Kyrsten Sinema said she doesn't care if she loses reelection because she 'saved the Senate by myself' and can go serve 'on any board I want to,' book says
news.yahoo.com
Kyrsten Sinema doesn't care one bit if she wins re-election, according to a new book.
"I can go on any board I want to. I can be a college president. I can do anything," she said.
Sinema told Romney said she saved the filibuster and the Senate and that's "good enough for me."
Getting real “I am the main character” vibes from this wretch.
If we can't handle her at her worst, we don't deserve her at her best
What if we can't handle her at her best?
Then we deserve her at her worst?
That’s a weird way to spell “conceited cunt.”
Yeah for sure. Thinks she is better than everyone for no reason.
= Fuck you
= I got mine
What a lovely sentiment from a public servant.
Ahh the conservative mantra.
Just like DeSantis post-2025, I'll boycott and badmouth any company that hires her stupid ass.
Odds are you already are.
This asshole cares more about her post-Senate media career than doing the right thing by her constituents.
Everyone saw her cute little thumbs-down to paying people a living wage; she shouldn't earn one either. Unfortunately the corporate media loves "moderates" like Sinema, so I guarantee she'll get a cozy gig from MSNBC or FOX.
She then ran up begging for Mitch McConnell's attention and he ignored her till she slinked away.
To be fair, he could have just been having one of his quiet moments to himself.
As you age, the WiFi becomes less effective, leading to more moments of buffering.
McConnell was rebooting.
What a smug asshole. Saved the Senate...wtf?
It's nice that she is making the cash grab obvious.
In the interests fairness sinema wasn't directly quoted saying this. From the article:
So the "quote" in the title isn't even hers, but a paraphrasing in first person? That's grade A bullshit.
As an Arizonan it is my life's mission to make sure she loses.
Don't forget to trash her post career too.
Unfortunately, she's got a point. Her owners paid for the service and they'll leave the money on the nightstand.
Doesn't surprise me that she's a deluded narcissist.
funny when terrible people put it in writing themselves. it would be more funny if she didnt fuck over a ton of people in the process
To be e fair. This is from a book about mitt Romney. She wasn't being quoted directly.
traitorous cunt
That isn't appropriate
Sinema’s behavior isn’t appropriate.
I don’t like the c word, either, but I don’t see it as sexist in this case. She went out of her way to earn it.
I think adults (assuming the commentor is an adult) should be able to express their frustrations better. I live in America he or she can express themselves how they wish and I'll express myself how I wish.
And hypocritical of you to try and silence someone, then turn right around and go on about your rights to free speech.
I didn't try to silence anyone. I have my opinion that the comment wasn't appropriate. That's my opinion. You probably have a different one. That's fine. Disagreement isn't censorship.
Thankfully we can ignore your stupid take. She’s a traitorous cunt. She can also eat my entire ass.
I can go on. If you’re looking for some sanitized safe space the internet probably wasn’t the best place to go.
You're free to ignore whatever you want.
Why are Americans such prudes?
We got off to a bad start. Being a refuge for Puritans didn’t do later generations any favors.
Thank you! I say the country was founded by a bunch of religious prudes and get funny looks.
The first permanent English settlement in modern day America was Jamestown found in 1607\1610 (there was a brief abandonment) the "religious prudes" founded Plymouth colony in 1620.
If you're interested in the different types of English colonies in early America. Specifically how vastly different their cultures were and how that influenced modern American politics then I would highly recommend Albion's Seed by David Hackett Fischer. I'm not going to lie it's a doorstop of a book but it's really good and very readable.
Yes, 100% Americans are prudes & every single person from your country has your exact sensibilities.
You don’t have to stereotype because we like maple syrup while fucking a moose in our igloos, buddy.
But yes, Americans are prudes. Ultra violence is okay but god forbid you show a nipple or say cunt.
Well I'm personally not a fan of ultra violence, whatever that is compared to violence, but I think if people have a problem with something or someone then you should be able to articulate that problem. Nipples don't bother me either.
Can you articulate what you’re trying to say here?
Sure what are you having trouble grasping?
Exactly what I asked, what you meant by the part of your comment I quoted.
It seems pretty self explanatory. I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding.
I’m not understanding which is why I asked but if you don’t want to explain that’s fine.
Have a nice day or night!
Oh why. I think of it this way and I'll use a restaurant metaphor.
