by Noah
People like Kyrsten Sinema must have been real horrors in middle school. Too bad her mind never progressed beyond that; not that that makes her overly unique when it comes to the musty-smelling mold-based lifeforms of Washington, DC.
Imagine how totally messed up (polite term) your brain has to be that you strive to gain the title of Most Despised Woman In America, you succeed bigly, and you glory in it because your bigliest, most childish goal of having everyone pay attention to you has been achieved. Does Kyrsten Sinema consider the sociopathy of her actions a bonus or is she a deliberate sadist with a larger, even more heinous agenda? You decide. Kyrsten Sinema's mind is so unfocused on everyone and everything but herself that it's hard to choose, but the bottom line is that for Americans it doesn't matter. We suffer either way.
$en. Sinema, by the way you act, I'm reasonably sure that you harbor some resentments towards Joe Manchin and former President Orange Menace simply because they are more talked about and more hated than you but I remain sadly confident that you will continue to try to rectify that. At this point, Moscw Mitch is probably laughing a bit because you have deflected some hate from him and towards yourself just so people will talk about you. Count me in.
While you think about all that, ask yourself what kind of person thinks that working on Kyrsten Sinema's staff is a cool job. We saw that in that scene at that elevator in the Capitol Building where Sinema was being snide to all of America as she flippantly answered reporters questions about her tossing her monkey wrenches into the Build Back Better legislation. You know Sinema and her staff of psychos had a great snicker over that episode. "Oh look! Our boss is being a total asshole on TV. Isn't that great!" Obviously that contemptuous aide we saw with you thought so. I bet her vibrator batteries drained down to nothing that night just thinking about it. Not to worry, she replaced them the next morning at taxpayer expense no less; office supplies, you know.
Seemingly every politician and media person talking about the delays in passing the "Biden Agenda" tells us "It's a process." 'Process' is the most ridiculously overused word in our language these days. Everyone uses the word 'process' like a nine year old that just discovered the word and is determined to use it in as many sentences as possible. Years ago the ridiculously overused word was 'synergy'. Now it's 'process'. I can't wait 'til people just plain stop using the word. People in Washington like Sinema use the word 'process' as a crutch, an excuse, and as a poor substitute for actually explaining their position or showing if they even have any knowledge of the issue at hand. Using the word 'process' is the opposite of showing the listener that you have some substance and the knowledge of the nuts and bolts to offer. I expect it when I see football coaches giving dodgy explanations of how their team lost the game but maybe they just chose the wrong players to begin with. Their understanding of what was needed was horribly wrong. In the cases of people like $enator Sinema, Joe Manchin, and the vast majority of the rest of the Washington jerkoff class, what is needed isn't what is desired. If it was, we would have had it long, long ago. Decades ago!
To emphasize further: If you see a politician or media talking head puke the word 'process' at you, it too often means they either don't have the vocabulary to verbally lay out a picture of what's going on or they don't care to. They just toss the word your way, hope that you will accept it, and move on. It amounts to a mediocre magician's means of diversion. In this case, politicians wave their paws, say the word, and move on down the hall, hoping they've ended a conversation they've never had an interest in actually having. The media types use the word and then go to commercials that try to sell us the products of the companies who bribe the politicians to do nothing that will affect the lives of "ordinary Americans" in any positive way. And we tolerate it, which just encourages more of the same, hence the likes of $enator Kyrsten Sinema.
They'll even openly further show their contempt for us by adding the word 'trust', telling us to "Trust the process." Well, no. Trust you? At this point? Why should we when your damn 'process' got the likes of you where you are? Hey, it works because people do get weak and decide to 'trust the process' not of the general election per se (although that's obviously being worked on) but of how the candidates even came to be able to run in a primary. Now that would be a 'process' worth some deep one by one examination. Let's start with Arizona. Sure, I know Kyrsten Sinema is a pet project of Chucky Schumer and, by now, even he knows that getting her in the $enate was not enough to do anything other than make him majority leader for a spell. He picked her out of the House Of Representatives, but, who picked her to even get to the point where she could run for Congress in the first place? I suspect some group of bozos saw her in some putrid rendition of "High School Musical" or the like and said, "There, that's the one! She'll be 100% compliant to our wishes and we can sell her to the idiot voters. The voters in turn fall for it nearly every time! She's perfect! Completely soulless, too! No problem!" Thanks Chucky! Your 'process' has worked beautifully. And thanks to those who pulled her out of dumb Arizona's ass in the first place.
Trust is for fools and idiots and fools and idiots vote but if the Democratic Party wants better voter turnout (a big if, it seems) so they can be seen as more than just the uninspiring lesser of two evils and if they want to operate in a universe where $enators like Sinema are irrelevant enough so that they can easily pass legislation that will better our lives and our country (also a big if), they will run better, more inspiring candidates instead of the likes of a sociopathic cookie cutter megalomaniacs like Kyrsten Sinema, or a piece of burned toast like Terry McAuliffe in Virginia (That one's for tomorrow).
Ahhh, but the PARTY always runs that kind of road apple instead of someone "better".
so, the question SHOULD be: how stupid does a voter need to be to actually, you know, vote for ANY of those road apples?
yes, that's a rhetorical question.