What the Left Gets With Liz Warren

If only Elizabeth Warren was a guy. Then it would be easy for the Democrat’s election machinery to choose Hillary above all evidence of surging polls and spreading and gushingly enthusiastic grassroots support. Barak won the nomination, and yes the election, because he was, Barak. Now it’s Hillary’s turn to be the Democratic nomination for president because she’s Hillary. But the confines of identity politics within which the Democratic have chosen to operate, as well as a sizable portion of the academic world, are now confronted within that delineated and self-righteous space with Liz’s unavoidable presence. The liberal establishment are grimly united behind Hillary but at the grassroots level, it seems to be a whole other matter. A poll showing Warren ahead of Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire - by a few percentage points but it is still a result that was unthinkable 6 months ago - has revealed that people really want Warren in the nomination race.


Does Hillary? One would expect clearly not, even if some evidence shows that a tough nomination debate usually boosts election chances for the winner of said debate. Hillary perhaps is worried over how she would do. As in where is her Big Idea? We all know what Warren's BI is, and Wall Street is undoubtedly taking notice of her ascendency as they calculate the odds of her actually running, actually being nominated, and actually winning the 2016 elections. One can assume it's fairly low combined odds, but it's just that: an assumption. Both in the nomination and in the election, Warren has the potential to unleash the populist anger on the left that may be being muzzled by Obama's administration, especially on economic issues that Warren prioritizes. We all know about conservative anger at the state of affairs in America today, but would Warren take the pin out of a dormant grenade if she brought her fiery anti-Wall Street rhetoric to the Dems nomination battle? And how would the former Democratic Senator for New York duck the shrapnel?

Elizabeth Warren is in her mid-sixties and yet is not associated with the Democratic establishment the way Hillary very much is. This is Liz's chance. It's now or likely never and one wonders how long she will resist the calls of her supporters. Remember, she apparently raised over $40 million for her senate seat. And she actually has an idea, a dangerous one if you believe in a reasonably free market, but has it she certainly does. Maybe the left is not so eager to have Hillary as nominee because of who she is. They get the identity-politics kit for free with Warren, plus lots of rabble-raising rhetoric in support of a Big Idea. What a deal.

Posted by Keeley at February 12, 2015 8:37 PM
Comments
Comment #388355

I have always believed Hillary would once again be thrown under the bus. I would love to see Pocahontas Warren nominated. She would certainly receive the whole hearted support of the liberals on WB.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 13, 2015 12:58 PM
Comment #388367

God I hope Warren is the nominee, my ole lady is killing me about needing a new washer and dryer.

Posted by: kctim at February 13, 2015 2:38 PM
Comment #388392

Rush Limbaugh tried to keep Hillary’s campaign alive with his “Operation Chaos” Strategy. With McCain locking up the nomination he encouraged Reps to vote for Hillary in the primaries.

I would take a bet that Hillary will not be the nominee.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2015 6:07 PM
Comment #388399

RF,
You are on!
A modern presidential campaign is a complicated thing. Putting together the organization is a huge task, and if anyone is serious about running, they should already be creating their organization, fundraising, collecting favors, and so on.

Warren is not doing any of the these things, other than collecting some favors by giving fundraisers and supportive speeches. She’s not running, nor should she. I think Warren is great, and I really like her politics, but she is already in the most effective place she can be, given her politics, background, and temperament.

What this means is that Hillary will be nearly unopposed (does anyone seriously believe Biden or Sanders can give her a run?). And since she will be nearly unopposed, she will be able to stockpile all that campaign money.

The polls show her with huge double digit leads over all likely GOP contenders. Only one possible candidate won a grand total of one state against Hillary, and that was Jeb Bush in FL, and even then, it was within the margin of error!

I’ve been talking about this 2016 electoral tsunami for years, and it is happening just as predicted. Hillary will ride the coattails of the successful Obama presidency right into the White House. It will be an absolute shellacking. The Senate will have a big Democratic majority (although to be fair, the Senate math is so hugely favorable, that outcome will happen regardless of the presidential voting), and it will be close in the House.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2015 6:59 PM
Comment #388404

According to the writer above, Obama lost the nomination to Hillary for the reasons he gave.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2015 7:13 PM
Comment #388420

The writer above lives in a fantasy world. Hillary has as much baggage as she does wrinkles.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 13, 2015 9:08 PM
Comment #388430

RF,
Hillary ran a good campaign in 2008. She lost to an extraordinary politician who came out of nowhere and ran an even better one.