Imagine you're thinking about going out to a restaurant with a lot of people and it's up to you to choose. It's a very special occasion and you really don't want to waste your money or your friends' time.
You find one that you're really interested in and you look up the reviews and it's a list of people saying, "sucks" and "great." Not sure what to make of it you look up another but it's the same thing. Nothing but "sucks" or "great." Restaurant after restaurant with the exact same reviews. How will you make up your mind?
That's kind of how I see a lot of political discourse. Someone does something that they don't like, "SUCKS!" but someone else does something that they like, "GREAT!"
None of this is the end of the world. It's just my opinion that if it wouldn't be helpful for everyone to do it then it stands to reason it isn't helpful if one person does it. If you think something sucks say why it sucks:
"I liked Sinema at first but she said\did X and that resulted in Y and that would affect Z... etc"
Combine that with the fact with as I've gotten older I personally try to not use insults geared directly towards women. I work with an older woman who's incredibly smart and actually very helpful but she doesn't candy coat her language. If you messed up she'll just tell you that you messed up but she'll show you how to fix it and prevent it. If you mess up a lot she'll tell you that. Right to your face. She doesn't gossip behind people's backs if she's going to say it she'll say it right in front of you.
I've found that there are a lot of people, guys especially, who want women, older women especially, to hold them by the hand and be very maternal towards them and because she isn't they called her all these names behind her back like a bunch of cowards. I got so sick of hearing this that I'd tell people if you're going to say it then say it to her face but I don't want to hear it. Their response? "Fuck you it's just a joke" or "no I might need her help someday." After that I began thinking about how I use language like that and I just decided that it's not something that I really want to do.
Everyone's different. What works for me might not work for you and that's fine. I'm going to keep on doing my thing because that's all I know. You keep on doing your thing if that's what you want to do.
It absolutely is.
Delusional.
It's narcissistic and douchey. But it's unfortunately not delusion. It's hard to deny she had an impact. She wreaked havoc in the Senate. And now she has a golden ticket to go on to sit on boards, be ceo of something, or just be a public speaker and get paid shit tonnes of money. The system is set up for Senators
If this is accurately reported then it definitely shows her priorities. I'm not going to lie I'm nervous that a threeway Arizona Senate race is going to make Keri lake a senator. We'll see when the race heats up.
Who? She knows exactly what she's doing, and isn't apologizing for it. She's 100% Republican, an opportunistic narcissistic liar grifter, and always has been.
Saved the senate? For who?
Her and manchin publicly argue that getting rid of the filibuster would allow republicans to gut the social safety net when/if they take control of government. I think that's a bad argument though because there's always another election and if Republicans did do that then votes could put Democrats back in power to restore and/or improve everything.
I guess we could flip flop on stuff like that but the folks screwed over during the interim are going to have a really bad time.
Of course that's also assuming some Democrats aren't convinced (💰) to go along and we never get these program back. And if we do then we lose them again when the Republicans manage to up their voter suppression & gerrymandering game.
We're at a point where nothing gets accomplished at all. This graph illustrates how common it is to obstruct legislation, appointments, etc now.
I'd like a graph like this that went past 2010
Except it takes a lot more time, effort and money to rebuild something than it does to destroy it.
As the Bigen administration is currently experiencing.
That's true. I guess that I think it's worth the risk. The filibuster has basically brought to a halt any major legislation on a variety of matters. I think not doing anything could be worse.
So she connived her way into power purely for the clout and opportunities it would give her, I guess that's pretty par for the course.
So, you're saying she's the run of the mill, common American politician?
One with all the pretence removed.
This is becoming more and more common.
Agreed.
The last part of that sentence is unfortunately true.
I bet she doesn't. What a greedy dickhead.
Who?
Sounds pretty arrogant.
Ah yes. I was wondering where I heard "save the Senate" before
Someone needs to toss her down a long shaft.
Blessed are the meek...
Idk, sounds like the kind of shit someone who's scared of a revolution would say.
I thought we had "revolving door" policies at the federal level. Maybe that's something we need to have, like a lot of other things.
My understanding is that they're are no limitations on members of Congress after they leave office. Trump did put a ban on people on his administration becoming lobbyists, I think it was a five year ban, but he rescinded it towards the end of his term.
It's pretty sad that my state ethics process is stricter than the federal government's.
It really is. The vast majority of states don't have any laws like that too. Mine doesn't.