HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUT...

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:56 AM

 

She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY not runn... um... uh...

That difficult woman from Massachusetts continues to be difficult:

Washington Post: Elizabeth Warren could end the presidential speculation today. She has chosen not to.

In a new interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), ABC's Jeff Zeleny does something a journalist should have done a long time ago: press her on her use of verb tense.

Noting Warren's stock response to whether she will run for president is "I am not running," Zeleny makes the completely valid point that such a statement is quite a bit less than Shermanesque.

Here's the video, and here's the exchange:

ZELENY: You've said 'I am not running.' Is that still your answer today?

WARREN: I am not running.

ZELENY: I noticed it's in the present tense, though. 'I am not running.'

WARREN: I'm not running.

ZELENY: Does that mean you've ruled out running, or all you'll say is, 'I am not running'?

WARREN: I am not running for president.

An awful setback for the Resistance-is-futile-so-don't-even-think-about-it crowd. Darn.

92 replies, 6912 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply She's DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY not runn... um... uh... (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 OP
hrmjustin Jul 2014 #1
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #13
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #17
Cali_Democrat Jul 2014 #23
JackRiddler Jul 2014 #31
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2014 #36
JDPriestly Jul 2014 #57
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #26
LanternWaste Jul 2014 #37
InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2014 #61
JackRiddler Jul 2014 #14
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #22
Aerows Jul 2014 #28
SidDithers Jul 2014 #2
Wait Wut Jul 2014 #3
onehandle Jul 2014 #5
JEB Jul 2014 #48
JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #52
sheshe2 Jul 2014 #58
snooper2 Jul 2014 #4
geek tragedy Jul 2014 #6
Roy Serohz Jul 2014 #7
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #18
Roy Serohz Jul 2014 #20
awake Jul 2014 #35
brooklynite Jul 2014 #8
LordGlenconner Jul 2014 #10
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #12
brooklynite Jul 2014 #15
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #25
brooklynite Jul 2014 #29
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #32
brooklynite Jul 2014 #33
Mnpaul Jul 2014 #76
brooklynite Jul 2014 #80
Mnpaul Jul 2014 #85
brooklynite Jul 2014 #86
TheKentuckian Jul 2014 #30
Orsino Jul 2014 #9
Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #16
dsc Jul 2014 #21
Orsino Jul 2014 #87
dsc Jul 2014 #88
zappaman Jul 2014 #11
conservaphobe Jul 2014 #19
Zorra Jul 2014 #24
bluestateguy Jul 2014 #27
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #38
bluestateguy Jul 2014 #39
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #40
DonViejo Jul 2014 #34
sadoldgirl Jul 2014 #41
Agschmid Jul 2014 #43
brooklynite Jul 2014 #49
Laelth Jul 2014 #77
sheshe2 Jul 2014 #60
Agschmid Jul 2014 #42
sadoldgirl Jul 2014 #44
brooklynite Jul 2014 #51
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #45
KittyWampus Jul 2014 #46
brooklynite Jul 2014 #50
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #55
Dragonfli Jul 2014 #90
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #92
Dragonfli Jul 2014 #89
whistler162 Jul 2014 #47
L0oniX Jul 2014 #53
brooklynite Jul 2014 #54
Nye Bevan Jul 2014 #56
spanone Jul 2014 #59
Spazito Jul 2014 #62
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #63
Spazito Jul 2014 #64
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #65
Spazito Jul 2014 #66
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #67
Spazito Jul 2014 #68
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #69
Spazito Jul 2014 #70
Union Scribe Jul 2014 #71
brooklynite Jul 2014 #72
Laelth Jul 2014 #73
AngryAmish Jul 2014 #74
PowerToThePeople Jul 2014 #75
tridim Jul 2014 #78
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #79
Dragonfli Jul 2014 #91
rurallib Jul 2014 #81
MannyGoldstein Jul 2014 #83
Buns_of_Fire Jul 2014 #82
tridim Jul 2014 #84

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:57 AM

1. I think they should leave her alone. She says she is not running and I take her at her word.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:36 AM

13. Politicians parse words extremely carefully.

As was pointed out, there was a very simple way for her to make absolutely sure everyone understood her if she actually has ruled it out. Simply expand 'I am not running' to 'I am not running, and I will not run'.

Then they could 'leave her alone'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:25 PM

23. So you're essentially saying Warren is a typical dissembling politician. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:49 PM

31. No need for the redundancy.

 

There are many matters on which even the best of politicians might need to dissemble. They all have wonderful families, believe in the beauty of work no matter how meaningless, think soldiers "serve" the nation, and worship sky-gods very devoutly, I hear. That's the level of the political culture and there's no escaping it for those who run. Playing around with aspirations for higher office is a legitimate form for this.

By this logic, Hillary has not announced but acts like she's running. Aha! She's dissembling!

More fundamentally: This is supposedly a democracy. People can ask for things, even if they don't get them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:21 PM

36. No, I think she's a pretty extraordinary one.

But yes, even as an extraordinary one, she's still a politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:52 PM

57. No. Warren is not running. She has not yet decided whether she might run. It depends.

That's what it means. She has not yet made up her mind.

Many, many Americans want her to run.

I will not vote for Hillary. I do not want that on my conscience.

Hillary didn't just make a bad call on the Iraq War. She was informed and warned by Code Pink that the war would be a mistake.

Hillary did not do her homework on the Iraq War. Hillary voted to please the mighty and powerful in America on the Iraq War. She is sloppy in her work. Very sweet. But sloppy. I don't want her in the White House.

I don't always agree with Obama, and I think he is clueless about economics, but he is a stickler for detail, not a micro-manager, butt just very careful about important details.

Hillary would not have voted for the Iraq War among other things if she were careful enough about details to be the president. She does not ask enough of the right questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:39 PM

26. But Warren's a Harvard Law School Professor

 

And those folks don't parse words, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:45 PM

37. Even that would be too diaphanous...

 

Even that would be too diaphanous. She needs to make it clear that regardless of what happens in the near future-- in the U.S. or elsewhere, whatever the dire circumstance, whatever the need, whatever the desire, and whatever changes of mind may come in the future, she will not run.

Although I'd hazard many would still infer from that what they desire... as I often see many people making the wish the father of the thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:38 PM

61. Yup, what I've been saying - oh, and by the way, I am not running either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:37 AM

14. People have the right to try to persuade her.

 

She's a politician. Not as fragile as you suggest. She'll be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:16 PM

22. and all of this is also true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:44 PM

28. I wish to all that is holy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:02 AM

2. Clap for Tinkerbell!! Clap as hard as you can!!...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:04 AM

3. ohcrap...

...I was just thinking that I needed someone to make me laugh, today. Dude, you rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SidDithers (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 05:00 PM

48. I thought Tinkerbell was inevitable.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SidDithers (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:54 PM

58. Daummmm!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:06 AM

4. is this the thread for the day?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:08 AM

7. Oh, Please!

 

Hillary Rodham Clinton WILL be our nominee two years hence, and POTUS six months later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roy Serohz (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:51 AM

18. are you sure about that crystal ball of yours? Might want to shine it up a bit. ... lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:58 AM

20. "If you'll just come with me....."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roy Serohz (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:20 PM

35. Unless she decides to back Liz W. instead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:08 AM

8. ...and a setback for the fantasy world "maybe she'll change her mind" contingent...

...because it's another day (or 2 or 10 or 30) spent dreaming of a Warren campaign rather than making a serious effort to find someone who actually wants to run.

A reminder that, in addition to saying she's not running, she's also saying she supports another candidate. Do you seriously think she'll change her mind AND run against the candidate she's endorsed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:12 AM

10. Why introduce facts and logic into the conversation?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:33 AM

12. Who did Warren endorse?

 

ZELENY: Does that mean you've ruled out running, or all you'll say is, 'I am not running'?

WARREN: I am not running for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:46 AM

15. For the hundredth time...

Elizabeth Warren: I hope Hillary Clinton runs for president

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women Democratic women I should say of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #15)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:38 PM

25. So your claim is based on "urging to run" = "endorse"?

 

Jeez, and people call *me* a political naif!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:48 PM

29. So she "didn't endorse" in the same sense that she "didn't say she wouldn't run"?

Talk about twisting language...

