Election 2020 Open Thread: I {Heart} Sen. Elizabeth Warren


Of course, Warren and McConnell have a history (She persisted!) going back to 2011, when he blocked her from taking over the CFBP that she designed and shepherded…

“… If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don’t have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you… I will look for you, I will find you and I will kill you.” —Liam Neeson, Taken






177 replies
  1. 1
    Adam L Silverman says:

    XX Chromosome/XX Chromosome 2020!

    Or Sweet Meteor of Death/Thawed Pleistocene Epoch Pandemic Virus 2020.

    Either one works for me!

  2. 2
    The Lodger says:

    Steak knives? Reminds me of Eat The Rich.

  3. 3
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @The Lodger: If not completely satisfied just return the wealth tax for a complete refund. But keep the steak knives as our special gift to you.//

  4. 4
    SFAW says:

    But her EMAILZ! she acts like a schoolmarm! Fauxcahontas! wonkishness! she’s over-prepared! she’s … something, I don’t know what, I just can’t place my finger on it.

  5. 5
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @SFAW: Female?

  6. 6
    burnspbesq says:

    Warren appears to be grossly underestimating the difficulty of fairly and efficiently administering a wealth tax, but I am happy to give her 180 days to prove me wrong.

  7. 7
    PST says:

    I admire Sen. Warren for her specific proposals. There is a certain kind of policy nerd that loves those, I’m one, and we have a blog full here. But I know of no evidence that it’s good politics. It provides lots of handles to grab onto in order to make people think somewhere their ox is being gored. There may be a political Gresham’s law that says slippery ambiguity drives out honest specificity. If we want to win, we might need a vaguer (but inspirational) candidate with greater ability to be all things to all people. Someone more like Obama.

  8. 8
    HinTN says:

    @PST: Asking for Harris, are you?

  9. 9
    HinTN says:

    @HinTN: Yes, I really SPW, too.

  10. 10
    SFAW says:

    @Adam L Silverman:
    Hey, I have NO problem voting for a woman. Just not her. Or Kamala Harris. Or Hillary Clinton. Or ….

  11. 11
    PST says:

    @HinTN: If you forced me to vote today, yeah, I’d probably vote for Harris, but I’m nowhere close to a real commitment yet.

  12. 12
    HinTN says:

    @SFAW: Wank, swank, swank

    Sad Trombone to follow

  13. 13
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @SFAW: Any actual woman?

    Let me guess, there is one woman you’d vote for, but she’s from Canada, right?

  14. 14
    ThresherK says:

    I’m not endorsing anyone, I’m just pointing out that if Elizabeth Warren were a man she would be the front runner and would be receiving most of the press. –Bree Bass

    Warren is bursting with what we* might call “charisma” in male candidates. —Sady Doyle

    (*To make clear, “we” is a stone cold stab at the mainstream press. Try saying it in Stephen Colbert’s voice and it becomes apparent.)

  15. 15
    ThresherK says:

    @ThresherK: Ugh. This is not supposed to be nested blockquotes.

  16. 16
    HinTN says:

    @PST: Nobody has to make a choice now. That’s what “the process” is about. I know who I DON’T like.

  17. 17
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @ThresherK: But it looks purty!

  18. 18
    HinTN says:

    @Adam L Silverman: Not presuming to speak for anyone but, NOT Tulsi… Please

  19. 19

    if Elizabeth Warren were a man she would be the front runner

    Do we really think so little of the democratic primary electorate?

  20. 20
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @HinTN: I’m not a fan.

  21. 21
  22. 22
    khead says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Yes. Especially given the way I’ve seen folks swooning for Mayor Pete and Uncle Joe. Don’t get me started on that other guy.

  23. 23

    @burnspbesq: Confiscate everything over a billion dollars. Easy peasy.

  24. 24
    HinTN says:

    OT, but… Whoever rescued me from the red screen of comment trauma, THANK YOU.

  25. 25
    SFAW says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Let me guess, there is one woman you’d vote for, but she’s from Canada, right?

    Celine Dion? I (truly, not joking) have no idea whom you mean. You’ll probably tell me, and I’ll slap myself for not figuring it out, of course.

  26. 26
    HinTN says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: A billion here, a billion there…

  27. 27
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Yes, yes we do.

  28. 28
    HinTN says:

    @SFAW: Trans Ted, mayhaps?

  29. 29
    Keith P. says:

    I’m just pointing out that if Elizabeth Warren were a man she would be the front runner and would be receiving most of the press.

    I’m pretty sure the previous Vice President who got a ton of press/money for jumping in the ring last week would still be the front runner and get most of the press. Any name that announces is going to receive most of the press at least through the weekend, and the veep just naturally has a ton of name recognition.

  30. 30
    SFAW says:

    @HinTN:

    Trans Ted, mayhaps?

    What’s kind of scary is that it was my original guess, too. But then I realized that I would not vote for Rafael Cruz, nor would Adam suggest it.

  31. 31
    James E Powell says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Do we really think so little of the democratic primary electorate?

    At times, I do roll my eyes and I’m sure you do too. But I understood the comment to be directed at the way Warren is covered which is reflected in her standing in the polls.

