Elizabeth Warren: The People's Champion

originally posted by: smithjustinb

I don't buy the conspiracy theories. I believe our involvement in the ME is in our nation's best interests.

Then you should write a check to pay for it since it is not being done in defense unless you can point to me where we have been attacked inside our borders by those in Iraq?

Unless you think the whole world is our country?

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: smithjustinb

I don't buy the conspiracy theories. I believe our involvement in the ME is in our nation's best interests.

Then you should write a check to pay for it since it is not being done in defense unless you can point to me where we have been attacked inside our borders by those in Iraq?

National security decisions aren't always a response to a direct attack. Decisions are pre-emptive and calculated based on intelligence sources to prevent attacks, not wait for them to happen. I'd hate to think how bad it would be if we waited to get attacked before we took action. There would be actual damage. Pre-emptive national security decisions can only be called, "security" if we are actually secure. If we get attacked, then national security isn't national security anymore, its national response. Pre-emptive is a good thing. Waiting to get attacked before we go to war isn't.

In the case of 9/11, we were attacked. Everything we did with our defense spending after that was to ensure that it wouldn't happen again.

Unless you think the whole world is our country?

No, but the whole world hates us. That is why we have to do what is necessary.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

Unless you think the whole world is our country?

No, but the whole world hates us. That is why we have to do what is necessary.

Lol

Preemptive is just another word for invading other countries at Big Governments say so.
I mean when has Big Government ever been known to lie?

Perhaps all countries should adopt that strategy and attack us first before we attack them since we have had small scale wars in more countries than I can count?
Is that a good idea?

I'm also willing to bet that you agree with more of Obama the "Liberal" Policies than you disagree with.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The lady is a boob.

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The lady is a boob.

LOL .... Gotta love short and sweet

Elizabeth Warren Alan Grayson 2016 for the win.. kick Hilary the banker apologist to the curb

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
This morning I watched her interview with Bill Moyers, and every single thing she said makes absolute sense.

I honestly don't understand how ANYONE could demean or bash her - her intelligence oozes from every pore, and her points are absolutely the TRUTH. This country WILL go down the toilet if the things she stands for do not happen.

You all can call her an "airhead" or a ditz or a liar or out of touch or whatever you like, but THIS WOMAN makes more sense regarding domestic and economic issues that any other human on Capitol Hill.

She is a hypocrite, and if you will watch a video, I will show you why. She is NOT for all the people, she is only for violent statism. She is a moralist, and if you read up on moralism, perhaps you will see why I love God but dislike religion, love America but dislike our government, and why I love to help people even though they hurt me most of the time. Adam Kokesh has a wonderful video explaining why, unfortunately, Warren is an idiot. I agree with the fact that wall street needs to be regulated enough to protect the smaller investors, but also see why it needs to be unregulated enough to allow a healthy market. At any rate, NO ONE WHO SUPPORTS THE WAR ON TERROR, THE WAR ON DRUGS, OR THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WILL GET MY VOTE. SHE IS ALSO FOR PUTTING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR VICTIMLESS CRIMES, AND IS OVERALL JUST A SLEAZY PERSON WHO WON'T ANSWER LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS. In conclusion, she is a prime example of someone who is well rehearsed, but at the end of the day is just more engineered bull# to just make you say EXACTLY what you say about her...###SNIPPED###
We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

a reply to: JamesCookieIII
What is the victim-less crimes she is putting folks in jail for.

Watched the video but only read half the thread. I'll say this. I'm not a fan of Elizabeth Warren, I see her as part of the problem and some of the things she says and does during this interview further solidify that position. The thing is though, she is completely 100% totally on the mark with lobbying. It's rare to see a sitting Senator actually bring this up but it's very common for ex Senators to speak about the money and lobbying issues once their head is clear of the culture for a bit.

She correctly identifies the problem but doesn't offer any solutions to fix it. That's fine, I don't think her skillset is particularly strong when it comes to solutions anyways. So, I'm going to offer a solution. Furthermore I'm going to frame this solution as being in the financial interests of anyone who votes for it. That way we can be sure it will pass, just like their annual raises. To put it simply we reform the system so that corporations can't cost effectively lobby.

Step 1: Return to the constitutionally mandated ratio of constituents to reps. The house and senate can meet digitally, spending their days in their state full time. Side trips to DC when a committee needs to meet in person can be scheduled and conducted.

