Elizabeth Warren 2020

[bad_teammate 13,567]

US: *withdraws from the Iran nuclear deal in May of 2018*

Iran: "OK we're going to do nuclear stuff."

US:

 

[bad_teammate 13,567]

Trump provoked this crisis by sanctioning Iran which was approved in Congress and voted FOR by

*checks notes*

Elizabeth Warren

 

lol

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Yeah, Elizabeth Warren has no one to blame but herself for Trump starting a war with Iran.  

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

23 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not if Warren bleeds Bernie’s support dry. That isn’t going to help Putin at all. 

Very very misogynist

[bad_teammate 13,567]

Apologies in advance to the following crowds:
1 - Those who believe that a critical understanding of all candidates is bad
2 - Those who think the past, even a few years back, means nothing

As we prepare for the dumbest and most insane war we have perhaps ever adventured as a nation, let's look at some of Elizabeth Warren's foreign policy. The overall takeaway is that her move left was clearly in preparation for this presidential run. This is, after all, someone who saw fit to remain a Republican throughout the 1980s.

-----------------------------------------------------------

lizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu (The Intercept, 08/2014)

The last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.

One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . .  The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”

But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.

Warren even rejected a different voter’s suggestion that the U.S. force Israel to at least cease building illegal settlements by withholding further aid: “Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, ‘I think there’s a question of whether we should go that far.'”

-----------------------------------------------------------

Iran War Politics: Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Defense Secretary In Hawkish Talk, Bob Kerrey Calls Attack ‘Disaster’ (Huffington Post - 04/2012)

Two of the nation’s most high-profile Democratic candidates for Senate seats have parted ways over U.S. policy on Iran, which is a top national security issue this election year.

Bob Kerrey, a former U.S. Navy SEAL and two-term senator from Nebraska who is running to win back his former seat, released an ad on Tuesday strongly opposing an attack on Iran, which he said would be “a disaster.”

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senate hopeful in Massachusetts, came under fire for a hawkish statement on Iran that contradicts intelligence assertions by senior U.S. defense officials.

Warren’s campaign website features a policy statement declaring that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons” and “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world.”

The statement continues, “The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.”

Warren’s claim that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons” is especially notable because it contradicts public statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as reported intelligence findings of the U.S. and Israeli governments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

For fans of US imperialism this isn't a big deal, but for those of us against it... not a good look.

[Fozzz 152]

Liz is incredibly racist when it comes to her analysis of Palestine.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Apologies in advance to the following crowds:
1 - Those who believe that a critical understanding of all candidates is bad
2 - Those who think the past, even a few years back, means nothing

As we prepare for the dumbest and most insane war we have perhaps ever adventured as a nation, let's look at some of Elizabeth Warren's foreign policy. The overall takeaway is that her move left was clearly in preparation for this presidential run. This is, after all, someone who saw fit to remain a Republican throughout the 1980s.

-----------------------------------------------------------

lizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu (The Intercept, 08/2014)

The last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.

One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . .  The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”

But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.

Warren even rejected a different voter’s suggestion that the U.S. force Israel to at least cease building illegal settlements by withholding further aid: “Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, ‘I think there’s a question of whether we should go that far.'”

-----------------------------------------------------------

Iran War Politics: Elizabeth Warren Contradicts Defense Secretary In Hawkish Talk, Bob Kerrey Calls Attack ‘Disaster’ (Huffington Post - 04/2012)

Two of the nation’s most high-profile Democratic candidates for Senate seats have parted ways over U.S. policy on Iran, which is a top national security issue this election year.

Bob Kerrey, a former U.S. Navy SEAL and two-term senator from Nebraska who is running to win back his former seat, released an ad on Tuesday strongly opposing an attack on Iran, which he said would be “a disaster.”

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic Senate hopeful in Massachusetts, came under fire for a hawkish statement on Iran that contradicts intelligence assertions by senior U.S. defense officials.

Warren’s campaign website features a policy statement declaring that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons” and “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable because a nuclear Iran would be a threat to the United States, our allies, the region, and the world.”

The statement continues, “The United States must take the necessary steps to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well. Iran must not have an escape hatch.”

Warren’s claim that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons” is especially notable because it contradicts public statements by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as well as reported intelligence findings of the U.S. and Israeli governments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

For fans of US imperialism this isn't a big deal, but for those of us against it... not a good look.

Your shtick is hilarious.  So Warren wanted to keep nukes out of Iran and condemned Hammas for attacking Israel? 

The horror. 

[BradInATX 9,208]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Your shtick is hilarious.  So Warren wanted to keep nukes out of Iran and condemned Hammas for attacking Israel? 

