Elizabeth Warren 2020 campaign megathread

[American2020]

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1141754750922350593

[Dr. Arch]

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1141754750922350593

I think that, if anyone overtakes Biden, it might be Warren. At least that's how it looks like right now.

[Devils30]

Warren/Bullock as a ticket? I think this would be a solid combination and balance things well.

[Karpatsky]

Warren/Bullock as a ticket? I think this would be a solid combination and balance things well.

The man should not be rewarded for placing ego over the national good.

[President Johnson]

Warren/Bullock as a ticket? I think this would be a solid combination and balance things well.

The man should not be rewarded for placing ego over the national good.

Steve Bullock should run for senate in Montana. A race he can actually win. If Liz gets the nomination, she should pick Mayor Pete, Tim Ryan or Julian Castro for vice president.

[Ilhan Apologist]

How would a Warren/Walz ticket fare?

[jacobmeteorite]

Warren/Haaland
Warren/Cortez Masto
Warren/Harris
Warren/Duckworth
Hell, I’d even love Warren/Hirono

[Galaxie]

How would a Warren/Walz ticket fare?

Let Walz settle into the Governor's mansion.

Warren/Cortez Masto is my top pick rn

[YE]

How would a Warren/Walz ticket fare?

Let Walz settle into the Governor's mansion.

Warren/Cortez Masto is my top pick rn

CCM is the chair of the DSCC for the 2020 cycle so she's unlikely to be an option for VP.

[GP270watch]

Elizabeth Warren says she would ban private prisons and detention facilities as president

[RI]

Elizabeth Warren says she would ban private prisons and detention facilities as president

While she can end BOP contracts to private prisons, I don't know that she can truly ban private prisons as most are contracted to state and local governments. I'm unclear on the extent to which the federal government can intervene into or void state/local public contracts.

[izixs]

Elizabeth Warren says she would ban private prisons and detention facilities as president

While she can end BOP contracts to private prisons, I don't know that she can truly ban private prisons as most are contracted to state and local governments. I'm unclear on the extent to which the federal government can intervene into or void state/local public contracts.

That assumes such a ban would target such contracts directly. If there were perhaps a federal law making it just flat out illegal for a non-government entity or organization to keep people detained in general, it would imply the voiding of such contracts being necessary. The constitutionality of such is a little tricky but possibly doable under the 9th amendment (certain right to not be held by a private entity for the benefit of that entity), 14th amendment (equal protection providing one to not be held against one's will by an entity that lacks the authority of government just as one who is kidnapped or abducted, a state government saying its okay to abduct people in effect is not ok in this particular case), and some outside help from the commerce clause and preamble (blessings of liberty and all that) if needed.

Another means if of course the old financial federalism trick, where a state will get nothing from the federal government as far as money if they don't conform to the new standard.

And finally, there's the method of just gum up the works to an absurd degree: disallow a company from operating across state lines (commerce clause), tax them to oblivion (all the stuff on taxation) in a uniform manner across all states (some sort of incarceration tax that's like 110% of the profits), and make it a federal crime for anyone who is not a government agent to keep someone captive, and provide very strict rules on what that means, including, not being able to have such a person be employed by a private entity or contracted for such a job.

Some of these are more of a mess for the states to clean up, but... we really should not have private prisons at all as it provides a profit motive for businesses to lobby governments to increase incarceration rates (either by driving up crime rates so they can arrest more people, by making more things illegal so they can arrest more people, or just arresting more people who didn't actually do anything and letting the state foot the bill for wrongful arrests while the politicians get their kickbacks).

[Xing]

Just realized that today is Warren's 70th birthday.

[James Monroe]

The resurgence of Warren has made me giddy that bros like Cenk Uygur are pressed that she's doing better than their man now.

https://twitter.com/Wilson__Valdez/status/1142539549022785536

[jacobmeteorite]

I mean, how epic of a ticket would this be?

Not that Deb Haaland has to be Warren's VP nominee, but it illustrates why a ticket should stand for something.
When Clinton selected Tim Kaine as her VP, it was like all the oxygen had been sucked out of the room. I know it coincided with Comey re-opening the case against HRC, but that boring-as-dish-water ticket did her no favors when it came time to excite people to vote.

A Warren/Haaland ticket stands for something much bigger than upping your chances of winning a competitive state (in HRC's case, Virginia). Warren/Haaland is layered. We know what Elizabeth stands for... a fighter for working people, and a commitment to educating as many Americans as possible to the realities and functions of the complex institutions that govern our everyday lives. It's a tremendous challenge, but EW is doing a phenomenal job, and I genuinely believe she will be the nominee because of how she's able to open peoples' eyes to the world they live in. When you're able to educate people on how and why we live our day-to-day lives on an uneven playing field (especially marginalized and disenfranchised communities), you start to be able to have conversations on how you can fix it.

