MovieChat Forums > Politics > Democratic Frontrunners

Democratic Frontrunners


The following posts I’ve moved from eYe’s thread on Giuliani

[–] dteam6 (2812) 6 hours ago
The dems are frustrating me as well. They are going to snuff out Bernie again and repeat all their same mistakes in 2016 and then sit there, going: "I can't believe Trump won again!" in November.

It shouldn't be this difficult to lock down one infantile madman but they seem to be trying hard lately.

reply share ignore report
[–] CharlotteXavier (1099) 3 hours ago
To snuff Bernie out and throw the fight is also rigging an election that neoliberals are fine with because under trump or any republican the status quo will be maintained, which is especially important to the billionaires who run every campaign except Bernie’s as he is the sole front runner who refuses their money and truly works for the common good. I just don’t believe there are enough centrist voters to beat trump or any republican. The working class is banding together but with the MSM protecting the elites, the DNC protecting the elites, and the voter suppression we’ve seen protecting the elites, it’s an uphill battle.

reply edit delete share
[–] dteam6 (2812) 3 hours ago
I want him to win. First candidate in years I could get behind.

reply share ignore report
[–] CharlotteXavier (1099) 2 hours ago
He is the only honest one who truly has the common good as his overall goal.

reply edit delete share
[–] joi2049 (745) 3 hours ago
What will MOST LIKELY happen is LIZ WARREN (who's in the LEAD) will CHOOSE BERNIE to be her RUNNING MATE (because one also suspects that BERNIE will also come in 2nd in the PRIMARY ELECTION).

So he won't be SNUFFED OUT, but will be ELEVATED to VP, or to the POSITION where BIDEN use to be.

There's also the possibility that it could be the other way around, but with LIZ having a STEADY RISE to the TOP of the HEAP, it's probably going to end with LIZ WINNING the PRIMARY, and with BERNIE coming in behind her, and with her choosing him to RUN in the GENERAL ELECTION with her.

reply share ignore report
[–] CharlotteXavier (1099) 2 hours ago
MSM was cramming Warren down our throats and that gave her a big leap. They now seem to be turning on her though, to utilize a divide and conquer strategy that will allow the DNC to use its super delegates to choose Biden when no one candidate gets a majority, which I believe would be half. Biden is the most billionaire friendly.

I don’t believe Bernie would choose Warren for his VP. He would alienate his base, who are well aware of her dishonesty and her centrist history that you are unaware of bc it’s not covered on MSNBC.

I don’t think Warren would choose Bernie as her VP either. She is beholden to the special interests groups who support her and as her handlers they wouldn’t allow it. While she claims she won’t take $$ from billionaires she promises to help the DNC take their money if she is the democrat nominee and so she’s really just being a tricky lawyer and under her presidency nothing would change for the average person.
With Bernie, the comfortable people would stay comfortable, the poor would elevate and the rich wouldn’t get to hoard as much money.

reply

From Rudy watch thread:

[–] CharlotteXavier (1100) 3 hours ago
Take a look at how Bernie will tax the billionaires like no other democrat will, not to mention taking on the medical industry and you can see why he is hated by them and they’d rather have a Republican.

“ What corporations paid in federal income taxes last year:

Amazon: $0
Delta: $0
Chevron: $0
GM: $0

What they would have paid under our plan:

Amazon: $3.8 billion
Delta: $1.8 billion
Chevron: $1.6 billion
GM: $1.5 billion”

Edit: So by pushing for Biden, Democratic elites would be alienating the true progressives, the faux progressives, the people who insist having a lady president is the ultimate goal, the POC, the poor, the list goes in and on of people who will simply not vote out of sheer disgust, ensuring the GOP remains in power ensuring the protections of their money hoarding addictions.

reply edit delete share
[–] joi2049 (745) 3 hours ago
There's NO DOUBT about how OUTRAGEOUS it is that this kind of CRAP is going on.

Look at the way employees also SACRIFICED and gave up lots of UNION rights they had as a way to HELP bring GM back from the BRINK of NON EXISTENCE during THE MELTDOWN back in 2008.

And what kind of THANKS do they get for it??? For WORKING OVER TIME, and HELPING bring the company back from the BRINK???

They get NO THANKS, are told the company plans to REPLACE them with WORKERS who make less money, etc. etc. etc. which is also the reason for the STRIKE that's also been costing that COMPANY something like a MILLION OR BILLION BUCKS each day.

Anyhow, since LIZ and BERNIE basically also have the SAME KIND of VIEWS in regards to this TAXATION matter, this is also the reason why they'd make such good RUNNING MATES.

Because LIZ is just as DISGUSTED by this matter as BERNIE.

reply

I’d say Liz is not as disgusted as Bernie is if what you go by are her wealth tax proposals: https://imgur.com/gallery/LldeZkz

reply

More reasons I prefer Bernie over Warren:

‪Warren accepts campaign $$$ from billionaires. Bernie refuses it. She claimed to be Native American for personal gain AND ignored Standing Rock. Bernie fought with them. She gave trump a standing O against socialism. Bernie stayed seated. Says she is a capitalist to her core. Bernie is not, he works for the people not corporations. She was a Republican until age 47. Bernie was arrested in the 60’s protesting black segregation. She voted to increase trump's military budget twice. Bernie voted against it consistently. ‬
‪She did not endorse Bernie in 2016. She endorsed centrist HRC. She voted for sanctions on Venezuela. Bernie voted against. She plagiarised French recipes for a Native American cookbook called Pow Wow Chow, which speaks volumes on her character. And so much more.‬

reply

I was happy to see AOC, Omar and Tlaib all give their endorsements to Bernie. Honestly though, Warren is the next best candidate. She's no longer accepting those corporate donations. Bernie's policies are tougher on Wall Street and billionaires, but those billionaires focus more on Warren because of her reputation for pointing the finger at the crony capitalists and refusing to let them off the hook.

"She did not endorse Bernie in 2016. She endorsed centrist HRC."

She didn't choose HRC over Bernie. She waited until the process was over and supported the winner. But I agree with the Bernie supporters that she should've endorsed him during the race. Thankfully AOC, Omar and Tlaib aren't making the same mistake.

reply

Of course she endorsed Hillary when there was also a chance that she would CHOSE LIZ to be her VP.

And, imo, that was also a HUGE MISTAKE Hillary made when she chose that other GENERIC WHITE DUDE that hardly anyone knew or had heard about before.

But for all we know Hillary may also have CHOSEN LIZ, who may also have turned her down because she also planned to run in 2020 and didn't want to be TAINTED by whatever NONSENSE the GOP FLUNG at HILLARY in the 2016 ELECTION.

Once upon a TIME HILLARY was also a REPULICAN, and REAGAN also use to be a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT back when he ran the ACTORS UNION.

And BERNIE has also SWITCHED PARTIES as well.

And as you may recall Charlotte, I also predicted that BERNIE would NOT WIN the PRIMARY, because the PLANS that LIZ had would also please the OLDER FOLKS more than the plans that BERNIE has would (which mostly benefit STUDENTS and younger folks).

And it's also the OLDER FOLKS who VOTE more than the YONGER ones do, which is also why LIZ is the FRONT RUNNER now (just like I predicted would be the case several months ago back when we debated this issue over at the other forum).

So if BERNIE wants to increase his standing, what he should do is come up with something that appeals to MOST of those who will VOTE. But so far he also doesn't seem to have done this, or made the needs and wants of the OLDER FOLKS his FOCUS.

