Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

  On 2/11/2019 at 3:51 PM, Bama Chick said:

If you feel defensive and a need to type many, many words when someone WHO IS NOT YOU gets accused of racism, ya might want to think about why that is.

And if you do it every time it happens to SOMEONE ELSE and you have to contort basic logic to construct a defense, ya might want to cogitate on that too.

I’m prone to be defensive for and get into wars of words on the internet when someone says something mean about Harry Styles.

Because I’m a Harry Styles fan girl and I adore him and he’s perfect and anyone saying anything bad about him is DEFINITELY WRONG AND BAD AND I WON’T HAVE IT!

If you react that way about racism getting called out.........

Expand  

I don't know who Harry Styles is so I don't get that part but, other than that, great post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/9/2019 at 10:40 PM, Pokemon said:

Trump should be a prison inmate. Or an Indian casino floor manager.

Expand  

I've always thought if Trump hadn't had a rich daddy his natural station in life would have been a bouncer at some shiny-shirt-douchebag club in Queens or the Bronx. But as things turned out he should definitely be doing hard time in the pen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/11/2019 at 9:20 PM, Bat Guano said:
I've always thought if Trump hadn't had a rich daddy his natural station in life would have been a bouncer at some shiny-shirt-douchebag club in Queens or the Bronx. But as things turned out he should definitely be doing hard time in the pen.

Nah he’d be a low time sleazy sales guy. The guy that’s always talking about how this is the deal that will make him and any investor lucky enough to ride with him rich. Meanwhile his check for apartment rent continues to bounce. Kind of a Frye fraud type thing with more Bronx/queens bluster and less manhattan bling.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  On 2/26/2019 at 12:56 AM, gmr548 said:

 

Hard pressed to find a more convincing endorsement. The financial industry is shady as fuck.

Expand  

Yeah, she's amazing. She's also about as exciting as watching paint dry. I wish she had a little more swagger or whatever, cause that's what's gonna sink her.... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/26/2019 at 2:39 AM, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Yeah, she's amazing. She's also about as exciting as watching paint dry. I wish she had a little more swagger or whatever, cause that's what's gonna sink her.... 

Expand  

Dude she busted out a brewski in her first video, what more do ya want ?  I like her message, but I don't think she has the chops to create presidential charisma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/12/2019 at 6:17 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Expand  

Can't wait for it to be Warren vs. Sanders at the end of the primary and they just scream increasingly violent threats at billionaires in an attempt to outpace each other.

(Warren wins in the end by promising to build the beheading wall from Caligula)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/26/2019 at 2:39 AM, Doc Sam Beckett said:
Yeah, she's amazing. She's also about as exciting as watching paint dry. I wish she had a little more swagger or whatever, cause that's what's gonna sink her.... 

  On 2/26/2019 at 2:50 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:
Dude she busted out a brewski in her first video, what more do ya want ?  I like her message, but I don't think she has the chops to create presidential charisma.

 

Unfortunately I think you're both correct. Reagan, Bush (lol dukakis), Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. Plenty of ideological variation there, the theme is that the biggest personality, for better or worse, wins Presidential elections these days. I will still most likely be voting for her in the primary though.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/4/2019 at 9:55 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How do you know we’re not online while waiting in line?

Expand  

'Cause it's too cold.  Even she couldn't stand these elements.  There's a really impressive gathering of Democrat hopefuls rolling into town this week between EDU and Interactive.  This is a great moment for Austin.  One I'm sure we'll manage to fuck up when it's reported that an errant scooter operated by George Soros "accidentally" kneecaps Gabbard.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/26/2019 at 2:39 AM, Doc Sam Beckett said:
Yeah, she's amazing. She's also about as exciting as watching paint dry. I wish she had a little more swagger or whatever, cause that's what's gonna sink her.... 

She’s actually got swagger in spades, she’s just an old grandmother with a higher pitched voice than Harris. so she’s marginalized from the get go.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 12:53 PM, troph said:


She’s actually got swagger in spades, she’s just an old grandmother with a higher pitched voice than Harris. so she’s marginalized from the get go.

Expand  

Old white lady................. Racism and agesim...  and sexism.... the trifecta.

