Elizabeth Warren under fire for saying she accepted broke college student's 'last few dollars' for her campaign

  
Via:  kdmichigan  •  2 months ago  •  106 comments

By:   Joseph A. Wulfsohn

Elizabeth Warren under fire for saying she accepted broke college student's 'last few dollars' for her campaign
We've gotta stay in this fight with people who are counting on us.

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

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
KDMichigan
1  seeder  KDMichigan    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1  squiggy  replied to  KDMichigan @1    2 months ago

84385771_2838843166175323_44641830116880

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  squiggy @1.1    2 months ago

Look at that wild eyed progressive! Isn't she the goofiest thing you've ever seen?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago

Old cranky granny she is a hoot.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.3  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago

It's hillaryious how many progressives sport the bat shit crazy look.

original

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.3    2 months ago

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.5  squiggy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.4    2 months ago

83091681_10219268933006477_8916315642223

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.6  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  squiggy @1.1.5    2 months ago

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.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @1.1.5    2 months ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

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.  

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  KDMichigan @1    2 months ago

She's soon to be swept into the dustbin of history.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 months ago
She's soon to be swept into the dustbin of history.

As soon as y'all quit yapping about her, she will be.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @1    2 months ago

Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!  

It's who they are!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.1  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.3.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 months ago
Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's h onorable!  

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."

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.3  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.3.2    2 months ago

I'm sorry, did the warren seed trigger you into busting out the 'But Trump'?

256

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 months ago
Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!  It's who they are!

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  KDMichigan @1.3.3    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.4    2 months ago
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?

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.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-under-fire-for-accepting-broke-college-students-last-few-dollars-for-her-campaign

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.6    2 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.7    2 months ago
The article notes the details of a story told by Warren.   It reflects solely on Warren.

Yes it does and if you look back at my original comment in Post #1.3  - I was speaking of Warren!

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.8    2 months ago
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 ):

Vic @ 1.3 jrSmiley_110_smiley_image.png 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!

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.9    2 months ago
Vic, come on man.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.10    2 months ago
My next sentence was a clear reference to an Obama quote pertaining to progressive values! 

Bad way to go, to pretend as though I am misreading your words:

Vic @ 1.3 jrSmiley_110_smiley_image.png  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!

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 .

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.11    2 months ago

The they is progressive values.  Are you looking to defend their values?

Any time

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.13  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.12    2 months ago
The they is progressive values.

Okay, so what you really wanted to say was:

Vic @ 1.3 jrSmiley_110_smiley_image.png   Can you imagine this stupid ass  progressive  taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!      It's who they progressive values    are!

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?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.3.14  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  KDMichigan @1.3.3    2 months ago
I'm sorry, did the warren seed trigger you into busting out the 'But Trump'?

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.13    2 months ago
It is ' who progressive values' are??  

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?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.15    2 months ago

Vic,

I have found in life, that virtuous values are in the eye of the beholder. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.15    2 months ago

Then you do indeed think that progressives view taking money from indigents is honorable.   

Where did you get that idea?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.18  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.16    2 months ago
that virtuous is in the eye of the beholder.

Being really virtuous, doesn't need an "Eyeball" from anyone. You just "DO IT". jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

The most important thingy is.....YOU know what YOU did. jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.16    2 months ago

Yes, Perrie I believe that is absolutely true. And more now than ever!

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.20  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @1.3.18    2 months ago

And you don't "expect" a medal or a pat on the back for doing it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.17    2 months ago
Where did you get that idea?

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.22  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.20    2 months ago
And you don't "expect" a medal or a pat on the back for doing it.

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)! jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.23  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.21    2 months ago
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?

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?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.3.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.21    2 months ago
I can only keep referring you right back to Liz Warren.

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?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.25  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.21    2 months ago
What does it tell you?

At minimum it sez the person is very self centered ...... possibly a flaming narcissist

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.26  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.23    2 months ago
Where did you get the idea that progressives view taking money from indigents as honorable?

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 !

