Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Elizabeth Warren Pres. Candidacy.....

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Not really.  There are 435(?) House members and 100 Senate members who actually write the laws and regulations. If she is nominated, will the DNC swear off the moneyed interests?  Not likely.

Elizabeth Warren reminds me of a woman in Kansas history:

Mary Elizabeth Lease, a Populist leader in the latter part of the 19th century.

Do you remember her?

The Kansas Historical Society describes her as " more of an agitator than a practical politician ".

The attribution to her of that famous quote about Kansas Farmers is questionable but none the less defines her in our history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine there would ever be enough voters out there who could ever propel someone like Warren into the oval office. Not a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BrownShoes said:

I can't imagine there would ever be enough voters out there who could ever propel someone like Warren into the oval office. Not a chance.

Agreed.  Not enough intelligent people in America for it to happen.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BrownShoes said:

I can't imagine there would ever be enough voters out there who could ever propel someone like Warren into the oval office. Not a chance.

 

2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Agreed.  Not enough intelligent people in America for it to happen.

I said the same thing about Donald Trump.  However, I don't believe Warren is a viable candidate to defeat Trump.  However, I do not think in Warren's case it has anything to do with "Not enough intelligent people in America..."  A lot of very intelligent people do not like Warren or her proposed policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TheCid said:

 

A lot of very intelligent people do not like Warren or her proposed policies.

That is a matter of opinion.  My opinion, not that anyone cares is that most Americans are not worldly enough and they are too out for themselves only.  I can still hear Marco Rubio on the debate stage saying "we don't want to be like Europe."  And I kept thinking, "why not?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

That is a matter of opinion.  My opinion, not that anyone cares is that most Americans are not worldly enough and they are too out for themselves only.  I can still hear Marco Rubio on the debate stage saying "we don't want to be like Europe."  And I kept thinking, "why not?"

As you say your opinion, but then you don't live here.  While there are many things to like about Europe - or Asia or Africa or other places - they are many things that are not appropriate for America.  To each his own as they say.  American system has done pretty well for Americans and even rest of the world.

Instead of America becoming like Europe, why doesn't Europe become more like America?  Same sentiment.  Also, Americans are no more "out for themselves" than Europeans, Asians or anyone else.  It is human nature.

Regardless, not being "wordly" in the European sense has zero relationship to intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

As you say your opinion, but then you don't live here. 

Just for the record, I lived in Florida as a child and worked there briefly as an adult.  I lived and worked in Los Angeles for a year at the time of the riots and several major earthquakes.  I have lived and worked in Massachusetts for half a year.  I have worked in New York city many times.  I have worked in Hawaii twice.  I have also worked in Chicago, New Orleans, Richmond and Montgomery.  I'm probably forgetting some.  

There are some Americans who have opinions but still do not vote so one does not count out the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Just for the record, I lived in Florida as a child and worked there briefly as an adult.  I lived and worked in Los Angeles for a year at the time of the riots and several major earthquakes.  I have lived and worked in Massachusetts for half a year.  I have worked in New York city many times.  I have worked in Hawaii twice.  I have also worked in Chicago, New Orleans, Richmond and Montgomery.  I'm probably forgetting some.  

There are some Americans who have opinions but still do not vote so one does not count out the other.

Confused by your last statement

Regardless working somewhere does not necessarily equate to living somewhere long-term, being affected by the government and voting.  I lived in Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina.  Could say I lived in Vietnam and Saudi Arabia while in service. 

Also, you don't live in US now do you?  Have always had that impression, but could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheCid said:

Regardless working somewhere does not necessarily equate to living somewhere long-term, being affected by the government and voting. 

Boy, you like to argue .... about nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bogie56 said:

Boy, you like to argue .... about nothing.

If it is about nothing, why do you bother to reply?  However, I do not feel it is about nothing.  You post something for people to read, so don't criticize their responding.  Criticize the response, but not the responding.

