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!!! (3 Viewers)

roadkill1292 said:
Most of these debt forgiveness plans could work if phased in gradually. That might be the way a business person might think, though, and not be conducive to politicians or non-business people.
Click to expand...
I would actually love to see a policy where a large % is reimbursed through tax credits and deductions. I understand that wont help the chucklehead that cant make payments currently, but I don't really care. They will be right back in trouble again with other debt anyway so giving them 50k reimbursement is just dumb.

The person that actually is making payments and lowering the amount of debt, but because of this is causing struggles, will be helped a great a deal by such a plan. That is something that makes sense for society long term rather than just a waste of money to buy votes. 

ETA: This would also make it much more palatable to so many people similar to the first time homebuyer credit. Sure some people were upset that had just bought their first home in the years prior, but it wasn't a national conversation about those people getting screwed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Warren’s most significant battle with her ALI colleagues centered on bankruptcy rules in the 1990s, at the same time the issue was heating up in Congress. The ideological contours of the bankruptcy wars are drawn around the question of who should bear the risk of failure in capitalism and who should be protected. One side, championed at the time by Democrats like Joe Biden in the Senate, said that banks and other lenders must be shielded from harm in bankruptcy, lest they recoil from future lending and slow the growth of the economy. The other side, represented in congressional debates by then-professor Warren, argued that banks often play a predatory role and that workers, tort victims, and other businesses owed money deserve their piece of the defunct firm’s pie. If bankruptcy laws tilted too far toward lenders, Warren warned, profit would be privatized but the risk and losses would be socialized.

This ideological battle was on display in ALI, as the organization decided to update a section of an influential legal code that concerned state bankruptcy rules.

Warren fought against a proposal that would give even more protections to so-called secured creditors, those who already had the most power in bankruptcy proceedings and could demand full debt repayment while everyone else suffered. She presented a counterproposal to her ALI colleagues that was rejected as unworkable and too radical. Steven Harris of Chicago-Kent College of Law, who opposed her alternative, remembers the battle well. “I did not think it was a good idea and I still don’t,” said Harris. “It’s sort of like a wealth tax. It may sound good as an idea, but if you have to put it into operation, then it doesn’t work.”
Click to expand...
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/30/elizabeth-warren-american-law-institute/

 
urbanhack said:
Steven Harris of Chicago-Kent College of Law, who opposed her alternative, remembers the battle well. “I did not think it was a good idea and I still don’t,” said Harris. “It’s sort of like a wealth tax. It may sound good as an idea, but if you have to put it into operation, then it doesn’t work.”
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I didn't take the criticism of Biden nor her prescience about socialized losses to heart, I took this lament to heart. That her diagnosis is often correct, but her proposals are radical and unworkable. 

 
That’s a good example of why I think she would have the most difficulty beating Trump of all the major candidates.  She too often says these silly things that provide ammunition against her. 

 
Warren is on the downslide as Little Mike have overtaken her. Mike is spending on his campaign like a drunken sailor so he might be in the hunt.

 
LOL..  Had to go to page 2 to find this thread.

Also, six women of color leave her campaign

A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren’s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state’s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads.

 
Getzlaf15 said:
LOL..  Had to go to page 2 to find this thread.

Also, six women of color leave her campaign

A half-dozen women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren’s Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state’s caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads.
Click to expand...
That's a lame article. If you are going to use the word toxic, there better be some actual specific events mentioned where people were mistreated. 

This sounds much more like staffers that wanted more funds spent in Nevada and didn't get it. It also seems like only 3 of them actually had any complaints and they just used the fact that 3 other POC left as well to bolster the claim. I am no Warren fan, but this is a hit piece and shoddy journalism. 

 
@fatguyinalittlecoat asked me in another thread why I consider Warren and Sanders to be worse presidential candidates than Hillary Clinton was.

Part of my answer for Warren is that she wanders into partisan hackery too often for my tastes. I come across examples, note them to myself, and then forget them, so I unfortunately don't have a mental catalog of examples at the ready.

