Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:55 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

I see "Museum of Fine Arts".

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:36 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:55 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

I see "Museum of Fine Arts".

Master of Fine Arts here.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:45 pm Motherfucking A-hole?

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:55 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

I see "Museum of Fine Arts".

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:39 pm Mighty Fine Ass.

Freyland wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:16 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:39 pm Mighty Fine Ass.

Elizabeth Warren's mighty fine ass? Wut?

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:38 pm

Freyland wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:16 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:39 pm Mighty Fine Ass.

Elizabeth Warren's mighty fine ass? Wut?

I thought he was talking about mine.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:36 am

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:55 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

I see "Museum of Fine Arts".

Master of Fine Arts here.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:38 pm

Freyland wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:16 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:39 pm Mighty Fine Ass.

Elizabeth Warren's mighty fine ass? Wut?

I thought he was talking about mine.

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:55 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:34 am Also, being an IT guy, every time I see MFA I read "multi-factor authentication."

I see "Museum of Fine Arts".

A Bloomberg candidacy could give Warren her mojo back. What could be better for the Massachusetts senator, who has built her candidacy on the claim that plutocrats control America’s government, than to run against a billionaire 51 times over who keeps slamming her proposed wealth tax, which more than 80 percent of Democrats support. By last night, Warren’s campaign was already fundraising off a possible Bloomberg candidacy. Ironically, the former New York mayor is empowering the very forces that he means to thwart.

If Bloomberg stops anyone, it will most likely be the candidate who actually is rising: Buttigieg. Bloomberg was reportedly animated by Joe Biden’s palpable deficiencies as a candidate. But the South Bend, Indiana, mayor has already capitalized on them. He’s overtaken Biden in Iowa and out-raised him nationwide. He’s moved aggressively into Biden’s centrist lane while drawing more grassroots support than other relative moderates, such as Senators Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennet. Were Bloomberg primarily interested in ensuring that neither Warren nor Bernie Sanders turned America into another “Venezuela,” he could have done what many other center-left Democratic establishment types have done: given Buttigieg the cash to compete with Warren’s and Sanders’s small-donor-powered campaigns.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earned nearly $2 million working as a consultant for corporations and financial firms while she was a law professor at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and other law schools, according to records her campaign abruptly released Sunday evening.

Warren’s consulting work often involved companies dealing with bankruptcy, which was her specialty as an academic. Her campaign had been asked repeatedly for the information and had declined to release it multiple times.

Her work for some of the companies doesn’t fit neatly with her current presidential campaign brand as a crusader against corporate interests.

For instance, the documents released Sunday show that Warren made about $80,000 from work she did for creditors in the energy company Enron’s bankruptcy and $20,000 as a consultant for Dow Chemical, a company that was trying to limit the liability it faced from silicone breast implants that were made by a connected firm.

Earlier this year, Warren had released a list of about 50 cases that she worked on, but the descriptions of the work were at times misleading and the amount of income and dates for her work were not included.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:31 am Just another socialist millionaire...

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:18 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:31 am Just another socialist millionaire...

She's not a socialist. That's a common mistake made by folks who either don't listen to her, who hate her or who aren't sure what socialism really is. Sometimes it's all three.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:31 pm The actual problem, from where I'm sitting on the sidelines, is the lack of transparency and apparent dishonesty in disclosing who she worked for and how much she was paid.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:31 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:18 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:31 am Just another socialist millionaire...

She's not a socialist. That's a common mistake made by folks who either don't listen to her, who hate her or who aren't sure what socialism really is. Sometimes it's all three.

Fair enough. I thought the aside was an obvious throw-away joke, but if that wasn't clear then it's on me.

The actual problem, from where I'm sitting on the sidelines, is the lack of transparency and apparent dishonesty in disclosing who she worked for and how much she was paid. It would be a much better look for her if her campaign had released this information from the get-go, and if the disclosure was complete and forthright.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:32 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:31 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:18 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:31 am Just another socialist millionaire...

She's not a socialist. That's a common mistake made by folks who either don't listen to her, who hate her or who aren't sure what socialism really is. Sometimes it's all three.

Fair enough. I thought the aside was an obvious throw-away joke, but if that wasn't clear then it's on me.

The actual problem, from where I'm sitting on the sidelines, is the lack of transparency and apparent dishonesty in disclosing who she worked for and how much she was paid. It would be a much better look for her if her campaign had released this information from the get-go, and if the disclosure was complete and forthright.

I'm not a Warren fan, but this is kind of ridiculous. There's no way any consultant should be expected to track their entire work history over the last 30 years let alone including compensation.

Tack on a major career change? This is some serious tilting at windmills.

While the cases released by Warren’s campaign stretch over more than three decades, the figures disclosed Sunday show that nearly all of the money was made from cases filed after she got her job at Harvard in 1995. (Warren was elected to the Senate in 2012.)

...

The income includes about $212,000 for representing Travelers Indemnity Co. in 2009, and $190,000 for what her campaign described as representing a chain of department stores owned by PA Bergner & Co. in the mid-1990s.

Warren’s campaign did not release compensation information for all of the cases, reporting in some instances — including a case involving First Commercial Bank — that “the campaign has no compensation records for this case.”

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:45 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:32 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:31 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:18 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:31 am Just another socialist millionaire...

She's not a socialist. That's a common mistake made by folks who either don't listen to her, who hate her or who aren't sure what socialism really is. Sometimes it's all three.

Fair enough. I thought the aside was an obvious throw-away joke, but if that wasn't clear then it's on me.

The actual problem, from where I'm sitting on the sidelines, is the lack of transparency and apparent dishonesty in disclosing who she worked for and how much she was paid. It would be a much better look for her if her campaign had released this information from the get-go, and if the disclosure was complete and forthright.

I'm not a Warren fan, but this is kind of ridiculous. There's no way any consultant should be expected to track their entire work history over the last 30 years let alone including compensation.

Tack on a major career change? This is some serious tilting at windmills.

It's more like 17 years and $400K was from just two jobs.
So it's not like this is all a bunch of penny-ante stuff.

While the cases released by Warren’s campaign stretch over more than three decades, the figures disclosed Sunday show that nearly all of the money was made from cases filed after she got her job at Harvard in 1995. (Warren was elected to the Senate in 2012.)

...

The income includes about $212,000 for representing Travelers Indemnity Co. in 2009, and $190,000 for what her campaign described as representing a chain of department stores owned by PA Bergner & Co. in the mid-1990s.

Warren’s campaign did not release compensation information for all of the cases, reporting in some instances — including a case involving First Commercial Bank — that “the campaign has no compensation records for this case.”

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:32 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:31 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:18 am

Max Peck wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:31 am Just another socialist millionaire...

She's not a socialist. That's a common mistake made by folks who either don't listen to her, who hate her or who aren't sure what socialism really is. Sometimes it's all three.

Fair enough. I thought the aside was an obvious throw-away joke, but if that wasn't clear then it's on me.

The actual problem, from where I'm sitting on the sidelines, is the lack of transparency and apparent dishonesty in disclosing who she worked for and how much she was paid. It would be a much better look for her if her campaign had released this information from the get-go, and if the disclosure was complete and forthright.

I'm not a Warren fan, but this is kind of ridiculous. There's no way any consultant should be expected to track their entire work history over the last 30 years let alone including compensation.

Tack on a major career change? This is some serious tilting at windmills.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:15 pm

I remember approximately what I've made at my job the last 3 or 4 years. I have no clue before that. Certainly not when I was billing hourly, which I'm pretty sure is what lawyers do especially in cases like hers. $400k for a lawyer in those kind of cases is pretty routine I'd think. I know a computer professional who made 80k in overtime alone over two years. Not as a project manager or anything, but just as a technical lead.

Are you really suggesting we should be mad because she's not posting her resume and salary history?

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:03 pm I've always wondered why Warren doesn't make more out of her conversion away from the GOP. I think she was a Republican until 1996. It seems like it should be a key part of her story.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:59 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:03 pm I've always wondered why Warren doesn't make more out of her conversion away from the GOP. I think she was a Republican until 1996. It seems like it should be a key part of her story.

I think that would help in the general, but I'm not sure that it would play so well in the primary, when voters are more interested in your Democratic bona fides. Or at least, I imagine Warren's campaign would be worried about that.