And selecting Haaland as a VP is the acknowledgement that one of those disenfranchised groups (Native Americans) are an example of groups of people who have been systematically attacked by huge institutions since before George Washington ever took office. They've endured unimaginable violence, cruelty and genocide at the hands of the very government that took their land, and yet they're still here, trying to do good in the world and preserve their dying culture.

Warren's policies directly impact groups like Natives, African-Americans and Latinos because she seeks to enact laws whose sole purpose is to level the playing field and provide equity for all groups.

They have fantastic chemistry and great respect for one another. And while the consensus has been that Warren made a mistake when she released her DNA test (even though Trump and media outlets, liberals included, goaded her to take it and settle the criticism), no other 2020 candidate has been as vocal of speaking about the distinction between tribal citizens and those with Native ancestry, nor about the number of obstacles Native people continue to face, ranging from immense violence against Native women, to a lack of banking opportunities because of how rural their communities are, to a lack of high speed internet access on many reservations, to the overwhelming level of opioid addictions in these communities.

My favorite speech EW has ever given is when she showed up (unannounced) to the National Congress of American Indians to discuss her heritage, Donald Trump's attacks against her, and her plan for helping enact legislation that would directly uplift Native communities. She received a standing ovation, including from Deb Haaland.

Again, this does not mean Haaland needs to be EW's VP pick, but a ticket with that kind of meaning sparks a hell of a lot more inspiration in voters than someone like a Tim Ryan, or Hickenlooper, Bullock or Mark Warner, or some moderate Democrat to ~balance her out, or someone like that mayor to up her chances of winning competitive states like ~Indiana or whatever. That just doesn't work anymore for people. When Bill Clinton selected Al Gore as his running mate, he selected someone just like him, a Southern white Democrat, saying "We're a new type of Democrat!"

People want a ticket that means something greater than just upping your chances of winning.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Love this! #SwitchtoWarren
https://twitter.com/BoldProgressive/status/1143081656800161792

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Love this! #SwitchtoWarren
https://twitter.com/BoldProgressive/status/1143081656800161792

Still think Camp Kamala was the best outreach idea of any of the candidates so far.

[Askew]

Warren/Castro is the best choice for Dems. Both are putting together great progressive policies and having Castro on the ticket will help boost Latino turnout.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Warren/Castro is the best choice for Dems. Both are putting together great progressive policies and having Castro on the ticket will help boost Latino turnout.

Castro has been dropping fire policy proposals. He would be an amazing surrogate in TX, AZ, and for the burgeoning Latino electorate in GA. I hope she picks him!

[Ilhan Apologist]

Castro has a painful lack of charisma, and she needs someone with more (I assume you mean Julian). Even though she has plenty of charisma herself, the media likes to paint her as boring and "professorial" and she'd need someone to offset that image.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Warren/Castro is the best choice for Dems. Both are putting together great progressive policies and having Castro on the ticket will help boost Latino turnout.

Castro has been dropping fire policy proposals. He would be an amazing surrogate in TX, AZ, and for the burgeoning Latino electorate in GA. I hope she picks him!

O’Rourke gives nearly  all the same benefits Castro does, but is actually charismatic and a good campaigner.

[Famous Mortimer]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-immigration_n_5d1238bae4b07ae90da46c88

Warren calling for "decriminalizing migration" which people here are going to say isn't the same as unlimited immigration for some reason.

[Dr. Arch]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-immigration_n_5d1238bae4b07ae90da46c88

Warren calling for "decriminalizing migration" which people here are going to say isn't the same as unlimited immigration for some reason.

"[...] if enacted, would give civil immigration courts exclusive legal control over immigration enforcement at the border. Under the current system, tens of thousands of migrants who cross without authorization, including some asylum-seekers, face federal prosecution in criminal courts and jail time before they get in front of an administrative judge, who decides their immigration cases."

It doesn't because it would still go through the court system. However, it would alleviate tens of thousands in costs to our government in processing these people. The current classification is no deterrent anyway.

You can view this as a fiscally conservative move, aimed at trimming costs in jail time maintenance, criminal court processing, and the like.

However, I understand that, given your history, you are more likely to completely plug your ears and ignore the point so that you can restate your own. As such, I leave this post more so that  other eyes can read and consider it.

[Famous Mortimer]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-immigration_n_5d1238bae4b07ae90da46c88

Warren calling for "decriminalizing migration" which people here are going to say isn't the same as unlimited immigration for some reason.

You can view this as a fiscally conservative move, aimed at trimming costs in jail time maintenance, criminal court processing, and the like.

This would be true only if there was no additional cost associated with letting an unlimited number of people enter the country legally. Obviously that is not the case, as almost all the people who enter would be entitled to welfare by virtue of their poverty. So any savings on food and housing at border facilities is likely cancelled out by the cost of providing food and housing in the country's interior.

[Famous Mortimer]

Also, you did absolutely nothing to refute my claim that this is unlimited immigration. They go through a court. So what? Is there a limit to the number of people who will be allowed to pass through the court?