Here's an example from today, though: "I am the only candidate to propose an independent DOJ task force to investigate crimes by Trump administration officials. Every Democratic candidate must commit to it—so Trump officials know they will be held accountable by career prosecutors once he is out of office."

That is Trumpian-level disregard for a norm I consider to be rather important. Let's stop politicizing criminal investigations and the DOJ. Joe Biden gave a great answer to this at one of the debates. Something like, "No, I'm not going to direct that Trump be investigated. I'll staff the DOJ with competent attorneys and let them do their jobs, and I'll stay out of it."

That's how it's supposed to work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Here's an example from today, though: "I am the only candidate to propose an independent DOJ task force to investigate crimes by Trump administration officials. Every Democratic candidate must commit to it—so Trump officials know they will be held accountable by career prosecutors once he is out of office."

That is Trumpian-level disregard for a norm I consider to be rather important.
Click to expand...
Another reason this is kind of dumb: Telling Trump ahead of time that you're going to criminally investigate all his friends is just going to make it more likely that he'll pardon them all immediately after the next election. He can't pardon them for future wrongdoing, but I don't see why he can't grant them blanket pardons for past wrongdoing, known and unknown.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Another reason this is kind of dumb: Telling Trump ahead of time that you're going to criminally investigate all his friends is just going to make it more likely that he'll pardon them all immediately after the next election. He can't pardon them for future wrongdoing, but I don't see why he can't grant them blanket pardons for past wrongdoing, known and unknown.
Click to expand...
It's more important to Elizabeth Warren to become President than for her to prosecute Trump's friends.  I'm pretty sure Warren is not upset if her statement both improves her standing in the Democratic primaries AND increases the likelihood that Trump will pardon law-breaking friends.

 
Phil Elliott said:
PAC $ ok to Warren now.
Click to expand...
Yep. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren reversed her position on rejecting super PAC support on Thursday as she seeks a comeback in the Democratic presidential primary.

Warren, who has previously said that she would disavow the support of a super PAC that sought to aid her bid for the presidency, told reporters that she had changed her mind after failing to get her rivals to join her in repudiating the outside spending groups.

The reversal is a dramatic change of heart for the Massachusetts progressive. Warren boasted during the Democratic debate in New Hampshire earlier this month that only she and Sen. Amy Klobuchar lacked super PAC backers.

But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”

“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”

Don't worry though- she'll 'lead the charge' on not dropping her principles if everyone else agrees to have principles too. 

 
ren hoek said:
Yep. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren reversed her position on rejecting super PAC support on Thursday as she seeks a comeback in the Democratic presidential primary.

Warren, who has previously said that she would disavow the support of a super PAC that sought to aid her bid for the presidency, told reporters that she had changed her mind after failing to get her rivals to join her in repudiating the outside spending groups.

The reversal is a dramatic change of heart for the Massachusetts progressive. Warren boasted during the Democratic debate in New Hampshire earlier this month that only she and Sen. Amy Klobuchar lacked super PAC backers.

But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”

“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”

Don't worry though- she'll 'lead the charge' on not dropping her principles if everyone else agrees to have principles too. 
Click to expand...
This would have been a completely reasonable position if she had started there.  Instead, we got a bunch of moral preening from somebody who ended up being a phony.  Which is becoming par for the course with this candidate.

 
ShamrockPride said:
I can't stand her. I want to like her, and want to believe that she could be a suitable substitute for Bernie. She killed it on Wednesday as much as I hate to admit it. But you can't be this wishy washy on stuff and have me trust you.
Click to expand...
As of a few months ago I was in the Warren camp, but she won't commit to any position so I switched to Sanders for this exact reason. She could have been a reasonable bridging candidate between Sanders and more moderate candidates with a decent amount of support, but by flip flopping so often she says enough things that make either camp wary of her. She debates well and has not really had any real scandal, she is just losing all of her support because she has terrible political instincts. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huthut said:
As of a few months ago I was in the Warren camp, but she won't commit to any position so I switched to Sanders for this exact reason. She could have been a reasonable bridging candidate between Sanders and more moderate candidates with a decent amount of support, but by flip flopping so often she says enough things that make either camp wary of her. She debates well and has not really had any real scandal, she is just losing all of her support because she has terrible political instincts. 
Click to expand...
She'll pretty much say or do anything to get the nomination.  Her pandering is off the charts, especially when she said she was going to get some nine-year-old transgender kid to interview the Secretary of education for the job.

