Elizabeth Warren 2020

[gmr548 16607]

I've liked her for a while. Just caught up on the past couple weeks worth of this thread. She is not afraid to play hardball, she is bringing a lot of solid, concrete policy ideas to the table, and she is very sharp on her feet. I'm still not real high on her chances but every time I check into the D field I come away more solid in thinking that she is the best candidate out there.

Yeah, think I'll donate again.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[TwiceHorn 31529]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s the person best suited to see her ideas become a reality and the presidency is the best vehicle for her to do that so no, she wouldn’t be better in another office.    

She’s been in the Senate and on the sidelines fighting corruption from the bottom up.  Just think what she could do fighting from the top down.

Well again, that assumes that the Presidency is a better place to do things than the Senate, or somewhere else entirely.  I'm not convinced that's the case.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well again, that assumes that the Presidency is a better place to do things than the Senate, or somewhere else entirely.  I'm not convinced that's the case.

The real power of the presidency is its influence.  It’s the power Trump wields the best.  Think about the border Wall and how ridiculous that idea seemed to the majority of the population and our elected officials just three years ago.  Trump got away with shutting down the government multiple times and declaring a national emergency for that absurd Wall. Not that many people wanted it and the democrats were prepared to hand it to him a year ago.  No other government position even comes close to the influential firepower of the presidency. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well again, that assumes that the Presidency is a better place to do things than the Senate, or somewhere else entirely.  I'm not convinced that's the case.

The presidency is a better place for someone with not only the policy chops, but an overall vision.  Hillary had one without the other.  Warren has both.  You can win with a vision and zero (or negative) policy chops, as Trump has shown, but he was facing an opponent with no vision.  Beto and Mayor Pete have some vision, but not so much of the chops in different ways.  I don't think they'd be bad, but I think they'd get worked for a couple of years before they figure things out.  Either would be a great VP for Warren. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at GSU, and his shitass comment.  I should have put that in a different response, sorry.

You constantly want to lecture others like the gun nuts, if we don't have the most in-depth technical understanding of a topic then we aren't allowed to have an opinion. Google is literally being brought up on antitrust lawsuits in Europe and you want us to be correct in not calling it a monopoly? Just like in the EC thread, I don't care much for the reasonings why certain institutions exist when it's become outdated and clearly used against the will of the majority for a few decades now.

You want to litigiously concern troll about technical details when the rest of us have enough of an understanding that something like Google, Amazon, and the major Telecom companies shouldn't exist in their current forms.

Edited March 29, 2019 by GSU&UT

[TwiceHorn 31529]

26 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

You constantly want to lecture others like the gun nuts, if we don't have the most in-depth technical understanding of a topic then we aren't allowed to have an opinion. Google is literally being brought up on antitrust lawsuits in Europe and you want us to be correct in not calling it a monopoly? Just like in the EC thread, I don't care much for the reasonings why certain institutions exist when it's become outdated and clearly used against the will of the majority for a few decades now.

You want to litigiously concern troll about technical details when the rest of us have enough of an understanding that something like Google, Amazon, and the major Telecom companies shouldn't exist in their current forms.

And I agreed with the general premise, but disagree that using antitrust laws is the way to go about it.  To the extent European trade regulation law matters in the US, they are simply fining google for various anti-competitive practices.  They aren't sniffing any sort of breakup.

The banks need breaking up too, but you don't do it via the antitrust laws.  You do it by some variant of Glass Steagall.

I'm not sure the telecoms need breaking up, but they don't need to be acquiring any more media companies or vice versa and that is properly the subject of the antitrust laws.

What you "argued" about the EC, that it is some vestige of racism, was bullshit.  You can argue that you favor direct democracy over an electoral system, that's fine.  But to sway the argument with false premises like the electoral college is racist is wrong and distracts from the real argument.

People like you argue that "rule of law" matters.  That means that the way you get a result matters as much and maybe more than the result itself.  And then you ignore the rule of law.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

And I agreed with the general premise, but disagree that using antitrust laws is the way to go about it.

The banks need breaking up too, but you don't do it via the antitrust laws.  You do it by some variant of Glass Steagall.

