Elizabeth Warren 2020

[BrickHorn 18194]

The Most Pampered Generation was gifted a cheap education.  Then they voted to dismantle the system that made their own success possible and compiled wealth from lower taxes due in part to reduced government funding for education.  And now have the gall to claim that THEY would be screwed by making college affordable for others?  Fuck that.

I know there’s a lot of pushback on generalizing by generation, but just look at the policy timeline.  Boomers benefited from public investment in education, then supported and benefited from public neglect of education.  It’s that kind of myopic, self-serving shit that earned their reputation and has this country mired in Idiocracy.

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

Honestly free college and student loan forgiveness is so Pie-in-the Sky it is not even worth discussing because it will never happen in our lifetime. 

We should start with something more feasible like: 1) increasing Pell grant amounts and 2) offering free/discounted 2-year community college. Those two things together would be a big step in the right direction in terms of alleviating some of the increased cost of higher education.  

Hi, Pete.

[ChickenSandwich 9798]

4 hours ago, BradInATX said:

No, you're not.

Ok.  Lol

Something like free trade school or community college could make sense, but she never addresses the cause of runaway college tuition (a government guarantee).

what 6th said

 

 

 

Why do you think college is so expensive and tuition keeps going up ? I haven't read anything that suggests that tuition money is going to professors or Teaching Assistants. Where is the tuition money going ? https://t.co/XTPrvSWcai

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) February 21, 2019

 

For the sake of discussion, what would be a fair in-state, annual tuition that would be low enough that there would be no need for free tuition ? There would still be financial aid for those in need. What should that number be ? https://t.co/7wj0a9cPQ2

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) February 22, 2019

 

"According to the National Center for Education Statistics, average in-state tuition at a public university is $6,131. " So maybe it's an issue of how and where we encourage students to go to college ? @AOChttps://t.co/jB85cneST6 https://t.co/Y2gZNsBUQs

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) February 22, 2019

 

He continued his train of thought, interacting with other users.

1. I wasn't always rich.
2. I'm for free community college & 1 free 4 yr per region
3. Make college free, schools will suck every dollar they can and that money will come from Healthcare/Childcare and other programs
4. Limit loans per family, schools will find ways to cut costs https://t.co/NWx2o5BAVx

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) February 21, 2019

Edited January 24, 2020 by ChickenSandwich

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you take a look, you find two things seemed to drive tuition upward.  One was deregulation of tuition at state schools, which was usually coupled with a reduction in state support.  Most state schools, including UT, had been lobbying their legislatures for tuition deregulation for years.

Public school tuition began to rise, then private schools had to be less competitive, student loans took up the slack.  It's a vicious cycle.

So yes, there's plenty of irresponsibility to go around.

My post was simply in response to the notion that 17-year olds were irresponsible.  Of course they are, but that's where parents have to take over.

The reason for that push for deregulation of tuition was the mountains of cash being offered in the form of student loans. Universities and even more so for profit colleges saw this as an opportunity to increase rates. It's no different than any other supply and demand equation.

The problem is that student loan debt is that they can't be discharged easily via bankruptcy so lenders see it as a basically risk free guaranteed cash cow and created a flood of demand for college, which in turn drove up the cost due to limited relative supply. 

I'm all for free public college and forgiveness of student loan debt. Hell I took loans out and paid them all off. I don't have a problem paying higher taxes to accomplish student loan forgiveness either.

I don't think this will pass regardless of the nominee, but as a consolation prize if laws were changed to allow for the discharge during chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy, I think that would go a long way to reducing the number of irresponsible loans given to students. It would also reduce the number of students that go to college, but over half of the student debt out there is held by people who never finished. I'd argue that group would be better off financially had they not gone to college at all. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

7 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I don't think this will pass regardless of the nominee, but as a consolation prize if laws were changed to allow for the discharge during chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy, I think that would go a long way to reducing the number of irresponsible loans given to students. It would also reduce the number of students that go to college, but over half of the student debt out there is held by people who never finished. I'd argue that group would be better off financially had they not gone to college at all. 

