Liberals work to lure Elizabeth Warren into White House race

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Feb 13, 2015.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://news.yahoo.com/liberals-lure-elizabeth-warren-white-house-race-194128727.html

    I HATE the idea of another Clinton/Bush in office, so, why her? what is appealing about her? please give me the good/bad/ugly on her.
     
  2. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #2
    Well, two caveats. First, I think you'll hate her as a candidate because she's a staunch gun control advocate and second, I'm not sure she's the best candidate for 2016 and I'd rather she remain a Senator.

    However, she's an interesting candidate for Progressives because she's been very critical of the financial system and she hits the right buttons on all the other issues, including immigration, same-sex marriage, minimum wage increases, etc. She's pro-union, supports the ACA, etc.

    She's very thin on foreign policy, but she wants to decrease the size of the military and end bulk collection under the PATRIOT Act. She also wants the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations done under the public view.

    Basically, she's a modern Progressive and unlike Clinton would probably go after the banking industry and could challenge how politicians raise money. It's because of this that I think she can go more good as a Senator than as a President and I think she knows this.
     
  3. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #3
    Team Hillary will slaughter her:

    A ready-made army of liberal bloggers and surrogates would stand ready to belittle Warren’s lack of political experience and foreign-policy credentials.

    And then there would be the character shots. Anti-big-business liberals would be reminded frequently that for all her populist rhetoric, Warren opposes a bill to audit the Federal Reserve and supports funding for the Export-Import Bank, a favorite of crony capitalists.

    Then there is the “Fauxcahontas” scandal. In April 2012, the Boston Globe broke the news that while Warren never claimed American Indian heritage as an undergraduate or law-school student, she began doing so in her 30s as she sought jobs at highly competitive law schools such as Harvard.

    The Association of American Law Schools requires law professors to answer ethnicity questions on its questionnaire. Only Warren can release a copy of her original questionnaire, and she has refused to do so. Back-channel Hillary surrogates would make hay out of that.

    Then there is the scandal-in-waiting concerning her sleazy scholarship while a law professor. She co-authored a highly-publicized study in 2005 that claimed that 54.5 percent of all bankruptcies have “a medical cause” and that 46.2 percent have a “major medical cause,” telling interviewers that those findings demonstrated the need for national health care. In fact, the proportion of bankruptcies caused by catastrophic medical losses is more like 2 percent. Her numbers were inflated by including “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” “death in family,” and “birth/addition of new family member” as “a medical cause.” In addition, spending as little as $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses over the course of two years — hardly unusual for a family — was enough to get a bankruptcy classified as “a major medical cause” even when the debtor himself or herself did not list illness or injury as a cause of the bankruptcy. A number of scholars have criticized the study as intentionally misleading.

    Nor was this the only blot on Warren’s scholarship. George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki told Breitbart News in 2012:

    Questions about the validity of Warren’s scholarly findings have haunted her since early in her career. Reviewing her first major scholarly work [her 1990 study on bankruptcy], a co-authored book, noted bankruptcy professor Philip Schuchman (now deceased) stated bluntly, “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.” Similar questions have continued to nag her scholarship throughout her career, especially her usage and handling of empirical data and the conclusions she draws from it.​
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    well that sucks, I DON'T want to see Hillary and not interested in anything the GOP is offering. guess I'll have to write in Pedro:mad:
     
  5. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #5
    Yeah, unfortunately I think we're in the same boat. I can't imagine voting for anyone currently in the GOP field or even in the wings, and I'm suspicious of Clinton and her team.

    I also have to agree with Duck, Team Hilary will burn down anyone in their way and Warren is an easy target.
     
  6. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #6
    Team Hillary should just offer her the VP slot.
     
  7. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #7
    I agree with many of Elizabeth Warren's views but she has yet to prove herself as someone who could be an effective leader and bring people together on both sides of the aisle. I see her playing a valuable role as an advisor to the president and the last thing we need is a partisan hack, Republican or Democrat, in the White House.
     
  8. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
  9. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #9
    I personally like some aspects of elizabeth warren, but she is being gassed up way too much, and I don't think she has a national campaign personality.

    I think she would get mangled during the primaries.
     
  10. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #10
    Hearing some of the controversies cooled me off on her. I hope one of these liberals doesn't run as an independent and split the vote.
     
  11. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #11
    She's against the Audit the Fed bill. If she's not willing to audit the institution that has enabled the financial sector to control all the wealth in this society, she's not really against them. I had my hopes, too. But disappointed now.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    She's against Rand Paul's bill. She is not against auditing the Fed in principle.

     
  13. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    How do you know this? Where's her alternative? Where's her amendment to the bill?

    She had a perfect chance to show her support for the middle class and how the Fed and the banks are destroying this country.

    Swing and a miss! She just lost some serious credibility with the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    I thought I just quoted something relevant to that question.
     
  15. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #15
    You added it after I replied to your post.

    As for Warren's answer, it's a cop-out. Who else should be chartered with oversight of the Fed BUT Congress? Congress created the Fed and is responsible for the coinage of money according to the Constitution.
     
  16. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #16
    Well, she's somewhat of a Liberal, and, apparently mostly rational, so, I would certainly vote for her over Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann. But:

    I agree. Not only thin on foreign policy but really not interested. That could be dangerous.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    What?

    I did not add anything. My original post included the quote.

    ----------

    Right ... because the experts in foreign policy have done such a good job ... avoiding danger.

    :rolleyes:
     
  18. Mercury macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2003
    #18
    I doubt many in the Occupy movement are concerned with auditing the Fed. I think they're more concerned with private banks.
     
  19. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #19
    They're one in the same. The large private banks own the Fed. Any self-respecting Occupy Wall Streeter knows this.
     
  20. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    This is about right. LBJ was kind of a jerk, but he knew how to get stuff done. Warren, or just about anyone else imaginable, does not have the chops to get stuff done, mostly because we are so severely polarized that compromise looks unreachable. We will not work with this personOh yeah? well, we will never co-operate with that person
     
  21. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21
    Warren will probably ace the Indian vote. At least those who believe what she claims about her Indian heritage.
     
  22. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #22
    We could easily fix the gridlock in Washington by only paying politicians when they actually accomplish something. Right now, we are basically paying politicians to put on a political show for us, they have very little incentive to work together and come up with practical solutions. People suddenly become much more agreeable when not finding agreement means they don't eat.
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    I agree. We'll see this with every "Draft" campaigns, which seem to be as much about convincing the candidate as voters.


    Warren's reasoning is that the bill would allow Congress to "meddle with the Fed" and Yellen has argued that by having the GAO "audit" the fed, it would politicize what's supposed to be an independent body.

    You can call this a cop-out, but I'm not so sure. The Federal Reserve is already audited by an independent company, so what is the GAO going to do that Deloitte & Touche does not?

    From the Federal Reserve's own site about its audits:
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    You could get a slightly less establishment auditor, I.e. Big six not big four.
     

Share This Page