[Discussion] Elizabeth Warren would have my vote.

[Multiply]

If she runs for the democratic presidential nomination I would be so happy. She is more real than Hillary. She's the woman we need in the White House if people are only voting for a woman to go into the White House, not Hillary.
She actually cares about things that matter.

The only problem is she doesn't have the popularity Hillary does. She goes against the big banks so the opposition will probably have a ton of money backing them.

[video=youtube;OfW97SOruxQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfW97SOruxQ[/video]

Anyway, she's my n*gga. She gets the vote. What do you guys think of Elizabeth Warren, or have you even ever heard of her?

 

[9bi]

I don't know about US presidents but the videi makes me like her

 

[Koah]

I've heard of her.

She is calling out the POTUS for transparency on the TPP deal.

If she runs for president, much like what happened in the 2012 debate, she is going to be questioned whether she listed herself as a minority to gain an advantage for her academic career.

You must be registered for see links

WaPo's article :

You must be registered for see links

More detailed report :

You must be registered for see links

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Just like Ron Paul, they are the best presidential candidates we will never have.

 

[Multiply]

Just like Ron Paul, they are the best presidential candidates we will never have.

So close and yet so far :NO:

 

[Aim64C]

Well, I hope you get your wish.

Reap what you sow.

You must be registered for see links

There is a reason 'we' call her "Headdress."

This is an individual who lied about her heritage when she perceived a benefit.

"The tough times have only continued. As a progressive Democrat in a Massachusetts race for Ted Kennedy's old seat, she ought to be enjoying an electoral cakewalk, but she's neck and neck with Brown in most polls at least partly due to her dubious claims of Cherokee heritage. Despite family lore, self-described "high cheekbones," supplying (possibly plagiarized) recipes for "Cold Omelets with Crab Meat" and other dishes in a cookbook called Pow Wow Chow (1984), listing herself in various ethnic professional directories, and being publicly touted by Harvard as a "woman of color," Warren has failed to produce documentation that she has any native-American ancestors. As radio host and MSNBC talking head Michael Smerconish put it in a recent column:

Warren only stopped listing herself as [native American] in 1995, just after she was hired by Harvard. But while she was at Harvard, the Crimson newspaper reported that the university's faculty included one Native American: Warren. And when she received tenure there, another Crimson story said she was the first woman with a minority background to receive tenure."

Frankly, I wouldn't even hire her as a book keeper. Can't even trust her to add and subtract right.

That isn't to say that she -can't- but that she will cook the living shit out of books. That's great if she's aligned with you - but a woman like her is intrinsically aligned with herself and only herself. That is the mental disorder that is liberalism.

Honestly, I'm actually interested to see this lady:

You must be registered for see images

I'd prefer she get the Republican nomination.

Cruz is not absolutely horrible - but I just want someone who is coming from completely outside of government. Fiorina is from completely outside of typical political careers. She has an accomplished history as CEO of Hewlet Packard and knows what an executive office is about.

I may not agree with absolutely every single thing that comes out of her mouth - but the wonderful thing about an executive is that her stance on what laws should say is not as important on her capability to fill the role as executive. Fiorina will run a tight ship and clean the cobwebs out of many sectors of the bureaucracy - which is the job of every executive.

Fiorina is a sharp woman with some keen senses.

The campaign wheels are flying off of the Hillary scooby-van (I'm of the opinion she is just out to get campaign donations from lobotomized supporters - there isn't a serious campaign in her. The flop of her book a long while back gave an accurate assessment of her viability - book stores couldn't give the thing away).

Warren would be a hit among psychotic liberals, but is not going to be able to motivate a voting base. She's got a much better personality than Hillary - but the Democratic primaries are looking to be a fractured mess that is going to demoralize much of the voter base. Warren is just too nucking futs for most democrats.

The Republican primary is going to come down to Cruz and Paul. Fiorina might make it into a VP slot - but it would take a literal miracle for someone as unknown as her to make much in terms of waves. Most of the polls right now are just name recognition and most of the names we see in the Republican bid have been in the media for some time. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the only two that are even remotely aligned with the motivated republican base. Bush is out of the question and Rubio won't really gain much support because of his alignment with Boehner. Walker has a realistic shot, but he has a lot of trouble building buzz.

For Fiorina to have a good run, she'll need to build up notoriety among the very active Republicans and Libertarians who tend to vote with Republican parties. The motivated part of the Republicans is pretty unified against the current GOP. The general conservative voting base will just not vote for the Democrat - and someone with some pep to their step can easily rally some support.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are having a bit of an identity crisis. They can't seem to figure out if they are institutional fascists or collectivists. They are pushing -very- hard on issues that don't make sense even to many liberals (abortion). In other areas, scandals have been cropping up that must be owned by the Democrats and that even the media has been unable to shelter the Democrats from.

The reality is that Liberalism is an environment where the ends justify the means. That means that laws do not matter and that lawlessness is inherent. This means many corrupt relationships and concepts are permissible within the realm of liberal politics so long as it furthers an agenda that is deemed to be for a greater good. This has reached a point where even other liberals (who have been wronged by this reasoning) have taken note and raised issue.

