Obama hypes Warren to wealthy donors

[HorusRa2 5,005]

We’re going to see more and more of this as Obama would neve blatantly say anything directly about Bernie but we keep hearing him using puppet strings from the media actively seeking to prevent Bernie from winning. He did the same veiled comments in 2016 and he’s doing it again now. 

 

Considering Warren and Obama don’t have the most fuzzy relationship I think it is very telling that he would rather align with Warren than Biden (who isn’t going to win) or Bernie (who would dwarf Obama’s legacy). 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

56 minutes ago, Economy said:

What's his plan?

It's a multifaceted approach that would require him to take on the Democratic establishment and lead at the same time, but basically beyond foreign policy and executive order, (which I actually believe could be quite drastic under a Sanders admin esp. in Foreign Policy)  it would be about reinventing the wheel of the bully pulpit in order to whip Democrats into shape as well as to expose the M.O. of vulnerable Republicans directly to their constituents. Bernie is more liked by Republicans and Independents than most other candidates, and even those who rate him unfavorable based on policy seem to respect his authenticity, so I'd wager he has a chance of being effective there. Look at his Fox News Town Hall (I hope he does more of this, we can't expand the electorate w.o reaching across the aisle!)

I would argue that Bernie winning the nom and or the general is enough evidence to show that we have a strong enough revolution on our hands to work with though, just based on numbers. He wants to be organizer-in-chief and work from the bottom up with activists, organizers, unions, and just regular people to bring them into direct contact with the elite class and to use collective bargaining to rally Washington as well as the Elite class for better treatment. He did it when he was Mayor, he was elected as a "socialist" independent and the Democrats and Republicans united to try to stall him from even appointing a cabinet, but he was able to overcome them with his theory of change and governance ultimately, and Burlington prospered for it. He also expanded voter turn out heavily. He has done similar organizing actions to put political pressure on companies like Amazon (it wasnt just him though to be fair) and Disney.

This means rallying and organizing the American public who have combative senators and representatives against  their representatives to pressure them to actually support what their constituents want. If Joe Manchin won't support anything Bernie does, we get rid of Joe Manchin, or at least vastly expand the engagement and size of the electorate in those areas that makes the political conditions conducive enough to convince him to get on board, or be removed, defeated, or destroyed politically. Like Bernie Sanders would not be afraid to take on members of his own party, and to travel and tour places in the country and put people power in action if necessary. 

It is more complex than that, but he talks about it all over the place, in his Joe Rogan podcast, his interview with John Harwood, some press-releases on his official twitter, just when he's asked about it in interviews in general, etc. I don't feel like finding twenty thousand links though atm, so here's these just off top of my head:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/16/bernie-sanders-first-100-days-president-white-house-administration-084447 

(this one has some good guesses, and a few wtf guesses in terms of his cabinet, etc. but it sort of correctly approximates his theory of change)

