The Washington Post has stepped off the Elizabeth Warren ‘rah..rah’ media wagon….
She finished with a zinger:
“ ‘Assuming you can find one.’ ”
After landing her punchline, Warren turned, took a few steps and smiled broadly as the room exploded in laughter. Her response went viral online, and by Friday afternoon, Warren’s campaign team, which rarely brags about such things, was crowing that the clip had garnered more than 12 million views on Twitter.
The glitterati gushed. “The single greatest response to this question, in or outside politics,” wrote actress Minnie Driver. “Made my day,” added actress Alyssa Milano. Javier Muñoz, who recently played the title role in the smash musical “Hamilton,” posted seven emoji of clapping hands.
But Republicans and some Democrats warned that the quip at the CNN-sponsored forum would play poorly among a big swath of voters.
“It’s about telling people who don’t agree with you that they are backward by definition,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist who advised Bill Clinton’s presidential reelection campaign. The line was a “stab” to those who don’t agree with her, he said, and “it is a battle cry for men to turn out against Elizabeth Warren.”
The 44-second exchange captured the promise and peril of Warren’s candidacy. She is quick-witted and sharp-tongued in a way that has played well in the Democratic primary and could prove effective against President Trump. But conservatives warn that she can come off as condescending and dismissive…
Note….
Warren is beginning to cultivate a view that she does NOT want or need the working class voters that Obama was able pull as a margin of victory, but that deserted Hillary Clinton …Those voters ARE the reason the Democrats have a House majority and are holding Joe Biden in the lead for the nomination and against Trump in the polls…
image…Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks as CNN’s Chris Cuomo listens during Thursday’s town hall on LGBTQ issues. (Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP)
Sharp-witted but about as smart as the “basket of deplorables” or that 47% of Americans are Takers.
Leave Donald Trump to make the personal insults about the appearance or behavior of those who displease or disagree with him.
Agreed….
Yes, let me specify that DCC agrees with DSD on this.
*Democratic Capitalist Corey (of course)
Warren supporters are strongly supporting her on this…..
Rubio is going hard against her on this …
Rubio,can’t decide if he’s a full time or part time Trump cultist.
Well clutch my pearls, Elizabeth was clever talking about an old wedge issue when she should remember, only male candidates are allowed to make smart assed comments.
First, it was old cha-cha boot Mario who talked about the size of Trump’s hands in that debate. He has no room to talk about any group being supposedly insulted by Warren’s comments, since he’s an insult to the Senate.
But second, she was both funny and right. My marriage is legal, who I choose to marry is my business, and the law of the land. If a hypothetical voter is opposed to my marriage I can rest assured they are also opposed to any Democrat running for President. She isn’t exactly shedding potential general election voters with those remarks.
So to somehow characterize her comment as her campaign ignoring working folks or being elitist in the 47% sort of way is ridiculous.
She isn’t my first choice by any means, but I will vote blue to save our Democracy next year and find this nitpicking ridiculous given what just happened this week alone.
Yes, people may think her voice is annoying, find her pant suits tiring, or wish she could be more inspiring. But her comments were funny, relatable, and appropriate.
Tired of Democrats trying to be all things to all voters. Our civil rights are under attack by this Administration, and we know Trump will drag every dog whistle out from the last 50 years to win this coming election. We don’t help ourselves by not standing up for what’s right.
There are more of us than them, both of the last elections proved that. We lost because more of our voters simply refused to vote in 2016 in three states. Our work should be directed to fixing that problem, not criticizing candidates for being both humorous and correct.
Democrats will NOT get the Presidency if they can’t get SOME working class whites and the black vote …..
I agree Warren IS a good and smart campaigner ..
That said?
She STILL needs the two other groups ,,,,
She doesn’t have them yet ….
She needs to be able sell herself to them also ….
You completely miss my point James, but whatever.
My main point, ALL of the Democratic Candidates support same sex marriage, all of them. So why, after Senator Warren delivers a great line at a gay rights forum, does she get singled out as somehow losing “white working class voters” if she is the nominee? Why are her remarks any more offensive than any of the other candidates? After all Beto thinks churches who discriminate against gays should lose their tax exempt status (something I agree with), isn’t that far more controversial.?
I actually find all the endless discussion of the white working class a distraction. First, isn’t this a “special interest group” and doesn’t the right constantly harp on how the Democrats are too focused on special interests? Second, just endlessly repeating that the Party needs to attract working class voters isn’t a plan to do so. It’s actually quit meaningless.
So why not have that type of discussion. Which one of the candidates has the best program to restore the middle class.
