Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

NWBuck
NWBuck

Someday I'll forgive the ignorant mofos who voted for anyone other than her during the primaries.  But that day is not gonna be anytime soon. 

LowPressure
LowPressure
BrickHorn
BrickHorn

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 gov

Posted Images

406W30th

406W30th 1111

Posted
Posted

I love Liz and it was so good to see her back to her best tonight. I would be ecstatic to see her as our next president. 

I think she missed an opportunity to drag Klobuchar, after Warren generously (and correctly) defended Klobs for forgetting the Mexican president's name; Klobuchar showed exactly zero knowledge or substance on Mexico and Warren should've called her out on that. (The debate moderator did but it would've been better coming from Warren, who could really use some separation from Klobuchar.) 

I hope Liz can get back some of the voters who fled to Pete or Klobuchar after a perceived faltering of her campaign. And for god's sake if you're voting for Biden what the hell is it going to take to get you on the Warren wagon.

Her big misstep tonight was not calling for the DNC to nominate the candidate with the plurality of votes. I realize that's self-preservation, as it's likely her best shot at the nomination, but merciful Christ that cannot be what she believes in her heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

I love Liz and it was so good to see her back to her best tonight. I would be ecstatic to see her as our next president. 

I think she missed an opportunity to drag Klobuchar, after Warren generously (and correctly) defended Klobs for forgetting the Mexican president's name; Klobuchar showed exactly zero knowledge or substance on Mexico and Warren should've called her out on that. (The debate moderator did but it would've been better coming from Warren, who could really use some separation from Klobuchar.) 

I hope Liz can get back some of the voters who fled to Pete or Klobuchar after a perceived faltering of her campaign. And for god's sake if you're voting for Biden what the hell is it going to take to get you on the Warren wagon.

Her big misstep tonight was not calling for the DNC to nominate the candidate with the plurality of votes. I realize that's self-preservation, as it's likely her best shot at the nomination, but merciful Christ that cannot be what she believes in her heart.

Some of the moderators need to go back to moderator school. Liz did miss that opportunity, but the format in which to do so was a little awkward with time limitations. Sometimes people would talk over each other and over time, and the mods struggled to keep it on track.

TBH, down to this number of candidates, my method would be one hour of general questions, and then about fifty minutes of this:

Each candidate is assigned a number. Then a large readable from the stage wooden circle with a number on it representing each candidate is placed in a bag. Two numbers are drawn from the bag by a moderator/locum and those two candidates go head to head for ten minutes. With an odd number of candidates, the dilemma of one candidate being able to debate twice is there, but I'd really like to see more head to head policy and less ephemeral euphemisms and "when I was a lad" talk. I want someone who can assess the suitability of appointees and understand the briefings so this country can get some normalcy back to the departments. A longer format is usually reserved for much later, but I'd like it now, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
Posted

I'll tell ya what, I've always wanted a Pres candidate to call for gubmint funding for sex-change operations for those poor souls in federal prison, and to have a trans teenager vet the future Sect'y of Education.

God Bless Elizabeth Warren. Where would we be without her? /sarcasm off

She's a brain dead fucking idiot. Bloomberg has the best chance of beating Trump. When will the Dems stop being the party of stupid? Probably never.

  • Fuck You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18656

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

I'll tell ya what, I've always wanted a Pres candidate to call for gubmint funding for sex-change operations for those poor souls in federal prison, and to have a trans teenager vet the future Sect'y of Education.

God Bless Elizabeth Warren. Where would we be without her? /sarcasm off

She's a brain dead fucking idiot. Bloomberg has the best chance of beating Trump. When will the Dems stop being the party of stupid? Probably never.

Have you seen the Republican Party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29248

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

I'll tell ya what, I've always wanted a Pres candidate to call for gubmint funding for sex-change operations for those poor souls in federal prison, and to have a trans teenager vet the future Sect'y of Education.

God Bless Elizabeth Warren. Where would we be without her? /sarcasm off

She's a brain dead fucking idiot. Bloomberg has the best chance of beating Trump. When will the Dems stop being the party of stupid? Probably never.

Just imagine thinking this nonsense after watching Bloomberg last night. How awful it must be to be this type of person.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BurdineBandit

BurdineBandit 811

Posted
Posted

I tell you what, Liz gave me something to think about last night. Early last year I was about 70/30 Liz/Bernie. After Liz went on the attack against Bernie (which came off insincere and unnecessary to do in public), I swung over to about 70/30 Bernie/Liz. After last night I think I'm leaning 55/45 Bernie. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she hired some DNC/Hillary dopes that shifted her campaign to the wrong track. Her takedown of Bloomberg was a sight to behold, and reminded me how great a public speaker she is.

