What she absolutely isn't misinformed about is that her proposed laws are actually good things to pass.
Look, if she just called them ideas or outlines I might give her the benefit of the doubt like you. But she presents them as if they were the literal text of a law congress should pass.
For instance, consider her proposed law sending executives of a company to prison if their company commits another criminal violation while they have a deferred prosecution agreement are on corp probation etc..
Maybe there is some way personal criminal liability could be used but her proposed law doesn't require the executive have any knowledge of it or even negligent failure to know. It doesn't consider the obvious incentive issues -- the old CEO leaves and the company has to spend huge amounts to convince a new exec to bet that he can make sure the corp doesn't violate the law.
Even avoiding the policy issues she was a fucking law prof. She knows that it poses serious constitutional issues to convict someone for behavior they didn't get a chance to defend against (exec doesn't want to go to prison but it in corp interest to settle).
The whole fucking proposal is obviously not thought out. It's an applause line. Ok, I admit pols need those but don't fucking rub our nose in it by showing us proposed law text you know damn well can't be the actual law even if the idea is sound.
Typed quickly on phone (as usual): I 100% agree with you on the merits of her proposals and find these ones despicable. Especially because even lots of educated people seem to fall for them. My assumption was that sheтАЩs not thinking things through for various other reasons (eg judgment clouded by emotion) but when it comes to many areas she might just know better and be intentionally lying. ItтАЩs even worse because most of her audience is staunchly democratic and would vote for her anyway, even without the lies.
I think Warren is just genuinely misinformed but I can see it your way too.
What she absolutely isn't misinformed about is that her proposed laws are actually good things to pass.
Look, if she just called them ideas or outlines I might give her the benefit of the doubt like you. But she presents them as if they were the literal text of a law congress should pass.
For instance, consider her proposed law sending executives of a company to prison if their company commits another criminal violation while they have a deferred prosecution agreement are on corp probation etc..
Maybe there is some way personal criminal liability could be used but her proposed law doesn't require the executive have any knowledge of it or even negligent failure to know. It doesn't consider the obvious incentive issues -- the old CEO leaves and the company has to spend huge amounts to convince a new exec to bet that he can make sure the corp doesn't violate the law.
Even avoiding the policy issues she was a fucking law prof. She knows that it poses serious constitutional issues to convict someone for behavior they didn't get a chance to defend against (exec doesn't want to go to prison but it in corp interest to settle).
The whole fucking proposal is obviously not thought out. It's an applause line. Ok, I admit pols need those but don't fucking rub our nose in it by showing us proposed law text you know damn well can't be the actual law even if the idea is sound.
Typed quickly on phone (as usual): I 100% agree with you on the merits of her proposals and find these ones despicable. Especially because even lots of educated people seem to fall for them. My assumption was that sheтАЩs not thinking things through for various other reasons (eg judgment clouded by emotion) but when it comes to many areas she might just know better and be intentionally lying. ItтАЩs even worse because most of her audience is staunchly democratic and would vote for her anyway, even without the lies.