Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton

waterfield wrote:

… In that light I suspect he is a moderate-which of course will piss of the leftists. But as I age I’ve come to realize that for me labels mean little.

—————–
Well, myself, i find labels quite useful. I mean George Bush was a “Rightwinger”.
I think the label fits just fine. Bernie is a “new deal progressive” or a “democratic-socialist” etc. Reagan was a useful-idiot. Mike Martz was a paranoid wizard.
Lassie was a whiney sheepdog. ….see, perfectly useful labels.

Seriously, i think labels are just fine, depending on context.

I mean if labels dont matter and are meaningless then Trump is the same as Hillary, right?
We cant use words to differentiate them?

w
v

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

waterfield wrote:

… In that light I suspect he is a moderate-which of course will piss of the leftists. But as I age I’ve come to realize that for me labels mean little.

—————–
Well, myself, i find labels quite useful. I mean George Bush was a “Rightwinger”.
I think the label fits just fine. Bernie is a “new deal progressive” or a “democratic-socialist” etc. Reagan was a useful-idiot. Mike Martz was a paranoid wizard.
Lassie was a whiney sheepdog. ….see, perfectly useful labels.

Seriously, i think labels are just fine, depending on context.

I mean if labels dont matter and are meaningless then Trump is the same as Hillary, right?
We cant use words to differentiate them?

w
v

You got that mixed up.

Lassie was a collie.

Bush was the useful idiot.

Reagan was the whiney sheepdog.

————-
OK, but was Lassie a DNC Centrist
or a moderate republican ?

w
v

wv wrote:

Lassie was a whiney sheepdog

Lassie was a collie.

wv wrote:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16828

Pocahontas wants to inherit the useful idiots of the democratic party.

Yeah–I know about 20 people who claim to have some sort of Native American ancestry. In the grand scheme of things who cares? Politicians lie about far worse things. It’s meaningless to me.

Having said that.

I have to admit that I don’t know Warren as well as I did Bernie. I followed Bernie for years. I was a fan for a long time. Compared to that, Warren is new to me. I don’t know where she stands on all issues. But on the issue of banking regulation I have no doubt where she stands. And that’s no small thing.

I also know where Tim Kaine stands. And that’s no small thing.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by PA Ram.

PA Ram wrote:

Yeah–I know about 20 people who claim to have some sort of Native American ancestry. In the grand scheme of things who cares? Politicians lie about far worse things. It’s meaningless to me.

Having said that.

I have to admit that I don’t know Warren as well as I did Bernie. I followed Bernie for years. I was a fan for a long time. Compared to that, Warren is new to me. I don’t know where she stands on all issues. But on the issue of banking regulation I have no doubt where she stands. And that’s no small thing.

I also know where Tim Kaine stands. And that’s no small thing.

She didn’t lie about her family heritage. She went by family stories about it. Passed down to her. Passed down to her parents. And their parents. This is very common for a lot of American families now, and it’s a positive leap from the previous way of doing things — hiding Native American, or black, or brown ancestry when it exists.

To me, the anger about her claims is pure racism. It’s the same old same old right-wing racism on display. And the greater the mockery, the greater the underlying racism involved. The more glee the right displays in attacking her family claims, the more its underlying and deep-seated racism rises to the surface.

As for Warren’s politics. She started out as a Republican, if I’m not mistaken. A moderate Republican. Our politics have become so strange, the Overton Window moved so far to the right, she is somehow considered “far left”by most folks on the right. She’s not, obviously. Sadly, she probably is among the furthest left Democrats in Congress, but that says a lot more about the party as a whole than it does about her actual politics/affinities, etc.

I like her. She’s feisty and honest and seems to have a good heart. But nothing she suggests, as far as policy, is “radical” in the slightest, or would have been thought so even thirty years ago. It would have been the norm before Thatcherism/Reaganism took hold for good.

Hope all is well, PA. Lots of good points from you in these threads.

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

She didn’t lie about her family heritage. She went by family stories about it. Passed down to her. Passed down to her parents. And their parents.

Stop it. She lied. She lied for personal gain at the expense of someone else.

Nope. She didn’t lie. There is zero evidence that she did, and even less than zero evidence that she gained anything from asserting her Native American heritage.

Billy_T wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

Yeah–I know about 20 people who claim to have some sort of Native American ancestry. In the grand scheme of things who cares? Politicians lie about far worse things. It’s meaningless to me.

Having said that.

I have to admit that I don’t know Warren as well as I did Bernie. I followed Bernie for years. I was a fan for a long time. Compared to that, Warren is new to me. I don’t know where she stands on all issues. But on the issue of banking regulation I have no doubt where she stands. And that’s no small thing.

I also know where Tim Kaine stands. And that’s no small thing.

She didn’t lie about her family heritage. She went by family stories about it. Passed down to her. Passed down to her parents. And their parents. This is very common for a lot of American families now, and it’s a positive leap from the previous way of doing things — hiding Native American, or black, or brown ancestry when it exists.

To me, the anger about her claims is pure racism. It’s the same old same old right-wing racism on display. And the greater the mockery, the greater the underlying racism involved. The more glee the right displays in attacking her family claims, the more its underlying and deep-seated racism rises to the surface.

As for Warren’s politics. She started out as a Republican, if I’m not mistaken. A moderate Republican. Our politics have become so strange, the Overton Window moved so far to the right, she is somehow considered “far left”by most folks on the right. She’s not, obviously. Sadly, she probably is among the furthest left Democrats in Congress, but that says a lot more about the party as a whole than it does about her actual politics/affinities, etc.

I like her. She’s feisty and honest and seems to have a good heart. But nothing she suggests, as far as policy, is “radical” in the slightest, or would have been thought so even thirty years ago. It would have been the norm before Thatcherism/Reaganism took hold for good.