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 12:53 PM, troph said:

She’s actually got swagger in spades, she’s just an old grandmother with a higher pitched voice than Harris. so she’s marginalized from the get go.

Expand  

She needs good surrogates. If you watch Bernie's first two rallies (Brooklyn & Chicago), Nina Turner is on right before him and she gets the crowd hyped as hell. She does her "WITH THESE HANDS" bit and the audience is ready to go behead some capitalists, so Bernie walks up to a warm crowd.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/26/2019 at 2:39 AM, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Yeah, she's amazing. She's also about as exciting as watching paint dry. I wish she had a little more swagger or whatever, cause that's what's gonna sink her.... 

Expand  

That's a(nother) sad commentary on the electorate, but I believe you're right. Actually, I wouldn't say she's boring; I'd say she's not presidential in the most superficial ways. She should use consultants for her look and even her speaking style. Just a tweak here or there would do it.

I only have the shallowest knowledge of the candidates, but she is my favorite at the moment. She does not have Clinton's portfolio, but she is certainly qualified and more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/11/2019 at 3:51 PM, Bama Chick said:

If you feel defensive and a need to type many, many words when someone WHO IS NOT YOU gets accused of racism, ya might want to think about why that is.

And if you do it every time it happens to SOMEONE ELSE and you have to contort basic logic to construct a defense, ya might want to cogitate on that too.

I’m prone to be defensive for and get into wars of words on the internet when someone says something mean about Harry Styles.

Because I’m a Harry Styles fan girl and I adore him and he’s perfect and anyone saying anything bad about him is DEFINITELY WRONG AND BAD AND I WON’T HAVE IT!

If you react that way about racism getting called out.........

Expand  

Spot on as usual

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read to the end of the thread, I'm getting that sick election feeling. 

Elizabeth Warren shows all the little traits of a pioneer feminist from the 70's. The early part of the decade was all natural with a determination to peel away all signs of non feminisism which meant abandoning cultural femininity. Vanity was out within that movement. In most, maybe all, important ways that was likely necessary and good for the cause. The cause is surely just.

Unfortunately for a national candidacy, you need some vanity. Male candidates generally preen to present themselves in refined, dynamic masculinity. Ann Richards is a notable example of a woman who carried the feminist banner but presented herself in a visually refined, dynamic feminine way.

Warren's cornball song and cornball cavorting with her grandkids presents us with a fun, active Gammy who the grandkids adore. None of that has anything to do with why I, at the moment, support her run. She's smarter than most people in a room of smart people. She's articulate. I don't see her getting pushed around. She will be a pleasure to watch in debate. 

I hope she's smart enough to look hard at how she's running. She's not someone who needs softening of her image. She needs sharpness.

Now, I'll go throw up because this appearance shit is so important. She should, too, and then start addressing it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 1:29 PM, RomaVicta said:

That's a(nother) sad commentary on the electorate, but I believe you're right. Actually, I wouldn't say she's boring; I'd say she's not presidential in the most superficial ways. She should use consultants for her look and even her speaking style. Just a tweak here or there would do it.

I only have the shallowest knowledge of the candidates, but she is my favorite at the moment. She does not have Clinton's portfolio, but she is certainly qualified and more palatable.

Expand  

True, but "style points" is nothing new.  And it's been especially apparent since the 1960 election.  I'm sure someone much better read on the subject will condescendingly correct me but the Kennedy/Nixon TV debates seemed to really change the game, as far as POTUS elections go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 1:29 PM, RomaVicta said:

She does not have Clinton's portfolio, but she is certainly qualified and more palatable.

Expand  

She has a vastly better portfolio than Clinton.  Firstly, it was on her own merit; she is much more accomplished than Hillary.  It isn't politics, but it involved policy.  I like her ideas quite a bit as they are a departure from tax and spend and they tend to be practical in that they address specific problems in tangible ways rather than general promotion of idealistic ideological goals (AOC).

She has a bit of schoolmarm/church lady to her, understandably, I suppose, given her career.

I also wish she had a better record of reaching across the aisle here and there.  On the other hand, she doesn't grandstand much.

If we had the election tomorrow, she'd get my vote.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, she has either changed or deliberately tried to change herself.  In the Senate, she's something of a ballcutter, at least in public, and now she's going for "Gammy."  By most accounts of her as a teacher, she was tough, demanding, but warm and courteous at all times.  https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/13/elizabeth-warren-known-harvard-law-school-tough-but-fair/9adfuU4jXPPSEfO8XyturM/story.html

I think Roma is right, she has some 70s feminist in her, but that was not her rep as a teacher.  Maybe she's been playing roles so long she doesn't know who she is.  That's a shame, because I think she's probably one of the better candidates we've had in quite a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Afraid of the Democrats

The 2020 presidential candidate has a long track record of opposing lobbyists, billionaires, the Republicans—and her own party.

https://www.thenation.com/article/warren-democrats-obama-president/

When Senator Elizabeth Warren declared that she was running for president in February, she described Donald Trump’s administration as “the most corrupt in living memory.” But she didn’t stop there: “Even after Trump is gone, it won’t be enough to do a better job of running a broken system,” she said.

Warren’s speech was centered around the notion that political corruption is not a uniquely Republican problem. “To protect their economic advantages, the rich and powerful have rigged our political system as well,” she continued. “They’ve bought off or bullied politicians in both parties to make sure Washington is always on their side.”

Anyone who’s followed Warren’s career knows she’s been making statements like this for years. But her position is suddenly mainstream: Almost every major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination is rejecting corporate PAC money and decrying the influence of the financial sector, albeit with varying degrees of sincerity. These are all implicit criticisms of the Democratic Party. Barack Obama, for example, collected more money from Wall Street in 2008 than any candidate in history, failed to prosecute any bankers for the financial crisis, and appointed officials with Wall Street ties to key financial regulatory positions in its wake.

Warren was Obama’s biggest critic on the left. She opposed major pieces of legislation that benefited Wall Street or pharmaceutical interests; tore into some of Obama’s cabinet members in public hearings; and even blocked an Obama nominee to a high-ranking Treasury position. The question now is whether these battles against a man whom 95 percent of Democrats view favorably will harm Warren, or whether the party’s leftward turn on economic issues in particular will ultimately carry her to the White House.

Elizabeth Warren was teaching at Harvard Law School when, in 2008, then–Senate majority leader Harry Reid selected her for the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which had written America’s biggest banks a $700 billion check with precious few strings attached. Warren, a bankruptcy expert, was then elected as the panel’s chair. “The role of congressional oversight is to ask the tough questions, to push back on the decisions, to request additional information, and to recheck the numbers,” Warren said in an interview at the time. “It’s our job to be cranky.”

And cranky she was. She pushed Treasury officials under both Bush and Obama for more transparency over where the TARP money was going and asked loudly why homeowners weren’t receiving enough of it. Warren did more than simply oversee what TARP authorized; she raised larger questions about how the economy was structured and whom it was designed to benefit.

  Reveal hidden contents
Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 1:53 PM, RomaVicta said:

Having read to the end of the thread, I'm getting that sick election feeling. 

Elizabeth Warren shows all the little traits of a pioneer feminist from the 70's. The early part of the decade was all natural with a determination to peel away all signs of non feminisism which meant abandoning cultural femininity. Vanity was out within that movement. In most, maybe all, important ways that was likely necessary and good for the cause. The cause is surely just.

Unfortunately for a national candidacy, you need some vanity. Male candidates generally preen to present themselves in refined, dynamic masculinity. Ann Richards is a notable example of a woman who carried the feminist banner but presented herself in a visually refined, dynamic feminine way.

Warren's cornball song and cornball cavorting with her grandkids presents us with a fun, active Gammy who the grandkids adore. None of that has anything to do with why I, at the moment, support her run. She's smarter than most people in a room of smart people. She's articulate. I don't see her getting pushed around. She will be a pleasure to watch in debate. 

I hope she's smart enough to look hard at how she's running. She's not someone who needs softening of her image. She needs sharpness.

Now, I'll go throw up because this appearance shit is so important. She should, too, and then start addressing it.