Experiencing America as a citizen with a long-term investment and who will be the next president is not "about nothing." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Confused by your last statement

As in there are Americans who post opinions here and proclaim that they do not vote, and yet you do not routinely use that to dismiss every other thing they post.

In case you haven't realized this, nothing anyone posts on here means anything. No one here is going to change anyone else's mind about politics, religion, science, or anything else of substance. This is all so much hot air and flapping gums. And everyone has an equal right to contribute to this pointlessness, in my opinion. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

As in there are Americans who post opinions here and proclaim that they do not vote, and yet you do not routinely use that to dismiss every other thing they post.

In case you haven't realized this, nothing anyone posts on here means anything. No one here is going to change anyone else's mind about politics, religion, science, or anything else of substance. This is all so much hot air and flapping gums. And everyone has an equal right to contribute to this pointlessness, in my opinion. 

Well said, but I try to think some of the postings are educational or informative.  I have critiqued the posters who live in US and say they don't vote in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Well said, but I try to think some of the postings are educational or informative.  I have critiqued the posters who live in US and say they don't vote in the past.

I know some people try to impart facts and raw information to the debates around here, and that's another reason why sourced and linked materials are appreciated, at least by me. I still think that despite however much evidence one side or the other offers to back up an opinion, people's positions do not change, and more and more frequently any info that contradicts what they already believe is dismissed as "fake news" or just outright ignored.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Elizabeth Warren, but like a lot of you; I'm not convinced she can beat the acting president right now. However, that could change drastically in the next year. While some of her policies seem extreme like "free college', Medicare for all and a wealth tax. These positions could be modified or better defined in the future. For instance free college could just mean free tuition. Most should know that room and board are the major costs of attending college these days. Medicare for all could mean everyone has the option to buy into the program. That would create competition with insurers to keep costs down. A wealth tax could mean raising the amount of income earned subject to **** tax (which is just over $132,000 per year). At the current 6.2% **** rate, if we doubled that $132,000; we could really do some good things without exploding the deficit. 

It's still pretty early in the race, but one would have to consider Senator Warren one of the front runners. I'm one of those who plan to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. I also plan to send money to Amy McGrath's campaign. She's right. We definitely need to "Ditch Mitch" from the Senate.  

(For some reason my reference to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's acronym was edited to **** by the site. I wasn't aware using it was prohibited)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MovieMadness said:

I want some of the koolaid you all are drinking.

Sign up for college.  Then again, you are probably well set in your ways.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren reminds me too much of a humorless high school math teacher and I don't think 

I'm the only one. Now that summer's here it's grape Kool-Aid time. It's unfortunate that

such a wonderful beverage has become a negative meme for mindless indoctrination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Warren reminds me too much of a humorless high school math teacher and I don't think 

I'm the only one.

True, but does that mean she's too good at her job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

True, but does that mean she's too good at her job?

Not at all, it just means that, for better or worse, peoples' perceptions of a candidate

are often superficial but they go with them anyway. I think she would have a tough

time beating Donny. However earnest and serious she is he would mock her constantly,

likely bringing out the Pocahontas nickname on a regular basis. I don't think it would

end well for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Warren reminds me too much of a humorless high school math teacher and I don't think 

I'm the only one. Now that summer's here it's grape Kool-Aid time. It's unfortunate that

such a wonderful beverage has become a negative meme for mindless indoctrination.

You don't vote and are proud of it, so what does it matter to you?

4 hours ago, Hoganman1 said:

I like Elizabeth Warren, but like a lot of you; I'm not convinced she can beat the acting president right now. However, that could change drastically in the next year. While some of her policies seem extreme like "free college', Medicare for all and a wealth tax. These positions could be modified or better defined in the future. For instance free college could just mean free tuition. Most should know that room and board are the major costs of attending college these days. Medicare for all could mean everyone has the option to buy into the program. That would create competition with insurers to keep costs down. A wealth tax could mean raising the amount of income earned subject to **** tax (which is just over $132,000 per year). At the current 6.2% **** rate, if we doubled that $132,000; we could really do some good things without exploding the deficit. 

