ELIZABETH WARREN - Only the 2nd Senator in U.S. History To be Barred From Speaking.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: carewemust
Good question just raised by MSM...

WHY is "Obstructionism" currently hurting Democrats in the eye of the voter.. while helping Republicans over 2 mid-terms, and the 2016 Presidential election?

Where are all the polls from the media showing approval of Democrat's obstruction? All through the last eight years anytime Republicans obstructed there were poll after poll after poll showing how supposedly unpopular it was. Now I'm not seeing any of those polls. Why am I not surprised?

I don't think the majority of Americans realize that Democrats are using Obstruction tactics, because they don't follow the nomination processes AND because President Trump is keeping his personal actions as the MSM headline day after day.

originally posted by: carewemust
Good question just raised by MSM...

WHY is "Obstructionism" currently hurting Democrats in the eye of the voter.. while helping Republicans over 2 mid-terms, and the 2016 Presidential election?

Just heard a partial answer to my question..

Elizabeth Warren has "declared war" on so many people in authority, that her own constituents in Massachusetts are turning against her. They feel that their wants and needs will be intentionally ignored going forward. They're probably right.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

I just wonder how anything in the public record can be considered "out of order" if it obviously pertains to the issue at hand.


But then, I am not an attorney.

But then, I am not an attorney.

Your comments are correct except the above.

Comments politicians make in the house and in the senate are immune from libel and slander so knowing that, you don't have to be a lawyer to see that any elected representative has the right and, it could be argued, the obligation to express their views in pursuit of representing their constituents, in both those chambers.

Code Duello would solve much of this issue...

Code Duello.

It would certainly make debate interesting.

For the record..."MLK's Niece Alveda King: Warren Was 'Playing the Race Card'"

Link on NewsMax.com

Please don't take this wrong...I give this woman so much credit for doing and saying what she did. But here it is. When the black community calls out the left for "Playing the Race Card", you KNOW everyone is sick of it. The left (as usual) have taken a weapon (racism) and used it to the point that it means nothing.

The left using the racist weapon is the same as a car alarm in a Walmart parking lot. Everyone hears it...everyone ignores it...and everyone gets pissed off that the owner won't turn it off. It is useless and shows the reality of the person using it's reasoning. "Send in the dogs". Well Elizabeth...maybe the black community is sick and tired of being your dog. Maybe they have wised up to you and your colleague's using them for your personal benefit while ignoring them and their problems.

Maybe Elizabeth...YOU ARE THE REAL RACISTS!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Kali74

I just wonder how anything in the public record can be considered "out of order" if it obviously pertains to the issue at hand.


But then, I am not an attorney.

The House and Senate make their own rules. In this case, Warren knew the rules and violated them. Her fellow Senators agreed that she had violated the rules. You do not have to be an attorney to understand this. This has nothing to do with the public record, it has to do with the decorum of the Senate. If everybody ran their mouths and insulted one another all of the time, the Senate would be even worse than it already is. Which is really saying something.

Yes, yes, there are rules, aren't there?

It is a question of how SELECTIVELY they are applied and BY whom, TO whom and under what circumstance.

Imagine if Sessions hadn't been a Senator? If he was just a non-senatorial nominee for the AG position?

The rule would not have been broken, no? Or perhaps the good Republican Senator's who didn't want Sessions blocked decided that she was being too effective and found a means to silence her using an arcane rule that was only used ONE TIME before in the entire HISTORY of the SENATE?

Wake up. This is not "senate business as usual." This is something new.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: carewemust
Good question just raised by MSM...

WHY is "Obstructionism" currently hurting Democrats in the eye of the voter.. while helping Republicans over 2 mid-terms, and the 2016 Presidential election?

Where are all the polls from the media showing approval of Democrat's obstruction? All through the last eight years anytime Republicans obstructed there were poll after poll after poll showing how supposedly unpopular it was. Now I'm not seeing any of those polls. Why am I not surprised?

I don't think the majority of Americans realize that Democrats are using Obstruction tactics, because they don't follow the nomination processes AND because President Trump is keeping his personal actions as the MSM headline day after day.

And the Dems learned those tactics from the very best at Obstruction in the biz! They witnessed them for 8 years.

My how the tables turn...

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Yes, yes, there are rules, aren't there?

It is a question of how SELECTIVELY they are applied and BY whom, TO whom and under what circumstance.

Imagine if Sessions hadn't been a Senator? If he was just a non-senatorial nominee for the AG position?

The rule would not have been broken, no? Or perhaps the good Republican Senator's who didn't want Sessions blocked decided that she was being too effective and found a means to silence her using an arcane rule that was only used ONE TIME before in the entire HISTORY of the SENATE?

Wake up. This is not "senate business as usual." This is something new.

It's not something new. It has happened before and there is a rule for a reason. Elizabeth Warren overstepped the mark and was rightly told to shut up.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Yes, yes, there are rules, aren't there?

It is a question of how SELECTIVELY they are applied and BY whom, TO whom and under what circumstance.

