Warren on Trump (and the Republicans)

33 comments on “Warren on Trump (and the Republicans) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   11 June 2016 at 10:06 am

   This is an easy prediction: despite what promises may have been made in the background, Clinton, the bankster payee, will never select someone as principled and anti-Wall St as Elizabeth Warren as her running mate.
2. joe90 2

   11 June 2016 at 10:24 am

   Warren puts the needle in.

   https://storify.com/allinwithchris/warren-v-trump
3. Ad 3

   11 June 2016 at 10:35 am

   Rather Warren for Treasurer. Banks would poo themselves.
   VP – though great on the campaign – ain’t much in power.
   • Andre 3.1

     11 June 2016 at 10:43 am

     Absolutely spot on, Ad.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       11 June 2016 at 11:59 am

       Again will never happen for the reason I outlined above. A former Goldman or JP Morgan executive will be given the job by Clinton.
       • Dennis Merwood 3.1.1.1

         11 June 2016 at 7:25 pm

         Right again Colonel.
         Killary will load her cabinet with neocons and Wall Street flunkeys. Just like Obama did. It will be Lawrence Summers and Bob Gates all over again. Rinse and repeat. How many US$265,000 one hour “speeches” did the “Queen of Chaos” give to her Wall Street enablers? And why won’t she release their transcripts?
4. Lanthanide 4

   11 June 2016 at 10:42 am

   I doubt Clinton would pick a woman for her running mate.
5. adam 5

   11 June 2016 at 1:18 pm

   When did this site become the place to put up clinton talking points? For a few days it’s been the same.

   Have people stopped thinking for themselves this much?

   Warren would have been better to run herself, but I’m guessing she smart enough to know that the cheat clinton, was unbeatable via her inside DNC support, and vote fixing.

   Plus even since Trump has been running – Warren has wiped the floor of him, from the late show with Stephen Colbert to Bill Maher and everything in between. Ever noticed how he won’t have a go at her? She would kill him in any debate.
   • Ad 5.1

     11 June 2016 at 1:49 pm

     When? Since Hilary Clinton gained the points to become the Democratic Presidential candidate, and gained the endorsement of Senator Warren, and gained the endorsement of President Obama. Entirely appropriate.

     You know, it’s possible to be a rational human being and support Hillary Clinton over any other candidate.

     There’s been plenty of good support for Sanders from multiple postings and commenters here. Which is also as it should be.
     • adam 5.1.1

       11 June 2016 at 2:44 pm

       Do you know what talking points are? And how they work?
       • Ad 5.1.1.1

         11 June 2016 at 3:35 pm

         Try one out and I’ll let you know.
         • adam 5.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2016 at 3:40 pm

           Are you being ignorant on purpose or provoking?
           • Ad 5.1.1.1.1.1

             11 June 2016 at 3:58 pm

             Clearly you can’t tell.
             • adam …

               11 June 2016 at 4:06 pm

               No that is why I asked the question.

               Too soon?
               • dukeofurl …

                 11 June 2016 at 9:10 pm

                 Your talking points have come from the dustbin, you sound like someone paid by the Drumpf organisation.

                 For real info people come to me
                 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-24/heres-full-list-organizations-paid-hillary-clinton-2013-2015

                 Raising money for their Clinton Foundation is where most goes.

                 “The independent philanthropy watchdog CharityWatch analyzed Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of it went to charity — higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.
                 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-foundation-factcheck-org-donations/2015/06/19/id/651411/

                 Of course Clinton has a lot of history and you might not agree with her previous votes of certain policies, which is fair enough.
                 But please enough of the uninformed claptrap ( by people here you would think might know even how US primaries work.
                 • adam …

                   12 June 2016 at 6:28 pm

                   dukeofurl, you are an idiot, too soon? You do not read what people write, but what you do, is loathsome transfiguration’s, back bites, and desperately plays the superior card to make yourself sound smart.

                   You are such a fail. Read my posts my position is clear, I oppose hillary , and I oppose trump. I see both as truly dangerous people. Both are cut from the same cloth.

                   My main problem with the clintons is that I find them to be faux liberals – so in my book, the lowest of the low. They speak all the right words, but the actions are scummy, and oh look – a public record to back up my position.

                   So some decision clinton has made I disagree with? No sunshine, the majority of decisions she has made I disagree with. clinton is a corporate shrill, a bit like her family friend – donald trump.
     • Dennis Merwood 5.1.2

       11 June 2016 at 3:18 pm

       ……”gained the points to become the Democratic Presidential candidate” Huh, I don’t think their are any “points” awarded, even though you may think this is a big game.

       And Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic Presidential Candidate until July 25th when the delegates cast their votes at the convention. The “Queen of Chaos” could well be indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors before that.

       And it is highly arguable that its possible that a rational human being (could) support Hillary Clinton over any other candidate. Her record in office has been appalling, and everybody knows she is on the take from Wall Street and the military-industrial-complex. Based on the evidence, supporting this political chameleon would be highly irrational.

       If you want the status quo, unending war, staggering social inequality, stagnant wages, prohibitive healthcare costs, and oligarchic rule, then go ahead and vote for the “Queen of Chaos” . Except that you Kiwi’s can’t vote anyway.
       • Wayne 5.1.2.1

         11 June 2016 at 6:06 pm

         There seems to be a theme from some on the Left (Bernie supporters) that Clinton believes in endless war.
         What is the evidence?
         The continuation of Afghanistan was largely an Obama initiative seeing it as the right war as opposed to Iraq. Libya was largely driven by France and Britian. ISIS came later, though no doubt Clinton would have done the same as Obama. More significantly Sanders did not suggest that the US would withdraw from the ISIS campaign or stop all drone attacks against known terrorists.
         The principal evidence seems to be her vote on Iraq, but I think it is pretty clear that she would not have started Iraq.
         So I reckon the warmonger claim does not really stack up. No US President is going to give the likes of ISIS free reign. The US, even if Bernie was President, would not unilaterally dismantle the nuclear deterrent or drastically shrink the military. Defence spending might go below 3% of GDP (currently 3.5%) but it will not get down to NZ levels of 1%.
         Being the leader of the free world (yes that concept still exists) imposes responsibilities that a small country like NZ will never face.
         • Dennis Merwood 5.1.2.1.1

           11 June 2016 at 6:54 pm

           Wayne, this American citizen does not want the US to continue this charade of “being the leader of the free world”. For many reasons. We suck at it, and can longer afford it! And besides, this leader of the free world leaves destruction and chaos wherever it ventures. Enough already!

           And you are 100% correct about nuclear deterrents. Obama was elected on a platform of reducing the Worlds, or at least the US’s, nuclear arsenal. That’s why I voted for him. Instead he has just announced a multi trillion dollar program to “modernize” our bombs, submarines, and atomic bombers. A tragedy for poor working Americans, and for the World.

           And we, the US, created ISIS with our ridiculous regime-change foreign policy, that Bill Clinton started, Bush perfected with his illegal wars of aggression, Obama continued with the help of his Secretary Hillary Clinton, and Hillary will surely continue. ISIS did not exist before the War on Terror. Just leave them alone for Chris sake. Without western funding they would be broke in a week and fade away. No more using ISIs to fight proxy wars in the Middle East for the Anglo/Zionists.

           And to argue that Hillary does not believe in endless war is just a non sequitur. She called Putin “Hitler”, and has advocated bombing Iran. She chortled at Gadhafi being brutally sodomized and murdered. Hillary is a certified war-monger. If you think the drone attacks on innocent civilians, and Regime change is going to stop under President Hillary Clinton, you are living in a dream world.

           BTW, if properly accounted for, the US military budget of US$1.0trillion+ is close to 5%of the US GDP. Higher than even under Ronny Ray Gun. There is not a chance in hell that Hillary will reduce this. She is bought and paid for by the military industrial complex. (and Wall Street.).

           End of rant. Back to enjoying my vacation in your wonderful peaceful country.
           • Wayne 5.1.2.1.1.1

             11 June 2016 at 11:06 pm

             Hi Dennis,

             I am of the centre right (and was previously Minister of Defence in the the first term of the current govt) and an occasional commenter on this site, usually on subjects like TPP, foreign policy, defence and sometimes political philosophy. Often attracting scathing comments in response. So you will appreciate where I come from in this debate

             Having met Hiliary she seemed to me to be a person of genuine intent. If I was in the US I would vote for her.

             On the point of US leadership, I think this is very important. If the US withdrew from this role, many things would be very much worse. ISIS would have free rein in Europe since their capilate would be very much more secure than present. In Asia, especially for the ASEAN states, China would be dictating the rules. The reason why the ASEAN states are looking to the US is that they need a check to China. So while we all need China, it needs to respect local sovereignty. Their actions in the South China Sea are more antagonistic than they should be. In truth I don’t why China does this because it has turned states that should be China’s friends to being wary of their big neighbour. In contrast this is not something the US has done to say Canada.

             As for Putin’s Russia, I am pretty sure the Baltic states and Poland would not sleep easily if there was no US leadership of NATO. Throughout my lifetime NATO has been a bulwark for western freedom.

             Now of course I appreciate you have to believe in these things to value them. For many on the left of the Democrats (or in NZ on the left part of Labour or a Green) none of these things are valued. And no one from the right or centre right will persuade them otherwise. In NZ this might be say 25 to 30% of the electorate. This group is also typically pretty annoyed with say Phil Goff, David Shearer and for that matter Helen Clark, all former leaders of Labour, for their pragmatic approach to US leadership. In the US the percentage holding these views is probably quite a bit less than in NZ.
             • Poission …

               11 June 2016 at 11:36 pm

               As for Putin’s Russia, I am pretty sure the Baltic states and Poland would not sleep easily if there was no US leadership of NATO. Throughout my lifetime NATO has been a bulwark for western freedom.

               Well at the height of the cold war Viscount Montgomery disagree with you and argued for a reduction in Uk and nato forces in the then boundary Germany

               I am quite unable to agree with those who say that the British Army of the Rhine is too small and must be brought up to a higher strength in manpower at once. What the Army needs in peace time is the maximum flexibility. In our various commitments and possessions overseas we need small garrisons to act as a deterrent and to have something on the spot immediately. We then need the maximum strength as a strategic reserve in this country, suitably armed, equipped and trained, and available to be flown very quickly by the Royal Air Force anywhere in the world. It is exceedingly difficult to carry out that strategy because we are over-insured in Germany. We are over-insured in the one area in the world where there will not be a shooting war involving the armed forces of Russia; that is to say, no major war. Far from the Rhine Army being increased, my view is that it should be reduced. To keep 51,000 soldiers in Germany and to build them up to 55,000, or whatever it may be, is a great embarrassment to those who are trying to meet our world-wide commitments within the limits of manpower and money. And to say that the number should be increased is, I suggest, merely to display an ignorance of military strategy

               He cites from the book of war for constraints with both Russia and China .

               The next war on land will be very different from the last one, in that we shall have to fight it in a different way. In reaching a decision on that matter, we must first be clear about certain rules of war. Rule 1, on page I of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China”. It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives, and an army fighting there would be engulfed by what is known as the Ming Bing, the people’s insurgents.

               The US finding out to their cost in Asia for violations of rule 2.
             • Dennis Merwood …

               11 June 2016 at 11:45 pm

               Evening Wayne,
               Thanks for the response. I can honestly say that I, as a person from the center left, probably disagree with you on your positions on the TPP, foreign policy, defence and political philosophy……respectfully.

               Fact: US so-called “world leadership” since WWII has been a train wreck. Time the US started minding it’s own business, and fixing it’s own house first. Who gave the US the right to lead the World? Really, come on! Answer me that.

               Fact; ISIS was created by US interference in the Middle East, and its capilate gets larger and stronger by the day directly due to continued US meddling. The US is using ISIS to fight it’s proxy wars in the Middle East.

               Fact: Chinese actions in the South China Sea are hardly antagonistic, and pale compared to the 800+military bases the imperialist US has all over the world. It’s not China dictating the rules. It’s the US that needs to be checked, and who needs to respect local sovereignty.

               Fact: NATO is not a bulwark for western freedom. Now less than ever. Its a US controlled vassal army. Scaring the bejesus out of everybody by relentless poking of the Russian bear. Poland and the Baltic States have every reason to be worried…about NATO’s aggression.

               I’m glad that you met Generalissimo Clinton and found her to be a person of genuine intent. Intent to do what? Many, many geopolitical commentators, much smarter than you and I, think that her intent is to start WWIII. I am a US citizen. I will not be voting for that.

               And sorry Wayne, you completely lost me with your last paragraph. You will have to try that again. Respectfully.
               Dennis
               Enjoyed the All Blacks tonight. Great game.
               • Wayne …

                 12 June 2016 at 7:01 pm

                 Who gave the US the right to lead the world (or at least the west)?
                 I guess Western Europe did when they agreed to the US effectively leading NATO. Virtually all of western Europe relied on the US deterrent from 1947 to 1990, and I guess through to the present (though perhaps not France).
                 When President Kennedy visited West Berlin, the people of Germany saw him as the moral leader of the west, as did people with Obama on his visit prior to his election. I have been to enough international conferences to know that western nations look to see what the US will do, or not do. That is not to say people/states abandon their own judgement, but the US position carries great weight.
                 When you say US policy since WW2 has been a complete disaster, I can only assume you are ignoring the eromous success of winning the Cold War. Probably the key event that has led to much greater global economic integration and the resultant prosperity for billions from China to Eastern Europe to South Asia. All failures, and there were and are plenty, pale in comparison to this singular success.
                 I guess in some measure this is the core theme of Niall Fergusson’s writing. Which is rather different to the views of Anthony Stone or Noam Chomsky.
             • Stuart Munro …

               12 June 2016 at 3:40 am

               You are of the freaky extreme lunatic fringe far right Wayne – don’t lie to the man.
               • Wayne …

                 12 June 2016 at 5:05 pm

                 It is not typically seen as “freaky extreme lunatic fringe far right” to support NATO, or wonder why China is aggravating its neighbours to the extent that it does by its nine dash claim in the South China Sea.
                 If it is, then just about every western and Asian govt must qualify.
               • adam …

                 12 June 2016 at 5:53 pm

                 Stuart Munro, you need to have a wee look at what China are doing to their neighbours. It’s very bloody aggressive. I’d go as far to say that China is in all sorts of trouble, and using external conflicts to keep the population distracted.

                 I’ve post some stuff on the internal conflicts in China and what is happening to working people. Trade union disputes, and the massive growth in unemployment. That would go some way to explain the sabre rattling.

                 Have a look at the Spratly islands, scary, especially some of the building. Google some video’s and have a look.

                 So I’m not sure you can call Wayne lunatic far right fringe. Far from it. I disagree with him on Hillary, but then again I disagree with Ad on Hillary as well.

                 NATO was set up by a labour government in London, and a democratic government in Washington – so I’m not sure you can call it “far right”.
       • mikes 5.1.2.2

         11 June 2016 at 6:07 pm

         Yep, in the country where anybody can become president, just as long as you are a Clinton or a bush.

         These two families (Families which i might add, are close friends) Have been in power or in a very powerful (if not the most powerful) position in the White house for the last 40 years.

         Two families essentially in charge of the USA for the last 40 years. So much for democracy.

         1981-1989 – George Bush Senior – Vice President
         1989 -1993 – George Bush Senior – President
         1993 – 2001 – Bill Clinton – President
         2001 – 2009 – George Bush Junior – President
         2009 – 2013 – Hilary Clinton – Secretary of State
         2016 – 2025 – Hilary Clinton – President ???

         Will we get 50 years of Clinton’s and Bush’s ??
       • Richard McGrath 5.1.2.3

         12 June 2016 at 3:53 pm

         “And Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic Presidential Candidate until July 25th when the delegates cast their votes at the convention.”

         Hillary is a candidate, so is Sanders. At the Democratic party convention she will probably become the party’s nominee in the presidential election.
6. adam 6

   11 June 2016 at 2:47 pm

   OK wrong on Trump he went racist in attack on Warren.
   • Dennis Merwood 6.1

     11 June 2016 at 7:20 pm

     The Young Turks in this video ask the obvious question…
     Elizabeth Warren, if you are so concerned about beating Donald Trump, why don’t you endorse the guy who all the polls say has the best chance of beating him? Bernie Sanders.
     Coming out for the Queen of Chaos” will not help Trump be defeated.
     • Chooky 6.1.1

       11 June 2016 at 10:00 pm

       +100 Dennis Merwood…imo Warren should be supporting Sanders NOT Clinton

       …the cards seem to be stacked for Clinton and against Sanders

       ‘Superdelegate tyranny?’

       https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/346073-us-electiom-clinton-trump/

       “Too quick to judge? The Democratic Party establishment and the media now call Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee to face off Donald Trump in November. Though this is before the Democrats hold their convention and while Clinton is still short of pledged delegates. It would appear Clinton has been coronated and not elected.

       CrossTalking with Jeffrey Tayler and David Pollak.”
   • dukeofurl 6.2

     11 June 2016 at 9:12 pm

     You seem to be the person you claim Clinton is ??
     • adam 6.2.1

       12 June 2016 at 5:57 pm

       Have a napkin, you’r dribbling…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS