Nevertheless, she persisted.

[deadlymonkey]

She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation," he said after the vote. "Nevertheless, she persisted."  - Mitch McConnell on censoring Elizabeth Warren.


Is there any better pro-woman statement?  If this took place before the women's march I would expect to see "Nevertheless, she persisted" on 10,000 signs.

In case you had not seen the news, Elizabeth Warren tried to read a letter by Coretta King (MLK's widow) that was written opposing Jeff Sessions nomination to be a judge.  (incidentally a republican senate felt he was too racist at the time to be a judge...).  McConnell felt she impugned a fellow senator and on a straight party vote, censored her for the rest of the debate so she is not allowed to speak again.  Coincidentally a male senator read the same letter a few hours later and no censure.

[snacky]

I can think of no higher compliment that nasty turtle-faced shitweasel could give.

[MightyAl]

Resist.

[DoubleDown]

That tart should have known better to keep her mouth shut and let the gentlemen debate. The gall she displayed reading a letter written by a Negro lady, maligning the good character of Mr. Sessions. She should instead focus her attention on a woman's proper place, like the kitchen and child-rearing.

Signed, Sexist and Racist Southern Rich Old White Man, February 1879.

[golden1]

That was so nice of McConnell to write Warren's campaign slogan for 2020. 

[Sibley]

That was so nice of McConnell to write Warren's campaign slogan for 2020.

+1

I'd vote for her.

[llorona]

Oh, hells no.

McConnell inspired me to make a contribution to Elizabeth Warren's 2018 Senate re-election campaign.

[Orvell]

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/829434686132858880

Stickers, if anyone's interested, are free if you sign up for NARAL's mailing list.

[Poundwise]

She was warned, she was given a mansplanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.



... sorry  guys, couldn't resist...

[dividendman]

Stupid move by McConnell to be sure. Hopefully the dems can keep the guts they're showing and not fold and be the best obstructionists ever. It's the only way. Grass roots dems should also primary out those that cooperate with the republicans.

The republicans showed how (politically) effective it is to hamstring an opposing administration by opposing everything. The democrats can do it better even without holding a chamber of congress.

[RangerOne]

Not sure McConnell gives a shit at this point. He is really fucking old and he probably knows these are the last 2-8 years he will ever see Republicans be in control of at least 2 primary branches of government. He really has very little reason to be nice or hold back.

Also with all the ire that Trump is likely to draw over the next 2-4 years I doubt stunts like this will be gnat on a camels ass next to all the reason people might find to disapprove of congress or the executive branch.

[MonkeyJenga]

That tart should have known better to keep her mouth shut and let the gentlemen debate. The gall she displayed reading a letter written by a Negro lady, maligning the good character of Mr. Sessions. She should instead focus her attention on a woman's proper place, like the kitchen and child-rearing.

Signed, Sexist and Racist Southern Rich Old White Man, February 1879 2017.

[Paul der Krake]

Stupid move by McConnell to be sure. Hopefully the dems can keep the guts they're showing and not fold and be the best obstructionists ever. It's the only way. Grass roots dems should also primary out those that cooperate with the republicans.

The republicans showed how (politically) effective it is to hamstring an opposing administration by opposing everything. The democrats can do it better even without holding a chamber of congress.

Please don't. Just because one party has been successfully been held hostage by the dangerous ideologues in the fringes doesn't mean it should be replicated by the opposite fringes.

[dividendman]

Stupid move by McConnell to be sure. Hopefully the dems can keep the guts they're showing and not fold and be the best obstructionists ever. It's the only way. Grass roots dems should also primary out those that cooperate with the republicans.

The republicans showed how (politically) effective it is to hamstring an opposing administration by opposing everything. The democrats can do it better even without holding a chamber of congress.

Please don't. Just because one party has been successfully been held hostage by the dangerous ideologues in the fringes doesn't mean it should be replicated by the opposite fringes.

Compromise has gotten the democrats exactly nowhere. Obama compromised on single payer, got obamacare, still didn't get any republican votes. What did he get for his troubles? A loss of the house. Did the republican house help Obama pass anything? No. They voted to repeal obamacare a zillion times and did little else. Remember the grand compromise on the budget and taxes Obama almost made with Boehner? It didn't fail because of political ideology, it failed because the republicans didn't want to give Obama a win. And what did the republicans get for being so obstructionist? The senate! And now the presidency. The democratic party compromised and picked Clinton, a centrist by any definition of the word, and lost the election.

