Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

What part of it is bullshit? Anti-regulatory market capitalist beliefs are political beliefs. She publicly advocated for these things the first 40+ years of her life.

Am I saying she's some horrible monster? No. It was/is perfectly normal for a white Oklahoman to be conservative. It's also perfectly normal to undergo a political beliefs change at some point in life. It's normal to be uncomfortable discussing past beliefs. It's normal to not really grapple with the contradiction between past and present beliefs.

Y'all are super fucking mad over basically nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You need a mint julep and a nap.

Lol, Bernie is a shit leader.  That’s why he’s getting passed up because all he does is bitch and allows his supporters subvert any progressive movement that isn’t led by god Bernie himself.  Your candidate isn’t good enough to win and will never be president.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol, Bernie is a shit leader.  That’s why he’s getting passed up because all he does is bitch and let’s his supporters subvert any progressive movement that isn’t led by god Bernie himself.  Your candidate isn’t good enough to win and will never be president.  

Take some deep breaths, champ. It'll pass soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Lots of possible reasons she would lie in that context. We can speculate, but we can't know.

What's your theory?

I'm wondering why you think it was a lie.   Is it that you think a law professor speaking to the federalist society in the 80s/90s necessarily constitutes political activity?  If so, I disagree. But it's not clear to me exactly why you think she was lying, so I don't want to make assumptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What part of it is bullshit? Anti-regulatory market capitalist beliefs are political beliefs. She publicly advocated for these things the first 40+ years of her life.

Am I saying she's some horrible monster? No. It was/is perfectly normal for a white Oklahoman to be conservative. It's also perfectly normal to undergo a political beliefs change at some point in life. It's normal to be uncomfortable discussing past beliefs. It's normal to not really grapple with the contradiction between past and present beliefs.

Y'all are super fucking mad over basically nothing.

An academic giving speeches commenting on policy views does not make one political, especially when compared to what she became as a Senator and party leader. Calling it a lie and acting like this is some revelation about her past  -- as you and other Bernie Bros are doing --is the disingenuous part.

Then you try to play it off as "what? Just stating facts. No big deal." You're terrible at this.

 

Edited by horncyclist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

I'm wondering why you think it was a lie.   Is it that you think a law professor speaking to the federalist society in the 80s/90s necessarily constitutes political activity?  If so, I disagree.

Advocating publicly on behalf of political ideas is political activity.

I have no idea how on earth anyone could say otherwise, but I'd be interested to hear the rationale.

Just now, horncyclist said:

An academic giving speeches commenting on policy views does not make one political...

If public advocacy of policy is not political then "political" is a word without meaning.

Someone who isn't very political and isn't active in politics is not someone who is giving policy speeches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Advocating publicly on behalf of political ideas is political activity.

I have no idea how on earth anyone could say otherwise, but I'd be interested to hear the rationale.

If public advocacy of policy is not political then "political" is a word without meaning.

Someone who isn't very political and isn't active in politics is not someone who is giving policy speeches.

I disagree. She was a law professor doing law professor things within her area of expertise. That is not very political. This is nothing new. She didn't lie. No one cares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Advocating publicly on behalf of political ideas is political activity.

I have no idea how on earth anyone could say otherwise, but I'd be interested to hear the rationale.

If public advocacy of policy is not political then "political" is a word without meaning.

Someone who isn't very political and isn't active in politics is not someone who is giving policy speeches.

That's a real stretch.   She was a legal/economic academic.  While that involves things that are the subject of political activity, it doesn't mean that speaking publicly on the areas of her academic expertise was necessarily political.  As far as I've seen, the first time she actually went to work on legislation was 1995-1996. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Berners are out for blood right now.  Just look at the replies to any of Liz’s recent tweets. They’re trying so hard to tear her down because Bernie is crashing and burning and they can’t do anything except take Liz with him.

Bernie and Liz are in a political race where both are running as the progressive candidate. It's perfectly reasonable for Bernie's supporters to go after Liz's progressive bona fides, this is a political race after all.

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Y'all are super fucking mad over basically nothing.

Pretty much this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

I disagree. She was a law professor doing law professor things within her area of expertise. That is not very political. This is nothing new. She didn't lie. No one cares.

I am not following this thread, but just want to comment on academia and politics. Would you consider someone like Chomsky political? He has clearly defined opinions that fit his academic work but fall under government policy.

I personally am a supporter of people who have well thought out and principled opinions and are open about them, even though they may be controversial and wrong in certain situations. What makes us human is taking a moral stance on an issue, rather than being a disinterested expert which is amoral, or be caprice-driven and a liar like Trump, which is very immoral. I love that Chomsky, Sanders, and apparently from reading this page, Warren, have advocated for their principles-based beliefs. As long as they are sincere and well thought out, they have every right to evolve.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, F250 said:

Bernie and Liz are in a political race where both are running as the progressive candidate. It's perfectly reasonable for Bernie's supporters to go after Liz's progressive bona fides, this is a political race after all.

