Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

WARREN CNN town hall tonight

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,544]

This CNN town hall is going really really well for Warren. She's awesome.

Can she please be our next president??

Click to watch

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

The predominantly black audience was great decision.  

(Cough take notes Bernie) 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Js1 87,189]

Hnnnnnnnng yes

 

[Biff Tannen 46,169]

She has the most articulate ideas of any candidate so far and she is genuine, smart, and knows wtf she is talking about.  

[bad_teammate 13,544]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

She has the most articulate ideas of any candidate so far and she is genuine, smart, and knows wtf she is talking about.  

Yes, by a fairly large margin, honestly.

She would be so good.

[Celery Man 21,098]

She's a goofball.  I mean that kindly - I think it's tough because it's a weird juxtaposition (with her intellect and ideas) and a strange charisma, but I like her.

[Biff Tannen 46,169]

Just now, Celery Man said:

She's a goofball.  I mean that kindly - I think it's tough because it's a weird juxtaposition (with her intellect and ideas) and a strange charisma, but I like her.

Agree.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Warren quoting scripture with the big finish was my favorite part and I’m not even religious 

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Good for her for going to ruby red Mississippi.

She’s going to be in Selma, Alabama tomorrow. I wish that wasn’t too far for me to take an impromptu trip and that I knew about it before tonight.

I’d like to see/hear her in person.

[GSU&UT 1,799]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Good for her for going to ruby red Mississippi.

She’s going to be in Selma, Alabama tomorrow. I wish that wasn’t too far for me to take an impromptu trip and that I knew about it before tonight.

I’d like to see/hear her in person.

We took our daughter who was about one and a half but only could see her for a few minutes since it was around dinner time and she gets cranky as hell. It was the first time I can remember seeing even a presidential candidate in person, they don't typically target Georgia or even the much of the South as you know (besides maybe SC for primary purposes) so it was cool.

[Skyline 325]

[GRHorn 105]

 

[thrillhammer 686]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

pelosi's hand gestures are the worst, imo.  they annoying and over the top that i find myself fixated more on them than what she's saying.

[bad_teammate 13,544]

I've watched a few Warren townhalls/speeches at this point and I really think she has a huge upside once everyone is in the race and media coverage normalizes. I think her getting a narrative set on the DNA thing was necessary and smart to do a long way out from the debates/primaries. If one of the Dems brings it up against her (which they probably won't), there's going to be a "this shit again?" feeling and I don't see it gaining any traction.

Right now the two big money raisers are Bernie and Beto. Biden will also bring in a ton of cash.

If she can make it to the debates, though, her intelligence and quickness will impress people and that vague "electability" bullshit will wear off. Obviously the Republicans will mock her relentlessly, but once the Dem base sees this intelligent and tough woman they're going to be less impressed with the male options. She will look so much sharper than Biden and will eat him alive (insofar as polite Dems do that).

There was a dynamic in the '08 Dem primary where the Hillaryfolk were just convinced that Hillary was going to look like a smart, practiced, veteran and Obama would come across as an empty bucket of rhetoric. And, honestly, if it wasn't for the Iraq war vote (Obama against, Hillary for) then it might have turned that direction. Beto doesn't have anything like that, so I think Warren will just look like a grownup in a way he just can't.

If the media stops stabbing her in the back, she's got a really high ceiling.

 

[BradInATX 9,208]

Do we have any info on whether or not Biden is going to take corporate/PAC money? 

[bad_teammate 13,544]

53 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Do we have any info on whether or not Biden is going to take corporate/PAC money? 

If he does, he's handing all of his opponents a very sharp knife.
If he doesn't, does he actually have the personality, history, or appeal to sustain a big grassroots movement throughout the primaries.

[bad_teammate 13,544]

Elizabeth Warren has good speed, good cardio.

 

[F250 29,201]

On 3/23/2019 at 8:16 AM, BradInATX said:

Do we have any info on whether or not Biden is going to take corporate/PAC money? 