Step 2: Change the majority rules. Bills often pass these days at 217/218 or 51/49. This means that there's effectively only 1 on 2 people that need to be lobbied on any given issue. If a Senate vote is already 49/49 the remaining two have all the power, and thus get all the focus for money. By changing these to 53% we still maintain the realm of a simply majority while tripling the number of votes that have to be bought.

Step 3: Pay congress a windfall. Members of congress are only open to bribery because to them a million or two million represents a lot of money. At the same time, part of our cultural expectations in the US are that when a person is paid more money their job is open to more scrutiny. I say we start paying them ridiculous amounts of money each... say $50 million/year to start. Then force complete transparency on their finances. If they take the 1 mil or less that a company offers it becomes easy to boot them. However because they have more money, the corporation has less buying power. They would need to start offering significantly more money to get the congressmans attention. This combined with each vote having more crucial voters to buy over and us increasing the number of Reps means the cost to lobby would go up by something near 500 fold. It prices the corporations out of the game.

Step 4: Term limits. Currently term limits are a bad thing because it forces career politiicans back into the working world, this gives them an incentive to help a few corporations in exchange for a job later on. Eric Cantor is a recent example of this. However if politicians make enough during a term to be able to retire and never work again there's little incentive for them to give favors in exchange for a job down the line. Term limits at 12 years seem fair here.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If she offers a solution I would like to see: what it consists of, is it feasible and if she has bothered to propose legislation to committee.

I don't want to talk about any of her past - just about what she SAYS IN THIS INTERVIEW.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Like saying "Forget I'm a serial killer/pedophile and hire me as your baby sitter"
You want to ignore everything in someone's past and concentrate on ONE interview. It doesn't work.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry to tell you this, but most Americans understand this days that political figures will say and do anything to get enough fools to win an election, but once they are in power they serve their master, yes their masters and those masters are the big, the powerful, the filthy rich, all part of the corporate elite.

Is not such thing as an honest politicians they are a death breed this days

a reply to: smithjustinb

This thread isn't about lobbying though.

Uh. YES, SIR. IT IS about LOBBYING.

I agree with jacobe001 that lobbying should be banned. Political office should not be given to someone just because they can "afford" to run.

My suggestion is that there be NO lobbying, superPACs, etc. Each candidate gets a set number of minutes to 'campaign' - via Public Service Announcements, not to begin more than 3 months before the election. Speak your piece, and then sit down.
I would even suggest no more "parties" - a person runs on their personal convictions, and no labels are applied. Everyone votes, just like everyone has to participate in the census. There is an option for "none of the above" on EVERY ballot, and BUYING VOTES is outlawed.

But I understood from the very TITLE of the segment on Moyers that the discussion was ABOUT LOBBYING.
Because - I'm not an idiot.

a reply to: marg6043

I am aware of that marg, thanks. That's why I think, as I have stated, she is WISE to not want to run for President. It is painfully, dismally obvious that no matter what "good intentions" a person sincerely has while running, once they are in office, they are nothing more than tools forced to do what the invisible leaders say -

regardless of which 'candidate' they put on the show of "fair election" to implant, that person, once 'hired', learns the hard way that their intentions have NOTHING to do with actually running this country.

I gather she does not want to run because she does not WANT to be a victim of the shadow government (as I said several times, she WISELY does not want to). I personally suspect the integrity - and intelligence - of ANYONE who WANTS to be president.

Though many in this thread have tried to paint ME as a fool for listening to her - as a lap-it-up, foolish, ignorant, dumb bimbo, idiot, clueless naive dumbass - or worse, a "Progressive Fascist" - none of that is true.

I'm actually trying to learn - and it's been five years now of earnest study into economics, political strategy, etc. , although I have an advanced degree is social systems. There are far too many 'specialties' for any one person to know everything about each subsystem. Many of the posters on this thread have taught me some things, and I appreciate that.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I found something on my research of this lady, this thread is the first that have made me aware of her, she is viewed as a fresh face that could take votes away from Hillary but like you say many of her backers or donors advised that she would not run against Clinton.

She is trying to give the impressions that is against the corporate elite and wall street and all for income equality, but she is misleading, taking into consideration that she herself works millions.

