Trump's Team

I'm not a fan of the whole wide-open immigration thing, but bear in mind that the word "rush" is a pretty subjective term, and was used by the writer. I don't think you're going to prove your point by using the copy editor's choice of words as proof that something sneaky was going on. Were they actually rushed? Did anyone take actual shortcuts in the process?
 
"Seattle Husker, Her Facebook broadcast in the hallway had millions of views as of last night and got a lot of media exposure. I'm not sure McConnell won this little spat. Virtually nobody would have heard that letter had it been read on the Senate floor. No, I have not watched the Facebook video."

No, I don't think McConnell won either. It really only helped her according to my Facebook folks.
The outrage goes as follows: a MAN told a WOMAN to BE QUIET. This WOMAN was reading a letter by MLK's widow during BLACK HISTORY MONTH.
Much sputtering, vows to continue calls, postcard protests, and hashbrown resist with clenched fist emoticon.
PS I look like a dork because SH's quote isn't in the little orange box. Sorry, will get it next time.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how one can go from being a hero to the NAACP to becoming Nathan Bedford Forrest in just a few short years.
FB_IMG_1486626833206.jpg
 
So...on one site alone, already 27,000 sold and more on back order. Available in not only Tee shirts, but tanks, hoodies, and mugs for your convenience.
My feed is clogged with the 3 sentences, " She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.” These words are accompanied by images of every woman from Rosa Parks to the little girls entering a school in the deep south, protected by police--basically any woman (womyn ?) who have made an impact in any way.

Warren played this perfectly, and McConnell fell right in to the trap. It is being played as misogynist, racist, all the "ist" cards. Never mind that Warren was out of order, and breaking a rule. It was a total set up. Republicans need to heed the power of the woman's vote. I fear they are waking the sleeping giant, even if it isn't fair. Right now, women are freaked about the school issue for their children, freaked out about Trump being a misogynist, freaked out by the perception that his picks will end abortion and same sex marriage. They can be a powerful voting block.
I have a feeling this will come back to haunt the mid-terms.

persisted.jpg
 
Hollandtx said:
Republicans need to heed the power of the woman's vote. I fear they are waking the sleeping giant, even if it isn't fair. Right now, women are freaked about the school issue for their children, freaked out about Trump being a misogynist, freaked out by the perception that his picks will end abortion and same sex marriage. They can be a powerful voting block.
I have a feeling this will come back to haunt the mid-terms.
Click to expand...

OK, I'm gong to respectfully disagree. :smile1: I don't disagree with you that the Democrats played this well. They did, and Warren got to grandstand and play the sexism card, which was the whole point. However, I disagree that this has a real chance to have a major political impact.

First, people have very short memories when it comes to politics. In 2013, the GOP was supposed to be in massive political trouble, becasue they screwed up a government shutdown. (You were around here in 2013, so you know I strongly opposed the shutdown.) It was a public relations disaster (as shutdowns always are for the GOP), but all they've done is win since then. Nobody cared about it in the 2014 midterm elections, and they took back the Senate and expanded their already significant majority in the House. And of course, in 2016 they took back the White House with the most unpopular nominee in history. They lost seats in the House and Senate but did FAR better than they were expected to do. Nobody would call it anything but a decisive win for them.

The point is that 2018 is a long way away. It's hard to keep people freaked out about the Secretary of Education when the schools are still open and still educating kids as well or as poorly as they were before. It's hard to keep them in a rage about same-sex marriage getting overturned when it hasn't gotten overturned and when there isn't even a case on file. It's hard to keep them in a rage about abortion when it's still legal and when there's still a pro-choice majority on the Court.

Second, you are correct that some will remember all this and still be angry about it in 2018. However, if there's a lesson to be learned from 2016, it's that there are limits to the impact of identity/'outrage" politics. Not every voter (including female voters) makes them central to their voting decision, even if many on your Facebook feed do. Keep in mind that with everything Trump did to screw up his standing with women, he still got 41 percent of their vote and still won the election. The impact of Trump's screw-ups will probably be less in 2018, not greater, because other issues will likely overshadow them and because Trump won't be on the ballot. It'll be individual House and Senate members on the ballot and with a Senate map that strongly favors the GOP. Let's put it this way, a voter who will be angry about this stuff in 2018 probably lives in a solidly blue state and was never open to voting Republican anyway.

