Why (in my oponion) Elizabeth Warren and Ben Sasse are the worst (wages, racist)

[Winterfall8324]

Well, people like them at least. Let us forget partisan divides for a second because Warren is clearly on the left and Sasse is clearly on the right so not much ideological debate there.

To start with both are Junior senators from their respective states and both considered rising stars in their respective party. The media loves tails of rising young political stars, especially in the senate, so they talk them up whenever they can.

Now typical politicians exist which is obvious but these two are considered new and fresh changing the face of Washington politics and yada yada yada.

Recently both of them have gone on the "brave" quest of standing up to Trump because they are real rebels and are there to represent the people. Regardless of what you think of Trump understand two things.
1. It's not brave to go against Trump, especially in Warrens position, it costs no political capital and just makes you look good against the racist "thug" who is hurting their demographic voting race.
2. Both of them are acting like typical career politicians in this case looking for nothing but to move their status in their parties up. Let's start with Warren

She is considered by some as the progressive Hero standing up to big corporations. Well in the democratic party going on the attack against Trump requires little heroism. What would was if she stood up equally to Hillary supporting lower wages in Haiti, promoting Fracking across the world, standing strong against Clintons ties to wall street, going after the democrats and the republicans on foreign policy, getting into arguments with Obama over his deportation force (which according to her is racist) or above all supporting Sanders who at the very least is anti-establishment. Nothing. Silence on her part. Instead she tries to gain favors with the Clinton people by going up against the evil Trump who has never dropped a bomb on the foreign country, never supported a single policy (like Hillary) that caused the crash of 08, and is a private citizen. Standing up to Hillary who supposedly goes against her values would be brave, not quietly working for the establishment in hopes of career success.

Next Ben Sasse

He is, as he claims, a member of the Tea party and came to Washington as an outsider who will push conservative family value despite have questionable friends (bill Kristol). Now he goes against the party nominee. That has to be brave right? Not in my opinion at least. Trump never had too many friends in the republican party and being to the left on trade and war would already upset many of his donors. Plus the grassroots "constitutional conservatives" were Ted Cruz supporters. Now he is picturing himself as a person who is calling out the two party system for being corrupt and saying he "speaks" for the majority of Americans who don't like Hillary or Trump. Well, he never would have done that if a typical republican who would keep the status quo like Jeb were nominated. He would have remained silent. No railing against the corrupt two party system which breaks the back of third party candidates. If he were brave and really believed in "small" government he wouldn't be calling out Trump who like I said before is not an elected official. he would stand up to Mitch McConnell who wants to expand NSA spying and Jeb! who wants to increase military spending for more foreign incursions. That would be brave. That would cost political capital.

Whatever you thing of Trump don't for a second think career politicians railing against him are brave. Look at their actual actions to judge for yourself.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

Well, people like them at least. Let us forget partisan divides for a second because Warren is clearly on the left and Sasse is clearly on the right so not much ideological debate there.

To start with both are Junior senators from their respective states and both considered rising stars in their respective party. The media loves tails of rising young political stars, especially in the senate, so they talk them up whenever they can.

Now typical politicians exist which is obvious but these two are considered new and fresh changing the face of Washington politics and yada yada yada.

Recently both of them have gone on the "brave" quest of standing up to Trump because they are real rebels and are there to represent the people. Regardless of what you think of Trump understand two things.
1. It's not brave to go against Trump, especially in Warrens position, it costs no political capital and just makes you look good against the racist "thug" who is hurting their demographic voting race.
2. Both of them are acting like typical career politicians in this case looking for nothing but to move their status in their parties up. Let's start with Warren

She is considered by some as the progressive Hero standing up to big corporations. Well in the democratic party going on the attack against Trump requires little heroism. What would was if she stood up equally to Hillary supporting lower wages in Haiti, promoting Fracking across the world, standing strong against Clintons ties to wall street, going after the democrats and the republicans on foreign policy, getting into arguments with Obama over his deportation force (which according to her is racist) or above all supporting Sanders who at the very least is anti-establishment. Nothing. Silence on her part. Instead she tries to gain favors with the Clinton people by going up against the evil Trump who has never dropped a bomb on the foreign country, never supported a single policy (like Hillary) that caused the crash of 08, and is a private citizen. Standing up to Hillary who supposedly goes against her values would be brave, not quietly working for the establishment in hopes of career success.

Anti establishment is not a reason to support anyone . Being a private citizen doesnt mean you have no views or that you(trump) dont support and take advisement from people who indeed had votes and want to bomb those same places.

Your entire post was to defense Trump. Also Clinton does not go against Warren's values. nitpicking issues and generalizing about them isnt enough to make your argument.

[Winterfall8324]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Anti establishment is not a reason to support anyone . Being a private citizen doesnt mean you have no views or that you(trump) dont support and take advisement from people who indeed had votes and want to bomb those same places.

Your entire post was to defense Trump. Also Clinton does not go against Warren's values. nitpicking issues and generalizing about them isnt enough to make your argument.

firstly, it wasn't about defending trump, I do support him but that's not what my post was about. It was to point out that if someone like Elizabeth warren wanted to go after people who were really at fault for 08 she could have or stuck to progressive principle by attack the dem party. That was meant to point out to people that there is no reason to praise her twitter war as fighting for progressive values when she could have gone after Hillary and be more productive. Instead she took a cheap shot which changes no ones opinion to gain more political capital within the democratic party

[VTHokieFan]

I disagree with Elizabeth Warren, but at least I used to respect her. She is going bat crazy with the twitter wars with Donald Trump. I mean he is baiting her and she is taking every piece of bait, and is getting trolled big time.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

I disagree with Elizabeth Warren, but at least I used to respect her. She is going bat crazy with the twitter wars with Donald Trump. I mean he is baiting her and she is taking every piece of bait, and is getting trolled big time.

Yeah, when the pig oinks something mean at you, don't hop into the sty and wrestle him. And thats what she has done for Trump. He loves this stuff. She should have stayed above it, and dropped bombs from a distance.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Winterfall8324

firstly, it wasn't about defending trump, I do support him but that's not what my post was about. It was to point out that if someone like Elizabeth warren wanted to go after people who were really at fault for 08 she could have or stuck to progressive principle by attack the dem party. That was meant to point out to people that there is no reason to praise her twitter war as fighting for progressive values when she could have gone after Hillary and be more productive. Instead she took a cheap shot which changes no ones opinion to gain more political capital within the democratic party

I cant tell you what you meant your post to be, but I can tell you what it looks like from the outside. It looks like you are defending Trump more than any frustration you actually have with Warren/Clinton( I cant speak on Sasse because I dont know him that well.)

A lot of the things you put forth as example of where Warren could have gone after Clinton are actually areas where they might not even disagree(you assume they do because you believe Warren and Sanders are the same, they are not), and in other cases, Trump's view is far beyond that of Clinton so yes, he is not only the better target, but the worse candidate.

it absolutely makes sense for her to go after him rather than her. labeling him a private citizen when he is both the Republican nominee for President and is being advised by the very people who supported the policies that you say caused the 08 Meltdown(not sure why you included Clinton in that) means he indeed should be her target.

In short, Clinton and Warren probably agree on 90% of policies, where as Warren and Trump disagree on 90%

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by greywar

She should have stayed above it, and dropped bombs from a distance.

Well, in Warren's case she'd use tomahawks but I get the point.

[PedroMartinez]

Warren is on the war path I suppose.

[Cape Cod Todd]

I don't know about Sasse but being from Mass. I am familiar with Granny Warren and I simply do not get it why so many people flip over her and why she is the new "Darling of the Dems". I even heard mention of that she might become Hillary's running mate and that is a scary thought.
She is a liar that claimed to be an indian to get herself into Harvard which gave rise to the whole pocohontas reference terrible. She claims to be for the little guy while she makes hundreds of thousands teaching at Harvard. She is attacking Trump on how he made lots of money during the housing bubble/ recession yet she did the same thing when she bought foreclosed homes and later sold them for profit. She also loaned money to family members so they could buy low and sell high. She is a hypocrite that can hardly string a sentence together under pressure from reporters lobbing softball questions at her.
It is scary to think that she is a rising star for anything but somewhere in a liberals utopian fantasy land.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

I don't know about Sasse but being from Mass. I am familiar with Granny Warren and I simply do not get it why so many people flip over her and why she is the new "Darling of the Dems". I even heard mention of that she might become Hillary's running mate and that is a scary thought.
She is a liar that claimed to be an indian to get herself into Harvard which gave rise to the whole pocohontas reference terrible. She claims to be for the little guy while she makes hundreds of thousands teaching at Harvard. She is attacking Trump on how he made lots of money during the housing bubble/ recession yet she did the same thing when she bought foreclosed homes and later sold them for profit. She also loaned money to family members so they could buy low and sell high. She is a hypocrite that can hardly string a sentence together under pressure from reporters lobbing softball questions at her.
It is scary to think that she is a rising star for anything but somewhere in a liberals utopian fantasy land.

She did not lie about being indian. You , like Trump seem to be making the "Full blood or no blood,there is no in between " argument.

Also, you seem to be arguing that you can not have a good job and also be for the little guy, that is preposterous on multiple levels.

Also, the claim against her family wasnt about the Housing bubble isnt exactly true, apparently what she did was simply buy foreclosed homes in the 1990's.

If you dont like Warren, that is fine, but if those 2 things are what cause you not to like her, then your case is weak.