  32. 32
    HinTN says:

    @HinTN: Spoke too soon. Sigh and bye

  33. 33
    grammypat says:

    @burnspbesq: Sorry about the OT, but been trying to catch up with you for *weeks*. I’d like to ask you about lawyerly stuff in the Austin area. If you’re willing, I can ask AL to send you my email. Thx

  34. 34
    ThresherK says:

    More from Dave Weigel (6:38 PM – 27 Apr 2019):

    Warren explaining the wealth tax: “How many people here own a home?” Most hands go up. “You’ve been paying a wealth tax for years. They just call it a property tax. I just want their tax to include the diamonds, the yachts, and the Rembrandts.”

    This is the kind of straight talk which our media betters will not repeat if their lives depended on it.

  35. 35
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    It’s a Canadian Girlfriend joke, the imaginary one incels all have,….

  36. 36
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @SFAW:
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=my%20girlfriend%20who%20lives%20in%20canada

    my girlfriend who lives in canada
    “My girlfriend who lives in Canada” is a lie invented by hundreds if not thousands of geeky high school boys who can’t get any dates and don’t want to appear pathetic. The geek will take pictures from magazines or the internet and pass them off as the “Canadian girlfriend”. The “girlfriend can also be a spy, cowgirl, model, whatever.

    This is also the name of an Avenue Q song about the same subject.
    “I have a girlfriend who lives in Canada.”
    “You fucking liar.”
    by Ben Friesen February 18, 2005

  37. 37
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:

    Oh. Would not have gotten that.

  38. 38
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @HinTN: You’re not showing up in moderation. Give me a minute to figure out where your comments are going.

  39. 39
  40. 40
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @HinTN: You’re not in moderation, nor are your missing comments in Spam or Trash. I do not know what is going on with them.

  41. 41
    David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch says:

    I think she needs to change her tactics. Sure there’s a sexist roadblock, but right now she’s not getting around that by being a policy maven.

    Either reduce the policy initiatives to three that directly relate to voter’s pocket books and hammer those repeatedly and see if that catches on or dispense with policy and start throwing red meat at the base by hammering Dump (that certainly would buy her headlines).

  42. 42
    SFAW says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Apparently, I no longer remember — or am not aware of — all Internet traditions.

  43. 43
    mattH says:

    The Joy Reid question and answer is what I like about Warren the most. She knows where the obstruction is and just how hard of a fight this is going to be. There are others out there who have good plans, or can learn if we need them to, but the one who really understands what we are up against, and how things have changed since the mythical 1980s is what matters most in this contest is her. I haven’t heard anyone else who really groks this.

  44. 44
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @SFAW: Apparently.

  45. 45
    SFAW says:

    @David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch:

    Either reduce the policy initiatives to three that directly relate to voter’s pocket books and hammer those repeatedly and see if that catches on or dispense with policy and start throwing red meat at the base by hammering Dump (that certainly would buy her headlines).

    Good idea(s).

  46. 46
  47. 47
    randy khan says:

    Twelve steak knives? I’m in.

  48. 48
    Dan B says:

    @ThresherK: The media loves a narrative. Facts are boring….. So would it help if Warren had a family that was paying a huge prooerty tax and in danger of losing their home? It would great if she could include the million/billionaires who favor higher taxes.

  49. 49
    Ceci n est pas mon nym says:

    It was Elizabeth Warren and her anger and determination in January 2017 that got me out of the fetal position I’d been in since November 2016. I find her plenty inspirational AND smart on policy. You can be both you know.

  50. 50
    khead says:

    @David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch:

    She was the first candidate to endorse impeachment.

  51. 51
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    Except that Dolt 45, the ReThugs and the MSM’s horseracing is that “everbody” on the D side is running “against” Dolt 45 on a platform of only Dolt 45 hate, and nothing else.

    The 2018 Blue Wave ran on policy, not Dolt 45, even though that’s not how the MSM sold it.

    Stick to the winning plan.

  52. 52
    Ceci n est pas mon nym says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Or Sweet Meteor of Death/Thawed Pleistocene Epoch Pandemic Virus 2020.

    That’s the thing Madeline Kahn sings toward the end of Young Frankenstein, right?

  53. 53
    Dan B says:

    @David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch: Good ideas! Three red meat/pocketbook issues and bash Trump/GOP for making things worse.

  54. 54
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Jay:

  55. 55
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Ceci n est pas mon nym: Sure, sure…

  56. 56
    NotMax says:

    @HinTN

    You may be pleased to hear that Mom, who had never encountered her previously, mentioned the other day she had seen Gabbard on a political show. Direct Mom quote:

    “What the heck is wrong with her? She’s a real kook, isn’t she?”

  57. 57
    Another Scott says:

    @Adam L Silverman: It kinda-sorta works for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, also too. She was great at the 2012 convention (6:56). I thought you were referring to her at first (she too was born in Canadia).

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  58. 58
    Ruckus says:

    @Major Major Major Major:
    Especially since the last woman to run for president won the popular vote.

  59. 59
    James E Powell says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Warren appears to be grossly underestimating the difficulty of fairly and efficiently administering a wealth tax, but I am happy to give her 180 days to prove me wrong.

    You think maybe tax lawyers are hearing this and thinking, she’s our candidate!

  60. 60
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:

    The 2018 Blue Wave ran on policy, not Dolt 45

    It was both, not either/or.
    And the anti-Trump revelations kept knocking down his numbers in 2016, until Comey betrayed the country in order to up Hillary’s negatives in the nick of time.

  61. 61
    cmorenc says:

    I’m for whomever in the D field can decisively defeat Trump in 2020 – male or female. If the nominee turns out to be not your preferred person or of your preferred variety of progressive purity – DON’T let that get in the way of the ONE essential thing – winning the most important Presidential race in US since 1860. I’ll be delighted if that person turns out to be Elizabeth Warren, or Kamala Harris…or Joe Biden, even though Joe ain’t my first choice at the moment.

