Views on Elizabeth Warren and why?

Oh I see. Rolling Stone. Does not get more factual than that. Thanks Dude

 

Can you refute it? You guys always the source when you don't like the content.

 

I can refute it but choose not to. Not worth my time.

 

Yea right!

 

We know...

 

I'm not so sure. In 2008 I thought there was no way a guy with zero experience who was friends with a for-real terrorist and attended a racist church for 20 years would ever win the nomination, much less the White House.

 

I believe she has stated there is "family lore" she grew up with.
Is that good enough for you.

Family Lore. The X Family had lore of father being 1/4 Jewish.
The X Family 4 kids achieved professional occupations while their first cousins did not.
Family X said it was their "Jewish Blood".
All of Family X got their genome done at 23AndMe.
Father who was supposed to be 25% Jewish was 0.2% Ashkenazi,
while his wife with no family lore was 0.5%. Moi is 90%
We concluded "family lore" did not match reality.
Both for Family X and Elizabeth Warren.

Lastly, if this is the worst offense candidate Warren committed all those decades ago,
it is "forgiven" when compared to the more recent offenses of her challengers.
The Lord is not running for political office. Y'gotta accept the best of what's out there.


Smartmouthwoman, specifically, what part of the above do you not accept, compared to who?


Moi

r > g

No
​

 

The elitist scum are mostly in gerrymandered voting districts and can't be voted out.

 

I don't want to hear excuses for her lies nor big fancy speeches promising the world. Tell me what she's actually DONE in her life to deserve being elected POTUS.

Besides being born female, I mean.

 

Here's some things she's done:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542

 

Then we'll have to resort to tar & feathers like they did in the old days. I'm ready, you?

 

"Lore" may make entertaining family myths, but it's a poor way to run a country. Warren represents the most mindless, most destructive wing of Democrats. She and her fellows are steeped in "lore" about economics, science, politics, government, and the world. That "lore" is even less accurate than the Warren family genome. It's a tapestry of interlocking falsehoods designed to gratify voter wishes and elect Democrats. No one asks if there's evidence this "lore" is real.

A Warren Presidency would be even worse than Obama's. Unless you think Obama is bad because he pays too much attention to what Americans want and too little to what communists want, you must see Warren as a looming disaster.

 

Seriously, why do you have to use such a loaded hyperbole? Do you think that actually makes anything you say sound more credible?

 

Or we could sue the federal government for allowing gerrymandering. I am sure there's a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit. It would be a huge boost for their career. If we could get a federal judge to rule that gerrymandering violates the voting rights of the voters in a districr, which is does, by allowing politicians to simply pick and choose who they want to be in their district, than we could possibly get that same judge to order voting districts back to their original designs.

 

I'd like to be accurate. The American left has a long history of linguistic obfuscation. The beliefs that were proudly proclaimed as communist in the 1930s were later renamed "liberal" - a misnomer, since they're unlike true liberalism. But it was a useful screen. When the public eventually caught on to the deception (and actual liberals were marginalized), the left rebranded itself "progressive" - another deceptive misnomer, since the left bears little resemblance to Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Party of 1913. "Progressive" remains most popular, and it's a sad deception, since most "progressive" ideas were already old in the 19th century. "Progressivism" is a reversion to the ideology of the 1840s, when Marx did his seminal work. I said "communists" because that is the honest and accurate word for the people I mean. One feature of "progressive" communists is their belief, along with Lenin, that democracy is a "bourgeois" idea, and that the "vanguard party" - "progressives" - should use whatever means is necessary, including violent force, to implement the left's program. That's why so many "progressives" are disappointed in Obama - they feel that were he as committed as them he would sweep aside all pretense at democracy or legality and just impose the left's program by force. Obama's numerous criminal feints at bypassing the Constitution seem woefully inadequate to them. They wish he would just be done with it and establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat," i.e., rule by them. I know that my plain speech is out of fashion, and that leftists snicker and sneer to hear themselves so directly described, but communists is what they are.

I might add that I come from a family of communists in NYC. Until I went to college, I knew few adults who weren't enrolled members of the Communist Party USA. So I speak from extensive observation and experience. When I left the cloistered enclave in which I'd been raised, I soon saw how wrong it all had been. I remember debating a cousin in the 1980s who was of course a dedicated "progressive." I asked him if he could name a single foreign policy position of the Soviet Union with which he disagreed. He was stumped, and shocked that he was stumped. But don't worry - he still sent his sons to socialist/labor summer camp every summer.

Anyway, I indulged no hyperbole.