Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 24, 2014, 12:18:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016  (Read 586 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81759


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2013, 05:54:33 PM »

1.  She's dishonest.  

2.  She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.  

3.  She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?  

4.  She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.  

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  

Geeze Louise.  This sounds like Obama in a skirt.  Undecided

Agreed - which is EXACTLY why she could win.  Recent history tells us that voters don't want a person with 20 years military experience, 20 years lawmaking experience, that's honest about their heritage.

just like obama... she's a "firebrand", a "fresh face rallying against the establishment", wholly underqualified, shady as shit about her past...  Repubs should probably hope Hilary wins the nomination lol... Warren *could* be Obama II, when you make all those comparisons haha.
Report to moderator   Logged

RRKore
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2013, 05:55:41 PM »

Hey Straw,

Thanks for writing this about the way-to-often-cited "qualification" that a presidential candidate should be some kind of businessman:
  - why does anyone bring this up when very few POTUS have this.  Reagan didn't have it, neither did Clinton.  On the other hand George Bush had it and the global economy was crashing at the end of his term.  News Flash - the government is not the private sector and governing is not an experience you get in the private sector

I feel exactly the same way but didn't want to get into that whole argument.  (And you said it way more concisely than I could have.)

That BB used Romney as an example of a good candidate was irksome, too.  Fuck the business experience and it's arguable usefulness as a qualification for being a decent president.  How about experience being human with empathy for others? Seems to me like that's a much more important quality (and the voting public seems to have agreed). That episode where he stuck the family dog in the rooftop carrier on top of the car while he drove cross country by itself showed he lacked the empathy qualification, if you ask me.
Report to moderator   Logged
RRKore
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2013, 06:18:38 PM »

I'm pretty careful, but it's my opinion.  My opinion is based on interacting with people all over the country, looking at laws that get passed (or don't get passed), opinion polls, etc.  For example, the majority of the country does not believe in unrestricted abortion on demand until birth, which is what Obama believes and what I think Warren probably believes.  I could show you poll numbers that support this, point to the numerous state laws around the country placing restrictions on late term abortions, etc., but you get the picture.   

Regarding child discipline, I've been around enough parents for a long to time to have a pretty informed opinion.  What I said is accurate: depends on the sample.  If you ask parents "in the hood" about discipline you'll probably get a much different answer than if you were asking parents whose kids attend a $40k a year high school.

It sounds reasonable to me that if Obama and Warren favor legalizing "unrestricted abortion until birth", they are in the minority.  I know Warren (like most women) is in favor of Roe vs Wade, but couldn't easily find out if she thinks any restrictions are ok. 

Re: corporal punishment as an accepted way of child discipline, what if you asked ALL parents in the country?  And then you tallied the results to see how many were in favor vs not in favor? Would there be more in favor or not?  Actually, screw that unnecessary argument.  Though yours is the minority view, it doesn't matter what's popular: Unless it's to stop violence, it's not right to use violence against others against their will. 

Hitting your kids is lazy parenting and is a good way to ensure behavior problems later.  (Now agree with me or, as my great grandma used to say, I'll go outside and get a switch, lol.) (BTW, she would go get a switch - a thin tree branch to whip us with -- but after that first time, we'd never let her old ass catch us.)



Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2013, 06:26:46 PM »

It sounds reasonable to me that if Obama and Warren favor legalizing "unrestricted abortion until birth", they are in the minority.  I know Warren (like most women) is in favor of Roe vs Wade, but couldn't easily find out if she thinks any restrictions are ok. 

Re: corporal punishment as an accepted way of child discipline, what if you asked ALL parents in the country?  And then you tallied the results to see how many were in favor vs not in favor? Would there be more in favor or not?  Actually, screw that unnecessary argument.  Though yours is the minority view, it doesn't matter what's popular: Unless it's to stop violence, it's not right to use violence against others against their will. 

Hitting your kids is lazy parenting and is a good way to ensure behavior problems later.  (Now agree with me or, as my great grandma used to say, I'll go outside and get a switch, lol.) (BTW, she would go get a switch - a thin tree branch to whip us with -- but after that first time, we'd never let her old ass catch us.)


When running in 2008, Obama said his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (I think that's the name?), which would have eliminated all restrictions on abortion, including things like parental notification, which is the law in numerous states.  He's way outside the mainstream. 

I don't have a problem at all with corporal punishment.  I started off parenting many years ago with your mindset:  was not going to use it all.  That didn't last long.  lol 

I used the method advocated by Dr. John Rosemond:  only with your hand, only on the butt, no more than three swats.  Made all the lesser forms of punishment much easier to enforce, and keeps you from crossing the line from discipline to abuse.  I love that man. (no homo)  I learned a lot from his books.  He's terrific.   

I never gave my kids "beatings" with switches, belts, etc.  It would have been excessive for me.  But that was my right as a parent.  If other parents believe in the belt, etc. (as many of them do), that is their right too.   
Report to moderator   Logged
polychronopolous
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10532

Ya gotta play thru it!!


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2013, 06:28:48 PM »

Agreed - which is EXACTLY why she could win.  Recent history tells us that voters don't want a person with 20 years military experience, 20 years lawmaking experience, that's honest about their heritage.

just like obama... she's a "firebrand", a "fresh face rallying against the establishment", wholly underqualified, shady as shit about her past...  Repubs should probably hope Hilary wins the nomination lol... Warren *could* be Obama II, when you make all those comparisons haha.

As much as I disagree with her ideology I have thought for some time that her, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand out as the new class who have really been able to put themselves over.

I hate to use the word "rock star" freshman senator but something along those lines. I got to give them all 3 props in regards of having that intangible "something" that makes them stick out.
Report to moderator   Logged
RRKore
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2013, 07:13:38 PM »

As much as I disagree with her ideology I have thought for some time that her, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand out as the new class who have really been able to put themselves over.

I hate to use the word "rock star" freshman senator but something along those lines. I got to give them all 3 props in regards of having that intangible "something" that makes them stick out.

You know, I pretty much agree about Cruz and Warren.  Rand Paul, though?  Media creation, imo.  To me, he's always looked like a not-exceptionally-bright guy (in the mold of the George Bush) who grew up privileged while facing no hardships whatsoever and so he doesn't really give a fuck about much.  Probably a cool guy to party with, but not to be responsible for anything really important. 
Plus, it's hard to stomach that cheesy permed toupee - Reminds of the gay dad from The Brady Bunch.  I don't know much about Cruz but at least he's supposed to be really intelligent. 
Report to moderator   Logged
RRKore
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2013, 04:29:09 PM »

I've been reading that Warren says she will NOT run for president. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2013, 04:43:05 PM »

Good, although they say that a lot.  They're not running, until they run.  Remember this?  We should have listened to him.  He knew what he was talking about. 

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfyXhw7tMA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfyXhw7tMA</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81759


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2013, 01:10:17 AM »

I've been reading that Warren says she will NOT run for president. 

the MINUTE Hilary shows some cracks or a has a scandal or setback, watch the dem party elders call her up.  Who else would it be?  What other Dem has any kind of "change we can believe in!" credibility?   I mean, Hilary can't promise change, but she CAN promise a return to the 92-00 Bubba years/policy, which will likely win her the presidency.

BUT if she doesn't run, (maybe she just decides she's 70 and would rather be on the beach relaxing), there's no doubt that Warren is seriously the "change" candidate.   She shits all over the banks, I mean, she's real about it.  Financial reform in the USA?  Love her or hate her, you cannot deny she owns that realm. 

Of course she'll say he won't run, but she will.   Warren against Cruz or Rand would be GREAT for america... Hilary vs Christie is pretty much the same policy... and actuallly - - - - Warren and Cruz would probably both tear up banks in a simliar way haha! 
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2013, 04:28:07 PM »

Elizabeth Warren Isn’t Running For President, Top Financial Backer Tells Democrats
Paul Egerman, a Warren gatekeeper, waves donors off the hype over the senator’s possible presidential run. “It’s not gonna happen,” one funder says.
posted on November 18, 2013
Ruby Cramer
BuzzFeed Staff

Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.

Egerman, close to both Warren and to the heavy-hitting liberal base of funders who helped her raise $42 million last year, has been approached by donors in the last two weeks and told them that, no, Warren is not planning to run, according to two major players in Democratic financial circles who spoke with Egerman directly.

One Democratic fundraiser said he spoke with Egerman roughly two weeks ago, after articles by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast and Noam Scheiber in the New Republic heightened fervor amongst the progressives over whether Warren would challenge Hillary Clinton, already the presumed frontrunner, from the left.

Egerman, the fundraiser said, quickly threw cold water on the theory.

“It’s not gonna happen,” the source said.

More recently, at meetings last week in Washington for Democracy Alliance, a tightly guarded coalition of some of the country’s biggest liberal donors, the question of Warren’s candidacy was still fresh. Warren herself spoke at the conference on Thursday, introducing a panel on the judiciary with Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.

At the meetings for the group, which funds a portfolio of progressive organizations, Warren and Egerman spoke about her intentions in 2016, according to a Democratic political strategist with close ties to the Democracy Alliance who had a private conversation about the interaction with Egerman later. Warren told Egerman, according to the strategist, that she has no plans to run against Clinton in a primary.

Another donor, based in New York City, asked Warren directly at the conference about her intentions and received the same answer, according to the strategist who spoke later that week with the donor.

The sources described Egerman, a retired software entrepreneur who calls himself an “enthusiastic supporter of Senator Elizabeth Warren” in his biography on Twitter, as the gatekeeper between the senator and the world of her financial backers.

“He’s the guy to ask,” said the fundraiser, citing Egerman’s longtime ties to the Democratic fundraising world. “The geese talk to the geese. The bears talk to the bears. And the hippos talk to the hippos.”

In an email, Egerman said he had no comment for this article.

Another donor with ties to the Clintons reached out about two weeks ago to another member of Warren’s circle, former finance director Michael Pratt, and was given the same answer regarding 2016, the donor said.

As speculation over Warren’s possible run continues, the message to the donor class is clear, and happens to be consistent with what staffers in Warren’s own Senate office have told reporters in the last week.

Lacey Rose, Warren’s press secretary, gave BuzzFeed the following statement: “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.”
Three attendees at last week’s Democracy Alliance meetings cautioned that there is already an understanding inside fundraising circles that Warren would not consider running unless the former secretary of state bows out of the race — a possibility that looks increasingly unlikely as Clinton allies build an expansive infrastructure for her campaign a full three years in advance of Election Day.

But the excitement over a Warren candidacy — even if that candidacy never comes to fruition — may still make waves in the 2016 race.

The clamors have given oxygen to demand on the left for an anti-Wall Street, Warren-like candidate, and have caused angst inside a pro-Clinton camp already concerned that the hype alone could expose one of Clinton’s biggest potential weaknesses: that she may not be progressive enough.

One attendee at the Democracy Alliance conference, though, said the focus there was less on 2016 and more on next year’s races, particularly Wendy Davis’ bid for governor of Texas and Michelle Nunn’s for U.S. Senate in Georgia.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-financial-backer-tells-donors-no-chance-on?bftw=
Report to moderator   Logged
RRKore
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2205


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2013, 10:23:30 PM »

Good article, BB.  I really don't think she can be coaxed into running. 

Besides the fact that she thinks Wall Street reform and general consumer protection from big business is her true calling, I think she's a little too smart to want to be president.  (After all, look how happy ol' Barry Soetero seems, haha.)
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81759


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2013, 10:55:07 PM »

Perhaps she's choosing to run for veep, instead?   Smiley

Also, perhaps in 2013, we shouldn't listen too much to politicians that deny they're running in 2016. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2013, 10:50:36 AM »

Good article, BB.  I really don't think she can be coaxed into running. 

Besides the fact that she thinks Wall Street reform and general consumer protection from big business is her true calling, I think she's a little too smart to want to be president.  (After all, look how happy ol' Barry Soetero seems, haha.)

Meh.  Just like Obama said he wasn't running and wasn't prepared, then turned around and ran?  The field is going to be so weak, as it always is, that she might run.  I hope she doesn't. 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81759


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2013, 02:35:13 PM »

Meh.  Just like Obama said he wasn't running and wasn't prepared, then turned around and ran?  The field is going to be so weak, as it always is, that she might run.  I hope she doesn't. 

Warren woudl be the dennis kuscinich of 2016.   Every teased him because he saw a UFO and looked like an elf, but when it came to the economic crash of 2008, ron paul and kuscinich warned about it.  every other dem and repub told us how awesome everything was.

I dare say... Dennis Kuscinish as president, and the economy is in WAY better shape right now
Report to moderator   Logged

Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2013, 10:13:43 AM »

Warren, Liberal Faction Gaining Control Among Democrats
Monday, 02 Dec 2013
By Elliot Jager

A more liberal and populist movement is emerging within the Democratic Party that views President Barack Obama and the party's presumptive presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as excessively centrist, according to the Washington Post.

This group is looking to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as its 2016 presidential standard-bearer.

In contrast to Obama, Warren favors increasing Social Security payments. In a recent Senate floor speech she said, "The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is to allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch."

In addition to opposing any budget deal that would involve Social Security reductions, the more liberal faction favors stronger regulation of Wall Street; a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage, higher than the $9 favored by Obama; student loan debt relief; steps aimed at reducing economic inequality, and measures to protect workers from the aftershocks of globalization.

Clinton is seen by many on the left as being too close to Wall Street and to the devotees of Robert Rubin, her husband's Treasury secretary. Some also complain that Rubin's people have been running economic policy under Obama, according to the Post.

Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has also called for big banks to be broken up.

"Wall Street will fight us, but the American people are on our side," she told a union audience.

The Post reported that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, said that though he is not keen to run for president he is willing to do so if a sufficiently liberal Democrat does not enter the raise.

Democrats need to be cautious not to pull too far to the left, the Post said, lest they be charged with being irresponsible over the national debt and not caring about economic growth. Moreover, policies that would further redistribute income would make many Americans uneasy. Also, running a candidate who is too far to the left could also hamper the party's electoral prospects.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-liberals-push-democrats/2013/12/02/id/539380#ixzz2mL3Q1YXR
Report to moderator   Logged
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2013, 09:51:03 AM »

I hope she keeps her word.  She'll do much less damage in the Senate.

Democratic Sen. Warren vows not to run for president in 2016
Published December 04, 2013
FoxNews.com

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Wednesday that she will not seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, presumably squashing speculation about her challenging front-runner Hillary Clinton.

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," the first-term senator said at a Boston press conference, according to The Boston Herald.

The announcement follows weeks of speculation about a possible Warren run in light of the political winds that recently swept fellow populist-styled Democrat Bill de Blasio into the New York City mayor’s office.

Whether Warren’s statement will definitively end speculation remains to be seen, since her spokeswoman noted as recently as last month that Warren had previously said she would not enter the race.

"I pledge to serve out my term,” Warren, a consumer advocate, said Wednesday. "I am not running for president. I am working as hard as I can to be the best possible senator I can be."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/04/democratic-sen-warren-vows-not-to-run-for-president-in-2016/?intcmp=latestnews
Report to moderator   Logged
headhuntersix
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15546

Our forefathers would be shooting by now


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2013, 09:54:54 AM »

I suspect because the rest of the country are not idiots like my fellow countrymen in Mass. This retard pretended to be an Indian...and nobody cared. Yet the Redskins have to change their name?
Report to moderator   Logged

L
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 40748


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2013, 10:02:54 AM »

I suspect because the rest of the country are not idiots like my fellow countrymen in Mass. This retard pretended to be an Indian...and nobody cared. Yet the Redskins have to change their name?

I said the same thing before the 2012 election.   Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!