This is why many of the liberal politicians are deeply involved in scandals and are, generally speaking, completely vile individuals who view every interaction they have with people through the context of an agenda. It's a mental disorder.

That isn't to say that there aren't liberals who are capable of deviating from that course, or that there are conservatives who do not justify the means by the ends.

Anyway - I've deviated considerably from the main point of discussion.

 

[Multiply]

This is why many of the liberal politicians are deeply involved in scandals and are, generally speaking, completely vile individuals who view every interaction they have with people through the context of an agenda. It's a mental disorder.

That isn't to say that there aren't liberals who are capable of deviating from that course, or that there are conservatives who do not justify the means by the ends.

This made me chuckle. Lol.

I'd also like to point out that I have Native American blood in me and could not give you a shred of proof besides my Great Grandmothers name Lol.

 

[Aim64C]

This made me chuckle. Lol.

I'd also like to point out that I have Native American blood in me and could not give you a shred of proof besides my Great Grandmothers name Lol.

Supposedly, so do I.

I don't claim it on applications and official records.

Warren is no more Native American than I am and has just as much proof.

 

[Multiply]

Supposedly, so do I.

I don't claim it on applications and official records.

Warren is no more Native American than I am and has just as much proof.

Well if she has no proof then how could you know? You're just speculating on another person's past. I can tell you I am 'African-'American but I can't give you any proof besides the color of my skin Lol.

 

[Aim64C]

Well if she has no proof then how could you know? You're just speculating on another person's past. I can tell you I am 'African-'American but I can't give you any proof besides the color of my skin Lol.

There is a legal definition by which you qualify for Native American status. One of which includes that you be recognized by the tribes as Native American.

She is not.

She cannot claim Native American status, legally.

In order to be recognized by one of the tribes as being Native American - she would have to be able to prove ancestry. She cannot. Her brothers and sisters recall a story of their great grandmother being "a teeny bit" Native American from a few generations prior to her.

Her cousins recall no such stories.

Likewise - you can't claim to be of African descent. You can claim you are black - but there are blacks from far more places in the world than Africa. There are Indians who are black. Persians. Various islanders.

Unless you can trace back your family lineage - and then it really kind of gets fuzzy after a few generations and you have 32 people who contributed to your genetic heritage. Most people concentrate on direct matriarchal and direct patriarchal lineages (IE - the father of your father and his father; or the mother of your mother and her mother).

What she is doing is as sensible as me claiming to be Scottish because my mother's grandfather said that he had some Scottish in him (among a dozen other things).

 

[Multiply]

There is a legal definition by which you qualify for Native American status. One of which includes that you be recognized by the tribes as Native American.

She is not.

She cannot claim Native American status, legally.

In order to be recognized by one of the tribes as being Native American - she would have to be able to prove ancestry. She cannot. Her brothers and sisters recall a story of their great grandmother being "a teeny bit" Native American from a few generations prior to her.

Her cousins recall no such stories.

Likewise - you can't claim to be of African descent. You can claim you are black - but there are blacks from far more places in the world than Africa. There are Indians who are black. Persians. Various islanders.

Unless you can trace back your family lineage - and then it really kind of gets fuzzy after a few generations and you have 32 people who contributed to your genetic heritage. Most people concentrate on direct matriarchal and direct patriarchal lineages (IE - the father of your father and his father; or the mother of your mother and her mother).

What she is doing is as sensible as me claiming to be Scottish because my mother's grandfather said that he had some Scottish in him (among a dozen other things).

Oh fair point then Lol. Yeah that's some BS.

 

[Angelic.]

i voted for her for senate. kicked out that guy whats his face and sent him packing to new hampshire

...tbh ive forgotton about her

There is a legal definition by which you qualify for Native American status. One of which includes that you be recognized by the tribes as Native American.

She is not.

She cannot claim Native American status, legally.

In order to be recognized by one of the tribes as being Native American - she would have to be able to prove ancestry. She cannot. Her brothers and sisters recall a story of their great grandmother being "a teeny bit" Native American from a few generations prior to her.

Her cousins recall no such stories.

Likewise - you can't claim to be of African descent. You can claim you are black - but there are blacks from far more places in the world than Africa. There are Indians who are black. Persians. Various islanders.

Unless you can trace back your family lineage - and then it really kind of gets fuzzy after a few generations and you have 32 people who contributed to your genetic heritage. Most people concentrate on direct matriarchal and direct patriarchal lineages (IE - the father of your father and his father; or the mother of your mother and her mother).

What she is doing is as sensible as me claiming to be Scottish because my mother's grandfather said that he had some Scottish in him (among a dozen other things).

omgggg what a monster!!!

 

[Aim64C]

i voted for her for senate. kicked out that guy whats his face and sent him packing to new hampshire

...tbh ive forgotton about her

Awesome.

So you voted for a person you had no intention of paying attention to just to remove someone you were told not to like.

This is why we can't have nice things.

omgggg what a monster!!!

She's not as vile as Hillary.

She is, however, just as retarded:

You must be registered for see links

"For years, we've argued against the minimum wage by taking its premise to the logical conclusion: if you can make people better off by mandating a higher wage, why stop at $7.25 an hour--why not make it $25 an hour? Hello, Elizabeth Warren.

The new senator from Massachusetts, the great hope of the Progressive left, just proposed exactly that.

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, suggested raising the minimum wage to $22 per hour is only logical if you look at the numbers.

"'If we started in 1960, and we said [that] as productivity goes up...then the minimum wage was going to go up the same...if that were the case, the minimum wage today would be about $22 an hour,' the senator said."

Did I talk about embracing absurdity and running with it? Here was the response to Senator Warren.

"One of the panelists, Arindrajit Dube, an assistant professor at the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said by that logic-by going back even further in time-the minimum wage could rightly be $33 per hour." "

...

We can take this point further. Practically everyone who does not actually perform unskilled manual labor is engaged in a job whose goal is to increase the productivity of that labor. If you don't twist a wrench on the assembly line, chances are that you are engaged in an activity whose purpose is to magnify the value of that wrench-twist: financing it, marketing the end product, building better machines, or streamlining production. The minimum-wage worker is just about the only person in the economic system whose job is not to magnify the productivity of his labor. Yet in Warren's world, he is the only one who is entitled to gain from that increase in productivity--and every other worker is to be deprived of the gains they created.

But there is hardly much point in further refutation of this idea. What is astonishing is the very fact that we have to refute it, that supposedly highbrow Harvard scholars like Warren are so seemingly helpless when it comes to observing reality and correcting their own errors. "

You must be registered for see links

"This brilliant can’t fail scheme comes from the mind of the Post Office Inspector General and Elizabeth Warren. It was said of Napoleon III that insane schemes multiplied in his brain faster than rabbits. I don’t even want to picture what the inside of Elizabeth Warren’s brain looks like.

As the U.S. Postal Service continues to lose money each year, a new report suggests a way to add to its bottom line: offer banklike services, such as a check cashing card that would allow holders to make purchases and pay bills online or even take out small loans. The idea is to provide services that are now unavailable in many communities.

...

But at least the Post Office will be targeting profitable sectors where it will make money? Oh right, of course not.

More than a quarter of all Americans, some 68 million, are now underserved by banks — “underbanked,” as the white paper from the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service calls them. They live in places where there are no bank branches, or just one. Many have to rely on check cashing outlets and payday loans, which often charge exorbitant fees.

...

But Elizabeth Warren thinks this is a great idea.

If the Postal Service offered basic banking services — nothing fancy, just basic bill paying, check cashing and small dollar loans — then it could provide affordable financial services for underserved families, and, at the same time, shore up its own financial footing. "

Yes.

Lending money to the people statistically least likely to pay it back is a great way to shore up financial footing.

You must be registered for see links

"What's the appeal of Warren?

Her primary cause is her belief that investment firms and lending institutions need much more oversight. Specifically, Warren blames the Wall Street meltdown on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the Great Depression-era law that prevented commercial banks from engaging in traditional banking and vice versa. Glass-Steagall's repeal, argues Warren, is the primary reason for the Wall Street shenanigans she claims led to 2007-08's housing and stock market crashes.

In making this argument, Warren supports the majority conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that Congress assembled to come up with the reasons for the crash. The commission consisted of six Democrats and four Republicans. The Democrats on the commission blamed Wall Street greed and traced the decline to a lack of regulations. But the Republicans took a very different view. They argued that the housing meltdown occurred after years of government-led policy that encouraged and pressured banks to lend to so-called "under represented" borrowers.

...

By making the Glass-Steagall argument, Warren directly contradicts Bill Clinton, who still stands by his decision to sign the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed much of Glass-Steagall. The bill passed by 90 to 8 in the Senate and 362 to 57 in the House. In the unlikely event the president vetoed the bill, Congress had more than enough votes to override. But Clinton didn't veto it. He stands by his decision. The Hill, the publication that covers Congress, wrote a piece last year with this headline: "Bill Clinton Fires Back at Critics of His Financial Regulatory Policies": "Some progressives have blamed Clinton's 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall, a Depression-era law that separated investment and commercial banking, as one of the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. Clinton said that none of the financial institutions that failed during the financial crisis crashed because of Glass-Steagall's repeal. 'Not one.'"

A 2012 Forbes piece called, "Why the Glass-Steagall Myth Persists," supports Clinton's analysis: "By far, the single most cited example of this financial 'deregulation' is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), which partially repealed the Glass-Steagall Act 13 years ago today. Regulatory evangelists including Nobel Prize economist Joseph Stiglitz and recent senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren, not to mention the Occupy Wall Street protesters, have named the overthrow of Glass-Steagall as public enemy number one. ... "

There is a trend in Warren's suggestions that makes her either pathologically retarded or diabolically sinister.

The end effect is that the continual attempts to "support the underprivileged" will collapse the economic system into a government-owned fascist state with socialized programs.

Before which point, I will be staging a revolution. Game on.