However, the one statement last night that gives me pause is that she called herself a staunch capitalist. With all the progressive ideals she espouses and all her "plans" she's put forth, if she truly believes she can be a true capitalist and a true progressive/liberal at the same time, I think that's a problem for me. I don't believe that capitalism and the type of social welfare programming she wants to do can co-exist, and the fact that she even calls herself that, tells me there's at least a chance that she'll get into office and take those meetings and those "compromises" with corporate America, who will only have one goal, dilute the plans that she's been running on all along. She was a republican before '95, and apparently switched over when she realized that republicans didn't represent working families,  but her capitalism statement tells me she still has some of that confusion in her, like she still doesn't see the big picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31274

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

I tell you what, Liz gave me something to think about last night. Early last year I was about 70/30 Liz/Bernie. After Liz went on the attack against Bernie (which came off insincere and unnecessary to do in public), I swung over to about 70/30 Bernie/Liz. After last night I think I'm leaning 55/45 Bernie. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she hired some DNC/Hillary dopes that shifted her campaign to the wrong track. Her takedown of Bloomberg was a sight to behold, and reminded me how great a public speaker she is.

However, the one statement last night that gives me pause is that she called herself a staunch capitalist. With all the progressive ideals she espouses and all her "plans" she's put forth, if she truly believes she can be a true capitalist and a true progressive/liberal at the same time, I think that's a problem for me. I don't believe that capitalism and the type of social welfare programming she wants to do can co-exist, and the fact that she even calls herself that, tells me there's at least a chance that she'll get into office and take those meetings and those "compromises" with corporate America, who will only have one goal, dilute the plans that she's been running on all along. She was a republican before '95, and apparently switched over when she realized that republicans didn't represent working families,  but her capitalism statement tells me she still has some of that confusion in her, like she still doesn't see the big picture.

Really?

This is kind of the polar opposite of Bernie's a scary socialist argument (he is, btw).

Capitalism means that the allocation of capital is handled by the private sector (as opposed to the government).  Liz believes that's the best system, constrained by regulation and taxation to implement some policies that capitalism has shown itself not to adequately provide.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89433

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

When I consider all the baggage Trump has past and present, I cannot understand why Liz going after the wealthiest billionaires, crooks, and influencers who treat our country as their plaything is treated as a character flaw. 

She shoulda been the nominee instead of Hillary in ‘16.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89433

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Hot, cold, whatever. 

Warren has no chance of defeating Trump. Doing well in a meaningless debate counts for bupkis. Or is it bupkus? 

Pretty much anybody but Hillary is going to beat Trump here in 2020.   There’s a reason why he acts like a scared little kid on twitter.  And hell, shitty as she is, Hillary beat him by 3 million in the popular vote.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16513

Posted
Posted
I'll tell ya what, I've always wanted a Pres candidate to call for gubmint funding for sex-change operations for those poor souls in federal prison, and to have a trans teenager vet the future Sect'y of Education.
God Bless Elizabeth Warren. Where would we be without her? /sarcasm off
She's a brain dead fucking idiot. Bloomberg has the best chance of beating Trump. When will the Dems stop being the party of stupid? Probably never.

Hi Mike. Might I suggest debate classes?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not a real-life progressive organization that has decided to support her, but just a dark money candidate fund.

I'm confused, the deets will be in the next filing, correct? The list I saw for the founders was a group of progressive women that were keen on reproductive choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I'm confused, the deets will be in the next filing, correct? The list I saw for the founders was a group of progressive women that were keen on reproductive choice?

Some details, sure. The next filing is in April, according to this small look into Persist PAC.

If it just formed in the last two days, how do they already have $1.6M to spend on ads?

If it had been in the works and building, why did Liz say she didn't have a Super PAC earlier this month onstage?

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

... when are the rest of the candidates going to sit down and collaborate on how to derail him.

The obvious thing would be to drop out and throw full support behind the frontrunner.

But no one is going to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Some details, sure. The next filing is in April, according to this small look into Persist PAC.

If it just formed in the last two days, how do they already have $1.6M to spend on ads?

If it had been in the works and building, why did Liz say she didn't have a Super PAC earlier this month onstage?

The obvious thing would be to drop out and throw full support behind the frontrunner.

But no one is going to do that.

She doesn't have a Super PAC in the same sense, though. They formed it. Do I think she got a heads up? Probably. Emily's list donated a bunch to both hers and Klobuchar's like I mentioned. For all I know they donated to Our Revolution as well.

No, dropping out is not a good idea. Keep supporting Sanders, he's the candidate that you prefer, but keeping the Trump campaign on its toes is better with multiple targets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

I'm not saying Liz should drop out.

Whiggins brought up the candidates coordinating to stop Bloomberg, so I was just pointing out the most obvious play: Unity. Go to Bernie and say, "Hey, you're ahead and your odds are way better than ours, we'd like to coordinate with you to make you a sure thing and in return we want to make sure X, Y, and Z."

And we know Bernie will play ball, because he already did with Hillary. He wrestled with Team Clinton for a month or so before the convention, got a ton of changes to the policy platform, got a ton of changes to nomination rules, and came in and endorsed her at the convention and did 40+ events for her afterwards. Liz and Pete out on the stump for Bernie would be unstoppable. All of them mutually blowing smoke up each other's asses and calling Bloomberg a piece of shit oligarch all day. (Joe would go back to bed and... who cares about Amy honestly.)

I'm not saying that SHOULD happen, but it would kill Bloomberg if that's the real concern here.

Or just fight it out and hope for that 1-in-75 chance to hit. Sure, whatever, this is democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29248

Posted
Posted

Maybe the whole country forgets it in a week, but I’m way less worried about Bloomberg today than I was yesterday. Viewership for last night’s debate was at a record high and everyone saw Bloomberg get absolutely destroyed. Just completely fucking annihilated.
 

Everyone (who didn’t know better) thought he had the monopoly on the electability argument because he’s the successful billionaire businessman so he must be tough and strong and smart, etc., and he went out there and got absolutely dismantled by literally everyone else on the stage. His money might keep him competitive for third or fourth, but nobody thinks he’s the surefire most electable candidate any more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

She doesn't have a Super PAC in the same sense, though. They formed it. Do I think she got a heads up? Probably.

Well if they informed her of it then she may be in violation of federal law. Candidates are not allowed to coordinate with Super PACs.

It's interesting, then, that a week ago Liz cancelled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign-funded ad spending in NV and SC and this PAC has already announced $1.69M in ad spending in those same states.

If the FEC was a functioning body, there might be some interesting things to look into there.

But she's not alone here. Every candidate who isn't Bernie has Super PACs running TV ads for them. (Klobuchar's is called "Kitchen Table Conversations")

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted

I see you got my drift. It’s the type of thing that needs to be at the forefront of campaign finance reform because it is hard to prove for innocence as it is for guilt w/o a  smoking gun. That *group that filed against Bernie’s PAC is accusing them of something along those lines (not with ads) and again, he’s probably on the up and up but it makes the Democrats look like Trump who has zero issue doing this and has done so all along. 
 

*Common Cause

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Knight

Michael Knight 12897

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not saying Liz should drop out.

Whiggins brought up the candidates coordinating to stop Bloomberg, so I was just pointing out the most obvious play: Unity. Go to Bernie and say, "Hey, you're ahead and your odds are way better than ours, we'd like to coordinate with you to make you a sure thing and in return we want to make sure X, Y, and Z."

And we know Bernie will play ball, because he already did with Hillary. He wrestled with Team Clinton for a month or so before the convention, got a ton of changes to the policy platform, got a ton of changes to nomination rules, and came in and endorsed her at the convention and did 40+ events for her afterwards. Liz and Pete out on the stump for Bernie would be unstoppable. All of them mutually blowing smoke up each other's asses and calling Bloomberg a piece of shit oligarch all day. (Joe would go back to bed and... who cares about Amy honestly.)

I'm not saying that SHOULD happen, but it would kill Bloomberg if that's the real concern here.

Or just fight it out and hope for that 1-in-75 chance to hit. Sure, whatever, this is democracy.

Warren could get a lot of votes if Bernie stumped for her

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MirrOlure

MirrOlure 14625

Posted
Posted
Maybe the whole country forgets it in a week, but I’m way less worried about Bloomberg today than I was yesterday. Viewership for last night’s debate was at a record high and everyone saw Bloomberg get absolutely destroyed. Just completely fucking annihilated.
 
Everyone (who didn’t know better) thought he had the monopoly on the electability argument because he’s the successful billionaire businessman so he must be tough and strong and smart, etc., and he went out there and got absolutely dismantled by literally everyone else on the stage. His money might keep him competitive for third or fourth, but nobody thinks he’s the surefire most electable candidate any more.

The black folk in his commercials seem to be all in!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10681

Posted
Posted

Ok, I'm going to say it because it is as annoying as Jim Jordan without a suitcoat type of deal. I think Liz needs to start adding nice bulky necklaces and better shoes to her outfits. She was wearing desert boot looking shoes. And I understand wanting to keep to shell blouses but add accessories or better jewelry. Even Broaches! It is starting to bug me a bit. She looks good because she is nice looking but come on, lady. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...