Elizabeth Warren 2020

[F250 28775]

56 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Nearly everything Trump has touched in his career has ultimately crashed and burned. Our economy is likely going the way of Trump steaks. 

[Fozzz 152]

this is perfect

 

 

[babysdaddy 2724]

3 hours ago, TexArcher said:

It doesn't even take book-cooking or malfeasance.  The market's been on a 10-year upswing without a true correction, while the average bull market is 4-5 years.  It will end, and when it does the correction will likely be in the 15-25% negative range.

P/E ratios are also very high across the entire US market, i.e. most stocks are overpriced.

And the yield curve inverted briefly earlier this year and may again.  There is a nearly 1:1 correlation historically between inverted yield curve and a recession within 18 months.

These are all bellwethers of a correction.  It's definitely coming and it's probably coming before the election.

This is all factually incorrect.  And I'm not attributing any of the below to Trump or Obama.  

1.  The market has been on a 10 year upswing with 2 pull backs.  One at the end of last year and one in 2014.  You could also look at the start of 2016.  Point being there has been multiple pull backs on the 15-20% range.  What has been interesting is the speed of pullbacks and their recovery.

2.  As of 6.30.19 the forward P/E of the S&P 500 was 16.7x (25 year average is 16.1x), Price to book 3.13x (25 year avg 2.95x), Shiller P/E of 30.23x (25 year avg of 27.02x).  None of those numbers qualify as very high and certainly do not qualify when people understand that low interest rates correlation should be higher asset prices/multiples paid for them.  

3. The yield curve inflated slightly but I'd argue that interest rates have been retarded on the long end due to central bank activity and no longer show appropriate risk/interest rate prices.  The inversion is not reflective of reality, imo.

4.  Pullback may or may not happen again, but it is irrelevant to the President.

  

[Bateshorn 9927]

22 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

4.  Pullback may or may not happen again, but it is irrelevant to the President.

  

On this thing, you are 100% wrong.  If we end up in a recession by next summer, Trump's support will collapse and he will take the GOP Senate with him.  George H.W. Bush managed to collapse from an 89% approval rating to 29% from 2/91 to 8/92, based on a relatively mild recession (which actually may have been technically over).  Same with Nixon:  once the price controls came off and inflation spike, Watergate finally began to take it's toll. The 1973 oil crisis put him down for good.

The only thing that is keeping Trump in the game right now, with his approval rating, is the economy.  Working class white men are a fickle bunch,  racial animosity will only take you so far.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Bateshorn

[babysdaddy 2724]

56 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

On this thing, you are 100% wrong.  If we end up in a recession by next summer, Trump's support will collapse and he will take the GOP Senate with him.  George H.W. Bush managed to collapse from an 89% approval rating to 29% from 2/91 to 8/92, based on a relatively mild recession (which actually may have been technically over).  Same with Nixon:  once the price controls came off and inflation spike, Watergate finally began to take it's toll. The 1973 oil crisis put him down for good.

The only thing that is keeping Trump in the game right now, with his approval rating, is the economy.  Working class white men are a fickle bunch,  racial animosity will only take you so far.

sorry, meant the President was irrelevant mostly on the performance.  Totally agree that his reelection is dependent on the market staying elevated.

[bad_teammate 13195]

If we are headed for a recession, I'd be much happier with President Warren than basically any other option. Basically all of the other Democrats would just invite Goldman-Sachs in and ask, "How much money do we need to give you and your friends to make these bad headlines go away!?!?!?"

[David Dennison 18860]

22 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

sorry, meant the President was irrelevant mostly on the performance.  Totally agree that his reelection is dependent on the market staying elevated.

He's probably going to lose no matter what.

[pyrohornIII 4814]

16 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

sorry, meant the President was irrelevant mostly on the performance.  Totally agree that his reelection is dependent on the market staying elevated.

Pretty hard for me as a layman to understand how his tariffs and trade wars are not affecting our economy now and in the future.  Likewise the roll back of regulations in so many areas like banking, petrochemical and environmental are propping it up.  So not only will we have a lot to recover from a regular recession, but it will take years to rebuild trade agreements and get the necessary regulations back in play. 

[Bateshorn 9927]

13 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Pretty hard for me as a layman to understand how his tariffs and trade wars are not affecting our economy now and in the future.  Likewise the roll back of regulations in so many areas like banking, petrochemical and environmental are propping it up.  So not only will we have a lot to recover from a regular recession, but it will take years to rebuild trade agreements and get the necessary regulations back in play. 

Well, we are also running a huge deficit during a booming economy.  It's going to be much harder to fix the economy during the next recession.

[Fozzz 152]

Why will it be harder?  

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

The economy is never going to decline and eventually some of that sweet sweet tax cut money is going to trickle down to me I just know it. That's why I stopped paying my credit card bills. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

fed says it's recession time.

 

 

looks like they've only been wrong 1 time in the last 60 years when the indicators get this high.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

 

Came here to post this.

Everyone here who isn't Warren or Bernie as your #1... what the fuck are you thinking?

Jesus

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

She’s obviously starting a cult to conquer the world.  This is how it’s done. 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

The purity test narrative is fucking terrible. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

On 7/22/2019 at 6:52 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Back when she was a republican she said shit that made sense.

 

I think she gets the nomination.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Thetexashammer

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

New Plan:  Trade—On Our Terms

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/trade-on-our-terms-ad861879feca

Last month, I released my economic patriotismagenda — my commitment to fundamentally changing the government’s approach to the economy so that we put the interests of American workers and families ahead of the interests of multinational corporations. I’ve already released my ideas for applying economic patriotism to manufacturing and to Wall Street. This is my plan for using economic patriotism to overhaul our approach to trade.

For decades, big multinational corporations have bought and lobbied their way into dictating America’s trade policy. Those big corporations have gotten rich but everyone else has paid the price. We’ve lost millions of jobs to outsourcing, depressed wages for American workers, accelerated climate change, and squeezed America’s family farmers. We’ve let China get away with the suppression of pay and labor rights, poor environmental protections, and years of currency manipulation. All to add some zeroes to the bottom lines of big corporations with no loyalty or allegiance to America.

We need to completely transform our approach to trade. America enters into trade negotiations with enormous leverage because America is the world’s most attractive market. As President, I won’t hand America’s leverage to big corporations to use for their own narrow purposes — I’ll use it to create and defend good American jobs, raise wages and farm income, combat climate change, lower drug prices, and raise living standards worldwide. We will engage in international trade — but on our terms and only when it benefits American families.

A New Approach to Trade

My plan is a new approach to trade — one that is different from both the Washington insider consensus that brought us decades of bad trade deals and from Donald Trump’s haphazard and ultimately corporate-friendly approach.

Unlike the insiders, I don’t think “free trade” deals that benefit big multinational corporations and international capital at the expense of American workers are good simply because they open up markets. Trade is good when it helps American workers and families — when it doesn’t, we need to change our approach. And unlike Trump, while I think tariffs are an important tool, they are not by themselves a long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this Administration clearly lacks.

To ensure that American families benefit from international trade in the decades to come, I want to invest in American workers and to use our leverage to force other countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to anti-corruption rules to access to medicine to tax enforcement. If we raise the world’s standards to our level and American workers have the chance to compete fairly, they will thrive — and millions of people around the world will be better off too.

Achieving this vision isn’t about tough talk or tweets. We must do the hard work of transforming every aspect of our current approach to trade: from our negotiating process to the negotiating objectives we pursue to the way we enforce agreements. That’s what I intend to do.

A Trade Negotiation Process that Reflects America’s Interests

Our current approach to negotiating trade agreements works great for the wealthy and the well-connected. The negotiating text is kept confidential from all but a small set of advisory groups comprised mostly of corporate executives and industry trade group representatives. Once those corporate interests are finished whispering in the ears of our negotiators, the completed text is released. Then, under the expedited “Fast Track” procedure Congress typically uses to approve trade agreements, our elected representatives must vote up or down on the agreement with no ability to propose and secure any changes to it. Meanwhile, the negotiators who constructed it often breeze through the revolving door to take jobs with the corporations whose interests underlie the deal.

This is undemocratic and obviously corrupt. In a Warren Administration, we will negotiate and approve trade agreements through a transparent process that offers the public a genuine chance to shape it:

• Trade negotiators will publicly disclose negotiating drafts and provide the public with an opportunity to comment. When federal agencies write new rules, they typically must publish a proposed version of the rule and permit the public to submit comments on it. I will adopt a similar approach for our trade deals. Prior to negotiations, our negotiators will publish a draft of their proposals in the Federal Register, let the public offer comments on the draft, and take those comments into consideration during negotiations. And then as talks proceed, they will publish drafts of the negotiating texts so the public can monitor the negotiations.
• Trade advisory committees will prioritize the views of workers and consumers. I will ensure that there are more representatives from labor, environmental, and consumer groups than from corporations and trade groups on every existing advisory committee. And I’ll expand the current list of advisory committees to create one for consumers, one for rural areas, and one for each region of the country, so that critical voices are at the table during negotiations.
• The US International Trade Commission will provide a regional analysis of the economic effects of a trade agreement.Trade agreements can hollow out communities and transform regional economies. Yet the report the ITC provides before Congress considers a trade agreement only includes a nationwide analysis of a trade deal’s economic impact. I will push for the agency to provide a region-by-region analysis so the public and Members of Congress can understand how an agreement is likely to affect the places they live and represent.
• The congressional approval process will offer more opportunities for the public and elected representatives to shape trade agreements. I will seek expedited congressional approval of trade agreements only when every regional advisory committee and the labor, consumer, and rural advisory committees unanimously certify that the agreement serves their interests. I will also expand the list of congressional committees that must review any agreement before it is eligible for expedited consideration.

Together, these changes will ensure that our negotiations reflect the views of American families, not corporate interests.

Using Our Leverage to Demand More for American Families and to Raise the Global Standard of Living

While a better process will produce better agreements, we also must fundamentally shift the goals of our trade agenda so they are aligned with the interests of America’s families.

With certain important exceptions, we live in a low-tariff world. Modern trade agreements are less about the mutual reduction of tariffs and more about establishing regulatory standards for everything from worker rights to pollution to patent protections.

My approach to trade reflects that reality. For too long, we have entered into trade deals with countries with abysmal records on labor, environmental, and human rights issues. In exchange for concrete access to the American market, we get vague commitments to do better, which we then hardly enforce. The result is that millions of people in our trading-partner countries don’t gain the benefits of higher standards — and companies can easily pad their profits by shifting American jobs to countries where they can pay workers next to nothing and pollute the air and water freely.

That will end under my Administration. I am establishing a set of standards countries must meet as a precondition for any trade agreement with America. And I will renegotiate any agreements we have to ensure that our existing trade partners meet those standards as well.

My preconditions are that a country must:

• Recognize and enforce the core labor rightsof the International Labour Organization, like collective bargaining and the elimination of child labor.
• Uphold internationally recognized human rights, as reported in the Department of State’s Country Reports on Human Rights, including the rights of indigenous people, migrant workers, and other vulnerable groups.
• Recognize and enforce religious freedom as reported in the State Department’s Country Reports.
• Comply with minimum standards of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.
• Be a party to the Paris Climate agreement and have a national plan that has been independently verified to put the country on track to reduce its emissions consistent with the long-term emissions goals in that agreement.
• Eliminate all domestic fossil fuel subsidies.
• Ratify the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
• Comply with any tax treaty they have with the United States and participate in the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shiftingproject to combat tax evasion and avoidance.
• Not appear on the Department of Treasury monitoring list of countries that merit attention for their currency practices.

A country should only be considered an acceptable partner if it meets these basic standards. Shamefully, America itself does not meet many of these labor and environmental standards today. I am committed to fixing that as President. And to help bring other countries up to these standards, I’ll revitalize our commitment to providing technical assistance to help countries improve.

I will also go beyond these minimum standards in key areas to promote the interests of American workers and families.

Labor. I will ensure trade agreements protect Buy American and other programs designed to develop local industry, contain strong rule-of-origin standards to promote domestic manufacturing, protect worker pensions, promote equal pay for equal work for women, and prohibit violence against workers. Unlike previous trade deals agreements that have put labor standards in side agreements that are difficult to enforce, I will make labor standards central to any agreement.

Climate Change and the Environment. Climate change is real, it’s man-made, and we’re running out of time to address it. America should be leading this fight, but we have turned our backs on our responsibilities — withcommunities of color in the U.S. anddeveloping countries bearing a disproportionate amount of the harm.