He could probably get away with it if he does. He is a top contender on name recognition alone, which leads me to believe a lot of registered Democrats are not paying much attention to the details at the moment. If a lot of corporate money pours in for Biden, he will be able to afford to dump out a lot of campaign ads into the ether by the time it becomes an issue.

 

[F250 29,201]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Elizabeth Warren has good speed, good cardio.

 

80% of Surly would not be able to do that interview without gasping for breath.

 

[Js1 87,189]

 

[bad_teammate 13,544]

Warren continues to be good

 

[Guest Lobo]

How did her campaign art director miss the 

IOWA 

for 

WARREN

opportunity to be turned into "IOWARREN"  ???

 

too soon?  

[Guest Lobo]

If you don't read that out loud...and in a tribal chant, I don't care about your politics, you're dead inside.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Dbeasy 15,598]

Her anti-trust views on Big Tech are simplistic. We operate in a global economy with massive powerful Chinese competitors to Google, Amazon and Facebook. Break-up is not a simple idea like it was 20 years ago. I don’t mind her raising the issue however.

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

14 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Her anti-trust views on Big Tech are simplistic. We operate in a global economy with massive powerful Chinese competitors to Google, Amazon and Facebook. Break-up is not a simple idea like it was 20 years ago. I don’t mind her raising the issue however.

Completely agreed.  Not opposed to breaking them up, but don't use the antitrust laws and don't call it pro-competitive or even economically justified.

She really should probably get off twitter.  It's undignified for a person her age (possibly any age) and I'm afraid she's rather humorless.

Also, she could be the bellwether:  I'm the serious issues candidate.  You can't do serious issues on twitter.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Bama Chick 28,596]

I’m woefully underinformed about the intricacies of monopolies and big tech and the surrounding issues.

But I did like one thing I heard about Warren’s plan. There’s a portion that makes efforts to break down barriers to entry and encourages new companies and competitors to the market.

Right now Google/Facebook etc. have such a stranglehold and such deep pockets that if a new innovator comes along, they can smother it in its cradle by buying it out or (and this I found interesting and maddening) - if they aren’t successful in buying it, they’ll use their lobbyists to push for regulations.

Regulations a behemoth like Google/Facebook can afford but ones that would probably cripple a start up.

She wants to do something like “freezing” the big guys from gobbling up new guys and stop them from using their power to artificially influencing the business climate to make their paths harder.

I vastly prefer that approach over trying to dismantle already existing companies.

[GSU&UT 1,799]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m woefully underinformed about the intricacies of monopolies and big tech and the surrounding issues.

But I did like one thing I heard about Warren’s plan. There’s a portion that makes efforts to break down barriers to entry and encourages new companies and competitors to the market.

Right now Google/Facebook etc. have such a stranglehold and such deep pockets that if a new innovator comes along, they can smother it in its cradle by buying it out or (and this I found interesting and maddening) - if they aren’t successful in buying it, they’ll use their lobbyists to push for regulations.

Regulations a behemoth like Google/Facebook can afford but ones that would probably cripple a start up.

She wants to do something like “freezing” the big guys from gobbling up new guys and stop them from using their power to artificially influencing the business climate to make their paths harder.

I vastly prefer that approach over trying to dismantle already existing companies.

The problem is that she has to do the exact right way according to the Surly libertarians.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

The problem is that she has to do the exact right way according to the Surly libertarians.

Ugh, Surly libertarians are the worst.

[bad_teammate 13,544]

Libertarians are 14-year-old boys who never got smarter.

[bad_teammate 13,544]

Also, Elizabeth Warren fucking owns and I want to get mad drunk with her.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Rick Perry.  Owned.

 

[EuroHorn 3,295]

55 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I’m woefully underinformed about the intricacies of monopolies and big tech and the surrounding issues.

But I did like one thing I heard about Warren’s plan. There’s a portion that makes efforts to break down barriers to entry and encourages new companies and competitors to the market.

Right now Google/Facebook etc. have such a stranglehold and such deep pockets that if a new innovator comes along, they can smother it in its cradle by buying it out or (and this I found interesting and maddening) - if they aren’t successful in buying it, they’ll use their lobbyists to push for regulations.

Regulations a behemoth like Google/Facebook can afford but ones that would probably cripple a start up.

She wants to do something like “freezing” the big guys from gobbling up new guys and stop them from using their power to artificially influencing the business climate to make their paths harder.

I vastly prefer that approach over trying to dismantle already existing companies.

As a small business owner, I would hate if google or Facebook bought me out.  That premium would hurt...

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Right now Google/Facebook etc. have such a stranglehold and such deep pockets that if a new innovator comes along, they can smother it in its cradle by buying it out or (and this I found interesting and maddening) - if they aren’t successful in buying it, they’ll use their lobbyists to push for regulations.
 

This is a seductive but probably ultimately false narrative. Microsoft had monopoly power briefly over the desktop and abused it. But now they aren't even in the conversation. 

Google and Facebook are problematic for privacy reasons among several others and probably should be broken up just like the TBTF banks, but the reason isn't monopoly power or another "competitive" or antitrust rationale.  Just like antitrust doesn't form the basis for breaking up the TBTF banks. 

Amd if you are too ignorant about the issues to understand that manipulating the wrong laws to accomplish a likely worthy goal, well, bless your heart. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 46,169]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Rick Perry.  Owned.

 

Yeah, I want her as president.  She has the chops to bring the fucking pain.  Warren/Buttigieg at this point.  Beto, I love ya, but step up.  Granted, there's plenty of time.

[Tom 2,960]

7 hours ago, EuroHorn said:

As a small business owner, I would hate if google or Facebook bought me out.  That premium would hurt...

 

You're probably safe, bud.  I seriously doubt Facebook or Google are looking to buy out a scentsy distributor.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Tom

[Dbeasy 15,598]

I’ve become fascinated by Warren. She is weighing in on a lot of corporate greed issues, which I happen to believe should have much more visibility and scrutiny. The problem is that as a candidate, she will become the enemy of business and they will work hard against her getting elected. I don’t think she has a chance because of that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

22 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’ve become fascinated by Warren. She is weighing in on a lot of corporate greed issues, which I happen to believe should have much more visibility and scrutiny. The problem is that as a candidate, she will become the enemy of business and they will work hard against her getting elected. I don’t think she has a chance because of that.

Have you not noticed the corporate forces working to undermine her throughout her career?

Who do you think is behind making some inconsequential error in a heritage claim a full blown Chernobyl outrage scandal and a running punchline?  

They didn’t have a choice but to push on that as hard as possible because that’s all they have.  She’s among the most incorruptible and transparent candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime. She also transcends party politics because she holds democrats to a higher standard as well.

However, the forces that wield the most power in this country will try as hard as they can to neutralize her by convincing enough people she can not be trusted and they’ve been doing for years because she keeps coming and not afraid of them.  

While not similar on policy/ideology, AOC has some of the Warren qualities but Warren has an entire professional career of being AOC without the antics.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,544]

26 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I’ve become fascinated by Warren. She is weighing in on a lot of corporate greed issues, which I happen to believe should have much more visibility and scrutiny. The problem is that as a candidate, she will become the enemy of business and they will work hard against her getting elected. I don’t think she has a chance because of that.

Remove this kind of thinking from your head. They have worked very hard to convince you that they are more powerful than the people, and you have accepted that frame. It's nonsense. Business doesn't vote. Business money isn't spending very well on the Democratic side. We can beat them. We have to beat them.

Do not try to pundit your way through these things. Find the best candidate(s) who represent the values you think America needs and then fight for those candidates.

[Js1 87,189]

8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah, I want her as president.  She has the chops to bring the fucking pain.  Warren/Buttigieg at this point.  Beto, I love ya, but step up.  Granted, there's plenty of time.

