Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bosoxs45

What makes Joe Biden a better candidate than Elizabeth Warren?

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You make a huge mistake if you assume that a the majority of Democratic voters are liberal progressives. 

No, but the vast majority sympathize with their arguements.  I would say the thought of a women president is a plus to most Democrat voters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I would argue her numbers are higher because she is a woman.  Being an old white guy among liberal progressives is not a plus.  

The old white guy (Bernie) is the favorite of actual progressives .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The old white guy (Bernie) is the favorite of actual progressives .

Yes, because despite his disadvantage of being an old white guy in a party which highly values diversity, he is a better candidate.   

Share this post


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

Yes, because despite his disadvantage of being an old white guy in a party which highly values diversity, he is a better candidate.   

The point is your point about progressives was easily disproven.  The two favorites right now are old white guys.  So claiming her numbers are higher because she is a woman and white guys are at some disadvantage  just looks really bad.

Edited by sho nuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

The point is your point about progressives was easily disproven.  The two favorites right now are old white guys.  So claiming her numbers are higher because she is a woman and white guys are at some disadvantage  just looks really bad.

It doesn't disprove my point.  There are just more old white guys in position to be president.  Most would quickly embrace a minority or female candidate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It doesn't disprove my point.  There are just more old white guys in position to be president.  Most would quickly embrace a minority or female candidate.  

Her numbers aren’t even great and two of the oldest white guys on top puts a pretty big dent in Warren having numbers due to being a woman and liberals don’t like old white guys.

Share this post


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

Yes, because despite his disadvantage of being an old white guy in a party which highly values diversity, he is a better candidate.   

When, oh when will we finally have an old white guy overcome these structural disadvantages and become president?

Over here in the real world, the top two and five of the top seven are men

Edited by The Narrator
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-posting this from the election thread.  New Q poll has Biden as the only candidate with a clearly positive favorable rating (Mayor Pete is favorable, but due to low name recognition he doesn't crack a total of 50% of voters having an opinion either way).

Quote

With a 49 - 39 percent favorability rating, former Vice President Joseph Biden is the only presidential contender, Democrat or Republican, with a clear positive score. Favorability ratings for other Democrats are negative or mixed:

41 - 48 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont;

32 - 41 percent for Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts;

27 percent favorable for Sen. Kamala Harris of California, with 30 percent unfavorable;

20 - 32 percent for former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas;

23 - 31 percent for Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey;

23 percent favorable for South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, to 19 percent unfavorable;

8 - 45 percent for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

 

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Pete's is favorable.
LOL @ DeBlasio. 

Thanks.   Edited my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments against Warren for President:

- Not likable - she is never going to be a rock star but has worked quite a bit  is picking up points at every appearance since she announced.  People that mentioned her as "dishonest/disingenuous" I don't get that at all.  She seems very genuine to me.

- Too far left- we have elected centrist Democrats for the last twenty years and that hasn't stopped the Republican party from moving further right and continuing to let corporate money run Washington.  She will not be able to pass all the legislation she has talked about for sure but she will absolutely frame our national conversation for the next four years; if like me you think undue influence of dark money is the biggest problem with our government today, who is going to do a better job than Elizabeth Warren of driving reform?  She will surround herself with good people, she's not a career politician but she understands how government works.

We just need to beat Trump - She can and will beat Trump, she would demolish him in any debate; they weren't ready for him and didn't take him seriously enough in 2016; I don't think the same mistakes will be made this time around.    The end boss is Trump Jr 2024 it doesn't end with Trump, hes not an anomaly but a progression of whats been going on the last couple decades. 

Warren is the best candidate in the field so far IMO, given its early but I am hopeful the momentum continues as we move forward to primary season.  I think she smokes Biden and Sanders in the end.   :football::thumbup:

  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Arguments against Warren for President:

- Not likable - she is never going to be a rock star but has worked quite a bit  is picking up points at every appearance since she announced.  People that mentioned her as "dishonest/disingenuous" I don't get that at all.  She seems very genuine to me.

- Too far left- we have elected centrist Democrats for the last twenty years and that hasn't stopped the Republican party from moving further right and continuing to let corporate money run Washington.  She will not be able to pass all the legislation she has talked about for sure but she will absolutely frame our national conversation for the next four years; if like me you think undue influence of dark money is the biggest problem with our government today, who is going to do a better job than Elizabeth Warren of driving reform?  She will surround herself with good people, she's not a career politician but she understands how government works.