The republicans refused to even consider a supreme court nomination that was also centrist. Why did Obama put up a centrist? Because he thought that there would be political fallout if he wasn't confirmed. Half of the republicans in the senate were already on record favoring Garland. What he didn't realize is it didn't matter. He should have put up the most liberal judge he could find - same result right?

Republicans want to win and for that you don't give the other side victories whether it helps the nation or not. Democrats want to do the "right" thing without realizing that you need to win to do it.

It's time for democrats and liberals to wake up and stop playing by a different set of rules.

[BDWW]

It's time for democrats and liberals to wake up and stop playing by a different set of rules.

Democrats don't like playing by any rules*.

*See this thread.

[Paul der Krake]

*shrugs*

If you think polarizing even more is going to get you votes, have at it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Careful Now

[jim555]

She needs to shut up, get in the kitchen and make me a sammich!

His action is a cultural statement to the red state retards.

[MOD NOTE:  Let's keep it civil.]

[calimom]

She's a nasty woman! Her husband needs to keep her in line.

[ysette9]

Can bad hombres keep nasty women in line?

[TheStachery]

Dumb that the republicans did that.  If they let her go on, nobody would be talking about her today. Sessions was getting confirmed no matter what.  Nothing was gained, except he "Mitch-slapped" her. 

I guess this, along with her being Native American and being a woman makes her the best libtard liberal candidate yet for 2020.  Mod Note: Not necessary, keep it civil.

[ysette9]

best libtard

That is offensive on several levels and inappropriate here. Let's stay respectful.

[farmecologist]

Love the sarcasm in this thread!  keep it coming!

[TheStachery]

best libtard unicorn

That is offensive on several levels and inappropriate here. Let's stay respectful.

I fixed that.

[TheStachery]

Dumb that the republicans did that.  If they let her go on, nobody would be talking about her today. Sessions was getting confirmed no matter what.  Nothing was gained, except he "Mitch-slapped" her. 

I guess this, along with her being Native American and being a woman makes her the best libtard liberal candidate yet for 2020.  Mod Note: Not necessary, keep it civil.

Should have a forum topic of "safe space" for people who are easily triggered.  It was not a direct insult to anyone on this forum.  People on here call Trump, Drump.  Am I supposed to be insulted too?

[Poundwise]

No, it shouldn't insult you unless you are Trump! 

This has nothing to do with safe spaces. It has everything to do with preventing flame wars.

[Poundwise]

And FWIW, I agree with you that Warren would have made a great candidate for President. Not because she is a woman etc. but because of her intelligence and integrity. I think her unwillingness to compromise would be a strike against her, though.

[I'm a red panda]

It's time for democrats and liberals to wake up and stop playing by a different set of rules.

Democrats don't like playing by any rules*.

*See this thread.

Apparently the rules don't apply to the Republicans though.  Where was rule 19 when Ted Cruz called McConnell a "liar".
And why was it okay for MALE senators to read the same letter?

[farmecologist]

And FWIW, I agree with you that Warren would have made a great candidate for President. Not because she is a woman etc. but because of her intelligence and integrity. I think her unwillingness to compromise would be a strike against her, though.

I was at least hoping Hillary would have picked her ( or Bernie ) for VP.  If she did that I feel she truly would have had it wrapped up.  Her VP choice was an extremely poor decision.

[SomedayStache]

Dumb that the republicans did that.  If they let her go on, nobody would be talking about her today. Sessions was getting confirmed no matter what.  Nothing was gained, except he "Mitch-slapped" her. 

I guess this, along with her being Native American and being a woman makes her the best libtard liberal candidate yet for 2020.  Mod Note: Not necessary, keep it civil.

Should have a forum topic of "safe space" for people who are easily triggered.  It was not a direct insult to anyone on this forum.  People on here call Trump, Drump.  Am I supposed to be insulted too?

Libtard is a very disrespectful term and horribly offensive to people with disabilities.  Your use of the term reflects strongly upon yourself. 

Edit to fix quoting mistake.

[Kris]

And FWIW, I agree with you that Warren would have made a great candidate for President. Not because she is a woman etc. but because of her intelligence and integrity. I think her unwillingness to compromise would be a strike against her, though.

I was at least hoping Hillary would have picked her ( or Bernie ) for VP.  If she did that I feel she truly would have had it wrapped up.  Her VP choice was an extremely poor decision.

