Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hope Hugo is enjoying his trip to Chicago 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I read that response and it got dusty in here.

The video is worth the two minute watch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pivotal time for Warren. She needs to rebound and take some momentum into Iowa and NH. Just put my yard sign back out (had moved it to let contractor back his truck up) and will be donating again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a ton of power in financial regulation, and while I have a different perspective on how capital should be handled in a broad sense, I love the meat and potatoes of her focus on regulatory levers and anti-corruption.

Go Liz!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TeamWarren is opening offices in Austin TX next Saturday December 14th at 1pm!

More info in the link:

https://www.mobilize.us/texasforwarren/event/169125/?force_banner=true

 

San Antonio Office opening same day at 10AM:

https://www.mobilize.us/texasforwarren/event/168938/?force_banner=true

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like when Warren talks about racism in America she makes a point to illustrate how it disadvantages white people from opportunity too.  

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Holy shit. She’s richer than Bernie. Some socialist she is. 

Isn't 2 mil over 30 years about $66,000 per year? She's an attorney that isn't working in a DA's office. It actually sounds a little low to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

She was also a professor and author. Not a full-time corporate lawyer for 30 years.

Right. So what's a standard hourly rate for corporate legal consultancy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

She was also a professor and author. Not a full-time corporate lawyer for 30 years.

She’s also a world-renowned expert on bankruptcy.  It would not be unusual for a run-of-the-mill big firm partner in that practice to rake in $2M annually.  And it’s also not at all unusual for university professors to earn money for consulting on the side.  That it took Warren 30 years to earn that much in consultancy shows how modestly she’s been compensated for her services.  

Edited by BrickHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she wins the nomination we are going to see some crazy misogyny by both the dotard and his cult, including the women in his cult.  It's going to be ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

If she wins the nomination we are going to see some crazy misogyny by both the dotard and his cult, including the women in his cult.  It's going to be ugly.

Bernie would get the NY Jew treatment 

Biden would get Obama’d with racist shit. 

It doesn’t matter who the nominee is, it will be ugly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Bernie would get the NY Jew treatment 

Biden would get Obama’d with racist shit. 

It doesn’t matter who the nominee is, it will be ugly.  

Fair, but this is the Warren thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If she wins the nomination we are going to see some crazy misogyny by both the dotard and his cult, including the women in his cult.  It's going to be ugly.

Yep. He might also find that it doesn’t play as well with the burbs though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to support Elizabeth Warren, until I realized she's just doing it all for attention

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/elizabeth-warren-republican-hypocrite-snake-buttigieg-bloomberg-lauren-duca-a9242681.html

I’ve been excited about Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy since the day she announced her campaign. It seemed to my tiny lady brain that that campaign was built on a salient diagnosis of the political industrial complex, and a package of plans that aim to dismantle the system which consolidates wealth and power in the hands of a few corrupt officials. 

Unfortunately, I can no longer ignore the claims of hypocrisy waged against her. I’m sorry to say I have a creeping suspicion that Elizabeth Warren has proposed a platform of big, structural change because she is trying to get attention. 

There was fresh cause for concern on Sunday, when I spotted a Politico headline announcing some breaking news on Twitter. “NEW:” it read, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren disclosed receiving $1.9 million from private legal work since 1986, including earnings from large corporate clients.”

$1.9 million, I thought. That’s practically $2 million.

I was desperate to make sense of the idea that the candidate trying to take on corporate greed might herself be a raging Scrooge McDuck. After using three different calculators, and sobbing on the phone to my high school math teacher, I was able to determine that $1.9 million over 36 years amounts to $55,000 a year. Still, the point remains: Can we trust a woman who has made money for her work? 

Warren released the list of clients she’d worked with as part of an escalating battle of transparency with Pete Buttigieg. Earlier this month, she’d called for the mayor of South Bend to open his private campaign events to the press, "so that anyone can come in and report on what's being said.” 