That alone right there should be a huge red flag for anyone.

 
ren hoek said:
Yep. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren reversed her position on rejecting super PAC support on Thursday as she seeks a comeback in the Democratic presidential primary.

Warren, who has previously said that she would disavow the support of a super PAC that sought to aid her bid for the presidency, told reporters that she had changed her mind after failing to get her rivals to join her in repudiating the outside spending groups.

The reversal is a dramatic change of heart for the Massachusetts progressive. Warren boasted during the Democratic debate in New Hampshire earlier this month that only she and Sen. Amy Klobuchar lacked super PAC backers.

But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”

“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”

Don't worry though- she'll 'lead the charge' on not dropping her principles if everyone else agrees to have principles too. 
Click to expand...
My god what a hypocrite Liz is. Soon she will be demanding the Russian assistance Bernie is getting,

 
ren hoek said:
Yep. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren reversed her position on rejecting super PAC support on Thursday as she seeks a comeback in the Democratic presidential primary.

Warren, who has previously said that she would disavow the support of a super PAC that sought to aid her bid for the presidency, told reporters that she had changed her mind after failing to get her rivals to join her in repudiating the outside spending groups.

The reversal is a dramatic change of heart for the Massachusetts progressive. Warren boasted during the Democratic debate in New Hampshire earlier this month that only she and Sen. Amy Klobuchar lacked super PAC backers.

But, on Thursday, Warren said that the fact that only the “two women” didn’t have super PAC support was “just not right.”

“So here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”

Don't worry though- she'll 'lead the charge' on not dropping her principles if everyone else agrees to have principles too. 
Click to expand...
And this, in a nutshell, is why I don’t like her but do like Bernie.

 
parasaurolophus said:
That was a bs question to ask. Warren did nothing wrong there. 
Click to expand...
It didn’t come across to me like Goodman was trying to bait her.  It’s a reasonable question- should a party this dependent on minority voters allocate that much time & resources to winning a horse race in two overwhelmingly white states?  It think it changes the dynamic of the campaigns. 

In any case, Warren got flustered way too easily.  The “just a player in the game” bit was nice as welI.  But mainly I just posted it for the part where Goodman thanks her for the interview, and Warren is just like “yeah.”  Every once in a while Lizholio comes out.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This would have been a completely reasonable position if she had started there.  Instead, we got a bunch of moral preening from somebody who ended up being a phony.  Which is becoming par for the course with this candidate.
Click to expand...
Disagree.  She was naive, but not phony.  

 
ren hoek said:
It didn’t come across to me like Goodman was trying to bait her.  It’s a reasonable question- should a party this dependent on minority voters allocate that much time & resources to winning a horse race in two overwhelmingly white states?  It think it changes the dynamic of the campaigns. 

In any case, Warren got flustered way too easily.  The “just a player in the game” bit was nice as welI.  But mainly I just posted it for the part where Goodman thanks her for the interview, and Warren is just like “yeah.”  Every once in a while Lizholio comes out.  
Click to expand...
OMG!  She just said “yeah”?    The HORRROR

 
ren hoek said:
It didn’t come across to me like Goodman was trying to bait her.  It’s a reasonable question- should a party this dependent on minority voters allocate that much time & resources to winning a horse race in two overwhelmingly white states?  It think it changes the dynamic of the campaigns. 

In any case, Warren got flustered way too easily.  The “just a player in the game” bit was nice as welI.  But mainly I just posted it for the part where Goodman thanks her for the interview, and Warren is just like “yeah.”  Every once in a while Lizholio comes out.  
Click to expand...
Obviously we disagree on the starting point, so we wont agree on the subsequent (which is of course perfectly fine) I think it was definitely asked in bad faith. You want to ask that question and get an answer, you ask it in the days leading up to the SC primary or months ago not in the days leading up to Iowa and NH. 

Thats why Warren IMO cut her off the way she did, and I think her reaction is totally fine to a bad faith(IMO) question. 

Eta: just want to add i cant stand warren and would never vote for her. I only clarify since i think my last three posts in this thread are all defending her. I have plenty of posts in here very critical of her too. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
OMG!  She just said “yeah”?    The HORRROR
Click to expand...
Did you watch the clip?  She was dismissive and rude after over-reacting to an honest question in front of a SC audience, like Goodman came at her with some big "gotcha!"  She'd get roasted by Trump.  

 
ren hoek said:
Did you watch the clip?  She was dismissive and rude after over-reacting to an honest question in front of a SC audience, like Goodman came at her with some big "gotcha!"  She'd get roasted by Trump.  
Click to expand...
I’ve watched it several times as it’s made its way around right wing blogs for months.  It’s absolutely nothing and to me it’s far more telling of the folks who share it and act as if it’s some kind of gotcha moment.  Shows me you and others are simply trying to manufacture reasons to oppose Warren.  

 
Alex P Keaton said:
I don’t care about the PAC money itself.  I care about her changing her positions on issues when it is convenient for her.
Click to expand...
She was naive to think that leading on the issue would make a difference.  Reminiscent of Obama insisting on a long, transparent national discussion including Republicans on healthcare reform.  

 
keyvan shafiei @shafieikeyvan

I don’t mean to be rude to diehard Warren supporters. It’s just that your candidate voted for sanctions that killed my dad. But I’m sorry if I occasionally seem irritable. It’s on me!

 
ren hoek said:
keyvan shafiei @shafieikeyvan

I don’t mean to be rude to diehard Warren supporters. It’s just that your candidate voted for sanctions that killed my dad. But I’m sorry if I occasionally seem irritable. It’s on me!
Click to expand...
I feel bad for dude - he has mental health issues and can’t afford treatment.  

Great guy for you to cite ren! 

 
She's still my number one but it's not going to happen. She took her shot and it didn't happen. I think she can continue to do good in the Senate. 

 
saintfool said:
She's still my number one but it's not going to happen. She took her shot and it didn't happen. I think she can continue to do good in the Senate. 
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s just my bias creeping through but I can sorta see a difficult but plausible path for Warren to get the nomination at a contested convention.  Here’s a realistic way that I think it could go down:

On Super Tuesday, Bernie is the big winner, Bloomberg and Biden get a substantial number of delegates but still way behind Bernie.  Warren comes in 4th in delegates, well behind the top three but enough so she can still stay in the race.  Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, Steyer and Gabbard get few delegates and drop out.

At that point Warren is the youngest candidate remaining.  She’s the only woman.  And she’s kinda in between Bernie on the left and Bloomberg and Biden on the right.  This positioning in the race helps her grab a good share of the voters that would have otherwise supported the candidates that have now dropped out. 

Biden and Bloomberg are terrible candidates.  It becomes apparent to more moderate types that Warren is the only candidate with a realistic shot to stop Bernie.  Warren therefore starts stealing some voters from Bloomberg and Biden.  None of the four drop out.

We reach the convention.  Bernie has a plurality if delegates but it isn’t a particularly strong plurality.  Warren is in second.  The delegates of Bloomberg and Biden and the superdelegates give Warren the nomination.

I don’t think this is a likely scenario.  And it has the potential to be a disastrous scenario if Bernie supporters feel screwed.  But it seems like it’s something that could maybe happen.  

With all that said, it’s much more likely Warren has to drop out soon and Bernie just coasts to the nomination.

 
Adam Elmahrek @adamelmahrek

BREAKING: More than 200 Cherokees and other Native Americans have signed a letter urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren to fully address past claims to being Native. They want her to help dispel widespread beliefs by whites that they have Native heritage

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
312
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did "Canceling" Babylon Bee's Political Satire Change The Future Of All Social Media Forever? (6/5/22 12:30 PST)
Replies
18
Views
737
Juxtatarot
Juxtatarot
GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top