I'm going to be shocked if this doesn't happen soon. I think it was Morning Edition on NPR, but multiple lawyers and judges were interviewed about this very question and there's even confusion if you can discharge student debt via bankruptcy now and that this notion of "all student debt is frozen from bankruptcy" has caused lots of people to not even try. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

21 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

 

while i'm sympathetic to this dude, he's still an ass. my company recently changed its maternity and paternity policy so that both parents can have up to 9 months off with full pay. when i had my kids, i got less than a week of paid paternity leave. now, when weighing whether or not to change this policy, should the company have considered my feelings in the matter, because i might feel like i got screwed (and i definitely did, looking back) out of a proper paternity leave? would the company owe me extra time off years later?

of course not.

we should never let perfection get in the way of progress.

and i say that as someone who, until very recently, was rabidly against free tuition for all. i've changed my mind on the subject, as well as on my opinion on student loan debt. maybe it's because i have two sons approaching teenage years, maybe it's because i work with several young people, and i never internalized the massive burden they've shouldered just to become part of a professional community. i dunno. i always had the thought that it would devalue my degree. i was thinking about it completely backwards.

tl;dr: policy should never be based on anecdotes. it's my least favorite part of politics and political speeches.

Edited January 24, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Brisketexan 104624]

3 hours ago, bonnieblue said:

I'm completely in favor of the two pronged approach of: (i) one-time student debt forgiveness, and (ii) taking measures to drastically decrease public tuition prices/make them free for all.

Some good discussion above, and BOTH of these prongs are essential.  We need to relieve a generation of a burden that is a killer to them and to the long-term prospects of their meaningful participation in a functioning economy.  AND, we need to prevent it from happening again.

So, we need public low and/or zero cost higher education options for people.  That doesn't mean that the government pays for your kid to go to Pepperdine, so that counter-argument is fucking bullshit and belongs in the trash.  It DOES mean that it's free or very low cost to go to SFA, UT, etc.  And community colleges should be either free or have very nominal costs (simple registration fees, etc.).  The point being that basic, public higher education should be available to EVERYONE.  And I have no problem with staggered means-tested costs -- e.g., UT is free for people with a family income below X, tuition is low for people with a family income from X to Y, etc.  But it should still max out at an affordable level.

I've used this stat before, but it's telling -- back when I was in college 30 years ago, a student could pay for college and basic living expenses with 1) a 20 hr a week job during the school year and 2) a full-time summer job.  I had a lot of friends who did just that.  We AT LEAST need that level of accessibility back (of course, Austin's skyrocketing cost of living has hurt like hell in that regard, too - so UT should have ample affordable student housing, even for upperclassmen).

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

The Most Pampered Generation was gifted a cheap education.  Then they voted to dismantle the system that made their own success possible and compiled wealth from lower taxes due in part to reduced government funding for education.  And now have the gall to claim that THEY would be screwed by making college affordable for others?  Fuck that.

I know there’s a lot of pushback on generalizing by generation, but just look at the policy timeline.  Boomers benefited from public investment in education, then supported and benefited from public neglect of education.  It’s that kind of myopic, self-serving shit that earned their reputation and has this country mired in Idiocracy.

And a whole fucking lot of this.  And the best part is, they don't give a shit about those two truths as they lecture "today's generation" about how they just need to work harder, and shouldn't expect stuff to be handed to them for free.  Which is why my rebuttal of "how about this -- how about we just get it to where it fucking was in 1988?" feels right to me.  We were functioning just fine at that level -- kids were getting educated, the university wasn't in danger of insolvency.  All was good.  They have no counter-argument to that.