“Elizabeth Warren, Worth Millions, Says Members Of Congress Shouldn’t Own Stock.” The article showed Warren was being duplicitous by attacking the rich, yet she is very rich, herself: “the financial disclosure report Warren filed last month shows…she’s pretty well off. Warren earned more than $700,000 from Harvard, book royalties and consulting fees, and lives in a $5 million house, the report shows. She has multiple mutual funds and stock in IBM…The total portfolio is worth nearly $8 million…[She] is actually part of the 1 percent…[which is interesting because] Warren is running for U.S. Senate on the principle of income equality.” That wasn’t the only article that caught my eye. Gazzette Net had more insight into Warren. They wrote: “Warren’s campaign spokesman said…that nearly 70 percent…that has flowed into Warren’s campaign account during the past three months has come from outside Massachusetts.” Her outside support includes “help from organizations like…MoveOn.org, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee…EMILY’S List,” a fact that seems to follow the funding pattern of Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell’s campaign in Delaware. Also Warren has received “32,650 from political actions committees…including those representing unions and Democratic leaders…the United Steel Workers Political Action Fund…[Harry Reid’s] Searchlight Leadership Fund…Prairie PAC…[and] prominent Democratic backers, including billionaire financier George Soros and singer Barbra Streisand.”

You may be wondering who is included in “prominent Democratic backers.” Well, The New Republic magazine has the answer. They wrote: “Warren has also pulled in checks from the entertainment industry including…Danny DeVito [famed American actor, comedian, director and producer] and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg…Warren [has also] received more than $165,000 from the health care industry.” This has caused the business press group, Bloomberg News, to declare the political campaign as a “contest that pits Wall Street and industry political action committees who back Brown against unions and Hollywood celebrities who support Warren.” Some news sources even asserted that there was Wall Street support for Warren.

interestingblogger.wordpress.com...

I know is very promising to have a political figure talk bad about the realities of the corporate power behind the government, but then when you look at that politician background it doesn't add up, the only reason the person is doing the bad talking is because they seek to gain support for their political agenda.

a reply to: marg6043

Thank you again.

Actually, I was just thinking I wished I'd never started the thread - but at least there is one member (yourself) who has been introduced to her and some of the issues she is discussing.

As I keep repeating, I'm no economist, certainly NOT a politician (or an idiot), and am 'new' at conspiracy theory stuff, as well as a novice at digging into serious political topics. The slammers and off-topic members notwithstanding, I have learned from those members who have provided outside sources and added to a rational discussion that SOME OF US are trying to have.

But then, well, trolls will troll. I deliberately put this thread in Social Issues and Civil Unrest, because I believe that the income inequality and wardrumming problems we have are paramount right now.

If it gets moved to the Mudpit, I will no longer participate.

Hokay. So - the thread has been moved, which is fine. At least it's not in the Mudpit.

I am disappointed in several participants who could not refrain from insulting and partisan poo-flinging even though I requested that we stick to the topics of her interview with Moyers.

Oh well. I also understand that there is much more to be discovered about her, and indeed, perhaps she IS merely another well-spoken charlatan. I wanted to discuss her complaints about lobbying - but the thread got derailed into a character assassination (of herself and also - by association - of myself).

I will be looking further into her, but please know that I believe lobbying should be banned - term limits should be imposed - campaign finance needs a huge overhaul - and the government is BROKEN. It does NOT represent "the people", which was the main take-away point I got from her interview, and hasn't for - well, possibly for EVER. As in NEVER.

Thanks to all for your input.

a reply to: DAVID64

It is known as slight of hand. Look over here, while my real goals are being done over there.

I still want to know why the OP supports her, after shown she defends bombing hospitals, schools, and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Makes me wonder. We could easily discuss the content she discusses and leave her out of it, entirely.

One of the problems I have with Warren -- and politicians in general -- is that they say things that they believe will boost their number of votes. And that's it.

I agree with some of the things she's saying. I agree that something needs to be done to curb lobbying. But why does she always stop short of offering solutions? Wishing that lobbying stopped isn't taking action against it. It's nothing.

If Elizabeth Warren were serious about combating lobbying, she would advocate that Congress stop doing business in Washington DC. Have the members of Congress move back to their home states/districts. There is nothing they do in DC that they can't do over the internet. Video conferences, watching people speak/discuss/debate, voting. It would put the people back in focus. Congressmen/women would no longer be "out of sight, out of mind". They would be beholden to their constituents. At any hour of the day, you could go get ahold of your representative(s).

But no one in power would want that. They don't want power decentralized. It would make lobbying more difficult, and that can't be had. Elizabeth Warren says she's against the current system, but she takes zero steps to prove it.