  62. 62
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Confiscate everything over a billion dollars. Easy peasy.

    “But but but, that’s COMMUNIST!!!”

    “Ok then. Everything over $1 billion is taxed at 99.99%.”

    “But but but, that’s COMMUNIST!!!”

    “Oh shut up. You only make $10 million per year. You’ll be ok.”

  63. 63
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    AOC mentioned Dolt 45 zero times during her Campaign.
    Ditto for Omar, Tliab, and a bunch of others.

    They did campaign against the effects of “Republican” policies, not Dolt 45.

  64. 64
    burnspbesq says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    Easy peasy.

    And unconstitutional as hell.

  65. 65
    Jay says:

    @mrmoshpotato:

    “Oh shut up. You only make $10 million per year. You’ll be ok.”

    Oh shut up. You’re wealth is less than $10 million dollars, you’ll be fine.

  66. 66
    Jay says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Nope.

    Eminent Domain bitches,

  67. 67
    burnspbesq says:

    @grammypat:

    Happy to help out. If you want to talk over lunch or dinner, would be happy to. I work from home in Cedar Park.

  68. 68
    Another Scott says:

    The constitution can be changed, and can be reinterpreted, of course…

    But I understand your concern about the difficulty of doing it in a way that can’t be gamed. A transaction tax would seem to avoid a lot of those difficulties. I’m sure SenatorProfessorWarren has thought about these things – I haven’t read enough of her proposals to know why she likes the wealth tax better.

    We’ll see.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  69. 69
    mrmoshpotato says:

    @Jay: Yes it is. Much much less.

    Fair correction. Thanks.

  70. 70
    NotMax says:

    Waiting to see her policy for wising up Massachusetts drivers. //

  71. 71
    burnspbesq says:

    @NotMax:

    Mom has her shit together. Good for her.

  72. 72
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:
    Far be it from me to suggest you’re cherry-picking, etc., but AOC was pretty much guaranteed a win after she won the Dem primary, as was Omar and Tlaib. All three of those districts are about as Blue as they come, so there was no need to tie the Rethug to Shitgibbon — the Dem electorate was already primed.

    Or are you laboring under the misconception that Rethugs in solidly Red districts lost only because their policies were hated by their base, and that the increase in Dem votes had nothing to do with the Traitor-in-Chief?

  73. 73
    khead says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Weird. My bro pays a tax on his cars every year. Maybe he should claim it’s unconstitutional.

  74. 74
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Adam L Silverman: Jennifer granholm? She was awesome!

  75. 75
    khead says:

    @Jay:

    The 2018 Blue Wave ran on policy, not Dolt 45, even though that’s not how the MSM sold it.

    No, they didn’t. They ran as anti-Trump.

  76. 76

    @SFAW:

    Far be it from me to suggest you’re cherry-picking, etc., but AOC was pretty much guaranteed a win after she won the Dem primary, as was Omar and Tlaib.

    Was just about to post this!

  77. 77
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Another Scott:

    It kinda-sorta works for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, also too. She was great at the 2012 convention (6:56). I thought you were referring to her at first (she too was born in Canadia).

    Isn’t Granholm the one that Omnes likes? Especially when she has a wee sip of an adult beverage before addressing massive numbers of conventioneers and an international TV audience? I thought she was great at the 2016 convention.

    EDIT: Or 2012. Whatever.

  78. 78
    Another Scott says:

    @khead: Those are state taxes. The federal constitution has language in it about taxes that make general taxes problematic. Recall it had to be amended for the income tax.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  79. 79
    SFAW says:

    @NotMax:

    Waiting to see her policy for wising up Massachusetts drivers.

    Always with the jokes.

    In other words: unpossible.

  80. 80
    burnspbesq says:

    @James E Powell:

    As a tax lawyer (with Tax Court trial experience related to valuation disputes), i can assure you that anyone with relevant experience is getting ready to trade in their 3-series BMW for a 5 (or maybe even a 7). It’s going to be a fucking bonanza.

  81. 81
    BlueDWarrior says:

    Warren’s problems I think are entirely a creation of the mass media. They want to push the narrative wherever they (the editors and owners) feel like, and if you won’t play along, you get frozen out.

  82. 82
    burnspbesq says:

    @Jay:

    Stick to topics about which you are not breathtakingly ignorant.

  83. 83
    David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch says:

    @Jay: AOC ran in a district that is 81% blue. Omar’s district is 74% blue. Tlaib’s district is 85% blue. They didn’t have to mention Dump. Although didn’t Tlaib run on “impeaching the motherfucker!” (which I loved).

    But putting all that aside, her current strategy isn’t breaking through the sexist ceiling. You can give the strategy more time, but there’s only 9 months left til Iowa. At some point if it doesn’t catch on then you have to try something else.

  84. 84
    SFAW says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Stick to topics about which you are not breathtakingly ignorant.

    You and NotMax, I swear …

  85. 85
    burnspbesq says:

    @khead:

    A STATE tax.

  86. 86
    grammypat says:

    @burnspbesq: Thanks, I’ll send word to AL.

  87. 87
    khead says:

    @Another Scott:

    Maybe, My bro didn’t buy his car this year. He bought it years ago. Why isn’t it unconstitutional to tax it (yet again) in every year past year 1?

