2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumhrmjustin
(71,265 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)She's not under it yet, but park it outside her office, just it case.
quickesst
(6,280 posts).....
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Besides, positive reinforcement is an excellent training technique.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)... that you would either, just as I don't think most Bernie Sanders supporters would. Is not meant for them. I made a little pact, sort of, with another member here to try and inject a little more humor into my posts. I don't think this is especially mean, but it is kind of spot on funny for some. Although I am a staunch Hillary supporter I have learned that I need to be a little more selective when posting about her or Bernie. I have to remind myself that what is said here at Democratic Underground has little bearing on the outcome of the primary or the GE. I do make exception to those few who actively participate in their chosen candidates campaigns. Being stuck here in Jindal world, and being in poor health, I cannot lay claim to such an honor, and I salute those who can. I mainly post here because I believe in my chosen candidate, and I rarely pass up a chance to ruffle a few feathers when the opportunity presents itself. I am for all intense and purposes, one of the "general population" that is alluded to here daily. I also come here to find out what y'all are saying about us.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You're hilarious, firebrand!
MADem
(135,425 posts)I agree with you about that bus, along with the "Whaddaya expect? She was a REPUBLICAN until 1996!!" charges....
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)like more needs to be done not an endorsement.............. Of course HRC will evolve and go off track like she did with the bankruptcy bill....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_562e4eefe4b0ec0a389519e3
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)It's rather that Warren agrees with Clinton on identifying the common enemy.
Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think it's a buildup to bigger things. Good news for Hillary!
Autumn
(45,066 posts)what Bernie is talking about...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128080500
Nitram
(22,794 posts)She was quite clear in supporting Clinton's plan, and commented on far more than the Repub amendment:
..."whether it's attacking the CFPB, undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisors, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we've made on financial reform, she and I agree."
Read it and weep, Warren just endorsed Clinton's economic plan.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Elizabeth Warren doesn't want banking regulations repealed. Nor do Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren praised Clinton for saying that she-doesn't-want-banking-regulations-repealed. That's not endorsing Clinton's plan.
Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Plan:
- Don't restore Glass-Steagall.
- Do require more disclosure and collateral.
Elizabeth Warren agrees with Bernie Sanders & Martin O'Malley that Glass-Steagall should be restored.
Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)Cavers picking at Ticks
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Response to JaneyVee (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)Notwithstanding some of the hyperbole here, HRC's instincts have always been far more progressive than people realize. Now that she's unmoored from being a senator from NY, I fully expect that to be reflective of her policies. Krugman has made a similar point, while also making clear that the plans being offered by BOTH Clinton and Sanders are on a whole different level as compared to what the GOP candidates want to do.
When all is said and done, I'll be shocked if Warren (as well as Sanders) doesn't offer an enthusiastic endorsement of HRC. Not sure how some people here will take that, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a near guarantee.
Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Or something like that
Response to firebrand80 (Reply #14)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lark
(23,097 posts)Don't know why people have to demonize one candidate just because they prefer another? Any of the 3 are miles and miles better than the best Repug running. Not voting is voting for the repug.
The idea that the world will end if candidate X, Y OR Z is NOT the nominee is ridiculous. Like you I will vote for the nominee in the general election because there is now way we can let one of those idiots in the clown car take over the WH. All three of our candidates will do a better job running this country than any republican, period!
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's a reason why he calls her a friend. Not only did she pony up dough from her HILLPAC to help him (and he was running against a rich guy, and NEEDED the money), she also called up some of her donor pals and steered them towards him to help him out.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)K & R for the thread
MADem
(135,425 posts)This will be
a DAY
that will LIVE
in
INFAMY ....!!!!
For some, anyway!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Just look at the polling. Did he really NEED the money quite as much as you imply? Is he really that beholden to HRC? Be honest.