We just need to beat Trump - She can and will beat Trump, she would demolish him in any debate; they weren't ready for him and didn't take him seriously enough in 2016; I don't think the same mistakes will be made this time around.    The end boss is Trump Jr 2024 it doesn't end with Trump, hes not an anomaly but a progression of whats been going on the last couple decades. 

Warren is the best candidate in the field so far IMO, given its early but I am hopeful the momentum continues as we move forward to primary season.  I think she smokes Biden and Sanders in the end.   :football::thumbup:

It’s very refreshing to have a Warren fan in here. Welcome! 

I think you make some good points here (though not about Don Jr., that’s kind of silly.) I don’t think Warren has much of a shot, but we’ll see. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, formerfourdigit said:

Arguments against Warren for President:

- Not likable - she is never going to be a rock star but has worked quite a bit  is picking up points at every appearance since she announced.  People that mentioned her as "dishonest/disingenuous" I don't get that at all.  She seems very genuine to me.

On likeable, that is subjective and emotional, and not something you'll likely get people to move on.

On Honesty/Genuine, here is a recent tweet of hers: "“@Chase: why aren’t customers saving money? Taxpayers: we lost our jobs/homes/savings but gave you a $25b bailout.”
She knows that (1) The bailout made taxpayers a $15 billion profit, and (2) Chase didn't want bailout funds, but was forced, along with other large banks, to take them.
In that context, her tweet is neither honest nor genuine. It is a clear misrepresentation of facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

On Honesty/Genuine, here is a recent tweet of hers: "“@Chase: why aren’t customers saving money? Taxpayers: we lost our jobs/homes/savings but gave you a $25b bailout.”
She knows that (1) The bailout made taxpayers a $15 billion profit, and (2) Chase didn't want bailout funds, but was forced, along with other large banks, to take them.
In that context, her tweet is neither honest nor genuine. It is a clear misrepresentation of facts.

Found what you are referring to after some searching, https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-workers-wages/index.html  If this is indeed a "clear misrepresentation of facts" (note she has citations for the $25b) I don't see it remotely registering on the same scale as the stuff that comes out of our current POTUS and the op-ed seems pretty much spot-on to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@formerfourdigit What Trump does doesn't affect whether or not she is honest and genuine.Yes, money was doled out. But
(1)it was repaid, leaving taxpayers better off. I don't know what the gov't did with the $15.3B, but that's on Warren and Congress, not Chase. And
(2) They weren't really bailed out; they took the money because Paulson forced them. She's chastising them for compiying with the government.

If I were to edit her tweet for accuracy, it would read",,,We lost our/jobs/homes/savings, but you helped us make $15.3B and complied with a government request". Zing!

I have citations, too.
“And while the goal was always to stabilize the economy, and not to make a profit, it is important to recognize the return we have earned for taxpayers.”

First nine banks were forced to take bailouts Documents show US was insistent
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

@formerfourdigit What Trump does doesn't affect whether or not she is honest and genuine.Yes, money was doled out. But
(1)it was repaid, leaving taxpayers better off. I don't know what the gov't did with the $15.3B, but that's on Warren and Congress, not Chase. And
(2) They weren't really bailed out; they took the money because Paulson forced them. She's chastising them for compiying with the government.

If I were to edit her tweet for accuracy, it would read",,,We lost our/jobs/homes/savings, but you helped us make $15.3B and complied with a government request". Zing!

I have citations, too.
“And while the goal was always to stabilize the economy, and not to make a profit, it is important to recognize the return we have earned for taxpayers.”

First nine banks were forced to take bailouts Documents show US was insistent
 

I didn't mean it to digress into whatabouts but let's frame it for 2020 political discourse "Crazy Liz Warren (Pocahantas) says that Chase got a $25B taxpayer bailout in the Great Recession of 2007, but it was really only $15B.  They didn't want it and paid back every cent with interest!  Great Recession and great American institutions like JP Morgan Chase made the taxpayers $15B yet FAKE NEWS media and the Libs want to tell you people lost money!"

I can't see one single voter swinging on this especially if they were alive and trying to support their families during that time.  I believe she is 100% genuine when she gets triggered and has walked the walk on avoiding a repeat of the Great Recession since the day she was elected.  Even if you think she is posturing on some of this, give her credit for driving conversations where nobody wants to do (recent example Defense spending pork)

PS I vehemently disagree with how you are framing the bank bailouts and there are plenty of other reputable sources that would dispute your take as well.  Nobody I know looks back on that time as a "good thing that made taxpayers money".  You cannot frame TARP (the response) independently from the stimulus (Wall Street garbage RE investments freezing the economy).  Maybe another topic but yeah if that was somehow a good time in your life I can see why you might be hesitant to join the bandwagon.  

