Wow! Elizabeth Warren.......Black Lives Matter Speech
Options
Comments
-
MarcusGarvey wrote: »MarcusGarvey wrote: »If this ? was running for president i would be worried don't let her speech fool you she is a liberal which means she's misguided
I appreciate how she put her foot up Jamie Dimon and the other big banks ? though. She's a pit bull in a skirt, senate is the right place for her. Presidency wouldn't be. I can agree with her on a few things
I AM PRETTY sure there would be some things i agree with her on but i also don't think she should be president as a general rule i deeply believe reliance on the government is a bad thing giving them too much say so in the social and economic lives of the population is a bad thing.
Those who follow know it doesn't come down to things like abortion or voter IDs - the reality is, it comes down to the budget:
•Health care spending
•Defence spending
•Tax code reform
Who's going to work with this congress to get one or more of these done?
All the rest - the Fannie and Freddie, regulation, welfare, minimum wage, criminal reform (sorry to say) are secondary issues
And btw on I'm for sensible regulation of Wall Street (while still understanding that its a big part of american economy) - read Bloomberg article "Congress saved GSachs from themselves - GSach wanted to be like Glencore"
Those three things are very important however i don't think we can afford to over look those other seemingly less important issues because they all affect the "greater issues". YOU know how petty politicians are If she won't budge on the smaller things she won't get any movement on the larger things and that is also why i believe that on either side of the political spectrum only centrist can really get ? done so if you go in there super liberal or super conservative you will be a horrible president.
As for the banks we are in agreement i am also for SENSIBLE REGULATION -
MarcusGarvey wrote: »If this ? was running for president i would be worried don't let her speech fool you she is a liberal which means she's misguided
I appreciate how she put her foot up Jamie Dimon and the other big banks ? though. She's a pit bull in a skirt, senate is the right place for her. Presidency wouldn't be. I can agree with her on a few things
I AM PRETTY sure there would be some things i agree with her on but i also don't think she should be president as a general rule i deeply believe reliance on the government is a bad thing giving them too much say so in the social and economic lives of the population is a bad thing.
Flawed argument with the government there would be no highways and interstates, free public education for elementary and adolescent age kids, there would be no such thing as state and university hospitals, there would be no public transportation, no state jobs, no social security, no retirement, no prisons, etc.
All that is state and federal government sponsored stuff.
The argument of less dependence on the government is flawed because then private corporations would take over all the abovementioned programs and the average America (which most of us fall into) would not be able to afford an education or even be able to drive down the highway because the road would be private owned.
We are all dependent on the government in some way without government involvement some for profit organization would take the place of the government and best believe they wouldn't be looking out for you and me.
smh..... i did not say the government has no role or that we don't need the government at all i just said that OVER RELIANCE on government is a bad thing.
How can the government be less involved in our lives? Do tell.
less taxes, less regulations, less unneeded rules. Good governance should be lean but extremely effective -
Conservative republicans can admittedly be racist and say racist things. But the values they govern with the ideals of conservative ideology are to my personal economic and social benefit and I believe they would be unknowingly to the benefits of other black people as well.
Liberalism sounds good and moral from the outside. But the effects of it on black society has been deceptively negative.
We have been voting liberal democrat since the civil rights era and today our sons are ? and our daughters are ? and to make ? worse we are poorer with very little local economic infrastructure of our own.
Yet you want to keep voting for the same ideology. It makes no sense
Problem is, most republicans who claim to be conservatives.......aren't true conservatives.
Otherwise, they would see that their racist views are detrimental to the country as a whole.
Basically, they're just using the conservative label as a mask to justify their bigotry.
If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that liberals do the same thing. They basically use the liberal/progressive label to mask their paternalistic patronizing racism.
Out of the two ideologies it is my evaluation that liberalism has greater negative impact.
That may be true to an extent.
However, most of these republican "conservatives" aren't even willing to acknowledge that racism still exists or that police disproportionately mistreat members of the black community.
'Just can't bring myself to support people who are so out of touch with reality. -
MarcusGarvey wrote: »If this ? was running for president i would be worried don't let her speech fool you she is a liberal which means she's misguided
I appreciate how she put her foot up Jamie Dimon and the other big banks ? though. She's a pit bull in a skirt, senate is the right place for her. Presidency wouldn't be. I can agree with her on a few things
I AM PRETTY sure there would be some things i agree with her on but i also don't think she should be president as a general rule i deeply believe reliance on the government is a bad thing giving them too much say so in the social and economic lives of the population is a bad thing.
