Elizabeth Warren 2020

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
VodoundaVinci
Chatty
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#126 Post by VodoundaVinci » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:27 am

https://www.gq.com/story/joe-biden-want ... t-for-cfpb

I *did* love the way Warren defender herself against Biden's attempt at taking credit for her signature achievement. Very classy....she's becoming my favorite next to Bernie.

I prolly ought to send her some money except for her stance on guns.

VooDoo

User avatar
Buck13
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 3283
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:21 pm
Location: Puget Sound Convergence Zone
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#127 Post by Buck13 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:36 am

NegativeApproach wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 9:51 am
senorgrand wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:30 pm
K9s wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:12 pm
I think that is why they are going so far anti-gun... California primary. What else explains it? It explains why Swalwell thought he had a chance and ran on Cali platforms.
As discussed here before, being anti-2a allows dems liberal cred without upsetting their donor base.
The problem is, Warren and Sanders are trying to get downers from "common people", AKA Plebes. They don't want gun control. That's why Sanders is slipping, he can't realize that blue collar dems and radical dems don't want their rights taken away.

I'd argue that gun control is what cost Clinton the election in 2016. Warren and Sanders are taking a page out of the Clinton playbook and amping it up, and I think that's a losing strategy.

Every Democratic candidate is trying to outdo each other on gun control for the primary, and that's going to be a heavy liability in the general election.
Agree that Clinton could have lost those few thousand votes in the "blue wall" upper Midwest by scaring away otherwise persuadable gun guys. Enough gun owners are one-issue voters that it's hurt the Dems outside blue cities since the 70s. But she could also have potentially turned out more votes there by simply not taking them for granted and campaigning there more, so the pro-gun-control faction will never cede that point.

Dems keeping their mouths shut as much as possible about gun control could only help them. Doubt that's going to happen, though.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

ImageImage

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#128 Post by K9s » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:21 pm

The gun control debate has become a polarized and non-nuanced debate - like abortion. Given the choice, a whole lot of people want some gun control vs virtually unrestricted open carry (what they see in red states). It is hard to blame a lot people for being freaked out at the right-wingers in camo with ARs in public.

The people who vote on guns only are rare and most are Trump supporters. The tiny slice of single-issue gun voters that would vote for a Dem are not worth it compared to losing support to an anti-2A Dem in a primary.

It sucks, but the truth is that we won't lose all our guns and ammo to a Dem. We will lose a lot more of America to the GOP if they hold on to power. The Senate is key.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19417
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#129 Post by CDFingers » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:07 am

I'd still like to see them pair up.
26s932hktws31.jpg
CDFingers
ImageImage
On the day when I was born, Daddy sat down and cried.
I had the mark just as plain as day. It could not be denied.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#130 Post by K9s » Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:18 pm

:)
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 16603
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#131 Post by TrueTexan » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:29 pm

CDFingers wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:07 am
I'd still like to see them pair up.

26s932hktws31.jpg

CDFingers
A Sanders/Warren ticket is a winner. At least in my humble estimation.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

VodoundaVinci
Chatty
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#132 Post by VodoundaVinci » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:38 pm

Sanders folks text and email me every week....I think I'll suggest it and see if I get response.

This would be a ticket I'd be out there working actively to get people to vote for. Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren. This would create excitement.

VooDoo

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#133 Post by highdesert » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:31 am

As the Ukraine scandal continues to dominate the headlines, former Vice President Joe Biden remains the most-mentioned candidate on cable news. But even though Biden has been getting so much attention, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has been slowly and steadily rising in popularity (although not at his expense). Last Tuesday, Warren surpassed Biden in the RealClearPolitics average of polls for the first time. It should come as no surprise, then, that Warren is the next most-mentioned candidate on cable news after Biden and that her share of coverage increased last week from the previous week, according to data from the TV News Archive,1 which chops up TV news into 15-second clips. Though this column typically also includes data from Media Cloud, a database of online news stories, that data is temporarily unavailable due to site maintenance.
But Warren’s rise in coverage isn’t all about how well she’s doing in the polls, and it’s also not evenly distributed across the three networks that we monitor (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC). This week she was mentioned in 327 clips on Fox News, but only 176 on MSNBC and 108 on CNN, marking the second week in a row that she has been mentioned significantly more on Fox News compared to the other networks.
And it’s not just the amount of coverage that differs. Fox News is also focusing on stories that the other two networks are not devoting as much time to. “Hillary Clinton” and “visibly pregnant” are among the top three two-word phrases most particular to Fox News in clips about Elizabeth Warren last week.2 The phrase “Hillary Clinton” — which appeared in 17 clips on Fox that mentioned Warren, but only two on each CNN and MSNBC — appeared often in segments about Clinton’s response to a tweet from President Trump suggesting Clinton should run for president and “steal it away” from Warren. And the phrase “visibly pregnant,” which appeared in 14 Fox News clips last week but wasn’t mentioned at all on CNN or MSNBC, occurred in segments about Warren’s response to allegations that she misrepresented the details of her departure from a job as a special education teacher in the early 1970s.

