Elizabeth Warren - the fake people's candidate

3,034 Views | 55 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Professor Harold Hill
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

As far as attacks on Warren go, the OP's NYT editorial is rather weak. In fact, coming from the WIAF's links about her foreign policy positions were more informative and a bit more damning, though even that is nowhere near fatally damaging to her overall candidacy.

Next to Tulsi Gabbard, Warren represents the Democrats' best shot at beating Trump. Tulsi has been blackballed and marginalized by the MSM and Dem establishment for her strongly non-interventionist foreign policy, she's got little chance of breaking through. Warren is palatable to the largest constituency and would be a strong challenger to Trump in the Midwest.


Yeah, Tulsi "Gays are evil. What a virulent anti gay person can win office in Hawaii? I've changed!" Gabbard is the big hope for the Democrats. She has so much awful baggage, any of the other candidates could end her the second they thought she was a threat. Her joke of a candidacy has never been a threat so they don't bother.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The fact that a bunch of stories are now being released in an attempt to kneecap Elizabeth Warren tells me that she's getting close to winning.
Hmmmmm . . .


Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

OaktownBear said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:


I don't expect any of her fanbase to be intellectually honest about it, but them's the cold hard facts. And unlike our RWNJ friends, this isn't coming from some third-rate blog - it's coming from a reputable newspaper.
Yes, Obama got slammed when he took money too. The candidate I want to vote for is the one not stupid enough to kneecap themselves out of the gate by forcing themselves to obey rules their opponents don't have to
That's fine, but then be intellectually honest enough to admit why she's "kneecapping" herself in the primary.

You know why. Just admit it.
I'm not a Warren supporter.
Why aren't you a Warren supporter?
Quote:

Quote:

The "they are all the same" look for ideological purity BS from too many of my liberal brethren is 100% responsible for George W ever being president which means it is 100% responsible for the Iraq war which means it is 100 % responsible for ISIS and a whole lot of awful crap just because enough liberals thought it didn't matter. Same thing with Donald Trump.

Dubya is president because Al Gore is a fundamentally boring human being that nobody other than a bunch of moderate corporatist Democrats like yourself could get enthusiastic about. It has nothing to do with purity at all. How pure is a man whose family's fortune was made in the oil business and lives a life with a large carbon footprint and then preaches about global warming? Bill Clinton was hardly pure and people loved him.
Quote:

Quote:

Politicians play public opinion all the time. If what you want me to admit is it is a ploy to get votes and is intellectually dishonest, I admit it. Don't care.

Don't care that you don't care. But I'm glad someone admitted it.

Quote:

Quote:

Since I've admitted that, why don't you come clean about why you are attacking one candidate so hard. Are you a Trump supporter who sees her as the biggest threat? Or is it as I would guess that you need to make like Kramer and put that balm on because you are feeling that Bern a little too much

I despise Trump.

I have concerns about all of the Democratic candidates. Given that the California primary isn't until Super Tuesday, I'm thinking that the field will have thinned out quite a bit by then. I can't say who I like the most of that field since whoever wins will not be Trump and will therefore be getting my vote. Biden, Warren and Sanders are all older than I'd prefer. The rest are all second-tier candidates that are gaining no traction and probably never will. Referencing one in particular, Buttigieg probably can't even win a primary in 2019, let alone the general. The country as a whole is not enough pro-LGBTQ for that.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The fact that a bunch of stories are now being released in an attempt to kneecap Elizabeth Warren tells me that she's getting close to winning.
So your position is that two New York Times writers wrote three articles because they personally or the Times has a vested interest in hurting Warren's candidacy.

https://media.giphy.com/media/lszAB3TzFtRaU/giphy.gif
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:



Like any of the other candidates, save Sanders, she's not in this thing for public service or to make people's lives better.
LOL, I think Bernie is in it just to complain. He treats his staffers like garbage and hasn't done anything in his decades in politics.

If he wants to help people, why doesn't he actually do anything in the senate?
Ah, you're one of those people who believe everything you're told without checking to see if it's true.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democratic-senators-pass-bills-rate/?fbclid=IwAR1z5gIKQqWJ70Gy4JRsloBcfxG7oLW4YGF6rdiJGMSeficPOEIx4d4yJcc

Sorry, were you attempting to correct my post where I claimed Bernie hasn't done anything as a politician by providing support for the claim that the only bills he's passed have been to name post offices?
Bernie Sanders was the primary sponsor of seven bills that were enacted:

S. 885 (113th): A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the "Thaddeus Stevens Post Office".
S. 2782 (113th): A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and for other
S. 893 (113th): Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013
H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the "Matthew Lyon Post Office Building".
H.J.Res. 129 (104th): Granting the consent of Congress to the Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply Compact.
H.R. 1353 (102nd): Entitled the "Taconic Mountains Protection Act of 1991".
H.J.Res. 132 (102nd): To designate March 4, 1991, as "Vermont Bicentennial Day".

