Will Elizabeth Warren Run?

[Trajan]

Elizabeth Warren will not finish her career as a Senator. She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

She might not be President but I could see a Cabinet post or Supreme Court Justice

uh huh, such as?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I don't have a problem with Elizabeth Warren.

Guys on the right smear all dems, in particular, women or presidential candidates.

Or other republicans who are not in complete lock-steep with the "one brain."

Elizabeth Warren will get eaten alive by the republican smear machine ... and those same cats will cry if you mention Palin or any other right-wing chic.

Oh, the hypocrisy....

So you believe that she's an American Indian?

Really, who gives a shit.

I'd say genuine native Americans for starters

 

[Toro]

I could see her in cabinet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I could see her in cabinet.

I see her more in an armoire

 

[rightwinger]

Elizabeth Warren will not finish her career as a Senator. She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

She might not be President but I could see a Cabinet post or Supreme Court Justice

uh huh, such as?

?

 

[Trajan]

I could see her in cabinet.

I see her more in an armoire

anyway, on topic, in obamas cabinet? sure...

 

[Trajan]

Elizabeth Warren will not finish her career as a Senator. She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

She might not be President but I could see a Cabinet post or Supreme Court Justice

uh huh, such as?

?

was that not clear enough?

you said;

She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

and I asked- such as?

 

[The T]

Elizabeth Warren will not finish her career as a Senator. She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

She might not be President but I could see a Cabinet post or Supreme Court Justice

uh huh, such as?

?

Trajan asked a straight forward question...So...what's with the question mark? Confused?

 

[Zander]

uh huh, such as?

?

was that not clear enough?

you said;

She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

and I asked- such as?

She have-um big native wisdom. Her spirit guide is Shitting-Bull. She make-um big peace in white man Government.

 

[rightwinger]

uh huh, such as?

?

was that not clear enough?

you said;

She has a great mind and capability to take complex subjects and make them understandable to average Americans

and I asked- such as?

Elizabeth Warren Fuels 2016 Fire With Anti-Bank Speech - The Daily Beast

 

[candycorn]

Noreen Malone (I think it was her) of the New Republic had a wild idea:

How do you think a Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren ticket would play out?

I think it would decrease Clinton's chances of winning.
Warren is probably too liberal.
Imagine a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left.

I do not know what you mean by a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left; the two strike me as counter balances; are you saying that sort of balanced ticket is a winner? I presume that you are.

If you are saying that, I disagree somewhat. Here is why.

If you're running in the GOP you have to practice some deception and cater to the right from January-July then pivot to the middle from August to November. Either you're BSing the voters in the Spring or the Fall.

The Dems don't have such a problem with the pivot because they are able to run as moderates without having to cater to extreme planks of their party.

Personally, I think it is because the radical gay rights activists are just flat out more sophisticated than the radical Christian right activists...so the left wing hardliners are content staying quiet and letting the candidates be politicians, not popes.

There is such a thing as too liberal (even for my tastes) but I don't think Clinton/Warren puts you there necessarily.

 

[Zander]

Warren is an extremist.

 

[The Rabbi]

Women in a position of power must be dykes

More reason why Republicans have so much influence with the ladies

Tell that to Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, etc.

2/3 are no longer in office and lost their last election

So they somehow ceased being Republicans?

 

[The Rabbi]

Noreen Malone (I think it was her) of the New Republic had a wild idea:

How do you think a Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren ticket would play out?

I think it would decrease Clinton's chances of winning.
Warren is probably too liberal.
Imagine a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left.

I do not know what you mean by a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left; the two strike me as counter balances; are you saying that sort of balanced ticket is a winner? I presume that you are.

If you are saying that, I disagree somewhat. Here is why.

If you're running in the GOP you have to practice some deception and cater to the right from January-July then pivot to the middle from August to November. Either you're BSing the voters in the Spring or the Fall.

The Dems don't have such a problem with the pivot because they are able to run as moderates without having to cater to extreme planks of their party.

Personally, I think it is because the radical gay rights activists are just flat out more sophisticated than the radical Christian right activists...so the left wing hardliners are content staying quiet and letting the candidates be politicians, not popes.

