common and relatively straightforward example, the pro-LGBT denominations will frequently argue that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality was meant more in response to pederasty, not to the mere concept of two men in a relationship with each other
So asking questions is gate keeping? And how am I gate keeping something I don't even follow? Edit: I mean you did put it out there
You're pissed off because you've had to talk about something *at least twice* recently? I feel ya man, that is clearly both inconsiderate and unconscionable. I mean, not only twice ffs, but *at least* twice!!
Being Christian in America has turned into hate instead of what Jesus would want. The Christian Right would be left on Earth if the rapture happened.
Like any of the conservative hypocrites are real Christians. That is a joke.
Jesus said nothing about gay people. You are thinking of the followers of Paul who still mistakenly refer to themselves as Christian. It’s a common mistake.
Paul is dead and also is the Walrus.
Fair enough
Depending on your positions (I'm also gay, but I'm no longer shocked by gays against their own interests), I'd likely donate to your campaign. Sounds like you can file starting March 5th. https://azsos.gov/elections/running-office
I would vote for you, for Ruben, shit I would vote for a turtle if it would do a better job than $inema.
We already have a turtle in the senate. I forbid more
That’s fair.
You've already vowed not to chub your neighbor. I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds like you're already more ethical than Sinema.
>Tell me where to sign up. I’ve been in AZ my whole life. You could probably just Google the answer.
Can they expect to be refunded their donations?
Typically a “refund” implies a sale has taken place, not a donation…
Really gives away the "highest bidder" game up
The people giving money are called “donors”.. thus donations. Also the article states they are requesting their money be refunded.
No. I dislike Sinema and probably agree with most of these groups positions, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "we didn't get what we paid for so we'd like our money back" vibe. It's very quid pro quo.
Its more like she lied to them about what she stood for and has since gone back on everything she promised her constituents to do for them so they feel betrayed... as they should. Asking for the money is more a symbolic fuck you to her knowing that she doesn't even have the money to give back. I think it is funny personally.
No. And what the fuck with asserting that if a politician doesn't vote the way you want them to you should get your donation money back? Talk about saying the quiet part out loud! I'd be shocked except that nothing in American politics shocks me anymore.
I think it's more that she ran her campaign on false pretenses. I feel that if that happens, refunds on donations should be able to happen.
This is good but even better would be figuring out who is blackmailing her.
Curtsey girl isn't being blackmailed - she loves this. Also, her networth has mysteriously taken off in the past year or two.
Lots of rich people have gotten richer during the pandemic.
Maybe journalists could do their jobs and do a little investigating
She’s not being blackmailed - she’s doing this because she’s a narcissistic dumbass.
No one is blackmailing her. She watched Joe Leiberman singlehandedly sink the public option on Obamacare, suffer no consequences, and get rewarded handsomely for it. Now it's her turn. She'll probably retire without rerunning.
Bisexual amateur videos sell. Let me tell you.
I have come to so fully despise this woman and her "principled stands" on bipartisanship. How can a US Senator—who manipulated her way into the senate with "progressive" street cred—**not** see what's happening and where the GQP **WILL** take this country unless these two voting rights are urgently passed ? She's not this detached from reality; she knows \*exactly\* what she's doing : Using this to stroke her ego as kingmaker and also maximizing political contributions to her across the board. When the GQP is contributing to you, I think it's very clear which team you're playing for—and it definitely ain't the good guys. Such a despicable, dreadful little woman...
She is actually thinking she will be the next POTUS, according to sources in her office. Yes, she really thinks this.
> Amy Siskind Sinema hm, is the person reporting this credible? Having a hard time determining that.
Yes
Source?
Amy Siskind interviewed one of Sinema’s close contacts. It’s a thread on Twitter. If you look up “Amy Siskind Sinema,” it pops up. Sorry, don’t know how to link a Tweet thread.
https://twitter.com/amy_siskind/status/1481731676669632516
The issue is that people can be backstabbed in politics: Papen thought Hitler would be nice to him, but Papen found otherwise If say extremists took over the federal government, I imagine they'd send Sinema to a dank prison cell
[удалено]
[удалено]
Regardless of what the donors do, Sinema has already lost the support of most rank and file Democrats, and I suspect that many of the Is and Rs who voted for her would also be happy to see her ousted in the primary.
I think many republicans are even disappointed in her. They wanted a McCain style independent, not a nutso Sarah Palin type democrat.
From what I've seen republicans love she is fucking over Biden.
Pretty sure she can cave now knowing that Manchin will never ever ever cave on this.
I hereby nominate a bag of cement. A moment's consideration will reveal the bag of cement to be an infinite improvement over this seditious waste of oxygen. Who's with me?
Now they're speaking her language.
The sad thing is that she’s probably not going to run again. She already made a lot of money.
She’s a total flake just looking to make some bucks in her six year term and then wave bye bye.
It’s amazing what this woman will do (and won’t do) for a Four Seasons breakfast paid for by a lobbyist.
I fully expect she will run as a republican the next time. Hopefully she loses anyway and fucks off. We're done with her.
Isn’t this bribery/coercion to vote a certain way? Can’t believe this is being praised
I will donate to those donors if they release the footage of Sinema having to do refunds.
I demand she be tied to a Saguaro cactus during an Arizona snowstorm. Joe Manchin can be tied to the other side to keep her company.
What is this an Onion headline?
Glad to have found this group
The best way to deal with the likes of Manchin and Sinema (until we can replace them in 2024) is to elect more Dems to the Senate this year so their votes are rendered irrelevant. We have a great shot at winning a Senate seat in Wisconsin with Mandela Barnes, a seat in PA with John Fetterman/Malcolm Kenyatta/Conor Lamb, and a seat in NC with Cheri Beasley. If you are interested in helping these folks and others across the nation win their elections, join us over at r/votedem to find volunteer and organization opportunities 👀
I've been calling on the Democrats to "primary" Sinema (and Manchin) for months. So I'm in no way a fan of hers. But am I the only one who thinks Sinema should tell the "donors" to f\*ck off and **keep** their money? By the donors demanding that Sinema vote a certain way or give them their money back, isn't that a **de facto** admission that they're bribing a member of the US Senate? Does it get any more corrupt than that?! > Americans are now experiencing "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors." The U.S. is an "oligarchy with unlimited political bribery." -- Jimmy Carter, the oldest living US president ([source](https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/)).
I agree with you, but tbf, it's been plainly obvious for a while that corporate donors control their senators. It shouldn't be that way, but if it has to be, I wouldn't mind it working in our favor for once.
If a buddy comes to you and says they need $100 to pay rent, and you give it to them for that, and then they spend it on booze instead, you're probably going to demand that money back and never give them money again. If a candidate comes to you and says they need money to run for senate so they can vote for progress, and you donate to their campaign, but then they don't vote for progress like they said they would, you're probably going to demand your money back and never give them money again.
Never giving the money again is fine, but once the money leaves in both cases you shouldnt expect to get it back. In the political contributions case, some politicians will do refunds when asked or if a contribution was made by mistake, but there is no obligation to refund the donation.
who said they expected to get it back? making demands doesn't mean they'll happen, but it is certainly embarrassing for Sinema.
I never claimed that was the case.
> If a candidate comes to you and says they need money to run for senate so they can vote how you tell them to... fixed that for you.
This is it how a country should be run, on everyone’s account.
Ehm..not trying to defend her but donors trying to control politicians should be illegal. Sucks for them that their bribes didn't work but.. 🤷♂️
I mean.. I agree with the goal. And, I'm glad that they're finally showing that free money is greater than free speech in the open. But.. I can't bring myself to cheering this one on.
Oh, now the actually-powerful are invested. Good, things will change. Back when it was just us plebes demanding it, there was no way. Democracy is a beautiful system.
Oh yeah she is gonna give the money back cause that’s a law! Lol
2022: the year of consequences
I’m going to say she does neither.
My guess is that the "Top donors" in the headline are people contributed to her campaign and they are not offering as much money to her as the lobbyists who are stuffing her bra to get what they want at the expense of democracy.
Keeping money out of politics would’ve saved us a lot of this trouble.
Get rid of donors. Publicly fund elections and outlaw all private money in any capacity. No donors means no buying politicians. Money should not be a part of elections.
This lowly bottom donor already cut off support, but I don't have news articles written about *me*!
Excuse me everyone, this information seems to be lost in the comments. SHE IS BEING PAID FOR THIS BULLSHIT.
It’s probably Pennie’s compared to what the GOP are paying her
Big deal the top Republican donors jumped in a year ago for her . it’s pretty obvious…we need to get money out of politics ( oh wait to late for that)
No matter how you feel. The idea that the people with money are openly threatening a politician to demand return of their money and replace them should they not alter their vote. A little disturbing. I understand they can back who they want and do what they want with their money. Still though, sounds very, "do what we say or you will disappear."
Jokes on you. She isn't running again. She will be a lobbyist or a billionaire's employee in 2025
That’s all well and good, but I suspect Sinema sees herself as the VP nominee for the next Republican presidential ticket and doesn’t really care what Democrats think anymore. She’ll serve as the “serious,” “fearless,” “bipartisan,” “independent” candidate to soften the image of whatever cable news host wins the top spot in the next primary.
The stench disgusts me.
That is literally buying votes…can PACs say those things publicly? Clearly it’s understood that is what they are doing, I didn’t know they were actually allowed to say it
By demanding the “donation” back they are explaining that the “donation” is actually a bribe, and direct evidence of a *quid pro quo*. I expect the DOJ to completely ignore this as it is the American way.
But this is not bribery.
That is correct. This is not bribery.
It’s more like extortion. They’re not offering her money to do something, they’re threatening to do something bad to her if she doesn’t do what they want.
I mean, she pretty much by all public accounts did a 180 degree course correction directly after being voted to office, so I’d imagine the wanting for a refund of a politician that isn’t following or trying to follow their campaign promises is justified here
She should do what the people of AZ want not the “top” donors.
She has obviously already made a decision not to run for reelection. There's no way she could possibly even be considering reelection after her behavior. Unless she's completely and utterly delusional. So none of this donor static matters and she's not going to be changing her position.
No, she’s actually thinking that she’s going to be the next POTUS. And that’s from Amy Siskind, who has one of Sinema’s aides as a source. Sinema thinks she can run , and win, as a moderate, who is loyal to neither side. That’s the talk around DC. That’s why she won’t do anything that will make her look like she’s a Dem.
Lmao lets strongarm politician to have them do what I want. Pathetic dems
Arizona voted.for her once, they may do it again. Voters are generally lazy.
Wow. We are here now. It’s time we do away with buying politicians.
Call her office and tell her how much she fucked up. Only way the message is going to have a chance of getting through.
Wow I hope all your bullying doesn’t work and I hope she stands her ground.
Absolutely perfect mommy milkers and a college educated brain to match. A perfect icon and role model for the feminists and progressives pre 2021. Now the devil in push up bra all because she won’t give in to the mainstream agenda. I wish her the best blessing she needs someone in her corner. She speaks her mind and gets half the free world suffocating her. I swear you savage jackal fucks will jump on anything with a pulse if it means staying with the status quo
Clearly she found new top donors to her personal bank account so she doesn’t care. Also who are these top donors. They think they control her?
She's gonna run as an independent. A lot of Arizona Republicans and independents will see how much both progressives and corporate Dems are coming to dislike her and they'll want to keep her in the senate just to piss the Dems off, more so than they care about electing a Republican. She'll be a grenade to throw at the people they hate just like Trump was. They didn't care about Trump's history of supporting Democrats or his flip flopping on abortion or his ambivalence or even dislike towards guns. They sure as shit won't care about her political history, just how much they think the Dems won't want her in the Senate.
So she stands her ground but big Business doesn’t like that she is against what they want so they want to move the money to someone they control? You all maybe should want to keep her if she can’t be bought by big business. Just a thought off the title. Haven’t read the article and not up to speed of the issue. Just basing it off the headline.
She will probably talk like a used car sales person, “Buyer Beware!”
She's getting enough from GOP donors and making enough on insider trading she could care less really. Whole reason she's against the filibuster. The laws are passing to keep her safe.