Elizabeth Warren: The People's Champion

a reply to: caterpillage

If you go to the link, you can read the transcript...both the video interview AND the transcript are right there.
Thanks for participating!

I agree with a vast majority of what she has to say right now and in the past. However, anyone can say anything and then change their word when elections/getting into office happens. She's a very smart woman, and I applaud that. In a race between E.Warren and H.Clinton, I'd rather have Warren win. And if she does well, I think she'd be a great role model for women everywhere.

Okay, so far, of the participants, I've heard a couple of people saying they listened to her;

but

A) they don't believe her.
Fair enough. I don't trust anyone in politics either.

B) they are pointing out other issues, such as Israel and Monsanto.
Fine. Neither of those are the issue I wanted to address - or that SHE addresses in this interview

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

So -
can anyone join jacobe001 and myself (and sheepslayer and Lyx, et al) in addressing HER POINTS IN THIS INTERVIEW?

Pretend it's someone you never, ever heard of. Pretend you don't know what her "political affiliation" is at all - and just address the POINTS SHE MADE.

Can you all do that?
Can we not focus on just THIS issue??

The ownership of Washington by money and power, at the expense of the regular American families

Just that ONE thing? Please?

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

In a race between E.Warren and H.Clinton, I'd rather have Warren win. And if she does well, I think she'd be a great role model for women everywhere.

I'd rather have her than Clinton also!

But unfortunately, she's NOT going to run for President. I don't blame her. But she COULD be a cabinet member with some clout....

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I did say in my first reply that I agreed with what she said. No argument there.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The problem is that all of Washington survives through lobbying. She offers no real solution other then to 'take back Washington' (paraphrased).

True - but it's a start.
There is more of the interview (that I have not yet read/watched) on BillMoyers.com...

maybe she got to that in the intensive part. But - it's too pretty outside for me to stay focused on the PC right now - I'm going outside to enjoy a perfect afternoon (they are more and more fleeting!)

So, everyone carry on - I'll be back later.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

I did say in my first reply that I agreed with what she said. No argument there.

I know, and I thank you for that, sheepslayer. I do appreciate your participation - and agree with you.

A.) Just as it is with any normal person, gotta earn trust. I want to trust her, but politicians are liars. And I'll continue to believe that until it's proven otherwise.

B.) You make the point that she is the 'peoples champion'. They are trying to explain why she might not be, so it's still pretty in line with the topic of this thread.

C.) Let's not give people titles anymore. I've heard Warren called 'liberal' 'progressive' and everything else under the sun. Her title does not matter. Nor does it matter for any person who is running or plans to run. What matter is their morals and plans for this country.

I don't think that Warren will be able to change the fact that there are people within the government that are far too wealthy. I don't think she'll be able to change anything to do with banks. She probably won't be able to change the majority of anything in that category. Because it's been around for years, and is probably out of her hands.

What she can change is how it effects the American families. She's a large supporter of raising the minimum wage because she realizes that the vast majority of jobs available to normal American families are just that. So if wages for the normal family could be raised, maybe the expenses put on American families wouldn't seem so harmful?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

2008: Hope and Change- Official Campaign Mission Statement.

2012: ???????????? - Official Campaign Mission Statement (Google it for verication)

2014: Elizabeth Warren??
Help me hear...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

In a race between E.Warren and H.Clinton, I'd rather have Warren win. And if she does well, I think she'd be a great role model for women everywhere.

I'd rather have her than Clinton also!

But unfortunately, she's NOT going to run for President. I don't blame her. But she COULD be a cabinet member with some clout....

SO wish she would. Don't blame her though. She doesn't want to inherit this mess. Lol. I honestly feel bad for whoever the next president is.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

If she was genuine, she would be at least a Middle-Libertarian and say so.

The Progressives started this entire problem over 100 years ago.

Many people have been fooled.

a reply to: Granite

2008: Hope and Change- Official Campaign Mission Statement.

2012: ???????????? - Official Campaign Mission Statement (Google it for verication)

2014: Elizabeth Warren??
Help me hear...

I'm trying.