Flawed argument with the government there would be no highways and interstates, free public education for elementary and adolescent age kids, there would be no such thing as state and university hospitals, there would be no public transportation, no state jobs, no social security, no retirement, no prisons, etc.
All that is state and federal government sponsored stuff.
The argument of less dependence on the government is flawed because then private corporations would take over all the abovementioned programs and the average America (which most of us fall into) would not be able to afford an education or even be able to drive down the highway because the road would be private owned.
We are all dependent on the government in some way without government involvement some for profit organization would take the place of the government and best believe they wouldn't be looking out for you and me.
smh..... i did not say the government has no role or that we don't need the government at all i just said that OVER RELIANCE on government is a bad thing.
How can the government be less involved in our lives? Do tell.
less taxes, less regulations, less unneeded rules. Good governance should be lean but extremely effective
How many times do people have to see this story for them know that ? never ends well? -
Conservative republicans can admittedly be racist and say racist things. But the values they govern with the ideals of conservative ideology are to my personal economic and social benefit and I believe they would be unknowingly to the benefits of other black people as well.
Liberalism sounds good and moral from the outside. But the effects of it on black society has been deceptively negative.
We have been voting liberal democrat since the civil rights era and today our sons are ? and our daughters are ? and to make ? worse we are poorer with very little local economic infrastructure of our own.
Yet you want to keep voting for the same ideology. It makes no sense
Problem is, most republicans who claim to be conservatives.......aren't true conservatives.
Otherwise, they would see that their racist views are detrimental to the country as a whole.
Basically, they're just using the conservative label as a mask to justify their bigotry.
If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that liberals do the same thing. They basically use the liberal/progressive label to mask their paternalistic patronizing racism.
Out of the two ideologies it is my evaluation that liberalism has greater negative impact.
That may be true to an extent.
However, most of these republican "conservatives" aren't even willing to acknowledge that racism still exists or that police disproportionately mistreat members of the black community.
'Just can't bring myself to support people who are so out of touch with reality.
You don't support the person liberal or conservative. You weigh all their positions on how they will potential personally benefit you and your community, put them on a scale and if the positive our weigh the negative you vote.
You have to decide which issues are more important to you. I don't see racism ending so voting for a liberal who acknowledges racism but can't or won't do anything about it is a waste of time -
MarcusGarvey wrote: »If this ? was running for president i would be worried don't let her speech fool you she is a liberal which means she's misguided
I appreciate how she put her foot up Jamie Dimon and the other big banks ? though. She's a pit bull in a skirt, senate is the right place for her. Presidency wouldn't be. I can agree with her on a few things
I AM PRETTY sure there would be some things i agree with her on but i also don't think she should be president as a general rule i deeply believe reliance on the government is a bad thing giving them too much say so in the social and economic lives of the population is a bad thing.
Flawed argument with the government there would be no highways and interstates, free public education for elementary and adolescent age kids, there would be no such thing as state and university hospitals, there would be no public transportation, no state jobs, no social security, no retirement, no prisons, etc.
All that is state and federal government sponsored stuff.
The argument of less dependence on the government is flawed because then private corporations would take over all the abovementioned programs and the average America (which most of us fall into) would not be able to afford an education or even be able to drive down the highway because the road would be private owned.
We are all dependent on the government in some way without government involvement some for profit organization would take the place of the government and best believe they wouldn't be looking out for you and me.
smh..... i did not say the government has no role or that we don't need the government at all i just said that OVER RELIANCE on government is a bad thing.
How can the government be less involved in our lives? Do tell.
less taxes, less regulations, less unneeded rules. Good governance should be lean but extremely effective
How many times do people have to see this story for them know that ? never ends well?
It depends on the industry. banking, insurance, the financial sector those areas of the economy should come with more regulations. In other areas however the government need to GTFOH and even in those areas government should only use as much regulation as needed to keep america competitive with other nations but never excessive regulation -
MarcusGarvey wrote: »If this ? was running for president i would be worried don't let her speech fool you she is a liberal which means she's misguided
I appreciate how she put her foot up Jamie Dimon and the other big banks ? though. She's a pit bull in a skirt, senate is the right place for her. Presidency wouldn't be. I can agree with her on a few things
I AM PRETTY sure there would be some things i agree with her on but i also don't think she should be president as a general rule i deeply believe reliance on the government is a bad thing giving them too much say so in the social and economic lives of the population is a bad thing.
