Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I really like Elizabeth Warren (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
HellToupee
Footballguy
If she just apologized in the beginnig this wouldn't be hanging out there. Instead she doubled down on the dumb
pantagrapher
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
But if she believed it was true at the time & came to realize it was false and owned its over. I think part of the issue keeping this alive is the "she lied but who cares it hurt no one " attitude.and dont kid yourself its a two way street on the letting things go stuff
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher
Footballguy
It's Obama's fault the birth certificate is an issue! He spent $5 billion keeping it secret!! This one is fake!!!! Argle bargle!!!!!!
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
You'r right , you got me . Sure its just the evil ® 's that do this. Evey D= good , every R and probably I = bad. But in reality its the same for both parties
rockaction
Footballguy
HellToupee
Footballguy
but kudos to him for beating a Mexican
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
It's amazing the lengths progressives will go to defend a lie.
I can only imagine the outrage if Warren was a Republican.
I can only imagine the outrage if Warren was a Republican.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Warren just makes too much sense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/elizabeth-warren-pharma_n_6520746.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/22/elizabeth-warren-pharma_n_6520746.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Big Pharma.
How much money did Obama give to Big Pharma again? And how much money is Big Pharma paying Axelrod's brother's firm for advertising?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Jack White
Footballguy
More government intervention to fix the problems created by government intervention? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Our government is way more beneficial to us then detrimental. But nothing is perfect.
I would hate to think we quit trying to progressively better ourselves because some people are just too pessimistic.
The Commish
Footballguy
SImple to say when the bar is constantly moving. The utter vagueness of "beneficial" and "detrimental" are a nice touch though.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Van Dyman
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Except when they let corporate america and special interests influence everything.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
She makes sense because she's coherent and she enunciates her policy positions based on closely held beliefs.
IMO Hillary Clinton does not. I think there are a lot of well meaning moderates, liberals or progressives who would gladly turn their vote over to Warren or someone like her instead of Hillary if given the chance. I realize the polls don't reflect that right now, as Hillary even trounces Warren, but that would quickly change if Liz got in.
The Commish
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Say guess who just had a big meeting with the "Draft Liz for President group..."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/warren-met-privately-with-draft-warren-supporters-117671.html
.... why Liz Warren herself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/warren-met-privately-with-draft-warren-supporters-117671.html
.... why Liz Warren herself.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Hillary would be wise to ignore her.SaintsInDome2006 said:
Jack White
Footballguy
I hope Liz Warren ends up running because, in general, I think she's more principled than most politicians, and she's obviously smart and well informed about a variety of important issues.SaintsInDome2006 said:
But on this particular issue, her stance reminds me of Hillary's gas-tax holiday thing leading up to the 2012 election. It's so obviously wrong that she must know it's wrong, and she's taking the stance just to pander to uninformed (or biased) people.
The Commish
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Wow, really? I think quite a few people have legitimate questions or objections to it. Do we even know the countries involved in TPP? It sounds to me like we might be shipping out more jobs, depressing our own wages, and further hurting what's left of our manufacturing base. I mean, I don't actually know, but I would like to hear the debate at least.
Yeah, this is the stuff that I think defies a pretty strong consensus among economists.
Non-economists might think that international trade (especially if it results in trade deficits) is bad in all sorts of ways, and protectionism is therefore good. But there's a strong consensus among economists that protectionism is bad and free trade is good.
Paul Krugman has a terrific article on the subject here. It's really a terrific article and everyone should read it.
To show the consensus, the closest thing I can point to is the survey of economists at IGM. This shows that economists are 11-1 (weighted by certainty) in favor of free trade without regard to things like trade deficits (i.e., "shipping jobs overseas"), and this shows that they're like 100-0 in thinking that fast-track authority for the President will promote free trade.
On Warren's political rhetoric, I think Megan McArdle is right.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Excellent analysis.
I wish Hillary would speak up already and just come out in favor. Let the Warrenites be damned- where are they gonna go?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The question is how could this de facto next president not have a position on the issue?
Jack White
Footballguy
Your first sentence is debatable.
Your second sentence, I agree with. People should always strive to better themselves, as long as they are doing so without initiating force against others.
Of course she should have a position. Just not the one Warren wants her to have.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I hope so, but there's a time and a place for it, and it's not the kind of thing that should be done in a thirty-second soundbite.
If she just says "Warren is wrong on this issue, look at the IGM survey," it won't play well.