[Brisketexan 104624]

13 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

while i'm sympathetic to this dude, he's still an ass. my company recently changed its maternity and paternity policy so that both parents can have up to 9 months off with full pay. when i had my kids, i got less than a week of paid paternity leave. now, when weighing whether or not to change this policy, should the company have considered my feelings in the matter, because i might feel like i got screwed (and i definitely did, looking back) out of a proper paternity leave? would the company owe me extra time off years later?

of course not.

we should never let perfection get in the way of progress.

and i say that as someone who, until very recently, was rabidly against free tuition for all. i've changed my mind on the subject, as well as on my opinion on student loan debt. maybe it's because i have two sons approaching teenage years, maybe it's because i work with several young people, and i never internalized the massive burden they've shouldered just to become part of a professional community. i dunno. i always had the thought that it would devalue my degree. i was thinking about it completely backwards.

tl;dr: policy should never be based on anecdotes. it's my least favorite part of politics and political speeches.

Every policy has to have a start date.

It sucks to have been the person who had to deal with life under the old, shitty policy, instead of getting the benefits of the new, good policy.  Yep.  It does.  That's life.  It's also a fucking TERRIBLE argument against improving our shitty policies.

[TwiceHorn 31282]

29 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm going to be shocked if this doesn't happen soon. I think it was Morning Edition on NPR, but multiple lawyers and judges were interviewed about this very question and there's even confusion if you can discharge student debt via bankruptcy now and that this notion of "all student debt is frozen from bankruptcy" has caused lots of people to not even try. 

The really strange thing to me is that most people who file bankruptcy aren't servicing their debts anyway, except the secured ones, if those.  It's not like curtailing bankruptcy filing, or denying discharge really improves collection rates.  And, of course, there's a whole shitpile of people who aren't servicing their debts and never will and don't bother to file bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy is a hard slog.  It requires payment of disposable income, monthly, for a minimum of three years.  I would have no problem making student debts dischargeable, or "cram-downable" in a Chapter 13.

It's already pretty hard to get a discharge in a Chapter 7 for consumers, and that maaaay be appropriate.

For the record, federally guaranteed student loans are dischargeable on proof of an "undue hardship."  What exactly suffices for that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and judge to judge, but it's usually more than "I can't afford them."  One almost sure fire way to prove an undue hardship is a physical or mental disability arising later in life.

The fees lawyers charge for personal bankruptcies are basically regulated, but doing something like attempting to discharge student loans is a significant, if narrow, litigation issue that costs more than most bankruptcy clients can afford.

Edited January 24, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34171]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The really strange thing to me is that most people who file bankruptcy aren't servicing their debts anyway, except the secured ones, if those.  It's not like curtailing bankruptcy filing, or denying discharge really improves collection rates.  

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy is a hard slog.  It requires payment of disposable income, monthly, for a minimum of three years.  I would have no problem making student debts dischargeable, or "cram-downable" in a Chapter 13.

It's already pretty hard to get a discharge in a Chapter 7 for consumers, and that maaaay be appropriate.

if you have student loans you're fucked in chapter 13.  means test doesn't account for them - they just get lumped in with the other unsecured debt.  so the means test spits out a number and, oh, no 7 for you.  in a 13 plan, your student loans get the same pennies on a dollar payment as the other unsecured, so you have to continue making student loan payments in addition to your plan payments.  but that can't be done, because your plan payments are eating up all your extra income beyond what the means test says you get to live on. iow, if you have sizeable student loans and a high enough income, you can't perform in a 13, and you can't go to 7. 

maybe the headline that i saw the other day (and haven't read) changes something about that.

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

discharge in a Chapter 7 for consumers

well, it's all about medians and means tests.  i've done way more 7s than 13s, and the majority of 7s have been consumer. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31282]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

if you have student loans you're fucked in chapter 13.  means test doesn't account for them - they just get lumped in with the other unsecured debt.  so the means test spits out a number and, oh, no 7 for you.  in a 13 plan, your student loans get the same pennies on a dollar payment as the other unsecured, so you have to continue making student loan payments in addition to your plan payments.  but that can't be done, because your plan payments are eating up all your extra income beyond what the means test says you get to live on. iow, if you have sizeable student loans and a high enough income, you can't perform in a 13, and you can't go to 7. 

maybe the headline that i saw the other day (and haven't read) changes something about that.

well, it's all about medians and means tests.  i've done way more 7s than 13s, and the majority of 7s have been consumer. 

