Lol, what was the point of quoting me then to post something unrelated? Btw, I agree with her on systemic racism and police violence, so no shade on her there.
Respect your opinion here, but one key point to note though is that Elizabeth Warren as president means Elizabeth Warren's policy making WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. Warren... despite her ambitions.... believes in democracy no doubt. I'm sure she'd fight tooth and nail, but this isn't someone who believes in consolidating power. She believes even to a fault in expanding institutions, and she comes from the Senate so she understands Congress' role. So the folks on my side of the isle that might think for a second that a vote for Trump would be better because she's too ambitious in her expansion of government institutions needs to frankly wake up... One man wants to blow up government and become an autocrat. The other has bold ambitions that you might find too much, but will operate within the framework of our democracy and likely have her policy positions moderated through the legislative process. She also will have a very very conservative judicial branch to deal with as well. Trump, if he wins a second term, will have almost no check on his presidential power. That's worse that those who complain about expansion of government with liberal Democrats. That's expansion of POWER which is far more dangerous to a Democracy than expanding institutions. Institutions that will need some serious rebuilding after Trump. Give me Elizabeth Warren as president 110%, but understand your reservations to vote another way in the primary. I just hope logic prevails if she wins the primary, and people understand what your presidency means within the framework of the democratic legislative process that Trump does not abide by, and would have far less guardrails standing up to his ability to consolidate power.
Eggs-ACK-tly. I was liking her better for a while but then I was like, Uh.....um, a little too far left in some policy positions.
Sure. Warren, like any other potential president, won't be able to do most of the things in pure form she says she wants to do because she likely won't have the Senate, definitely won't have the Supreme Court, and even will have to negotiate within her own party on what policy should be. But it gives you an indication of which way she'll push. But again, we're shopping in the primary. In the general, even de Blasio is a no-brainer.
I'm far more optimistic about the Senate swinging Democratic. Good point about the Supreme Court, though. Virtually anything a "President Warren" was able to get passed in Congress would be challenged in court, and almost guaranteed to eventually go to the court that matters most. No telling what Roberts would do, but he's rarely disappointed conservatives. Roberts has disappointed them, however, most famously with the Affordable Care Act.
So you have no problem with her flat out lying about a policeman that’s been exonerated under intense scrutiny and livelihood was ruined simply for doing his job? I would say on the contrary it has everything to do with her being psychologically broken if that’s how she viewed that situation as white man murdered innocent black man.
We have a culture of mutual mistrust between police and poor black communities that manifests in a cycle of abuse on one end and resistance on the other. Police take a better-safe-than-sorry approach to their jobs where they foist as much of the interaction risk as possible off of themselves and on to the community they mistrust. The officer was not guilty in the narrow legal sense that they could indict him. But it isn't about the officer, but the wider systemic issues that cause the persecution of poor black communities and then the quick and violent response when there is a reaction. You won't have that conversation. You want to reframe the conversation as an isolated interaction one day between a ne'er-do-well and a policeman doing his job so that you can say that there is no problem. But I appreciate that Warren sees the problem and is maybe a bit likelier to push in the right direction to ameliorate things.
It's difficult to imagine Jabba the President even jogging at that modest pace. LOL. That, I can tell you.
Did not know this about her.. and I can understand this. The GOP was once a party about free market, individualism and for the small individuals. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/elizabeth-warren-regulations-critic-kfile/index.html Long before Elizabeth Warren became one of the nation's leading progressive voices, she was an academic who articulated a conservative worldview on the economy. As a law professor in the 1980s and 1990s, Warren criticized the overabundance of government regulations, calling them "a tax," and spoke to conservative legal groups like the Federalist Society and the Manhattan Institute, a CNN KFile review of Warren's academic research, interviews and speeches in this period found. The material, including Warren's previously unreported comments on regulations and her association with conservative groups, sheds new light on the early part of her career, before she became actively involved in politics. ... Warren changed her party registration from Republican to Democrat in 1996. Asked about the shift in 2014, she told ABC News that she realized the Republican Party "really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families." ... "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets. I think that is not true anymore," Warren told the Daily Beast in 2011. "I was a Republican at a time when I felt like there was a problem that the markets were under a lot more strain. It worried me whether or not the government played too activist a role." Research leads to changing views Researching bankruptcy in the 1980s and 1990s, Warren has said her views began to change. Newspapers, nightly news broadcasts and radio shows began quoting her as one of the nation's foremost experts on the industry. Her research, Warren said on ABC World News Tonight in 1991, found most debtors were "a surprisingly middle class cross section of America," who had fallen on hard financial times. "Her idea of what sort of the average person's situation was in life I think really changed," Westbrook told CNN. Warren told Politico her research made her feel "worse than disillusionment" and she felt "shocked at a deep-down level," when presented with findings of her research. Warren realized she no longer aligned with the Republican Party. "I felt like the parties were moving and the conversation was moving,'' Warren told the Boston Globe in 2012 during her Senate run. "I felt like I had stayed in the same place and the world had shifted around me.''
It seems logical that things would be changing when money is being concentrated at the top more and more and globalization/automation is depleting middle class. I wish this article was slightly more detailed as to what specifically made her think that regulations on markets were suddenly justified, because bankruptcy research indicated that middle class was being squeezed. Sounds kinda political without a further explanation. Also the article should explain why was a lawyer researching bankruptcies in the first place to neophytes like me. Curious, who stands for individualism nowadays? Who took the torch from the GOP of the 80s?
The Establishment with their consultants/ campaign industry realizes that the majority are desperate for change so they want someone who seems credible on a bit of change. Warren is pretty consistently signalling to the Establishment that she will not really rock the boat much. Warren has said she will take big pac money in the general if she is chosen. She says she will give her campaign lists to the DNC to do as the wish with as Obama did. She is starting to waffle on Medicare for All despite getting much early attention by being an early endorser of Sanders' bill. Warren is a favorite of the often Ivy League journalist set. Interestingly Warren's demographic is very different than Sanders' .Her appeal is chiefly to highly older educated, wealthier white voters while Sanders' is to younger less educated, less wealthy diverse voters. Hence they are both picking up voters without cannibalizing from each other. Some think that Sanders has the most to gain if some of the more diverse working class voters of Biden starting looking elsewhere. Sanders has been widely reported to only have run in 2016 after asking Warren to run against Hillary and they go way back. I suspect Sanders would choose Warren for VP, but doubt that the cautious Warren would buck the Establishment by choosing Sanders. Given the different supporters having both on the ticket would seem to be a good winning ticket, though it may be the case that any of the top 3 or 4 Dems can beat Trump.
She also has a long track record of advocating for consumers, and holding big business execs accountable. What you are talking about is changing the structure of the Democratic Party. Most voters aren't that interested in that. They do like someone with her track record of fighting for them and being able to accomplish some of the protections she fights for
Hate to break it to you, but if Bernie wins the nomination he'll either be outspent by at least 5 to 1 in advertising money, or he'll do exactly the same thing to get the Dem establishment revenue stream. I know you are just trying to help Bernie win by hitting Warren on the purity test argument, but if you want to be real about it, lets go there. If you want to play primary eat your own politics to try and help Bernie... that's your prerogative. Warren is not Hillary Clinton, or even Joe Biden and you know this. She'll be labeled as a hardcore socialist by the right, but the Bernie folks might get the label to stick that he's a corporate sellout, and secret Republican NeoCon like they did with Hillary. The truth is if Warren was to get the nomination, she'd be the most progressive candidate for president we have had since FDR by a longshot, and she's probably even further to the left than him on some issues, but probably somewhere between LBJ and FDR. The Bernie diehards would get everything they have dreamt about for decades in the oval office. Not its not Bernie.... and that'll always be a problem for Bernie diehards, but lets be real for two seconds if we can... it would be a HUGE win for the progressive movement even if Warren has to pull funding from the big donors in order to have a chance to playing in the same ballpark as Trump who is already flooding websites like this one. The truth also is that being the most pure progressive, and losing to Trump gets this country nowhere. It'll feel dirty, but the truth is even Bernie might have to eat sh$% in general election to even stand a chance at winning. It would be a huge feat if Bernie or Warren could win with basically zero advertisements compared to Trump, but if Bernie wins the nomination & sees that he's not breaking through in the areas he needs to and he needs the money to win, I hope to God he'll make the call that Warren is willing to make in order to ensure he gets the funding he needs to beat Trump in the general.
