Warren attacks Chief Justice Roberts.

[Highmark]

What a dumb cunt.   Roberts has zero power in this trial.

 

[Zambroski]

She is about the epitome of the "intellectually elite" in this country.   In other news of idiocy, Pelosi calls for Trump's attorney team to be disbarred.   

You know what though...they are both catering to their base.  Think about that for a minute.....

[jammin]

The .000001% of Indian made her say it. 

[Highmark]

They are so desperate at this point.   They really thought they would get 20 GOP or whatever they need to vote against him.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Highmark

[Mainecat]

“Attacks” lol hardly just a stealthy pro move.

[ViperGTS/Z1]

40 minutes ago, Highmark said:

They are so desperate at this point.   They really thought they would get 20 GOP or whatever they need to vote against him.

That's MC thinking ....Trumps Toast

Edited January 31, 2020 by ViperGTS/Z1

[Highmark]

One Senator was on last night saying absolutely Chief Justice Roberts should split a tie vote.     Really?   Care to show us in the constitution where it says that.

[AKIQPilot]

26 minutes ago, Highmark said:

One Senator was on last night saying absolutely Chief Justice Roberts should split a tie vote.     Really?   Care to show us in the constitution where it says that.

The VP normally splits a tie vote in the senate. Not sure about impeachment's though. 

[AKIQPilot]

I was watching the hearings yesterday and Lizzy Warren sent in 2 questions. Both were stupid and both were just asked and answered earlier in the day. 

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, AKIQPilot said:

The VP normally splits a tie vote in the senate. Not sure about impeachment's though. 

Does not state that in the constitution.   My understanding is they must have enough votes to pass ie at least 51.   A tie is not getting enough votes so no witness'.  

Edited January 31, 2020 by Highmark

[AKIQPilot]

19 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Does not state that in the constitution.   My understanding is they must have enough votes to pass ie at least 51.   A tie is not getting enough votes so no witness'.  

Yep. I remember reading that last night.  A tie is a no vote. 

[XC.Morrison]

"A cardinal rule of politics is don’t let your opponents define you. This has been a particular challenge for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose critics continue to insist that she is a left-wing radical. I am a Republican and have known and worked with Ms. Warren for many years. She is a capitalist and prairie populist, in the tradition of William Allen White and Teddy Roosevelt. She believes in a market economy. She just wants it to work for everyone.

Like me, she grew up in an economically depressed community in the rural Midwest—she’s from Oklahoma; I’m from Kansas. She attended public schools and was raised with heartland values: hard work, self-reliance and a belief that the government’s job is to help society’s most vulnerable, not the rich and powerful. She moved to the East Coast to compete—and succeed—in government and academic circles dominated by elites skeptical of anyone born west of the Mississippi who doesn’t have an Ivy League degree.

Throughout our working relationship, including the 2008 financial crisis and battles over financial reform, Ms. Warren always took a market-based approach to the issues. She abhorred the generosity of the bank bailouts not because she was a Wall Street-hating socialist, but because she knew that markets can’t work without accountability. She championed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau not because she was a bureaucratic regulator, but because she knew that markets need level playing fields, and the field was tilted against working families and in favor of sophisticated banks.

The media has obsessed over Ms. Warren’s plans to nationalize health care, but the press has ignored elements of her platform that are focused on market-generated growth. She wants to break up the big banks by restoring the separation of commercial and investment banking. This would encourage competition and end the implied taxpayer subsidies that too-big-to-fail institutions enjoy. She wants to tackle monopolistic practices of Big Tech, preventing companies from abusing their platforms to pilfer the ideas of entrepreneurs and wrongly appropriating personal data for their own profit.

 

Ms. Warren wants to even the tax treatment of workers and rich investors by eliminating preferences for capital gains and dividends. She would impose a small tax on enormous accumulations of wealth enabled by those preferences. A 2% tax on fortunes above $50 million and 6% on those above $1 billion won’t break a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, who can surely generate returns far in excess of those modest assessments. And by making it more expensive to stockpile wealth, the tax would give the rich an incentive to spend their money, which helps the economy.

Ms. Warren also supports deregulation that promotes competition and lowers costs for consumers. A prime example: She co-sponsored a law with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) that will soon allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter, which will reduce average costs for consumers. She also favors rolling back state and local zoning laws that restrict upward mobility and drive up housing costs.

These are examples of proposals that don’t replace markets with government dictates but align incentives for broadly shared economic gains. And all poll well with the public, including among Republicans.

While Ms. Warren’s ambitious plans for an expanded government role in health care and higher education will be met with skepticism by Republicans, many will support her goal of making such basic services broadly accessible, while eliminating the profiteering that has made them so expensive. Her challenge will be to convince swing voters that she can achieve better outcomes at a lower cost. That would require her administration to stand up to the lobbying interests that have defeated past efforts at reform.

But this underscores Ms. Warren’s greatest strengths: her integrity, independence and commitment to helping working families. She understands their challenges because that is how she grew up. Most voters understand that fundamental change requires a president with both the know-how and moral fortitude to recapture government for the public.

There are many fine Democratic candidates, but Ms. Warren would have strong crossover appeal. Indeed, she is more market-oriented than the incumbent president, whose economic policies rely on near-trillion-dollar budget deficits, aggressive monetary policy, more tax loopholes, and government-managed trade. Ms. Warren promises structural reforms to strengthen the long-overlooked middle class. President Trump promised that in 2016. Ms. Warren might deliver."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-case-for-elizabeth-warren-11580428543

[AKIQPilot]

2 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

"A cardinal rule of politics is don’t let your opponents define you. This has been a particular challenge for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose critics continue to insist that she is a left-wing radical. I am a Republican and have known and worked with Ms. Warren for many years. She is a capitalist and prairie populist, in the tradition of William Allen White and Teddy Roosevelt. She believes in a market economy. She just wants it to work for everyone.

Like me, she grew up in an economically depressed community in the rural Midwest—she’s from Oklahoma; I’m from Kansas. She attended public schools and was raised with heartland values: hard work, self-reliance and a belief that the government’s job is to help society’s most vulnerable, not the rich and powerful. She moved to the East Coast to compete—and succeed—in government and academic circles dominated by elites skeptical of anyone born west of the Mississippi who doesn’t have an Ivy League degree.

Throughout our working relationship, including the 2008 financial crisis and battles over financial reform, Ms. Warren always took a market-based approach to the issues. She abhorred the generosity of the bank bailouts not because she was a Wall Street-hating socialist, but because she knew that markets can’t work without accountability. She championed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau not because she was a bureaucratic regulator, but because she knew that markets need level playing fields, and the field was tilted against working families and in favor of sophisticated banks.

The media has obsessed over Ms. Warren’s plans to nationalize health care, but the press has ignored elements of her platform that are focused on market-generated growth. She wants to break up the big banks by restoring the separation of commercial and investment banking. This would encourage competition and end the implied taxpayer subsidies that too-big-to-fail institutions enjoy. She wants to tackle monopolistic practices of Big Tech, preventing companies from abusing their platforms to pilfer the ideas of entrepreneurs and wrongly appropriating personal data for their own profit.

 

Ms. Warren wants to even the tax treatment of workers and rich investors by eliminating preferences for capital gains and dividends. She would impose a small tax on enormous accumulations of wealth enabled by those preferences. A 2% tax on fortunes above $50 million and 6% on those above $1 billion won’t break a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, who can surely generate returns far in excess of those modest assessments. And by making it more expensive to stockpile wealth, the tax would give the rich an incentive to spend their money, which helps the economy.

Ms. Warren also supports deregulation that promotes competition and lowers costs for consumers. A prime example: She co-sponsored a law with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) that will soon allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter, which will reduce average costs for consumers. She also favors rolling back state and local zoning laws that restrict upward mobility and drive up housing costs.

These are examples of proposals that don’t replace markets with government dictates but align incentives for broadly shared economic gains. And all poll well with the public, including among Republicans.

While Ms. Warren’s ambitious plans for an expanded government role in health care and higher education will be met with skepticism by Republicans, many will support her goal of making such basic services broadly accessible, while eliminating the profiteering that has made them so expensive. Her challenge will be to convince swing voters that she can achieve better outcomes at a lower cost. That would require her administration to stand up to the lobbying interests that have defeated past efforts at reform.

But this underscores Ms. Warren’s greatest strengths: her integrity, independence and commitment to helping working families. She understands their challenges because that is how she grew up. Most voters understand that fundamental change requires a president with both the know-how and moral fortitude to recapture government for the public.

There are many fine Democratic candidates, but Ms. Warren would have strong crossover appeal. Indeed, she is more market-oriented than the incumbent president, whose economic policies rely on near-trillion-dollar budget deficits, aggressive monetary policy, more tax loopholes, and government-managed trade. Ms. Warren promises structural reforms to strengthen the long-overlooked middle class. President Trump promised that in 2016. Ms. Warren might deliver."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-case-for-elizabeth-warren-11580428543

Warren isn't getting the nomination. 

[Highmark]

3 hours ago, XC.Morrison said:

"A cardinal rule of politics is don’t let your opponents define you. This has been a particular challenge for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whose critics continue to insist that she is a left-wing radical. I am a Republican and have known and worked with Ms. Warren for many years. She is a capitalist and prairie populist, in the tradition of William Allen White and Teddy Roosevelt. She believes in a market economy. She just wants it to work for everyone.

Like me, she grew up in an economically depressed community in the rural Midwest—she’s from Oklahoma; I’m from Kansas. She attended public schools and was raised with heartland values: hard work, self-reliance and a belief that the government’s job is to help society’s most vulnerable, not the rich and powerful. She moved to the East Coast to compete—and succeed—in government and academic circles dominated by elites skeptical of anyone born west of the Mississippi who doesn’t have an Ivy League degree.

Throughout our working relationship, including the 2008 financial crisis and battles over financial reform, Ms. Warren always took a market-based approach to the issues. She abhorred the generosity of the bank bailouts not because she was a Wall Street-hating socialist, but because she knew that markets can’t work without accountability. She championed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau not because she was a bureaucratic regulator, but because she knew that markets need level playing fields, and the field was tilted against working families and in favor of sophisticated banks.

The media has obsessed over Ms. Warren’s plans to nationalize health care, but the press has ignored elements of her platform that are focused on market-generated growth. She wants to break up the big banks by restoring the separation of commercial and investment banking. This would encourage competition and end the implied taxpayer subsidies that too-big-to-fail institutions enjoy. She wants to tackle monopolistic practices of Big Tech, preventing companies from abusing their platforms to pilfer the ideas of entrepreneurs and wrongly appropriating personal data for their own profit.

 

Ms. Warren wants to even the tax treatment of workers and rich investors by eliminating preferences for capital gains and dividends. She would impose a small tax on enormous accumulations of wealth enabled by those preferences. A 2% tax on fortunes above $50 million and 6% on those above $1 billion won’t break a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, who can surely generate returns far in excess of those modest assessments. And by making it more expensive to stockpile wealth, the tax would give the rich an incentive to spend their money, which helps the economy.

Ms. Warren also supports deregulation that promotes competition and lowers costs for consumers. A prime example: She co-sponsored a law with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) that will soon allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter, which will reduce average costs for consumers. She also favors rolling back state and local zoning laws that restrict upward mobility and drive up housing costs.

These are examples of proposals that don’t replace markets with government dictates but align incentives for broadly shared economic gains. And all poll well with the public, including among Republicans.

While Ms. Warren’s ambitious plans for an expanded government role in health care and higher education will be met with skepticism by Republicans, many will support her goal of making such basic services broadly accessible, while eliminating the profiteering that has made them so expensive. Her challenge will be to convince swing voters that she can achieve better outcomes at a lower cost. That would require her administration to stand up to the lobbying interests that have defeated past efforts at reform.

But this underscores Ms. Warren’s greatest strengths: her integrity, independence and commitment to helping working families. She understands their challenges because that is how she grew up. Most voters understand that fundamental change requires a president with both the know-how and moral fortitude to recapture government for the public.

There are many fine Democratic candidates, but Ms. Warren would have strong crossover appeal. Indeed, she is more market-oriented than the incumbent president, whose economic policies rely on near-trillion-dollar budget deficits, aggressive monetary policy, more tax loopholes, and government-managed trade. Ms. Warren promises structural reforms to strengthen the long-overlooked middle class. President Trump promised that in 2016. Ms. Warren might deliver."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-case-for-elizabeth-warren-11580428543

We get it dude.   You want to lick the dingleberries from Warren's ass.    

Edited January 31, 2020 by Highmark

[AKIQPilot]

Just now, Highmark said:

We get it dude.   You want to lick the dingleberries for Warren's ass.    

He already has. He’s waiting for a second helping now. 

[J. Jackson]

2 hours ago, AKIQPilot said:

He already has. He’s waiting for a second helping now. 

I'll bet he particularly enjoys it after she has a belly full of maize.

[spin_dry]

And then there’s Rand’s temper tantrum with the justice yesterday.

[Jimmy Snacks]

4 hours ago, Highmark said:

We get it dude.   You want to lick the dingleberries from Warren's ass.    

 

4 hours ago, AKIQPilot said:

He already has. He’s waiting for a second helping now. 

Meanwhile the forum is full of guys that look like this....

Edited January 31, 2020 by Jimmy Snacks

[AKIQPilot]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

 

Meanwhile the forum is full of guys that look like this....

Meanwhile you look like this.

[Zambroski]

 

[Snake]

[SVT MXZ XRS]

[AKIQPilot]

29 minutes ago, Snake said:

Hahahahaha

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

 

Meanwhile the forum is full of guys that look like this....

Have to hand it to you Jimmy.   Nice job with the original post.  So clever.   Did you come up with all on your own after my diggleberry post?    

Edited January 31, 2020 by Highmark

[Jimmy Snacks]

Goober Graham...a man...really...yeah go with that.