Talk:Elizabeth Warren/Archive1

Yes

 * 1) Senator Warren is very cool, but she's not really on-mission, the same for her "rival" Scott Walker, whose article was deleted this morning. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking back at this, I realized I named the wrong "Scott", I meant Scott Brown, though I'm not fond of Walker, either, and to be fair, and the article about him also needs to be evaluated. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Doesn't really seem on-mission to me, either.Kimberly (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless she has a record of going up against the anti-science branch of the GOP or something otherwise mission-y going on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 14:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No

 * 1) We have articles about Sagan and NdGT, prominent voices who push back against the bullshit being pushed onto the American people by large, agenda-laden organizations.  Warren's voice is against Reaganomics, gold standards and any number of bad economic policies that have been tested, tried and failed.  --Seth Peck (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sagan and Tyson are scientists, and their work in the broadest sense is missionable. Warren is, at the end of the day, just another politician with an agenda. She's not advancing her causes for some higher standard of rationality, knowledge and truth. She's trying to get elected in order to advance her own political vision. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have lots of articles on politicians, so you could apply that same razorstroke to any number of them and say "oh, well, they're just a politician, not meaningful to the discussion", but how many more articles would that put up for deletion? Just because she's trying to get re-elected, does that make her efforts any less meaningful? Just because she's tackling the greed and bullshit of Wall Street and economic inequality instead of race relations or the separation of church and state or anti-intellectualism? --Seth Peck (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually like to see a lot of our articles on politicians narrow in focus to questions of anti-science/anti-woo/anti-intellectualism and cut out some of the more partisan political economy stuff, but that's prolly not a discussion to have right here. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 17:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) She is a prominent caller of bullshit when and where she sees it, and a countervailing force against institutionalized stupidity. That said, I am unsure whether RW should be in the fan club business for cool US politicians. If I were to change my mind, it would be to keep. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with above. Whilst I am a believer in the economic rationality to which she subscribes, it's unfair to say that the other side of the argument (corporatism, I guess, is what to call it) is "anti-science" or "authoritarian," but rather just ordinary-course wrong. Hipocrite (talk)  16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dismal science
"Unless she has a record of going up against the anti-science branch of the GOP..."

Actually, she does, if you count the dismal science, and stretch that to cover the teabaggers' willingness to shoot the economy in the foot, just to show us what's what. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)