Hence the reason why I still PREDICT that LIZ will be the one to WIN the PRIMARY.

reply

It looked like it was 50/50 between Bernie and Liz but now I'm thinking it'll be Bernie because of the Squad's recent endorsement.

reply

If RESEARCH indicates other Bernie supporters are as HOSTILE towards LIZ as CHARLOTTEX is, then it's UNLIKELY she'd CHOSE BERNIE as her running mate.

Because NATURALLY LIZ is also going to want to CHOOSE someone who's supporters would be willing to VOTE FOR HER which wouldn't be the case if supporters of BERNIE feel the same way Charlotte does.

So under those kind of circumstances, maybe LIZ will chose one of the other FEMALES who are also RUNNING for office???

reply

Joi, you have no justification for defending Warren against the facts I stated and so you crumble into the reliance of accusing a Bernie supporter of being hostile for nothing more than stating facts about Warren. You have no argument. Why don’t you rebut by countering why exactly Warren is better than Bernie based on history and proposed policy? Because you can’t. Based on your own admissions you get all of your news from MSNBC, which is part of one of the world’s largest media monopolies, which Bernie plans on regulating and breaking up. You’re too eager to gobble up what you long to hear to be neutral and see their bias. Furthermore you openly admitted your neglect to familiarize yourself with the Goldman Sachs speeches of HRC, the Podesta emails, and anything else handed to us about the behind the scenes communications of the Clinton campaign. You want a woman in the White House I get it. You’re willing to turn a blind eye to facts, to defend in flimsy manners that you’ll later oppose when it suits you, forgetting that it contradicts something you once said. How was I hostile towards Warren? For stating facts I’m hostile? Calling me hostile while NBC attributes one of Bernie’s best debate quotes to Warren? Calling me hostile and claiming warrens policies are just like Bernie’s? Calling me hostile when you have no real idea of what you are talking about?
Bernie just finished a rally in Queens that he ended by saying that we support policy that benefits all even if we don’t personally need it. You’re older and so you care only about what will affect older people. We care about what affects the common good not just ourselves individually. Think about that. Warren wants to preserve the medical insurance industry. Why? Warren won’t absolve medical debt, nor all student loans. Warren says she won’t take billionaires money but will for the general for the DNC so she WILL. Bernie won’t. Warren didn’t care about Standing Rock. That’s hostile. Yet Warren claimed to be..

reply

...Warren claimed to be Native American for person gain. That’s hostile. Warren is a centrist working for the rich yet she constantly tries to take credit for Bernie’s policies to pose as a progressive. That’s hostile. She did it at the last debate: Bernie and I, Bernie and I. She has represented huge corporations to help them win lawsuits by people who got sick from their products. That’s hostile and a heartless use of talent. You can’t find things like that about Bernie and so you call us hostile for pointing out what makes us sick about Warren. Dig into Bernie’s past and you will find story after story about how he has fought tirelessly his ENTIRE LIFE for the good of the common person and the oppressed. Why don’t you vote for Bernie? He’s not a woman, that’s why.

reply

Says she is a capitalist to her core. Bernie is not, he works for the people not corporations. She was a Republican until age 47.
She did not endorse Bernie in 2016. She endorsed centrist HRC.[/i]

------------

No offense, but some of the things you keep saying do express HOSTILITY towards a person is who running for office that you obviously DO NOT LIKE.

And NOT ENDORSING a person also doesn't make someone UNFIT for OFFICE. And being a CAPITALIST also doesn't make them UNFIT for office either.

And the DEBATES were also not ALL on MSNBC, which also means it's not the only place one obtains info from (because one also reads other NEWS ARTICLES from other NEWSPAPERS like the WASHINGTON POST, HUFFINGTON POST, etc. which you'd also know if you read other messages I've posted here that QUOTE them).

And the reason why I PREFER LIZ to BERNIE isn't just because he's a MALE, because as you yourself have explained, it's because LIZ addresses more ISSUES that pertain to THE DEMOGRAPHICS of my AGE GROUP than BERNIE does (who mostly keeps his MAIN FOCUS on the needs of YOUNGER KIDS with STUDENT LOAN DEBT). And when no one helped to pay off my STUDENT LOANS, why should I be FORCED to pay off the STUDENT DEBTS of others??? How fair is that???


-------------

[I]if all you care about is what a candidate can do for you


------------

And if you're HONEST with yourself you'll also ADMIT that MOST people who VOTE also VOTE for someone because of the way that PERSON is in favor of and SUPPORTS more ISSUES that matter to them PERSONALLY.

Sorry for not addressing each and every ISSUE that you've raised here, but there's just WAY too much stuff that you've said and I also WORK as well just like you do. So for that reason there's just NOT TIME enough to so.

What's more, I am also already able to CHOSE and see whatever doctor I like even without having private medical insurance which you'd also already know if you were OLD enough to collect MEDICARE.

And AN INCREASE in the PAY ROLL TAX also isn't the MAIN PROBLEM with Social Security. The MAIN PROBLEM is NOT having enough YOUNGER people being BORN to SUPPORT the program (due to the use of BIRTH CONTROL).


reply

PS - This was RICH that Warren supporters, in the same spirit in which you called me hostile for stating facts about Warren, called Bernie hostile for daring, for having the audacity to state that he and warren are NOT the same. Many of us for Bernie wished he had elaborated but all he said was that he is the only candidate who will say to the ruling class, enough is enough. We need real change. What’s hostile about that when it’s proven by the facts I’ve already stated? This ABC Interviewer also tried to subtly push Warren by stating her policies are the same as Bernie’s but she’s a healthier version who didn’t just have a heart attack. Doesn’t it btw, make you a bit suspicious that a program owned by another of the world’s largest media monopolies would push for Warren? What should he have said? Yes, vote for Warren? https://youtu.be/tBfFr3kegJI

reply

Also, if all you care about is what a candidate can do for you, Bernie plans on expanding Social Security by eliminating the payroll tax cap. Most of his plans are meant to be funded by taxing the rich much more. M4A would tax 2.2% of households but ELIMINATE MEDICAL EXPENSES. No more premiums, deductibles, or copays and you see any doctor you want. I understand Warren’s SS plans are similar, but she hasn’t presented a M4A plan yet? Why not? She has said that she believes the billionaire medical insurance corporations should be protected though. So under Sanders, you would get more SS and better medical benefits than you now have, unless you are amongst the privileged few who now has excellent private health insurance, in which case it would be the same. To keep the medical insurance industry alive is to keep M4A down.

reply

Something else to chew on: the average age of an MSNBC viewer is I believe, 65. So isn’t it obvious to you, as it is to many of us, that a media monopoly who is under threat by Bernie, would be pushing someone who isn’t a threat by leading their demographic to believe that candidate is the best one for them even if she isn’t? Please tell me how Warren is better than Bernie for seniors.

reply

FYI Bernie had a rally today in Queens for 26,000 people. MSNBC and all TV MSM ignored it. Warren speaks to a couple thousand and trump to a couple hundred and it’s big news. Why do you think that is???

reply

Since I was SLEEPING I have no idea what they covered or didn't cover in regards to BERNIE's rally today. But before falling asleep one VAGUELY recalls having seen them covering it. And one also can barely recall them covering one of the RALLIES that LIZ has either, due to the way that they MOSTLY end up covering whatever the latest news would be regarding the SCAM MAN.

And A MICHAEL MOORE film is also being shown at the present time.

Anyhow, the problem is you seem to assume that someone in my AGE DEMOGRAPHIC has NEVER BEEN YOUNG before, which is also NOT the case. And as you approach the same place one is at now, chances are also pretty good that YOUR PERSPECTIVE may also change as well.

Still another thing to consider is the way I've also ALWAYS been FOCED to PAY for CAR INSURANCE my entire LIFE even though I've NEVER had an ACCIDENT or made a CLAIM that needed to be paid out.

And since the HIGHEST amount of AUTO ACCIDENTS are also caused by KIDS age 16 to 25, again how FAIR is it to FORCE me to PAY for what they do???

But back when I was still only 15 and first got my LEARNER'S PERMIT, of course I also had a different point of view.

C'est la vie Charlotte. ;)



reply

How old do you think I am? lol. It’s a rhetorical question. But it is altogether possible that I am in fact, even older than you are. I will not personally benefit from most of Bernie’s policies. For me it’s a matter of principle. I guess the main thing I’d get is renewed hope in the power of the people and love overcoming selfishness, corruption, and greed. I don’t think Warren is the anti Christ like trump is, as her supporters on Twitter accuse us of. But I do think she is corporate America’s Bernie substitute who will allow them to continue on, business as usual, and not a whole lot will change for the average person. They know the people are rising up and demanding change and so they are doing what they can to get a pretender in there who will protect them. They are using the MSM because they are the MSM, at least a big chunk of the handful of them. I don’t have the softest voice because I’m tired of being lied to and tricked my whole life by politicians and their rotten corruption. Don’t let me turn you off to Bernie if Liz doesn’t beat him. I know you want a woman to win. I think Bernie will run with Nina Turner. I’d love to see a woman POTUS in my lifetime too. I’m sure we will.

reply

My guess would be you're MIDDLE AGED (somewhere between 30 to 60) due to the way you said you still WORK (which probably wouldn't be the case if you were old enough to collect Soc Sec).

When BERNIE use to be a regular GUEST on MSNBC I felt the same way about him then as you do now. But since I like the PLANS that LIZ put forth better than his plans (to have that 2% TAX on the WEALTHY), now she also appeals the most to me.

PLUS one is also AFRAID the RIGHT will LABEL BERNIE as a SOCIALIST which will scare away other INDEPENDENTS and keep them from voting for him.

Sorry to hear how those who support LIZ have been saying mean things on TWITTER. Since I don't have a TWITTER or FB account the only time I usually hear about what's said is whenever they mention something the SCAM MAN TWEETED on MSNBC.

But otherwise I prefer to chose my own opinion, and NOT be SUBJECTED to the RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA that I hear FB AD's are full of.

As for RISING UP and demanding CHANGE, HIPPIES also did that back in the 60's, only to MORPH into YUPPIES and become more MAINSTREAM in their POV. So I don't have much FAITH in whatever the new issue is either that's motivated whoever it is that is RISING UP.

I also think it's fine to have a STRONG VOICE and to EXPRESS the way you feel. And don't worry about turning me off to BERNIE. Like I said, I like him and have liked him for a long time. But IF others who support him feel the same way about LIZ as you do, that's probably not going to result in her choosing him for her running mate (which is also a shame because one also thinks the 2 of them would make a GREAT TEAM).

And YES it would also be NICE to see a FEMALE WIN the ELECTION, especially when we're CURRENTLY also CELEBRATING the 100TH ANNIVERSARY of when WOMEN "were GIVEN the RIGHT to VOTE."

And of course the ULTIMATE GOAL of that ACHIEVEMENT would also be having a WOMAN as the NEXT POTUS.




reply

I understand. But if you like Warren’s wealth tax then you should like Bernie’s more since it starts at 32.1M and hers starts at 50.1 and his is more starting at 250.1, and after 500.1M it doubles hers.

I see no valid comparison between the counter culture hippies who became yuppies. They didn’t have the same crushing economic conditions that have been building for the past 45 years.

Warren simply lacks the spirit of our movement. She’s been too dishonest for personal gain and worked too hard for the benefit of billionaires. Justified or not, she’d never be acceptable as a trustworthy leader of Our Revolution, not least of all because she’s willing to take the billionaires $$$ for the general. Bernie says it all the time: you can’t take them on if you take their money. She doesn’t see them as much of a problem, although she may claim to.

reply

You were pointing out how Warren had previously been a REPUBLICAN.

So it was pointed out that HILLARY had also been one as well, and that REAGAN had also been a LIBRERAL DEMOCRAT back when he ran the ACTOR'S UNION.

So pointing out how the ANTI ESTABLISHMENT HIPPIES turned into MONEY MAKING YUPPIES ...

who were a PART of the ESTABLISHMENT that they previously REBELLED against ...

is to show you how it's not that UNUSUAL for people to do a 180 degree TURN around in regards to the way they VIEW matters.

Anyhow, sorry again to hear how you wouldn't approve of BERNIE being a RUNNINGMATE for Liz.

If BERNIE feels the same way you do, guess that also means he won't want to be her VP.

reply

You keep saying that about the VP thing. Lol. No, I can say with almost absolute certainty that Bernie would not run with Warren. He said right to her face at the debate that the corruption and greed of the billionaires must be taken on and if all you can do is take their money then you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. She has taken it for the senate runs and she will take it for the general. Why on earth would they pay her way unless they were getting some big payback??? How can you be so naive? That right there is diametrically opposed to all that we stand for. If she wins the nomination the Republican will win. You would vote for Bernie. I wouldn’t vote for Liz. I’d sit it out. Think about it.

reply


You would vote for Bernie. I wouldn’t vote for Liz. I’d sit it out. Think about it.




You want me to THINK ABOUT the way BERNIE SUPPORTERS BETRAYED the PARTY when they REFUSED to VOTE for HILLARY in 2016 …

EVEN THOUGH BERNIE also stood there ASKING THEM to VOTE for her???

Perhaps YOU YOURSELF need to THINK ABOUT THAT and then REALIZE how NOT DOING what BERNIE HIMSELF asked his SUPPORTERS to do is WHAT helped to

PLACE the SCAM MAN into OFFICE.

And now you're saying you intend to do the SAME THING again???

Imo,

You're the one who SHOULD THINK about that

and if you really want another 4 YEARS of the SCAM MAN running things again

and his giving STILL MORE HUGE TAX BREAKS to the RICH AGAIN.

At least we know that won't happen with LIZ running things who plans to TAX the WEALTHY instead of giving them TAX BREAKS like the SCAM MAN did.

reply

Don’t even get me started on betrayal!

reply

OK then, so how about reminding you of what BERNIE said at that RALLY this past week end???

They showed CLIPS of it on MSNBC where BERNIE told his FOLLOWERS not to let anything DIVIDE them the way the GOP and others were trying to do.

But what you've said goes COMPLETELY against what BERNIE said to you.

reply

Can you provide a link to this please? I would love to see it. But also, I don't blindly follow everything Bernie says. If he's running as a Democrat he has to say things like that.

reply

Each show that airs on MSNBC has VIDEOS of what was aired … which would also include CLIPS of what BERNIE said.

So the thing to do is GO to the MSNBC WEBSITE and look for shows that AIRED during the WEEK END that include a CLIP of BERNIE.

Sorry but I don't have TIME to do that for you.

Another OPTION might be to look for a copy of the entire RALLY or to EMAIL and ASK someone who works for him for A QUOTE where he's said what you've been told???

reply

I've watched the rally up to Bernie so far. Nina Turner was awesome, as always. I really enjoyed Michael Moore as well. I'll hear what he said this weekend when I finish watching it.

reply

Hillary was the weaker candidate propped up by the corruption of the DNC and many more of her cronies nationwide, not to mention the propaganda machine of MSM, that Bernie actually overcame.