  88. 88

    @David 🎅🎄Merry Christmas🎄🎅 Koch:

    there’s only 9 months left til Iowa

    This is both a very long time and much closer than I’d sort of placed it in my head.

  89. 89
    khead says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I understand. I’m just saying I think the Feds could do it too.

    Edit – Well, maybe not with this USSC, but I am sure you get my point.

  90. 90
    Steve in the ATL says:

    @Steve in the ATL: never mind. Beaten to the punch repeatedly.

  91. 91
    NotMax says:

    @Major Major Major Major

    February 3rd, to be exact. Time enough for Dolt 45 to add another couple of zeroes to his lie list, piss off more constituencies, further chip away his support and for the economy to cool.

  92. 92
    catclub says:

    @SFAW: There was the Governor of Michigan who gave a barn burner speech at a Democratic convention. When everybody asked why she wasn’t going to be president? …. born in Canada. Jennifer Granholm

  93. 93
    Mary G says:

    Warren is the true radical in the race, and will face an uphill battle if she gets the nomination. The Republicans will wage total war, because she’s going to hit them in the wallet where it really hurts

  94. 94
  95. 95
    LivinginExile says:

    Does anyone have an opinion on the rule cheri bustos came up with at the dccc? It’s a rule that any vendor that works for a democrat that is challenging an incumbent democrat in a primary will get blacklisted. There’s a women named marie newman challenging an incumbent named lipinski in illinois. She’s a progressive and he’s a anti-abortion “moderate”. She’s having trouble because of this rule. I think AOC was also complaining about it.

  96. 96
    tobie says:

    I think Warren as Presidential candidate should trying returning to Warren in 2011 as Senate candidate who could deliver a compelling defense of the social contract that emphasized “us” instead of “them” (the monopolists, the filthy rich, the greedy corporatists or whatever her preferred nom du jour is for the evil 1% ). There are ways Warren can talk about what she wants to do without having constantly to namecheck and vilify an opponent.

  97. 97
    Jay says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Property is already taxed in the US and wealth is nothing more than property.

    The Government can seize it for the common good, ( eminent domain)

    Or just seize it, ( civil forfiture),

    The laws have always been used against the poor, they have never been used against the wealthy,

    Because the system supports the kaikistocracy,

    “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
    Le Lys Rouge [The Red Lily] (1894), ch. 7”

  98. 98
    Cacti says:

    I’m not endorsing anyone, I’m just pointing out that if Elizabeth Warren were a man she would be the front runner and would be receiving most of the press.

    Yeah, I’m gonna have to call bullshit on the above.

    Biden and Sanders would still have more national recognition at this point, even if Warren was the manliest of men.

  99. 99
    Another Scott says:

    @LivinginExile: Wonkette has a story about it, but I haven’t read it closely.

    It looks like the party decided this policy in 2018.

    I don’t know the details….

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  100. 100
    Harbison says:

    @PST:

    Exactly so.

    The idea that 2020 is going to be won by the person with the most compelling, nuanced, book of policy proposals speaks only to the yearnings of a very, very small and ultimately insignificant sub/sub/sub/set of the electorate.

  101. 101
    Repatriated says:

    @LivinginExile: The thing to keep in mind that the DCCC was created by and for incumbent Democratic Congressmembers. It’s supposed to protect incumbents! Party purity isn’t even on their radar.

    Basically, if you’re primarying a fellow Democrat, the DCCC is by definition adversarial to your campaign.

    Blacklisting consultants of primary challengers is problematic, but those consultants could choose to work for candidates contesting marginal GOP-held seats instead of taking on fellow Democrats.

  102. 102
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:

    The first sentence from the ex post facto article you cited as some sort of support for your ridiculous contention that the Dems didn’t make Trump an issue:

    Scarred by the 2016 election, many House Democrats had been incredibly cautious about publicly discussing what they might do if they regained the majority after the midterms.

    I guess the author forgot to include the words “after they had been talking exlusively about policy issues, not Donald Trump oh no never Donald Trump.”

    It also talks about voters unhappy with the Trump Administration — and then it talks about the maladministration’s corruption. I realize that, to someone who equates Kelo with the ability to seize money, there’s no difference. The rest of us — lawyer’s and non-lawyers alike — might differ with your extremely intelligent and inciteful contention.

  103. 103
    Mike J says:

    @LivinginExile: What do you think the d trip is for? This is not the DNC were talking about. Their one and only job is keeping Dems in congress. Of course they’re for incumbents. THAT’S WHERE THEY GET THEIR MONEY. Jesus fuck. The entire point is keeping incumbents in.

    Dems in D+80 districts give money to DCCC to help out the incumbents in R+2 districts. They aren’t there to create a revolution. Every Dem in congress has already proved they deserve to be there by winning an election. If you want to take them down, it should and will be really hard to put up somebody who hasn’t proved they can win.

  104. 104
    Mike J says:

    @Another Scott: Not party policy, DCCC policy. Not the same thing.

  105. 105
    joel hanes says:

    @LivinginExile:

    Does anyone have an opinion on the rule cheri bustos came up with at the dccc?

    Yes.

    When I read about it, I cancelled my modest regular contribution to the DCCC and told them that was the reason, and donated instead to Newman. Lipinski is a terrible Democrat, and protecting terrible Democratic incumbents that are more conservative than their districts is the DCCC’s besetting vice.

    I still give to the DNC and the DLCC and the DSCC, because we need the Senate, but I don’t want my money used to protect _bad_ incumbent Representatives in districts from which we could have a better.

