Elizabeth Warren 2020

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#51

Post by p0rtia » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:01 am

Thanks, Mike. Interesting to try to capture the nuances, and to separate the wheat from the chaff. What got my attention most in your post was the point that this should have been a tempest in a teapot for Warren. So why wasn't it? IMO, the adoption of the issue by the right-wing propaganda machine followed by the amplification of that propaganda by the MSM caused the swelling--not Warren (And I really hate to use the word "issue" for this, because IMO the only conceivable issue is how she handled it after it had undergone amplification.)

As a girl, I would have killed to have had a Native American heritage.Rightly or wrongly, the idea was romantic and heroic. I've always been attracted to the "other." I knew nothing about Native Americans except what I read in novels and saw in movies. Horses, wigwams, the West, heroism. Worked for me. And utterly separate from the reality of history and actual NA issues. A recipe that, in my mind, leads straight into proudly proclaiming your ancestry without have a clue that you are being a dunce. Is this a flaw? Not in my book. Regrettable, but with no conscious intent to deceive.

And then you're a senator and famous and you get smacked upside the head for being a dunce by people who are trying to destroy you, so you have to handle it. So you--and how many advisors?--set out to handle it. And you get smacked upside the head for not getting it right. I personally don't believe that getting it right in this set of circumstances is possible. And I certainly don't think that "making it go away" is the measure of getting it right. It's a no win.

So, on to using her NA heritage to advance her career by getting a job slot intended for a minority or by getting financial aid? She wouldn't do it now, right? Now that she has all the historical context. Might she have done it pre first smack upside the head? Maybe. Would that have been wrong of her? Unclear to me. Did she do it? Apparently not.

I like that she has been able this year to separate out tribal membership and ancestry. I applaud her decision to do a DNA test (and boy does my brother in law, the Warren fan, disagree with me). Is it still an article of faith in bizarro world that she pretended to be NA to get financial aid and career advancements? Yes. Do I care? No more than I care about the birther articles of faith. Sick to death of people outright lying about ninety-nine percent of something and insisting it is all true because of that one percent that is true. And, of course, pretending that every misstep is a sign of utter moral decay that makes the target beyond redemption as a human being.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7852
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#52

Post by RVInit » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:25 am

Lani wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:36 am
Warren never sought a tribal affiliation. She was told that some of her older family members opposed the marriage of her parents because of one being part Native American. They left town for a civil marriage, and they had a long, loving marriage. (The out of town civil marriage is documented.)

Reports from her classmates when she was a public school student state that discussions about a mixed heritage were common among the kids. You can find the articles via google and in earlier posts. Her understanding about her family history was early and continuous.

So finally, she had a dna test, which is pretty common these days. And it indicated that the "results in Warren’s DNA test are static. The percentage of Native American DNA in her genome does not shrink as you go back generations. There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 23e018575f

How that family story/history, now proven, effected her world view can be debated. It might have made her open to reject isolationism and racism. It might have contributed to her concern about the increasing autocracy that leaves most citizens - of all heritages - behind. I doubt that it made her less worthy to be president.
This is yet another opportunity for Democratic candidates to be held to a standard that Republican voters will never apply to their candidates. It's quite simple. The evidence is clear and convincing that Warren never tried to use her belief that she had Native American ancestry to give her a leg up for consideration for any position. Period. In spite of the fact that she identified as Native American earlier, when it came time to apply for positions where the potential employer WAS actively recruiting minorities Warren identified as Caucasian. Those facts are not disputable. Both Universities in question have released her applications and made clear public statement about that fact.

I wish she would have put it that succinctly, but she didn't. This didn't require anything more than for her to say what I just said. But she didn't. And here's the hard, awful truth. It wouldn't have mattered. Barack Obama was born in the United States. His birth was announced in the local newspaper shortly after his birth. He has an actual, real birth certificate, including a raised seal. And yet millions of our fellow US citizens to this day refuse to believe those facts. This very board would not even exist if it were possible for anyone to give a simple and succinct explanation of facts that everyone would simply agree to and move on.

My two cents.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 6843
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#53

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:45 am

Absolutely correct Lani. Putting the counterfactual:even IF Warren had been a little light on the truth and gained a very small advantage, this would be nothing compared sigh the serial lying and chronic scumbaggery of senior Republicans, such as the sexual predator who was made a Supreme Court judge a few weeks back.

And there's no reason to believe that counterfactual. Warren did nothing wrong.