 

Share this post


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

PS I vehemently disagree with how you are framing the bank bailouts and there are plenty of other reputable sources that would dispute your take as well.  Nobody I know looks back on that time as a "good thing that made taxpayers money".  You cannot frame TARP (the response) independently from the stimulus (Wall Street garbage RE investments freezing the economy).  Maybe another topic but yeah if that was somehow a good time in your life I can see why you might be hesitant to join the bandwagon.  

 

 This is just as disingenuous as Warren. That tweet was about chase. What happened with other banks is irrelevant. 

Chase repaid the money in June of 2009. The government actually had to approve them paying it back. The "taxpayers" made 795 million on dividends and then made somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion when its warrants were auctioned off. That's a pretty decent haul. 

Warren knows all of this. She obviously was just trying to manipulate an audience that would automatically think that taxpayers just gave the bank that money. That link showing that they got 25 billion would be as far as they would look, if they even made it that far. 

But since she isn't as dishonest as trump is, I guess it's all good. That's a pretty low threshold to set. She just needs to be like 1/1024th correct then. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@formerfourdigitIt was not my intention to paint TARP as a good thing or crisis as good times.
I simply believe that she is not a particularly genuine person and that her framing of these facts is an instance I could point to that validates that. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

 What happened with other banks is irrelevant. 

Lumberg.gif

This "JP Morgan Chase was the white knight of the Great Recession" stuff is boggling my mind, I must have missed that thread the first time around the FFA.  Maybe we can fire that one up again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, formerfourdigit said:

Lumberg.gif

This "JP Morgan Chase was the white knight of the Great Recession" stuff is boggling my mind, I must have missed that thread the first time around the FFA.  Maybe we can fire that one up again

First you have to try to use trump to show that Warren is honest and genuine. Now you have to try and deflect from facts with hyperbole. 

Warren picked her targets well. She got good buy in from people that aren't very well informed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 8:26 AM, formerfourdigit said:

Arguments against Warren for President:

- Not likable - she is never going to be a rock star but has worked quite a bit  is picking up points at every appearance since she announced.  People that mentioned her as "dishonest/disingenuous" I don't get that at all.  She seems very genuine to me.

- Too far left- we have elected centrist Democrats for the last twenty years and that hasn't stopped the Republican party from moving further right and continuing to let corporate money run Washington.  She will not be able to pass all the legislation she has talked about for sure but she will absolutely frame our national conversation for the next four years; if like me you think undue influence of dark money is the biggest problem with our government today, who is going to do a better job than Elizabeth Warren of driving reform?  She will surround herself with good people, she's not a career politician but she understands how government works.

We just need to beat Trump - She can and will beat Trump, she would demolish him in any debate; they weren't ready for him and didn't take him seriously enough in 2016; I don't think the same mistakes will be made this time around.    The end boss is Trump Jr 2024 it doesn't end with Trump, hes not an anomaly but a progression of whats been going on the last couple decades. 

Warren is the best candidate in the field so far IMO, given its early but I am hopeful the momentum continues as we move forward to primary season.  I think she smokes Biden and Sanders in the end.   :football::thumbup:

:thumbup: I'm on board with Warren 2020. I think she'd be a more effective legislator than Bernie, who is big on ideas but light on details, and Biden, who seems pretty satisfied with the status quo. She's not the best politician of the bunch, but I think she'd make the best president.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just give me the same old center left center right candidate.  I'll vote for either.

The extremes on both sides are scary AF.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, caustic said:

:thumbup: I'm on board with Warren 2020. I think she'd be a more effective legislator than Bernie, who is big on ideas but light on details, and Biden, who seems pretty satisfied with the status quo. She's not the best politician of the bunch, but I think she'd make the best president.

Presidents aren’t legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 6:26 AM, formerfourdigit said:

We just need to beat Trump - She can and will beat Trump, she would demolish him in any debate;

Warren could "demolish" Trump in a debate, and Trump would just respond with "You should be in jail for lying about being Indian" and conservatives would give him a standing ovation.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

Warren could "demolish" Trump in a debate, and Trump would just respond with "You should be in jail for lying about being Indian" and conservatives would give him a standing ovation.

 

“Lock her up” is Trump’s version of “San Dimas High School football rules!”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 1:06 PM, -fish- said:

Presidents aren’t legislators.

Tell this to the media.  One thing Trump is doing is focusing our conversation and the news cycle.  I think if it was steered towards wealth inequality instead of foreign affairs/random nonsense we will be able to matriculate the ball down the field towards a better future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.