Crockett calls Trump 'Putin's ho'
Source: The Hill
03/05/25 12:43 PM ET
Rep. Jasmine Crockett had choice words for President Trump following his joint address to Congress on Tuesday night.
When attorney Joe Gallina asked Crockett what she would say to Trump if she had the opportunity, the Texas Democrat responded, “I would tell him to grow a spine and stop being Putin’s ho.”
Referring to the Russian president, she continued, “That’s all we got right now, is Putin’s little ho that is out here really doing the bidding of Russia in a way we’ve never seen an American president do.” Crockett referred to Trump’s Friday meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House as she accused him of deserting allies.
“For those that believe that we should only focus on the United States, this is a focus on the United States. We need a president that understands what diplomacy looks like, and it doesn’t look like the disgrace that we saw that took place in the Oval Office.”
Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5177965-crockett-putin-trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-ukraine-russia-war-zelensky-vance/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
harumph
(3,113 posts)Response to harumph (Reply #1)
Post removed
rubbersole
(10,990 posts)He needs to be careful not to throw out his back.
BeyondGeography
(40,810 posts)
But was this statement DNC War Room approved?
sheshe2
(95,901 posts)
milestogo
(22,582 posts)
Ray Bruns
(5,981 posts)
BattleRow
(2,090 posts)is spelled similarly to putain..the French word for "ho",to quote Ms. Crocket.
Putin et Putain..
malachi
(740 posts)It all lines up.
BattleRow
(2,090 posts)
ShazzieB
(22,214 posts)It fits him to a T!
erronis
(22,660 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,518 posts)Looks like it!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,594 posts)If they wanted to push an extreme agenda.
SurfLiberal
(30 posts)AOC would be ten times a better choice for Speaker.
Cirsium
(3,363 posts)You are referring to very progressive positions that are supported by 60-80% of the public.
We can call it "extreme democracy."
On the local level, 18 ballot initiatives addressing police violence and accountability passed in major cities across the country. And in Los Angeles, voters passed a measure to invest in communities that have been impacted by our racist police and prison systems – prioritizing jobs, housing, and alternatives to incarceration.
All these ballot victories show that bold, progressive policies are enormously popular regardless of ideology. They’re proof that embracing humanity and dignity is both a sound moral choice and a winning electoral strategy.
https://prospect.org/politics/what-election-day-revealed-about-progressive-policies/
Instead some, though certainly not all, moderate Democrats zeroed in on a different factor, one that deflected blame and made overtures toward conservatives in their districts. They blamed the party’s down-ballot losses (or narrow wins) on progressive policies like Medicare for All and slogans like “Defund the police,” which they believe alienated voters. Moderate Democrats generalized anecdotes from constituents and failed to provide any measurable proof to substantiate their claims (outside of perhaps South Florida).
Progressive policies were likely decisive in mobilizing some individuals to vote, and to vote for Democrats—and they likely alienated some individuals who chose not to vote or to vote for Republicans. However, moderate Democrats have yet to prove that progressive policies alienated more voters than they mobilized. They have yet to prove that Republican misinformation tying moderates to progressives swung a decisive number of voters in swing districts, and didn’t simply give a decisive number of Republican-leaning voters a reason to do what they were going to do anyway.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/democrats-are-blaming-wrong-people/617281/
It's common sense: Democratic politicians who support "radical" notions like Medicare for All, free college, or preserving a habitable planet via a Green New Deal guarantee their own defeat. A recent New York Timesinterview with Pennsylvania Congressman and corporate Democrat Conor Lamb states simply that Medicare for All is "unpopular in swing districts," an idea presumably so obvious that it requires no documentation. Lamb asserts that opposition to Medicare for All and other progressive policies "separates a winner from a loser in a [swing] district like mine."
The Democratic Party's army of political strategists has used this logic for decades, to explain both victories and defeats. Wunderkind party consultant David Shor, for example, assures us that "boring, moderate" Democrats systematically outperform the "ideological extremists."
It may be common sense, but it's wrong. Every single Congressional co-sponsor of the "Medicare for All" bills in the House and Senate who were up for reelection beat their Republican opponents in 2020. And in 2018. And in 2016. And every Democrat who lost reelection to a Republican had campaigned on the "boring, moderate" platform that Shor contends is the formula for success.
In fact, you have to go back a full decade to find a single Democratic incumbent who co-sponsored a Medicare for All bill and lost their reelection bid. One lost in 2010, when 52 total House Democrats lost reelection in the Republican blowout. For the entire period from 2002 to 2020, there were two. During that time Medicare for All has had between 38 and 124 co-sponsors in the House.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/12/21/no-co-sponsor-medicare-all-has-lost-reelection-past-decade-even-gop-leaning
We find that the punditry has vastly underestimated the potential of an unabashedly left progressive agenda. Four issues stood out in our polling as issues that have strong and durable support. Creating generic versions of life-saving drugs has a whopping net 30 percent support among eligible voters (51 percent support, 21 percent oppose). A public option for internet, a proposal that Abdul El-Sayed has campaign on in Michigan, has net 39 percent support (56 percent support, 16 percent oppose).
