Elizabeth Warren: The People's Champion

The definition of Progressive

The Whig party, from which the Republican party was born, had a theory of history that held,

The present is always the best it can be and that society constantly improves over time.

The progressives claim to know how to act in such a way as to speed up the process of societal evolution.

The progressives use the government as a tool to affect their changes.

The progressives think that they own the government and everything else.

Progressives are totalitarian.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Even though this isn't a Sarah Palin thread, can I call Warren a dumb bimbo?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Even though this isn't a Sarah Palin thread, can I call Warren a dumb bimbo?

Sure. Go ahead Beez. If it makes you feel better.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Even though this isn't a Sarah Palin thread, can I call Warren a dumb bimbo?

Sure. Go ahead Beez. If it makes you feel better.

"Dumb bimbo".


*ahhhhhhhhh. . . . . . , thanks!*

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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!

Ok cool. I'll give it a read. Assumed it was just a vid,

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Here are some things I dug up about Warren:

She is against the Trans Pacific Partnership that would hand over our sovereignty to Unelected Multinational Corporations.
She is against a lot of the "Free Trade" Agreements that are already in existence that are destroying our country.
She is all against the Wall Street Giants and in breaking up the too big to fail.
She supports higher taxes on investment income. I'm all for that considering the investors are not investing in this country but in emerging markets. F-em.


It is about policy objectives not party for me.
Give me a Conservative that will do the same and they would have my vote as well.
It is time to end the free ride that the crony capitalists have been enjoying at the nations expense.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

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....

I'd like to comment on this. I haven't listened to the specific intereview you've referenced, forgive me I'm currently experiencing a shift in economic thinking at the moment and am not as interested in 'estabishment change' in the economic sphere.

The above quote touched me and I agree that Ms. Clinton is a poor choice for President and won't go into my reasoning on the subject.

I, however, am not disappointed that Senator Warren is not going to run for President in 2016. I think the experience that President Obama has had in the top office proves why it would be an unwise move on her part (and speaks to her awareness and wisdom). He didn't have any, to speak of, experience in Washington. He was a Junior Senator just learning his way around the Hill. He had the vision and support of the people but he did not have the history, experience and savvy of someone well versed in the language and realities of National Politics (Bernie Sanders does have vast experience). I think Senator Warren recognizes her need to develop understanding and contacts and, in reality, she can do more good in the Senate.

I've this sense and it may be wishful thinking, but the time for a serious third party organized around specific goals and not ideology could be now. A Coalition/Ad Hoc/Topical political party such as governments (GOVERNMENTS) in other countries with parlimentary systems regularly have, could offer some hope of a broad based populiist movement.

There are many elder statespeople from both sides of the aisle that are frustrated with the 'system' and the direction of the US (extreme polarization) that could do this. I'm talking democrates, republicans, socialists, libertarians, greens and others. There are many areas of agreement possible among individual of all these 'ideologies'.

As Buzzy in the OP staes we have to be willing to listen to one anothers ideas and seek areas of agreement not areas of discord in order to get anything productive accomplished.

FOCUS on ideas and issues. Don't get distracted by disagreements on specifics and other topics.

There are two primary ways that groups can function: 1) Requiring strick adherance to group norms or 2) Voluntary adherance to specific goals.

Thanks for the education.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Another champion of the cult of middle class. What about the working poor? Would she elide them from her crusades, deny them a shot at better lives?

Personal Net Worth: approx. 14.5 million dollars. Can the holder of such a fortune really identify with the average American?

Potential 2016 Presidential Candidate. What regions of her soul would she willingly sell to raise the billions necessary to run. Seems she's as guilty of relying on wealthy campaign contributors and handshake deals with other millionaires as any modern politician.

"No one should work full time and live in poverty," she says around the three minute mark. I agree.

Her partisanship, as sharply in play as any other, casts doubt in my mind as to her objective genuineness, or the purity of her desire to rise above political infighting in order to actually do good. On this mark, she seems no different than any other elected figure: she blames the other side for legislative failures on several important issues. Cliche of cliches: blame the other side of the aisle.

Approx. 3:33 of the run-time, she blasts the opposite party for deadlock. I had hoped she'd come off as more original. Being neither republican nor democrat, afraid I cannot back her, for to fully embrace her philosophy one must be a member of her party, or at least disagree with the other side. Shallow.

