Elizabeth Warren 2020

[bad_teammate 13132]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another possibility, less sanguine, but still forgivable is that, as a single mom from a not-exactly-prestigious law school, she might have been angling for any "advantage."  Not so much in an affirmative action way, but in a sort of affinity way.

Of all explanations, this is the one I would find most identifiable and human.

You add some color (no pun intended) to your college admissions essay. You fudge some things in the interview. You make yourself more interesting than you really are to get some action. You lie about your address to get your kid into a better school.

Donald Trump is president. American voters will forgive a pretty high level of chicanery and the single-mom angling for a better life is SUPER sympathetic. (It's my favorite part of her story.)

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

The media has moved on from covering it so it's not hurting her right now.  However, in the general, even if the media would like to ignore it, Trump will make sure that it's one of the most salient issues of the election.  She lied about her ethnicity in order to advance her career.  That's not going away.  

Same was true of Hillary's e-mails. On the Democrat/left side of things we came to a cease fire to such an extent that Bernie, her only competition, literally said, "ENOUGH ABOUT THE DAMN E-MAILS!" during a debate. The media was harsher towards Hillary's e-mails than Liz's NA confabulations, even, which is kind of worrying to think that Warren's going to be even less battle tested than Hillary was on her key weakness.

We in the obsessed-brain class had all tied up the e-mails with a bow as an, "Ah they all do it, Colin Powell had a private server, no one cares" but... they did. It's not so much that people think e-mail security is a major issue, they just lost interest/hope because Trump and the right was able to throw enough negativity out there to depress turnout. If all the right can accomplish is make swing voters and non-voters ambivalent about his opponent , Trump will win.

"This nasty woman pretended to be Native American to advance her career, so dishonest. After all the Native Americans have been through, folks. Many things and other people are saying it all the time. Honestly, she should be ashamed and should apologize."

She needs people in her team hammering her with this and she needs a response that wins swing voters and non-voters to her side. The "my family said this" thing doesn't really connect because many of us heard similar stories but we wouldn't ever dream of ticking the Indian box on a form. Her ancestors killing Indians and stealing their land makes it even more glaring.

She needs to show humility towards the Indian tribes (she's pretty good at this part already), but she can't apologize in front of Trump. She has to have a different response for him and his crew that is strong, unwavering, and confident and isn't just a pivot to "PLANS!"

I think TwiceHorn's answer is very interesting.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

It is indeed weird.  But people are weird about their identities and family history. I think about her every time I see those ancestry.com commercials, which are all built on the premise that one random family member from 200 years ago is "where I get my fearlessness from" or whatever nonsense sells DNA testing kits.  This kind of fantasizing is very common thing among normal people. 

My conclusion based on the public evidence is that her imagination ran wild based on her family story and she felt a strong connection to Native Americans through the great-great-great grandmother.   Statements from her family members and even the DNA pretty much proves that this really was part of her family story.    Every time she had to fill out an official form requiring her legal status, she identified as white.   When it was a less formal self-identification thing, she identified as American Indian.   She was a private citizen throughout this time and probably never imagined it would be a national story.   I don't think there's anything more to it than that.   People have quirks.  

As someone else said up thread, people from North Texas and Oklahoma are often told that they have Native American ancestry.  There's nothing wrong with a young person believing an inaccurate statement made to them by an authority figure.  Hell, my aunt told me that I have NA ancestry (dirty family secret: my paternal grandfather is from Oklahoma) and I look white as fuck.  The forms she put NA on are all fairly non consequential and she was doing during a time when cultural appropriation basically wasn't even a concept.  We're looking back and judging someone for having a sincerely held belief and taking a non consequential action in a time when it probably wasn't considered bad.  If this is the reason Warren doesn't win even though she's clearly the best candidate, then are country is completely fucked up and deserves to die in a smoldering heap of Trumpian shit.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The ads in spoiler below:

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Remember when Warren called Congress complicit for not impeaching Trump and within three days Pelosi miraculously comes out in favor of impeachment?   

Not saying one has anything to do with the other but it was a ballsy move by Warren to basically call out Pelosi in public.  

And it paid off. 

[horncyclist 1385]

Did this thread just spend a day talking about the Native American thing? Come on guys.

Meanwhile, Liz is quickly approaching frontrunner status:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/elizabeth-warren-new-hampshire-poll-1509486

New polling conducted since the last Democratic presidential primary debate shows Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden separating from the pack — and notably, from Bernie Sanders — in three key early-voting states.