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.27  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.25    2 months ago

It speaks only about Warren herself.   It does not define all progressives accordingly.   Do you disagree?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.23    2 months ago
It speaks only about Warren herself. 

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.24    2 months ago
Capiche?

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?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.30  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.28    2 months ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.31  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.28    2 months ago

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 :

Hasty Generalization

A Hasty Generalization is a Fallacy of Jumping to Conclusions   in which the conclusion is a generalization. See also   Biased Statistics .

Example:

I've met two people in Nicaragua so far, and they were both nice to me. So, all people I will meet in Nicaragua will be nice to me.

In any Hasty Generalization the key error is to overestimate the strength of an argument that is based on too small a sample for the implied confidence level or error margin. In this argument about Nicaragua, using the word "all" in the conclusion implies zero error margin. With zero error margin you'd need to sample every single person in Nicaragua, not just two people.

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?    

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.32  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.30    2 months ago
Why the hell would we? 

I rest my case!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.33  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.28    2 months ago
Simple...Not a single one of them denounced her

They are busy pushing their own POV's. I have heard them argue with her in debate. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.34  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.31    2 months ago

Good point

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.35  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.32    2 months ago

What case?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.33    2 months ago
I have heard them argue with her in debate. 

Well, here she left the goal line wide open. Why wouldn't her opponents jump right on it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.3.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.29    2 months ago
So, Sandra, I'll see you here defending Trump supporters whenever that happens?

Yes.  Same as I defended Obama opponents every time they were called racist for disagreeing with his policies.

I don't march in lockstep.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.38  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.36    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.39  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.37    2 months ago
Same as I defended Obama opponents every time they were called racist for disagreeing with his policies. I don't march in lockstep.

And that's why I defend you!

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.40  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.27    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.41  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.23    2 months ago
It speaks only about Warren herself.    The act / position of an individual does not define the group.

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.3.42  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.39    2 months ago

Thank you for that.  I believe it would be consistent for you to not therefore accuse all progressives with the perceived wrongdoings of one.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.43  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.42    2 months ago

I'll keep that in mind.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.44  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.40    2 months ago
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.

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: 

Vic @ 1.3 jrSmiley_110_smiley_image.png Can you imagine this stupid ass   progressive   taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!          It's who they are!

Who, Sparty, is the ' they ' in this quote?    No special parsing required, just read the very simple English and provide an answer.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.45  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.44    2 months ago

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 .....

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.46  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.45    2 months ago

You did not answer my question.   Pretty sure everyone here knows why.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.47  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.46    2 months ago

I thought you move past it Tig?   No?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.48  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.47    2 months ago

You continue to avoid my direct question because answering it requires you to admit that you were wrong.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.49  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @1.3.3    2 months ago

They are both running so this is a compare and contrast. That is part of debate.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.50  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.48    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.51  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.50    2 months ago
Clearly if you really want to know what Vic meant, you should ask Vic

I did.   You missed that??

And not for a minute did i think when Vic said  "they" that he meant "all."  

Then what did Vic ( in your mind ) mean by the word ' they ' below?:

Vic @   1.3   jrSmiley_110_smiley_image.png  Can you imagine this stupid ass   progressive  taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!    It's who  they  are!

Who is ' they ' in this sentence?   Easy question just waiting for a direct answer.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.52  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.51    2 months ago

Asked and answered.   Some but not all progressives

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.53  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.52    2 months ago
Some but not all progressives

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.54  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.43    2 months ago
'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.'

So Do As I Say, Not As I Do, right Vic?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.55  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.53    2 months ago

Okay now i'm bored with this.

I disagree with you on all counts and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.56  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.55    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.57  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.49    2 months ago
That is part of debate.

Most people are well aware that 'But Trumps' are part of the debate when talking about anything, thanks for the heads up though.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.58  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.56    2 months ago

Once again, lecture someone who cares what you think.   Your opinion is meaningless to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.59  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.58    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.60  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.59    2 months ago

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

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.61  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.60    2 months ago

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.   

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.62  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.5    2 months ago

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.

In short, if one is going to stereotype all

I look forward to your future post condemning posters when the label all Trump supporters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.63  TᵢG  replied to  KDMichigan @1.3.62    2 months ago
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.

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.

I look forward to your future post condemning posters when the label all Trump supporters.

You have not seen me object to the categorical bad-mouthing of Trump supporters?    Seriously??    jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Case in point

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.64  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.41    2 months ago
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.

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  jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png  was my point.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.65  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.64    2 months ago
Do you disagree?

Is there something I said that you disagree with?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.66  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.65    2 months ago

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:

TiG @1.3.63But 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?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.67  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.63    2 months ago
 I suspect (just guessing here) that she thought

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. 

 if people are going to get nuts over something 

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. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.68  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.66    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.69  TᵢG  replied to  KDMichigan @1.3.67    2 months ago

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?

I missed where people are going nut's. 

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.

Keep up the good work. 

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.70  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.68    2 months ago
I haven't read all the comments. I don't care. That's why I ignored it.

Then why even respond on this aspect?

But don't just go leaping for the flag button and selecting "sweeping generalization."

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Strictly speaking, is a college student probably indigent in the truest sense of the word?

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.

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. 

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.

Vic @1.3 ☞ Can you imagine this stupid ass progressive taking money from somebody who is indigent and thinking it's honorable!  It's who they are!
TiG @1.3.4 ☞ 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?
 
 
 
katrix
1.4  katrix  replied to  KDMichigan @1    2 months ago
the donator exhibiting more bad decisions by draining her bank acct so she will likely face bank penalties

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.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.4.1  seeder  KDMichigan  replied to  katrix @1.4    2 months ago
Yet you're OK with

Far as I went there, When you start telling me what I think. cheers.

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    2 months ago

"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 ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

It's a good thing she says she's "For the People". I'd have questions if she hadn't. jrSmiley_122_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

She might be the overhyped presidential candidate in recent history. What a disaster she's been.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4  Sparty On    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5  Just Jim NC TttH    2 months ago

This from the woman who took a teaching/professor job at a university making $400K a year for teaching one class................amazing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5    2 months ago

Now Jim, what you fail to understand is that SHE deserved that job and pay.   Others, especially conservatives, not so much .....

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.2  Tacos!  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5    2 months ago

It's reparations for when her people were driven off their ancestral lands.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
5.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @5.2    2 months ago

384384

She's got it covered...........................

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6  Jasper2529    2 months ago
... one of her own supporters who she met in the selfie line at her New Hampshire event.

Inquiring minds want to know -- How much does Lizzie charge her supporters for the "honor" of being able to take a selfie with her?

 
 
 
katrix
6.1  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @6    2 months ago

Probably nowhere near as much as Pay to Play Trump toadies.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @6.1    2 months ago
Probably nowhere near as much as Pay to Play Trump toadies.

Probably ?

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.1    2 months ago

If Trump followers are toadies what do you think Warren followers are?

Bootlickers?

Apple polishers?

Lapdogs?

Brown-nosers

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.2    2 months ago

Sap, Simpleton, Dupe ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
7  Jasper2529    2 months ago

Liz Warren, I'm just like you , in 2019 ...

The Post's theater critic Peter Marks catches up with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) as she swings through Arizona and Nevada on a campaign push in early August Read more: https://wapo.st/2ZcF93e .

But, she brags about taking 1/2 of a college student's "savings" in 2020? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8  TᵢG    2 months ago

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.

512

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.

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @8    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1    2 months ago

I am confident that her entire fortune would not make a difference.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.1.2  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.1    2 months ago

I agree 100%.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @8.1    2 months ago

Or at least help a struggling student with tuition money.

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1.4  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @8.1.3    2 months ago
Or at least help a struggling student with tuition money.

That would be the most productive thing she's done in quite awhile.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
charger 383
10  charger 383    2 months ago

Sounds like a TV preacher to me

 
 
 
Ender
11  Ender    2 months ago

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.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


shona1


44 visitors