General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe need more of this kind of 'rhetoric' in Congress
Alan Rogers ?@Hereforddown 25m25 minutes agoMic drop...
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Not more "angry" rhetoric!!1 Howard will haz a sad!1
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)eom
Howard Dean will haz a sad. He no likey that angry, uppity woman.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Autumn
(45,042 posts)She's gonna make some democrats sad.
Please cross post this in the Elizabeth Warren group. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1265
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Delmette
(522 posts)did you forget. ?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)calimary
(81,195 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)brooklynite
(94,489 posts)And I'm not being facetious. We're not talking policy here, we're talking rhetoric.
Why do we need more of this type of rhetoric?
- because it will cause republicans to change their minds?
- because it will get voters to pay attention to an issue they're not otherwise interested in?
- because it'll make progressives feel good?
What is the beneficial outcome?
It will make the clueless public realize that the Republicans are not doing anything for them.
brooklynite
(94,489 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)Or even the name of their Senators or Representative.
think
(11,641 posts)including well informed Dems in another part of Florida.
It's unfortunate...
Cal33
(7,018 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bigtree
(85,986 posts)...why say anything, in that case, if you're not intent on changing the conversation and surrounding the economic debate in Congress?
Would you have Democrats remaining silent on republican inaction, neglect, and obstruction? Is there any value you can see in calling them out in the public forum for their intransigence in enacting policies and making budget choices which benefit the working-class?
You do realize that debates in Congress and public appeals from our elected officials involve 'rhetoric?' What would you have Democrats say to republicans?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Even if it does give our 1%er DU folks a sad too.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's sad.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Americans whose voices are not heard in D.C. and whose needs are ignored by a Congress too busy raising big money to think about the majority of their constituents.
It will get voters to pay attention.
It will reassure voters that their concerns are recognized by Elizabeth Warren and that she is on their side.
Because it will make not just progressives but a lot of people feel good, people who lost their pensions when their companies were sold, people who lost good paying jobs when someone like Romney bought their company and set up the equipment overseas and then imported the products that were at one time made her, etc.
The beneficial outcome is uniting people behind REAL change, not just Third Way chump change. And chump change is what too many Americans are left with today.
I know a guy in his 50s, worked as long as he could at a steady, decent-paying industrial job. When he got into his 50s, the work petered out. The company "reorganized." He was "laid off." He became very depressed and kind of withdrew into himself. Went into retraining for, of course, some sort of computer industry job but never got a job. Continued taking courses. His marriage began to fall apart. Eventually, someone made an offer on his house and he and his wife who no longer lived in their house sold. He is still depressed. He still has no job. He is still in his 50s. He is close to divorced.
That's the story of a generation that got hit hard by history.
In fact, there is a pretty good-sized segment of every generation in America today that has it tough, really tough. The economy is improving a bit, but not nearly fast enough. And the recovery is only slowly bringing higher wages In fact, a lot of the wage hikes are do to new laws and not to any drastic growth in demand for labor.
The rich were bailed out. The poor and middle class lost out. That need to change. Many Americans are still waiting for prosperity to trickle down. Elizabeth Warren speaks for them. When Elizabeth Warren says the game is rigged, she is talking for millions and millions of Americans.
Why should a student pay a higher interest rate on a student loan than a bank pays on a loan from the Fed? That is the kind of question that Elizabeth Warren asks?
Why should a guy who helps his clients avoid paying taxes in the US be employed by the government whose tax revenues he helps deplete?
Why should a bank be allowed to sell a stock to a middle-class client who has no inside information and is relatively unsophisticated about investments and then buy some sort of financial instrument that constitutes a bet against the stock purchase of the client? The bank's purchase of a stock that is essentially a bet against a client should be considered a conflict of interest and a breach of fiduciary duty. It isn't. It seems to be legal. But it's morally wrong. Elizabeth Warren understands that it is wrong and can tell you why in language that you will understand.
Elizabeth Warren 2016.
And if she doesn't want to run, Bernie Sanders 2016.
Let's get some fair rules in our capitalist game. Capitalism had to either be pretty good for everyone or it will be rejected and fail. I think we can make capitalism into a good, fair system with everyone playing by the same, fair rules. And I think Elizabeth Warren is the person who would be able to change our nation so that our system is fair. I would like to see her appointing the cabinet. That is why I would like to see her in the White House.
I also like Bernie Sanders.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Our needs ought to become a priority, despite the party that controls Congress.
More rhetoric like this, sustained, will translate into more action. Shutting up guarantees more of the same.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)who are too busy surviving and don't have much time to read except for soundbites. soundbites - the republicans have this down - along with the rest of their pr machine. notice how they get a distortion or message out there for a day or so throughout their msm and then it's off the headlines - except for the soundbites being handed across facebook, twitter, teabag and republican forums, etc. they don't even bother to print corrections.
your assessment of the power of this poster may apply for the 1% and centrist 1% wannabes. but this soundbite for warren is truth and it should be heard by the working class and others who are being exploited by the 1%.
Mr.Bill
(24,274 posts)to tell her to "calm down".
GeoWilliam750
(2,522 posts)Or Warren and Sanders
I would campaign hard for either of those tickets.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)If we did not do what needed to be done in the last 6 years we should be quite now. I read that somewhere.
ellennelle
(614 posts)teddy's seat.
luv her, but do miss that man.
calimary
(81,195 posts)Glad you're here! You're a palindrome! I agree with you. She's doing great honor to the seat once held by Teddy Kennedy. The people of Massachusetts are well-served. Not so much by their governor (who's a CON) - what the hell? Oh yeah. I forgot.
Because Martha Coakley.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Logos of statement clips strung together of one persons sayings.
The message is clear and logical, tax and income fairness is needed on an emergency basis - why this need to inject personality into the policy?
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...if it's a man, you use words like 'forceful,' 'aggressive,' 'resolute,' and 'decisive.'
Right?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Obama remains calm and carries on, some of the same is my position.
Let the policy do the talking. Stop looking for heroes and heroines.
bigtree
(85,986 posts)...is she being too shrill?
calimary
(81,195 posts)lark
(23,083 posts)are both man-speak put downs for a woman speaking her mind. They want us quiet and compliant. Tough!!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)calm. Maybe you meant that Sen Warren should sit down and shut up. Is that what you mean.
Keeping calm and carrying on is what got us where we are today. I am guessing you accept the status quo.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It isn't the only way to be.
Elizabeth Warren does let the policy do the talking.
She puts energy behind it, emotion behind it. I like that. Nothing wrong with expressing anger at justice.
Even Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple. Nothing wrong with righteous anger at wrongdoing. Elizabeth Warren does not advocate violence. She advocates righteous change.
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)who served as Ronald Reagan's Director of Communications. Pat was a candidate that year along with Ron Paul and David Duke for the nomination won by incumbent George HW Bush. Warren was a Republican at that time, I most certainly was not.
Let's take a look at the Keynote Speech in Warren's Party in 1992, several years before she left the Party:
"George Bush is a defender of right-to-life, and lifelong champion of the Judeo-Christian values and beliefs upon which this nation was built.
Mr Clinton, however, has a different agenda.
At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a few words on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since Roe v Wade, he was told there was no place for him at the podium of Bill Clintons convention, no room at the inn.
Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history. And so they do.....
The agenda Clinton & Clinton would impose on Americaabortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combatthats change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call Gods country."
http://buchanan.org/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148
So where's the not so crazy part?
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)Later in his life, Goldwater himself, thought the Republican party went off the deep end.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)and that was 1932.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Read her books, and you will understand why she changed parties.
I prefer a person who switched to become a Democrat for well considered reasons than one who claims to be a Democrat but has Republican ideas and values. Lots of the latter in the DLC, Third-Way wings of the Democratic Party.
Absolutely right! Their righteous anger on behalf of the part of the 99% is what I admire about both Warren and Sanders. Has anybody told him he needed to soften his tone? I myself have described him as fiery, but damn, I like fiery when your cause is just. Every time I see the words of FDR--They hate me. And I welcome their hatred.--a thrill goes down my spine. Rhetoric, however, is worthless without action.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Autumn
(45,042 posts)They fear being associated with the message Liz is speaking.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)langstonhues
(49 posts)Was it an honest slip up, a poor choice of words using 'soak'.
Was it an attempt to discredit Warren (which it does because he basically called Warren a liar, because she always has said 'be rich, enjoy, but pay your fair share' which is not even in the solar system of the rich being soaked.
Still I don't get what the game is here with what he said - it's evident that Warren's populism is being heard far and wide so why would Dean magnify the difference between Warren's populist philosophy and Hillary's centrist and protective of the rich philosophy?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)markmyword
(180 posts)It's about time that a Progressive stood up to the Republicans! Warren is the ONLY Democrat, with a BACKBONE who's fighting for the middle class.
Now other Democrats want her to tone it down, WHY????
We need someone MAD at what's going on, to the people and to our country.
Dean, Buffet and I'm sure a host of others will try and shut Warren up.
They all want the status quo, they don't want to ruffle the bankers, Wall Street and the corporations because that's where the money comes from and who THEY REPRESENT!
They also want her to turn it down for Hilary. Hilary is just the same as any Republican who's going to run. Both parties are really the same, they've done nothing for our country and the people.
Today's Congress and our Presidents represent corporations.
Warren ABSOLUTLEY has to run for President. How can she sit back and have Hilary and company tell her to knock it off.
Hilary represents Wall Street not us.
We need NEW BLOOD in our government and WARREN is it!
Warren is the REAL DEAL, Obama let us all down, he's great with the rhetoric, won't fight, doesn't stand up for the people, didn't prosecute Bush administration, instead PROSECUTES WHISTLEBLOWERS!!!!!!
If Warren won't run, then we need to get a Third party started that REALLY represents the people!
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)We all saw the benefits of Nader's third party run
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Populist Movement might kick their asses.
FSogol
(45,471 posts)Joe Biden 16%
Hillary Clinton 54%
Martin O'Malley 1%
Bernie Sanders 5%
Jim Webb 2%
Elizabeth Warren 12%
Someone else/undecided 10%
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)according to dfa their polls read: warren, sanders, clinton, reich, biden ...
http://poll.democracyforamerica.com/results
burrowowl
(17,637 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)When the two Third Way founders tried it a few ago in the WSJ, they were so slammed they have retreated into anonymity and sent out others to try to do what they failed to do.
It won't work, it will lose credibility for anyone who joins them.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)K&R