I'm not experienced or knowledgeable about PR matters, but it would be good if the Democrats could devise a way of saying "oh go away, that's stupid, we're not playing your dishonest and childish games." As you say, treating the scumbags as rational by calmly refuting their nonsense doesn't actually work. Indeed, it might make things worse by keeping the nonsense in play and the deplorables just register that there's a question about a Democrat, not that the allegations have been refuted.

The adage "no smoke without fire" applies in part: the more Democrats draw attention to the smoke (by refuting its existence) the more deplorables assume that there is a fire.

As I said, I don't know how to achieve that. But I think the Democratic Party should engage in any dirty tricks possible to close down Fox and other slander sewers. Free speech should not encompass their lying and mischief-making.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10345
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#54

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:08 pm

I understand what people are saying, but I still don't entirely agree. I guess there are a couple of reasons.

The first is that on a purely pragmatic level, Warren's handling of the entire affair gives me little confidence in her ability to run a major campaign. This is particularly true in the current political environment. The initial controversy, which started during her 2012 Senate campaign and was amplified by Trump, was a product of the right-wing noise machine. But I don't think they are the ones who get the lion's share of the blame for the way the DNA situation spiraled out of her control. I think that's mostly the product of the decisions she made in taking the DNA test and rolling out the results.

In particular, I think a lot of it is down to her decision to try to handle a situation involving her claims to Native American ancestry in general and Cherokee ancestry in particular without consulting people from those communities to see if they'd have objections and (if so) how to best address them in a reasonable and sensitive manner. That was not a spectacular display of political competence, particularly for a Democratic politician, and especially one who is positioning toward the left side of the current spectrum. And then her second attempt to put the situation to bed by apologizing for her failure to distinguish between genetic heritage and tribal citizenship got stepped on again almost immediately when the Washington Post found, through the public records request, the bar card where she listed, in her own handwriting, "American Indian" as her ethnicity. Did her staff not take the time to do public records requests themselves?

So I think this whole thing matters on a pragmatic level because it's showing that - IMO - her campaign is nowhere near ready for prime time. Not only were mistakes made, they were amateur hour mistakes. As far as I can tell, the net result of the whole attempt to put the Native American thing behind her has been that at the end of the day even more people were left upset than were already upset when she tried to fix it. That's a problem.


The second is that, on a more basic level, I do not accept the premise that Warren did nothing wrong. She did not just claim to have Native American heritage (which was true). She was identifying her ethnicity as Native American - not as mixed race, which might have kind of been at least somewhat true, but as Native American. That was not true, and I don't think it was harmless. Identifying yourself as a member of a minority group based on distant ancestry, when you retain the ability to be 'white' any time you want, trivializes and disrespects those who are part of that group, who have to deal with the decades and centuries of racism, ill-treatment, and massive disadvantage that are a fundamental part of that experience. It is wrong to do that.

I understand that she didn't gain anything from doing it. I believe that she didn't do it in an attempt to gain anything. That's good, because it would have been even more wrong for her to have done either of those things. And I also understand the attraction - romance - of having Native American ancestry. There was absolutely a time in my childhood when I would have loved to know I had Native American ancestry - and my family also has stories about Iroquois heritage five or six generations back, and there are enough gaps in the genealogy that it's an option (I don't think anyone in my family has taken a DNA test yet). But it would never have occurred to me to ever identify myself as Native American, because - even if the stories about heritage are all true - I clearly am not.


And that takes me to the third thing, which overlaps some with the Virginia thread. I understand the sentiment about the danger of purity tests, the need to allow for youthful mistakes, and that sensitivities toward racism were different in different places and times. But I'm also in my mid-40s. And the things that people are running into as problems now are things that I've literally always, as long as I can remember, understood to be wrong. They are things I would have gotten into trouble for doing when I was young. So it's also kind of frustrating to hear people advocate for letting things like that just slide. I guess I'd be more comfortable with the idea of giving people passes for that kind of old conduct if I saw more of an understanding in the present of why these things are wrong.

But the Governor of Virginia, in attempting to get past the blackface issue, had to be dissuaded by his wife from attempting to show whether he could still moonwalk. And Senator Warren still seems, at least as far as I can tell from her various apologies, to think that identifying herself as being ethnically Native American was somehow consistent with her family stories of a distant native ancestor.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:44 am

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#55

Post by p0rtia » Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:14 pm

Thanks, Mike and Lani and RV. Highly informative discussion.
No matter where you go, there you are! :towel:
ImageImageImage

User avatar
listeme
Posts: 5371
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#56

Post by listeme » Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:28 pm

I'm 52 and grew up hearing about my native american ancestry and identifying that part of myself and my family as something amazing, and hearing explanations of some minor mutations I have as being linked to this part of my ancestry.