Flawed argument with the government there would be no highways and interstates, free public education for elementary and adolescent age kids, there would be no such thing as state and university hospitals, there would be no public transportation, no state jobs, no social security, no retirement, no prisons, etc.
All that is state and federal government sponsored stuff.
The argument of less dependence on the government is flawed because then private corporations would take over all the abovementioned programs and the average America (which most of us fall into) would not be able to afford an education or even be able to drive down the highway because the road would be private owned.
We are all dependent on the government in some way without government involvement some for profit organization would take the place of the government and best believe they wouldn't be looking out for you and me.
smh..... i did not say the government has no role or that we don't need the government at all i just said that OVER RELIANCE on government is a bad thing.
How can the government be less involved in our lives? Do tell.
less taxes, less regulations, less unneeded rules. Good governance should be lean but extremely effective
Less regulations and un-needed rules lol. I thought you might elaborate further.
Outside of marijuana needing to be legalized and less severe prosecution of non-violent crimes I think the government does fairly decent.
Less taxes means there will be cuts to some essential program. If you would have said a more fair distribution between the taxing of the rich, middle class, and poor I would have agreed with you.
Good governance is subjective. Out of the roughly 320 million people that live in the U.S. someone is still going to feel alienated you can't please everyone.
A leaner central government would leave more issues up to the discretion of state governments and I don't think that would be in the best interest of a lot of people especially if you a minority and live in one of those with a Republican governor, senators, and state representatives. -
Conservative republicans can admittedly be racist and say racist things. But the values they govern with the ideals of conservative ideology are to my personal economic and social benefit and I believe they would be unknowingly to the benefits of other black people as well.
Liberalism sounds good and moral from the outside. But the effects of it on black society has been deceptively negative.
We have been voting liberal democrat since the civil rights era and today our sons are ? and our daughters are ? and to make ? worse we are poorer with very little local economic infrastructure of our own.
Yet you want to keep voting for the same ideology. It makes no sense
Problem is, most republicans who claim to be conservatives.......aren't true conservatives.
Otherwise, they would see that their racist views are detrimental to the country as a whole.
Basically, they're just using the conservative label as a mask to justify their bigotry.
If you accept that then you have to accept the fact that liberals do the same thing. They basically use the liberal/progressive label to mask their paternalistic patronizing racism.
Out of the two ideologies it is my evaluation that liberalism has greater negative impact.
That may be true to an extent.
However, most of these republican "conservatives" aren't even willing to acknowledge that racism still exists or that police disproportionately mistreat members of the black community.
'Just can't bring myself to support people who are so out of touch with reality.
They aren't out of touch with reality many are bigots and many other ones who aren't bigots simply do not care about things that do not affect them and their way of life.
Kinda like how most Blacks don't give a damn about immigration. If they were some illegal immigrant trying to make a living working for $2 dollars an hour as a bus boy at Taco Bandido it might matter a little more though.
People in general don't start giving a damn until certain stuff starts hitting close to home. -
I guess u can give her an "a" for effort
But well forever rot in this country waiting or rallying for white acknowledgment of our iSsues
Life.dont work like that.....
"liberal" whites were all throughout tge americas, the islands, Europe and africa n we see how long slavery n colonialism lasted/continues lmao -
MarcusGarvey wrote: »If this ? was running for president i would be worried don't let her speech fool you she is a liberal which means she's misguided
I appreciate how she put her foot up Jamie Dimon and the other big banks ? though. She's a pit bull in a skirt, senate is the right place for her. Presidency wouldn't be. I can agree with her on a few things
I AM PRETTY sure there would be some things i agree with her on but i also don't think she should be president as a general rule i deeply believe reliance on the government is a bad thing giving them too much say so in the social and economic lives of the population is a bad thing.
Flawed argument with the government there would be no highways and interstates, free public education for elementary and adolescent age kids, there would be no such thing as state and university hospitals, there would be no public transportation, no state jobs, no social security, no retirement, no prisons, etc.
All that is state and federal government sponsored stuff.
The argument of less dependence on the government is flawed because then private corporations would take over all the abovementioned programs and the average America (which most of us fall into) would not be able to afford an education or even be able to drive down the highway because the road would be private owned.
We are all dependent on the government in some way without government involvement some for profit organization would take the place of the government and best believe they wouldn't be looking out for you and me.
smh..... i did not say the government has no role or that we don't need the government at all i just said that OVER RELIANCE on government is a bad thing.
How can the government be less involved in our lives? Do tell.
less taxes, less regulations, less unneeded rules. Good governance should be lean but extremely effective
Less regulations and un-needed rules lol. I thought you might elaborate further.
Outside of marijuana needing to be legalized and less severe prosecution of non-violent crimes I think the government does fairly decent.
Less taxes means there will be cuts to some essential program. If you would have said a more fair distribution between the taxing of the rich, middle class, and poor I would have agreed with you.
Good governance is subjective. Out of the roughly 320 million people that live in the U.S. someone is still going to feel alienated you can't please everyone.
A leaner central government would leave more issues up to the discretion of state governments and I don't think that would be in the best interest of a lot of people especially if you a minority and live in one of those with a Republican governor, senators, and state representatives.
Less taxes for all classes, all liberals want to do is tax rich people to death and i fear a more " fair distribution" just means taking my money and wasting it. The government wastes an ungodly amount of tax payers money on ? and many of those programs are not accomplishing what they were created to do in the first place. The government has to many agencies and too many redundant funding programs.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/03/the-government-has-no-idea-how-many-agencies-it-has/
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/
Drugs??? end the drug war it's a waste of money and anyway no government should tell you what you can or cannot put in your body it violates liberty as far as i am concerned.
I don't believe a leaner government has to be less powerful the federal government can get done all it needs to get done with out being bloated. As long as it can enforce federal laws on the states then minority rights in theory should be protected as much as they are now. I prefer less government period not just federal government BUT state and city government as well. -
So, you're posting info from that racist ass extreme right wing website.......
Black people don't follow that website. That is a pro-Zimmerman racist ass site.
-
J.J._Evans wrote: »
So, you're posting info from that racist ass extreme right wing website.......
Black people don't follow that website. That is a pro-Zimmerman racist ass site.
Who the ? are you to decide what black people do or don't do??? this is the kind of ? that holds black people back. I guess black people have to be a monolith AND we aren't free to have our own political positions??? and i just randomly googled that website but it really does not matter because the daily caller is far from a extreme right wing website -
Everyone here is a flaming ? liberal so even trying to look at the economic,social and political situation blacks find ourselves in with an objective lens is impossible. You are all dedicated to being slaves OF the liberal democratic party that takes your votes and lives for granted.
-
Did she not have to run for senator?
She's was voted in, in 2012
Did Black lives matter/black vote just become a problem bc people got cameras now or because a white person is speaking on it?
To put it simple for you
What you are seeing and hearing is an effort to push back against the false narrative that "All Lives Matter"
No need to simply.......People seem to get caught up in the rapture of one politician speaking "truth"....where was Elizabeth when Sean Bell, Ramarley Graham, ,Reynaldo Cuevas, Johnnie Kamahi Warren, Jonathan Ferrell, Oscar Grant, etc., died at the hands of police officers?
Where are the rest of her political patriots rallying behind this cause with her?? You know what she doesn't need em when the obvious people who are more likely to be killed support her sentiment that we've been screaming for years.
When Black lives matter is addressed from a politicians stand point it's gimmick to gain the trust of the black people.
People got so much faith in these politicians and these are the same people who talked "truth" about helping Haiti after the earthquake, helping the impoverished lower ninth ward of NO after Katrina, capturing Boko Haram in Africa
Don't give me no BS about the "other things" Elizabeth has done. We're talking black lives only. -
Did she not have to run for senator?
She's was voted in, in 2012
Did Black lives matter/black vote just become a problem bc people got cameras now or because a white person is speaking on it?
To put it simple for you
What you are seeing and hearing is an effort to push back against the false narrative that "All Lives Matter"
No need to simply.......People seem to get caught up in the rapture of one politician speaking "truth"....where was Elizabeth when Sean Bell, Ramarley Graham, ,Reynaldo Cuevas, Johnnie Kamahi Warren, Jonathan Ferrell, Oscar Grant, etc., died at the hands of police officers?
Where are the rest of her political patriots rallying behind this cause with her?? You know what she doesn't need em when the obvious people who are more likely to be killed support her sentiment that we've been screaming for years.
When Black lives matter is addressed from a politicians stand point it's gimmick to gain the trust of the black people.
People got so much faith in these politicians and these are the same people who talked "truth" about helping Haiti after the earthquake, helping the impoverished lower ninth ward of NO after Katrina, capturing Boko Haram in Africa
Don't give me no BS about the "other things" Elizabeth has done. We're talking black lives only.
Think I'll go with this brother's assesment over this woman's sincerity than anyone's here
-
Did she not have to run for senator?
She's was voted in, in 2012
Did Black lives matter/black vote just become a problem bc people got cameras now or because a white person is speaking on it?
To put it simple for you
What you are seeing and hearing is an effort to push back against the false narrative that "All Lives Matter"
No need to simply.......People seem to get caught up in the rapture of one politician speaking "truth"....where was Elizabeth when Sean Bell, Ramarley Graham, ,Reynaldo Cuevas, Johnnie Kamahi Warren, Jonathan Ferrell, Oscar Grant, etc., died at the hands of police officers?
Where are the rest of her political patriots rallying behind this cause with her?? You know what she doesn't need em when the obvious people who are more likely to be killed support her sentiment that we've been screaming for years.
When Black lives matter is addressed from a politicians stand point it's gimmick to gain the trust of the black people.
People got so much faith in these politicians and these are the same people who talked "truth" about helping Haiti after the earthquake, helping the impoverished lower ninth ward of NO after Katrina, capturing Boko Haram in Africa
Don't give me no BS about the "other things" Elizabeth has done. We're talking black lives only.
Think I'll go with this brother's assesment over this woman's sincerity than anyone's here
Yeah she seems very invested in the black plight....I see her black power fist!!
Based on that alone she can be my white savior!!
-
Unless that ? ? her i still don't trust her.
-
Wait....did people really hide my post because I called this ? crazy? The same nutcase who lied about being Native american to get over on people? The same Warren who's economic policies are worse than the ? in Greece?
White liberals can do a ? photo op, and people eat that ? up like fools. -
ThaNubianGod wrote: »White liberals can do a ? photo op, and people eat that ? up like fools.
Yet you are in here promoting white conservatives that are openly racist. -
I swear I never heard a man of color use the word "liberal" so often. Off or online.
-
She dropped that real about socialism.
One of my good (white) friends has gone full leftist socialist on me and I see the rational in the position and agree that a more socialist state with less carte blanche given to the corporations is a good thing.
However the problem with Socialists is that they are utterly convinced that capitalism is the root of all the ills in the world. Is Capitalism a huge enabler of al of evils? Yes. But racial, religious, ethnic, and gender inequality is a separate problem no matter how much economic inequality overlaps with the various 'isms.
To say or imply that "if we spread the wealth around, we'll all be treated equally" is wrong and rubs people the wrong way because it makes it seem like the various social struggles are being minimized. I see with my own friend; he's a more enlightened white guy but I don't like talking social problems with him as much because his answer for it all is "Well if we got rid of capitalism..."
And that's something Bernie Sanders will have to better work into his message cuz right now Black people aren't riding with him. -
J.J._Evans wrote: »ThaNubianGod wrote: »White liberals can do a ? photo op, and people eat that ? up like fools.
Yet you are in here promoting white conservatives that are openly racist.
I'm not promoting anyone. I feel black people should be independents and tell both parties to ? off. Do I like Trump's stance on immigration, yes. Do I like his tax plan for creating jobs(would really help black communities with quality work, not that minimum wage ? ), yes.
At the end of the day, none of these candidates give a ? specifically about us, so I'm only interested in how their policies will affect us. The Clintons put in many of these laws that led to police abuse during his administration. Biden was an architect of the Drug War that has put countless black men in jail. Never forget that the Dem party spawned the KKK, and that Progressives have historically been dismissive of minorities and pro-eugenics. We really shouldn't trust any of them. -
Knives Amilli wrote: »She dropped that real about socialism.
One of my good (white) friends has gone full leftist socialist on me and I see the rational in the position and agree that a more socialist state with less carte blanche given to the corporations is a good thing.
However the problem with Socialists is that they are utterly convinced that capitalism is the root of all the ills in the world. Is Capitalism a huge enabler of al of evils? Yes. But racial, religious, ethnic, and gender inequality is a separate problem no matter how much economic inequality overlaps with the various 'isms.
To say or imply that "if we spread the wealth around, we'll all be treated equally" is wrong and rubs people the wrong way because it makes it seem like the various social struggles are being minimized. I see with my own friend; he's a more enlightened white guy but I don't like talking social problems with him as much because his answer for it all is "Well if we got rid of capitalism..."
And that's something Bernie Sanders will have to better work into his message cuz right now Black people aren't riding with him.
Do we have to go through this every generation??? Socialism is ? and People still haven't understood this lesson from history yet???
