Honestly, I have waited so fucking long to hear Americans say things like this. It's so obviously true but until Warren, they've all tiptoed or justified things very irrationally.
Idgaf if she wins or not. Warren is the best prominent American politican in her views and such.
Do you like Andrew Yang?
Not really, no. He's superficial and it's not racist to assume he's got an agenda regarding allying the US to Taiwan and other Asian nations, because his family have ties to such businesses. This also would explain why he wants to get rid of automation, since one of the major ways that such nations dominate the world is to be willing to use women, children and general populace to severe degrees in shit working conditions, as well as trading manual labour workers to the US on a very enslaved contract where if they talk about it, they know their family will be hurt back home.
You see, automated manual labour would destroy the entire monopoly China (and other nations like Indonesia and Taiwan) have on cheap, human-abusing labour. This is very likely why it's a prominent thing he's spearheading. Making the US economy go to shit with UBI is just a cherry on the cake.
I could be wrong, I am aware of that. This is not racism, it's culturalism and recognising family ties and who is funding him, supporting him etc.
Let's say I'm totally wrong and he's just a genuine Leftist candidate. His views are so idealistic and impractical that I don't like his agenda anyway.
Ted Cruz aka The Zodiac Killer
What about him?
you and your anime culture
What are you talking about? Bernie has been pushing harder and longer for pretty much everything in Warren's platform? Bernie made it left wing views mainstream when he ran against hilary, and warren refused many calls for her to run. She also then endorsed hilary over bernie.
Warren has been more progressive than centerist dems for the last 10 years or so. But before that she was a republican who believed in right wing ideas. Bernie has been pushing progressive ideas for decades.
How can you possibly give credit to Warren for these things becoming accepted? She arrived late to the party and her platform is full of watered down versions of plans Bernie came up with.
No, not everything. He actually has no clear solution to gun crime (won't even admit he's pro gun control in any explicit sense) is an irrational 'big banks are bad oh no!!!! Let's bankrupt USA!' poster boy for everything naive about the far left.
Her changing from Republican to Democrat is actually an extremely admirable thing. Shows she actually saw for herself the flaws of the right-wing bullshit, despite every pressure from family and friends to keep believing it.
I have never once, not even for a single speech, seen Bernie speak eloquently or even in coherent logic regardless of grammar and points.
He seems to just state random things as 'rights' and things that don't suit his taste as 'not something I wanna go into, that's just bad bad' kind of childish logic.
Bernie Sanders literally (not metaphorically) believes it's evil to be rich and that you should be punished for it via taxation. He actually literally states this (the right-wing Libertarians love that he does it because it highlights an envious cynical version of the Left). Warren is a realist, she constantly states that taxation simply is the necessary evil to get the greatest good and seeks to balance it so it's fair on everyone, even the rich it just is that they have much more to spare. She wouldn't tax the rich nearly as highly as Sanders, but Sanders wouldn't either... The guy's all talk.
I never said it wasn't admirable to change. I am going to use an extreme case to highlight my point, i am in no way attempting to argue that anyone in this discussion is this terrible.Her changing from Republican to Democrat is actually an extremely admirable thing. Shows she actually saw for herself the flaws of the right-wing bullshit, despite every pressure from family and friends to keep believing it.
What if she had been a member of the Nazi party? Was fully in favor of politically targeting the jews. Then late in WW2 decided that nazi's weren't the right party for her and she says she likes people of other races. Would you believe her, would you be willing to make her your president?
It is admirable to acknowledge that you were wrong. But to spend the majority of your life being one thing, then suddenly telling everyone you are now the opposite should raise some warning flags. She spent 49 years not believing in progressive principles, and now she is claiming to be one of the most progressive. In a world of politicians who will lie to your face to get elected, why should we trust someone so late to being a progressive when Bernie has been a progressive the whole time. There is no question that bernie will do what he says. Alot of people question whether Warren will do what she says.
I have never once, not even for a single speech, seen Bernie speak eloquently or even in coherent logic regardless of grammar and points
Bernie has written a considerable number of bills that have been passed into law. I don't think there is any question that he is a capable legislator. What you appear to be criticizing is that he doesn't speak like a law professor. This criticism seems to be entirely on style, not substance. And many people prefer that style.
