Warren proposes fighting DC corruption

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6673
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
22 August 2018 07:35
 

This seems like a good start:

warren fights corruption

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  2972
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
22 August 2018 12:14
 

While I agree with the spirit of the bill, such as “... a lifetime ban on lobbying jobs for former federal elected or appointed officials. It also would require corporate lobbyists or criminally convicted CEOs to wait six years before taking a government job of any kind.”, she personifies the corrupt politician, very group she claims to want to reform in Washington DC.

You know my views of Progressive fixation about race. Sen. Warren is about nothing but race-based thinking of the antebellum South.  One drop is all it takes to make you a bona fide minority.  Despite Native American genealogists dispute of her claim being a Cherokee Indian, she has refused to back down and also refused to take a DNA test. Ice, the reason this is troublesome is that she is essentially saying even 1/32nd drop blood of Indian would make her Indian.

Why is that a problem? What are the implications?

Let me explain. Please read it carefully.  Jews as a group throughout history were persecuted. Certainly during the Muslim Empires and most recently in the wartime Western Europe. The reason Jews were made to wear yellow stars was not only to humiliate them but also to distinguish them from the rest. In western Europe it would be impossible to tell whether they were Jews at all.  Yellow Star fixed the problem of invisible Jewishness, hence not white for the racial purity conscious!

How’s Warren’s claim of invisible Indian blood different from harkening back to the old South’s “one drop rule” of “invisible blackness.” ?  The answer is it is not. Even if her claim is authentic (which refuses to prove) in order to make her claims of Cherokee Indian claim viable, she is willing to keep afloat the “one-drop” rule for exploiting the history of the indigenous people for personal gains.  BTW, one drop rule as it applies to blacks today, is a progressive view point, interestingly left over from the old racist south. You think it is just a historical coincidence?

If her claims are wrong, then she would take her place next to the likes of other progressives Ward Churchill, Rachel Dolezal, and Shaun King who understood the benefits of false pedigree adjustments.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  6747
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
22 August 2018 18:17
 

Celal:
While I agree with the spirit of the bill, such as “... a lifetime ban on lobbying jobs for former federal elected or appointed officials. It also would require corporate lobbyists or criminally convicted CEOs to wait six years before taking a government job of any kind.”, she personifies the corrupt politician, very group she claims to want to reform in Washington DC.

So do you support this bill on its merits?  Or do you think that anything from Warren should be opposed because of the controversy over her heritage?  Does one drop of misbehavior contaminate a whole person?  I guess it can, in the eyes of others.  But should we check our reactions and see if we are throwing out the good with the bad? 

Can we discuss the merits of the proposed bill without bringing up the whole Pocahontas issue?  For instance, is it a good idea to require candidates to release their tax returns? Or is that an invasion of privacy?

[ Edited: 22 August 2018 18:21 by hannahtoo]
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  20533
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
22 August 2018 18:52
 

The only one of her proposals that I would question is the creation of a new agency to enforce the regs . I’m wary of another government agency.  We have a Justice Department that could handle this, with perhaps the addition of sufficient assurances that the division responsible would have the freedom to take necessary action. More agencies means more bureaucracy, abuse and inefficiency.  The other proposals sound good.

 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  6747
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
23 August 2018 08:54
 

I wonder if she actually expects a bill of this sort to come to a vote of the full Senate.  Or if she’s proposing it just as a talking point for her re-election campaign.  I can’t imagine the Congress adopting these restrictions, though many in the public would favor the ideas.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  398
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
23 August 2018 09:27
 

She got that financial consumer protection agency enacted, so I wouldn’t assume it’s *all* for show.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  6673
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
23 August 2018 14:58
 
hannahtoo - 23 August 2018 08:54 AM

I wonder if she actually expects a bill of this sort to come to a vote of the full Senate.  Or if she’s proposing it just as a talking point for her re-election campaign.  I can’t imagine the Congress adopting these restrictions, though many in the public would favor the ideas.

I’d guess it’s both. I think she’s one of the more sincere folks in congress AND I’m sure she likes “the optics”.

As far as the bill actually passing, my guess is that she’s hoping it’ll help shift this particular overton window a bit.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4841
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
26 August 2018 07:53
 

I remain optimistic despite the rising tide. Many Democrats want to eliminate super delegates. There is even some bipartisan compromise right now on election reform. I think we have the potential, right now to do a controlled burn. I certainly support the aim of this bill. I think Warren is solidly above average in terms of integrity at that station.