PDA

View Full Version : Elizabeth Warren



Paul Pless
03-30-2015, 01:12 PM
Interesting interview. Even though I appreciate her political ideology she does come across as whiney and lacking in personal courage and conviction - typical of modern American liberal politicians.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/30/elizabeth-warren-senate-book

bobbys
03-30-2015, 01:21 PM
She is very refreshing, she stands up for the little person, I think the democrats need to have her run, get rid of the oldClinton/bush dynasty., Democrats should stand by their principles and put forth someone that believes in them rather then just spout..

question is will they have the courage to put someone like her foward or compromise for a cheap win.

Paul Pless
03-30-2015, 01:23 PM
She is very refreshing, she stands up for the little person, I think the democrats need to have her run, get rid of the oldClinton/bush dynasty., Democrats should stand by their principles and put forth someone that believes in them rather then just spout..

question is will they have the courage to put someone like her foward or compromise for a cheap win.

I agree bobby, she just doesn't have it in her. Too bad, not only is her politics impeccable, she comes unencumbered by any political or personal baggage.

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 01:24 PM
Read her book... it's not a hagiography, at all, and provides a great deal of insight into just who she really is.

Glen Longino
03-30-2015, 01:32 PM
She is very refreshing, she stands up for the little person, I think the democrats need to have her run, get rid of the oldClinton/bush dynasty., Democrats should stand by their principles and put forth someone that believes in them rather then just spout..

question is will they have the courage to put someone like her foward or compromise for a cheap win.

You might do well to concern yourself with finding a candidate among the Troglodytes who can win a presidential election, and let the Democrats take care of their own business. Just a thought!

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 02:09 PM
question is will they have the courage to put someone like her foward or compromise for a cheap win.

You view winning the election as a compromise and failure, and putting forth a candidate who cannot win as some sort of victory?

Well, at least, it explains why you back the most extreme candidates. If Ted Cruz gets the nomination of his party, but loses to Hillary Clinton, are you sure you're going to be celebrating because your party didn't compromise on it's ideology? :)

bobbys
03-30-2015, 02:20 PM
You view winning the election as a compromise and failure, and putting forth a candidate who cannot win as some sort of victory?

Well, at least, it explains why you back the most extreme candidates. If Ted Cruz gets the nomination of his party, but loses to Hillary Clinton, are you sure you're going to be celebrating because your party didn't compromise on it's ideology? :)
.

I do not remember backing anyone yet. So I cannot accept Yer premise .

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 02:21 PM
.

I do not remember backing anyone yet. So I cannot accept Yer premise .

I was responding to YOUR statement:


question is will they have the courage to put someone like her foward or compromise for a cheap win.

bobbys
03-30-2015, 02:22 PM
You might do well to concern yourself with finding a candidate among the Troglodytes who can win a presidential election, and let the Democrats take care of their own business. Just a thought!.

HHHMMMMMevery day liberals here start threads about republicans.

Strange you had no concern about this..

Just a thought.

RonW
03-30-2015, 02:24 PM
You might do well to concern yourself with finding a candidate among the Troglodytes who can win a presidential election, and let the Democrats take care of their own business. Just a thought!

How silly, we have dozens to choose from...And now with Hillary being out, you guys have.......well.....I think you had better get busy and find someone so it ain't joe.

And besides bobby was only trying to help and show a little concern over the left's problem of no candidate...Now be nice and say thanks bobby, that's a great idea..

bobbys
03-30-2015, 02:25 PM
I was responding to YOUR statement:
.

You wrote, it explains why you endorse extreme candidates, I have never endorsed anyone yet nor do I know who all is running.

RonW
03-30-2015, 02:27 PM
.

HHHMMMMMevery day liberals here start threads about republicans.

Strange you had no concern about this..

Just a thought.

It never occurred to them that Hillary wasn't destined by the gods to be madam el presidenta....

CWSmith
03-30-2015, 02:31 PM
I am a fan of Warren, but many of my friends would like to see her gain more experience in the Senate before gaining the presidency. I am of mixed opinion. You can't put these things off forever and Secretary Clinton is less than what I would want.

bobbys
03-30-2015, 02:32 PM
How silly, we have dozens to choose from...And now with Hillary being out, you guys have.......well.....I think you had better get busy and find someone so it ain't joe.