Third, to the extent that an undecided or Republican-leaning voter is sympathetic to Warren, that voter's mind probably isn't closed to hearing the other side. And frankly, McConnell's actions were pretty defensible.
 
Tim Scott reads mean tweets (over his vote for Sessions)
Scott said "I left out all the ones that use the n-word."


 
Hollandtx said:
Never mind that Warren was out of order,
Click to expand...

Everyone is saying this as if it is a given, but I dont think it is. Yes, there is a rule against impugning sitting Senators. That rule prevents senators from turning what should be a debate about the issue du jour into a personal spat.

But here, the issue du jour was Jeff Sessions himself. Senator Warren wasn't impugning Sessions in his capacity as a sitting senator, but in his capacity as a nominee for Attorney General. His character was relevant. I don't think there is any reasonable way to interpret the Senate rule as being applicable.

Hell, what if a senator was before the Senate on ethics charges? Would members be barred from impugning the Senator's character then?
 
Joe Fan said:
I really hope this woman runs in 2020
Click to expand...

She may need a new gig. Curt Schilling, the ex pitcher, is planning on running against her for Senate next time. He refers to her as "Lieawatha" because she's listed as a minority on the Harvard faculty. She's 1/32 native American or something ridiculous like that. Apparently she's too ashamed to admit she's white, like Rachel Dolezal.
 
NJlonghorn said:
what if a senator was before the Senate on ethics charges? Would members be barred from impugning the Senator's character then?
Click to expand...

If she were presenting evidence about his conduct, then sure. But that's not what she was doing. She was introducing hearsay, I believe. Wasn't she citing Ted Kennedy's letter calling Sessions a racist? I forget the actual text. But it wasn't evidence of anything.
 
Dana Loesch GOES OFF on Elizabeth Warren:

“I think it’s hysterical that this woman, who is a cultural appropriator, who is a race appropriator, that she has the audacity to engage in some sort of race-based attack against someone simply because she doesn’t like their party affiliation and doesn’t wish to see them confirmed to be AG,” Loesch said. “And I’ll tell you this, the closest that her ancestors ever came to American Indians was rounding up my ancestors, so let’s get that straight right now if anyone wants to have a discussion on what is or is not racist.”

In case the NRA’s stalker, Media Matters, missed it, Dana made her feelings extremely clear:

“I’ll reiterate that so the folks at Media Matters, for whom we pay the bills over there, so they can get it right. She’s a racist who appropriated an entire ethnicity so that she could get a job at Harvard,” Loesch said. “[She’s] a racist hypocrite. Democrats, and particularly all these anti-gun people, need to stop making excuses for the original Rachel Dolezal.”
Click to expand...

Zing! Pow! You go, girl!

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/...arren-is-the-original-rachel-dolezal/[/quote]
 
I believe she was trying to read a portion of a 10 page letter written by the widow of MLK that basically stated that Sessions was a racist. The letter was written in 1986. She was given the floor and spoke for almost an hour to read one woman's opinion of this man. Coretta Scott King was not a senator.
I certainly am no lawyer, but it does seem as if this is some type of hearsay. 30 years is a long time to hold someone accountable to behavior that may or may not have actually occurred in the way it was portrayed.
I totally agree that character is important. However, I question the true intent of Elizabeth Warren. I think she will do anything at all to bring attention to herself, and I question her character and motives.
 
I guess Lieawatha's just released book had nothing to do with her stunt.:rolleyes1:
and IIRC she has never been able to prove she has any native American blood.
 
She thought that McConnell would not DARE to stop her while she was reading the words of MLK's widow. These were the old rules that the GOP wilted under previously. Trump's victory is finally giving (some of) them the balls to stand up to this kind of bullying.
 
The MNUCHIN cloture passed 52-47

Mnuchin confirmation vote is Monday pm
Shulkin confirmation vote is is Monday pm
MacMahon confirmation vote is Tuesday am


C4SdUI4WIAE1uRA.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-ULM *
Sat, Sep 21 • 7:00 PM on ESPN+/SECN+

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top