Sen Warren urges Obama to remove Mary Jo White as SEC chair

[nitro]

Sen Warren urges Obama to remove Mary Jo White as SEC chair
Antonio José Vielma | @AJ_Vielma
3 Mins Ago

Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Friday, urging him to replace Mary Jo White as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In her letter, Warren pressed her call for the SEC to develop a political spending disclosure rule, something she said White has refused to do.

Such a rule would force companies to disclose their political contributions, thus increasing transparency for investors.

"Chair White's refusal to move forward on a political spending disclosure rule serves the narrow interests of powerful executives who would prefer to hide their expenditures of company money to advance their own personal ideologies," Warren said.
...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/14/sen-...esident-obama-to-designate-new-sec-chair.html

 

[felixbocharov]

Another political move, do you really think that Obama will fire her?

 

[syswizard]

Both are feminists-maximus. Can't stand either of them.
Can we remove both of them ?

 

[nitro]

Another political move, do you really think that Obama will fire her?

I doubt it. Obama tries to do the right thing, not the bold thing. He is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Probably has to be.

His intellectual heritage is obvious coming from the UoC, and that is all he has ever known. I think as he gets older, he will see the mistakes he made, and the huge bias at the core of his belief system.

First, he has to free himself from the shackles of the establishment.

 

[Covertibility]

I was wondering what all those smokes signals were saying. How many rugs did she burn?

 

[mlawson71]

I doubt anything will be done before the elections are over.

 

[Gotcha]

I doubt it. Obama tries to do the right thing, not the bold thing. He is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Probably has to be.

First, he has to free himself from the shackles of the establishment.

I tend to agree. I think that initially, he had big dreams and high hopes, and as the years got on, he saw how little he could do, and eventually gave in to the establishment.

One of the things I did not like was a quote maybe a year or so ago where he commented on his own relationship, and how he always starts first by saying sorry to his wife after an argument. Taking this comment, perhaps slightly out of context, doesn't make me feel that he is "strong" enough. Its one thing when you quibble with civilized people, but when dealing with world leaders and countries who have a completely different mentality, I'm not sure if the "take an initial submissive position" is a good strategy.

 

[nitro]

I tend to agree. I think that initially, he had big dreams and high hopes, and as the years got on, he saw how little he could do, and eventually gave in to the establishment.

He had a Democratic Congress the first year and didn't take advantage of it. After the Republicans took over Congress and the House, the environment is so toxic that almost nothing gets done. In the meantime everyone suffers.

How we got to here is debatable and there are many theories, but almost all these things have to do with one or two issues:

• Money (a hugely complicated issue that I am boling down to one word)
• Herding mentality, one consequence which is religion and therefore non-factual thinking

One of the things I did not like was a quote maybe a year or so ago where he commented on his own relationship, and how he always starts first by saying sorry to his wife after an argument. Taking this comment, perhaps slightly out of context, doesn't make me feel that he is "strong" enough. Its one thing when you quibble with civilized people, but when dealing with world leaders and countries who have a completely different mentality, I'm not sure if the "take an initial submissive position" is a good strategy.

The old joke of, "yes dear" being the key to marriage.

In fact, it is exactly this quality of Obama that makes him a good leader. I take your argument though. It is well known that Gandhi single handedly expelled the British from India by peaceful means. The counter argument is, he would have been put in a gas chamber by Hitler on the first day.

It is funny though that Obama is seen as "weak". Many think he should be put up for war crimes! You can't please everyone.

I understand Obama well. He has the same strength as any other strong leader. He just wants to do it with drones with no body bags. I disagree with this stance. War should be bloody. It is the horror of war that makes people remember why they love peace so much.

Once you remove the horror of war and make it sterile, there is no reason to listen and negotiate and engage in diplomacy. Just kill them all it is cheap and clean. However, there has to be a mandatory draft in this country, so that the chicken-hawks are kept in check.

 

[Gotcha]

The counter argument is, he would have been put in a gas chamber by Hitler on the first day.

Exactly. Gandhi was lucky he was fighting the British. Look at how many people in China just try to publish an article in the paper about some government issue.. to be never heard from again.

I understand Obama well. He has the same strength as any other strong leader. He just wants to do it with drones with no body bags. I disagree. War should be bloody. It is the horror of war that makes people remember why they love peace so much.

Well.. the main problem with war is that its often about fighting someone else's war (ie. over oil), and its a big money making machine. Peace doesn't support major US companies, so there is a huge financial incentive. Having a strong military is absolutely necessary, just not to start wars over stupid things disguised as something else.

In some ways it should be bloody, perhaps to even act as a deterrent, same way as heavy punishments from the courts are used to deter the next criminal, but it really should be avoided at all costs.

Its really not up to one country to tell another how they should live. Those citizens in the other countries need to stand up to their own regime. If there aren't enough citizens to take on the people in power, then there aren't going to be enough to support the new government if that regime is removed by someone else. Which is exactly what we have in the world right now. The middle east, as a majority, simply doesn't want western values. They might say they want peace, but without giving up their religion, there can be no peace. (I always love the joke "Islam... the religion of peace") You simply cannot have western values if you still insist on covering up women from head to toe, and everything else this entails, allowing messed up religious views to dictate everything.

Its kind of like socialism. Everyone wants services, nobody wants to pay for it. If paying taxes was voluntary, there wouldn't be any money for public infrastructure. So paying taxes is mandatory, and although most people don't like it, they pay them. So if you want your country to be free and respect citizens equally, you have to move away from religious scripture and reprogram the through process of the citizens. An impossible task of course, and hence why countries only become free once they free themselves, not when someone comes in and takes out the bad guy, while the fabric of society remaining unchanged.

 

[felixbocharov]

I doubt anything will be done before the elections are over.

I have the same opinion, Obama is leaving the office very soon, probably he won't make any changes during the time which left.