Elizabeth Warren for President(?)

[BSM1]

Well, Nixon's evasion of impeachment by resigning & having his replacement pardon him was arguably a worse offense. In a contest of who-is-worse, both parties are well armed.

True. But the impeachment scoreboard stills says Dems 1, Reps 0.

 

[Revoltingest]

True. But the impeachment scoreboard stills says Dems 1, Reps 0.

Aye. Too bad they failed to score a conviction.

I like seeing political perps fall.

 

[BSM1]

Aye. Too bad they failed to score a conviction.

I like seeing political perps fall.

Agreed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And the only president to be impeached was a Democrat.

There has been more than one president impeached, a some, like Nixon, who resigned because they would have been impeached anyways.

 

[Revoltingest]

There has been more than one president impeached, a some, like Nixon, who resigned because they would have been impeached anyways.

Andrew Johnson was the other one.
(I'd forgotten about him.)

 

[Songbird]

You have reached a point where the specific names matter little, don't you?

Whoever the Dems propose will be seen by the GOP as the harbinger of apocalypse and a good justification for shouting extremism.

Whoever the GOP eventually agrees to propose will be too extreme to take seriously or vote for.

Hi Luis!

I'm not familiar with this new forum format, so I'm not sure if you're replying to me. It looks like you are...?

It's more that specific parties matter little. Regardless of who controls congress, laws are created, influenced, monitored, and maintained by the lobbyists and corporations behind them - for example, Time Warner cares about SOPA (which isn't dead but merely sufficiently not under public scrutiny anymore, which also means it will pass and net neutrality loses), Smith & Wesson helps gun owners fear for their rights, and BP really, really wants you to believe there's no climate change.

These powerful businesses depend on and propagate a few things to promote their own best interests:

-Our blissful unawareness of how bills impact us
-Our being distracted by things that have little to no impact
-Fear

As long as corporations have far more influence on policy than the sum of America's votes (I'm begging the question, but we can look at that in detail if anyone wants), and as long as companies own America, we live in a plutocracy where voting has no effect on policy. Although, it does have an effect on morale, and maybe I'll vote based on that. I just think it's more important to generate a large non-voting populace who'll propel systemic change through the effect of that.

Also, bi-partisanship has such a nasty effect on people - the only thing we do is waste time sorting each other into groups, like the tribalistic ego-bearing apes we are.

Well, that was a bunch of nay-saying. What CAN we do to influence change? Bend the ears of congress more than than lobbyists do.

My rant reminds me of a Noam Chomsky quote: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hi Luis!

I'm not familiar with this new forum format, so I'm not sure if you're replying to me. It looks like you are...?

It's more that specific parties matter little. Regardless of who controls congress, laws are created, influenced, monitored, and maintained by the lobbyists and corporations behind them - for example, Time Warner cares about SOPA (which isn't dead but merely sufficiently not under public scrutiny anymore, which also means it will pass and net neutrality loses), Smith & Wesson helps gun owners fear for their rights, and BP really, really wants you to believe there's no climate change.

These powerful businesses depend on and propagate a few things to promote their own best interests:

-Our blissful unawareness of how bills impact us
-Our being distracted by things that have little to no impact
-Fear

As long as corporations have far more influence on policy than the sum of America's votes (I'm begging the question, but we can look at that in detail if anyone wants), and as long as companies own America, we live in a plutocracy where voting has no effect on policy. Although, it does have an effect on morale, and maybe I'll vote based on that. I just think it's more important to generate a large non-voting populace who'll propel systemic change through the effect of that.

Also, bi-partisanship has such a nasty effect on people - the only thing we do is waste time sorting each other into groups, like the tribalistic ego-bearing apes we are.

Well, that was a bunch of nay-saying. What CAN we do to influence change? Bend the ears of congress more than than lobbyists do.

My rant reminds me of a Noam Chomsky quote: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..."

There is a lot of truth to this. There are some fundamental changes between what laws pass depending on who wins but usually they are simply inconsequential or at best social. Marriage equality is likely and inevitable with democrats but almost impossible with republicans and no major corporations are wasting money on trying to get it passed. So this is one of those cases were votes do matter. But things like the tax code, military action. budgets, ect are all almost totally controlled by corporations.

The only way we have that we could end this is;
1) make corporate lobbying and maybe all lobbying illegal
2) term limits for congressmen
3) limits on campaign funding or removal of it all together.

 

[Revoltingest]

But things like the tax code, military action. budgets, ect are all almost totally controlled by corporations.

The claim that corporations dictate military action really rankles me. Bush was re-elected after starting 2 wars. Obama was re-elected after continuing the same 2 wars. In my experience working for defense contractors, Uncle Sam's permission to sell weapons to foreign governments was a tough hurdle, one often an impassible one. In particular, I blame those whose vocal opposition to the 2 wars fizzled once the became Obama's.
I blame voters for encouraging &/or tolerating endless wars. Where does Warren stand on foreign adventurism?
Iran War Politics: Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Defense Secretary In Hawkish Talk, Bob Kerrey Calls Attack 'Disaster'
She looks like a dangerous hawk to me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The claim that corporations dictate military action really rankles me. Bush was re-elected after starting 2 wars. Obama was re-elected after continuing the same 2 wars. In my experience working for defense contractors, Uncle Sam's permission to sell weapons to foreign governments was a tough hurdle, one often an impassible one. In particular, I blame those whose vocal opposition to the 2 wars fizzled once the became Obama's.
I blame voters for encouraging &/or tolerating endless wars. Where does Warren stand on foreign adventurism?
Iran War Politics: Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Defense Secretary In Hawkish Talk, Bob Kerrey Calls Attack 'Disaster'
She looks like a dangerous hawk to me.

Possibly. But what is her voting record on it?

A quick glance at her other statements have been she supports reduced military size but takes a hard-line against terrorism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Possibly. But what is her voting record on it?

A quick glance at her other statements have been she supports reduced military size but takes a hard-line against terrorism.

I found this....
Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System
....but it's a lot to wade thru.

Tis a problem that she takes a public position on strong foreign adventurism, but wants to cut military spending. These are contradictory, unless she plans to cut funding of fundamental self defense aspects of the military. So she's either dishonest, clueless, or very dangerous to national security.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I found this....
Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System
....but it's a lot to wade thru.

Tis a problem that she takes a public position on strong foreign adventurism, but wants to cut military spending. These are contradictory, unless she plans to cut funding of fundamental self defense aspects of the military. So she's either dishonest, clueless, or very dangerous to national security.

Or focused. The brunt of our military is wasted dollars defending against enemies that don't exist anymore. If all of our troops over seas were in Iraq and not scattered around the world then there would be more than enough room to cut. But I can't know what she is thinking and it is her political platform and it wouldn't surprise me if another liar was on the polls.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or focused. The brunt of our military is wasted dollars defending against enemies that don't exist anymore. If all of our troops over seas were in Iraq and not scattered around the world then there would be more than enough room to cut. But I can't know what she is thinking and it is her political platform and it wouldn't surprise me if another liar was on the polls.

She appears favorably disposed to war with Iran, which would likely be a costlier debacle than either Iraq or Iran. If the military budget is cut while continuing 2 or 3 wars, this would leave less money for developing & maintaining more strategic measures, eg, next gen fighter & bombers, directed energy weapons, space weapons, hypersonic aircraft, surveillance, electronic warfare, UAVs. We aren't at war with Russia or China at the moment, but things could change, & the lead time for effective defensive weapons is much longer than in years past (20 years vs 5 or so). It's possible to be caught off guard, & unable to catch up nowadays.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

She appears favorably disposed to war with Iran, which would likely be a costlier debacle than either Iraq or Iran. If the military budget is cut while continuing 2 or 3 wars, this would leave less money for developing & maintaining more strategic measures, eg, next gen fighter & bombers, directed energy weapons, space weapons, hypersonic aircraft, surveillance, electronic warfare. We aren't at war with Russia or China at the moment, but things could change, & the lead time for effective defensive weapons is much longer than in years past (20 years vs 5 or so). It's possible to be caught off guard, & unable to catch up nowadays.

And I agree with you there. Combined efforts with other countries, especially the UN, is the best way to deal with international issues such as a nuclear Iran.

 

[Songbird]

The claim that corporations dictate military action really rankles me. Bush was re-elected after starting 2 wars. Obama was re-elected after continuing the same 2 wars. In my experience working for defense contractors, Uncle Sam's permission to sell weapons to foreign governments was a tough hurdle, one often an impassible one. In particular, I blame those whose vocal opposition to the 2 wars fizzled once the became Obama's.
I blame voters for encouraging &/or tolerating endless wars. Where does Warren stand on foreign adventurism?
Iran War Politics: Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Defense Secretary In Hawkish Talk, Bob Kerrey Calls Attack 'Disaster'
She looks like a dangerous hawk to me.

Corporations fairly directly control military action through things like oil supply control (Haliburton) and through leveraging our collective fear about terrorism - which controls our voting habits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Corporations fairly directly control military action through things like oil supply control (Haliburton) and through leveraging our collective fear about terrorism - which controls our voting habits.

How do they control our voting habits? I'm skeptical because I oppose the wars, & I manage to vote against war mongers. And how did those corporations manage to dang near eliminate war protests when Obama won? Was it that his corporations were more effective than Bush's? And what of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting (PBS & NPR), which controls news for sophisticates & the intelligentsia (run by government)?
Moreover, why does Uncle Sam make it so difficult to sell weapons overseas? I just don't see this corporate conspiracy. Maybe it's really Jewish bankers, eh?

 

[Songbird]

How do they control our voting habits?

Our fear controls our voting habits. I didn't mean to imply that businesses always dictate declarations of war - they do when they benefit from it. What scares you (not you specifically - anyone)? The thought that your guns will be taken from you? That abortion and homosexuality will ruin society's moral fabric? Immigrants? Feminism? Government, Ebola, terrorism?

Whoever appears to soothe our real or simulated fears wins our votes. An obvious example is post-911, when all methods on the offensive hunt for the elusive Terrorist were justified: war, torture, ongoing military spending, invasive airport searches, illegal surveillance, and so on. And it wasn't imposed on us by a scary guvmint - polls and studies consistently showed Americans' favorable response to aggressive tactics in response to 911.

Corporations were connected by the amount of money they stood to make. As they say, always follow the money! Check out the history of one of the main suppliers in the 2003 war, Halliburton Company. Gunmakers also capitalized on our fear of war coming home. These and other corps funded policies to continue war efforts, many of which weren't obviously seen.

I'm skeptical because I oppose the wars, & I manage to vote against war mongers. And how did those corporations manage to dang near eliminate war protests when Obama won? Was it that his corporations were more effective than Bush's? And what of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting (PBS & NPR), which controls news for sophisticates & the intelligentsia (run by government)?
Moreover, why does Uncle Sam make it so difficult to sell weapons overseas? I just don't see this corporate conspiracy. Maybe it's really Jewish bankers, eh?

I'm not sure what you're asking or how those questions are related. Individual politicians don't have corporations - it's the other way around. Whatever perception the public currently has of current politicians is harnessed by wealthy lobbyists behind the curtain. What are you asking about CPB? I think if it removed its funding from NPR, NPR would be fine - most funding, and therefore most power, comes from public fundraising, if I recall.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our fear controls our voting habits. I didn't mean to imply that businesses always dictate declarations of war - they do when they benefit from it. What scares you (not you specifically - anyone)? The thought that your guns will be taken from you? That abortion and homosexuality will ruin society's moral fabric? Immigrants? Feminism? Government, Ebola, terrorism?

Whoever appears to soothe our real or simulated fears wins our votes. An obvious example is post-911, when all methods on the offensive hunt for the elusive Terrorist were justified: war, torture, ongoing military spending, invasive airport searches, illegal surveillance, and so on. And it wasn't imposed on us by a scary guvmint - polls and studies consistently showed Americans' favorable response to aggressive tactics in response to 911.

Corporations were connected by the amount of money they stood to make. As they say, always follow the money! Check out the history of one of the main suppliers in the 2003 war, Halliburton Company. Gunmakers also capitalized on our fear of war coming home. These and other corps funded policies to continue war efforts, many of which weren't obviously seen.



I'm not sure what you're asking or how those questions are related. Individual politicians don't have corporations - it's the other way around. Whatever perception the public currently has of current politicians is harnessed by wealthy lobbyists behind the curtain. What are you asking about CPB? I think if it removed its funding from NPR, NPR would be fine - most funding, and therefore most power, comes from public fundraising, if I recall.

Following the money, I see politicians as the ones who take it from us, spend it with an agenda of keeping themselves in office. Pols like enemies, & war rallies the voters. Corporations in the war biz will certainly be there to make money, but it doesn't seem a case of the tail wagging the dog. Moreover, politicians mong (the verb form of the noun, "monger") fear more than corporations do, & I see no evidence that corporations put them up to this. The obvious explanation is that fear & demonization of something (eg, guns, Muslims, Republicans, crime) gets pols elected & re-elected. So I'll continue to go with the simple approach, ie, when pols do bad things, I blame the voters who re-elect them.

 

[Underhill]

While true, that was before we endured the tenure of Obama. Hopefully, people have learned from this ordeal.

Learned what exactly? Honestly, I can't think of much of anything that McCain would have done vastly different than Obama. I would even bet Obamacare isn't all that different than what McCain would have offered. People seem to have forgotten that the nation was clamoring for some kind of health care reform. And McCain was talking about something not dissimilar from Obamacare.

Perhaps we would still have troops in Iraq. But even that is no sure thing. Obama pretty much stuck to the Bush timeline for withdrawal.

Most liberals I know are upset that Obama hasn't been liberal enough while conservatives want to paint him as this hyper liberal. Personally I think the guy has walked a pretty good line although I think the Affordable Care Act could have been much better.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

While true, that was before we endured the tenure of Obama. Hopefully, people have learned from this ordeal.

Yes. Democrats aren't liberal, and republican conservationism is nothing but a scam. Both are owned by corporations that will get their laws passed through lobbying regardless who wins.
If this part isn't true then why did the Koch brothers give massive amounts of campaign money to BOTH party candidates for senate from Florida in 2012?

 

[Underhill]

The claim that corporations dictate military action really rankles me. Bush was re-elected after starting 2 wars. Obama was re-elected after continuing the same 2 wars. In my experience working for defense contractors, Uncle Sam's permission to sell weapons to foreign governments was a tough hurdle, one often an impassible one. In particular, I blame those whose vocal opposition to the 2 wars fizzled once the became Obama's.
I blame voters for encouraging &/or tolerating endless wars. Where does Warren stand on foreign adventurism?
Iran War Politics: Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Defense Secretary In Hawkish Talk, Bob Kerrey Calls Attack 'Disaster'
She looks like a dangerous hawk to me.

I've never understood people who voted for Bush the second time. As for Obama and his continuing the wars... I don't see how he had any alternatives. The problem was we should never have gone into Iraq. (In hindsight I wouldn't have gone to war in Afghanistan but at least that one makes some sense.) But once you are there you can't just pull the plug the second you walk into the white house.

I can still be against the wars and not want to pull out and leave things unstable (as happened).