Imagine if Sessions hadn't been a Senator? If he was just a non-senatorial nominee for the AG position?

The rule would not have been broken, no? Or perhaps the good Republican Senator's who didn't want Sessions blocked decided that she was being too effective and found a means to silence her using an arcane rule that was only used ONE TIME before in the entire HISTORY of the SENATE?

Wake up. This is not "senate business as usual." This is something new.

First off I agree the rule shouldn't have been used. I don't think its a big deal and Warren was warned many times, but I still don't favor using this rule.

To answer your questions, if Sessions wasn't a senator, then the rule wouldn't apply. The rule is that you can not impugn a Senator.

a reply to: carewemust
First page in and its already trashed by unintelligent debate from the usuals. Thanks for posting the OP.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: carewemust
Good question just raised by MSM...

WHY is "Obstructionism" currently hurting Democrats in the eye of the voter.. while helping Republicans over 2 mid-terms, and the 2016 Presidential election?

Where are all the polls from the media showing approval of Democrat's obstruction? All through the last eight years anytime Republicans obstructed there were poll after poll after poll showing how supposedly unpopular it was. Now I'm not seeing any of those polls. Why am I not surprised?

I don't think the majority of Americans realize that Democrats are using Obstruction tactics, because they don't follow the nomination processes AND because President Trump is keeping his personal actions as the MSM headline day after day.

And the Dems learned those tactics from the very best at Obstruction in the biz! They witnessed them for 8 years.

My how the tables turn...

Yep..Plenty of cross-aisle pollination. In this case, the Majority of Senators simply got fed up with Warren, and reached their breaking point.

Take a good look at Elizabeth Warren right wingers. She is going to be president of the United States in 4 years.

Warren is desperate to stay relevant. She has to push for two reasons

1) she wants to be the "champion of the left" in 2020
2) she had to earn that $250K pay off from Move On.

Isn't Move On funded by someone famous?

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Take a good look at Elizabeth Warren right wingers. She is going to be president of the United States in 4 years.

WHAT? Take a look at this list of Warren's Political Positions. A page right out of Hillary Clinton's defeated platform.

Elizabeth Warren's Positions: en.wikipedia.org...

However, maybe Senator Warren's personality will make her a better candidate than Hillary was.

Keep telling yourself that.

She does have several of Clinton's beliefs, but she's legit and consistent with her message where Clinton may not have been.

Just to show you how popular she is, this stupid move by McConnell essentially martyred her and her message. As a result she just raked in $5.9 million since the beginning of January.

At the end, she will take on the banks and corrupt govt. unlike Trump who conned his base that he would do the same, but decided to fill the swamp instead.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Take a good look at Elizabeth Warren right wingers. She is going to be president of the United States in 4 years.

WHAT? Take a look at this list of Warren's Political Positions. A page right out of Hillary Clinton's defeated platform.

Elizabeth Warren's Positions: en.wikipedia.org...

However, maybe Senator Warren's personality will make her a better candidate than Hillary was.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Just like all those other Mass. Senators became President??

Teddy? John Kerry?

John F. Kennedy did indeed become President. So, too, did John Quincy Adams. To compare this witless wonder to either of those two is a grave injustice to both men.

She is a rude, rather malicious, panderer to the lowest common denominator in politics. The next original idea she ever has will be the first.

President? Allow me to be the first: God Forbid. She may be as bad as she who shall never be named by me again would have been...

Meh....she's just calling the right wingers on their BS. She makes people like McConnell nervous because she sees right through her just like how she saw right through Trump when he first announced he would run for presidency. Yes, she called him out as a dangerous con-artist when the left discounted his chance of winning the presidency.

Warren is probably one of the sharpest people we have on politics and she's not afraid to call you out as a fraud if she sees it.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

Just like all those other Mass. Senators became President??

Teddy? John Kerry?

John F. Kennedy did indeed become President. So, too, did John Quincy Adams. To compare this witless wonder to either of those two is a grave injustice to both men.

She is a rude, rather malicious, panderer to the lowest common denominator in politics. The next original idea she ever has will be the first.

President? Allow me to be the first: God Forbid. She may be as bad as she who shall never be named by me again would have been...

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

By practicing her own brand of it. As I said, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Keep telling yourself that.

She does have several of Clinton's beliefs, but she's legit and consistent with her message where Clinton may not have been.

Just to show you how popular she is, this stupid move by McConnell essentially martyred her and her message. As a result she just raked in $5.9 million since the beginning of January.

At the end, she will take on the banks and corrupt govt. unlike Trump who conned his base that he would do the same, but decided to fill the swamp instead.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
Take a good look at Elizabeth Warren right wingers. She is going to be president of the United States in 4 years.

WHAT? Take a look at this list of Warren's Political Positions. A page right out of Hillary Clinton's defeated platform.

Elizabeth Warren's Positions: en.wikipedia.org...

However, maybe Senator Warren's personality will make her a better candidate than Hillary was.

Time will tell. If Democrats lose even more seats across the country in 2018, the chances for any Democrat to win the Presidency just two years later, is less than 5%. (imo)