Elizabeth Warren under fire for saying she accepted broke college student's 'last few dollars' for her campaign
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is facing backlash over a story she told where she said she accepted a campaign contribution from a college student who only had "$6" in her bank account.
Appearing on MSNBC following her devastating fourth-place primary finish in her neighboring state of New Hampshire on Tuesday, she was asked about whether she was confident that there would be "some kind of coalescing" around one candidate following Super Tuesday in order to prevent a "bitter" brokered convention.
Warren responded by saying she was "concerned" but pointed to the "so many people who are in this fight," citing one of her own supporters who she met in the selfie line at her New Hampshire event.
"A young woman came up by herself and said, 'I'm a broke college student, with a lot of student loan debt.' And she said, 'I checked and I have six dollars in the bank. So I just gave three dollars to keep you in this fight,'" Warren recalled.
She continued, "That's what we gotta do. We've gotta stay in this fight with people who are counting on us. This isn't about fighting other Democrats. This is about fighting for the America we believe in."
Warren, who shared the clip on her Twitter page in hopes of promoting her campaign, was lambasted for accepting the broke college student's contribution.
"Elect me, and I'll take your last few dollars, too!" Grabien founder and news editor Tom Elliott quipped.
"Warren is worth ~$12M. Probably should’ve given back that $3 to the broke student who handed over 50% of her savings," Washington Examiner columnist T. Becket Adams reacted.
"Couldn't Liz give her back the $3 and then give her another $6 so she'd have double her money?" Human Events managing editor Ian Miles Cheong asked.
"Lmao man you let her????" Twitter user Comfortably Smug exclaimed.
Warren walked away from the New Hampshire primary without have earned any delegates as her 9 percent of the vote fell short of the 15 percent threshold to get any share of delegates. Also falling short on Tuesday night was former Vice President Joe Biden, who left the state for South Carolina hours before the results began to emerge.
Tags
Who is online
186 visitors
This right here is whats wrong with democrats. There is just so much wrong with this, the donator exhibiting more bad decisions by draining her bank acct so she will likely face bank penalties of course Warren promises to have the tax payer pay for the girls life decisions.
Warren a millionaire should have given the girl money from her pocket if she found her story so moving.
Look at that wild eyed progressive! Isn't she the goofiest thing you've ever seen?
It's hillaryious how many progressives sport the bat shit crazy look.
Well, the 'baddest motherfucker on planet Earth' would think nothing of screwing you and your family and your friends out of every last penny and your right to enjoy the democratic freedoms you enjoy now.
That photo is at least 100 pounds ago.
No one is scared of that big fat pig other than him falling on them.
He is no bad ass. He is a coward and a bully.
Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!
It's who they are!
People spend more on the lottery, Warren has promised to eliminate all student debt with a pen stroke 1st day in office if she wins.
Reported by Fox News:
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been sued at least 60 times by individuals and businesses who accuse him of failing to pay for work done at his various properties, according to two published reports.
USA Today also reported, citing data from the Department of Labor, that two of Trump's now-defunct businesses were cited 24 times beginning in 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage. The cases were settled when the companies — the Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and Trump Mortgage LLC — agreed to pay back wages.
The paper also reported that more than 200 liens have been filed against Trump or his businesses by contractors and employees dating back to the 1980s. The claimants include curtain makers, chandelier shops, cabinet makers and even Trump's lawyers who represented him in prior cases.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, former Trump Plaza president Jack O'Connell said Trump made withholding payment a part of his business strategy.
"Part of how he did business as a philosophy was to negotiate the best price he could," O'Connell said. "And then when it came time to pay the bills," Trump would say "'I’m going to pay you but I’m going to pay you 75% of what we agreed to.'"
O'Connell added that Trump Plaza executives used to pay vendors in full despite their boss's orders, saying "it used to infuriate him."
More recently, USA Today reported that the management company behind Trump National Doral Miami settled with 48 servers who sued for unpaid overtime after working a 10-day Passover event. The average settlement for each worker was $800.
Also last month, a Florida judge ordered that the resort be foreclosed on and sold to pay a painter more than $30,000 for his work as part of a Doral renovation more than two years ago. In that case, the manager of the contractor behind the renovation testified that the painter was not paid because Trump had "already paid enough."
I'm sorry, did the warren seed trigger you into busting out the 'But Trump'?
Could you point me to a source that defines modern (or even classical) political progressives as those seeking to take money from low income individuals?
Looks to me as though Sister Mary is making the point that the modern icon for conservatism, Trump, has a well-known history of stiffing his contractors, suppliers and employees. That is a factual counter to the general claim that progressives are individuals who would take money from indigents and deem it honorable.
In short, if one is going to stereotype all progressives based on Warren not reaching into her handbag and refunding $3, then how does one deal with the fact that the conservative icon has a history of deliberate theft? After all, it would be wrong to deem all conservatives to be swindlers simply because of the character and practices of the lead conservative.
This very article did so...by Liz warren's own admission:
"A young woman came up by herself and said, 'I'm a broke college student, with a lot of student loan debt.' And she said, 'I checked and I have six dollars in the bank. So I just gave three dollars to keep you in this fight,'" Warren recalled.
The article notes the details of a story told by Warren. It reflects solely on Warren.
Where does the article define political progressives as those who seek to take money from low income individuals?
Yes it does and if you look back at my original comment in Post #1.3 - I was speaking of Warren!
Vic, come on man. You spoke of Warren as a progressive and your next sentence spoke of all progressives ( they ):
If you do not believe that progressives (" who they are ") take money from indigents and think it is honorable then just say so. Don't pretend that I failed to correctly read what you wrote.
No, you come on.
You spoke of Warren as a progressive
She IS a progressive
and your next sentence spoke of all progressives
My next sentence was a clear reference to an Obama quote pertaining to progressive values!
Don't pretend that I failed to correctly read what you wrote.
Don't you pretend that you weren't looking to contradict me. I'm not shy about saying that progressives are the worst in this country. I know how to say it.
Bad way to go, to pretend as though I am misreading your words:
Who is the ' they '? Warren is an individual. You did not state "It's who she is" but rather "It's who they are". You label Warren as a progressive and then speak of they .
The they is progressive values. Are you looking to defend their values?
Any time
Okay, so what you really wanted to say was:
It is ' who progressive values' are??
Disregarding the grammatical contradiction, are you suggesting that progressive values consider taking money from indigents to be honorable? What is your source for that?
Trigger? No. Trump is well-known for screwing 'the collective little guy' who supports his family via minimum wage, out of their paychecks. He has forced small businesses into bankruptcy just to increase his bottom line. I was hoping to help you understand that he would enjoy screwing you out of a paycheck, regardless of how big or small that paycheck was.
And yes, I hate Trump for what he has done, and is doing, to my country. And just for the record, I hate myself for hating him. But his motives are so obvious and self-serving, I just can't help it. If that is a trigger, then so be it, I guess.
And PS: I've said many times that I would support any Republican presidential candidate as long as it wasn't Trump, and I can't recall ever voting for any Republican running for office.
It's kind of what I said, but I wanted to use the Obama quote "It's who we are". You do remember how many times he used that to justify something he thought was virtuous?
Vic,
I have found in life, that virtuous values are in the eye of the beholder.
Then you do indeed think that progressives view taking money from indigents is honorable.
Where did you get that idea?
Being really virtuous, doesn't need an "Eyeball" from anyone. You just "DO IT".
The most important thingy is.....YOU know what YOU did.
Yes, Perrie I believe that is absolutely true. And more now than ever!
And you don't "expect" a medal or a pat on the back for doing it.
I can only keep referring you right back to Liz Warren. You can't see that? Taking $3 from somebody that only has $6 and smiling into the camera. What does it tell you?
Your approach to what Liz Warren said reminds me of what happens with like charges when two magnets are brought together.
Yippers !
Unlike like "Story Teller" Pocahontas. She's told us, in no uncertain terms, she has no Virtue !
"A young woman came up by herself and said, 'I'm a broke college student, with a lot of student loan debt.' And she said, 'I checked and I have six dollars in the bank. So I just gave three dollars to keep you in this fight,'" Warren recalled.
She continued, "That's what we gotta do."
She just couldn't "SAY NO" ! She'll take whatever she can get (Selfish)!
It speaks only about Warren herself. The act / position of an individual does not define the group.
Thus:
Where did you get the idea that progressives view taking money from indigents as honorable?
Which you then extrapolated to all progressives. Capiche?
You support Trump. Fact is, Trump stiffs people and ran a fraudulent charity. Would you like for people to project those qualities on you because you support Trump? Would they be correct in their assessment? Would you object to being assumed to be cheat and a fraud? Or is that maybe an unfair and not especially honest assumption for somebody to make?
At minimum it sez the person is very self centered ...... possibly a flaming narcissist
I myself, got it from here:
Lizzy says: "A young woman came up by herself and said, 'I'm a broke college student, with a lot of student loan debt.' And she said, 'I checked and I have six dollars in the bank. So I just gave three dollars to keep you in this fight,'" Warren recalled.
She continued, "That's what we gotta do."
Aren't " Folks " Still voting for Lizzy (Progressive) anyway ?
Seems "THE" G roup (Progressive), doesn't mind Lizzy's (Progressive) action....thus.....taking was "Honorable" with the Lizzy (Progressive) Group !
It speaks only about Warren herself. It does not define all progressives accordingly. Do you disagree?
It does
Thus:
Where did you get the idea that progressives view taking money from indigents as honorable?
Simple...Not a single one of them denounced her
Si Senorita
Would you like for people to project those qualities on you because you support Trump? Would they be correct in their assessment? Would you object to being assumed to be cheat and a fraud? Or is that maybe an unfair and not especially honest assumption for somebody to make?
No to all of the above.
So, Sandra, I'll see you here defending Trump supporters whenever that happens?
I see. So the fact that you have not heard a single progressive criticize Warren for not reaching into her handbag and giving the student $3 causes you to conclude that ALL progressives, by definition, consider taking money from indigents to be an honorable thing to do??
That, Vic, is a recipe for coming up with some rather wild generalizations and concluding quite a bit of nonsense. The hasty generalization fallacy does not produce good results. Fallacies reflect faulty reasoning :
On top of that, Warren did not take money from the college student. The student donated the money as a campaign contribution. If a poor person makes a donation to her church collection basket would you deem the church to be taking money from indigents if the usher does not reach into the basket and return the cash?
I rest my case!
They are busy pushing their own POV's. I have heard them argue with her in debate.
Good point
What case?
Well, here she left the goal line wide open. Why wouldn't her opponents jump right on it?
Yes. Same as I defended Obama opponents every time they were called racist for disagreeing with his policies.
I don't march in lockstep.
Now back to my first comment on this article. Personally I think this is a ridiculous thing to pounce on (and I think Warren is a horrible candidate for PotUS). To me this is as petty and partisan as those who pounce on stories of Trump cheating at golf.
Petty, partisan crap. Much better to focus on key policy issues.
And that's why I defend you!
Sweeping generalizations are usually not a good idea since they are rarely accurate so no, its wouldn't define them all.
But then again i don't think that's what Vic was trying to do no matter how hard you try to parse his words.
As a general rule, that might be true, but on this specific issue it is a group thing, now. This wasn't her idea.
This started with Bernie Sanders who, four years ago, made a big deal about how his funding came from more donors than his opponent, and each was donating less money. He sold it as a more legitimate kind of support because the money came from less wealthy people, without corporate interests. i.e., Instead of robber barons skimming off the top of their giant pile of money to bribe politicians, it was just regular folks giving what they had (and therefore more sincerely) to support someone who had their best interests at heart.
By selling the idea that his support was more virtuous, Bernie was also selling the idea that he was more deserving to be president. Voters and the party bought it because by 2019, this argument had turned into core Democratic morality. It has literally been part of the requirement to participate in every debate.
So this little story she told in front of the camera about this poor student is all posturing and virtue signaling designed to get the respect of Democratic voters and the party as a whole.
Thank you for that. I believe it would be consistent for you to not therefore accuse all progressives with the perceived wrongdoings of one.
I'll keep that in mind.
I suspect Vic is super happy that you brought this front and center again since we had moved past it. But since you want to play games:
Who, Sparty, is the ' they ' in this quote? No special parsing required, just read the very simple English and provide an answer.
Lol, i'm the one playing games here? Hilarious Tig, very hilarious and i see you even managed to work in a little thinly veiled insult in there ..... classic .....
You did not answer my question. Pretty sure everyone here knows why.
I thought you move past it Tig? No?
You continue to avoid my direct question because answering it requires you to admit that you were wrong.
They are both running so this is a compare and contrast. That is part of debate.
Okay, so you never really moved past it. Got it. But I've got some time on my hands before beer thirty so i'll play your sophomoric word game for a post or two.
Clearly if you really want to know what Vic meant, you should ask Vic but since you are allegedly past it with him and seem so interesting in what i think about what he said, no problem. I was pretty clear of what i thought he meant with another post .... sweeping generalizations are usually wrong. And not for a minute did i think when Vic said "they" that he meant "all." He's not one to make sweeping generalizations like that. He clearly knows better but if you parse a word or two, what the hell you can call it what you want to right?
And as a reminder, save your insults for someone who cares what you think. I don't and unlike some of your followers here i am not slain by the silly internet word games you seem to like to play here from time to time.
I did. You missed that??
Then what did Vic ( in your mind ) mean by the word ' they ' below?:
Who is ' they ' in this sentence? Easy question just waiting for a direct answer.
Asked and answered. Some but not all progressives
[deleted]
You translate ...
Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable! It's who they [progressives] are.
... into ...
Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable! It's who they [some progressives] are.
Even if the author meant 'some progressives', your forced, awkward interpretation makes no sense. If one is only talking about 'some' progressives then the label is pointless. Some progressives are geniuses, some are emotional, some are generous, some are homosexual, some are Republicans, some are Chinese ...
No point using the label 'progressive' unless you are claiming that most or all progressives have this trait. Using the label means you are claiming this is a trait of progressives.
So if the intent was to not make a sweeping generalization on progressives, the following would have worked nicely:
Can you imagine this stupid ass taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable! It's who she is.
So Do As I Say, Not As I Do, right Vic?
Okay now i'm bored with this.
I disagree with you on all counts and stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Of course you are going to claim that you disagree on all counts and then leave the building. What else could you do if you have nothing better than an interpretation that flies in the face of standard English grammar and basic reason?
The statements in question ...
Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable! It's who they [progressives] are.
... are simple English. That means that the grammar is straightforward, not complex and does not use nuanced words. It is the kind of direct language that presents clear meaning.
It is fascinating watching your attempts to spin it.
Most people are well aware that 'But Trumps' are part of the debate when talking about anything, thanks for the heads up though.
Once again, lecture someone who cares what you think. Your opinion is meaningless to me.
Then don't engage me ... especially if you do not have a good argument to bring to the table.
More lectures ..... yawn!
I'll engage whenever and whoever i care to and will continue to make cogent comments like usual. Just like on this article
Make up your mind Sparty. If you want to engage me in debate then do so. If not, then that is cool too. Complaining that I respond to your points and allegations, however, is ridiculous.
Looked to me like Sister Mary couldn't discuss Warren without busting out the 'But Trump'. I think everyone is well aware of Trumps history, it is discussed on almost every seed.
I look forward to your future post condemning posters when the label all Trump supporters.
Yes, she did indeed point out to you that your candidate is plenty guilty of less-than-honorable things. I suspect (just guessing here) that she thought this $3 brouhaha is petty and pointless and is noting that if people are going to get nuts over something this insignificant then they should be completely wacky over Trump.
You have not seen me object to the categorical bad-mouthing of Trump supporters? Seriously??
Case in point
It was Warren's attempt to show she has strong supporters and that everyone needs to work harder to promote her candidacy.
But the fact that she did not give the student back her $3 (her personal choice) does not mean that all progressives (or even most progressives) hold that taking money from somebody who is indigent is honorable. Do you disagree?
That
was my point.
Is there something I said that you disagree with?
Not in general. If I had disagreed with an aspect that mattered to me I would have noted same.
Your comment, however, was made in context of a point that I have been repeatedly making. I summarized my point in my comment:
Do you disagree?
I am so thankful that I have you to explain Sister Mary's post for me, hopefully you are on more often to explain what others post.
Really? I missed where people are going nut's. I see people having a laugh at Warrens expense and the offended whiping out their 'But Trump's' then others trying to make excuses for them. Keep up the good work.
What follows is pretty meta, but it's the only relevant way I can see to respond.
I commented on the part of your comment that I thought was worth responding to. I ignored the other part because it's too full of complications that are beside the point. It's a complex question that would need to be unpacked. If it makes you happy, I'll unpack it then.
First, it would be absurd to suggest that all progressives, all conservatives, or all golfers, for that matter, think the same thing, if you mean that literally. I don't know if someone has said that (i.e "all progressives think [x]) here or not. I haven't read all the comments. I don't care. That's why I ignored it.
But don't just go leaping for the flag button and selecting "sweeping generalization." People say things like "progressives think" all the time. It's a perfectly reasonable rhetorical device for suggesting that a group that self-defines as supporting a certain mindset generally might tend toward a certain philosophy or policy on a specific issue. Of course, not all progressives are going to think a given thing. It's probably more reasonable to take it as "some progressives" or "many" or "traditionally" or even "most."
So, looking back to my comment, I wasn't talking about progressives, but rather the Democratic Party. As I pointed out, it has literally been DNC policy for the past year to seek out donations from less affluent donors and more of them. That's important. I would not suggest that everyone in the party or all progressives agree with that policy, but then, it's not very important to the topic.
Second, is the matter of the word "indigent." Strictly speaking, is a college student probably indigent in the truest sense of the word? Unlikely. Again, if anyone here has used the word, I am sure it was a rhetorical expression used to make the point that here is someone donating money who probably can't afford it and shouldn't be doing it. Getting hung up on the word is probably a distraction.
Be careful that if you are really going to the mat over this language that you aren't really arguing against a straw man. You might think that's an unfair suggestion, particularly if a person really used those words. But if you can recognize that they probably meant them more figuratively than literally, then I think you have to be honest with yourself and realize you might be being unfair to fight about this.
Why the snark? You have a problem with someone writing " I suspect (just guessing here) that she thought ... "? Given I explicitly stated that I suspect and am guessing one should see that I was offering my opinion. So, again, why the snark?
Why is this even an article; why is this an issue? Beyond that, the comments are replete with emotive language (and apparently emotional authors) all because some candidate told a story of a student with $6 in the bank donating $3 to a campaign. This is as petty and pointless as complaining that Trump cheats at golf. Yet people are making this out to be a big deal and are willing to play intellectually dishonest games in the process. Partisan politics as usual. Critical thinking out the window and intellectual dishonesty front and center.
Facts are facts. Trump's character flaws are obvious. His past business dealings are well known. His pandering and other acts as PotUS are well known. As a whole, Trump is a rather unsavory character. Have you noticed?
Making a big deal of Warren's $3 story and then objecting when someone notes that the sitting PotUS is out there larger than life and replete with character flaws is funny and sad. Pure partisanship.
Not a word on my case in point , eh? Presume less.
Then why even respond on this aspect?
I rarely flag; I prefer to deal with matters myself. For example, I have not flagged any comment in this article. I would rather flag (and use the mod's time) for that which is egregious or for trolls.
True. But, again, you are talking in general terms and are not addressing my point. And since you are not interested in it, I am not going to explain my point. That said, again I wonder why you are making these comments.
Yes, the initial debate rules illustrate that. So why would anyone be surprised that Warren accepted $3 that the student ostensibly wanted to give? It was the student's choice; she could have alternatively placed the $3 in a collection plate at church or bought a small latte. Her choice as a fully-functioning adult.
I chose to not nit-pick on Vic's language choice. I agree that indigent is an exaggeration, but nit-picking would have deflected from the point.
Well Tacos! I am now convinced that you have indeed (as you noted) not read this thread. I read Vic's words (expressed simply in plain English) and asked a question @1.3.4. Even though it was completely obvious what Vic was saying, I asked for information first. I offered Vic a graceful means to state: 'no, that is not what I meant'. So there you go. Read the 1.3 thread; you might be surprised by the actual facts.
You have to be shitting me. You really think she'd incur a penalty with $3 in her account that she wouldn't with $6 in her account?
And honestly, even if you only have six bucks, giving away three bucks isn't going to make much of a difference.
Yet you're OK with Trump defrauding charities, small businesses, and students out of tens of millions of dollars. Sounds like your derision is a little misplaced.
Far as I went there, When you start telling me what I think. cheers.
"Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is facing backlash over a story she told where she said she accepted a campaign contribution from a college student who only had "$6" in her bank account."
Did Lizzy Check the wrong box for "Personal Gain" again ?
It's a good thing she says she's "For the People". I'd have questions if she hadn't.
She might be the overhyped presidential candidate in recent history. What a disaster she's been.
She's almost childlike in her naivete.
I guess we all are just supposed to hop in line, snap to and goosestep to her cadence and only her cadence.
This from the woman who took a teaching/professor job at a university making $400K a year for teaching one class................amazing.
Now Jim, what you fail to understand is that SHE deserved that job and pay. Others, especially conservatives, not so much .....
It's reparations for when her people were driven off their ancestral lands.
She's got it covered...........................
Inquiring minds want to know -- How much does Lizzie charge her supporters for the "honor" of being able to take a selfie with her?
Probably nowhere near as much as Pay to Play Trump toadies.
Probably ?
If Trump followers are toadies what do you think Warren followers are?
Bootlickers?
Apple polishers?
Lapdogs?
Brown-nosers
Sap, Simpleton, Dupe !
Liz Warren, I'm just like you , in 2019 ...
But, she brags about taking 1/2 of a college student's "savings" in 2020?
I am no fan of Warren. I think she might be the most pandering candidate on the D side. My conclusion is that she is driven to be the first women PotUS and will say anything if she thinks that will help her personal cause.
This highly educated ex-teacher is getting her a beer in an obviously staged, pandering Instagram session. To me this does a fine job of illustrating what I mean by Warren's pandering.
That established, Warren was using the college student story to motivate her followers to give her campaign more support. Seems like something most of the current (and past) candidates would do. In other words, I find this to be making a big deal out of nothing.
If Warren really believed the BS she is expecting everyone else to swallow she would pony up some of her own 12 million to keep her campaign going.
I am confident that her entire fortune would not make a difference.
Or at least help a struggling student with tuition money.
That would be the most productive thing she's done in quite awhile.
They did this to themselves with all the posturing over grass roots funding and beating up on candidates for taking money from millionaires and billionaires.
The hypocrisy of it all is mind-blowing, of course. They have spent years demanding the rich pay their fair share and wailing about the presence of money in politics, but not complaining about the money spent by the likes of George Soros.
While running against two billionaires (Steyer and Bloomberg) and being multimillionaires themselves, Warren and Sanders set to beating up Pete Buttiegieg, a small town mayor who is worth maybe 100K, for taking money from rich people. They're like schoolyard bullies. Amazing.
They claim they themselves don't want money from rich people and that they are morally superior because they raise money from the working class folks and students who can't afford it. The DNC even set up debate eligibility rules promoting this weird idea. The very notion that they are prioritizing contributions from people whose diet is comprised mainly of Spam and Cup-A-Noodle because it's all they can afford seems hypocritical, parasitical, and just downright cruel.
And Warren and Sanders are proud of it!
Sounds like a TV preacher to me
This whole thing is stupid. So what if she wanted to give three dollars.
What would it have bought her...a lottery ticket?
Like poor people did not donate to donald or no one ever checked the give a dollar box at tax time.