My sister and I used to pretend we were entirely native american, and tiptoe and run through branches (which I still don't entirely get that part, I admit). Our cousins "look" native and we don't and this was always a big deal.

I'd have been genuinely uncertain whether to check a box, back in the 1980s. I think MANY people like me exist. (I may have actually checked a box or two! I think people underestimate how unclear this could have been.)

I accept that there have been changes in the way we think about this in the U.S. But I don't think it's at all true -- at all -- that anyone would have or should have known "better" back then. Some people might have? But universally? I don't buy it -- and not just because of my own experiences. I think backward-looking lenses are very cloudy.

Anyway, if I were running for office today, I can't imagine I would have handled any of this much differently than Warren. I absoposilutely don't think her handling of any of this is ANYWHERE CLOSE to Northam's bungling. I think Warren is being nuanced to death and Northam is an idiot.
We're used to being told it's our fault that men don't listen to us.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3822
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#57

Post by vic » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:35 pm

What Listme said.

I don't have Native American ancestry, but I had two cousins who did. Their mother was a tribal member, but they fell below the threshold for membership since their father (my uncle) had no Native American ancestry.

I only knew one of the cousins well (his twin brother died when he was in his teens). This cousin was proud of his ancestry, and referred to it, even though he wasn't a tribal member. My impression when I attended events with his Native American relatives was that they considered him one of theirs even though he wasn't a tribal member.
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16567
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#58

Post by Suranis » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:52 pm

Look. you cannot base the enemy response to what she did on this and then say that she was wrong. Because if she did something different then THEY would have done something different.

I dont even think she should be running but I have to make this point, there is nothing NOTHING she could have done to make this better. NOTHING. is she did X they would have responded with Y. if she had done B they would have done Z. She has already proved that this is BS and the only response here is to keep talking like she has not. They know this is a lie, that's the whole point. If she did every single thing that mike wants her to do they would still be yelling Pocahontas, and the Media would forget that she did it and be demanding she prove it AGAIN.

There is no winning on this because they have identified this as a crack and they will keep banging at it even if they are going broke doing it, no matter how much it hurts them. They will NEVER admit they were wrong. Ever. And they have figured this as a weakness so that where they will be aiming and nothing she did or will do will stop them. They wil;l be hitting it even if they figure its hurting them more than her because they don't care about damage to them as they have limitless media resources and no shame about lying.

This is the stupid world we live in. While they own the megaphones you will never shut them up. Ever.

This illustrates it pretty damn well.

Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27968
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#59

Post by Foggy » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:58 pm

Yeah, it isn't like she dressed up as Tinkerbell or anything like that ... :mrgreen:
"Islam loved Hitler and his elk.” - SSG Moe Ron

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#60

Post by mmmirele » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:18 pm

Two things:

First, My late father was from Oklahoma. And he and his family of that generation (born before WWII) were told they had Native American ancestry. And they believed it and told it to us kids. In more recent years (as in, since my dad and his siblings died, all within a year of each other), DNA testing has become popular. I went and had my DNA tested and found out---I'm 99.6 percent white. As in, I might have had an African ancestor around 1760, but for the rest of it, it's 63 percent British/Scots/Irish and 36 percent French/German. In a way, since I'd done some family genealogy, I kind of knew this was going to be the result.

How this applies to Elizabeth Warren: I would imagine that if her family was like my family, she probably heard a lot about the myth of her Native ancestry from childhood. The reality is something different.

(Just as a side note, I'd point out that the one thing my ancestors all had in common was that they were landless and rootless white people. They picked up and moved every generation. I can trace both sides of my family through the Upper and Lower South from the mid-1700s until today, and they didn't stay put from generation to generation. If anything, my father accelerated the practice--he lived in seven different states during his lifetime. I've lived in four.)

