Elizabeth Warren says Barack Obama does not understand the “lived experience of most Americans”

[Moonbeam]

Some random thoughts on what is going on in this thread.

1. It was posted ny an idiot who reads not what was said but but what his brainwashing tells him has to be there, namely, that progressive positions on the economy are worthless scum trying to grab the money of people who work hard and deserve to keep it, when in fact the issue is that the rich have made bought enough politicians so as to create a system in which all the wealth collects in a few hands. Since it is money that buys this privilege, it is the ability of money to buy elections that must be eliminated. People who work hard will still be able to make the best of life possible for themselves, but that possibility will include a lot more people. And to keep the system from being torn apart by the horrible mindset that develops in desperate and miserable people, more will have to be directed at providing some kind of living for unemployed people, perhaps a tax on automation and robot labor or government funded infrastructure.

2, The liberal brain defectives infected with arrogance and loss via rejection lash out at the other side as deserving of the resulting misery Trump will bring, too emotionally wounded to feel any compassion or real comprehension of what other people feel and why.

3. We have other democrats, some of which also fall under 2. that are so focused by partisanship or good things about their party that refuse to acknowledge any criticism of it as anything but attacks. These are liberals with a CBD when it comes to party.

4. Then there are those who can feel how the Democrat party has lost touch with what average Americans are feeling and hope to wake up other Democrats. The prospects can't be predicted, at least by me at this time, judging by what I read in my 'Democrats are in denial' thread.

 

[Moonbeam]

So it's OK for private sector employees to consider how highly rated a school is in their hiring decisions, but not OK for the POTUS in nominating his cabinet? You're basically advocating some kind of quota system, but based on geography rather than race/gender. Shouldn't it be based on merit alone? Sure, a given person from Iowa State might be as or more qualified than someone from Harvard, but I see no reason the superior reputation of Harvard can't be a factor. By your logic, you could replace Iowa State with a community college or even a high school degree if it just makes the cabinet more geographically diverse.

So far as looking at it from the standpoint of politics as opposed to merit, you might be correct to some extent. However, I doubt terribly many voters know which schools Obama's cabinet came from.

I agree with Eski that it was Clinton who failed to inspire mid west voters more than Obama. Her flip flopping on the TPP certainly didn't help.

I think you and other liberals are trying to sever a thread with a sword. I think the simple fact is that Obama had a message that resonated when he won and Clinton had one that didn't when she lost. An effective political message has to offer solutions to problems that voters see as important issues at the time of the election. Obama solved the problem of Bush and the Republicans holding the office of President and Clinton failed to address growing wealth disparity and both parties catering to the rich by not addressing the fact that democracy for the average American is dead and that hopelessness leads to a desire for revenge.

Naturally you may not like to be told that a lack of party evolution in the political relevance department, failed to keep pace with a changing American reality, a change in perception as to what is the cause of impotence the American people feel, the two Political parties and their ownership by the establishment and its ownership by money.

 

[ivwshane]

I think you and other liberals are trying to sever a thread with a sword. I think the simple fact is that Obama had a message that resonated when he won and Clinton had one that didn't when she lost. An effective political message has to offer solutions to problems that voters see as important issues at the time of the election. Obama solved the problem of Bush and the Republicans holding the office of President and Clinton failed to address growing wealth disparity and both parties catering to the rich by not addressing the fact that democracy for the average American is dead and that hopelessness leads to a desire for revenge.

Naturally you may not like to be told that a lack of party evolution in the political relevance department, failed to keep pace with a changing American reality, a change in perception as to what is the cause of impotence the American people feel, the two Political parties and their ownership by the establishment and its ownership by money.

First you say Hillary didn't have a message and then you say she didn't have a policy to address the concerns of Americans. One is true, the other is not and they are not the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

I guess it just goes to show that people vote emotionally, not rationally.

Def true in 2016. Bill Clinton once said that when people are thinking that it's good for Democrats. Trump, the Russians & the Repubs made sure that it wasn't about thinking, about policy or about anything like that. They came at people thru their blind spots, got past their cognitive faculties into their emotional centers.

 

[Moonbeam]

First you say Hillary didn't have a message and then you say she didn't have a policy to address the concerns of Americans. One is true, the other is not and they are not the same.

First you say Hillary didn't have a message and then you say she didn't have a policy to address the concerns of Americans. One is true, the other is not and they are not the same.