Your MSNBC propaganda addled mind may be too far gone for reality but I'm going to provide some articles for you from respected sources that contain FACTS that MSNBC has never told you about. That's not to say they never will. When it suits them they'll turn on anyone. So it wouldn't surprise me to see them turn on Hillary, who is a neocolonial, corporatist who has pushed for decades in various jobs, policies of austerity, war, privatization and much more that disproportionately hurt women and the poor globally, while enriching her and her cronies, all the while wielding the sword of feminism, a "feminism" that bears absolutely no connection to the reality of her lifelong record. The misery she has caused or been a part of creating globally is beyond heartbreaking. If you would only bother to seek out the truth you would be horrified.
This is who we, who are vastly more informed than you, are supposed to have voted for? We betrayed a party? Who cares about a party when what we need is a policy maker who works for the people, not their own self enrichment? Of course trump doesn't do anything but work for himself, but what you are incapable of comprehending when your head is buried in the sands of the cable news networks - the monopolies, the corporate propaganda machine that serves no purpose other than to make money and survive as monopolies, who will never give you any information that doesn't serve their own interests - is that HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE.
Please bear with me on this as it's going to take some time. I'm very busy. But I'm going to provide you some information on how it is quite clear that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic nomination if it had been a fair contest. And Bernie slaughtering trump in the general goes without saying.

reply

CORRECTION:

Since HILLARY got 3 MILLION more VOTES than her OPPONENT the SCAM MAN, she WAS NOT WEAKER.

That's an OPINION you've probably gotten from spending TOO MUCH TIME on FB, which is INFESTED with RUSSIAN TROLLS who INFEST and control your mind.

In other words, you keep PROJECTING onto ME what most likely applies more to you yourself, because it's also already been explained to you how I also READ other NEWS SOURCES and MSNBC isn't the ONLY NEWS SOURCE from which one gets information.

And since you've also reached the point where you're no longer being RATIONAL anymore (by resorting to the use of ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM ATTACKS), that's also an indication that it's time to END the DEBATE that one is having with you.

So thank you for the way that you COPY and PASTED things from the other TOPIC and placed them over here on your topic, but the next time you do that you might also want to ASK someone first before you do that???

Because asking someone if it would be OK to COPY and PASTE something they've said before you do it would also be the POLITE thing to do???


reply

You have too much time on your hands. I'll still post those articles about how Hillary stole the primary and you can ignore them in typical style.

I don't use Facebook. Edit: Actually, I log onto Facebook every few weeks for a hobby related discussion group that has absolutely nothing at all to do with politics. It's actually against the rules to talk about politics in that group, lol.

You're ranting now about copying and pasting within a forum. It's beyond petty.

reply

BEING OLD and MIDDLE AGED TAKES UP MOST of one's TIME

Ringo Starr (A HARD DAY'S NIGHT)

:)

CHILL OUT and TAKE a BREAK

Try to RELAX and EN *JOI* yourself:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=joi+blade+runner+2049+videos+&&view=detail&mid=CF937BB557892C7020AECF937BB557892C7020AE&&FORM=VDRVRV

reply

Regarding the wealth tax that you love: Bernie's will create 1.6 Trillion more dollars in 10 years than Warren's.
I can predict your response: That's great and all, but I like Warren because she wants to create a wealth tax.

reply

And yes, people can and do change but I don’t believe she has and what’s more, it’s better to me that Bernie has ALWAYS CHAMPIONED THE WORKING CLASS

reply

Heya Charlotte. As ultravioletx mentioned above, Warren announced a couple weeks ago she will continue her current policy refusing corporate pac money in the general so I'm not sure why you're convinced she's going to do the bidding of billionaires? From what I've seen, the fallout has been intense as she's faced backlash from Wall Street labeling her the new public enemy #1 (probably because they see her as a greater threat to win the nom than Bernie, else he'd be their greatest existential threat) and wealthy donors that formerly donated to her Senate campaign (the leftover 10.1 mil she transferred to her prez campaign coffers at the start of her run) expressing outrage because they feel ripped off. I can't say I say I feel bad they wrongly felt they could control Warren just because they had previously donated big money to her 2018 Senate re-election run.

Back in March when she was still considered a long shot I read in Politico she faced internal pressure and an exodus of experienced political consultants who felt she was putting herself at a competitive disadvantage by refusing big money donors. She insisted on the policy in the primary but left the door open to accepting corporate pac money should she win the nom so as not to unilaterally disarm against the financial behemoth of the President's re-election campaign. Now with the small donor base she's built up over the past six months and her rise to front runner status she no longer felt she needed the equalizer of big money in the general given the steep cost of the faustian tradeoff of being beholden to billionaires; and for that I'm glad. What makes you convinced she'll reneg once elected?

Despite her past as a Republican until her 1996 epiphany when she became a Democrat, she won me over to believing her progressive bonafides were legit when I watched her take on the banking industry and Dem administration to create the CFPB upon her election to the Senate. That was a hard slog where she made many enemies in the finance sector by remaining uncompromisingly resolute in fighting for the little guy.

reply

Here is a NYT article from 9 days ago that explains Warren's decisions on campaign funding: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-fundraising.html

"...some caveats: While she would forgo fund-raisers for her campaign, she would headline open press events for the Democratic National Committee, which has traditionally served as a virtual extension of the nominee."

"Ms. Warren’s new position on general election fund-raisers appears to be an effort to thread the needle between those on the progressive left urging her to permanently swear off soliciting big checks and Democratic officials and activists concerned that such a stand would endanger the party as Mr. Trump and the Republicans bank record sums of cash."

“Once you are the Democratic nominee, you are the party,” said Rufus Gifford, a former finance director for President Barack Obama, who has donated to multiple 2020 candidates but not to Ms. Warren. “You own the party. Your political operation takes over the D.N.C. You cannot divorce in any way fund-raising for the presidential campaign and the Democratic Party.”

"The donation limits for the D.N.C. are actually far higher than those for direct contributions to campaigns. The D.N.C. can raise money in increments of $355,000; direct donations to a potential Warren general election committee would be limited to $2,800."

Bernie wants to ban all of the above. How can you take on the greed of the corporate elite AND take their money?
Perhaps she's again changed her stance and I'm unaware.

reply

So you're saying that because DNC policy involves taking high dollar donations that she is guilty by association should she win the primary because she hasn't said she would change DNC policy and limit the DNC donation ceiling? Has Bernie said he would do this prior to even winning the presidency?

It's not like those high dollar donations to the DNC go directly to benefit the candidate that wins the primary. The money goes towards helping the DNC organize the Get Out the Vote effort that assists ALL Democratic party candidates all around the country running in the general. It doesn't sound wise to me to neuter those efforts by limiting the donation cap to the DNC in the general election.

Most importantly, if I'm a high money donor it's not like I can expect to curry political favor with Warren if I donate the max 400k to the DNC should she win the nomination. It's not the same as being able to spend that money on a Warren Pac or her candidacy directly. If I'm giving that money to the DNC solely because I expect to get a call from her I might as well be throwing it away because there's no reason for her to view it that way.

reply

EyeDef, do you ever spend money on anything without expecting something in return?
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/10/bernie-sanders-democratic-national-committee-corporate-donors

reply

That's great! I'm all for getting money out of politics and I've been thrilled about Bernie's recent stumping on this issue. It's THE most important issue period in my opinion and it's really his recent additions to his platform on this that pushed me into his camp when deciding between Bernie and Warren.

I see the point that article is making that big money donors to the convention can expect VIP access and the ability to schmooze with the candidate. But let me just offer a personal and kind of embarrassing anecdote up that serves as a sort of counter narrative to the point I think you're making. During the Bush years my very wealthy relatives jumped at the chance to attend one of his 20k a plate fundraisers just so they could have a photo-op with him shaking his hand. I wouldn't even describe my aunt and uncle as hardcore partisan republicans when their college attending son (my cousin) in 2008 was a volunteer in Hillary's first campaign against Obama. It wasn't because they expected to get anything real like policy demands from him in return. It was sheerly for bragging rights during the early 2000's when Bush was POTUS.

So I would say yes, that people really are that stupid to pay that much money for bragging rights to be in proximity to power without expecting anything of substance in return. And yes I'm so embarrassed to admit to being related to people who would stoop to doing this. But it's not a point without merit or I wouldn't have brought it up. If I were a high dollar donor to the DNC I could not realistically expect anything more than maybe VIP access to the Dem convention where if I'm lucky I might get a few minutes of platitudes and a photo op with the winner of the nomination. The money itself is just a tax writeoff so it's not a big deal. I can't see how any DNC donor could expect, or would get, anything more than that. It's not like your money even went directly to that candidate's campaign or pocket. It's spread out to assist all Dem candidates in their campaigns.

reply

Wow, lol! Relatives... I’ll respond tomorrow.💰🤣😂

reply

That is a funny story! Do they still have the photo displayed over a mantle or something? Sounds like something you’d see at the beginning of a comedic movie, lol.

I definitely see your point and I’m going to look for some dialogue on whether or not the Bernie camp actually believes that those high dollar tickets are supposedly translating into favors of some sort. I haven’t seen it brought up yet, but it probably has been addressed.

reply

What I don’t understand, and maybe you can help me here, is if the max donation is 300K then how do these big corporations pay millions? https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/and-the-good-times-rolled-17-donors-gave-three-quarters-of-dems-convention-money/
Is it as simple as just purchasing a bunch of tickets for individual execs? They also donate grants, goods, and services. So it seems there are numerous ways for a corporation to donate as much as they want.
It seems your aunt and uncle donating was in the spirit that supposedly prevails, but the whole thing gets taken over by the special interests groups.

LOL, I just got a text from Bernie:
“ URGENT update from Bernie 2020: Joe Biden's campaign gave the green light to a super PAC, so now Bernie needs YOU...”

reply

The 390k limit is contributions to DNC. Spending on the convention is categorized as donating to a 527 in which there are no spending limits:

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

Party committee: national

It's true special interest groups donate to dark money pacs and sink holes like national conventions. No doubt. But it's hard to say how much political influence they have on individual candidates without being able to directly contribute to their campaign. For instance, assuming Bernie wins the nomination he'll be at the convention bought and paid for by these special interest groups. Does that mean those corporations will have any special place in his heart for him to grant special favors to? I would certainly hope not and I don't see any reason for those groups to think Bernie will cut them any slack when getting money out of politics is a central plank of his campaign. With Warren earning the antipathy of big money corporations as well from her stance to reject their money I wouldn't think they'd expect any special favoritism from her either.

reply

So then why on Earth would these corporations throw their money away to get behind a presidential candidate who will not hold any special place in his or her heart for them??

Bernie doesn’t want their money as you know.

reply

By spending on the convention? Spending on the party convention is ostensibly different in an open primary year than spending to get behind one candidate, as there's really no way to know which candidate will emerge victorious from the primary to be nominated at the convention. Unless it's a nominating convention for an incumbent president's re-election. Due to the lack of ambiguity in this latter circumstance Obama enacted a self-imposed ban on corporate money for the 2012 Dem convention and solicited the shortfall from labor unions.

As for why corporations spend on conventions, it's a schmoozefest with the chance to schmooze lawmakers of the party they think will best rep their interests. It's also a promotional event just like any other. Sponsorship means primetime TV ads and promotional opportunities to push their products at the event, just like commercial sponsors to concerts and sports events. You can't really say they're "wasting their money" when it's a huge marketing event. Big corporations have giant marketing budgets every year spent on promotional opportunities far more frivolous than political conventions. It also serves as a tax writeoff from donating to a 527, which makes it less "expensive" than other expenses.

reply

OK Eye, you’ve given me a lot of info here and that’s much appreciated and a good launching pad to education on this.

Still! This Schmooz-O-Rama fest picture still spells out a stinky corporate field day for the big money donors.

reply

No doubt. My only point being that no corporation can really expect to rally around any one single candidate when donating to the convention during an open primary season like the Dems this year. They don't know if the winner will be Bernie, Warren, or Biden.

reply

My point being that they will rally around the candidate they hope will win.

reply

Yeah but the corruption angle is whether that winning candidate will reward those corporations with favoritism. I'd say it depends on the candidate.

reply

Of course!

reply

Thanks for the FEC.gov link. That’s a bookmark!

reply

The other issue where I'm seeing some Bernie supporters adopt Republican framing smearing Warren is on the NA issue and the idea that she dishonestly chose to use it benefit her career. This question was investigated by the Boston Globe in 2011 when accused by her GOP opponent Scott Brown during her initial Senate campaign and revisited a year ago when they did a second look deep dive. The Globe found no evidence it was ever used for professional advancement. When applying to college and law school, records show that she either identified as white or declined to apply based on minority status. Nor did her job applications at University of Houston, UT, or Harvard did she ever list herself as Native American in the application. Only the Harvard directory of Law Professors and the State Texas Bar registration card she filled out after having passed her bar exam had it listed.

Of course Trump has repeated the lie she used it for unfair career advancement so often his dittoheads reflexively believe it. Unfortunately I'm also seeing some Bernie supporters adopting the same claims, and AFAICT it's coming from Krystal Ball's Warren attacks at hill.tv. Not sure if you follow her or not, just that I've seen some clips from her recently unfairly smearing Warren using this GOP talking point.

As for why she did it, I don't see any reason not to give her the benefit of the doubt that having a NA ancestor was passed down to her in family stories and she felt affinity to her native heritage where she felt listing her ancestry to bring attention to the plight of Natives was her goal. Do you? It's not like she used it to be an affirmative action hire. FYI I'm leaning Bernie at the moment but would be thrilled if either progressive candidate won the nomination. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around some unfair attacks on Warren I've seen lately by some Bernie purists that don't appear to have any basis in fact.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

reply

I'll answer this later.

reply

You see Bernie supporters adopt Republican framing smearing Warren. What I said about Warren's NA claim is Republican framing? Why isn't it Liberal framing when they say it if Bernie supporters say something they also say? I actually don't know much about what they say about it beyond the Pocahontas insult, however it comes as no surprise to hear that they'd make up lies about the issue.

I know that she wasn't an affirmative action hire, and that her supposed status as a Native American didn't get her into law school, nor did she get faculty jobs for it. I'm well aware that she didn't need to do that. She's a highly skilled and sought after attorney and law professor who has written award winning books on law. She's one of the top lawyers in her field. That's not the issue to me and to many others who find this Native American status problematic.

The problem starts when she started identifying as a minority for the Association of American Law Schools, which is a directory of law teachers. She had to fill out forms for that directory for each U she taught at between 1986 and 1994 which were the U of Texas, U of Penn, and Harvard, at which she taught as a visitor for a year in 1992. She claimed minority status for all of them. When she moved to Harvard in 1995 she stopped doing it. So from 1986-1994 she was listed in this directory at 3 different schools as a POC. This was at a time when there was intense pressure on these schools to prove that they had ethnic diversity in their faculties. When applying as a student she was white and then suddenly became NA for these schools at a time when they were under pressure to hire minorities? Harvard even publicly declared that they had a NA faculty member, her, in response to critics. 1/

reply

Based on that, it becomes very obvious to me that she was claiming minority status to help her employers. You help your boss, you help your career, you help yourself. That's personal gain. Even if you are white, can you not at least understand how incredibly offensive it is to a POC to learn that a privileged white person who has never had to suffer racial discrimination was claiming to be a POC so her bosses could pretend they had ethnically diverse faculty members?

