The Senator is single handily out to wipe out influence from the banks, big business and big tech…
In this role out she seeks to make it illegal for government and legislative people to accept just about anything from those organisations ….
The chances for this is little to none…
But she is looking for votes from it…
Lord knows we ALL have been abused by the above….
But they DO have the money to buy influence as Warren claims ….
Under a new definition of “official act,” politicians would not be able to accept gifts or payments in exchange for government action. Senior government officials and members of Congress would be prohibited from serving on for-profit boards, even if they receive no compensation.
Warren (Mass.) also proposed banning both arbitration clauses and class-action waivers “for all employment, consumer protection, antitrust and civil rights cases.”….
Warren’s handlers are also making sure she in in the media constantly….
She continues to be the flavour of the month…
My Name Is Jack says
Bottom line from James…
Don’t even try to do anything about it.
And Warren?Why she’s just trying to get votes.Of course no one else is trying to get votes.
Bottom line from James is Warren as VP would be able to get MORE done then being just the senator from Mass…
Most people would disagree that a Vice President holds more influence than a senior Senator.
Of course the VP is a heartbeat away but you shouldn’t count on that. If Warren were to become VP, she would have to run in 2024 for a first term, (assuming Biden would only serve one term)where age would then be a bigger issue for her. If Biden follows Trump, people are going to want a younger President after that.
*If* Biden becomes the nominee, picking Warren makes very little political sense, unless the party is somehow so divided over Biden that he has no choice but to pick her in order to unify it against Trump. If they are in that position, there are some serious problems.
The Governor of Michigan might be Biden’s best potential running-mate.
I agree with heartbeat from the Presidency for Warren…
She would be the natural heir should Biden do one term….
Warren gets a VERY LARGE Big Apple crowd for her plan rollout….
BuzzFeed News: “At the marble arches that stand atop this lower Manhattan landmark, a crowd of an estimated 20,000 people on Monday night wielded signs about ‘big structural change.’ Introductory speakers told the crowd that Democrats didn’t just need the energy of a ‘blue wave’ — but ‘a plan.’”
“And Warren, invoking the story of the nearby factory fire that set off a wave of feminist activism in 1911 and helped lead to the New Deal, outlined a theory of change that combines movement-driven pressure ‘from the outside’ with the tactical power of a leader working the system ‘from the inside.’”
The Daily News puts the crowd at 8,000 to 10,000
Elizabeth Warren’s big NYC day: She scoops Working Families Party endorsement, draws 8,000 to 10,000 at Manhattan rally
More @ a paywalled piece…
My Name Is Jack says
Are you now seriously criticizing Warren for “looking for votes?”
Has your hatred for her gone to such lengths that now ,even offering programs that she believes in and that will appeal to a certain segment of the electorate ,is to be something that should be criticized?
You are aware that Joe Biden(as does every other candidate) offers positions on issues ?Guess he is “looking for votes.”
Apparently though only Warren merits a separate article here every time she puts an idea forward.
Of course, you haven’t “met “ her.
But she should be VP!
Maybe she can bring Biden his slippers.
Democratic Socialist Dave says
Elizabeth Warren is a professor of Law at Harvard, so she must have some solid line of Constitutional reasoning, but from the brief summary in the piece above, it looks to me (with but a humble paralegal associate’s degree) like she’d run into the current Supreme Court’s First Amendment reasoning embodied in Citizens United v F.E.C. (2010).
While I don’t think that any change would take as long as the 58 years from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) to Brown v Board of Education (1954), I don’t see that much of an immediate solution to the implicit corruption of large campaign donations on behalf of corporations (illegal for about a century before Citizens United), since it may take a long time to change the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court , while amending the First Amendment is merely a theoretical mind game (you need 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States to pass a constitutional amendment).
Warren IS selling stuff she can’t deliver …
But that doesn’t mean that she isn’t correct in the view that consumer’s ARE getting screwed…