It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Elizabeth Warren just toss her hat in the 2016 ring?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
While I agree with you on campaign finance, lobbying, and women (but only if they aren't like HRC, Palin, Bachman, and the other ilk we have seen)... she is just another hack, imo. She is a known liar about her own race no less. But she also has some stances that are a bit extreme...but that is also only my opinion.

Stances




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

true; but reactionaries/"conservatives"/"right-wing"-ers don't respond well to facts that run counter to their wingnut portrayal.

I think its because its the only thing they can really use against her, aside from the usual "socialist!", "marxist!" hyperbole.

edit on 4-5-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

Hey, thanks for the handy-dandy linky-dink!

I read through the whole thing.
There are two things she stands for with which I disagree. Only two.

Now - the allegation remains: is she a liar?
Well - she's a politician; 'nuff said.

Other than those two things (both of which are related to crime, but she has no official stance on "crime" in general), her platform works for me.

Would I vote for her? I doubt it. She's still part of the club. It's easy to say things, anyway - much harder to implement them. She's only one person. We see how the opponents can, and do, smash any upstart's ideas. But I wouldn't be sick to my stomach if she were to run.

Then again, she doesn't have much executive experience. I still want Jesse to run.

edit on 5/4/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Her "backing" of the corporations. That meant she was practicing law.

Without a license.

People were poisoned by big corporations.
She got the corporations off. The people got nothing but poisoned.
If that's what you want in DC .... then go ahead and support her.
I won't.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Seems I can't help myself but no one else seems willing to look and post.


Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren are accusing each other of “not telling the truth.” Brown says Warren worked to “restrict payments” to asbestos victims, while Warren says she worked to “get more money” for them. We find Warren is correct; Brown’s ad is a distortion.

It may seem counter-intuitive that Warren’s work on behalf of an insurance company that covered an asbestos manufacturer could be work on the same side as the victims of the case. But Warren was brought in as a bankruptcy expert on a case before the Supreme Court to secure a $500 million trust to pay asbestos victims. As part of a settlement that Warren worked to preserve, the insurance company sought immunity from lawsuits in exchange for releasing the $500 million trust. Attorneys for most of the asbestos victims supported Warren’s efforts.



Warren’s Work

At the heart of this issue is an ongoing asbestos case involving the nation’s largest asbestos manufacturer, Johns-Manville Corp. The company ended up in bankruptcy, leaving some victims, who did not develop symptoms until more than a decade after others, seeking compensation from an ever-shrinking victims fund. By the time Warren entered the case in 2008, more than $3.2 billion had been paid out to over 600,000 claimants.

Warren was brought into the case by Travelers Insurance, one of the insurers of Johns-Manville. Specifically, Warren worked on the case Travelers v. Baily to preserve a $500 million trust from which current and future victims would be paid — part of a settlement agreement previously reached between lawyers for Travelers and the victims.

According to Warren’s financial disclosure forms, Warren was hired by Travelers in April 2008 and did work for the company through September 2010. By that time, Travelers and the asbestos victims were working together on a common goal: to preserve the $500 million trust both sides had agreed to. Another insurance company, Chubb, was contesting the settlement agreement, and Warren ended up making her one and only appearance before the Supreme Court arguing on behalf of Travelers to uphold the trust. As part of the deal, Travelers would be permanently immune from future asbestos-related lawsuits concerning Johns-Manville. Warren’s argument prevailed. According to the Globe, Warren was paid $212,000 over three years by Travelers.

So it’s true, as the Brown ad says, that a Boston Globe headline on May 1 described Warren as playing a “key role in an asbestos court case.” But the subhead of the story — “Worked for insurer on fund for victims” — belies the ad’s claim about her opposing the interest of the victims.

Specifically, the ad leaves out this pivotal paragraph from the same Globe story:

Boston Globe, May 1: Travelers won most of what it wanted from the Supreme Court, and in doing so Warren helped preserve an element of bankruptcy law that ensured that victims of large-scale corporate malfeasance would have a better chance of getting compensated, even when the responsible companies go bankrupt.

Unfortunately for the asbestos victims, the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t the final word on this case. After Warren left the case, it took a “disastrous” turn for the victims when a lower court issued a ruling on Feb. 29, 2012, that, as the Globe reported, took Travelers “off the hook for paying out the $500 million settlement.”

The Globe noted that according to one judge who tried to preserve the settlement, Travelers received “something for nothing” — immunity from future lawsuits without having to pay out the $500 million trust.