Now add to that the fact that she completely ignored the Standing Rock protests and it becomes infuriating. The more you dig the worse it gets. She had the audacity to finally speak out about DAPL when it was all said and done.

Then there's this sweet, dumb, emotional, folksy old lady schtick she's got going that she used when questioned about her POC status at those schools. Paraphrasing: "I just put that down on the forms because, well, you know, I thought it would be kind of neat to meet other people like me and that maybe, oh I don't know, I would get invited to a luncheon or something. But then someone told me, oh, no, that's for the school to show that they hire people of color. So when I found that out I stopped doing it." I'm supposed to buy that?? There's no better way to say - gimme a fukn break. 2/

reply

Now, bear in mind that her Native American heritage goes back around 200 years. Her own brother said that he was told they had a teeny, tiny bit of Cherokee in their blood line. It's far too much of a stretch for anyone to claim that having an ancestor or two, two hundred years ago who were a different race than everyone else in the blood line obviously is and was could make them identify as the race of those two people hundreds of years ago. She obviously claimed POC status to help her employers and she keeps lying about it. But the worst part to me is how overwhelmingly obvious it is that she could not care less about the plight of the Native Americans by her ignoring the Standing Rock Sioux's protests. You say she felt an affinity to her native heritage and wanted to bring attention to the plight of natives and she ignored Standing Rock??? These people were out there for months, in a blizzard, getting illegally arrested, pepper sprayed, tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, freezing water, grenades, and all she could do was defend the pipeline construction workers, and intimate that these workers were under threat from the protestors and her Native American brethren. They weren't. There were hundreds of casualties. People died. People were maimed. And you say she has an affinity to her native heritage and wants to bring attention to their plight? By not showing up?? By ignoring their plight??

So is the above an unfair attack with no basis in fact?

This is just one of many issues I find extremely problematic with Warren.

FYI - I'm not a Bernie purist. If I'm a purist for anything it’s for a candidate who is the best one for the job who is willing to stand up to corporate greed and fight for the working class. Bernie just happens to be the only one I know of who qualifies. 3/end

reply

Yeah maybe you're right about this as it sounds like you know a lot more about her approach to Standing Rock than I do.

As for claiming minority status to help her employers, the fact that she did it at 3 different schools and stopped doing it in '94 makes it sound less likely she did it to help her employers in my opinion. So you think she was approached by her employer at 3 different schools and asked if she would do this to help them and she agreed? How would the first school even suspect she had native heritage to make such an out of the blue solicitation? Or do you think she just knew her employers were facing intense pressure in their hiring practices so she decided to do this on her own initiative to help? That sounds really weird to me and not likely something someone would know about the hiring pressures their large university employer would be facing and just decide to do it on their own to help their employer.

Neither sounds very plausible in my opinion. To me it sounds more like naivety and stupidity. She heard she had Cherokee blood, like you cited her brother saying, and she thought she'd put it down because she really hadn't thought through the implications and consequences of how it might prevent minority hires at her school. There just wasn't the same level of social awareness of these types of minority issues in the pre-internet 1980s. BTW I'm a POC and I don't take offense especially given the context of that era. If someone did that now I could understand why it'd be offensive. If that sounds unbelievable I'd point to the movie Falling Down (1993) and ask how a movie of Michael Douglas getting fed up and going on a shooting rampage against minorities ever got made. I'm not comparing her to Bernie I just don't see her in as harsh a light as you do.

reply

This got lost in the shuffle. I'm generally on my phone and MC formatting gets so weird when threads get long and so I'm now on a much more comfortable desk top.

"Or do you think she just knew her employers were facing intense pressure in their hiring practices so she decided to do this on her own initiative to help?"

As I've said, there was intense pressure back then to hire minorities. What I didn't mention was that there were embarrassing high profile protests as well, at Harvard for sure, and probably at the other schools as well.

Who knows how it could have come up? Probably at an interview or via a phone call. Maybe she suggested it. That is very plausible to me. I'm sure she was well aware of the protests at the time. Again, in no way am I suggesting that she felt she needed to do this to get hired, and I know you're not suggesting that's what I'm saying. I just want to be clear.

"To me it sounds more like naivety and stupidity."
This is where I chuckled a bit. Do you know any stupid or naive attorneys? LOL. I've worked with attorneys and I've known many attorneys and they are trained to turn over every stone like detectives. And the are ESPECIALLY careful about filling out paperwork or anything that can leave a trail. She's an uber attorney, there are protests, she's got these NA family stories... why not help out a bit by saying I'm NA even though it dates back hundreds of years?

OK, so if my suspicions are correct, she's helping taking the heat off of her employer, who are under Affirmative Action protests pressure. Well, maybe there just weren't any POC who had the skills Warren had at the time any of those schools needed a teacher for what she specialized in. I find that completely valid. In which case, taking the high road would have involved those schools making statements to that end and that could have been problematic. Maybe it was just easier to say they had minorities in faculty positions and Warren played along. 1/

reply

"As I've said, there was intense pressure back then to hire minorities. What I didn't mention was that there were embarrassing high profile protests as well, at Harvard for sure, and probably at the other schools as well."

Ok. I attended an ivyish college in the 90s right around this time. Not Harvard, so I'll take your word for it. I had no awareness or recollection of high profile protests on this issue. But that could be the faculty at the liberal arts college I attended was fairly diverse and not typical of other campuses.

"This is where I chuckled a bit. Do you know any stupid or naive attorneys? LOL. I've worked with attorneys and I've known many attorneys and they are trained to turn over every stone like detectives"

No but that's why I have a hard time seeing why she'd deliberately collude with her employers to engage in fraudulent behavior that had the potential to ruin her career. I'm a big believer in Hanlon's Razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I have a far easier time seeing this as naivety on her part when we already know she thought she was part Cherokee based on what her brother has said, and she had no real idea her minuscule bloodline would disqualify her. There were no DNA tests in the late 80s, early 90s that are used today to settle such matters. It doesn't make sense to me why she'd volunteer to engage in fraud for her employer. Like you mentioned, she was highly accomplished by her own merits, what would be the incentive to putting herself out there misrepresenting her race and risking her rep? It only makes sense to me it was due to naivety because she honestly didn't think she was misrepresenting herself.

I have lawyers in my family and enough close colleagues that I could call up for free legal advice should I need it. Lawyers are not immune to naivety. Especially early in the career of an academic like Warren I could easily see listing part NA heritage because she was naive and believed it true. But she'd have everything to lose and nothing to gain from deliberately engaging in fraud, so I just don't buy the collusion angle.

reply

Actually, she knew she was part Cherokee based on established family stories. No doubt, she has NA ancestry, of which the history survives via family story telling. It wasn't just her brother's account I meant to base her history on. Just being clear.

Seems like we're at a judges call in our little debate here, lol. You have a hard time believing an academic like Warren could be so naive as to forge her identity to help her employers as that would put her at risk for later accusations of fraud.

I have a hard time believing an academic like Warren could be so naive as to not understand what the purpose was for claiming her race on certain documents at a time of major illumination over unfair racial hiring practices nationwide with much media attention.

Now, as I've already said, add to this that she applied for undergraduate and law school as a white. WHY DID SHE CHANGE HER RACE?