A Monmouth University poll conducted in New Hampshire and released Tuesday gives Warren a 2-point lead over Biden, 27 percent to 25 percent, well within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

Edited September 25, 2019 by horncyclist

[horncyclist 1385]

9 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The ads in spoiler below:

  Hide contents

These ads are Awesome. Fuck yeah. Let's make it happen.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

It’s just remarkable the Native American thing originated as a smear campaign in her first Senate run.  Voters of Massachusetts didn’t give a shit then because they elected her by a convincing margin in a race she wasn’t supposed to win.

It haunted her throughout her first term and when she ran for re-election, voters still didn’t give a shit, she won by 24+ points.  

And remarkably she polls well among Native American populations, especially in Arizona, with the largest Native American population.  They don’t even give a shit.  

I remember trying to explain this hit on Warren to my mother and her first reaction was, “That’s it?  That’s the best they have on her? Tell me more about this fake Indian.”

So keep pushing the Indian shit and memes I say.  It has yet to put a dent in her. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

But her teepees

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[TDunk 590]

57 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But her smoke signals

 

FIFY

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

Is she going to sign a collective bargaining agreement with her "unionized" staff? Is that the big investment?

[pyrohornIII 4809]

On 9/21/2019 at 2:13 PM, bolverk said:

Your proposition is that Donald's dad relegated parental responsibility to a boarding school too? No wonder our president is such a weeping dickhole.

You should go and watch the frontline piece on trump they did before the election.  It goes back into how he was raised, his relationship with his dad, how he was at private school.  Then read some of fred trump and his dealings, like coney island, and things come much clearer.

https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-choice-2016/

On 9/22/2019 at 2:21 PM, Grade of D as in David said:

I bet he also goes sock shoe sock shoe instead of sock sock shoe shoe.

Yeah, he has someone else do that, guaranteed.  He cant bend over that much.

On 9/23/2019 at 6:47 AM, XYZ said:

Oooh, Liz is tough on the banksters! She asked Well Fargo CEO to resign, so that he can walk away with his millions of dollars and be replaced by another sociopath! And she has a bill! Wake me up when ONE bankster gets thrown in prison, or when the government pulls the charter from one of these banks. That is never going to happen.

What other candidate do you think has a better chance of actually getting some of these guys behind bars?

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Liz needs to dramatically improve her housing plans. They suck right now.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[bad_teammate 13132]

Is that an attempt to argue that her housing plans are good or are you just trolling?

Liz deserves a better champion; one who is conversant in actual policy discussions.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Edited September 25, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hank Scorpio 17721]

On 9/24/2019 at 8:18 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ok, but I think it’s priced in at this point. That’s what I meant about inoculated. To the extent that it matters my bet is it’s already factoring into the numbers.

 

Kind of like how your ancestors were inoculated to the small pox blankets they gave the Warren's great-great-great grandmother? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Warren puff piece but a good Warren puff piece:

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13132]

wow Don rethink this

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

She’s not running away from MFA, she’s running towards it, every single day. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

[bad_teammate 13132]

Tired of taking difficult questions?

She's got a plan for that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

She always takes three questions and she never screens them.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Oh look another MFA tweet 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Ok, Hugo. Let's put the cards on the table. 

Do you thing Warren's healthcare plan will be similar to Bernie's? Single payer? Mental health covered? Private insurance only available for elective, non-medically necessary procedures? 4 year transition? 

Just want to make sure you don't pivot the meaning of M4A before she does. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31264]

I'm not sure I'd get too wrapped around the axle about healthcare.

Like every other grand plan, it would have to be enacted by Congress, and we know it's going to be a clusterfuck tarbaby like Obamacare.

Same could be said about Warren's other plans, but I give her credit for having original, innovative, and mostly grounded plans that no one has apparently considered.  Health care aint that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Ok, Hugo. Let's put the cards on the table. 

Do you thing Warren's healthcare plan will be similar to Bernie's? Single payer? Mental health covered? Private insurance only available for elective, non-medically necessary procedures? 4 year transition? 

Just want to make sure you don't pivot the meaning of M4A before she does. 

Everyone gets coverage, no need for private insurance.  No one goes bankrupt because they get sick.  Mental health should be covered but not a dealbreaker.  

