Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

i like the stats, but disagree with the takeaway.

it only makes sense if hillary clinton was "just another centrist" rather than a "progressive" that bloc so desperately wanted to vote for.

i dislike biden like pretty much everyone here, but if that chunk of blue voted for obama in 2012, i have to assume a lot of them will vote for biden in 2020.  maybe i'm being naive.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Hurr durr she like feathers she Pocahontas hurr durr

[elfenix 34332]

How are the banks screwing borrowers of student loans when that is a service that was taken over by the government nearly ten years ago. Her “reforms” are pointless when she refuses to address the reason for the rise in tuition costs. Government involvement. They incentivized colleges to raise prices.

Always treating the symptoms and never the cause. Shockingly Mark Cuban has some great ideas on student loans. 

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-heres-how-to-fix-the-student-debt-crisis-2015-3

 I would like to hear how she intends to keep creating jobs, driving wages up and expand our economy. Actually, I’d like to hear any Democratic candidates ideas on these topics. They don’t seem to have been considered since Obama

There's private student loans. The only thing the government "took over" was the loan program the government was guaranteeing. That already was a government program so about the lamest takeover ever.

[gmr548 16612]

On 5/31/2019 at 8:28 PM, henrygandorf said:

i like the stats, but disagree with the takeaway.

it only makes sense if hillary clinton was "just another centrist" rather than a "progressive" that bloc so desperately wanted to vote for.

i dislike biden like pretty much everyone here, but if that chunk of blue voted for obama in 2012, i have to assume a lot of them will vote for biden in 2020.  maybe i'm being naive.

 

I don't think Biden has anything to do with it. Trump is President. If you're a progressive and that doesn't clinch your vote for the D nominee, you were probably ever going to vote.

[Guest Lobo]

What if student loans were underwritten like real estate loans were underwritten?

Assuming credit scores are equal, a 5000 square foot retail space purchase at 6th & Congress will be underwritten more beneficially to the borrower because the asset has a better chance to generate income and ability to repay is more secure...as compared to a 5000 square foot retail space in Cleveland.  

Apply this rationale to the entire higher ed landscape.  A theater degree from Washburn University should not get the same term sheet as an MBA from Kellogg

but the government doesn’t see it this way.    

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 18946]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

What if student loans were underwritten like real estate loans were underwritten?

Assuming credit scores are equal, a 5000 square foot retail space purchase at 6th & Congress will be underwritten more beneficially to the borrower because the asset has a better chance to generate income and ability to repay is more secure...as compared to a 5000 square foot retail space in Cleveland.  

Apply this rationale to the entire higher ed landscape.  A theater degree from Washburn University should not get the same term sheet as an MBA from Kellogg

but the government doesn’t see it this way.    

That's because the government and the bank have different priorities.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hopefully she makes a headline or two because that’s how this game is played. 

[406W30th 1111]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hopefully she makes a headline or two because that’s how this game is played. 

Oh hell yeah. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[406W30th 1111]

Until now I never knew her full story. Pretty damn incredible. Everyone should watch/listen to at least the first 8 minutes. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

she's got a compelling personal story and she's good at telling it

a great candidate who would be an amazing first female president

[Hank Kingsley 21049]

Warren's got the mojo working right now.  She's been impressive. 

 

[tucker 238]

 

[406W30th 1111]

I thought Hays did a good job pushing back on what will certainly be the most common criticisms/questions of her plans – 1.) how will she pay for all of this and 2.) what's the point as long as that piece of shit Mitch McConnell is Sen. Majority Leader?

Warren did a terrific job answering those questions and I have a hard time buying the argument that she can't win over the Obama > Trump voters. She is easily the most passionate candidate with the most well thought-out policy. I am going to work my ass off to help her win the nomination.

 

[EuroHorn 3268]

It’s awesome that Warren is calling out China and India for their  significant   contributions to climate change...