The horror. 

He once criticized Bernie though, so he's very clearly an impartial good faith actor.

[Fozzz 152]

Poor Israel, located in a very dangerous part of the world surrounded by blood thirsty savages.  Poor Israelis, being outbred and replaced by those barbaric Palestinians.  It's practically a white genocide over there.

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Your shtick is hilarious.  So Warren wanted to keep nukes out of Iran and condemned Hammas for attacking Israel? 

The horror. 

There is no real evidence that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program.  

[bad_teammate 13,567]

19 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Poor Israel, located in a very dangerous part of the world surrounded by blood thirsty savages.  Poor Israelis, being outbred and replaced by those barbaric Palestinians.  It's practically a white genocide over there.

Well in another thread Hugo said the dirty Arabs were incapable of democracy, so ... yeah.

Edited June 19, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13,567]

20 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

He once criticized Bernie though, so he's very clearly an impartial good faith actor.

Can't play the ball, so endlessly play the man.

pathetic

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Well in another thread Hugo said the dirty Arabs were incapable of democracy, so ... yeah.

That's not what I said.  I said it usually doesn't work well.  Every society is capable of democracy. 

[bad_teammate 13,567]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That's not what I said.  I said it usually doesn't work well.  Every society is capable of democracy. 

It's exactly what you said.

Democracy doesn’t work in the Middle East well because religion gets in the way too much.  They’ll elect a Muslim cleric and boom, full blown theocratic authoritarianism. 

There's no usually there and the second sentence is an absolute "they will".

It's OK, bud, most of your fellow centrists agree with you about the ignorance and incorrigibility of the mud races.

[bad_teammate 13,567]

Me, a citizen of a nation with Donald Trump as president: "Well you see, my friend, it's all down to the cranial morphology of the Arabian. Their brow ridge simply can't allow progressive thought..."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Doesn't work well doesn't mean incapable. 

Your troll game is strong though. 

[bad_teammate 13,567]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Doesn't work well doesn't mean incapable. 

Shut the fuck up.

[BradInATX 9,208]

Can't play the ball, so endlessly play the man.
pathetic

How many times have you resorted to calling people shitlibs or Republicans because you have nothing real to say? I've lost count.

Every accusation a confession and whatnot. Carry on.

[bad_teammate 13,567]

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

I don't see anything in that quote from Hugo that ascribes any inherent qualities to any race.   Culture plays a huge role in how successful democracy can be.   Russia is full of white people who otherwise could have had a real democracy but fell right back into autocracy.  There are plenty of people in all of these countries who want and would flourish in democracy, but arguably not a critical mass to actually let it happen.  And Trump has proven that the critical mass in America had greatly eroded; 40% of voters would gladly follow him down that path.  Institutions only work to the extent enough people accept their legitimacy and value. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13,567]

"I'm not racist, I'm a cultural supremacist" is literally the Richard Spencer/Proud Boy path, so maybe rethink that.

The Middle East is not lacking in democracy because of anything to do with the race or culture (the latter being, significantly, a manifestation of the former) of the people there.

 

[Anastasis 23,717]

Just amazing. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Just amazing. 

Yeah, watching BT melt as Liz overtakes Bernard is pretty incredible. 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"I'm not racist, I'm a cultural supremacist" is literally the Richard Spencer/Proud Boy path, so maybe rethink that.

The Middle East is not lacking in democracy because of anything to do with the race or culture (the latter being, significantly, a manifestation of the former) of the people there.

 

Nobody but you said anything about supremacy.   I don't think there's anything superior about a culture that has the collective will to maintain democracy.   

[bad_teammate 13,567]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Nobody but you said anything about supremacy.   I don't think there's anything superior about a culture that has the collective will to maintain democracy.   

Making it an issue of "the collective will" is absolutely a supremacist position, because it makes the issue a matter of the internal character of the race/culture and not the true matter of international power and economic dynamics. There is no "Middle East" culture.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Making it an issue of "the collective will" is absolutely a supremacist position, because it makes the issue a matter of the internal character of the race/culture and not the true matter of international power and economic dynamics. There is no "Middle East" culture.

It absolutely is not, unless I ascribe a moral value to one choice or the other, which I am not.  You're the one doing that by arguing for the objective superiority of democracy.   Nor is arguing that the success of democracy depends on the society in which it is implemented equivalent to arguing that there is one "Middle East culture."   Total straw man. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13,567]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

It absolutely is not, unless I ascribe a moral value to one choice or the other, which I am not.  You're the one doing that by arguing for the objective superiority of democracy.   Nor is arguing that the success of democracy depends on the society in which it is implemened equivalent to arguing that there is a "Middle East culture."   Total straw man. 

