is she in favor of slot machines in the white house?
Take the scold nonsense to another thread, people. You’re hijacking this thread into personalities and long grudges. Give it a rest.
I agree and I’d add that one should be a little pessimistic about the average American. It’s easy to get the impression that the average person is similar to you or your circle if that’s what you’re used to.
I like Warren. But I fear for her chances. This Native American nonsense pales in comparison to what Dumb Donald does every single hour, but it might be enough to scuttle her and give us another four years of a narcissistic unstable crook in the White House. As much as I like her, I don’t want to take a chance.
I’d like to see a woman president. But to me it’s much more important to have a Democratic president. So if we have a 50% chance with Warren or a 60% chance with Harris, I’d rather hedge my bets and take the 100% chance with Biden or the 95% chance with Booker.
Yep, altho I disagree on your %.
Biden is the shoe-in, no doubt, however. yeah, he is a little old, but pair him with a young, perhaps female, perhaps minority charismatic type and it’s perfect. Heck, despite the fact I dont like Harris, she’d be good for that.
“Elizabeth Warren” + Dolezal gives me 84.9k google results.
“Cory Booker” + Spartacus gives me 109k google results. If I open an incognito window and type Cory Booker into the search box, Spartacus is the third automatic suggestion.
Warren plus Pocahontas gives almost 600k results but that gets all kinds of play for an obvious reason, has been around longer, with more furor last night over a possibly implied reference to the Trail of Tears. Trumptwitterarchive.com only brings up one tweet on Booker from 2016. Booker’s chances are going the way of Warren’s if he doesn’t continue to fly under the radar of Trump’s social media for several more months because IF Trump makes Spartacus a household name or unearths a few derogatory nicknames to stick to him he seems like he’d be the second most vulnerable to being shaped into a laughingstock of thwarted hubris(?) based on what’s out there right now.
Why don’t you tell them personally? Wouldn’t take you long to call all six of her supporters.
Warren never had a chance in hell.
Just as a data point: I watch (or listen to) a lot of both MSNBC and CNN.
I’ve heard innumerable hosts and guests mention and discuss “Pocahontas” and Warren.
As of today I have never—not once—heard anyone on those channels mention “Spartacus” and Booker. I just had to look it up to see what is being referenced, in fact.
I watched the Kavanaugh hearings, and no doubt I heard Booker speak the sentence that is apparently the “problem.” But I didn’t remember it, because I never heard any news pundit or commentator or anchor mention it. (I’m not saying they never did, of course. But as I say, I do have those channels on a lot, daily. It can be measured in hours, usually.)
I gather from the research I just did that this is a commonly-used attack on Booker (for being self-important? Is that it?) But of course ‘Pocahontas’ is a commonly-used attack on Warren—one that gets referenced extremely frequently on CNN and MSNBC (and even PBS).
“Spartacus,” not so much.
The situations with Warren vs. Booker don’t even come close. An off the cuff rhetorical flourish by Booker is nothing like the cringe-inducing “high cheekbones” video of Warren or the whole clusterfuck of the DNA test.
Gotta agree with this one. We also see a lot of political talk on TV and on the internet, and I still don’t really even know what “Spartacus” refers to regarding Booker, whereas I know exactly what “Pocahontas” is all about.
Moreover, “Spartacus” as a cultural reference seems a lot less…effective, at the very least less well-known, than “Pocahontas.”
Perhaps most important, though, Warren has shown (through the DNA test if nothing else) that “Pocahontas” gets under her skin. If Booker doesn’t take the bait there’ll be no similar advantage gained by calling him “Spartacus.”
There’s nothing for Booker to “take the bait” on here. It’s just not comparable to Warren.
I think they quite possibly are weak in similar ways with an inability to fight back against the barbs in the public’s eyes, but I don’t want to veer the thread off course and get into how Trump knows Booker better than Booker knows himself.
There’s no reason to fight back against the barbs. Trying to do so is counterproductive.
Americans are getting absolutely gouged up the ass by healthcare costs, people are being plunged into debt by medical procedures that are either free or far more affordable in other countries…to name just one issue…the candidates would be better served by just hammering on those issues forcefully, and staying on message, than trying to “fight back against the barbs.”
I don’t think there are many data points more useless than Google hits or suggestions.
The Booker-Spartacus thing rings no bells with me. Unfortunately, if Warren gets the nomination that’s all we’re going to hear is Pocahontas.
Lock Him Up!!
You can’t make this stuff up.
I think there’s a real possibility this clown winds up in an orange jumpsuit, custom tailored to his 239 pound frame.
As long as he’s on the same cell block as Bush, Clinton, Carter , and Obama, I’m fine with that.
Were you disturbed by “Lock her up!”. I wasn’t. Many were. Same thing here.
If you have evidence that Bush and the others conspired with a hostile nation to subvert democracy, used charities as slush funds, skimmed from their inaugural funds, held meetings with Russians in the Oval Office with no Americans present, slow-walked disaster relief to Americans based on their pigmentation, or made millions off the office, then by all means lock them up too.
Nm
I had things like murder, extortion, and torture in mind.
Of the things you listed, most are neutral to positive. The last two are icky, but small potatoes considering.
To suggest someone should be locked up for meeting with someone is perhaps the most un-American thing I’ve heard in a long time.