It's still pretty early in the race, but one would have to consider Senator Warren one of the front runners. I'm one of those who plan to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. I also plan to send money to Amy McGrath's campaign. She's right. We definitely need to "Ditch Mitch" from the Senate.  

(For some reason my reference to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's acronym was edited to **** by the site. I wasn't aware using it was prohibited)

Good points and maybe if she gets the nomination, she will do the standard shift to the center to get elected.  Who is the likely successor to Mitch McConnell?  The computer program probably edited any four letter word beginning with F.

1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

True, but does that mean she's too good at her job?

That may be the case.  Do the American people want a hard nosed "teacher" telling them what to do and what to believe?  May work in the classroom, but not in the voting booth.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

Warren reminds me too much of a humorless high school math teacher and I don't think 

I'm the only one. Now that summer's here it's grape Kool-Aid time. It's unfortunate that

such a wonderful beverage has become a negative meme for mindless indoctrination.

Jim Jones didn't even give his worshipers Kool Aid. He gave them some cheap knock-off stuff instead (Flavor Aid).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If McConnell were to lose his seat and the Republicans maintain control, I think John Thune would be the leader since he is the current Whip.  If Mitch were to lose and the Democrats were to win the Senate, I guess Chuck Shumer would be Senate Majority Leader. I'm not a huge Shumer fan, but anyone would be better than Mitch. That stunt he pulled with the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination was horrible. Also, he has refused to even look at many of the bills Congress has introduced this year. He's almost as big of a threat to our democracy as the guy in The White House.

Now, I'd like to bow out of this discussion. My grandfather, a lawyer, once told me to never discuss politics or religion since it always leads to an argument that no one wins. My best to all.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

If McConnell were to lose his seat and the Republicans maintain control, I think John Thune would be the leader since he is the current Whip.  If Mitch were to lose and the Democrats were to win the Senate, I guess Chuck Shumer would be Senate Majority Leader. I'm not a huge Shumer fan, but anyone would be better than Mitch. That stunt he pulled with the Merrick Garland SCOTUS nomination was horrible. Also, he has refused to even look at many of the bills Congress has introduced this year. He's almost as big of a threat to our democracy as the guy in The White House.

Now, I'd like to bow out of this discussion. My grandfather, a lawyer, once told me to never discuss politics or religion since it always leads to an argument that no one wins. My best to all.

The job of the Senate Majority leader is to refuse to even look at bills passed by a House with a majority of the other party.

Just ask Harry Reid.

Why should the Senate leader consider bills passed by the House that would never pass in the Senate?   That is just a waste of time and would reward the political stunt performed by the House Majority leader (who ALSO knows that these bills have NO chance of passing and only passes these needless bills so they can pretend they are doing something and fool their base).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

The job of the Senate Majority leader is to refuse to even look at bills passed by a House with a majority of the other party.

Just ask Harry Reid.

Why should the Senate leader consider bills passed by the House that would never pass in the Senate?   That is just a waste of time and would reward the political stunt performed by the House Majority leader (who ALSO knows that these bills have NO chance of passing and only passes these needless bills so they can pretend they are doing something and fool their base).

 

So if the chambers of Congress are held by different parties, then the government should resign itself to uselessness and the people should expect nothing from them?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

So if the chambers of Congress are held by different parties, then the government should resign itself to uselessness and the people should expect nothing from them?

I didn't imply that at all.    What should happen is that the House leader should meet with the Senate leader,  privately,  and see if there is any compromise legislation that each of them could get their party in that chamber to vote for. 

E.g. how the border funding bill just passed;  Nancy meet with Mitch.   This is why A.O.C.  is so upset at Pelosi;  A.O.C. wanted the House to pass a bill that she knew wouldn't pass the GOP Senate as a way to shame the GOP.   I.e. a political stunt NOT designed to address an issue at all.     Pelosi instead told House Dems to support the compromise legislation which enough of them did (but not A.O.C. and other 'progressives').

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...