[Fozzz 152]

On 6/5/2019 at 9:54 PM, tucker said:

 

Was Liz asked why she voted for the Hyde Amendment in 2017?  

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Was Liz asked why she voted for the Hyde Amendment in 2017?  

 

Probably not, since she did not vote for the Hyde Amendment in 2017.  It would have been hard for her to vote on since it was never even brought up for a  vote in the Senate. I just read a list of every piece of legislation the Senate voted on in 2017 and there's nary a mention of the Hyde Amendment or anything close to it. 

First EMAW and now you. Why do you Republican fanboys insist on believing things that are not true?

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Fozzz 152]

8 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Probably not, since she did not vote for the Hyde Amendment in 2017.  It would have been hard for her to vote on since it was never even brought up for a  vote in the Senate. I just read a list of every piece of legislation the Senate voted on in 2017 and there's nary a mention of the Hyde Amendment or anything close to it. 

First EMAW and now you. Why do you Republican fanboys insist on believing things that are not true?

 

You’re wrong. Unlike Bernie, Lizzie voted in support of a massive spending bill in 2017 that prohibited any funds appropriated in that bill from being used for health care services that included abortion.  In fact, she voted for that bill twice. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Fozzz

[bad_teammate 13224]

Continuing Appropriations Act 2019

CTRL-F "Abortion"

Senate Roll Call Vote (09/2018)

Bennet - Yea
Booker - Yea
Gillibrand - Yea
Klobuchar - Yea
Warren - Yea
Sanders - Nay

I don't think this is important, really. You can be against one provision in a giant piece of legislation and still vote for it.

But, you know, Bernie fucking rules.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You’re wrong. Unlike Bernie, Lizzie voted in support of a massive spending bill in 2017 that prohibited any funds appropriated in that bill from being used for health care services that included abortion.  In fact, she voted for that bill twice. 

 

First off, what you're referring to took place in 2018, not 2017. 

Second, you just admitted that Liz voted for a massive spending bill.  Your original claim was that she voted for the Hyde Amendment. 

Again: the Hyde Amendment has not been brought up for a vote in the Senate in the time that Elizabeth Warren has been senator.  So to say that she voted for the Hyde Amendment is wrong. 

[Fozzz 152]

11 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

First off, what you're referring to took place in 2018, not 2017. 

Second, you just admitted that Liz voted for a massive spending bill.  Your original claim was that she voted for the Hyde Amendment. 

Again: the Hyde Amendment has not been brought up for a vote in the Senate in the time that Elizabeth Warren has been senator.  So to say that she voted for the Hyde Amendment is wrong. 

You don't find it disingenuous to say you don't support the Hyde Amendment while also voting for appropriations bills that that prohibit spending of appropriated funds on abortions? lol.  That's fucking ridiculous.  

[tucker 238]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

You don't find it disingenuous to say you don't support the Hyde Amendment while also voting for appropriations bills that that prohibit spending of appropriated funds on abortions? lol.  That's fucking ridiculous.  

Your misinformation is fucking ridiculous 

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, tucker said:

Your misinformation is fucking ridiculous 

Okay, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to not support prohibiting the spending of federal funds on abortion while also voting for appropriations bills which prohibit the appropriated funds from being spent on abortion.  Those two things are perfectly consistent.  😂

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Okay, it's perfectly reasonable for someone to not support prohibiting the spending of federal funds on abortion while also voting for appropriations bills which prohibit the appropriated funds from being spent on abortion.  Those two things are perfectly consistent.  😂

 

Did Elizabeth Warren vote for The Hyde Amendment in 2017?

[Zavala 1384]

On 6/5/2019 at 5:51 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hopefully she makes a headline or two because that’s how this game is played. 

Lets see:

https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/stock-market-news-today-060419/h_a7bc9337ffcbc4e1e6d9bf0cb3539adb

Quote

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren unveiled a plan to create jobs and "protect the interest of American workers" in a Medium post today, and it includes actively managing the US dollar lower.

