What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

I LOVE Elizabeth Warren: All aboard - WOO WOO!!! (1 Viewer)

BTW I don't think you mean this part. It's too much.
I'm getting there Tim. Partially because being willing to move will open up a lot more career advancement opportunities for my wife, but also because I think there might be places that have their priorities in a slightly different order than the U.S. seems to right now. Grass is always greener - right?

 
I'm getting there Tim. Partially because being willing to move will open up a lot more career advancement opportunities for my wife, but also because I think there might be places that have their priorities in a slightly different order than the U.S. seems to right now. Grass is always greener - right?
Wrong. At least IMO. But then I'm a pretty firm "USA is the greatest nation in the history of the world" guy.

 
See this is why I should have gone to law school. Does there have to be such a provision?
To be constitutional, anything the federal government does has to pass two tests:

(a) it has to be affirmatively authorized somewhere in the Constitution, and

(b) it can’t be specifically prohibited anywhere in the Constitution.

The first part of the test is almost always passed by interpreting “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the states” to mean, essentially, “Congress can do anything that affects commerce in any way, directly or indirectly — i.e., literally everything.” But not quite literally everything. Levying a new kind of tax probably doesn’t count as regulating commerce.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be constitutional, anything the federal government does has to pass two tests:

(a) it has to be affirmatively authorized somewhere in the Constitution, and

(b) it can’t be specifically prohibited anywhere in the Constitution.

The first part of the test is almost always passed by interpreting “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the states” to mean, essentially, “Congress can do anything that affects commerce in any way, directly or indirectly — i.e., literally everything.” But not quite literally everything. Levying a new kind of tax probably doesn’t count as regulating commerce.
OK, that makes sense. Has the Supreme Court ever allowed a form of tax that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution?

 
When a reporter asked Warren whether her ethics plan would allow her vice president's son or daughter to serve on the board of a foreign company, but without directly referencing the Bidens, Warren responded "no" before quickly walking back her assertion.

"I don't know. I mean, I'd have to go back and look at the details," Warren said.
Warren doesn't know the details of her own ethics plan?

 
Warren doesn't know the details of her own ethics plan?
Whether the VP's child can serve on a board of directors seems like a pretty obscure provision. 

It also seems strange to me that we would pass laws prohibiting someone from having a certain job based on who they're related to.  I recognize the ethical issue here but I'm not sure it makes sense to pass a law like that.  

 
Whether the VP's child can serve on a board of directors seems like a pretty obscure provision. 

It also seems strange to me that we would pass laws prohibiting someone from having a certain job based on who they're related to.  I recognize the ethical issue here but I'm not sure it makes sense to pass a law like that.  
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but would this actually be law. Or just a condition of accepting a position in a future Warren administration?

 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but would this actually be law. Or just a condition of accepting a position in a future Warren administration?
I dunno.  But I'm still confused about how it would work.  I mean, I guess Warren could pick a VP like Buttigieg or Booker who are childless.  But let's say she picks a VP with an adult child.  And then the adult child joins some company board.  Then what?  Warren wouldn't have the power to fire her VP.  What's the enforcement mechanism?

 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but would this actually be law. Or just a condition of accepting a position in a future Warren administration?
I dunno.  But I'm still confused about how it would work.  I mean, I guess Warren could pick a VP like Buttigieg or Booker who are childless.  But let's say she picks a VP with an adult child.  And then the adult child joins some company board.  Then what?  Warren wouldn't have the power to fire her VP.  What's the enforcement mechanism?
Yeah! How could I, as a parent, enter into a contract the limits my adult children's options?  That doesn't seems like it could be upheld.

 
I dunno.  But I'm still confused about how it would work.  I mean, I guess Warren could pick a VP like Buttigieg or Booker who are childless.  But let's say she picks a VP with an adult child.  And then the adult child joins some company board.  Then what?  Warren wouldn't have the power to fire her VP.  What's the enforcement mechanism?
Yeah, I guess the best you could do for VP is to require recusal.

 
Sorry, he had an instagram post explaining the scar already?  And the guy has a "XXX" tattoo on the back of his neck?

I don't know how Wohl keeps getting worse at this, but it's really interesting to imagine him in ten years.
Im guessing in 10 years he will be good friends with a guy named bubba. 

 
So is this where I go to call her out as a liar about why she was Fired? Or is trump the only one who doesn’t tell the truth?. Asking for a friend. 
It's kinda cute when Fox News pretends to care about politicians lying.  Like one of those newly born deer trying to walk.

 
The story. I believe, originally came from the more liberal, Medialite, and both versions of her story are in her own words. I'd really like to see her asked about it; There are potentially explanations, i.e. maybe she was embarrassed to tell the earlier interviewer about being dismissed. But it looks bad, for sure.

As an aside, my friend's daughter started teaching special needs on an emergency certificate, so that's a real thing. But the reason she didn't have the credits was because she was still in grad school, so this simply let her start sooner, but she did get  the credits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just seems like a dumb thing to lie about. I get lying about being Indian. With that she atleast stands to gain something. 

 
Some people just get wrapped up in routinely story telling and embellishing. Though I would argue that she does have something to gain. I think "I was a victim of sexism, but I persevered" is a more potent campaign line than "I had too much going on in my life to fit in some classes"

 
Some people just get wrapped up in routinely story telling and embellishing. Though I would argue that she does have something to gain. I think "I was a victim of sexism, but I persevered" is a more potent campaign line than "I had too much going on in my life to fit in some classes"
Lol she’s not going to be the next president. She will get the nomination but lose to whoever the R’s put up. 

 
I wasn't commenting on her chances at nomination or election. Just saying the dismissal-on-pregnancy story would get a better reaction on the campaign trail.

 
I really hope the Democrats wise up fast and realize she's a losing ticket come November 2020.  
As a Republican, really really hoping she wins the nomination...it will be a great lesson for the Progressives after they get waxed by what should be a very beatable incumbent. 

Given the the progressive course the Dems have taken the last 3 years, Expecting a change in policy/strategy may be putting too much faith in the Democratic Party.   What a #### show it has become. 

 
As a Republican, really really hoping she wins the nomination...it will be a great lesson for the Progressives after they get waxed by what should be a very beatable incumbent. 

Given the the progressive course the Dems have taken the last 3 years, Expecting a change in policy/strategy may be putting too much faith in the Democratic Party.   What a #### show it has become. 
They're not good at politics, but at least they have values.  I'm not sure what the Republican party has become other than a vehicle for the powerful and wealthy which lays on the backs of the ignorant.    

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top