Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: the consistent effort by conservative, corporate dems to try and tarnish progressive [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)41. That's fine
And yet, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, the Justice Department as refused to bring
I agree with her. Do you agree with her about Dodd-Frank?
"There is no question that Dodd-Frank was a strong billthe strongest in three generations. I didnt have a chance to vote for it because I wasnt yet in the Senate, but if I could have, I would have voted for it twice."
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/AFR%20Roosevelt%20Institute%20Speech%202013-11-12.pdf
And then Obama worshipers (I would not call them supporters because I am an Obama supporter but I and many other supporters am not blinded to his faults) point to rather ineffective policy measures as proof that Obama cares about little people.
I call them "supporters"
The fact is that the income inequality has continued to grow at a very rapid pace during Obama's presidency.
The fact that his policies are trying to reverse that is lost on those who seek to blame the President for a downward spiral decades in the making, one exacerbated by the economic crisis.
They'd rather ignore the facts (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024464691#post15) and make every attempt to dismiss his efforts (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024464691#post29)
Elizabeth Warren's comments about the lack of professional diversity among Obama's nominations for the judiciary is another very accurate critique of the Obama presidency. Appointing judges who are diverse in race, religion, sexual preference, etc. is unimpressive if those appointed are by and large have backgrounds mostly in corporate law. Granted, the corporate firms pick up law school graduates who were at the top of their classes, but still, more diversity in terms of professional experience would strengthen our courts.
Again, people heard what they wanted to. Completely ignoring the reality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024458843) and her actual statement (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024454784#post6). Her comments were to call attention to the statistical trend, highlight the impact of Republican obstruction up to this point, and show how going forward the President has an opportunity to nominate a more professionally diverse set of people to the bench.
Let's hope that Obama really does require companies holding government contracts to raise their minimum wages. That is the one really concrete proposal that Obama has made to lessen the disparity in incomes. But it is awfully late in coming. We needed that back in 2009. Not advisable to hold your breath until it is reality.
No it isn't, and again that comment ignores reality (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415)
In addition, Obama did not come out fighting to clarify what the ACA really is and what it is intended to do. He let the Tea Baggers grab the steering wheel on it. He is paying for that dearly.
That statement and the rest seems like an exercise in Gish Gallop. How is that relevant to his policies that address inequality.
I sometimes think the reason for the long rambling comments is to hide the distortions and attacks: "worshipers."
Spare me.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
the consistent effort by conservative, corporate dems to try and tarnish progressive [View all]
cali
Feb 2014
OP
It's obvious. Because it's clear that policies and issues are never what they talk about.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#82
I agree. However, they may be changing minds, inadvertently. The more we see of them
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#89
What's more, you can't even get them to state any policy position. All they do is link to barages of
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#105
Yes, that is so true. Their purpose seems to be to prevent any kind of discussion regarding
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#115
I will not cede this ground. Funny how they will not engage when you ask their position. My guess is
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#118
This will make very little difference in the lives of working people and families.
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#29
When Obama came into office, he faced an economic crisis due to the excessive
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#73
We still need to make the too-big-too-fail banks smaller and spread the risk in the banking
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#83
The bank bailout, by comparison, was 16 to 20 TRILLION!!!! Look, are you for or against breaking up
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#109
Was anyone ever arrested and charged for the corruption in the mortgage business? We were
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#117
Straw man. No one claimed that Obama hates Warren, geesh. People post blue links because they
grahamhgreen
Feb 2014
#110
And yet, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, the Justice Department as refused to bring
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#34
And furthermore, that's all they have, appeals to emotion and suggestive innuendoes. nt
bemildred
Feb 2014
#8
They're scared of a populist movement. The corporatists would hate to see the People have a voice.
Scuba
Feb 2014
#14
Maybe one day we'll have a President of which the David Sirota types approve.
TheMathieu
Feb 2014
#17
Or one who doesn't ignore and disapprove of the very people who elected him/her.
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#93
As I said above, we shall see whether the carping is just way out there or whether those who
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#37
lol. what nonsense. who needs to use warren or bernie. it's in response to the coporate
cali
Feb 2014
#24
If one senator has the power to overcome the will of the Prez and majority of Denms in Congress..
Armstead
Feb 2014
#67
And DADT itself was a 'compromise' made in 1993. So ten years later, as a compromise
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2014
#72
You characterize raising situations where these folks agreed with Obama as "tarnishing" them
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#38
The message that a certain category of peope are stupid and naive is what is bothersome
Armstead
Feb 2014
#51
That is not the subject of the OP which is what I am addressing. The OP characterizes
stevenleser
Feb 2014
#53
It's a two-way street. Quotes and votes matter. Nobody is perfect. We can live with that.
pampango
Feb 2014
#43
This is true, but the converse is just as prevalent and just as lame.
Donald Ian Rankin
Feb 2014
#55