- This topic has 55 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 25, 2011 at 8:01 AM #729750September 25, 2011 at 7:12 PM #729761
earlyretirement
ParticipantI agree that Elizabeth Warren is a kind and decent person. However, I’ll say that anyone that truly understands the US political system and process can tell you that if she gets involved in politics or elected to office, most likely you will see a different Elizabeth Warren vs. the one now.
It’s sad but politics is dirty and many times you have to do things you don’t want to do. You have to raise funds, you have to give in on certain issues that you believe in and barter for other things.
The way things are structured, it’s very difficult for people like Elizabeth Warren to really “change the system”. I do think it’s a positive to have people like her in office but it would take many many many “Elizabeth Warrens” to really improve things.
I hope she wins but I hope she doesn’t get corrupted like many other politicians. I personally don’t think she will become corrupt but will find it is almost impossible to get things done.
As to Obama….whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I haven’t talked to anyone that thinks he is living up to the potential of what he promised. From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.
September 25, 2011 at 8:42 PM #729764jpinpb
Participant[quote=earlyretirement]As to Obama….whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I haven’t talked to anyone that thinks he is living up to the potential of what he promised. From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.[/quote]
I think there are more Democrats who are willing to set aside their devotion to party candidates and admit when their elected candidate is not living up to expectations. I can’t say that for staunch Republicans who still do not want to admit the part that Bush had in the economic mess we are in and the 8 years of havoc he brought to our country.
September 25, 2011 at 9:26 PM #729768
svelteParticipant[quote=earlyretirement]
From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.[/quote]Interesting to hear you say this. Let me open by saying I’m an independent and have voted for both Dems and Reps.
Republicans regularly accuse me of being a Democrat. Democrats regularly accuse me of being a Republican. It finally dawned on me that it is because they are from extreme ends of the spectrum. Anyone not as extreme as they are is seen as being at the opposite end of the spectrum.
To hear both sides thinking I’m the enemy reinforces that I must be sitting in the middle!
This is a long-winded way of getting to my point: The Dems are unhappy with Obama because he hasn’t been as liberal as they want. The Reps are unhappy with Obama because he obviously isn’t a conservative…and I really think there is a race issue there too. They can deny it all they want, but I think it’s true.
I know it isn’t a popular opinion, but I think Obama is more moderate than many give him credit for. Thus he gets blasted by both sides.
September 25, 2011 at 9:29 PM #729769patb
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=earlyretirement]
From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.[/quote]Interesting to hear you say this. Let me open by saying I’m an independent and have voted for both Dems and Reps.
Republicans regularly accuse me of being a Democrat. Democrats regularly accuse me of being a Republican. It finally dawned on me that it is because they are from extreme ends of the spectrum. Anyone not as extreme as they are is seen as being at the opposite end of the spectrum.
To hear both sides thinking I’m the enemy reinforces that I must be sitting in the middle!
This is a long-winded way of getting to my point: The Dems are unhappy with Obama because he hasn’t been as liberal as they want. The Reps are unhappy with Obama because he obviously isn’t a conservative…and I really think there is a race issue there too. They can deny it all they want, but I think it’s true.
I know it isn’t a popular opinion, but I think Obama is more moderate than many give him credit for. Thus he gets blasted by both sides.[/quote]
Obama has been far to engaged in carrying out Bush policies. That’s not moderate, it’s just stupid.September 25, 2011 at 11:02 PM #729776CA renter
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=earlyretirement]As to Obama….whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, I haven’t talked to anyone that thinks he is living up to the potential of what he promised. From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.[/quote]
I think there are more Democrats who are willing to set aside their devotion to party candidates and admit when their elected candidate is not living up to expectations. I can’t say that for staunch Republicans who still do not want to admit the part that Bush had in the economic mess we are in and the 8 years of havoc he brought to our country.[/quote]
Agree with this.
September 25, 2011 at 11:12 PM #729777Aecetia
ParticipantFrom where I sit, they are two sides of the same coin. It does not matter which side of the coin is up, America loses.
September 26, 2011 at 6:33 AM #729784eavesdropper
Participant[quote=svelte][quote=earlyretirement]
From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.[/quote]Interesting to hear you say this. Let me open by saying I’m an independent and have voted for both Dems and Reps.
Republicans regularly accuse me of being a Democrat. Democrats regularly accuse me of being a Republican. It finally dawned on me that it is because they are from extreme ends of the spectrum. Anyone not as extreme as they are is seen as being at the opposite end of the spectrum.
To hear both sides thinking I’m the enemy reinforces that I must be sitting in the middle!
This is a long-winded way of getting to my point: The Dems are unhappy with Obama because he hasn’t been as liberal as they want. The Reps are unhappy with Obama because he obviously isn’t a conservative…and I really think there is a race issue there too. They can deny it all they want, but I think it’s true.
I know it isn’t a popular opinion, but I think Obama is more moderate than many give him credit for. Thus he gets blasted by both sides.[/quote]
svelte, you must be my long-lost twin. I get flack all the time for not adhering to someone’s perception that I should be left or right. And they get even more worked up by the idea that I don’t believe in adherence to a party line, and that I consider each situation on its own merit.
I think Obama’s very moderate. And I totally agree with your assessment of why the different factions don’t like him.
As for me, the things that worried me about voting for Obama in 2008 have been borne out. I was very concerned about his inexperience, and I do believe that’s his major problem. The Oval Office is not a place for the fainthearted.