The issue is somewhat complicated. While it's nearly a sure thing that promoting international trade will work out well for the U.S. (and its trade partners) on the whole, that position takes a lot of patient explaining, and even then a lot of people won't get it (as Krugman demonstrates in the essay I linked to a few posts ago). Moreover, even if people generally accept that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (and fast-track authority for it) will benefit the U.S. on the whole, Americans often care less about the U.S. on the whole than they do about their own families, and the TPP (like everything) will have winners and losers. It may be appropriate for the government to try to soften the fall for the losers -- another topic that is complicated and will require a lot of explanation.
And even if Hillary articulates her policy in a 50-page position paper appropriately discussing all of the nuances involved, it will be misrepresented in one-sentence headlines because that's just what political journalists do.
So I don't know the best way -- the best time and place -- for her to enunciate her position on this issue. But I don't blame her for being cautious about it.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Yet Krugman is against the TPP because it really isn't about free trade very much at all:
So why do some parties want this deal so much? Because as with many “trade” deals in recent years, the intellectual property aspects are more important than the trade aspects. Leaked documents suggest that the US is trying to get radically enhanced protection for patents and copyrights; this is largely about Hollywood and pharma rather than conventional exporters. What do we think about that (slide 7)?
Well, we should never forget that in a direct sense, protecting intellectual property means creating a monopoly – letting the holders of a patent or copyright charge a price for something (the use of knowledge) that has a zero social marginal cost. In that direct sense this introduces a distortion that makes the world a bit poorer.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/tpp-at-the-nabe/
I'm not sure why. It seems quite likely that Warren is supportive of trade in general. But the TPP is not really about trade. It's not entirely clear, because it's been quite secretive, but it seems to primarily be a treaty about intellectual property and dispute mechanisms. See John Oliver's bit about tobacco manufacturers suing Australia (I think) about warning labels.
It's entirely consistent, and not even pandering behavior for Warren to be pro-trade but anti-TPP. For what it's worth, Krugman, your source extolling the virtues of trade in the Ricardo paper, is on record as being mildly anti-TPP.
ETA: Also what Slapdash said!
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I've only skimmed, but it seems like none of those links talk about the TPP specifically, but rather "free trade" in general as a loose concept. I don't necessarily think free trade agreements are bad. However, I have major concerns with some of the leaked parts of the TPP specifically and the implications they have outside of pure economic issues. I couch this with the admission that, like everyone else, I don't know exactly what is in the TPP and so I could of course be wrong. However, from leaked information, we can be led to believe that the TPP will have huge ramifications in the fields of intellectual property / copyright law (effectively bypassing the grassroots activism against things like SOPA and PIPA that have so far been successful in blocking the efforts) as well as some scary sounding abilities for multinational corporations to seek damages and sue a nation that passes laws internally that have a negative effect on the profits of the corporation, while having that case heard outside of the legal system of the country involved.
Given the leaked information we've seen, I'm 100% on the side of stopping this agreement. I don't think it serves anyone other than those multinational corporations and I don't see any of the economic benefit this free trade agreement may provide coming back to the United States (through tax avoidance schemes and the like by said corporations).
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is coming back to me, I really object to this stuff and people had really be aware of this provision, it scares the hell out of me.
Slapdash, Abashail, and mcintyre1: Good point on the TPP itself perhaps having more to do with bad IP policy than with good trade policy. I confess that I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of the TPP.
(I do think that the fast-tracking makes sense either way, though. If the TPP is bad, Congress should simply vote against it. They don't need the power to insert a bunch of riders onto it first or whatever.)
(I do think that the fast-tracking makes sense either way, though. If the TPP is bad, Congress should simply vote against it. They don't need the power to insert a bunch of riders onto it first or whatever.)
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
What exactly is Warren's position on this particular agreement?ETA: Nevermind...found it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
The Commish
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Have you heard the protocol of how government officials can review the trade agreement?
The Commish
Footballguy
Not sure what you're asking. I haven't paid much attention to this proposal until a group of friends brought it up at dinner last night. I had heard rumblings about it a few months ago and that it wasn't really about free trade etc, but I didn't pay much attention.
timschochet
Footballguy
I used to like her more than I do now. I just can't stand this populism. Yes we have economic problems in this country and we have to seriously discuss how to help the poor and middle class more. But why does that mean we have to demonize rich people? And why does it have to be a fight all the time?