Source Date Sanders (I) Tarrant (R)
Research 2000 October 2324, 2006 57% 36%
Research 2000 September 1819, 2006 58% 33%
American Research Group September 15, 2006 55% 40%
Rasmussen August 3, 2006 62% 34%
American Research Group July 27, 2006 56% 35%
Rasmussen June 16, 2006 67% 29%
Research 2000 May 11, 2006 61% 24%
Doyle Poll March 7, 2006 62% 26%
Rasmussen January 5, 2006 70% 25%
Research 2000 November 1, 2005 64% 16%
Sanders won more than 2x as many votes as his opponent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont,_2006#Polling
MADem
(135,425 posts)--for the first time in his elective history--counter those ads with ads of his own.
That's how his wife made all that money from the campaign...BUYING ads.
Good grief, before you yank out the "Surely you are joking" snark you probably should do a little homework. This wasn't the House race--this was a Senate race against deep pockets. He needed money to staunch a trendline. If you look at your OWN figures, he goes from seventy percent in January to FIFTY FIVE percent in September. Is that a cute glide slope to you?
You don't think five points is insurmountable, do you?
Of COURSE he needed the money. Don't be obtuse!!
He pulled it out at the end because a) He was a known quantity, and people playing the "undecided" card (to get attention) eventually cut towards Sanders and b) He had a far better debate performance than his opponent. However, for a time there, the trend was wrong for him.
The smart candidate ALWAYS runs like they are twenty points behind.
If he didn't need the money, why did he TAKE it? And SPEND it? Hmmmm?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Autumn
(45,066 posts)You know this is not an endorsement? I think she is for the actions not the person so I don't think heads will explode, at least not here. Sure she likes what Hill has to say, she loves what Bernie is talking about...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/128080500
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)That's because all three share almost all of their views in common. Who knew?
oasis
(49,381 posts)I'll wait for a press conference in early March for Warren's "special announcement".
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...as Warren's comments were not about Clinton's plan per se, but rather they were stating that Clinton is right to fight Republicans as they keep trying to insert Wall Street-friendly clauses into "the must-pass government funding bill".
Get back to us when Warren has actually endorsed Clinton's plan.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)of greater things to come.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)This ain't the courthouse, and you're not Perry Mason!
I think this is a harbinger of things to come...!
Vroom, vrrrrrroooom....is that a foot on the bus accelerator I hear?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...duh.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If she were using similar verbiage about Sanders, you'd have that flip flop on the other foot!
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and it doesn't begin to cover all of Clinton's plan.
As someone who is a fan of accuracy, I myself would not spin such a statement to be agreement with my candidate's plan. If Warren chooses to endorse Clinton's plan, she will say so clearly.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can play the "Nothing to see here, move along " card all you'd like...but she didn't have to say a doggone word! The fact that she did is salient.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...of Clinton's plan. Good for her and good for Clinton for advocating that much. Sincerely.
All I am saying, it is a stretch to say that Warren's tweet is an endorsement of Clinton's plan. When / if she chooses to endorse Clinton's plan, I am sure she will make it crystal clear.
MADem
(135,425 posts)than it does to the rest of the world?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I'm not endorsing the "Wall St Plans" of all 3 candidates.
Elizabeth Warren just praised Hillary Clinton for writing we shouldn't repeal banking regulations.
O'Malley and Sanders don't want to, either. And they're closer to Warren's position since the latter two candidates want to restore Glass-Steagall.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)..."whether it's attacking the CFPB, undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisors, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we've made on financial reform, she and I agree."
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...those are very specific positions she is agreeing with. Not Clinton's Wall Street plan. They are only a part of it.
Take, for example, the issue of Glass-Steagall. Clinton is on record as being against it, even the newer updated version that was proposed; while Warren is for it:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247929-warren-calls-for-return-of-glass-steagall
You will note that in Clinton's NYT OpEd, she specifically rejected a renewal of Glass-Steagall. So right there, she is obviously not in agreement with all of Clinton's plan.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)She endorsed major parts of Clinton's plan. I'll take that as a positive.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)And I also will take that as a positive. The more consensus we arrive at on how to deal with the criminal banksters, the better.
But I still think Sanders has a better handle on these issues.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)The NYT article itself is fine, but the editor put a misleading headline on top of it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)is "endorsing her Wall Street plan"?
Reading comprehension????
This place is getting crazier by the day.
riversedge
(70,205 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)The GOP and Banksters (and some Democrat sell outs) are trying to roll back new regulations and some traditional ones by sneaking them through the spending bill.
Good for Clinton if she is bringing attention to that and opposing it. I'll agree with Warren on that.
riversedge
(70,205 posts)NYTimes OP ED by Hillary Clinton: How Id Rein In Wall Street *****
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
Hillary Clinton: How Id Rein In Wall Street
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0
By HILLARY CLINTONDEC. 7, 2015
Photo
...............My comprehensive plan has already won praise from progressives like Sherrod Brown and Barney Frank. Heres what it would do.
First, we need to further rein in major financial institutions. My plan proposes legislation that would impose a new risk fee on dozens of the biggest banks those with more than $50 billion in assets and other systemically important financial institutions to discourage the kind of hazardous behavior that could induce another crisis. I would also ensure that the federal government has and is prepared to use the authority and tools necessary to reorganize, downsize and ultimately break up any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively. No bank or financial firm should be too big to manage.
My plan would strengthen the Volcker Rule by closing the loopholes that still allow banks to make speculative gambles with taxpayer-backed deposits. And I would fight to reinstate the rules governing risky credit swaps and derivatives at taxpayer-backed banks, which were repealed during last years budget negotiations after a determined lobbying campaign by the banks.
My plan also goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector. Some have urged the return of a Depression-era rule called Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking from investment banking. But many of the firms that contributed to the crash in 2008, like A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers, werent traditional banks, so Glass-Steagall wouldnt have limited their reckless behavior. Nor would restoring Glass-Steagall help contain other parts of the shadow banking sector, including certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks and other non-bank institutions. My plan would strengthen oversight of these activities, too increasing leverage and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and imposing strict margin requirements on the kinds of short-term borrowing that also played a major role in spurring the financial crisis. We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks.
Second, I would appoint tough, independent regulators and ensure that both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are independently funded as other critical regulators are now so that they can do their jobs without political interference. I would seek to impose a tax on harmful high-frequency trading, which makes markets less stable and less fair. And we need to reform stock market rules to ensure equal access to information, increase transparency and minimize conflicts of interest.
Finally, executives need to be held more accountable. No one should be too big to jail. I would seek to extend the statute of limitations for major financial crimes to 10 years from five and enhance rewards for whistle-blowers. I would work to ensure that financial firms admit wrongdoing as part of settlements in instances of egregious misconduct, and increase transparency about the terms of settlement and the fines actually paid to the government. Fines should be more than just the cost of doing business to these companies they should be an effective disincentive for illegal behavior.......................more....
Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state, is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 7, 2015, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: How to Rein In Wall Street. Today's Paper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Tweet:
Elizabeth Warren Verified account
?@elizabethforma
.@HillaryClinton is right to fight GOP efforts to sneak financial reform rollbacks into the funding bill. http://nyti.ms/1lIMqjj
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Glass Stegal is not a cure all -- but we do need to rein in the size and structural issues regarding these monopolistic banking mobs.
The problem with her approach is that by focusing on the "shadow banking" and the most egregious criomes of some, she is not attacking the root causes and structural problems in the system.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)As outlined in the editorial.
riversedge
(70,205 posts)Elizabeth Warren Verified account
?@elizabethforma
.@HillaryClinton is right to fight GOP efforts to sneak financial reform rollbacks into the funding bill. http://nyti.ms/1lIMqjj
tularetom
(23,664 posts)No way in hell does Warren "endorse" Clinton's Wall Street "plan". She agrees with a statement Clinton made about the funding bill.
Because I think Warren would advocate a little stronger action than telling Wall Street to cut it out.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)..."whether it's attacking the CFPB, undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisors, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we've made on financial reform, she and I agree."
MADem
(135,425 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)with that "endorse" word in the subject line, don't you, Janey? Shame on you.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)bigtree
(85,996 posts)...but far from an endorsement of the particulars of her plan.
earthside
(6,960 posts)'Endorsement'?
Why do the Hillarians have to grasp at every straw that a genuine progressive utters about Mrs. Clinton?
Because ..... Hillary is not a progressive and they must latch on to anything that can bolster her credibility with this important part of the Democratic base.