(This one is just a good interview!)

~~~~

That being said, its actually not very fruitful to single him out as a potentially ineffective president who would be especially susceptible to gridlock. That was my point in my last comment. The same bull dog Democrats who dislike Bernie will make the same political calculation that it is a losing battle to support someone like Warren as long as the current electorate and myth of moderation is perpetuated by MSM and Republicans. They won't support expanding the ACA, or a Public Pption or any wealth tax, increased estate tax, value added tax,  or a whole slew of things that even Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are proposing because ultimately it isn't about what their constituents want, its what the donor class will allow flexibility on, and whether that will translate into re-elections and financial support for those politicians  Similarly, idk why people don't take note, but there are progressive democrats in the Senate and House who semi-regularly vote against their party when Democrats propose ideas that are milquetoast and don't offer change. There aren't a whole slew, but their power under a Sanders admin would increase.

The potential gridlock of a Sanders administration is really almost identical to the potential gridlock of a Warren administration, and beyond that it's similar in style if not scope to one under a Buttigieg or Biden administration, though I would guess they would be less openly hostile to those candidates, and they might have a bit less Democratic infighting to contest with, but still be in a gridlock with a Republican senate + many Conservative federal judges;  however, it's more likely someone like Warren would have to compromise on things like Free College and her Public Option-M4A transition than Bernie and she might just end up an Obama 2.0 in that sense (which is why he's probably talking her up to donors atm) To quote Pete Buttigieg, 

"It's time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. It's true that we embrace a far left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialist. Let's stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it."

^ We can't worry about the potential of a stalemate, Obama had it too after 2010 (and even Obamacare passed with 0 Republican votes), we have to lead with the best policies and with the most people support and reshape our electorate to make what the people want match what is best for the politicians. I don't expect Dems to win the Senate in 2020 (hell or even the general if we nominate Joe Biden  ) but if its going to happen, the only way it will happen is going to be up the ballot style voting and with massively increased voter turn out for sure. Again, I'd say this is like maybe 15% likely and that's optimistic. Anyway, this disconnect only exists because of a disengaged and artificially deflated electorate. Joe Biden, Centrism, etc. their only real claim to fame relies on our electorate remaining small, triangulated, and mostly unengaged - Which is again why the Sanders campaign is about getting people who are young voters, new voters, previously disengaged, and independent voters who lean Dem but don't vote INTO the political process, not just the general election. That is the only way we change the system in a structural way, which is why its funny to hear Warren talking about wanting "Big Structural Change" because Big Structual Change HAS to be motivated by grassroots efforts and a massive expansion of our political engagement as a country (we also need an awakening of class consciousness amongst working-middle class people but that's a bit far off IMO  ) 

[President Biden 5,898]

#WarrenSoFake

[Economy 53,220]

23 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It's a multifaceted approach that would require him to take on the Democratic establishment and lead at the same time, but basically beyond foreign policy and executive order, (which I actually believe could be quite drastic under a Sanders admin esp. in Foreign Policy)  it would be about reinventing the wheel of the bully pulpit in order to whip Democrats into shape as well as to expose the M.O. of vulnerable Republicans directly to their constituents. Bernie is more liked by Republicans and Independents than most other candidates, and even those who rate him unfavorable based on policy seem to respect his authenticity, so I'd wager he has a chance of being effective there. Look at his Fox News Town Hall (I hope he does more of this, we can't expand the electorate w.o reaching across the aisle!)

I would argue that Bernie winning the nom and or the general is enough evidence to show that we have a strong enough revolution on our hands to work with though, just based on numbers. He wants to be organizer-in-chief and work from the bottom up with activists, organizers, unions, and just regular people to bring them into direct contact with the elite class and to use collective bargaining to rally Washington as well as the Elite class for better treatment. He did it when he was Mayor, he was elected as a "socialist" independent and the Democrats and Republicans united to try to stall him from even appointing a cabinet, but he was able to overcome them with his theory of change and governance ultimately, and Burlington prospered for it. He also expanded voter turn out heavily. He has done similar organizing actions to put political pressure on companies like Amazon (it wasnt just him though to be fair) and Disney.

This means rallying and organizing the American public who have combative senators and representatives against  their representatives to pressure them to actually support what their constituents want. If Joe Manchin won't support anything Bernie does, we get rid of Joe Manchin, or at least vastly expand the engagement and size of the electorate in those areas that makes the political conditions conducive enough to convince him to get on board, or be removed, defeated, or destroyed politically. Like Bernie Sanders would not be afraid to take on members of his own party, and to travel and tour places in the country and put people power in action if necessary. 

It is more complex than that, but he talks about it all over the place, in his Joe Rogan podcast, his interview with John Harwood, some press-releases on his official twitter, just when he's asked about it in interviews in general, etc. I don't feel like finding twenty thousand links though atm, so here's these just off top of my head:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/16/bernie-sanders-first-100-days-president-white-house-administration-084447 

(this one has some good guesses, and a few wtf guesses in terms of his cabinet, etc. but it sort of correctly approximates his theory of change)

(This one is just a good interview!)

