Chris Matthews shreds Elizabeth Warren over useless DNC

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Technarchy, Jun 19, 2014.

  1. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #1
    I'm a fan of Chris Matthews. He is perhaps my fav cable news personality. He's also a liberal.

    Yeah he's soft at times, but when he's on he's on.

    Elizabeth Warren was rambling with nonsensical platitudes, and DNC talking points, and Chris Matthews gutted her for it and the DNC inaction.

    Understand, government is cyclical. GOP rule, DNC rule, GOP rule, DNC rule. You expect certain things to get done when one side is in control, and DNC have utterly squandered their power.

    This DNC is just not aggressively chasing the things of real social importance. And Chris Matthews called her out for it and she was RATTLED.

     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Rattled?

    I sure didn't see it.

    Can you point to the specific time in the video where you thought she was rattled?
     
  3. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #3
    You know what I heard? Chris was trying to drive home the Democrat Party us not sending good infrastructure legislation (comparing our spending on infrastructure to China's) and Warren's just dying to blame Republications. Same old tired blame the other party tactics ( played by both sides).

    Chris is right about our crumbling infrastructure is tearing the USA down. Canada isn't far behind.
     
  4. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #4
    It certainly didn't look like she got too rattled to me but he did hammer his point home. Has he switched parties?
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    She did not seem rattled to me either and as usual it points out that there is a fight for the soul of this country going on, that at one point both parties did work together, but as Warren stated, the GOP primary focus today is on protecting billionaires, the poor billionaires who don't have any money because of those evil taxes. Let's weep and fight for the rich... This is the warped GOP message.

    This is the scariest aspect, I don't understand how any regular citizen can place their trust in the GOP other than to assign this support to what they perceive as typical conservative "values" based on religion, prejudice, and bias, but they can't see that the game is really all about money, big money, and they are just pawns in the game. They will be free to be poor.
     
  6. Technarchy thread starter macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #6
    When the best one can muster is a tragic plea to "stop this" I'd say they are rattled.

    The type of highly defensive, stammering retort, shows she was not prepared to do anything other than read off trite DNC talking points.

    Then Mathews hit her with a bus, and she clearly wasn't prepared.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    She probably expected a pundit to have a modicum of knowledge about history and politics.
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #8
    You guys don't know Elizabeth Warren very well. She is that way all the time. Very loud mouthed ( sic ) with an aggressive personality.

    Matthews didn't rattle her one bit. And she is right.
    It takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done.
     
  9. citizenzen, Jun 20, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2014

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #9
    That was her one messaging mistake.

    She needed to remind Matthews and the viewers that a majority is no longer enough in the Senate, that it takes 60 votes to get anything passed these days.

    She described an example, but she didn't sum it up clearly enough.
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
  11. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #11
    It was the Democrats own fault that they lost the 60 seats... Their own rule change in Massachusetts bit them in the butt. The Democrats could have enjoyed two years of that super majority... but they blew it.
     
  12. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    Ahem. Joe Leiberman. Independent who 'caucases' with the Blues. Independents go wherever they want to go. They never fully had 60 seats.

    BL.
     
  13. Technarchy thread starter macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    Then she can kiss those national aspirations bye bye. That "attitude" doesn't play well west of the Hudson.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Plays beautifully for this California native.

    I want a fighter.

    That's been my biggest disappointment with Obama ... he hasn't fought hard enough for the progressive cause.

    Warren looks like the perfect candidate to me.
     
  15. Hieveryone macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #15
    She is not cool. I can't believe these are the people who are going to be running for president one day. All I heard her say was that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good.

    ----------

    Nah she's not good at all. Rand Paul is much better. If he runs, I will be voting for him and will convincing everyone I know to vote for him as well.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    That's a bit vague.

    Can you describe why you believe "she's not good at all"?
     
  17. Hieveryone macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #17
    Yeah she's not qualified to run the nation. She's also an old candidate and people like new candidates like Rand Paul.
     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    Old Candidate? Her name has only been known (other than policy wonks) for just over four years…

    :confused:

    Also, what qualifications does she not have?
     
  19. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #19
    Joe Leiberman only ran as independent because the DNC screwed him over by running and supporting a candidate against him. He and the other independent both chose to caucus with the Democrats. Of course, after Ted Kennedy decided to leave office early, they really wished they hadn't changed the law on how a replacement senator in MA was picked... That one bit them in the butt.
     
  20. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #20
    CT native here.

    Lieberman caucused with the Dems, but the man was a Republican from 30 years ago through and through.
     
  21. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #21
    He was a Democrat before he went Independent. But the point is that they could have maintained that 60 seat for Barry's whole first term if they didn't change the law on replacing a Senator in MA during Mitt Romney's term. It's a great example of getting screwed by your own rule change.

    Imagine the damage they could have done in those two years...
     
  22. Hieveryone macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #22
    She gets mad like she can't handle Putin and foreign affairs.

    Most people knew her since Bill got his assets appreciated by Monica. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I don't think it's a big deal. If I was Prezy I'd get like 3 girls a night lol.
     
  23. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    I see you have no issues with a minority party literally changing the functioning of congress, with no precedent, to require 60 votes on everything in what is supposed to be a system of majority rules?

    And to pre-empt the "tyranny of the majority" argument (it's a logical rebuttal, not putting words in your mouth), that doesn't hold true when the minority is stopping anything of substance from being done.

    Tell tale sign, they'll filibuster nominations up until a point, and then nominate the person with overwhelming majorities. What does that tell you? The tactic of slow everything down and obstruct, which was cooked up by the GOP on Obama's inaugural night, is still at play. McCarthy himself just assumed Cantor's position, two people whom were at the meeting that night.

    This is disruption of the very practice of governance.

    ----------

    On the first sentence…what?:confused:

    On the second…please elaborate?
     
  24. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #24
    "Old candidate"? She's been a senator for a year and a half. Rand Paul has been one for 3 and a half years. Seems like that would make old Rand there the "old candidate".

    Also, Rand Paul is a ****ing nut job. Elizabeth Warren is mediocre at best but she's a hell of a lot better than him. She only won because her competition was Scott Brown.. and really, that wasn't much of a contest.


    What are you even rambling about?
     
  25. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #25
    The rules of the Senate were set up to keep a majority party from steamrolling over the minority party. The Democrats decided to ram through a 2800 page Affordable Care Act without a single Republican vote. They cut deals, the Cornhusker Kickback and other such sweetheart deals but they decided that they did not need Republicans. After all, they had 60 votes.

    The payback? When Ted Kennedy suddenly left the Senate, they lost that 60th vote. Everything became sticking points. The Democrats found that they needed the Republicans, well at least one or two of them for each vote.

    The Senate was supposed to be the upper house. The house where each issue was debated. That isn't the case any more. Harry Reid determines what is coming to the floor, he doesn't like it... it's dead.
     

Share This Page