I think this is more about Warren losing her
ALL positives from the media anymore….
While she DOES aim for more educated voters ?
one quip probably isn’t a deal breaker…
But the more it’s talked about ?
The more it’s gonna force her to deal with..
Just like Biden or Sanders , eh?
James failed to explain his comment that Warren’s comment is an attack on working class voters – as if gays and lesbians and people who support marriage equality don’t work.
The truth is that more than 2/3 of Americans now support marriage equality. I’m not sure whether Warren’s comment will cost her votes or not, but at least I am confident she will fight for marriage equality.
Oh, I don’t think Warren is against gays or even white working class voters….
But?
She NOW. has to be careful ….
WashPost and other media ARE gonna turn on her after they have been knocked for being in the tank for her….
and Warren supporters are on ON twitter trashing it….
Great for Warren
And
Facebook!
And most of All?
Twitter!
And here we have it, an honest, accurate, and funny answer to a question about marital rights asked of a woman candidate is labeled “contemptuous.” Some things never change.
Of course it could also be that the answer hit a little too close to home.
And this is why Keith went to Ohio and caused people to vote for Donald Trump.
Either a lesson will be learned or it won’t.
… How would she respond if a voter approached her and said, “I’m old-fashioned, and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman?”
Warren (D-Mass.) responded with a theatrical seriousness. “Well, I’m going to assume it’s a guy who said that,” she deadpanned, pausing a beat for the audience to catch the joke.
Then she added, “And I’m going to say, ‘Then just marry one woman — I’m cool with that.’”
She finished with a zinger:
“ ‘Assuming you can find one.’ ”
The problem not about winning over heterosexual-marriage-only voters (devoutly-religious voters who may or may not support Donald Trump).
And there’s no problem, either, with saying ‘if you believe that, marry only someone of the opposite sex’ which is a humorous way of making the very valid point that your own views on whom people should marry may be valid for you but shouldn’t be imposed on others.
The problem is with two implicit insults:
(one) that only men would ask such a question
and
(two) that those who believe in opposite-sex-only marriages may be or must be unattractive as mates or spouses.
They are the flip side of some hypothetical right-winger saying gays only marry gays because they can’t find a partner of the opposite sex, or that only gay men would ask such a question.
Warren’s comment was obviously a joke – anyone should be able to see that. Jokes are only funny if there is some truth to the comment, and the truth is that most people now not only support marriage equality, but are offended by the theory that God for some reason objects to love between two gay people. And of course most unmarried women would find it offensive that their husband would have such views. And for good reason.
When Trump said yesterday that Democrats are trying to destroy democracy, it wasn’t intended as a joke. But neither James nor Dave likely raised an eye brow, even though unlike Warren’s comment, it wasn’t intended as a joke and there wasn’t any truth in it. Republicans insult Democrats all of time, and we rarely respond. But some of these same Democrats do respond if a Democrat insults the ignorant.
In my opinion, this is yet another example of Republicans fighting us with guns, but we being afraid to fight back for fear of insulting the ignorant. People support the Democratic position on almost all issues, but these same people often vote Republican, partially because we come across as wimps for not standing up for what we claim we believe.
And Warren in not a wimp.
Hey Z?
I DO mention that it WAS a quip….
There ARE some Democrats who do N OT want their candidates to go down to Trump’s level….
I also mention her that Warren’s twitter feed is strongly supportive of her quip….
I agree with ya that Democrats need to push back…
But I also have my eye on several other things…
I do NOT agree with the idea that Democrats do NOT need one working class white vote…
I AM acutely aware that Democrats WON a majority in the House because they pealed off some the voters that DID vote for Trump the last time and the party DOES NEED more of them…
Donald Trump lies on the regular…
I have written countless piece’s about THAT….
To say I don’t care about it is fact out wrong…
Finally?
I reserve the right to disagree with Warren on certain things just as I did with Obama and Biden…
Blind ‘loyalty’ to a politician ‘s actons is something we see with Trump and we KNOW that is NOT a good thing, eh?
A WashPost update on the skirmish….
The Facebook page for Warren’s campaign ran an ad that intentionally opened with a piece of misinformation, “Breaking news: Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook just endorsed Donald Trump for re-election.”
“You’re probably shocked, and you might be thinking, ‘how could this possibly be true?’ ” it continues. Then comes the reveal.
“Well, it’s not. (Sorry.),” the ad continues. “But what Zuckerberg *has* done is given Donald Trump free rein to lie on his platform — and then to pay Facebook gobs of money to push out their lies to American voters.”
AD
Warren’s ad further claims that “if Trump tries to lie in a TV ad, most networks will refuse to air it. But Facebook just cashes Trump’s checks. Facebook already helped elect Donald Trump once. Now, they’re deliberately allowing a candidate to intentionally lie to the American people. It’s time to hold Mark Zuckerberg accountable — add your name if you agree.”
Warren’s campaign and Facebook’s communications team continued to spar on the subject — on Twitter — well into Saturday night…
…
Politicians are treated differently than other Facebook users when it come to making false claims on the platform, The Washington Post reported Thursday. Politicians’ statements are not subjected to the same fact-checking scrutiny that other advertisements typically go through, the vice president of global affairs and communications Nick Clegg said last month.
“We do not submit speech by politicians to our independent fact-checkers, and we generally allow it on the platform even when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules,
More…
More hysteria.
No one said that Democrats don’t need “one working class White vote” and you know it.
The point is that this whole hoopla you’ve created is based on the false assumption that All White working class voters would be offended by Warrens joke .They won’t and the ones that would?They are likely to vote for Trump anyway.
Facebook has been under pressure over the past week from activists that argue it shouldn’t allow politicians to be exempt from its fact-checking policy for ads.
That pressure rose partly in response to reports that Trump was pouring big bucks into Facebook about impeachment ads that opponents say are based on false claims.
Be smart: The political ad saga has ignited backlash from Democrats that argue Facebook is unfairly helping conservatives by allowing them to run false claims in their advertising.
The irony: While conservatives in Congress have alleged all year that Facebook is silencing their voices, Democrats now argue that Facebook is not doing enough to censor them.
The big picture: The false ad spat was just the latest tit-for-tat in a growing battle between Zuckerberg and Warren, which has mostly been escalated by Warren.
…
The bottom line: Even though political ads reportedly make up less than 5% of Facebook’s revenues, the company has chosen to engage in political advertising because it falls in line with its mission of empowering free speech.
More @ Axios
There ARE Democrats who DO believe that progressives distain for ANYTHING that isn’t THEIR views should NOT be supported…
There ARE Democrats in Trump districts that simply CANNOT front the straight progressive point of view…
DEMOCRATS NEED THOSE who are in marginal districts just as much as those in safe districts….
No one has said
Differently
Just making a point….
Actually all of this is because you sense that Biden is slipping and you were taking a shot at Warren.
That’s all it was.
i explained about the working class voters Democrats need….
I also point out here that Warren IS CLOSING on Biden….
But I also explain a media rooting for Warren and the fact that Biden in fact still leads the race…
Having a contest Is what a nomination IS about….
As with Hillary?
Competition IS a good thing…..
I DO think Biden IS more electable and therefore my choice….
No secret here ….
Biden still leads in that respect.
However, Warrens “electability “ numbers are rising.
Indeed, as of now?Electability is about the best argument Biden has going for him.His campaign so far has been far inferior to Warrens.
AND his support from Black , Moderate AND Working class Democrats…
Those THREE groups compose the MAJORITY of Democrats….
Ref: Obama and Hillary Clinton nomination votes…..
It gets old….
But the media types STILL FORGET who the Democratic OVERALL party is….
Since Biden typically polls about 30% or so in the polls,approximately 70% of Democrats ,including lots of people in the sub groups you cite ,apparently Don’t support him.
Your explanation?
Sure….
The vote is SPLIT among the how many people running?
The VAST majority of the vote is rested in Biden, Warren and Sanders….
Heck, THAT was a easy one!….
That’s no explanation at all.
Sure the vote is split, among a bunch of “lefties.”You know the people that you assure us the Democrats you mentioned above don’t want.
So, apparently ,these “lefties,” when their percentages are added together?Have an aggregate support double of Biden.
Either you understand addition or you are purposefully evading the issue.
The point is that your theory that “regular “ Democrats ,as you would define them, are split all over the place and your constant harping that they all ,or even an actual majority , support Biden is simply not provable.
The Only thing the polling numbers show presently is that Biden has the support of roughly a third,while the remaining two thirds support “lefties” or are undecided.
No….
The vote is split as I said among EVERYONE…
Sub group of moderates ?
Ok…
But I’ll bet U didn’t see the poll that had Warren, Sanders AND Biden splitting different parts of the Left and moderate vote and showing what the polls show…Biden leading….EITHER?
….
…..’Joe Biden was named the top choice among pluralities of both the somewhat liberal and moderate/conservative groups’….
CBS News….Link...
I have to remember….
You’re not much of a ‘grey’s’ guy…
One must be aware that the positive Warren media stories STILL run opposite almost NO Biden one’s in the media…
And I have to remember that you have little understanding of politics.
Keith earlier made this comment but let me reiterate it.
Any voter, working class or Otherwise,who is “offended” by Warrens remark or gay marriage, is not going to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate.Indeed, that type voter is the quintessential Republican voter(although even many Republicans now support Gay marriage).
James buys into the Republican view that so called “working class voters” cast their ballots on social issues like homosexuality, abortion etc.Obviously some due and those people are now and have been voting Republican for awhile .Attempting to “appeal” to those types is a futile effort.However, there are many many “working class voters” who are not all worked up about these wedge issues and are open to an appeal to the facts that Republican economics is aimed squarely at enriching the rich and seeing that the gap between the wealthy and everyone else continues to widen.
I no more believe that a “working class” voter who was watching that show the other night and is either opposed to or highly skeptical of the antics of Trump, Donald J.,after hearing Warrens remark , would utter to himself,”oh gee that’s horrible, guess I’ll vote for Trump,”than I believe CG will decide to vote for the Democratic candidate against Trump.
And ,as we all know, this is nothing more than James kicking Warren , who is not my first choice at the moment, because he doesn’t like her ,and he always buys into the Republican narrative of the electorate.
I could not agree with Zreebs and Jack more.
Republicans can find offense and outrage in almost anything if it meets their political objective.
Not only was Warren funny, she was correct. The outrage should be directed at what the Republicans are doing to the Gay Community, not that Warren is defending same sex marriage by making a joke.
Who are the Democratic or Democratic leaning voters who are “outraged” at Warren’s joke?
It’s Trump Republicans who claim they could vote for a Democrat that was socially in line with the Drmocratic Party of 40-50 yrs ago. Which is just another way of saying they would never vote for a Democrat. Because they are Republican. Duh.
Exactly.
“Working class voters” for whom social issues are paramount have been voting Republican for years
Jack, The problem with discussing anything with James is that he either doesn’t understand what we are saying or he deliberately ignores what we are saying when he formulates a response. So any conversation with James usually ends with me being frustrated.
I consider that a bigger problem than James’ understanding of politics.
Glad to have this discussion……
I get told In don’t know what I’m talking about for about ten years ….
Maybe in another ten years here I’ll figure it out?
In seeing this discussion, I think some folks on the left are missing the larger picture, and yes, it is also probably that james is focused on this because he wants Warren to be harmed in order to benefit Biden.
First of all, nobody is suggesting that Warren should for political reasons change her views on same sex marriage. However, in answering the question in the snarky way she did, she seems to have nothing but contempt for those who disagree with her. A few years ago, that would have been the majority of the country. We all know that public opinion has shifted on this matter and that numerous people have “evolved” including prominent Democrat politicians who had the opposite view just a few years ago. Why not let others “evolve” on their own timeline or at least have some tolerance for a difference of opinion?
Yes, there are voters who do not believe in same sex marriage but might still be open to voting Democrat for a myriad of other issues. There are also those who have no problem with same sex marriage but are disappointed when they see a politician acting in a contemptuous way like Warren did. She is basically saying that anybody who does not agree with her on the issue is a “deplorable” and then she proceeds to personally insult them, for the sake of people on her own side getting riled up in support.
For the culture warriors on both sides there are indeed no shades of gray on an issue like this but many others are just turned off by the fact that a politician wants to insult others and divide the country when a sense of greater unity would be preferred.
How long should we have let those who were opposed to interracial marriage “evolve”?
People would tend to reject that comparison, but that certainly doesn’t stop many in your party, to this day, to pay homage to Louis Farrakhan, but all that needs to be said by a Presidential candidate is “the laws will be enforced.”
This concept of a President or want to be President targeting groups of citizens for ridicule for the entertainment of other groups of citizens is pretty new and should come to an end.
It sounds like Warren might have some verbal shot to take at Hillary Clinton too
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7568933/Chelsea-Hillary-Clinton-awkward-moment-disagree-trans-self-identification.html
It was a damn joke about people who oppose gay marriage being increasingly out of touch. She didn’t say they should rounded up into camps or ostracized. What you really can’t stand about Warren is if Amerucans embrace her they really will be rejecting the GOP mantra if lower taxes for the rich. In an unambigous direct way.
So of course you want to take her down.
That’s some weird correlation. I think if the American people embrace her though, they will be embracing taking away health care coverage from millions of Americans and paying for rich people’s kids to go to college for free.
She had a canned, rehearsed joke, that she chose to unleash.
Maybe it helps her in the primaries but I think it would be an example of something that would hurt her in a general election.