What I think most people miss about this is it’s not about the details of the plan at this point.  It’s about popularizing the IDEA of Medicare-for-All among the electorate.  If you get a big movement behind a bold idea, you dramatically increase the likelihood of getting the idea passed into law.  That’s what Warren is doing and why the Berners criticizing her for it are counterproductive.  She’s making Bernie’s idea MORE popular.  They should welcome that but they don’t because they’re a cult.  

Warren is trying to move the Overton Window on healthcare.  IIRC she’s a co-sponsor of Bernie MFA plan so that’s the plan. 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not sure I'd get too wrapped around the axle about healthcare.

Like every other grand plan, it would have to be enacted by Congress, and we know it's going to be a clusterfuck tarbaby like Obamacare.

Same could be said about Warren's other plans, but I give her credit for having original, innovative, and mostly grounded plans that no one has apparently considered.  Health care aint that.

Yep.   There are multiple health care plans on the table.   It will all be hashed out in Congress.   We know where Warren and others stand on the spectrum of proposals and how much she cares about the issue.  That's really all that matters to me. 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Everyone gets coverage, no need for private insurance.  No one goes bankrupt because they get sick.  Mental health should be covered but not a dealbreaker.  

What I think most people miss about this is it’s not about the details of the plan at this point.  It’s about popularizing the IDEA of Medicare-for-All of among the electorate.  If you get a big movement behind a bold idea, you dramatically increase the likelihood of getting the idea passed into law.  That’s what Warren is doing and why the Berners criticizing her for it are counterproductive.  She’s making Bernie’s idea MORE popular.  They should welcome that but they don’t because they’re a cult.  

Warren is trying to move the Overton Window on healthcare.  IIRC she’s a co-sponsor of Bernie MFA plan so that’s the plan. 

Thanks.

Hopefully she releases her detailed healthcare plan soon. 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11807]

Facebook morons are now claiming she wants to force use of taxpayer money for transgender surgeries, lol.  What a country.

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

BTW, there are 2 reasons I think Warren will soften her stance on M4A. 

1. My bullshit detector goes off with her evasiveness of the middle class tax cut question and her very carefully worded language when discussing even the broadest detail of M4A.  

2. If she's really not concerned about the details and the goal is to move the Overton Window (as Hugo alludes to), then she is obviously not a strong advocate for M4A. Therefore she won't be willing to lose a general election over it and will pivot if/when she goes against Trump. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

BTW, there are 2 reasons I think Warren will soften her stance on M4A. 

1. My bullshit detector goes off with her evasiveness of the middle class tax cut question and her very carefully worded language when discussing even the broadest detail of M4A.  

2. If she's really not concerned about the details and the goal is to move the Overton Window (as Hugo alludes to), then she is obviously not a strong advocate for M4A. Therefore she won't be willing to lose a general election over it and will pivot if/when she goes against Trump. 

 

I think you continue to be clueless with these takes.  

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

Ok. Hopefully we'll find out soon!

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

You just can’t take yes for an answer is what it is.  You are on the “keep proving it” treadmill. 

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You just can’t take yes for an answer is what it is.  You are on the “keep proving it” treadmill. 

She's a politician, Hugo. And the only top candidate who hasn't released a detailed healthcare plan yet. 

Also, Kamala co-sponsored Bernie's M4A bill as well. Then she came out with her own plan that varies greatly from Bernie's. Excuse me for not just taking her word for it based on saying the words Medicare For All. We've already been burned once. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

So all she has to do is write down some original detailed plan for you to believe her?  That’s your bar?  Anyone can do that and be completely full of shit.  

[Hank Kingsley 20678]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So all she has to do is write down some original detailed plan for you to believe her?  That’s your bar?  Anyone can do that and be completely full of shit.  

/facepalm

And you fully believe her just because she says it? 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

/facepalm

And you fully believe her just because she says it? 

I believe in the idea she’s publicly advocating for multiple times a day.  That’s what matters.  She’s pushing the concept of disposing of “for profit health insurance”.

The more she advocates for it, the closer it comes to being a reality.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[BradInATX 9208]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I believe in the idea she’s publicly advocating for multiple times a day.  That’s what matters.  She’s pushing the concept of disposing of “for profit health insurance”.

The more she advocates for it, the closer it comes to being a reality.

Link to where she said she wants to get rid of "for profit health insurance"?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Google it yourself 

[bad_teammate 13132]

If you go by the specific plans laid out by the candidates on their websites/Medium posts, Elizabeth Warren is the least substantive candidate of the Top 5 when it comes to the #1 issue, healthcare. (Her relative lack of substance is still better than the more fully-developed substance of 3 of the Top 5, so that's nice.)

