Skip to main content

View Diary: Elizabeth Warren blasts Republicans in Cordray hearing (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I want her leading us all to a better America (9+ / 0-)

    One where money does not dictate politics.

    One where greed does not drive decisions on social and environmental impact.

    One where corporations are not "people".


    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 12:31:22 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And the lawMAKERS are where we (5+ / 0-)

      start with that.  Not the President.  THe only power the Pres has is veto or sign.  That's it.  And I wish more people truly understood that so the caliber of "people" who are sent to write our laws goes up.

      David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 01:28:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly right. (3+ / 0-)

        She's right where she should be for the foreseeable future and will only get better as she gains seniority.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 02:10:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  However, she is only 1% of the Senate... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allenjo, Mogolori, elwior

        The bully pulpit is worth more than 1% if she were to win it.

        I agree that we need good laws written but if they do not get the support they need, they are worthless.  We need a champion in the oval office and I do not see a better candidate as of yet.  I certainly would like to find one though (and since I am not an advocate of Hillary, it will have to be somebody else).

        Here is my ideal candidate:

        1.) Someone willing to suggest universal healthcare because it will save money and provide better care.

        2.) Someone who will reform the tax code to treat all income as earned income and apply payroll taxes to it.

        3.) Someone who will renegotiate "FAIR" trade laws instead of the "free" trade laws we currently are abused by.

        4.) Someone who will equally prosecute all law breakers instead of just poor ones.

        5.)  Someone who is not afreadi to go after the corporations who are feeding off the teats of America while demanding austerity for the working poor.

        I think Ms. Warren is the best candidate for 3 through 5 and possibly 1 & 2 as well.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 02:40:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Senator Obama vs Senator Warren (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Shockwave, expatjourno

        Let's say that both are still senators........If the two of them would run in a primary, based on what we know of Obama and what we know of Warren, who would you vote for?

        For me an easy vote for Warren.

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

        by allenjo on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 02:53:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  she is more Progressive (0+ / 0-)

          and more passionate about it.
          He's more pragmatic less of an idealist, I think.

          •  He is far, far more conservative. (0+ / 0-)

            He himself has said that on economics he'd be a mainstream, 1980s Republican. Google it.

            NO ONE should be able to make the lives of a classroom full of children depend on her own ability to make the right call.

            by expatjourno on Wed Mar 13, 2013 at 09:18:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't need to google it (0+ / 0-)

              I said she was more Progressive than he was. That doesn't preclude any degree of how conservative Obama is except that he is more so, by definition, than she.

              What I said does not contradict your point.

              •  He isn't "pragmatic." (0+ / 0-)

                And the difference between the two of them isn't that she's more progressive. The difference is that he is not progressive at all. He is a right-wing ideologue on economics who admits to being a 1980s Republican.


                He has also endorsed and expanded every single Bush-Cheney abuse of the Constitution and civil rights, the Bush-Cheney oil-drilling policy, the Bush Iraq war timetable and more.

                With the exception of Obama's Supreme Court nominees, the third and fourth terms of George Bush would not have been worse. At least the House and Senate Democrats would not have lost their spines.

                NO ONE should be able to make the lives of a classroom full of children depend on her own ability to make the right call.

                by expatjourno on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:51:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I disagree in "difference is not that she's more (0+ / 0-)

                  I view conservatism and progressivism as a continuum, as many people do.
                  So to be more conservative or more progressive than someone else points only in a DIRECTION not an absolute.

                  IT is valid to say that she is more progressive than he. It is also true that he is more conservative than she. They both are true in that common paradyme. I was not wrong.

                  •  Sure you were. (0+ / 0-)

                    When you say she is more progressive, you are saying that they are both progressive, she's just more progressive.

                    You might as well say she's more progressive than Mitch McConnell.

                    So let me amend that. Your statement is either wrong or meaningless.

                    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                    by expatjourno on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 12:00:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site