~~~~

That being said, its actually not very fruitful to single him out as a potentially ineffective president who would be especially susceptible to gridlock. That was my point in my last comment. The same bull dog Democrats who dislike Bernie will make the same political calculation that it is a losing battle to support someone like Warren as long as the current electorate and myth of moderation is perpetuated by MSM and Republicans. They won't support expanding the ACA, or a Public Pption or any wealth tax, increased estate tax, value added tax,  or a whole slew of things that even Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are proposing because ultimately it isn't about what their constituents want, its what the donor class will allow flexibility on, and whether that will translate into re-elections and financial support for those politicians  Similarly, idk why people don't take note, but there are progressive democrats in the Senate and House who semi-regularly vote against their party when Democrats propose ideas that are milquetoast and don't offer change. There aren't a whole slew, but their power under a Sanders admin would increase.

The potential gridlock of a Sanders administration is really almost identical to the potential gridlock of a Warren administration, and beyond that it's similar in style if not scope to one under a Buttigieg or Biden administration, though I would guess they would be less openly hostile to those candidates, and they might have a bit less Democratic infighting to contest with, but still be in a gridlock with a Republican senate + many Conservative federal judges;  however, it's more likely someone like Warren would have to compromise on things like Free College and her Public Option-M4A transition than Bernie and she might just end up an Obama 2.0 in that sense (which is why he's probably talking her up to donors atm) To quote Pete Buttigieg, 

"It's time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. It's true that we embrace a far left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialist. Let's stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it."

^ We can't worry about the potential of a stalemate, Obama had it too after 2010 (and even Obamacare passed with 0 Republican votes), we have to lead with the best policies and with the most people support and reshape our electorate to make what the people want match what is best for the politicians. I don't expect Dems to win the Senate in 2020 (hell or even the general if we nominate Joe Biden  ) but if its going to happen, the only way it will happen is going to be up the ballot style voting and with massively increased voter turn out for sure. Again, I'd say this is like maybe 15% likely and that's optimistic. Anyway, this disconnect only exists because of a disengaged and artificially deflated electorate. Joe Biden, Centrism, etc. their only real claim to fame relies on our electorate remaining small, triangulated, and mostly unengaged - Which is again why the Sanders campaign is about getting people who are young voters, new voters, previously disengaged, and independent voters who lean Dem but don't vote INTO the political process, not just the general election. That is the only way we change the system in a structural way, which is why its funny to hear Warren talking about wanting "Big Structural Change" because Big Structual Change HAS to be motivated by grassroots efforts and a massive expansion of our political engagement as a country (we also need an awakening of class consciousness amongst working-middle class people but that's a bit far off IMO  ) 

All of this sounds very ambitious we will see what actually happens if he's the candidate

 

Also I can attest to the part where u said people who don't like his policies acknowledge his authenticity cuz I'm among them

 

I don't believe policies this far left will work that we'll long term (sorry but that's my genuine opinion). But I do nevertheless give him props for being genuine cuz I never got the sense he was fake in anyway

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

All of this sounds very ambitious we will see what actually happens if he's the candidate

 

Also I can attest to the part where u said people who don't like his policies acknowledge his authenticity cuz I'm among them

 

I don't believe policies this far left will work that we'll long term (sorry but that's my genuine opinion). But I do nevertheless give him props for being genuine cuz I never got the sense he was fake in anyway

Well, we know the scope and size of the problem and are smart enough to know that we need solutions and strategies that respect that in order to get anything done.  Maybe that's ambitious, but to me its a bare minimum just logically. Some of it is very possible, but MSM is unable of addressing it because it requires an expansion of what is politically possible. Many things were politically impossible until people supported them and made it so in the past Some of this is just literally stuff that has worked in the past.