There is such a thing as too liberal (even for my tastes) but I don't think Clinton/Warren puts you there necessarily.

BS.
Dems must run to the Left to get the nomination and then back to center to win.
Of course nominating a clean articulate black man without a trace of Negro accent who promises free gov't cheese to inner city Negroes has proven a winning ticket.

 

[The T]

Warren is an extremist.

And as big a one as the POTUS...they're of both like-minded.

 

[The T]

I think it would decrease Clinton's chances of winning.
Warren is probably too liberal.
Imagine a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left.

I do not know what you mean by a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left; the two strike me as counter balances; are you saying that sort of balanced ticket is a winner? I presume that you are.

If you are saying that, I disagree somewhat. Here is why.

If you're running in the GOP you have to practice some deception and cater to the right from January-July then pivot to the middle from August to November. Either you're BSing the voters in the Spring or the Fall.

The Dems don't have such a problem with the pivot because they are able to run as moderates without having to cater to extreme planks of their party.

Personally, I think it is because the radical gay rights activists are just flat out more sophisticated than the radical Christian right activists...so the left wing hardliners are content staying quiet and letting the candidates be politicians, not popes.

There is such a thing as too liberal (even for my tastes) but I don't think Clinton/Warren puts you there necessarily.

BS.
Dems must run to the Left to get the nomination and then back to center to win.
Of course nominating a clean articulate black man without a trace of Negro accent who promises free gov't cheese to inner city Negroes has proven a winning ticket.

In other words they lack principle(s), honesty...and only way they win. If people would wise up and realize that their best interests aren't at heart, but rather they mean to control? The Dems, would be out of power permanently. Problem is they have too many ignorant, stupid dupes voting for them...unthinking types that are far too willing to give up their own liberty, and jeopardize the liberty of others in voting for tyranny.

 

[candycorn]

What would be the over/under for rw "we're so fucked" threads in the first week if you not only had a Clinton/Warren white house but a Susan Rice nomination for SoS?

 

[candycorn]

I do not know what you mean by a Christie/Cruz ticket, only on the left; the two strike me as counter balances; are you saying that sort of balanced ticket is a winner? I presume that you are.

If you are saying that, I disagree somewhat. Here is why.

If you're running in the GOP you have to practice some deception and cater to the right from January-July then pivot to the middle from August to November. Either you're BSing the voters in the Spring or the Fall.

The Dems don't have such a problem with the pivot because they are able to run as moderates without having to cater to extreme planks of their party.

Personally, I think it is because the radical gay rights activists are just flat out more sophisticated than the radical Christian right activists...so the left wing hardliners are content staying quiet and letting the candidates be politicians, not popes.

There is such a thing as too liberal (even for my tastes) but I don't think Clinton/Warren puts you there necessarily.

BS.
Dems must run to the Left to get the nomination and then back to center to win.
Of course nominating a clean articulate black man without a trace of Negro accent who promises free gov't cheese to inner city Negroes has proven a winning ticket.

In other words they lack principle(s), honesty...and only way they win. If people would wise up and realize that their best interests aren't at heart, but rather they mean to control? The Dems, would be out of power permanently. Problem is they have too many ignorant, stupid dupes voting for them...unthinking types that are far too willing to give up their own liberty, and jeopardize the liberty of others in voting for tyranny.

boo fucking hoo

you lost to a black man, get over it

 

[candycorn]

Tell that to Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, etc.

2/3 are no longer in office and lost their last election

So they somehow ceased being Republicans?

Dunno since they don't have political jobs and no political designation any longer....in other words they are no threat to the men of the GOP any longer and thus, are acceptable.

 

[The Rabbi]

2/3 are no longer in office and lost their last election

So they somehow ceased being Republicans?

Dunno since they don't have political jobs and no political designation any longer....in other words they are no threat to the men of the GOP any longer and thus, are acceptable.

So all those threads bashing Karl Rove and Grover Norquist were wrong?
Honey, you're batting 1.000 these days. Your posts are so thoughtless and stupid and so at odds with reality I wonder if you spend more than 5 seconds thinking about a response.