Second: I heard on the BBC that Warren isn't going to take money from lobbyists and political action committees. Would she take money from employees of a particular too big to fail bank that she's on record as wanting to break up? I work for that bank, I have some interest in Warren, but I don't feel good about throwing money to a campaign that wants to introduce chaos in my life by breaking up my employer.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10345
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#61

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:40 pm

Suranis wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:52 pm
Look. you cannot base the enemy response to what she did on this and then say that she was wrong. Because if she did something different then THEY would have done something different.
I honestly don't quite get what you are saying with that.
I dont even think she should be running but I have to make this point, there is nothing NOTHING she could have done to make this better. NOTHING.
:snippity:
I agree that there is nothing she could have done that would have made things better with the voters who were already firmly in the Trumpist camp. Her failure to persuade them isn't something I consider to be an issue. What I do consider to be an issue was the way she managed, through a fairly large amount of completely avoidable bumbling, was the way she managed to piss off and offend a bunch of people who are very much not Trumpists and who should not be enemies.

So, sure, there's nothing she could have done to make this better. That's irrelevant, at least from my perspective, because the problem isn't that she failed to make things better - it's that she managed to make them worse.

Edit: Fixed quote
--
15
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10345
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#62

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:00 pm

listeme wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:28 pm
I'm 52 and grew up hearing about my native american ancestry and identifying that part of myself and my family as something amazing, and hearing explanations of some minor mutations I have as being linked to this part of my ancestry.

My sister and I used to pretend we were entirely native american, and tiptoe and run through branches (which I still don't entirely get that part, I admit). Our cousins "look" native and we don't and this was always a big deal.

I'd have been genuinely uncertain whether to check a box, back in the 1980s. I think MANY people like me exist. (I may have actually checked a box or two! I think people underestimate how unclear this could have been.)

I accept that there have been changes in the way we think about this in the U.S. But I don't think it's at all true -- at all -- that anyone would have or should have known "better" back then. Some people might have? But universally? I don't buy it -- and not just because of my own experiences. I think backward-looking lenses are very cloudy.

Anyway, if I were running for office today, I can't imagine I would have handled any of this much differently than Warren. I absoposilutely don't think her handling of any of this is ANYWHERE CLOSE to Northam's bungling. I think Warren is being nuanced to death and Northam is an idiot.
I agree that her handling is at least an order of magnitude less bungling than Northam's.

And I really do understand the appeal of the whole Native American thing.

But while I could understand maybe checking a box - maybe - and maybe identifying as mixed race, I just cannot for the life of me understand how someone would think it is appropriate to say that their identity is American Indian - write it in by hand, even, not checking a box - if they were not raised native, had no experience being such, and the only connection is a family story about an unknown ancestor an unknown number of - but at least several - generations back. I genuinely just cannot comprehend that. It does not compute for me. Part of his or her heritage, absolutely. Something to take some pride in, maybe feel a little special about, sure. But as grounds for defining ethnicity? I just honestly can't grasp that. Maybe I was raised differently than other people as far as the whole "knowing better" thing goes, maybe I'm overly sensitive to the issue. I don't know. But it just doesn't make sense to me.


--
14
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2882
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#63

Post by Fortinbras » Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:58 pm

Someone on Fox said her claiming (years ago) to be a Native American is disqualifying dishonesty for her candidacy.

Well, it's not as if she lied about how bigly her crowds were, or that she had the best words, or that she knew better than all the generals.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 8892
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#64

Post by Orlylicious » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:31 am

The Bar app in TX where she wrote in her own handwriting Native American is a dealbreaker.

Honestly, I didn't think she was approachable/kind enough to be president before this. Now I can't see it at all. On the other hand, she could/should be a Ted Kennedy in the Senate. But ultimately, POTUS is a popularity contest. (I know, I know, but Donald via TV was/is popular as talent).

Love to have many running, eager to hear her ideas, but highly unlikely we'd want her to proceed to the General.
Avatar Photo: Kellogg's commemorates Anna Von Strudel de la PopTart's descent into insanity with a new cereal!

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#65

Post by Addie » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:00 pm

CNN
Elizabeth Warren taps Roger Lau as campaign manager

(CNN)Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has chosen Roger Lau, a jack-of-all trades political operative who helped steer her to victory in two US Senate elections, to manage her 2020 campaign for the White House, CNN has learned.

Lau, 41, has held several senior roles with the Massachusetts Democrat, including campaign manager for her re-election race in 2018, as well as state director and political director. Dan Geldon, Warren's longtime aide and former Senate chief of staff, will serve as chief of staff on the presidential campaign.

Warren's decision to put Lau and Geldon in two such prominent roles reflect her reliance on a fiercely loyal and small circle of aides she has come to trust over the years. The appointment is also a historic one: Lau appears to be the first Asian-American campaign manager for a major American presidential candidate -- particularly notable in an election that already features an unprecedentedly diverse field of candidates. ...