Elizabeth Warren was the primary sponsor of seven bills that were enacted:

S. 3130: SIT-REP Act of 2018
S. 2355: A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 25 New Chardon Street Lobby in Boston, Massachusetts, as the "John Fitzgerald Kennedy Post
S. 1503: Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act
S. 1198: Veterans Care Financial Protection Act of 2017
S. 670: Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017
S. 2744 (114th): Genetic Research Privacy Protection Act
S. 885 (114th): National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 2015

I guess everybody likes naming post offices.

Quote:

Elizabeth Warren was the driving force behind the creation of the CFPB. That is far more than Bernie has done in his decades of service.
Oh, you mean the Dodd-Frank act. Funny - I don't recall seeing Warren's name on that piece of legislation. Maybe that's because she wasn't in the Senate or House of Representatives when it was passed.

But yes, they did use her idea as a part of their legislation.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

The fact that a bunch of stories are now being released in an attempt to kneecap Elizabeth Warren tells me that she's getting close to winning.
So your position is that two New York Times writers wrote three articles because they personally or the Times has a vested interest in hurting Warren's candidacy.



I think the NYT, like most outlets, has a vested interest in milking the most possible drama out of the race. I also think that political opponents have a greater incentive to talk to the NYT if they think someone like Warren is a greater threat, which adds more meat to a potential article and makes it more likely to be run.

Put those two things together and you get this.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:



Quote:

Elizabeth Warren was the driving force behind the creation of the CFPB. That is far more than Bernie has done in his decades of service.
Oh, you mean the Dodd-Frank act. Funny - I don't recall seeing Warren's name on that piece of legislation. Maybe that's because she wasn't in the Senate or House of Representatives when it was passed.

But yes, they did use her idea as a part of their legislation.


You are being completely disingenuous if you minimize Warren's influence on the creation of the CFPB. In addition to originating the idea, she became a senior advisor to Obama during and was the most instrumental person in its formation.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Referencing one in particular, Buttigieg probably can't even win a primary in 2019, let alone the general. The country as a whole is not enough pro-LGBTQ for that.


It's hilarious that you criticize Warren's credibility and seem to support Pete B. He's arguably the least progressive candidate in the field and his campaign is awash in Wall Street money.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I thought it was Condoleezza Rice who was influential in the CFP.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The country is not yet ready for a second rate Mayor from the 4th largest city in Indiana.
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:




Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Referencing one in particular, Buttigieg probably can't even win a primary in 2019, let alone the general. The country as a whole is not enough pro-LGBTQ for that.


It's hilarious that you criticize Warren's credibility and seem to support Pete B. He's arguably the least progressive candidate in the field and his campaign is awash in Wall Street money.
It's hilarious that you seem to think that the statement above indicates that I favor Buttigieg. All I was saying is that he couldn't possibly win, no matter how much money he's raised.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Unit2Sucks said:




Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Referencing one in particular, Buttigieg probably can't even win a primary in 2019, let alone the general. The country as a whole is not enough pro-LGBTQ for that.


It's hilarious that you criticize Warren's credibility and seem to support Pete B. He's arguably the least progressive candidate in the field and his campaign is awash in Wall Street money.
It's hilarious that you seem to think that the statement above indicates that I favor Buttigieg. All I was saying is that he couldn't possibly win, no matter how much money he's raised.
I don't see how anyone who doesn't favor Buttigieg would think that the reason he can't win is because the country isn't pro-LGBTQ enough. That completely misses the reason his campaign has faltered which has a lot more to do with his politics than his sexuality. Wall Street sure loves him though.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Why aren't you a Warren supporter?


I'm neither a supporter or detractor of Warren. Maybe I will be one or the other by voting time. Why I'm not a supporter:

1. The dna test was a major gaffe and she let Trump play her. She has to show that she won't make that kind of stupid mistake again.

2. IMO, using your whatever percentage status as Native American to gain cred when you do not suffer
any of their disadvantages is despicable. She did that and I have a real problem with it.

3. Her previous inability to attract any major donors.

She is rehabilitating all three issues. We'll see. She may ultimately be my default. I'm pretty much anybody but Biden now. I don't think Bernie is a good candidate. I like Harris and Booker, but they aren't gaining traction and I'm starting to be concerned that Harris can't generate excitement.