Sorry, I don't see the distinction. Message and policy are one and the same. Right now democracy is dead in the view of average Americans. They are feeling economic hopelessness and political hopelessness that either party cares. They are frustrated and angry and in the mood to destroy the political system altogether if that's what it takes to shake the establishment out of their privileged sleep.

So Hillary did have a message but the wrong one. She had policies that she addressed that did not focus like a laser on the primary issue Americans are feeling. There are lots of women who feel left out and lots of minorities that do too, but there is a great mass of average Americans who are feeling the same thing. All that has to happen in such a climate is for the other side to come along and say, 'see how the democrats care about identity politics, all those others who are after your jobs. They are the enemy, not the corrupt system that insures that all the wealth goes to a few people who own both parties. Policy needs to be what will fix that and message needs to be this will be the policy.

 

[ivwshane]

Sorry, I don't see the distinction. Message and policy are one and the same. Right now democracy is dead in the view of average Americans. They are feeling economic hopelessness and political hopelessness that either party cares. They are frustrated and angry and in the mood to destroy the political system altogether if that's what it takes to shake the establishment out of their privileged sleep.

So Hillary did have a message but the wrong one. She had policies that she addressed that did not focus like a laser on the primary issue Americans are feeling. There are lots of women who feel left out and lots of minorities that do too, but there is a great mass of average Americans who are feeling the same thing. All that has to happen in such a climate is for the other side to come along and say, 'see how the democrats care about identity politics, all those others who are after your jobs. They are the enemy, not the corrupt system that insures that all the wealth goes to a few people who own both parties. Policy needs to be what will fix that and message needs to be this will be the policy.

Lol! Hey policies were the most focused I've ever seen! She had details ready to go anytime anyone asked her. If you aren't aware of her policies, you can blame her lack of messaging, but you also need to take responsibility for yourself and realize you were too lazy to bother looking into what she offered.

Or continue blaming others and ignore your own failings.

 

[fskimospy]

Sorry, I don't see the distinction. Message and policy are one and the same. Right now democracy is dead in the view of average Americans. They are feeling economic hopelessness and political hopelessness that either party cares. They are frustrated and angry and in the mood to destroy the political system altogether if that's what it takes to shake the establishment out of their privileged sleep.

So Hillary did have a message but the wrong one. She had policies that she addressed that did not focus like a laser on the primary issue Americans are feeling. There are lots of women who feel left out and lots of minorities that do too, but there is a great mass of average Americans who are feeling the same thing. All that has to happen in such a climate is for the other side to come along and say, 'see how the democrats care about identity politics, all those others who are after your jobs. They are the enemy, not the corrupt system that insures that all the wealth goes to a few people who own both parties. Policy needs to be what will fix that and message needs to be this will be the policy.

I think Trump is currently showing how different message and policy really are. His message is that he's looking out for the little guy while his policies are totally screwing the little guy.

Look at his health plan: he says he demands that his bill protect people with pre-existing conditions. What does it really do? Screws people with pre-existing conditions. He says his tax plan will raise his own taxes. What will it really do? Give him millions in tax breaks. He has decided that message and policy don't need to have anything to do with one another so long as you simply lie about what your policies do.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Trump is currently showing how different message and policy really are. His message is that he's looking out for the little guy while his policies are totally screwing the little guy.

Look at his health plan: he says he demands that his bill protect people with pre-existing conditions. What does it really do? Screws people with pre-existing conditions. He says his tax plan will raise his own taxes. What will it really do? Give him millions in tax breaks. He has decided that message and policy don't need to have anything to do with one another so long as you simply lie about what your policies do.

Like Democrats, when the message and the actions don't comport, as with Obama's promises, the party faithful don't care. The little guy is screwed either way. There is no guarantee that the message and the policies will align but we do know that Sanders has had the same message his whole political career. Clinton blew with the wind or so was the perception.

 

[boomerang]

lol, speaking of simple minds ...

Show me the math. Show me what can be accomplished by taking every last dollar of the rich. How would your life be better if income was equally distributed? What do you not have that you need that would be available to you in a redistributed society?

New York Times: When communism inspired Americans

After all the mass murders and crimes have been admitted, the left always returns to this nostalgia. Yes, maybe Stalin was bad. But his followers were principled. Maybe the USSR was bad, but the American Communists, quite a few of whom were willing to kill and commit treason in its name, were fine people. Just like the Founding Fathers.

History is in them.

