i looked it up, shocker she says the criminal justice system is racist. liberals never make false claims if racism so it must be true, right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

now she’s walking it back, saying she was talking about the system, not the people.

what is the system other than the people who work therein?

she’s such an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. she lies about being a native american to get a job, and says that cops who risk their lives all day long trying to help people, are racist.

she’s absolutely disgusting. the title of this thread is the best title ever, and should always be kept going. a putrid, wretched gargoyle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a completely foolish statement its her Charlotte moment ..

And its in poor taste for Yarmouth’s top cop, who said her recent condolences for two slain Bay State officers is a slap in the face. Please .. you dont use the fallen officers to support you personal comments .. the 2 issues are unrelated



like it or not. There are elements of racism in our Justice system ... thats not debatable ... But to make the statement "front to back " with out details was dumb

yes there are racists in the criminal justice system, like there are racists everywhere, including academia and politics. nothing inherently more racist about people who work in your field, they are just easy targets to rile her base. you guys don’t deserve that, you put yourself at risk to protect others, but she wine say that because she scores more points saying something else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence has a vote waiting for her
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not likely...don't think it will come to that though.

That being said, there's a lot to like about this proposal...

https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsro...capitalism-act

Spence salutes...


"It is also cynical. Senator Warren is many things: a crass opportunist, intellectually bankrupt, personally vapid, a peddler of witless self-help books, etc. But she is not stupid. She knows that this is a go-nowhere proposition, that she will be spared by the Republican legislative majority from the ignominy that would ensue from the wholehearted pursuit of this daft program. It is in reality only a means of staking out for purely strategic reasons the most radical corner for her 2020 run at the Democratic presidential nomination. The Democratic party in 2018, like the Republican primary electorate in 2016, is out for blood and desirous of confrontation. So Senator Warren is running this red flag up the flagpole to see who salutes."

Actually her proposal brings together a lot of ideas from Republicans and CEO's.

The national review piece you quoted is completely unhinged...

that's funny

I don't think the author even knows what a benefit corporation is. Does he know Mike Pence signed it into law in OH?

More bad stuff from your favorite Senator

ELIZABETH WARREN ON Tuesday unveiled a sweeping set of reforms that would radically restrict and publicly expose corporate lobbying in Washington.

In a major speech at the National Press Club, she laid out the parameters of what she is calling the “Anti-Corruption Act.” If just half of it were implemented, it could transform the political economy of Washington and fundamentally upend the lawmaking process as it currently exists.

Warren began her speech by noting that only 18 percent of the American people now say that they have trust in the government. “This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy,” she said. “The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians.”


In broad strokes, Warren is attempting to take the profit motive out of public service by making it extremely difficult for former lawmakers and government officials to cash in on their government experience, while simultaneously giving Congress and federal agencies the resources needed to effectively govern without the motivated assistance of K Street.

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich and the “Republican Revolution” took over Congress, he systematically dismantled the intellectual infrastructure of the institution, defunding major functions of Congress and slashing budgets for staff. The public-facing explanation was to cut back on wasteful spending, but the true intent was to effectively privatize lawmaking, forcing Congress to outsource much of the work of crafting legislation to K Street. What followed was an explosion in the lobbying industry in Washington.

Warren proposes much stricter restrictions on the revolving door between public service and lobbying, but, more fundamentally, flat-out bans on any lobbying on behalf of foreign governments, an industry that has come under increased scrutiny as a result of the trial of Paul Manafort, who made his fortune carrying water for foreign governments in Washington, often whose interests ran against those of the U.S.

Under current law, foreign agents must register and disclose any contacts with government officials — they would now be banned and under Warren’s law, all lobbyists would have to do what foreign agents do now.

Her bill would also mandate that the IRS release tax returns for candidates, and that the president and vice president be subject to conflict-of-interest laws. She would create a new Office of Public Integrity to enforce the new ethics laws.

The new proposal comes on the heels of the Accountable Capitalism Act, and is a window into what she sees as one of the main functions of government, to be a check against runaway capitalism but in significant ways to strengthen, rather than challenge, the free market. “I am a capitalist to my bones,” Warren said recently, in response to the conversation around democratic socialism.

Where some on the left view markets with deep skepticism, Warren’s ideology sees concentrations of corporate power as a great threat, but views functioning markets as a check against that consolidated power. For markets to function properly, she has long argued, robust government regulation and serious enforcement of laws must be in place, otherwise fraudsters and monopolists ripoff both consumers and investors. That ideology led to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and undergirds her more recent proposals.

The vision is not in conflict with democratic socialist reforms such as Medicare for all (which she supports) or free public college (which she also supports), but it’s more a matter of emphasis. Where Bernie Sanders made eliminating college tuition central to his campaign, Warren has for years focused on exposing abuses by student lenders. Where Sanders has become synonymous with Medicare for all, Warren this year unveiled a plan she argued should be implemented if the loftier goal is out of reach, relying heavily on cracking down on insurance companies and expanding subsidies for purchasers of insurance.