Trump is moving us in the wrong direction — withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, renegotiating NAFTA without even a mentionof climate change, and handing special carve outs to oil and gas companies.

Beyond requiring implementation of the Paris Climate accord and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies as preconditions for any trade agreement, I have already proposed a Green Marshall Plan to dedicate $100 billion to helping other countries purchase and deploy American-made clean energy technology.

But we must do more. I will push to secure a multilateral agreement to protect domestic green policies like subsidies for green products and preferential treatment for environmentally sustainable energy production from WTO challenges. And because big corporations will move their production to the countries with the weakest greenhouse gas emissions standards — undermining global efforts to address climate change and penalizing countries that are doing their part — I will impose a border carbon adjustment so imported goods that these firms make using carbon-intensive processes are charged a fee to equalize the costs borne by companies playing by the rules.

Prescription Drugs. Last year, Americans spent more than $500 billion on prescription drugs. That’s a 50% increase since 2010. Nearly 3 in 10 Americans report not taking their medicine as directed because of costs. And yet, one of the core elements of America’s current trade agenda is guaranteeing pharmaceutical firms monopoly protections so they can avoid competition from generic drugs — driving up costs and reducing access to necessary medicine abroad, and undermining our efforts to reduce drug prices here at home. That’sexactly what the Trump Administration has done as part of their failed effort to renegotiate NAFTA.

While medical innovation is important, there is no link between extremely long exclusivity periods and pharmaceutical innovation. These are giveaways to drug companies, plain and simple, which allow them to maintain ludicrously high drug prices.

As President, I will fight to bring down the costs of prescription drugs here and around the world. I will never use America’s leverage to push another country to extend exclusivity periods for prescription drugs. I will support efforts to impose price controls on pharmaceuticals. And I will actively seek out opportunities to reduce exclusivity periods in our existing trade deals in exchange for securing other changes that will help America’s working families.

Agriculture. For decades, trade deals have squeezed family farmers, with Black farmers losing their land particularly quickly. Between the trade fights incited by Trump’s haphazard tariffs and a series of natural disasters, America’s farmers are now facing the worst crisis in almost 40 years. They are also facing unprecedented levels of uncertainty and instability. Trump’s tariffs have reduced crop prices, threatened farmers already operating on razor-thin margins, and opened up new non-American markets against which our farmers are now forced to compete. Like trade deals of the past, Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 is written to help giant multinational agribusinesses at the expense of family farms, and it will do nothing to solve the newly created market insecurity Trump’s tariffs have caused.

As President, I will fight for trade agreements that reward American farmers for their hard work by negotiating for fair prices for goods, breaking up the monopolies in grain trading and meat packing, and protecting domestic markets to create stability for America’s family farms. And I will impose Country-of-Origin Labeling rules to protect American producers and provide transparency to consumers.

Consumer protection. We must ensure that the food we eat is high-quality and safe. But our trade agreements have limited safety standards and the inspection of imported foods, while simultaneously enabling a new flood of food imports that overwhelm food safety inspectors. In my Administration, our trade pacts will require imported food to meet domestic food safety standards, including enhanced border inspection requirements.

As with imported food, our current trade deals require us to allow imports of other products and services that do not meet domestic safety and environmental standards. My trade agreements will ensure that imported products and services must meet the same standards as domestic products and services.

Antitrust. We are in an era of massive consolidation across many sectors of the economy. One of the reasons why is that we have a narrow, permissive approach to mergers that looks only at economic efficiency and consumer welfare instead of assessing the impact that a merger will have on competition itself.

In recent years, we have added this problematic standard into trade agreements and proposed it as the defining objective for competition policy in new and renegotiated agreements. Under my administration, we will not propose this standard in any new agreement, and we will work to renegotiate agreements to remove it.

Delivering for American Families with Stronger Enforcement

Our approach to enforcing trade agreements drives down standards worldwide and undermines American families. We offer big corporations fast and powerful methods to enforce the provisions that benefit them but make it nearly impossible for Americans to enforce labor and environmental protections. Foreign governments only fear a challenge to strong rules that might hurt corporate bottom lines, not to weak rules that might not adequately protect workers, the environment, or public health.

