Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Warren isn't what the left wants

Not what the data shows.

[bad_teammate 13567]

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Not what the data shows.

liberal ≠ left

Major, major differences, budderino.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Perhaps you can educate me? 

Id argue that people who self identify as liberal also self identify as left. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Perhaps you can educate me? 

Two very key questions.

- Should workers own the means of production?

- Should strong borders be enforced between nations?

The answers to those should be instructive vis-a-vis liberal or leftist.

[Fozzz 152]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Two very key questions.

- Should workers own the means of production?

- Should strong borders be enforced between nations?

The answers to those should be instructive vis-a-vis liberal or leftist.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/

[bad_teammate 13567]

There's a difference between a holistic political vision and the practical reality of policy within the system we have now. The choice, further, isn't simply "strong borders" or "open borders", but a larger vision of what nation-states even are when freed from the manipulation and immiseration of capitalism.

Is an ideal world one in which strong borders exist?

[BradInATX 9208]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

The pro-Warren mass media blitz continues. If the establishment powers have settled on her as the compromise candidate, she can build some very-difficult-to-beat momentum.

It's pretty patronizing that you attribute Warren's recent rise to the media somehow anointing her, vs. giving her credit for working her ass off to push out policy proposals on an almost daily basis, and using social media very effectively to get those ideas out in front of the world. 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Calling Elizabeth Warren a compromise candidate might be a good way to sell her but I, in no way, see her as a compromise candidate. 

I see her as, and this is an oxymoron, compassionately ruthless. 

Out of compassion for those that can’t fight for themselves, she is ruthless towards the ones oppressing them.   It’s subtle, and perhaps her being a woman masks it better but she is a ‘give-no-quarter’ kind of leader.  

How she went after Fox News after they invited her for a town hall was a good demonstration of this:

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13567]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

It's pretty patronizing that you attribute Warren's recent rise to the media somehow anointing her, vs. giving her credit for working her ass off to push out policy proposals on an almost daily basis, and using social media very effectively to get those ideas out in front of the world. 

- She isn't working harder than many of the other candidates. That's a false narrative and false narratives won't help us win the general.
- She isn't releasing policies on an "almost daily" basis. That's a false narrative and false narratives won't help us win the general.
- She isn't using social media more effectively than many of the other candidates. Again, that's a false narrative.

More relevant to her recent rise, she isn't working harder than she was in February when she was in 5th place. She isn't releasing better policies now than then (they've always been good because she's good). The change in her polling is not attributable to name recognition (people already knew who she was, she's been famous for years).

Look at the peaks in the 3rd->5th race over time in the polling.

The candidates have their moments in the sun with the media and they rise to 3rd and then fade as a new challenger gets their time in the sun. That isn't dismissing Warren, that's acknowledging the reality of what's been happening.

The fact that she's so good means she is far more likely to maintain this momentum than the previous beneficiaries of the media bump who aren't as good as her (Pete, Beto, Harris, et al).

[bad_teammate 13567]

Guys, "SHE DESERVES IT!" was a really bad idea in 2016 and you probably shouldn't do that again.

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- She isn't working harder than many of the other candidates. That's a false narrative and false narratives won't help us win the general.
- She isn't releasing policies on an "almost daily" basis. That's a false narrative and false narratives won't help us win the general.
- She isn't using social media more effectively than many of the other candidates. Again, that's a false narrative.

More relevant to her recent rise, she isn't working harder than she was in February when she was in 5th place. She isn't releasing better policies now than then (they've always been good because she's good). The change in her polling is not attributable to name recognition (people already knew who she was, she's been famous for years).

Look at the peaks in the 3rd->5th race over time in the polling.

The candidates have their moments in the sun with the media and they rise to 3rd and then fade as a new challenger gets their time in the sun. That isn't dismissing Warren, that's acknowledging the reality of what's been happening.

The fact that she's so good means she is far more likely to maintain this momentum than the previous beneficiaries of the media bump who aren't as good as her (Pete, Beto, Harris, et al).

I mean, I don't disagree with you that the media sort of cycles through candidates. They'll come around to the other ones too, as they keep turning their rolodex of 8 people or so. Eventually you flip back to where you started and so on.

But your implication that she's some sort of media darling and that's why she's rising, is a bit patronizing. How well did being the candidate du jour work out for Pete, Kamala, or Beto? Hell, even Biden and Bernie are struggling to maintain momentum when they're not up to bat.

I know she's threatening your boy, but it's a bad look to say "The pro-Warren mass media blitz continues. If the establishment powers have settled on her as the compromise candidate" as if Warren herself has nothing to do with it.

Edited June 24, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13567]

8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

But your implication that she's some sort of media darling and that's why she's rising, is a bit patronizing. How well did being the candidate du jour work out for Pete, Kamala, or Beto? Hell, even Biden and Bernie are struggling to maintain momentum when they're not up to bat.