If Warren continues to rise in the polls, she could get more media attention (and scrutiny) than she has in the past.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wa ... -networks/

Fox's strategy, paint Warren as another HRC.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#134 Post by K9s » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:53 pm

The far-right has a pretty tired, old playbook since the 70s. They use one against young people, one against poor people, one against POC, and one against women.

They throw a playbook fake scandal every week out and see if something sticks. It's pretty easy to spot once you know the playbook.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#135 Post by highdesert » Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:52 pm

Warren who pushed for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and is seen as not being tainted by corporate money, has a "corporatist" background. NY Times "Elizabeth Warren's Days Defending Big Corporations" Sorry it's long.
Elizabeth Warren had never taken on the federal government before.

But in 1995, she found herself up against the Clinton administration, representing the Cleveland-based conglomerate LTV Steel. Even though LTV had sold off its coal mines during the 1980s, a new law required it to contribute to a health fund for retired miners. LTV believed that it should not have to pay. Those claims, the company said, should have been handled as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. Ms. Warren’s job was to convince the Supreme Court to hear LTV’s case. The court declined, but for Ms. Warren, the issue would fester. Over a decade later, when she ran for the Senate from Massachusetts in 2012, the Republican incumbent, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, tried to use her work for LTV against her, unleashing an ad calling her a “hired gun” who sided “against working people.” Notwithstanding the attack, Mr. Brown lost his seat to Ms. Warren.

The LTV case was part of a considerable body of legal work that Ms. Warren, one of the nation’s leading bankruptcy experts, took on while working as a law professor — moonlighting that earned her hundreds of thousands of dollars over roughly two decades beginning in the late 1980s, mostly while she was on the faculty at Harvard. Much of it involved representing big corporate clients. Ms. Warren has ascended toward the head of the Democratic presidential pack on the strength of her populist appeal and progressive plans, which include breaking up big technology companies, free public college and a wealth tax on the richest Americans. Her political opponents, in turn, have sought to find a soft spot on issues of authenticity — chiefly Ms. Warren’s handling of her claim to Native American ancestry. Against that backdrop, some of Ms. Warren’s critics have seized upon her bankruptcy work for LTV and other big corporations to question the depth of her progressive bona fides. How, they wonder, could someone whose reputation is built on consumer advocacy have represented a company seeking to avoid paying for retired miners’ health care?

Ms. Warren’s campaign did not make her available to discuss her outside legal work, though it did provide email responses to some questions. But over the years, Ms. Warren has twice released accounts of her practice — a partial list of cases during the 2012 Senate race and a fuller list of more than 50 cases posted to her presidential campaign website in May. Among her corporate clients were Travelers insurance and the aircraft maker Fairchild, as well as one of America’s wealthiest families, the Hunts of Texas. She advocated for a railroad company that wanted to avoid paying for a Superfund cleanup, and advised Dow Chemical as its subsidiary Dow Corning dealt with thousands of complaints from women who said they had been harmed by its silicone breast implants. But she also worked on a number of cases involving consumer bankruptcy and victims’ rights in asbestos litigation, served as an expert in a lawsuit against the cigarette maker Philip Morris and represented the lawyer whose battles with polluters inspired the film “A Civil Action.”