I'm not sure the telecoms need breaking up, but they don't need to be acquiring any more media companies or vice versa and that is properly the subject of the antitrust laws.

What you "argued" about the EC, that it is some vestige of racism, was bullshit.  You can argue that you favor direct democracy over an electoral system, that's fine.  But to sway the argument with false premises like the electoral college is racist is wrong and distracts from the real argument.

People like you argue that "rule of law" matters.  That means that the way you get a result matters as much and maybe more than the result itself.  And then you ignore the rule of law.

Edit: it's not with going back and forth on this thread, just tired of your libertarian-esque concern trolling.

Edited March 29, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Dbeasy 15084]

Warren has three issues to address to get the non-extremist vote. First, the Pocahontas thing hurts because it resonates with a lot of people. Somehow along the way, she needs to frame an explanation in a way to gain some sympathy and understanding. Second, she comes across live poorly, like an old grandmother who you should ignore. She somehow needs media training to make her presence more likable. Third, she needs to balance her aggressive stances on things like corporate greed with more statesman-like views on other topics. If she can do these things she might have a shot.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Oh puhleeze on the tired Pocahontas garbage.

 

(And the fact that you used Trump’s nickname for the whole thing is telling.)

 

It hasn’t even come up once since she announced.

 

She’s had numerous town halls and question and answer events with actual voters and no one has brought it up.

 

It seems to be a non issue with people who don’t obsess about the horse race and minutiae online - IE people like us.

 

It won’t come up at all in the primaries because none of the other democrats are tacky and gross enough to use something like that.

 

And if she’s the nominee and Trump tries to use it two years from now it will backfire on his ass with everyone outside his nasty cult - IE people who were never going to vote for her under any circumstance.

 

Warren handled the whole thing clumsily but she got it out of the way far enough in advance that it’s a dead issue.

 

And your second and third “examples” - grandmotherly and likability - have such a misogynistic stench I won’t even bother to address them.

 

Just say you can’t abide a vagina with power and go.

[Anastasis 23481]

She should do another one of those instragram live things where she chuggs a firewater and thanks her husband for being in his home. Stay in your lane liz. Nerdy academic with real policy ideas. Don't try to be something that you aren't. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Anastasis

[Dbeasy 15084]

Oh puhleeze on the tired Pocahontas garbage.
 
(And the fact that you used Trump’s nickname for the whole thing is telling.)
 
It hasn’t even come up once since she announced.
 
She’s had numerous town halls and question and answer events with actual voters and no one has brought it up.
 
It seems to be a non issue with people who don’t obsess about the horse race and minutiae online - IE people like us.
 
It won’t come up at all in the primaries because none of the other democrats are tacky and gross enough to use something like that.
 
And if she’s the nominee and Trump tries to use it two years from now it will backfire on his ass with everyone outside his nasty cult - IE people who were never going to vote for her under any circumstance.
 
Warren handled the whole thing clumsily but she got it out of the way far enough in advance that it’s a dead issue.
 
And your second and third “examples” - grandmotherly and likability - have such a misogynistic stench I won’t even bother to address them.
 
Just say you can’t abide a vagina with power and go.

The fact that you choose to interpret the post in the way you did, and wrote a response the way you did, says a lot more about you than anyone else. Your entire comment is just flat wrong and immature, like a little kid throwing a tantrum who tries to hurt someone by calling them names. Good luck dealing with your misplaced anger. I won’t be responding to you in the future.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m not going to speak for BamaChick but the post she was reacting to did come off as concern trolling with subtle misogynistic undertones.   I don’t doubt your candor in your analysis but we’re kinda of sick of hearing the echoes of prepackaged talking points from douchebags in the media about Elizabeth Warren.  You pretty much hit the talking head pundit cycle (Native American bs, “likability” bs, she needs to be more photogenic bs, women should know their place kinda crap).

If Elizabeth Warren were a white man none of your criticisms would be taken seriously by anyone.  It’s the same kinda shit they did to Hillary or any assertive woman that threatens the patriarchal order. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31529]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not going to speak for BamaChick but the post she was reacting to did come off as concern trolling with subtle misogynistic undertones.   I don’t doubt your candor in your analysis but we’re kinda of sick of hearing the echoes of prepackaged talking points from douchebags in the media about Elizabeth Warren.  You pretty much hit the talking head pundit cycle (Native American bs, “likability” bs, she needs to be more photogenic bs, women should know their place kinda crap).

If Elizabeth Warren were a white man none of your criticisms would be taken seriously by anyone.  It’s the same kinda shit they did to Hillary or any assertive woman that threatens the patriarchal order. 

Ha, thought you were referring to me for a sec. Because it at least superficially applies to what I wrote earlier

I apologize to Bamachick, I should have separated out what was intended to be an "educational" post partially in response to hers and my shitty little response to GSU.

And FFS can we stop with calling people that are long time serious posters trolls.  It's as tiresome as Trump's references to the media or to Pocahontas for that matter  Meet the argument head-on (as you usually do, Hugo, which is why it's so annoying), or shut up.

[Dbeasy 15084]

I’m not going to speak for BamaChick but the post she was reacting to did come off as concern trolling with subtle misogynistic undertones.   I don’t doubt your candor in your analysis but we’re kinda of sick of hearing the echoes of prepackaged talking points from douchebags in the media about Elizabeth Warren.  You pretty much hit the talking head pundit cycle (Native American bs, “likability” bs, she needs to be more photogenic bs, women should know their place kinda crap).
If Elizabeth Warren were a white man none of your criticisms would be taken seriously by anyone.  It’s the same kinda shit they did to Hillary or any assertive woman that threatens the patriarchal order. 

The only pre-packaged talking points I’m seeing are extremists on the left like you constantly calling people racists, and now misogynists, when there is nothing there.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge the obvious truth that likability is one of the most important voting criteria for candidates, male and female, white and black, is ridiculous.

Your behavior only hurts your cause by driving away independents like me who are disgusted by your warped world view. And since we are the ones who decide which party wins an election, I would suggest you try to do a better job of connecting with reality and your fellow Americans, rather than continuing to spew hatred at others. It’s so ironic that you spew hatred at others because you mistakenly believe they hate certain people or sexes. It’s sad you can’t see that irony.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

If you'd consider voting for Trump over Warren because she seems like an old grandmother who should be ignored — and wtf, who ignores their grandmother? — you probably aren't reachable anyway.  And if you are nonetheless reachable, the answer isn't to make Warren more like your expectations of how a female candidate should be, but rather to elect her as is and force those people to question their own biases. 

And there's almost nobody in the world less likeable than the man who won the last election. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

FFS can we stop with calling people that are long time serious posters trolls. 

Everyone trolls a little sometimes but not everyone is a troll.   In my view, trolls are bad actors that bring nothing of value to conversations.  They seek to paralyze and derail from thoughtful discussions.  Some posters do this without even realizing they’re doing it, others are more deliberate and malicious about it.

However, not all trolling is bad.  Contrarian trolling can have value because it forces debate from competing perspectives and can sometimes improve understanding.  Trolling can also be good comedy when it’s in the form of satire like Hank Scorpio. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[6th Street 6490]

56 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not going to speak for BamaChick but the post she was reacting to did come off as concern trolling with subtle misogynistic undertones.   I don’t doubt your candor in your analysis but we’re kinda of sick of hearing the echoes of prepackaged talking points from douchebags in the media about Elizabeth Warren.  You pretty much hit the talking head pundit cycle (Native American bs, “likability” bs, she needs to be more photogenic bs, women should know their place kinda crap).

If Elizabeth Warren were a white man none of your criticisms would be taken seriously by anyone.  It’s the same kinda shit they did to Hillary or any assertive woman that threatens the patriarchal order. 

Warren has bigger issues - her dumbass ideas of government overreach to break up Amazon and Google for instance. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

The only pre-packaged talking points I’m seeing are extremists on the left like you constantly calling people racists, and now misogynists, when there is nothing there.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge the obvious truth that likability is one of the most important voting criteria for candidates, male and female, white and black, is ridiculous.

Your behavior only hurts your cause by driving away independents like me who are disgusted by your warped world view. And since we are the ones who decide which party wins an election, I would suggest you try to do a better job of connecting with reality and your fellow Americans, rather than continuing to spew hatred at others. It’s so ironic that you spew hatred at others because you mistakenly believe they hate certain people or sexes. It’s sad you can’t see that irony.

I spewed no such hatred.  If people keep saying “likability” is something she needs to work on, it becomes an accepted perception problem and a self fulfilling prophecy that has no basis in reality.

 No male politician gets critiqued on his “likability”.  If anything, male politicians get heat for being too soft.  If a woman is angry she’s hysterical.  If a man shows anger he’s projecting strength. 

 Elizabeth Warren is an angry woman and she owns it.  That bothers a lot men because they’re not used to seeing it so they say things like “she’s not likable enough”.  She doesn’t need to be likable, she needs to be effective at her job. We don’t need some media whore pussy in charge like we have now.

 If “likability” is that important to you and other voters, she probably doesn’t want your votes.  Yeah, that might cost her because she’s not pandering to the superficial bullshit but for folks like me that see through it, I respect her more. 

[ChickenSandwich 9849]

16 hours ago, gmr548 said:

I've liked her for a while. Just caught up on the past couple weeks worth of this thread. She is not afraid to play hardball, she is bringing a lot of solid, concrete policy ideas to the table, and she is very sharp on her feet. I'm still not real high on her chances but every time I check into the D field I come away more solid in thinking that she is the best candidate out there.

Yeah, think I'll donate again.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Harris’ chances were set a zero when she made her announcement to run for President. 

She makes a grand gesture and says she will eliminate all private health care. The backlash is immediate and swift and she changes her mind in less than 24 hrs on a policy she thought important enough to announce with her run for office. 

She comes off as Hillary part two, willing to say or do anything anyone wants to hear if it gets the vote.  Empty suit  

Warren has little chance but is ten times the candidate that Harris is. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

We have to shift the narrative on "likability" by defending the women as likable, not just by shaming misogyny. Shaming misogyny not only doesn't work against misogynists, it reinforces the false belief because it comes across as defensive; like we think it's true but we shouldn't say it.

Fuck that.

Elizabeth Warren is likable.

Let's go issue by issue

- "Pocahontas"

No one who is worth a shit as a potential voter cares about this. Anyone who cares about this as an important issue is either deeply stupid or a concern-trolling right-winger. The right-winger is unreachable and there's no understanding what will win a dumbass. She was told as a kid she had Native ancestry, and a DNA test confirms that she does. She didn't use it to get any advantages.

- "She drank a beer"

Fuck you. People drink beer. She doesn't pretend to be a boozehound, a bro, or a craft beer nerd. She had a beer in her kitchen in an informal setting. She didn't make a huge scene about it, she went and got a beer and drank it while she talked to people on Instagram Live. Fuck off. Beer companies sell millions of gallons of that bullshit every year, where do you think it's going? It's going into every bourgeois refrigerator in this country because we live in such an unrelenting hell even the little buzz you get off a beer (or 7) at the end of the day is a relief.

- "She needs media training"

You need go-fuck-yourself training. She's fine. Biden is a molester, and he's #1 in the polls. Bernie is a finger-wagging scold, and he's #2.

- "She's comes across like a grandma"

Grandmothers rule, fuck you.

- "Elizabeth Warren is an angry woman"

Nope. She gets mad sometimes, but she's a passionate defender of her ideas. She stays far more calm, cool, and collected than basically any male politician you'd care to notice, including our dumbfuck president, the weeping brat we just put on the SC. In the force of her passion she remains articulate and clear. She doesn't get flustered and stammer, she's tough as hell.

Angry woman. Angry black person. SO EMOTIONAL! Fuck these tropes.

Elizabeth Warren rules. Fuck all y'all. Fight me.

[ChickenSandwich 9849]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I spewed no such hatred.  If people keep saying “likability” is something she needs to work on, it becomes an accepted perception problem and a self fulfilling prophecy that has no basis in reality.

 No male politician gets critiqued on his “likability”.  If anything, male politicians get heat for being too soft.  If a woman is angry she’s hysterical.  If a man shows anger he’s projecting strength. 

 Elizabeth Warren is an angry woman and she owns it.  That bothers a lot men because they’re not used to seeing it so they say things like “she’s not likable enough”.  She doesn’t need to be likable, she needs to be effective at her job. We don’t need some media whore pussy in charge like we have now.

 If “likability” is that important to you and other voters, she probably doesn’t want your votes.  Yeah, that might cost her because she’s not pandering to the superficial bullshit but for folks like me that see through it, I respect her more. 

Ummmm..

Beto is built completely off of “likability” and his lack of any policy or platform other than feel good slogans is a real valid criticism. 

And he has a penis. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

(not as cool as Bernie though lol)

imgur

[6th Street 6490]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We have to shift the narrative on "likability" by defending the women as likable, not just by shaming misogyny. Shaming misogyny not only doesn't work against misogynists, it reinforces the false belief because it comes across as defensive; like we think it's true but we shouldn't say it.

Fuck that.

Elizabeth Warren is likable.

Let's go issue by issue

- "Pocahontas"

No one who is worth a shit as a potential voter cares about this. Anyone who cares about this as an important issue is either deeply stupid or a concern-trolling right-winger. The right-winger is unreachable and there's no understanding what will win a dumbass. She was told as a kid she had Native ancestry, and a DNA test confirms that she does. She didn't use it to get any advantages.

- "She drank a beer"

Fuck you. People drink beer. She doesn't pretend to be a boozehound, a bro, or a craft beer nerd. She had a beer in her kitchen in an informal setting. She didn't make a huge scene about it, she went and got a beer and drank it while she talked to people on Instagram Live. Fuck off. Beer companies sell millions of gallons of that bullshit every year, where do you think it's going? It's going into every bourgeois refrigerator in this country because we live in such an unrelenting hell even the little buzz you get off a beer (or 7) at the end of the day is a relief.

- "She needs media training"

You need go-fuck-yourself training. She's fine. Biden is a molester, and he's #1 in the polls. Bernie is a finger-wagging scold, and he's #2.

- "She's comes across like a grandma"

Grandmothers rule, fuck you.

- "Elizabeth Warren is an angry woman"

Nope. She gets mad sometimes, but she's a passionate defender of her ideas. She stays far more calm, cool, and collected than basically any male politician you'd care to notice, including our dumbfuck president, the weeping brat we just put on the SC. In the force of her passion she remains articulate and clear. She doesn't get flustered and stammer, she's tough as hell.

Angry woman. Angry black person. SO EMOTIONAL! Fuck these tropes.

Elizabeth Warren rules. Fuck all y'all. Fight me.

You haven't addressed her anti-business policies. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Elizabeth Warren is an angry woman"

She actually takes pride in being an angry woman.

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

13 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

You haven't addressed her anti-business policies. 

"anti-business" is such a vague thing to say it makes it seem like you don't actually know what you're talking about. Be more specific. Name a problem. 

Any sane human being understands that megacorporations and a monopolistic corporate monoculture is bad for basically everyone except the very very top 0.5%. Breaking up giant monoliths is good for business; it increases opportunities for new businesses via competition, it decreases the ability of one corporation to manipulate and corrupt government, it increases transparency.

 

[burntorangebongos 10752]

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She actually takes pride in being an angry woman.

She can own it all she likes, but a white male ally shouldn't characterize a marginalized person as being an "angry" person because of what it means coming out of our mouths into the ears of people like us. She can reclaim it; that's fine. We can't do that. It's like the "nasty woman" thing or the n-word for blacks. Not our place, even if our intentions are good.

[6th Street 6490]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"anti-business" is such a vague thing to say it makes it seem like you don't actually know what you're talking about. Be more specific. Name a problem. 

 Any sane human being understands that megacorporations and a monopolistic corporate monoculture is bad for basically everyone except the very very top 0.5%. Breaking up giant monoliths is good for business; it increases opportunities for new businesses via competition, it decreases the ability of one corporation to manipulate and corrupt government, it increases transparency.

  

Her idea to break up Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple is pure lunacy and shows a poor understanding of synergistic adjacenies in their respective businesses.  

[gmr548 16607]

Her idea to break up Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple is pure lunacy and shows a poor understanding of synergistic adjacenies in their respective businesses.  

Corporate buzzword game strong to quite strong.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[bad_teammate 13224]

3 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Her idea to break up Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple is pure lunacy and shows a poor understanding of synergistic adjacenies in their respective businesses.  

lol for unironically saying "synergistic adjacenies" like some unbelievable douchebag middle management drone shat out of the mediocre hell that is McCombs

double lol for spelling "adjacencies" wrong while saying ELIZABETH FUCKING WARREN has a "poor understanding" of basically anything

She understands exactly why they do these mergers and she understands how they force competition into the buy-or-kill zone with that increasing power. That's the point. She understands how it works and how it's poisonous for the nation not only in a holistic sense, but specifically for the economy.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

17 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Her idea to break up Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple is pure lunacy and shows a poor understanding of synergistic adjacenies in their respective businesses.  

She doesn’t want to destroy those companies. She wants to decouple their ability to own their little monopolies of marketplaces and undo some of their vertical and horizontal integration.

The marketplace in the tech sector isn’t innovating for the population as it once was because the market is being cornered by the Googles, Apples, Amazons, and Facebooks.  

Anyone coming out with a really good idea will be extremely fortunate not to get squashed or swallowed up by one of the tech giants.

The baseball analogy she uses is these companies cannot own the umpires and the teams at the same time like they are now. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13224]

Jesus Christ if there's anything that's going to legitimately make me want to commit real-world acts of violence this election cycle it's going to be the parade of interchangeable white guy morons who think they're smarter than Elizabeth Warren

"Sit down and let me explain business to you, little lady, I worked my way up to middle management at my dad's dealership and I've got a few things to teach you..."

[6th Street 6490]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She doesn’t want to destroy those companies. She wants to decouple their ability to own their little monopolies of marketplaces and undo some of their vertical and horizontal integration.

The marketplace in the tech sector isn’t innovating for the population as it once was because the market is being cornered by the Googles, Apples, Amazons, and Facebooks.  

 Anyone coming out with a really good idea will be extremely fortunate not to get squashed or swallowed up by one of the tech giants.

The baseball analogy she uses is these companies cannot own the umpires and the teams at the same time like they are now. 

Take away Instagram and Whatsapp from Facebook and it's biggest potential incremental revenue streams are destroyed, essentially neutering them. 

Take away Apple Services and you're left with a low-margin perpetually declining commodity hardware business

It's a poorly thought out plan, and shows little understanding of how these companies need to grow at scale. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

Take away Instagram and Whatsapp from Facebook and it's biggest potential incremental revenue streams are destroyed, essentially neutering them. 

Take away Apple Services and you're left with a low-margin perpetually declining commodity hardware business

It's a poorly thought out plan, and shows little understanding of how these companies need to grow at scale. 

You act like these are family owned mom and pop business.  These companies are bigger and more powerful than most governments.  Cry me a fucking river on them losing some ability to exploit populations for more profit.

[6th Street 6490]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You act like these are family owned mom and pop business.  These companies are bigger and more powerful than most governments.  Cry me a fucking river on them losing some ability to exploit populations for more profit.

You are ignoring the fact for example that the smartphone industry is now in decline. Apple absolutely depends on the Services business to prop up its platform. Just look at the wreckage of commodity smartphone companies over the years - Motorola, HTC, etc. iPhone gross margins are in the low-mid 30%'s range, and Services are well over 60%, a key driver of the company's profitability. 

Similarly Facebook's DAU growth is slowing and will likely decline over time as the business matures - Instagram and Whatsapp are key to their survival. 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 You pretty much hit the talking head pundit cycle (Native American bs, “likability” bs, she needs to be more photogenic bs, women should know their place kinda crap).

 

Hugo, can you point to one instance of anyone saying that Warren needs to be more photogenic or know her place as a woman, or are you, per usual, spouting bullshit?

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

We have to shift the narrative on "likability" by defending the women as likable, not just by shaming misogyny. Shaming misogyny not only doesn't work against misogynists, it reinforces the false belief because it comes across as defensive; like we think it's true but we shouldn't say it.

Fuck that.