"Republicans (they're) not there to help middle class families", she says (3:41). So only democrats want to that, right?

Approx. 4:15 of the run-time she defends her party to Bill. This is worrying evidence she does not want to work with the other side to do good for the American people.

"We're gonna make sure Americans get a fair shot," she says. Sounds like election year rhetoric to me.

She diverts, misdirects and half-answers Bill's questions like the best or worst of them. Speaking to Bill's question on why raising the minimum wage is not an across the democratic party rallying cry this election cycle.

"We need more engagement," she says, "Yes, we need more engagement." Sounds to me like redirection and making excuses for phantom accusations. Why is she so defensive? What does she have to hide? By this point in the video (6:35), she sounds just like any other politician to me.

"The point is I know who's standing for working people, it's the democrats who are voting for the minimum wage, not the republicans who are blocking it," she says. She's as mired down in political bickering as the next elected official. Perhaps she's a victim of the system, but I fear her good intentions will like most all others end up pavement on that short, hot road.

But what about those who lobby her and contribute to her campaigns? Pot kettle black at 7:28 into the video.

"Rich people have the ear of enough people in congress," she says. She's rich, getting richer, is covered by sterling health care and enjoys benefits most of us cannot imagine. My guess is the "rich" have hold of both her ears.

Overall impression, I am afraid, is how is she any different or any less corrupt than the rest? Further, I can't help but think her a hypocrite of the worst kind. She illustrates this array of important issues yet remains a part of the machine that manufacturers the very oppression she highlights. A bit over eight minutes and I am done with her interview.

I lost all respect for her when I saw what she did after her "hardball" questions of fed chief Yellin. Right after she was done grilling her, the session was finished and Warren practically ran over to Yellin and started kissing her ass. That showed me everything I need to know about Elizabeth Warren.

Start at 7:50 in the video.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And that foreign policy, is part of her job. If she needs to defend the shelling of schools and hospitals, I have no desire for her to remain a Senator. And certainly would not support any potential run for president. That is unacceptable. So no, I disagree. Intelligence does not ooze from her every pore. Even if she whistles exactly what you want to hear about the problems of Wall Street and finance.

Propaganda piece. Don't fall for it.

Or, do you think being a champion of the people include supporting such evil?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

We need a new modern Whig party. I was just thinking about them today.

a reply to: jaws1975



Oh they're just the best of friends aren't they now.

Charming.

Good video.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Great thread, don't worry so much about the extremest posts, it just shows there desperation that they don't have anyone with broad appeal that will be able to preform nationally. They also don't have any good plans that would help everyone. They want the current situation that benefits the wealthy to stay in place, any attempt to level the playing field will result in the end of America, but the end is already here.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Progressives are totalitarian.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

And since it is so apropos of the discussion:

Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies;

one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing.

What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.

Bertrand Russell


Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs I do not need to watch the interview, I have watched her spew hate towards wall street, the problem is not wall street but the those the have created the laws that have shaped it. She lacks understanding by those millions that have worked there over the last 80 years, including myself. She may indeed Know the truth but uses the those in wall street as a populist chant to try and rally support to her cause, if this is the case she is evil, if it is not then she is uninformed, which is tantamount to giving a 5 year old a loaded gun.

The most damage done to our country came from bank lobbying of the Democrats and Republicans in the mid 1990's, when President Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall act that let Banks back into Wall Street a barrier that was wisely constructed to stop banks from betting a persons savings on risky investments. This needs to be but back into place.

Enter Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, these to buffoons took things a step further, they let Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, (both traded at the time on Wall Street under a government exemption) and let them sell to the Broker/Dealer community mortgage backed securities that they claimed were guaranteed (again Frank and Dodd) well many governments thinking them safe bought them including but not limited to Russia, China, England, Germany, etc. unfortunately when their was a relatively small down turn in the market, these ninja loans (no documentation, no income) started into default and all of this led to the collapse of our economy, there is more I could write, (Jimmy Carter allowing for two people to sign for a mortgage) but that is a topic for another day.

a reply to: FyreByrd




Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

Mark Twain

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Reading through the transcript, I cannot say I share the same enthusiasm as you have oozed out in your OP. I can agree with your general points (those not subtly jabbing at those who could possibly disagree with her and/or you) that as a society and a Nation, we need to start looking at what brings us together and what we can do to continue this great experiment that we call The United States of America. Pitting each other into opposing corners and swinging with no holds barred until one or the other submits isn't doing the job. With that, in her opening statements with Bill she does exactly what you are decrying; we (team blue) are right and they (team red) are the problem.

