Bernie & Senator Elizabeth Warren

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Warren would cement BS as the whites only candidate (though Warren claims a % of NA). Her only diversity plus is that she was a Republican until her 40's but otherwise this would be a myopic choice. Reality - he won't have to make the choice but she wouldn't be it

You are helping me make my point with that observation.

All that suggests is the very real potential for Warren to bring more cross over for center Republicans who can't stomach Trump in the general election .

And to our Vagina poster. Whooosh, that is the sound of my point going right over your head.

I was saying that for those who think gender matters and I am not one of them , there is your female candidate.

The point is Bernie is right on the issues , but main stream America is a little scared of him.

I don't think their is any rule against a candidate having a backer come out and endorse them and then for the candidate to say, this will be my running mate if I get the nomination.

Jeff, you are good at research, is there such a rule.

Just sayin' that team puts a stake into Hilary and also goes a long way to neutralize Trump

A Warren/Sanders ticket would be too far left for many. I guess if Trump is the alternative they could win. If I were Warren, I would hold out to be president instead of taking VP at this point.

[Anonymous]

Three people that I'm pretty sure will not be BS or HRCs VP are Warren, Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown. These otherwise fine choices are senators from a states with a GOP governor.and they would be replaced with a GOP appointed senator. The Dems will need every last senate seat this year if they hope to gain control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three people that I'm pretty sure will not be BS or HRCs VP are Warren, Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown. These otherwise fine choices are senators from a states with a GOP governor.and they would be replaced with a GOP appointed senator. The Dems will need every last senate seat this year if they hope to gain control.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, you could debate my point without denigrating and asking " how old are you "

To answer Jeff's statement that Warren is a clone of Bernie:

no, I don't think so . The only Bernie clone I have seen in Larry David.

The problem with old, ornery and Jewish is we need Iowa as in Lyndon Johnosn " have we just lost Iowa "

Warren is female ( counter weight to Hillary) and she goes into details on the mega banks and wall street bail outs.

Really, I think every American should hear it repeated dozens of times the list of ex- Citicorp exces at US Treasury and how they brag about how they have their feet on the neck of Congress.

That and maybe watch " the big short " before we enter another round of primary elections in early -mid April

Warren and Sanders would never happen because of age, both are senior citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is Bernie's best chance and ours and I am so convinced of it I feel like writing him a letter:

Bernie has the right message and a good speaking style overall, but he can be repetitive with his details, " a corrupt campaign finance system" .. " wealth concentrated in the top 1% "

What he needs to give him a great bump is to announce now Elizabeth Warren as his VP choice were he to get the nomination. This kills two birds with one stone:

1) Elizabeth Warren is a details oriented, smart focused talker . Check her out excoriating a finance excec in a congressional hearing and also on Hillary changing her vote after Wall street backing :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN4N_fXAblM[url]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_us_562e4eefe4b0ec0a389519e3[/url]

Her detailed approach has teeth and she can speak to the phoniness of Hillary


2) She is also a woman, so that cancels out Hillary votes on gender only basis.

Why is Bernie delaying on this . He needs to act now and get Warren to campaign with him before NY, CA and PA vote, which is in just a few weeks.

This is just about he most important political movement of timing in the last 20 years or so.

This is ridiculous. Nobody chooses a running mate before they win the nomination. Why would Elizabeth Warren agree to be Bernie's running mate when it is unlikely that he will get the nomination? How old are you?

+1,000,000

This thread epitomizes exactly what I hate about Sanders' supporters. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Do you know anything about primaries and elections?

[Anonymous]

Trolling going on. Though lots of people think it would be a dream ticket, nobody I know thinks it needs to happen now.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people are forgetting that this is an election of a President for the entire United States - blue, red, and purple. As a result, the likely winner will be someone who is generally acceptable to a wide majority of voters. It's not President of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three people that I'm pretty sure will not be BS or HRCs VP are Warren, Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown. These otherwise fine choices are senators from a states with a GOP governor.and they would be replaced with a GOP appointed senator. The Dems will need every last senate seat this year if they hope to gain control.

This.

Yes. I've pointed this out in many VP choice threads but they keep coming up as options.

And whoever told OP that no one chooses their VP before they get the nomination, thanks to you as well. OP is another one who thinks this election is oh-so-special and that the rules of every election before it and politics in general forever should not apply. It is tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people are forgetting that this is an election of a President for the entire United States - blue, red, and purple. As a result, the likely winner will be someone who is generally acceptable to a wide majority of voters. It's not President of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

Oh, please. Sanders isn't "far left" despite the "democratic socialist" moniker, in fact he is to the right of FDR and Eisenhower. It's the right wing that has become extreme. By today's standards, Ronald Reagan would would be "far left."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is Bernie's best chance and ours and I am so convinced of it I feel like writing him a letter:

Bernie has the right message and a good speaking style overall, but he can be repetitive with his details, " a corrupt campaign finance system" .. " wealth concentrated in the top 1% "

What he needs to give him a great bump is to announce now Elizabeth Warren as his VP choice were he to get the nomination. This kills two birds with one stone:

1) Elizabeth Warren is a details oriented, smart focused talker . Check her out excoriating a finance excec in a congressional hearing and also on Hillary changing her vote after Wall street backing :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN4N_fXAblM[url]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_us_562e4eefe4b0ec0a389519e3[/url]

Her detailed approach has teeth and she can speak to the phoniness of Hillary


2) She is also a woman, so that cancels out Hillary votes on gender only basis.

Why is Bernie delaying on this . He needs to act now and get Warren to campaign with him before NY, CA and PA vote, which is in just a few weeks.

This is just about he most important political movement of timing in the last 20 years or so.

This is ridiculous. Nobody chooses a running mate before they win the nomination. Why would Elizabeth Warren agree to be Bernie's running mate when it is unlikely that he will get the nomination? How old are you?

How old, condescending, and closed-minded are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people are forgetting that this is an election of a President for the entire United States - blue, red, and purple. As a result, the likely winner will be someone who is generally acceptable to a wide majority of voters. It's not President of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

read

Warren self identified as a Republican until her mid-forties

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three people that I'm pretty sure will not be BS or HRCs VP are Warren, Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown. These otherwise fine choices are senators from a states with a GOP governor.and they would be replaced with a GOP appointed senator. The Dems will need every last senate seat this year if they hope to gain control.

This.

Yes. I've pointed this out in many VP choice threads but they keep coming up as options.

And whoever told OP that no one chooses their VP before they get the nomination, thanks to you as well. OP is another one who thinks this election is oh-so-special and that the rules of every election before it and politics in general forever should not apply. It is tiresome.

PP, you don't know what I think . However, you can site the rule for all of us if you are so sure it exists. I don't believe it does.

Instead of hurling insults at strangers, just post the requirements and site the source.

You know, like a grown up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three people that I'm pretty sure will not be BS or HRCs VP are Warren, Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown. These otherwise fine choices are senators from a states with a GOP governor.and they would be replaced with a GOP appointed senator. The Dems will need every last senate seat this year if they hope to gain control.

This.

Yes. I've pointed this out in many VP choice threads but they keep coming up as options.

And whoever told OP that no one chooses their VP before they get the nomination, thanks to you as well. OP is another one who thinks this election is oh-so-special and that the rules of every election before it and politics in general forever should not apply. It is tiresome.

PP, you don't know what I think . However, you can site the rule for all of us if you are so sure it exists. I don't believe it does.

Instead of hurling insults at strangers, just post the requirements and site the source.

You know, like a grown up

Grownups know the word "cite."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people are forgetting that this is an election of a President for the entire United States - blue, red, and purple. As a result, the likely winner will be someone who is generally acceptable to a wide majority of voters. It's not President of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

read

Warren self identified as a Republican until her mid-forties

That's 20 years ago. People can change a lot in 20 years. Her current rhetoric definitely is nowhere close to being republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people are forgetting that this is an election of a President for the entire United States - blue, red, and purple. As a result, the likely winner will be someone who is generally acceptable to a wide majority of voters. It's not President of the far left wing of the Democratic Party.

read

Warren self identified as a Republican until her mid-forties

That's 20 years ago. People can change a lot in 20 years. Her current rhetoric definitely is nowhere close to being republican.

Oh, so she "evolved"? As in her views changed over the course of a few decades? Which is perfectly normal and acceptable for everyone, except HRC?