He seems to just state random things as 'rights' and things that don't suit his taste as 'not something I wanna go into, that's just bad bad' kind of childish logic.
This kind of sounds like you have only listened to things he says in sound bytes. Bernie has detailed plans for all sorts of things from banking regulation to agricultural reform. Your opinion of him appears to be the caricature painted by outlets like MSNBC.
Bernie Sanders literally (not metaphorically) believes it's evil to be rich and that you should be punished for it via taxation.
I believe the more accurate interpretation of his views is that income inequality is evil. There is no reason for the vast majority of the wealth of a country to be owned by a few people. Taxation isn't punishment. That is a right wing talking point. The rich can afford to pay more than the poor can. Considering that the top .1% of the population own most of the wealth in the country they can afford to pay alot more. Bernie thinks that taxation can be a useful tool to make sure that all the wealth doesn't end up in the hands of the very top of society, which is exactly what has been happening for decades.
Warren is a realist
In the modern political climate, realist translates as "someone who doesn't want change". Warren wants to make changes in the margins to sand down some of the rough edges of a corrupt system. She wants to treat some of the symptoms of a debilitating disease, but it is unclear if she wants to address the disease.
given that she wants to accept donations from billionaires and corporations, is courting the centrist dems, and has a long history of being a republican before having a short history as a progressive, there is good reason to believe that she will shift right as soon as she gets the nomination. Bottom line is that sanders can be trusted beyond a doubt to stay progressive. There are big question marks around whether Warren can.
Bernie is a progressive follower, Warren is a progressive leader. I think the entire party-change and show of self-made reasoning and extreme eloquence in justifying hatred for Trump and most of what Republicans stand for, highlights what a thouroughly well-developed Democrat she is. You talk as if she just jumped ship yesterday, actually being a diehard Democrat is less admirable than being able to justify why you are one to begin with.
"People just have rights y'know, they need the rich's money because they are sleeping on the street and the rich are so rich and therefore the rich are wrong." Meanwhile a dog who is more useful than many humans to society is starving on the street but because of the species it's born, Bernie doesn't give a fuck, where did 'rights' go then?
Warren understands realism, she comprehends how to have fluid pragmatism still match rigid idealism. There is genuinely no American prominent politician other than her who will fully answer all questions you hit her with, straight up, no fucking around. She literally answers them, doesn't dodge EVER. I love it, you can love your squinting 'everything I say matters because the poor are poor and therefore I am your hero' Sanders. I'll stick with the woman who will actually get things done for the poor, the environment and basically every good thing that politics should fight for.
Bernie is a progressive follower, Warren is a progressive leader.
I'm sorry, what? Bernie has been leading on progressive issues for decades. Warren was full on against progressive ideas 20 years ago. Even today, she hedges on alot of progressive ideas. It is not clear what her healthcare plan is. She co-signed bernie's plan. but now she is staying vague about what exactly she believes. Most of Warren's platform are ideas that bernie has been pushing for for alot longer.
"People just have rights y'know, they need the rich's money because they are sleeping on the street and the rich are so rich and therefore the rich are wrong."
1) where did you get that quote. Taking one quote out of context isn't helpful
2) Are you mad that Bernie want's humans to have rights? Are you arguing that humans shouldn't have rights and should be left to starve?
Warren understands realism, she comprehends how to have fluid pragmatism still match rigid idealism.
I agree she understands realism. And if her realism says that people can't have universal health care because it would be too hard to implement. She wont fight for it. She will give in and get a half measure like Obama did. It will help some people, but the underlying problem is still there festering until we get another Trump.
There is genuinely no American prominent politician other than her who will fully answer all questions you hit her with, straight up
That's funny, because Bernie does answer those questions. Warren remains cagey about many of them. Like medicare for all or her foreign policy for example. She doesn't like giving details on those. Or how she pledged no corporate money in the primary, then rolled millions of dollars in corporate money from a previous campaign. oops, guess that wasn't part of the promise. She doesn't like answer questions about stuff like that either.
I'll stick with the woman who will actually get things done for the poor, the environment and basically every good thing that politics should fight for.
But will she? She says she will. So did Obama. Then he got elected and gave in to the centrists and the republicans. He was a realist too. Her willingness to actually fight for the things she very recently started believing in is a reason for progressives to choose someone who has always been consistent in their beliefs and has always been on the right side.
Warren has, until the last few years, only been a moderate Dem. She has managed to build a platform on the energy that Bernie built in 2016. To claim that she is somehow a leader when she refused to lead (when bernie asked her to) and instead chose to follow Hillary, seems silly to me.
"There is genuinely no American prominent politician other than her who will fully answer all questions you hit her with, straight up, no fucking around. She literally answers them, doesn't dodge EVER."
The sane version of this statement is that Warren happens to align more closely with her base on certain economic issues than just about all the other candidates, and so is far less constricted in the kinds of responses she can give. If you want to see a great example of Elizabeth in "politician" mode, listen to her response when asked by an audience member why she put down her race as Native American. It's clear that Elizabeth is willing to evade questions when no satisfactory answer is possible, just like any politician. I don't even see the need to call her out for it.
You're lying. Show me Bernie answering clearly on his policies or reasoning behind them.
Then, show me Warren dodging a single question, and I don't mean a personal one (not that she's cagey about being raised as right-wing yet severely poor).
Dylan Catlow is posting a series of lies that I am genuinely going to only respond to by letting others reading this know that he lies directly, not even slanting truth. What he is typing against Warren is actually lies, she doesn't dodge the questions he says she's dodging and he actually said she aligns with the Democratic voter base the most... So therefore, she's the right candidate to vote for as a Democrat... That is simple logic. It's curious why Dylan would defend candidates that lie about their stances just to garner votes.
You don't seem to understand what Warren has over the rest. She justifies why the Right-Wing approach is wrong with logic and facts, sure emotions too but very eloquently expressed ones. She is an actual politicians who makes you burn with passion as you listen to her, whether you love or hate her you cannot call her bland and refusing to take hardline stances. Despite this, she is a realist and displays in-depth knowledge of the 'why' and 'how' to fix issues wrong with America (and the world) as is in almost every single imaginable area of politics you could dissect and question her on.
Warren was asked the other day something along the lines of "if you were president, would the child of your VP be allowed to sit on the board of a foreign energy company". Her answer was "No. I don't, I don't, I, I, don't, know. I mean I would have to go back and look details, on the plan" That is not an answer. That is a complete non answer.
But frankly, the hardest part is getting a media outlet to ask her a tough question. CNN just did a big sit down interview and they didn't ask her about any of any substance. They went on and on about how she proposed to her husband. Not 1 single question that actually mattered in the entire interview. Elizibeth warren doesn't have to dodge hard questions because the media has already decided she is the chosen one and won't ask her.
When asked in an interview in 2012 if she had any photos to support her long standing claim of having native american heritage, she snapped "I have lots of photos, they're not for you".
Warren has lots of issues where she will dodge and evade. It's hard for me to get clips for you because the media stopped asked them.
Do you think bernie is unclear in this interview? He seems pretty clear to me and he is clear that it isn't just a moral issue, it is also an economic one.
Are we talking about the same person. Warren is a policy wonk. She is eloquent, in the way a law professor is. But that does not inspire people. She does not make me burn with passion, she makes me concerned that she will be another sellout like Obama. Again, she is a policy wonk. I definitely would call her bland. And her hardline stances are watered down Bernie stances. Are they hard line when she's standing in Bernie's shadow?You don't seem to understand what Warren has over the rest. She justifies why the Right-Wing approach is wrong with logic and facts, sure emotions too but very eloquently expressed ones. She is an actual politicians who makes you burn with passion as you listen to her, whether you love or hate her you cannot call her bland and refusing to take hardline stances.
REALLY YOU PICK THAT QUESTION, WHICH ACTUALLY IS SITUATIONAL? Of course she can't answer that. Avoiding nepotism doesn't mean that if the relative you trust truly is competent, that you then don't employ them. That of course is a very situational question and answer, she shouldn't rule it out and was right to answer it how she did. Why would you pick tha tof all questions? I meant political questions.
