dagblog - Comments for "The Limits of Elizabeth Warren"

this is her passion, why she

artappraiser — Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:29:21 +0000

In reply to The Limits of Elizabeth Warren

This is her passion and priority and why she decided to run for office. Not foreign policy and not even becoming president. She figures things like foreign policy, they are secondary, they will work out according to the majority will if Congress and the Executive branch work as designed and government is cleaned up:

Senator Warren is absolutely right.
Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators and Representatives can invest in conflict free assets such as diversified mutual funds, or they can pick a different line of work.
Voters are fed up with conflicts of interest.https://t.co/xGqbKNqCgi
— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) August 22, 2018

within that picture, answering foreign policy questions is a distraction. She does not take the position that the president is an autocrat as to foreign policy, but rather would be checked by a Congress without lobbyist influence and vice versa.

Many might think that unrealistic and or naive. Regardless, I think she believes, and does not think it is unrealistic and thinks it is possible. And I think that from reading and watching her work and statements for more than a decade.

I thought Massachusetts would

Obey — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:37:26 +0000

In reply to plus I haven't looked at

I thought Massachusetts would be less pro-Israeli than the national average. If you go by where anti-BDS legislation gets passed or gets blocked...

Not that I think that makes any difference to your claim that she is just following state-wide polling in her Israel-related positions. This is one of those finger-in-the-air judgments, but my impression is that for Sanders, foreign policy is pretty much an afterthought, where he has to say something, whereas Warren seems to have a personal commitment to her Israel hawk stance.

plus I haven't looked at

artappraiser — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:29:34 +0000

In reply to Ok got it. Didn't realize

plus I haven't looked at related polls that much lately, but aren't most Americans still pro-Israel? They may not agree with the extent of hawkishness and favoritism of AIPAC, if they knew the details, but pretty close? Certainly the majority is not strongly pro-Palestinian...with all the attention to the anti-Semitism of fringe righties, we tend to forget that?

I will add that I really

artappraiser — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:18:46 +0000

In reply to Not sure I get your meaning.

I will add that I really truly do believe she is not ideological except for "power to the people" and that the middle class knows best. Perhaps a little different from Bernie in that. Strongly anti special interest over the will of the majority.

Ok got it. Didn't realize

Obey — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:17:16 +0000

In reply to state of Massachsetts vs. all

Ok got it. Didn't realize Massachusetts was such an AIPAC stronghold

state of Massachsetts vs. all

artappraiser — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:13:44 +0000

In reply to Not sure I get your meaning.

state of Massachsetts vs. all Americans, see below

Not sure I get your meaning.

Obey — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:13:04 +0000

In reply to I would counter that all of

Not sure I get your meaning. You are saying she signs AIPAC letters because that is what her constituents want all while not believing that "AIPAC represents what the majority of the people want".

I'm sure there is a way to parse that without producing an outright contradiction but it's pretty darn close.

p.s. and this brings up where

artappraiser — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:13:01 +0000

In reply to I would counter that all of

p.s. and this brings up where underneath it all, she is simpatico with Sanders, he originally became an Independent when he felt that hewing to party caucus lines in Congress was not serving the people of Vermont well. When attempting to represent the whole nation, however, the calculus on that whole thing changes.

Did you misspeak, make some

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:09:00 +0000

In reply to My main problem with the

Did you misspeak, make some political form of Freudian slip, or do you actually agree that AIPAC has undue influence on U.S. foreign policy?

I also doubt she thinks a lobbying group like AIPAC, or any other lobbying group with undue influence about what happens with foreign policy represents what the majority of the people want.

I hope, would like to think, that AIPAC's influence does not represents what the majority of the people [in the u.s.] want.

I would counter that all of

artappraiser — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 19:06:13 +0000

In reply to I also doubt she thinks a

I would counter that all of that is only because she thinks that's what her constituents want