In very brief and simplified summaries, the lists [prepared by her campaign] cast much of her work — even for corporate clients — in terms that align with her pro-consumer narrative. Those descriptions have themselves become a focus of some contention. But a review by The New York Times, together with interviews with several of Ms. Warren’s former compatriots in the rarefied world of self-described bankruptcy nerds, reveals a complex picture in which many cases defy simple black or white categorization. It also offers a look at a relatively unexamined aspect of her thinking. Her work, the scholars say, should be understood primarily as an effort to preserve the right to file for bankruptcy and the integrity of the bankruptcy system. “As far as I can tell, the kind of positions she took were positions that were completely consistent with someone who was dedicated to the value of the bankruptcy process,” said Douglas G. Baird, a University of Chicago Law School bankruptcy expert who differs philosophically from Ms. Warren on some issues in the field and says he is not a political supporter.

Indeed, in her most recent list of cases, Ms. Warren wrote that bankruptcy “inevitably pits sympathetic interests against each other — current victims against future victims, employees against retirees and small suppliers against customers who didn’t get what they were promised.” The challenge, she concluded, is “balancing all of these interests in the fairest way possible.” Mr. Baird also suggested that in some cases, Ms. Warren was simply advocating for clients, not necessarily with an eye toward the future popularity of her positions. Lawyers, he said, are not ideologues, but are to some extent “plumbers or mechanics trying to be zealous advocates for their clients.” Ms. Warren has acknowledged that for much of her long and varied career she was not politically engaged and had no plan to run for public office. Until 1996, she was registered as a Republican. In taking on outside clients, Ms. Warren augmented her salary at Harvard, where she was among the most highly paid faculty members. In 1998, the Harvard Crimson reported that she was paid $192,550 in salary plus $133,450 in “other compensation.”

It is not possible to tell how much Ms. Warren made from her legal consultancy, and she declined to reveal the amount, but it was clearly more than $500,000 and probably much more. Most of the work fell outside the period when she was required to submit financial disclosure reports. Travelers paid her more than $200,000 over several years for advice on dealing with asbestos claims against its insured, Johns Manville. In 2010, Ms. Warren was paid $90,000 to write two expert opinions on behalf of merchants who were suing credit card companies and banks, alleging antitrust violations in processing fees. Because she was heading up the congressional panel monitoring the bank bailout at the time, Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, raised questions about whether the work presented a conflict of interest. Some conflict-of-interest provisions had been waived, however, because members of the panel were experts who served part-time. For her work with Caplin & Drysdale, a firm representing plaintiffs in a number of asbestos-related cases, Ms. Warren billed $675 an hour, in line with what partners in top New York firms charged at the time.

While some law professors look askance at outside work, regarding it as impure, most schools permit it, and Harvard has encouraged it, according to Randall L. Kennedy, a law professor there and former colleague of Ms. Warren. “The idea that you would be in government, you would be consulted, you would be a big shot in the legal profession, I think that was viewed as one of the distinctive parts of the Harvard Law School ethos,” said Mr. Kennedy, who noted that some of his best-known colleagues maintained very active practices. “That’s how we roll.”
It is an unglamorous area of law, and it rarely makes news. That’s why the bankruptcy nerds who post to a blog called Credit Slips were shocked in 2012 when a decade-old bankruptcy case became a hot political topic. “LTV has amazingly become an issue in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts,” wrote John A. E. Pottow, a former Harvard student of Ms. Warren who teaches bankruptcy at the University of Michigan Law School. “A bankruptcy case!”

Ms. Warren’s record in the LTV case is a textbook example of how complex legal matters can be seen in vastly different ways. Viewed through a layman’s eyes, Ms. Warren appeared to be fighting against working people. Some bankruptcy experts, however, viewed her motivations as more far-reaching — aimed at preserving a system that ultimately offers working people some measure of protection. The origins of the 1995 case dated back to the Truman administration. To settle a coal miners strike, the federal government forged an agreement that miners would have health care coverage when they retired, provided by their last employer. Over the years, as demand for coal declined, companies closed their mines and stopped paying these benefits. To remedy the problem, in 1992, Congress passed the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act, to provide benefits for more than 100,000 retired miners. Each company that had operated coal mines, even those no longer in the business, would be required to pay into a fund for their retirees.

LTV objected to paying into the fund. The company had filed for bankruptcy in 1986, resolving claims from thousands of employees. The Coal Act, LTV now argued, retroactively imposed new liabilities based on events that had taken place years earlier and that therefore should have been resolved during bankruptcy. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that LTV’s liabilities were not technically “claims” under the bankruptcy code because they had been created by a new act of Congress. Ms. Warren’s campaign has said she engaged in outside legal work primarily when there was a larger issue at stake, which is what Mr. Baird believed she had in mind when she agreed to represent LTV in its Supreme Court petition.