But I'd like to say that I'm really not an optimist or anything, I have no strong belief that a Sanders presidency would be 100% successful, we get M4A, everything first year or anything. I am actually a pragmatist, and to me atm a Sanders Presidency even operating at a slim chance of success is the pragmatic option, and thus the only option,  because the other options on the table are destined to fail at addressing the problems I want addressed  - either because they either don't even care about them (Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar) or because they aren't doing enough to change things fundamentally (Sometimes Warren). He's a compromise candidate on the left.

[Economy 53,220]

19 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Well, we know the scope and size of the problem and are smart enough to know that we need solutions and strategies that respect that in order to get anything done.  Maybe that's ambitious, but to me its a bare minimum just logically. Some of it is very possible, but MSM is unable of addressing it because it requires an expansion of what is politically possible. Many things were politically impossible until people supported them and made it so in the past Some of this is just literally stuff that has worked in the past.

But I'd like to say that I'm really not an optimist or anything, I have no strong belief that a Sanders presidency would be 100% successful, we get M4A, everything first year or anything. I am actually a pragmatist, and to me atm a Sanders Presidency even operating at a slim chance of success is the pragmatic option, and thus the only option,  because the other options on the table are destined to fail at addressing the problems I want addressed  - either because they either don't bout them (Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar) or because they aren't doing enough to change things (Sometimes Warren). 

I guess that's were I disagree. I do think Warren can change things

 

I still think capitalism is the best system for promotions innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth.

 

The problem is that with automation, globalization, corruption, companies having grown too large and to some extent regressive tax policies is what has been preventing real wage growth since the 1970s/1980s...

 

Capitalism continues to do an excellent job at promoting economic growth it's just that in the developed world it's staying at the top

 

Warren's anticorruption focus, and gteater wealth redistribution would allow the current capitalist system to still promote growth but force more of the income to also make it to the hands of everyday people

 

I can't say anything for certain obviously. But I suspect that Bernie's very anti Corporate stances, very heavy taxes etc will severely deminish business investment and slow economic growth to a halt and once he runs out of extreme wealth to redistribute with his wealth tax the economy won't stand on its own two feet

 

But there hasn't been anyone yet who tried to regulate and wealth redistribute Capitalism as much as Warren just like there hasn't been anyone propose a revolution to the level of Bernie either

 

Some people like me think Warren is a much bette balance between both ends and others like you prefer Bernie. Ultimately it's a highly theoretical debate neither of us can really ultimately prove

 

We will have to see what happens. I would still take Bernie over Trump

 

But anyway what I was talking about above is if Warren or Bernie both got it their way in everything hypothetically which is highly unlikely so... Yeah. Guess we will have to see what happens

 

To be clear I'm not attacking Bernie or his supporters. Just because he's not my #1 Candidate doesn't mean I don't think he's got some good ideas... For starters I love that he wants to cut military spending. In that particular aspect for example he's my favorite candidate

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

26 minutes ago, Economy said:

I guess that's were I disagree. I do think Warren can change things

 

I still think capitalism is the best system for promotions innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth.

 

The problem is that with automation, globalization, corruption, companies having grown too large and to some extent regressive tax policies is what has been preventing real wage growth since the 1970s/1980s...

 

Capitalism continues to do an excellent job at promoting economic growth it's just that in the developed world it's staying at the top

 

Warren's anticorruption focus, and gteater wealth redistribution would allow the current capitalist system to still promote growth but force more of the income to also make it to the hands of everyday people

 

I can't say anything for certain obviously. But I suspect that Bernie's very anti Corporate stances, very heavy taxes etc will severely deminish business investment and slow economic growth to a halt and once he runs out of extreme wealth to redistribute with his wealth tax the economy won't stand on its own two feet

 

But there hasn't been anyone yet who tried to regulate and wealth redistribute Capitalism as much as Warren just like there hasn't been anyone propose a revolution to the level of Bernie either

 

Some people like me think Warren is a much bette balance between both ends and others like you prefer Bernie. Ultimately it's a highly theoretical debate neither of us can really ultimately prove

 

We will have to see what happens. I would still take Bernie over Trump

 

But anyway what I was talking about above is if Warren or Bernie both got it their way in everything hypothetically which is highly unlikely so... Yeah. Guess we will have to see what happens

 

To be clear I'm not attacking Bernie or his supporters. Just because he's not my #1 Candidate doesn't mean I don't think he's got some good ideas... For starters I love that he wants to cut military spending. In that particular aspect for example he's my favorite candidate

My worry with Warren is that she's shown that she's too willing to move to the center on things, not that she won't change anything at all. I'm not so worried she'll pull an Obama and staff her administration with corporate interests necessarily, and I have faith that she would absolutely be the most anti-trust and regulation enforcing president in modern history because she has shown that to be her strong suit for years now, she's really probably the most anti-corruption candidate in that sense, even though her record is less pure than Bernie's (she used to be a corporate lawyer, etc.)

So for example, I would be afraid she would capitulate on some things in order to *Get things done*, and her own wish for "big structural change" is undercut by the fact that she's been unsuccessful at building a grassroots movement, or at least in comparison to Bernie. She is still raising the 2nd most money and taking no super pac money or donor money (though she has a few millionaire/billionaire contributors) but her ground game has been weird tbh. Idk why she's spending her money the way she is but if her team thinks it'll make her bounce back... I hope she's right for her sake (so that Bernie can sweep any delegates she might win when she drops out towards the end of the race and beat Biden)  but atm she is still falling in the polls because the neoliberals abandoned her for Pete and maybe Klobuchar now and she doesn't seem to have the ground game to capitalize on potential support coming her way if things were to switch politically in the next month or so the way that Bernie does.

 

Spoiler

I agree that Capitalism is great at doing its job - accumulating capital; however, its really not hard to point out that it often accumulates capital directly at the expense of human liberty, opportunity, and potential and there's plenty of evidence that bears this out over the last few centuries, especially in the last 50 years globally 

There hasn't been someone who wants to manipulate capitalism exactly in the same way as Warren, but there are plenty of people who have proposed it and thought about it in terms of America for decades and most have come to similar conclusions - it's absolutely necessary to regulate Capitalism in order for it to just flat out be sustainable in the future, so Corporations of the future would oppose her at their own potential peril, but itstill might not be enough to actually solve the problems that Capitalism - highly regulated or not - causes. Like, we're not getting rid of the profit motive itself from many parts of our economy even though we definitely should. M4A is the best current plan that could do that for a market as huge as health insurance, which is awesome, but just one thing, and that's because unlike some other industries, it's actually really easy for anyone to notice how the profit motive has absolutely 0 business being in Health Care, it's like, patently immoral to make money off of people dying and going bankrupt and that's because its designed to make profit, not guarantee quality care for all people.  

There isn't at its core a way to make business and corporations become so called "ethical actors" for example though because  they exist as capitalist institutions with the express purpose of making capital and must remain competitive and viable in the market, they are not working to make human lives better.  But, I'm not in the business of convincing people to become socialists or anything really unless they are already very anti-capitalists who want to know more 

What we are talking about in American politics right now is the semblance of social democracy or democratic socialism, not returning the means of production to the government or anything on that scale at all, which is why I chuckle a bit when people call Bernie a radical leftist, he's really only asking for basic things that establish Economic rights, admittedly on often a grander scale (because we live in a "grander" society) than some European examples.

 

[Economy 53,220]

20 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

My worry with Warren is that she's shown that she's too willing to move to the center on things, not that she won't change anything at all. I'm not so worried she'll pull an Obama and staff her administration with corporate interests necessarily, and I have faith that she would absolutely be the most anti-trust and regulation enforcing president in modern history because she has shown that to be her strong suit for years now, she's really probably the most anti-corruption candidate in that sense, even though her record is less pure than Bernie's (she used to be a corporate lawyer, etc.)

So for example, I would be afraid she would capitulate on some things in order to *Get things done*, and her own wish for "big structural change" is undercut by the fact that she's been unsuccessful at building a grassroots movement, or at least in comparison to Bernie. She is still raising the 2nd most money and taking no super pac money or donor money (though she has a few millionaire/billionaire contributors) but her ground game has been weird tbh. Idk why she's spending her money the way she is but if her team thinks it'll make her bounce back... I hope she's right for her sake (so that Bernie can sweep any delegates she might win when she drops out towards the end of the race and beat Biden)  but atm she is still falling in the polls because the neoliberals abandoned her for Pete and maybe Klobuchar now and she doesn't seem to have the ground game to capitalize on potential support coming her way if things were to switch politically in the next month or so the way that Bernie does.

 

  Hide contents

I agree that Capitalism is great at doing its job - accumulating capital; however, its really not hard to point out that it often accumulates capital directly at the expense of human liberty, opportunity, and potential and there's plenty of evidence that bears this out over the last few centuries, especially in the last 50 years globally 

There hasn't been someone who wants to manipulate capitalism exactly in the same way as Warren, but there are plenty of people who have proposed it and thought about it in terms of America for decades and most have come to similar conclusions - it's absolutely necessary to regulate Capitalism in order for it to just flat out be sustainable in the future, so Corporations of the future would oppose her at their own potential peril, but itstill might not be enough to actually solve the problems that Capitalism - highly regulated or not - causes. Like, we're not getting rid of the profit motive itself from many parts of our economy even though we definitely should. M4A is the best current plan that could do that for a market as huge as health insurance, which is awesome, but just one thing, and that's because unlike some other industries, it's actually really easy for anyone to notice how the profit motive has absolutely 0 business being in Health Care, it's like, patently immoral to make money off of people dying and going bankrupt and that's because its designed to make profit, not guarantee quality care for all people.  

There isn't at its core a way to make business and corporations become so called "ethical actors" for example though because  they exist as capitalist institutions with the express purpose of making capital and must remain competitive and viable in the market, they are not working to make human lives better.  But, I'm not in the business of convincing people to become socialists or anything really unless they are already very anti-capitalists who want to know more 

What we are talking about in American politics right now is the semblance of social democracy or democratic socialism, not returning the means of production to the government or anything on that scale at all, which is why I chuckle a bit when people call Bernie a radical leftist, he's really only asking for basic things that establish Economic rights, admittedly on often a grander scale (because we live in a "grander" society) than some European examples.

 

If businesses should not be in business to make profit as a motive, I think a lot of ambition and hard strives would disappear

 

I really don't think eliminating capitalism is a good idea at all but I don't think I have to worry about that anyway cuz I don't see it happen

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

4 hours ago, Economy said:

If businesses should not be in business to make profit as a motive, I think a lot of ambition and hard strives would disappear

 

I really don't think eliminating capitalism is a good idea at all but I don't think I have to worry about that anyway cuz I don't see it happen

 

I didnt say that, but there are certainly institutions like Health care where it shouldn't be part of the equation at all, and that's the stance of Democratic Socialism.

And I'm not interested in a serious analysis of capitalism rn, but capitalism actually stifles innovation in many ways and we have many many studies that show that a profit motive is not essential to creating ambition, drive, etc  

[Economy 53,220]

33 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I didnt say that, but there are certainly institutions like Health care where it shouldn't be part of the equation at all, and that's the stance of Democratic Socialism.

And I'm not interested in a serious analysis of capitalism rn, but capitalism actually stifles innovation in many ways and we have many many studies that show that a profit motive is not essential to creating ambition, drive, etc  

Oh yeah for healthcare I agree