Expand  

Yeah she needs to ditch that folksy BS. Be professional and hitman like.  She needs to show she's tough. I still cringe at that beerfomercial.  

If her platform is reform and going after the Wall Street types she's gonna have a tough road to hoe getting big donations, but the right message could resonate with voters. A very strong and simple platform of talking points that Joe blow on the street can relate to is gonna be key. She's got a hard task getting blue collar dems to vote for her though IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 5:26 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I thought the same thing but after looking at some responses, the folksy grandmother stuff does resonate with some people.  She can’t be a hard ass all the time and expect to broaden her support. 

Expand  

No, but you need a consistent look, and that looks a bit staged IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 4:21 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Elizabeth Warren Is Not Afraid of the Democrats

The 2020 presidential candidate has a long track record of opposing lobbyists, billionaires, the Republicans—and her own party.

https://www.thenation.com/article/warren-democrats-obama-president/

When Senator Elizabeth Warren declared that she was running for president in February, she described Donald Trump’s administration as “the most corrupt in living memory.” But she didn’t stop there: “Even after Trump is gone, it won’t be enough to do a better job of running a broken system,” she said.

Warren’s speech was centered around the notion that political corruption is not a uniquely Republican problem. “To protect their economic advantages, the rich and powerful have rigged our political system as well,” she continued. “They’ve bought off or bullied politicians in both parties to make sure Washington is always on their side.”

Anyone who’s followed Warren’s career knows she’s been making statements like this for years. But her position is suddenly mainstream: Almost every major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination is rejecting corporate PAC money and decrying the influence of the financial sector, albeit with varying degrees of sincerity. These are all implicit criticisms of the Democratic Party. Barack Obama, for example, collected more money from Wall Street in 2008 than any candidate in history, failed to prosecute any bankers for the financial crisis, and appointed officials with Wall Street ties to key financial regulatory positions in its wake.

Warren was Obama’s biggest critic on the left. She opposed major pieces of legislation that benefited Wall Street or pharmaceutical interests; tore into some of Obama’s cabinet members in public hearings; and even blocked an Obama nominee to a high-ranking Treasury position. The question now is whether these battles against a man whom 95 percent of Democrats view favorably will harm Warren, or whether the party’s leftward turn on economic issues in particular will ultimately carry her to the White House.

Elizabeth Warren was teaching at Harvard Law School when, in 2008, then–Senate majority leader Harry Reid selected her for the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which had written America’s biggest banks a $700 billion check with precious few strings attached. Warren, a bankruptcy expert, was then elected as the panel’s chair. “The role of congressional oversight is to ask the tough questions, to push back on the decisions, to request additional information, and to recheck the numbers,” Warren said in an interview at the time. “It’s our job to be cranky.”

And cranky she was. She pushed Treasury officials under both Bush and Obama for more transparency over where the TARP money was going and asked loudly why homeowners weren’t receiving enough of it. Warren did more than simply oversee what TARP authorized; she raised larger questions about how the economy was structured and whom it was designed to benefit.

  Reveal hidden contents
Expand  

I find it amusing that that article says she "came at Obama from the left."  Maybe she was just trying to do the right thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 5:43 PM, Bama Chick said:

We’re getting awfully close to the “Elizabeth Warren needs to update her hair and makeup and wear more fashion forward clothing” conversation and fair warning, I’m getting preemptively bitchy about it.

Expand  

It sucks but it’s part of the game.  She needs to do whatever works on the optics level while keeping her messaging consistent and strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 6:05 PM, bad_teammate said:

A champion of the working class can win. If she focuses on constantly naming the enemy (the billionaires, Wall Street, and DC) then nothing about her hair or makeup or tone matters.

Expand  

She does not have an image of a champion of the working class.  She has a platform that speaks to that, but a north eastern millionaire is not going to be considered a champion of the working class.  That is a hard mantle to grab for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 3/6/2019 at 6:09 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

She does not have an image of a champion of the working class.  She has a platform that speaks to that, but a north eastern millionaire is not going to be considered a champion of the working class.  That is a hard mantle to grab for her.

Expand  

Donald

Trump

Is

The

President

Turn on your monitor.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...