Corporate interests are ideologically opposed to proposals like Medicare for all, and will rally resources to oppose it if and when Congress considers it in a serious way. But Warren’s use of government and law enforcement to reshape the political economy hits corporate America in a visceral way. The animosity for the CFPB is difficult to overstate, as the agency was empowered to launch investigations into corrupt firms that had the capacity to destroy those companies. Bringing the hammer of the law down on Washington corruption will likely be met with an equally visceral reaction.

When it comes to Warren’s proposal, the elephant in the Senate is Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. If Warren were able to ultimately implement some of her anti-corruption agenda, it’s near certain those impacted would challenge elements of it in federal court — courts that Donald Trump is busy stacking with right-wing ideologues. That Warren is pushing forward nonetheless also goes to the heart of her approach to government, which is never to shy from a fight.

“I’m not here to describe the death of democracy. I’m here to talk about fighting back,” she said Tuesday.

Sounds like the swamp draining I would support.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When politicians sell influence to the highest bidder, that's bad for everyone. Would Warren's bill also limit/ban contributions from labor unions? Or only from other businesses? People tend to forget that just as the GOP gets donations from Wall Street, so do the democrats get donations from labor unions and Hollywood. They all have their masters.

Also interesting that Warren is sad that the public has such little trust in Washington,. Coming from someone who lied about her ethnicity when applying for a job paying 400k, that's pretty interesting.

God I hope she gets the nomination.

Those evil labor unions are not the big donors
The top five donors to super PACs in the 2016 election are all billionaires or, at least, worth nine figures. There’s the environmentalist former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer. He has donated $66.2 million to NextGen Climate Action, his super PAC supporting Democratic candidates who back action to counter climate change. Republican casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife have donated $52.9 million. S. Donald Sussman, the Democratic hedge fund billionaire, has given $37.2 million to an array of super PACs. Newsweb Corporation chairman Fred Eychaner has supported Democrats with $32.1 million in super PAC donations. Facebook billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, have donated $22 million to super PACs supporting Democrats.

These donors combined to give more than $210 million ― more than all reported election spending by labor unions. In total, super PAC donations by rich people giving more than $500,000 topped $757 million by Oct. 19. That’s nearly six times the amount donated by labor.

Pete,
Jim didn’t say they were the big donors, he asked a question or 2 and you did not even come close to answering it.
This is why I choose to contribute less to this forum. Same nonsense back and forth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why did you specify the donors to super PACs, as opposed to the top donors who give directly to the candidate? Trying to hide something?

Labor unions don't give meaningful money to democrats? Then it wouldn't be a big deal to stop taking it. Go ahead and propose that.

The refusal to answer direct points really is something.

This is a proposal for a bill, not written legislation.
Warren is a politician, of course she would propose things that are somewhat weighted to her perceived constituents advantage.
It still has to go thru the legislative process, where things get added and subtracted, at least in theory all legislators get to weigh in on it.
You find something that you think could be objectionable, with no basis and complain about it, claiming that you are sure some group or individual you object to would get an unfair advantage.
As far as math goes feel free to divide the $757 million by 6 to come up with an approximate number for how much labor unions donate in this case, all I did was try to illustrate that Labor unions are nowhere near as powerful as some think. If you think there is some secret money, feel free to show me.

Warren has her big donors too, including Wall Street and well connected law firms. How come it's OK when she takes donations from corporations, but sinister when everyone else does it?

And for once, instead of you posting an article, how about you tell me what you think about it.

I started writing something but in theory, remember there are a ton of details, I agree with what she proposes on reform in washington pretty completely.
My concern is that in Congress things typically get gutted to the point where they mean nothing or have enough exemptions that they are easily worked around for someone's benefit.

Sorry, but this made me chuckle...

I named my diesel Volkswagen donald trump. It’s orange and it lied to pass emissions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhhh, but it still passed and you have it for another year

Did my civic duty to get rid of this awful woman.

I voted early and apparently I did vote often enough because they called it an hour after closing 3000 to 1500 but that can’t be.

This state is becoming a lost cause
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got a kick out of that last night, they were calling it with <1% of precincts reporting. :huh:

Hahahahaha

"I should have been more… mindful....." before she willingly signed documents describing herself as Native American.... for the Texas bar, Harvard, UPenn, and God knows where else....
Now hopefully she just goes away, if only as a second tier Senator. A death knell for her presidential bid?

Here’s hoping she takes a hike
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she didn’t lie, she just wasn’t sensitive enough. that press conference was wonderful
to behold.

round eye who want-um live in teepee of great white chief, will regret lies for many moons.

and for her slander if the covington kids, she
might have to fork over many wampum.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device