“Can Congress make that law apply retroactively even to firms that have had their day of reckoning in bankruptcy?” Mr. Baird said. “If you believe in the bankruptcy system, you can argue that you shouldn’t do this retroactive second-guessing.” In her petition asking the Supreme Court to review the decision, Ms. Warren wrote that bankruptcy “contemplates that all legal obligations of the debtor, no matter how remote or contingent, will be dealt with by the bankruptcy case.” “The Second Circuit,” she added, “threatens to erode that concept, with serious implications for future bankruptcies.” This year, nearly 15 years after the Supreme Court declined to review the case, Ms. Warren’s campaign described her work this way: “In this case, Elizabeth represented a company that was asking the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court’s ruling that limited the ability of future employees, retirees and victims to receive any compensation at all from bankrupt companies.”
In bankruptcy, there is a day of reckoning, the point at which a debtor’s accounts are squared. As with LTV, several of Ms. Warren’s more prominent cases involved questions of what happens when claims arise after that day. Such claims are regarded as potentially eroding the system and undermining the chance for a “fresh start” for companies and individuals that file bankruptcy. Ms. Warren at one point praised how the system gave a second chance to several well-known companies, including one of Donald J. Trump’s businesses.

“General Motors, Trump Enterprises, Hershey Foods and dozens of other well-known companies all survived early bankruptcies, she wrote in 2009. “Second chances opened the way for Francis Ford Coppola, Willie Nelson and Mark Twain to leave their marks on world cinema, music and literature.” Any development that undermines that principle is “going to create a mess in the bankruptcy system,” said Adam J. Levitin, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who studied under Ms. Warren. He added, “If all these new liabilities start appearing, the bankruptcy system doesn’t work.”

In one case that turned on these issues, Ms. Warren found herself on the same side as Kenneth Starr, who at the time was also the independent counsel leading a long-running investigation of the Clinton White House. The case involved a company called CMC Heartland Partners and a Superfund site near Tacoma, Wash., named one of the 10 most hazardous in the country. CMC Heartland was the successor company to the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company — known colloquially as the Milwaukee Road — which had filed for bankruptcy in 1977. Union Pacific Railroad subsequently acquired the company’s old Tacoma rail yards, where it discovered an environmental disaster of oil and other industrial waste. When CMC refused to pay for the cleanup — arguing that the claims were barred by its predecessor company’s bankruptcy — Union Pacific sued. In 1996, after a federal appeals court ruled against CMC, Ms. Warren filed a brief asking the solicitor general to support a Supreme Court review.

The implications of allowing the lower court ruling to stand, Ms. Warren argued, would be profound “for those who are trying to put the assets of those businesses back into productive use, for those who face uncompensated injuries and for those who have other claims against the business.” The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Another such case, in 1995, involved Fairchild, the aircraft manufacturer. Two years before, a well-known NASCAR driver named Alan Kulwicki and three associates had been killed when their Fairchild Merlin crashed near Blountville, Tenn. In a lawsuit, survivors of the four dead men sought compensation from Fairchild, arguing that their death was related to a defect in the aircraft and that, even though the manufacturer had filed for bankruptcy and been taken over by a newly established company, the new company should be liable. Ms. Warren represented the new company, arguing that it had bought Fairchild’s assets free and clear of claims and should not be responsible for ongoing liabilities of planes made by the old bankrupt company.

Her campaign has said she was trying to save the new company and its 1,000 jobs. One of the opposing lawyers, James A. Hoffman of San Antonio, put it differently. “Her position in our matter was that these people are simply out of luck,” he said. Ms. Warren lost, but the case was later settled, and the National Transportation Safety Board ultimately ruled that the crash had not been caused by an aircraft defect.
In quite a few cases, Ms. Warren came down clearly on the side of the consumer. Yet some of the case descriptions released by her campaign, seemingly written to portray Ms. Warren’s work for corporate clients in the most consumer- or victim-friendly light, have prompted criticism from lawyers on opposing sides. In its responses to The New York Times, the campaign said the summaries were written in an effort to make “complicated cases accessible while maintaining accuracy.” Among the cases whose summaries have provoked criticism was the long-running bankruptcy of Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, a large nonprofit utility based in Baton Rouge, La., that provided power to 12 member cooperatives. When Cajun Electric filed for bankruptcy in 1994, a bidding war ensued for control of Cajun’s assets, notably Big Cajun, a coal-fired power plant worth an estimated $1 billion. One of the bidders was SWEPCO, a utility company based in Shreveport, La.