And besides bobby was only trying to help and show a little concern over the left's problem of no candidate...Now be nice and say thanks bobby, that's a great idea..
.

If I say something nice they get pizzed, go figure!

TomF
03-30-2015, 02:33 PM
How silly, we have dozens to choose from...I know, eh! Woo-hoo! All of them with enviable name recognition and unimpeachable* track records too. Such an embarassment of .. uh ...

It's entertaining watching you guys choose. Kinda like "Anything you can do, I can do righter." :D


*strictly a figure of speech, you understand. :D

RonW
03-30-2015, 02:35 PM
I am a fan of Warren, but many of my friends would like to see her gain more experience in the Senate before gaining the presidency. I am of mixed opinion. You can't put these things off forever and Secretary Clinton is less than what I would want.

Yep the exit polls aren't looking good...........mutiny, that's what it is, the ship is taking on water, the pumps are broken and no way of patching the hull.....

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 02:36 PM
How silly, we have dozens to choose from...And now with Hillary being out, you guys have.......well.....I think you had better get busy and find someone so it ain't joe.

And besides bobby was only trying to help and show a little concern over the left's problem of no candidate...Now be nice and say thanks bobby, that's a great idea..And all of them are idiots! What a choice!

CWSmith
03-30-2015, 02:45 PM
Yep the exit polls aren't looking good...........mutiny, that's what it is, the ship is taking on water, the pumps are broken and no way of patching the hull.....

Far from it. I am just hoping for a bit more.

bobbys
03-30-2015, 02:46 PM
And all of them are idiots! What a choice!.

You have a uncanny political insight, It must have taken you years of research to come to this.

You really need to contact the DNC and put these talents to great use..

At the very least print out bumper stickers.

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 02:54 PM
.

You wrote, it explains why you endorse extreme candidates, I have never endorsed anyone yet nor do I know who all is running.

No, it was a direct response to YOUR statement:


question is will they have the courage to put someone like her foward or compromise for a cheap win.

This implies that the 'courageous' thing to do would be to put forward a candidate whose chances of winning are less that the one which, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, results in a 'cheap win'.

What I want to know is this: is putting forth a candidate who can't win, the noble thing to do... but putting forth a candidate who can win is 'cheap'?

The reason I make a point of this: the GOP is currently in a quandary, because the more extreme elements want a Ted Cruz, or someone who breathes fire, even if that person's chances of winning are diminished.... and the idea of putting forth a candidate who has a far better chance of winning, because he/she is more moderate, isn't worth doing.

So, what's better, in your opinion? Staying true to the hard core conservative cause, in selecting a candidate... even if that candidate loses? Or putting up a candidate who might not support your entire ideology, but at least supports some of it?

Gerarddm
03-30-2015, 02:59 PM
Well.

a) She has repeatedly said no.
b) Given the world situation, I think that foreign policy gravitas will carry more weight in 2016 than it usually does. Most times " it's the economy, stupid".

RonW
03-30-2015, 03:06 PM
Norm -
The reason I make a point of this: the GOP is currently in a quandary, because the more extreme elements want a Ted Cruz, or someone who breathes fire, even if that person's chances of winning are diminished.... and the idea of putting forth a candidate who has a far better chance of winning, because he/she is more moderate, isn't worth doing.

And here I thought the thread was about Elizabeth Warren who is going to replace Hillary due to her crimes.....

The proper thing to do is to establish your agenda and stick to your principles ......

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 03:14 PM
.

You have a uncanny political insight, It must have taken you years of research to come to this.

You really need to contact the DNC and put these talents to great use..

At the very least print out bumper stickers.How much research? All anyone with a brain can read the paper. No need to go further. Unless you want to follow the sources.

TomF
03-30-2015, 03:19 PM
Norm -

And here I thought the thread was about Elizabeth Warren who is going to replace Hillary due to her crimes.....

The proper thing to do is to establish your agenda and stick to your principles ......The thread is about Ms. Warren. It's rather a jump to imagine either that she's going to even run for the Dem nomination, much less win it. Or that Ms. Clinton has committed any "crimes" for which she'd be replaced.

I understand that you'd prefer that a less electable candidate ran against whoever the Reps raise for the test, but you'd do well to be a bit less transparent about it. After all, in '08 the Reps were clamouring for Ms. Clinton to run ... when she was the less electable Dem option. :D Do you really suppose folks don't remember?

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 03:22 PM
For those who think 'emailgate' constitutes crimes that will sink Hillary Clinton: maybe not:


Domenico Montanaro (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/30/396236778/hillarys-email-controversy-hasnt-changed-much-for-2016): “To be sure, the email controversy has not been good for Clinton. Instead of sitting back, watching Republicans duke it out, working on her presidential launch and trying to tailor her message, she has had to defend her exclusive use private email to conduct business as secretary of state. But for all the attention it’s gotten, not much has changed in the polls — so far…”

“Some of the tightening happening with Clinton’s ratings is to be expected as the campaign gears up. When she ran for president in 2007-2008, her positive-to-negative numbers were about even. When she was seen as non-political, as secretary of state, her ratings ballooned. And now, as she is about to likely embark on another presidential bid — as the far-and-away front runner for the Democratic nomination — she is being viewed more politically, and her numbers are returning to somewhere close to split. … All of this is to say that this far out from an election, it’s important to take a step back and take in all the data. Unquestionably, this email story is far from finished, but, at this point, it doesn't look like it’s had a major impact on Clinton’s standing.”

skuthorp
03-30-2015, 03:23 PM
I say again what I have said before, why possibly would one of the only ostensibly honest and competent pollies in the country want that job?
The actuality of being President is corrupting in itself. You only have to look at what the next unfortunate incumbent will inherit in the way of wars, Gitmo, the health debate…………….
She should run a mile.

RonW
03-30-2015, 03:24 PM
TomF -
I understand that you'd prefer that a less electable candidate ran against whoever the Reps raise for the test, but you'd do well to be a bit less transparent about it.

To tell the truth I was hoping the dems would actually put up someone who would do a good job if they happened to be elected. It is obvious that hillary is in the pockets of and a puppet of wall street. Warren isn't, that's a plus. And the last things the reps need is another wall streeter which is Bush....

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 03:26 PM
Yup, Hillary's crimes. I guess Ron and his buddies think that proven one is guilty before being charged! Time to lynch her right!

RonW
03-30-2015, 03:29 PM
Norman -
“Some of the tightening happening with Clinton’s ratings is to be expected as the campaign gears up. When she ran for president in 2007-2008, her positive-to-negative numbers were about even.

Why don't you tell the truth, the democratic party rejected her and backed a 2 year jr. senator instead. So the truth of the matter is she won't get all the dem votes, and probably less then 1/3 of the independents and none of the right, in fact the right will turn out in droves to vote against her.
Which means she might if lucky get 40% of the general vote, so the other side will have a landslide.
It would be just as stupid for the right to put up romney again........Why back losers........

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 03:33 PM
Norman -

Why don't you tell the truth, the democratic party rejected her and backed a 2 year jr. senator instead. So the truth of the matter is she won't get all the dem votes, and probably less then 1/3 of the independents and none of the right, in fact the right will turn out in droves to vote against her.
Which means she might if lucky get 40% of the general vote, so the other side will have a landslide.

Irrespective of WHO runs against her? Are you THAT naive? :):)


It would be just as stupid for the right to put up romney again........Why back losers........

Tell us who the winner is. Put a stake in the ground, and stand by it.

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 03:40 PM
Norman -

Why don't you tell the truth, the democratic party rejected her and backed a 2 year jr. senator instead. So the truth of the matter is she won't get all the dem votes, and probably less then 1/3 of the independents and none of the right, in fact the right will turn out in droves to vote against her.
Which means she might if lucky get 40% of the general vote, so the other side will have a landslide.
It would be just as stupid for the right to put up romney again........Why back losers........So, prove it. You say it's fact! No, can't! no surprise! Must be an example in Brainfart's and Fox News lists
of facts!

TomF
03-30-2015, 03:43 PM
The truth is, Ron, the Dems didn't nominate Ms. Clinton in '08 because she was perceived very differently in the public and media then than she is now. She was a very divisive figure, largely through continued association with her husband's presidency; she was not perceived as having much track record of her own at that point. However bright, etc.

Polling showed that among independents - the folks needed to win - she was roundly critiqued and viewed negatively, compared with Obama. So it would have been stupid to nominate her for a contest many thought her more likely to lose.

This time, the public perception both of her, and even of her husband's time in office, is quite different. And in the meantime, her own public record has been strengthened by her time as SoS. She's electable, so long as her health holds firm; same caveat to any pol her age.

As I've said before, I'm not really a fan - figure she's a bit too win-at-any-cost for me, and frankly I don't like her approach to feminism. Harder than nails, that one. But in a contest with Cruz, or Santorum, or Jeb Bush ... migod.

RonW
03-30-2015, 03:45 PM
Irrespective of WHO runs against her? Are you THAT naive? :):)

Tell us who the winner is. Put a stake in the ground, and stand by it.

I have no idea who the winner is gonna be, the reps have a lot of elimination to do to get to a fit and proper candidate..........

And the dems have to still find someone, somewhere, somehow, who knows the dem might be a better choice ....


--And Tom the dems didn't nominate her because they didn't want her, then or know, and the perception of her today is far worse then it was 6 years ago ..and the independents are now well aware of her sins......treachery, lying and inability to perform under pressure.

TomF
03-30-2015, 03:46 PM
I have no idea who the winner is gonna be, the reps have a lot of elimination to do to get to a fit and proper candidate...........Especially "elimination." :D Outstanding choice of words.

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 03:47 PM
I have no idea who the winner is gonna be, the reps have a lot of elimination to do to get to a fit and proper candidate..........

And the dems have to still find someone, somewhere, somehow, who knows the dem might be a better choice .... How about ALL of them? Fit and proper candidate! Ron you'd be a laugh a minute if there weren't so many who believe as you do.

Norman Bernstein
03-30-2015, 03:50 PM
I have no idea who the winner is gonna be, the reps have a lot of elimination to do to get to a fit and proper candidate..........

....so, you don't know who the winner is gonna be... but you're absolutely sure that Hillary will be defeated.

This is called 'faith'... the thing for which you have no rational explanation :):)

This is nothing but cheerleading. Those pom-poms look good on ya!

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 03:52 PM
He tried out for the Cowboy's cheerleading squad. Kicked out of Texas and go to Ohio.

John of Phoenix
03-30-2015, 03:55 PM
Ron, what are your qualifications for a "fit and proper candidate"?

RonW
03-30-2015, 03:56 PM
Ron, what are your qualifications for a "fit and proper candidate"?

It ain't bush or romney.........

Keith Wilson
03-30-2015, 03:57 PM
Oh, don't mind Ron. He appears to really believe that because the Republicans won some senate seats in an off-year election heavily weighted toward 'red states', that a majority of the country now thinks like he does. Basically, he's full of s***.

skuthorp
03-30-2015, 03:57 PM
Has anyone actually asked Ms Warren whether she's interested in taking long term moral poison?

RonW
03-30-2015, 04:00 PM
Oh, don't mind Ron. He appears to really believe that because the Republicans won some senate seats in an off-year election heavily weighted toward 'red states', that a majority of the country now thinks like he does. Basically, he's full of s***.

Oh don't mind the libs, they actually believe hillary represents them and can win...

Keith Wilson
03-30-2015, 04:02 PM
Ms. Warren has said clearly and repeatedly that she's not running.

skuthorp
03-30-2015, 04:02 PM
Sensible woman Keith.

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 04:07 PM
It ain't bush or romney.........That's an answer? ROTFLMAO!

RonW
03-30-2015, 04:13 PM
That's an answer? ROTFLMAO!

The great beardy one has spoken...........34,589 times..

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 04:16 PM
FART! I've never seen a pic of you. I doubt whether anyone has. I don't know if you have a beard or not. And I really don't care.

John of Phoenix
03-30-2015, 04:18 PM
Ron, what are your qualifications for a "fit and proper candidate"?


It ain't bush or romney.........OK, that's who it isn't. You like that Warren isn't owned by Wall Street. That's a HUGE positive for many of us.

What else are you looking for?

skuthorp
03-30-2015, 04:19 PM
Ms. Warren has said clearly and repeatedly that she's not running.
Good grief!

wardd
03-30-2015, 04:23 PM
I agree bobby, she just doesn't have it in her. Too bad, not only is her politics impeccable, she comes unencumbered by any political or personal baggage.

waddaya mean, she's a woman and a democrat

RonW
03-30-2015, 04:42 PM
OK, that's who it isn't. You like that Warren isn't owned by Wall Street. That's a HUGE positive for many of us.

What else are you looking for?

A candidate that will serve the american people and not the oligarchs without violating the constitution and the bill of rights..

S.V. Airlie
03-30-2015, 05:23 PM
Well, that knocks out the republicans for sure!

Glen Longino
03-30-2015, 05:51 PM
A candidate that will serve the american people and not the oligarchs without violating the constitution and the bill of rights..

That would be Mrs. Clinton.
Get used to it!

leikec
03-30-2015, 06:09 PM
Norman -

Why don't you tell the truth, the democratic party rejected her and backed a 2 year jr. senator instead. So the truth of the matter is she won't get all the dem votes, and probably less then 1/3 of the independents and none of the right, in fact the right will turn out in droves to vote against her.
Which means she might if lucky get 40% of the general vote, so the other side will have a landslide.
It would be just as stupid for the right to put up romney again........Why back losers........

Interesting numbers, Ron. Wrong...completely wrong, but interesting. GOP candidates have lost the popular vote in three of the last four presidential elections, and no GOP candidate has ever topped the 63 million vote mark.

The votes you seem to take for granted have to come from somewhere, and with today's electorate being more polarized than ever there are fewer independent voters to win over.

The fact is that the GOP isn't making substantial gains among any demographic, and that's horrible news for any republican who is wanting to run in 2016.

Jeff C

C. Ross
03-30-2015, 08:23 PM
Not it a single poster rises to Paul's beautifully cast troll? :)


...whiney and lacking in personal courage and conviction - typical of modern American liberal politicians.

Maybe try a spinner next time Paul, or stinkbait.

She notes that Senator Chuck Schumer will be minority leader. That is very good news....Schumer is tough, fair and inclined towards action. I've always respected him even when he's wrong.

Keith Wilson
03-30-2015, 08:46 PM
She notes that Senator Chuck Schumer will be minority leader. That is very good news....Good news indeed. Schumer's a good man. Y>

Gerarddm
03-30-2015, 09:29 PM
Ron et al recall this piece I recently saw on Facebook:



Fractal Wrongness

You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.

Paul Pless
03-30-2015, 09:31 PM
Not it a single poster rises to Paul's beautifully cast troll? :)



Maybe try a spinner next time Paul, or stinkbait.

She notes that Senator Chuck Schumer will be minority leader. That is very good news....Schumer is tough, fair and inclined towards action. I've always respected him even when he's wrong.


would you have ever thought that a troll like this would be derailed by ronw and bobbys? crazy. . .

Glen Longino
03-30-2015, 09:31 PM
Ron et al recall this piece I recently saw on Facebook:



Fractal Wrongness

You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.

Well said!
Is "et al" code for bobbys?;)

leikec
03-30-2015, 09:37 PM
would you have ever thought that a troll like this would be derailed by ronw and bobbys? crazy. . .

We are hip to your jive... :D

Jeff C

elf
03-30-2015, 09:50 PM
Mr.Schumer is a catastrophe. He'll have us fighting Iran over Israel in a heartbeat.

Surely the Democrats can come up with someone better than Schumer.

bobbys
03-30-2015, 09:53 PM
would you have ever thought that a troll like this would be derailed by ronw and bobbys? crazy. . ..

I would like to thank the little people, my designers, my. Speech coach for the jersey accent, my co stars in this play, glenn, Paul,, jamie, norm, fat Elvis, all wonderfull supporting actors, shout out to mom who always believed I would have no life and waste my time on the Internet, God bless America!