I find these posts and threads revelatory of the Clinton campaign and don't mind them in the least. If I were a Clinton supporter I would find it tiresome that I would have to keep making these kinds of posts, however.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What will you say when Warren endorses Clinton?
And what's a "progressive?" Someone who didn't vote for the Brady bill? Someone who takes a states' rights approach to issues like marriage equality?
I find posts like yours revelatory, too.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)Clinton has always been a progressive, and Warren's support of her plan is one piece of solid evidence.
..."whether it's attacking the CFPB, undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisors, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we've made on financial reform, she and I agree."
senz
(11,945 posts)No wonder some people don't like it.
Do not let their attacks get to you, earthside.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)What are the exact prerequisites for membership? Is it like earning a merit badge where you actually have to do things? If so, what? Are there regular meetings? Do you make members recite a pledge? Or is the sole requirement being a Bernie Sanders supporter?
askew
(1,464 posts)It wasn't an endorsement of any plan. Seriously, this is embarassing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I would like to see if the jury system here will excuse you calling a poster a liar simply because you are a Bernie supporter. Let's see.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's fine to call a Hillary supporter a liar if you are a Sanders supporter. #thesystemisrigged
On Mon Dec 7, 2015, 12:47 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Oh, for F*ck sake, stop with the lies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=881286
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Calling a poster a liar is abusive. Please don't let this stand just because the person is a Bernie supporter. That is no excuse.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Dec 7, 2015, 12:55 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: GDP again. Disagree and post why you disagree. Enough with the "liar" accusations.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No reason for this level of disrespect. Think first before posting.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)To say a statement is a lie is one thing.
To call another person a liar is another.
I shall respect your intelligence and assume you can see the difference.
Nobody is fooled. Not even you.
senz
(11,945 posts)I don't have time right now. I'm going to a movie with a friend.
I will say, this primary election has been quite illuminating regarding folks that call them "democrats." I used to have a completely different view of the "members" of our party.
I've been a registered Democrat since I reached voting age. And that's the 1960s. Probably longer than you've been alive, MaggieD. So don't go questioning my Democratic creds, okay?
MADem
(135,425 posts)then the DU standard is pretty doggone low.
askew
(1,464 posts)plan by any stretch of the imagination. Hillary supporters do her no good by lying (and yes it was a lie).
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)Meanwhile on the DU jury where on one on the "leave it alone" vote has the B@##$ to write a reason for why they voted that way...
Nitram
(22,794 posts)It's an endorsement we all welcome.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Warren wants to reinstate Glass Steagall and break up the too big to fail banks... Hillary wants us to trust her to tell them to cut it out!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)She called for Wall Street reform before just about every other politician and proposed legislation.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)"reform" can mean just about anything..
The two major reforms are breaking up the too big to fail banks and reinstating Glass Steagall! Unless she's made another 180 she's against both. Sanders and Warren disagree..
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It is politics over real solutions. And that is precisely why Bernie never explains how it will solve any problem. Because it won't. Now I doubt Hillary would veto it if congress passed it (and she has never said she would). Her objection is to passing something meaningless that in no way solves the problem.
Meanwhile, your guy is content to play politics instead of proposing meaningful solutions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/opinion/hillary-clinton-how-id-rein-in-wall-street.html?_r=0
"My plan also goes beyond the biggest banks to include the whole financial sector. Some have urged the return of a Depression-era rule called Glass-Steagall, which separated traditional banking from investment banking. But many of the firms that contributed to the crash in 2008, like A.I.G. and Lehman Brothers, werent traditional banks, so Glass-Steagall wouldnt have limited their reckless behavior. Nor would restoring Glass-Steagall help contain other parts of the shadow banking sector, including certain activities of hedge funds, investment banks and other non-bank institutions. My plan would strengthen oversight of these activities, too increasing leverage and liquidity requirements for broker-dealers and imposing strict margin requirements on the kinds of short-term borrowing that also played a major role in spurring the financial crisis. We need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just in the banks."
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Warren called on Democrats to rally behind her proposal to re-instate Glass-Steagall, which President Bill Clinton repealed in 1999, during a speech in Washington to mark the fifth anniversary of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law.
She portrayed the repeal of Glass-Steagall as one of the causes of the 2008 economic collapse, something that Federal Reserve officials and Clinton refute.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247929-warren-calls-for-return-of-glass-steagall
I think what you meant to say is it would be meaningless in a Clinton presidency that'll have a warm fuzzy relationship with the Wall Street banks..
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)As many, many, many people have pointed out, including Paul Krugman. Glass Steagall did not cause the meltdown and it won't prevent another one.
And then there is the matter that congress is simply not going to vote to reinstate it. So rather than tilt at windmills Hillary proposed a plan that include common sense solutions that will work.
That is precisely what makes her the best candidate for the job. It would easy for her to parrot this warm fuzzy stuff for the sake of politics. But she doesn't. Which kind of flies in the face of the Bernie supporter accusation that she will say and do anything to get elected.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Reich on Hillary's refusal to support GS...
"Its a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it were in danger of another one."
I love it Reich, Sanders , Warren and Krugman (who believes it was a mistake to repeal Glass Steagall) are parroting warm fuzzy stuff and you're siding with the woman who became a millionaire giving speeches to Wall Street banks...
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Warren is playing the same politics Bernie is. And Reich is an idiot and gigantic hypocrite. He gets paid $250K to teach ONE class at a publicly funded university and $35K-100K per 45 minutes speech. Why do you even care what he thinks? Because he lies and pretends he's an economist? He isn't. He's a lawyer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=0
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Funny Bill thought enough of Reich he appointed him his Sec. of Labor.. He like Bill are Rhodes scholars.. Reich studied politics and "economics" at Oxford.. He taught at Harvard and he's currently teaching at UC Berkeley..
The difference between Bernie and Hillary is we would see appointments like Krugman and Reich in his administration not the bunch of industry hacks typical of a Third Way Democrat..
MADem
(135,425 posts)incredibly rude and uncivil, too. Particularly when your charge is just not accurate.
What's embarrassing is that you would say such a thing on DU, nowadays. It used to be that no one would think of being so directly rude and divisive.
senz
(11,945 posts)Clinton's trying harder and harder to appear liberal/progressive. This is, after all, the Democratic primary, and polls show a huge number of disaffected progressives who vote in Democratic primaries.
And if appearances were reality, we could all rejoice, couldn't we?
Nitram
(22,794 posts)Warren is all about the economy and this is about Clinton's stance on the banks, etc. This is more significant than Bernie "catching up " to Clinton by a few percentage points in a poll.
senz
(11,945 posts)Still, she will approve any statement that the banks need to be controlled.
Of course. So would I. Say nice things Hllary, please do.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)...unless she thought she meant it, and would follow through if elected.
senz
(11,945 posts)But you can read all you want into it if it makes you happy.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)Btw, Warren tweeted that she "she and I agree." She said nothing about "agreeing with a statement."
..."whether it's attacking the CFPB, undermining new rules to rein in unscrupulous retirement advisors, or rolling back any part of the hard-fought progress we've made on financial reform, she and I agree."
BrainDrain
(244 posts)nice try though...........
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You gotta try really hard to miss that.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)So much more significant because it is about the economy, Warren's main cause.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)That doesn't mean that we all endorse "Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Plan."
Elizabeth Warren was glad that Clinton wrote that she doesn't want banking regulations repealed. That's it.
senz
(11,945 posts)If Hill wins the primary (heaven forbid), then Warren, like all of us, will do what she has to do.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sounds like you are upset that Warren agrees with Clinton on this.
senz
(11,945 posts)Hm? I don't know what you're talking about.
Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think you're hoping someone would be upset.
As if the whole purpose of posting here were to upset other people. I mean, really. Who would do that?
Now as for Warren's approval of Hillary saying the right thing? That's normal. I, too, approve.
Nice words are nice words. Keep sayin' 'em, Hillary.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"But Warren has NOT endorsed Hillary for president. Got it? NOT ENDORSED"
Warren has also not endorsed rainbows, unicorns and ponies. Just saying.
senz
(11,945 posts)It's so easy to get off track here, isn't it?
