2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWe need a female president!!!
Warren 8 years after Bernie works for me!!!
dana_b
(11,546 posts)I think that she may do so in time. 8 years from now??
Response to dana_b (Reply #1)
Baobab This message was self-deleted by its author.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)I've been reading her papers for 20+ years.
She is perhaps our country's leading expert on financial malfeasance.
Exactly the kind of person we need.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Seeing how the whole DC party is being hog-tied to Hillary, I'm wondering if she was forced into that decision.
There's NO doubt in my mind, we'd have a President Warren next year if she'd gone for it.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)And not the "too big to fail" banks, which are that way because of a Clinton-era FTA, so "re-electing" a Clinton would be seen internationally as representing an endorsement of a huge body of policy in that little known area that will lead to massive job loss, and our only hope of getting out of it would be showing how not only does the country not know about it, a bunch of people have deliberately kept it from us.
And its really bad. Unbelievably bad. For virtually everyone.
Obama was in on it, likely and Bush likely was in on it too.
There is no way out for us without putting that behind us. But the developing world has been strung along on these promises of Mode IV jobs - (in exchange for Mode Three concessions) for 20 years (with the admonition not to talk about it because its a sensitive subject to us) so its not going to be pretty.
Mufaddal
(1,021 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)a Democrat herself in recognition of President sanders's accomplishments...
Yeah, sure, why not?
But Elizabeth Warren would be a good candidate too.
So would Nina Turner.
So would...
This could become a very long list. There are so many women dedicated to the wellbeing of the nation, and by 2024, so many who will be supremly qualified.
It baffles me to think that there are deluded souls who believe Clinton is the only shot women have at the White House. By the way: why nominate the one woman who doesn't care (as per her payday-lenders-friendly votes and her ties to Wall Street, her ties to the prison industry, at alii) about the well-being of the nation (nor the well-being of other nations, see her war vote record) and who has disqualified herself by always being one of the last to do the right thing? Why nominate the one candidate who is likely to doom our chances of taking back the Senate and the House, and might even lose the White House because she is thorooughly distrusted by Independents?
Why nominate a candidate who represents everything wrong with the status quo, and who is likely to do everything to prolong that untenable state we are in?
We need a female leader, not a female follower.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)What they call a race to the bottom.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)and that is pretty much unstoppable.
But, that process is more gradual and could be addressed in no small part by rising to the challenge, globally, which would be a win win for everybody..
But instead they went with the worst possible approach for people and the best for the global multinationals, waving out the high perceived value service jobs..
Thats the so called "progressive liberalisation" (the two words in their trade context mean "irreversible disinvestment" that is the jobs for concessions scheme -
Either its true, and negotiations are almost completed, and they will find a way to hide it, or its a scam, a bit like ElDorado, its frequently been compared to those legends which were told to the Conquistadores to get them to send armies into trackless deserts, where they would presumably die of thirst.. If that is true, its a dirty trick played on the less developed nations by the most developed nations, with the jobs of millions of Americans and workers in other developed but non-unionized countries - with public sectors and government spending that can be liberalised..by means of the WTO revised GPA e-tendering e-portal.
Corporations from any member country can win them, if they can be the winning lowest qualified bidder. Countries have "disciplines on domestic regulation" to make sure they don't put obstacles in the way, like high minimum wages that will nullify the competitive advantage of the less developed countries, lots of skilled workers who will work for very low wages, temporarily. (the movement of natural persons provisions are not immigration)
Attempting to make it impossible for countries to maintain any kind of services if they compete with even a single commercial provider in the same service sector (thats what GATS and its plurilateral progeny do, in the newer deals case aggressively using a scope based on opt out instead of GATS opt in) and THEN in effect trading the newly created privatized jobs (by means of global competitive bidding) for concessions overseas, is profoundly bad policy on a great many levels.
We dont need to speed up the race to the bottom, thats lunacy, because its going to require a lot of global soul searching as to how we make a smooth transition without global self destruction- Because - in case people dont know this, we've known for quite some time that by midcentury, we'll have self aware machines that can do literally any human job for less than any person, tirelessly.
What a mess.
xocet
(3,870 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)negative attacks that Bernie Sanders is going through. Hillary has assembled a staff of advisers that are attack dogs.They have learned from those that wrote the book on Negative Campaigns. . Lee Atwarter and Karl Rove. Hillary has been running for President for 30 years and who knows,as active as she was during her husbands tenure,this could be her Third Term she's campaigning for.
Whether it be Bernie Sanders,Elizabeth Warren or whomever.she has been putting this staff together for eight years and she
will not be denied...........................But she is going to lose.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)now, they wont be able to get away with the old way of doing things.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)Sanders/Warren 2016!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Who wouldn't love to have a Cherokee President?
awake
(3,226 posts)She like Bernie is the real deal!
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Could you imagine?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)in light of Hillary's weakness. I certainly would have been behind her 100%.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it wasn't her turn and they wouldn't help her if she ran. Bernie was aware of that but he didn't care.
I would hate to see her wasted as VP. She would do great as Treasury Sec.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)heh
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Better to remain in the Senate than to move to VP.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)I suspect.
Perhaps by a larger margin than with it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Maybe the promised her a good appointment. Not that she should trust them.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)who will work for all of us, not just a few.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Renew Deal
(81,801 posts)71 in 2020
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)As United States Secretary of the Treasury under Bernie. If god forbid HRC gets in do you think if we start a kickstart to raise a couple million dollars we could bribe err I mean donate to get it done?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cabinet. I have nightmares of an "Alan Greenspan, I'll Do Better This Time", sequel.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I know she's anti-war and supporting Bernie, but I've heard she has some conservative leanings. I could be wrong though since it was the Clinton camp I heard it from.
padfun
(1,780 posts)she would be the next President. And I think Bernie is going to do only 4 years.
Raster
(20,996 posts)nolabear
(41,915 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)For qualifying gender?
I have seen Warren called every name in the book here. Even as far as saying she fits better with the Republican Party today. She wouldn't last a second with Sanders supporters. Dare I say she is pragmatic.
Second, when did Sanders win the nomination? He has lost more elections than Clinton has been in.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And you'd better fucking believe we'd accept her.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)NHprogressive
(56 posts)I've missed those threads, thankfully.
MidwestTech
(170 posts)LOL I damn near tore you several strips off.
We need a competent person in office. One who is capable, intelligent, compassionate but can make the hard decisions.
race and gender need not be factors.
I don't care if the next 40 presidents are old white men as long as they can ensure prosperity for everyone, any gender, skin color or ethnic background.
We were all so balls to the walls hardcore 8 years ago for a first X president that BOTH major candidates ended up actually being nothing but Milquetoast republicans.
I don't care that Bernie is 73 and jewish... he's a compassionate person who has over FIFTY YEARS of being that person in his personal and political life!
I don't care that Elizabeth Warren is a woman... only that she's an amazing person, dedicated to helping others, and quite competent at it.I don't care that Hillary is a woman.
I care that I can't see much daylight between her and a traditional republican. A few slivers of conscience do not a progressive make.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)would be awesome.
Hell, Jesus might even wanta come back after THAT!
Yeah!
leftcoastmountains
(2,968 posts)whether we have a female president.
Elizabeth Warren would be great.
houston16revival
(953 posts)You're going to create mass GOP apoplexy!
Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)scandal or under investigation for Federal crimes. What kind of message would that send? Warren would be a great one for sure!!!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)As long as it's not one that is currently running.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)If Sanders picked Tulsi Gabbard (or another woman) as the vice presidential nominee and the convention approved, she would be the most likely first woman president.
Now, I think Bernie is a likely one term president ... out of his personal choice.
So, I would love to see a woman president of the United States, but one who achieved that by merit and not by marriage.
If Sen. Sanders has a woman vice presidential nominee candidate, we will see our first woman president within the lifetimes of most American alive today.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Dem2
(8,166 posts)Loved how she ripped the Republicans a new one on the Senate floor over their obstructionism and extremism - Rachel showed nearly the entire speech.
Ivan Kaputski
(528 posts)Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)she could be Bernie's Veep, a Supreme Court Justice, and the Senate Majority Leader, too!