I will entirely reorient our approach to enforcement so we drive standards up, not down. I’ll start by ending “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS, the favorable enforcement approach we offer corporations. Under ISDS, a company that believes that a new law violates some aspect of a trade agreement can skip the courts and challenge the law before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company wins, the panel can order that country’s taxpayers to pay out billions in damages — with no review by an actual court. What’s worse, the arbitration panels handing out these binding rulings are often made up of corporate lawyers whose day jobs are representing the very same companies that seek judgments before them.

Companies have used ISDS to undermine laws intended to benefit the public interest. A French company challenged Egypt when it increased the minimum wage. A Swedish company challenged Germany when it decided to cut back on nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. These cases have real effects across the globe: an ISDS panel’s decision to hear a challenge that Philip Morris brought against Uruguay’s anti-smoking campaign prompted several other countries to abandon similar public health efforts.

As President, I will not include ISDS in any new agreement and will renegotiate existing agreements to remove ISDS from them.

And I’ll strengthen our approach to enforcing labor and environmental standards. Unlike a corporation under ISDS, a labor union seeking to enforce labor standards can’t bring a claim on its own — it must convince the federal government to bring a claim on its behalf. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, our government can refuse to act for diplomatic or other unrelated reasons.

As a result, the federal government has only pursued one such claim in the last 25 years. In that one case, the American government, AFL-CIO, and Guatemalan unions spent nine yearstrying to challenge the Guatemalan government for violating the labor chapter of one of our trade deals because Guatemalan workers were being murdered for trying to join a union. In the end, we lost because the trade agreement required a showing that the violations had affected trade.

I will replace this broken process by creating independent commissions — made up of experts in the area — to monitor potential violations, respond to complaints, and investigate claims. The commissions must review and investigate claims promptly so that claims don’t languish for years. If one of these commissions recommends that the United States bring a claim against another country, the United States will be required to do so, without exception.

I will also fix the problem that arose in the Guatemala case by pushing to remove language from our deals that require us to show that a violation of rights was “sustained or recurring” and “affecting trade or investment.” A violation is a violation, and I won’t let another case like Guatemala happen ever again.

I will strengthen our enforcement approach in other ways as well:

• Under WTO rules, a country designated as a “non-market economy” can face more serious trade penalties. I will push for a new “non-sustainable economy” designation that would allow us to impose tougher penalties on countries with systematically poor labor and environmental practices. We cannot allow countries that treat their workers and the environment poorly to undercut American producers that do things the right way.
• I already have a plan to move the lead American trade negotiator — the Office of the United States Trade Representative — within my new Department of Economic Development. That will ensure that America’s trade policy supports our broader economic agenda of defending and creating good American jobs. I will also create a new labor and environment enforcement division at the USTR to more effectively enforce obligations, and embed a labor attache at U.S. embassies to monitor compliance with our labor standards.
• Unlike the current approach that lets our government ignore unfair trade practices, my administration will create automatic triggers to initiate investigations into unfair trade practices. If those investigations produce compelling evidence of a violation, the Department will impose trade remedies immediately until the offenders show they are no longer engaging in an unfair trade practice. These automatic triggers will also apply to violations of labor and environmental standards.
• Finally, when we impose duties to support particular domestic industries, I want to ensure that the money we collect actually goes to American workers, instead of being sucked up by executives and shareholders. I will fight to change our trade laws so that we review duties every six months and lift the duties if companies can’t demonstrate the benefits of the duties are going to their workers.

---

Trade can be a powerful tool to help working families but our failed pro-corporate agenda has used trade to harm American workers and the environment. My plan represents a new approach to trade — one that uses America’s leverage to boost American workers and raise the standard of living across the globe. The President has a lot of authority to remake trade policy herself. When I’m elected, I intend to use it.

[horncyclist 1387]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

New Plan:  Trade—On Our Terms

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/trade-on-our-terms-ad861879feca

 

I love the messaging here. Recognizes there's legetimacy to the economic angst Trump tapped into.

[bad_teammate 13195]

lol the press is full of idiots

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hickenlooper lol

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

lol the press is full of idiots
 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hickenlooper lol

more like Dickenpooper

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

New Plan:  Trade—On Our Terms

https://medium.com/@teamwarren/trade-on-our-terms-ad861879feca

 

This is her articulating this plan yesterday in less than five minutes.

