Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Elizabeth Warren Pres. Candidacy.....

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, mr6666 said:

from POLITIFACT -

 

".........We wondered which three industries the Democratic presidential candidate had in mind.

Warren’s campaign directed us to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The agency’s page on the sources of greenhouse gas emissions shows that three sectors —transportation, electricity production and industry — account for 78% of the American total.

But those are activities, not industries in themselves.

Transportation, the biggest of the three, includes the cars people drive and the flights they take for business and pleasure........

 

Our ruling

Warren said that three industries account for 70% of the carbon that goes into the air. That’s imprecise. It is accurate to say that transportation, producing electricity and industry writ large are the three largest sources of greenhouse gases and represent more than 70% of the problem. But those are activities, not industries. Individual Americans as well as companies contribute to the situation in ways that are often intertwined.

Warren herself has been more accurate in her energy plan and even during the town hall itself. But she pushed the focus on industry on social media, and climate change researchers say that word doesn’t fit with the 70% figure she used.

We rate this claim Half True......."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/sep/06/elizabeth-warren/elizabeth-warren-blamed-3-industries-70-greenhouse/

 

Warren's track record for the truth continues to astound.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Warren's track record for the truth continues to astound.

A mistake seems very different than an outright lie.  And just what is the other instance of a lie?  Claiming that she is related to North American Indians?  Something her grandmother told her and she repeated when she was much younger?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Claiming that she is related to North American Indians?  Something her grandmother told her and she repeated when she was much younger?

I don't believe this grandmother-told-her story.   Sounds way too much like a cover-up line.

That being said,  I don't view Warren as a deceitful person,  and when compared to Trump,,,, he is 100 times more so. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't believe this grandmother-told-her story.   Sounds way too much like a cover-up line.

That being said,  I don't view Warren as a deceitful person,  and when compared to Trump,,,, he is 100 times more so. 

I've told this story before.  When I was a kid my grandfather told me that I was related to William Burke, of Burke and Hare infamy.  There were many Burkes on his side of the family and like William Burke they were all from Edinburgh where Burke was finally hung for body snatching.  I didn't know if he was pulling my leg or not but it didn't stop me from proudly telling it to anyone who would listen.

If Warren was told this story about her ancestry, and she had to be told by someone, then I think it would be natural for her to try to proudly claim it as part of her heritage.  Maybe in the back of her mind she had doubts but when you are 18 you throw those to the wind.  Trump still does that in his 70's by the way.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

I've told this story before.  When I was a kid my grandfather told me that I was related to William Burke, of Burke and Hare infamy.  There were many Burkes on his side of the family and like William Burke they were all from Edinburgh where Burke was finally hung for body snatching.  I didn't know if he was pulling my leg or not but it didn't stop me from proudly telling it to anyone who would listen.

If Warren was told this story about her ancestry, and she had to be told by someone, then I think it would be natural for her to try to proudly claim it as part of her heritage.  Maybe in the back of her mind she had doubts but when you are 18 you throw those to the wind.  Trump still does that in his 70's by the way.

Once someone decides to use such an unverified claim for official business,  they should vet the claim.   Back in 1986,  Warren identified as “American Indian” on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas, according to a Washington Post report.

Warren is a smart person,  but not vetting the claim before using it was a dumb move.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Once someone decides to use such an unverified claim for official business,  they should vet the claim.   Back in 1986,  Warren identified as “American Indian” on a registration card for the State Bar of Texas, according to a Washington Post report.

Warren is a smart person,  but not vetting the claim before using it was a dumb move.   

 

Indeed, and unlike Bonespurs she has made countless apologies for that mistake 33 years ago.

I'll just add this - it was a lot harder to trace one's lineage and DNA 33 years ago.  It may never have occurred to her to doubt it at that time.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

I don't believe this grandmother-told-her story.   Sounds way too much like a cover-up line.

That being said,  I don't view Warren as a deceitful person,  and when compared to Trump,,,, he is 100 times more so. 

When I was a kid my mother swore we were related to George Washington, Robert E. Lee and Daniel Boone.  Not related to any of them and I never believed we were after I got out of junior high school.

Now we were related to a crook or two in Huey Long's Louisiana administration, but that is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

When I was a kid my mother swore we were related to George Washington, Robert E. Lee and Daniel Boone.  Not related to any of them and I never believed we were after I got out of junior high school.