Warren and Buttigieg make for distinct foils. She has sworn off campaign donations from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists, denying special access to wealthy donors and refusing to ask billionaires to launch PACs on her behalf. In October, she went one step further, rejecting all big donations from big tech. Explaining the decision, she wrote on her website that she will refuse “contributions over $200 from executives at big tech companies, big banks, private equity firms, or hedge funds.” (Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is so terrified of Warren that in leaked audio obtained by The Verge, he called her candidacy an “existential threat,” and said he will “go to the mat and fight” if she is elected. This stands in stark contrast to Buttigieg, who reportedly emailed Zuckerberg about who to hire for his campaign.)

Buttigieg has since conceded to Warren’s criticism over his campaign’s lack of transparency, vowing to open his fundraisers to reporters. Although, as I ponder the sincerity of Warren’s attacks on the candidate from Indiana, it is hard to ignore the reality of her hypocrisy: She used to take donations from big donors before she stopped doing that. 

I remember seeing the story on the front page of the New York Times about this “open secret.” In print, the paper of record ran the article with a photo of Warren’s face ensconced in shadow, as if shrouded in the literal darkness of dark money. When I first read the piece, I wanted to agree with a quote from Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has endorsed Warren. “There’s a perverse incentive system for public officials,” he said. “If candidates continue the big-money status quo, you don’t get called a hypocrite. But if you stick your neck out, take chances, challenge power, and try to change the system step by step, you get criticized for not taking every step possible all at once.”

Now that I am reckoning with the scope of Warren’s alleged transformation, I have to wonder — wouldn’t it be easier to respect her if she continued to profit from the corruption she seeks to dismantle? 

My research into the true nature of Warren’s soul turned up devastating results. The final nail in the coffin of my naiveté was an op-ed published by Nathan Robinson in The Guardian. “Progressives, trust your gut,” the title read. “Elizabeth Warren is not one of us.” The piece recalls that Warren was a Republican until she registered as a Democrat in 1996. 

The supposed cause for this shift is well known. Warren identified as a moderate economic conservative before studying medical bankruptcy. Over the course of her academic inquiry, she and her team sought to unpack the underlying causes of financial distress. Warren would have us believe that the results of that in-depth empirical research transformed her, first ideologically, then politically.

Before being elected to the Senate in 2013, she proposed and established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has returned almost $12 billion in refunds and cancelled debts to 29 million consumers. This woman really wants us to believe that a hard-fought epiphany was the inciting incident for a meaningful evolution that led to decades of progressive advocacy work with a pragmatic impact. The audacity of this sort of blatant opportunism is impossible to stomach. 

In April 2017, Warren said she was troubled to hear that former President Barack Obama had accepted $400,000 to talk at a Wall Street conference that coming September. She had previously countered Obama’s claim that “the system is not as rigged as you think,” writing that, “In fact, it's worse than most Americans realize." In response to Obama’s speaking gig, Warren asserted that money is “a snake that slithers through Washington,” and to that, I must ask: How would she know about the nature of slithering, if she were not herself reptilian?

It is with a heavy heart that I must withdraw my support of Elizabeth Warren. Maybe I could respect her, if, instead of reforming her behavior, she had seen the results of her research to its natural capitalistic conclusion, using her bankruptcy expertise to start a subprime loan company featuring a slutty Mr Monopoly as its logo. At least then her motivations would be clear.

In the end, it is obvious to me that the only way Warren could have maintained the illusion of authenticity is by not running for office at all. Asking people to believe in a woman who is vying for power to change an imperfect system, without herself being perfect, is a ridiculous display of hypocrisy that simply cannot be ignored. 

I will need some time to choose a new presidential candidate, but right now I am considering Mike Bloomberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s weird that Trump doesn’t go after Bernie like he does Warren, assuming Bernie is a legitimate threat, which I think he is. 

He thinks calling him a socialist will work. And for the dumbasses, it will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 11:02 AM, BrickHorn said:

She’s also a world-renowned expert on bankruptcy.  It would not be unusual for a run-of-the-mill big firm partner in that practice to rake in $2M annually.  And it’s also not at all unusual for university professors to earn money for consulting on the side.  That it took Warren 30 years to earn that much in consultancy shows how modestly she’s been compensated for her services.  