Hope all is well, PA. Lots of good points from you in these threads.

Thanks, BT.

I didn’t mean to accuse her of lying. I have no idea about her family history. I guess the point I wanted to make was that it just wasn’t an important thing to me. The rightwing throws this accusation against her as if it carries the weight of, oh–I don’t know her having duped people with a phony university or something. Her claim, if it isn’t true is harmless and meaningless to me. It affects no one’s life. And yes–she really may have native American blood. I just don’t find myself concerned about it. And I suspect the right isn’t really concerned. It’s just something to throw at her when she’s blasting Trump for ripping people off.

“But…but she says she’s an indian so it’s even.”

Climate Change exists four times each year where I live. Inequality exists too as Hildabeast getting a pass on her email crimes proves.

bnw wrote:

Climate Change exists four times each year where I live. Inequality exists too as Hildabeast getting a pass on her email crimes proves.

bnw, do you think man-made climate change is happening? And do you think we have a serious problem of economic inequality? Politics aside. Politicians aside. Do you think these things exist as serious issues in their own right?

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Climate Change exists four times each year where I live. Inequality exists too as Hildabeast getting a pass on her email crimes proves.

bnw, do you think man-made climate change is happening? And do you think we have a serious problem of economic inequality? Politics aside. Politicians aside. Do you think these things exist as serious issues in their own right?

Of course climate change is happening four times each year where I live. But ‘climate change’ is used by those to obscure the fraud of ‘global warming’ that despite all the money and data manipulation and data destruction and endless propaganda hurled upon humankind the earth is cooling not warming.

Yes the economic inequality here is so bad that people from around the world still try to make their way here any way they can legally and illegally. If I knew how to post pictures I could show some exceptional Cuban efforts.

I’ll save climate science stuff for another post, while hoping others weigh in as well.

So, just on the inequality part:

Just twenty Americans now hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the nation combined. Again, that’s 20 people having as much wealth as roughly 160 million Americans combined. The 18th century denizens of Versailles never had it so good.

The richest 1% now hold as much wealth as the bottom 99% of the country combined. The richest 0.1% holds as much as the bottom 90%.

The richest 1% now bring in roughly 23% of all income — though I’ve seen this figure as high as 25%. That’s nearly a quarter of all income for just 1% of the nation, leaving the bottom 99% to fight over roughly 75% of the rest.

In the 1950s, your average CEO made roughly twenty times as much as his rank and file workers. In the 1960s, it was roughly 25 to 1.

Today? Roughly 300 to 1. In Fortune 100 companies, it’s roughly 1000 to 1.

Leaving aside the fact of people wanting to come here from war-torn, ravaged, impoverished nations, do the above stats bother you? Do you see them as indications of something unfair, perhaps even obscenely wrong? Or, at least, as bad for the economy overall?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

Climate Change exists four times each year where I live. Inequality exists too as Hildabeast getting a pass on her email crimes proves.

bnw, do you think man-made climate change is happening? And do you think we have a serious problem of economic inequality? Politics aside. Politicians aside. Do you think these things exist as serious issues in their own right?

Of course climate change is happening four times each year where I live. But ‘climate change’ is used by those to obscure the fraud of ‘global warming’ that despite all the money and data manipulation and data destruction and endless propaganda hurled upon humankind the earth is cooling not warming.

Yes the economic inequality here is so bad that people from around the world still try to make their way here any way they can legally and illegally. If I knew how to post pictures I could show some exceptional Cuban efforts.

For the record, I think denying climate change discredits the person doing it.

Immigration has nothing to do with the internal structures of american economic inequality. We can have failed policies that do nothing but put money in the pockets of the 1% and therefore destablize the american middle class, and it could still be comparatively attractive to immigrants. The one has nothing to do with the other.

You are free to advocate any candidate or position you are drawn to. And you’re a passionate committed rightie. But I find most passionate committed righties to be lacking when it comes to the major issues. So I defend your right to speak here (within the rules) but I personally don’t find your political statements to be credible. I get that you believe them, but I think you believe a lot of nonsense.

Unlike BT and WV I don’t see any point in trying to debate it, either. There’s no “winning” discussions like that. You go your way, I’ll go mine.

.

Your response was clearly personal so I’ll chalk it up as a moderator’s attempt at baiting me and I will not respond in kind.

Thanks, bnw, for your answers. Will split my response into two parts.

One can bitch and whine about it but to what end? Stealing from someone because they have more money than you? No thanks. That is what stupid policies embraced by both parties that destroy US jobs without penalizing traitorous imports will get you.

Well, it’s not “bitching and whining” to state economic facts. And no one’s talking about “stealing” from the rich who stole from workers in the first place to get rich. They stole that money in the first play through the radical suppression of wages which is the cornerstone of capitalism itself. But that’s another story.

If by “stealing” you’re referring to taxation, we score near the very bottom of OECD nations in total taxation — local, state and federal combined. Year after year, from Reagan on, we’ve been near the bottom or at the bottom itself. Yes, both parties have embraced slashing tax rates for the rich, for corporations, for capital gains and estates. So if you want to assert that massive tax cuts for the rich (and massive deregulation of business and finance) “destroy US jobs,” I can go with that. But it’s obviously untrue that high taxes have. We don’t have them. And when we did, our economy enjoyed its only middle class boom period (1947-1973).

Also: Trump is calling for even deeper tax cuts and deregulation. You can’t cure anemia with leeches. You can’t solve the problems created by trickle down economics with more of the same on steroids. You can’t bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, or the rich and the middle, by giving the rich millions more in tax cuts per person, while giving the working poor and the middle thousands.

Obviously, the math tells us the gap widens geometrically when you do that.