Yes, I am sorely disappointed in Obama as well. I bought into his rhetoric - I admit it. As for 2012, well, Romney?? No, thanks. The lesser of two evils.

So - I was fooled, not once, but TWICE (shame on ME!).

I am trying to help people hear her: she is someone addressing a huge problem that goes largely ignored on Capitol Hill (lobbyists being, you know, their fuel and sustenance)....

but at least she's WILLING to address it - even if not with a concrete 'solution' yet. She DOES talk about changing the rules so that regular Americans are not DISENFRANCHISED and SQUEEZED to make sure that 'profit margins' are still the trump card.

But really - I have to go outside for some sunshine and fresh air.
I'll be back later.

Thanks for your post.

And my first thought, when I first saw what they were trying to do, this tells you as a professor, I thought, that would never happen in a democracy.
billmoyers.com...
in the transcript

A democratic solution always involves the government.

Involving the government makes the government bigger.

Bigger government is the reason the economy is so bad that people need to use credit cards to pay their rent and buy their groceries.

Big money can always control one big government better than it can control 50+ smaller governments.

Big money will always use big government better than the voter.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

If she was genuine, she would be at least a Middle-Libertarian and say so.

The Progressives started this entire problem over 100 years ago.

Many people have been fooled.

Many people do not know what a progressive is, but sure do like to point their finger at them and place blame.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If you haven't seen threads last year on Alex Jones's "The Obama Deception" please do read them.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

If she was genuine, she would be at least a Middle-Libertarian and say so.

The Progressives started this entire problem over 100 years ago.

Many people have been fooled.

Now I just figured this out.

Warren is *Campaigning* !!

Perhaps not so much for herself, but especially for Democrats this election !!

They're desperately trying their best to get the big money stereotype/stigma off their backs and transfer blame to anybody else.

Pretty crafty. No wonder all the shallowness.

Bingo !!

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

If she was genuine, she would be at least a Middle-Libertarian and say so.

The Progressives started this entire problem over 100 years ago.

Many people have been fooled.

Many people do not know what a progressive is, but sure do like to point their finger at them and place blame.

The true "meaning" (whatever that really "is") is in fact meaningless.

It's all about perception and action.

Magicians always use both hands.

originally posted by: Lyxdeslic
I agree with a vast majority of what she has to say right now and in the past. However, anyone can say anything and then change their word when elections/getting into office happens. She's a very smart woman, and I applaud that. In a race between E.Warren and H.Clinton, I'd rather have Warren win. And if she does well, I think she'd be a great role model for women everywhere.

Definitely not Clinton. She is another Globalist Stooge like Obama selling out our country for Multinational Corporations.

Hillary was on the board of directors for Walmart before they went all out China Mart.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Okay, so far, of the participants, I've heard a couple of people saying they listened to her;

but

A) they don't believe her.
Fair enough. I don't trust anyone in politics either.

B) they are pointing out other issues, such as Israel and Monsanto.
Fine. Neither of those are the issue I wanted to address - or that SHE addresses in this interview

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.


The ownership of Washington by money and power, at the expense of the regular American families

Just that ONE thing? Please?

Good Points.

It does not matter if they are a Liberal or Conservative to me. What matters is their policy objectives.

Put up a Conservative that is going to ban corporate and banking lobbying and put an end to the revolving door between Washington Dc and Industry and restore us back to a Constitutional Republic and you will have my vote.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

C) she's speaking as a Progressive Democrat, so must be dismissed.
THIS I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. Because those who refuse just based on her 'party affiliation' aren't paying attention to the quagmire going on right now.

If she was genuine, she would be at least a Middle-Libertarian and say so.

The Progressives started this entire problem over 100 years ago.

Many people have been fooled.

Many people do not know what a progressive is, but sure do like to point their finger at them and place blame.

The true "meaning" (whatever that really "is") is in fact meaningless.

It's all about perception and action.

Magicians always use both hands.

I could take your response a couple different ways.

First I could say that if the true meaning, or definition, of the word is meaningless......then every time you post about progressives are to blame for this and that, it's meaningless.

Second, I could say that your post really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.