  106. 106
    LivinginExile says:

    @Repatriated: That’s a clear explanation. Thanks

  107. 107
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    Sorry, but a google search sucked. 90% of the search results said there was no Blue Wave. Including “Trump” in the search perameters resulted in 5% results that said Dolt 45 won the 2018 Elections.

    It actually speaks more to USMSM election coverage.

    Stacy Abram’s didn’t run against Dolt 45.

    Ditto for Beto.

  108. 108
    joel hanes says:

    @Harbison:

    a very, very small and ultimately insignificant sub/sub/sub/set of the electorate.

    [raises hand]

    That would be me, alternate weeks.
    The other weeks I’m looking for FDR/JFK/WJC/Obama excellence in rhetoric.

  109. 109

    @Jay:

    Stacy Abram’s didn’t run against Dolt 45.

    Ditto for Beto.

    How’d they do?

  110. 110
    Barbara says:

    @LivinginExile: I am not sure what blacklisting means here, but I assume it has something to do with not making DCCC cash available to candidates using the consultant, because I don’t see how they could enforce this otherwise. Obviously, the consultants themselves are deciding to avoid creating a conflict, but the hammer must be in the form of DCCC cash. I think it’s too heavy handed as a general rule, but on the other hand, primaries increase the amount of funds candidates need and make the DCCC’s job that much harder. Lipinski was challenged last time too, and survived handily.

  111. 111
    tobie says:

    @LivinginExile: The Congressional Black Caucus bargained with Bustos for this rule. They felt their members were the most vulnerable to challenges from the left. Brenda Jones (Dem) held the seat that Tlaib won and, I guess, she felt kicked out. There was talk among Justice Dems (and AOC’s staff) about primarying Hakeem Jeffries. And Lacy Clay (D-Missouri) is being challenged by a Justice Dem. I agree Marie Newman is a welcome alternative to Dan Lipinski and I’m sure Emily’s List will support her. As the primary draws nearer you should post a link to her website so readers he can remember to contribute.

  112. 112
    Another Scott says:

    @Jay: You really shouldn’t argue with Burns about US tax law.

    It’s hard to seize someone’s Rembrandt or 5 carat emerald or stock certificates by eminent domain.

    Civil forfeiture requires a crime.

    State property taxes are different from federal taxes.

    Etc.

    There would likely be constitutional challenges, also too.

    FWIW.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  113. 113
    Jay says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    Both had their elections stolen.

  114. 114
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:

    Yeah, keep on fucking that chicken, if it makes you feel better.

    Also, thanks for letting us know that you’re a fucking genius when it comes to using Google. Most of us would be unable to construct search parameters to yield “90% of the search results said there was no Blue Wave.” Sure glad you could do it, and show us what dummies we are.

  115. 115
    Repatriated says:

    @LivinginExile: MikeJ covered what I missed in his #103 — the justification for incumbent-protection as policy, over and above members’ self-interest.

  116. 116
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @SFAW: Jay does seem to enjoy “explaining” US law to US lawyers.

  117. 117
    Jay says:

    @Another Scott:

    Lost $30k for 10 years by driving through Buttfuck Texas. Spent $50k suing, to get it back.

    I see no reason why a Rembrant on a yacht, or $100 million in small bills on a yacht, headed for the Caymans or Cyprus, is treated any differently than a kid’s $2500 for a truck to start a landscaping business, other than you know, kaikistocracy and Nazism.

  118. 118
    Another Scott says:

    @Mike J: Nancy supported the anti-choice incumbent as well, so it’s pretty much party policy. In effect.

    RollCall says the DCCC is going to meet with progressive leaders Bernie supporters about the policy, so maybe they’ll modify it.

    We’ll see.

    The DCCC is important, but they’re not the only game in town when it comes to supporting Democrats.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  119. 119
    Barbara says:

    @Jay: There is an issue of liquidity and valuation of personal property.

  120. 120
    joel hanes says:

    @Another Scott:

    Civil forfeiture requires a crime.

    You would think. But no.
    It’s begun changing, slowly, but for decades civil forfeiture has been used against people who were never even charged with anything, much less convicted.

  121. 121
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:
    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Keep rolling over and presenting for penetration.

    Once upon a time, American’s embraced the “impossible”,

  122. 122
    Another Scott says:

    @Jay: Or maybe the law was written to treat them differently?

    And maybe the law needs to be changed, or interpreted differently?

    Maybe?

    (sheesh)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  123. 123
    Lyrebird says:

    @Another Scott: I thought of Granholm, too. After her barn burner of a speech for Obama/DNC, I wished we could nominate her! Not to replace BHO, just to be next in line.

    If you haven’t seen it, probably googling “you, mitt romney” might work… can’t look it up just now.

  124. 124
    Jay says:

    @Barbara:

    Yup, Trump taxes.

    $45 million when he needs a loan,

    $16 million when it’s a property tax assesment.

    As I learned in Buttfuck Texas, money talks. That’s the only justice there is.

  125. 125
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:
    I’ve tried explaining English orthography to him, but to no avail.

  126. 126

    @Another Scott: While I also think a wealth tax would require a Constitutional Amendment to be legal, we do have the Estate Tax.

  127. 127
    Mike J says:

    @Another Scott: Nancy is a member of dc3 because SHE IS IN CONGRESS. It has nothing to do with the party. One of her jobs is keeping a majority. I don’t give a shit about one anti choice vote if it keeps Nancy in charge where there is literally zero chance of anti choice legislation coming to the floor.

  128. 128
    Another Scott says:

    @joel hanes: IANAL, but my understanding is that there was at least a sworn statement by a cop that they believed that the items in question were obtained from illegal means. E.g. the ACLU says:

    Police abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws has shaken our nation’s conscience. Civil forfeiture allows police to seize — and then keep or sell — any property they allege is involved in a crime. Owners need not ever be arrested or convicted of a crime for their cash, cars, or even real estate to be taken away permanently by the government.

    Jay is advocating using those laws to take an annual tax from the wealthy. It won’t work.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  129. 129
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:

    Thanks for yet another demonstration of your towering intellect. I think the Traitor-in-Chief just might have met his match, in the “stable genius” arena. I bet you’re also among the bestest negotiators that ever lived, etc., etc.

  130. 130
  131. 131
    Repatriated says:

    @joel hanes: U.S. v. $127,400 in U.S. Currency (2006) is on point here.

    Yes, the charges were against the money itself, not its owner.

  132. 132
  133. 133
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    I do okay.

  134. 134
    hervevillechaizelounge says:

    @cmorenc:

    I think well-informed democrats tend to dismiss the role gut feelings play in elections. The masses don’t want policy or a candidate with experience—they want somebody who makes them feel good.

    I knew Hillary wouldn’t win—my wingnut relatives hated her with the passion of a thousand suns. Their hatred was falsely generated by FauxNews but that doesn’t mean their loathing wasn’t genuine.

    Anyone mocking the electability issue is short-sighted. There’s a difference between hiding misogyny/racism behind concern trolling and trying to figure out which candidate gives the lumpenmittel the warm fuzzies.

  135. 135
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jay: That’s more than a bit both homophobic and misogynistic, isn’t it? I get that you think the US government should simply be able to expropriate the property without compensation, but that is how the law currently works and I doubt you would find sufficient legislators in the US at any level to pass such laws anywhere other than a ward or two in Berkeley and Madison.

  136. 136
    Jay says:

    @hervevillechaizelounge:

    The argument is that the MSM is defining “electability”, not people who have actually attended/been in contact, with the cantidates.

    The MSM is using inauthentic “electability” arguments to diss the wymmen, and elivate the white male pipple.

  137. 137
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Keep rolling over and giving up.

  138. 138
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:

    I do okay.

    Yes, I’m sure you think you do.

  139. 139
    BR says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Warren appears to be grossly underestimating the difficulty of fairly and efficiently administering a wealth tax, but I am happy to give her 180 days to prove me wrong.

    I saw a great suggestion online today — don’t know if it’s common. Basically the wealth tax should have a provision to require insurance companies to disclose for whom and what and how much they have insured, or risk losing their approval to operate.

  140. 140
    SFAW says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I expect you’ve noticed that he’s gone from telling us morons how things are/were — reasons for the Blue Wave, he non-criminal asset seizure is just like Kelo — to how he wishes thing were the way he claims/claimed they are.

    Quite the compelling argument.

  141. 141
    joel hanes says:

    @Another Scott:

    I believe that the comment to which you are replying is substantially correct.

    My only point is that this :

    there was at least a sworn statement by a cop that they believed that the items in question were obtained from illegal means

    is a very different thing than a crime.

    Ask any resident of Ferguson MO about the veracity of sworn statements by the police.
    This is supposed to be why we have trials.

  142. 142
    LivinginExile says:

    @joel hanes: Lipinski is gawd awful. Bluedog, voted against affordable care act, the dream act, voted to defund planned parenthood, etc.. That district has turned blue the last few years, if what I’m reading is correct.

  143. 143
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jay: Aside from the homophobic/misogynistic thing I mentioned earlier, how am I giving up? Let’s say that I support a wealth tax, wouldn’t I need to know the obstacles to successfully enacting one in order to determine how to overcome said obstacles? Any military OPORD requires an analysis of the weather, terrain, and enemy forces right at the fucking beginning. But feel free to hand-wave all of that away and insist that we are just not doing it right.

  144. 144
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    Got free health care,

    Get to vote easily,

    Got money in the bank,

    Employees who are happy, and have good lives,

    Got a community,

    Got the love of my life, ( 31 years now),

    Lots of neices, nephews and friends kids,

    Climate Change is gonna be an utter bitch, but I’m gonna be dead long before the start of the worst.

    Have my health,

    Have my pets,

    Just getting way too old,

    I’m doing okay,

    Never had to bleg here, or anywhere,

    There’s millions doing worse,

    So I’m doing okay.

  145. 145
    Brachiator says:

    The Democrats are going to have to deal with massive tax reform to undo the damage that Trump and the GOP leadership caused with their tax law changes. But apart from the other issues raised here, I don’t think a wealth tax is a good idea or all that effective. I don’t even know why Warren pushes it since it doesn’t seem to get crowds excited.

    Other nations have tried it and backed away and I wasn’t convinced by an essay written by one of the big proponents of a wealth tax that all the routes to tax avoidance have been identified and can be easily dealt with.

    I still like all of the Democratic women candidates over any of the male contenders, but nobody is really standing out above the crowd.

  146. 146
    SFAW says:

    @Jay:
    Congrats, glad things are going well for you.
    Meant sincerely, in case there was any doubt.

  147. 147
    Another Scott says:

    @joel hanes: I agree with all of that, and I’m sorry I gave you the impression otherwise.

    IIRC, the way they get around seizing stuff that was claimed to be the result of a crime without charging the owner is that they charge the material itself. It’s bogus.

