• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

OFFICIAL Elizabeth Warren is awesome thread

PhDeac said:
Using the same internet you have access to, I found she was a stay at home mom and a lawyer before becoming a law professor.
Click to expand...

Thanks #undepheated, I missed the stay at home lawyer part on her wiki page.

Do you think her work experience qualifies her to be President?
 
For the record, I thought her speech was great. Really like her going after Wall St and big banks. She is spot on.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Thanks #undepheated, I missed the stay at home lawyer part on her wiki page.

Do you think her work experience qualifies her to be President?
Click to expand...

I don't remember work experience mentioned in the Constitution.

I'm curious what type of work experience you believe would make someone both qualified to be President and likely to oppose Wall Street and big banks.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
I don't remember work experience mentioned in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the constitution? I asked if *you* think she is qualified based on her work experience.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Who said anything about the constitution? I asked if *you* think she is qualified based on her work experience.
Click to expand...

I don't use work experience as a qualification. Does anybody? That seems like some BS that people use to denigrate somebody they're not going to vote for based on their politics. Anybody running for President likely hasn't "worked" in a long time.
 
knowell said:
This thread is quite informative as a barometer of this board. Hillary is too conservative. Elizabeth Warren is better but not really left enough. Bernie Sanders, well yea, maybe he is left enough since he is true socialist.
Click to expand...

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” -Noam Chomsky
 
Liquid Karma said:
I didn't vote for W either time. Voted for Gore and Kerry.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer his question. What about W's work experience did you not like? What about Gore and Kerry's experience did you like?
 
Warren wrote some great blog posts. Presidents affect and effect policy. I think her blog posts are convincing on policy. So she's qualified IMO.

Plus she's set up a successful regulatory agency. That's not nothing.
 
Last edited:
Saying who you would support for POTUS with elections two years away is different than who you actually vote for. In my case, I'm usually not excited about either nominee. More often than not, I try to choose the lessor of two evils.
 
PhDeac said:
That doesn't answer his question. What about W's work experience did you not like? What about Gore and Kerry's experience did you like?
Click to expand...

W was a failed businessman at every step, but that's not why I voted against him. At the time I was a straight ticket Democrat voter and Gore was the Democrat. Thinking like I do today, where I value executive experience and military service, there's zero chance I would have liked either candidate. One was a failed businessman, and both had dodgy (at best) military service records.

I was a fan of Kerry's military service, but candidly my vote for him was more of a vote against Bush as I was a bitter liberal for almost the entire 4 years following the 2000 election fiasco.

I don't think anyone applies the same logical tests to candidates throughout their life, and I know I haven't in the past and will almost certainly change in the future. I think someone famous once described their evolving political stances as "nuanced." The one that I've been consistent on since 2008 (and somewhat in 2004) is that I think our commander in chief should have served in the military, preferably with distinction (I grew up in a military family and have always valued that). And like I said earlier I value positive executive experience, either at the political or private level. Serving as a governor, or successfully running a decent sized business (I'm talking more than a sole proprietorship) are things I look for here. Failing that, I look for someone who has worked in public service at a high level (State Legislature or higher) for a decent amount of time. Do I have a bit of a bias against what I perceive as "Ivory Tower Liberals?" Tough to say that I don't given how much I clearly value work experience outside of academia. I think Warren, due to her focus on bankruptcy law and consumer protection over the years, is unique equipped to be a leader in assaulting the Wall Street establishment and a champion of the middle class. That doesn't make her qualified to be the president. It makes her an ideal candidate for Congress.

2008 was a slam dunk decision for me. I've respected John McCain for quite some time, although a great deal of that was diminished by his selection of Sarah Palin. Pretty much any candidate was more qualified to be president in 2008 than Barack Obama was. And I'd have voted for McCain over just about any Democrat candidate possible.

2012 was 2 candidates who had zero military experience, but one who had an exceptional record of executive experience. I still don't really like Romney, but again I thought he was more qualified to be president than Obama, although Obama had 4 years of on the job training to lean on which I do think matters somewhat.

If you're asking what changed between 2004 and 2008 to take me away from being a straight ticket Democrat voter: that's when I got married, bought a home, and started having kids. I stopped being a straight ticket voter and found myself voting for issues and candidates that I thought best reflected my interests.

Experience matters when trying to choose between 2 candidates, whether they are from the same party (consider the Clinton vs Obama primary where Clinton harped on Obama's lack of experience), or from different parties. Is work experience the only criteria? No. Is it a valid test? Absolutely. We need to get away from anointing candidates just because they made an impressive speech. When the speech is given by the junior senator from a state, and has little substance to back it up, it's a huge leap to then claim that person should be president. Warren is certainly trying, and I appreciate that, but that doesn't make her worthy of the highest office in the country. I think she knows that, and is far more focused on doing her work at the legislative level and I hope she's successful. I'd be pretty stoked if 6 or 10 years from now she is running for President on a platform of having actually led a middle class revolution.

My ideal candidate right now would be a champion of the middle class (Warren certainly nails that, and I'm very much a fan of her policies), who successfully ran a small to medium sized business for a number of years, and served in the military.

Right now I'm seeing no candidates on the horizon that match that ideal. There is absolutely zero chance that I vote for Hillary or Jeb. I'm really not excited about any of the candidates right now.
 
I don't know that I would vote for her but I wish she would run. IMO there needs to be a credible and intelligent voice in the Presidential primaries, at least, to speak for the 90% of Americans that have been pretty much left out of all economic growth for the past 20 years, and to speak against the rampant overgrowth of the financial sector.
 
Liquid Karma said:
W was a failed businessman at every step, but that's not why I voted against him. At the time I was a straight ticket Democrat voter and Gore was the Democrat. Thinking like I do today, where I value executive experience and military service, there's zero chance I would have liked either candidate. One was a failed businessman, and both had dodgy (at best) military service records.

I was a fan of Kerry's military service, but candidly my vote for him was more of a vote against Bush as I was a bitter liberal for almost the entire 4 years following the 2000 election fiasco.

I don't think anyone applies the same logical tests to candidates throughout their life, and I know I haven't in the past and will almost certainly change in the future. I think someone famous once described their evolving political stances as "nuanced." The one that I've been consistent on since 2008 (and somewhat in 2004) is that I think our commander in chief should have served in the military, preferably with distinction (I grew up in a military family and have always valued that). And like I said earlier I value positive executive experience, either at the political or private level. Serving as a governor, or successfully running a decent sized business (I'm talking more than a sole proprietorship) are things I look for here. Failing that, I look for someone who has worked in public service at a high level (State Legislature or higher) for a decent amount of time. Do I have a bit of a bias against what I perceive as "Ivory Tower Liberals?" Tough to say that I don't given how much I clearly value work experience outside of academia. I think Warren, due to her focus on bankruptcy law and consumer protection over the years, is unique equipped to be a leader in assaulting the Wall Street establishment and a champion of the middle class. That doesn't make her qualified to be the president. It makes her an ideal candidate for Congress.

2008 was a slam dunk decision for me. I've respected John McCain for quite some time, although a great deal of that was diminished by his selection of Sarah Palin. Pretty much any candidate was more qualified to be president in 2008 than Barack Obama was. And I'd have voted for McCain over just about any Democrat candidate possible.

2012 was 2 candidates who had zero military experience, but one who had an exceptional record of executive experience. I still don't really like Romney, but again I thought he was more qualified to be president than Obama, although Obama had 4 years of on the job training to lean on which I do think matters somewhat.

If you're asking what changed between 2004 and 2008 to take me away from being a straight ticket Democrat voter: that's when I got married, bought a home, and started having kids. I stopped being a straight ticket voter and found myself voting for issues and candidates that I thought best reflected my interests.

Experience matters when trying to choose between 2 candidates, whether they are from the same party (consider the Clinton vs Obama primary where Clinton harped on Obama's lack of experience), or from different parties. Is work experience the only criteria? No. Is it a valid test? Absolutely. We need to get away from anointing candidates just because they made an impressive speech. When the speech is given by the junior senator from a state, and has little substance to back it up, it's a huge leap to then claim that person should be president. Warren is certainly trying, and I appreciate that, but that doesn't make her worthy of the highest office in the country. I think she knows that, and is far more focused on doing her work at the legislative level and I hope she's successful. I'd be pretty stoked if 6 or 10 years from now she is running for President on a platform of having actually led a middle class revolution.

My ideal candidate right now would be a champion of the middle class (Warren certainly nails that, and I'm very much a fan of her policies), who successfully ran a small to medium sized business for a number of years, and served in the military.

Right now I'm seeing no candidates on the horizon that match that ideal. There is absolutely zero chance that I vote for Hillary or Jeb. I'm really not excited about any of the candidates right now.
Click to expand...

Very cogent. I like.
 
I think trying to value "experience" in a presidential election is pointless. In a race for a legislative seat? Sure. You might think that a doctor is better qualified to represent your interests that a trust fund baby, or that a head of a non-profit is a better bet for you than a retired auto worker. But for President of the United States of America? There is no experience that qualifies you for that position. There is nothing comparable.

I also don't understand the desire to have someone with a military background. Some of the worst presidents this country has had over its existence were military leaders. Not to mention that I think the armed forces do a pretty good job of creating their own leaders- the President only needs to respect the military and be able to have an intelligent discussion with military leaders. Its not like the President is going to lead a charge up a hill or pilot a drone.

Figure out who best represents your interests (or, perhaps more accurately, least represents the things you hate). Try to figure out the amorphous "leadership" qualities that might allow a certain candidate to better accomplish things once in office. But thinking that the fact a guy ran GE for 15 years would make him a good President, or believing that a full-bird colonel somehow makes one more qualified to be President than anyone else just doesn't seem to add up.
 
