politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Boston Globe calls on Elizabeth Warren to run for president
Source:
UPI
URL Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015 ... n-for-president/9711427063809/
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Thor Benson
Post Date: 2015-03-23 08:16:59 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 3851
Comments: 31
BOSTON, March 22 (UPI) -- The Boston Globe has called upon Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., to run for president in a new editorial. The editorial board, helmed by editor-in-chief Brian McGrory, says nominating Hillary Clinton would be a "big mistake." They also refute the idea that people like Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., would be a good choice. The board writes that while Clinton is known for her ties to Wall Street, Warren has worked to protect working class and middle class Americans. "Warren has made closing the economic gaps in America her main political priority, in a career that has included standing up for homeowners facing illegal foreclosures and calling for more bankruptcy protections," they write. "If she runs, it'll ensure that those issues take their rightful place at the center of the national political debate." Warren has repeatedly said she is not running for president in 2016. The editorial comes on the same day it was announced Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will be running for president.
Poster Comment: With Ted Cruz's puppet strings being pulled by Goldman Sachs & Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren would skewer and expose him for the pompous phoney he actually is.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
#6. To: Willie Green (#0)
Yeah, let's the WSJ and Boston Globe choose our candidate...because THEY know better. Plus Liz Warren is the warrior for freedom and the Constitution that Ted Cruz isn't....(OH WAIT) Warren has worked to protect working class and middle class Americans. Chyeah -- JUST like 0buma!
She learned how to play the 'rigged system 'well. She's worth several million ,mostly invested in that evil Wall Street TIAA-CREF Traditional fund ;and lives in a $5 million home in Cambridge. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/01/27/warren-said-she-lacks-lot-stock- portfolios-but-owns-millions-mutual-funds/0WMLFv8wFCaB0WAxTmOKaP/story.html? camp=pm Not bad for a 1st year Senator. Imagine the wealth she'll accumulate as a senior Senator instead of a back bencher ! She spins a great tale on the campaign stump .But in the end ,her remedies are the same failed and tired progressive solutions that we've endured for 50 years and more .
Not bad for a 1st year Senator. But...but...we've been told by future Liz Warren voters that she's "worked to protect working class and middle class Americans." Apparently just enough during her inaugural year as a Senator to score millions selling out the Middle Class and engaging in conflicts of interest. Imagine the wealth she'll accumulate as a senior Senator instead of a back bencher ! She spins a great tale on the campaign stump .But in the end ,her remedies are the same failed and tired progressive solutions that we've endured for 50 years and more. Yup. Feeding the usual socialist pap and script: The media creates a heroic, mythical portrayal of a "man/woman of the people." The Dems immediately accrue obscene wealth selling influence and whoring themselves out to the highest bidder. We The People are provided NO "remedies," just less liberty and more misery.
So you think that all people can care for their own, that no affluent are able to care for those below them? Very interesting. But how come that Rush Limbaugh who is a millionaire cares so much for middle/low class that he persuades them to venerate the rich?
But how come that Rush Limbaugh who is a millionaire cares so much for middle/low class that he persuades them to venerate the rich? well because there is virtue in charity . There is no virtue in compelled charity or in compelling others to be charitable . She should take money out of her own pocket and not pick yours or mine. There is a pathological need for progressive statists to be generous with other people's money .The fact that their generosity with other's money often creates an unintended dependency is over looked . It's the good intentions that count . Not the outcome. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." CS Lewis
well because there is virtue in charity . There is no virtue in compelled charity or in compelling others to be charitable I see. So Rush Limbaugh is a preacher of charity - he wants millions of his listeners to be charitable to his rich buddies. He talks to the sheep - "be docile to the owners, do not resist the wolves". Voluntarily without compulsion. I am not sure if Rush and his friends are sincere. Was Jim Bakker a sincere preacher? Possibly.
#29. To: A Pole (#28)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: Liberator (#6)
#13. To: tomder55 (#12)
She learned how to play the 'rigged system 'well. She's worth several million ,mostly invested in that evil Wall Street TIAA-CREF Traditional fund ;and lives in a $5 million home in Cambridge.
#20. To: Liberator (#13)
But...but...we've been told by future Liz Warren voters that she's "worked to protect working class and middle class Americans." Apparently just enough during her inaugural year as a Senator to score millions
#21. To: A Pole (#20)
So you think that all people can care for their own, that no affluent are able to care for those below them? Very interesting.
#28. To: tomder55 (#21)
"But how come that Rush Limbaugh who is a millionaire cares so much for middle/low class that he persuades them to venerate the rich?"
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." CS Lewis
Replies to Comment # 28. I am not a regular listener of Rush.But when I have listened ;if there was any preaching at all ;it was for liberty ,free markets ,self determination . Most of the rich are very charitable . Where I live there are examples of philanthopy everywhere. What the Warrens of the world really want is for the middle income to subsidize the poor . Oh her rehetoric is predicatably anti-"one percenter". But in reality the policies of the progressives have the biggest adverse impact on the 'not so rich '. If she wants to demonstrate her sincerity in the coming campaign ,she can refuse donations from rich donors and rely on the donations of her chosen constituency . No she won't . Instead she continues to publicly supports the Export-Import Bank ...one of the biggest source of greasing the rich on the planet. Oh she and the emperor make the claim that EX-IM creates American jobs. In reality all it does is funnel taxpayer money to corporate rent seekers. "Why is Warren so sweet on the bank? It's not like Massachusetts companies receive disproportionate export aid. It's because, as former Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank told the Huffington Post, Democrats have made a tactical decision to close ranks and dump their previous opposition to Ex-Im. Why? Because they want to wrest Corporate America — and presumably its campaign contributions — from the GOP. In other words, it appears the woman who went to Washington to vanquish the corporate powers-that-be has become a classic Washington insider serving those powers." http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/29/export-import-bank-elizabeth-warren-fdr-corporations-column/16385923/
End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]