Yep, any engineering prof at a high profile school or high profile law prof at a high profile school makes that kind of extra income, and more, routinely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the article from the Independent, Hugo, is there are large groups of people who read headlines and not articles. You know this, but it is so frustrating to me when people do this and miss an *author's point. Even sadder is that there are media outlets who will take her title and run with it. Think of places like Tiger Droppings where someone posts an article and four pages of dogpiling crap later one comes in, reads the article and follows the thread and their stupidity and lack of reading is made obvious.

 

*Frankly though, on some publications, my comprehension skills have gone downhill as I age. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrs Whiggins said:

About the article from the Independent, Hugo, is there are large groups of people who read headlines and not articles. You know this, but it is so frustrating to me when people do this and miss an *author's point. Even sadder is that there are media outlets who will take her title and run with it. Think of places like Tiger Droppings where someone posts an article and four pages of dogpiling crap later one comes in, reads the article and follows the thread and their stupidity and lack of reading is made obvious.

 

*Frankly though, on some publications, my comprehension skills have gone downhill as I age. Sad.

Agreed, especially in this day and age.  It took me a moment to realize it might be satire and it only became evident in the 4th paragraph.  That's 3 paragraphs more than most people tend to read.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife walks into the room while I am doing some pathetic core exercises and listening to today's "The Daily" (NYT) podcast, which is pretty good and about Liz.

"God, she has the most grating voice in the world", said wife.

Some people are acquired tastes.  For me, Liz is going to be a tolerated taste.  I want to slap her and tell her to speak up when she goes into that "let me tell you how sad this is breathy whisper" thing she does. She is awfully hectoring. 

But she's smart as fuck, and if the only thing we did in 2020 was change the President from Trump to her and kept everything the same, we'd be 500% better.  If we got a slew of slightly reasonable Republicans to intelligently push back on her ideas, we'd be 1000% better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife's reaction has been largely the same. I think she's a Bernie bro now (we talk more values/issues level, not personalities and candidates), but she was giving money to Warren for months and regularly talked about how much she didn't like Liz's voice, and I always chided her for being sexist and a promoter of the patriarchy.

Liz actually sounds a lot like my mother-in-law sounded, so there's probably some extra psychology happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife would vote for Liz, but is on the Mayor Pete train for the moment.  Blows my mind how many women won't vote for a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Wife would vote for Liz, but is on the Mayor Pete train for the moment.  Blows my mind how many women won't vote for a woman.

I hear you. But at the same time, a lot of that for me is noise. By that, I mean. If this was a movie I was watching then looks, voice etc would matter a lot lot more- male or female (TBH acting skill would probably be first unless I'm only going for eye candy). But when it comes down to it, I try and assess people for what the job skill is and are they up to its requirements. I'm not being noble here. I wish Warren was the charismatic, melodious voiced girl wonder but just as I could care less about someone's sexuality when I am judging candidates, I have to look at what are the bonafides when it comes to addressing domestic and foreign policy issues and what do I think of the candidates potential for accomplishing (or at least not harming) areas of need while in office. Does character or criminality (or potential for criminality) count? Yes.

I also prefer candidates who, if they don't know how to do something, have the sense and the humility to find honest, capable people who do and listen to what they have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think she is the only candidate that is hammering the reason we are fundamentally broken: corruption.  Other candidates give it lip service.  For Liz, it's her main goal.  I don't want to hear another god damn word about healthcare or anything else because until we address corruption, none of that shit has a chance in hell of ever happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I just think she is the only candidate that is hammering the reason we are fundamentally broken: corruption.  Other candidates give it lip service.  For Liz, it's her main goal.  I don't want to hear another god damn word about healthcare or anything else because until we address corruption, none of that shit has a chance in hell of ever happening.

I'd be happy to vote her in today. I champion her paired with Booker because I think they are smart people that have a sense of what is 'crooked' and what is not. Plus, Booker has a bit of a deficit/budget hawk background and boy is this country in need of that. It's not that other candidates aren't smart, or that other pairs would not work as well, I'm willing to see what shakes out over the next two months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...