• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Please respond only if you watched E. Warren's town hall

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,163
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Please respond only if you watched E. Warren's town hall the other night. It's presented here for those who missed it.



Full disclosure statement:
I have elsewhere on DP stated I was not keen on Sen. Warren as POTUS.


I watched Sen. Warren's town hall, and I have to say I've shifted toward being amenable to her candidacy. She's quite compelling when responding directly to voters, as well she should be for the central theme she's campaigning on, "we've had enough with the Washington of corporate interests," is what she's been advocating for as long as she's held public office and she's definitely got very deep knowledge of the policies and where the "legaleze" in them leaves gaping "loopholes" through which any Fortune 500 firm can "hop, skip and jump."

I mean, really. The woman is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law, Emerita at Harvard. Her focus areas were:

  • Bankruptcy
  • Contracts
  • Secured Lending
  • Empirical Methods
  • Payment Systems
  • Commercial Paper
  • Regulated Industries
  • Corporations
  • Partnerships
  • Banking Regulation
I think she knows how to write legislation to curtail the advantages the rich and corporate have and to level the playing field for small to medium sized businesses and individuals. I think she's well aware of exactly what provisions in the law "screw" the "little guy."

Some of her research includes:


I liked her general approach, albeit the same one Mayor Pete espouses, of acknowledge a matter, evaluate it, identify solutions and pick one or several and then implement them. I also like that she didn't get out too far over her skis, so to speak and that she listened to what people actually said. For instance, Georgia (~4:45) asked about an apology for the injustices of discrimination, which Jake, in a follow-up, characterized in the context of cash reparations. Warren was quick to return Jake's follow-up query to the matter of an apology, which is what Georgia asked about.

I think for a town hall this early in the election cycle, she stuck a fine balance between vision and specifics. For instance, she suggested allowing the importation of meds from CAN which she said has the same safety standards we do. (I don't know if or to what extent that's true, but it's something specific enough I can check and decide what I think about it.) She proposed allowing Medicare to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices. She also proposed allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. (Not a new idea, for it dates to at least 2003 and was resurrected in '07, '15 and '16, but a good one all the same. Even Trump supports it, but GOP members of Congress do not.)

Of all the things I want most after a reasonably upstanding character, I want a POTUS who is strong enough on policy to "just get down in the dirt" and deal with policies effectively. I've had it with the non-stop campaigning POTUS. I want a POTUS who governs, not one who's focused primarily, from the day after inauguration, no less, on winning reelection. If one's strong on policy and governing, that will speak for itself when election time comes.


What thoughts, with reference to specific timestamp points in the video, have you about Warren's town hall?
 
I absolutely love Warren as a policy wonk with clear, compelling bona fides and someone who can come up with excellent, well thought out prescriptions as I feel the Town Hall clearly demonstrated, while remaining true to progressive ideals.

That having been said, I'm just not sure if she has the broad appeal and charisma/force of personality to succeed in the nationals against Trump as nominee, but she definitely should be taking up a powerful cabinet position that plays to and can leverage her strengths in any Democratic administration that results from 2020.
 
*snip for brevity*
Personally, I support almost everything she has proposed.

Her ideas on how to combat the clear and obvious corruption which most of the big media companies ignore because they're part of it are my favorites.

That said, I'm unsure whether she can win the nomination - although I think she'd beat Trump, assuming the democrats who are part of that corruption can get past how her presidency will hurt their bank accounts and support her.

If she doesn't win the nomination, I would strongly support her being a cabinet member, in a position to renew and strengthen the CFPB or some such.
 
Please respond only if you watched E. Warren's town hall the other night. It's presented here for those who missed it.



Full disclosure statement:
I have elsewhere on DP stated I was not keen on Sen. Warren as POTUS.




I liked her general approach, albeit the same one Mayor Pete espouses, of acknowledge a matter, evaluate it, identify solutions and pick one or several and then implement them. I also like that she didn't get out too far over her skis, so to speak and that she listened to what people actually said. For instance, Georgia (~4:45) asked about an apology for the injustices of discrimination, which Jake, in a follow-up, characterized in the context of cash reparations. Warren was quick to return Jake's follow-up query to the matter of an apology, which is what Georgia asked about.

I think for a town hall this early in the election cycle, she stuck a fine balance between vision and specifics. For instance, she suggested allowing the importation of meds from CAN which she said has the same safety standards we do. (I don't know if or to what extent that's true, but it's something specific enough I can check and decide what I think about it.) She proposed allowing Medicare to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices. She also proposed allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. (Not a new idea, for it dates to at least 2003 and was resurrected in '07, '15 and '16, but a good one all the same. Even Trump supports it, but GOP members of Congress do not.)

Of all the things I want most after a reasonably upstanding character, I want a POTUS who is strong enough on policy to "just get down in the dirt" and deal with policies effectively. I've had it with the non-stop campaigning POTUS. I want a POTUS who governs, not one who's focused primarily, from the day after inauguration, no less, on winning reelection. If one's strong on policy and governing, that will speak for itself when election time comes.


What thoughts, with reference to specific timestamp points in the video, have you about Warren's town hall?


She is the Henry Wallace of our era...What she says makes sense and logical and it would make for a better country in both short and long term.

However she will never ever ever ever be the president. Both Democrats, Republican and moderates will stop her to become the president, because she is way too much danger to current establishment.

Diving Mullah
 
I don't think Americans are ready for a socialist Indian.
 
That was in 2016.

Not sure if it's still the case or not.

And even if so, her anti-corruption proposals might mean she's the exception rather than the rule, in being influenced (corrupted) by big donors, like almost all the rest of D.C.

Or...as is more likely...she's lying her ass off.
 
Or...as is more likely...she's lying her ass off.
That kind of stuff is publicly available info though.

Campaign finances information, generally speaking, I mean.
 
That kind of stuff is publicly available info though.

Campaign finances information, generally speaking, I mean.

Sure, but not very many people look for that info. They just listen to the lady and believe her without knowing the facts that she isn't telling them.
 
I normally would totally support her being front and center and give her the same push I give AOC in support. I want her policies out there and stuff. The problem is she actually has a chance of winning the primary. Especially when she does a solid town hall like this and other recent public events.

That means she could be a serious risk to Trump getting a second term. We need someone who will not scare off moderates. Her policies aren't actually as bad as they could be, but she has a bitterness against capitalism and freedom that shows through. If someone with common sense understands her enough, they might be scared enough to skip voting. Welcome back, Trump.

Let her further the cause of anti-socialism in another arena, please. Let's not risk her giving us another 4 years of pain.
 
Ha Ha....did you notice date of your link....2016? Did they have a crystal ball?

Do you think she's changed her stripes in just a few years?
 
Please respond only if you watched E. Warren's town hall the other night. It's presented here for those who missed it.



Full disclosure statement:
I have elsewhere on DP stated I was not keen on Sen. Warren as POTUS.


I watched Sen. Warren's town hall, and I have to say I've shifted toward being amenable to her candidacy. She's quite compelling when responding directly to voters, as well she should be for the central theme she's campaigning on, "we've had enough with the Washington of corporate interests," is what she's been advocating for as long as she's held public office and she's definitely got very deep knowledge of the policies and where the "legaleze" in them leaves gaping "loopholes" through which any Fortune 500 firm can "hop, skip and jump."

I mean, really. The woman is the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law, Emerita at Harvard. Her focus areas were:

  • Bankruptcy
  • Contracts
  • Secured Lending
  • Empirical Methods
  • Payment Systems
  • Commercial Paper
  • Regulated Industries
  • Corporations
  • Partnerships
  • Banking Regulation
I think she knows how to write legislation to curtail the advantages the rich and corporate have and to level the playing field for small to medium sized businesses and individuals. I think she's well aware of exactly what provisions in the law "screw" the "little guy."

Some of her research includes:


I liked her general approach, albeit the same one Mayor Pete espouses, of acknowledge a matter, evaluate it, identify solutions and pick one or several and then implement them. I also like that she didn't get out too far over her skis, so to speak and that she listened to what people actually said. For instance, Georgia (~4:45) asked about an apology for the injustices of discrimination, which Jake, in a follow-up, characterized in the context of cash reparations. Warren was quick to return Jake's follow-up query to the matter of an apology, which is what Georgia asked about.

I think for a town hall this early in the election cycle, she stuck a fine balance between vision and specifics. For instance, she suggested allowing the importation of meds from CAN which she said has the same safety standards we do. (I don't know if or to what extent that's true, but it's something specific enough I can check and decide what I think about it.) She proposed allowing Medicare to use its buying power to negotiate lower prices. She also proposed allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. (Not a new idea, for it dates to at least 2003 and was resurrected in '07, '15 and '16, but a good one all the same. Even Trump supports it, but GOP members of Congress do not.)

Of all the things I want most after a reasonably upstanding character, I want a POTUS who is strong enough on policy to "just get down in the dirt" and deal with policies effectively. I've had it with the non-stop campaigning POTUS. I want a POTUS who governs, not one who's focused primarily, from the day after inauguration, no less, on winning reelection. If one's strong on policy and governing, that will speak for itself when election time comes.


What thoughts, with reference to specific timestamp points in the video, have you about Warren's town hall?


I watched her Town Hall and think she turned in an impressive performance. I don't know if the electorate is ready for a candidate with her credentials.
 
Ha Ha....did you notice date of your link....2016? Did they have a crystal ball?

Off-topic:
Your observation highlights precisely why I generally don't even bother responding to insipid remarks like those.
  • Those people's remarks refer to 2016. Warren wasn't running for POTUS in 2016.
  • We have her remarks from March 2019, when she is running for POTUS, along with her written stance expositions thus far.
But most importantly, the thread' rubric question is in the OP, and in red, no less: "What thoughts, with reference to specific timestamp points in the video, have you about Warren's town hall?" Whether folks want to be critical or complimentary about her remarks and comportment during the town hall is up to them; all I care about is that they directly address the topic, and, as you noted, nothing having to do with Warren's 20196 supporters is germane to her March 2019 town hall.
 
Just absolutely mind blowing a Trump supporter thinks this is a line of attack they can use.

shrug...

I'm not attacking anyone...except, maybe, stupid voters.
 
Do you think she's changed her stripes in just a few years?

What stripes? Your article makes a very thin case. From 2011-2016 she collected $600,000 from people associated with investment firms? What percent of her contributions does that represent?

She received contributions from lawyers!!! (heavens, never happened before) who represent bankruptcies? Cry another river please.

You realize that contributions to Senators from the NRA are in the millions of dollars range? And you want to use a three year old article to claim that Warren is owned by the financial sector because "individuals" however tangentially connected totaled 100,000 a year?

:roll:
 
What stripes? Your article makes a very thin case. From 2011-2016 she collected $600,000 from people associated with investment firms? What percent of her contributions does that represent?

She received contributions from lawyers!!! (heavens, never happened before) who represent bankruptcies? Cry another river please.

You realize that contributions to Senators from the NRA are in the millions of dollars range? And you want to use a three year old article to claim that Warren is owned by the financial sector because "individuals" however tangentially connected totaled 100,000 a year?

:roll:

Calm down, eh?

I made no claims. I simply presented facts and questioned her sincerity.
 
I watched her Town Hall and think she turned in an impressive performance. I don't know if the electorate is ready for a candidate with her credentials.
She damn sure did.

The current field is full of folks with some serious chops, both professionally and academically. Warren probably is tops in that regard given that the job being pursued is POTUS and I think regarding the general public's current revulsion of "big moneyed" interests and that her career has given her an unsurpassed awareness of precisely how to design policies and laws to abate the advantages corporate money enjoys.

That said, there's no paucity of very astute candidates. Two, for instance are Rhodes Scholars: Mayor Pete and Cory Booker. Mayor Pete is Harvard, magna cum laude and an Aspen fellow. Castro went to Stanford and then to Harvard Law (I haven't checked to see whether Warren had him as a student). Amy K. is Yale, magna cum laude and U. Chicago law. John Delaney is Columbia and Georgetown Law. Suffice to say, there are a lot of very bright candidates.

Credentials notwithstanding, every last one of them has more policy experience and knowledge than does Trump, and that's a strength they can and should use, and in so doing drive the focus of the 2020 POTUS election, accordingly, to be "all about policy and portfolio" until the candidate is chosen. As various Dem candidates drop from the race, those who did should go to full-on attack mode, some "doing the dozens" in the down and dirty way Trump does, others taking the comedic approach as do late nite comics like Seth Meyers and Bill Maher, and others taking the "high road," all the while allowing the candidate's own rhetoric to be laser focused on his or her own policy and highlighting the inanity, benightedness, banality and/or vulgarity of Trump's policies. Come the POTUS debates, the Dem candidate can then hit Trump from all sides, both "reading him for filth" and running policy rings around him, showing him for the buffoon he is.
 
Sure, but not very many people look for that info. They just listen to the lady and believe her without knowing the facts that she isn't telling them.
Have you?
 
Back
Top Bottom