As important to me as Elizabeth Warren's proposals and policies is the narrative around how her campaign has developed. I love the idea that she went from a low-tier candidate that nobody was...
As important to me as Elizabeth Warren's proposals and policies is the narrative around how her campaign has developed. I love the idea that she went from a low-tier candidate that nobody was talking about in light of Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, and Beto to slowly and steadily building up momentum solely on the force of releasing one thorough and actionable policy proposal after another.
She's not just campaigning to be President, but she's outlining a whole "New Deal" level of comprehensive, systemic reform of the government. It's not enough to talk about what we need to say "no" to (e.g. Trump, billionaires, etc.) but she's focusing her campaign on what we need to say "yes" to. I'm glad people seem to be hear for it.
Good lord it frustrates me when people focus on the "Former Republican" bit and claim she's somehow centrist compared to Bernie. No, there's no indication that she's right of Bernie in any of her...
Good lord it frustrates me when people focus on the "Former Republican" bit and claim she's somehow centrist compared to Bernie.
No, there's no indication that she's right of Bernie in any of her policies. Stop causing divisions.
To a very moderate degree, I share in your frustration with this. They are two different candidates. Unless they were identical people, projected onto some kind of one-dimensional Left-Right...
Good lord it frustrates me when people focus on the "Former Republican" bit
To a very moderate degree, I share in your frustration with this.
No, there's no indication that she's right of Bernie in any of her policies. Stop causing divisions.
They are two different candidates. Unless they were identical people, projected onto some kind of one-dimensional Left-Right spectrum, one of them is very likely to be "to the right" of the other. Frankly, I find it pretty bizarre to claim that Warren would be to the left of Sanders.
I'm not claiming she's to the left of Sanders. I'm stating that they're so similar that calling her "centrist", as some Bernie supporters do, is disingenuous.
I'm not claiming she's to the left of Sanders. I'm stating that they're so similar that calling her "centrist", as some Bernie supporters do, is disingenuous.
I definitely agree that people make too big a deal of her former political affiliations (how are people supposed to be able to grow and change with that attitude?), but her policies are measurably...
I definitely agree that people make too big a deal of her former political affiliations (how are people supposed to be able to grow and change with that attitude?), but her policies are measurably less leftist than Sanders' (some college debt relief as opposed to all, less comprehensive climate plan, talking about "access to healthcare" instead of Medicare for All, etc.) Does that mean she's actually on the right? Far from it.
It's a bit depressing that the Bernie Brigade online has turned "leftism" into a matter of saying the right shibboleths rather than anything that's actually tied to actions or policies. It's most...
It's a bit depressing that the Bernie Brigade online has turned "leftism" into a matter of saying the right shibboleths rather than anything that's actually tied to actions or policies. It's most egregious with the "But they won't say Medicare for All!" but they say it for everything. Like what a person actually intends to do doesn't seem to matter, they just want to hear the right buzzword or phrase or promise.
Not really. "Medicare for All" refers to a specific plan (not the corporate-approved nonsense Kamala tried putting out), and the fact that Warren is backing off from it is indicative of what she'd...
Not really. "Medicare for All" refers to a specific plan (not the corporate-approved nonsense Kamala tried putting out), and the fact that Warren is backing off from it is indicative of what she'd try to do (or wouldn't do) in office. Saying you specifically support M4A is tied to actions and policies.
Can you explain in concrete terms what is it about this plan that you think will work better than alternative methods and what you specifically don't think will work in Warren's proposals? Because...
Can you explain in concrete terms what is it about this plan that you think will work better than alternative methods and what you specifically don't think will work in Warren's proposals? Because relying so heavily on bromides like "corporate-approve nonsense" doesn't really get beyond my point regarding shibboleths in lieu of actions.
The reason I used the phrase "corporate-approved" with regards to Kamala's healthcare policy is that it was endorsed by Kathleen Sebelius, a former HHS secretary who is currently a board member of...
The reason I used the phrase "corporate-approved" with regards to Kamala's healthcare policy is that it was endorsed by Kathleen Sebelius, a former HHS secretary who is currently a board member of Devoted Health, which sells plans for the private insurer Medicare Advantage. Harris has also claimed to support M4A in the past and later backed down, so I don't think it's inaccurate to criticize her current position for its roots in private insurers. It may be a buzzword, but it's not wrong in this case.
Can you explain why you think Warren's climate plan is less comprehensive than Bernie's? From what I've seen she's working from Inslee's plan, which is the most detailed and comprehensive of any...
Can you explain why you think Warren's climate plan is less comprehensive than Bernie's? From what I've seen she's working from Inslee's plan, which is the most detailed and comprehensive of any put forth so far.
One place to start is the amount they're proposing to spend--Bernie's $16.3T vs. Warren's $3T. But simply looking at the price tags isn't a good way to dig into the details, of course. This...
One place to start is the amount they're proposing to spend--Bernie's $16.3T vs. Warren's $3T. But simply looking at the price tags isn't a good way to dig into the details, of course. This masterpost lists and compares their various policy points.
They do share the same general goals. Both plans are good, there's no denying that.
Yes, because, like it or not, Medicare for All and abolishing private health insurance polls terribly across the US. Is that bullshit? Yup. But I don't blame a politician for trying to get...
talking about "access to healthcare" instead of Medicare for All, etc.)
