Hmm. I really like her, but I'm a little bit concerned about her reaction to some of Maher's quips/questions:

A) The Pocahontas thing seemed to really throw her off. I don't think Maher said it with any malice; just to remind her that there are some unreachable people who will vote Republican no matter what.

B) Maher was asking a very legitimate question (multiple times) when he was trying to get her to explain what the DNC needs to do differently to get people that agree with Democrat / Progressive policies to follow through with actual votes. She had no real answers beyond politician-speak.

C) As a further example of that, she took it a bit personally when Maher noted that people like her but clearly didn't like Hillary. Well, she needs to come to terms with that. Hillary was the wrong choice for the DNC, and Warren was right there along with most of her party in attempting to prop up that mistake. Warren needs to acknowledge and accept that, or she will fail to learn an extremely important lesson from it. If she gets taken off the Clinton's Christmas card list, so be it.

I think that by standing with Hillary instead of with Bernie, she signaled that she's willing to play ball with the party establishment that Hillary was a product of. That is, a party that would prop up a candidate who would "say anything, and change nothing," and govern for corporations and the wealthy, etc.

The Democratic Party imploding in on itself over Bernie's popularity was a major factor in getting Trump elected. In a way, Trump could never have become president without Hillary....

I really like Warren, but I worry that the DNC would neuter everything they can from what she's stood for and spoken out about during her political career; I worry that they would make her words hollow.

It seems that way, but that's only true for idiots that, as he said, would have voted for him if he blatantly murdered random strangers in the street. Under no circumstances would those people vote for Warren, even though they totally agree with her positions.

Normal, reasonable people, the kind that would vote for Warren, still consider many things as disquaifiers, including many things Trump has done in his first 100 days. We would have voted to impeach over the investigations of Trump and his campaign, and a vote of no confidence, halting any of his plans until the investigations are concluded, because he might be a foreign agent.

I think he won because the DNC chose a candidate that was 100% unacceptable to Republicans, or right learners, or centrists, or real progressives (and she personally blew it with pandering bullshit obfuscation like "I support $15 an hour,..................... but I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage"), and totally screwed over and dismissed independents in the process, ensuring they wouldn't get the votes she needed.

That's the great thing about Trump; he's set the trend that skeletons don't matter. I think if Warren runs, she'll bag it easily.

The problem with the Democrat run last time was dismissing Trump's support and why it existed. Warren sounds like she could use that to her advantage next time around.

Personally I think she could be the best potus in a long, long time.

Probably a stupid question, but if Brittle signed a contract with the Warrens, then why is he suing Warner Brothers instead of the Warrens? It sounds like the Warrens are the ones who should be on the hook for this.

So that's definitely the case, the envelope contained the letter for best actress
Emma Stone - La La Land

That is why Warren Beatty did a triple take on opening the envelope, but there was a name of a movie there so he decided to read it out. Or actually, he had his co-host read it out....

(but het later took responsibility for his part, all that I type is in the clip)

So the accountants messed up big time. Like as someone would say 'huge'.
Guess it's just more of Hollywood accounting...

I love that it is La La Land producer Jordan Horowitz (the guy with the beard, a name I had to look up), who has to take charge and correct the situation, while the Academy staff is in complete shock on stage....

Also: Missed opportunity, the La La Land people should have said 'it was an honor just being nominated'....

Congratulations! Your comment on Ending Free Speech-Elizabeth Warren Silenced In Senate has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Ending Free Speech-Elizabeth Warren Silenced In Senate has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 8 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on Ending Free Speech-Elizabeth Warren Silenced In Senate has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

What exactly does "Rule 19" say?

@newtboy 's description:
"This means that now republicans have ended free speech in the senate, and any time they feel they have been insulted, they'll end the debate and silence the offenders. I find that treasonous, as it directly and horrendously effects how the senate works (or doesn't) and means the party in power can now enforce their un-American idea that they are the only one's allowed to speak."