Please point to an instance of ANY political candidate encouraging someone else to run for office and THEN deciding to run against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #29)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:50 PM

32. Yes.

 

In neither case has she made up her mind, obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #32)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:11 PM

33. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is not...

i.e. Elizabeth Warren IS not planning to run for President and she IS encouraging Hillary Clinton to run instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 06:59 AM

76. For the hundredth time...

BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you going to endorse Hillary Clinton?

SEN. WARREN: We're not there. This is about the issues on the table right now. We've got to talk about student loans, we've got to talk about minimum wage, we have got to make changes, and we have an election coming up in 2014 where those issues are going to be right on the table. People will have voted and the voters will have a chance to look at how the senate voted.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-11-2014-rogers-gates-warren/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #76)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 08:43 AM

80. I see no inconsistency...

...between encouraging someone to run for President and not formally endorsing them until they actually start; but I DO see an inconsistency between encouraging someone to run for President and then deciding to run against them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #80)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:47 PM

85. That is your opinion

but even in the interview you quoted, she twice refused to endorse Hillary. Warren can see that third way policies don't lead in the direction she believes we need to go. She turned away from the Republicans for the same reason.

Ever hear the phrase the more the merrier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #85)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:52 PM

86. One again, I have NO objection to Warren (or anyone else) running

I'm simply not twisting logic to come up with a reason to believe she WILL run.

Right now, I probably agree with Warren more than I agree with you. For example, we both agree that Clinton should run for President and would be great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:49 PM

30. Someone who wants to run will pick up the mantle and run with the ready made supporters.

Demand motivates supply when there is plenty and there are plenty of politicians and wannabe politicians.

Offered supply need not dominate ones thinking.

Shit, I have fixation or even particular predilection for Warren. To be honest, I worry something is more being projected on her rather than self illumination. Frankly, I wonder if she is liberal at all and many people are perceiving her as such simply because the spectrum is entirely lost it and she just stayed right where she was a generation or so ago.

The thing is I'm not seeing much, if anything that wouldn't be perfectly acceptable in the Republican party 30 or 40 years ago, opposed openly by only the fringe and the fringe of the fringe in the conservative party.
Based on her positions so far, there is nothing "leftist" or anti - capitalist but rather common sense rules of the road and transparent transactions stuff BUT everyone else has lost their fucking minds to the point where there are Democrats saying these things make her too liberal to vote for (though they are very hard pressed to articulate why).

Not that some damn sense isn't a significant upgrade but the limitations of just some sense are not insignificant just as the limitations of just sane pop up in deeply troublesome ways every day. Rational beats delusional but can still carry you far from course and so a measure of realism needs to be in the mix with someone with so many positions to discuss other than in the wheel house, with such a thin track record, and who was pulling the lever for the dumpster fire coalition well into adulthood and why (integrity and success of the markets).

In these times if you are an unflinching capitalist then you are dangerous because you have a religion that dominates your public actions. You can be a capitalist but if you haven't flinched and considered and reconsidered yet then you are not thinking deeply enough and are having reflexive reaction to the stimulus and probably wilfully ignoring most of history in favor of a fake but privileged point of perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:11 AM

9. Any good politician with national ambition would be considering the presidency.

I just don't need weekly updates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Orsino (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:08 PM

21. that is ludricrous

to name some ambitions politicians that have never considered the Presidency, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangle

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:18 AM

87. You mean "never ran," or are a mind-reader.

Or have a different idea of what "national ambitions" might mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #87)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:20 AM

88. None of them ever had any desire to be President

expressed in any way, shape, or form. Pelosi wanted to be Speaker first, last, and always.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:13 AM

11. OMG!!! She's running!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:54 AM

19. As much as I'd like to see her on the debate stage, it's not happening.

 

Our bench is deep. The shoe-in is more than capable. We'll be fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:27 PM

24. Manny, she's clearly stating she's not running for President

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 12:42 PM

27. I have a standing policy of not voting for anyone from Mass. in a Dem. primary

It's a curse to be from that state and guaranteed loss in November.*

*not interested in hearing about JFK, Ok? It was 54 years go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #27)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 03:45 PM

38. FWIW...

 

Do you see any substantial similarities between Dukakis and Kerry, where Warren is *very* different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 03:59 PM

39. What IS matters less than how things are perceived

Kerry and the Duke were smeared as effete liberal elitists. They did not fight back.