As the case went on, SWEPCO ran afoul of the court. Unknown to the other bidders, it had quietly paid $1 million in legal bills for seven of the Cajun Electric-member cooperatives supporting its bid. A federal judge ruled the payments improper, disqualifying SWEPCO’s bid. That was when SWEPCO, desperate to remain in the bidding for Big Cajun, called Ms. Warren, who carried the day. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned the judge’s ruling, breathing new life into SWEPCO’s play. But while she won the battle, SWEPCO ultimately did not capture the big prize. Louisiana Generating, known as LaGen, took over Big Cajun in 2000. Matt J. Farley, a New Orleans lawyer who represented LaGen, recently said he regarded Ms. Warren as a bankruptcy “heavy hitter” who had done a good job for her client. Mr. Farley, who describes himself as a political independent, said he saw a contradiction in 2012 when he first read her Senate campaign’s description of her work in the Cajun Electric case: “Elizabeth represented a company that offered a plan to help save a bankrupt rural power cooperative.” It is the same description given by her presidential campaign. Ms. Warren’s client, SWEPCO, had offered lower electric rates in its proposal than the other bidders. But Mr. Farley believes that the summary is misleading.

“I can’t imagine that Warren really believes that she was helping to save a rural power cooperative,” Mr. Farley wrote in 2012 on a blog called Legal Insurrection. He added, “This was nothing more or less than high-stakes corporate litigation.” The campaign’s synopsis of Ms. Warren’s work on the Dow Corning breast-implant case has also raised some eyebrows. “Thanks in part to Elizabeth’s efforts, Dow Corning created a $2.35 billion fund to compensate women claiming injury,” the description said. The exact nature of Ms. Warren’s work for Dow is not clear. Ms. Warren’s campaign said she advised Dow Chemical, the parent company, as it worked with most of the plaintiffs to defend the victims’ trust fund. Some of the plaintiffs had objected to the trust. But Sybil Goldrich, a breast-implant victim and trustee for claimants in the 1995 bankruptcy case, has said Ms. Warren was “on the wrong side” of the litigation as the company worked to contain corporate damage related to the claims.

Other summaries released by the campaign omitted key details. Describing Ms. Warren’s work in a 1989 Internal Revenue Service case, the summary says she worked to “help the tax court.” The summary does not specify that she was retained by one of Texas’s wealthiest families, the Hunts, in a tax dispute about how much various members owed to the I.R.S. after they tried to corner the silver market.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/p ... tions.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#136 Post by highdesert » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:53 am

Elizabeth Warren was paid nearly $2 million for legal work stretching back three decades, her campaign disclosed Sunday night, amid calls from a top Democratic presidential rival that the Massachusetts senator should be more forthcoming about what she earned from past corporate clients. In May, Warren released a list of close to 60 cases she worked on as an attorney going back to the 1980s. Fifteen pages of new data now show what she was paid in nearly 40 of those — about $1.9 million. The list includes “all the income she earned from each case that we have been able to determine from public records, Elizabeth’s personal records and other sources,” Warren spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said.

“If Democrats are going to defeat Donald Trump, or whoever the Republican Party might replace him with, we must nominate a candidate who can create the most robust possible contrast against Republicans on conflicts of interest and corruption issues,” Orthman said in a statement. “Elizabeth does not sell access to her time — no closed-door big-dollar fundraisers, no bundling program, no perks or promises to any wealthy donor.”

The new information comes against the backdrop of an escalating feud between Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. Last week, Warren decried the mayor’s attending of closed-door fundraisers, saying, “I think that Mayor Pete should open up the doors so that anyone can come in and report on what’s being said.” She added, “No one should be left to wonder what kind of promises are being made to the people that then pony up big bucks to be in the room.”