Yes, that's the point. The media spotlight is extremely powerful when it comes to polling right now.

Saying that Elizabeth Warren is rising hard because the media is VERY positive with her right now isn't dismissing her intelligence, skill, and long-term viability as a candidate. It is nothing more than an accurate and evidence-based evaluation of polling trends.

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate than Pete/Kamala/Beto when she as in 5th place. The polls don't reflect the quality of a candidate, so you shouldn't be so invested in the idea that the polls are showing Warren rising because she earned it meritoriously. Fair ain't got nothing to do with polls and the polls aren't a meritocracy. They are a reflection of general attitudes, heavily tied to media narratives this early in the game.

Quote

I know she's threatening your boy, but it's a bad look to say "The pro-Warren mass media blitz continues. If the establishment powers have settled on her as the compromise candidate" as if Warren herself has nothing to do with it.

"The fact that she's so good means she is far more likely to maintain this momentum than the previous beneficiaries of the media bump who aren't as good as her (Pete, Beto, Harris, et al)."

You're not even reading what I write. You're just operating on hurt feelings.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The candidates have their moments in the sun with the media and they rise to 3rd and then fade as a new challenger gets their time in the sun. 

Until a legitimate movement comes along and weaponizes the media to their advantage at the right moment.  Then there’s no looking back. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13567]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Until a legitimate movement comes along weaponizes the media to their advantage at the right moment.  Then there’s no looking back. 

With Warren that's a distinct possibility, because she's great.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Guys, "SHE DESERVES IT!" was a really bad idea in 2016 and you probably shouldn't do that again.

I agree. That should also apply to another candidate from 2016 as well.

[BradInATX 9208]

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, that's the point. The media spotlight is extremely powerful when it comes to polling right now.

Saying that Elizabeth Warren is rising hard because the media is VERY positive with her right now isn't dismissing her intelligence, skill, and long-term viability as a candidate. It is nothing more than an accurate and evidence-based evaluation of polling trends.

Elizabeth Warren was a better candidate than Pete/Kamala/Beto when she as in 5th place. The polls don't reflect the quality of a candidate, so you shouldn't be so invested in the idea that the polls are showing Warren rising because she earned it meritoriously. Fair ain't got nothing to do with polls and the polls aren't a meritocracy. They are a reflection of general attitudes, heavily tied to media narratives this early in the game.

"The fact that she's so good means she is far more likely to maintain this momentum than the previous beneficiaries of the media bump who aren't as good as her (Pete, Beto, Harris, et al)."

You're not even reading what I write. You're just operating on hurt feelings.

LOL. Does your gaslighting work on people in real life? Because nobody here is buying it. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

Here is Elizabeth Warren's calculator for student debt cancellation.

Go play with it for a while to see how different situations would play out.

Then ask yourself, "Wait... why are we making this so complicated?"

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Here is Elizabeth Warren's calculator for student debt cancellation.

Go play with it for a while to see how different situations would play out.

Then ask yourself, "Wait... why are we making this so complicated?"

Seems really simple actually. 

I don’t have student loan debt but I pretended I had $150,000 in outstanding student loans and made 35k per year.  Warren’s plan would wipe out 50k. 

Maybe I should take out a student loan and donate it to the Warren campaign. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

Between the Warren and Sanders student debt plans, which one do you think is better and why?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Between the Warren and Sanders student debt plans, which one do you think is better and why?

Bernie’s plan is more idealistic, I think Warren’s plan has a better shot at becoming a reality. 

This is a common reason I prefer Warren to Sanders.  She has the leadership skills and pragmatism needed to implement her plans.

As opposed to Bernie who expects people to rise up and mobilize against the government if his plans aren’t implemented. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie’s plan is more idealistic, I think Warren’s plan has a better shot at becoming a reality. 

Can you explain why hers has a better shot? Do you think Republicans will like it and vote for it?

Quote

She has the leadership skills and pragmatism needed to implement her plans.

Do you have anything to point to, specifically, that leads you to this belief?

[bad_teammate 13567]

(Also, you didn't actually talk about the policies, but the people, but that's kind of how this always goes.)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you have anything to point to, specifically, that leads you to this belief?

Yes, she is a democrat.  She plays inside the system and tries to bend it to her will.  She can be a team player to get shit done. 

As opposed to Bernard who all, “Fuck this bullshit, we need a revolution!” 

[Biff Tannen 46203]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

As opposed to Bernie who expects people to rise up and mobilize against the government if his plans aren’t implemented. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yes, she is a democrat.  She plays inside the system and tries to bend it to her will.  She can be a team player to get shit done. 

This sounds like some very familiar catchphrases.

Do you have anything specific you can point to?

[bad_teammate 13567]

But back to policy, which I know you're allergic to...

- What is the purpose of limiting the forgiveness to $50k?
- What is the purpose of means-testing?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Not playing this game where you keep begging the questions. 

Bernie’s plan is objectively better but I still think he’s a benevolent con man that wouldn’t be able to deliver as a president.  He has too many enemies.

I didn’t want to go there but you kinda pushed me. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13567]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie’s plan is objectively better...

How is it better than Warren's?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Your troll game is strong today.  Getting me to fluff Bernie in the Warren thread.  Very clever. 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[bad_teammate 13567]

Hugo: "Bernie’s plan is more idealistic, I think Warren’s plan has a better shot at becoming a reality." 

Elizabeth Warren: "When a candidate tells you about all the things that aren’t possible, about how political calculations come first, they’re telling you something very important. They’re telling you that they will not fight for you."

lol

Elizabeth Warren is good. Hugo, my friend, you are the one who sucks.

You're getting confused.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Don’t hurt my feelings. 

[bad_teammate 13567]

My fear is that bad influences like Third Way and center-right babies (i.e., you) are going to ruin Warren. She can't let people like you and the corporatists get close. Y'all are brain diseased.

I will talk to the Bros about creating a protective ring around her.

[BradInATX 9208]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

My fear is that bad influences like Third Way and center-right babies (i.e., you) are going to ruin Warren. She can't let people like you and the corporatists get close. Y'all are brain diseased.

I will talk to the Bros about creating a protective ring around her.

She's already a Republican plant. You think she just suddenly changed from one of us to one of you? I've shifted all my entire portfolio to private prisons in anticipation of her inauguration. Well at least the 10% or so that wasn't already there.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by BradInATX

[6th Street 6702]

So everyone that's aggressively paying down student debt gets fucked. Is that what qualifies as good policy these days? 

[bad_teammate 13567]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

She's already a Republican plant. You think she just suddenly changed from one of us to one of you?

I know what you're doing, Satan, and it won't work!

Just now, 6th Street said:

So everyone that's aggressively paying down student debt gets fucked. Is that what qualifies as good policy these days? 

I am laughing because this is a funny imitation of someone making a really bad argument.

Good one

[bad_teammate 13567]

Liz's story is great and would clean up among female voters. There are millions and millions of older women who had to grow up facing the same choice and the same shame.

 

[David Dennison 19569]

1 hour ago, 6th Street said:

So everyone that's aggressively paying down student debt gets fucked. Is that what qualifies as good policy these days? 

No, you get your debt forgiven too. That's the opposite of getting fucked.

[horncyclist 1391]

What's the plan going forward? We forgive $1.6 trillion in debt every few years?

Edited June 24, 2019 by horncyclist

[David Dennison 19569]

2 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

What's the plan going forward? We forgive $1.6 trillion in debt every few years?

Should we do it for students now or banks later?

Tough question.

[horncyclist 1391]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Should we do it for students now or banks later?

Tough question.

It's different than the bank bailout. Theres not currently a systemic risk of failure for one, at least for noe. It just seems like a half baked proposal. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13567]

4 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

What's the plan going forward? We forgive $1.6 trillion in debt every few years?

The plan going forward is to make all public education institutions (trade, 2-year, 4-year, post-grad) tuition-free.

As for the private side, UNFORTUNATELY private schools will still be legal, so I'm sure there will be someone happy to loan Becky $150k to get a degree from SMU. Hopefully not secured with tax money.

[David Dennison 19569]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

It's different than the bank bailout. Theres not currently a systemic risk of failure for one, at least for noe. It just seems like a half baked proposal. 

Putting more money in the hands of consumers in a capitalist economy is a half baked proposal?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

What is the reason for including high-earning professionals in the loan forgiveness?  

[bad_teammate 13567]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Putting more money in the hands of consumers in a capitalist economy is a half baked proposal?

I'm going to need some charts, graphs, and slide-rules to buy this nonsense.

[David Dennison 19569]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

What is the reason for including high-earning professionals in the loan forgiveness?  

The same reason that we include the rich in Social Security and Medicare. When you limit entitlements, you make them easier to eliminate.

[henrygandorf 29229]

32 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, you get your debt forgiven too. That's the opposite of getting fucked.

think you might’ve misunderstood his question there. 

[David Dennison 19569]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

think you might’ve misunderstood his question there. 

What is the question?

[bad_teammate 13567]

4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

What is the reason for including high-earning professionals in the loan forgiveness?  

don't make me come over there

*waggles broom at u*

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The same reason that we include the rich in Social Security and Medicare. When you limit entitlements, you make them easier to eliminate.

Isn't this just a one-time payout?   If so, what ongoing entitlement would there be to eliminate?