Elizabeth Warren for President(?)

[gnomon]

Warren's you didn't build that rant is enough to know that any intelligent person wouldn't vote for her for President. It was such a vapid speech put forth by an individual so sunk in an idiotic ideology that only a fool would consider her for a leadership position. That diatribe showed such an ignorance of the development of public infrasctructure, taxes, etc. which completely failed to address the far more complex issue of who is actually paying taxes in this nation to those who don't. Namely the fact that the small businesses in this nation as well as many of the large businesses have been paying what she claims in her diatribe have not been paying. Yes there are certain businesses such as the NFL and other large, but a few, conglemerates that are not paying their fair share but her diatribe, an absolutely idiotic rant, failed to recognize is that she pretty much damned down every successful small business who made it.

She's just a blustering fool. She present nothing in regards to foreign policy. That anyone on this forum would absolutely vote for her is frightening. You don't understand politics. She has been absolutely silent on this issue and when regarding an individual to be POTUS we want someone who has a grasp of foreign policy. Not credit card policies which is the claim to fame of this wannabe. How can anyone with a bit of intelligence, and you fellow forum members know who I'm singling out, can cast adoration upon such a mystery as this so called candidate when the U.S. is still mired in Afghanistan, Iraq, the situation with our imprisoned inmates in Guantanamo Bay, ISIS, etc. that anyone would consider an at best investment broker as POTUS...........especially when we had someone to appropriately address domestic issues as well as getting us disentangled from foreign ventures in Gary Johnson........I call B.S. You are not with the times.

Warren. A freaking joke. Yet we will see her and Clinton, another joke, as our supposed aspiring candidates among the Democrats.

We will be damned as we deserve. These idiots or the imbecilic Republicans offered up as the religious and traditional bull****ters they are.

Yay.

 

[Revoltingest]

Elizabeth Warren: It’s time to work on America’s agenda - The Washington Post

From this piece....

Yes, we need action. But action must be focused in the right place: on ending tax laws riddled with loopholes that favor giant corporations....

The tax code doesn't make a distinction between giant, large, medium & small corporations. And "corporation" is the leftish code word for all businesses. So is she proposing a massive tax increase upon us (business owners) all...but couching it in language to trick us it's just the other guy who'll pay?
She says much, but says very little of substance.

 

[Thruve]

If Mary warren was running, Id vote for her.

 

[Underhill]

What are you saying? That we should vote for someone and then they tell us what they plan to do? And how they would do it? Hasn't the last six disastrous years taught us anything?

I am more interested in what they think on issues than a bunch of meaningless promises. You are just asking them to lie to you. Most of a presidents job is reactionary.

If a presidential candidate has a goal, that's one thing. But these list of things they will do... it's a waste of time.

 

[Underhill]

Obviously, the 'elite liberal' college professor. We all no the type. They're going to pile on those troublesome regulations on banks
and selling of stocks etc. And then there's that tip off, supporting a level playing field. All kidding aside, I gave a great respect for her and her views, this just is not yet her time and I think she realizes that.

A level playing field is not a socialist idea. Not that all teams will be equal, but that all teams will play on the same field, with the same opportunities. That is the American dream, not some socialist agenda.

As for elite liberal, I guess that is just republo speak for an educated person who doesn't speak with a drawl? She was a housewife who taught special ed and went on to become a lawyer. This as apposed to most in Washington who were rich kids who went to school on their daddies dime.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am more interested in what they think on issues than a bunch of meaningless promises.

I agree in principal. It's typically how I vote. But Warren is vague on even this.

 

[icehorse]

I agree in principal. It's typically how I vote. But Warren is vague on even this.

I watch her interviewing, or should I say badgering, bankers and bureaucrats in committee meetings and in those settings she seems like a breath of fresh air - like this is how congress should always work (but almost never does).

