Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Elizabeth Warren 🔥🔥🔥🔥

Wow. What a great answer. I want to see her destroy Trump like this in a debate.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 117October 17, 2019 11:54 AM

Plays great in that venue but is emasculating and alienating towards the voters she needs to a) win the primary and b) win the general.

That's just the (sad) truth.

by Anonymousreply 1October 11, 2019 3:39 AM

Love her. I'm on the Warren train until the end.

by Anonymousreply 2October 11, 2019 3:40 AM

It's also not very presidential to make fun of a segment of the population you're about to govern. Hillary tried that with her "basket of deplorables" and that didn't turn out so well for her, however right she might have been about them.

She makes me uneasy. Such great plans, but then this goofy and risky delivery just ruins it for me...

by Anonymousreply 3October 11, 2019 3:43 AM

That's a dumb answer. And women are equally homophobic. Some one put this cunt in her place.

by Anonymousreply 4October 11, 2019 3:45 AM

So many people voters she needs to sway wont vote for her with answers like that. Sad but true.

by Anonymousreply 5October 11, 2019 3:54 PM

R5: What about cat voters?

by Anonymousreply 6October 11, 2019 3:59 PM

R6 lol I meant to write either people or voters but put down both cause I was kind of distracted when writing it. Funny response though.

by Anonymousreply 7October 11, 2019 4:03 PM

If I was her, I'd answer 'have you ever tried to question your faith and whether you have the evidence to show that your faith is valid?'

by Anonymousreply 8October 11, 2019 4:10 PM

[quote]Plays great in that venue but is emasculating and alienating towards the voters she needs to a) win the primary and b) win the general.

She understands nuance and knows how to read the audience she’s speaking to.

by Anonymousreply 9October 11, 2019 4:41 PM

And Trump would circle around her chanting Pochohantas etc.

by Anonymousreply 10October 11, 2019 4:46 PM

Yep, that is the type of answer that plays well with her secular, ultra liberal Northeast fans, but is very condescending and insulting to mainstream America. It only reinforces the notion she is an out of touch Massachusetts elite.

by Anonymousreply 11October 11, 2019 4:50 PM

R8, your response is even worse

by Anonymousreply 12October 11, 2019 4:51 PM

There were two candidates (Warren and I believe Biden) that never answered the question about what they plan to do about people of color and HIV. They both touched on health care coverage for all but they never specifically answered the question.

by Anonymousreply 13October 11, 2019 4:59 PM

[quote]There were two candidates (Warren and I believe Biden) that never answered the question about what they plan to do about people of color and HIV.

What she plans to do is give healthcare coverage for everyone (Medicare for All) and reduce the costs of prescription drugs. That includes coverage for people of color and includes HIV medications, including preventative medication (PreP).

She has talked about all of this extensively at every opportunity she’s had.

I’m not sure what else people of color are expecting?

by Anonymousreply 14October 11, 2019 7:17 PM

"I have a very personal relationship with Jesus and he told me that he's ok with it. Also, he told me you suck and he's embarassed for you."

by Anonymousreply 15October 11, 2019 7:20 PM

R11: Except she isn't. And the people for whom this is an issue were never going to vote for ANY Democrat anyway. So no one cares.

by Anonymousreply 16October 11, 2019 7:20 PM

r16 Except she is. And without those voters, she will face an even bigger loss than Hillary. Hillary at least had black support. Warren doesn't

by Anonymousreply 17October 11, 2019 9:04 PM

This was just political suicide. This was her basket of deplorables moment. She insulted WAY More people than she successfully pandered to. And that is ALL this was about.

I am a liberal scientist, but I also have a ton of devoutly religious friends, who are loving, sweet kind people. This kind of remark was nothing more than insulting to them. That she shook her head and acted coy afterwards just revealed her to be an egotistical ham.