I agree that it seems to have been used to stifle free speech in this instance. But it doesn't seem like it could be used that way "any time" -- only when the the content being read/spoken is a quote from previous senate sessions?

The reason that I think the full story is important is that the best way to put the kibosh on this would be to turn the tables and have Warren et al. use it on Republicans to demonstrate that it is a bullshit "rule". That sort of violates the whole "they go low, we go high" thing, but a disfunctional, ineffective legislature might be preferable to an actively evil/corrupt legislature. And more importantly, (ab)using the rule is likely the best way to get it removed ASAP so this shit can't happen again.

--edit--
OK, I guess that the "impugn" part is the key, rather than specifically referring to any previous senate session statements. But that just makes it more bullshit, because "impugn" (synonyms include "challenge", "criticize", etc.) is way to broad to be enforceable. I suggest that the moment any senator refers to anybody, dems should "take offense" and invoke Rule 19 themselves.

Your video, Ending Free Speech-Elizabeth Warren Silenced In Senate, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Death sentence, maybe, maybe not, but so dangerous that they didn't go, and the rest, yes. He's the polygamist leader that had sex with all the group's children....in prison now, but in charge of his own fiefdom for decades with next to no interference.
Edit: sorry, that's Warren Jeffs
That makes no sense. You don't prove the need for the military by having it sit idle while you're attacked.

I actually do think we should have done far more, if not gone to war with Pakistan when it was clear the military and government were harboring Osama (and others, and supplying terrorists, etc.) and claiming to be our allies....but, they've got nukes, so it won't happen....well, wouldn't happen, today all bets are off, so who knows.

@newtboy,

No, it's about law. Warren Jeffries people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades. Law.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with him, but your telling me he (on a smaller scale than Texas), stopped paying taxes, and instead collecting them. Started up his own legal and justice system. He created his own borders within which the police would not dare set foot because it would be a death sentence for them. And after he'd done all this the US military itself failed to remove him as well?

Or are you meaning not just scale, but severity and all the other rather meaningful extremes of sovereignty that the Taliban and Al Qaida achieved? It's the same then in the sense that me punching you is violent just me killing ten people is violent, but in another sense they are nothing alike...

No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

Your not embracing the analogy. Spencer's terrorists are still killing American civilians every week, outside of Texas borders. The American military is just corrupt enough that as long as its democrats/republicans dying,(whomever we choose to not be in power) they let it slide because it shows the need for the military to 'protect' the country.

You need to take a harder look at Pakistani politics to see just how powerful Al Qaida and the Taliban's control over the tribal areas has been.

More over, all of the above definitions of state within a state violence and jihad doesn't require war as the response to acts of war. To invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11 is dubious at best. Even the Kissinger's of the world wouldn't count the value of that trade off, losing a couple thousand Americans to an attack each decade or so is 'acceptable' loses.
Call it the price of freedom and carry on. The real trick was that if the Taliban and Al Qaida were so tight with Pakistan's military and intelligence services, how concerned should America be that the Pakistani proxies in their tribal regions and Afghanistan are so keen to target Americans. That lead directly to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being a big enough concern with that pairing that maybe it was time to tell Pakistan they had to end their little dance with terrorists hitting Americans and they had better make a choice who they are going to side with in the Jihad that was already being waged for 2 decades.

No, it's about law.
Warren Jeffries (EDIT: that's Warren Jeffs) people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades.
Law.
No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

P.S.. Holy Crap, you might be interested to know that Trump threatened the Mexican president with exactly that logic, your army can't get the bad hombres, so he might send ours there to do it. Lucky us, Mexico decided to not be a nuclear power.

All it probably would have taken was a more interesting VP pick on Hillary's part. Did anyone really care about Tim Kaine being on the ticket?

I'm curious to see how the dem primary in 2019/20 goes. Hoping for someone like Franken, Warren, maybe Bernie again if he seems up to it. Hillary had best not even try again after this embarrassment.