A job guarantee, which is supported by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders is quite popular, with 55 percent of eligible voters in support and only 23 percent opposed. As we’ve discussed in The Nation before, there is strong evidence that even with a partisan framing and pay-for, the policy remains popular. We modeled our question off of the proposal made by economists Sandy Darity, Darrick Hamilton and Mark Paul, which centers community job creation. In addition, We also find that ending cash bail has a net positive support of 21 points (45 percent in support and 24 percent opposed). Senators Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders have both unveiled legislation that would end cash bail, which leads hundreds of thousands of people to be locked out despite never being convicted of a crime.
Many of the policies we examined often didn’t fall along traditional lines of public opinion support. On some redistributive policies, working class and college educated voters have similar views. However, on the major redistributive policies we analyzed, the story is different (we define working class as non-college educated). The universal basic income is most popular among working class people of color, followed by college educated people of color. The proposal has net support among working class whites (among whites, the lowest education group had the highest support for universal basic income), but was rejected by college-educated whites. Universal basic wealth (giving every American a $5,000 savings account at birth that they can access when they turn 18, often called a “baby bond”) has the strongest support among college educated people of color, but is strongly opposed by college educated whites (28 percent in support, 53 percent opposed). A marginal tax of 90 percent on income over a million dollars (our version of a maximum income) had narrow support among people of color, but was opposed by whites.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/polling-the-left-agenda/
malthaussen
(18,399 posts)There is a difference.
-- Mal
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,480 posts)😂
😡
ShazzieB
(22,214 posts)
BrianTheEVGuy
(697 posts)malthaussen
(18,399 posts)True submission requires no chains (and has no safe word).
-- Mal
LuvLoogie
(8,517 posts)"Ho" works, tho.
iluvtennis
(21,470 posts)wendyb-NC
(4,604 posts)
ancianita
(42,896 posts)Safe as Milk
(207 posts)Remember that both Trump and Putin are exclusively transactional. Putin has "disincentives" to keep Trump toeing the line. What could "disincentives" be? How about one of those KGB favorites? EXTORTION! My money would be on this: Putin subtly warns Trump about the relative safety of his family members, and tell him that, quite frankly, their safety is... oh... fluid. That gets Trump's attention really fast. So then Putin applies the screws. Do my bidding or something might happen. This makes sense because of what's transpired since inauguration. EVERYTHING on Putin's wish list is Trump's command. Look at the list of decisions Trump has made, all of which are highly favorable to Putin, with NO decisions making life more uncomfortable for Trump's Handler. It's simple. Look at Trump's Body of Work over the last ten years and ask yourself, what has Trump done to protect the US and its allies from the War Criminal's Death March? Anyone?
tonkatoy8888
(172 posts)...probable that Putin is extorting Trump in some way, but I'd think that harming Trump's family is pretty far down the list of things which would command his attention. Trump giving one single fuck about anyone but Donald Trump? Seems a bit altruistic for him. If Trump's entire family was pushed out a window of Trump Tower of fed the alligators on the 1st hole of his putt-putt course, he'd only see it as an opportunity to garner support for...Donald Trump.
As a not so objective observer I'd guess that there are only two things which would get his attention, money and shame.
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(607 posts)BBbats
(281 posts)I think this should be repeated over & over by every Dem. when referring to Krasnov.
Putin's Bitch! Putin's "Ho"!
Paladin
(32,286 posts)Other Democratic officials: Take note, and do likewise, immediately.
4catsmom
(667 posts)she represents my old district. wish I still lived there when I see her in action!
republianmushroom
(22,122 posts)the convicted felon is Putin's ho. IMO
Magoo48
(6,688 posts)
FakeNoose
(40,185 posts)I'd just as soon NOT describe their relationship in sexual terms, thank you!
CousinIT
(12,239 posts)
multigraincracker
(36,988 posts)
NoMoreRepugs
(11,802 posts)Dancingdem
(18 posts)Is needed.
She says what she means and means what she says
I am in total agreement with her
She speaks Truth
LetMyPeopleVote
(174,963 posts)
DinahMoeHum
(23,364 posts)You go girl!!!
SheltieLover
(76,808 posts)Bought and paid for. (No offense to sex workers.)
zorbasd
(514 posts)who constantly pin these strong wrestling boys, leaving them in disbelief...
BlueKota
(5,042 posts)
marble falls
(71,097 posts)c-rational
(3,132 posts)AmericaUnderSiege
(777 posts)Asking for a friend.
Bluethroughu
(7,215 posts)Say No to Putin's Hoe!
ProudMNDemocrat
(20,622 posts)You go, Jasmine!
tRump IS "Putin's Ho!"
nilram
(3,471 posts)Right here. She's the bomb. Put your money where your mouth is.
https://www.jasmineforus.com/home/
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(607 posts)If anyone has a link to the full show it is worth watching.
Her personality and intelligence shine.
ck4829
(37,426 posts)lapfog_1
(31,651 posts)Putin has many other ho's.
LetMyPeopleVote
(174,963 posts)tonekat
(2,451 posts)"C'holster" was a good description of Fat Donny.
Hopefully this passes muster here.
Mysterian
(6,176 posts)Keep speaking the truth, Rep. Crockett!