Seriously, what a fucking disaster.

by Anonymousreply 18October 11, 2019 9:08 PM

This would have been edgy 10 years ago, but today it seems like a tired response to me—this may just have to do with the fact that that it's not really a relevant campaign issue right now. Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, whether the religious right likes it or not. There are bigger fish to fry.

by Anonymousreply 19October 11, 2019 9:10 PM

But it still is an issue and may be reversed next decade

by Anonymousreply 20October 11, 2019 9:11 PM

R4 = freeper. I can't believe someone here would call a woman a cunt for standing up for gay rights. Trolls, begone.

R18 = if your "friends" think you don't deserve the same rights as you, then they aren't your friends. Love the "Christians" who defend the pussygrabber but claim homosexuality is bad

by Anonymousreply 21October 11, 2019 9:12 PM

If she's the Democratic candidate, she will join the growing list of failed Presidential candidates from Massachusetts . . . Michael Dukakis, John Kerry and Mitt Romney.

by Anonymousreply 22October 11, 2019 9:13 PM

Meant "as them"

by Anonymousreply 23October 11, 2019 9:13 PM

R21, we are trying to win. You are trying to vent and be nasty to people because you disagree with them.

by Anonymousreply 24October 11, 2019 9:15 PM

R21, we are trying to win. You are trying to vent and be nasty to people because you disagree with them.

by Anonymousreply 25October 11, 2019 9:15 PM

r21 is riled up because this cunt was rightly called a cunt but has no problem when this lying cunt's racist problem nor does it have any problem that this cunt never stood up for gay rights until it became edgy to do so. This shameless pathetic and loser cunt was a Republican when gay men were crying for help from their death beds. This cunt deserves the same end that those poor souls met with.

by Anonymousreply 26October 11, 2019 9:20 PM

R25, most people support gay marriage now. Calling out people for being prejudiced isn't nasty. The nasty people are the ones who want to discriminate. Is this a gay board anymore, or has it been taken over by Russian bots?

by Anonymousreply 27October 11, 2019 9:23 PM

R24/R25: No, sorry. I'm not putting my rights aside or pandering to religious assholes who won't vote for us anyway to "win". Take that crap somewhere else.

by Anonymousreply 28October 11, 2019 9:24 PM

How is her answer insulting? You can't reason with religious loons. If they could reason, they wouldn't be religious.

by Anonymousreply 29October 11, 2019 9:27 PM

r29 Because she implied only men could be homophobic. And not every one who is against same sex marriage now is a loon. People evolve. If people didn't evolve on same sex marriage, then the majority wouldn't support it now. Even Obama, Hillary and Sanders were against same sex marriage at some point.

by Anonymousreply 30October 11, 2019 9:35 PM

I don't too worry much about this scaring people off, because I get the feeling that this whole town hall was only really of interest to the people who are already supportive. Swing voter in Iowa rolled his eyes about "more of that gay stuff" and went to go work on his truck while listening to AC/DC instead of watching. Unless Republicans decide to resurrect this clip and make this clip a Big Thing after she becomes the nominee (if she does), it's probably not important.

by Anonymousreply 31October 11, 2019 9:41 PM

Plenty of weekly Baptist and Catholic church goers are Democrats who still believe marriage is for one man and one woman. Yes they know most Americans disagree with their point of view.

LSA has a thread on a throuple raising 3 kids, hoping for 3 more, who want to get married as a unit while still enjoying an open relationship with others. Responses were generally negative. Assuming almost all posters were solid Democrats and Black.

Realize posters reading these words do not equate Marriage Equality with throuples and group marriage arrangements et al. However others who usually vote Democratic see a slippery slope ahead.

by Anonymousreply 32October 11, 2019 9:42 PM

I liked her answer. She was supportive of one man marrying one woman IF that's what you believe in. Obviously implied is that if you believe a man marrying another man is ok, then that's cool with her too. Also implied is that if you want to impose a narrow, traditional view of marriage on the general population, she disagrees. She expressed this with subtle humor, with the target audience of this event in mind. Keep in mind she is not going to get right-wing voters anyway, regardless of what she says or doesn't say.

by Anonymousreply 33October 11, 2019 9:51 PM

About 40 percent of Americans are against samesex marriage. While most of them vote Republican, do we want to give up this entire sizable chunk by needlessly insulting then with sassy condescending responses to a sincere question? Moreover, key chunks of the Democratic bases such as African Americans, labor members, the poor, and Latinos are divided on samesex marriage, and are deeply religious. There was a way to respond by Affirming marriage equality while simultaneously respecting personal religious convictions.

by Anonymousreply 34October 11, 2019 9:51 PM

R31, Details of what "socialist" Warren said are already all over the internet. Will definitely end up in pro-Trump campaign ads aimed at Independents and swing state voters.

