Elizabeth Warren 2020

[texastough 1,129]

just donated to her again

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

 What does history tell you about unregulated capitalism?

Day care is in its current form unregulated capitalism? Oh wait, not that. It's anarcho-capitalism run amok. What we require is the arc of human history to provide the proper perspective on a federal government takeover of baby sitting.  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

If the government provides universal healthcare, they will arrest all stay-at-home mothers and grandparents taking care of grandkids. High school juniors watching kids for a few extra bucks will be murdered by the Gestapo.

I am normal and my brain is strong.

[Anastasis 23,469]

39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 I am normal and my brain is strong.

I think that the latter is likely true, but definitely not the former. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

20 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What does modern American history tell you about the potential for unintended consequences when the federal bureaucracy takes over the national regulation and financing of a industry?  Anything informative about total costs, quality, choice, or federal spending?

It showed us that the government can be the driving force behind the greatest leap forward in standard of living in human history. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Warren vs Trump head to head in new Q poll:

Warren winning independent voters 51 to 34 against Trump. 

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2627

Edited June 11, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,195]

lol white people

Jesus Christ

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol white people

Jesus Christ

Unbelievable right?  Also the age demographic of 50-64 is a serious WTF since it’s the inverse of every other age group. 

[Incredulity 11,671]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Unbelievable right?  Also the age demographic of 50-64 is a serious WTF since it’s the inverse of every other age group. 

Old enough to remember gas rationing, inflation and malaise.

[Dbeasy 15,051]

Old enough to remember gas rationing, inflation and malaise.

I don’t think that’s it. They remember relying on their own efforts and determination to get ahead and succeed, not on the government. They just haven’t figured out that it has become wayyy harder for people today to do it versus 20 or 30 years ago. I’m in this age demographic and hear them all day long spout out very simplistic views of the world.

Oh, and those that didn’t succeed economically are still among the biggest promoters of the Trump train. They realize they didn’t achieve economic success because of their own decisions, but haven’t figured out that many today can’t do it even with the best intentions of making the right decisions.

There is also an element of being sick of problems not being addressed: Immigration, China taking advantage of the US, the US picking up the bill for way more than we should as a country, etc. They haven’t figured out that Trump is pretty much all talk and no real action.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Also the age demographic of 50-64 is a serious WTF since it’s the inverse of every other age group. 

Biden Voters

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

3 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Old enough to remember gas rationing, inflation and malaise.

Jimmy Carter didn’t cause that, he just didn’t sell bread and circuses like his successors.  Hence our $20 trillion debt.  

[bad_teammate 13,195]

in 2019, the thing that matters the most

 

is the national debt

lol

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I often wake up in night sweats of terror and panic over the national debt. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[gmr548 16,580]

Warren vs Trump head to head in new Q poll:

Warren winning independent voters 51 to 34 against Trump. 
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2627

Fuck the baby boomers

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Bruh Man 3,160]

Smh at white women. Can't blame Hillary anymore. 

[Js1 85,337]

Warren surges into 2nd behind Biden in the newest Economist/YouGov poll.

Biden 26% (-1)
Warren 16% (+5)
Bernie 12% (-4)
Pete 8% (-1)
Harris 6% (-1)

[bad_teammate 13,195]

Interesting data point, let's see where the trends go.

Am I stupid for constantly expected Harris to surge? That's rhetorical, of course I'm stupid.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Interesting data point, let's see where the trends go.

Am I stupid for constantly expected Harris to surge? That's rhetorical, of course I'm stupid.

Harris is in a weird place.  She checks all the right boxes but can’t seem to articulate something to make herself stand out and separate herself from the pack.  

If all else fails, go after Trump hard as a motherfucker.  

That’s the one card everyone has and Biden decided to use it first.  

[Fozzz 152]

She is so full of shit.

 

From her Two-Income Trap book:

Quote

An all-voucher or all-school choice system would be a shock to the educational system, but the shake out might be just what the system needs…But over time, the whole concept of “the Beverly Hills schools” or “Newton schools” would die out, replaced in the hierarchy by schools that offer a variety of programs that parents want for their children, regardless of the geographic boundaries. By selecting where to send their children (and where to spend their vouchers), parents would take control over schools’ tax dollars, making them the de facto owners of those schools.

 

[Fozzz 152]

This is really the whole point of Liz's campaign - sap support from the real threat.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,195]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

She is so full of shit.

I don't think her evolving on these things is cynical. I think she's very genuine, but also inconstant. That's not a bad way for a person to be, but it's a little worrying if I think about what will happen when she's surrounded by shitlibs screaming at her to become a centrist once she has power. She doesn't have a progressive bedrock.

Better than everyone who isn't Bernie, but Bernie's bedrock is immovable.

[Huckleberry 32,861]

Exactly. A person updating their beliefs based on 15 years of data and experience isn't inherently a bad thing.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I don't think her evolving on these things is cynical. I think she's very genuine, but also inconstant. That's not a bad way for a person to be, but it's a little worrying if I think about what will happen when she's surrounded by shitlibs screaming at her to become a centrist once she has power. She doesn't have a progressive bedrock.

Better than everyone who isn't Bernie, but Bernie's bedrock is immovable.

I do think it's cynical.  There is really no ideological reason why she should not support marketizing primary and secondary education.  Her critiques of charters in the past have always been about better policing without questioning the concept itself.  That's really her in a nutshell - she supports current structures but believes their regulation should be better. 

[RomaVicta 29,907]

10 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Fuck the baby boomers

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

Half of us, yes. No generation is homogeneous.

[Fozzz 152]

If Warren is actually anti-charter now,  then why is she being introduced at campaign events by charter school lobbyists? lol.  

Quote

There has been much discussion on this blog and elsewhere regarding Elizabeth Warren’s campaign’s choice of a former charter school teacher to introduce Ms. Warren in Oakland. She was a fellow at GO Oakland, an organization funded by billionaires such as the Walton Family, Arthur Rock and Michael Bloomberg–billionaires who are bound and determined to charterize American public schools. After leaving as a fellow, she continued her relationship by blogging for the organization in 2018, including in her blog links to get readers to sign up for GO emails.
Why does any of this matter? 
It matters because when a presidential campaign asks someone to introduce their candidate. It is a carefully vetted and deliberate choice.  It is naive to think the introducer is picked from the air in any competent campaign, and the Warren campaign is highly competent. 
When Bernie Sanders issued his bold platform calling for a charter moratorium, Elizabeth Warren responded by saying that she too was against for-profit charter schools with no response on Sanders’ call for a moratorium.
Warren said she does not want to fund for -profits. Well, the only funding program she could influence as President, the Charter Schools Program, already does not.
 
No bold, progressive stand there.

https://dianeravitch.net/2019/06/07/carol-burris-a-message-for-elizabeth-warren/

[RomaVicta 29,907]

And so it begins.

With actual targets, the GOPs can play the game they're so wickedly good at. Focus on a detail and harp on it endlessly. It's a well-oiled hate engine.

Warren has changed positions, so she's full of shit. Laughable. Dismissible. You don't even have to bother thinking about your own team's candidate, this full-of-shit bitch is a flip-flopper.

Or... the engine runs on lies just as well:

John Kerry didn't earn his medals. He just went to Vietnam for political reasons. Ignore the avoidance of service by our team's candidate.

Hillary is evil incarnate. Murders people. Killed our guys in Benghazi, wherever that is. Gave all our uranium to the Russians. EMAILS! She's spastic and dying! Nothing worse than her. I'm stickin' with the team!

Even if the GOP loses, there are still so many of them.

Edited June 12, 2019 by RomaVicta

[Fozzz 152]

Yes, Carol Burris and Diane Ravtich are Republicans. lmao.

[zork 629]

23 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

She is so full of shit.

 

From her Two-Income Trap book:

 

 

17 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. A person updating their beliefs based on 15 years of data and experience isn't inherently a bad thing.

Yeah, she just got it wrong, a misunderstanding if you will, it happens a lot:

 

[Red Five 40,858]

Yep, you got her. Disqualifying, imo. Better pull that lever for Trump again I guess.

[Huckleberry 32,861]

It's cute that zork thinks anyone cares about his transparent silliness.

[Anastasis 23,469]

21 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

It showed us that the government can be the driving force behind the greatest leap forward in standard of living in human history. 

Yes, advances in quality of life and standard of living during the 19th and 20th century resulting from the enlightenment and spread of liberal democracy, and the industrial and technological revolutions, makes it foolish on its face to question the potential for unintended consequences associated with the federal government taking over regulation and financing of day care. Silly centrist anarcho capitalist extremist thinking.    

Edited June 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[bad_teammate 13,195]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

That's really her in a nutshell - she supports current structures but believes their regulation should be better. 

Absolutely.

If you project these candidates forward and imagine them in the White House and relying on their bedrock core beliefs in tough moments, Elizabeth Warren is less scary than most of her opponents, but she's still kind of scary. A lot will depend on who she surrounds herself with, which isn't extremely confidence-inspiring.