I was honestly sort of surprised she didn't pick Bernie. Agree she would have smoked Trump with him on the ticket. I don't know about Warren, because two women, and sexism.

[Poundwise]

I think that Clinton's strategists wanted her to pick a WM to normalize her ticket, just as Biden did for Obama. Putting Warren wouldn't have helped; the real problems (IMO) were the Bill Clinton baggage, neglect of Rust Belt during campaign, and gerrymandering from 2010.

Would Democrats who stayed home have come out for Warren? Don't know. My feeling is that  the presence of Warren wouldn't have cleaned up Clinton's ticket, but Clinton would have just dragged Warren down with her...

On the other hand, I agree that putting Sanders on the ticket could have provided the edge that Clinton needed. Not that I was a big fan of Sanders either, but others were!

Ah well, would've could've should've.

[rocketpj]

And FWIW, I agree with you that Warren would have made a great candidate for President. Not because she is a woman etc. but because of her intelligence and integrity. I think her unwillingness to compromise would be a strike against her, though.

I was at least hoping Hillary would have picked her ( or Bernie ) for VP.  If she did that I feel she truly would have had it wrapped up.  Her VP choice was an extremely poor decision.

Her candidacy was a poor decision, the only redeeming quality being that she wasn't 45.  You need to offer more than 'I won't get us all killed through stupendous incompetence' as a platform.  She was status quo, and the status quo clearly isn't working for a lot of people (for many reasons).  Her VP choice was a nebbish as well, I can't even remember his name at this point.

[rocketpj]

The use of 'libtard' is a good sign.  When people lack the ability to debate on evidence or facts they resort to insults and dismissals.  Reality has a well known left wing bias, so people start throwing insults when they know they can't defend something based on reality.

Why do you think 45 gets so aggressive when people criticize him?  Because he can't actually debate the merits of his positions (because he has no idea), so he attacks the critic.

[Kris]

The use of 'libtard' is a good sign.  When people lack the ability to debate on evidence or facts they resort to insults and dismissals. Reality has a well known left wing bias, so people start throwing insults when they know they can't defend something based on reality.

Why do you think 45 gets so aggressive when people criticize him?  Because he can't actually debate the merits of his positions (because he has no idea), so he attacks the critic.

Agreed. Namecalling is lazy and an excuse to avoid actually advancing a coherent argument. Whenever someone uses the word "libtard" I already know that there's kind of no point expecting them to argue or debate better than a seven year-old.

[cliffhanger]

best libtard

That is offensive on several levels and inappropriate here. Let's stay respectful.

The use of 'libtard' is a good sign.  When people lack the ability to debate on evidence or facts they resort to insults and dismissals.  Reality has a well known left wing bias, so people start throwing insults when they know they can't defend something based on reality.

Why do you think 45 gets so aggressive when people criticize him?  Because he can't actually debate the merits of his positions (because he has no idea), so he attacks the critic.

Libtard is a very disrespectful term and horribly offensive to people with disabilities.  Your use of the term reflects strongly upon yourself. 

Edit to fix quoting mistake.

A few posts earlier...

She needs to shut up, get in the kitchen and make me a sammich!

His action is a cultural statement to the red state retards.

BTW I'm with you all on this. I disagree with most everything I hear from Sen Warren, yet Sen McConnell's selective enforcement of Senate rules was uncalled for. Honestly, Senators should be able to call each other out anytime.

However, I'm never going to be on your side when you all do the same thing as McConnell: selectively call out people you disagree with while letting go of others doing the same thing.

[Kris]

best libtard

That is offensive on several levels and inappropriate here. Let's stay respectful.

The use of 'libtard' is a good sign.  When people lack the ability to debate on evidence or facts they resort to insults and dismissals.  Reality has a well known left wing bias, so people start throwing insults when they know they can't defend something based on reality.

Why do you think 45 gets so aggressive when people criticize him?  Because he can't actually debate the merits of his positions (because he has no idea), so he attacks the critic.

Libtard is a very disrespectful term and horribly offensive to people with disabilities.  Your use of the term reflects strongly upon yourself. 

Edit to fix quoting mistake.

A few posts earlier...

She needs to shut up, get in the kitchen and make me a sammich!

His action is a cultural statement to the red state retards.

BTW I'm with you all on this. I disagree with most everything I hear from Sen Warren, yet Sen McConnell's selective enforcement of Senate rules was uncalled for. Honestly, Senators should be able to call each other out anytime.

However, I'm never going to be on your side when you all do the same thing as McConnell: selectively call out people you disagree with while letting go of others doing the same thing.

Huh. I had no idea that Jim555's account was the one that all of the forum members who lean left use to write collective responses to things.

Please. Call individuals out for their actions.

[Poundwise]

BTW I'm with you all on this. I disagree with most everything I hear from Sen Warren, yet Sen McConnell's selective enforcement of Senate rules was uncalled for. Honestly, Senators should be able to call each other out anytime.

However, I'm never going to be on your side when you all do the same thing as McConnell: selectively call out people you disagree with while letting go of others doing the same thing.

Fair enough, I did not notice the "red state retards" comment.  To be fair we should all have piled on there too.  It is offensive.

[snacky]

My child has an intellectual disability. What does he have to do with your political arguments?

And yes, using that word in a general sense is hurtful to him. I've had to explain what it means and what people mean by it to him. Would you like to do that? No? Then fucking don't use the word retarded unless you're talking about air brakes.

[jim555]

Sorry if the "red state retard" comment violated the rules, will be more careful.

[rocketpj]

My child has an intellectual disability. What does he have to do with your political arguments?

And yes, using that word in a general sense is hurtful to him. I've had to explain what it means and what people mean by it to him. Would you like to do that? No? Then fucking don't use the word retarded unless you're talking about air brakes.

Well put.  I work with adults with intellectual disabilities, and the impact such words can have on them is significant and harmful. I apologize for any impact my part in the conversation may have had.

[TheStachery]

I thought the tard in libtard was (Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder)  not retard.   jeez. 

[golden1]

Oh no.  You don't get to play stupid.  Libtard has been around LONG before Trump so don't even play that. 

[Kris]

Oh no.  You don't get to play stupid.  Libtard has been around LONG before Trump so don't even play that.

Agreed. It's been omnipresent for years. I typed it into Google and only needed two pages before I found a reference to it from 2009.

[Lagom]

And FWIW, I agree with you that Warren would have made a great candidate for President. Not because she is a woman etc. but because of her intelligence and integrity. I think her unwillingness to compromise would be a strike against her, though.

Wasn't a problem for our current liar-in-chief. At least Warren's unwillingness to compromise is based in her belief in a consistent set of ideals (whether you agree with them or not).

I thought the tard in libtard was (Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder)  not retard.   jeez. 

"Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder"??? Seriously? I can only hope that was a poor attempt at humor.

[Landlady]

Thanks for bringing this quote up. It does strike me as an experience most women have had even if it's not so formal as rule 19.
I've been silenced in work meetings and had my ideas repeated back to me just 5 minutes later and I've been talked over when telling a joke. The list could go on. It's not right and it takes a lot of energy to fight in a non-bitchy way.

I'm glad to see that Warren ended up getting more press and acknowledgement than she would have due to an unfair silencing.

[Metric Mouse]

That was so nice of McConnell to write Warren's campaign slogan for 2020.

+1. It's a classic.

Not sure that I would vote for her though.

[dividendman]

*shrugs*

If you think polarizing even more is going to get you votes, have at it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

I don't think you necessarily need to polarize. What i'm saying is if your party is in the opposition (i.e. not in the white house) and your goal is to win elections, it's clear that you should oppose everything. This means that even if the republicans propose some idea that is good you oppose it. If they pass a good idea call it crap all the way to the election, point out any flaws as critical failures.

That's how you win elections.

[Metric Mouse]

*shrugs*

If you think polarizing even more is going to get you votes, have at it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

I don't think you necessarily need to polarize. What i'm saying is if your party is in the opposition (i.e. not in the white house) and your goal is to win elections, it's clear that you should oppose everything. This means that even if the republicans propose some idea that is good you oppose it. If they pass a good idea call it crap all the way to the election, point out any flaws as critical failures.

That's how you win elections.

The fact that this appears to be true just makes me sad for America.

[RetiredAt63]

*shrugs*

If you think polarizing even more is going to get you votes, have at it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

I don't think you necessarily need to polarize. What i'm saying is if your party is in the opposition (i.e. not in the white house) and your goal is to win elections, it's clear that you should oppose everything. This means that even if the republicans propose some idea that is good you oppose it. If they pass a good idea call it crap all the way to the election, point out any flaws as critical failures.

That's how you win elections.

The fact that this appears to be true just makes me sad for America.

Here the other parties are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.  As long as everyone remembers that, we will be OK.  If we polarize too much, a Parliamentary system is just as open to abuse as any other system.