I'd actually like to see a comprehensive set of her duties and other average wages for instructors at the specific law school before cherry picking and tweeting this as a damning fact, but you know, the twitter age ain't the thoughtful age.
According to the Harvard website: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~pslm/livingwage/originalpage/salaries.html $192,550 plus $133,453 in “other compensation” (included faculty mortgage subsidy, and housing allowance) Apparently, in 2012, Harvard professors averaged $198,000 in only salary (other compensation wasn’t listed, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if it was similar to what Warren received. https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-has-highest-paid-professors-2012-4 But, I guess this is the new idiocy coming from the right at this point. Of course, their hero has this on his record: https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/trump-university-its-worse-than-you-think So coming at any Dem candidate in regards to rising education and tuition costs sort of rings hollow when the president was literally scamming folks out of money with his “University.”
The funnier part of that tweet is the "just happened to come across" her part. The woman who tweeted it is a reporter covering Elizabeth Warren. She didn't happen to come across her, she was following her lol.
I'm not 100% sure you are being sarcastic, but either way, it's still funny to me that she said she "happened" to come across this publicity stunt.
I think I'm not voting for Warren. I like Warren and I kinda want to vote for her. I like that she isn't psychologically broken like some presidents I know. I like that she seems pretty committed to using the office to solve problems people have. I like that she seems to understand how this government machine works and how to put it to use. I like how she's very wonkish and methodically makes plans to tackle the issues of national importance. The only part I really don't like is that she pretty routinely has the wrong plans. I've tried to overlook it because part of my voting philosophy is that I want to vote for the right person and not the right policy. After all, I might be wrong about policy, but a good leader who surrounds himself with expert advisers should eventually hit on the right policy more often than I will. But she is routinely an anti-market, big-government policymaker and I don't think I can abide it. She says she's a capitalist and I'm sure she is, but she doesn't look for how to leverage the market to achieve any of her goals. She sees we have problem with the healthcare market, so she wants to nationalize it. She sees the college market has a problem, feds can pick that up too. Broadband, nationalize it. Banking issue? USPS can do that. And she likes means-testing things -- tuition assistance unless you're rich, health insurance unless you're rich -- as if straight subsidies weren't distortive enough for markets. She's smarter but she reminds me of the consumer protection advocates who muck up my industry -- they think corporations are fundamentally evil, existing only to exploit and abuse the customer, and the only thing you can do with them is have so much regulatory oversight that you'll catch them if they ever deviate. But that wasn't the last straw. The thing that nettled me was wanting to end the Senate filibuster. She makes a good argument -- Republicans abused the rule when out of power and then blow it off when they're in power -- and I know she wants to be able to get her policy done, but we need to be headed in the opposite direction. The party in power should be compromising more with the minority party, not just passing everything on a party-line vote. You can change the rules a bit to cut down on abuse and have some accountability, but I don't want someone that's looking to chuck these consensus-building mechanisms aside entirely. Of course, as president she wouldn't set Senate rules, but I don't like that attitude, especially because the other thing I'd like to see is a reversal of the presidential power grab and she seems like a person who would grab as much as she can if it means being able to roll out her policy. So, I still don't know who I'll vote for in the primary, but I don't think it'll be Warren. Of course, I'll just have to put up with her if she's the alternative to Trump.
Generic medications manufacture and distribution A renewable energy corp, retro fitting energy efficiencies and solar power for low income housing Moon shot climate abatement science strategies A reforestation corp A medicare for all option Free medical education for public service program
She’s isn’t psychologically broken? Holy ****! I stopped reading at that point. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren yesterday tweeted: 5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on. — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2019
@JuanValdez target audience with that post is definitely @mick fry. I'm sure @JuanValdez is very upset.
You articulated many of my thoughts of her, she lost me somewhere in the middle of your bolded section. She would be a perfect governor for a moderately sized liberal state.
