I'm sure "irked" was not the word he wanted to use.
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
611 points (99.4% liked)
politics
23141 readers
30 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm sure making it into a headline was not intended to compliment him.
To preface this question, I just want to clarify I’m not trying to be a troll or stir the shitpot, I genuinely think I’ve missed something here. That being said, I’m confused about why people are so excited about this 25 hour speech. He talked for a little over a day. I thought the main issue we have with democrats is that talking is all they seem to do. I mean, he wasn’t even filibustering anything.
What was it about this particular spell of talking that’s making people appreciative versus all the other hot air from democrats? What did this accomplish?
He talked for a little over a day.
There'a a reason there was a 24 hour record to be broken in the first place. Standing and delivering a speech for 25 hours straight is a genuinely incredible physical and mental feat.
The talking is to hold up the Senate, give voices to seniors worried about losing social security, and to draw more attention to the absolutely broken state of our government.
It's an ideological war. Most of it will look like talking until the talking pushes people to start acting. You can't just skip ahead to the revolution and push the "riot" button, you have to convince people to act.
First of all, it delayed the vote to cut Medicaid. Even if just by a day, it means that someone's grandma may get coverage for oxygen that would have been cut a day earlier. Second, it shows that Democrats are willing and able to fight. The Senate can't vote until discussion ends. Cory wasn't just delaying the Medicaid vote, he was delaying every single item on the agenda after that. It sends a strong signal; come back and work with us on legislation, or don't come back at all. Another thing to remember is that it takes 3/5ths of the present members to break the filibuster. Cory being able to go that long without being procedurally cut short also sends a clear message of unity, republicans couldn't break the filibuster.
Edit: oh, and to top it off, Trump's public address for yesterday got like 20k views total. The single stream that I was in for Cory's filibuster got over 150k peak views. Trump has got to be pissed about that.
I heard some views got a half a million.. and more.
Some have said it was the most viewed political broadcast in history. People are saying it. Many people.
As an Australian living in Canada, I'm far from an expert on this stuff, but it seems to me the main benefit of something like this is visibility - he had (I believe) 10s of millions of views over the various platforms it was streaming on. Hopefully some of those people were not previously engaged and now are. It's a start.
I hear you, and I can see why you would think this was an empty political gesture that Dems are famous for. I can also agree that all the excitement for him "breaking the record" is stupid. If people could get past that bullshit, they'd realize what the real objective was.
The objective was for Cory Booker to audition for Chuck Schumer's job by laying out what the Democratic agenda would look like under Booker's leadership, including exhibiting strength. Does anyone believe that the simpering, spineless, weakling Schumer could have spoken like that for even an hour, no less 24?
It is long past time for Schumer to go. Nobody on either side, anywhere in the government, respects him. He's used his position to gain enormous wealth, and now that his weakness has helped MAGA to gain power and destroy our nation, he STILL wants to hang around and pad his bank account. What other reason could there be? He certainly isn't offering ANY opposition to the Nazis, just appeasement and compliance.
I've hated him with a white-hot passion ever since he cooperated with the Republican smear campaign against Al Franken, destroying his career and his life, just so he could clear the decks for his friend Gillibrand to run for president. Then her camaign flamed out in weeks. They ruined Al Franken's life for NOTHING. Fuck this Vichy piece of shit.
If he was in front of me, I would happily say all of this to his stupid Nazi collaborator face. I wish I had that chance.
Schumer needs to go, and make way for AOC, and let Booker run the show. I'm not a huge fan of Booker, but he's light-years ahead of Schumer.
He took the high score from a dick so it wasn't up there anymore with his name.
Move along; this isn't the thing you need to hyper-focus your anger on about the party that has been given no ability to stop the halfwit aristocracy led by a felon and maybe a traitor and somehow isn't using that lack of options to magically save the people who sat back and abdicated or voted a serial rapist and felon in over the likes who would have put him in prison.
This guy's fucking-around has nothing to do with your continued finding-out.
Sure I mean I’ll take this over the do-nothing strategy, but yeah he’s already pivoting to identity politics. Like bro…that’s not what this is about, stop huffing your own senator chamber farts for fucks sake.
Curious what he had to say about the corrupting influence of big pharma or commercial real estate bribe money during this speech. Anything? Bueller?!
Because this is the best the Democrats can come up with.
It's also all they have, because they're never going to be the party to start an active resistance.
Yup. Rather than organizing worker protests, consumer boycotts, and civil disobedience they are doing performance art
Wait, that one was against civil rights?!?
Strom Thurmond ordering breakfast would somehow figure out a way to be against civil rights
I mean it is a great record to break. Especially right now.
The question is, will it help galvanize the DNC? I won't be holding my breath but there's another sliver of hope.
You are beginning to irk me, professor.
I am irked! And that will not do.
— Dr. Calico (Malcom McDowell; Bolt, 2008)
Clowning aside, while I was already a fan of Booker, that was some classical badassery IMHO.
He's sure talking some trash about Bidens "closest friend".
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-strom-thurmond-civil-rights-act-808498993375
I saw his interview about preparing by fasting, but I still have more questions because what he did was abnormal and damaging his health.
When did he wake up the day before? That means he stayed awake for more than 25 already.
Was he sipping coffee or did he take amphatamine speed to stay up standing up not allowed to sit and talking for 25+ hrs without bathroom or food? was he pissing in bottles? was it withdrawals from some legal/illegal substance that kept him awake? and such law that does not allow bathroom breaks is stupid and hurtful.
he risked his health to make a point. no one should need to do this.
he risked his health to make a point. no one should need to do this.
i have terrible news for you about what the rest of us in America will need to do
He did take food and bathroom breaks, iirc, there was another senator who basically held the podium for him I think
Probably used modafinil, or whatever the current version of that is.