Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

NWBuck
NWBuck

Someday I'll forgive the ignorant mofos who voted for anyone other than her during the primaries.  But that day is not gonna be anytime soon. 

LowPressure
LowPressure
BrickHorn
BrickHorn

The Most Pampered Generation was gifted a cheap education.  Then they voted to dismantle the system that made their own success possible and compiled wealth from lower taxes due in part to reduced gov

Posted Images

Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“I have a plan for that” is kinda perfect juxtaposed against Trump who has no plans. 

I think it can only go so far and has probably reached it's peak.  Everyone knows by now that she's competent and wonky; she needs to convey her vision and leadership.   The best slogan I've seen from her is the one on her RV.  I wouldn't have thought it would work, but it looked great visually IMO:

 

Edited by Mojo Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85450

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

“I have a plan for that” is kinda perfect juxtaposed against Trump who has no plans. 

The regarded American electorate doesn’t have time to listen to plans. They’re too dumb to get it. She’s already winning and going to win the smarties. But now you gotta appeal to the dummies. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can’t believe we’re debating slogans.   

No tax returns, no re-election. 

I don’t play golf

Dump Trump

Win with Warren 

Obviously won't be an actual campaign slogan but "I don't play golf" would be a great line to repeat over and over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted

People... on the Internet.... say mean things!?

One of the most nefarious aspects of the Bernie Bros is all the hate mail/messages they send to Bernie folks like David Sirota, Nina Turner, and Bri Gray. Their harassment genetics are so uniquely terrible that they terrorize their own!

Or maybe that's the nature of injecting yourself into the middle of a contentious primary and then, for some reason, taking criticism of your organization as personal criticism.

Nah, that can't be it.

1) Don't write angry messages to organizations like that on the Internet, it's pointless.
2) If someone says, "I hate your company and what they did", they aren't talking about you, personally. They don't know who you are or ever care to find out who you are. Stop making everything about you.

(And yes, this also applies to David Sirota who cries while cleaning out his fish tanks because people DM him hate message and death threats and has to post "why is the world so cruel!?!?" every week or so on Twitter. That's how it goes when you decide to involve yourself in this. Do the normal thing and develop alcoholism, ruin your marriage by having an affair with another depressed alcoholic, and then write a tell-all book 20 years later that 12 people will read. Come on, people, we worked this out years ago.)

Most importantly though... has the WFP released the membership/leadership vote breakdown yet? If not, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

the hate mail/messages they send to Bernie folks like David Sirota, Nina Turner, and Bri Gray. 

It would help if these folks didn’t behave like twitter trolls from time to time.  

ETA: Dammit, we’re talking about Bernie in the Warren thread again.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45695

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Honestly this situation confuses me and I'll assume her M4A plan is the same as Bernie's. 

Middle class taxes would be raised, but their would be practically no cost out of pocket, meaning that it would still save money for the middle class. Is that right? 

 

That is my understanding.  I don't see why she won't just say it.  It's not a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It would help if these folks didn’t behave like twitter trolls from time to time. 

Bri is a ball of sunshine and Nina barely Tweets. You have a phantom demon "Bernie Bro" in your head and you just assume all of these people are the same. And you have a massive double standard of whining about attacks coming from Bernie loyalists but not caring at all about attacks going towards Bernie loyalists. I don't really care about it either way (which is why you never see me saying, "I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS NASTY THING A KAMALA SUPPORTER SAID ABOUT BRI!"); you should develop a consistent moral standard and not just treat it like team sports.

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:
Honestly this situation confuses me and I'll assume her M4A plan is the same as Bernie's. 

Middle class taxes would be raised, but their would be practically no cost out of pocket, meaning that it would still save money for the middle class. Is that right?

Yes, and she needs to own it boldly and bravely. Because the alternative is killing vulnerable people because it's politically dangerous to say, "yes, we are going to raise some taxes."

Something like this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted

The insurance industry is going to go just as hard against medicare option plans as they are M4A. We cannot sneak our way into universal healthcare. They are going to spend hundreds of millions against every single proposal. There's no Giant Brain 4D Chess scheme that avoids a fight.

We have to fight. We have to speak clearly and confidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That is my understanding.  I don't see why she won't just say it.  It's not a bad thing.

Because it’s a misleading/deceptive question that presumes the current cost of healthcare coverage to Americans is $0.  In reality Americans are currently getting robbed to pay for basic healthcare services.  MFA reduces the cost burdens for Americans, which is the whole fucking point.  Framing it as a tax question isn’t looking at the whole picture.  No one asks republicans if middle class taxes are going to go up to increase defense spending, build a space force, or a dumbass wall.  

No, only for the basic human right of healthcare are democrats asked about middle class tax increases.  It’s bullshit designed to elicit a sound byte and Elizabeth Warren won’t give them the satisfaction.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20992

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because it’s a misleading/deceptive question that presumes the current cost of healthcare coverage to Americans is $0.  In reality Americans are currently getting robbed to pay for basic healthcare services.  MFA reduces the cost burdens for Americans, which is the whole fucking point.  Framing it as a tax question isn’t looking at the whole picture.  No one asks republicans if middle class taxes are going to go up to increase defense spending, build a space force, or a dumbass wall.  

No, only for the basic human right of healthcare are democrats asked about middle class tax increases.  It’s bullshit design to illicit a sound byte and Elizabeth Warren won’t give them the satisfaction.  

It's just math. Show it and people will understand.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Because it’s a misleading/deceptive question that presumes the current cost of healthcare coverage to Americans is $0.  

This is true, and it's a perfect opportunity for good candidates (Warren, Sanders) to point that out and shame the media who are perpetuating that deception.

A good answer is, "Stephen, your questions are built on right-wing, healthcare-industry-lobbyist talking points that are designed to ignore the overall savings. Your network is owned by billionaires with massive investments and friendships with other billionaires who are dedicated to destroying any progress for working people to protect their profits. We will pay for it by paying less in additional taxes than we pay now in premiums and co-pays. Medicare for All will end all premiums and co-pays. No American will ever have to pay a premium again to a private insurance company. They will never have to pay a co-pay at the doctor. They will never be told by a doctor, 'I took your old employer-provided insurance, but I can't take your new employer-provided insurance. Some will see a rise in taxes that is lighter than the burden we are going to take off their backs."

Go on the offensive. Don't play defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It's just math. Show it and people will understand.  

Perhaps there’s a possibility taxes don’t go up for the middle class.  It depends how you decide to allocate spending and exactly who and how much you intend to tax.  She hasn’t released a specific healthcare plan yet but on a philosophical level, she’s already in the minority among the candidates as far as supporting and defending MFA.

 If it’s a dealbreaker to you that she explain the nuts and bolts of how it exactly gets paid for, you’re either getting played or not really coming at this in the best of faith, comparatively speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted

It will certainly require a rise in taxes. The overall burden on working people will be HEAVILY reduced. The specific details of exactly-to-the-dime which taxes will have to be raised is something to be worked out politically, but working people will pay LESS in additional taxes than they do now in premiums, co-pays, and out-of-pocket expenses.

The heaviest part of the additional tax burden will fall on the Top 10% of earners. Meanwhile, the 90% will be paying far less.

If you want to see the current proposed M4A financing options, those are available to people who want to dig deep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11344

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

BuT HoW aRe YoU gOiNiNg To PaY fOr It?!?! 

It's a legitimate question, Hugo, and one that's on, or will be on, almost every voter's mind.  She needs to own it and explain how it's actually going to be less expensive than what they pay today.

Say something like, "the middle class is already being taxed for healthcare.  If you have have private insurance through your employer, they take a monthly deduction from your paycheck.  Under my plan, that goes away, and any tax increase that may come with universal healthcare will be less than what you spend now, so it will be a net savings to the middle class."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

She has explained it better when not framed as a sound byte bait question.  

At her Los Angeles rally, and I’m paraphrasing here, she explained that we’re all going to pitch in a little bit of money so no one has to go broke if they get sick.  No one will have to choose between getting the medical care they need or putting food on the table. No one will have to go bankrupt just to stay alive. 

If you can’t accept that answer, perhaps a different candidate is right for you.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11344

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She has explained it better when not framed as a sound byte bait question.  

She's running for president...soundbite bait is the name of the game.  The average voter isn't going to wade through her proposals and watch long form interviews.  They get their news at 6 o'clock while cooking, or eating dinner.

Edited by DixonHur
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

She's running for president...soundbite bait is the name of the game.  The average voter isn't going to wade through her proposals and watch long form interviews.  They get their news at 6 o'clock while cooking, or eating dinner.

She has the right to reject that framework and politically live or die with the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

The reason she won't say it is that no matter how much context she puts around it, the media headlines will be that Warren says she will raise taxes on the middle class, and Republicans will take the tiny snippet of her saying yes, out of context, to push a false narrative.  And she's also refusing to just lie, like many candidates and all Republicans would, so she's in a bind. 

It's not sustainable, so she's trying to get her context out as much as possible before stating what she must inevitably state.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20992

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The reason she won't say it is that no matter how much context she puts around it, the media headlines will be that Warren says she will raise taxes on the middle class, and Republicans will take the tiny snippet of her saying yes, out of context, to push a false narrative.  And she's also refusing to just lie, like many candidates and all Republicans would, so she's in a bind. 

That's sounds a lot like not trusting that voters will understand. Very un-Warren move. 

She's a teacher. Teach. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

She knows she’s just going to keep getting asked the question and every time she is going to dodge and slam the predatory health insurance industry while selling the idea of MFA. It might not be the worst strategy to get more people open to the idea of MFA which does ultimately reduce the cost burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

That's sounds a lot like not trusting that voters will understand. Very un-Warren move. 

She's a teacher. Teach. 

 

 

No, she's a politician, and one who went from single digits in this race to second place in a few months while everyone else has stayed static or dropped.   She's not in this to teach and lose; that's Bernie's thing.   She's in this to win and actually get shit done. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20992

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She knows she’s just going to keep getting asked the question and every time she is going to dodge and slam the predatory health insurance industry while selling the idea of MFA. It might not be the worst strategy to get more people open to the idea of MFA which does ultimately reduce the cost burden.

She'll eventually need to answer the question. I think waiting it out will only make it worse.

Dodging questions might be old hat, but bad idea as a "change" candidate. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

Just do a politician answer. 

"No, costs to the middle class will go down." 

"But the taxes themselves will go up, right?"

"No.  Look at your bank account.  More money will be in it."

"Yeah, but only after taxes go up, right." 

"No.  This is a price saving move to virtually every wage class."

 

Lead with the word no, even if the technical answer is yes, then get your summary out.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20992

Posted
Posted

So the argument is that answering "yes" to a middle class tax hike (while still explaining why the overall costs would go down) would give Rs talking points to attack her. 

But dodging the question has ALREADY given Rs talking points to attack her. 

If both are a no-win situation, then just tell the truth and directly answer the question. It's clearly the best option. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13220

Posted
Posted

As recently as April, Elizabeth Warren was in 5th/6th place with 90+% name recognition behind candidates that only political weirdos knew. There are reasons for this, and it's not because she planned it out this way. She did not WANT to be behind O'Rourke and Buttigieg and Harris four months after she launched. That wasn't the strategy.

Since July, she's been basically tied for 2nd with someone the media actively hates while having the media championing her as hard as possible. (While 1st place has been publicly disintegrating mentally and physically.)

This is not inevitable. She is not inevitable. Engaging in magical thinking like 4D chess inevitability because she's such a genius isn't going to do it.

Liz can win. To do that, she needs to improve. Hank is someone who is probably very gettable for Liz's team. Being so dismissive of a plain and straightforward question/concern isn't a good idea. He's not trolling, he's not operating in bad faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...