Elizabeth Warren is likable.

Let's go issue by issue

- "Pocahontas"

No one who is worth a shit as a potential voter cares about this. Anyone who cares about this as an important issue is either deeply stupid or a concern-trolling right-winger. The right-winger is unreachable and there's no understanding what will win a dumbass. She was told as a kid she had Native ancestry, and a DNA test confirms that she does. She didn't use it to get any advantages.

 

The issue with the Pocahontas thing, and I think most of the "not far left enough liberals for you" on here would agree, is not about the fact that she claimed NA on some forms. It's twofold:

- The fact that she went and did a DNA test and it came back some decimal of a decimal of a percentage, then she thought she would totally pwn Trump with that, shows unbelievably poor decision making especially vis a vis a campaign against Trump. She played right into his hands. To me that's a big flashing warning sign for her ability vs. Trump in the general.

- The fact that it's not going to sit well with the voters that we need in the midwest - the place that you and I have been probably the biggest drum-beaters on the importance thereof. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

You are ignoring the fact for example that the smartphone industry is now in decline. Apple absolutely depends on the Services business to prop up its platform. Just look at the wreckage of commodity smartphone companies over the years - Motorola, HTC, etc. iPhone gross margins are in the low-mid 30%'s range, and Services are well over 60%, a key driver of the company's profitability. 

Similarly Facebook's DAU growth is slowing and will likely decline over time as the business matures - Instagram and Whatsapp are key to their survival. 

 

They will figure it out or someone else will.  Deal with it.

[6th Street 6490]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

They will figure it out or someone else will.  Deal with it.

Come on son, you can do better than this. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, 6th Street said:

Come on son, you can do better than this. 

I’m not going to business plan for post breakup tech giants.  It’s remarkable though that you think we should. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It’s like, “so sorry we spoiled your little plans to take over the world.  What can we do to help?”

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m not going to business plan for post breakup tech giants.  It’s remarkable though that you think we should. 

It's remarkable that you think we should break up three of the most important companies in our economy, three companies that are doing a ton of heavy lifting in regards to maintaining our country's status as technology leader for the free world, three companies that employee several hundred thousand people and millions of contractors/vendors, without considering the ramifications of what that would look like and how it would impact our economy and the jobs and livelihoods of millions. Without considering how that would impact our lead on the global technology stage. 

I get that you're not a detail oriented guy unless it's related to the Mueller report, but come on.

Edited March 30, 2019 by BradInATX

[FondrenRoad 4378]

16 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

You are ignoring the fact for example that the smartphone industry is now in decline. Apple absolutely depends on the Services business to prop up its platform. Just look at the wreckage of commodity smartphone companies over the years - Motorola, HTC, etc. iPhone gross margins are in the low-mid 30%'s range, and Services are well over 60%, a key driver of the company's profitability. 

Similarly Facebook's DAU growth is slowing and will likely decline over time as the business matures - Instagram and Whatsapp are key to their survival. 

 

Not to mention, reconsolidation of something like Facebook is near guaranteed. How do you even break Facebook up?  Regional social networks?  I have to pay long distance fees to friend people in a different region?

Amazon makes more sense if you break AWS, retail, and video into 3 separate companies. Especially since they are using the wildly profitable AWS to run the other 2 at a continuous loss or near loss which makes it near impossible for competitors to enter the fray.  Other stores can't simply lose money on sales and keep on going. 

[BradInATX 9208]

Not to mention, reconsolidation of something like Facebook is near guaranteed. How do you even break Facebook up?  Regional social networks?  I have to pay long distance fees to friend people in a different region?
Amazon makes more sense if you break AWS, retail, and video into 3 separate companies. Especially since they are using the wildly profitable AWS to run the other 2 at a continuous loss or near loss which makes it near impossible for competitors to enter the fray.  Other stores can't simply lose money on sales and keep on going. 

This too. Amazon is the only of the conpanies in question with anything even remotely approaching monopoly. Facebook, Apple, and Google have tons of competitive pressure and market risk. We don't just break companies up because they're big.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

It's remarkable that you think we should break up three of the most important companies in our economy, three companies that are doing a ton of heavy lifting in regards to maintaining our country's status as technology leader for the free world, three companies that employee several hundred thousand people and millions of contractors/vendors, without considering the ramifications of what that would look like and how it would impact our economy and the jobs and livelihoods of millions. Without considering how that would impact our lead on the global technology stage. 

I get that you're not a detail oriented guy unless it's related to the Mueller report, but come on.

So you think breaking them up would cause job losses?  You know breaking them up doesn’t make the demand for their services and the people that provide it magically go away?  

Breaking them up decentralizes their concentration of market power and control.  

And lol at Facebook being some benevolent good faith actor in society and the economy.

[BradInATX 9208]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

And lol at Facebook being some benevolent good faith actor in society and the economy.

Can you show me where I, or anyone, said this?

[BradInATX 9208]

And to your other point, if breaking up a company disturbs their business model and makes all of the spinouts weaker as a result, then of course people will lose jobs. If breaking Apple up makes the collective weaker relative to Samsung and Samsung captures additional market share, then we lose domestic jobs and Korea gains jobs. There is a ton of nuance that needs to be considered in a proposal like this. It's a topic that deserves more than just an angry catchphrase and poorly thought out ideas. "Break up big tech" is the new "build the wall". Blue meat for the far left anti-corporatists that has very little substance or consideration for ramifications. I realize you have to fight fire with fire but this isn't the right battle.

However, it's not terrible that we're talking about it. It just requires more nuance than you're giving it.

Edited March 30, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

“Break up big tech" is the new "build the wall". 

Have you read this?

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Have you read this?

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c

Have you? What's anti-competitive about Amazon acquiring Whole Foods? Or Google's acquisitions of Nest/Waze? I can somewhat understand Facebook's acquisition of Instagram, but even that's iffy. 

Her argument of Amazon "crushing small competitors with their marketplace and pricing" is no different than Wal Mart. Why is Wal Mart not included in her proposal, then?

Her proposal to classify FB/Amazon/Google as "Platform Utilities" and regulate them, okay. Some of that I can actually get behind. For example, I'd be on board with a regulation preventing google from artificially stifling competition (IE pushing yelp reviews down the page to promote Google Reviews), provided it was done correctly. But her proposal to prevent the companies from sharing data with third parties would be almost crippling to their business model. All of those companies, especially Facebook, are built on data being the product they're selling. Limiting their ability to sell/share data with third parties would be a crippling, anti-business move and is poorly conceived.

Like I said, I'm glad we're having the conversation, but it requires much more nuance than just "Break up big tech!". 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

Take away Instagram and Whatsapp from Facebook and it's biggest potential incremental revenue streams are destroyed, essentially neutering them. 

Take away Apple Services and you're left with a low-margin perpetually declining commodity hardware business

It's a poorly thought out plan, and shows little understanding of how these companies need to grow at scale. 

These companies do not "need" to grow at their current pace in any rational sense. They "need" to grow only under the mental illness that is an economy dominated by speculative trading.

If Facebook as a social network cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

If Apple has a hardware business cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

If Amazon as a retailer cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

If Google as a search engine cannot survive on its own, that's the market speaking.

What these mergers and conglomerations do is prop up untenable businesses by stifling competition, opportunity, and choice. We understand that's what they are doing. You don't need to explain it to us, MBA Brain Genius. What we are saying is that them doing that is bad for the economy and country and we shouldn't allow them to do it.

"But if Apple doesn't retain control over the hardware AND the platform then it might not earn $20B+ in profits every single quarter!! OUR NATION WILL DIE!!"

54 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

It's remarkable that you think we should break up three of the most important companies in our economy, three companies that are doing a ton of heavy lifting in regards to maintaining our country's status as technology leader for the free world, three companies that employee several hundred thousand people and millions of contractors/vendors, without considering the ramifications of what that would look like and how it would impact our economy and the jobs and livelihoods of millions. Without considering how that would impact our lead on the global technology stage. 

Listening to Giant Business Brains talk is like listening to preachers. It's all rhetoric.

These companies innovate some technology and that's great, but to talk about them like they are the fountain of all (or even most) of our technological innovation is ridiculously ignorant.