Elizabeth Warren’s deadpan quip in LGBT debate wins plaudits

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/11/elizabeth-warren-deadpan-quip-in-lgbt-debate-wins-plaudits

I really didn’t see anything in Elizabeth Warren’s response to the question given her re: same sex marriage that was offensive. She was funny and clever; and not insulting, as I read at another site.

Maybe it was because I didn’t watch the debate live this week, but just now caught it. Her comic delivery worked for me and, and yeah, she may have used what was a doubled-edged joke – but, so what?

As a bit of a liberal (who’s going to believe that…), I was OK and I bet most of those watching who weren’t in favor of same sex marriage would have found at least a teeny-weeny chuckle there, too.

What say ya’ll?

19 thoughts on “Elizabeth Warren’s deadpan quip in LGBT debate wins plaudits

  1. Since you asked; I’d say she demonstrated an appropriately quick wit and perspective that speaks to the bulk of Americans who believe that “certain inalienable rights” are (or at least should be) at the core of the American Experiment…

    And I’d don’t think the “dig” at Neanderthals at the end was out of line in the slightest.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’d have to agree with you; she did speak in favor of . . . ” . . . the bulk of Americans who believe that “certain inalienable rights” are (or at least should be) at the core of the American Experiment…”

      Liked by 2 people

  2. How about a who cares??? Warren’s baggage is her extremist socialist agenda and the fact that she refuses to come clean on the true costs and tax hikes on EVERYONE but those below the poverty line to support it. Typical lying OPM voter buyer, that is all.

    Like

    1. I am aware of her leanings, but isn’t everyone also aware of Bernie’s socialist leanings? I’d say, yeah. And, neither of them would be my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice (as of today) for the Democratic candidate in the general election. No, I was wondering about the response she gave re: the same sex marriage question. Got any thoughts on that one?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. My thoughts, again, are who cares. I don’t salivate over trying to be cute or pandering. Her “wit”, if you call it that, is actually an old, over used gay response. Nothing original in socialists.

        Like

        1. “over used gay response”?? If you’ve had it said to you repeatedly there could be a reason.

          Regardless, I hope we don’t ever get to a place where telling someone, if they don’t think two people of the same gender should marry, that that’s fine, they don’t have to…

          Liked by 1 person

        2. If you really didn’t care, why did you bother to comment? If her response is no biggie, then act like it.

          I thought it was a great answer to the question posed. And an answer I have used to others when the topic comes up.

          Like

  3. The Democrats are still in the beauty contest stage. Things are not cast in any kind of firmness until a candidate is obvious or chosen.

    There are a lot of Trump supporters that still can’t get or afford decent healthcare or have huge education debts or might be losing income or property as farmers.

    I think that Klobuchar or Buttigieg have a better approach with Medicare for those who want it, as in public option. But right now $20,000/year for a family of 4 with Trumpcare as the law of the land is insane. That’s 1/3rd of median family income. Then add in deductibles, co-pays and the 3% Medicare withholding.

    But we’ll see.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Again I ask, how many are actually paying that amount since the average premiums and deductibles for a family of four are $1150 a month after the inception of Obamacare became the law? There is no Trumpcare if you recall honestly. So what happened to the $2500 a year reduction in premiums Obama promised but instead has risen half of current out of pocket costs? $13k is still a lot but a far cry from over $20k.

      Like

      1. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/

        Kaiser is pretty well respected in healthcare analysis and data. That number is without subsidies, but it is still paid by taxes.

        https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/06/17/529589.htm

        True, some changes might be effective down the line, but so many changes have occurred that the original ACA is not the same. One of the key points was supposed to be the penalty for not enrolling, but that was so watered down and now is gone.

        Before ACA premiums were skyrocketing. Hard to say what they would have been today without ACA, especially for modest incomes.

        And we had the abuses of pre-existing conditions, dropped, delayed and rescinded coverage.

        Also where is the “beautiful” plan that was just a few weeks from release…3 years ago?

        Liked by 1 person

    1. “Was that supposed to be funny?” I believe so.

      It seems that pool of people that are attracted to intolerant and/or bigoted people is considerable smaller than the one that is.

      Or so I’ve heard…

      Liked by 2 people

    2. I think she’s just like the rest of us when we get on a roll and just can’t seem to stop ourselves from going too far.

      At any rate, I’m still an Amy K. or Pete B. fan & still can’t spell their last names.

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s