If you can't tell from her looks that she has some native in her, then whatever. I don't understand how that's remotely relevant to her overall stances and platform. The fact you had to go for such lowblows highlights how little you had to expose her dodging on.
In the clip that I linked in the first post on this thread, she is having no easy picnic from Steven Colbert but she slaughters both him and Republicans with constant good, decent and well justified hits to privatised healthcare, insurance and what the world is coming to, as well as Trump's attitude to war where she correctly answers; focusing less on Trump and more on the system.
If you'd like another, look here:
8 minutes of pure gold politically-educated answers.
She isn't a policy wonk. She is very clear on her agenda. She is indeed flexible on exact elements of policy and is very clear on what parts she will adapt and what parts she won't in ways no other politician running right now for President of America (or even leader in most other nations) is at all. Yang is just giving false hope, UBI is a ridiculous aim.
REALLY YOU PICK THAT QUESTION, WHICH ACTUALLY IS SITUATIONAL
All questions are situational. You don't consider whether or not you are willing to allow corruption in your administration to be an important question?Considering that many progressives fear that she is willing to sell out to corruption, that is exactly the kind of question she needs to be crystal clear on.
If you can't tell from her looks that she has some native in her, then whatever.
lol, her DNA test said she might have had a native ancestor 6-10 generations ago. That is virtually nothing. I have more than that and I certainly don't consider myself native.
I don't understand how that's remotely relevant to her overall stances and platform.
She went the large majority of her life pretending that she was native when it wasn't true. She got institutional advantages from doing so. It is a huge weak spot for her. Watching how she reacts when people question her lies, and yes this was a lie, is very telling. She snapped at them and changed the subject.
I watched your clip. I saw 8 minutes of softball questions. forgive me if i missed any but they were:
how do you feel about impeachment?
but there was no quid pro quo?
Isn't the vote dead on arrival in the senate?
What do you think of polls?
What do you see on the ground at your rallies?
Will taxes go up for medicare for all?
Are americans willing to pay more in taxes?
Most of the questions were about trump and her polling/rallies. The only questions in there that could possibly be considered as "not easy" were the last 2. But every single interviewer asks her these exact questions in the exact same way. She has had alot of time to practice the answer. This was a softball interview.
I also re-watched the colbert interview. What about that was no easy picnic? She said her most extreme policy was the wealth tax and he jumps in and points out the US used to have a 90% top tax bracket. He asks her about medicare for all, then suggests an argument for how she could sell it. He spent an much time helping her as he did asking questions. The only question in the Colbert interview that might be considered tough was the Iran vs Saudis question, and she didn't answer it. He asked "what would convince president warren that the iranians did this, and if so what would the response be" Her answer was (i'm paraphrasing) "we don't have enough evidence." and "you have to go to congress to bomb people". That didn't answer either question. So that you to directing me to another topic she dodges on. She is very weak on foreign policy.
As a side note, you complained that bernie kept saying people have rights, but in that clip she says medicare is a basic human right.
"Dylan Catlow is posting a series of lies that I am genuinely going to only respond to by letting others reading this know that he lies directly, not even slanting truth. What he is typing against Warren is actually lies, she doesn't dodge the questions he says she's dodging and he actually said she aligns with the Democratic voter base the most... So therefore, she's the right candidate to vote for as a Democrat... That is simple logic. It's curious why Dylan would defend candidates that lie about their stances just to garner votes."
If you want to maintain that Elizabeth Warren is always perfectly direct in every one of her answers, then please defend her performance in this interview. When asked why she identified as Native American, she apologized for failing to draw a distinction between Native American and "tribal citizen," which is nonsense, because identifying as Native American does not necessarily imply that one belongs to a Native tribe. She never explained why she thought her teeny, tiny bit of Native American ancestry qualifies her as Native American.
When asked "How do you respond to the claim that you tried to get ahead by identifying as Native American?" she responded by saying
"Documents prove that I was never given a job on the basis of my claimed Native American ancestry."
Again, her answer is not relevant to the question. It's possible that her intention was to get ahead, but that such tactics turned out to be unnecessary. And even if it wasn't the intention, a fair-minded person would recognize that by identifying as Native American they could be stealing a spot meant for a real Native American within the racial quota system we have.