You can have your own opinion. I think it was a political mistake.
Warren does NOIT want take away healthcare…
She HAS backed away from Sanders excursion of private insurance and Sanders has watered his original plan down….
Sanders wants free college…
Warren wants to cuts student loan debt, which Trump has Dione for vets….
Sure she, as others have promised things she won’t deliver…
She will NEVER come close to Trump’s BS….
You aren’t even consistent with Biden’s message, the candidate you claim is the only viable choice.
Biden is saying all these things about Warren in her wanting to get rid of Obamacare and she has supported free college for all.
I am sure this will be covered during the debate tomorrow.
Warren’s plan…Please note the BOLD word…
To accomplish this systemic overhaul, Warren proposes eliminating tuition and fees at all two-year and four-year public universities through a federal partnership with states to “split the costs of tuition and fees and ensure that states maintain their current levels of funding on need-based financial aid and academic instruction.”
More…
Please re-read my point on the Medicare-for-All updates from ALL the Democrats that previously raised their hands to Lester Holts question back in. the early debate….
Yes….
Biden supports Obamacare fixes…
Why shouldn’t he?
So, as I said, and and as Warren’s Democrat opponent, including Joe Biden say, she wants to pay for rich kids to go to college for free.
Rich kids go to PRIVATE schools which Warren’s plan does NOT touch…
Gheez CG?
Please note I aAM defending Warren in this conversation🙄..
Under Warren’s plan, rich kids could go to public schools, tuition free.
Under Warren’s plan, Obamacare would be done away with and everyone would be enrolled in Medicare whether they wanted to be or not.
I would have thought you preferred Biden over Warren because of these differences, but apparently not.
I’m actually old enough to remember when public colleges and universities, even the very best (e.g. California, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont) were free to the residents of those states. In fact I was marginally involved with the student opposition to tuition at the University of California.
But students at Cal, UCLA, etc. were first hit by increasing “fees”. And of course, all students had to find some way of paying for housing, food and textbooks.
Out-of-state students did generally have to pay a much higher (though not astronomical) out-of-state tuition, as well as meet significantly tougher admissions criteria.
Again…..
Rick kids go to private schools…
Warren isn’t talking about those school’s
Ur point is off…
Furthermore ?
NO ONE. is gonna ‘get rid’ of Obamacare anytime in the near or far future NOT even the GOPer’s who don’t mention the ‘R’ word anymore..
Again…
Sanders who is peddling the MFA program isn’t gonna be a position to do it….Neither will ANYBODY else…
Like Jack says
the ‘idea’ is political jump off point…
U trying use it is wasted time ..
but u keep at it…
On Biden?
I heard what he has said from his heart at the start of the campaign …
He’s pivoted left with Warren on his butt like Obama did for Iowa in 2008….
He’ll come back if he gets the delegates after Super Tuesday….
Yea I KNOW
I don’t know my politics
except when i’m right and people don’t want to say so….
No problem….
Rich kids don’t go to public universities?
Talk about a ridiculous stereotype!
This is embarrassing, even for you.
I was the son of an Ivy League professor. Brown University paid my tuition & fees at Cal-Berkeley and later at a local public junior college (Merritt in Oakland). But had I chosen instead to attend Rhode Island College or the University of Rhode Island, there would at the time (late 1960’s) been any tuition charged.
The other three schools I applied to, and the two that accepted me to were private schools (Penn & Beloit, both of which invited me as well into advance programs), but for various reasons, I chose a public university (which did not) instead.
And at the prep school I attended, the advice was always heavily slanted in favor of private and parochial colleges, no matter how high (Harvard) or low their academic quality, and unencouraging about public schools. It was assumed that a degree from a fourth-rate private school was more valuable and prestigious than one from the state universities in California, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont or New York City.
I think that in the half-century since, the advice (and what colleges prep-school students actually get into) has greatly changed, so James’ assumption that rich kids don’t attend public university is over-broad.
So the difficult question about whether better-off students should pay tuition is relevant. Various European countries answer it differently, e.g. social-democratic Sweden deducts 2% of a graduate’s income.
Sorry this post rambles so much; I’m rather sleepy.
On rich and private school discussion?
Aren’t there some rich parents in trouble from buying their way INTO private schools?
I don’t think they gave a seconds thought about ‘free’ or lower costing state school’s…
Does THAT apply to all?
Nope…
But the rich kids going to public colleges have to be few and far between…
No.
You can see how sleepy by all that unintended bold-face type, I must have caused with a stray HTML tag that wasn’t noticed or closed.
