Jump to content

Elizabeth Warren 2020


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BradInATX
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...