• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Warren and her allies, a fight over Clinton’s hires

Redress said:
Proof once again Sandernistas are easily manipulated. Thank god for that.
Click to expand...

How so? Is 'proof' tantamount to your view that concessions (including prior ones, hence 'once again') made towards the progressive wing are essentially superficial in an attempt to win its support without providing meaningful reform, sacrifice or change?

That said, I don't believe for a second that Clinton will deliver on any of the more progressive policies she assumed or copied from Sanders, or that the progressive wing will be permitted to have a substantial say in policy (we shall see of course, but I'm pessimistic for obvious reasons); she gets my vote on the entire basis that Trump is completely untenable between a GOP dominated House and Senate and Justice appointments. I suspect this is true for most Sandernistas; it's not about manipulation so much as a lack of real options.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Yes, she was an academic for about 30 years, the previous decade before elected office at Harvard Law, and a prolific writer on bankruptcy law among other things. That doesn't mean she demonstrated an "excellence in teaching people and businesses how to declare bankruptcy." She was a nationally recognized expert in bankruptcy, which would mean she's an expert on the legal rights/obligations of both the debtor and creditor in a deal.

She did oppose a bill that made it much harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy, which is NOT "teaching" them how to do it. Nor does any of that even come close to demonstrating she is a "fraud" which was your original accusation. At best/worst you don't like her policies or conclusions, but you can't say she's fraudulently expressing them.
Click to expand...

She was a professor, and she taught future lawyers about bankruptcy. You can pretend otherwise, but the facts are the facts. She's a fraud. You obviously have no idea what debts discharged due to bankruptcy does to the consumers who are actually paying their obligations. I suggest you do some research. But if you want to continue your hero worshipping of Warren, don't let me stop you.
 
tres borrachos said:
She was a professor, and she taught future lawyers about bankruptcy. You can pretend otherwise, but the facts are the facts. She's a fraud. You obviously have no idea what debts discharged due to bankruptcy does to the consumers who are actually paying their obligations. I suggest you do some research. But if you want to continue your hero worshipping of Warren, don't let me stop you.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. I understand you don't like her but businesses alone owe about $13 Trillion in non-financial debt, many of them WILL FAIL (failure is an inevitable part of our economic system and is inevitable and in fact necessary) and WHEN they fail, debtors AND creditors will hire lawyers who turn to bankruptcy law (what's on the books, the statutes) to determine which creditors get paid, how much, and in what order. It's incredibly complex as you know if you've been involved in it, and blaming the lawyers, or Warren who taught the lawyers about the law, for bankruptcy and the consequences of it is no different than blaming oncologists for the devastating effects cancer.

There are lawyers who are experts in manipulating the law in favor of their debtor clients to protect their personal assets from legitimate creditors. I thought you had read some writings by her on how to do that, how to move money offshore, use of trusts, etc. or her endorsing those methods, but unless you have then your position makes no sense at all. One of my oldest friends is a lawyer and an expert in bankruptcy law whose clients are almost always creditors (banks mostly) and his job is to suck every penny possible out of the borrowers who owe his clients money. He learned his craft initially from a law professor like Warren.
 
JasperL said:
I haven't seen that in her. In fact, I've found her very consistent on the big issues, and she's got a long history of actual excellence in her general area of expertise. Do you have any specifics?
Click to expand...

She's excellent at claiming to be part native American in order to get into Harvard. So right there we know she's dishonest when it's convenient.
 
Fiddytree said:
Elizabeth Warren was the darling of hardcore liberals before Sanders was. And yes, she's not a sell-out. She's playing smart politics by duking it out for influence of the administration. Clinton has a three-pronged fight to deal with. She has the remaining Blue Dogs, the Obama wing, and the Warren-Sanders wing to worry about. Each are jockeying for position and influence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
2/3 of those are already in the tank for Hillary.
 
reinoe said:
2/3 of those are already in the tank for Hillary.
Click to expand...

And all thirds would pick Warren over Hillary in a heartbeat. If Warren primaries Hillary in 2020 she will utterly curbstomp (unless the DNC by that point still tries to tip the scales, but even then...)
 
reinoe said:
She's excellent at claiming to be part native American in order to get into Harvard. So right there we know she's dishonest when it's convenient.
Click to expand...

LOL, there isn't any evidence she got her job at Harvard because of her supposed lineage. There simply isn't any doubt her academic record pre-Harvard was outstanding by any measure. Again, I don't care that people don't like her politics, but her personal story is pretty impressive, and if the worst lie she's told is to believe and repeat family lore about being part native American, she's ahead of roughly 99.9% of her colleagues there in D.C.
 
JasperL said:
That's ridiculous. I understand you don't like her but businesses alone owe about $13 Trillion in non-financial debt, many of them WILL FAIL (failure is an inevitable part of our economic system and is inevitable and in fact necessary) and WHEN they fail, debtors AND creditors will hire lawyers who turn to bankruptcy law (what's on the books, the statutes) to determine which creditors get paid, how much, and in what order. It's incredibly complex as you know if you've been involved in it, and blaming the lawyers, or Warren who taught the lawyers about the law, for bankruptcy and the consequences of it is no different than blaming oncologists for the devastating effects cancer.

There are lawyers who are experts in manipulating the law in favor of their debtor clients to protect their personal assets from legitimate creditors. I thought you had read some writings by her on how to do that, how to move money offshore, use of trusts, etc. or her endorsing those methods, but unless you have then your position makes no sense at all. One of my oldest friends is a lawyer and an expert in bankruptcy law whose clients are almost always creditors (banks mostly) and his job is to suck every penny possible out of the borrowers who owe his clients money. He learned his craft initially from a law professor like Warren.
Click to expand...

I'm confused about something. Why do you think I care what your reasons are for thinking Warren is the bee's knees? I know she isn't. People who know the banking industry know she isn't. If you want to hero worship her, why do you think you have to justify it to me?
 
Abbazorkzog said:
And all thirds would pick Warren over Hillary in a heartbeat. If Warren primaries Hillary in 2020 she will utterly curbstomp (unless the DNC by that point still tries to tip the scales, but even then...)
Click to expand...

If Warren primaried Hillary in 2016, she'd have curbstomped her. That said, I'm almost certain Warren cut some kind of backroom deal with the Clinton camp given the immense pressure on her to run in those primaries and her adamant refusal to do so (why do you think Bernie got fed up, had his O'Reilly moment and 'did it live'?), so this probably won't happen in 2020 unfortunately. On the upside we might actually see some progressive policy survive a Clinton administration and get implemented as a consequence of these concessions (but don't count on it).
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
I'm confused about something. Why do you think I care what your reasons are for thinking Warren is the bee's knees? I know she isn't. People who know the banking industry know she isn't. If you want to hero worship her, why do you think you have to justify it to me?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you could back up your statement that she's a fraud, and instead you made a ridiculous and ignorant argument that being a leading expert on the law and teaching future lawyers about bankruptcy law makes Warren individually responsible for the losses to lenders in a bankruptcy, even though many of those lawyers will be representing creditors and using their knowledge of bankruptcy law to collect every possible penny from the bankrupt debtors. My apologies. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
Sorry, I thought you could back up your statement that she's a fraud, and instead you made a ridiculous and ignorant argument that being a leading expert on the law and teaching future lawyers about bankruptcy law makes Warren individually responsible for the losses to lenders in a bankruptcy, even though many of those lawyers will be representing creditors and using their knowledge of bankruptcy law to collect every possible penny from the bankrupt debtors. My apologies. :roll:
Click to expand...

Apology accepted.
 
Surrealistik said:
If Warren primaried Hillary in 2016, she'd have curbstomped her. That said, I'm almost certain Warren cut some kind of backroom deal with the Clinton camp given the immense pressure on her to run in those primaries and her adamant refusal to do so (why do you think Bernie got fed up, had his O'Reilly moment and 'did it live'?), so this probably won't happen in 2020 unfortunately. On the upside we might actually see some progressive policy survive a Clinton administration and get implemented as a consequence of these concessions (but don't count on it).
Click to expand...

I actually think there will be more pressure on a 72-year-old Hillary Clinton to not even run for reelection. And if that pressure is there, if she decides to run again, she will become even more unpopular than she is now, and thus result in the roflstomp I indicated above.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm confused about something. Why do you think I care what your reasons are for thinking Warren is the bee's knees? I know she isn't. People who know the banking industry know she isn't. If you want to hero worship her, why do you think you have to justify it to me?
Click to expand...

What ??

You called her a fraud. Was that accusation fraudulent ?? It isn't clear.
 
JasperL said:
LOL, there isn't any evidence she got her job at Harvard because of her supposed lineage. There simply isn't any doubt her academic record pre-Harvard was outstanding by any measure. Again, I don't care that people don't like her politics, but her personal story is pretty impressive, and if the worst lie she's told is to believe and repeat family lore about being part native American, she's ahead of roughly 99.9% of her colleagues there in D.C.
Click to expand...

Harvard rejects plenty of people with outstanding academic credentials.
 
reinoe said:
Harvard rejects plenty of people with outstanding academic credentials.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do! But that's not in fact evidence of any kind that she got her position based on her alleged native American lineage! For the period 2005-2009, she was the third most cited law professor in the area of commercial law/bankruptcy, and the top woman. Nothing about that indicates she didn't earn her position through a career of demonstrated excellence at the very top of her field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom