Warren Steps in it in Maddow Interview

[NeverTrump]

When talking about money in the Democratic Party, Warren says the party will say no to billionaires. Seemingly taking a line from the Sanders playbook. Yet when asked about Bloomberg and Steyer, she says they should not be allowed to use their own money to fund their campaigns. That "they should not be allowed to self-fund their campaigns."

That's not saying no to Bloomberg and Steyer, that's forcing them to use the same dirty tactics that the GOP uses.

No linky. Happened live just a few moments ago. She done screwed up.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

This is a very bizarre thread (particularly the no link aspect) that has a suspect veneer of spam/****-posting going on about it...

 

[Felis Leo]

This is a very bizarre thread (particularly the no link aspect) that has a suspect veneer of spam/****-posting going on about it...

Agreed, Abbazorkzog.

Let me give Elizabeth Warren her due: I do not see where she has "stepped in it" to any degree in her announcement thus far. Even without all the silliness over her handling of her putative Native American heritage, it seems so many people on the right and the left are really engaging in stirring up storms in a teacup around her.

 

[I'm Supposn]

When talking about money in the Democratic Party, Warren says the party will say no to billionaires. Seemingly taking a line from the Sanders playbook. Yet when asked about Bloomberg and Steyer, she says they should not be allowed to use their own money to fund their campaigns. That "they should not be allowed to self-fund their campaigns."

That's not saying no to Bloomberg and Steyer, that's forcing them to use the same dirty tactics that the GOP uses.

No linky. Happened live just a few moments ago. She done screwed up.

NeverTrumpGOP, The democracy of a republic is less sustainable if their political elections are less equitable.
Respectfully,Supposn

Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable.

The purposes of public announcements or advertising is to inform and/or influence their audiences. Government should not presume to determine what is or is not a political message.
Although purchasing electronic broadcasting time is expensive, it's been (by far) the most effective media for influencing public opinion, and it's the least expensive method per capita for reaching mass audiences.

The availability of electronic broadcasting is of greater advantage to wealthier political factions, and its lesser availability to less wealthy factions is to their greater disadvantages.
Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United effectively and severely reduced government's ability to decrease high bidders advantages and/or greater increase their costs within our political auctions, (i.e. our political elections). …
… I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions. ...Even wealthier shareholders will no longer appreciate their enterprises' electronic advertisements with substantially political purposes. It will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less, and not likely increase their influence upon those who read more. ...

 

[Jack Hays]

 

[ashurbanipal]

When talking about money in the Democratic Party, Warren says the party will say no to billionaires. Seemingly taking a line from the Sanders playbook. Yet when asked about Bloomberg and Steyer, she says they should not be allowed to use their own money to fund their campaigns. That "they should not be allowed to self-fund their campaigns."

That's not saying no to Bloomberg and Steyer, that's forcing them to use the same dirty tactics that the GOP uses.

No linky. Happened live just a few moments ago. She done screwed up.

I think this is an example of confusing two different orders of motive: moral and pragmatic. As a matter of principle, if someone claims that billionaires should not be allowed to donate vast sums to political campaigns, then that should include their own campaigns. As a matter of pragmatic concern, though, you are probably correct--implementing that policy would likely have unintended consequences. In my experience, few people who are incredibly wealthy (I've known more than my share of truly rich people--people whose net worth is 100 million or more) have kept their principles, and are likely to do whatever it takes to win and get more money, right and wrong be damned. There are exceptions, of course, but that seems generally to be correct.

 

[lurchadams]

When talking about money in the Democratic Party, Warren says the party will say no to billionaires. Seemingly taking a line from the Sanders playbook. Yet when asked about Bloomberg and Steyer, she says they should not be allowed to use their own money to fund their campaigns. That "they should not be allowed to self-fund their campaigns."

That's not saying no to Bloomberg and Steyer, that's forcing them to use the same dirty tactics that the GOP uses.

No linky. Happened live just a few moments ago. She done screwed up.

I started a thread a few days ago about how the DNC is about to launch us into the same abyss they launched us into when they elbowed out Bernie in favor of HRC. We had a candidate that could not connect with people and we lost. We're about to do it again with Warren. Our ****ing party will never learn!

 

[sangha]

When talking about money in the Democratic Party, Warren says the party will say no to billionaires. Seemingly taking a line from the Sanders playbook. Yet when asked about Bloomberg and Steyer, she says they should not be allowed to use their own money to fund their campaigns. That "they should not be allowed to self-fund their campaigns."

That's not saying no to Bloomberg and Steyer, that's forcing them to use the same dirty tactics that the GOP uses.

No linky. Happened live just a few moments ago. She done screwed up.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion :shrug:

 

[lurchadams]

Agreed, Abbazorkzog.

Let me give Elizabeth Warren her due: I do not see where she has "stepped in it" to any degree in her announcement thus far. Even without all the silliness over her handling of her putative Native American heritage, it seems so many people on the right and the left are really engaging in stirring up storms in a teacup around her.

If she would just decline from running and instead just help shape the platform of a more palatable candidate, there would be no more storm, would there be?

 

[Xelor]

This is a very bizarre thread (particularly the no link aspect) that has a suspect veneer of spam/****-posting going on about it...

??? Maddow's program segments are readily available on MSNBC's website.
-- Elizabeth Warren: 'No to the billionaires' funding politics

The OP-er does provide enough information in the OP so that readers can very easily obtain the noted content.

 

[Xelor]

I started a thread a few days ago about how the DNC is about to launch us into the same abyss they launched us into when they elbowed out Bernie in favor of HRC. We had a candidate that could not connect with people and we lost. We're about to do it again with Warren. Our ****ing party will never learn!

Red:
What a precocious remark.

 

[lurchadams]

Red:
What a precocious remark.

I am precocious. That's why chicks dig me.

 

[Xelor]

I am precocious. That's why chicks dig me.

TY for confirming my supposition.

 

[lurchadams]

TY for confirming my supposition.

Anytime, friend. And - a very Happy New Year to you. One thing I've noticed about you in my tenure here is your unique ability to expand something that can be explained in a few short sentences into hundreds of paragraphs. I salute you sir(or ma'am). Succinctness be damned!

Carry on