This is the left. It returns, like a dog to its vomit, to the dream of the true radicalism of a totalitarian leftist state. It occasionally deals with uncomfortable truths. Circles around them. And then it lapses back into an opium dream of Marxists sitting around a kitchen table and debating whom to shoot first.

 

[Jhhnn]

Show me the math. Show me what can be accomplished by taking every last dollar of the rich. How would your life be better if income was equally distributed? What do you not have that you need that would be available to you in a redistributed society?

New York Times: When communism inspired Americans

You obviously didn't read the linked NYT piece but rather just the bomb throwers' take on it.

The source material always matters more than the bullshit right wing propagandists can slather on it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Show me the math. Show me what can be accomplished by taking every last dollar of the rich.

United States personal income, $15.4 trillion / annually.
At 45% of that value you have $7 trillion annually. A $3 trillion increase in the federal budget over today.

With that value you have can have Basic Income fully funded at $3.8 trillion, with $2 trillion for medical, and $1.2 trillion left over. If basic income was put in a savings account for every child, they'd turn 18 with $216,000 in the bank. A hell of a trust fund for a home, a car, and an education. Poverty, what's that?

There is no interest or need to "take every last dollar", and as automation increases that value can be taxed less from people and more from corporate production. Thereby increasing the budget and/or allowing significant tax reductions on individuals. It is something that can work if we simply apply ourselves to see it done.

And Capitalism would still fully exist, it just wouldn't have any glaring holes or weaknesses anymore.
We'd have a stronger middle class, a more stable economy, and a better America.

 

[agent00f]

United States personal income, $15.4 trillion / annually.
At 45% of that value you have $7 trillion annually. A $3 trillion increase in the federal budget over today.

With that value you have can have Basic Income fully funded at $3.8 trillion, with $2 trillion for medical, and $1.2 trillion left over. If basic income was put in a savings account for every child, they'd turn 18 with $216,000 in the bank. A hell of a trust fund for a home, a car, and an education. Poverty, what's that?

There is no interest or need to "take every last dollar", and as automation increases that value can be taxed less from people and more from corporate production. Thereby increasing the budget and/or allowing significant tax reductions on individuals. It is something that can work if we simply apply ourselves to see it done.

And Capitalism would still fully exist, it just wouldn't have any glaring holes or weaknesses anymore.
We'd have a stronger middle class, a more stable economy, and a better America.

Have you ever had any success converting white nationalists? Serious question.

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you ever had any success converting white nationalists? Serious question.

Contrary to your belief, that's not what most people are.
And as their jobs dwindle they'll be begging for answers.

 

[Moonbeam]

Contrary to your belief, that's not what most people are.
And as their jobs dwindle they'll be begging for answers.

He sees in others how he is himself, self justified in holding those evil others in contempt. Those evil others threaten our precious western liberal system and they deserve utter contempt and condemnation. It's just what you hear when those others talk about devil spawned liberals. Fear and hate and division...........

 

[Jhhnn]

Contrary to your belief, that's not what most people are.
And as their jobs dwindle they'll be begging for answers.

Right now, a lot of people are looking to Trump, the Repubs & the Job Creators for those answers, sad to say, because they're not ready to accept honest ones.

Robotized capitalism won't help people feed the kids or pay the bills. If we want a piece of it, we'll have to take the money in taxes, expand benefits & create our own jobs by expanding govt, not shrinking it. That's the truth that right wing propagandists have railed against for decades.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lol! Hey policies were the most focused I've ever seen! She had details ready to go anytime anyone asked her. If you aren't aware of her policies, you can blame her lack of messaging, but you also need to take responsibility for yourself and realize you were too lazy to bother looking into what she offered.

Or continue blaming others and ignore your own failings.

I said that democrats are in denial acting like they have a CBD and there you go inventing reasons like I was unaware of her policies. I was perfectly aware of her policies, pretty much identical to Sanders and all of good quality, in my opinion. What I am also aware of is that the only policies that matter and need to be expressed at this time to win elections is how to get our democracy back, You are in denial about what the real issue is so you are blind to what the message should be about. I had a big basket of delicious meats I was going to give a starving trapped cat but when I went to feed him he bit me on the hand. So my message these days is that we need to do something about cat fright if we are going to be able to save them from starvation. And of course the best way to do that is to call them stupid and hope they die from eating their own poop. Try to understand that you just might be a democrat version of asshole.