Buttigieg and his campaign shot back that Warren should release more of her past tax returns, shedding additional light on what she earned as an attorney for rich and powerful firms — setting the stage for Sunday’s disclosure. Warren had previously released 11 years of tax returns. The pair have also clashed over Buttigieg’s past work for powerful consulting firm McKinsey & Co. from 2007 to 2010. Buttigieg on Friday released a summary of the work he did — but he has not heeded Warren’s calls to make public a full client list, citing a nondisclosure agreement he signed with McKinsey.
Among the clients for whom Warren consulted were the attorneys for Rabobank, a Dutch financial institution that became a creditor in the Enron bankruptcy; former directors of Getty Oil, who were involved in Texaco’s bankruptcy; and women whose allegations of harm from silicone breast implants produced by Dow Corning were imperiled when the company filed for bankruptcy.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... e-reported
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

VodoundaVinci
Chatty
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:08 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#137 Post by VodoundaVinci » Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:10 am

The standard has been set - If Trump doesn't have to give up his tax returns, nobody has to give up their tax returns.

Just sayin' - fair is fair. Buttigieg is starting to pick fly shit out of pepper. I see this as maybe desperation that he sees himself as falling behind?

VooDoo

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#138 Post by K9s » Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:13 pm

If I remember correctly, Warren said she learned how people were getting ripped off when she worked for the oligarchs. So she quit and went into public service.

She actually had a job as opposed to people who inherited their wealth. Not sure how that makes her a bad candidate. Pete must be getting pressure from his big donors. Too bad.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#139 Post by highdesert » Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:52 pm

Chase Williams grinned broadly as he stood for a photo next to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, chatting briefly with the senator from Massachusetts before moving on so someone else could have their turn. It was the kind of moment that has become a ubiquitous part of Warren’s presidential campaign and its long “selfie lines,” where supporters wait for hours to pose with her at no charge.

But this shot, taken in October 2017, was at an entirely different kind of event: an exclusive “backstage” reception that took place in the vault of a former Cleveland bank. And that was the day’s low-rent affair — donors who agreed to pay more attended an even more exclusive shindig with Warren that day, according to two people familiar with her schedule. The events were part of a high-dollar fundraising program that Warren had embraced her entire political career, from her first Senate run in 2011 through her reelection last year. Warren was so successful at it that she was able to transfer $10 million of her Senate cash to help launch her presidential bid.

But in the past year Warren has undergone a transformation, moving from one of the Democratic Party’s biggest draws at high-dollar fundraisers to a presidential candidate who has sworn them off as sinister attempts to sell access. In a debate last week, Warren criticized rival Pete Buttigieg for having an exclusive fundraiser in a crystal-filled wine cave in Napa Valley, prompting the South Bend, Ind., mayor to respond that she shouldn’t issue “purity tests you cannot yourself pass.”

Williams, who supports Buttigieg in the presidential race, said Warren’s position was “disingenuous.” “I am frustrated because she said, ‘I don’t do this. This isn’t something I do.’ And two years ago she very much did do that, and I was in the room,” said Williams, who had a photo taken after writing a $500 check.
The tension between Warren’s current fundraising practices and her former one has been present at other times in the campaign. In April, Warren attacked Biden for holding a high-dollar private fundraiser in Philadelphia, blasting out a note to supporters contrasting her practices to his: “Our democracy is not for sale, and neither is my time,” Warren wrote.

But Warren had swept through Philadelphia the year before to solicit money from some of the same people, including former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell and Philadelphia lawyer Stephen Cozen, who helped organize the Biden fundraiser. Both were co-hosts at a Warren fundraising event in 2018 where donors gave the maximum amount to her Senate campaign. “It didn’t make sense why it was okay for us to give her $2,800 for her Senate campaign, but why we were bad people if we gave $2,800 to Vice President Biden’s presidential campaign,” Rendell said.
As recently as three months before Warren announced her presidential campaign, she had sought to meet with donors in New York, said one prominent Wall Street donor who spoke anonymously to describe private conversations.

“Right before she announced and everything, she came to New York and she wanted to meet with folks who had money,” to see whether those donors would contribute to her campaign, said the donor, who declined the meeting. During her Senate campaigns, “she’d come to New York, she’d raise money. Back then, she didn’t hate people [who are wealthy], she was just a liberal,” the donor added. A month before her initial New Year’s Eve presidential announcement, Warren met with one of Hillary Clinton’s former major supporters in her Cambridge house and asked whether he would support her and raise money for her presidential campaign.

“She wanted the folks that raised money for her Senate campaign and the kind of money we raised for Hillary and Obama to be part of her team,” said the donor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the conversation.
Vestiges of a big-dollar program remain. Businessman Paul Egerman and another longtime fundraiser, Shanti Fry, serve as the campaign’s finance co-chairs.

The pair have been courting wealthy donors on Warren’s behalf, helping the campaign maintain ties to the big-donor world by asking them to donate individually, rather than organizing private events for them and Warren.

“Being asked by fundraising staff to contribute to a candidate who refuses to sell access is literally the opposite of being asked to contribute in order to get access,” said Warren spokeswoman Kristen Orthman, defending the practice.

But it works.

Steven Grossman, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and former Massachusetts state treasurer, said that his wife Barbara received a phone call from Fry asking for a donation to Warren’s campaign.

“I know you care deeply about her and believe deeply in her,” Fry said, according to Grossman.

His wife agreed, he said, and wrote a $2,800 check.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#140 Post by highdesert » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:02 pm

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has spent her presidential campaign railing against the donor class, making it known she doesn't want their help. She has publicly bashed millionaires, has sworn off high-dollar fundraisers and has refused large checks from Democratic bundlers. But behind the scenes in recent months, former President Obama has gone to bat for Warren (D-Mass.) when speaking to donors reluctant to support her given her knocks on Wall Street and the wealthy.

And if Warren becomes the nominee, Obama has said they must throw the entirety of their support behind her. The former president has stopped short of an endorsement of Warren in these conversations and has emphasized that he is not endorsing in the Democratic primary race. But he also has vouched for her credentials, making it clear in these private sessions that he deems her a capable candidate and potential president, sources say. “He’s asked all of the candidates who have sought his advice three questions: Is your family behind you? Why you? And why now? She checked the box for all,” said one longtime Obama ally. “I think he feels licensed to give an opinion on her because he’s ‘hired' her,” the longtime Obama ally said.

While former Vice President Joe Biden is the best-known Obama figure running for president, he’s not the only one in the race to have worked for the administration. Julián Castro was the secretary for Housing and Urban Development under Obama, and Warren in 2010 became an assistant to the president and special adviser to the secretary of the Treasury, where she helped set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “He obviously thinks she’s very smart,” one Democratic donor added. “He thinks her policy ideas matter. And I think he sees her running the campaign with the most depth.” A source close to Obama said the former president would go to bat in the same way for any of the Democratic candidates running for president, pointing to comments Obama made last month. "Look, we have a field that is very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart people who have a history of public service, and whoever emerges from the primary process, I will work my tail off to make sure that they are the next president," the former president said in a question-and-answer session at a Democracy Alliance event in Washington.

Obama's praise of Warren is a contrast of sorts from his days at the White House, when the two were said to have disagreements on economic issues including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The tension between the president and Massachusetts senator frequently became fodder around the administration. Since then, the friction has continued to make headlines, including the time in 2015 when Obama was dismissive of Warren's opposition to the TPP. “The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” he said in an interview with Yahoo. On 2017, Warren took a shot at her former boss, saying she was “troubled” to hear of Obama's six-figure speaking deals as a former president.

Now, as she runs for president herself, Warren has distanced herself from some Obama's policies but has also spoken glowingly about the time in 2002 when she met Obama — who remains enormously popular among Democratic voters. Last week, more than 200 lower- and mid-level Obama staffers who worked on his presidential campaigns and in his administration threw their support behind Warren. The endorsements came at a pivotal time for the campaign with less than 70 days left until the Iowa caucuses and as candidates like Biden and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) seek to win over the Obama coalition.

To date, Warren has been unable to secure more senior-level Obama veterans. That support from the highest levels — including former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew — has gone to Biden. Obama remains “incredibly fond” of Biden and is watching his campaign with interest, said one Obama ally who has spoken to the former president. But Obama — who is currently in Hawaii for his annual Christmas vacation — has intentionally sought to remove himself from the 2020 race. He has said he would not endorse anyone during the primary, including Biden, and is not expected to be out on the campaign trail until there is a nominee.

At the same time, those around him say he worries that Democrats in financial services “will have an issue her,” as one ally put it, if she wins the nomination and is trying to “rally the troops” preemptively. During the Democratic debate on Thursday night, Warren singled out Buttigieg for hobnobbing with big donors at “wine cave” fundraisers to help boost his campaign. “The mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900-a-bottle wine,” Warren said.

