Elizabeth Warren calls for impeachment

I am curious what will Sanders say.

My frontrunner now. Warren definitely has ovaries!

Did she find an eagle feather on the ground and thought it meant I'll use it to write off the president?

On time, the racist remark passing itself off as clever

Yas, gurl, yas!,

Send out the smoke signals!

Slay hunty!

She's a liar and needs to go away. No way she will be the nominee.

I'm not aware that she's lied about anything.

she should follow her conscience but its unlikely that the one leading the call for impeachment would end up being the opposing party's nominee for the next election cycle.

um the whole Native American stuff r9

um, she didn't lie, R11.

Aren't you embarrassed parroting trump?

I'm not parroting Trump. I'm just stating the obvious. You don't have to support EVERY democrat to be a democrat and I don't support Warren. She got jobs by claiming she was something she wasn't.

Gross, pathetic...

That is not entirely true, R13. Besides, you are doing trump's business by trashing good Democrats over things that are really not that relevant.

Good for her I guess, but America ain't gonna elect an old Massachusetts schoolmarm over Trump. She's still a flat-footed campaigner and Trump has successfully branded her "Pocahontas", and it has STUCK! The criminally stupid press has nothing better to do than ask her about it up until election day, which they will do! Wait till Dem primary voters realize Warren was a TWO-TIME Reagan and George H.W. Bush voter! Yeah, that'll go over good! She'll lose 35 states.

The polls are not on her side, R16. So where did you get the idea that she will be the one to go against trump? It's highly unlikely.

There is no damage to someone like Warren participating in the primaries.

[quote]! Wait till Dem primary voters realize Warren was a TWO-TIME Reagan and George H.W. Bush voter!

WTF?? I didn't know that. Ok. I'll drop the lying thing and dislike her for that. She was a repug?

Who do you support R8/R18?

[quote]She's still a flat-footed campaigner

I'm not sure where this is coming from. The reports I've heard is that she goes over very well in Iowa, and Politico has a story right now about how her stock is rising among African-Americans because of her appearances there.

Warren is consistent smart and informed. The only other candidate I like is Pete.

There are only 17 black people in IOWA

R3, I got me a whole eagle that's just itching to have at you.

the tv commercial she released about this is AMAZING

Regardless if you like the woman (not a fan) or not, she's right. Any other president in history would be impeached over this.

Any other President would have been impeached long before this, especially if he was a Democrat.

R25 why are you not a fan?

Just a desperate attempt to get herself some undeserved headlines. She's sneaky and a backstabber, remember when she fell in line with the BernorBusters and said the DNC had treated Bernie unfairly.

The senate is not going to convict trump no matter how many articles of impeachment the house democrats throw at him. And Pence will pardon Trump.

The only way is voting him out in 2020 and the senate and house majority democrats.

She reminds me of Eva Grub

GOP is still trying to make a huge deal out of clintons emails while all these indictments jail sentences and obstruction of justice is let go by the DP? Insane.

Only the progressive women like warren and AOC have balls. Get the rest out. Nancy lead the way out please.

" Oh my God, I'm slipping in the polls. I'm forgotten. I have to do something to get my name back on the front page. I know, I'll call for impeachment! That'll do it. Even though it doesn't have a prayer in hell of actually passing, I'm gonna do it anyway, because everyone will be talking about ME. Quick, get it out before that cunt, Kamala, thinks of doing it first."

R13, actually Warren did not lie, and she did not get jobs based off her race.

Reagan's solicitor general, Charles Fried, who was at Harvard Law's hiring committee, confirmed that race was not a factor in her hiring.

God, unbelievable what trash people will smear an honest person with.

So much Trump-supporting trash on this thread.

It's the political threads that especially make it clear that sometimes just sharing a sexual orientation does not make for much of a common bond.

Wow -- is this thread all trolls or all misogynists?

I love Warren and I have for a long time. Don't you guys remember when she called out the banks?

I made 13K last year and still sent her $40 in two increments of $20. Since she called for impeachment, I'm probably going to send her $20 more. I doubt if she will win the nomination, but I feel good about myself for supporting her as much as I can.

And I don't like Pete. He's a conservative in gay clothing. I don't like anyone just because s/he's gay. I'll support Warren until she's out of the running.

Ditto

R31 gets it!

Pretty much R31

And all it does is reinforce the notion that she's a shrill harpie.

Warren, like Hillary and Al Gore, is someone who works best behind the scenes, where someone with good leadership skills can take her smart ideas and figure out a way to sell them to other politicians and then the masses.

She is far and away the smartest and most thoughtful person running for president this year, but she's not CEO material. COO or CSO is more like it.

R35 that makes no sense about Pete. He get mocked here for his bland ,straight wardrobe and yet has quite progressive ideas, so he is more or less the opposite of what you state.

I support warren and pete

I can’t help but think this is very unhelpful. She’s running for President. If she was content to stay in the Senate I would say go right ahead. But she’s politicizing this and the only reason it will never happen is it’s already politicized.

Republicans are already saying the whole report is a partisan witch hunt. Then a Presidential candidate who’s in the middle of the pack starts flogging it as a campaign tool. Stupid and shortsighted. Keep the politics out if it and let the Senate approach it as a law and order issue, not a cheap political stunt issue.

This doesn’t work as “I’m better than all the other candidates, that’s why I’m saying it,” it works as, “I’ll say anything for attention because I have nothing to lose.” You know why the other candidates aren’t going there? Because they have a chance in hell of being elected. Get in office first, then do something.

This whole situation reminds me of what happened when FDR was shown smuggled picture of Nazi mass graves and concentration camps. The people who got those pictures out did it at tremendous risk to themselves and wanted them publicized. FDR said no. He said the way to help the Jews was win the war. What else could he say? During WWI there was a lot of lying propaganda, and nobody would have believed it, they would have said it was a political stunt.

The Nazis didn’t care about Jews. They weren’t going to be embarrassed into stopping. The way you stop fascism is to stop it, not yap about how you’d like to stop it. Fascists do not care about your opinion.

And what do you think this is right now?

[quote]Politico has a story right now about how her stock is rising among African-Americans because of her appearances there.

The phrase I left out was, "her stock is rising among African-Americans in South Carolina." That's where she's been campaigning.

This idea that she's called for impeachment in order to get her names in the headlines, to boost her poll standing, etc., is nonsense. When Rachel Maddow asked her why she's calling for impeachment, she simply said, "I read the Mueller report." She is as no-bullshit as they come.

She’s not a team player. Pelosi, Schumer and others are against impeachment proceedings because they know it will never pass the Senate. That doesn’t mean all possible investigations are at an end. Dragging it out for years is actually probably more effective, since we can never get him out.

Implying that it’s impeachment or nothing, when if those are the only two choices then it’s going to be nothing, is misleading people.

The other thing that’s worrying to me is that if Warren is implying, impeachment is the only answer, “if the Democrats aren’t impeaching they’re doing nothing at all,” is going to crush voters’ enthusiasm and could depress turnout. Why bother voting if “nobody’s doing anything, it’s hopeless”?

Impeachment hearings must begin. Through this process all the dirty details come out in public. They’ll all be called to testify and it won’t be pretty because they won’t be able to handle the scrutiny. Put so much pressure on Senate Republicans that they have no choice but to vote to impeach.

When impeachment proceedings were initiated against Nixon, there was little public support. That changed through hearings. We’re in a similar place.

Impeach foty fi

R47 I see what you did there.

Anyone who is against Warren's stance is a Trump supporter, Russian troll, or sexist pig.

I know, even if it doesn't work...we just sit back and let all this shit slide? "Nothing to see here". So these pieces of shit can keep their toxic confidence and do it again knowing there'll be not even an attempt at punishment? What a great example to set. As if it's strictly the voters 'choice' to dictate the law.

Keep holding hearings and bring the facts out. As more facts come out, people’s opinion can be shifted. Right now Trump and pals are just saying it’s all lies, move on.

Nobody’s reading 400 pages, put the witnesses on TV. Make Trump’s own cabinet testify against him, like Don McGahn. You don’t need impeachment to do that, just a subpoena.

And others call for a sharpshooter.

R51 Absolutely the way to go.

If you start impeachment proceedings -- even before the actual vote to impeach -- you can probably use that to get a copy of the unredacted Mueller report. That's the way the law is.

That alone is a good reason to start those proceedings.

[wuote] Pelosi, Schumer and others are against impeachment proceedings because they know it will never pass the Senate.

Always negotiating against their own party, and turning belly up even before a fight. Obviously they have their whatever agendas.

Instead, politicians need to do the politics. Make it impossible for some senators not to cross the aisle. Even a failed impeachment can produce rewards.

[quote]Instead, politicians need to do the politics. Make it impossible for some senators not to cross the aisle. Even a failed impeachment can produce rewards.

You are a describing a massive political fight. Unfortunately, Democrats are not fighters. Part of me feels they should go for it, Repubs would in their place. Part of me doesn't want his base enraged and engaged.

R56 Of course it's gonna be a big political fight. About time!

With what Trump has been doing, it's got the heart and soul of America.

Yes the democrats are afraid. But see just one thing the GOP did.

How has this lady got guts? She’s a fraud who pretends to be Native American.

R58 Please. A non-issue. Moving on.

Shouldn't Granny be changing her Depends? Every single member of the US Congress for the past 20 years is a vile psychopathic war criminal, if only by assent. This includes granny///////, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Not calling for impeachment is a political move.

Holding the president accountable for his endless crimes despite political opposition or the difficulty in having the senate confirm the articles of impeachment is political calculus and sets a bad precedent, that the president is above the law.

Finally, I find it more admirable that she was. Republican and became a Democrat as she saw how bankruptcies were ruining families' lives - this shows the ability to form or change opinions based upon available data instead of just having a conviction and never questioning it.

She's not going to get the nomination. Best to stick to her senate work.

[quote] How has this lady got guts? She’s a fraud who pretends to be Native American.

Is that your "script" for 2020. Get out of here...

She has some stunt queen in her.

Elizabeth Warren is an unlikeable, unelectable schoolmarm.

And the impeachment crap? First, it will never get past the Senate. Ever. She's just grandstanding. Second, do you really want that ex-gay Pense?

I have faith in Nancy. She's the smartest in the room.

Agreed r46, but I worry that the nation is far more exhausted and far less informed than in 1972, and that McConnell has done too good a job running the Repugs with a conscience out of the party, leaving only scumbags who would destroy the country to defend Trump.

Something that happened with Nixon, though, is that attempts to start impeachment were made for months before one took. People got used to the idea that a real impeachment hearing was coming.

I think that might work here, too. Start an investigation in the House and get people used to the idea over the course of a few months, then finally go for it. Might weaken both Trump and the GOP, too.

Democratic congressmen and senators need to call out for impeachment proceedings. Trump has done a lot worse things than Nixon ever did, and certainly much more than Bill Clinton. That is their constitutional duty, to have oversight over the executive branch. If they don't have the courage to do it, they have no business being in congress.

The Mueller report will be useful as campaign fodder (especially once they pry the un-redacted version free), but impeachment is never going to be a thing. Dems need to get off that and focus on the particulars of Trump's failures.

The Dem nominee will either be Biden or Bernie. The big question is will Dems get some sense for a change and fall into line, or will we have another round of the usual "third party or no vote because my pet candidate didn't get the nomination" whiny bullshit.

Beating Trump should be #1 on every agenda. If you don't vote for the Dem nominee and Trump wins, then you need to STFU for at least the next 4 years about any political issues. That's all of our feet you are shooting at, morons.

Does it have to be an “impeachment hearing” to have a hearing?

She can do.

She's never going to win, so she might as well put down her place marker for the VP job.

How are people so confident about Warren winning or not? Remember who we, in our heart of hearts (and rightly so given polling data!), thought couldn't win in 2016?