Warren named the strong dollar one of the most important factors in the US trade deficit, and blamed it for weak exports.

 

[Fozzz 152]

17 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

Did Elizabeth Warren vote for The Hyde Amendment in 2017?

Did she vote for a huge appropriations bill that blocks federal spending on abortions? What is the fucking point of “not” supporting the Hyde Amendment if you are going to vote to block abortion money in the actual appropriation bills themselves?  There’s no material difference between supporting it or not if you block that spending in practice. 

[bad_teammate 13224]

she voted for it one year later than you originally said, therefore the underlying point is invalid and the topic is now muted

Fozzz DESTROYED by LOGIC

[RDCanecutter 26468]

On 6/5/2019 at 5:51 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Hopefully she makes a headline or two because that’s how this game is played. 

Never noticed how much Chris Hayes looks like he should be announcing that Now Is The Time To Dance On Schprockets.

[bad_teammate 13224]

12 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Now Is The Time To Dance On Schprockets.

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

49 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Fozzz DESTROYED by LOGIC

 

 

And by the fact that, contrary to his claim that Elizabeth Warren voted "for the Hyde Amendment in 2017,"  the Hyde Amendment was not put to a vote by the Senate in 2017 or 2018. 

It sure seems that if she had voted for the Hyde Amendment in 2017, there would be some documentation of that.

Of course ------ given her history and her political ideology --------  we know how she would have voted HAD the Hyde Amendment been offered up for a vote by itself, but that never happened.  



 

[Fozzz 152]

I'm just glad my preferred candidate actually respects women's autonomy (instead of only paying worthless lip service) and did not, like Liz Warren, vote for an appropriations bill blocking appropriated funds from being used for abortions.  

[bad_teammate 13224]

I'm not going to bother looking it up, but I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders has, in the past, voted for an appropriations bill that included the hyde language.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

23 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm just glad my preferred candidate actually respects women's autonomy (instead of only paying worthless lip service) and did not, like Liz Warren, vote for an appropriations bill blocking appropriated funds from being used for abortions.  

 

Did Elizabeth Warren vote for the Hyde Amendment in 2017? It is a yes or no question. The fact that I asked you directly if that was true and you did not answer with a yes or no means that you know the truth, because any answer other than yes or no means you are obfuscating, fudging, diverting etc....

Whatever you're claiming now is not relevant to the truth of your initial statement, the one I took issue with.



 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Fozzz 152]

I will answer your stupid question once you explain to my why you you support a candidate who does not support women's autonomy, as evidenced by her voting record.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I will answer your stupid question once you explain to my why you you support a candidate who does not support women's autonomy, as evidenced by her voting record.

I don't support Liz Warren. I don't support any candidate.  

You confuse my attempt to get at the truth of her voting record with my support of her candidacy, though I would hope that a UT education would render you able to discern the difference between the two. 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I don't support Liz Warren. I don't support any candidate.  

You confuse my attempt to get at the truth of her voting record with my support of her candidacy, though I would hope that a UT education would render you able to discern the difference between the two. 

I wound find your behavior extremely peculiar if you do not support her.  Why else make yourself out like a huge idiot itt?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

Just now, Fozzz said:

I wound find your behavior extremely peculiar if you do not support her.  Why else make yourself out like a huge idiot itt?

 

This is a thread about Elizabeth Warren.  I simply pointed out that your statement about her voting record with regards to the Hyde Amendment is untrue.  You're the one who doubled down on that assertion, despite being unable to offer any proof that she ever voted on it.  There is not a single post on this board that indicates that I support her, so enough with the dumbass, baseless assertions. 

You said that you would answer my yes or no question, so I'll ask it again:  Did Elizabeth Warren vote in favor of the Hyde Amendment in 2017?

[Fozzz 152]

5 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

This is a thread about Elizabeth Warren.  I simply pointed out that your statement about her voting record with regards to the Hyde Amendment is untrue.  You're the one who doubled down on that assertion, despite being unable to offer any proof that she ever voted on it.  There is not a single post on this board that indicates that I support her, so enough with the dumbass, baseless assertions. 

You said that you would answer my yes or no question, so I'll ask it again:  Did Elizabeth Warren vote in favor of the Hyde Amendment in 2017?

Your claim was actually that neither the Hyde Amendment nor "anything close to it" had been voted on, when a major appropriations bill - the type of bill that actually funds the government - included the Hyde Amendment language within it.  That claim is clearly false.  

[henrygandorf 29194]

how does a thread get so slorch'd when he's not even here?

[Js1 85565]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

how does a thread get so slorch'd when he's not even here?

Fozz'd is a special level of trolling. 

[BradInATX 9208]

56 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Fozz'd is a special level of trolling. 

Don't know why anyone responds to him. He's awful.

[Fozzz 152]

This is a good exploration of Liz's support (well, at least up until five minutes ago) of charter schools.

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20486]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

Your claim was actually that neither the Hyde Amendment nor "anything close to it" had been voted on, when a major appropriations bill - the type of bill that actually funds the government - included the Hyde Amendment language within it.  That claim is clearly false.  

 

I knew that you would not be able to answer even after you said you would. 

Also,  I love how you just took my "anything close to it"  out of context. I'm beginning to see why you're not able to distinguish between my correcting your statement regarding Elizabeth Hyde's 2017 voting record with me 

Verbatim, I wrote: " I just read a list of every piece of legislation the Senate voted on in 2017 and there's nary a mention of the Hyde Amendment or anything close to it."

That is a true statement. You have said it's not but are unable to show me a link to the 2017 Hyde Amendment vote that you claimed she made.

It would be far easier to admit that you were wrong. 










 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Dude, everyone knows he is wrong. No need to feed the troll any more. 

[Fozzz 152]

8 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

I knew that you would not be able to answer even after you said you would. 

Also,  I love how you just took my "anything close to it"  out of context. I'm beginning to see why you're not able to distinguish between my correcting your statement regarding Elizabeth Hyde's 2017 voting record with me 

Verbatim, I wrote: " I just read a list of every piece of legislation the Senate voted on in 2017 and there's nary a mention of the Hyde Amendment or anything close to it."

That is a true statement. You have said it's not but are unable to show me a link to the 2017 Hyde Amendment vote that you claimed she made.

It would be far easier to admit that you were wrong. 










 

You never asked for a link.  Here is the pertinent sections of the appropriations bill Liz voted in support of:

Quote

(Sec. 506) Prohibits funds provided by this division or in any trust fund which received funds in this division from being used for: (1) abortions, or (2) health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

(Sec. 507) Provides an exception to the prohibition on funding for abortion if: (1) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or (2) a woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Prohibits funds provided by this division from being made available to a federal agency or program, or to a state or local government, if the agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6157?q={"search"%3A["hr+6157"]}&r=2&s=4

You do realize that the Hyde Amendment is a term used to describe the rider attached to appropriations bills to prevent federal funds authorized under those bills to go towards abortions?  It's not a stand alone law as Congress does not have the power to pass such a law.  

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12487]

41 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

Dude, everyone knows he is wrong. No need to feed the troll any more. 

 

If I understand his argument, it's that if you vote for an omnibus spending bill it can only be because you support everything in it, a point so patently stupid I can't believe anybody here would try to make it.

 

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

If I understand his argument, it's that if you vote for an omnibus spending bill it can only be because you support everything in it, a point so patently stupid I can't believe anybody here would try to make it.

 

I never said she supported the prohibitions included in the Hyde Amendment.  I merely asked why she was not questioned about her vote in that appropriations bill considering it included the Hyde Amendment.   It's a simple question and I don't know why it inspired such consternation itt.