There just isn’t anyone in the GOP field who has the kind of abilities seen in previous presidents like Obama and Bill Clinton. I mean, just look at the field! Sarah Palin? Scott Walker, a college drop out? We’re not talking about a Rhodes Scholar or editor of the Harvard Law Review with Walker, are we? Rubio was given the task of pushing through immigration reform. After the 2012 election debacle that was identified as the most important single thing the GOP could do order to improve its prospects in 2016. Rubio’s leadership was a total disaster. Congressman Steven King (IA) ended up taking the lead! King pushed a draconian immigration bill, and now the GOP Senate and House may defund DHS because… because… Who knows? I can’t explain it. But that’s a good example of botched leadership.

Cruz might be the most formidable one. He is completely unscrupulous, and he will say absolutely anything to curry favor with the radicals and extremists in the GOP base.

Posted by: phx8 at February 13, 2015 11:31 PM
Comment #388479

“Hillary ran a good campaign”

Hillary was thrown under the bus by the democrats. Obama was the chosen one from the beginning.

” I mean, just look at the field! Sarah Palin? Scott Walker, a college drop out?”

Is Sarah Palin running??? Not that I have heard, of course phx8 may have insider info. I guess the latest talking point will be Walker’s college record. Never mind we know nothing about Obama’s. Regarding college; George W. Bush had a scholarly record at Yale, but that did not prevent the left from calling him a dunce, did it???

“Cruz might be the most formidable one. He is completely unscrupulous, and he will say absolutely anything to curry favor with the radicals and extremists in the GOP base.”

And Obama or Bill Clinton never did the same thing???

We are two years out; why don’t we wait and see who the republicans are running. Since it will be the job of the American voters to choose. Although I will say, Walker will be the choice of the left’s attacks. He is the most conservative and he will be the most liked among the American people, but who knows?

Posted by: George at February 14, 2015 10:12 AM
Comment #388488

No one threw Hillary under the bus. Obama ran an unconventional campaign that defied traditional thinking about how a candidate could win a nomination. He was definitely not “the chose one” at the beginning. Faced with Hillary’s advantages, Obama’s organization opted to chase caucuses and primaries in small states in order to capture delegates. Hillary won the big primaries, but Obama amassed enough delegates to narrowly win. It was one of the great political campaigns of modern times.

“Is Sarah Palin running??? Not that I have heard, of course phx8 may have insider info.”

Inside infor? Hardly. Just the media- oh, and what Sarah Palin said:
“You can absolutely say that I am seriously interested.”
Sarah Palin, 1/24/16, on whether she was considering a presidential run.

Walker’s college record is a mystery. No one knows why he dropped out. But obviously Walker does not value higher education the way most Americans do. In his state, he is attempting to cover part of the $2.2 billion hole blown in the budget by tax cuts by slashing the state college system’s budget by $200 million.

Bush was a legacy candidate, accepted because of his families history and contributions. Due to a mistake, Bush’s transcripts were released. He was a mediocre student.

As for Cruz… Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton ever led a government shutdown. And Cruz called net neutrality “Obamacare for the internet.” That is so incredibly wrong, it is hard to even know where to begin.

True, we are two years out, but following the development and execution of presidential campaigns is something I really enjoy, and it has already begun. The Democratic side will be pretty dull this time, but the GOP should more than make up for it.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2015 11:46 AM
Comment #388539

phx8, I’m waiting for your quote from Sarah Palin, that she is running.

“Walker’s college record is a mystery. No one knows why he dropped out. But obviously Walker does not value higher education the way most Americans do.”

Is Obama’s college record a mystery?

Who cares why he dropped out? You planning to vote for him? Are you really interested in his scholarly qualifications?

“value higher education the way most Americans do”, is that why the democrats (Obama) cater to the uneducated masses for votes? Blacks and Hispanics?

Bush was a mediocre student? What kind of student was Obama; do we have his records?

“As for Cruz… Neither Obama nor Bill Clinton ever led a government shutdown. And Cruz called net neutrality “Obamacare for the internet.” That is so incredibly wrong, it is hard to even know where to begin.”

Not one government employee missed one paycheck. When exactly was the government shut down? I remember Obama closing national parks and monuments, but the employees still got paid. Obama only tried to make it difficult on the American people.

Cruz is correct; Obama would love to put restrictions on the internet. He would love to tax the internet. He would love to shut down conservative free speech on the internet, as he also sent the IRS after conservative groups.

Posted by: George at February 14, 2015 7:46 PM
Comment #388541

This report says it all:

> WASHINGTON — Only a tiny fraction of the fundraisers who helped President Obama secure a second term have made significant contributions to the committee backing a potential run by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, a USA TODAY analysis shows.The report goes on to say there is no enthusiasm with Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Sam Jones at February 14, 2015 7:57 PM
Comment #388544

Liberals support Warren:

(Reuters) - The scene in the New Hampshire office is one common to any nascent U.S. presidential campaign in the state that holds the country’s first primary contest: Young staffers peck away at laptops and unpack boxes of signs with their candidate’s name.

But the Democrat they are working for, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, adamantly denies plans to seek the presidency.

Backed with $1.25 million from liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org and Democracy for America, the “Run Warren Run” group has opened offices in New Hampshire and Iowa, hoping she will jump in and contending Warren’s message of populist economics could propel her into the White House in 2016.

This core of supporters believe Warren could beat presumed party frontrunner and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who is expected to formally launch her campaign in coming months and who holds a huge lead over other possible Democratic candidates in opinion polls.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 14, 2015 8:02 PM
Comment #388553

No enthusiasm for Hillary? I suppose not. That’s a very unenthusiastic 40 point lead she has over the next nearest challenger.

George,
This is a political web site, and you might find it very interesting to look into how a person runs for president. For someone who has never thought about it, that person would naturally assume the campaign starts when the candidate says ‘I’m running.’ That is naïve, but understandable. The process is much more interesting than that. Before making an official announcement, a serious candidate will form an exploratory committee, hire staff, line up donors, visit IA NH and other early primary states, appear at CPAC meetings and meetings with the Koch Brothers, make speeches and raise funds for potential allies in order to gather favors, and more.

Elizabeth Warren is doing none of those things, other than raising funds for others and gathering favors. She has repeatedly said she is not running.

Palin is doing many of those things; admittedly, it is a real possibility that her fundraising is just another grift, but if she wants to fleece the rubes, whose fault is it if the rubes let themselves be fleeced yet again?

George, if it makes you feel better to say that people who are interested in running are not actually running, then go nuts. Have a ball. We can all press our hands to our cheeks in open-mouthed shock when the candidates make their ‘official’ declarations, and say ‘wow! Didn’t see that coming!’

The government was shut down for 16 days in October 2013. 800,000 were furloughed. 1.3 million were required to report for work without knowing when they would get paid. Eventually, everyone received back pay for the paychecks they missed. The shutdown cost the economy about $10 billion.

Oh, and read up on net neutrality. If you like being on a free internet, it might behoove you to look into what that involves. The big ISP’s- AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast- wanted to control web sites and services, and decide on their own whether to charge some more than others, block access, and more. Thankfully, the techies of the world carried the day and convinced the government to keep the internet free.

Posted by: phx8 at February 14, 2015 10:19 PM
Comment #388620

I must admit that I truly enjoy the hypocrisy of the writer above regarding the defeat of Clinton by obama while writing it couldn’t happen with a Conservative or Republican.

It’s enjoyable when a far-left liberal continues to write nonsense. In my circles we call such brainwashed pontification an “enema”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 15, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #388640

RF,
What are you trying to say? I do not understand your comment. I think you are trying to say an extremist GOP candidate could not upset a very conservative candidate. Is that what you were attempting to say?

Usually, the GOP goes with the establishment/corporate/Chamber of Commerce candidate. It is dictated by the moneyed interests, and since the moneyed interests control the GOP lock, stock, and barrel- Think Citizen’s United, the Koch Brothers, opposition to the EPA, and so on- since they control the GOP, they dictate the candidate to the base, and that is that. It has been that way for decades. The latest example is Jeb Bush.

But I think this 2016 might be the exception for the Republicans. The Bush name is toxic, the right wing media and echo chamber has whipped the base into an irrational frenzy, and they do NOT want to vote for Jeb Bush, knowing he will grant amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens. And that is just for starters. The Bush name is toxic, and Jeb Bush is refusing to answer questions about Iraq. Tough subject to avoid, given the existence of ISIS.

So this year could be the exception. I don’t think anyone will vote for Bush. He is supposedly raising tons of money. He is killing it there. That is no small thing. A political operative once said: “There are only two things that are important in politics. The first one is money. And I forget the second one.” So Bush has the money, but I think a solid candidate could knock him out.


The problem is that the GOP does not have a solid candidate capable of doing it. At least not right now. Christie and Perry are in deep legal trouble. Walker has avoided legal so far, but then again, he has not received the kind of brutal vetting that comes with national scrutiny. The guy has a pretty sketchy reputation. In addition, he just embarrassed himself in London by refusing to acknowledge that evolution is true. The Brits laughed at him. Not an auspicious beginning. Palin and Trump and Carson are clowns. That leaves Huckabee and Cruz. Huckabee has a great organization in IA, but Cruz has the smarts. Cruz is the only one who has the mental ability to organize an insurgency dark horse campaign the way exceptional Democrats like Carter, Clinton, and Obama did with their successful runs.

Posted by: phx8 at February 15, 2015 1:47 PM
Comment #388654

A 40 point lead against who? She is the only one running. If there were only one or two republicans announcing, that 40 points would be a fraction of any number one could come up with,

Sam Jones
It appears there is an expert among us who knows all about running political campaigns. Not sure of the level of expertise Tho.

Every political campaign is different. In Warren’s case she is running. Not going to show the reasons; there are far too many. I will mention a couple of them just to whet your appetite. Why are those signs being made. They do not say “i’m not running”. Why all those speeches. They are not out there saying “Run Hillary run”. I said only a couple and that is what you get.

Posted by: tom humes at February 15, 2015 6:49 PM
Comment #388666

tom humes,
Not every liberal loves Hillary Clinton. Remember, one of the big reasons she lost to Obama is 2008 was her vote in favor of the Iraq War, while Obama opposed it. Hillary has always been more of a hawk than Obama.

There is a ‘draft Warren’ movement among some liberals, but it will not gain any traction without Warren’s cooperation.

As for that Clinton lead:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html

As I said, polls show Hillary with a 40 point lead over her nearest competitor, Warren.

Posted by: phx8 at February 15, 2015 7:51 PM
Comment #388890

$epublicans have been on the attack against Democrats in general, against Hillary and the Clintons in particular, since today’s college students were in diapers.

Quite frankly, they’ve worn a rut charging around in circles, repeating this cycle of character assassination, and it seems like these days it’s all they’re good at. In fact, because they don’t want to be inconsistent with their insults, they end up tying themselves in knots on practical matters to keep up appearances.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 17, 2015 11:47 AM
Comment #388927

This has to be the shortest comment Daugherty has ever made.

“repeating this cycle of character assassination, and it seems like these days it’s all they’re good at. In fact, because they don’t want to be inconsistent with their insults, they end up tying themselves in knots on practical matters to keep up appearances.”

Daugherty, are we talking about the left?

Posted by: George at February 17, 2015 3:55 PM
Comment #388930

I’m worried about Daugherty, so I thought I would send him a link for the purpose of giving him more liberal ammunition:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/among-the-hillary-haters/384976/

But then again, perhaps Daugherty has already read this article.

Posted by: George at February 17, 2015 4:13 PM
Comment #388933

Thanks for the link George. Interesting review of the Clinton mystique.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 17, 2015 4:33 PM
Comment #389078

What the left gets with Warren is a far-left candidate who is almost militant on her pro-abortion stance, who wants government to control private business, and who is anti 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: kctim at February 18, 2015 6:05 PM
Comment #389157

If that were true then someone who supports those stances should be supporting her, ain’t America great! We all get to support the candidates that we want to. But those are not her stances and you should know that. “Almost militant”, is that like “almost pregnant”?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 9:36 AM
Comment #389183

It’s all true, Speaks. Those actually are her stances on those issues.

Almost militant means that sharing the most extreme positions with the most pro-abortion types, she does not act on those beliefs in a physical way.
She targets pro-life groups. Says no Supreme Court nominees can oppose abortion. Supports public funding for abortion. Supports forcing religious entities to provide birth control. And does not believe in any limitations on abortion services.
Those positions are almost as extreme as mine, which are not shared by the vast majority of Americans.

Those are her positions and someone who supports her should know where she stands before voting for her.
Her positions on those other two issues are also pretty easy to find.


Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 11:54 AM
Comment #389184

I believe there have been links given to show a growing support for Warren over Hillary.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 19, 2015 11:54 AM
Comment #389187

Then post some links backing up your assertions but please do not use Daily Caller, RedState, Fox News or any other suspect information website. Try to use her website>/a> to back up your claims. If you use something else that is something someone thinks she is saying it is their opinion. Try to use what she supports not right wing hair on fire rantings.

Warren has stated she is not interested in running. The links you speak of are fabrications of some deluded individuals that want to see some kind of food fight between Clinton and Warren supporters, not gonna happen. What do you think of their secret meeting?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #389197

www.ontheissues.org

I don’t think anything of some secret meeting between the two. They both are nothing but hypocritical leftist multi-millionaires intent on infringing on our rights and freedoms, and who don’t practice what they preach.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 12:51 PM
Comment #389200

And that is your opinion. Some of us have differing opinions of what they are and what they represent. I do not deny you your opinion I only wish you would base it on facts of what they said and say and not a third party filter that can distort their positions. Militant? You are beginning to sound a bit like that yourself.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 12:54 PM
Comment #389211

Not to belabor the point but I would like to make the following statement in regards to your points about Warren. I do this with total respect for your ability to disagree.

I am pro-choice and I support Senator Warren’s position on trying to make sure that it is a woman’s choice as to what she does with her body. You cannot convince me to not support her in that regard.

I am a strong supporter of Senator Warren’s work for the Consumer Financial Protection bureau. You cannot convince me to not support her in that regard.

I am an advocate for stricter gun control legislation and support Senator Warren’s policies. You cannot convince me to not support her in that regard.

Now you might say I am being closed minded but I could then say the same about your opinions, couldn’t I?

The idea that anything you say about Senator Warren that could sway my support of her policies would seem to be an exercise in futility, given what I have stated. Wouldn’t your time be better spent advocating for a candidate that supports your positions rather than try to convince anyone here that Senator Warren is such a terrible person?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 2:18 PM
Comment #389216

kctim,
You oppose pro-choice politicians and you oppose women having control over their own bodies. You support government interference in the most personal decisions individuals make. Yet you have a problem with the individual mandate because it represents government interference? You are already advocating the most extreme and intrusive form of interference against women, taking their choice away from them…

Speak,
Conservatives do not actually care about Warren. They are just terrified of Hillary. She is a well-known, thoroughly vetted politician. Those double-digit polling leads are not going to go away. 2016 is shaping up to be one of the epic landslides of our lifetime, and right now, conservatives have got nothing, and they know it.

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2015 2:46 PM
Comment #389217

Speaks, those are not my opinions, they are her stated positions. If you go to the site, you can see her position on most of the issues. They even have dates and links to help you verify.

You and Warren are pro-abortion, not pro-choice.

I have absolutely no desire to try and convince you of anything. I am posting the facts for the people who have the willingness to learn and be better informed.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 3:07 PM
Comment #389219

Oh I see so you are trying to convince other people that you know better than they do. Good luck with that. Pro-choice is terminology that better describes my support. I am not pro-abortion as I hold a value in life that I don’t expect you to understand but consider a woman’s choice to be important when it comes to child birth. You do have a tendency to misinterpret people’s positions, don’t you?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 3:19 PM
Comment #389220

Phx8

I oppose pro-abortion politicians who do not support choice. Pro-abortion does not automatically mean pro-choice.
I oppose paying for what women choose to do with their bodies. If I’m not paying for it, they can have abortions daily for all I care.

I could not hold those beliefs IF I supported government interference in the most personal decisions individuals make.

I am consistent in my beliefs, Phx8. After all these years, you should know that.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 3:20 PM
Comment #389221

kctim,
I am not “pro-abortion.” I am “pro-choice.” Personally, I am opposed to abortion if the embryo is healthy, and I would- and have in the past- advise a person to carry through with that pregnancy. However, the bottom line is that it is the choice of the mother, not me. I have no issue with a woman ending a pregnancy in the case of problems (and there are some absolutely horrific ones out there) since those problems are usually discovered early in the pregnancy. Again, that is their choice. Some people choose differently. That is their choice too. However, allowing problem pregnancies to go to term can be dangerous to the life of the mother.

Posted by: phx8 at February 19, 2015 3:31 PM
Comment #389223

No Speaks, I am providing facts that other people may look at and come to their own conclusions with. IF they choose to ignore those facts, as you do, then yes, I do indeed know better than they do.

If a person is truly pro-choice, they do not pick when they support choice, and when they do not.

You support women having the choice to have an abortion, but you do not support taxpayers having a choice in paying for it.
You are pro-abortion.
I support women having the choice to have an abortion, but also support taxpayers having a choice in paying for it. I am pro-choice.

If that hurts your delicate senses too much, you can say you are pro medical procedure that terminates life, or something. I don’t care.

“You do have a tendency to misinterpret people’s positions, don’t you?”

When I do, I will be more than happy to admit doing so. Until then, just accept the facts.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 3:39 PM
Comment #389224

Phx8, if you were pro-choice, you wouldn’t work so hard to justify the taking of choice.

As I told Speaks, you are pro-abortion. Calling it pro-choice just makes you feel better.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 3:42 PM
Comment #389226

My delicate senses are not in question here but your misinterpretation of my position is. You are slipping back into commenting without respect, please don’t do that. I don’t call you anti-choice because I know that would offend you but yet you have no problem calling me pro-abortion because you know that it offends me. I am beginning to wonder what makes you feel better now. As I suspected it might just be a juvenile and immature feeling of putting one over on another person. That is to bad as I honestly thought that you had decided not to comment in that way.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 3:48 PM
Comment #389228

Speaks

Facts are facts. If you feel they misinterpret your position, then it is your position that should be in question.

You do not say that I am anti-choice because you cannot justify it.

I do not say that you are pro-abortion out of some hope to offend you, I say it because that is the position you hold. You support choice for one thing, but not another. That is not being pro-choice, that is kind of supporting choice.

FWIW: I don’t ever feel better or worse from reading or posting on a website. There is no plan to put something over another person. It’s nothing personal.
I provide facts and state my opinions in hopes of honest discussion. That’s all.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 4:13 PM
Comment #389229

Speaks: “I am pro-choice and I support Senator Warren’s position on trying to make sure that it is a woman’s choice as to what she does with her body.”

Would you also agree that no one should be forced to pay for a woman’s “choice”?

I am pro-choice for everyone for nearly everything as long as it doesn’t infringe on the choice of others.

Speaks: “I am an advocate for stricter gun control legislation and support Senator Warren’s policies.”

Isn’t that interesting. You are for “choice” not guaranteed by the Constitution, and against “rights” that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Are you a conflicted person Speak?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2015 4:24 PM
Comment #389230

That is not all. I am telling you my position and you, in your supreme abilities to decipher the meaning of my position, tell me my position is something other than I say it is. That is trying to put something over on someone. Your “honest discussion” is an attempt to vilify my position by telling me what I think, that is dishonest. Your justifications are for you and I do not want to demean the process you use to come to those conclusions, please show me the same respect that I do for your conclusions and quit telling me what you think I think I mean. If not I can easily ignore your comments as I have done in the past.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 4:26 PM
Comment #389231

Probably no more than you RF however as I have been trying to explain to kctim it seems that it is a trait of some conservatives to tell me what I think rather than try to understand what I think. I don’t mind if you don’t want to understand but I do mind that you think you know better than I do what I think. As far as I know no one is having to pay for someone’s abortion. Perhaps you have more inside information on this but I believe there are already laws in place to not incumber taxpayers with abortion costs.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 4:30 PM
Comment #389232

Speaks: “I believe there are already laws in place to not incumber taxpayers with abortion costs.”

Yes, there are laws in place and they are being grossly ignored.

“There are widespread instances of Obamacare insurance plans violating the rigid rules surrounding whether customers can use federal health care subsidies on insurance policies that cover abortion procedures, according to a Government Accountability Office investigation.

The report, commissioned by House Republican leadership and obtained by POLITICO on Monday night, found that 15 insurers in a sample of 18 are selling Obamacare plans that do not segregate funds to cover abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or the mother’s life) from their Obamacare subsidies.

The Affordable Care Act requires that insurers collect separate payments from customers for abortion coverage so that taxpayer money in the form of subsidies do not cover abortions. Adoption of the complex payment scheme — which essentially requires customers to send two separate payments to their insurers — was pivotal to getting the health law through Congress. Anti-abortion Democrats brokered the arrangement shortly before the law passed, threatening to vote against it without the restrictive language.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/gao-report-obamacare-abortion-rules-ignored-110990.html

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2015 4:50 PM
Comment #389233

kctim, went to your posted source, “ontheissues.org” but couldn’t find anything to support your claims that “What the left gets with Warren is a far-left candidate who is almost militant on her pro-abortion stance,….. .

Using your definition of almost militant,”Almost militant means that sharing the most extreme positions with the most pro-abortion types, she does not act on those beliefs in a physical way.” is well nonsensical an oxymoron of the “definite maybe” type IMHO, I mean either you are or aren’t militant right?
The website “ontheissues” uses the words “staunch supporter” which is probably a better description. Seems to me we can thank her for defending liberty from those that would use the force of law to get between a doctor and patient so they can practice their religious beliefs.

As far as your claim “who wants government to control private business,” well I say good for her. I mean even the most ardent libertarians want regulations on business don’t they? I mean isn’t controlling business an enumerated power covered in the commerce clause of the constitution? Seems to me she is doing her job yet you try to make it sound bad somehow. Perhaps it is because you guys on the right prefer the big corporations to control our government and bribe our elected officials?

“and who is anti 2nd Amendment.”

Well one out of three…… but only if we allow for your tendency to exaggerate everything. You see kctim, just because one wants to keep one from yelling “fire in a theater” doesn’t mean they are “anti 1st amendment” does it? Yet you take such an extremist position on the 2nd amendment when telling us what Warrens’ positions are on the issues, seems to me you may be the wrong person to judge a candidate when you must cope with such an exaggerated and prejudiced view.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 19, 2015 4:51 PM
Comment #389234

So there are laws prohibiting but they are being ignored? Or do you think that they are merely trying to get their collective arms around the disbursement of funds? You come from a business background, I believe, was every implementation of a business project or endeavor exactly what you wanted right out of the gate?

Sorry I am going to have to end our discussion now. I have a grand daughter that needs my assistance and my wife returns from a trip to Las Vegas tonight. She called and told me she hit a $2500 jackpot on a slot machine last night so I expect I will be trying to convince her to wine and dine me most of the weekend.

I regret that abortion has become such a hot topic on this blog sometimes. I do not bring it up in my comments except when someone starts ranting about how somebody wants them to pay for their abortion. Funny but it never comes from a commenter of the gender that actually births a child but from men who never will fulfill that very necessary accomplishment in life but seem to know all about it. That in itself seems wholly dishonest and self-serving.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 5:15 PM
Comment #389235

Speaks, I am not telling you what you think or what your positions are. You are providing your positions and I can only go by what you put on here.
If I am wrong, please let me know where and I will gladly use your correct position in the discussion.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 5:15 PM
Comment #389236

You are wrong, as I said I am pro-choice. Your twisting my position doesn’t impress me and as I said above I have much better things to do right now. But you go ahead twist away just be assured that I won’t be getting around to reading about it for a few days. Hey maybe you could try having a baby a let me know what that turns out like?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 19, 2015 5:21 PM
Comment #389237

Speaks: ” I do not bring it (abortion) up in my comments except when someone starts ranting about how somebody wants them to pay for their abortion.”

The politico link I provided was as neutral as I could find. It clearly proves that abortion is being paid for by taxpayer subsidies. You call that a “rant”?

Suggesting that men should have no position on abortion because they can’t give birth is about as silly as it gets.

Speak has a habit of exiting whenever he is proven incorrect. I don’t mind.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2015 5:29 PM
Comment #389238

On a lighter note regarding our 2nd Amendment Rights I invite you to watch this video.

http://freedomforce.com/1713/liberals-try-to-stifle-the-2nd-amendment-conservative-comedian-gives-epic-response/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 19, 2015 5:43 PM
Comment #389239

J2

The website also mentions the word ‘ban’ in numerous place. Now why would you ignore that word and choose instead to focus on ‘staunch supporter’ in trying to make your point? Probably for the same reason you use such a broad brush about some right wing conspiracy, but get stuck on me using the word militant. LOL

You can thank her for supporting taxpayer money for abortions, forcing churches to go against their faith, controlling Supreme Court beliefs and no limitation on abortion, but I won’t.

You can even think the commerce clause gives government the power to micromanage private business. Control how they operate and how they use their profits. But I’m not quite so sure that’s what it means.

Hell, you can even believe banning arms, ammo, magazines and strictly controlling who is given permission to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

But none of that changes the fact that that is what she stands for. Or the fact that that is what you on the far-left get with her and why they would support her.

Oh, and I am quite used to the far-left saying that supporting the Constitution is an “exaggerated and prejudiced view,” so no problem coping on my part.

Posted by: kctim at February 19, 2015 5:48 PM
Comment #389321
The website also mentions the word ‘ban’ in numerous place. Now why would you ignore that word and choose instead to focus on ‘staunch supporter’ in trying to make your point?

Because kctim, you referred to her as an “almost militant” for her support on abortion which is the reference the site used to deem her a staunch supporter. I chose the factual, I didn’t need to search around for various other things , such as “Ban anti-abortion limitations on abortion services.”, to determine the oxymoron “almost militant” was an exaggeration. After all the anti abortion limitations are just micromanaging the individuals choice, controlling the liberty of the individual and their doctor on the issue.


You can even think the commerce clause gives government the power to micromanage private business. Control how they operate and how they use their profits. But I’m not quite so sure that’s what it means.

Kctim. there you go again, you have clarified the use of your term ““who wants government to control private business,” to mean micromanaging private business. I congratulate you on not just calling here a communist or socialist, but I have to say if it wasn’t for exaggeration and hyperbole you wouldn’t have much to say. So how about some factual information on where she wants to “micromange private business”. The website you used sure doesn’t, it says she believes “Small businesses need a level playing field.


But none of that changes the fact that that is what she stands for. Or the fact that that is what you on the far-left get with her and why they would support her.

I would support Warren for her positions on supporting small business, the individual, and the individual over the corporation.

Oh, and I am quite used to the far-left saying that supporting the Constitution is an “exaggerated and prejudiced view,” so no problem coping on my part.

Twisting what was said, such a time honored conservative means to support the constitution kctim, But it isn’t your support of the constitution I called “exaggerated and prejudiced” kctim it is your distorted views on Warrens positions I called exaggerated and prejudiced.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 20, 2015 7:40 AM
Comment #389343

J2

I referred to her as almost ‘militant’ because her positions are to the left of most abortion supporters, and way way left of the anti-abortion crowd. Basically unlimited public financed abortions are something only the far-left radicals desire, not what the majority of Americans want.
I really don’t get how you can possibly be hung up on me using almost militant to describe her position, when you go off about racist teahadists and right-wing 1% conspiracies on these very pages.

I didn’t call her a communist or socialist because I have actually taken the time to learn things about her. She actually makes some very good points and has some reasonable sounding goals, but as is usually the case, her solutions are the problem.
You agree that government should control how private businesses run, you just don’t like the term micromanage being used? Let me guess, I shouldn’t use micromanage because she only wants to control how profits are used, not how many copies are made?

“distorted views on Warrens positions I called exaggerated and prejudiced.”

They are not distorted J2, they are how we view her positions. She supports a ban on limitations on abortion services, the public funding abortion, and no Supreme Court nominees who oppose legal abortion. It is not an exaggeration to say that she supports unfettered abortion services, taxpayers paying for abortions, and stacking the Supreme Court with pro-abortion judges.
More blunt, yes. But it’s not a distorted exaggeration.

Posted by: kc_tim at February 20, 2015 10:25 AM
Comment #389520
I referred to her as almost ‘militant’ because her positions are to the left of most abortion supporters, and way way left of the anti-abortion crowd.

Yep kctim, the lack of logic in doing so is apparent. This nonsensical reasoning is exactly why I took exception to it. I mean you could say the extremist on the right that shoot abortion doctors are militant and that would be a good use of the word IMHO. Those that hid them and supported them could be considered “almost militant” perhaps.

But to say a Senator who is staunch in her opposition to the extreme measures the current crop of anti abortion try to pass as laws would be much more factual IMHO. Especially when the site you supposedly gained your information from says she is a staunch supporter not an “almost militant” supporter of abortion rights.

Seems to me you may have substituted this “ontheissues” site for a more radical site, a site that resorts to exaggeration or prejudice, like Rush Limbaugh as an example, to distort the truth about someone positions on the issues.

I really don’t get how you can possibly be hung up on me using almost militant to describe her position, when you go off about racist teahadists and right-wing 1% conspiracies on these very pages.

Racist teahadist! Me! I have stuck with teabaggers every since they used the name themselves. As far as right wing conspiracies well ya got me there, but since when does this apples and oranges comparison give you the right to distort the positions of a Senator? Are you suggesting this was a rant on your part? That you were venting and blowing off steam? That you knew the term was an exaggeration that distorted her position? Certainly you are not saying it is ok for you, in this new year and after Rhinehold just exploded a few threads back over “meme dujour”, to talk trash about a Senator because I ranted about the tea party several years ago?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 21, 2015 8:36 PM
Post a comment