 

[RomaVicta 29907]

She has solidified herself as my pick for president. As a person and a thinker, she's first rate as far as I can tell.

On a shallow note, she should think about what she wants to look like as president. Cardigans and slacks are fine for her style of public speaking and her image as a person of the people. I don't see that look in the White House.

Give me at least a glimpse of what you look like talking to a foreign head of state, addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or walking to Marine One. Frankly, I can't envision that because she has not allowed me to do so.

Presence is part of the job. I think previewing that presence would make it easier for undecided voters to envision her as president.

Edited July 30, 2019 by RomaVicta

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

53 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

She has solidified herself as my pick for president. As a person and a thinker, she's first rate as far as I can tell.

On a shallow note, she should think about what she wants to look like as president. Cardigans and slacks are fine for her style of public speaking and her image as a person of the people. I don't see that look in the White House.

Give me at least a glimpse of what you look like talking to a foreign head of state, addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or walking to Marine One. Frankly, I can't envision that because she has not allowed me to do so.

Presence is part of the job. I think previewing that presence would make it easier for undecided voters to envision her as president.

I just hope she wins the nomination and wears an "I'm with stupid" shirt to her first debate with Trump.  

[Bama Chick 28596]

Sigh

“Give me a fashion show?”

I expect better from you, Roma.

Bernie’s a rumpled bed, Beto is always in shirtsleeves and no tie, Mayor Pete never wears a sport coat, Yang never wears a tie, the rest of the men wear the same cookie cutter bullshit uniform. No one says jack nor shit.

But Elizabeth needs to show us more than a cardigan.

Y’alls ingrained sexism jumps out on the oddest things.

Last debate it was that Kamala was too “blinged out” - that one was a twofer!

[Red Five 40858]

Well well well. Looks like the mask has finally come off, Roma. You probably want Warren in the kitchen too, don't you. 

[F250 28775]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

On a shallow note, she should think about what she wants to look like as president. Cardigans and slacks are fine for her style of public speaking and her image as a person of the people. I don't see that look in the White House. 

I've never thought about it until you brought it up but her style is very comforting.

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

I will not vote for Elizabeth Warren until she walks out in public like this 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

wtf

[F250 28775]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Bernie’s a rumpled bed, Beto is always in shirtsleeves and no tie, Mayor Pete never wears a sport coat, Yang never wears a tie, the rest of the men wear the same cookie cutter bullshit uniform. No one says jack nor shit.

Uh, Beto's lack of diversity when it comes to his long sleeve blue shirt with a permanent armpit stain has repeatedly been brought up here. Same with Bernie's terrible style, Buttigieg's casual outfits have elicited multiple jokes, and a day doesn't go by that Donald's lack of tailoring isn't mentioned.

 

[RomaVicta 29907]

Bread in the oven and the buns in bed.

Bama,

I think your reaction to my post may be reflex. I focus on Warren because she's the candidate I favor. She's way out in front of everyone else in my consideration. She doesn't need to change her look for my vote.

I don't think it's prejudiced to think a candidate should look the part of the office they seek. I don't think it's prejudiced to consider that in terms of how a candidate may better get votes.

Further, it's foolish in this arena to ignore the double standard(s) for women. They shouldn't exist, but they do. I try not to act in a way that justifies the injustice, maybe I've failed.

I have voted for one woman presidential candidate and I favor another one now. If I'm sexist, it seems like I'm not a particularly virulent one.

Edited July 30, 2019 by RomaVicta

[Horn Dog 9855]

I'm with Roma.  Holding judgement till the bikini segment of the nomination is completed.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Did I call you a sexist?

I said ingrained sexism. There’s a big difference.

Preferring Warren as a candidate doesn’t erase ingrained sexist ideas.

But I appreciate being mansplained to about how everyday sexist double standards work.

And let’s not pretend that mocking and making fun of Beto and sweaty shirts or Trump’s long ass ties to be a dick on the internet is the same thing as saying “I need to see Elizabeth Warren in a business suit to know if I can take her seriously” - one is dickish internet behavior, the other is an actual serious thought one person said out loud in regards to something a presidential candidate needs to prove.

Just exactly what is she supposed to wear to “Send the right message”?

Let’s hear it, Joan Rivers.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I said ingrained sexism. There’s a big difference.

Thank you for that.  I think acknowledging this is important to civil debate and also causes the recipient of the criticism to become more reflective than slinging around the ____ist term.

[Post Oak 20213]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

She has solidified herself as my pick for president. As a person and a thinker, she's first rate as far as I can tell.

On a shallow note, she should think about what she wants to look like as president. Cardigans and slacks are fine for her style of public speaking and her image as a person of the people. I don't see that look in the White House.

Give me at least a glimpse of what you look like talking to a foreign head of state, addressing the nation from the Oval Office, or walking to Marine One. Frankly, I can't envision that because she has not allowed me to do so.

Presence is part of the job. I think previewing that presence would make it easier for undecided voters to envision her as president.

meeting with Russia

 

everyone else

 

 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

I think Warren should dress how the fuck she wants.  How is this from the first debate not dressed to "look the part":

I'd be proud of her representing us anywhere dressed like that.   Does she need to wear a red ballcap on the trail to look the part, like the most recent winning candidate?   That was real presidential. 

"The part" looks like it does because it's only been filled by men.   A woman is never going to look that part, and it would only be self-defeating to try.   She's part of a group that redefining what the part looks like, and if she loses some votes as a result, so be it.   She's a woman running for president.   Take it or leave it. 

[RomaVicta 29907]

30 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Did I call you a sexist?

I said ingrained sexism. There’s a big difference.

Preferring Warren as a candidate doesn’t erase ingrained sexist ideas.

But I appreciate being mansplained to about how everyday sexist double standards work.

And let’s not pretend that mocking and making fun of Beto and sweaty shirts or Trump’s long ass ties to be a dick on the internet is the same thing as saying “I need to see Elizabeth Warren in a business suit to know if I can take her seriously” - one is dickish internet behavior, the other is an actual serious thought one person said out loud in regards to something a presidential candidate needs to prove.

Just exactly what is she supposed to wear to “Send the right message”?

Let’s hear it, Joan Rivers.

If you're addressing me, I might say that you're displaying at least as much ingrained sexism as I am. You assume you know my attitudes and dispositions. I think that you make that assumption because you really didn't give the gist of my post much of a chance.

Then you bow up over my attempted clarification. You see condescension in me recognizing the double standard you brought up.

Frankly, I see no evidence that your mind can be changed or even reached in this matter. I also don't feel like trying to do so. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This campaign tactic is really under appreciated.   It’s something I expect other candidates to emulate.

It humanizes her, displays a connection to her supporters, and maximizes her travel time while staying engaged via social media. 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Bama Chick 28596]

If you're addressing me, I might say that you're displaying at least as much ingrained sexism as I am. You assume you know my attitudes and dispositions. I think that you make that assumption because you really didn't give the gist of my post much of a chance.
Then you bow up over my attempted clarification. You see condescension in me recognizing the double standard you brought up.
Frankly, I see no evidence that your mind can be changed or even reached in this matter. I also don't feel like trying to do so. 

Hit dogs holler.

Please answer my question - what exactly is she supposed to be wearing in your mind to look the part or look more professional or look more presidential or look less like a late middle aged woman or whatever it is your looking for that she’s not giving you?

Don’t bow out because you’re being challenged.

EVERYONE has ingrained biases. The failure to acknowledge them is the bigger problem than the actual biases themselves. And as the group - white Christian men - with the least historic negative stereotypes, you have the most ingrained biases and the hardest time identifying them and acknowledging them.

As a thinking person who sees abhorrent sexism in others (“legitimate rape”) you get defensive because asking Elizabeth Warren to “dress more like a man” isn’t near as terrible as what sexism means in your limited experience.

But the little jabs and the everyday undercutting is just as insidious. And sometimes more so because the “good guys” do that shit too.

And that’s when you know, as a woman, shit hasn’t changed all that much.

Despite women being on that stage tonight, most men just don’t see them the same as men. There’s always an extra hurdle thrown in our lane. Just to make sure she can REALLY handle it.

(And by the way, that reverse sexism bit? Very Trumpy of you. Replace sexism with racism and you wouldn’t have written it but our resident Trumpkins sure have. Do better.)