There's a large segment of the electorate that accepts socially liberal policies as long as it doesn't hit too close to home. For example there are those who don't want to restrict abortions for very poor women as long as it's early in their pregnancy and there's potential medical complications but would never want their own teenager to go through with it.

by Anonymousreply 35October 11, 2019 9:51 PM

Conservatives and their media are having a field day. O’Rourke’s responses have received even more scathing criticism

by Anonymousreply 36October 11, 2019 9:53 PM

R34, Your wording is much better than mine.

by Anonymousreply 37October 11, 2019 9:53 PM

R34: Then go vote for another candidate, you have 1000 to choose from in this primary. I'm voting for her when the primary comes to my state and that's that. Done with this concerned nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 38October 11, 2019 9:53 PM

R36: Because they would totally be pro-gay if we were nice to them. No, only Liz Warren caused them to be mean. Sure, Jan.

And O'Rourke doesn't go far enough. Tax every religious organization as a corporation. PERIOD. Problem solved.

by Anonymousreply 39October 11, 2019 9:55 PM

R34, the same people you claim have "sincere" religious beliefs probably have sex outside of marriage. So they are hypocrites. Calling out hypocrites isn't condescending, it's necessary.

Again, have we been taken over by bots? What the fuck?

by Anonymousreply 40October 11, 2019 9:56 PM

R39, you’re out to have Democrats lose 47 states with your views and rhetoric

by Anonymousreply 41October 11, 2019 9:59 PM

I don’t like Warren but I thought her answer was fine.

by Anonymousreply 42October 11, 2019 9:59 PM

R41, most people support gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 43October 11, 2019 10:01 PM

R41: Oh, cry me a river, concern troll. Same sex marriage has majority support and most Americans think it ludicrous you can call yourself a religion and gain tax exemption. No candidate is campaigning on the last part and I'm not a candidate, so my "rhetoric" will have NO effect. Cut the crap.

by Anonymousreply 44October 11, 2019 10:15 PM

R43, most people supportIng gay marriage does not mean they dislike those who don’t or thing they are unworthy of respect or accommodation. In fact polling this year on gay rights has shown the first slippage in support of the modern era, perhaps because more people are buying the notion that gay rights activists are infringing on other people’s’ rights.

by Anonymousreply 45October 11, 2019 10:16 PM

R44, cite a poll supporting your claim on tax exemption

by Anonymousreply 46October 11, 2019 10:25 PM

R45, the Christians you are defending are the ones infringing on other people's rights. Btw, there are polls showing the exact opposite of what you claim, that support is increasing

by Anonymousreply 47October 11, 2019 10:26 PM

I watched it last night and IMO, Senator Kamala Harris owned the stage. She gave the very best presentation of all of them. I love Elizabeth and I love Kamala, Pete and Amy. Those are my people. Last night belonged to Kamala.

by Anonymousreply 48October 11, 2019 10:27 PM

R46: No. Like I said, I support it. No other candidate does. It's not an issue. Stop changing the subject to continue concern trolling Warren. You don't like her, we get it. Don't vote for her. Problem solved. Now shut up.

by Anonymousreply 49October 11, 2019 10:40 PM

[quote]Plenty of weekly Baptist and Catholic church goers are Democrats who still believe marriage is for one man and one woman

Most Catholics today are irritated as fuck with the hypocrisy of the leaders of the Church after covering up decades of sexual abuse by predator priests.

Most want the church to move into the 21st century, and that includes acceptance of gay people.

by Anonymousreply 50October 12, 2019 12:35 AM

Wow, who are DL readers, who criticize Warren for this snappy answer? Trolls, I guess.

1. Anyone offended by this answer, by the way she answered, by her sauciness.... would never, ever vote for Warren anyway. Never. 2. Her wit and delivery are exactly NOT like Clinton, who so often seemed wooden and humorless. Clinton was always so calculated that many didn't trust her. Warren showed some spontaneous wit... she seemed "real" in ways that will, in fact, appeal to "The Suburbs" where the next election will be won or lost.

by Anonymousreply 51October 12, 2019 12:47 AM

"We need to win this election, so Democratic candidates should pretend to be Republicans so conservatives will elect them rather than actual Republican candidates."

Nonsensical rubbish.

by Anonymousreply 52October 12, 2019 12:58 AM

R50, I predict a lot of changes in the future re the followers of the pope and the Catholic Church due to the linked bombshell.

Not trying to derail this thread but unsure if I should start a new one for DL to discuss it's impact.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 53October 12, 2019 2:30 AM

Pope Francis is close to provoking open schism of the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinals are openly questioning his theology and teachings. There is a huge anti Francis movement within the Church that is growing louder each day

by Anonymousreply 54October 12, 2019 3:24 AM

This broad is sharp. Real sharp. Sharp as a tack. She'd be one fierce POTUS.

Biden will probably get the nomination, and I'll support him, but I'd really love to see Warren get the nod. I think she'd rip Jabba The Trump apart in the debates. I think Uncle Joe would probably try to be the nice guy, and he'd let that fat dumb pig walk all over him.

by Anonymousreply 55October 12, 2019 3:54 PM

Meh, Warren's answer was a little flip but so what? Nobody who would ever vote for Warren is now SO OFFENDED that they won't. Conservatives are flip all the time about every single concern other than the concern that the Rich aren't rich enough. She'll be fine.

Beto's answer was much worse. Saying that we will actually punish churches for being against gay marriage. That is a bad and dangerous road to go down. And if there was any chance he'd be the nominee, that would be a really bad moment for us.

by Anonymousreply 56October 12, 2019 4:05 PM

R56 = if a church is speaking out on political issues, that makes them a political organization. And they should get taxed.

by Anonymousreply 57October 12, 2019 4:19 PM

yes, if it's every church on every political issue. That might actually be fine. Just decide any political issue, climate change, gay rights, civil rights, poverty, is off limits for all churches everywhere. That would be one thing (probably a very unpopular idea, but at least constitutional). But if you start picking and choosing about, well you can discuss this, but not that, and you can say this about that issue, but not that about an issue, that's when you are heading down a very stupid and dangerous road.

On the other hand, it might be best to just stop the whole tax exempt thing for every church, but it would have to be applied to every other kind of nonprofit as well.

by Anonymousreply 58October 12, 2019 4:41 PM

R58, you are the stupid one if you don't understand the separation of church and state

by Anonymousreply 59October 12, 2019 4:55 PM

YOU are not understanding it, r59. You can have one idea: Churches preach their stuff, whatever it is, even if it's complete nonsense, and the state stands back and says nothing about it, neither endorses nor punishes. Or you can have the State get involved in all that preaching, deciding what is okay to preach and what isn't, and then you have the same old mess that pretty much every other country has gone through, and far too many still are.

by Anonymousreply 60October 12, 2019 4:58 PM

No, traditional religion inherently has something to say about all aspects of life and existence, from taxes, to war, to borrowing, to criminal justice, to sexuality, to gender roles. Christianity teaches that its adherents must place God above all else and in all matters, so Christianity (and other faiths) will always view political issues through religious Authority. Religion inherently will address political and cultural issues.

by Anonymousreply 61October 12, 2019 5:00 PM

R60, if they are espousing political views then they are political organizations, not churches, and should be taxed. I guess you are okay with churches telling the state to discriminate against us, then getting a free ride.

R61, great churches can talk about political issues....they can do that and then pay taxes like the rest of us

by Anonymousreply 62October 12, 2019 5:02 PM

And about 200 years ago we all decided that is okay, r61. Churches can preach whatever the hell they want, but they can't make the laws that all the rest of us have to live under. In return, the government is not going to decide what it is that churches can and cannot preach. THAT is called the union of church and state, and THAT is what was rejected in the First Amendment.

by Anonymousreply 63October 12, 2019 5:03 PM

I remain attached to organized Christianity in part because of "politics." .. ban the bomb, anti-war protests, civil rights civil disobedience protests, homeless shelters, foodbanks for the hungry, refuge for migrants, inclusion of the marginalized, honoring creation and the environment... on and on. I can't think how anyone could read the Gospels and not believe that these should be the witness of the Church. Tax exempt or not? That's irrelevant to the authentic witness Christ calls us to.

by Anonymousreply 64October 12, 2019 5:05 PM

and it's not a question of what I am OK with. It is not a question of what you are okay with. I am not okay with the Republican Party being composed mainly of morons who worship Donald J. Trump. So what? It doesn't mean I get to disband or punish the Republican Party for being composed of morons. Same with Churches. They get to preach their nonsense, and most of it is, unmolested by me or by the government I elect. This is pretty basic. Do you seriously not get that?

The question of taxing churches is completely separate. Either all churches should be taxed or none should. That is also part of the deal. It's part of that neutrality that the government will not care about what you preach, or decide what you will preach, or punish you for preaching the "wrong" ideas.

by Anonymousreply 65October 12, 2019 5:06 PM

The very idea of taxing churches will not go over well in the crucial swing states.

Are you aware that a lot of homeowners have declared their houses and apartments to be "home churches" and they do not ever pay property tax? They also have home based businesses of one type or another.

by Anonymousreply 66October 12, 2019 5:07 PM

More anti-Warren posters here than expected already. She is obviously gaining traction and you bitches cannot handle it.

by Anonymousreply 67October 12, 2019 5:16 PM

And that is a big problem r66. The whole "I'm a Church, no taxation" thing makes me wonder if we should abandon the whole tax-exempt idea. But yeah, it would be a hell of a political firestorm everywhere. and I don't see how you get rid of it without overturning the whole Nonprofit Status idea. It would be better if EVERYONE just paid their damn taxes, but now that we have headed down this road, I think we are stuck with it politically.

by Anonymousreply 68October 12, 2019 5:20 PM

I think there's a solid legal argument that disestablishment, separation of Church and State, and taxation... are distinct.

by Anonymousreply 69October 12, 2019 5:21 PM

R65 doesn't get it. Being taxed isn't "punishment" - it's what the rest of us do.

Man, the Russian trolls are out in full force, love how r66 thinks we should cater to grifters like the Duggars who pretend their house is a church so they don't have to pay taxes

by Anonymousreply 70October 12, 2019 5:24 PM

I have issues with Warren, but she is smart and capable and you can't take that from her. That being said, she has never run a general campaign with a broad and diverse electorate. She ran for Senator of Massachusetts and now she is running a campaign for the Democratic Nomination. She is not exactly someone who has had to deal with appealing to a broad and diverse audience. And her key campaign staff has not had to deal with a lot of diverse issues and constituencies either.

As an atheist, I wish all the Jesus people would be raptured up to the stars so we could be done with them, but since that ain't happening you can't dismiss them either because they vote. In order to win elections, sometimes you have say a bunch of bullshit whether you believe it or not and say it in such a way that it doesn't come back to burn you later on.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 71October 12, 2019 5:25 PM

Jesus fuck, r70, GET THIS. If you tax some churches and not others for their beliefs, you are punishing those churches that are taxed. This is not difficult. This is obvious.

by Anonymousreply 72October 12, 2019 5:26 PM

R72, sigh, you should tax all churches that are getting involved in political activities. Duh. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Freepers, be gone and stop defending homophobia

by Anonymousreply 73October 12, 2019 5:30 PM

R70, Do you have a serious problem understanding the written word?

R68, You clearly understand my point. So many take advantage of the free taxes for "churches" law, and we haven't even brought up the huge financial savings awarded the "Church" of Scientology.

by Anonymousreply 74October 12, 2019 5:34 PM

I'm no particular fan of Warren but that was a great response.

People need to lighten up and laugh a little about themselves.

by Anonymousreply 75October 12, 2019 5:37 PM

And again, r73, with an even deeper sigh, are you talking about ALL politics. pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-civil rights, anti-civil rights, climate change, rich-poor income gap, every single political issue, every single one other than the ones you are in favor of, with the correct positions? All those political discussions are not allowed? All, or just some?

by Anonymousreply 76October 12, 2019 5:38 PM

R76, I see a slippery slope of massive governmental bureaucracy and endless lawsuits trying to prove which churches engage in political related activities on one or more occasions.

by Anonymousreply 77October 12, 2019 5:46 PM

Taxing churches and religious necessarily involves a constitutionally impermissible entanglement of the government into religion.

by Anonymousreply 78October 12, 2019 5:50 PM

Completely different, but absolutely related... the whole tax exempt status for 501c3 organizations (who are SPECIFICALLY prohibited from political advocacy) should be reviewed. A non-profit will lose tax exempt status if it's engaged in explicit political advocacy. However they're also used by the super-rich to buy money and not pay taxes. Zuckerburg has sheltered close to a billion $ in the Silicon Valley Community Foundation... it's sitting there, drawing interest, not subject to any tax.

by Anonymousreply 79October 12, 2019 5:52 PM

R78, giving churches a free ride is getting involved in religion

by Anonymousreply 80October 12, 2019 5:55 PM

R76, people who have political opinions and get taxed...so why shouldn't churches?

Stop defending homophobes, asshole

by Anonymousreply 81October 12, 2019 5:57 PM

Advocating taxing churches is one way to lose big with voters . It’s political suicide

by Anonymousreply 82October 12, 2019 6:56 PM

[quote]It's also not very presidential to make fun of a segment of the population you're about to govern. Hillary tried that with her "basket of deplorables" and that didn't turn out so well for her, however right she might have been about them.

Just curious, do non-white people not count as Americans or voters to people like you? Because Trump made a point of demonizing (not merely "make of fun") millions of people who live, work and pay taxes in this country. And he won. So whose votes are you thinking she'd lose since the people who voted for Trump made it clear they didn't care who he had vilified to win.

by Anonymousreply 83October 12, 2019 6:59 PM

R83 Exactly. 90% of the "oh, Warren should never do X, or she'll lose voters" are miscalculated. Those voters she'd "lose" by an "X" would very likely never vote for her. The win in 2020 will be accomplished by increased turnout by progressives, young voters, women, people of color... and women in the suburbs. Demographics will take care of Trumpism.... if there is a democracy that survives him.

by Anonymousreply 84October 12, 2019 7:06 PM

R83, you need to stop applying Republican rules to Democrats. It never works out well. They get away with shit that no Democrat could ever get away with, even when you have them on tape saying contradictory things. That is just reality.

by Anonymousreply 85October 12, 2019 7:06 PM

R82, Beto isn't going to get the nom

by Anonymousreply 86October 12, 2019 7:21 PM

This Republican cunt invited those trannies to attack other candidates

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87October 12, 2019 7:45 PM

Let’s not go down the road of taxing churches yet. There are better places to start, like taxing Facebook and Amazon. And let’s worry about healthcare first.

by Anonymousreply 88October 12, 2019 11:51 PM

Marco Rubio is calling her remarks "crude" which is a sign that she's right. Miss Marco loves his foam parties and 3am park jaunts but but apparently gay marriage is bad

by Anonymousreply 89October 13, 2019 12:21 AM

National Democratic Primary:

Biden 35% Warren 18% Sanders 15% Harris 6% Buttigieg 5% O'Rourke 3% Booker 2% Yang 2%

Harris X/ SR Poll

by Anonymousreply 90October 13, 2019 12:58 AM

Harris is doing horribly.

by Anonymousreply 91October 13, 2019 2:45 PM

[quote]Harris is doing horribly.

No one bought into her bullshit. Either she remains in the Senate, where she's actually doing a good job or wait for an AG post in the next Democratic Administration.

by Anonymousreply 92October 13, 2019 2:51 PM

R92, no one buys your bullshit

by Anonymousreply 93October 13, 2019 3:49 PM

[quote]Plays great in that venue but is emasculating and alienating towards the voters she needs to a) win the primary and b) win the general.

sure, if your a delicate snowflake, Cunny

by Anonymousreply 94October 13, 2019 3:52 PM

The only 2 who have a snowball's chance at the nomination are Biden and Warren. And considering Uncle Joe is still so far ahead of Warren I don't give her much chance unless he does something truly insane between now and the convention so he could get several years of experience on the front lines of national politics before eventually becoming POTUS himself. I'd like to see a Biden/Warren ticket, with Buttigieg appointed to a position very high in the administration. But nitwits like Harris and Booker need to forget about ever being POTUS.

by Anonymousreply 95October 13, 2019 3:52 PM

People are afraid Warren is unlikable and sticking with Biden while hoping he remains sharp

by Anonymousreply 96October 14, 2019 11:24 PM

R96, when was she unlikable? I think she's funny, look at how she handled Jacob Wohl

by Anonymousreply 97October 14, 2019 11:29 PM

Op, you are easily impressionable. Nothing EW said was remotely witty, but everything was very frauish.

by Anonymousreply 98October 14, 2019 11:44 PM

What would you know about wit, r98? You support Trump.

by Anonymousreply 99October 14, 2019 11:47 PM

R98, the frauish ones are the freepers who got upset over what she said

by Anonymousreply 100October 15, 2019 1:15 AM

R98, I bet you aren’t exactly mainstream American

by Anonymousreply 101October 15, 2019 1:32 AM

R98, did you think Hillary was likable? Kerry? Dukakis?

by Anonymousreply 102October 15, 2019 1:33 AM

We live in a country where 60M+ voted for a scummy, born-on-third, crooked, racist, bigoted, unethical, thieving, orange pile of conman shit who cheated on all of his wives and cares for no one but himself, there is something seriously wrong with the people attempting to attack Warren as "unlikable."

by Anonymousreply 103October 15, 2019 1:38 AM

R103, you are correct, sir!!!!

by Anonymousreply 104October 15, 2019 1:45 AM

[quote]And considering Uncle Joe is still so far ahead of Warren I don't give her much chance

You might want to take another look at just how "far ahead" he is. In the CBS Battleground Tracker poll of the first 18 primary and caucus states, she's leading him overall by 31% to 25%, with a potential delegate count of 720 to 577.

It's all speculation at this point, of course, since not a single vote has been cast, but it's definitely not the case that Biden is "far ahead" of Warren.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 105October 15, 2019 1:48 AM

r105 YouGov is a biased pollster towards Sanders/Warren. Their polling is mostly online which favors progressive candidates. Ask those who follow polls.

by Anonymousreply 106October 15, 2019 1:50 AM

I'm sorry, R106 but that's simply wrong, on all counts. It doesn't really matter, though, as those numbers have been confirmed by other pollsters. Biden isn't "far ahead" of Warren; he's basically tied with her in the early states and only a bit ahead of her at the national level. Either of them could easily take the nomination.

by Anonymousreply 107October 15, 2019 1:56 PM

VIRGINIA If the election for president were being held today ... Donald Trump (R) 46% Elizabeth Warren (D) 50% (Virginia Commonwealth U. Wilder School Commonwealth Poll, RV, 9/23 - 10/4/19)

by Anonymousreply 108October 15, 2019 9:33 PM

R108, I find that hard to believe since even Fox News polls are showing that most people think Trump should be impeached

by Anonymousreply 109October 15, 2019 10:19 PM

Virginia is the epicenter of centrism. The state probably is squeamish about Warren as too progressive. It’s a huge tech state.

by Anonymousreply 110October 15, 2019 10:48 PM

Keep in mind Virginia was a solidly red state until Obama has a huge socially conservative streak

by Anonymousreply 111October 16, 2019 1:48 AM

Warren had a good zinger on gay marriage. It was bad politics.

It is tempting to ask: What is wrong with Elizabeth Warren? This was a satisfying moment, an undoubted crowd-pleaser that, as the Warren campaign exulted, had generated more than 12 million views on Twitter by the following afternoon. But it was a mistake that evoked missteps of Democratic campaigns past — a dismissiveness that Warren and her fellow candidates would do well to avoid. This is bad politics, which may be the strongest immediate argument for shifting course, yet it is something worse than that. It reflects an attitude of intolerance and disrespect toward people of faith. Those who reasonably expect tolerance and respect should think about — well, they should think about the importance of practicing what they preach. On the issue of equal rights for LGBTQ Americans, the country has been on an exhilarating journey of understanding and acceptance, one that reflects the best of the national charter and, more important, the national character. As a legal matter, we have progressed from a Supreme Court that in 1986 declared that it did not offend the Constitution to prosecute two men for having sex in private to a court that in 2015 found that the same Constitution in fact guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage. The court was correct the second time around.

More gratifying, the country has not resisted this legal transformation — it has embraced it. Dissenting in the marriage equality case, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. warned of a backlash. “Stealing this issue from the people,” he wrote, “will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.” That was incorrect. A solid majority of Americans — 61 percent, according to the Pew Research Center — support the freedom to marry, including close to half — 44 percent — of Republicans. To the extent there is opposition, it is, literally, dying off: Seventy-four percent of millennials favor same-sex marriage. But, but, but. Major religions, including the Catholic Church, continue to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral and to oppose same-sex marriage. That is their right—their constitutionally protected right. Thankfully, we live in a country that both guarantees the right to marry the person you love — and protects your right to be wrong about whether that marriage should be permitted. In the years ahead, the country and the courts face the difficult task of sorting through how to balance those competing imperatives. As that enterprise proceeds, it is important that it be conducted with the respect that Warren failed to display. And she is not alone, although her prominence in the race means her comments merit extra scrutiny. At the same forum, former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke took the extreme step of arguing that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should lose their tax exemptions — a position with which Warren later, and wisely, disagreed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 112October 16, 2019 1:51 AM

Most immediately, this dismissive attitude is politically dangerous. In the short term, Warren’s seeming intolerance toward those whose faith rejects same-sex marriage could hurt her with African American voters. In the general election, her comments carried unsettling echoes of Democratic missteps past: Barack Obama on dispirited working-class voters who “cling to guns or religion”; Hillary Clinton lumping Trump supporters into a “basket of deplorables.” Intolerant condescension is rarely a winning political strategy. It’s also just bad behavior. Disagree, vehemently; don’t disrespect. Tell the imaginary questioner — and the millions of Americans who share his conviction — that you believe his view is misguided, intolerant, insulting. Explain why. Don’t denigrate his faith, or suggest that following it makes him a loser. “My faith animates all that I do,” Warren, a former Sunday school teacher, said earlier this year. I believe that, which means I believe that Warren, when she thinks it over, will do a better job of respecting those whose faith animates them in a different direction. Jesus loves all the children of the world, as she sang at the CNN forum. Even the ones who are wrong.

by Anonymousreply 113October 16, 2019 1:51 AM

"In the short term, Warren’s seeming intolerance toward those whose faith rejects same-sex marriage could hurt her with African American voters."

The intolerant people are the ones who want to use their views to punish others. Nice of you to parrot right-wing talking points, by the way!

by Anonymousreply 114October 16, 2019 2:25 AM

If u want to destroy a sociopath is with a gun.

by Anonymousreply 115October 16, 2019 2:37 AM

That’s the Washington Post

by Anonymousreply 116October 16, 2019 2:37 AM

She’s slipping

by Anonymousreply 117October 17, 2019 11:54 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!