I'm sure EW would fight back, but I also think she would overwhelmed by the deluge of money that would be spent to defeat her. She would not have the advantage of incumbency as Obama had. This is a post Citizens United world we live in, like it or not.

You think Adelson and the Kochs spent a lot to defeat Obama? Imagine how much they would spend to bury Warren, who is considerably more anti-corporate than our current president.

I'm sure she would make an game effort, but it doesn't do much good to when your opponent is speaking ten times louder and ten times as often on the airwaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:08 PM

40. Adelson and the Kochs lost, because they suck

 

They found out that with enough money, you can convince Americans that powder blue is white. But you can't convince them that powder blue is black. Attacking The Wall Street President as a Socialist was just #%^*ing stupid.

Likewise, Warren will define herself, clearly, as what she is. She does it in few words, in part because she actually has a point of view. If the Republican (or Democratic) oligarchs go after, they'll end up on the floor with missing teeth - you can check with Larry Summers and the Third Way crowd for details, they've tried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 01:16 PM

34. This one's for you Manny...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:17 PM

41. To all you people

who believe in HRC's presidency already: Who is your candidate, if she does not want to run????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:21 PM

43. My pick...

O'Malley but I worry about national recognition for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 08:29 PM

49. I've already reached out to Brian Schweitzer

...by which I mean, I actually REACHED OUT to Brian Schweitzer and set up a private meeting in Charlitte to talk to him. I suspect that, if all I did was write blog posts, I would have had fhe same access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 07:00 AM

77. He would be my second choice after Warren. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #41)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:59 PM

60. My concern is 2014!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:20 PM

42. She must be annoyed by all this...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #42)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:23 PM

44. No, I don't think so

She does what all other possible candidates do. She waits for the results in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadoldgirl (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 08:35 PM

51. And, what NONE of the of the possible candidates do: support someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agschmid (Reply #42)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:37 PM

45. Perhaps.

 

But I think that people usually achieve what she has by viewing these things as opportunities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:43 PM

46. What part of NO MEANS NO, don't you get Manny? She should change her mind to please you?

 

When a woman says "no", it really means "make me"?

Elizabeth Warren Continues To Push Back On 2016 Rumors: 'No Means No'

Alex Lazar
The Huffington Post
07/22/14 12:08 PM ET

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) once again denied that she has her sights on the presidency in 2016, according to a Boston Globe article published Tuesday.

"I'm going to give you the same answer I have given you many times," Warren told the newspaper. "There is no wiggle room. I am not running for president. No means no."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 08:32 PM

50. ...but that was on Tuesday.....

Who knows what she's thinking now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:31 PM

55. Hmm... as it happens, last night my wife said "No!"

 

But I insisted.

She had to work late on a project, and I knew it wasn't my turn to empty the dishwasher, but... I appreciated that she wanted to uphold her end of the bargain, but I just had to help out. She watched silently, helplessly, from the computer as I emptied the thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #55)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:57 AM

90. Clearly you hate women

Tell me, how does your poor wife put up with such oppression?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #90)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:50 AM

92. The tyranny of Librul values

 

Since Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country, she feels like she'd be a pariah if she did the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #46)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 08:48 AM

89. In elections in the United States

Political drafts are used to encourage or pressure a certain person to enter a political race, by demonstrating a significant groundswell of support for the candidate. A write-in campaign may also be considered a draft campaign.

It is not illegal, wrong, misogynistic, and certainly not analogous to rape as you appear to imply.


This should really not have to be explained to a regular poster on a political discussion board.

Tell me, are your views regarding the "Ready for Hillary" people similar to your views regarding those ready for Elizabeth Warren?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 04:44 PM

47. In other news Abe Vigoda is

 

still alive and General Franco is dead!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 08:42 PM

53. She's not running ...now ...just like Hillary is not running ...now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #53)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 08:53 PM

54. She's supporting another Presidential candidate now, just like Hillary is....er, um, wait a min...

Elizabeth Warren: I hope Hillary Clinton runs for president

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she hopes Hillary Rodham Clinton runs for president in 2016 the latest in a series of declarations of support by the Massachusetts Democrat, who some have speculated could seek the Oval Office herself.