Oops forgot the link. Factcheck.org

edit on 5/4/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
We are going to have a bush and a clinton running. Then Rand and I expect some female republican candidate.

I will be voting Libertarian. If/when the electoral college is gone (which people want but neither Dem nor GOP parties or their talking head pundits on their stations want) third party has a chance.

If a person isnt voting third party they are wasting their vote. They habe no voice. If you vote for one of the main parties you are subject to vote flipping and fraud on machines.

Dont waste your vote. Vote third party. Vote libertarian.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
OK...
But so what.
And I don't mean that in a way to poo poo on your thread.

I mean really, so what?
It dosent matter who throws their names in a hat, a ring or a polling booth.

It makes zero difference.

I've seen zero examples of "change" from anyone elected.

This whole system is a joke and a game.

Show me what good has come from our elected officials that WE have elected.

NDAA?
Patriot Act 1&2?
ACA(Obama care)?
Drones?
Wars?
NSA spying?
TSA?
Distributing our tax money to foreign countries yearly?

Funny how we are promised so much from canidates, until they become our representatives, then they no longer hear us.

This "system" dosent allow good people to play in it.

So why vote?
Seriously, why?

Cause its a right?
Ya, a right to waste your time standing in lines to cast a ballot for people who DONT care what you want once they are elected.

People protest and call the elected officials and its gets us where?

And before anyone asks, do I have a better idea, NO, I don't.
This set up is beyond the point of change, I guess the best way to sum it up is this....

edit on 4-5-2014 by Black_Fox because: SpeLLiNg



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: GogoVicMorrow
You had me at

Dont waste your vote. Vote third party.

But then you added your "party of choice."

Sorry, just..no. And for the record, I had Ron Paul signs in my yard.

Then I figured out what was really going on with them.
cheers


edit on 5/4/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boscov
a reply to: beezzer

I will be voting Republican in 2016, across the board, straight ticket



And therein lies one of the big problems with out political system.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


Warren never claimed to be Native American on any school applications or job applications. She told colleagues that she is part Native American and Harvard decided to put that into their brochures.
You don't necessarily need to be licensed in a state in order to practice law in a state, it depends on how you are doing so.


There is a whole lot more to that then just that, right there. She could have cleared it up, without B.S. or games, when first approached. She didn't. She could have insured she never repeated or implied anything of the sort AFTER she knew people were aware and pissed off. She didn't choose that way. Not at first, and that's all that matters to someone's true intentions and feelings on a matter.

I suppose it's something we all feel very very different levels of passion about. Some could care less about bloodlines or heritage, including how someone portrays it. Others define life itself by %'s of blood in the veins. I lean toward the latter, tho not near the extreme some do.

I don't think anyone willing to fudge a thing like this need EVER be trusted or supported as one of the few individuals with the true power within our elected government.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It's funny what you get attacked for and accused of when you oppose some people, threaten their thinking or way of doing things, isn't it? I know that I've been accused of things I find abhorrent, on this very site by people that I even had respect for at one point in time and I was caught so flat footed that I defended myself very poorly and probably made myself look worse.

Honesty is sacred to me and I don't say that lightly, I mean it with all the strength that word implies. Dishonesty is a taint, I'd rather lose whatever I'm trying to gain than win it with dishonesty or any sort of manipulation.

That said, I can somewhat identify with Warrens predicament. My son's father had always told me his great-grandfather was half Iroquois. I thought it was something to honor and always told my son he was part Iroquois, put it in all of his official records. This year for a school project my son had to do an ancestry report, me being the lover of research I am and wanting to pass that on to my son... I wanted to get in touch with the Iroquois Nation and get a family history as well as find out if there was a way to get my son registered with a tribe, so I called my son's grandmother and asked her if she knew her ex-husband's grandfather's name (lots of estrangements on my son's paternal side). A few days passed and she got back to me that her ex-husband lied about all of it. My son's father grew up believing he was part of something he wasn't and then so did my son.

My point in presenting a personal story? Things get convoluted in family histories all the time. But there's another side to someone making up a lie and that's hiding. Some Native Americans tried to avoid being put on Federal lists and it wasn't all that long ago, barely a few generations that being Native was a threat to a person's own life or freedom, and some if they could pass for white, took that option and in doing so lost their 'proof'. I believe Warren when she says it's always what she's been told and I don't make a habit of believing politicians flat out about anything.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Boscov

And for me, just to be clear, HRC is not even imaginable. No way.

But the fact is that the middle class IS being ripped to shreds. Voting R across the board? Really??
sigh


By whom is the middle class being ripped to shreds, Buzzy? You still blaming Bush? Really??