Yes, because, like it or not, Medicare for All and abolishing private health insurance polls terribly across the US.
Is that bullshit? Yup. But I don't blame a politician for trying to get elected. If Bernie continues to alienate the people who could potentially vote for him by not waging an all-out PR war on why abolishing private healthcare entirely is preferable to giving everyone the option of accessing a public run health system, then he's going to lose.
I never made any comment that it invalidates her as a candidate (though it is disappointing), just that it puts her further right than Bernie. But he's been making plenty of inroads with people...
I never made any comment that it invalidates her as a candidate (though it is disappointing), just that it puts her further right than Bernie. But he's been making plenty of inroads with people who don't typically get involved with politics--just look at his support with figures like Cardi B, for example. Although polls are far from perfect, he does win in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.
And yet: https://theintercept.com/2018/04/12/israel-palestine-conflict-elizabeth-warren/ https://theintercept.com/2019/08/15/israel-omar-tlaib-trump-netanyahu/...
As important to me as Elizabeth Warren's proposals and policies is the narrative around how her campaign has developed. I love the idea that she went from a low-tier candidate that nobody was talking about in light of Harris, Gillibrand, Booker, and Beto to slowly and steadily building up momentum solely on the force of releasing one thorough and actionable policy proposal after another.
She's not just campaigning to be President, but she's outlining a whole "New Deal" level of comprehensive, systemic reform of the government. It's not enough to talk about what we need to say "no" to (e.g. Trump, billionaires, etc.) but she's focusing her campaign on what we need to say "yes" to. I'm glad people seem to be hear for it.
Good lord it frustrates me when people focus on the "Former Republican" bit and claim she's somehow centrist compared to Bernie.
No, there's no indication that she's right of Bernie in any of her policies. Stop causing divisions.
To a very moderate degree, I share in your frustration with this.
They are two different candidates. Unless they were identical people, projected onto some kind of one-dimensional Left-Right spectrum, one of them is very likely to be "to the right" of the other. Frankly, I find it pretty bizarre to claim that Warren would be to the left of Sanders.
I'm not claiming she's to the left of Sanders. I'm stating that they're so similar that calling her "centrist", as some Bernie supporters do, is disingenuous.
I definitely agree that people make too big a deal of her former political affiliations (how are people supposed to be able to grow and change with that attitude?), but her policies are measurably less leftist than Sanders' (some college debt relief as opposed to all, less comprehensive climate plan, talking about "access to healthcare" instead of Medicare for All, etc.) Does that mean she's actually on the right? Far from it.
It's a bit depressing that the Bernie Brigade online has turned "leftism" into a matter of saying the right shibboleths rather than anything that's actually tied to actions or policies. It's most egregious with the "But they won't say Medicare for All!" but they say it for everything. Like what a person actually intends to do doesn't seem to matter, they just want to hear the right buzzword or phrase or promise.
Not really. "Medicare for All" refers to a specific plan (not the corporate-approved nonsense Kamala tried putting out), and the fact that Warren is backing off from it is indicative of what she'd try to do (or wouldn't do) in office. Saying you specifically support M4A is tied to actions and policies.
Can you explain in concrete terms what is it about this plan that you think will work better than alternative methods and what you specifically don't think will work in Warren's proposals? Because relying so heavily on bromides like "corporate-approve nonsense" doesn't really get beyond my point regarding shibboleths in lieu of actions.
The reason I used the phrase "corporate-approved" with regards to Kamala's healthcare policy is that it was endorsed by Kathleen Sebelius, a former HHS secretary who is currently a board member of Devoted Health, which sells plans for the private insurer Medicare Advantage. Harris has also claimed to support M4A in the past and later backed down, so I don't think it's inaccurate to criticize her current position for its roots in private insurers. It may be a buzzword, but it's not wrong in this case.
Can you explain why you think Warren's climate plan is less comprehensive than Bernie's? From what I've seen she's working from Inslee's plan, which is the most detailed and comprehensive of any put forth so far.
One place to start is the amount they're proposing to spend--Bernie's $16.3T vs. Warren's $3T. But simply looking at the price tags isn't a good way to dig into the details, of course. This masterpost lists and compares their various policy points.
They do share the same general goals. Both plans are good, there's no denying that.
Yes, because, like it or not, Medicare for All and abolishing private health insurance polls terribly across the US.
Is that bullshit? Yup. But I don't blame a politician for trying to get elected. If Bernie continues to alienate the people who could potentially vote for him by not waging an all-out PR war on why abolishing private healthcare entirely is preferable to giving everyone the option of accessing a public run health system, then he's going to lose.
I never made any comment that it invalidates her as a candidate (though it is disappointing), just that it puts her further right than Bernie. But he's been making plenty of inroads with people who don't typically get involved with politics--just look at his support with figures like Cardi B, for example. Although polls are far from perfect, he does win in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.
In what way, precisely? Why talk in such general terms when we're discussing specifics?
And yet:
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/12/israel-palestine-conflict-elizabeth-warren/
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/15/israel-omar-tlaib-trump-netanyahu/
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-does-elizabeth-warren-have-a-plan-for-israel-1.7409088
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/07/elizabeth-warren-palestine-israel-occupation-ifnotnow-bds-aipac
It seems like you're just cherry picking and ignoring the broader context.
Good? They're all kinda shitty governments? Should we start doing business with Kim Jong Un? What exactly are you arguing here?