1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[OFFICIAL] Elizabeth Warren for President thread

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Jan 1, 2019.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,906
    Likes Received:
    111,090
    yeah, that's why the post is about Warren. Warren celebrates
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  2. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,371
    Likes Received:
    25,376
    Her pivot from Wall Street reform warrior to Economic guru has been disappointing and deflating for me, and I can't share any enthusiasm if she were to run again. I guess the only saving grace is that she's 73 and Americans are close to (or already) having an oh **** moment with old ass candidates.

    It's really too bad Obama didn't give her a cabinet position to promote the reforms she championed, but a list was already given to him before he was sworn in.
     
    FranchiseBlade likes this.
  3. dobro1229

    dobro1229 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    24,001
    Likes Received:
    19,906
    Haven’t seen much of her lately even though I know she’s been talking to the media so she’s kind of a background voice at the moment. I’ve always admired her passion and thought she was the best candidate in my opinion early on in the 20 primaries, but didn’t think she was as electable as Biden given that he had a larger reach especially with African Americans.

    However her time has passed for sure and we need more young candidates in the future. If she can serve a few more terms in the senate though great. Mentor people and help people understand more of the economic issues she speaks well to. I think Katie Porter really is sort of the new version of Liz Warren though, and might even be even better at speaking against greed and corruption.

    Abrams, Chris Murphy, Brian Schatz, Katie Porter, etc. These are the folks that should be the party leaders moving forward imo. Enough Chuck Schumer for sure. That guy is weak and has no gravitas. If you don’t have the cards to beat McConnell on the board you need the media persona to at least make your case to the public. Even Liz Warren would be better to have as Senate Leader at this point but I’d rather go with a new smart and fresh face the Brian Schatz.
     
    FranchiseBlade and Invisible Fan like this.
  4. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,906
    Likes Received:
    111,090
    Elizabeth Warren Wants To Shut Down All of the Country's Crisis Pregnancy Centers
    Doing so would be blatantly unconstitutional.


    https://reason.com/2022/07/14/eliza...all-of-the-countrys-crisis-pregnancy-centers/

    excerpt:



    It's unclear what legal authority Elizabeth Warren would use to enact her will. In fact, a sitting U.S. senator trying to shut down charitable organizations, like crisis pregnancy centers, for no violation of laws but rather due to the fact that they further the pro-life cause, would be quite blatantly unconstitutional.

    Warren has, in the past, creatively suggested that abortion clinics be set up on federal lands. And last month, she introduced the Stop Anti-Abortion Disinformation Act, along with Reps. Carolyn B. Maloney (D–N.Y.) and Suzanne Bonamici (D–Ore.) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D–N.J.), which would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on purportedly false claims made by crisis pregnancy centers. If passed, these pro-life centers could be fined $100,000 (or 50 percent of revenues earned by the parent entity) for violating the "prohibition on [abortion] disinformation." But the bill does not define, with any specificity, what qualifies as disinformation—that's to be expanded on at a later date, per the bill's text—and it's hard to see how this wouldn't entail either unconstitutional restrictions on activists' free speech or some kind of highly-politicized body attempting to define "disinformation" in biased ways.

    Per Warren's comments and legislation, it's clear she has a problem with crisis pregnancy centers and their work, which she claims is tantamount to "torture." But she can't harness the power of the federal government to go after these organizations because she dislikes the cause they're promoting.

    If a specific crisis pregnancy center is engaged in fraudulent activity—breaking actual laws—that's cause for investigation and possible shutdown. And she is correct to claim that some of them do provide misleading information. An NBC News investigation, in which reporters went undercover, found that a crisis pregnancy center at the southern border "played a video saying that abortions cause mental illness," and had a staffer "impl[ying] that abortions can cause cancer and infertility." When a producer visited another crisis pregnancy center as part of the investigation, a counselor repeated infertility scaremongering before gifting her baby booties for her child. Claims about abortion being linked to infertility and cancer are not true; medically speaking, abortion is actually quite safe (for the mother, that is).

    Sometimes these centers steer women toward viewing ultrasounds of their babies, in the hopes of guilting them into keeping them by showing them how much they already resemble tiny humans. Some crisis pregnancy centers use aggressive, deceptive marketing to capture women's abortion-related search results and lure them into the centers, which get disguised as clinics. (As Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote recently, some Democratic senators—Warren included—are trying to pressure Google CEO Sundar Pichai to restrict crisis pregnancy centers from search results and to attach disclaimers to the pregnancy centers that do pop up.)

    Warren misses or obscures the fact that many of these centers provide clothing, diapers, formula, and counseling to women who are severely in need—all while ignoring that these centers have recently come under attack by arsonists and vandals all over the country who are trying to prevent these centers from performing the charitable work they set out to do. Of course, volunteers and workers at these centers are not agnostic about which choice women make; these charities are all founded to persuade women to choose not to abort their babies. They're attempts by pro-lifers to spend their time and resources in a way that's consistent with their convictions.
    more at the link
     
  5. ROCKSS

    ROCKSS Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 1999
    Messages:
    5,593
    Likes Received:
    4,955
    To be honest, I didn't even know this was a "thing", I looked it up and it looks like its to help people find an alternative to an abortion such as adoption. Seems like it could be helpful if that's what the woman chooses..........again, its her right but on the surface I dont see anything wrong with these places..........but hell, I am a 50 year old male so what do I know about this stuff :D
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now