 

[ShivaFan]

I would definetly be against her if she is really all about more job killing taxes on small businesses. I want a big cut in "corporate taxes" because I am thinking of opening an eBay business selling "Chill Pills" for hotheads. I am also an expert in health and well being, and hotheads going off are only hurting their own health. My "Chill Pills" would come in vegie caps and have a wonder mix of haldi and dry cow urine. It will come with a yoga DVD.

 

[BSM1]

I am more interested in what they think on issues than a bunch of meaningless promises. You are just asking them to lie to you. Most of a presidents job is reactionary.

If a presidential candidate has a goal, that's one thing. But these list of things they will do... it's a waste of time.

Are you reading what you're writing? If a candidate has to lie, why would you vote for that person? Wouldn't you rather have a candidate tell you what he or she believes need to be done and how they would do it?

 

[pearl]

A level playing field is not a socialist idea. Not that all teams will be equal, but that all teams will play on the same field, with the same opportunities. That is the American dream, not some socialist agenda.

As for elite liberal, I guess that is just republo speak for an educated person who doesn't speak with a drawl? She was a housewife who taught special ed and went on to become a lawyer. This as apposed to most in Washington who were rich kids who went to school on their daddies dime.

Very true, but that is exactly what she and other liberals are accused of, socialism. It is sold as a fear tactic to the gullible voter.
There is an interesting history, from a surprising source, of that 'you did not build that' statement, used by both President Obama and Elizabeth Warren.

Obama is extremely well read and his outlook on society and culture is influenced by an anthropological background. The concept of 'you did not build that' dates back to Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine.
"All the Property that is necessary to man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of; But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the publick, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the publick shall demand such disposition. " Franklin
"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is fo him to make land originally. Separate an indididual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich."

Obama, Franklin, Pane (and I would add Elizabeth Warren) say it's ok to become rich through hard work--just don't trample on the people who helped make it happen."

But of course none of this becomes known in the heat of politics, not untill its too late.
source http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/27/thomas-paine-and-ben-franklin-you-didnt-build-that

 

[ShivaFan]

That is what is important to me, what they stand for .... sometimes however you cannot get everything you want in a candidate. If the issue is important enough, I will compromise some of the other issues that concern me if we can move forward on the really important things.

I still would never vote for her, but I do support *some* aspects of her agenda, perhaps not to the extreme as others however.

For example - today is Spare the Air Day here in the San Francisco California Bay Area. Warren supports big fines on violators such as burning wood in your fireplace, for example the $250 dollar fine, and fines into the tens of thousands and even jail time for major violators who burn toxic materials.

So I agree with her that a community activist who torches a car today in Oakland CA on Spare the Air day needs to be found, fined $10,000 dollars and do some prison time. If a community organizer burns a building this is a gross violator considering the toxins released and should be fined the standard $250,000. These toxic polluters need to pay their fair share.

 

[metis]

I would definetly be against her if she is really all about more job killing taxes on small businesses. I want a big cut in "corporate taxes" because I am thinking of opening an eBay business selling "Chill Pills" for hotheads. I am also an expert in health and well being, and hotheads going off are only hurting their own health. My "Chill Pills" would come in vegie caps and have a wonder mix of haldi and dry cow urine. It will come with a yoga DVD.

The reality is that overall business/corporate taxes are only about 1/3 in terms of net than they were back in the 1960's, for example.

One should know that there really is no such thing today in terms of a "tax cut" as it's in reality a "tax shift". If businesses get a "tax cut", guess who'll have to make up the difference?

 

[ShivaFan]

Bad news for Warren...

Romney tops Republican poll for 2016; ahead of Clinton in election - Yahoo News Canada

In the latest Quinnipiac poll released 5 hours ago, Hillary Clinton leads Elizabeth Warren by 44 points for the Democratic nomination, Clinton getting 57 percent to Warren's 13 percent, and with Biden trailing behind both with 9 percent.

The same polling shows if the election were held today, Republican Mitt Romney would defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton for President.

Romney is leading the pack among Republicans for the nomination according to this poll, Romney's 19 percent put him ahead of former Florida governor Jeb Bush with 11 percent, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Ben Carson each with 8 percent each, and U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky with 6 percent.

The poll, taken Nov. 18-23, questioned 707 Republicans and 610 Democrats with a margin of error of about 4 percentage points.

You may be looking at the picture of the next President of the United States below (nice smile! - nice white shirt, too!):

 

[Midnight Rain]

Bad news for Warren...

Romney tops Republican poll for 2016; ahead of Clinton in election - Yahoo News Canada

In the latest Quinnipiac poll released 5 hours ago, Hillary Clinton leads Elizabeth Warren by 44 points for the Democratic nomination, Clinton getting 57 percent to Warren's 13 percent, and with Biden trailing behind both with 9 percent.

The same polling shows if the election were held today, Republican Mitt Romney would defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton for President.

Romney is leading the pack among Republicans for the nomination according to this poll, Romney's 19 percent put him ahead of former Florida governor Jeb Bush with 11 percent, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Ben Carson each with 8 percent each, and U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky with 6 percent.

The poll, taken Nov. 18-23, questioned 707 Republicans and 610 Democrats with a margin of error of about 4 percentage points.

You may be looking at the picture of the next President of the United States below (nice smile! - nice white shirt, too!):

This would be like having an election with no political parties. What is the total Republican votes vs Democrat votes? Would Warren and Clinton combined beat Romney?

 

[BSM1]

The reality is that overall business/corporate taxes are only about 1/3 in terms of net than they were back in the 1960's, for example.

One should know that there really is no such thing today in terms of a "tax cut" as it's in reality a "tax shift". If businesses get a "tax cut", guess who'll have to make up the difference?

Who do you think is paying the business and corporate taxes now?

 

[Revoltingest]

I watch her interviewing, or should I say badgering, bankers and bureaucrats in committee meetings and in those settings she seems like a breath of fresh air - like this is how congress should always work (but almost never does).

So she badgers people who are easily disliked....hmmmmmm. This sounds like pandering to the leftish masses, by abusing the very people who finance the campaigns of Dem prez candidates.

 

[icehorse]

So she badgers people who are easily disliked....hmmmmmm. This sounds like pandering to the leftish masses, by abusing the very people who finance the campaigns of Dem prez candidates.

Well if I was in congress I would agree that those who are getting badgered indeed seem like low hanging fruit. I'd be badgering them as well. But what's interesting is that very few if any other members of congress seem to go after these guys. (Al Franken does as well.)

The cynical part of me thinks that Warren and Franken are the only two who have yet to be successfully bribed or blackmailed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well if I was in congress I would agree that those who are getting badgered indeed seem like low hanging fruit. I'd be badgering them as well. But what's interesting is that very few if any other members of congress seem to go after these guys. (Al Franken does as well.)

The cynical part of me thinks that Warren and Franken are the only two who have yet to be successfully bribed or blackmailed.

Or they're playing the long con. What actual bills has either introduced? That, & their voting record would shed light on their agendas.

 

[metis]

Who do you think is paying the business and corporate taxes now?

I know your drift here, but it's not as simple as what you're suggesting. When there's a situation whereas some corporations pay literally 0 federal taxes, and whereas many other businesses can't do the same, and also whereas most of us outside the upper class can't do the same as well, there's a problem. But these multinationals can shell out millions for their CEO's and pay back investors quite handsomely, but not pay for the infrastructure and public services they use? Do you honestly feel that's fair? You feel it's quite alright for you to subsidize their avoidance?

I do believe most people who know much of anything about the tax code realizes that it's pretty much broken and needs fixing, and even many R's agree with that.

 

[esmith]

From this piece....

The tax code doesn't make a distinction between giant, large, medium & small corporations. And "corporation" is the leftish code word for all businesses. So is she proposing a massive tax increase upon us (business owners) all...but couching it in language to trick us it's just the other guy who'll pay?
She says much, but says very little of substance.

Oh I see, she's attempting to Gruber the public.
(am I the first one here to use the new word??)