I went to a public state university (and a relatively inexpensive one at that) and there were plenty of “rich kids” there. One of the main reasons was that they didn’t have the grades or test scores to get into anywhere else as opposed to people like me who could not afford to go anywhere else (and did not qualify for financial aid.)
If public universities would be free to all, there will be a lot more “rich kids” signing up to go to them because it would likely be easier to get a degree from one of them than wasting their parents money wherever.
About half my High School went to the University of Illinois and they were not exactly poor kids.
Of course people from wealthy families go public colleges and universities for a variety of reasons (parents went there, big party schools, etc etc) and under Warren and Sanders, these universities would be free for all, no matter how wealthy the family is and how much they would otherwise be able to afford to pay.
Back to Sen. Warren’s riposte.
While a swing voter might not object to same-sex, he or she may well pray with those who do (including the priest, pastor, rabbi or imam). The official current Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (which still considers homosexuality to be “moral disordered”) certainly does not accept either religious or civil same-sex unions.
That swing voter may well live in the same neighborhood, work for the same employer or go out drinking with the same friends as someone whose religious beliefs oppose same-sex marriage.
I don’t think that that voter would like Sen . Warren’s quips — which are all too reminiscent of the segregationist taunt, “If they love nigras so much, why don’t they marry them ?
Also, breaking down Warren’s zinger, is she saying that the concept of one man marrying one man and one woman marrying one woman is somehow too “old fashioned” as well?
I am curious how she would answer a young pansexual woman who says it is unfair that she cannot marry both a man and a woman if she finds love with both.
Any thoughts?
My thoughts are if you are this obsessed with Warren’s joke you need to get laid!
Who is obsessed over it besides perhaps the people who are praising it as an act of genius?
She’s no Joan Rivers in terms of comedy.
And it was the questioner who described one man/one woman marriage as “old fashioned”, not Warren. Her response was “then marry one woman-I’m cool with that, assuming you can find one”.
What kind of precious straight snowflake reads that and thinks Warren considers all straight marriage “old fashioned”?
Warren is one woman married to one man. The idea that she is against those unions or finds them passe is something only a Republican who hates Warren for a myriad of other reasons could conjur.
Do you believe marriage should be limited to one person and one person?
Be honest.
If somebody only wants to marry one person, that’s fine, but what about those who believe they are being prevented from living their life to the fullest by only having one spouse, especially with our changing societal mores on the fluidity of gender and sexuality? What would someone like Warren say to them?
It’s a valid question that is going to have to be addressed.
“I’m old-fashioned, and my faith teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman?”
Is she running for Pope or is she running for President?
If a voter approached any Presidential candidate by saying that, the appropriate response would be, “In America you are free to follow any faith you choose. As President I will enforce the laws of the land.”
Why would that response be unacceptable?
What if a voter approached Donald Trump and said as it related to immigration or basically anything else:
“I’m old fashioned and my faith teaches me to love my neighbor as I love myself…”
What kind of zinger and reference to MS-13 would he be able to use in order to get a room to explode in applause and people to freak out positively on Twitter?
Then there’s some real news…
Trumps precipitate withdrawal in Syria which has set off ethnic cleansing and likely the rejuvenation of ISIS.
And after little perfunctory hand wringing by Republicans in Congress what have we?
Well there’s Liz Cheney trying to shift the blame from her party Leader to the Democrats.If they hasn’t talked about impeaching Trump?None Of this would have happened sayeth she.
Meanwhile Lindsay “the worm” Graham after an initial blast is back to praising his leader and touting sanctions on Turkey as the answer to the mess.
The only thing missing is for a Republican to yell, “Benghazi.”
Remember when ISIS was considered an existential threat to our nation?
So sayeth Republicans in the preTrump era.
Apparently it’s not much of an issue anymore as Republicans desperately try to shift the blame from the bungler in chief.
So let’s the apend the afternoon talking about Liz Warrens joke.
Like Wow!
I can talk about both plus free college plus whatever else is going on… (all while I should be working more..)
I never heard ISIS referred to as an “existential” threat, but definitely a threat to Americans and American interests everywhere around the world, including at home.
Yeah you don’t hear lots of things that Republicans say.
Selective listening is a good quality.
If you seriously recall this, I am sure you can find one example of the term “existential threat” being used.
I just do not believe any politician ever said that ISIS could literally end the U.S.
They certainly want to kill many. many Americans though.
Lindsay Graham on FoxNews in 2015.
link?
I would disagree then and now with the term “existential.”
However, that’s not really the main point. They are a huge threat to the world and have been for years now.
Ah google it.
It’s there .
Frankly I don’t givedamn what you think anyway.
Graham said it .
Well, one of us voted to send Lindsey to Washington D.C, and it wasn’t me, was it?
Again, if anyone can articulate exactly what the plan of Elizabeth Warren or any other Democrat candidate is to defeat ISIS, please do so.
It clearly seems to be a backburner issue to them, as they are focused on the healthcare and the college and deciding what should happen to ICE, etc.
Maybe they might give it 90 seconds in tomorrow’s debate. jack won’t be watching though.
I think Marianne Williamson may have come the closest in saying we can pray ISIS away or love them into submission,.
Oh we are back that voting game routine I see.
Yes you proudly voted for that psychopath Alan Keyes .
Last I heard of that Right Wing kook he was running the old George Wallace American Independent Party in California.
The old nutjobfinally joined a party that hates People his color.
Same old stiff out of you ,irrelevancies and whataboutism.
Right, I voted against Obama. I don’t really know what Keyes is up to, but good for the old George Wallace Party to embrace racial and religious diversity.
Four years later you voted for Lindsey Graham. I would have voted the same way.
But years after that, you decided you couldn’t vote for a Republican or a Democrat to be your Senator, even though you knew only one could win….
So, that makes it pretty tough for you to criticize me if I choose to do the same thing when I vote.
I have stated on several occasions that I don’t care who you vote for ,but you insist on claiming differently.
So once again let me State in the most emphatic manner possible,
I don’t give a damn who you vote for.
Now do you fully understand that?
You care very much because you keep bringing it up that I won’t “vote for the only person capable of stopping Trump.”
Clearly, you care.
I also said that I didn’t care who you voted for.
I was making a simple point that the only person who can defeat Trump is the Democratic nominee .That is a simple fact.I was trying to get you to acknowledge that.
You finally , after dancing around that fact(you just can’t bear to admit it) ,conceded that you had “resigned “ yourself to a Democratic victory, an admission of sorts.
Frankly I find your various twists and turns somewhat amusing.
But do I really “care” who you vote for?No I don’t.
So find some other angle for your well known “whataboutism.”
Yeah, you don’t really care. You are just trolling me. I will keep that in mind.
Clearly you understand my position and agree with me since you couldn’t bring yourself to vote for DeMint.
You should just admit that I am principled and consistent.
A “principled and consistent “ person would have left a party that nominated Trump.
You didn’t ,although you engaged in some weird minuet ranging from “Im not much of a Republican “ to worrying about your license plates.
Then ,you concede that ,when Trump exits the scene , you will be fully back in the fold and once again supporting those people who served as babbling sycophants for the man you described as a “psychopath.”
If that be your definition of “principled.,” well, you have just given that word a whole new definition.
“Left a party”
What’s there to leave.?We don’t have party registration in my state.
I have told you numerous times about all the time I spent angrily trying to get RNC lackeys to remove me from all their mailing lists and how I took down every GOP logo in my home (that is not tied to a specific campaign of a Republican who did not support Trump) and how I resigned as a Precinct Captain after 14 years, etc. etc., and how I will not even step foot into a meeting room that as a Trump sign of any sort, etc, etc But that’snot good enough for you., even as you literally vote for candidates who would wear a red MAGA hat to walk down your block.
I think there is value in people fighting to fix the party down the road, if at all possible.
What you are suggesting may be “pragmatic.” It is hardly “principled.”
However ,we are all used to your egotistical holier than thou attitude whereby you hold yourself out as somehow morally superior to others here.
You’re not.
Rather ,you are simply a Republican, eager for Trump to exit the scene so you can resume active participation in that party,complete with support for those same people who have served as Trump enablers since his election and continue to do so.
Oh I fully expect there will wholesale revisionism among Republicans in the post Trump era.Indeed, their excuses will sound much like yours do today.
You?”Im not much of a Republican.”
They?”Well I really didn’t support Trump that much.”
But hey all of you are “Principled.”
I’m from the beat’m over there so they have to keep their heads down school of thought…
I have NO problem with Aemericsn troops being deployed around the planet to ‘advise’ and be our ‘eyes and ears’….
Trump’s campaign promise to bring the troops home was one from a rich real estate guy that lucked into the American Presidency…
He has NO foreign policy …
The Turkey withdrawal seems to have been a ‘favor’ to the Turkey leader who Trump probably like because his authoritarian ….
One would guess Trump ORDERED the US Military to back out of the region, since the general’s would have protested anything like this, KNOWING the order would create the shitshow going on…
Trump supporter so have what they wanted…
someone who does NOT listen to the experts
a fly by the seat of his pants guy…
soooo?
