If only it were Elizabeth Warren on the brink of taking the White House. At a New Hampshire rally, tearing remorselessly into the misogyny of Donald Trump, Warren was a reminder of what could have been. The US presidential election has not, to say the least, showcased the best of the US: the country of the anti-slavery movement, the suffragettes, the labour movement and the civil rights movement.
Can we please let go of the false narrative-----Elizabeth Warren as savior?
Sure, she's great at ranting and tweeting but . . . . .
she betrayed progressives and the biosphere when she endorsed the oligarchy.
And let's look back (unless history and previous actions are not important):
"How can anyone truly work on reforming the economic system in our country without addressing the existence of a permanent-war economy? How can anyone tackle the issue of tax breaks without taking a look at the House Armed Services Committee and the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee defense bills? If the problem with the Iraq War isn’t the subversion of international law, or destruction of a country, but whether or not it impacted our ability to balance the budget, doesn’t logic dictate a war with Iran, with the potential of bailing out the economy, could easily be embraced?"
DR. JILL STEIN IS THE US PRESIDENT WE NEED, BUT CAN'T HAVE AT THIS TIME.
Elizabeth Warren is a coward. She should have endorsed Bernie before the Massachusettes primary, when maybe it would have helped him. Instead, she sat on the sidelines out of fear Hillary's well known wrath and revenge. Then she started tweeting garbage at Trump, stooping to his level if not lower...As the inimitable Nina Turner said:
"It’s easy for Democrats to attack Mr. Trump. You don’t get any brownie points from me and other progressives for getting into a Twitter war with Mr. Donald Trump. That’s easy.
But when the fight was hard for Sen. Bernie Sanders, where was Sen. Warren?”
By the time Hillary Clinton approaches the end of her 2nd term in office, Elizabeth Warren will be 75. Perhaps Elizabeth Warren will run. If she does, she will be presented as a progressive in the mold of Bernie Sanders. I will vigorously oppose her. She supports drone killing, signature strikes / crowd killing, and special operations massacres. Sure, she promotes a kinder, gentler plutocracy, but she is still deeply committed to brutal US militarism.
Hopefully, after the US corporate elections are over, people will continue to work to develop the Green Party and grassroots organizations in general. Given Hillary Clinton's war rhetoric - promoting drones, special ops massacres, Syrian air war, etc - we will certainly need a strong anti-war/pro-peace movement. I'd suggest a massive anti-war mobilization on the day of her inauguration.
This is a BS premise justifying Hillary's presumptive coronation, and dismissing Warren's LACK of taking a position of courage during the primary.
A who thinks the U.S. will vote for 2 Dem women in a row, ... especially after HRC?
Elizabeth needs to be asked; Where is the discussion about the nasty drones, nasty bombs, nasty missiles nasty regime changes, nasty no fly zones, nasty kill list, yes the nasty war without end and its nasty deaths without end.
Warren is all about economics and maybe too much about economics because she ignores climate change. Contrast that with Sanders who makes climate change a major issue. I would say Hillary Clinton is better on climate change than Warren. Certainly it can be argued that Warren plays a very important role in the Senate but as president she would not be a good person for these times. We do not have luxury of being able to focus on economic issues even if they are extremely important. Climate change must be addressed if the the world is going to be a livable planet for humans in the not that distant future.
Just imagine if Jill was given the same campaign coverage as the two war mongers that are both stooges for Amerikan, totalitarianism! Dr. Jill Stein is just further proof that the economic, elite will never back a peace candidate, no matter how qualified.
The ruling elite of the time of Jesus were called the Pharisees and the Sadducees the aristocrats and economic elite at that time. Looks to me like things have not changed much in the last 2,000 years.
Hello! Bernie was the candidate we needed but Elizabeth was too ambitious to support him, so she enthusiastically supported a woman who has stolen, lied, taken out elected governments, laughed at the death of an elected leader that wanted to help Africa unite and break Western control and abuse, and so many other offenses that I have repeatedly listed. Warren is for Warren and she talks big but does little. She betrayed us.
When Nader ran with the Green Party, I voted for him. Then Stein ran and the party was listed in about 32 states. Then she ran again and had fewer. She did not organize. She does not know how to build a organization. She was nowhere until she began whining about Bernie not joining her and why is he not contacting her, etc. then making news by saying people in Cal with provisional ballots should vote for Bernie and not her. Everyone cheered...how magnanimous. Well the people who obtained provisional ballots were voting for Bernie anyway. What a clever use of Bernie and getting herself in the news. Her candidacy was going nowhere until HRC threatened Bernie out of the race and his organization went over to Stein and suddenly with Bernie's organization, she surged.. I like Stein's proposals. Some of her planks are from Bernie...compare her 2012 planks with 2016. My complaint is that she did not organize between 2008 and 2012 and she is not politically astute. Some say that's good. I believe it isn't. You're either able to swim or you aren't. You have to know how to get things done. Plus, I believe that she used Bernie. I remember that and don't respect it. I will probably vote for her, but I don't see her as a paragon of principles. .
'because 3% of the Americans support Stein - Than is Hillary and her paid MSM BS. Stein has a much higher percentage - it's not less than 20% and as high as 70% in honest/independent polling places.
My entire family have been converted to Jill Stein and the Green Party, and none of us (6) have taken note of any reluctance in her push to win the White House, though she did attempt to get Bernie Sanders to come head up as the Green Party candidate before he chickened out of the race I am sure he would have won. My wife and I have already mailed in our vote for Jill, who I believe will maike very big gains this time around. if not win.
If Stein can get 5% of the popular vote on November 8, the Green Party will have more time and resources to devote to future campaigns, with or without Stein. Until they get 5%, the time and money it takes for a third party to get on each state''s ballot assures that the subject party will have no time OR money to organize a great campaign. Precisely the way the oligarchs want it to be.
Yes, as a Clinton Democrat, Warren "stands with" workers, and that's the problem. Democrats stand with workers only as long as they still have their jobs. We need the sort of leadership the US saw with FDR, standing with ALL of us, not just potential campaign donors. It would take an FDR-style agenda to rebuild the economy/nation.
We're stuck with real life out here. In real life, not everyone is able to work (health, etc.), and there aren't jobs available for all. The US shut down/shipped out a massive number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 jobless people who still have the means to pursue one (home address, phone, etc.). What do you think happens to all those who have been pushed out?
We need leadership with the strength and integrity to stand with/for ALL Americans.
Wikileaks emails proved what the rest of us knew...he was threatened in typical HRC moves. He did not "chicken out" but he did protect his family. He accomplished a lot, and according to Stanford U and Trust Vote he won the election in spite of all the fraud. There are currently 3 major law suits regarding the fraud. As to Stein's reluctance.....I did not see any reluctance...just an inability or lack of ground work organizing. She surged because of Bernie's organized ground work which transferred to her campaign after his ending his campaign. I am in agreement of her platform...some of which came from Bernie if you go back and follow. Her "complaints" that Bernie wouldn't join the Green Party demonstrates a lack of understanding and a lack of respect for what he accomplished. He had committed to the Democratic Party in order to get National Exposure. Few people knew who he was before the campaign. He would have had no exposure in the mass media had he not rin with the Democrats. Stein benefited from his running as a Democrat also, as he popularized concepts that are not accepted. To change parties in the middle is not Bernie's commitment style and would not have benefited him or the movement. According to Trust Vote, there has not been an elected president for Decades. They are chosen and appointed. I realize that my observations are not popular, but I stand by them. At this point, I realize that voting is futile. I would like to ask, with all of the people being assassinated, do you believe that Bernie should have sacrificed his safety, or the safety of his family? If you believe that TPTB or the Clintons aren't capable of this, I suggest you read their history. I am against vaccinations and Stein includes some of my beliefs that Bernie didn't. What she lacks is political acumen.
I am not convinced. Warren does distinctly better than the now-conventional corporatist Democratic line, at least when she is talking about economics. There is plenty of reason to believe that this is a real sentiment for her and that it comes out of real insight gleaned by observing the mishandling of finances through 2007-2009.
But Warren mostly appears progressive because US politics keeps stepping backwards, leaving her towards the fore. She is another one-time Republican who at least holds herself out as a foreign-policy hawk. There may be some actual naivete in that. But her anticorporate leanings were not enough to allow her to endorse Sanders, even when he was the popular candidate. And indeed we saw her celebrate immediately with Clinton shortly after the nomination was stolen, arming the corporatist right's move to forestall a left response to the abortion of democratic process.
No. Warren is something of a place-holder for the Democrats up in Massachusetts. They need a liberal or progressive of some sort to keep MA in line, and they need that to be someone whom they themselves can keep in line. Warren fits on both counts.
Warren will do some good work. She would do more were such things allowed. She belongs on some committee or post or whatever that she shall not be appointed to, some place where she has the responsibility to oversee bankers and try to make some part of the capitalist system nourish some part of the people it robs. She will not be appointed to the post that would do that because she actually would do it.
But that's about it. We are not seeing the sorts of numbers that would put some equivalent of a Jill Stein or a Ralph Nader on 50 ballots in 2020. Sanders' popular run has shown us that the Democratic Party officials will not allow a popular progressive candidate to be nominated, despite the popular vote. The DNC and Podesta emails have shown that GW Bush participated in the installation of Barack Obama in the White House and that Obama has participated in what will in short weeks be the installation of Clinton II.
It does us all a disservice to imagine that Warren or some other Democrat will emerge within the party to do what has not been done for decades. It has become predictable that there shall be no left, liberal, or progressive Democratic candidate for the White House in 2020 or 2024: the corporatist right has taken over the party; the documentation is published and acknowledged. We may conclude, therefore, that the central party will continue to push out left and liberal and progressive Democrats at state and local levels.
This does not mean that no Democrats are liberal. Although many individual Democratic voters retain the heritage FDR JFK LBJ image of the party and of their own intentions in voting, the active and official party has abandoned the paradigm of a rich-poor or owner-worker dichotomy for an internationalist-localist paradigm.
By the new rhetoric, Democrats or "new Democrats" or even "relevant Democrats" are internationalists as opposed to Republican localists or even "isolationists"--a rebirth of an old word from the 30s and Roosevelt's push towards war. The new-Democrat racial and ethnic bias is directed towards foreigners and rural or laboring Americans rather than towards traditional minorities--to generalize broadly. So we may still hear diatribe about Muslim extremists or "poor white trash" although the rhetoric with respect to other groups has improved. Republicans retain traditional white male rural and enclave xenophobic racism and sexism--to generalize broadly, once again.
Dr. Warren is not the worst of all this by any means. The economic policies that she envisions are better than what we have had. But she imagines that these may be taken on and tweaked to resolution without disarming or dissolving the main oppressive dynamic, and that is not likely to happen. One consequence of that is that Liz Warren will never be a Democratic candidate for president because some more conservative person will always be available. Another is that she would not much alter things if she were.
I will vote Stein, but I do not see us hitting 15%, and I do not know that such a count would become public were it to happen, given the election manipulation that has already taken place.
Fellow CD-ers, you and I will have no candidates at state, local, or federal levels. Should we not ask ourselves what we intend to do about these things?