All of the Democrats have voted in favor of this. And occasionally, we even pick up a Republican. The Republicans have filibustered in the Senate. They won't even bring things to a vote in the House of Representatives. This is really a case where one party has said, the usual rules of governing, you know, we'll come together, we'll try to talk about these things, we'll try to work something out, their answer is no, no, no.

Pot, there is a kettle of the same shade as you. So I am confused how you want us to not apply such labels or apply a political bias towards Senator Warren when her, herself, does such that.

Moving on to her talking points, which are really just pithy platitudes overall when we match up her words to her actions in the Senate. Her opening salvo is all about her voting block she wishes to maintain; minimum wage and "equal pay for equal work".

Browsing through her sponsored bills, she has made no attempt to limit lobbying, raise minimum wage, and has a couple of bills that will put more regulations on business owners (the ones that will be truly effected; not large corporations) that addresses an issue that isn't really that much of an issue and takes away the ability of an employer to vet and decide what type of employee they want to hire. S. 1837: Equal Employment Act for All

Just reading through this bill it and what it intends to amend, it doesn't make sense as there are already tight restrictions on how a consumer report can be and cannot be used; giving difference to Federal law and more importantly, State and local laws. Instead she wants to bar all except the Federal government for such an ability -- doesn't sound like that is us little folk at all considering that a large number of small business owners aren't exactly keen on putting their invested time, sweat and money into the hands of someone who has a terrible history of not being honest/trustworthy with their personal liabilities.

After that, she does have a reboot of the Glass-Steagall Act. Reading through that right now and a lot of common sense items apply and I support much of it so far.

As for bills she has co-sponsored, this is the area that you can see where her real intentions lay.

Even her co-sponsorship for the Minimum Wage Fairness Act that failed is just political-speak that plays to the People. If minimum wage is so important; why slowly raise it and by 4 year later people will be making their coveted $10.10 an hour; in which they will just say they still cannot live on such wages and will clamor for more and more while not providing an comparable service in exchange.

I don't see any actions that match up to an apparent love affair that you have with this politician. She speaks pretty words and is evident that she does posses intelligence, but overall her record in the Senate doesn't show anything close to a "Champion of the People"; such political worship is what is slowly crushing this great nation that used to look inwards and towards each other to solve problems and not bow and grovel at the feet of our political servants.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Great thread, don't worry so much about the extremest posts, it just shows there desperation that they don't have anyone with broad appeal that will be able to preform nationally. They also don't have any good plans that would help everyone. They want the current situation that benefits the wealthy to stay in place, any attempt to level the playing field will result in the end of America, but the end is already here.

This sums it about up.

They do not offer any solutions, potential Conservative or Democrat Candidates that are willing to change the status quo where the wealthy minority are running the ship into the ground.

They are like animals that don't know any better doing the same thing over and over to their death.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy


such political worship is what is slowly crushing this great nation that used to look inwards and towards each other to solve problems and not bow and grovel at the feet of our political servants.

Yea, here are the worshipers groveling at their feet.
Politicians are being showered with records amounts of money and not by the majority of Americans.

www.opensecrets.org...

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $2,913,138,637
Insurance $2,043,290,819
Electric Utilities $1,901,293,123
Business Associations $1,674,512,602
Computers/Internet $1,619,352,456
Oil & Gas $1,587,010,417
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $1,325,945,565
Education $1,323,321,106
TV/Movies/Music $1,255,678,221
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $1,231,612,063
Securities & Investment $1,168,328,986
Civil Servants/Public Officials $1,143,552,395
Real Estate $1,125,238,889
Health Professionals $1,106,675,839
Air Transport $1,037,520,394
Misc Issues $876,886,992
Automotive $834,855,139
Telecom Services & Equipment $803,720,768
Telephone Utilities $796,985,038
Health Services/HMOs $774,837,363