Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I really like Elizabeth Warren (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
I get it from listening to her speak.
The Commish
Footballguy
Well, she SHOULD know her place as a woman and keep her mouth shut. I'll agree on that.
timschochet
Footballguy
That too sure.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The protocol for reviewing the treaty is indeed objectionable. It's one if Warren's points and it's a good one.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
As opposed to Hillary who demonizes them on one hand and rakes in their money and does their bidding on the other?
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
timschochet
Footballguy
Nah. Just never been a big populism fan. I usually attack its conservative forms, like the Tea Party, but the liberal kind is nearly as bad.
jonessed
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
lol not half as confusing as claiming the Tea Party isn't populist.
timschochet
Footballguy
im not fishing. I don't like her rhetoric. It bothers me because she seems like a good person.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
We've tried to ask rich people really nicely, but it doesn't seem to work all that well.
The Commish
Footballguy
I've said it in various other threads, but we really need a Tim dictionary. It's gotten really bad to the point where words really have no meaning.
BassNBrew
Footballguy
Conservatives = bad
Tea party = really bad
Libertarians = scum of the earth
Obama = good
Someone who calls themselves liberal = better
Hillary = walks on water
A liberal with actual liberal positions or populist = Somewhere between the Tea party and Libertarians
The Commish
Footballguy
PIK95
Footballguy
Exactly. Great post.
The Commish
Footballguy
My favorite part is where standing up to big business = a fight. Give me a break. I also find it bizarre that one shouldn't expect some pretty populist POV in a republic like ours. We elect these people to represent us and protect us.
Cool. So instead of discussing her issues, you are making random comments about how she talks funny about rich people. Definitely what we need more of in politics.
timschochet
Footballguy
Its Warren who uses the word "fight" all the time. According to one article I read she used the word something like 20 times in her last speech. It is one thing to criticize big business and absolutely another to demonize it. AllDens, including Hillary, are guilty of this and it's pretty shameful. But Warren is especially guilty, the worst major politician I've heard doing it in years- worse even than Feingold and Ted Kennedy who were pretty bad.
And as far as the Tea Party goes, I hate to offend anyone but you would have to be pretty ignorant not to recognize the populism that runs through that movement- their enemy, rather than big business, is big government and big intellectual. But just like Warren they demonize their opponents and attempt to paint complicated nuanced issues into a black and white struggle of good vs evil- which is why populism is so dangerous and has been such a destructive force in our history- most of the time. There are exceptions to be sure- abolition, the Civil Rights Movement, others. But it's pretty rare when an issue can be simplified to good vs evil, right vs wrong. Modern day economics is not one of those issues.
timschochet
Footballguy
Her rhetoric is key to what I dislike though. As to her specific ideas, some I like some I don't, like most pols. But I don't like her tone.Cool. So instead of discussing her issues, you are making random comments about how she talks funny about rich people. Definitely what we need more of in politics.
Sounds all uppity.Her rhetoric is key to what I dislike though. As to her specific ideas, some I like some I don't, like most pols. But I don't like her tone.Cool. So instead of discussing her issues, you are making random comments about how she talks funny about rich people. Definitely what we need more of in politics.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I have to ask Tim, why on earth do you believe that? Your list of exceptions conspicuously left out what I (and many others) would consider one of the most important populist movements of our entire history: that of progressives fighting against corporate power, special interests, and government corruption from about 1900 to World War II. Rhetoric nigh identical to things Warren and Sanders say today was common place and widely supported by the public in those times and lead to pretty much every right you have as a worker today. What makes you the person to tell everyone else that, this time, they're wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnycakes
Footballguy
she speak with forked tongue
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There's populism, and then there's democracy. I come from the land of populism, or it used to be. But our democracy was horrible in La.
People have a right to information, the government belongs to the people. When it comes to financial regulation, who knows what is going on. The pushback that the feds give when our own Congressmen ask for information and accountability is really telling. I think the populism comes in when politicians talk about redistribution in and of itself and for itself, the 'take from the rich and give to the poor' talk, but I am not really aware of Warren doing that. It seems to me she wants banks regulated at least in the fashion to ensure we do not have a repeat of 2008 and 1929 and I'm not sure we are getting that.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Excellent question. And the answer is several reasons. Recall that at the time the progressive fight started, it was NOT against corporate power, it was against big business power in the form of individual titans who owned everything: the Rockefellers, the Goulds, the Carnegies, etc. There were no trade unions. Workers conditions were terrible. Child labor was prevalent, and public health diseases were rampant. It was far easier, back then, to make the case of "us vs. them" because there really was a good case to be made.mcintyre1 said:
Now, over a century later, we have an entirely different ballgame. Corporate profits are reflected in 401k plans and investments, so every time we punish a corporation, we also threaten to punish the middle class. Unions in this country are very powerful despite the fact that they represent a shrinking number of workers, and one of our gravest economic problems is the pensions which unions forced on us, and which, because people are living longer, are going to be even worse in the future unless we find a way to deal with them. Unions also constantly push for protectionism, which is essentially a forced tax on consumers, and which keeps other countries economies in stagnation, creating political unrest which eventually we have to deal with. Finally, unlike 1900, all economic decisions are international, and whatever we do affects other countries and they affect us as well.
This is not to say that all of Warren's ideas, or all progressive ideas, are wrong. She may very well be right on several of her proposals. But this rhetoric of us vs. them, which was to some degree accurate in the Progressive movement you speak of 100 years ago, is simply not accurate now. It's far too nuanced and complicated to adopt such a simplistic, either-or attitude.
The Commish
Footballguy
This isn't populism or a trait thereof. Like I said, we need a Tim dictionary. Though I will say, it's apparent to me that this country is getting "soft" based on comments like this. What she says about companies now is "demonizing" yet things 100 times worse some decades ago were mainstream. Corporate America is getting exactly what it wants it appears.timschochet said:
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Populism is absolutely about creating a demagogy of "enemies" of the people- It is absolutely an "either-or" movement:This isn't populism or a trait thereof. Like I said, we need a Tim dictionary. Though I will say, it's apparent to me that this country is getting "soft" based on comments like this. What she says about companies now is "demonizing" yet things 100 times worse some decades ago were mainstream. Corporate America is getting exactly what it wants it appears.timschochet said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
timschochet
Footballguy
They still have a lot of members. And they have a lot of laws in place that protect their interests. But their numbers are shrinking.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
There are laws in place specifically to protect unions or just to project workers and employees?
