Why don't conservatives support Sen Eliz Warren? (legal, Whitehouse, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The system is rigged. This bill the republicans are idiotically putting out there proves that.
Limited government my ass.
Well, you'd have to explain how it's rigged, who's rigging it, and by what means. It's not enough to say "the system is rigged." That's just rhetoric. It's designed for effect. Show me.
I fully support Sen Warren's speech on the Senate floor and am disgusted that Citigroup/Chase have so much influence in the spending bill/legislation. I'm going to make good on withdrawing my Chase savings account (which draws no interest) and put it into a local credit union $9,999 at a time. If conservatives support limited government, then why not support her?
Sen Warren was a Reagan supporter.
She has disdain for what Republicans have become today.
The problem is she joined a party just as corrupt and thus makes her a hypocrite.
If she ran as an (I) or (L) or (G) she would have my vote without any hesitation.
No. Another negative point: her $350,000 salary for teaching one class at Harvard. Warren is part of the problem. All show. No go. She's duping the Grubers.
Aside from her total lack of understanding for most financial scenarios, I don't like her because she is a multimillionaire liberal (and one-percenter) who fabricated a Cherokee identity for over a decade to enhance her career.
And because of her dishonesty, Warren is a perfect example of the type of person who will prosper in the new Entitlement State we are becoming. She understands the rules, games the system, and mouths pious platitudes to gain support from fools who do not understand that they are being played as suckers.
And she has ZERO real world experience, having spent her career in academia. We've already got one of those in the WH. Don't need another.
Warren voted no because of the bank issue.
Not a word about the pension cutbacks though.
Why didn't she get riled up over that since it's a direct hit on individuals ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No. Another negative point: her $350,000 salary for teaching one class at Harvard. Warren is part of the problem. All show. No go. She's duping the Grubers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I imagine if one would complain about every bad thing in the budget you might get done complaining next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
And she has ZERO real world experience, having spent her career in academia. We've already got one of those in the WH. Don't need another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise
And she rants against those evil millionaires, but has a net worth of around $14 million.
all reasons she is a J.A.P. (not what you think-> Just Another Politician)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.