Quote:

Dubya is president because Al Gore is a fundamentally boring human being that nobody other than a bunch of moderate corporatist Democrats like yourself could get enthusiastic about. It has nothing to do with purity at all. How pure is a man whose family's fortune was made in the oil business and lives a life with a large carbon footprint and then preaches about global warming? Bill Clinton was hardly pure and people loved him.
Translation, exactly what I said. Liberals looking for perfect ideology, fat and happy after 8 years of a democrat in the White House, playing the "it doesn't matter. they are all the same" game.

I don't care where his family's money came from. He had run on environmental issues for years, dating back to when he ran for president the first time (as I would know since I was paying very close attention as I, ever the corporatist was strongly supporting Jessie Jackson). Maybe it was precisely because of his family history. I don't know. But he would have been by far the most environmentally conscious president we have ever had (even if you want to beat him over the head with conservative tropes about his personal carbon footprint). That meant a lot to me. He would have continued the support of the high tech economy that he and Clinton started, to a large extent at his urging. He also would have continued policies that I didn't like but were better than what dubya was going to do. He wouldn't have been my first choice, but in a two man race against Bush he certainly was.

I'm not a moderate corporatist. My voting record would make that clear. (I worked for Jackson. I voted for Jerry Brown over Clinton.) I do not stay home in general elections because the democrat is "fundamentally boring". That is the effing problem with liberals. Conservatives vote. All the damned time. Liberals get petulant. Gore as president would have advanced liberal environmental policies far beyond anything we had seen and we would have had a good chance at getting a start on global warming issues when there was still time to do something. He definitely would not have attacked Iraq and spent huge sums of money to destabilize a region against our interest. Whether you think he was boring, or came from oil money, or couldn't get "enthusiastic" about him, he was a clearly better choice for any liberal than George Bush. And that was the choice. Like it or not.

Liberals did not like Bill Clinton. I heard time and time again how he was pro-corporation and there was no difference between him and a republican. Except there were "little" things (that are actually big things) that newspaper articles didn't get written about like logging on national forest land being cut drastically from H. W. to Clinton. And getting fat and happy under 8 years of Clinton, and forgetting what it was like for all the liberal issues under a republican administration, too many liberals stayed home or threw their vote to Nader. Maybe Gore was a corporate stooge but at least he was a corporate stooge that was going to put in place center left policies instead of right wing policies. Not voting for him was moronic.

Quote:


Don't care that you don't care. But I'm glad someone admitted it.
You know what they call a candidate that doesn't take big money donations in a presidential election? Loser. You know what they call a candidate who ignores public opinion to be ideologically pure? Bernie...I mean Loser.

If you can't put your big boy (or big girl) pants on and deal with that, you might as well chuck the election. I'll tell you why I don't support Bernie. He calls himself a "socialist" because he espouses ideals that some Europeans who aren't socialist espouse, but they call themselves "democratic socialists" because that works for them politically in Europe. Only it chucks votes out the window here FOR NO REASON. Then when the democrats take up the issue of allowing people who have served time in prison to regain their voting rights once they've done their time - an issue that has polled very well - Bernie has to one up that and speak out for people in prison to vote - a policy that has zero support, will never happen, and allows your opponent to bludgeon you with "You want rapists, murderers, and child molesters to vote". What the FFFFF, Bernie? No one the hell asked for this. You bring this up. Hurt your cause and hurt the cause of those trying to get their right to vote restored. That kind of ideological purity leads to McGovern like defeats.



Quote:

I despise Trump.

I have concerns about all of the Democratic candidates. Given that the California primary isn't until Super Tuesday, I'm thinking that the field will have thinned out quite a bit by then. I can't say who I like the most of that field since whoever wins will not be Trump and will therefore be getting my vote. Biden, Warren and Sanders are all older than I'd prefer. The rest are all second-tier candidates that are gaining no traction and probably never will. Referencing one in particular, Buttigieg probably can't even win a primary in 2019, let alone the general. The country as a whole is not enough pro-LGBTQ for that.
I refer you to the 2012 republican primary. Where the conservative hilariously torpedoed every conservative candidate and ended up with the most moderate candidate in the field. If you want the most conservative democrat in the field and the most closely aligned to corporate America, keep trying to kneecap candidates like Warren so Ol' Joe can coast into the nomination playing his record player and his phonogr..(shut up Joe! shut up!)
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


I refer you to the 2012 republican primary. Where the conservative hilariously torpedoed every conservative candidate and ended up with the most moderate candidate in the field. If you want the most conservative democrat in the field and the most closely aligned to corporate America, keep trying to kneecap candidates like Warren so Ol' Joe can coast into the nomination playing his record player and his phonogr..(shut up Joe! shut up!)
I'm neither a supporter or detractor of Warren. Maybe I will be one or the other by voting time. Why I'm not a supporter:

1. The dna test was a major gaffe and she let Trump play her. She has to show that she won't make that kind of stupid mistake again.

2. IMO, using your whatever percentage status as Native American to gain cred when you do not suffer
any of their disadvantages is despicable. She did that and I have a real problem with it.

3. Her previous inability to attract any major donors.

She is rehabilitating all three issues. We'll see. She may ultimately be my default. I'm pretty much anybody but Biden now. I don't think Bernie is a good candidate. I like Harris and Booker, but they aren't gaining traction and I'm starting to be concerned that Harris can't generate excitement.
I'm not thrilled about 1 and 2, but that just brings her down to the level of most of the other Democratic candidates, who mostly have some kind of unpleasant baggage.

Quote:

Liberals did not like Bill Clinton.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Quote:


Quote:

I despise Trump.

I have concerns about all of the Democratic candidates. Given that the California primary isn't until Super Tuesday, I'm thinking that the field will have thinned out quite a bit by then. I can't say who I like the most of that field since whoever wins will not be Trump and will therefore be getting my vote. Biden, Warren and Sanders are all older than I'd prefer. The rest are all second-tier candidates that are gaining no traction and probably never will. Referencing one in particular, Buttigieg probably can't even win a primary in 2019, let alone the general. The country as a whole is not enough pro-LGBTQ for that.
I refer you to the 2012 republican primary. Where the conservative hilariously torpedoed every conservative candidate and ended up with the most moderate candidate in the field. If you want the most conservative democrat in the field and the most closely aligned to corporate America, keep trying to kneecap candidates like Warren so Ol' Joe can coast into the nomination playing his record player and his phonogr..(shut up Joe! shut up!)
I literally have no idea why this is here.

Old Joe is doing a fine job of kneecapping himself, but most of his dumb old people supporters won't care.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To me it is this simple: tRump is a moron figurehead POTUS and Biden will be a moron figurehead POTUS. The key difference being that I trust Biden to appoint more competent people to actually run the government.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Professor Turgeson Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The fact that a bunch of stories are now being released in an attempt to kneecap Elizabeth Warren tells me that she's getting close to winning.
Note that I haven't posted anything about Warren in quite some time.

Why?

Because everybody else finally caught on to her act. Took a while, but despite the media fawning (which has temporarily passed to Buttigieg as the centrist media continue to search in vain for their savior before reluctantly settling on Biden), she eventually outed herself with his disastrous medical plans as being the fake progressive she always was. Oaktown caught on earlier than the rest of the country and certainly most of the Democrats in this forum, but many Democratic voters quickly realized that she had an authenticity problem.

Close to winning? More like on the Kamala Harris track to irrelevancy.

My work in regards to her is done and a job well done it was.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

The fact that a bunch of stories are now being released in an attempt to kneecap Elizabeth Warren tells me that she's getting close to winning.
Note that I haven't posted anything about Warren in quite some time.

Why?

Because everybody else finally caught on to her act. Took a while, but despite the media fawning (which has temporarily passed to Buttigieg as the centrist media continue to search in vain for their savior before reluctantly settling on Biden), she eventually outed herself with his disastrous medical plans as being the fake progressive she always was. Oaktown caught on earlier than the rest of the country and certainly most of the Democrats in this forum, but many Democratic voters quickly realized that she had an authenticity problem.

Close to winning? More like on the Kamala Harris track to irrelevancy.

My work in regards to her is done and a job well done it was.

LOL, sure, "your work."

I found Oaktown's criticisms more convincing than yours.
Professor Griff
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

sycasey said:

The fact that a bunch of stories are now being released in an attempt to kneecap Elizabeth Warren tells me that she's getting close to winning.
Note that I haven't posted anything about Warren in quite some time.

Why?

Because everybody else finally caught on to her act. Took a while, but despite the media fawning (which has temporarily passed to Buttigieg as the centrist media continue to search in vain for their savior before reluctantly settling on Biden), she eventually outed herself with his disastrous medical plans as being the fake progressive she always was. Oaktown caught on earlier than the rest of the country and certainly most of the Democrats in this forum, but many Democratic voters quickly realized that she had an authenticity problem.

Close to winning? More like on the Kamala Harris track to irrelevancy.

My work in regards to her is done and a job well done it was.
You were absolutely right and the first on this forum to call out Warren for exactly what she was. Here's a great video analysis of how Warren chose power over principles.



I only wish you were still posting. At least your haters keep you alive with their constant references.
Professor Irwin Corey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor David Romer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you're thinking I'm gonna let you Warren fanboys off the hook from having to admit how much of a fake she was, you are wrong.

Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Harold Hill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.