CNN Goes BAREFOOT To Give Elizabeth Warren a Free National Television Advertisement

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | 2020 Elections | President | CNN Goes BAREFOOT To Give Elizabeth Warren a Free National Television Advertisement

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #130183
      PADemD
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,872
    • #130186
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,913

      What a surprise!!!!!  Will NOT vote for Warren under any circumstances.  Well, maybe as Bernie’s VP, but I do not think that is what the DNC, Inc. has in mind.

      Awww – he went in with an open mind, after initially favoring Harris and Buttigieg and Gillibrand.  He loves Warren because she is rebuilding the Democratic Party brand – as a moderate.  Why would Progressives give a flying fuck about a hillbot’s choice.  Especially one who does not like Bernie..  Fuck all of those people – Warren is a DNC, Inc. standard bearer, and I will not have anything to do with that.  But hey, she has got the corporate money, the DNC blessing, and also – the DNC counts the votes.  So she should be fine, amiright?

    • #130187
      Pam2
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,384

      Endorsed by a Hillbot I never heard of- sign of a fauxgressive.

       

    • #130246
      GZeusH
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,476

      I’m from the simpering, money-teat sucking part of the party.  If I hang around with her, when she finds a big money-teat to suckle, there might be other money-teats nearby.

    • #130690
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,339

      Jordan Chariton, like his friend Jimmy Dore, has been knocking it out of the park.

    • #133621
      davidpdx
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 286

      1)  Jordan is an idiot. He got fired from TYT for a conflict of interest in a sexual relationship with someone he worked with in his private start-up firm. He seemed to have many excuses for what happened.

      TYT’s statement:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J0Td0-bjK8&t=31s

      Jamarl Thomas (since most of you like him so much):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FUu_b-fgJA

      2) I don’t like hit pieces against people who are simply airing their opinion. As the old saying goes, everyone has opinions just as much as they have assholes. Chariton is a pompous asshole regardless of the work he does.

      3) Again as I stated the whole guilt by association accusations bother me. People take things a little too far. Do I like Clinton? No. Am I going to hold a grudge against Warren for endorsing Clinton in 2016, seeking her advice, or because someone who did vote for her likes her? No.

      Enough said.

      American living abroad in South Korea and a proud progressive.

      • #133686
        PADemD
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,872

        Guilt by association?  OR, birds of a feather, as my mother used to say.

      • #134152
        Babel 17
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,339

        His issue with TYT seems to have resolved fairly well.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Chariton#Termination_from_The_Young_Turks_and_settlement

        Termination from The Young Turks and settlement
        On November 17, 2017, Chariton parted from The Young Turks, days after he was accused of misconduct in a contributor HuffPost blog post by Christian Chiakulas, which was quickly removed by the platform.[17][18] During an online broadcast on November 22, 2017, host Cenk Uygur alleged that Chariton had misused company resources in promoting his former non-profit, Truth Against the Machine.[19] Chariton published a defense of himself declaring innocence of all allegations, and intent to pursue litigation.[1][20] [21][22]The Young Turks later revised their initial public statement on January 12, 2018, saying in part, “we never said, or meant to infer, that he ‘stole’ anything from us. This chapter is now closed.”[4] Chiakulas also later apologized for the way he used private information without permission in an earlier post in an additional post on HuffPost.[23] On January 18, 2018, HuffPost fully removed their contributor blogging platform due to misuse and unverifiable postings.

    • #133689
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,913

      Warren is being vetted.  No one is putting words in her mouth or making up her past actions.  Words and past deeds and records and associations are what we all consider for ANY politician.  Warren does not get an exemption or special treatment.  I am pretty sure Warren herself knew that when she announced her candidacy.   Telling people to disregard past associations and words and deeds was something the hillbots tried, and it rightly failed.  And going after the character of anyone who says something about Warren that one does not like is quite a hilbot behavior, too.  IMO and all that.

    • #133811
      Dudester
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 438

      This only confirms my belief that Warren’s an idiot and shouldn’t even be a challenge to Bernie.

    • #134158
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,913

      Asked about decarceration – Warren talked about building new housing units.  FFS.

      She does not answer questions that she does not have a “plan” for, she just spouts rhetorical campaign blather.  And non-sequiturs.

    • #134234
      sadoldgirl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 775

      @davidpdx:

      You look at all of this through a very narrow “window”.

      In another OP you admitted that the 16 primaries were

      rigged. Thus Warren helped with the rigging unlike

      Tulsi. Thus the criticism is justified. The question

      is why did she do it? a) because she feels like part

      of the Dem establishment (which she now seems

      to court) or b) because she does not have the strong

      backbone needed to fight this establishment.

      Neither reason is a recommendation.

      Don’t fool yourself that the DNC has changed.

      The fact that the “super delegates” can only

      vote in a 2nd round predicted that over

      20 “candidates” would run. Iow: a brokered

      convention was needed and planned. Nothing

      served the party better than to have two

      prominent progressives dividing the vote. The

      fact that they are happy about this is shown

      on the ranking of candidates on SV. Sorry,

      I have been fooled too often to trust anyone

      in the DNC (which claimed to have the legal

      right to appoint the nominee in court). Thus

      many of us here think that we can trust

      Bernie considering his history rather than

      his competition.

      • #134336
        davidpdx
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 286

        @sadoldgirl I don’t deny that the 2016 primary was rigged. The question as to whether Warren was part of that rigging. Her inaction may have hurt Sanders, but we don’t know if her endorsement alone would have caused what would have needed to be a tsunami of support changing from Clinton to Sanders. If the DNC had already rigged the primary (which we both believe they did), do you believe they would have allowed the Super Delegates to change the outcome? Would California had made a difference? I don’t think it would have. My point is Warren alone would not have been enough to help Bernie win because the cards were too far stacked against him.

        Sadly the only senator to endorse Sanders was Senator Merkley of Oregon.

        American living abroad in South Korea and a proud progressive.

        • #134339
          sadoldgirl
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 775

          No David, the rigging was so extensive and

          early even obvious, that the outcome would

          have been the same, imo. However, Warren would

          have shown integrity and stamina, and the public

          outcry about that sabotage would have been much

          much stronger. It is fascinating to watch the

          silence from the appeals court regarding that

          case, but it shows me to what length the party

          is going to stifle any opposition. In the end

          all of the party’s actions could and may become

          suicidal.

          • #134532
            Basselope
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 24

            @sadoldgirl  Endorsing Bernie in the 2016 primary was a death sentence for anyone who wanted to have a seat at the table and EVERYONE knew it.  This wasn’t some hidden secret that only got uncovered by the DNC hack.  It was WELL KNOWN in political circles before Clinton ever announced officially.  As I mentioned in another thread, I heard it from a VC/Producer in Los Angeles when I told him I was hoping for Sanders and would donate to him when he gets in.  “Don’t waste your money, the fix is in”

            The Clintons are well known to exclude political enemies.  Issues come first for Warren and there was 0 chance Bernie could win in 2016.  Absolute 0.  The only thing an endorsement would have done is put Warren on the sidelines if Clinton won.

            • #135006
              sadoldgirl
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 775

              @basselope:

              If Merkley and Tulsi could show the guts to

              defy the party strategy then so could have

              A popular Senator from Massachusetts. To

              keep “a seat at the table” means playing

              political games, which she did. You can try

              to excuse her for everything if that is your

              choice, but I won’t. I don’t go for lack of

              courage, approval of a huge Pentagon budget

              or running against the real progressive to

              divide the votes. I have trouble enough in

              swallowing Bernie’s wishy-washy foreign policy.

              If Bernie won’t get the nomination there is always

              the Green Party. Sooner or later even this contemp-

              table empire will have to change or it will be

              brought down.

              • #135307
                Basselope
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 24

                @sadoldgirl   I fear you don’t understand the political realities.  Merkley and Gabbard had NOTHING to lose.  Both were already on the outs with the Clintons.  Clinton didn’t even ATTEMPT to get Merkley’s endorsement and he said as much that she NEVER called.  Warren had significant things at stake.  The future of the CFPB for example, among many others.  Everyone knew Clinton was going to win. Everyone. Including Bernie, who was just trying to bring his issues into the light.  Ever wonder why he waited until so late to call Merkley, as Merkley stated?  This is because Bernie understood the political realities as well as anyone.  He just wanted more attention to the issues and Merkley had far less to lose than others.  I explained the pentagon budget in another thread and Charles provided excellent links on the issue and since Warren declared several months before Bernie, how is that she is dividing the votes?  Frankly, I don’t think Bernie would have entered the race if Warren had a better 1st quarter.


                @ohiobarbarian
                  You ask a couple of excellent questions.  I’ll do my best.

                What changed?

                I think there are a couple of factors here.  I think as far as rabid Hillary supporters who hated Sanders goes, I think that is gender based.  I think there are some who falsely believe that Bernie had no right to run against the first viable female candidate for President and stole her rightful place on the throne.  I don’t subscribe to their philosophy, but it is likely the reason that Warren and Harris are one another top second choice candidates.  I think gender is a stupid reason to support or not support someone.. but I THINK that is why you see that particular group acting in that particular way.  Anytime I run into one of them, I try and convince them it is about ISSUES, not the person and strongly encourage them to consider Sanders as second choice.  I also think there are some people just trying to stir up trouble between the two camps.

                As for wall street and the establishment.  They are going to glom onto whoever they see as having the clearest path to win, because they MUST win.   It has nothing to do with any underlying philosophy, but everything to do with being on the winning side.  In much the same way those SAME interests were against Trump until he became inevitable and then suddenly they were fine with him.  Right now, if you wonk out on the polls and underlying data like I do, you see that Warren has a pretty solid path to the nomination.   Biden, despite being a household name and enjoying 100% name recognition is hardcapped at just over 30%.  Bernie faces a similar problem w/in the democratic party (not so much if you include independents, but they wont necessarily vote throughout the entire primary).  Bernie has 100% name recognition, but seems hardcapped at also just over 30%.  Warren DOES NOT have 100% name recognition and if you study underlying data, you find she leads in several important categories.. she has the largest % of people considering her.  https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/ .  She also ranks high on second choice, which is CRITICAL for Iowa, as their caucus forces people of candidates who get less than 15% support in a given district to choose another candidate or go home.   So.. to answer, I don’t believe they have “come around” to Warren.. I think they have looked at the same data I did and realized candidate Warren is a REAL possibility and they need to act like they are okay with it.  If Sanders had those underlying numbers, I think those same people would SUDDENLY be okay with a Sanders presidency.

                “why is it that progressives should support Warren over Sanders in the primary? For that’s what we’re really talking about here. Whether or not I and others will vote for Warren in the general election is irrelevant to my question. Why should we support her now when we’ve got Bernie Sanders?”

                They shouldn’t.  They should support who they like, until they risk losing the issues to the person.  I could explain why I personally chose Warren over Sanders, but this is my personal analysis and doesn’t apply to everyone.   I like her plans.. and not just the fact that she has them, but I have read every word of every plan she released and I like her approach.  I find them very practical and data based.  It all makes sense to me and seem like reasonable and achievable solutions to complex problems.  Again, that is my personal opinion.  But for Warren being in the race, I would be sending money to Sanders and while they are both viable (as they currently are), I wouldn’t expect ANYONE to switch their allegiance.

                However, there may come a time in the future, where splitting the progressive vote will be a disaster for the issues.  At that moment, I plan to support whoever has the best path be it Warren or Sanders.  However, until that moment, I am a Warren voter.  I’m just hoping that Sanders supporters ultimately do the same.  I find it a little disturbing that the current top second choice for Sanders supporters is Biden.  I don’t understand that at all.

                • #135309
                  Ohio Barbarian
                  Moderator
                  • Total Posts: 13,725

                  @basselope That’s fair, and I appreciate it. I know Wall Street will never back Bernie, so I’ll just answer your question. The leading #2 choice for Biden voters is Bernie, and vice-versa. It’s largely due to name recognition at this point. It’s equally due to the fact that most Democrats polled say their number one priority is to defeat Donald Trump. The media has been pushing the narrative that Biden is best suited to do that, but these same voters who now say they’d vote for Biden also like Bernie because they think he can beat Trump, too, and they actually like Bernie’s issues when they get around to thinking about them. They’re not yet. It’s just Labor Day.

                  If I’m right, then Bernie’s numbers should continue to climb as Biden’s fade.

                  Personally, defeating Trump is not my #1 priority, enacting policies that might just save this biosphere is, so it’s no surprise I’d never vote for Biden.

                  It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                  If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #135021
        Haikugal
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 1,557
    • #135077
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 13,725

      It is reasonable for progressives to be suspicious of a candidate, no matter how progressive her platform, when the same people who backed Hillary and viciously attacked, and still attack, Bernie Sanders and his supporters start saying nice things about said candidate. The same logic applies to the Wall Street criminals who, just a few months ago, said a President Warren would be the End of Their World but who now say they could live with a Warren Administration.

      What changed?

      The fact that this change really got going after Biden’s lackluster performances in two debates and consequent fading in the polls, and after their other darling, the perfect ID politics candidate Kamala Harris, was destroyed by Tulsi Gabbard in front of a live television audience, tells me that Warren is their fallback candidate.

      Anybody but Bernie for them. This tells me they think Warren can be bribed, or at least controlled. I do not want a President who is susceptible to bribery or control.

      So tell me, @davidpdx and @basselope , why is it that progressives should support Warren over Sanders in the primary? For that’s what we’re really talking about here. Whether or not I and others will vote for Warren in the general election is irrelevant to my question. Why should we support her now when we’ve got Bernie Sanders?

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      If Democrats don’t stand for the people, why should people stand for them?--Jim Hightower

      • #135095
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,913

        @ohiobarbarian

        “why is it that progressives should support Warren over Sanders in the primary? For that’s what we’re really talking about here.”

        I agree – that is where all this sudden swooning for Warren is heading.  Because unless that is the endgame, there is no reason at all for the “second choice” to be pushed so almost hilariously assiduously.  All this has inspired in me is even more mistrust.  So, nope.

        • #139493
          davidpdx
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 286

          @djean111 there is no “swooning” going on. I think the only thing that is going on is that you are having a flippant attitude.

          I have said many times Sanders is my first choice. If anyone wants I’ll post screen shots of my donations.

          I think Warren is progressive and a good candidate. If Sanders were not in the race, she is who I would vote for.

          I don’t think the constant tearing her down is a good thing. When and if it comes down to the two of them (which I would like to see) they WILL resolve their differences in a mature manner. I would only hope those on JPR would do the same.

          American living abroad in South Korea and a proud progressive.

          • #139496
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 3,913

            @davidpdx

            When I start reading condescending twaddle from another PICK WARREN RIGHT NOW poster about how I only like Bernie because of who does not like him, and how I would be very disappointed in a Bernie presidency – and your insulting use of “maturity” to describe what, IMO, is really wanted, Bernie’s supporters switching to Warren – nope.  No sale, just  interesting to see this play out.  And I do not see Warren as progressive, others have stated the reasons very well indeed, here, so that is that.  I don’t think Biden is going to last much longer, really, so I laugh at the “don’t let Biden win” stuff.  Also someone saying that Kamala Harris is their third choice, they think she is progressive – bwahahahaha!  All credibility from those pushing Warren – and that is what you are doing, IMO – is gone.  Please do not bother with the “Bernie is my first choice, BUT” stuff.

            Bernie or Green.  Period.  Down-ticket here in Florida?  Only voting for progressives.  But the DNC makes sure no progressives actually get on a general election ballot, so likely Green or whatever else is available there, too.  Finis.

            Very strange that this is being pushed before a single primary vote or caucus.   Anyway, I am not a Democrat, beating Trump is not as important to me as getting rid of Vichy Dems and corporatists.  Accept and move on, would be my advice.

    • #135425
      sadoldgirl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 775

      @basselope:

      You imply with your answer that I am naive.

      Perhaps so, but let me clear up something.

      I happen to agree with Stalin: It does not matter

      who votes; it matters who counts the votes.

      And I doubt very much that my vote counts

      or has counted, even in primaries. We know

      from the legal case that the Dems as represented

      by the DNC reserves the legal right to choose its

      nominee, and the judge did not condemn this.

      I know as well that power will never be given to

      the people, but that the pretense of “democracy”

      and “choice” has to be preserved to keep the

      public fooled. Wall Street and the Fed have

      the power to stop any insurgency (using the

      militarized police force ,see France). FDR’s

      policies were only a very minor effort to

      control the public’s anger, and WWII helped.

      I also realize that as fantastic as Bernie’s plan

      for the environment sounds, it is only a short

      time bandage; we have gone too far. I also

      think that within 12 months we have a world

      wide depression, which will hurt not only the

      poor, but drives the lower middle class into

      poverty. So what to do about all of this since

      revolutions will be crushed? Well, I am too

      old to die on the useless barricades, but will

      vote- inspire of this absurdity. Btw, ever since

      JFK’s rebellion against the Deep State, no single

      POTUS had really any such power as the people

      are made to believe. Still, I prefer to “vote” for

      the original rebel, instead of the Johnnies come

      lately. Have a great day.

       

      • #135491
        Basselope
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 24

        @sadoldgirl

        I don’t mean to imply your naive… more that I think you KNOW the answer to the question you asked, which is why didn’t Warren endorse Bernie in 2016. You kinda answered your own question.  There is a system in place that is nearly impossible to fight again.  Bernie knows this as well and has made many decisions to work within it rather than just rage against it.  As I have said in other posts, this is not about trying to CHANGE anyone from Bernie to Warren, it is about understanding it is the same fight and if it comes down to it, we should support each other and not allow Biden the get the white house.

Viewing 11 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.