And like all bigots you mean well.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think you and other liberals are trying to sever a thread with a sword. I think the simple fact is that Obama had a message that resonated when he won and Clinton had one that didn't when she lost. An effective political message has to offer solutions to problems that voters see as important issues at the time of the election. Obama solved the problem of Bush and the Republicans holding the office of President and Clinton failed to address growing wealth disparity and both parties catering to the rich by not addressing the fact that democracy for the average American is dead and that hopelessness leads to a desire for revenge.

Naturally you may not like to be told that a lack of party evolution in the political relevance department, failed to keep pace with a changing American reality, a change in perception as to what is the cause of impotence the American people feel, the two Political parties and their ownership by the establishment and its ownership by money.

I said this just earlier today in another thread you were participating in:

Dems need to retool their messaging. The identity politics of the left should be toned down, while the message of economic populism should be amplified. Raising taxes on the rich, a nationally popular idea, should be a signature policy stance in 2020. As should any other policies meant to create jobs, improve real wages, and reduce the gap in income and wealth distribution. Highlighting that gap should be a major rhetorical strategy in 2020. Also campaign finance reform and appointing justices who will end Citizens United.

While I disagree with Moonbeam about many things, I do agree that Sanders messaging was better for last year's election cycle, even if it's unclear how he as a candidate would have fared when properly tested in the general election.

So I agree about the core messaging. I just think there are also other factors which influence the outcome of elections.

 

[Moonbeam]

I said this just earlier today in another thread you were participating in:



So I agree about the core messaging. I just think there are also other factors which influence the outcome of elections.

I read that post and agree with what you said, especially the matter of citizen's united. I agree also there are other issues. My point is that it will take a real revolution and a massive effort to pry democracy out of the grip of the wealthy and that democracy is dead in the water until that happens. So if we want ambrosia for lunch we're first going to have to open the ambrosia can and before there's a different kind of revolution.

We seem to have a lot of children here who haven't figured out it easier to burn something down than to build it.

 

[Genx87]

Does she even understand "the lived experience of most Americans"? lol

Yes, because she is only worth 7-10 million instead of the tens of millions of other candidates

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, because she is only worth 7-10 million instead of the tens of millions of other candidates

Do you have to have been waterboarded to know it must be terrible. Do you have to be poor to sympathize with those who are. Isn't it an immortal being and King of Heaven whose wealth transcends imagination so many believe who called for helping the poor? Weren't his fishes and loaves welfare mana from heaven? What truck could a progressiveness have with the wealthy. Why would progressive views be limited to the lower classes? The issue isn't who has or doesn't have money but the influence some with it have by buying out the parties. The attack isn't on wealth but money in politics. The reason you don't get that quick as light is that the word wealth triggered your religious political fanaticism, your sacred programming. You're so often appear to be like a cloud of knee jerks.

 

[agent00f]

Contrary to your belief, that's not what most people are.
And as their jobs dwindle they'll be begging for answers.

They know the answer isn't them muslims/mexicans.

He sees in others how he is himself, self justified in holding those evil others in contempt.

Between the two of us only one has a comical lack of introspection.

Those evil others threaten our precious western liberal system and they deserve utter contempt and condemnation. It's just what you hear when those others talk about devil spawned liberals. Fear and hate and division...........

At a zoo, the humans mocking monkeys isn't the same the latter aping the former, no matter what the monkeys or their BothSides enablers believe.

 

[agent00f]

I said that democrats are in denial acting like they have a CBD and there you go inventing reasons like I was unaware of her policies. I was perfectly aware of her policies, pretty much identical to Sanders and all of good quality, in my opinion. What I am also aware of is that the only policies that matter and need to be expressed at this time to win elections is how to get our democracy back, You are in denial about what the real issue is so you are blind to what the message should be about. I had a big basket of delicious meats I was going to give a starving trapped cat but when I went to feed him he bit me on the hand. So my message these days is that we need to do something about cat fright if we are going to be able to save them from starvation. And of course the best way to do that is to call them stupid and hope they die from eating their own poop. Try to understand that you just might be a democrat version of asshole.

And like all bigots you mean well.

A non-problem since even cats are smart enough to overcome fear of capture given sufficient hunger, but nonetheless apt analogy given it's pointless to reason with felines who've no use for it. Even you're aware that degenerates are at least as smart as cats, which is why they expect higher ethnic social status in return for parroting whatever policy lines.

 

[jmagg]

I know a parrot who has learned the word degenerate, his owners taught him well.

 

[boomerang]

United States personal income, $15.4 trillion / annually.
At 45% of that value you have $7 trillion annually. A $3 trillion increase in the federal budget over today.