That’s not what they’re doing. They can’t beat her on substance so they’re going after her integrity by misconstruing shit from the 80s and spamming with bad faith arguments.  I’m not saying it’s out of bounds.  I’m saying it’s pathetic and counterproductive if they really care about building a progressive movement.  

The Bernie and Warren bros should be working together to build the movement. But one side is hell bent on destruction and discrediting anyone not Bernie.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's a real stretch.   She was a legal/economic academic.  While that involves things that are the subject of political activity, it doesn't mean that speaking publicly on the areas of her academic expertise was necessarily political. 

Ostensibly we all (or at least most of us) went to UT. Are we seriously going to pretend our professors didn't engage in political activity all the time? Is that what we're doing? Are we just pretending reality isn't reality?

Publicly speaking on one's area of academic expertise isn't necessarily political,  you're right. When that professor is taking a specific political stance and doing so for a very open and active political organization, that is political activity.

And that's fine. Professors SHOULD get political. Everyone should. I have no problem with Liz getting political as a professor and I don't even have a problem with her being conservative in the past. I just think it's lame that she lies about it and it's especially lame given the new information that she has spoken for The Heritage Foundation. My feelings were summarized by the Bruce Lee gif, which is basically, "C'mon, man."

Anyone who gave a speech to The Heritage Foundation who later says, "I wasn't all that political" is lying. She's a smart woman. She knows, which is probably why she's so awkward and evasive about it.

What does the added information regarding Heritage mean? Not much to me beyond an annoyed harumph and some disappointment.

Quote

As far as I've seen, the first time she actually went to work on legislation was 1995-1996. 

C'mon, man.

I guess this whole forum is mistitled since we aren't technically working on legislation, huh?

37 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Bernie and Warren bros should be working together to build the movement. But one side is hell bent on destruction and discrediting anyone not Bernie.

xanax.jpg

Hugo, I am not 1/10,000th as critical of Warren as you are of Bernie. You're off your rocker. 90% of my posts in this thread are cheerleading Warren. The Bernie thread is full of you shitting your diapers about Bernie being a Russian spy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Ostensibly we all (or at least most of us) went to UT. Are we seriously going to pretend our professors didn't engage in political activity all the time? Is that what we're doing? Are we just pretending reality isn't reality?

Publicly speaking on one's area of academic expertise isn't necessarily political,  you're right. When that professor is taking a specific political stance and doing so for a very open and active political organization, that is political activity.

And that's fine. Professors SHOULD get political. Everyone should. I have no problem with Liz getting political as a professor and I don't even have a problem with her being conservative in the past. I just think it's lame that she lies about it and it's especially lame given the new information that she has spoken for The Heritage Foundation. My feelings were summarized by the Bruce Lee gif, which is basically, "C'mon, man."

Anyone who gave a speech to The Heritage Foundation who later says, "I wasn't all that political" is lying. She's a smart woman. She knows, which is probably why she's so awkward and evasive about it.

What does the added information regarding Heritage mean? Not much to me beyond an annoyed harumph and some disappointment.

C'mon, man.

I guess this whole forum is mistitled since we aren't technically working on legislation, huh?

xanax.jpg

Hugo, I am not 1/10,000th as critical of Warren as you are of Bernie. You're off your rocker. 90% of my posts in this thread are cheerleading Warren. The Bernie thread is full of you shitting your diapers about Bernie being a Russian spy.

It's fine that you feel that way.   It just doesn't seem like a lie to me.   The question isn't whether it's possible or even reasonable to define what she was doing as political. It's whether she could reasonably view herself as not that politically active during the time period before she first worked on actual public policy proposals.  It seems pretty clear to me that it's an entirely reasonable assessment from her.  And your reasonable disagreement on what is a pretty subjective characterization doesn't make it a lie, in my view. 

I don't have a problem calling out when she does lie.  She clearly lied when she wrote "American Indian" as her race on the bar card, even granting that she truly believed she had one Native American ancestor several generations back.  But I think you're reaching on this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2/19 (The day Bernie announced)

b_t, in the Bernie thread

Quote

In his Young Turks interview he said he wants a woman VP.

Sanders/Warren 2020 oh my god let's go

(dream: Sanders/Tlaib)

Hugo, I know you're very excited to stop being a libertarian or whatever for the next few years, but you should relax and take some deep breaths. You're in the fire of your conversion like a young man who has just been saved by the Baby Jesus, and I appreciate that, but you're talking to a longtime member of this community of believers.

You might switch your political ideas around constantly because you're kind of stupid, but I've had mine for quite a while now and they ain't changing anytime soon on this front. The only thing that will make me turn on Liz is if she goes all Delaney on healthcare. I mean, there's other stuff, I guess, but that's the most pressing to me. Your perpetual hysteria don't make a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The question isn't whether it's possible or even reasonable to define what she was doing as political. It's whether she could reasonably view herself as not that politically active during the time period before she first worked on actual public policy proposals.

The slipperiness of this logic makes Bill Clinton under oath look like a strong, tall redwood.

If for no other reason than to satisfy my desire to hope for a better future, I will choose to believe she's awkwardly lying as opposed to engaging in whatever Simone-Biles-level mental gymnastics is happening here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s not what they’re doing. They can’t beat her on substance so they’re going after her integrity by misconstruing shit from the 80s and spamming with bad faith arguments.  I’m not saying it’s out of bounds.  I’m saying it’s pathetic and counterproductive if they really care about building a progressive movement.  

The Bernie and Warren bros should be working together to build the movement. But one side is hell bent on destruction and discrediting anyone not Bernie.

You do realize this a political race and Bernie and Warren are in fact competing with each other? Also, while somewhat similar there are ideological differences between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Hugo active measures. 

Hugo tends to be prone to hero worship, remember his fixation with Comey, Hillary, Mueller, Pelosi and Jeff Flake? Now it's Warren, just give it sometime, he will find another and move on.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she makes it to the general (I wouldn't mention it much now as it doesn't help in the Dem primary as much), I think she should actually make sure voters know she was a Republican in the past as I think it's actually a plus for her with swing voters and really won't drive down the left turnout which I think is already pretty good with the Anti-Trump motivation.  She can easily talk about her prior concerns about government intervention in markets, and that her background and experience helps her understand the realities of how to effectively have the federal government work with the private market.  Her plans in a sense are derived partially from her prior Republican perspective/concerns.  It makes her sound very informed, considerate of all relevant issues, and reasonable in how she is creating her ideas/plans.  She can talk about her family life in Oklahoma.  Her very early start to her work career (as a young teen) helping the family and understanding still the plight of everyday American families versus Trump who was born with a silver spoon, and has clearly shown to have no empathy or understanding of normal life for Americans.  If she was twenty years younger and possessed more inspirational charisma naturally, she would be almost unbeatable in my opinion.       

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, F250 said:

You do realize this a political race and Bernie and Warren are in fact competing with each other? Also, while somewhat similar there are ideological differences between the two.

It is a competition and the way a candidate/campaign chooses to compete says a lot about the candidate him/herself.   Bernie and his campaign staff’s tactics are “all in the game” but it doesn’t mean they can throw a bunch of petty bullshit at their opponents as a political strategy and expect to pay no political price.  

If the Berners want to go down the road of negative campaigning, they’re welcome to do that.  And when they lose I have no doubt they will scapegoat the media, the DNC, or some other systematic unfairness for Bernie not winning.  It’s always someone else’s fault with them.  They will never hold their candidate or campaign accountable for failing to overcome the challenges in front of them.  

Yes, the DNC and the media have an internalized bias against Bernie but those are obstacles a really good candidate could figure out how to overcome without constantly crying about it.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UTDD said:

If she makes it to the general (I wouldn't mention it much now as it doesn't help in the Dem primary as much), I think she should actually make sure voters know she was a Republican in the past as I think it's actually a plus for her with swing voters and really won't drive down the left turnout which I think is already pretty good with the Anti-Trump motivation.  She can easily talk about her prior concerns about government intervention in markets, and that her background and experience helps her understand the realities of how to effectively have the federal government work with the private market.  Her plans in a sense are derived partially from her prior Republican perspective/concerns.

Just what we want in a bold, change-focused leader... duplicity and cynical calculation.

If she spends the entire primary ducking/lying about her Republican past and then goes, "Actually, Republican economic ideas are very good" in the general then I will not vote for her and encourage others to stay home/vote 3rd party.

If she's going to go that route, she should do it in the primary and actually be forthright and honest the entire time, whether or not it "helps in the Dem primary".

Just pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Just what we want in a bold, change-focused leader... duplicity and cynical calculation.

If she spends the entire primary ducking/lying about her Republican past and then goes, "Actually, Republican economic ideas are very good" in the general then I will not vote for her and encourage others to stay home/vote 3rd party.

If she's going to go that route, she should do it in the primary and actually be forthright and honest the entire time, whether or not it "helps in the Dem primary".

Just pathetic.

Yes, because four more years of Trump would definitely be better than someone you think lied about her Republican past. No, you're right, can't have someone who lies about something like that in the White House!

 

You guys wonder why the left says you'll find any excuse to vote Trump again? Because right there, you're rationalizing that "I think Warren lied about that, so it's fine that Trump lies every other sentence. Same thing!"

 

Again, to restate: You would rather Trump be president over anyone else you think  has ever lied about anything basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chult86 said:

Yes, because four more years of Trump would definitely be better than someone you think lied about her Republican past. No, you're right, can't have someone who lies about something like that in the White House!

Someone who will lie about fundamental beliefs to get into office isn't going to fight to enact bold, structural change. The only difference between a lying Democrat and Trump would be optics and decorum.

Here's the thing: I don't think that's who Warren is. I am speaking against the strategy advice offered here, not her. It's strategy advice that is designed to please white men who are Republicans at heart and are temporarily displaced (as you can see by the likes).

Quote

You guys wonder why the left says you'll find any excuse to vote Trump again?

It's not "the left" that says that, it's the centrists. If a candidate actively misleads a voting bloc, then that candidate doesn't deserve that voting bloc's vote. It's pretty simple.

If Warren is going to pivot center-right on economics, then she needs to do that now.

Quote

Again, to restate: You would rather Trump be president over anyone else you think  has ever lied about anything basically.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

A center-right economic policy is not going to fix anything meaningful in this country. It's pretty simple. I'm not going to vote for someone who lies to me about the most important things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not even like she's a wild leftist now. She's my #2 and she's fairly center-right economically as it is. My objection is the idea that she should lie/sandbag.

- Her housing policy is basically a public/private partnership giveaway for developers.
- Her rural/poor hospitals plan is like NCLB in that it will strip funding from lowest performers.
- Her student loan forgiveness would leave millions of poor/working-class Americans with tens/hundreds of thousands in student debt.

A further pivot right from this? No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m a sucker for non-treasonous leadership. 

No, you just put all your faith in political actors without bothering to anchor yourself in a set of political principles. You argue on behalf of politicians not ideals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

No, you just put all your faith in political actors without bothering to anchor yourself in a set of political principles. You argue on behalf of politicians not ideals.

That’s a really sophomoric way to look at it and not entirely true.  For a representative democracy to work you have to put some blind faith in political actors.  Ideas and principles don’t come about on their own.  They’re only advanced through the leaders advancing them.  When I see political leaders advancing ideas and principles that align with mine I will cheerlead them, defend them, and offer support in the hopes they will continue to advance the ideas and principles I value.  

When those leaders betray my values I will criticize them and hold them accountable.  See also Pelosi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That’s a really sophomoric way to look at it and not entirely true.  For a representative democracy to work you have to put some blind faith in political actors.  Ideas and principles don’t come about on their own.  They’re only advanced through the leaders advancing them.  When I see political leaders advancing ideas and principles that align with mine I will cheerlead them, defend them, and offer support in the hopes they will continue to advance the ideas and principles I value.  

When those leaders betray my values I will criticize them and hold them accountable.  See also Pelosi. 

Hugo, you have posted thousands of times in the CR and you still have no identifiable political beliefs outside of Russiagate. Your approach to politics is applying everything to Putin. The only reason you turned on Pelosi was because of Russiagate. Pelosi was and is a corporate shill yet you were all in on her until it was obvious she isn't going to risk doing anything to put her party at risk.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Hugo, you have posted thousands of times in the CR and you still have no identifiable political beliefs outside of Russiagate. Your approach to politics is applying everything to Putin. The only reason you turned on Pelosi was because of Russiagate. Pelosi was and is a corporate shill yet you were all in on her until it was obvious she isn't going to risk doing anything to put her party at risk.

I’ve posted my political ideology and values here plenty of times.  Not my fault you can’t pick up on those thing.  As I’ve educated myself and learned more, my political views have changed over time.  I’m not going to pigeonhole myself as a neoliberal, libertarian, socialist, capitalist, or whatever jargony term people like to use to label themselves.  

The deep dive into the Russia scandal helped me discover myself politically and iron out what I value most.  Before I could know an enemy I had to first fully know myself.  It also taught me how to evolve and explore other points of view. 

I have misplaced my faith in people before, Pelosi and Flake are good examples. I’m willing to admit those errors and learn from the mistakes.  But that doesn’t mean I’m going to give up on believing in people or stop supporting leaders I believe will help build a more egalitarian and just society.  

It seems like you just want to lash out at me here. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Someone who will lie about fundamental beliefs to get into office isn't going to fight to enact bold, structural change. The only difference between a lying Democrat and Trump would be optics and decorum.

 

Well other than Trump is an evil, morally corrupt idiot racist. But yeah. Samsies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The deep dive into the Russia scandal helped me discover myself politically and iron out what I value most.  Before I could know an enemy I had to first fully know myself.  It also taught me how to evolve and explore other points of view.

Would you say you were forged of a hotter fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sachick said:

Well other than Trump is an evil, morally corrupt idiot racist. But yeah. Samsies.

Yeah, that's dangerous silly stuff but I don't think he means it. He's said a bunch of times he'll vote for whoever the D nominee is. I think he's probably telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...