Logic is our friend.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)No one said anything about a presidential endorsement. We're talking about a plan for Wall ST, the big banks and the economy.
senz
(11,945 posts)Yes, yes, we know Hillary has long wanted to reign in Wall St.
Oh of course she has.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)...her views. I know you Bernistas are unshakably confident of your understanding of Clinton's agenda, but you'll find out during the next 5 years that you were way off base. Hey, nothing lost, we all make mistakes.
senz
(11,945 posts)Clinton's "agenda" is clear to anyone who has seen who her major donors are and noticed who she hangs out with. She's Wall Street's candidate.
She doesn't give a damn about the American people.
If by some horrible mistake she, or any Republican, makes it to the presidency, you can spend the rest of your life apologizing to your children and grandchildren. Don't expect any sympathy from me, though.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)amazing how worked up you people get about your interesting view of reality.
senz
(11,945 posts)is so "chicken." I mean, it's only people's lives, so what's the big deal?
Right, Nitram?
Nitram
(22,794 posts)This is way over the top, dude: "If by some horrible mistake she, or any Republican, makes it to the presidency, you can spend the rest of your life apologizing to your children and grandchildren. Don't expect any sympathy from me, though."
senz
(11,945 posts)The mistakes we make now can cause horrible suffering for those younger and those not yet born. In fact, they already are. This election is not some trivial "personality" contest. It's about the future. Much hangs in the balance. Pay attention.
'Nuff sed.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)You thought I perceived this election as a "personality contest." If you think that little of everybody who disagrees with you...
Nitram
(22,794 posts)...it would suggest that the origins of your Hillary hate might be rooted in your fear of a dominating older woman. Care to speculate who that might be?
senz
(11,945 posts)Older woman, that is. Although I hope I'm not "dominating."
So, as an older person, let me point out a major difference between my comments in this conversation and yours: I criticize Hillary, you criticize me. I'm talking politics, you're hurling insults. That's not good, Nitram. Try to get a better handle on the hostility and aggression. Try to take the long view and think about what is best for our beautiful country and its people. That's what this election is about.
Now have a nice day, dear.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)...personal as you can get. You can stop patting yourself on the back about your moral superiority now. and if this isn't hostility,l I don't know what is: "She doesn't give a damn about the American people."
Listen to yourself, senz, you are way over the top.
senz
(11,945 posts)But you seem to be locked into personal attacks.
That is unfortunate. I don't think I want to deal with you anymore.
Nitram
(22,794 posts)You seem locked into an echo chamber of vitriol. I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
senz
(11,945 posts)Take care.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)A NYT editor put a misleading headline on top of an article.
The article just says that Warren is glad that Hillary Clinton doesn't want to repeal banking-regulations.
Sanders & O'Malley don't want to repeal banking-regulations, either.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I don't mind that Warren has chosen to remain neutral and not endorse a candidate at this point in time. It's her prerogative.
gordyfl
(598 posts)She says Hillary, Obama and Congressional Democrats should do everything they can to stop Republicans. Where's the specific endorsement of Hillary's plan?
senz
(11,945 posts)bl968
(360 posts)Agreeing with a public statement is not endorsing her or her plan.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)They are both positioning themselves to do precisely what they say they'll do with big banks.
They're both on the same page here. And they will both need each other to change a system that favors Wall St.
They are both aware of the power they hold together.
Kudos to Warren & Clinton.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)There was no plan endorsed. Warren wants to restore Glass-Steagall; Clinton doesn't.
A NYT editor put a misleading headline on top of the article.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)There's no point in this endorsement to argue.
They are not on opposing sides. They perhaps bring some variety of ideas how best to achieve the same goal.
I cannot wait to know what powerful appointment Pres HRC will hand to E Warren.
They do not oppose each other, they are friends & respectable collegues.
Just accept it.
thank you
senz
(11,945 posts)Hillary is bought by and sold to Wall St. They love her.
Elizabeth has long been a thorn in Wall Street's side. They fear her.
And you need to know who and what you are supporting, misterhighwasted.
Don't fool yourself.
gordyfl
(598 posts)http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/17/liberals-roar-bernie-sanders-joins-elizabeth-warren-bill-reinstate-glass-steagall.html