That is not remotely true, [R13]. Everything she’s said has been born out by facts and evidence. Besides, you are doing trump's business by trashing good Democrats over trump lies.

The Right lies. It’s their brand. Don’t be a fool like R13.

She's smart and outspoken as always. Live this woman.

She's got a lot to contribute in the way of good ideas, but she'll never be Prez.

She should stick to economics. I know what I'm talking about.

R61 is a grandstanding moron.

Reparations and impeachment. That's a winning ticket.

[quote]Wow -- is this thread all trolls or all misogynists?

New to Datalounge, are we?

[quote]Dems need to get off that and focus on the particulars of Trump's failures.

Yes, let's forget about upholding the Constitution. Brilliant idea.

[quote]Beating Trump should be #1 on every agenda

No the number one thing is to deal with any crimes this administration has committed. Obstruction of justice is a crime.

^^ No, #1 is getting rid of him, not having some prolonged legal circle jerk that might end up in his favor. Get him out of office, then go after him legally if you want.

Elizabeth Warren posted a video of herself drinking beer out of a bottle. Then, her husband made an appearance. She was trying to be relatable, but it did make me cringe.

[quote]Get him out of office, then go after him legally if you want.

You're slipping, Russkie.

Indict him. Impeach him. Throw the 25th amendment at him. Haul his family up before the courts in Manhattan. Confiscate their assets. Take away their passports. Throw the scoundrels in jail. Toss him in there too for life.

Whatever it takes. Just do it. Find a way.

Before the elections please.

What are these democrats elected to office for otherwise?

R81 Uh NO! almost seemed like a Jan Hooks skit on SNL...…..

R83 for President!

[quote] What are these democrats elected to office for otherwise?

I admire some elected Democrats, but with others I'm now entertaining the possibility that their self-confidence is so low that they need Fecaloma in the spotlight as one of the few Republicans they can comfortably feel superior to. Newsflash to them: pretty near all the Republican elected representatives and senators feel they need to "fall in line" behind him, so the field of opponents one can comfortably know one's superior to is much more vast than the Democrats recognize.

R83, we don’t have the Senate, so we can’t.

People turned themselves inside out trying to get Democrats to vote in November 2018. But not enough came out to get Republicans out of the Senate.

This is a numbers game. Talk is cheap, they have more votes.

Anyone who acts like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, saying, “get him out! We don’t have the votes, but get him out because I say so!” is going to have a credibility problem, and every Republican, the Russians and Trump are going to look for kompromat, give them a degrading nickname, or do anything else they can to destroy them. And no matter what happens to that person, we still won’t have the votes.

Here’s the problem:

1. Democrat says let’s impeach. Everyone enthusiastically nominates this person.

2. Too many people in the general election realize this person is a showboat that can’t count. They lose.

3. Trump The Sequel: And Now I Get My Revenge Against Everyone who Tried to Thwart Me!

Trump goes completely wild, deciding he won because everyone but bad people just loves him. Locks a lot of people up, including Obama and Hillary, opens concentration camps for rivals. Declares himself President for life. Sells the USA to Putin for $20, tells everyone it's a great idea. Deplorables cheer. Pockets the $20.

Gets Alzheimer’s, Putin installs some younger lackey.

The End (of us).

R81 just ludicrous. It was agony watching her being amiable and pleasant. Who the fuck does she think she is? Such hubris! The "drinking from the bottle" trope is so passe'. Get with it, Liz!

She could have pulled out a joint if she wanted to be relatable to the kids.

“Hi, I’m Liz. (Big puff). How do you do, fellow kids!” (Inhales).

Agree with everything r83. Send them into the furthest pits of hell with non-stop coverage of their crimes, and a non-stop, relentless campaign by ALL Democrat party candidates about Republicunts selling them the fuck out to the Russians and to the rich. Relentless campaigns about the shittiness of Republicans. Bombard Fox News with more Dem candidate town halls. Don’t let up for one second.

She comes off as a nut job sociopath to me. Not quite as bad as AOC, but not far either. And for reparations? No one alive has owned a slave or was a slave. Horrible spot in history, but I'm not for reparations. I won't vote for someone stupid enough to fall into the pitfalls and traps of the racist Sharpton and the like. Let's focus, once again, on uniting the country and making a better future, not shit-stirring horrible things from the long ago past that are now impossible to change. It's divisive and illogical.

Dl fav Pete Butt would skate around this issue, but he's still the next best thing since sliced bread!

[quote]She comes off as a nut job sociopath to me.

Yes, that's exactly the type of person who gets hired as a professor at Harvard Law School. Maybe if you looked at some of her extensive and detailed policy proposals (on housing, on consumer protections, on a wealth tax), you'd get a different impression.

[quote]She comes off as a nut job sociopath to me.

I would expect this from a FauxNews watcher, not from someone who claims to be a Democrat.

R91 should be able to do better than that.

Hell yeah -- watch her spit fire in the town hall today about impeachment

She's my valkyrie!

69. Old! A fair number of POTUS's died younger than that.

Right on, Senator Warren!

(about the video at R96)

She’s such a tone-deaf idiot. Between her call for slavery reparations and this impeachment nonsense, I feel like she’s working to help Trump get re-elected. Trump would not be removed from office by the Senate, so what’s the point. She’s the poster child for the elitist out-of-touch liberal stereotype.

[quote]Trump would not be removed from office by the Senate, so what’s the point.

The point is to have transparency in the political dialogue in this country. When Clinton was being cautious about the way she dealt with Trump in 2016, she may not have chosen the right tactic.

No one thinks Warren has a chance of winning the Presidency, but let's hear Democrats speak about the incompetency and the criminality of the man currently serving in the White House.

I think she has a chance.

I think she has a chance to get the nomination but not win the general.

Kamala Harris is on next. This should be good.

R104, uh, if Warrens wins the primary she's winning the general, there's no question about it. Winning the primary will be the big challenge.

R101, exactly... all the cautious, clever political calculations and dignified, waffling non-responses did jack for us in 2016. People see right through that now and they HATE it.

[quote]I think she has a chance to get the nomination but not win the general.

Whichever Democrat wins the primary will win the general. People want someone new in there, and any Democrat will do.

R107, yup, pretty much. The only slightly scary exception might be if Bernie ran and then a fuckwad like Howard Schultz jumped into the race as an anti-Bernie independent and swung it to Trump

I don’t agree. There are a large portion of ill informed people who vote 100% on personality. They don’t care about policy platforms they will never read and couldn’t understand if they did read it.

Here’s the problem you have with women running: somebody will say, is she tough enough to face our most hostile adversaries? Trump isn’t, if you know policy and pay attention to the Mueller Report. If you don’t, he’s a loudmouth macho man.

Many people think no woman is tough enough. They think women are all wimps that will sit there and get rolled over. And Warren is demonstrating that with this Pocahontas business. She lost that argument.

They’re saying now polls are showing some ridiculously large number of people don’t care about the Mueller Report. They’re not all Republicans either. They just don’t want to hear it.

People are going to be very frustrated when they spent months trying to educate people and in the end, people vote for the Alpha of the two.

People did not vote for Trump because they thought he was a genius.

[quote] [R83], we don’t have the Senate, so we can’t.

R87 So get it. Make it impossible for some GOP not to cross the aisle. No more defeatist attitudes please. You don't know what the fight is until you fight.

Trump has lost critical support in the battleground states that won him the election: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio. It's never coming back.

His base is fanatical, but it's shrunken. It's not enough to win him the election again. The independents who came towards him now largely despise him.

People voted for him last time because he was a wild card celebrity. Now that he hasn't done what he said he would -- hasn't brought jobs back, hasn't made their lives miraculously better, they're not coming to the polls again.

Meanwhile the opposition is super-engaged and pissed off. Not that it's going to be an easy fight. It is not going to be. Every corrupt special interest in the country is pouring money into his coffers. Every pusbag conservative talk show host is lying for him.

But we are going to defeat him.

Pete is effortlessly eloquent.

Uh oh, did Pete just take a dig at Sanders?

Sorry, wrong thread.

I hope Black Lives Matter works on getting out the POC vote. Isn't that the vote that sank Roy Moore?

[quote]I hope Black Lives Matter works on getting out the POC vote. Isn't that the vote that sank Roy Moore?

As I dimly recall it was the black churches in AL who got black voters out, yes?

Kamala joins in.

Doubters, she made the WAPO front page today.

Read this.

The most progressive wing of the Democratic Party is represented by two candidates: One is younger than President Trump, cheerful, doesn’t have the “socialist” label and has a zillion policy ideas. The other is five years older than Trump, prickly and humorless, has the socialist label and embraces the most extreme positions many in his party reject (e.g. allowing incarcerated mass murderers to vote). So far — to my ongoing amazement — Democratic primary voters tell pollsters they want the grouchy socialist, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), not Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the cheerful policy wonk who declares she’s a capitalist, albeit one who recognizes that the system is “rigged."

We should remember that early polling might simply reflect Sanders’s name recognition, but nevertheless, it is not as if Warren is an unknown quantity. By virtually any measure, she’s a more accomplished and more electable choice, yet it’s Sanders who remains in the top tier of candidates. As Warren showed Monday night at a CNN town hall, she’s obviously the candidate with the most detailed, specific policies — and the one most capable of explaining detailed plans. She also manages to be less frightening — but bolder — than Sanders.

As to boldness, Sanders swore off pushing impeachment hearings now. Warren gave this impassioned plea:

Three things just totally jump off the page. The first is that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election in order to help Donald Trump. The evidence is just there. Read it, footnote after footnote, page after page documentation.

Part two, Donald Trump welcomed that help. ...

Part three is when the federal government starts to investigate part one and part two, Donald Trump took repeated steps aggressively to try to halt the investigation, derail the investigation, push the investigation somewhere else, but otherwise keep that investigation from going forward and turning into a serious investigation about a hostile foreign government that it attacked us and about his own personal interests.

So, here’s how I see this: If any other human being in this country had done what’s documented in the Mueller report, they would be arrested and put in jail. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime in this country. But [special counsel Robert S. Mueller III] believed because of the directions from Donald Trump’s Justice Department that he could not bring a criminal indictment against a sitting president. I think he’s wrong on that, but that’s what he believed. So he serves the whole thing up to the United States Congress and says, in effect, if there’s going to be any accountability, that accountability has to come from the Congress. And the tool that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process.

This is not about politics. This is about principle.

Whatever you think of impeachment, that’s as good an answer as a candidate can give to a Democratic audience. It helps, of course, that she has actually read the whole thing (“if you’ve actually read the Mueller report, it’s all laid out there. It’s not like it’s going to take a long time to figure this out. It’s there. It’s got the footnotes. It’s got the points. It connects directly to the law”). With specifics she is able to make her case quite compelling: “He told the White House counsel to go fire Mueller, and then told the White House counsel to go lie about having told the White House counsel to go fire Mueller, and then told the White House counsel to write a letter saying that Donald Trump had not told him to go fire Mueller, and then to say, ‘Why on Earth would you take notes about what I said to you? The lawyers I deal with never put anything in writing.’” When she puts it that way, it’s hard to see how Sanders or other more cautious Democrats will explain their reticence.

Part 2

Specificity is an asset in the policy realm as well. Warren has a fleshed-out plan and has a way to pay for it. “What we have to do as a country is roll back that debt. And so, I have two parts to the proposal,” she said. “Part one is that we say that we’re going to roll back student loan debt for about 95 percent of students who have debt.” She continued, "And part two is to make sure that we never get in this mess again on student loan debt and that is to make college universally available with free tuition and fees, and to put more money into Pell grants so that students of color, so that our poorest students have real access to college and that we put real money into our historically black colleges and universities. " She’s explicit about how to pay for it, without demonizing the rich:

I started several months ago about a wealth tax, an ultra millionaire's tax. It's 2 cents on every dollar of the great fortunes above $50 million. So, your 50 millionth and first dollar, you've got to pay 2 cents and 2 cents on all of the dollars after that.

And here’s the stunning part. If we ask the great fortunes in this country, understand, this isn’t about trying to be nasty or say you’ve done anything wrong, what it’s about is saying, look, you had a great idea. You got out there. You worked hard or you inherited well, whichever one it was. ...

And we say, good for you, that you have now gotten this great fortune, but 2 cents. You've got to pay something back so everybody else gets a chance.

And here’s how the money works out. If we put that 2 cent wealth tax in place on the 75,000 largest fortunes in this country, 2 cents, we can do universal child care for every baby zero to 5, universal pre-K, universal college and knock back the student loan debt burden for 95 percent of our students and still have nearly a trillion dollars left over.

Why, then, is Sanders high in the polls and Warren struggling? Somehow Sanders has convinced himself and a lot of Democrats that a socialist pushing 80 years old who wants to let incarcerated mass murderers vote is more electable. Seriously, Democrats? If you want the candidate farthest to the left who won’t be clobbered by alienated voters who elected moderates in 2018, you’d better look elsewhere — that is, if you actually want to win the White House.

R119 what can I say, Democrats like to lose.

Did you say that right before the midterm elections, R120?

And how long after the midterm elections did you start saying that again?

Every time I re-warm up to Warren (she's one of the few decent spots in this field), she does some dumb shit that just makes me go "COME ON."

This time it was her Town Hall malarkey about how she defied all odds as a poor woman to defeat the amazingly uber-popular Republican Incumbent Senator of Massachusetts!!! And nevertheless, she persisted!!! And then she looked a small girl in the eye and said she's running for Senator because THAT'S WHAT GIRLS DO.

You mean... the Republican Scott Brown who shockingly won "Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat!" and how it was such a horrible legacy that a Republican won it? THE Scott Brown who served... two whole years as Senator? THAT uber-popular incumbent Warren dare challenge and shockingly defeat?

She consistently screws up her origin stories. Don't you hate the UGLY teapots and vessels on top of her bland cabinets? I bet they are grimy, despite her having a housekeeper.

Pathetic win R121 with all the arsenal we had. The GOP should have been obliterated as a party for conniving with and enabling the criminal Trump. Senate, much?

[quote] Pathetic win [R121] with all the arsenal we had. The GOP should have been obliterated as a party for conniving with and enabling the criminal Trump. Senate, much?

And you are basing that on what, R124? Certainly not on what was real and what was not real.

What Senate seats were realistically going to flip?

What other House seats were realistically for grabs?

Be specific, please.

[quote] What Senate seats were realistically going to flip? What other House seats were realistically for grabs?

Your realistic is my defeatist. Ok, be happy with. B-

Basically, you have no answers, R126.

[quote]Don't you hate the UGLY teapots and vessels on top of her bland cabinets? I bet they are grimy, despite her having a housekeeper.

I have similar cabinets (shaker) but they go all the way to the ceiling and have european handles. Don't like knick-knacks. They just collect dust.

[quote] Basically, you have no answers, [R126].

Of course not. I'm not the politician. Not my job.

I'm talking about your superior calculating defeatism of the neoliberal establishment of the DP. Your off-the-table strategies. Your lesser evil evils.

Compared to what the GOP did with a blowjob and some emails, what do we get from the DP from the mountain of evidence, indictments, prison sentences? Off-the-table we don't have the numbers answers?

Sheesh. At this rate I assure you Trump will get reelected. They have teeth. You can't gum your way to victory.

Her constant, continuous outrage and pleading crazy voice is agonizing. She'll never win regardless of how"brilliant" she is. Her head shaking with her hair bobbing around sends me signals of someone becoming unhinged and makes me nervous and anxious, as if she is a raging nun or librarian. Some people are just better off behind the scenes.

Like you. WAY behind.