"All all of the women Democratic women I should say of the Senate urged Hillary Clinton to run, and I hope she does. Hillary is terrific," Warren said during an interview broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week," noting that she was one of several senators to sign a letter urging Clinton to run in 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/04/27/elizabeth-warren-i-hope-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 09:37 PM

56. Whoa. WHOA. She's running.

She's RUNNING. Folks! She's RUNNING!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 10:55 PM

59. i really don't think she's running, but the speculation pushes the left to the left...that is good.

i think she's pushing the left left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:45 PM

62. What you are saying is Ms. Warren is just another lying politician...

who will say whatever they need to say for political expediency. I disagree with you, I believe her when she promised the people of Massachusetts she would finish her term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #62)

Thu Jul 24, 2014, 11:55 PM

63. Was she elected on that basis? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Spazito (Reply #64)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:09 AM

65. Link please?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #65)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:15 AM

66. Link to what?

Nice try, major fail. Your post has the link inferring Ms. Warren is a lying politician who says what is expected for political expediency and, it seems, you agree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #66)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:16 AM

67. Candidate Warren pledging to serve out her term in the Senate if elected. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #67)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:24 AM

68. LOL, your posts are funny in a strange kind of way...

she affirmed her commitment to serve out her term in December, why would she do that if it was understood by those who voted for her that she had no intention to do exactly that?

Here's a link since it seems to be of such import to you, you even participated in the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024132800

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #68)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:32 AM

69. Your link doesn't support your claim.

 

You claim she promised, prior to election, that she'd serve out her term. I don't recall this.

Please provide a link from *before* her election pledging to serve out her term.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #69)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:38 AM

70. Well, Manny, it's like satirists, those who have to explain it's satire aren't satirists...

they are inadequate wannabes. Voters expect the candidates they vote for will represent them for the term they are running for, it doesn't have to be spelled out. You may vote for politicians who you expect to toss your vote to the side for political expediency, most don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 12:45 AM

71. The idea of her running certainly causes a negative reaction

with some, doesn't it? I doubt she'll run, but I hope for plenty more of these threads as they whip the establishmentarians into a beautiful froth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #71)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 06:33 AM

72. Please point to ANY post where someone has said she SHOULDN'T run...

...or was troubled by the possibility that she would.

All the responders to these threads have done is comment on the people who seem to be ignoring every sign she's given that she won't run, but will be the first to complain that she was "stopped" from running by the "Establishment" when reality finally hits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 06:40 AM

73. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 06:55 AM

74. I don't think Cersei is gonna like that tense at all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 06:57 AM

75. k&r for no more republican canidates

 

Third way is republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 07:17 AM

78. Chained CPI is DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY going to become law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #78)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 07:37 AM

79. Only 18% of the Bush tax cuts were repealed.

 

The rest? They were made permanent. It's good to be rich in America today.

'Cos that's the outcome Obama wanted, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #78)

Sat Jul 26, 2014, 09:04 AM

91. Probably, the third way Dems relentlessly keep pushing it every chance they get

One of these times the Republicans will except the generous offer, I am certain Clinton will continue to push for it as well if she is elected and it is not implemented before 2015.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 09:57 AM

81. We had an encounter with Jeff Zeleny out here in little old Iowa

We had a rally for Obama care before it passed. We had @ 300 in a small building on a school night. Zeleny was there. He even interviewed Mrs. Lib after the rally. 300 in Iowa on a school night in a non-election year is huge. Zeleny's article ripped us from one end to another, misquoting the rally leader for a capper.

So, to me, if Zeleny writes it, it is horse shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #81)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 10:02 AM

83. It was a video, the link's in the OP

 

I do share your irritation with the press - I've found them to be treacherous on more than one occasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 10:02 AM

82. It depends on what the meaning of the word "am," am. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #82)

Fri Jul 25, 2014, 11:37 AM

84. Skwisgaar ams confused

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread