Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016

[240 is Back]

1.  She's dishonest.  

2.  She has no military experience, and not even the experience governors have of running the national guard.  

3.  She has very little experience in the private sector.  Doesn't sound like she has ever started and managed a business with employees, or worked for any significant period of time for a company.  Has she ever managed a payroll in the private sector?  

4.  She will have served four years in the Senate if she is elected, with probably two years of that time spent running for office.  

5.  She is wrong on economic issues and an advocate of class warfare.  She believes in raising taxes on those who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.  She supported TARP.  She supports socialized medicine.  She supports increased government regulation over the private sector.  

Geeze Louise.  This sounds like Obama in a skirt.  

Agreed - which is EXACTLY why she could win.  Recent history tells us that voters don't want a person with 20 years military experience, 20 years lawmaking experience, that's honest about their heritage.

just like obama... she's a "firebrand", a "fresh face rallying against the establishment", wholly underqualified, shady as shit about her past...  Repubs should probably hope Hilary wins the nomination lol... Warren *could* be Obama II, when you make all those comparisons haha.

[RRKore]

Hey Straw,

Thanks for writing this about the way-to-often-cited "qualification" that a presidential candidate should be some kind of businessman:
  - why does anyone bring this up when very few POTUS have this.  Reagan didn't have it, neither did Clinton.  On the other hand George Bush had it and the global economy was crashing at the end of his term.  News Flash - the government is not the private sector and governing is not an experience you get in the private sector

I feel exactly the same way but didn't want to get into that whole argument.  (And you said it way more concisely than I could have.)

That BB used Romney as an example of a good candidate was irksome, too.  Fuck the business experience and it's arguable usefulness as a qualification for being a decent president.  How about experience being human with empathy for others? Seems to me like that's a much more important quality (and the voting public seems to have agreed). That episode where he stuck the family dog in the rooftop carrier on top of the car while he drove cross country by itself showed he lacked the empathy qualification, if you ask me.

[RRKore]

I'm pretty careful, but it's my opinion.  My opinion is based on interacting with people all over the country, looking at laws that get passed (or don't get passed), opinion polls, etc.  For example, the majority of the country does not believe in unrestricted abortion on demand until birth, which is what Obama believes and what I think Warren probably believes.  I could show you poll numbers that support this, point to the numerous state laws around the country placing restrictions on late term abortions, etc., but you get the picture.   

Regarding child discipline, I've been around enough parents for a long to time to have a pretty informed opinion.  What I said is accurate: depends on the sample.  If you ask parents "in the hood" about discipline you'll probably get a much different answer than if you were asking parents whose kids attend a $40k a year high school.

It sounds reasonable to me that if Obama and Warren favor legalizing "unrestricted abortion until birth", they are in the minority.  I know Warren (like most women) is in favor of Roe vs Wade, but couldn't easily find out if she thinks any restrictions are ok. 

Re: corporal punishment as an accepted way of child discipline, what if you asked ALL parents in the country?  And then you tallied the results to see how many were in favor vs not in favor? Would there be more in favor or not?  Actually, screw that unnecessary argument.  Though yours is the minority view, it doesn't matter what's popular: Unless it's to stop violence, it's not right to use violence against others against their will. 

Hitting your kids is lazy parenting and is a good way to ensure behavior problems later.  (Now agree with me or, as my great grandma used to say, I'll go outside and get a switch, lol.) (BTW, she would go get a switch - a thin tree branch to whip us with -- but after that first time, we'd never let her old ass catch us.)

[Dos Equis]

It sounds reasonable to me that if Obama and Warren favor legalizing "unrestricted abortion until birth", they are in the minority.  I know Warren (like most women) is in favor of Roe vs Wade, but couldn't easily find out if she thinks any restrictions are ok. 

Re: corporal punishment as an accepted way of child discipline, what if you asked ALL parents in the country?  And then you tallied the results to see how many were in favor vs not in favor? Would there be more in favor or not?  Actually, screw that unnecessary argument.  Though yours is the minority view, it doesn't matter what's popular: Unless it's to stop violence, it's not right to use violence against others against their will. 

Hitting your kids is lazy parenting and is a good way to ensure behavior problems later.  (Now agree with me or, as my great grandma used to say, I'll go outside and get a switch, lol.) (BTW, she would go get a switch - a thin tree branch to whip us with -- but after that first time, we'd never let her old ass catch us.)

When running in 2008, Obama said his first act as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (I think that's the name?), which would have eliminated all restrictions on abortion, including things like parental notification, which is the law in numerous states.  He's way outside the mainstream. 

I don't have a problem at all with corporal punishment.  I started off parenting many years ago with your mindset:  was not going to use it all.  That didn't last long.  lol 

I used the method advocated by Dr. John Rosemond:  only with your hand, only on the butt, no more than three swats.  Made all the lesser forms of punishment much easier to enforce, and keeps you from crossing the line from discipline to abuse.  I love that man. (no homo)  I learned a lot from his books.  He's terrific.   

I never gave my kids "beatings" with switches, belts, etc.  It would have been excessive for me.  But that was my right as a parent.  If other parents believe in the belt, etc. (as many of them do), that is their right too.   

[polychronopolous]

Agreed - which is EXACTLY why she could win.  Recent history tells us that voters don't want a person with 20 years military experience, 20 years lawmaking experience, that's honest about their heritage.

just like obama... she's a "firebrand", a "fresh face rallying against the establishment", wholly underqualified, shady as shit about her past...  Repubs should probably hope Hilary wins the nomination lol... Warren *could* be Obama II, when you make all those comparisons haha.

As much as I disagree with her ideology I have thought for some time that her, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand out as the new class who have really been able to put themselves over.

I hate to use the word "rock star" freshman senator but something along those lines. I got to give them all 3 props in regards of having that intangible "something" that makes them stick out.

[RRKore]

As much as I disagree with her ideology I have thought for some time that her, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand out as the new class who have really been able to put themselves over.

I hate to use the word "rock star" freshman senator but something along those lines. I got to give them all 3 props in regards of having that intangible "something" that makes them stick out.

You know, I pretty much agree about Cruz and Warren.  Rand Paul, though?  Media creation, imo.  To me, he's always looked like a not-exceptionally-bright guy (in the mold of the George Bush) who grew up privileged while facing no hardships whatsoever and so he doesn't really give a fuck about much.  Probably a cool guy to party with, but not to be responsible for anything really important. 
Plus, it's hard to stomach that cheesy permed toupee - Reminds of the gay dad from The Brady Bunch.  I don't know much about Cruz but at least he's supposed to be really intelligent. 

[RRKore]

I've been reading that Warren says she will NOT run for president. 

[Dos Equis]

Good, although they say that a lot.  They're not running, until they run.  Remember this?  We should have listened to him.  He knew what he was talking about. 

[240 is Back]

I've been reading that Warren says she will NOT run for president. 

the MINUTE Hilary shows some cracks or a has a scandal or setback, watch the dem party elders call her up.  Who else would it be?  What other Dem has any kind of "change we can believe in!" credibility?   I mean, Hilary can't promise change, but she CAN promise a return to the 92-00 Bubba years/policy, which will likely win her the presidency.

BUT if she doesn't run, (maybe she just decides she's 70 and would rather be on the beach relaxing), there's no doubt that Warren is seriously the "change" candidate.   She shits all over the banks, I mean, she's real about it.  Financial reform in the USA?  Love her or hate her, you cannot deny she owns that realm. 

Of course she'll say he won't run, but she will.   Warren against Cruz or Rand would be GREAT for america... Hilary vs Christie is pretty much the same policy... and actuallly - - - - Warren and Cruz would probably both tear up banks in a simliar way haha! 

[Dos Equis]

Elizabeth Warren Isn’t Running For President, Top Financial Backer Tells Democrats
Paul Egerman, a Warren gatekeeper, waves donors off the hype over the senator’s possible presidential run. “It’s not gonna happen,” one funder says.
posted on November 18, 2013
Ruby Cramer
BuzzFeed Staff

Elizabeth Warren’s former national finance chair, Paul Egerman, has told several inquiring donors this month that, despite runaway speculation and a burning desire from the party’s left wing, the freshman senator will not run for president in 2016.

Egerman, close to both Warren and to the heavy-hitting liberal base of funders who helped her raise $42 million last year, has been approached by donors in the last two weeks and told them that, no, Warren is not planning to run, according to two major players in Democratic financial circles who spoke with Egerman directly.

One Democratic fundraiser said he spoke with Egerman roughly two weeks ago, after articles by Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast and Noam Scheiber in the New Republic heightened fervor amongst the progressives over whether Warren would challenge Hillary Clinton, already the presumed frontrunner, from the left.

Egerman, the fundraiser said, quickly threw cold water on the theory.

“It’s not gonna happen,” the source said.

More recently, at meetings last week in Washington for Democracy Alliance, a tightly guarded coalition of some of the country’s biggest liberal donors, the question of Warren’s candidacy was still fresh. Warren herself spoke at the conference on Thursday, introducing a panel on the judiciary with Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU.

At the meetings for the group, which funds a portfolio of progressive organizations, Warren and Egerman spoke about her intentions in 2016, according to a Democratic political strategist with close ties to the Democracy Alliance who had a private conversation about the interaction with Egerman later. Warren told Egerman, according to the strategist, that she has no plans to run against Clinton in a primary.

Another donor, based in New York City, asked Warren directly at the conference about her intentions and received the same answer, according to the strategist who spoke later that week with the donor.

The sources described Egerman, a retired software entrepreneur who calls himself an “enthusiastic supporter of Senator Elizabeth Warren” in his biography on Twitter, as the gatekeeper between the senator and the world of her financial backers.

“He’s the guy to ask,” said the fundraiser, citing Egerman’s longtime ties to the Democratic fundraising world. “The geese talk to the geese. The bears talk to the bears. And the hippos talk to the hippos.”

In an email, Egerman said he had no comment for this article.

Another donor with ties to the Clintons reached out about two weeks ago to another member of Warren’s circle, former finance director Michael Pratt, and was given the same answer regarding 2016, the donor said.

As speculation over Warren’s possible run continues, the message to the donor class is clear, and happens to be consistent with what staffers in Warren’s own Senate office have told reporters in the last week.

Lacey Rose, Warren’s press secretary, gave BuzzFeed the following statement: “As Senator Warren has said many times, she is not running for president.”
Three attendees at last week’s Democracy Alliance meetings cautioned that there is already an understanding inside fundraising circles that Warren would not consider running unless the former secretary of state bows out of the race — a possibility that looks increasingly unlikely as Clinton allies build an expansive infrastructure for her campaign a full three years in advance of Election Day.

But the excitement over a Warren candidacy — even if that candidacy never comes to fruition — may still make waves in the 2016 race.

The clamors have given oxygen to demand on the left for an anti-Wall Street, Warren-like candidate, and have caused angst inside a pro-Clinton camp already concerned that the hype alone could expose one of Clinton’s biggest potential weaknesses: that she may not be progressive enough.

One attendee at the Democracy Alliance conference, though, said the focus there was less on 2016 and more on next year’s races, particularly Wendy Davis’ bid for governor of Texas and Michelle Nunn’s for U.S. Senate in Georgia.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-financial-backer-tells-donors-no-chance-on?bftw=

[RRKore]

Good article, BB.  I really don't think she can be coaxed into running. 

Besides the fact that she thinks Wall Street reform and general consumer protection from big business is her true calling, I think she's a little too smart to want to be president.  (After all, look how happy ol' Barry Soetero seems, haha.)

[240 is Back]

Perhaps she's choosing to run for veep, instead?   

Also, perhaps in 2013, we shouldn't listen too much to politicians that deny they're running in 2016. 

[Dos Equis]

Good article, BB.  I really don't think she can be coaxed into running. 

Besides the fact that she thinks Wall Street reform and general consumer protection from big business is her true calling, I think she's a little too smart to want to be president.  (After all, look how happy ol' Barry Soetero seems, haha.)

Meh.  Just like Obama said he wasn't running and wasn't prepared, then turned around and ran?  The field is going to be so weak, as it always is, that she might run.  I hope she doesn't. 

[240 is Back]

Meh.  Just like Obama said he wasn't running and wasn't prepared, then turned around and ran?  The field is going to be so weak, as it always is, that she might run.  I hope she doesn't. 

Warren woudl be the dennis kuscinich of 2016.   Every teased him because he saw a UFO and looked like an elf, but when it came to the economic crash of 2008, ron paul and kuscinich warned about it.  every other dem and repub told us how awesome everything was.

I dare say... Dennis Kuscinish as president, and the economy is in WAY better shape right now

[Dos Equis]

Warren, Liberal Faction Gaining Control Among Democrats
Monday, 02 Dec 2013
By Elliot Jager

A more liberal and populist movement is emerging within the Democratic Party that views President Barack Obama and the party's presumptive presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton as excessively centrist, according to the Washington Post.

This group is looking to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as its 2016 presidential standard-bearer.

In contrast to Obama, Warren favors increasing Social Security payments. In a recent Senate floor speech she said, "The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is to allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch."

In addition to opposing any budget deal that would involve Social Security reductions, the more liberal faction favors stronger regulation of Wall Street; a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage, higher than the $9 favored by Obama; student loan debt relief; steps aimed at reducing economic inequality, and measures to protect workers from the aftershocks of globalization.

Clinton is seen by many on the left as being too close to Wall Street and to the devotees of Robert Rubin, her husband's Treasury secretary. Some also complain that Rubin's people have been running economic policy under Obama, according to the Post.

Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has also called for big banks to be broken up.

"Wall Street will fight us, but the American people are on our side," she told a union audience.

The Post reported that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, said that though he is not keen to run for president he is willing to do so if a sufficiently liberal Democrat does not enter the raise.

Democrats need to be cautious not to pull too far to the left, the Post said, lest they be charged with being irresponsible over the national debt and not caring about economic growth. Moreover, policies that would further redistribute income would make many Americans uneasy. Also, running a candidate who is too far to the left could also hamper the party's electoral prospects.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-liberals-push-democrats/2013/12/02/id/539380#ixzz2mL3Q1YXR

[Dos Equis]

I hope she keeps her word.  She'll do much less damage in the Senate.

Democratic Sen. Warren vows not to run for president in 2016
Published December 04, 2013
FoxNews.com

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren pledged Wednesday that she will not seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, presumably squashing speculation about her challenging front-runner Hillary Clinton.

"I'm not running for president and I plan to serve out my term," the first-term senator said at a Boston press conference, according to The Boston Herald.

The announcement follows weeks of speculation about a possible Warren run in light of the political winds that recently swept fellow populist-styled Democrat Bill de Blasio into the New York City mayor’s office.

Whether Warren’s statement will definitively end speculation remains to be seen, since her spokeswoman noted as recently as last month that Warren had previously said she would not enter the race.

"I pledge to serve out my term,” Warren, a consumer advocate, said Wednesday. "I am not running for president. I am working as hard as I can to be the best possible senator I can be."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/04/democratic-sen-warren-vows-not-to-run-for-president-in-2016/?intcmp=latestnews

[headhuntersix]

I suspect because the rest of the country are not idiots like my fellow countrymen in Mass. This retard pretended to be an Indian...and nobody cared. Yet the Redskins have to change their name?

[Dos Equis]

I suspect because the rest of the country are not idiots like my fellow countrymen in Mass. This retard pretended to be an Indian...and nobody cared. Yet the Redskins have to change their name?

I said the same thing before the 2012 election.   

[Dos Equis]

Yo go Momma Grizzly.   

Sarah Palin Gives Conservative Response to Elizabeth Warren's Progressive Commandments
Aug 8, 2014
 
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave a “commonsense conservative” response to Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) progressive commandments on her SarahPalinChannel. Long before Warren and Republican Dave Brat, Palin was attacking the bipartisan permanent political class and their embrace of crony capitalism. That is why Palin has always appealed to Reagan Democrats and independents fed up with both parties.

 
After Palin’s landmark 2011 speech in Indianola, Iowa, Republicans who enabled the cronyism associated with George W. Bush and the GOP-controlled Senate were forced to slowly combat it.

So it is only fitting that after Warren introduced her 11 progressive commandments at last month’s left-wing Netroots conference, Palin, on her SarahPalinChannel, responded to each of Warren’s progressive commandments in her trademark manner.

Below are Warren’s 11 commandments, as reported by National Journal, and Palin’s conservative response to each of them on her SarahPalinChannel. Palin asks Warren to call out crony capitalism and Obama’s hypocrisy on equal pay. She reminds her that Cesar Chavez was against illegal immigration that harmed American workers. And, in her trademark way, mocks Warren and the left on fast-food restaurants.

While Warren “commandments” are more in line with an Occupy Wall Street movement that is rapidly anti-capitalistic, Palin’s brand of populism has always embraced free markets and capitalism as the best way to lift all boats and help the “forgotten man” or “the little guy.” Palin has consistently emphasized that being pro-big business is not the same as being for free markets.

1. Elizabeth Warren: “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

Sarah Palin’s response: “We believe that Washington, D.C. needs to take less of our money. It needs more scrutiny, fewer bureaucrats, and it needs a reminder of the principles laid down in the Constitution that our leaders swear to defend. Furthermore, we believe crony capitalism is infecting both sides of the aisle in D.C. We’re working really hard to root it out of our party. Senator Warren, what are you doing to root it out of yours?”

2. Warren: “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

Palin’s response: “We believe in science and God’s magnificent creation overflowing with natural resources. That means we have a responsibility to honor Him by protecting the earth as we develop our resources in an environmentally sound way for mankind’s use.”

3. Warren: “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

Palin’s response: “We believe the Internet shouldn’t be censored by the world’s tyrants. That means President Obama should reverse his disastrous decision to hand over control of Internet domain names to the U.N., where it will come under the thumb of authoritarian regimes like Russia and China.”

4. Warren: “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

Palin’s response: “We believe in lifting Americans out of poverty and into sustainable jobs. That means government needs to butt out–butt out of employer-employee pay issues. And quit over-regulating business and increasing taxes. It drives up operating costs–that’s what affects wages.”

5. Warren: “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

Palin’s response: “We believe… wait, I thought fast food joints… don’t you guys think that they are of the devil or something? Liberals, you want to send those evil employees who would dare work at a fast food joint that you just don’t believe in. Thought you wanted to… send them to purgatory or something… so they all go vegan! Wages and picket lines, I dunno, they’re not often discussed in purgatory, are they? I dunno… why are even you worried about fast food wages?

“We believe in America where minimum wages jobs are not lifetime gigs–they are stepping stones to a good job with sustainable wages. It teaches work ethic. We believe in helping Americans climb the economic ladder–not get stuck on the first rung. A strong economy with good-paying jobs–it comes from free enterprise. Not from a top-down, bloated, big-government, command-and-control economy.”



6. Warren: “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

Palin’s response: “We believe that students learn to not make decisions that result in a lot of debt. And we believe that schools need to be more accountable for the insane increase in tuition… and their insane curriculum–many of ‘em. It’s no accident, Elizabeth, that the rise in tuition corresponds with the rise in government intervention. More government isn’t the answer.”

7. Warren: “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

Palin’s response: “We believe a pension is a promise. It must be honored. We do that by using common sense and prioritizing budgets that once and for all will end waste and fraud and the crony capitalism and the stupid political decisions that are bankrupting our nation. We believe that in order to keep faith with future generations and fulfill our current commitments to our seniors, well, we must enact sensible entitlement reform.”

8. Warren: “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

Palin’s response: “We believe–I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014–we believe in equal pay for equal work. And President Barack Obama should abandon his hypocritical practice of paying women less than men in his campaigns, in his administration, and in the White House. Uhh, the leader of your party, Elizabeth, can set an example for the rest of the country.”

9. Warren: “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

Palin’s response: “We believe that all men and women are created equal. They claim that we are not tolerant? Well, we believe that tolerance goes both ways. That means respecting people’s right to disagree with you. Instead of trying to intimidate or silence us, we believe the answer to free speech that you find offensive is more free speech, not less.”

10. Warren: “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

Palin’s response: “We believe that legal immigration helped make this country strong and vibrant. And that means welcoming law-abiding, hard-working immigrants who wish to come here legally and pledge their allegiance to the United States of America. Furthermore, we believe, as none other than Cesar Chavez believed, that illegal immigration hurts the country. It unfairly hurts working-class Americans of all races, all backgrounds who are seeking good-paying jobs, security for their families.”

11. Warren: “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

Palin’s response: “We believe women have a right to their bodies, just as babies have a right to their living, breathing bodies nestled in a mother’s womb. Hey, and anyone who wants contraception? More power to you. Continue to freely buy any kind you want, no one’s stopping you. We’ll fight for the right of private businesses, including Hobby Lobby, to work with you, figure out health-care coverage themselves… any way the owners of the businesses… want to, knowing that government intervention… just always screws everything up.

“Furthermore, we believe that religious liberty is enshrined in our Constitution, remember? The government has no right to coerce people to violate their religious beliefs. And if they try to take any of our Constitutional rights away, we will fight for them.”

Palin had “one final thought for Sen. Warren and her would-be progressive populists.”

“We conservatives believe, as Ronald Reagan said, that you can’t be for big taxes, big government, big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy,” she concluded. “We stand with the little guy. The little guy today who is being bullied and beaten down by the progressive left’s failed policies–of yours Elizabeth Warren.

“We stand for free men and free markets–the twin ideals that made this nation strong, peaceful, and prosperous. We say, God Bless America. We hope you say the same, Senator Warren.”

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/08/08/sarah-palin-gives-conservative-response-to-elizabeth-warrens-progressive-commandments/

[240 is Back]

I hope she keeps her word.  She'll do much less damage in the Senate.

she's a douchebag, but she could really cut spending.   I'd vote CRUZ any day over her.  But i'd choose warren over clinton, and anyone would be a fool not to.

[Dos Equis]

she's a douchebag, but she could really cut spending.   I'd vote CRUZ any day over her.  But i'd choose warren over clinton, and anyone would be a fool not to.

A liberal president who will cut spending?  Please.  And anyone talking about raising taxes is not going to cut spending. 

[240 is Back]

A liberal president who will cut spending?  Please.  And anyone talking about raising taxes is not going to cut spending. 

hey look here champ, I didn't say she is the top choice.  I said she's better than Hilary.

Warren is one of those "piss your pants before asking to use the potty" kind of idealists, and her particular ideology is that she's tired of banks beating down on americans.

So while she's a plagiarist, bleeding heart whiner, she will do more good than Hilary in that area.

Seriously, I am not defending the idiot, but I'm saying she's only 95% the idiot that Hilary is.  Hope this clarifies it for you.

[Dos Equis]

hey look here champ, I didn't say she is the top choice.  I said she's better than Hilary.

Warren is one of those "piss your pants before asking to use the potty" kind of idealists, and her particular ideology is that she's tired of banks beating down on americans.

So while she's a plagiarist, bleeding heart whiner, she will do more good than Hilary in that area.

Seriously, I am not defending the idiot, but I'm saying she's only 95% the idiot that Hilary is.  Hope this clarifies it for you.

No, it doesn't clarify your comment that Warren would cut spending. 

[240 is Back]

No, it doesn't clarify your comment that Warren would cut spending. 

i'm sorry you feel that way.  Tonight I will wish upon a star that you wake up and realize warren sucks a little less than clinton.

[Dos Equis]

i'm sorry you feel that way.  Tonight I will wish upon a star that you wake up and realize warren sucks a little less than clinton.

Good for you.  I know you will have a tough choice deciding between Warren and Hillary in the Democrat primary, but I'm sure you will love voting the winner during the general election.