PRDP Group Post: I just find it *interesting* that Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican,

[MannyGoldstein]

and now she's trying to split the Democratic Party by stating - publicly! - that the TPP might not live up to the hype, and that we should see Hillary's actual positions before supporting her.

We just have to wonder what her real motivations are, no?

Regards,

TWM

[KoKo]

1. Well...it's revealed that Obama really loved Reagan and thought his way of governing

was "just right."

So what TWM is saying: "It takes a Republican to know a Republican?" A former Republican can reveal what a Candidate who ran as a Dem but governed favoring Republicans Couldn't Do?

Or, I'm reading you very wrong...and should just take a break from DU. And, Elizabeth knows what Repubs do and she figures its TIME FOR A BREAK?

Is that what you are finding "Interesting?" I'm usually up on getting "TWM"s posts..but, this one is a bit confusing.

[fredamae]

2. On the one hand

I understand the cynicism/curiosity.....on the other hand..the GOP "used" to be more Way more worker friendly, way less wall street/big bank friendly...they, by majority were, by todays standards further left than our own Dem leadership is today, imo...
That said..she watched her party sink when the extreme rw "christian" conservatives hit...Is she simply recognizing the disease of greed invade the Dem party and sounding the alarm or is she "up to something"? Or is she simply doing her job in that she's trying to protect her constituents and the rest of us. I know I've learned a lot from her and I hold great respect for her...anything else? I just don't know.

I trust the hell out of Sanders..I'm thinking they sound like each other right now.

[KoKo]

3. ...!

[DJ13]

4. they, by majority were, by todays standards further left than our own Dem leadership is today, imo..

Nixon was more worker friendly than most Democrats today.

Thats a sad commentary on how far we've fallen as a party.

[fredamae]

8. Yes..... n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

5. That calls Sanders' motives into question, too

No?

Just think: he was born in New York, but he's a Senator from Vermont.

Doesn't necessarily mean he's working with Warren to destroy the Democratic Party, but... can we really take that chance?

Regards,

TWM

[fredamae]

7. No, I don't feel that way

at all about either of them.

But, since we're talking about a Dem party split...perhaps a separation between the corporate wing and the populist wing wouldn't be all that bad.

The corporatists in both parties clearly do not act like their respective bases are all that important to them as it is.

Maybe I'm naïve but I gotta say..the Dem party split, imo...is already well under way and has been for awhile now and neither Sanders nor Warren played a part in that..it was the growing anger, frustration and overall job performance of those Dems we elected.....caves, capitulations, bi-partisan bs when legislation was so toxic out of the gate to begin with, there was no room for reasonable compromise(s) to make it better.

[DJ13]

9. ^Trouble maker!

[fredamae]

10. Never :) n/t

[rhett o rick]

6. Not that I speak to TWM but, some of my best friends used to be Republicons. In fact I once was a

Republicon. I switched parties a couple of times while trying to figure out which party want war less than the other back in the late 60's.

As far as splitting the Party, who is responsible, the one that adheres to Democratic Principles or the one that abandons Democratic Principles when the mood strikes?

I am tempted to report TWM to the hosts and would if you didn't out rank me (pun intended).

[MannyGoldstein]

11. You're on our list

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Former Republican, huh?

Questioning authority?

A true Democrat is flexible. Very, very flexible. Like Silly Putty.

[rhett o rick]

15. Your List? LOL. I'm on the NSA/CIA's list. The hell with your list.

"Silly Putty"? I kinda like that. Wonder if it's been used here. Hmm. Make a great handpuppet name.

[demwing]

17. His list...the NSA/CIA List...

who can tell the difference, right?

Really, there's just one list, with different levels of user privileges, and everyone is on that list.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Indeed, Rhett. TWM is rank.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. I smell a play on words here.

But I stink at figuring those things out.

[RiverLover]

13. I prefer someone who has been a true & deeply committed Democrat for the past 20 years

over someone who's been faking it for 40.

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. It's Eleventy Dimensional Chess

[Dragonfli]

18. It's not just her I have my eye on. That Sanders fellow is said to be in league with the

Kochs.

Now I know the Kochs aren't all bad and did great work with the DLC, but They will run a fifty state strategy to help him defeat Clinton (who as we all know is the only sensible person for the job of POTUS) and this knowledge must be spread far and wide.

There is already talk about it around here, where there is smoke there is fire, mark my words, Sanders is the new Koch!

[Agschmid]

19. AGAIN... ABSOLUTELY NOT what we are saying.

I figure I am on ignore because that seems to how you handle things, but I'm not willing to let your false accusation slide.

[Enthusiast]

20. No

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[NYC_SKP]

21. A modest thought.

Not that I am making that argument but this line of reasoning could come to bear, and I am really frightened by the prospect and consequences of a Hillary presidency.

How bad can a Hillary presidency be? It will help the Republicans, not hurt them.

Because a Hillary presidency will mobilize the Right and grow their numbers in Congress AND possibly lead to a strong case for a Republican POTUS following her reign. We do NOT want a republican congress AND President.

Also, I think she ruins the Democratic Party brand.

We're already deeply disappointed in the way unions and the working class have been largely abandoned, and Clinton doesn't seem particularly interested in moving us back to the left.

Thus, a George Pataki type populist Repbulican, for example, might have a shot of pulling away votes from Democrats who don't like Clinton.

But if Warren was the nominee, she would clearly keep those votes.

Why take chances?

She needs to step down, someone needs to step up.