Corey Booker is doing a talking filibuster
- Thread starter Big Tex
- Start date
I don't know what Cory Booker's new time is, but what he did was impressive and for a good reason. Some people may say it was a stunt, but sometimes stunts are necessary, and time is like now stunts are fucking necessary at a time when people by and large are doing nothing
I missed it. Was there a lot of substance? Something newsworthy outside of the time spent?
Anyway another reason to have young blood in the Senate to follow up on.
Anyway another reason to have young blood in the Senate to follow up on.
I'm very proud of Senator Booker. He brought the eyes of the nation to a leading Democratic leader spelling out the evil actions and intentions of Trump and Musk, while at the same time taking away the attention of the country from Trump and the Republicans for at least a couple of news cycles, which the Democrats need to be doing every day. Plus, he broke a 68-year old record in the Senate that was set by one of the most evil, vile, despicable, and detestable human beings who ever walked the floors of that chamber, and he did it honorably, fighting to improve and enrich the lives of the people of this country. Great job, Senator!!!
From what I saw it was extremely well delivered and an incredible show of talent.
But totally meaningless as far as I know.
There was a lot of substance. Pretty much entirely substance. I’ve never seen such substance and nothingness at the same time.
Aside from bolstering his personal brand, I don’t think anything was accomplished. In a sense, that’s worse than nothing because it’s self-serving bullshit designed to fool and pacify.
He was fucking Rosario Dawson right?
And now he’s gay?
Can’t trust him
And now he’s gay?
Can’t trust him
See also AOC's entire career.
Booker is a great performer but an empty suit. His track record is pretty discrediting.
It is a good comparison from your perspective but I think AOC has inspired more people in a shorter time and had more influence on the national conversation. I think she is much more principled than Booker and will accomplish more than him in the end.
We'll see.
(If you think only conservatives hate liberals, check out the thread below.)
(If you think only conservatives hate liberals, check out the thread below.)
The hate is mutual.
I ran the transcript and asked if he said anything specific to Black people and here's what it spit out:
Yes, Senator Booker did talk about policies that directly relate to African-Americans during his filibuster.
•
Senator Booker explicitly addressed the importance of studying Black history, stating, "I get upset with that because black history is American history" 1. He spoke about his surprise that a friend had only recently learned about the bombing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a significant event in African-American history, despite Booker's own work with Senator Langford to memorialize it1. Booker also expressed concern over the removal of books by authors like Toni Morrison and James Baldwin from libraries, framing this as an attack on history and an attempt to sanitize it1.
•
Senator Booker discussed the bipartisan effort that led to the passage of criminal justice reform legislation, mentioning his work with Senators Mike Lee and Chuck Grassley. While this policy is not exclusively for African-Americans, criminal justice reform is an issue of significant importance to the African-American community due to historical and ongoing disparities in the justice system.
•
while discussing the limit of tyranny, Senator Booker shared his personal history, revealing that he is a direct descendant of slaves and slave owners, as well as Native Americans and individuals who fought against them. This personal connection highlights the complex and often painful history that is particularly relevant to the African-American experience in the United States.
•
, the context of Senator Booker's filibuster is directly linked to the history of civil rights. Comparisons are made to Strom Thurmond's 1957 filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, emphasizing the contrasting goals and the progress made since then. This situates Senator Booker's actions within the ongoing struggle for civil rights, a movement historically centered on achieving equality for African-Americans.
•
The Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order is mentioned as an illegal action. Birthright citizenship, protected by the 14th Amendment, has historically been crucial for ensuring the citizenship of African-Americans and other minority groups in the U.S.
While other policies discussed by Senator Booker, such as those related to healthcare, Social Security, education, and economic opportunity, would also impact African-Americans, these instances specifically address historical, cultural, and systemic issues with direct relevance to the African-American community.
Yes, Senator Booker did talk about policies that directly relate to African-Americans during his filibuster.
•
Senator Booker explicitly addressed the importance of studying Black history, stating, "I get upset with that because black history is American history" 1. He spoke about his surprise that a friend had only recently learned about the bombing in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a significant event in African-American history, despite Booker's own work with Senator Langford to memorialize it1. Booker also expressed concern over the removal of books by authors like Toni Morrison and James Baldwin from libraries, framing this as an attack on history and an attempt to sanitize it1.
•
Senator Booker discussed the bipartisan effort that led to the passage of criminal justice reform legislation, mentioning his work with Senators Mike Lee and Chuck Grassley. While this policy is not exclusively for African-Americans, criminal justice reform is an issue of significant importance to the African-American community due to historical and ongoing disparities in the justice system.
•
while discussing the limit of tyranny, Senator Booker shared his personal history, revealing that he is a direct descendant of slaves and slave owners, as well as Native Americans and individuals who fought against them. This personal connection highlights the complex and often painful history that is particularly relevant to the African-American experience in the United States.
•
, the context of Senator Booker's filibuster is directly linked to the history of civil rights. Comparisons are made to Strom Thurmond's 1957 filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, emphasizing the contrasting goals and the progress made since then. This situates Senator Booker's actions within the ongoing struggle for civil rights, a movement historically centered on achieving equality for African-Americans.
•
The Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship via executive order is mentioned as an illegal action. Birthright citizenship, protected by the 14th Amendment, has historically been crucial for ensuring the citizenship of African-Americans and other minority groups in the U.S.
While other policies discussed by Senator Booker, such as those related to healthcare, Social Security, education, and economic opportunity, would also impact African-Americans, these instances specifically address historical, cultural, and systemic issues with direct relevance to the African-American community.
take note of the black faces always shitting & promoting the voices on anything anyone black does but never saying shit about the destruction trump and his ilk r raining on the black community
I think you mean he had Rosario as his beard
Too many words, too well written, and
too much goddamned substance for the average American to grasp.
Unfortunately.
ONLY because the nation is unfortunately chock fuck of people who think the way your words suggest you think.
See my last post just before this one. Thank you for so vividly illustrating my point.
Far lefties are the most insufferable people on the planet.
Instead of bitching all the time, go win elections and show everyone how it's done. You have all the answers, and you're right about everything. So why are YOU GUYS not fixing it?
Why must you redirect and attack the “far left”? Is the poll not evidence of very shallow politics and easily swayed people?