I'm aware, I have too, although it's been a while.  Before they got rigorous about disposable income and Chapter 7s, it was startling how easy it was to walk away from your debts.  Credit took a hit, but it was already completely trashed.  I go back and forth on whether that's appropriate or not.

In my observation, Chapter 13 plans often got confirmed with a "less than contractual" payment on student loans that made the whole thing feasible. Maybe that's changed.  That's what I meant by "cramdownable": reducing the amount to whatever can be satisfied in a Chapter 13 plan.

[elfenix 34171]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Chapter 13 plans often got confirmed with a "less than contractual" payment on student loans that made the whole thing feasible.

yes, yes they did.  and that's the problem with them.  i have people come by asking about whether bankruptcy is appropriate and, after figuring they can't do a 7 because of either too much income or they're in arrears on their house, i have to tell them they probably shouldn't do bankruptcy because they'll end up further in debt afterward because the student loans won't be getting paid. 

if we're going to keep non-dischargeability either the means test needs to be reworked to allow people into 7 or 13 needs to address student loans in some manner.   or, better yet, just scrap BAPCA to begin with. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by elfenix

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

What should really gall people is that THE person who ran the now defunct real estate university bearing HIS brand that scammed people to the point that he had to settle for around what, $25 million?  Has had around 6 bankruptcies. Since they weren't personal bankruptcies he has been doing juuuuust fine although he had a little difficulty securing another loan. A rather large loan. Now his form of payback is a little sketch, but it really bugs me when people say, "Oh, he is such a good business man." Calling Trump a good business man is like calling Al Capone an alcohol distributer.

If Warren gets the office, I hope she tackles corruption with an iron fist.

[BrickHorn 18194]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Every policy has to have a start date.

It sucks to have been the person who had to deal with life under the old, shitty policy, instead of getting the benefits of the new, good policy.  Yep.  It does.  That's life.  It's also a fucking TERRIBLE argument against improving our shitty policies.

Seriously.  It’s like opposing research into vaccines because you got polio as a kid, so everyone else should get sick too. 

[TwiceHorn 31282]

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

yes, yes they did.  and that's the problem with them.  i have people come by asking about whether bankruptcy is appropriate and, after figuring they can't do a 7 because of either too much income or they're in arrears on their house, i have to tell them they probably shouldn't do bankruptcy because they'll end up further in debt afterward because the student loans won't be getting paid. 

if we're going to keep non-dischargeability either the means test needs to be reworked to allow people into 7 or 13 needs to address student loans in some manner.   or, better yet, just scrap BAPCA to begin with. 

Chapter 13s is an interesting business. Wouldn't want to do it, myself.

I knew a lawyer, a Chapter 13 guy in fact, that successfully got his student loans I think 80% discharged.  He was a recovering addict (who never let it fuck up his law practice) still battling depression.  He was able to make a compelling case about the number of 13s (at the capped rate) he would have to handle to adequately service his student loans, and compare it to his voluntarily pared-down practice because of his "disabilities."  He mostly represented himself in that he had other counsel for his bankruptcy and discharge proceeding, but developed the hardship case himself.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[horncyclist 1386]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

I hope this is real momentum for her down the home stretch in Iowa. Reminded me of this take from Harry Enten:

 

Does Elizabeth Warren surge too? What effect does impeachment trial next week have on Biden? Dems rally behind him? 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, horncyclist said:

Does Elizabeth Warren surge too? What effect does impeachment trial next week have on Biden? Dems rally behind him? 

I have no idea how it’s going to play out but...

Proclamations of Elizabeth Warren’s demise have once again been greatly exaggerated.

 

[horncyclist 1386]

She really has to go all in on Iowa. Needs to win or be second to Bernie with Biden 3rd or 4th. If she wins, then she's suddenly the come back girl and it breaks her out of the cycle of decline. I can also see a scenario where Biden declines after losing IA and NH and she finds a lane as a compromise candidate for those who can't get behind Bernie.

