2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[NY's #1 Draft Pick]

Yo what’s up with these buttiboyz dancing videos on twitter ?!

if that ain’t the corniest thing I’ve ever seen

 

[Wargames]

Basically she's kind of an idiot. But she went to Harvard, so she's convinced she's Above The Rest Of Us.

She went to the University of Houston and Rutgers Law school...... you know non ivy schools

She taught at Harvard cause she became renowned in her field. Stop being a misinformation agent and at least get your slander right.

 

[Warren Moon]

She went to the University of Houston and Rutgers Law school...... you know non ivy schools

She taught at Harvard cause she became renowned in her field. Stop being a misinformation agent and at least get your slander right.

Atleast get why she was chosen to for Harvard. She was a right wing Native American professor

she didn’t switch it up until after she got her role at Harvard.

before that she was a anti consumer, pull yourself up by your bootstraps conservative darling. She was only added to the bankruptcy commission bc she was an huge conservative but did a complete 180 once she got on it in less than 2-3 months


Before that she regularly debate democrats at law school and in court as a firm non believer in consumer bankruptcy she was an early version of Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Carson. A staunch Republican rapped up in a “diverse person”


Stop getting your misinformation right. Atleast tell ppl about how she came up


Elizabeth Warren is a straight up finesser and always has been

 

[NY's #1 Draft Pick]

Atleast get why she was chosen to for Harvard. She was a right wing Native American professor

she didn’t switch it up until after she got her role at Harvard.

before that she was a anti consumer, pull yourself up by your bootstraps conservative darling. She was only added to the bankruptcy commission bc she was an huge conservative but did a complete 180 once she got on it in less than 2-3 months


Before that she regularly debate democrats at law school and in court as a firm non believer in consumer bankruptcy she was an early version of Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Carson. A staunch Republican rapped up in a “diverse person”


Stop getting your misinformation right. Atleast tell ppl about how she came up


Elizabeth Warren is a straight up finesser and always has been

This whole post is misinforming.
- right wing Native American professor
- anti consumer pull yourself by the bootstrap conservative darling
- regularly debated dems in law school
- early version of milo or Ben Carson

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from. Your whole post seems dishonest and makes you sound like a fukking troll. To diminish her rise, her accomplishments and the work she’s done in the consumer advocacy spectrum and reduce her to a gay Right wing a$$hole that puts out blogs is ridiculous.

you say you want to have discussions with posters on different candidates but then you go ahead and Insult the poster When they don’t agree with you. This makes you look like a clown. You’ve made reading this thread insufferable with all the petty arguments you engage in. I’ll be sure when WOAT poster voting in HL comes around to add your name.

 

[Pressure]

FDR was in a wheelchair

FDR died in office.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

FDR was in a wheelchair

legs > heart

do you though

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Warren Moon]

This whole post is misinforming.
- right wing Native American professor
- anti consumer pull yourself by the bootstrap conservative darling
- regularly debated dems in law school
- early version of milo or Ben Carson

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from. Your whole post seems dishonest and makes you sound like a fukking troll. To diminish her rise, her accomplishments and the work she’s done in the consumer advocacy spectrum and reduce her to a gay Right wing a$$hole that puts out blogs is ridiculous.

you say you want to have discussions with posters on different candidates but then you go ahead and Insult the poster When they don’t agree with you. This makes you look like a clown. You’ve made reading this thread insufferable with all the petty arguments you engage in. I’ll be sure when WOAT poster voting in HL comes around to add your name.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren


Warren began her academic career as a lecturer at Rutgers University, Newark School of Law (1977–78). She then moved to the University of Houston Law Center (1978–83), where she became an associate dean in 1980 and obtained tenure in 1981. She taught at the University of Texas School of Law as visiting associate professor in 1981 and returned as a full professor two years later (staying from 1983 to 1987). She was a research associate at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin from 1983 to 1987[16] and was also a visiting professor at the University of Michigan in 1985. During this period, Warren also taught Sunday school.[9][22]

Warren's earliest academic work was heavily influenced by the law and economicsmovement, which aimed to apply neoclassical economic theory to the study of law with an emphasis on economic efficiency. One of her articles, published in 1980 in the Notre Dame Law Review, argued that public utilities were over-regulated and that automatic utility rate increases should be instituted.[23] But Warren soon became a proponent of on-the-ground research into how people respond to laws. Her work analyzing court records and interviewing judges, lawyers, and debtors, established her as a rising star in the field of bankruptcy law.[24] According to Warren and economists who follow her work, one of her key insights was that rising bankruptcy rates were caused not by profligate consumer spending but by middle-class families' attempts to buy homes in good school districts.[25] Warren worked in this field alongside colleagues Teresa A. Sullivan and Jay Westbrook, and the trio published their research in the book As We Forgive Our Debtors in 1989. Warren later recalled that she had begun her research believing that most people filing for bankruptcy were either working the system or had been irresponsible in incurring debts, but that she concluded that such abuse was in fact rare and that the legal framework for bankruptcy was poorly designed, describing the way the research challenged her fundamental beliefs as "worse than disillusionment" and "like being shocked at a deep-down level".

In 1995, the National Bankruptcy Review Commission's chair, former Congressman Mike Synar, asked Warren to advise the commission. Synar had been a debate opponent of Warren's during their school years.

Michael Lynn "Mike" Synar (October 17, 1950 – January 9, 1996) was an American Democratic politician who represented Oklahoma's 2nd congressional district in Congress for eight terms. Mike Synar - Wikipedia

 

[Warren Moon]

@NY's #1 Draft Pick Straight facts. Any other questions or other shyt I made up?

 

[Wargames]

Atleast get why she was chosen to for Harvard. She was a right wing Native American professor

she didn’t switch it up until after she got her role at Harvard.

before that she was a anti consumer, pull yourself up by your bootstraps conservative darling. She was only added to the bankruptcy commission bc she was an huge conservative but did a complete 180 once she got on it in less than 2-3 months


Before that she regularly debate democrats at law school and in court as a firm non believer in consumer bankruptcy she was an early version of Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Carson. A staunch Republican rapped up in a “diverse person”


Stop getting your misinformation right. Atleast tell ppl about how she came up


Elizabeth Warren is a straight up finesser and always has been

show the receipts for this or stfu

 

[Warren Moon]

show the receipts for this or stfu

receipts are above

 

[88m3]

I've gotta give props to @King Kreole for calling you guys out on the regressive bs some of you guys are seriously mulling over

 

[storyteller]

You keep repeating this notion that Bruenig’s critique was in bad faith and right wing in nature but you are literally the only person on the internet who I have read say that. It’s a strange argument.

The majority of progressives, especially the Jacobin left types (and Bernie Sanders himself) find the regressive nature of a head tax vs. a payroll tax as a prime negative. You seem to like the employer-side tax vs. employee-side tax aspect of her plan, and for that reason you find it more progressive. Why, I have no idea. I’m a progressive so I like progressive tax structures, not regressive ones like her head tax and that is the superseding factor to me as a progressive. I thought that when I first read her plan, before I read the Bruenig article.

Either all these progressives and democratic socialists all morphed into Heritage foundation sleepers overnight because they stan Bernie Sanders or something, or we genuinely find her plan regressive and unworkable. Talk about arguing in bad faith.

Also, you need to understand that more important than the ideological underpinnings of how workers’ earnings are taxed is can it work. Based on our last conversation I don’t think you understood the critique of contracting out workers making it unsustainable.

You kept talking about the 50 person exempt threshold which mirrors the ACA, and how it didn’t cause a giant leap in contracting out work to firms with less than 50 workers to avoid paying healthcare. That isn’t even relevant here. The argument is that companies will contract out workers regardless of how many employers they have because contractors are exempt from paying the head tax under her plan...and of course they will do that and they already are. Saying they’re already doing it doesn’t bolster your argument, in fact it weakens it because avoiding healthcare costs is already a major factor in why they do it. So as full and part time employers swap out workers to contractors that’s lost tax revenue, which can lead to the head tax being raised, and a multiplying effect of tax raises and contracting. If you have a payroll tax, on top of being progressive not regressive, contractors are not exempt so even if/when employers contract out for whatever reason, that tax revenue is still collected.

Do you work in the private sector? I’m asking cause I find it humorous that you kept saying labor reorganization is so expensive and cumbersome to companies that they wouldn’t dare do it to avoid a head tax. I’ve seen it for years. You wanna know how it works? It’s simple. Someone quits or gets fired, the company hires a contractor to do the same job...or an intern.

Dude's being purposefully obtuse on a lot of this. People's Policy Project reflected the exact same concerns as Bruenig. Even Matt Yglesias points to some of the same concerns voiced by those two and he's far from a Bernie supporter.

The Sanders-Warren dispute about how to pay for Medicare-for-all, explained

Compared to Sanders’s plan, Warren’s plan is more favorable to the interests of high-income earners (the part that Sanders likes to emphasize) but also more favorable to Medicaid recipients (probably a framing she would prefer) since there’d be no extra tax on them.

Her plan also generates some odd inequities. Right now, a company that spends more on its employees’ health insurance gets something in exchange — happier, more generously compensated employees. Under Warren’s plan, that company would end up paying higher fees to the government but every worker would get the same insurance plan — in effect putting the previously more generous companies at a disadvantage.

In the short term this would generate more whining than actual problems. But over time it would be increasingly unsustainable. So Warren says that “over time, an employer’s health care cost-per-employee would be gradually shifted to converge at the average health care cost-per-employee nationally.” If you ignore the transition period and just think about the long-term result, Sanders is proposing a flat tax on wage income while Warren is proposing a kind of regressive employer poll tax.

In this particular case, however, that dynamic is reversed. It’s Warren whose plan optimizes for easily illustrating the point that almost everyone’s costs will go down, even at the cost of embracing a vision that’s not going to be technically sustainable for very long. She’s then vague about the timing of the transition off her plan, and is going to transition to something that’s probably a worse deal for many people than a more technocratic alternative would be.

Sanders, by contrast, is proposing a big new broad tax, even though big new broad taxes tend to be unpopular. This is how foreign single-payer systems are typically designed, and it’s almost certainly what a team of policy wonks would recommend if they were setting all political considerations aside.

That's not to mention the bizarre confusion about introducing legislation in week one vs passing legislation in week one. I don't think it's bad faith, just heavily biased opinionating while passing off conclusions as fact. But the constant accusation of opponents with real critiques of being bad faith just makes it hard to stomach. I've seen MR, TYT, Michael Brooks, Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinsky all attacked for being biased in a pretty clear conflation of their various critiques (best part being that with the exception of Kulinsky, I'm certain I've heard every other show's hosts put Warren as the second best option). I'm kinda surprised Ben Dixon hasn't caught any strays, he's been drawing clear differences too and waving his Bernie support proudly.

 

[WaveMolecules]

Bloomberg

 

[King Kreole]

Dude's being purposefully obtuse on a lot of this. People's Policy Project reflected the exact same concerns as Bruenig. Even Matt Yglesias points to some of the same concerns voiced by those two and he's far from a Bernie supporter.

The Sanders-Warren dispute about how to pay for Medicare-for-all, explained

People's Policy Project is Matt Breunig

And nothing in that Yglesias piece contradicts what I've been. Bernie is proposing (at least we have to infer, because he has yet to put out a financing plan) a flat tax on employees whereas Warren is proposing a flat head tax on employers. I don't believe Bernie's approach is indefensible, I've previously stated there can be strong benefits to reorienting the public perception of taxes as a bad thing we have to give to the government into the price we all willingly pay to live in a healthy society. And there is an argument to be had that a payroll tax that incentives low-wage hiring but disincentivizes wage increases is preferable to a flat head tax that incentivizes wage increases but disincentivizes low-wage hiring, but instead, we've been dragged into this dumbass Republican economics side argument about how Elizabeth Warren is an evil neoliberal shill trying to punish low-wage workers because she's taxing their employers.

That's not to mention the bizarre confusion about introducing legislation in week one vs passing legislation in week one. I don't think it's bad faith, just heavily biased opinionating while passing off conclusions as fact. But the constant accusation of opponents with real critiques of being bad faith just makes it hard to stomach. I've seen MR, TYT, Michael Brooks, Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinsky all attacked for being biased in a pretty clear conflation of their various critiques (best part being that with the exception of Kulinsky, I'm certain I've heard every other show's hosts put Warren as the second best option). I'm kinda surprised Ben Dixon hasn't caught any strays, he's been drawing clear differences too and waving his Bernie support proudly.

There's no confusion here. Bernie's response to Liz's transition plan was to say he's going to push for his M4A bill to be introduced. Everyone operating in reality knows this will not be passed, so we're debating what exactly are the merits of introducing a doomed, DOA bill.

Dixon hasn't caught any strays because he has been offering well thought out, reasonable critiques of Warren. Same with Cenk. Same with Emma Vigeland. Same with Ryan Grim. All these people are for Bernie over Warren, and I value their takes and even agree with a lot of them. Ball, Brooks, Kulinsky, Day, Breunig and their ilk have not been offering good-faith critiques of Warren. They've been offering up hacky bullshyt, so they get called out as such.