Buttigieg, ready for the attack, accused Warren of being a millionaire herself and said she had accepted donations from wealthy donors during her Senate campaign. He also said the Democratic presidential nominee must accept money from all donors for the general election fight against President Trump. Warren and Buttigieg are in a battle for Iowa, which is a key contest for both in the path to the White House. While Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are also in the mix in the Hawkeye state, a victory there is not seen as pivotal for either candidate. It’s been a topsy turvy run for the Massachusetts senator. While she saw an upward trajectory throughout much of the fall, she has fallen in recent polls, trailing behind Biden and Sanders. An Emerson College poll out this week showed Biden receiving 32 percent of support among Democrats while Sanders received 25 percent and Warren pulled 12 percent, falling 8 points since the last survey in November.

Obama hasn’t publicly singled out any of the candidates but occasionally, behind closed doors, he’ll offer assessments when he is asked. Those who know him well say that while he is stylistically and temperamentally different from Warren, “he appreciates her intellect and is impressed by the campaign she’s run.” “If anything, she has the most substantive achievements from his time in the White House,” one former Obama aide said. “And he’s someone who can talk at length about her accolades.” While Obama has remained quiet in recent months, during a private event in Singapore this week the former president said that women are “indisputably better” than men. “I’m absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything ... living standards and outcomes,” Obama said according to the BBC.

Later, after he was asked if he would go back into politics, he said he believed in making room for new leadership. “If you look at the world and look at the problems, it’s usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way,” he said. Asked about the comment at the debate, Biden said that Obama wasn’t talking about him.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... thy-donors
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 10876
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#141 Post by DispositionMatrix » Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:15 am

The question was: "Will you support a universal concealed carry law for everyone in the country for everyone who is willing to be licensed and checked by the government?"

GeorgiaRN
Chatty
Posts: 1487
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#142 Post by GeorgiaRN » Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:28 am

DispositionMatrix wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:15 am
The question was: "Will you support a universal concealed carry law for everyone in the country for everyone who is willing to be licensed and checked by the government?"
The hypocrisy is astounding. She says that as she has armed Security. Rules for thee not for me. But I'm not really surprised.
EAT,SLEEP,RANGE,REPEAT

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#143 Post by highdesert » Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:17 am

A simplistic answer to a complex problem, just get rid of the guns.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

User avatar
NegativeApproach
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#144 Post by NegativeApproach » Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:28 am

GeorgiaRN wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:28 am
DispositionMatrix wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:15 am
The question was: "Will you support a universal concealed carry law for everyone in the country for everyone who is willing to be licensed and checked by the government?"
The hypocrisy is astounding. She says that as she has armed Security. Rules for thee not for me. But I'm not really surprised.
Nope. Not voting for her now, for sure.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#145 Post by featureless » Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 am

I can stand it when those with security details (paid for by us all) say the rest of us should only be armed with strong words and 911. Fuck that.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14764
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Elizabeth Warren 2020

#146 Post by highdesert » Fri Jan 10, 2020 12:05 pm

Even if presidential candidates aren't eligible of Secret Service protection, they build security into their campaign budget. It's normally only available within 120 days of a general election, but Obama got it earlier because of death threats.
The term "major presidential and vice presidential candidates" means those identified as such by the secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee.
A candidate has to hit several markers to show they are a "major presidential candidate." According to the Congressional Research Service, that includes:

They are a publicly declared candidates.

They are actively campaigning nationally and are contesting at least 10 state primaries.
Are pursuing the nomination of a qualified party, one whose presidential candidate received at least 10% of the popular vote in the prior election.

Are qualified for public matching funds of at least $100,000, and have raised at least $10 million in additional contributions.

Have received by April 1 of the election year an average of 5 percent in individual candidate preferences in the most recent national opinion polls by ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, or have received at least 10 percent of the votes cast for all candidates in two same-day or consecutive primaries or caucuses.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/preside ... d=62513154

A report on Biden's campaign last month said he didn't have it, but each candidate is different.

Warren is living in fantasyland when it comes to firearms, but hey she appeals to her base of white college educated liberals and there are so many of them in the US that she's guaranteed election in November. :sarcasm:
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest