Elizabeth Warren's Greatest (Youtube) Hits

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:46 PM - Edit history (7)

12/12/2014 - Sen. Warren takes the floor in the Senate to describe how Citigroup has co-opted the Executive branch of government, uses that power to pillage working Americans.

-------------

12/10/2014 - Sen. Warren Calls on Congress to Strike Repeal of Dodd-Frank Provision in Funding Bill - gobstopping overview of the crap getting pulled on us by Congress and our President. Citigroup is threatening to shut down the government unless they get the right to gamble using taxpayer money.

-------------

11/212014 - Senator Warren goes after NY Federal Reserve Chairman (and former Goldman Sachs exec, of course) William Dudley for the Fed's a culture of letting bankers have their way with the 99%:

?list=UUTH9zV8Imw09J5bOoTR18_A

11/19/2014 - Senator Warren Takes FHFA Director Mel Watt to task for blowing off his authority to reduce mortgage principals after promising, one year ago, to look into it. This would save hundreds of thousands of family homes from foreclosure.

-------------

A list of videos showing Sen. Warren in action, fighting for the 99%. (This is a work in progress... we'll be adding more videos over time)

3/29/2014 - The case for Elizabeth Warren for president, in 7 minutes:

-------------

6/19/2013 - Elizabeth Warren one of only four senators voting against Obama's choice for US Trade Representative, because he refuses to stop keeping negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership "free" trade agreement secret.

-------------

2/24/2013 - Elizabeth Warren shames bank "regulators" at her first Banking Committee meeting

-------------

4/29/2009 - Elizabeth Warren to Tim Geithner: Why treat banks better than the auto industry?

[NYC_SKP]

1. August 2011, Andover, Mass: "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own "

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody."

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did."

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

[johnsusan]

2. Warren, H.Clinton

I'm a progressive democrat, and have the deepest admiration for E. Warren. What bothers me, is the growing antagonism that has been made to exist between Hillary supporters and Warren supporters. 1st) Warren respects and admires Hillary. 2nd) Hillary is, as yet, the favored candidate for our party. So, why the antagonism? Why are we hoping that Hillary "represents herself," as a progressive democrat? I smell the republicans here. A president has a vastly different burden than any other high government official. He/she, must lead the entire country. It follows, that relatively centrist candidates will have a built in advantage for gaining the White House. So, why the demand that Hillary give us "bold" views for her campaign. This issue will be resolved in each of our cases, when we answer the question, does Warren have equal chances of winning the Presidency, or better chances, or worse chances? This is a question that has not yet been presented to Elizabeth. What I want from a democratic president, is that he/she takes the "opportunity" given them by their elevated office, to gradually change, encourage, the public, in a more liberal direction. How can this be achieved? The president can do this, by instituting progressive programs that are beneficial to the general public. But, the obligation to vote for, whomever the dem. candidate becomes, is a life and death obligation. I have voted democratic since I was minimally able to see the striking differences between the two parties. I will not vote for republicans under any circumstances.
When I vote for a democrat, he/she may not be the strongest dem, but will bring in the entire dem party, along with him.

The only people that benefit from hostility between Hillary and Elizabeth, or Saunders, or whomever, are republicans. People often pretend that Nader's interference in the Gore campaign was not decisive in putting Bush in office. Nonsense. It was a factor, not the only factor, but a factor nevertheless. It helped Bush that Nader demanded a more progressive campaign from Gore. Gore also wanted a more progressive outlook to gradually become the norm in our country, but knew with certainty, that it couldn't be forced on a public, much more conservative than it would be, if we could achieve more dem victories in the country. Our country is much more conservative than it should be. But that isn't because a handful of dem politicians don't attempt more "progressive" campaigns when they aspire to office. It's because "we," have failed to do our part to fight. Demanding greatly more progressive "campaign" platforms, when those programs inevitably fail, because voters fear "radicals, is self-defeating and selfish." If you're a dem, not willing to put your support behind Hillary, if she's our nominee, you don't understand politics. I love Warren, but, and this is ultimately the most important matter, she wouldn't have the ghost of a chance against republican politicians that would destroy her with accusations of radicalism, and, you can be certain, that network media would help the republicans make that charge stick.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. This is not the appropriate group for your post.

Some of us think that

- insane wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason
- trade deals that screw the middle class
- and everything else that screws the middle class

are bad things. You seem to be OK with them. That's OK, but not in this group, sorry.

Please update your post to, for instance, not call Warren supporters Republicans, and you can remain in this group. Otherwise not.

Thanks.

[NYC_SKP]

4. 2 of their 2 posts are in this group and say the same things, Manny.

.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12653509#post1

Block?

[SanAntoneRogue]

5. I agree ...

... with your analysis.