Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did he have a bucket in the cloakroom like Thurmond did?

Booker didn't go to the bathroom at all. He spent days not drinking, so he could be sufficiently dehydrated for his filibuster...so fitting that a black man should overturn Thurmond's "record", and we all realize that Thurmond's feat wasn't really a feat at all.

Anonymous wrote:Did he have a bucket in the cloakroom like Thurmond did?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m watching right now. This ain’t it, sorry. Even at age 55, he still seems like that goofy college football player who was groomed for this role by the globalists via the Rhodes scholar program. He projects an unconvincing faux seriousness, and it just doesn’t quite work. This kind of fake-brave rambling grandstanding is very on brand for Cory.

Yes as you sit your half- employed arse at your home office escaping or answering to DOGE everyday. Yes, you can judge from your couch. How about you gather your mass and go down to DC and speak your mind there??? I thought so.

No-one is personally claiming to be better than Cory. I’m just noting that he doesn’t strike me as Presidential timber. YMMV. Granted, it’s slim pickings for Democratic candidates

I would disagree with this. Amy Klobuchar, Gretchen Whitmer, Roy Cooper, Joshua Stein and Pete Buttigieg immediately come to mind as not 70 year old + moderate liberals from the Midwest or purple states. AOC is once in a generation talent, if the voter base ever catches up to her policies (we’d need someone more moderate in 2028).

Attempting to predict the front runners for the 2028 Dem nomination is a waste of time in 2025. There are plenty of qualified and fit for office potential candidates who deserve a chance to present themselves and their platform to the American people in a fair and open to all 2028 primary. All we can hope for is for a nominee chosen by the people with little to no manipulation by the DNC in determining who does and doesn't have a chance at the nomination.

AOC is a generational talent but her anti-capitalism and close the wealth gap rhetoric puts her in conflict with big money political donors and her open and honest stance on the insider trading shenanigans of her Congressional colleagues leaves her out in the cold as far as support from within the party base is concerned. You have to play nice with the mega donors and you have to put loyalty to the team ahead of integrity if you want to be an Executive or Legislative Branch leader on the Federal level.

Weird take. Our bench isn’t impressive so don’t think about it. The DNC puts its finger on the scale, so assume they won’t. Economic populism won’t please our donors, and mentioning fraud will annoy our politicians. So self-censor and campaign for the status quo voters hate. Great advice. Do nothing, Democrats. We got this.and no, the Republicans aren’t paying me to promote this strategy.

The general sentiment leading up to the '92 election was Dems having little chance to beat a popular GHWB. Clinton emerged from a pack of what was thought to be a weak Dem bench of potential nominees and he became an effective two term POTUS. HRC was assumed to be the front runner by a wide margin for the 2008 nomination until campaign season began and Obama quickly became well known and very popular with the people.

Obama and Clinton were the last two elite Dem nominees and they became successful two term presidents but you wouldn't have predicted their success three years prior to their first presidential campaigns. No use trying. Let things play out. One thing we know for sure from past experience in 2020 is that Trump's unpopularity will put the GOP at a huge disadvantage against the Dem nominee in 2028.

Yes, predictions are hard. But no, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t plan. If our bench is weak we need to strengthen it. If our best candidates are unknowns we need to get them out there. If we don’t want rigged primaries, we have to prevent them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-know-about-senator-bookers-overnight-speech
However, Thurmond’s filibuster was "wind assisted." There was no television or social media. Most reporters didn’t realize he had been on the floor all night until the next day. He left the floor to use the restroom. Get a sandwich. Allowed Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, D-Texas, to pass bills by unanimous consent and swear-in a new senator.

But because watchful eyes weren’t on the Senate, no one called Thurmond on it.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Not necessarily of being gay. Could also mean a player, a commitmentphobe, bad in bed, controlling, or bad at relationships. My New York and DC girls are dating experts, and they have some rules of thumb. It’s a screaming red flag that if he’s never been married or engaged by 55, either you’re not going to enjoy dating him, or you ARE and then he’s going to flake on you like he flaked on everyone else he ever dated. Some of these types are gay, and some of them are way TOO straight to settle down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans definitely care about relationship status for President. Only one in history has been unmarried

Twenty years ago, we’d never had a black president. Then we elected one who

-had the middle name Hussein
-was born to a teenaged mother
-had a Kenyon father
-had an absentee father
-had admitted to using cocaine
-didn’t grow up wealthy or well connected
-was only in his 40s

People didn’t see that one coming.

Until Trump and Biden, we’d never elected any septuagenarians.

Prior to last year, we’d never elected a felon — something that was unthinkable just 4-5 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:Single: Married
Gay: Straight
Female: Male
Black: White
Trans: Cis
Migrant: Citizen
Bureaucrat: Businessperson
Atheist: Religious
Renter: Homeowner

The two parties are sorting themselves ever more cleanly.

Anonymous wrote:Americans definitely care about relationship status for President. Only one in history has been unmarried

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cory Booker has fight in him, intelligence, charisma, a flair for drama, and and some mother-f---ing stamina. He's also been a Mayor before Senator and has some exec experience. I used to think he was a bit corny when he ran for Pres prior, but his brand of corny actually moved many during his 25-hour speech.

This may be the right moment for him to do the next thing on a long list of next things he's excelled at (Football player, College President, Master Degree, Rhodes Scholar, Law Degree, Mayor, Senator. More than just the accolades, he comes across as an authentic, kind and non-partisan man who will put his physical comfort and health aside (25-hour speech, hunger fasts in the past, moving into the projects to connect with a community) to take a stand for what he believes in.

And he did it without blaming ordinary Americans or political parties. "This is not Right or Left, it's Right or Wrong. This is not a partisan moment, it's a moral moment."

God bless him. He displayed leadership and drive and it impressed me.

He is very talented but if you are alluding to running for president in the bolded statement above, he won't win.

He is unmarried for a reason. Absolutely no one believes he actually dated Rosario Dawson.

He’s a gifted yapper.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Not necessarily of being gay. Could also mean a player, a commitmentphobe, bad in bed, controlling, or bad at relationships. My New York and DC girls are dating experts, and they have some rules of thumb. It’s a screaming red flag that if he’s never been married or engaged by 55, either you’re not going to enjoy dating him, or you ARE and then he’s going to flake on you like he flaked on everyone else he ever dated. Some of these types are gay, and some of them are way TOO straight to settle down.