2020 Democratic presidential primary

maybe you haven't heard, this guy "trump", he uses populist anti elite talking points.

but i live in maryland

elizabeth warren is not hillary clinton, donald fucking trump doesn't have any "anti-elite" arguments to make against her

yeah idk i think harvard lawyer who claimed to be a minority hire ticks a couple boxes on the right wing cultural grievance bingo.

cool identity politics bro

not saying this is valid btw,

i live in tennessee and i can tell you 100%: fuck these redneck trump assholes forever who gives a shit what they think

Yeah, if Bernie were the nominee they'd go to town with anti-semitic dog whistling. No sense in worrying about them.

otfm

yeah idk i think harvard lawyer who claimed to be a minority hire ticks a couple boxes on the right wing cultural grievance bingo.

― dsb, Saturday, November 2, 2019

wait till the Bernie-is-a-Jew-who-wants-your-money line takes off again, bro.

xps - falsity can easily be conveyed by omission and oversimplification.

for example, you cited the fact that Warren did work for Dow Chemical, obviously implying that this fact is by itself is somehow illuminating about her character, her political record, her policy goals, or her system of beliefs in 2019. I notice you failed to mention the Dow Chemical bankruptcy was filed in 1995. Do you think that the elapse of 25 years maybe could be significant? Or did it even occur to you to figure out anything past 'Dow is bad, so she is bad'?

this is only slightly more substantive than the 'Pocahontas' shit, meaning 'nearly worthless except as a cudgel to beat her with'.

I find it significant. if you think what a candidate did in their professional career 25 years ago is totally irrelevant thats fine, but in this case i don't feel that way. if we are discussing weather warren will stand up against extremely intense institutional political and corporate pressure to fight for progressive policy i think her career history especially an example of which involves healthcare and corporate law is a pretty fucking valid point of contention.

but in her defense the

i live in tennessee and i can tell you 100%: fuck these redneck trump assholes forever who gives a shit what they think

yeah I mean it’s not like she could have learned from the experience, nor determined to stick more forthrightly to her principles in the subsequent couple of decades

but in her defense the

kinda wild that east TN was a hotbed of anti-Confederate sentiment 150 years ago and now it’s the Trumpiest place on earth

i'm in hermitage, home of trump's hero

yeah I mean it’s not like she could have learned from the experience, nor determined to stick more forthrightly to her principles in the subsequent couple of decades

If ILX political discussions have taught us anything it's that no one ever learns anything or changes.

If ILX political discussions have taught us anything

if we are discussing weather warren will stand up against extremely intense institutional political and corporate pressure to fight for progressive policy i think her career history especially an example of which involves healthcare and corporate law is a pretty fucking valid point of contention.

― dsb, 2. november 2019 20:08 (twenty-three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think more things has happened in her career, no? A lot of which involve corporate law...

ok, yes. but this is the one we were currently talking about. here is an article filled with some of warren's other questionably progressive career and political history. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/10/why-criticize-warren?fbclid=IwAR1i4XyTYGmaiq5GI-k_9uJez6T6SNmtT6Gc1rV_62LqtrOx9qk4NWGn-YM

But the only reason why we were talking about this is because you brought it up. And now you introduce currentaffairs into this, as if that doesn't just make it worse?

y'now dsb, just you could save time by posting the anti-warren playbook at once instead of doling it out in monthly dribbles

idk worse in what way? do you want to talk about the content of it? i brought it up in reply to alfred posting a twitter thread in defense of her actions in the case against something that Kamela said.

Warren literally proposed the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and we're supposed to look at a couple meetings from 95 to see what she thinks about consumers and financial institutions?

^^^

hey dsb, how about we drop this, man

xp: im not saying she is all bad, or hasn't accomplished anything, she's my second choice in this race, but a distant second. i have real fears about her electability, and i view her ideologically as fundamentally technocratic would be compromiser. In the article Robinson discusses the formation of the CFB and her bringing in several big bank corporate people:

The centerpiece of Warren’s pro-consumer record is her role in setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But when Warren was advising the establishment of that agency, she brought in people like Raj Date, an executive formerly of CapitalOne and DeutscheBank. Catherine West, former head of CapitalOne’s credit card business, was brought in, along with the chief counsel of Sprint. Warren appointed Sartaj Alag, another CapitalOne executive, as one of her personal advisers. Warren’s chief of staff in the CFPB period, Wally Adeyemo, immediately went to enrich himself as a BlackRock executive afterward. Warren appears to have seen the hiring of industry “big shots” as desirable rather than as a case of the fox being asked to guard the hen house. The kind of “revolving door” politics Warren deplores on the campaign trail is one that she herself may have been intimately involved with at the CFPB.

*fart*

nice one

def shouldn't hire anyone with finance experience to work at the consumer financial protection bureau

but, yeah, on a serious note, I'm delighted you're young and presumably white enough to think that One Man Can Save Us All. The rest of us have several decades of local politics to teach us about the perfidy of national candidates.

xp: yeah that makes sense "finance experience" in an institution designed to protect consumers should = executives at big banks. this is also why northrop grumman and raytheon should have direct representation in foreign affairs decision making.

Cavils about politicians are true about every politician who ever took a stand. What keeps me from making Sanders my #1 this time are his health and age, but he made it possible for a Warren -- considered a radical by the Obamans and the right until Sanders' fans decided she was a stealth agent -- to mount a serious challenge to Biden. You just come out and say that a decade spent creating and fighting for the CFPB and working on bankruptcy reform means shit because Bernie the Unicorn will save us all.

dsb, are there particular aspects of the legislation or the agency that you think betray this influence? serious q, i don't know enough about the CFPB.

and none of them mean shit unless we win the Senate

dsb, are there particular aspects of the legislation or the agency that you think betray this influence? serious q, i don't know enough about the CFPB.

Honestly i don't know enough about it to answer either. to what extant it was doing meaningful work, my understanding is that it has been completely neutered by trump. it certainly doesn't appeal to me have bank executives present in decision making roles at it's formation though, is this the only way things get accomplished in american politics? probably, thats what they keep telling us anyway. I think fighting for a better way and pointing out the hypocrisy when we can is still the appropriate response though.

Warren famously was not allowed to lead the CFPB the way she wanted to. It's literally a case of her standing up for something impossible, losing, but fighting on. She became a senator, and picked fight after fight with Obama who had let her down. And now she is going to be president! In short, Nathan Robinson is being disingenuous as always.

ok convince me, post some links of how she picked fight after fight with obama.

I find it significant. if you think what a candidate did in their professional career 25 years ago is totally irrelevant thats fine, but in this case i don't feel that way.

In my view the best measure of its relevance is how it fits into the narrative of what she has done in the subsequent 25 years, and more especially the past 10 years, rather than taking it as an isolated fact and promoting it as suggestive of her current positions. You seem to think you are raising a red flag, when all you are doing is repeating a red herring.

dsb, I respectfully submit that, if Warren is your (admittedly distant) second choice behind Bernie, you'd be much better off in every way by making the strongest case you can in favor of Bernie, rather than making the strongest case you can for disfavoring and mistrusting Warren. The latter approach could attract people to your position, but you're not doing yourself or Bernie a favor by painting your own second choice as repellent and untrustworthy.

Cavils about politicians are true about every politician who ever took a stand. What keeps me from making Sanders my #1 this time are his health and age, but he made it possible for a Warren -- considered a radical by the Obamans and the right until Sanders' fans decided she was a stealth agent -- to mount a serious challenge to Biden. You just come out and say that a decade spent creating and fighting for the CFPB and working on bankruptcy reform means shit because Bernie the Unicorn will save us all.

^^

The last ten years of someone's career are a better indicator of their present thinking than the previous 25.

You could use Google yourself, but here's the most recent: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/12/warren-obama-2020-228068

lol xpost

ok convince me, post some links of how she picked fight after fight with obama.

pvmic that you think "picking fight after fight" is the most effective way to persuade people of a viewpoint

I'm quote replying Frederic's thread a previous thread so...

it's funny how much current affairs has changed his tune from like six weeks ago: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/09/sanders-and-warren-need-a-pact

and also six months ago: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/elizabeth-warrens-excellent-ideas

The notion that no one should ever have had corporate experience before becoming a politician is a weird sort of purity test. Maybe Warren learned a lot of valuable lessons that makes her especially distrustful of corporations like Dow, maybe it makes her better armed to deploy anti-trust and anti-corruption laws where needed, maybe it gave her a very close view of middle class strain, I don’t know what her experience means to her, but I think it’s better to let her explains hers herself rather than applying negative biases without any knowledge of anything.

it's probably good to get every dumb thing the democratic nominee has ever said or done out there in the open as soon as possible for inoculation purposes, and it worries me that bernie has never been on the receiving end of a real negative campaign by a presidential or primary frontrunner. clinton, biden, and warren have all run ahead of him in polls and have never needed to attack him, and trump of course played him up to troll democrats in 2016...

Also if working for Dow 25 years ago is a deal breaker for the american public, what about the useful idiot touring the USSR. My guess is that neither matter much.

I mean christ, Hilary was evil incarnate per some standards and she decimated the public vote. Eight years prior, an afro-american with Hussein as his middle name won the presidency. Certainly we can’t possibly be worried of Warren’s experience with Dow.

The thing about negative attacks like the 'Pocahontas' nonsense and this Dow Chemical innuendo isn't that they persuade everyone, but that they create a negative atmosphere around a candidate, sow disquiet and doubt, and pick off some voters who might otherwise have been receptive. The more of these false narratives you can manufacture and spread, the more you weaken your opponent, even if you don't strengthen your own position directly. The problem with the innuendo dsb is spreading here is that the unmerited disquiet and doubt will carry over to the general election, too, and weaken Warren against Trump, if she gets the nomination.