DeaconSig said:
I think trying to value "experience" in a presidential election is pointless. In a race for a legislative seat? Sure. You might think that a doctor is better qualified to represent your interests that a trust fund baby, or that a head of a non-profit is a better bet for you than a retired auto worker. But for President of the United States of America? There is no experience that qualifies you for that position. There is nothing comparable.

I also don't understand the desire to have someone with a military background. Some of the worst presidents this country has had over its existence were military leaders. Not to mention that I think the armed forces do a pretty good job of creating their own leaders- the President only needs to respect the military and be able to have an intelligent discussion with military leaders. Its not like the President is going to lead a charge up a hill or pilot a drone.

Figure out who best represents your interests (or, perhaps more accurately, least represents the things you hate). Try to figure out the amorphous "leadership" qualities that might allow a certain candidate to better accomplish things once in office. But thinking that the fact a guy ran GE for 15 years would make him a good President, or believing that a full-bird colonel somehow makes one more qualified to be President than anyone else just doesn't seem to add up.
Click to expand...

All fair points and well said, but I happen to disagree. I think the very things I listed all are indicators of the leadership qualities you search for. Just a matter of opinion.
 
Liquid Karma said:
W was a failed businessman at every step, but that's not why I voted against him. At the time I was a straight ticket Democrat voter and Gore was the Democrat. Thinking like I do today, where I value executive experience and military service, there's zero chance I would have liked either candidate. One was a failed businessman, and both had dodgy (at best) military service records.

I was a fan of Kerry's military service, but candidly my vote for him was more of a vote against Bush as I was a bitter liberal for almost the entire 4 years following the 2000 election fiasco.

I don't think anyone applies the same logical tests to candidates throughout their life, and I know I haven't in the past and will almost certainly change in the future. I think someone famous once described their evolving political stances as "nuanced." The one that I've been consistent on since 2008 (and somewhat in 2004) is that I think our commander in chief should have served in the military, preferably with distinction (I grew up in a military family and have always valued that). And like I said earlier I value positive executive experience, either at the political or private level. Serving as a governor, or successfully running a decent sized business (I'm talking more than a sole proprietorship) are things I look for here. Failing that, I look for someone who has worked in public service at a high level (State Legislature or higher) for a decent amount of time. Do I have a bit of a bias against what I perceive as "Ivory Tower Liberals?" Tough to say that I don't given how much I clearly value work experience outside of academia. I think Warren, due to her focus on bankruptcy law and consumer protection over the years, is unique equipped to be a leader in assaulting the Wall Street establishment and a champion of the middle class. That doesn't make her qualified to be the president. It makes her an ideal candidate for Congress.

2008 was a slam dunk decision for me. I've respected John McCain for quite some time, although a great deal of that was diminished by his selection of Sarah Palin. Pretty much any candidate was more qualified to be president in 2008 than Barack Obama was. And I'd have voted for McCain over just about any Democrat candidate possible.

2012 was 2 candidates who had zero military experience, but one who had an exceptional record of executive experience. I still don't really like Romney, but again I thought he was more qualified to be president than Obama, although Obama had 4 years of on the job training to lean on which I do think matters somewhat.

If you're asking what changed between 2004 and 2008 to take me away from being a straight ticket Democrat voter: that's when I got married, bought a home, and started having kids. I stopped being a straight ticket voter and found myself voting for issues and candidates that I thought best reflected my interests.

Experience matters when trying to choose between 2 candidates, whether they are from the same party (consider the Clinton vs Obama primary where Clinton harped on Obama's lack of experience), or from different parties. Is work experience the only criteria? No. Is it a valid test? Absolutely. We need to get away from anointing candidates just because they made an impressive speech. When the speech is given by the junior senator from a state, and has little substance to back it up, it's a huge leap to then claim that person should be president. Warren is certainly trying, and I appreciate that, but that doesn't make her worthy of the highest office in the country. I think she knows that, and is far more focused on doing her work at the legislative level and I hope she's successful. I'd be pretty stoked if 6 or 10 years from now she is running for President on a platform of having actually led a middle class revolution.

My ideal candidate right now would be a champion of the middle class (Warren certainly nails that, and I'm very much a fan of her policies), who successfully ran a small to medium sized business for a number of years, and served in the military.

Right now I'm seeing no candidates on the horizon that match that ideal. There is absolutely zero chance that I vote for Hillary or Jeb. I'm really not excited about any of the candidates right now.
Click to expand...

I laughed. Matters somewhat? I have to think that 4 years of, you know, actually doing the job is more relevant than your nearly random decision that being in the military has some bearing on how effective of a president someone will be. WWII was a long time ago. I don't think we are going to ever see the same trend again where we had 7 presidents in a row who all served in WWII (checked wikipedia). That was more a reflection on the time period than some indication that military service is a pre-requisite to being an effective president. This isn't a knock on the military. You grew up in that and value the intangibles that accompany it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top