    Civil forfeiture is bad law and invites all kinds of abuse, so it’s not surprising that too many police departments have abused it.

    The only point I was trying to make was – even in the case of a bad law like that, it’s tied to a claim of illegality. And it’s a one-time seizure – cops can’t use it for an annual collection of a wealth tax. It won’t work for Jay’s purposes to enable enactment of Warren’s wealth tax.

    That is all.

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  148. 148
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It’s actually a statement on submission to a rominant other, not gay relations, doesn’t even always relate to humans,

    There are lots of ways to tax wealth, or seize it.

    Y’all could eminent domain a Not Footsball Stadium and erect housing for the homeless,

    But y’all prefer tax cuts for Billionaires.

  149. 149
    joel hanes says:

    @Another Scott:

    they charge the material itself.

    Long history of that in European law; somehow it carried into the US and seems to have more or less nullified a portion of the Fourth Amendment.

    Sorry; I’ve been a peevish crank on this topic for many many years.

  150. 150
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @joel hanes: Civil forfeiture basically requires one of two things – 1. that the property in question be the proceeds of an illegal transaction or purchased with such proceeds, or 2. that the property be used as an instrument of the illegal transaction. In other words, cash taken in a bank robbery fits under the first part and the getaway car fits under the second.

    In my view, most civil forfeitures are unconstitutional and I have made arguments to that effect. The Supreme Court disagreed with me in the late ’90s, so it is more or less settled law at this point. I still think my appellate briefs on the topic were both correct and elegantly argued.

  151. 151
    joel hanes says:

    @Jay:

    y’all prefer tax cuts for Billionaires.

    Assumes preferences not in evidence.

    Telling other people what their opinions are , instead of asking them, is a bad look.

    It’s great that life has gone well for you, and that you’re content.
    Many people in that situation tend to stumble over the Second Myth of Management.

  152. 152
    SFAW says:

    @Brachiator:

    I don’t even know why Warren pushes it since it doesn’t seem to get crowds excited.

    I imagine it’s because the jeenyuses in the MSM are trying the “well, how are you going to pay for all your spending programs, answer me that????” questions, hoping to show that she’s just another elitist/point-headed liberal, etc.

    That’s the same MSM who mysteriously forgot to ask the Rethugs anything pointed about the tax cuts that will end up impoverishing the non-wealthy. (OK, maybe not impoverishing ALL the non-wealthy.) They remind me of Cletus Spuckler, not being able to figure out how to get over/around a Jersey barrier.

  153. 153
    Jay says:

    @SFAW:

    It wasn’t supposed to be this much work,

    And I wasn’t supposed to protect so many people,

    I was supposed to be double retired, two pensions, sitting on a beach, travelling, but the Corporations stole that,

    So instead, at my age, I’m working, have half my employee’s living on the property in subsidized housing, have a daycare,

    On the bright side, opened up a puppy daycare two years ago, so when I’m here, I can wander over and de-stress.

  154. 154
    joel hanes says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Thanks for the information, and for the arguments you presented.
    My beef is that for some reason, in practice they don’t seem to have to prove anything: they assert, and they seize.
    It seems to be up to the owner to sue to recover his property.

  155. 155
  156. 156
    JustRuss says:

    @Mary G: Oh honestly, “We should nominate someone Republicans don’t hate” is a horrible strategy:
    1. Letting Republicans choose the Democratic nominee is just crazy-pants.
    2. They’re going to throw everything they can at whoever the Dem nominee is. The notion that they’ll hold back if we pick a moderate is based on magical thinking. Hilary Clinton says “hi”.
    3. Republicans chose the vilest, most extreme candidate they could find, and now he’s POTUS.

  157. 157
    Jay says:

    @Another Scott:
    @Omnes Omnibus:
    @joel hanes:

    Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu’il a été proprement fait.

  158. 158
    Jay says:

    @joel hanes:

    That’s how it works.

    Most people can’t sue, or even afford to return for the court cases.

    Learned that in Texas.

    In the end, you lose.

  159. 159
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jay: Quoting Balzac doesn’t get one very far in a court of law.

  160. 160
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Nope, spending $50k on lawyers to recover $30k works better,

    Giving $15k to an AG to get rid of multiple underage rapes and sex trafficing charges go away works even better.

  161. 161
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Given the history of civil forfieture in the US, Balzac would be grounds,

  162. 162
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jay: If you have read the thread, you will have seen my opinion on civil forfeiture. As far as your second statement goes, I am assuming that you are trying to some relevant point, but I am not really sure what it is.

  163. 163
    Brachiator says:

    @SFAW:

    I imagine it’s because the jeenyuses in the MSM are trying the “well, how are you going to pay for all your spending programs, answer me that????” questions, hoping to show that she’s just another elitist/point-headed liberal, etc.

    .

    I guess that’s part of it. But we have the manifest failure of Republican tax reform, which is ballooning the deficit, and which is bullshit for anyone except the wealthy. Warren and other Democrats have something tangible to attack. It should also be easy to deal with idiot journalists. Even Wilmer pointed out the idiocy of Amazon paying zero tax during his Fox News appearance.

    And it’s not enough to just blame the MSM. Democrats have not been sharp on tax policy for years.

    That’s the same MSM who mysteriously forgot to ask the Rethugs anything pointed about the tax cuts that will end up impoverishing the non-wealthy. (OK, maybe not impoverishing ALL the non-wealthy.)

    I don’t know. Maybe talk and pundit shows on tv are bad. But coverage of the failure of the Trump tax cuts has been pretty good and accurate.

  164. 164
    Mary G says:

    @JustRuss: That wasn’t what I meant at all; I was paying too much attention to Game of Thrones and not to composing my comment, sorry. I meant it’s an argument for Elizabeth Warren to get the nomination, because she has specific plans ready to go.

  165. 165
    tobie says:

    @Brachiator: Well, House Dems lost their two financial and tax experts–one to retirement (Barney Franks) and one to defeat (Michael Capuano). You’re right that it shouldn’t be hard to point out the absurdity that Amazon, Google, and Netflix all paid zero federal tax in 2018. Exxon, as far as I know, didn’t pay federal tax either. I would assume the public would see the inherent unfairness of this, but who knows. It certainly speaks to me more than a wealth tax does.

  166. 166
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    In the manner of which the great majority of civil forfieture cases are run in the US, the Balzac quote provides gounds for the seizure of all excessive wealth,

    Let them sue, to prove that their wealth, is not grounded in a “great crime, well hid”,

    But that’s not how it works, is it.

    It’s another one of my blessings up here.

  167. 167
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jay: So you are saying that, in Canada, excessive wealth can be seized based on an aphorism by Balzac. Is that just in Quebec? I learn so much on this blog.

  168. 168
    Jay says:

    @tobie:

    The thing about the Wealth Tax, is that inequality has reached the loint that many people, neither labour or toil, but instead, rake in annual fortunes, based on just having so much bank,

    So much, that when they die and distribute their estate, each kid has more bank than their parents started out with.

    80% of all wealth in America is not earned, it’s inherited, and 99% of it accues to the 1%.

    The foeclosures of the Great Recession saw 83% of the accumulated wealth of the bottom 20% of America, transferred to the 1%.

  169. 169
    RinaX says:

    @Brachiator:

    But apart from the other issues raised here, I don’t think a wealth tax is a good idea or all that effective. I don’t even know why Warren pushes it since it doesn’t seem to get crowds excited.

    Other nations have tried it and backed away and I wasn’t convinced by an essay written by one of the big proponents of a wealth tax that all the routes to tax avoidance have been identified and can be easily dealt with.

    I still like all of the Democratic women candidates over any of the male contenders, but nobody is really standing out above the crowd.

    Your last sentence sums up my issue. Outside of Tulsi, who seems nuts, and Bernie, whom I despise, they all seem like decent candidates. Elizabeth Warren does seem committed to delivering sound policy ideas. But I don’t believe that any of the candidates (except the two I mentioned) would not sign more progressive policies into law if they came across their desk. Admittedly, I have lacked the time to keep up with most media events of the candidates, but no one has stood out so far on foreign policy. I will be listening for a balance of how they will approach both foreign and domestic policy in the debates.

    The media environment will not get any friendlier once one of the candidates becomes president. Another quality I’m looking for is someone who can ride out weeks of negative drumbeats by the media without giving in to the urge to chase headline wins.

  170. 170
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Nope, civil forfiture here, comes after the crime and profits are proved,

    Not when Barny Fife decides that your Craigslist cash is tainted.

  171. 171
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Jay: Bored now.

  172. 172
    Jay says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Yeah , me too, it’s often a product of trying to talk to ‘Merkins.

  173. 173
    Yutsano says:

    @tobie: Some of this is because the IRS has been strangled to within an inch of death because of Republican budget cuts going back to 2010. There is virtually no one to enforce tax laws on, well, anyone. Once people figure this out, the entire voluntary tax system is gone. Only suckers will pay any taxes.

  174. 174
    Jay says:

    @Yutsano:

    Yah , nope.

    The poor roll over,

    The rich hire lawers,

    Binder, don dat.

  175. 175
    --bd says:

    CPA here. Forget the wealth tax. Valuation, especially of non-liquid assets such as closely held businesses, would be time consuming and subject to massive litigation regarding such valuation. Instead, talk about repealing the reduced tax rates for capital gains and dividends.

  176. 176
    Barb 2 says:

    @JustRuss:

    Republicans chose the vilest, most extreme candidate they could find, and now he’s POTUS

    I don’t give a fu$k if the GOP idiots like Warren or not. She is who we need now. She has been standing up to the orange fart since forever.

    Global warming is beyond a crisis. The middle class is under water – the ultra rich are robbing the world. Warren will have to take on Putin and understand and read security papers. We all know Trumovia can’t read not keep two thoughts in his head at the same time.

    The GOP didn’t give a damn about the USA. They have turned over and have exposed their belly for Putin.

  177. 177
    SFAW says:

    @Brachiator:

    And it’s not enough to just blame the MSM. Democrats have not been sharp on tax policy for years.

    You asked why Warren has spent time and effort on it in public venues, I provided a possible/reasonable “justification.” Maybe I’m missing it, but first you ask why she did it, then you said “but Dems have sucked for years.”

    I don’t know. Maybe talk and pundit shows on tv are bad. But coverage of the failure of the Trump tax cuts has been pretty good and accurate.

    So? They do a great job (relatively speaking) doing a “Hoocoodanode?”, when what is needed is hammering on it before it happens. With the Rethugs controlling two and a half or three branches of government, the MSM talking about the problems created by the tax cut retrospectively, rather than prospectively, doesn’t help a ton. Yeah, I realize Traitor Turtle is going to fuck over most of the country, no matter what, but making it easier for him does not help anyone.

Comments are closed.