oh I think it might be easy enough to attack her on her policy platform. I hear she has signed on to the Green New Deal for example.
The only thing she has stated that she appreciates the "concept of the deal" but would rather have a more nuanced approach. Basically trying to be as nice as possible to the junior politicians that proposed it without flat out saying "you are naive". I would love a nuanced policy debate on policy between Warren and Trump. That would be great for a change.
By history and temperament Ms Warren is not a great National candidate. And really she is too valuable in the Senate to divide her focus. She needs to be hammering financial injustice every day.
you've got no disagreement from me on that score. I think your real battle is with your fellow patriots who believe Warren campaign donations are the work of A-grade morons.
DPRK_News may be the only actually funny account that Commodore follows. It’s a satire on the bombastic, sensationalist rhetoric that comes from that country’s state-run media.
As has been pointed out, she hasn't signed on to the new green deal. So that would be attacking something that isn't her policy platform.
news to me . . . now, you may mean "she hasn't signed on" because there's nothing yet to sign. That's true. But if "signed on" means she supports it, intends to support it, plans to support it . . . then it sound like she's "signed on." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...b37cf1b326b66eb098641/?utm_term=.c6bfb82cbecd http://fortune.com/2019/02/07/green-new-deal/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ve-American-heritage-claims-declare-2020.html https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...io-cortez-unveils-green-new-deal-climate-bill
The first link is all you need since all of the other links merely quote the first link. As has been pointed out, she is in favor of it but admits it needs some nuance to work. People are welcome to attack that position if they wish. I think it's a winning position and is one that I support. I think America will support that position. It's awesome.
Warren's rich-bashing may backfire with Democrats: The more traction Warren's campaign gains, though, the more it undermines her claim that "the rich and powerful have rigged our political system." The evidence for that claim isn't particularly strong to begin with. Plenty of rich people would have preferred a Mitt Romney presidency to a second term of Barack Obama. Plenty of rich people would have preferred a Jeb Bush presidency to the Trump administration. Tariffs to protect American manufacturing jobs and a border wall to keep out illegal immigrants don't tend to be top concerns for rich people, with rare exceptions. Warren's rich-bashing also risks getting a bit awkward in a Democratic Party where the governor of Illinois is Hyatt hotel heir J.B. Pritzker and the governor of Connecticut is J.P. Morgan banking heir Ned Lamont. Warren was introduced in Lawrence as "the next president of the United States of America" by Joseph Kennedy III, a congressman from Massachusetts. His disclosed wealth of about $42 million derives primarily not from the Hyannis Port and Palm Beach Kennedy side of his family but rather from his mother Sheila Brewster Rauch's status as an heir to the Standard Oil fortune. https://reason.com/archives/2019/02/11/warrens-presidential-bid-aims-to-blame-w
The reason article is lacking in reasoning. It mentions only Presidential candidates that didn't go the way the rich and powerful wanted. That isn't where their money really goes. It goes towards lobbying, congressional races, even local races such as city council or the board of ed. Warren is exactly right that the rich have rigged our political system. Then it mentions some rich Democrats. The reason why she has traction and support isn't that she wants to keep the Democratic party as it has been for decades. She'd like to make changes and those changes don't favor the unfair advantage of big businesses in politics. If rich Democrats agree with that, then great, if not, so what. Someone simply being rich doesn't mean they do not support Warren's policy direction.
Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax is "probably unconstitutional": https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...a5b113ecd3c_story.html?utm_term=.c11b12e75b43
Jonathan Turley is on a roll this week with Warren: Democrats have (for good reason) criticized President Donald Trump for his signature campaign rally chant of “Lock her up” in referring to his then opponent Hillary Clinton.. Many of us objected to the display as obnoxious and demeaning to our political system. That objection apparently does not hold when a Democratic candidate, in this case Elizabeth Warren, is referencing Donald Trump as being locked up. Warren received the predictably wild applause to her suggestion in a campaign rally that Trump will be in prison by 2020. . . . It is of course utter nonsense. The Special Counsel’s report is now expected in March. No compelling case of obstruction or collusion-based crimes has been established against Trump. There is an allegation of campaign finance violations based on the Cohen filings. However, the Justice Department has a long-standing policy (with which I have long disagreed) that it will not indict a sitting president. Moreover, even with such a policy, the indictment of a sitting president would unlikely result in a trial, let alone incarceration, during his term. These trials are often delayed and, in the case of a president, there is a line of cases allowing considerable leeway given to a President and his schedule on such calendars for legal proceedings. In any case, the suggestion of incarceration is pure fantasy fueled by the same blind rage of the “lock her up” chants. https://jonathanturley.org/2019/02/...suggests-trump-will-go-to-prison-before-2020/
That is not how it works. You first have to build a strawman that includes your opponent saying stuff you wish they would say, versus what they actually say. "My opponent supports abortion on demand. Every woman should have at least one abortion as a rite of passage and to exercise freely the right to said abortion."