The idea of simply "taking 'yes' for an answer" and then ignoring any hedging is absurd in terms of vetting candidates for the presidency. Not only will they occupy the White House, they will set the agenda for the national Democratic Party. If the leader of the party doesn't really care that much about an issue, the national Democratic apparatus will not care about it, either. It will take a Herculean effort to whip the national party into line to get single-payer, because the national party apparatus is funded by these industries.

I know that Liz being the Plans Lady is a marketing gimmick that has worked very well on many people (including some here), but the reality is that not only is she not the most substantive candidate (that one is obvious), she's probably 3rd or 4th out of the Top 5 if you go through the documentation provided by the candidates. If she truly is the front-runner, she needs to become #1 and everyone who cares about progressive policy actually being implemented needs to exert tremendous pressure on her (or whoever the frontrunner is later) to not only say they support progressive policy, but put specific plans to those policy goals AND to regularly and repeatedly speak forcefully and clearly in their favor.

But that's only if you actually care about progressive policy being enacted.

If your only goal is to be a fan of a personality and for that personality to win, then yeah, all these PURITY TEST LEFTISTS are an annoyance getting in the way of your cheerleading.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

@bad_teammate --a month or so ago, prior to maybe the first? or second debate? I was reading this thread and the healthcare discussion and went to her website. I haven't returned to it, but at that time, there wasn't a whole lot there. I like Warren, she is my leading candidate, but it is a flaw. When someone tells me they have a plan, my first impulse is to go find the plan and read it. I am the type of person who misses the IRS paper booklets during tax season because I liked to read them while I was doing the taxes. Even if many voters are less inclined to do that, I want words in writing. It means something to me. I don't know if that makes me a stupid voter, because there is a lot to read out there, but I will take it over the word salad that flows out of political candidates mouths and then disappears or is tossed aside as not expedient to the goals of the Party.

 

I should go check out her website and see if it has been updated, but it has taken a back seat to life of late.

[BradInATX 9208]

Google it yourself 

"I have nothing to back up my claim" 

FIFY

 

She has never directly said she wants to eliminate private insurance. You are assigning a belief system to her based on what you want to hear.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I should go check out her website and see if it has been updated, but it has taken a back seat to life of late.

First of all, how DARE you go live a normal human life instead of obsessing about this stuff! Don't you realize that poisoning your brain by non-stop posting is how we're going to save America?

#DoBetter

Regarding her website, there was nothing until last week, when she posted this.

Joe's plan - Way more detailed

Pete's plan - Way more detailed

Bernie's plan - An actual, 100+ page piece of filed legislation

Kamala's plan - Way more detailed

It might be the case that when Liz said, at the debate you watched, "I'm with Bernie on this" that she really is just fully on board with Bernie's legislation. That might be the case and I really hope it is. However, there is confusion and she doesn't do a good job of eliminating that confusion. I don't think Liz is dumb, so I don't think the confusion is an accident. If we were talking about a dumb candidate then I could chalk it up to that candidate just being unclear in their own brain not just in their words. Liz is smart, though. I believe her commitment to M4A 75-80%. I want it to be 100% and I will hoot and holler until I get there.

And it's not just evil Bernie Bro scum like me who are doubtful about her commitment. Centrists are also very excited about the confusion because they think/hope it means that she will shift away from M4A and onto a plan more like the corporate centrists that make up 3 of the top 5.

If all she does is copy/paste Bernie's stuff onto her website, that would be awesome. (Just like Bernie took her wealth tax and said to his policy team, "Copy this, but make it like... more." (He proposed one years back, but that was more about estate taxes and Liz's recent one was more aggressive and more detailed, a PERFECT example of how this duo can work together/in-competition to fix this stupid country.)

8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

"I have nothing to back up my claim"

FIFY

Remember when you said that the 4% M4A tax hike would cost you more than your private insurance then I did the math that showed that would only be true if you brought home $250k+ in taxable income?

That was fun:

From her health policy page...

--------------------

Elizabeth supports Medicare for All, which would provide all Americans with a public health care program. Medicare for All is the best way to give every single person in this country a guarantee of high-quality health care. Everybody is covered. Nobody goes broke because of a medical bill. No more fighting with insurance companies. 

The basic business model of an insurance company is to take in as much money as you can in premiums and paying out as little as possible in health care coverage.

That leaves families with rising premiums, high deductibles, and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say they and their children need.

Insurers protecting their bottom lines restrict your networks of providers and stand in the way when you want to see your doctor or need to see a specialist without going broke. 

Medicare for All solves these problems. Everyone can see the doctor they need. Nobody goes broke. And your doctor gets paid by Medicare instead of fighting with an insurance company.  

Every American should be able to get the care they need when they need it. This is a goal worth fighting for, and Elizabeth is in this fight all the way. That's why Elizabeth will fight for Medicare for All.

--------------------

Is she leaving herself a little pivot room? Maybe.

But she is expending a LOT of energy to tear down the private insurance companies so if she does pivot to wanting private insurance involved it's going to look terrible.

(Also, it should be "Insurers protecting their bottom lines restricts..." Those first 5 words act like a single subject to start the sentence. Come on, Liz, hire better copy editors.)

Liz is better than 19 of the 20 other candidates running. She's a great choice in this primary.

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

cost you more than your private insurance then I did the math that showed that would only be true if you brought home $250k+ in taxable income?

That was fun:

 

I'm also proud of you for being able to do math, b_t. You were a big boy that day. Good job. I'm not sure what you thought you accomplished. I had already done the math. You claimed that there was no way my costs would go up repeatedly. Then I showed you that they would. Then you figured out that my family makes over a certain amount (good job!), which I had known throughout the entire conversation and was trying to tell you without telling you. I guess I should have remembered that you're terrible at subtlety.

 

Quote

From her health policy page...

--------------------

Elizabeth supports Medicare for All, which would provide all Americans with a public health care program. Medicare for All is the best way to give every single person in this country a guarantee of high-quality health care. Everybody is covered. Nobody goes broke because of a medical bill. No more fighting with insurance companies. 

The basic business model of an insurance company is to take in as much money as you can in premiums and paying out as little as possible in health care coverage.

That leaves families with rising premiums, high deductibles, and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say they and their children need.

Insurers protecting their bottom lines restrict your networks of providers and stand in the way when you want to see your doctor or need to see a specialist without going broke. 

Medicare for All solves these problems. Everyone can see the doctor they need. Nobody goes broke. And your doctor gets paid by Medicare instead of fighting with an insurance company.  

Every American should be able to get the care they need when they need it. This is a goal worth fighting for, and Elizabeth is in this fight all the way. That's why Elizabeth will fight for Medicare for All.

--------------------

Is she leaving herself a little pivot room? Maybe.

But she is expending a LOT of energy to tear down the private insurance companies so if she does pivot to wanting private insurance involved it's going to look terrible.

(Also, it should be "Insurers protecting their bottom lines restricts..." Those first 5 words act like a single subject to start the sentence. Come on, Liz, hire better copy editors.)

Liz is better than 19 of the 20 other candidates running. She's a great choice in this primary.

That's fine and good but do you, like Hugo, believe that it's just a complete oversight/ineptitude on her part that she's never explicitly said she wants to get rid of private insurance?

Edited September 27, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

New Plan:

Continued:

I saw firsthand how this system works when I was fighting for the CFPB. Financial reform is complicated, and bank lobbyists bombarded Congress with complex arguments and obscure terms. It's the ultimate insiders’ play: "Trust us because we understand it and you don’t."

When Congress debates the #GreenNewDeal, our representatives shouldn’t have to rely on Exxon lobbyists to explain who should pay for the effects of carbon emissions on our planet.

When Congress decides whether it should break up big tech companies, our representatives shouldn’t have to rely on Google’s policy team to understand the effects of technology consolidation.

And when Congress votes on restoring net neutrality protections, our representatives shouldn’t have to turn to internet service providers to explain whether their industry needs more regulation.

I've got a plan to end lobbying as we know it—but strengthening Congress’ independence requires us to do more. We must invest in resources to allow members of Congress to make informed decisions without relying on self-interested outside sources.

My plan revives and modernizes the Office of Technology Assessment, shores up congressional support agencies, and transitions congressional staff to competitive salaries—so we can have competent public policy that actually holds big corporations accountable.

Time and time again, widely popular policies are narrowed or blocked by powerful interests capable of providing resources and information to a vastly under-resourced Congress. These steps will help break our government from the grip of lobbyists and help it work for all of us.

[HenryJames 65887]