It's rather easy to figure that out. Just look for the people that keep crying for tax cuts for the rich while blocking the middle class and poor getting a wage they can live on. People that vote across the board just because it's Democrat or Republican have no place in the voting booth because they do more harm than good.


I have quite literally never seen so much hypocrisy in one sentence. Not to mention off-topic. Since you need educating, it is the democratic leadership who are responsible. The prior administration can only be blamed for so long before it is obvious who is doing what.


Was it the Democrats that started the policies? How do you think Obama got the nickname the rubber stamp president? Because everything Bush started he continued just like the Republicans wanted. Just look at that "God" of the Republicans Ronald Reagan he cried about Carter for eight years straight even though Carter was a better president than him. Obama has spent less than Bush and that is fact. So you may want to get a little education yourself.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Not even close, bush spent about $19.6T over 8 years, Obama has spent about $21T over 6 years

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Deficit spending, Bush budgets 2001-2008: $2.005T ------- Obama budgets 2009-2013 $5.771T

ETA: what possible metric are you using to say carter was a better president than reagan?
edit on 5-5-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

"How do you think Obama got the nickname the rubber stamp president? Because everything Bush started he continued just like the Republicans wanted."

He had a democrat controlled house and democrat controlled senate for the first two years... how were republicans getting what they wanted?



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Sorry.. victim of our little posting issues tonight. My lengthy reply died to a time out.. Ugh... So, I'll just say this.

You're forgiving. That's a good quality to have. I'm absolutely not. Even a little bit. Not even a hair. Not on THIS issue. One KNOWS their family history or one NEEDS to before talking about it and absolutely when they enter public life.

If she is that careless, sloppy and ignorant of her own life as she made the statements she did in the current times, not college, then she ought to move on from being a Senator on THAT basis alone. Going higher? Oh.... She'll NEVER stop hearing about what she's done to misrepresent herself. Many many people, like myself, will insure it's regularly brought up in the public square for her to ponder..again..and again.

Still.. I'm sincere about respecting your ability to forgive. That's rare these days and something I hope you never lose.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Forgiveness has nothing to do with it and has it's limits. Warren never brought up her ancestry in the campaign, Brown did. Warren dropped the claim from her legal directory in 1995, maybe there's a reason for that, maybe something similar to my personal story and she chose not to throw her family into the sacrificial flames of politics over it... who knows, but for me there's enough what if's for me to give her the benefit of the doubt on that particular issue. The other side of it? Did she use it to get into college or law school or on job applications? This is where critical thinking comes into play... she couldn't have without the proof. I was also impressed enough by her message and goals to giver her the benefit of the doubt and so far I haven't been disappointed or regretted my vote, I hope I can always say that, she continues to impress me.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

We'll agree to disagree and that's about the size of it until we get something fixed with this time out nonsense happening right now. Thats the second long message I lost this morning and the last I have time to lose.

Catch ya on another thread some day....and remember? If we seek change in all but OUR OWN Senators and Congressmen? Everyone has 'their own' and nothing will ever change. Some see right and left. I see a political CLASS of people and they ALL have to go. Every...last...one...of..them. Warren too. Unemployment for them all, or our nation falls all the way to the bottom. (likely too late anyway..but I'm the eternal optimist to tilt at windmills)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


Obama to Congress in 2009 about the deficit budget and the wars:

"Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."

Before 2009, the costs of the wars were kept "off the books".



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Boscov

And for me, just to be clear, HRC is not even imaginable. No way.

But the fact is that the middle class IS being ripped to shreds. Voting R across the board? Really??
sigh


By whom is the middle class being ripped to shreds, Buzzy? You still blaming Bush? Really??


It's rather easy to figure that out. Just look for the people that keep crying for tax cuts for the rich while blocking the middle class and poor getting a wage they can live on. People that vote across the board just because it's Democrat or Republican have no place in the voting booth because they do more harm than good.


I have quite literally never seen so much hypocrisy in one sentence. Not to mention off-topic. Since you need educating, it is the democratic leadership who are responsible. The prior administration can only be blamed for so long before it is obvious who is doing what.


Was it the Democrats that started the policies? How do you think Obama got the nickname the rubber stamp president? Because everything Bush started he continued just like the Republicans wanted. Just look at that "God" of the Republicans Ronald Reagan he cried about Carter for eight years straight even though Carter was a better president than him. Obama has spent less than Bush and that is fact. So you may want to get a little education yourself.



Wow. And you are allowed to vote. Just wow.



new topics




 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join