4 ms·

Really hope Warren beats out Hillary in the Dem primaries. If it's another Clinton vs Bush election it will really feel like this country is done for.

• briandear 12y ago
  Elizabeth Warren? Isn't she the one that claimed to be native Anerican to get affirmative action benefits? We really want to elect someone that commits fraud? If George W. Claimed to be 1/12 black in order to get an affirmative action job, would you feel the same way? I completely agree about Bush III though. He's a unprincipled fake. Rand Paul is a far better choice. Come to think of it, a Warren Paul race would actually be interesting and likely filled with more constructive disagreement on policy which would give voters a clear choice. A Clinton Bush race would be boring; they're two sides of the same coin.
  • eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >Isn't she the one that claimed to be native Anerican to get affirmative action benefits? No [1]. (And keep in mind, I don't want her to run for President. She's far more useful as a policy wonk in the Senate.) >Rand Paul is a far better choice. Rand Paul? You mean the far-right anarcho-capitalist who considers one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional[2], said that criticizing BP for trying to get out of paying for their own oil spill was "un-American ... criticism of business"[3], fought to defend tax-evaders who stash their money in Switzerland[4], and says that he's "not a firm believer in democracy"[5]? Your post smells like you may be one of those people with a hobby of walking into places on the internet and trying to act like we all, for some strange reason, need to vote for the Pauls. While Clinton and Bush would indeed be two sides of the same coin, as was Obama vs Romney, Warren vs Paul would simply be a centrist vs an anarcho-capitalist, a distinction without a difference due to the present climate already being very firmly right-wing on economic matters[6] -- and that assumes Warren wouldn't be transformed into a Clintonite by the machinery of presidential campaigning. [1] -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-p... [2] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_American_ancestry_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Native_America... [3] -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sounds-un_n_584661.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/rand-paul-obama-sou... [4] -- http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/rand-paul-tax-swiss-banks-104148.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/rand-paul-tax-swiss-ba... [5] -- http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/why-rand-paul-distrusts-democracy.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/why-rand-paul-d... [6] -- http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
    • AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > Rand Paul? You mean the far-right anarcho-capitalist who considers one of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional[2], said that criticizing BP for trying to get out of paying for their own oil spill was "un-American ... criticism of business"[3], fought to defend tax-evaders who stash their money in Switzerland[4], and says that he's "not a firm believer in democracy"[5]? The problem with calling Rand Paul "far-right" is that he isn't anything like Dick Cheney. Calling someone "far-right" who agrees with the Green Party on so many social issues is just... odd. So let's go through your list for a second, because it's kind of unreasonable to criticize someone for taking positions that are essentially correct. Forcing employers to hire people they don't want to is pretty clearly a violation of the freedom to associate, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea. It is political pandering for politicians to lambast a company which is taking full responsibility for a disaster and doing the cleanup by the book. Blocking a privacy-invading treaty that requires companies to provide the government with private financial records without any suspicion of wrongdoing is entirely the right thing to do. And the idea that democracy can lead to tyranny of the majority is so old and well-established that I'm not sure how you even expect to question its veracity. Moreover, the idea that Elizabeth Warren is "centrist" is as wrong as the idea that Rand Paul is far-right. Centrist doesn't mean anything. If you can describe a candidate who agrees with Republicans and Democrats on half of the issues each as "centrist" but apply the same label to someone who takes exactly the opposite position on everything then the label is useless. It typically gets applied to the professional politicians who never take a position on anything and therefore seem to be inoffensive to everyone, which is exactly the opposite of what Elizabeth Warren is. Elizabeth Warren will tell you what she thinks. You may not always agree with it, but at least you know what it is, which is more than you can say for Clinton, but really quite similar to Rand Paul. Which is why Paul vs. Warren would be interesting -- the campaigns would be spectacular because they're both candidates who take actual positions on things. But Elizabeth Warren has stated unequivocally that she's not running.
• aikah 12y ago
  That TTIP stuff is happening under Obama,ie, the liberals themselves.