Like all other white libs, I want to believe in the touching conversion story.

She's a good compromise candidate between Bernie and the shitlibs. (Bernie is ALREADY a compromise between capitalist whores and actual, meaningful socialism, but hey.)

1. Bernie
.
.
2. Warren
. 
. 
. 
3. Shitlibs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4. Biden
.
.
5. Trump

[bad_teammate 13,195]

59 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, advances in quality of life and standard of living during the 19th and 20th century resulting from the enlightenment and spread of liberal democracy, and the industrial and technological revolutions, makes it foolish on its face to question the potential for unintended consequences associated with the federal government taking over regulation and financing of day care. Silly centrist anarcho capitalist extremist thinking.    

Please make an actual argument. With sugar on top.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Yes, advances in quality of life and standard of living during the 19th and 20th century resulting from the enlightenment and spread of liberal democracy, and the industrial and technological revolutions, makes it foolish on its face to question the potential for unintended consequences associated with the federal government taking over regulation and financing of day care. Silly centrist anarcho capitalist extremist thinking.    

It's not foolish to discuss the potential for unintended consequences from the federal government regulating and financing day care.   It's foolish to suggest that "modern American history tells" us a negative story about "the potential for unintended consequences when the federal bureaucracy takes over the national regulation and financing of a industry."  You know, the actual statement to which I was responding, not the very different position that you are falsely attributing to me. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

She's doing work.

[Dbeasy 15,051]

This is pretty dang cool

[elfenix 34,240]

17 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

she's the wonkiest of wonks.   wrote two of my law textbooks (bankruptcy and secured financing, iirc). 

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

25 minutes ago, elfenix said:

she's the wonkiest of wonks.   wrote two of my law textbooks (bankruptcy and secured financing, iirc). 

She's really fucking smart.  It would be nice to have a really fucking smart person as our President again instead of a drooling man baby who communicates through word salad.  

[Anastasis 23,469]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Please make an actual argument. With sugar on top.

I outlined some concerns in 2205. I think that a federal takeover of regulation and financing of day care would likely result in increased costs, reductions in quality in some cases, improved quality in others, reduction in diversity of programming  restrictions in choice, and increased federal spending. 

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

Federal regulation and control of daycare seems to be reaching waaaaaaaaay deep into something thoroughly imbued with local and state interest and almost completely lacking in federal interest.

Gives me a federalism infarction.

[bad_teammate 13,195]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I outlined some concerns in 2205. I think that a federal takeover of regulation and financing of day care would likely result in increased costs, reductions in quality in some cases, improved quality in others, reduction in diversity of programming  restrictions in choice, and increased federal spending. 

No you didn't. You did not outline any concerns in that post.

Here is the sum total of your "outline" of "concerns":

"Anything informative about total costs, quality, choice, or federal spending?"

That's not you outlining concerns in any kind of detail, that's you offering virtually nothing in the form of a loaded question. But now that you have said some extremely vague things...

- Why would there "likely" be increased costs?
- Why would there be reductions in quality?
- Why would there be "reduction in diversity of programming"?
- Why would there be "restrictions in choice"?

[tantric superman 4,667]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Federal regulation and control of daycare seems to be reaching waaaaaaaaay deep into something thoroughly imbued with local and state interest and almost completely lacking in federal interest.

Gives me a federalism infarction.

Promoting the general welfare when the states fail to do so:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

God I want her to debate him in the general.  He literally has nothing except "Pocahontas".  It will be a blood bath.  And he'll probably still win.  Because fuck this world.

[Fozzz 152]

10 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

God I want her to debate him in the general.  He literally has nothing except "Pocahontas".  It will be a blood bath.  And he'll probably still win.  Because fuck this world.

Trump, despite being rich his entire life, is far better at communicating to ordinary people than Liz.  Professional middle class types may jerk off to her aesthetic but most people don't find her to be very likable.  Look at her favorability in her home state, for instance.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

14 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Trump, despite being rich his entire life, is far better at communicating to ordinary people than Liz.  Professional middle class types may jerk off to her aesthetic but most people don't find her to be very likable.  Look at her favorability in her home state, for instance.

So she's too smart for our country and we really just need a fucking moron in charge because he does a better job of communicating to the morons in our country.  Got it.  

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So she's too smart for our country and we really just need a fucking moron in charge because he does a better job of communicating to the morons in our country.  Got it.  

You can be both smart and relatable - look at Obama, for example.  It's not their fault she can't relate or connect with ordinary people.  Have you seen videos of her attempting to act like a normal person? It's not a pretty sight.