[elfenix 34240]

Hickenlooper lol

"frackenlooper"

[Post Oak 20213]

Dems infighting 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

CONTINUED 

Apart from their ambition and detail, what I like about Warren's climate plans is their clarity about executive action vs. legislative ideas. That’s key: we have to actually make progress on the climate crisis, and if the Senate remains intransigent, well, we need a Plan B. 

Climate Plan #1: Public Lands. The big takeaway? "on my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that says no more drilling—a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.” 

That’s some bold #KeepItInTheGround policy. Other candidates, including

@BernieSanders + @JayInslee + @BetoORourke have made the same pledge.

As Lee Wasserman reminds us, climate leadership means leaving fossil fuels in the ground. 

Warren also proposes using public lands to generate clean energy. For example, rather than building offshore oil platforms, we could be building offshore wind energy. That would be a huge game changer for powering the US with clean electricity. 

Climate Plan #2: Making the military a vehicle for climate leadership. Very ambitious goal: "the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030.” 

This plan didn’t get great reviews, except from @yayitsrob, who made some brilliant points, IMHO. It actually a carbon tax on defense contractors. Plus a billions-of-dollars R&D program for the military, an engine of innovation. 

That sent me down a rabbit hole of learning a lot more about the military budget and past efforts to green its operations. Did you know that fuel convoys are one of the most dangerous parts of military operations? The military needs to get off of oil! 

Climate Plan #3: Green Manufacturing Plan. She proposes $2 trillion government investment over 10 years (~5% of federal budget).

Three big sub-parts: Green Apollo Program, Green Industrial Mobilization, Green Marshall Plan. 

In essence, Warren’s plan is a massive R&D and deployment push on clean energy. This is pretty much the most important thing the US could do, because it would create new, cheaper technology that could be used globally. It’s a very good plan. 

Some critiqued this plan for its “economic patriotism." But it also included $100 billion to help poorer countries purchase and deploy US tech. In the US, it focused on centering justice in the transition for example through union protections. 

Climate Plan #4: Accelerating the Clean Energy Transition. This idea was introduced through a bill in Congress the "Climate Risk Disclosure Act”, cosponsored by Green New Dealers @AOC + @SenMarkey among others.  

The idea is to get companies considering + reporting 2 kinds of climate risk:

1) Adaptation: the risk these companies face from climate inaction;

2) Mitigation: the risk these companies face from climate action—thinking about you, Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Electric Utilities. 

Climate Plan #5: Trade policy, released yesterday. On climate, it would require countries w/US trade agreements eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (yes!), and be a party to Paris + have a national pledge consistent with long term emissions goals 

Giving international climate treaties teeth, so they push countries' commitments towards a 2-degrees C path is VERY difficult. So far, countries’ pledges are insufficient, adding up to 3C. A pretty brilliant way to link climate and trade negotiations! 

Fossil fuel subsidies are still a big deal globally, so Warren’s plan to require countries (including the US!) to eliminate them is crucial.

Key research on this from my brilliant friends @OnceUponARoss @paashamahdavi @chadhazlett in @NatureEnergyJnl 

Further, existing trade rules could be a big barrier to the #GreenNewDeal and other clean energy and climate policies. Warren gets that and wants to fix that problem. See this recent piece from @toddntucker for more on that topic. 

In sum: on the climate crisis, @ewarren has a plan. 

There’s more to be said on the topic, but these are really smart, detailed, ideas. Her team comes up with lots of things I've never thought of before! It’s quite the policy shop she’s running. Check out her climate plans! /FIN

[RomaVicta 29907]

Quote

Frankly, I see no evidence that your mind can be changed or even reached in this matter. I also don't feel like trying to do so. 

Yes, I'm terrified of being challenged. I choose not to play a role in your play.

I said it would be wise to look the part of the role she will play. I don't think that's a cardigan and slacks. If a man I was voting for wore a cardigan and slacks, I'd say the same thing.

You're not going to force me down a road of your choosing. 

Thanks so much for the explanation about sexism. I've been so busy unconsciously persecuting women, that I clearly missed it. 

You don't know much about me, but you are very sure about me. Isn't that the essence of prejudice? Not racial or sexual prejudice, just plain prejudice.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Biff Tannen 45685]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

CONTINUED 

 

Um, fuck yes.  Shut up and take my vote!