This dumb, sweet, innocent old lady song and dance is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. She pulls it out at every stop.

Yes! I'm fed up with her and exasperated and that reflects in my speech. I've tried to outline above, the problems I have with Warren as a POTUS, which grow daily with more info that comes in.

She lies. Warren lies. She lies and she lies and she lies. I don't want a liar for president.

Bernie doesn't lie. I'm not a Bernie fanatic. I don't agree with all of his policy proposals - at all - not AT ALL. But Bernie doesn't lie and his policies are most aligned with mine, so for him I'm rooting, that's for sure.

But Warren is just clearly a liar, and a MAJOR POSER. I can't go into it all right now. You can educate yourselves.

reply

Yeah I'm just not familiar with the "she lies and lies and lies" thing. That is not the Warren I've observed and the progressive champion I witnessed in the Senate. I admit that could be that I haven't looked closely enough, but if she's what you say then I expect it to be evident sooner rather than later.

reply

She's lied about her NA heritage for professional gain. That's arguable, but I say for fucks sake, if you have a single ancestor going 2 or 3 hundred years back that you expect to claim racial identity towards, in spite of all other racial influences drowning it out, then you are really reaching, AKA, lying.

Warren proclaimed that she was the first woman nursing to take the NJ bar exam. The NJ bar began allowing women to take the exam in 1895 and no records were compiled on which test takers were nursing at the time. They issued a statement to this effect, which acknowledged that there was no way to prove Warren's boast, nor to disprove it. Warren had no way of knowing what she was saying she knew she had, therefore, that was a lie.

Warren claimed that she was fired from a teaching job for becoming pregnant. Off the top of my head remembering the articles I read on it ... She wasn't fired. She quit, as she stated to the press, because her husband wanted her to raise the family at home. She has flipped and flopped about what happened, but based on the journalism I've seen, she lied about that. She didn't get fired for being pregnant, which many women did get fired for and greatly suffered over, as did their families. She used the lie as a political TALKING POINT for personal political gain.

Are these egregious offenses? That's not for me to say. It's up to the people to decide.

It's just really obvious to me that she is a liar. She says what suits her at any given moment. She's an old school politician and she's there to keep your focus off of Bernie.


reply

She can't be that "old school" of a politician when she's only been an elected official since 2012.

Yeah I put stock in Hanlon's Razor so I just fundamentally disagree with your assessment about her lying on the NA thing. Part of that is just a personal reflection of times I know I've said or did things that in retrospect were just thoughtless naivety and not premeditated yet I know would definitely be interpreted as deliberate duplicity by a less charitable observer. Fortunately nothing that ended up being career impacting or canceling in today's environment. But it's made me a believer in Hanlon's Razor and much more charitable when considering things like this, my instinct is to grant the benefit of the doubt unless it becomes habitual.

Rational people also require incentive to take risk and I just don't see what the incentive was to commit fraud and risk her career.

The pregnant thing was a smear job from by the conservative oppo farm Washington Free Beacon that failed to provide crucial context included in a CBS News piece the next day.

It included crucial context that would have been ever-so-helpful in the initial piece, such as this interview with a retired Riverdale teacher, Trudy Randall:

“The rule was at five months you had to leave when you were pregnant. Now, if you didn’t tell anybody you were pregnant, and they didn’t know, you could fudge it and try to stay on a little bit longer. But they kind of wanted you out if you were pregnant.”

It also included an interview with Warren about why the board originally renewed her contract and even gave her a provisional pass on some other training she needed:

“I was pregnant, but nobody knew it,” Warren said. “And then a couple of months later when I was six months pregnant and it was pretty obvious, the principal called me in, wished me luck, and said he was going to hire someone else for the job.”


The CBS News piece also takes on another aspect of the Free Beacon's story, that Warren in 2007 explained her departure from teaching without mentioning being fired.

reply

Of course she can be old school in values. I could go to great lengths to reprove my points but I won't because I'm tired and I work more than I should.

Think well of her if you like!

reply

Yeah I don't think it's really about "reproving" points because it seems to come down as a difference of opinion in interpretation of her actions. I just fail to see what "professional gain" she got out agreeing to engage in fraud so I just have a more charitable interpretation that I don't think she believed she was engaging in fraud.

reply

Maybe she just wanted to help out her bosses. That's a good thing to do for an employee. Professional people help each other, especially lawyers. They really stick together. Not saying it's good or bad.

It could be called stretching the truth just as easily as engaging in fraud. So she stretched the truth to help them out by giving them the chance to say they had a POC in their faculty, when the POC had distant relatives who were NA and 95%+ Caucasian DNA. You're ok with it. I feel she exploited NA's.

reply

I'm not at all ok with fraud. I am ok with her making a naive mistake thinking she had more Cherokee in her bloodline than she actually did.

A trained lawyer would know what you're euphemistically calling "stretching the truth" is in fact misrepresenting her race by defrauding Native Americans. I just don't buy a law school would solicit fraud from their employee or why she'd choose to engage in fraud as a trained lawyer straight out of law school. I think it only makes sense if she genuinely believed it.

reply

Warren genuinely believed she had enough Native American blood to consider herself NA? That's what you believe?

reply

Yeah that she naively believed she thought she was mixed race. She had no idea how many generations back her native relative was until it was revealed by her DNA test. That's completely believable to me.

I find that a whole lot more plausible than believing she would choose to engage in fraud that risked her career and law license. Or that 3 separate law school employers would solicit fraud from their employee and knowingly misrepresent a white woman as NA. In fact, I find every facet of this conspiracy theory just really far out.

reply

And why did Warren only consider herself NA from 1986-1994?

reply

I don't believe she did. I'm confident that she always thought of herself as mixed race. Hanlon's Razor.

reply

You and this Hanlon’s Razor, it’s like holding a mirror up to a mirror here with your supposed naïveté.

reply

Is it my naivety or your refusal to consider that it's entirely possible for someone to think of themselves as mixed race?

reply

Mixed race my ass. And she proclaimed herself Native American, not mixed race. Reread my posts buddy. She’s got a teensy bit of NA blood and she IGNORED THE STANDING ROCK PROTESTS!!!

Are you working for her? Or maybe you’re a bored trust fund baby with a lot of time on your hands and just feel like debating.

reply

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/dec/01/facts-behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/

Warren’s central offense dates back to the mid 1980s, when she first formally notified law school administrators that her family tree includes Native Americans. Warren said she grew up with family stories about both grandparents on her mother’s side having some Cherokee or Delaware blood.


That indicates to me that she thought of herself as mixed race. Not exclusively white or NA. Further:

"It’s not certain that the directory form gave Warren the option to identify as Native American."


That tells me there's no supporting evidence that she ever "proclaimed herself" exclusively Native American as you're asserting. I don't know why she would when, as I quoted initially, she informed administrators her family tree included *some* Native American blood, not all. So why wouldn't she think of herself as mixed race? Given the prominence of the "one drop rule" in the 20th century that determined whether a person was considered black or NA, I'm really having a hard time understanding your hostility to the idea that she would consider herself mixed race because she had a little NA ancestry.

Not addressing Standing Rock until the crises was over is fair criticism of political cowardice, but not proof that she colluded with 3 law school employers to defraud Native Americans by lying about her NA heritage. You haven't provided one compelling explanation for why she'd commit fraud on behalf of her employer when you can't point to any tangible benefit she received for doing it. Simply saying "it helps her employer therefore it helped her" isn't compelling when you can't explain how it helped her. Aren't you concerned at all that you might be unfairly demonizing her when the established facts at this time don't match up with your rhetoric that she "lies and lies and lies"?

I regret that you're so worked up over this Charlotte that you'd stoop to personal attacks just because I disagree with your suspicions. TBH, it's really not that important to me to continue having this conversation with you in light of how much grief it's causing you.

reply

Have you seen any non right wing articles on Warren’s NJ bar exam nursing claim?

reply

Yes and since the NJ bar does not track nursing habits the whole claim is unverifiable.

I can't say I've seen anything so far to justify your characterization that she "lies and lies and lies". I'd have thought you were describing Hillary who actually did have a long trail of lies and youtube montages devoted to exposing her saying them in her own words.

So far all I see is the NA issue where I fundamentally disagree with your conviction that she lied. The nursing issue is a little weird that she'd make an unverifiable claim, though not proof positive that she lied. And the pregnancy firing which turned out to be 100% a right wing hit job that failed to provide crucial context from other female employees of the school she was employed by and tried to claim she was "lying" for not being forthcoming about the reasons for her firing in 2007 before she was even an elected official.

TBH I find that pretty underwhelming so far and I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around how you can say she "lies and lies and lies" from that or the hatred you seem to have for her. But I guess if you believe she was deliberately engaging in fraud over the NA issue you're going to be quick to assume the worst in any questionable situation, the way you frame the other two incidents you cited bears this out.

Regardless, I'm confident that if what you say is true that she "lies and lies and lies" this will become indisputable over the next year of her candidacy. There's no way to keep the true colors of someone who lies as much as you think she does from coming out while running for president. If true I expect a whole litany of lies to be exposed like we knew of Trump before he was elected.

reply

I don’t buy your naïveté any more than I buy Warren’s. Here’s a video in which she’s taken to task on her insincerity and uses her trademark subterfuge.

https://twitter.com/onehopefulcynic/status/1188830046150115328?s=21

I’ll thank you kindly to refrain from accusing me of hatred ever again.

reply

?!

Ok whatever. That's what it sounds like to me when just the way you talk about her at times is just dripping with scorn and I haven't seen the insincerity that justifies the way you characterize her.

When you say she "lies and lies and lies" and point out two incidents, one of which wasn't even fair, as your evidence then what exactly am I supposed to think?

I regret that you're taking this so personally.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/09/did-elizabeth-warren-lose-teaching-job-because-she/

But like I said, if you're right that she's a real life Walter Mitty then I expect we'll hear many more stories like the nursing one. But right now using just that one incident I'd still call your description that she "lies and lies and lies" a grossly slanted mischaracterization based more on your suspicions than provable empirical facts.

With Trump and Clinton it wasn't just one or a few, it was many provable lies. So when your description is completely out of proportion to the evidence you're pointing to, what else am I supposed to think but that you've got some deep seated antipathy towards her that I can't place my finger on? If you think I'm being disingenuous then I'm not sure what you think my motives are. If she's the corrupt liar you think she is then, like I've said, that will come out and be indisputable. Why are you taking this personally?

reply

Asked by CBS News why she told the story differently at Berkeley a decade ago, Warren said her life since her election to the Senate in 2012 caused her to "open up" about her past. "After becoming a public figure I opened up more about different pieces in my life and this was one of them. I wrote about it in my book when I became a U.S. Senator," she said in a statement from her campaign.

So yeah I don't find this problematic. She wasn't an elected official in 2007 and didn't feel like sharing the fact she got fired for pregnancy discrimination then. I completely understand that.

I see these kind of MSM smears on Bernie all the time, enough to be pretty wary whenever I see hit pieces originating and amplified from right wing media like that hit job against Warren.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elizabeth-warren-pregnancy-claim-democratic-presidential-candidate-stands-by-being-pushed-out-of-teaching-job/

reply

You've got me thinking now. I don't remember the sources of the stories and so now I'll have to backtrack. I promised myself I wouldn't do this! But I really want to find out what convinced me of this and so when I do, I'll get back to this.

But just off the top of my head - there are just story after story that one must decide whether or not to believe her. There's no way to prove why she put down NA status and so it's a judgement call to believe her or not. But the fact that she clearly could not have cared less about the Standing Rock Sioux, makes her story about having an affinity for her NA roots complete bullshit IMO. It would be one thing to join a club for NA's, but she identified as a POC with this distant lineage? It makes no sense and it really bothers me. You are obviously ok with it. I find it very disrespectful. But we've covered all that, lol.

reply

"makes her story about having an affinity for her NA roots complete bullshit"

I've been trying to find the article from the Boston Globe seven years ago that said that or why I got that impression since I don't believe it was stated so explicitly. But I haven't come across it yet. It's possible I got that part wrong because it wasn't from a direct quote.

reply

So if my suspicions are correct, Warren was being dishonest about her NA heritage to help her bosses out. I don't suspect it involved any sort of racist discriminating hiring practices. To me it's a matter of principle. It's unseemly. It's unethical. I wouldn't do it. What's more, I don't think Bernie Sanders would do it either. I know a lot of people would do it though. This is something that touches the heart. Bernie is honest. Bernie has no record of lies. Warren does. She has a long list of lies I could get into here. Maybe I should as it seems you may be only getting the MSM version of Warren. I'm not super familiar with the Boston Globe or Herald, but those articles were brilliantly slanted in her favor.

I don't think this NA claim was so completely terrible in itself, but her ignoring the Standing Rock Sioux's protests, that were horrible, where people risked and lost their lives, were maimed, and suffered so much for their cause; that just really sums it up for me. It proves that she doesn't give a flying FUKK about her Native American heritage and that she will say ANYTHING that advances her own self interest. 2/end



reply

That is fantasy. But enjoy it. When I want fantasy I watch Batman.

To each his own.

reply

They are all horrible and if one of them should happen to win, y'all will be very sorry.

reply

As long as the Trumpers don't go on a shooting spree, we'll be just fine.

reply

The Democrats and Doggiedaddy's group, antifa are more likely to incite violence.

reply

Not according to the FBI or any law-enforcement agency. They all agree its a waste of time monitoring leftists. They focus on white nationalists, and have at least one documented incident where they prevented a shooting.

But you live in Qanon land.

reply

Trumpers and white nationalists are not synonymous. In all fairness, Democrats and antifa are not synonymous either. It's the kooks at the fringes, like doggiedaddy that are dangerous. Actually the FBI doesn't investigate ideology. I think it should. White supremacists have been around a lot longer than antifa so there's more of them I'm sure but antifa is very active and no one can deny that they are violent.

reply

Trump is the fringe though. The white nationalists that commit mass murder do it because of Trump's rhetoric that immigrants are bringing in drugs and crime.

Trump wants the best of both worlds. He gets the fringe to vote for him by speaking the words they like to hear, but he doesn't want to be held accountable when they act on it.

There is no such correlation between democrats and Antifa. Antifa are merely the counter-punch to the rise of white nationalism that Trump has sparked. But Antifa are still dwarfed by it.

reply

Just when I think one of you might be reasonable.... He is not the fringe and the white nationalist do NOT commit their crimes because of his rhetoric. They do it because they are hate filled, sub humans.

What words are you referring to that would appeal to only white nationalists? Actual quotes, please.

reply

Tulsi seeing what the Democraps are like will switch to independent after this election. She will go to Republican though to be Nikki Haleys vice president. Then back to independent in 2032 to be President then.

reply

Interesting.... She's pretty hot, too. :)

reply

Both will keep AOC out. In 2032 she will be pushing 300 as why she wants to run now.

reply

I honestly can't imagine her getting re-elected. Pretty much everyone knows she's moron.

reply

I want free

reply

[deleted]