100% would vote, canvass, phonebank, send postcards, etc. for Warren/Buttigieg.

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Libertarians are 14-year-old boys who never got smarter.

DAMN SON.  That's true.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

This is a seductive but probably ultimately false narrative. Microsoft had monopoly power briefly over the desktop and abused it. But now they aren't even in the conversation. 
Google and Facebook are problematic for privacy reasons among several others and probably should be broken up just like the TBTF banks, but the reason isn't monopoly power or another "competitive" or antitrust rationale.  Just like antitrust doesn't form the basis for breaking up the TBTF banks. 
Amd if you are too ignorant about the issues to understand that manipulating the wrong laws to accomplish a likely worthy goal, well, bless your heart. 

Well please excuse me for not always acting like a know it all dick every time I post and actually admitting I don’t know everything about everything.

In other words, bless your heart and go fuck your know it all face.

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Well please excuse me for not always acting like a know it all dick every time I post and actually admitting I don’t know everything about everything.

In other words, bless your heart and go fuck your know it all face.

That wasn't directed at you, it was directed at GSU, and his shitass comment.  I should have put that in a different response, sorry.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

After having perused the Mayor Pete and Beto threads, I have kind of come to some realizations.

I like Warren because she has specific, implementable ideas.

Beto's just a likeable guy that maybe exudes "leadership" or some "presidential" quality and makes the right noises, but is relatively devoid of new ideas.

Mayor Pete seems like a really smart guy, with sort of a big picture vision that's nice.and probably will develop and sign on to good ideas.

So this begs the question about candidates.  Which type makes the best president?  Unfortunately, as attractive as Warren's ideas are, I think we have to concede that the President really doesn't have that much sway in enacting ideas, even when the congress is friendly (see Obamacare among many other examples).  About all they can do is exercise "leadership," which points more to Beto or Mayor Pete.  Of the three, Beto is most likely to be an empty suit, it seems, but maybe the best leader.  Or if you buy into my premise, then maybe Biden.

I don't know if my primary vote is better spent among the Dems or against Trump.

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

The other thing related to the above.  Despite the horrible experiences to date with outsider candidates (Perot, Trump), I still find myself attracted to candidates that aren't lifelong politicians, which makes me suspicious of Biden, although I suppose you could say the same about Beto, too.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

What I like about Warren’s candidacy is it’s all about ideas and very little to do with her.  What this means is her ideas are getting enough oxygen to shape a public opinion around them.

If Warren doesn’t make it, even half way, her more popular and opinion tested ideas can easily fill the policy void of the front runners that need it.  It could be a big win win.  

That’s why I’m not concerned with Beto or Buttigieg’s lack of specifics.  If they had well defined policy proposals, it would conflict with the potential of adopting Warren’s positions.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 32,083]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What I like about Warren’s candidacy is it’s all about ideas and very little to do with her.  What this means is her ideas are getting enough oxygen to shape a public opinion around them.

If Warren doesn’t make it, even half way, her more popular and opinion tested ideas can easily fill the policy void of the front runners that need it.  It could be a big win win.  

That’s why I’m not concerned with Beto or Buttigieg’s lack of specifics.  If they had well defined policy proposals, it would conflict with the potential of adopting Warren’s positions.

Right, so I wonder if maybe she's better in the Senate, as VP maybe, or a cabinet official, or maybe just on the sidelines.  And I guess it won't happen until after the primary, but it would be nice if someone else would adopt, sign on to, or endorse some of her policies.

Note I didn't mention Harris.  I really don't care for her on any level.  Probably vote Libertarian again if she gets the nom.

Edited March 29, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Right, so I wonder if maybe she's better in the Senate, as VP maybe, or a cabinet official, or maybe just on the sidelines. 

She’s the person best suited to see her ideas become a reality and the presidency is the best vehicle for her to do that so no, she wouldn’t be better in another office.    

She’s been in the Senate and on the sidelines fighting corruption from the bottom up.  Just think what she could do fighting from the top down.