Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... https://tows.cc/tows/forum/
She's intelligent, sincere, and she's for the populace.
When I look at Hillary, she seems to be parroting what Elizabeth Warren is saying; but she lacks sincerity, she lacks the same level of intelligence. It's a strategy to gain support. I don't know if she actually supports the words coming out of her mouth.
Hillary does have a few things over Warren: acting skill and campaign skill, which unfortunately seem to be better at swaying a lot of voters than reason and logic.
Elizabeth Warren's approach is "This is what's wrong, here's why, and here's the solution. Also, here is the empirical data to support what I am saying."
Hillary's approach is "This is something that I think is wrong, maybe we should do something about it."
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:32 am
by Replay
Because Hillary Clinton is affiliated with the mob, and with AIPAC, and with Goldman Sachs - and none of those people want Warren to run.
She's hated by banking criminals whose crimes would be challenged by her reforms.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Sat Apr 18, 2015 12:34 pm
by Eric
Simply put she wouldn't get the financial support or nomination from the dems, Hilary is their best bet unless she implodes. I like Mrs. Warren too and I can't stand Hilary Clinton, but it's just not in the cards for Elizabeth Warren to run, and she's smart enough to know it.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:09 pm
by Replay
It's plenty in the cards for her to run. She could get financial support. And the Dems would have to back her if she took over from Hillary in the public eye.
I think she either doesn't want to or is being threatened by Goldman Sachs, personally.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:11 am
by Julius Seeker
I can't speak for her courage, but I would like to think that threats would only strengthen her resolve and cause her to fight even harder. People with money do have political power, and that is exactly what she is fighting against now.
Here's another good one from a few months back, she very quickly defines and destroys trickle-down Reaganomics:
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:19 am
by Replay
Depends on the threat level. The Clintons are mob-affiliated; always have been.
There is a long trail of bodies left in Bill and Hillary's wake - not all Bill's early affairs and lovers fared as well as Monica Lewinsky; Mary Mahoney was a barista Bill fucked who was later killed in a bizarre execution-style murder; Charles Ruff was a former Clinton lawyer who was found dead in one of those "mysterious suicides"; a helicopter full of former Clinton bodyguards crashed at one point, killing them all - I mean, who knows why she won't run, but please don't underestimate the criminality of the Clinton family.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:32 pm
by ManaMan
Well she keeps saying that she's not going to run. I think that's her decision to make. I like her ideas and prefer her to Clinton but oh well.
I'd vote for Clinton but I'm not excited about her like I was Obama in 2008.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on President Barack Obama to make details of the trade pact he is negotiating public a day after Obama said that Warren and other critics were wrong on the facts of the deal.
The Obama administration has briefed members of Congress on the deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but has blocked members from publicly discussing specifics. Last month, an Obama administration official told The Huffington Post that the briefings on the deal were classified because they were sensitive and ongoing.
But on Wednesday, Warren accused the administration of deliberately hiding unpopular details from the public.
"The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret," Warren said in a statement on her website. "Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: 'We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.'"
"If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States," Warren continued.
Warren also said that there were provisions in the deal that would allow companies to ship jobs overseas and weaken environmental or labor rules. The Massachusetts senator also said that Congress should have the ability to amend the deal to get rid of objectionable provisions -- something that Obama does not want it to do.
During a town hall on Tuesday, Obama disputed that the deal was secret, noting that his administration had held 1,700 briefings on it and that it had "unprecedented" labor and environmental standards. The deal, Obama said, is "the most progressive framework for trade we have ever had."
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:33 pm
by Replay
Sadly no, the President does not get it.
"I love Elizabeth. We're allies on a whole host of issues. But she's wrong on this," Obama said Tuesday on MSNBC's "Hardball."
Warren, one of the most high-profile populist voices in Congress, has warned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could undermine US sovereignty. Warren claims a "buried" provision would "shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals."
Challenging Warren on economics is a dangerous, bad move for Obama, quite frankly. She is more correct than he is and she has the backing of an antiwar, economic-reform youth demographic Obama is losing via foreign wars.
I am not going to side with Obama on this if he challenges Warren. She is fully aware of a range of economic dangers - deregulating Wall Street, handing economic power to foreign tribunals, and student debt - that he has NOT gone to bat for everyone on. She has.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Sun May 03, 2015 1:30 am
by Zeus
Why not? It's like asking people to prefer Gary Oldman to Brad Pitt. One is one of the best at his craft, the other is a rock star (and pretty decent in his own right, just not nearly as good). Not hard to see who wins....
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon May 04, 2015 3:46 am
by Replay
Zeus, do ANY portion of Hillary's rampant hypocrisies - saying she supports Wall Street reform while taking $400,000 paydays from Goldman Sachs, pretending to be a moderate on war while covering the Libya-Syria arms pipeline through the Benghazi office, or pretending to be a womens' rights advocate while helping cover up Bill's many affairs and the execution-style killing of former Clinton mistress Mary Mahoney - bother you at all?
Honestly, I'm going to say a version of the same thing to you that I did to Kali - you do not have nearly as much skin in this game as we do. You are not going to have to live with the consequences of a Hillary Presidency for four to eight years if she gets elected. We are.
Warren is a distant second place on the polls it looks like.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon May 04, 2015 11:27 am
by Replay
I am sure Hillary is ahead - Zeus proves to us that even here, there are people who don't know what a corrupt shill she is - but I stopped trusting the polls when I saw the GOP cheat Ron Paul out of the race in 2012.
In the 2012 GOP primaries, I saw Ron Paul demolishing the online polls - TWICE Romney's support, I should still have at least one screenshot of it somewhere - he got a standing ovation at an early debate. ABC, NBC, and so forth literally cut all but ninety seconds of Ron Paul's speeches out of the resulting broadcast, then the Iowa vote count location was secretly changed and the votes "adjusted" to reflect the fact that they didn't want anyone to know Santorum - one of those anointed by the powers that be - didn't even win his own state.
I don't support the Pauls, but even HuffPo noticed...
Our national news media is mostly controlled by David Rockefeller, and he has been quite open about the fact that most newspapers and polls take his direction.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
by kali o.
Replay wrote:I am sure Hillary is ahead - Zeus proves to us that even here, there are people who don't know what a corrupt shill she is -
...not even close to what is being "proved" in this thread....lol.
Anyway, one thing I learned is US politics is mainly theater. As long as the candidate has a "hook", policy doesnt matter. Hilary does...and she is female to boot. Public will eat it up.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon May 04, 2015 1:34 pm
by Replay
Couldn't resist, could you?
That you and Zeus are mostly ignorant of the corruption in United States politics is more an opinion than a proof; but you are right about thing - it's mostly theater.
By the way, check your inbox. You may have a bot visiting this board that is...interesting, to say the least.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon May 04, 2015 1:45 pm
by Replay
Back on topic, I support Warren because I think she'll regulate Wall Street and stop more Americans from dying in their cars from overwork. What's your opinion on this?
What astonishes me more is how long you and Joe hold grudges.
No matter what I happen to be talking about here, you can be reliably counted on to talk shit about something that was being discussed weeks or even months ago.
Re: Elizabeth Warren, why not her?
PostPosted:Mon May 04, 2015 6:38 pm
by Replay
Always interesting to see what shuts your "war of words" down and puts it to rest, Kali.
I'll await any proof you have that I have ever criticized the world's Jewish people instead of just the very worldly institutions of the Israeli government. I won't hold my breath, though. I think I'd be holding it a long time.
Back on TOPIC, I see this discussion as an example of exactly why Hillary is potentially a dangerous candidate; her supporters are the most likely to vote on the basis of wealth and popularity alone without paying any attention to a discussion on her financial and personal ethics over the years.
Do you, Kali, or you, Zeus, happen to remember or care that Hillary was working with Jerry Zeifman on the Watergate proceedings - and that Zeifman, her own BOSS on that prosecution called her unethical and unscrupulous? How do you end up investigating one of the most unethical Presidents in this nation's history and come off worse than Nixon did?
Mana, if Kali actually responded to his mail like a board administrator should, I wouldn't have said a thing here. >_>
Do people have actual things to say on the Warren issue that aren't getting talked about? Am I actually PREVENTING any kind of debate that someone wants to have? The floor is open.
