Home | About | Donate

Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party' Can Defeat Trump


#1

Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party' Can Defeat Trump

Jon Queally, staff writer

Speaking to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) delivered a searing critique by telling her fellow Democrats that the party should not let themselves "off the hook" when it comes to explaining horrific reality of President Donald J. Trump.


#2

Too bad Liz - and Al and Sherrod - didn't come to that realization before they endorsed Krooked Hilliary!


#3

So she should have endorsed Trump instead? Like it or not, Sanders was not the Democratic candidate, and Jill Stein is why Trump won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and therefore the election. Even if Sanders was the candidate, there is considerable likelihood that a person who has described himself as a Jewish atheist socialist would have not won against Trump. Alt-leftists like you need to get out in the real parts of the USA like where I live.


#4

Where were you Elizabeth when words like these could have swung the primary in favor of Bernie? You speak the right words now, but where were you when the Left really needed you to stand up for principals instead of self interest?


#5

"We are not the Minority Party. We are the Opposition Party."

The successful Opposition, to our having President Bernie, today.

Opposing his Very Candidacy, when it seemed to be getting out of THEIR control and actually threatened to begin serving US Citizens.

Had he been allowed fair access to the National Ear, debating Donald Trump, on National Television, multi times, all the Citizens looking for a Populist would have clearly seen that a REAL ONE was actually being offered.

If one doesn't think that Bernie could have handled Trump, then I invite them to go to YouTube and watch how he dismantled Alan Greenspan.


#6

The problem remains that the Progressive Caucus is still a minority within the party and does not represent the party as a whole. It is also guilty of rubber stamping much of Obama's efforts on behalf of the "rich and powerful" and not aggressively pursuing a social justice agenda that might have prevented the rise of Trump. Better late than never, to be sure, but the kind of progressive takeover of the Democratic party needed to stop Trump is still very much a long shot. The party, as a whole, remains very much a party of "the rich and powerful".


#7

In my view the entire US is real. People claiming where they live is the real America makes no sense. Manhattan is as real America as down-on-their-luck factory towns in western Pennsylvania. American is made up of areas that are very different in some respects but like patches on a quilt each part is integral to the whole. I think there is some resentment over claims about being the real America. That could be translated into white Christian America and that is not America, it is much more diverse than that.


#8

Warren would not have swung the primary in Bernie's favor. Do you think she has godlike powers over a political process? And had Sanders gotten the nomination there is not a lot or reason to believe he would have won the general election. You may find this hard to believe, but most poeple in my Rust Belt region voted for Trump because they perceived Hillary Clinton as too left-wing - especially with regard to the "war on coal" and the "global warming hoax". So why would they have preferred Sanders?


#9

Oh please, do we have to rehash this over and over again? Jill Stein did not lose the election for Clinton. Nor did emails, Comey, the Russians, the Millenials etc ad nauseum. Clinton lost the election for Clinton. She was a deeply flawed candidate. And yes in the general election I voted for Clinton because it was clear from the beginning that rump was a far worse candidate, though I never considered her a lesser evil, just that rump was truly scary in comparison.


#10

And had Sanders been the candidate, the outcome would have probably been similar. Job #1 was stopping Trump. The idiotic left joined the fascist right in assuring Trump won.


#11

Warren thinks Trump is the worst person in the world to be president.
So she backed the only person who was bad enough to actually lose to Trump.


#12

And how did that work out?

rump's hateful and fear mongering 'populism' would have been crushed by Bernie's peoples' populism. Now you are blaming the Left for rump's win. You apologists for the corporate D's and Clinton have no bounds when it comes to denying responsibility. SMDH


#13

Face it Warren. You are all bark and no bite. You say all these right things but when action is needed you take the actions of the corporate dems you so love to criticize. If there was anyone who fit the definition of a "faux-progressive" it;s you Liz.


#14

Count me as one who appreciated listening to this speech. She made some great points.

As to the "sellout" gripe about her not supporting Sanders, well, she owed him nothing and didn't endorse Clinton either during the primary. I think that was a perfectly fair thing to do. To pretend Sanders was entitled to her endorsement for some reason seems to smack a bit, uh, of entitlement. She's a solid progressive and I'm not going to crap all over her for letting the process play out. We need a coalition to govern and the more people progressives expunge, the less likely progressive issues are to get addressed.


#15

Too little too late Liz. You say you should be the opposition party yet Dems voted FOR several of the Pumpkin Fuhrers administration nominees. Where were you when those 13 DINO senators voted AGAINST importing drugs from Canada? You had the opportunity to endorse Bernie in the primary long ago when everyone could see this was the most anti-establishment election of all time. The main reason Trump is president is Dem neoliberalism and the sabotage of Bernie by the HRC/DNC/DLC cabal. If you and Sherrod and the supposed progressive Dems had any courage whatsoever you would ABANDON the so-called Democratic Party, form the Peoples Progressive Party, and shun the Deep State/Wall Street/MIC nexus once and for all. But that would take courage.


#16

Warren made a selfish political calculation to support Hillary rather than Bernie during the Massachusetts primary. She actually COULD have made the difference at that primary, and may have given Sanders a momentum boost that could have snowballed and gotten him the nomination. And there would have been HUGE enthusiasm to work for Bernie post-convention, had he been the nominee. Warren is a washed-up has-been who threw away her chance to make a difference when it mattered. To be fair, I am not a fan of Bernie anymore, since he rolled-over for Hillary, and continues to support a weak and worthless Democratic Party. F 'em both!


#17

I won't beat this horse anymore, but it's a myth that 13 Democratic Senators voted "against importing drugs from Canada." Maybe they don't want to do that, but the amendment (SA 178) you are talking about that they voted against did no such thing. For reference:

(http://commons.commondreams.org/t/will-trump-have-the-guts-to-stand-up-to-drug-companies/37305/31?u=kc2669)

(http://commons.commondreams.org/t/from-never-forget-to-never-remember-kellyanne-conways-invented-bowling-green-massacre-spawns-faux-vigils/37357/26?u=kc2669)

Where and how I got my information in the case you are interested in doing your own legislative analysis in the future:

(http://commons.commondreams.org/t/will-trump-have-the-guts-to-stand-up-to-drug-companies/37305/42?u=kc2669)


#18

"Idiotic left joined the fascist right" Do you live in a cave or simply have your head up your ass? I know many progressives/lefties, none of whom are fascist or lean right. There are many progressive movements, activists and clear headed individuals who understand fascism, likely more than you ever will.


#19

Clinton lost the Rust Belt states because she rarely, if ever, campaigned in them and took them for granted. She and the DNC have only themselves to blame because of their smugness and arrogance.


#20

She made a "selfish" calculation by staying neutral? Or, do you feel Bernie was just entitled to her support? That's how I read your comment. I mean, what if she doesn't like him because he's hard to work with? Just because we liked his message, doesn't mean he's easy, or nice, to get along with. Guy could be a jerk for all we know.

I thought she did the classy thing, which is let the process play out. She owed Bernie just as much as she owed Clinton, which is nothing.