You wouldn't make that argument? Sincerely? You would honestly contend that theocratic authoritarianism is morally and ethically equivalent to liberal democracy? Wow.

I took it as a given that we would deem theocratic authoritarianism as inferior. Shows what an asshole I am to make assumptions.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You wouldn't make that argument? Sincerely? You would honestly contend that theocratic authoritarianism is morally and ethically equivalent to liberal democracy? Wow.

I took it as a given that we would deem theocratic authoritarianism as inferior. Shows what an asshole I am to make assumptions.

No.  I think it's objectively superior that each individual choose what form of government they want to live under, but I don't necessarily think my preference for democracy is objectively superior to someone who prefers a different form of government.  In some specific applications, sure, but democracy can be as tyrannical as anything else, which is why our country has many anti-democratic measures in place to thwart the majority.   And even those measures only work to the extent that our society lets them; we are currently in an existential crisis that could lead us into autocracy.  And as much as I love our Constitution, our democracy has also led to many awful things. 

Cultures differ.  Some are highly individualistic, some are highly collectivist, with a broad spectrum in between.   Each has a different history that humans, who are all fundamentally the same, respond to in different ways.   While there are basic human rights that the US must defend around the world, I absolutely do not think we should be approaching foreign policy from the perspective that democracy should be imposed in every other country.  And I'm surprised to hear that you fall into the (typically war-mongering) group that does think so. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[bad_teammate 13,567]

50 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

No.  I think it's objectively superior that each individual choose what form of government they want to live under, but I don't necessarily think my preference for democracy is objectively superior to someone who prefers a different form of government. 

Which is only possible in democracy.

How does a citizen, or even a majority of citizens, express a preference for democracy in an authoritarian theocracy?

Quote

Cultures differ. 

So?

The "politics is downstream of culture" view is literally Breitbart logic.

There is interplay between politics and culture, but governments do not form from or maintain due to the dominant culture of a people. Governments form because of power dynamics.

Looking at people in a theocratic authoritarianism and saying, "Oh they just like that, it's their culture" IS the exact supremacist attitude I'm talking about. It's White Man's Burden without any of the feeling of obligation. (A common problem with modern conservatism is that at least old conservatism had the "oblige" part of "noblesse oblige", that's been abandoned.)

Quote

While there are basic human rights that the US must defend around the world, I absolutely do not think we should be approaching foreign policy from the perspective that democracy should be imposed in every other country.  And I'm surprised to hear that you fall into the (typically war-mongering) group that does think so. 

When did I say that we should impose democracy or anything like it? Bad troll job, my friend.

#DoBetter

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

This is actually a good pod cast to listen to on the reg if you're into the Russia investigation and rising global authoritarianism.

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which is only possible in democracy.

How does a citizen, or even a majority of citizens, express a preference for democracy in an authoritarian theocracy?

So?

The "politics is downstream of culture" view is literally Breitbart logic.

There is interplay between politics and culture, but governments do not form from or maintain due to the dominant culture of a people. Governments form because of power dynamics.

Looking at people in a theocratic authoritarianism and saying, "Oh they just like that, it's their culture" IS the exact supremacist attitude I'm talking about. It's White Man's Burden without any of the feeling of obligation. (A common problem with modern conservatism is that at least old conservatism had the "oblige" part of "noblesse oblige", that's been abandoned.)

When did I say that we should impose democracy or anything like it? Bad troll job, my friend.

#DoBetter

No, a bad troll job is poorly paraphrasing an argument and rejecting it by lumping it in with what the proud boys or Breitbart or some other assholes say.   A good hint you might be doing that is making up quotations that were not said by me or anyone else on this thread. 

It's entirely possible for people to choose a non-democratic form of government if they are free to leave and move to a different country.   Freedom of movement is one of the basic human rights I referenced.   A majority of citizens can also do it within the country by deposing the leader, as has been done throughout history.

And plenty of people don't want to participate in self-government.   Even in America, more than half of adults don't vote unless it's a presidential election, in which case 40% still don't.  And 60+ million of the ones who do vote chose a wanna-be authoritarian in 2016.   It's not what I want for myself or my country, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think a sizeable chunk of humanity just wants a quiet life with someone else making all of the big societal decisions for them, especially if it's in line with what they would have chosen. 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[David Dennison 19,569]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which is only possible in democracy.

How does a citizen, or even a majority of citizens, express a preference for democracy in an authoritarian theocracy?

With violence.

[bad_teammate 13,567]

31 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's entirely possible for people to choose a non-democratic form of government if they are free to leave and move to a different country.   Freedom of movement is one of the basic human rights I referenced.

How are they free to leave if it's an authoritarian theocracy?

Why are you twisting yourself into knots to avoid saying that liberal democracy is superior to theocratic authoritarianism? It's fucking bizarre.

Quote

And plenty of people don't want to participate in self-government.

Sure, and in a liberal democracy they are free not to. Just as they are free to live as if in theocratic authoritarianism inside of a liberal democracy.

Which is why liberal democracy is better.

What the fuck planet am I on?

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How are they free to leave if it's an authoritarian theocracy?

Why are you twisting yourself into knots to avoid saying that liberal democracy is superior to theocratic authoritarianism? It's fucking bizarre.

Sure, and in a liberal democracy they are free not to. Just as they are free to live as if in theocratic authoritarianism inside of a liberal democracy.

Which is why liberal democracy is better.

What the fuck planet am I on?

Sigh.  OK. 

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

On 6/17/2019 at 2:10 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

From the article:

 

“There’s a concerted effort to equate Warren with Bernie, to make her seem more radical,” says Luigi Zingales, a University of Chicago economist and co-host of the podcast Capitalisn’t. But Wall Street and its allies “are more afraid of her than Bernie,” Zingales continued, “because when she says she’ll change the rules, she’s the one who knows how to do it.”

Great quote.  I fully believe this.  

[Huckleberry 34,749]

On 6/14/2019 at 10:19 PM, bad_teammate said:

electability is a myth and policy-through-compromise is another

Agreed

glad to have you on board

Ha, I've always been on that train, sir. The fact that you and I differ on numerous principles doesn't mean we can't both recognize this problem. 

As long as the people discussing politics have sincerely held beliefs and approach things from that perspective then the debate can be fruitful and even educational. As soon as the discussion veers off course into electability and political compromise for policy purposes it's gone from discussing social benefit and instead it's more about game theory and Go! Team! Go!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

But when respondents were asked to choose which candidate they preferred to automatically make president, 21 percent pointed to Warren, while 19 percent each tapped Biden and Sanders.

That’s notable because it underscores the gulf between Warren’s perceived electability and her appeal to Democratic voters. It also suggests that, while Biden may be leading the horse race, voters don’t necessarily see him as their president of choice.

[bad_teammate 13,567]

This is a shit answer on the #1 most important issue.

But it's the same shit answer that 23 of the candidates give, so no one really cares.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I think that answer cuts right to the problem with healthcare.  Cost. 

It doesn’t matter if the government or the private sector is buying, we are getting robbed blind on what we pay for healthcare.   I want single payer/universal healthcare as much as anyone but the system needs structural change too. 

[bad_teammate 13,567]

26 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think that answer cuts right to the problem with healthcare.  Cost. 

30 million uninsured Americans is a much bigger problem than cost.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

30 million uninsured Americans is a much bigger problem than cost.

Perhaps maybe they are uninsured because the cost is too high?  Just spitballing here.

[bad_teammate 13,567]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps maybe they are uninsured because the cost is too high?  Just spitballing here.

It's certainly one of the problems, my center-right friend, but market regulation schemes don't guarantee coverage for everyone.

45% of uninsured people say high cost is the reason

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Saying you’re for Medicare for All as a candidate is easy to do.  

What is not easy to do is explain what that would look like and how it would work to provide quality and accessible fairly priced healthcare for everyone. 

In my opinion we should look to some of the successful European healthcare models as a guide to remodeling our healthcare system.  

[bad_teammate 13,567]

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Saying you’re for Medicare for All as a candidate is easy to do.

Very true. You can say, "We are going to give Medicare to every single American." and then promote the existing legislation like the bill in the Senate and the bill in the House.

It's filed legislation. Warren is even a co-sponsor of the Senate bill.

Very easy. She should go ahead and just do it.

Can you explain why she would co-sponsor the bill and then not endorse it or promote it as part of her presidential campaign? Hmm.

Quote

What is not easy to do is explain what that would look like and how it would work to provide quality and accessible fairly priced healthcare for everyone. 

No it's really easy you just point to the existing legislation you've already co-sponsored. Just do that.

Bing bong. So simple.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you explain why she would co-sponsor the bill and then not endorse it or promote it as part of her presidential campaign? Hmm.

I dunno, maybe she has a plan for that?  Maybe she sees our broken healthcare system as a symptom of a much larger problem in our society.  

Maybe her plans such as ending corporate lobbying and influence on the judicial and legislative branches of government need more promotion to pave the way for a good single payer system?