Colleagues describe Lau as a steady and loyal aide who has been a constant presence next to Warren since 2011. He is expected to oversee every aspect of the 2020 campaign, including organization, mobilization and staffing.

Lau was born in New York to immigrant parents who fled China in the 1970s. His family settled in Queens, and Lau attended University of Massachusetts at Amherst. In 1998, he landed an internship with then-Sen. John Kerry at his Springfield office, and would ultimately work for Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

User avatar
SLQ
Posts: 2640
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:33 am

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#66

Post by SLQ » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:26 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:40 pm
Suranis wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:52 pm
Look. you cannot base the enemy response to what she did on this and then say that she was wrong. Because if she did something different then THEY would have done something different.
I honestly don't quite get what you are saying with that.
Oh, I totally get what Suranis is saying. I've had an opposing counsel who uses republican-like tactics. It doesn't matter what I say (in briefs), he spins it as bad or mucks things up so much that the judge is confused. It is marginally helpful if I have the last word, but he will then file an unauthorized sur-reply or file a cross motion so he can have the last word and spin some more. (Think the first Obama-Romney debate. The tactic is called gish galloping in debate terms.)

With these kinds of tactics, there is no way Elizabeth Warren could have done this much better. And if it isn't this Native American issue, it will be something else. That will be true for any candidate. It's the republican MO.
"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try."
-- Yoda

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 4550
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#67

Post by DejaMoo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:17 pm

Some politicians who've said or done seriously shitty stuff have achieved great things, or been on the right side, despite their awfulness as a person. Other shitty people have performed politically entirely consistently with their shitty personality.

We'd never have the Voting Rights Act, much less Social Security and other progressive legislation, if we had first forced out the politicians who made those things happen.

We don't have the luxury of picking perfect tools every time. Sometimes we have to make do. It's those times when we have to decide what's a dealbreaker, and justify that decision to support a politician or not, not just for ourselves, but for the people who might be helped or harmed if that person gains or keeps office.

These are dangerous times for the disadvantaged and vulnerable among us. They need political advocates. They don't have the luxury of judging on the basis of personal merit or lack of, they have to judge by the probability of that person being an effective political advocate for them.

For me, this means the misdeed(s) first has to be serious, second has to be recent, and third has to be balanced against how that person has performed in politics.

Everybody has their own definition of 'serious'. Being a cynic, with regards to Warren identifying herself as Native American on her Bar app, I say: she saw a potential benefit from identifying herself as such and thus made use of it. Yeah, so what? How many people have overstated their qualifications on a resume, or outright lied? Should they be fired?

If you think they should be, consider this scenario: the person is engaged in obtaining help or providing care for the disadvantaged, and they've done that job very well. If that person is fired, the replacement may end up being an outwardly righteous person who not only believes the vulnerable and disadvantaged are unworthy of respect, but actively sabotages their care.

Do you still feel acting according to your personal ethics takes priority over the interests of the disadvantaged?

Personally, my default position is to side with the people who have the most to lose, and in the greatest numbers. Which means:

Warren took undue advantage of her NA heritage.
Klobuchar is a demanding taskmaster.
Franken continued his asshole frat-boy antics even after being elected.

But they didn't use their office to attack the people who need help. They advocated for them. In my book, that counts for more.
I've heard this bull before.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#68

Post by Addie » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:44 pm

CNBC
Elizabeth Warren wants to fund universal child care with a millionaire tax

Democratic presidential candidate and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping new proposal for universal child care aimed at providing licensed early childhood care for every family in the country at a cost of no more than 7 percent of that family's income. ...

According to Warren, her child care plan rests upon four policy pillars:
1. The federal government will partner with local providers — states, cities, school districts, nonprofits, tribes, faith-based organizations — to create a network of child care options that would be available to every family.

2. These options would include locally-licensed child care centers, preschool centers, and in-home child care options.

3. Local communities would be in charge, but providers would be held to high national standards to make sure that no matter where you live, your child will have access to quality care and early learning.

4. Child care and preschool workers will be doing the educational work that teachers do, so they will be paid like comparable public school teachers.
Warren's plan is projected to cost around $700 billion over 10 years, money which she said would come entirely from the proceeds of her proposed "ultra-millionaire tax."