I honestly think if he pulled his big-boy pants on, and decided to just say, “Screw all of you congressmen and senators, and pundits, and political reprters, I’m gonna do what I want and what I think is best”, he might well move way up in the polls again. People want to feel safe and secure, and they want someone who acts like a strong, decisive leader.
September 27, 2011 at 8:05 PM #729832Hobie
ParticipantAecetia, you are my long lost twin. … can’t wait for the 2012 elections. drinks are on me!
September 28, 2011 at 9:25 AM #729844Anonymous
Guest[quote=eavesdropper]”Screw all of you congressmen and senators, and pundits, and political reprters, I’m gonna do what I want and what I think is best”, he might well move way up in the polls again.[/quote]
What part of the Constitution says the President can “do what he wants?”
Perhaps a benevolent king is the best form of government, but we don’t have that.
I’m glad we don’t. If we did, the benevolent part wouldn’t last long, but we’d still be stuck with the king.
September 28, 2011 at 6:48 PM #729865svelteParticipant[quote=eavesdropper]
I honestly think if he pulled his big-boy pants on, and decided to just say, “Screw all of you congressmen and senators, and pundits, and political reprters, I’m gonna do what I want and what I think is best”, he might well move way up in the polls again. People want to feel safe and secure, and they want someone who acts like a strong, decisive leader.[/quote]I think he is strong (you can’t go through a prez campaign and NOT be strong), I just think he is someone who thinks long and hard about things and doesn’t show his emotions. I can identify with that, as I am often that way too.
But there are times when a leader must be a cheerleader. He’s got to go out there and get people excited. He’s got to take chances (as you imply). And he’s got to get excited himself once in a while. People like to see someone with fire in their belly and a twinkle in their eye.
Besides liking what she said, that is what I really liked in the Elizabeth Warren video attached to this thread.
September 28, 2011 at 11:42 PM #729872Participant[quote=Hobie]Aecetia, you are my long lost twin. … can’t wait for the 2012 elections. drinks are on me![/quote]
I think Mom liked you better.
September 29, 2011 at 7:47 AM #729879GuestWarren is a Harvard lawyer, an elitist that lives in a two million dollar mansion, makes $400,000 a year from teaching one class and, like most Harvard lawyers, thinks she’s the smartest person in any room. She’s also despises capitalism in all its forms which makes her a HYPOCRITE, too.
She will lose, because NOBODY likes Harvard lawyers, even other Harvard lawyers. If it wasn’t for liberal Hollywood movie-stars, Harvard lawyers would be the most obnoxious, smarmy, know-it-all, jerks on the planet.
They still have a way to go to outdo Tim Robbins and Danny Glover, though.
October 9, 2011 at 1:42 PM #730363briansd1
GuestAccording to Scott Brown, thank God, Elizabeth Warren kept her clothes on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcfk5V50B8
IMO, Elizabeth Warren is actually attractive for someone who is 62 years of age. She looks better than most American women here age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_WarrenOctober 9, 2011 at 6:46 PM #730368patientrenter
Participant[quote=Brutus]Warren is a Harvard lawyer, an elitist that lives in a two million dollar mansion, makes $400,000 a year from teaching one class and, like most Harvard lawyers, thinks she’s the smartest person in any room. She’s also despises capitalism in all its forms which makes her a HYPOCRITE, too.
She will lose, because NOBODY likes Harvard lawyers, even other Harvard lawyers. If it wasn’t for liberal Hollywood movie-stars, Harvard lawyers would be the most obnoxious, smarmy, know-it-all, jerks on the planet.
They still have a way to go to outdo Tim Robbins and Danny Glover, though.[/quote]
LoL! Well, this is all true, I am afraid. Warren may be better than many alternatives, but it is true that she lives deep inside the world of the elite and wealthy. Her dinner table guests don’t include too many of the “ordinary people”. She happens to wear the Democrat label and sings those tunes, but that’s kind of mandatory if you operate at a senior level in academia. If she gains any power, it will be interesting to see if she causes a deep recession in the wealthy enclaves of Manhattan, Greenwich, The Hamptons, and the leafy environs around her own Harvard. (Most of these areas are Democratic, BTW. This is a bipartisan problem.)
I seriously doubt Warren would move against her own people. Instead, the unwashed masses will be bought off with bright cheap baubles, or perhaps from money taken from those outside the elite axis. Certain groups are off-limits to attack from either Republicans or Democrats, and the power axis elite of Washington DC and Wall Street have guaranteed bipartisan immunity. When Bernanke replaced Greenspan, and Summers/Geithner replaced Paulson, Blankfein and Dimon etc didn’t worry.
What was interesting about the early days of the Tea Party was how the supporters opposed the Wall Street bailouts, above all else. That was quickly turned by the establishment into a traditional and diffuse radical right wing movement. Now the Occupy Wall Street movement has focused people, once again, on the way in which the establishment – in Wall Street and Washington DC – has feathered its own nest at the expense of the rest of the country. However, the establishment will try very hard to diffuse that focus, and turn the movement into a mirror image of the current tea party, but on the left. It will simply become the left wing of the Democratic party. That way, Wall Street and Washington DC escapes the haircut the rest of the country is experiencing.
Oh, and all that doesn’t mean I can’t admire Warren’s consumerist, populist, comments. I admired Obama’s also – another elite Harvard lawyer- before he was elected. Then he appointed Summers and Geithner, and re-appointed Bernanke, and supported their policies designed to protect a very elite slice of America. I am just alert to the notion that, when the chips are down, the elite will find ways to put themselves first.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.