• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Elizabeth Warren for President(?)

Underhill

Well-Known Member
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

That is my point. They point to statements like "a level playing field" or "you did not build that" and either completely ignore the meaning or distort the context in such a way to turn it into something it isn't. Only a moron would claim Obama is a socialist at this point.

It is no wonder Republicans cleaned their clock this last election. Liberals are almost all upset that he has been too much like his successor with corporate interest dominating. Obamacare is probably the same type of plan McCain would have brought us (read what he was promising during the run up to the election) and benefits the insurance companies as much as anyone.

Meanwhile republicans have convinced themselves that this is the most liberal president ever. *boggle.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
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?

Sure, if they would actually tell you the truth.

But they are running for office. What they believe isn't relevant and hasn't been for a long time. What they believe will get them elected is all that matters. Take any list of the top candidates for president in the last 20 years and all of them 'adjusted' their positions in the run up to the campaign. Clearly the priority is not what they think needs to be done.

Some would say this is dangerous as the politician could completely change his stripes once he gets into office and my response is, 'yeah'?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Sure, if they would actually tell you the truth.

But they are running for office. What they believe isn't relevant and hasn't been for a long time. What they believe will get them elected is all that matters. Take any list of the top candidates for president in the last 20 years and all of them 'adjusted' their positions in the run up to the campaign. Clearly the priority is not what they think needs to be done.

Some would say this is dangerous as the politician could completely change his stripes once he gets into office and my response is, 'yeah'?

I have to agree with you, but some candidates are...er....transparently disingenuous. We should be very selective about our political choices lest we prove J. Gruber correct.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
I have to agree with you, but some candidates are...er....transparently disingenuous. We should be very selective about our political choices lest we prove J. Gruber correct.

I think all of them do it. You don't reach that level in politics without leaving your opinions at the door.

This is why I think we should judge politicians based upon what they have done instead of what they say. If we did that consistently it would seriously change things. But for that to happen we need a media that holds them accountable. With a few exceptions that isn't happening.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I think all of them do it. You don't reach that level in politics without leaving your opinions at the door.

This is why I think we should judge politicians based upon what they have done instead of what they say. If we did that consistently it would seriously change things. But for that to happen we need a media that holds them accountable. With a few exceptions that isn't happening.
But how would you know what they would do if you can't trust what they say? It's sort of like awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to someone for what they might do. Hmmmm. Wait a sec. That reminds me of someone...
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
But how would you know what they would do if you can't trust what they say? It's sort of like awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to someone for what they might do. Hmmmm. Wait a sec. That reminds me of someone...

No, read what I said. Not what they might do, but what they've done. What did they do at their last job. Not what they promise to do. If they were a politician that's easy. If they weren't then show me what they have done to make them worthy of the job they are asking for.

Much of the problem with our political system is that the media focuses on the speech today rather than informing the populace of what they've done. That's why a guy like Romney can be one guy in his home state and another in his run for president. It would also put a bit more focus on experience rather than a good speechwriter/reader.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Much of the problem with our political system is that the media focuses on the speech today rather than informing the populace of what they've done. That's why a guy like Romney can be one guy in his home state and another in his run for president. It would also put a bit more focus on experience rather than a good speechwriter/reader.
Oh, I get it. Sort of like with that Obama guy?
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Oh, I get it. Sort of like with that Obama guy?

Sort of like all of them. I haven't seen a president elected on his accomplishments since I've been paying attention to the scene. And I've been watching politics for 25 years.
 

Underhill

Well-Known Member
Guess, you haven't been around long enough youngster. Try starting with President Eisenhower's election.:p

And from everything I have read on the subject, Washington is nothing like it was then. Politicians used to actually work together to solve problems. Now it's become hyper partisan to the point of absurdity. This is what happens when a large percentage of the public seems to view the opposition as not just having different ideas on how to do things, but the enemy who needs to be destroyed.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And from everything I have read on the subject, Washington is nothing like it was then. Politicians used to actually work together to solve problems. Now it's become hyper partisan to the point of absurdity. This is what happens when a large percentage of the public seems to view the opposition as not just having different ideas on how to do things, but the enemy who needs to be destroyed.
They don't even go out and share a beer together after hours. Perverts!
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Warren just called for breaking up Citigroup:

The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States | Miles Mogulescu

Regardless of other political issues, does anyone think Warren's got it wrong on this issue? I think she's spot on, Citigroup ought to be broken up, and any other corporation with this much clout ought to be broken up as well.
That was a good speech. To bad she'll be powerless to do anything if she is elected and should actually try to fix the system.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Sort of like all of them. I haven't seen a president elected on his accomplishments since I've been paying attention to the scene. And I've been watching politics for 25 years.
Only 25 years? I didn't realize you were still new to all this. :)
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Well if Warren ran for President against Hillary she would have to go to the far far left to separate herself from Hillary. Do you really think that she can martial the necessary votes from the far far left to defeat Hillary? Now if Hillary doesn't run, that will open up the Democratic primary to many more contenders who will run to the right of Warren, and again do you think there are enough votes in the far far left to give her the nomination.
My ideal 2016 Presidential field would have Warren for the Democrats, Cruz for the Republicans, and a Libertarian/Independent yet to be determined.
 
Top