With that value you have can have Basic Income fully funded at $3.8 trillion, with $2 trillion for medical, and $1.2 trillion left over. If basic income was put in a savings account for every child, they'd turn 18 with $216,000 in the bank. A hell of a trust fund for a home, a car, and an education. Poverty, what's that?

There is no interest or need to "take every last dollar", and as automation increases that value can be taxed less from people and more from corporate production. Thereby increasing the budget and/or allowing significant tax reductions on individuals. It is something that can work if we simply apply ourselves to see it done.

And Capitalism would still fully exist, it just wouldn't have any glaring holes or weaknesses anymore.
We'd have a stronger middle class, a more stable economy, and a better America.

How in the world has our nation bred a slew of simpletons?

So in the beginning, we tax everyone federally at 45% and then our kind political leaders will reduce that rate on the proletariat as time goes on? Are you aware that the income tax when first instituted was to be temporary? Thank goodness you folks are losing elections. We have escaped central planning yet again.

In all seriousness, have you ever considered moving to a country where the methodologies you desire are already in place? This is a huge country and it's going to be a big job trying to get it to where it's humming along utilizing your vision. Why not get out now and live the rest of your life in the peace and harmony you desire? The media will be happy to supply you with the propaganda you need to make that decision.

The Trump administration proposes a sizeable overhaul of the tax code one facet of which is reducing the tax brackets down to three. This is a big step in the direction you seek. Do you support that agenda? Or, would you prefer that 45% rate be implemented with the snap of a finger? I don't know about you, but there are a huge number of families that are living paycheck to paycheck that would wonder how they're going to survive when their tax rate suddenly triples. That $100 they have in the savings account isn't going to bridge that gap very far.

If you get a Sanders or Warren in the Presidency, how will their vision (your vision) be implemented? Will Congress just go along? Or would they become institutions with no power through some as yet unspecified process? The SCOTUS, them too? Will the uber rich leftists that finance their rise be happy to have their tax rate increased exponentially? If so, why is it that they didn't write big checks to the Treasury during the Obama years?

Here's the big question. Do you feel that your agenda is one that the voters as a whole desire?

Throughout recorded history we can see that there were dreamers and idiot dreamers. People with impractical dreams of a utopian existence. What we're experiencing today is no different except for the scale of the educated yet uneducated. Intellectual Yet Idiot By any chance were you good at taking exams? If so,,,

 

[agent00f]

I know a parrot who has learned the word degenerate, his owners taught him well.

Just a heads up that you're too stupid to realize insults aren't like mad libs. Just because something applies to you doesn't mean it works some other way.

How in the world has our nation bred a slew of simpletons?

So in the beginning, we tax everyone federally at 45% and then our kind political leaders will reduce that rate on the proletariat as time goes on? Are you aware that the income tax when first instituted was to be temporary? Thank goodness you folks are losing elections. We have escaped central planning yet again.

In all seriousness, have you ever considered moving to a country where the methodologies you desire are already in place? This is a huge country and it's going to be a big job trying to get it to where it's humming along utilizing your vision. Why not get out now and live the rest of your life in the peace and harmony you desire? The media will be happy to supply you with the propaganda you need to make that decision.

The Trump administration proposes a sizeable overhaul of the tax code one facet of which is reducing the tax brackets down to three. This is a big step in the direction you seek. Do you support that agenda? Or, would you prefer that 45% rate be implemented with the snap of a finger? I don't know about you, but there are a huge number of families that are living paycheck to paycheck that would wonder how they're going to survive when their tax rate suddenly triples. That $100 they have in the savings account isn't going to bridge that gap very far.

If you get a Sanders or Warren in the Presidency, how will their vision (your vision) be implemented? Will Congress just go along? Or would they become institutions with no power through some as yet unspecified process? The SCOTUS, them too? Will the uber rich leftists that finance their rise be happy to have their tax rate increased exponentially? If so, why is it that they didn't write big checks to the Treasury during the Obama years?

Here's the big question. Do you feel that your agenda is one that the voters as a whole desire?

Throughout recorded history we can see that there were dreamers and idiot dreamers. People with impractical dreams of a utopian existence. What we're experiencing today is no different except for the scale of the educated yet uneducated. Intellectual Yet Idiot By any chance were you good at taking exams? If so,,,

I'm sure Jaskalas will have more success getting these sorts to learn anything than students of western liberalism or any of dozens of educators who've tried.