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#69

Post by Addie » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:05 am

Ars Technica
SXSWarren: A day later, Elizabeth Warren defends her Big Tech breakup proposal

"The monopolists will make less monopoly money, boo hoo." ...


Warren touched on many topics over the course of her hour-long conversation with Giridharadas, but her support of free markets and capitalism—in particular how those ideas need to be instituted fairly within industries like tech—came up again and again. The senator had multiple, varied analogies at the ready to help. If baseball is your language, Warren likened Big Tech's current situation to the conflict of interest that might exist if one individual was, say, both umpire and team owner. If you prefer American history, she sees the power and influence of Google, Amazon, et al. as analogous to the railroads of the 1800s.

"The railroads of the Teddy Roosevelt era were the big monopoly of the 1800s—the railroads were where you had to be if you had a steel mill, wheat, or corn, you had to get your goods to the railroad," Warren said. "What happened? Railroads figured out they could price differently depending on your desperation or whether they had a competitor in the field. They'd start their own steel company and then give discount rates to move that along and sell at a cheaper price, but they'd raise prices for competitors.

"In that sense, what's new is old," she continued. "When someone gets market dominance, they destroy competition. The world that gave them birth, to get the opportunity to go and grow and do something, [the company] has grown big enough to destroy everything around it."

But for Warren, the urgent difference between baseball or railroads with today's tech is that Amazon, Google, or Facebook don't only have market domination—they also have more data than ever before on their consumers and their competition.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#70

Post by Addie » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:01 pm

The Hill
CNN to feature Elizabeth Warren in latest Democratic town hall

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who announced her 2020 presidential bid last month, will be featured in a CNN town hall next Monday in Mississippi.

The event at Jackson State University will be moderated by "The Lead" and "State of the Union" host Jake Tapper, who also serves as the network's Washington bureau chief.

Warren will be the eighth 2020 presidential hopeful to be featured on CNN.

The network has provided Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii); former Rep. John Delaney (Md.); South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz with a full hour each in prime time in the past two months. All have declared their presidential candidacies except for Schultz, who may be weighing an independent bid.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#71

Post by Addie » Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:55 pm

Salon - Amanda Marcotte
Elizabeth Warren's war on Big Tech puts her ahead as the candidate to take on corporate power

Forget labels like "capitalist" or "socialist." Warren is going after corporate power with policies, not words


Sen. Elizabeth Warren's strategy for winning the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is a risky one. She's been rolling out a series of big policy proposals, hoping that bold progressive ideas can capture voters' imaginations, but she's struggling to be heard in a news cycle dominated by Donald Trump's reality show antics and gotcha political point-scoring.

Warren's latest offering — a plan to use antitrust laws and principles to break up Big Tech — is provocative enough to garner a reaction. That reaction, by fitting into the gossip-and-drama model that drives views and readership, is helping draw attention to Warren's actual policy ideas.

The first incident came from Facebook refusing to run ads the Warren campaign had purchased that highlighted her antitrust agenda. The ads explicitly called out Facebook, naming Mark Zuckerberg's company, along with Amazon and Google, as one with "vast power over our economy and our democracy." When the ads were blacklisted, Warren tweeted that Facebook "has too much power" and the "ability to shut down a debate" over the limits to that power.

Facebook restored the ads, portraying the censorship (hilariously) not as an attempt to stifle criticism of their company, but an accident flowing from their ban on using the Facebook logo in advertising. Whatever the reasons, the move ended up drawing more attention to Warren's proposal -- and more discussion about the threat these monopolistic tech companies pose.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#72

Post by Addie » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:13 pm

NPR
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Blasts Big Tech, Advocates Taxing Rich in 2020 Race ...

In an interview with NPR host Steve Inskeep, Warren discusses how she would hold tech companies accountable and break up what she describes as an unfair competitive advantage. She also touches on her approach to trade, climate change and shares her thoughts on the idea of reparations.

Warren is the third candidate Morning Edition has interviewed as part of their Opening Arguments conversations examining White House hopefuls' core messages.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#73

Post by Addie » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:02 am

Medium - Team Warren: My Housing Plan for America
ElizabethWarren.com

ActBlue Donate

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#74

Post by Addie » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:14 pm

:clap:


User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31441
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#75

Post by Addie » Tue Mar 19, 2019 12:54 pm

Kicking my own thread, because if you didn't see Elizabeth Warren's CNN Town Hall last night, you missed something wonderful :thumbs:

Post Reply

Return to “Presidential Election”