I would have preferred if Heath Mello had won, even if he was antichoice

[JCanete]

31. I think Sanders has taken the stance that trying to get the water

and fish and flotsam, etc. out of the boat without acknowledging the huge gaping hole in the hull, is a futile proposition of all hands on deck continuously scooping up buckets and pouring it over the side. Women's issues, immigrant issues, crime, drugs, etc. all come back to money, either because these issues are powerful distractions(powerful because they have real consequences) over which both parties then focus a large portion of their rhetoric, or because there is a more direct financial incentive to sell certain narratives.

I would agree. Money in politics IS the biggest issue because it is arresting our ability to make progress on any of these other fronts. I would not agree with him that he should have endorsed Mello, for the very reasons that we've seen happen post endorsement, and I think it was a foolish misstep to make his own actions more divisive among the Democratic base.

I don't know that there's inconsistency here, because these candidates, Mello and Pariello, have both pledged(in spite of their previous records) not to vote to do harm to women's rights(although I understand being more than wary about this) , but also because money in politics is again, a huge root of the regressiveness that makes it hard for us to move forward on these very issues.

As for Manchin, if he literally votes for a Supreme Court justice like Gorsuch, what is he good for? If he can't stand up and maintain a vote to keep someone like that off the Supreme Court, how is he working for his constituents? He may be pandering to them, but he's still screwing them. What's left that we can maybe count on him to do, assuming we have 60 votes in the Senate as some point in the future?