• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren barred from speaking on Senate floor for rest of Sessions debate

The Republicans' Warren curtails
Comes from their party's fear of females
Tis but the other side
Of the lust they hide:
Men's room dates with shemales.
 
tres borrachos said:
Both sides, IMO, are wasting their political capital. The GOP probably made a mistake this time. The Dems need to find a better hill to die on next time. In the end, Sessions will be AG, and there will be plenty of opportunity to oppose him, and in the end, the GOP needs to save their strength and power for something really worth a fight.
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion yet on Sessions and whether the GOP made a mistake, but my hope is that for the Department of Justice, a new administration will be like throwing open all the windows and doors and an invigorating Constitutional wind airing the place out. (I was strongly opposed to the AG nomination of Eric Holder.)
 
TurtleDude said:
she's a particularly shrill twit. she needs to be slapped down constantly
Click to expand...

But, that has nothing to do with the fact that the republicans did this, and they never used the rule.

Remember: No one censors speech they agree with.
 
NIMBY said:
That's a question a lot of Americans are asking CJ, thanks for your concern.

GOP senators are terrified of trump/Bannon and have already been muted.

They're working on the media and judiciary, just as the one man they refuse to criticize would, PUTIN .
Click to expand...

Doesn't answer the question, NIMBY, your unhealthy obsession with Bannon notwithstanding. The rule is about Senators treatment of other Senators - it's a parliamentary tradition of decency, respect and decorum in most if not all legislative bodies. Nobody, regardless the external circumstances, gets to abuse the rules and the other members of the body and when they do, they get suspended in one form or another.

It's undeniable that Warren is simply grandstanding to gain political prominence in the run up to see who becomes the new voice of Democrats and the Democrat opposition to President Trump. It's the standard MO of liberals and Democrats everywhere - obnoxious displays of civil disobedience or self-promotion for media face time. It's on a level with the nonsense that President Trump gets into on a regular basis. If Warren thinks that being the fool will get her the Democrat Presidential nomination, more power to her.
 
Socrates1 said:
Can you imagine enforcing the rules !!! :roll:
Click to expand...

Such as when Sen. Cruz called Sen. McConnell a 'liar' several times on the Senate floor and the rules were not enforced?

Please thank the GOP for this unforced error .
 
nota bene said:
Rule 19 of the Senate, which states that "no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator."
Click to expand...

The whole purpose of this rule is to prevent ad hominem attacks against fellow Senators and keep the debate focused on the merits of a given bill rather than undercutting the Senators who introduced it and support it. That makes sense, and that's fine, but that's not what's happening in this case at all. In this case they're not debating a bill that Sessions introduced they are debating Sessions himself. He is the topic of debate and therefore criticizing him is not only acceptable, but in face necessary. He is vying for an incredibly important position that requires good character, good judgement, and high qualifications. If you can't question his character, judgement, or qualifications what the **** is the point? Why doesn't a president just appoint his entire cabinet from members of the senate so none of them can be criticized at all?

Anyone who supported this bull**** should be ashamed of themselves. This is quite possibly one of the worst cases of intellectual dishonesty we've seen of McConnell yet.
 
NIMBY said:
Such as when Sen. Cruz called Sen. McConnell a 'liar' several times on the Senate floor and the rules were not enforced?

Please thank the GOP for this unforced error .
Click to expand...

Still angry because we took away your slaves i'm guessing . :lol:
 
Hari Seldon said:
A billionaire in charge of education who has no idea about the current rules and most other things related to public education. A labor head who employed an illegal. Half of Goldman Sachs responsible for finance reform and enforcement, HA!. A secretary of state in bed with Putin and an attorney general that's a disgrace among other things. Should be a fun 4 years.
Click to expand...

By "fun", you surely mean embarrassing, detrimental and transparently corrupt.
 
D_NATURED said:
By "fun", you surely mean embarrassing, detrimental and transparently corrupt.
Click to expand...

"Reality" TV at its finest. Even Arnold admits the orange don is an expert in ratings.
 
tres borrachos said:
Both sides, IMO, are wasting their political capital. The GOP probably made a mistake this time. The Dems need to find a better hill to die on next time. In the end, Sessions will be AG, and there will be plenty of opportunity to oppose him, and in the end, the GOP needs to save their strength and power for something really worth a fight.
Click to expand...

Well, there's no political capital for the Dems here. The Republicans had to invoke the rule, so they've used up capital in stopping Warren from speaking... This honestly reads to me more that Wall Street, which thinks there's a special place in hell for Warren, wanted to show her up in the Senate, and so it was ordered to Mitch McConnell that if he likes those fat checks, he should do them this favor. Otherwise, this is just a bizarre and pointless move for the Republicans --unless they're just testing how much they can stop Democrats from speaking.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Well, there's no political capital for the Dems here. The Republicans had to invoke the rule, so they've used up capital in stopping Warren from speaking... This honestly reads to me more that Wall Street, which thinks there's a special place in hell for Warren, wanted to show her up in the Senate, and so it was ordered to Mitch McConnell that if he likes those fat checks, he should do them this favor. Otherwise, this is just a bizarre and pointless move for the Republicans --unless they're just testing how much they can stop Democrats from speaking.
Click to expand...

Warrren knew McConnel would stop her, and she knew it rile up her base.
Its why she did it. She figured she could set herself up as a leader of the " resistance " and play the race card at the same time.
It was typical Warren demagoguery, too bad she's just preaching to the choir
 
Fenton said:
Warrren knew McConnel would stop her
Click to expand...

Support or retract this. Judging by her interview immediately following being told to sit down, I would say she did not:

 
FieldTheorist said:
Support or retract this. Judging by her interview immediately following being told to sit down, I would say she did not:

Click to expand...


So she had no idea that impugning the character of Senator was against Senate rules ?
Of-course she did! She was also warned, and she continued.

It was a political stunt plain and simple. She figured she could portray the GOP as a bunch of mysonogistic racist for daring to interupt a reading of Correta Scott King and forcing her to sit down.

Her supporters might be impressed, but everyone else saw it as a disrespectful attention seeking stunt.
 
Fenton said:
So she had no idea that impugning the character of Senator was against Senate rules ?
Of-course she did! She was also warned, and she continued.

It was a political stunt plain and simple. She figured she could portray the GOP as a bunch of mysonogistic racist for daring to interupt a reading of Correta Scott King and forcing her to sit down.

Her supporters might be impressed, but everyone else saw it as a disrespectful attention seeking stunt.
Click to expand...

This is absurd, and I have no interest in listening to unthoughtful banter. These comments were literally read in the Senate thirty years ago, with no one barred. Claiming that Jeff Sessions stood in the way of black Civil Liberties might impugn his character, but it's also factual and in saying "it impugns him" is the same as admitting that he really is a total racist sack of ****. His character really is that *****y.
 
FieldTheorist said:
This is absurd, and I have no interest in listening to unthoughtful banter. These comments were literally read in the Senate thirty years ago, with no one barred. Claiming that Jeff Sessions stood in the way of black Civil Liberties might impugn his character, but it's also factual and in saying "it impugns him" is the same as admitting that he really is a total racist sack of ****. His character really is that *****y.
Click to expand...

FieldTheorist said:
This is absurd, and I have no interest in listening to unthoughtful banter. These comments were literally read in the Senate thirty years ago, with no one barred. Claiming that Jeff Sessions stood in the way of black Civil Liberties might impugn his character, but it's also factual and in saying "it impugns him" is the same as admitting that he really is a total racist sack of ****. His character really is that *****y.
Click to expand...

You listened to Warrens demagoguery, and watched her use her position to pander to her base while unfairly denigrating a sitting US Senator, but you have no interest in listening to unthoughtful banter " ? She's welcome to make as many public defamatory statements as she likes, to hold press conferences or go on facebook live, etc, but this time she crossed the line. Its a odd strategy for the Democrat party to attack by association the very people they need to reach out to to re-build their party as was Hillary's strategy to alienate millions of American voters by calling them " deplorable "

Sure, it riles up their base, but its preaching to the choir. It also affirms the Right wing narrative that Liberals are spiteful and intolerant people, oh and that their horrible losers. Did you watch the debate between Cruz and Sanders the other night ? Do you know how I knew Sanders was going to make a fool out of himself ?? Because his entire platform is built on identity politics and nothing of substance. Its condescending appeals to emotion and overt pandering and I just dont get how its not insulting to anyone that hears it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom