Elizabeth Warren for President(?)

[Songbird]

Right now she'd get my vote:

Elizabeth Warren: It’s time to work on America’s agenda - The Washington Post

And mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Right now she'd get my vote:

Elizabeth Warren: It’s time to work on America’s agenda - The Washington Post

And mine.

Sadly, I think …

• it's inconceivable that she will run, and
• were she to do so, it's inconceivable that she would win.

 

[Songbird]

Sadly, I think …

• it's inconceivable that she will run, and
• were she to do so, it's inconceivable that she would win.

Agreed on both.

On another note, without significant financial reform to our electoral system, I'll not be voting anyway.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Agreed on both.

On another note, without significant financial reform to our electoral system, I'll not be voting anyway.

I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I do know that I will definitely be voting.

 

[metis]

On another note, without significant financial reform to our electoral system, I'll not be voting anyway.

But without people like you voting who, like I, believe we need serious financial reform with elections, nothing is likely to get done along those lines.

 

[BSM1]

But without people like you voting who, like I, believe we need serious financial reform with elections, nothing is likely to get done along those lines.

What kinds of financial reforms did you have in mind?

 

[metis]

What kinds of financial reforms did you have in mind?

Sharp limitations on campaign donations, except from individuals. Voluntary restrictions on campaign spending. Complete transparency as to exactly where the source of campaign donations are coming from. Free debate time provided by both national and local t.v. stations that also includes "third-party" candidates.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Looking around the internet, I still don't see much that she actually stands for. And her executive experience looks light...no business, but plenty of giving gubmint hand-outs.

I've looked into her Bills that she wrote. I don't disagree with them but I think them too timid. She isn't afraid to spend money but that is because it is working and it is helping the economy as of right now. The crappy thing is that there all kinds of "great news" about the 2015 economy just as Republicans are falling into congress. So the sheeple of the nation will assume that the republican actions rather than the actions of the previous congress should get credit. What people don't understand is that the effects of the economy have, usually, little to do with the here and now of the congress but of the previous or even further back leaders.

Oh, boy....the embodiment of Big Two politics.

I'd abolish all political parties if I could.

Goals are fine things, but the devil is in the implementation agenda.

This is true. But looks like not much will get done for progressive reform for at least two years. Some republicans have some good ideas. If they could implement those without implementing the bad ideas then we would be in good (well better) shape.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Looking around the internet, I still don't see much that she actually stands for. And her executive experience looks light...no business, but plenty of giving gubmint hand-outs.

Her pro-consumer protection, pro-environment, and pro-Wall-Street regulation, from what I can tell, is what got her recent moment going.

 

[BSM1]

Sharp limitations on campaign donations, except from individuals. Voluntary restrictions on campaign spending. Complete transparency as to exactly where the source of campaign donations are coming from. Free debate time provided by both national and local t.v. stations that also includes "third-party" candidates.

Not unreasonable. The only problem might be having to allow free air time to every crackpot candidate that shows up.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not unreasonable. The only problem might be having to allow free air time to every crackpot candidate that shows up.

Couldn't be any worse than the R and D crackpots that already show up and take up all the air time as it is.

 

[BSM1]

Couldn't be any worse than the R and D crackpots that already show up and take up all the air time as it is.

Whether you like it or not these are legitimate candidates. There are many fringe candidates (like "The Rent's Too Damn High" party) that could demand and waste air time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are many fringe candidates (like "The Rent's Too Damn High" party) that could demand and waste air time.

I don't see them, and that guy with the hair and beard (I don't remember his name) causing any worse problems than the Ds and Rs already have. At least that guy may queue up the worlds smallest violin for the worlds largest banks when they cry their terms of repayment are too damn high instead of giving them more money and generous terms.

 

[BSM1]

I don't see them, and that guy with the hair and beard (I don't remember his name) causing any worse problems than the Ds and Rs already have. At least that guy may queue up the worlds smallest violin for the worlds largest banks when they cry their terms of repayment are too damn high instead of giving them more money and generous terms.

I think you missed my point. It's not the content it's the time it would take to include everyone who says they're running for president. BTW last time I checked E. Warren was one of those D's.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you missed my point. It's not the content it's the time it would take to include everyone who says they're running for president. BTW last time I checked E. Warren was one of those D's.

If they are indeed running and meet all legal requirements for eligibility, why shouldn't they be given some time? The Rs and Ds have debates with several people all at once, all of whom are running for the same position, but when it comes time for pre-election "presidential debates," we suddenly only have time for two of them? If anything, we need a stage hand to just slip in an empty podium to remind people these debates silence everyone who doesn't have a corporate backed D or R.

 

[esmith]

Not unreasonable. The only problem might be having to allow free air time to every crackpot candidate that shows up.

Couldn't be any worse than the R and D crackpots that already show up and take up all the air time as it is.

So, Shadow Wolf it appears that you only want individuals to be able to contribute to political campaigns, is this correct? You also seem to be advocating for free air time over radio and television, is this correct?
So, looking at each of your ideas, let see what we come up with.
Only individuals can contribute to political campaigns
This would then do away with individual groups that ban together to support the candidate/candidates of their choice. Say like Greenpeace,Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, The Human Rights Campaign, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Open Society Institute, Aspen Institute, and those that support a more conservative venue like the NRA, or the Tea Party. Then there could not be any contributions made by any unions like, AFT, AFL-ICO, NEA and others. There could be not PAC's either. So, how do politicians get their message out. Ah I see, you want free air time. So now you are going to take money away from those middle class that work at businesses that provide radio and TV programming?
Free air time
First there is no such thing as "free air time". Broadcast time is not free and neither are the shows that people listen to or watch. Oh, you want the government to pay for this "air time". Hmmm where does the government get it's money? Oh yeah I guess 57% of the population will pay for it. But you see I do not want to support candidate X I want to support candidate Y so why should I have to pay for candidate X? I guess you do not want the American public educated on the platform that each candidate is running on. Why you ask? Because it takes around $2 billion dollars to get your message out; by the way the $2 billion was only for the presidential election of 2012.

Your idea are well founded just not workable in today's world.

 

[metis]

So, looking at each of your ideas, let see what we come up with.
Only individuals can contribute to political campaigns
This would then do away with individual groups that ban together to support the candidate/candidates of their choice. Say like Greenpeace,Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, The Human Rights Campaign, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Open Society Institute, Aspen Institute, and those that support a more conservative venue like the NRA, or the Tea Party. Then there could not be any contributions made by any unions like, AFT, AFL-ICO, NEA and others. There could be not PAC's either.

First of all, it was I and not SW who put these items forward, so I'll respond.

Both John McCain and Carl Levin referred to these large donations as being "bribery", and logic would suggest that if an company or an organization puts forth large amounts of money, they expect something back in return. That well fits the definition of "bribery", and if it's illegal for us personally to bribe officials in much the same manner, then I suggest that it should also be illegal for companies and lobbying groups.

Secondly, this does not eliminate the fact that these groups still have the right to educate and convince people, including politicians, that they believe X should be done.

So, how do politicians get their message out.

Different ways-- mailings, phone calls, door to door visitations (also by proxy), town hall meetings, etc,

Ah I see, you want free air time. So now you are going to take money away from those middle class that work at businesses that provide radio and TV programming?
Free air time
First there is no such thing as "free air time".

In the UK, BBC does this every election cycle, and it's done because regular t.v. time is so expensive that it favors major candidates and their contributors over the smaller ones. In this country, it could easily be done by PBS and NPR and at minimal cost, or even CSpan nationally.

Allowing big money to dominate our elections is unfair and at different levels, and also a threat to our democracy itself as more and more people become marginalized because they feel they have literally no significant say in the process.

 

[esmith]

First of all, it was I and not SW who put these items forward, so I'll respond.

My mistake.

Both John McCain and Carl Levin referred to these large donations as being "bribery", and logic would suggest that if an company or an organization puts forth large amounts of money, they expect something back in return. That well fits the definition of "bribery", and if it's illegal for us personally to bribe officials in much the same manner, then I suggest that it should also be illegal for companies and lobbying groups.
Secondly, this does not eliminate the fact that these groups still have the right to educate and convince people, including politicians, that they believe X should be done.
Different ways-- mailings, phone calls, door to door visitations (also by proxy), town hall meetings, etc,

If I make a contribution I want something back in turn. Would this be considered "briber", or could it be considered that I want this person in a position to put forth what I think is right? Somewhat of a grey area. No?

In the UK, BBC does this every election cycle, and it's done because regular t.v. time is so expensive that it favors major candidates and their contributors over the smaller ones. In this country, it could easily be done by PBS and NPR and at minimal cost, or even CSpan nationally.

First I do not watch PBS and never will, also do not listen to NPR. I normally watch TV for entertainment and news of the day. We verily watch live TV (DVR) and skip everything but the show. I only listen to the radio for entertainment.....Country Western Stations. Second there is zero chance that I'm am going to be swayed one way or another by a 30 sec political add. Only the misinformed make a decision from political advertising on media.

Allowing big money to dominate our elections is unfair and at different levels, and also a threat to our democracy itself as more and more people become marginalized because they feel they have literally no significant say in the process.

The majority of today's elections are basically your TV type shows like America's Got Talent, The Voice, and America's Got Talent. It is strictly a popularity contest and most idiots vote because they believe what a politician says not their record. Most politicians tell you what they want you to hear and if they win they do what they want. When a politician tells the truth they get hammered either by the media or their opponent. So, if big money wants to help the broadcast industry I say go for it.
If you really want to fix what's wrong with this government, go for term limits. 8 years for a Senator and 4 years for a Representative. As far as the President......4 years.

 

[metis]

My mistake.

I've never made even one.

If I make a contribution I want something back in turn. Would this be considered "briber", or could it be considered that I want this person in a position to put forth what I think is right? Somewhat of a grey area. No?

What I propose does not in any way stifle free speech as there's more than enough opportunity for people and groups to get their word out.

First I do not watch PBS and never will, also do not listen to NPR.

You don't watch "educational programming"? Whatta surprise!

Second there is zero chance that I'm am going to be swayed one way or another by a 30 sec political add. Only the misinformed make a decision from political advertising on media.

But it does work on so many, and I'm sure you've seen many examples of that. Remember Dukakis' wearing a helmet, or Reagan's "There you go again...", both of which were a major factor in the elections they were in, and yet both the helmet and the phrase were pretty meaningless if viewed objectively-- it was just the image. We've seen polls switch by the 10's just over the most trivial matters, and candidates and their supporters well know that t.v. is a very powerful medium or they wouldn't be spending the billions to run their ads.

[/QUOTE]The majority of today's elections are basically your TV type shows like America's Got Talent, The Voice, and America's Got Talent. It is strictly a popularity contest and most idiots vote because they believe what a politician says not their record. [/QUOTE]

I hear ya.

So, if big money wants to help the broadcast industry I say go for it.
If you really want to fix what's wrong with this government, go for term limits. 8 years for a Senator and 4 years for a Representative. As far as the President......4 years.

Term limits are actually a way of hindering democracy-- not helping it. It takes some choice away from people, whereas I feel it's much more important to give people more choices, not less. The best "term limit" is voting the rascal out of office.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, Shadow Wolf it appears that you only want individuals to be able to contribute to political campaigns, is this correct? You also seem to be advocating for free air time over radio and television, is this correct?

It appears that you still don't give a damn about what I actually posted (which mentions nothing of free anything. Have we already had this discussion about "free," or did I have it with Rev Rick?).