Really disappointed she hasn't rebounded more clearly. Trying to wrap my head around Bernie as the nominee and President. It's kind of a high risk, high reward/costs situation. I could see him being a disaster and letting the republicans recover from Trump somehow. 

[tx 3 putt 76387]

She needs to get her shit together. 4 more years of IMpotus is going to burn this country down 

[Bozo_Casanova 26283]

Bernie got Joe Rogan yesterday 

Huge. Have Gary Dell’Abate or Clay Travis declared for anybody?

[bad_teammate 13132]

bababooey bababooey donald trump's penis donald trump's penis

[bad_teammate 13132]

Weigel with an interesting observation. 

All the recent bullshit aside, Elizabeth Warren is a great ally. The work she is doing here is tremendous.

[Bruh Man 3160]

Warren did the homework for Bernie and got screwed. That was a tactical error by her campaign. Corruption has always her #1 issue, she should have left m4a to Bernie. 

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

On 1/24/2020 at 5:15 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

What should really gall people is that THE person who ran the now defunct real estate university bearing HIS brand that scammed people to the point that he had to settle for around what, $25 million?  Has had around 6 bankruptcies. Since they weren't personal bankruptcies he has been doing juuuuust fine although he had a little difficulty securing another loan. A rather large loan. Now his form of payback is a little sketch, but it really bugs me when people say, "Oh, he is such a good business man." Calling Trump a good business man is like calling Al Capone an alcohol distributer.

If Warren gets the office, I hope she tackles corruption with an iron fist.

Al Capone was 100x the business man trump is. Trump is:

A.  Not nearly as rich as he says he is. 

B.  Short several billion bc he was terrible at investing daddy’s money 

Let’s not sully a mass murderer’s name by comparing him to this fucktard.  

[GSU&UT 1798]

2 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Warren did the homework for Bernie and got screwed. That was a tactical error by her campaign. Corruption has always her #1 issue, she should have left m4a to Bernie. 

Agreed to an extent, but their plans on how they're funded and how it would be theoretically be implemented are different. Warren didn't have to come out with a multi-step process even if that was her idea all along, there's no point in starting negotiations months before Iowa. She also has lots of people backing her who probably didn't care for M4A and why she bled some support to Pete and Klobuchar.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, Bruh Man said:

Warren did the homework for Bernie and got screwed.

Regarding the "homework" aspect, that's ridiculous. Bernie wrote a fully developed piece of filed legislation and a whitepaper on funding options a year before Warren posted to her website. Liz being the "plans" candidate is a marketing gimmick (which you need to have, because you're trying to win).

What "screwed" Warren was her not running in 2016.

If she had run against Hillary, she either would have won outright or would have spent the last 4 years developing a nationwide grassroots organizing machine, all with Bernie as her #1 advocate and supporter. But not only did she not run in 2016, she didn't spend the intervening years building a movement to prepare for a 2020 run.

She has no one to blame but herself. We were begging her to be the champion and she literally endorsed Hillary instead.

So from 2016 to 2019, Bernie built a loyal progressive movement and it's carried him to the #1 fundraising spot and earned status as the darling of the types of people who would have been showing up by the thousands to howl for Warren if she had made better choices before her 2020 announcement. Since she didn't do that, she's talking to much smaller, much more skeptical crowds.

She's doing a great job and doing great work, but this idea that she is owed something is absurd. "It's Her Turn" should've died in 2016.

Years ago a co-worker was listening to Rush Limbaugh with his office door open and a caller was basically begging him for a shot at guest hosting. After Rush (politely) brushed him off, the caller said something about how it was selfish for Rush to not share his huge audience with new conservative voices and Rush said something to the effect of, "First off, this is my audience that I built. Secondly, just because I tell them to listen to you doesn't mean they will. You have to build your own audience." That stuck with me.

All this whining and hurt feelings from Warrenland about how Bernie should've stayed out and let her have the progressive base is just an idiotic view of how politics, power, and loyalty work.

She could've had all this and she chose not to do it.

Hopefully she can do extremely well anyway with the later start that she chose.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What "screwed" Warren was her not running in 2016.

What may well prove to be the dumbest take of all time right here.  
 

Never mind that Bernie didn’t run in 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008. Despite Bernie having more experience as an elected official than Warren in everyone of those opportunities.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[washparkhorn 9935]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What may well prove to be the dumbest take of all time right here.  

That's like . . . your emotion.

Why didn't she run in 2016 and was that wise?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

That's like . . . your emotion.

Why didn't she run in 2016 and was that wise?

Why didn’t Bernie run in 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008? Despite Bernie having more experience as an elected official than Warren in everyone of those opportunities?

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[washparkhorn 9935]

Don't dodge the question. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

9 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Don't dodge the question. 

The easiest conclusion is she wasn’t prepared to launch a national campaign in her first term as an elected official.  Serious people do not just say I’m going to run for President this year on a suggestion.  They prepare four years ahead of time.  Four years before 2016 she was in the middle of her first run for office. This isn’t a difficult conclusion to make and the fact that Berners blame her for not running in 2016 is pathetic.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[washparkhorn 9935]

I just wanted to hear the explanation from a Warren supporter. She would have beat Trump then. Do you think the DNC encouraged her not to run in 2016?

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26283]

What may well prove to be the dumbest take of all time right here.  
 
Never mind that Bernie didn’t run in 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008. Despite Bernie having more experience as an elected official than Warren in everyone of those opportunities.
 

Warren should have run in 2016. All the stars were aligned.
Bernie Sanders was a fringe character who was enlarged by have both a message that resonated and being the best candidate not named Hillary Clinton. Had Warren run she would have been the best candidate in the race and he wouldn’t have gotten enough attention to get traction with his message.

[Bozo_Casanova 26283]

The easiest conclusion is she wasn’t prepared to launch a national campaign in her first term as an elected official.  Serious people do not just say I’m going to run for President this year on a suggestion.  They prepare four years ahead of time.  Four years before 2016 she was in the middle of her first run for office.

Interesting. Now do Obama.

[washparkhorn 9935]

I think we can trust Elizabeth - no?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBYnJh45WS8

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Never mind that Bernie didn’t run in 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008. Despite Bernie having more experience as an elected official than Warren in everyone of those opportunities.

Bernie didn't run because he didn't want to be president. He didn't even want to run in 2016, he just couldn't let a pigfuckingly awful corporate harridan run as the party's anointed candidate without a challenge because he recognized the severity of the moment and the extended death of the working class.

Warren might not have wanted to be president in 2016, either, which is fine. That's why I put "screwed" in quotation marks, because she hasn't actually been "screwed" by anything, she's just a first-time presidential candidate facing first-time presidential candidate problems.

Warren didn't owe us a run in 2016. And no one owes her allegiance in 2020.

35 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Warren should have run in 2016. All the stars were aligned.
Bernie Sanders was a fringe character who was enlarged by have both a message that resonated and being the best candidate not named Hillary Clinton. Had Warren run she would have been the best candidate in the race and he wouldn’t have gotten enough attention to get traction with his message.

He wouldn't even have run. He would've just campaigned for her (if she would've wanted him to).

[horncyclist 1386]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie didn't run because he didn't want to be president. He didn't even want to run in 2016, he just couldn't let a pigfuckingly awful corporate harridan run as the party's anointed candidate without a challenge because he recognized the severity of the moment and the extended death of the working class.

Warren might not have wanted to be president in 2016, either, which is fine. That's why I put "screwed" in quotation marks, because she hasn't actually been "screwed" by anything, she's just a first-time presidential candidate facing first-time presidential candidate problems.

Warren didn't owe us a run in 2016. And no one owes her allegiance in 2020.

He wouldn't even have run. He would've just campaigned for her (if she would've wanted him to).

Does she win? Probably. 

I'm not giving up on her. I'm going to do what I can next week and then in the lead up to Super Tuesday. I'll vote for her in Virginia.

[bad_teammate 13132]

She absolutely has a shot to win. She's got good favorables, a good grassroots support base, and some strong endorsements. Polls are just polls.

These people who talk about how candidates should drop out to "consolidate" bases do not understand how fickle and varied voters are. I would love for her to stay in and keep generating attention and enthusiasm for the process. We need voter turnout to beat Trump.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Hugo, I didn't know you were volunteering in Iowa! GOOD ON YOU MAN!!!

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Hugo, I didn't know you were volunteering in Iowa! GOOD ON YOU MAN!!!

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

On 1/26/2020 at 3:16 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Interesting. Now do Obama.

Obama was always running for President.

Kamala tried this path and look how it turned out.  She wasn’t ready.

In hindsight, Obama wasn’t ready either because look where we are now.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Gotta say, I can’t disagree.
Seth was a former student of Warren’s.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

PLAN NUMBER 70 SOMETHING:

CONTINUED

Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump must be prepared to take on the full array of disinformation that foreign actors and people in and around his campaign will use to divide Democrats, suppress Democratic votes, and erode the standing of the Democratic nominee.

So today, I’m making a pledge: I will not knowingly use or spread disinformation to benefit my own candidacy or damage others. And I will fight disinformation aimed at my campaign, my opponents, and voters.

I’m sending a clear message to anyone associated with the Warren campaign: I will not tolerate the use of false information or false accounts to attack my opponents, promote my campaign, or undermine our elections. And I urge my fellow candidates to do the same.

I'm also calling on tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google to take real steps right now to fight disinformation spread on their platforms. The safety of our democracy is more important than shareholder dividends and CEO salaries.

Campaigns and tech companies can take a number of steps to slow the spread of misinformation right now. And as president, I'll take a series of actions to further address the spread of disinformation.

The stakes of this election are too high. We need to fight the spread of false information that disempowers voters and undermines democracy. I’ll do my part—and I’m calling on my fellow candidates and big tech companies to do their part, too.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

HOLDING TECH COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPREAD OF DISINFORMATION

Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google -- as well as other platforms like TikTok and Reddit -- have become essential to the ways Americans communicate and share information with each other. But the drive to maximize profit shapes how these companies design their platforms, prioritize the information users see, and police the use of their platforms. And often, that quest for profit contributes to the spread of disinformation.

For example, Facebook changed its policies to allow users to instantaneously share information to groups, a troubling way to quickly spread disinformation to millions of users. Google-owned YouTube has had to make changes to its algorithm to prevent it from feeding viewers misinformation. Both Twitter and Facebook have purged fake accounts in response to intense public scrutiny, but the negative response from investors leaves doubt as to whether these companies will commit to policing fake accounts in the long term. And I have already called out Facebook for permitting political candidates to run plainly false ads on its platform.

The safety of our democracy is more important than shareholder dividends and CEO salaries, and we need tech companies to behave accordingly. That’s why I’m calling on them to take real steps right now to fight disinformation. I’m calling on Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Instagram, Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Susan Wojcicki of YouTube, and the CEOs of all large social media platforms to: 

• Work with other platforms and government to share information and resources: A coordinated push to address disinformation will be far more effective than isolated efforts. When companies share information -- to the extent allowed under privacy laws -- they can better identify cross-platform disinformation campaigns and alert law enforcement officials of threats. This coordination will help identify and remove fraudulent accounts, deter the spread of disinformation, and rein in illegal activity.

• Clearly label content created or promoted by state-controlled organizations: When the organizations spreading information online are funded by foreign governments, it adds important context to the information they share. When Russia-run media organization Russia Today changed its name to RT, it obscured the fact that it is a state-controlled news outlet. Facebook announced last year that it would start labeling content created by state-controlled organizations, but it has not yet followed through on that promise. YouTube has inconsistently implemented its policy to label state-controlled media, allowing more than 50 channels to play content without a disclaimer. Social media companies should move swiftly to label all types of content created or promoted by state-controlled organizations -- and they should be clear about their policies for doing so.

• Take meaningful steps to alert users affected by disinformation campaigns: Even when social media companies like Facebook identify efforts at promoting disinformation, the steps they take to stem its corrosive effects are meager at best. Twitter notified users who had interacted with tweets from the IRA, and Facebook created a tool in its Help Center that allows users to see whether they liked or followed a page associated with the IRA. But social media companies can go much further: they should alert individuals who have interacted with fraudulent accounts regardless of their origin, and they should prevent sharing of content that was disseminated by fraudulent accounts. 

• Create clear consequences for accounts that attempt to interfere with voting: One of the most harmful forms of political disinformation on social media is false information aimed at keeping people from exercising their right to vote. Facebook and Twitter have focused their efforts on banning fake accounts and identifying foreign interference, but not all disinformation comes from fake accounts or foreign interests. Social media platforms should ban accounts that knowingly disseminate false information about the time, place, and manner of voting.

• Open up data for research: Research by academics and watchdog organizations has provided the public with important insights into how disinformation spreads online, but these efforts are greatly limited by social media platforms’ unwillingness to share data. Platforms like Facebook currently provide only limited and inconsistent access. Research can help evaluate the extent of, and patterns within, disinformation on social media platforms. It can also offer the public an objective evaluation of how the features that platforms offer, including those that allow for rapid dissemination of content, contribute to disinformation. Social media companies must provide an open and consistent application programming interface (API) to researchers.

• Share information about algorithms and allow users to opt out of algorithmic amplification. Algorithms decide what information users see and don’t see on social media platforms -- and experts worry that they work to promote false or misleading information. Social media platforms owe the public insight into how these algorithms that affect their lives so deeply actually function. Increased transparency would allow researchers and policymakers to understand how algorithms contribute to the spread of disinformation, and it would give the public more insight into how their worlds are shaped by companies’ decisions about what information they will or will not see. Further, users should have more choice in determining how their data and preferences are used to influence the information they see. Social media platforms should allow users to understand how algorithms affect their use of the platform, and to opt out of algorithmic amplification. 

Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube can take these actions right now to stem the spread of disinformation. They should.

 

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS TO ADDRESS DISINFORMATION

In addition to the steps that campaigns and the tech companies can take by themselves, I will take a series of actions as president to further address the spread of disinformation:

• Push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S. elections: Voter suppression efforts of any kind offend basic American values. In both the 2016 and 2018 elections, online disinformation sought to depress voter turnout by telling people they could vote via text, giving people the wrong date for election day, and more. I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.

• Reinstate the position of cybersecurity coordinator at the National Security Council: The Trump Administration eliminated this critical position, weakening our defenses against cybersecurity threats and disinformation. As president, I will reinstate the position and empower the coordinator so that our country is safe.

• Convene a summit of countries to enhance information sharing and coordinate policy responses to disinformation: Countries around the world are struggling to address disinformation -- and certain governmental and non-governmental actors are targeting multiple countries. As president, I will push to convene a summit of countries dedicated to addressing this problem so that they can share information and coordinate responses to disinformation.

• Establish rules around information and data sharing to ensure that platforms can share with each other and with the government while respecting individuals’ privacy: Both the government and major tech companies have access to information that can be helpful in identifying sources of disinformation. My administration will encourage robust data sharing between tech companies and between those companies and the government so that disinformation can be quickly identified and addressed -- while at the same time crafting those rules so that both the government and tech companies respect individual privacy. I will also push to institute a standard for public disclosure when the government identifies accounts conducting foreign interference so that Americans who have interacted with those accounts are notified.

• Consider additional sanctions against countries that engage in election interference through disinformation: In the case of Russian interference, this would include sanctions for financial institutions that supported interference, Russia’s cyber sector, and people in Vladimir Putin’s orbit who supported and facilitated interference. 

The stakes of this election are too high -- we need to fight the spread of false information that disempowers voters and undermines democracy. I’ll do my part -- and I’m calling on my fellow candidates and big tech companies to do their part too.

[washparkhorn 9935]

Good for Elizabeth. 

Any idea if Warren will ask her supporters to support a progressive candidate if she doesn't reach the magic 15% caucus/primary states? Might be a winning combination for her and her supporters.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

no idea

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]