We watch him waddle around in the mud…
Tweeting ….
And getting up to pay him for being President…
Politicians ALL campaign on ‘Change’
We got a mouthful this time….
What is Warren’s plan for defeating ISIS? Does she have one? She brags about having one for everything else?
Let’s talk about this serious issue in policy detail. What is her plan? What should be done? Where does she differ from Trump?
“Defeating ISIS?”
They were already defeated according to Republicans.
Now Trump has rejuvenated them.
They weren’t defeated. Obama and Trump both let the U.S. down horribly in that regard.
ISIS WAS. contained on Obama’s watch….
As we know?
Donald Trump will automatically take a patch opposite anything Obama has done…
In Syria he was just doing this again…
Screw the Kurds
Screw the US military
Hand Putin, Assad and Iran a victory
And probably help ISIS…
And the mealy mouthed GOPer’s are so ‘mad’ they are gonna pass a resolution ?
No, the way he got out of Iraq caused the major problems in the region with ISIS.
As President, he tended to scoff at them as the “JV Squad” and said they would never be Kobe Bryant so we all needed to calm down.
Trump is tweeting that if Russia and China want to help the Kurds ?Let em.
Of Barack Obama had uttered some inanity like that,Fox News would suspend all further programming , several impeachment resolutions would have been introduced in the House by Republicans on this issue alone, and Sean Hannity would likely have had a breakdown on the air.
Now?
Expressions of regret will certainly glow from a bevy of Republican Congresspeople while Sean and the FoxNews ‘talent” will explain why this is probably a good thing.
Anyway ISIS is so yesterday.
Yeah, back when they were the “JV squad.”
There should be a recognition of all as to how dangerous Trump’s foreign policy is in regards to ISIS and terrorism and how it mirrors the mistakes made by Obama.
Trump should be hammered on this daily but with some recognition of how he is simply mirroring the mistakes of the recent past.
We ought to have a radically different approach in regards to American strength and American responsibility from the next President. It doesn’t seem like that exists among the frontrunners in either party (or Justin Amash.)
I think the lesson here is a Cheney will always be wrong on foreign policy.
Congresswoman Cheney has made it clear she strongly disagrees with Trump.
Is Trump right? I think many on the left believe he is but are too sheepish to admit it.
Cheney’s remarks though that Turkey did this because of the impeachment inquiry is purely dumb though. Even if true, and there is no evidence it is, it is irrelevant. Our governmental functions should never be dependent on some foreign nation. She knows better.
Nonetheless, she actually ran for office and is accountable to voters and did not merely trade on her name to sit on foreign boards.
Sounds just like Trump.
You’re coming around slowly but surely..
I sound like Trump or the Democrats do?
How would I sound like him? I’m curious to know.
Oh that stuff about Hunter Biden.
Straight out of the Trump playbook and you know it .
You’re just pissed that I got you off that nonstory about Warren.
You can go back to it now it’s Reaaaaaally important!
No, not pissed about anything.. just at the work website I need that is not loading.
I take digs at everyone. I knew it would get under your skin,
As for the Warren story, you guys cannot address the allegations of being bigoted against polyamorous people so you just ignore it. Hell, it’s not your problem! (probably)
Yeah And I got under your skin on the Republican apologist for Trump.
Your digs are 95% at Democrats as everyone here knows with an obligatory swipe at Trump.
And why not?You being a Republican.
Or is this one of those days when you don’t want to be “identified “ as such.
A tiring game.
No you didnt, and my digs here are much worse against Republicans.
I spent 95 % of a post criticizing Liz Cheney. You find nothing to disagree with, so you search out something else.
No they’re not.
Your “digs” at Republicans are purely perfunctory.
You were praising Cheney till I pointed out her pro Trump statement.
She is probably ne of the big Trump supporters in Congress.
And Dick himself whom you were quite a big supporter of in the past is also on the Trumps bandwagon,
She said today that the Democrats impeachment of Trump talk emboldened the Turks.
If that isn’t an apologia for Trump I don’t know what is.
You think lots of things
You saw my comments on that
Needing to get laid, and actually getting laid are two different things Scott.
Most Republicans I know are incapable of getting laid. Whether they lie about being a Republican or not. People have a way of sniffing them out.
Yeah between claiming that anti religion was the real takeaway of the disgusting pro Trump video to needling o obsessing with Warren’s! Joke at the LGBTQ forum to harping on Hunter Biden it’s clear. Our Republican culture warrior is back!
Vent away Scott. I know that you frustrated by striking out on here about as much as the Cardinals.