Now we were related to a crook or two in Huey Long's Louisiana administration, but that is another story.

Ancestry.com suppose to clear up whom one is related to or not, even if your ten-times great grandmother was George Washington's aunt!

I mean REALLY?

ancestry-com-ancestry-testimonial-emily-

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

"She's got to be stopped." Jim Cramer and a

panel discuss Wall Street executives being absolutely terrified of Elizabeth Warren and how they've never seen anything quite like it before. This is the greatest Warren campaign ad possible

Elizabeth Warren Couldn’t Have Asked for a Better Campaign Ad Than This CNBC Segment

Jim Cramer and Co. make the case on her behalf that she's a genuine enemy of Wall Street power.

 

"....... Cramer and his co-hosts provide the perfect vessel for Warren's message, sitting on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange announcing that the people who have eaten up a larger and larger share of the resources our society has produced over the last few decades are terrified of her. .....

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28998872/cnbc-elizabeth-warren-jim-cramer-wall-street/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, mr6666 said:
 

"She's got to be stopped." Jim Cramer and a

panel discuss Wall Street executives being absolutely terrified of Elizabeth Warren and how they've never seen anything quite like it before. This is the greatest Warren campaign ad possible

Elizabeth Warren Couldn’t Have Asked for a Better Campaign Ad Than This CNBC Segment

Jim Cramer and Co. make the case on her behalf that she's a genuine enemy of Wall Street power.

 

"....... Cramer and his co-hosts provide the perfect vessel for Warren's message, sitting on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange announcing that the people who have eaten up a larger and larger share of the resources our society has produced over the last few decades are terrified of her. .....

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28998872/cnbc-elizabeth-warren-jim-cramer-wall-street/

I read the article and best I could see is that "Wall Street" and these guys are against Warren and she is against "Wall Street."  No specifics in the article.

I doubt this will sway many voters; some but not many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just caught one pundit on CNN (sorry, didn't catch his name but he had a flashy hat) who said Republicans are salivating at the chance to go up against Elizabeth Warren.  But he says beware what you wish for.  (Remember when Hillary supporters thought Donald Trump would make the worst candidate for the Republican party)

He said Warren has a clear message and it is not that dissimilar to Trump's.  The system is rigged.  But he adds that Trump's remedy was to blame immigrants and **** a wall.  Warren's remedy is to redistribute wealth by making the top 2% pay their share.  Something which they are not doing now!

He adds that this may attract people that voted for Donald Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

I just caught one pundit on CNN (sorry, didn't catch his name but he had a flashy hat) who said Republicans are salivating at the chance to go up against Elizabeth Warren.  But he says beware what you wish for.  (Remember when Hillary supporters thought Donald Trump would make the worst candidate for the Republican party)

He said Warren has a clear message and it is not that dissimilar to Trump's.  The system is rigged.  But he adds that Trump's remedy was to blame immigrants and **** a wall.  Warren's remedy is to redistribute wealth by making the top 2% pay their share.  Something which they are not doing now!

He adds that this may attract people that voted for Donald Trump.

Didn't Warren at first say it was the top 1%?     While I believe most Americans will accept increased taxes on the top 2%,    the GOP will try to convince voters that this 2% will increase up to something like 20% to provide all the trillions of dollars a Dem admin wants to spend.

Also,  I don't know if the focus should be on "paying their share".     I'm in the top 2% and I pay my share.   I believe most people in my bracket do (those > 1% and <= 2%).   I.e. we don't make enough to pay lawyers to do our taxes or have tax shelters set-up and most of our income is payroll instead of long term investments.    We pay over 25% of our annual income to the Feds.  

I.e. there is a big difference between someone that makes over a million a year (1%) and those that makes around 3 hundred thousand (2%) a year (especially if they live in high-tax states like CA,  where we no longer can deduct the 12% state taxes we pay due to the GOP tax reform).

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Didn't Warren at first say it was the top 1%?     While I believe most Americans will accept increased taxes on the top 2%,    the GOP will try to convince voters that this 2% will increase up to something like 20% to provide all the trillions of dollars a Dem admin wants to spend.

Also,  I don't know if the focus should be on "paying their share".     I'm in the top 2% and I pay my share.   I believe most people in my bracket do (those > 1% and <= 2%).   I.e. we don't make enough to pay lawyers to do our taxes or have tax shelters set-up and most of our income is payroll instead of long term investments.    We pay over 25% of our annual income to the Feds.  

I.e. there is a big difference between someone that makes over a million a year (1%) and those that makes around 3 hundred thousand (2%) a year (especially if they live in high-tax states like CA,  where we no longer can deduct the 12% state taxes we pay due to the GOP tax reform).

 

 

Good points.  Neither Warren nor Sanders has actually presented a plausible case for how they will pay for MFA.  Taxing the rich and corporations doing it is about as realistic as Trump's Mexico will pay for the wall.

As for appealing to the middle and working classes, that hasn't worked in the past as they tended to vote GOP.  Because they believe that higher taxes on corporations and the rich will also result in higher taxes on them.  In addition, it will result in layoffs, business closings, lower pay, etc.

Not to mention MFA or anything similar will never get through Congress and past the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

 Warren's remedy is to redistribute wealth by making the top 2% pay their share.  Something which they are not doing now!

He adds that this may attract people that voted for Donald Trump.

See my post above re: attracting people FROM Trump.  Won't happen.

How do you know the top 2% don't pay their share?  Under the US laws, they are paying their share.  Now maybe you believe they should pay more, but the laws are what they are.  You can find people at all levels who do not pay their "share" as they use the tax laws to not do it.  

What about people who work and pay no taxes at all?  While I do not disagree with earned income credits or other programs for the working poor, technically they are not paying their "share."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

See my post above re: attracting people FROM Trump.  Won't happen.

How do you know the top 2% don't pay their share?  Under the US laws, they are paying their share.  Now maybe you believe they should pay more, but the laws are what they are.  You can find people at all levels who do not pay their "share" as they use the tax laws to not do it.  

What about people who work and pay no taxes at all?  While I do not disagree with earned income credits or other programs for the working poor, technically they are not paying their "share."

The only way for progressives to collect the additional billions the Feds would need to fund their programs would be for the top earners to pay more then their 'share'.   E.g.  most wish to raise the Social Security cutoff (currently $132,900),   BUT without increasing the future monthly benefit amount these high earners will end up receiving upon retirement.     Simple math shows that this isn't 'fair' (equitable).   

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren: Congress is 'complicit' with Trump 'by failing to act'

 

....." After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment. By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in US elections,” Warren tweeted.

“Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.” ......

" A president is sitting in the Oval Office, right now, who continues to commit crimes. He continues because he knows his Justice Department won't act and believes Congress won’t either. Today’s news confirmed he thinks he’s above the law.

If we do nothing, he’ll be right,” said Warren.  ....

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/462428-warren-congress-is-complicit-with-trump-by-failing-to-act

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Warren: Congress is 'complicit' with Trump 'by failing to act'

 

....." After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment. By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in US elections,” Warren tweeted.

“Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.” ......

" A president is sitting in the Oval Office, right now, who continues to commit crimes. He continues because he knows his Justice Department won't act and believes Congress won’t either. Today’s news confirmed he thinks he’s above the law.

If we do nothing, he’ll be right,” said Warren.  ....

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/462428-warren-congress-is-complicit-with-trump-by-failing-to-act

giphy.gif

Wow,  Warren really disagrees with Pelosi's judgement.  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 9:27 PM, mr6666 said:

Warren: Congress is 'complicit' with Trump 'by failing to act'

 

....." After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment. By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in US elections,” Warren tweeted.

“Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.” ......

" A president is sitting in the Oval Office, right now, who continues to commit crimes. He continues because he knows his Justice Department won't act and believes Congress won’t either. Today’s news confirmed he thinks he’s above the law.

If we do nothing, he’ll be right,” said Warren.  ....

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/462428-warren-congress-is-complicit-with-trump-by-failing-to-act

 

The House IS doing its "Constitutional duty."  There are 3 or 4 committees investigating Trump and the Trump administration.  Building a case thoroughly but surely. Fortunately Pelosi is holding the chairmen back from doing anything rash.  Too many of the chairs and others are advocating impeachment just for personal publicity.

Pelosi's plan is working.  If the Dems had impeached Trump when many people cited here and elsewhere wanted him impeached, we would be in the trial process now with only about 25% of the evidence we now have.  The American voters would not be accepting it as anything more than sore losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheCid said:

The House IS doing its "Constitutional duty."  There are 3 or 4 committees investigating Trump and the Trump administration.  Building a case thoroughly but surely. Fortunately Pelosi is holding the chairmen back from doing anything rash.  Too many of the chairs and others are advocating impeachment just for personal publicity.

Pelosi's plan is working.  If the Dems had impeached Trump when many people cited here and elsewhere wanted him impeached, we would be in the trial process now with only about 25% of the evidence we now have.  The American voters would not be accepting it as anything more than sore losers.

Where are you getting this 25% from?     More to the point,  what additional evidence have these committees discovered?     E.g.  just one or two keys points of additional or new evidence related to specific crimes by the President.

Hey, I know that 25% is just an estimate but I don't get the feeling the Dems are going to discover an additional 75% more evidence.   My estimate would be < 5%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Where are you getting this 25% from?     More to the point,  what additional evidence have these committees discovered?     E.g.  just one or two keys points of additional or new evidence related to specific crimes by the President.

Hey, I know that 25% is just an estimate but I don't get the feeling the Dems are going to discover an additional 75% more evidence.   My estimate would be < 5%.

 

Pulled it out of my A$$. (Joke).  It may be more conclusive evidence, but the whistleblower is the latest and IMO most damaging.  Lot of the impeachment proponents started lobbying for it way before Mueller had even finished his investigation.  My opinion is that what they have now is a lot more than what they had back at the beginning.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
The president admitted it. The "transcript" confirms it.
 
Donald Trump continues to commit crimes from the Oval Office,
 
and the Justice Department refuses to hold him accountable.
 
Now it’s on Congress to act. No one is above the law—not even the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mr6666 said:
 
 
 
The president admitted it. The "transcript" confirms it.
 
Donald Trump continues to commit crimes from the Oval Office,
 
and the Justice Department refuses to hold him accountable.
 
Now it’s on Congress to act. No one is above the law—not even the president.

Has Warren said how she would get 2/3's or even a majority of senators to vote for conviction?

"The president admitted it. The "transcript" confirms it."  E. Warren.  I don't think we can say Trump "admitted it" and it is up to the Senate to "confirm" it being grounds for removal from office. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren responds to report that Wall Street Democratic donors may back Trump: 'I'm not afraid'

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday brushed off a report that Democratic Wall Street donors may support President Trump over her if she's the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020.

“I'm fighting for an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected,” Warren tweeted with a link to the CNBC report that quoted anonymous donors.

“I'm not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don't get to buy this process. I won't back down from fighting for the big, structural change we need.”.....

 ....CNBC report cited “several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community” who said they’d support Trump’s reelection over Warren if she is the chosen nominee, the outlet reported.

Warren, who has risen in polls in the crowded Democratic primary field in recent weeks, made a similar point earlier this month when she responded to a CNBC report claiming that Wall Street executives were "fearful" of a potential Warren presidency...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/463302-warren-responds-to-report-that-wall-street-dem-donors-may-back-trump-im-not

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Warren responds to report that Wall Street Democratic donors may back Trump: 'I'm not afraid'

 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday brushed off a report that Democratic Wall Street donors may support President Trump over her if she's the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020.

“I'm fighting for an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected,” Warren tweeted with a link to the CNBC report that quoted anonymous donors.

“I'm not afraid of anonymous quotes, and wealthy donors don't get to buy this process. I won't back down from fighting for the big, structural change we need.”.....

 ....CNBC report cited “several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community” who said they’d support Trump’s reelection over Warren if she is the chosen nominee, the outlet reported.

Warren, who has risen in polls in the crowded Democratic primary field in recent weeks, made a similar point earlier this month when she responded to a CNBC report claiming that Wall Street executives were "fearful" of a potential Warren presidency...

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/463302-warren-responds-to-report-that-wall-street-dem-donors-may-back-trump-im-not

 

I would surmise that it goes far, far beyond Wall Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summer Brennan

@summerbrennan

Whoa,

@facebook's Mark Zuckerberg calls @ewarren

an "existential" threat to his business interests, says he'll "go to the mat" and "fight" her

=========================================

:lol:

THANKS Jeff.........

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...