Until she shows her full hand on healthcare, you should keep pushing this because it is a very important voting issue.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13,567]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I dunno, maybe she has a plan for that?

It would be better if you knew and it wasn't a maybe.

Quote

Maybe her plans such as ending corporate lobbying and influence on the judicial and legislative branches of government need more promotion to pave the way for a good single payer system.  

What does "pave the way" mean in this context?

What is the threshhold of corruption that needs to be met for the implementation of "a good single payer system"?

Quote

Until she shows her full hand on healthcare, you should keep pushing this because it is a very important voting issue.

Do you think she should "show her full hand on healthcare"? If so, when? If not, why not?

Is it fair to characterize Warren as the smart, plan-oriented candidate when she doesn't actually have a plan on the issue most important to voters?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

What makes you think Elizabeth Warren isn’t for universal healthcare?  

Because she hasn’t pushed the issue in her rhetoric enough on the campaign trail?  

Who does she need to sell on single payer healthcare that isn’t already supportive?  

Does she need to mirror Bernie Sanders to win or should Bernie Sanders consider mirroring Elizabeth Warren? 

Your line of criticism here doesn’t seem to be in the best of faith. 

[bad_teammate 13,567]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What makes you think Elizabeth Warren isn’t for universal healthcare?  

I think she wants universal healthcare, but the fact that she isn't promoting it in her "I have a plan for that!" campaign messaging movement makes me wonder what's going on.

Quote

Because she hasn’t pushed the issue in her rhetoric enough on the campaign trail?  

Yes, obviously.

Quote

 Who does she need to sell on single payer healthcare that isn’t already supportive?  

Third Way, CAP, centrists, corporate Democrats. The powerful people who are literally, out in the open, saying that they are warming to her because at least she isn't promoting Medicare for All. Those people.

Quote

Does she need to mirror Bernie Sanders to win or should Bernie Sanders consider mirroring Elizabeth Warren? 

Why are you bringing up Bernie? Why can't you have a conversation about this stuff without trying to turn it into an argument about personalities? It's pathetic.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Democrats, ya gotta believe in Elizabeth Warren to get her elected

By Jess McIntosh

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/opinions/elizabeth-warren-mcintosh/index.html

 

“She is doing this by painting a picture of a post-Trump America that actually addresses the issues that got us Donald Trump in the first place.

The Democratic party is engaged in a debate that loosely pits socialism against capitalism: Warren falls under the capitalist banner. But her approach there is both canny and grounded. 

By focusing on the financial pressures of motherhood that keep women from earning up to their potential, for example, she's recognizing that American capitalism is dependent on women performing the unpaid labor of child bearing and rearing. And by proposing policies squarely aimed at reducing the racial wealth gap,she's demonstrating an understanding that our capitalist economy was built on the exploitation of black labor and generations of discrimination against black and brown Americans. 

So, when Warren talks about reordering the economy to benefit the workers, she's talking about making it work for people whose challenges it has never truly considered. 

That resonates with the women who leave millions on the table because their time and labor is required to raise the next generation. It resonates with black people who work even harder than their white peers but can't crawl out of debt and build their net worth without the generational wealth that's been stolen through centuries of slavery and discrimination.

It resonates with young people who know that student debt and the rise of the low-pay, no-security gig economy means they won't be financially solvent for at least a decade, maybe more. 

Now it seems the biggest hurdle Warren faces is literally in the minds of Democratic voters -- it is "perceived electability." Democratic voters overwhelmingly rate beating Trump as extremely important in 2020, and are more likely to choose a candidate they believe can do it. 

As of today, the week before the first debate, Elizabeth Warren is capturing the heart of the Democratic party. A pair of recent polls show Warren's rise is the newest trend to shake up the Democratic pack. But those who have warmed to her still don't seem to believe their neighbors will warm to her enough to vote for her, too. 

The problem with this thinking is that we are notoriously bad at predicting this far out who we're going to elect. There was so much love for Barack Obama in 2008 -- but it wasn't until largely white Iowa voters declared en masse that they would in fact vote for him that many Democrats (including prominent black Americans) felt comfortable being open in their support. Once they perceived that Obama was electable, they did the work of getting him elected. 

Elizabeth Warren spent the first six months of her candidacy issuing bold policy declarations, making calls to individual voters, sharing her compelling hardscrabble personal story, and electrifying crowds by having a plan. She's convinced a healthy amount of the electorate that she's the person they want to see sworn in when this is all over. If those people start to believe that the support she enjoys is a strength -- and could mean she's their best chance to win the whole thing, then we might have a new Democratic frontrunner.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz