General Discussion

reddread

(6,896 posts)

108. Absolutely, of course!

Reply to BlueStreak (Original post)

Fri Feb 7, 2014, 11:29 AM

Feb 2014

between executive orders and invigorating a voting and non-voting public deprived of just representation?
NO QUESTION.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

188 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Thought experiment: Would President Warren actually have any different results than Obama [View all] BlueStreak Feb 2014 OP

here is how DonCoquixote Feb 2014 #1

Ditto Armstead Feb 2014 #12

hardly...you are being hyperbolic... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #44

Ha...You think THAT's hyperbolic? Armstead Feb 2014 #85

Well it is blown out of proportion no matter who does it... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #117

Only in a dream world. Apparently imaginary President Warren controls the media... KittyWampus Feb 2014 #38

They don't seem to understand the minds of the Teabaggers....they hate WOMEN more than VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #45

So, your contention is that the media would not cover the President of the United States' speeches? Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #62

I'm not sure we HAVE extra money and resources......... clarice Feb 2014 #106

So Ms Warren would control the media! She would force them to put her on TV!! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #118

not all of it, not even a majority DonCoquixote Feb 2014 #155

She won't be able to do any better against the Grand Obstruction Party than Pres. Obama does. VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #160

Exactly! Andy823 Feb 2014 #178

they seem to think that Elizabeth Warren will talk them into it... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #179

Nope. No one will until we have control of both the House and a super-majority in the Senate Tx4obama Feb 2014 #2

Would you agree that we would have a better chance of getting those majorities BlueStreak Feb 2014 #5

No I would not agree. We don't really know that much about Warren yet other than her... Tx4obama Feb 2014 #7

Her passion for financial related issues is important Armstead Feb 2014 #10

What don't we know? MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #14

She is strongly pro-military. MADem Feb 2014 #53

Then NO. BGFisher200 Feb 2014 #156

Yeah, whatever. MADem Feb 2014 #175

She also opposes the outright legalization of marijuana Tx4obama Feb 2014 #173

I know--she'll be wanting to backtrack on that 'un, I suspect! MADem Feb 2014 #174

The way districting works makes that problematic. joshcryer Feb 2014 #16

I agree that voting reforms are the thing to push for now cprise Feb 2014 #34

Score or range voting limits that effect a lot. joshcryer Feb 2014 #42

If 2016 is a wave election even bigger than 2008, perhaps, nyquil_man Feb 2014 #20

Maybe there are two waves BlueStreak Feb 2014 #32

You're on to something there Armstead Feb 2014 #88

This: CrispyQ Feb 2014 #33

It is said that President Obama has to walk on eggshells because of that "Angry Black Man" thing BlueStreak Feb 2014 #39

Nope neither would I ....these Teabagger types HATE women....they resent them... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #46

No, that I do not think is true treestar Feb 2014 #70

It's not fair mimi85 Feb 2014 #139

you mean kids? treestar Feb 2014 #177

I have to agree with you mercymechap Feb 2014 #35

OH YES she would....these teabagger types HATE women more than they have Black men! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #47

There seems to be a consistent theme with your posts on this thread. randome Feb 2014 #80

If they think the Rightwingers would go easier on a woman than a Black man VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #123

That's true, but I always thought mercymechap Feb 2014 #182

Those are the women that they feel agree with the Patriarchy.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #183

True that..... mercymechap Feb 2014 #184

Didn't we have that for a while in the second half of 2009? n/t hughee99 Feb 2014 #56

for 2 whole months....who could have predicted that Ted Kennedy would pass away! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #129

From 9/25 to 2/4/10? hughee99 Feb 2014 #146

we only had the filibuster proof majority of 60 for 2 months... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #147

September to Febuary, as I said. hughee99 Feb 2014 #151

So the had 2 1/2 months...not 2 mos. Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #168

14 weeks is more than 3 months, or a more than 50% difference. hughee99 Feb 2014 #171

Upps! Not paying attention. Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #172

Gosh, don't you remember mercymechap Feb 2014 #186

I remember pretty well. That was sort of what I was getting at. hughee99 Feb 2014 #187

+1 treestar Feb 2014 #69

+1000 VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #149

Yes. She's a far more daring communicator with a more assertive point of departure. NYC_SKP Feb 2014 #3

she has something worse....she has a vagina.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #48

Um I think Sarah Palin has one of those too Armstead Feb 2014 #91

Michele Bachmann and Phyllis Schlafly HappyMe Feb 2014 #102

Who ALSO support the Patriarchy! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #116

I understand the tea party. HappyMe Feb 2014 #120

Yeah and having Alan West and Herman Cain didn't mean that they aren't racist either did it? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #124

Good grief! HappyMe Feb 2014 #127

what I AM pointing out is....their hatred of women is even deeper.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #130

The only people they don't hate are themselves. HappyMe Feb 2014 #131

Exactly the While Male Patriarchy... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #138

Yeah only because she supports their male dominated ideology! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #114

That's not the point Armstead Feb 2014 #140

No she won't sorry.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #142

So i assume you think Hillary should not run? Armstead Feb 2014 #145

I am not saying neither SHOULD NOT run... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #153

I guess Clinton's screwed too then. HappyMe Feb 2014 #152

I am NOT saying screwwed....I am saying they won't do any better.... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #162

What are 'Holier Than Thou' standards? HappyMe Feb 2014 #163

You know exactly what that means and it wasn't necessarily directed at you... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #164

As of right now, I'm not supporting HappyMe Feb 2014 #167

I think the second round of Wall Street bailout would have looked different, and perhaps the first BainsBane Feb 2014 #4

She's had a couple of great solutions for our ills in the past few weeks Phlem Feb 2014 #6

And the jury results are in... aikoaiko Feb 2014 #8

I think I get it. They said Jewish lobby instead of saying AIPAC. reusrename Feb 2014 #9

Well, yes it is ... it's like using the word frazzled Feb 2014 #11

Well said my friend, well said. William769 Feb 2014 #18

Well, no it isn't. reusrename Feb 2014 #19

I should have said "Pro-Israel lobby", but to my knowledge BlueStreak Feb 2014 #22

I believe you misspoke. reusrename Feb 2014 #26

Totally agree. nt Cali_Democrat Feb 2014 #21

Thank you so much for posting this. Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #63

Huge difference. MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #13

she going to do that with a magic wand? All by herself I suppose! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #49

No need to ProSense Feb 2014 #121

and single handedly without Congress...SHE IS MAGIC!!! VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #126

Yep... I Believe The Warren Actually WOULD Put On A Comfortable Pair Of Shoes, And... WillyT Feb 2014 #15

I believe we would have seen her on the ground in Wisconsin when it mattered. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #23

How many times has she marched with workers as MA senator? (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #31

How many times has she *needed* to? MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #37

Stephen Lynch (but not Warren) showed up to support these nurses: Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #60

That's not in the same league as Wisconson, or MannyGoldstein Feb 2014 #143

and that does what? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #50

Well... If Nothing Else, It Means You Keep Your Word/Campaign Promises... WillyT Feb 2014 #55

How does it change anything? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #57

God Dammit Vanilla !!! - WE TOOK HIM AT HIS WORD !!!! WillyT Feb 2014 #58

AND we GOT change and we HAVE hope... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #135

You excuse everything, don't you? /nt Marr Feb 2014 #133

No I don't but if "not being emotional enough" is the current complaint... VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #137

To what end? Just keeping a promise? tia uponit7771 Feb 2014 #150

This is a very important question, and I believe the answer is YES, it would be very different. reusrename Feb 2014 #17

Probably not. There's always the "campaign" version of a candidate, & then there's the REAL version blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #24

I don't know, but I'd sure like to find out. Crunchy Frog Feb 2014 #25

Thanks elleng Feb 2014 #30

Done. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #36

No, because of congressional repugs,. elleng Feb 2014 #27

Many DUers claim that the opposition to President Obama is driven mostly by racism. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #28

Where was the Bipartisan cooperation under Clinton? Agnosticsherbet Feb 2014 #43

What about the gender? treestar Feb 2014 #71

Yes cprise Feb 2014 #29

No. Same Congress same result. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2014 #40

Until this gang of dumb hammers are removed, Warren's presidency would be wasted. Kablooie Feb 2014 #41

Not if she had to fight the party of NO and donheld Feb 2014 #51

The Bully Pulpit would be far "bullier" under a President Warren villager Feb 2014 #52

Not even for a minute, given GOP, SCOTUS, Congress and all the rest Hekate Feb 2014 #54

"Different"? Absolutely Scootaloo Feb 2014 #59

You and a lot of posters in this thread make an excellent case for not giving a fuck Fumesucker Feb 2014 #61

That was not my intent. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #82

It may be impossible to say just one thing, communication is difficult Fumesucker Feb 2014 #98

Oh my, you've done it now. K&R Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #64

Considering she's not a man, rich, an asshole or republicon madokie Feb 2014 #65

Warren.. sendero Feb 2014 #66

What is wrong with "Angry black man" indeed BlueStreak Feb 2014 #84

The right wing.. sendero Feb 2014 #100

Now it is down to "President Obama is just not emotional enough"? VanillaRhapsody Feb 2014 #125

Few in this thread get it. RC Feb 2014 #104

HRC... sendero Feb 2014 #110

Here's what I think would have happened ... JoePhilly Feb 2014 #67

+1 treestar Feb 2014 #73

Thread win! greatauntoftriplets Feb 2014 #89

In response to your sarcasm....Progressives weren't expecting miracles or "ponies" after 2008 Armstead Feb 2014 #97

Some of them were. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #157

Awesome. I really like Warren but I think we should realize that she has a lot of momentum and okaawhatever Feb 2014 #144

I'd agree with most of that. I think she's doing a great job. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #154

Governing is about compromise lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #159

Sure. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #161

NO, in fact, she would do a lot of damage treestar Feb 2014 #68

If we can get rid of capitalism TBF Feb 2014 #72

No. HappyMe Feb 2014 #74

No single official can do miracles. riqster Feb 2014 #75

The White House is the weakest of the branches of government. randome Feb 2014 #81

2014 is hugely important for just that reason. riqster Feb 2014 #141

No JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #76

Of course she would Vattel Feb 2014 #77

lol. so what YOU are claiming is that dems are all interchangeable when it comes to White House cali Feb 2014 #78

The OP isn't claiming any such thing. It asks the question. BlueStreak Feb 2014 #87

of course that's what you're claiming- it's somewhat disingenuous to claim it's not cali Feb 2014 #94

+1 That one's not even debatable. Marr Feb 2014 #136

Would she appoint Rahm Emmanuell? vi5 Feb 2014 #79

Congress does most of the appointing. The President does nominations. randome Feb 2014 #83

OK then would she "nominate" them. vi5 Feb 2014 #86

I agree, some of the appointees have been disappointing. randome Feb 2014 #92

I'd like someone who doesn't give up without trying. vi5 Feb 2014 #105

say what? no it does not. that's just bullshit. cali Feb 2014 #96

Actually the president appoints/nominates, the Senate holds a hearing and a conformation vote. n/t Tx4obama Feb 2014 #188

Would she appoint the CEO of GE, one of the greatest off-shoring corporations BlueStreak Feb 2014 #90

Would she say Nixon is more Liberal than she is? Autumn Feb 2014 #111

I think she would be more willing to take them on publicly Autumn Feb 2014 #93

Even if a firebrand didn't accomplish much of substance, it might inspire the people more. randome Feb 2014 #95

We? I don't know about you, but I have always done my part Autumn Feb 2014 #99

I meant 'we' as in the DU Collective. randome Feb 2014 #101

It's a discussion board of all things political. Autumn Feb 2014 #107

With 2009's congress? Almost certainly. PeteSelman Feb 2014 #103

Absolutely, of course! reddread Feb 2014 #108

It's doubtful that anyone would get a different result MineralMan Feb 2014 #109

when the DNC wont run candidates in all districts? reddread Feb 2014 #112

Anyone can file and run in a Congressional District. MineralMan Feb 2014 #115

right. stuck in kentucky and it aint where i live reddread Feb 2014 #119

OK. If there is no Democrat in a Congressional Race, MineralMan Feb 2014 #122

loosely worded post reddread Feb 2014 #132

"And Obama can't be trusted to stand up for anything." Well, ProSense Feb 2014 #113

He didn't want to ... Putin made him do it. JoePhilly Feb 2014 #158

If Warren had been president six years ago, the GOP would have had to Marr Feb 2014 #128

Yes, his whole approach seems to be, "How can I keep the Republicans from hating me?" Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2014 #166

I don't know, though thinking about it, I may have to say yes. Xyzse Feb 2014 #134

Yes. nt ladjf Feb 2014 #148

I've noticed that a lot of the public likes leaders who fight for what they believe in Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2014 #165

There is nothing likeable about Chris Christie EXCEPT for that BlueStreak Feb 2014 #169

It would be nice to find out in 2017. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2014 #170

The President can't overcome some things, fadedrose Feb 2014 #176

Some of the MSM is corrupt. But many are just regular people and that means BlueStreak Feb 2014 #180

Maybe a little different... thesquanderer Feb 2014 #181

No. No liberal will if we still have dingbat House nt Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2014 #185