Warren Escalates Trump Attacks

[Gina]

Did you also complain about the host of legal cases the Clinton's were facing when he was running for President?

I didn't vote for him.

Trump is running based on his business acumen. It's fair game to question just how valid his credentials are in that area. Doesn't look like much.

 

[Mycroft]

I really love Warren for handling these types of attacks. For starters, it allows a Presidential candidate like Sanders or Clinton to remain Presidential, which is something that Donald Trump only believes he can do because he is an egomaniacal asshole that claims an ability to do anything and everything better than anyone who has ever lived. Additionally, she is largely a target that has so far escaped any significant negative branding. Donald Trump has responded to Warren's attacks by calling her "goofy" and by trying to re-hash a 2012 controversy related to her alleged native American history. I don't see either having the same type of punch as the ones that Warren continues to lob against Donald, like these gems:



Elizabeth Warren escalates attack on 'small, insecure' Trump - POLITICO

1. Typical leftist tactics...dis-ingenuousness...and you applaud this kind of thing. You think it's a good thing for a candidate to appear to be "presidential" instead of showing who they really are and you think of a person who shows who he really is as an "asshole".

2. The more Warren opens her mouth, the more she comes across as a combination of a Bachmann and a Palin. She might be doing Sanders or Clinton a big favor, but she's not helping herself any. Y'all can be pretty certain she won't be running for President, herself. She's damaged goods now.

Is it possible that Warren's combination of providing unity within the democratic party and her ability to act as an attack dog during the campaign could lead us to have an all-female democratic ticket?

She is certainly making that argument hard to ignore.

That's a pipe-dream that'll never happen.

Oh...she might get some low-info Democrats to get off their asses to vote...just to say they had a part in some useless, "historical" event (though Obama pretty much screwed that tactic all to hell for the Democrats already)...but face it, Warren would be a drag on Hillary. You'd be better served in suggesting Warren be Bernie's running mate. That's a combo that'll work (except for the fact that the Democrat Elite just plain won't let Sanders have the nomination).

 

[Excon]

Successful? Four bankruptcies doesn't speak well of his success.

That is your own bias speaking.
When you actually examine this issue, yes they do.

 

[tres borrachos]

I really love Warren for handling these types of attacks. For starters, it allows a Presidential candidate like Sanders or Clinton to remain Presidential, which is something that Donald Trump only believes he can do because he is an egomaniacal asshole that claims an ability to do anything and everything better than anyone who has ever lived. Additionally, she is largely a target that has so far escaped any significant negative branding. Donald Trump has responded to Warren's attacks by calling her "goofy" and by trying to re-hash a 2012 controversy related to her alleged native American history. I don't see either having the same type of punch as the ones that Warren continues to lob against Donald, like these gems:



Elizabeth Warren escalates attack on 'small, insecure' Trump - POLITICO

Is it possible that Warren's combination of providing unity within the democratic party and her ability to act as an attack dog during the campaign could lead us to have an all-female democratic ticket?

She is certainly making that argument hard to ignore.

"Small, insecure moneygrubber"? Petty.

The market crash was a terrible thing for most of us. That said, anyone who wouldn't jump at the prospect of making money for himself is a fool. I don't discount Trump for wanting to make money. So what? At least he's honest. Lots of people made money due to the crash, including me. My husband and I invested in our brother in law's flipping of houses that were foreclosed upon. I guess according to the Bankruptcy queen, I should have stayed at home and wrung my hands and complained about being a victim.

 

[tres borrachos]

Really? That's it? His race?

Successful? Four bankruptcies doesn't speak well of his success. A lawsuit over his flimflam operation he calls "Trump University". There's a sucker born every minute, says Barnum. Trump is reeling them in.

Well, once again I detest having to defend the man I can't stand. But the reality is, Trump has had unbelievable and virtually unparalleled success in his business career overall. The 4 bankruptcies of his casinos? He was one of many in that business who had problems. The issues in Atlantic City long predated Trump, and continue to this day.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

What we need is a Sanders-Warren 2016...

...now that **** would be Trump's worst nightmare.

Unfortunately the best we can get at this point is Clinton-Sanders.

 

[TurtleDude]

He was editor of the Harvard Law review. A constitutional law professor. A state senator and a U.S. Senator. He sponsored and introduced or sponsored legislation signed into law.

Trump has zero experience or accomplishment within government service.

He was the president of the law review but didn't have a note published-not an editor. HE was not a law professor but a lecturer. HE had his way prepared for him when his supporters killed off the opposition that would have beat him-such as a corrupt judge allowing the unsealing of divorce records of the GOP candidate who was beating him in the polls. And with all that experience, he has sucked as a president.

 

[TurtleDude]

What we need is a Sanders-Warren 2016...

...now that **** would be Trump's worst nightmare.

Unfortunately the best we can get at this point is Clinton-Sanders.

Sanders warren would turn the USA into another Eurosocialist effete has been nation

 

[eohrnberger]

opcorn:

 

[cabse5]

Gina,

Obama was much less qualified. A successful business tycoon vs a community organizer who was elected because of his race. Democrats have no position to speak on qualifications.

Experience and qualifications are two completely different things. For example, the Libertarian and Communist Parties have put forth a platform and candidate for how many presidential election cycles in the US? That means the Libertarian Party and Communist Party have loads of experience in this area. The pertinent question being: are these political parties qualified to put forth a platform and run for president?

Hillary is without a doubt highly experienced. Is she qualified?

 

[Texmex]

LOL, she's another power hungry elitist who plays people like you as pawns. she is one of the most disgusting POS I have ever seen in American politics.

You are so full of ****, it's fun seeing you blow a gasket. Trump, and all his supporters are two bit assholes.

 

[MrT]

Does anybody give a **** what Warren says about anybody?

Well...it was reported by multiple news agencies and my thread on her latest comments now sits at four pages...so yea, people give a ****.

 

[Bucky]

He was editor of the Harvard Law review. A constitutional law professor. A state senator and a U.S. Senator. He sponsored and introduced or sponsored legislation signed into law.

Trump has zero experience or accomplishment within government service.

Obama is a perfect example of a President that lives in the world of theory.

He read all the texts and and was very well book-smart however he had no real life experience or "street smarts" and was well, made a fool as a president.

Donald Trump has negotiated several great deals. Obama on the other hand has negotiated with desperate terrorists organizations and has even failed in that losing several bargaining chips for a traitor and a couple of oreos.

 

[MrT]

1. Typical leftist tactics...dis-ingenuousness...and you applaud this kind of thing. You think it's a good thing for a candidate to appear to be "presidential" instead of showing who they really are and you think of a person who shows who he really is as an "asshole".

Not quite. I think Trump is an asshole because of his specific true nature - not merely because he showed his true nature. And yes. I do consider the appearance of Presidential status in the public eye to be a valuable trait irregardless of their true nature. The President is a very public office that carries a great deal of interactions with a much larger audience than those who meet the President in a private, personal setting. I want my President to be able to represent himself or herself in a manner befitting that position.

2. The more Warren opens her mouth, the more she comes across as a combination of a Bachmann and a Palin. She might be doing Sanders or Clinton a big favor, but she's not helping herself any. Y'all can be pretty certain she won't be running for President, herself. She's damaged goods now.

Combination of Bachmann and Palin? Setting aside the differences in temperament, the differences in experience, the differences in political ideology, and the differences in intelligence...I suppose you are correct to note that all three are indeed females. So kudos on that point, I guess.

As for Warren wanting to run for the Presidency, I fail to see how attacking Trump hurts her chances in any shape or form.

That's a pipe-dream that'll never happen.

Oh...she might get some low-info Democrats to get off their asses to vote...just to say they had a part in some useless, "historical" event (though Obama pretty much screwed that tactic all to hell for the Democrats already)...but face it, Warren would be a drag on Hillary. You'd be better served in suggesting Warren be Bernie's running mate. That's a combo that'll work (except for the fact that the Democrat Elite just plain won't let Sanders have the nomination).

I don't disagree that Warren would be a solid partner to Bernie, but you aren't exactly laying out a strong argument for why Warren wouldn't be a solid partner to Hillary. The history making argument still remains a viable and strong argument - considering that neither a female President nor a female vice-President have ever been elected - and considering the fact Obama's job approval rating and performance are quite positive even after eight years. I know that you disapprove and would never find any benefit to his Presidency, but his job approval rating currently sits at the highest rating since immediately after his reelection and it projects to only go higher.

Also, I really hate the notion of a "low information voter." Please stop using that term because it is only a method of denigrating all individuals that disagree with you. Just because Rush claims it, doesn't make it true.

 

[MrT]

"Small, insecure moneygrubber"? Petty.

The market crash was a terrible thing for most of us. That said, anyone who wouldn't jump at the prospect of making money for himself is a fool. I don't discount Trump for wanting to make money. So what? At least he's honest. Lots of people made money due to the crash, including me. My husband and I invested in our brother in law's flipping of houses that were foreclosed upon. I guess according to the Bankruptcy queen, I should have stayed at home and wrung my hands and complained about being a victim.

I would note that there is a difference between taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to you and celebrating that fact publicly.

With that said, if I were in Trump's position and specifically (at least if I understand the story correctly) if I were talking to a group of a individuals that I wanted to encourage into investing and trying to make money, I would likely claim that I was excited as well. It is a sales pitch more than anything else.

But this is a politics. It is all about the optics of the fact. And the optics of the fact is that Trump publicly celebrated and said he was excited about the financial destruction of millions of Americans.

 

[MrT]

Obama is a perfect example of a President that lives in the world of theory.

He read all the texts and and was very well book-smart however he had no real life experience or "street smarts" and was well, made a fool as a president.

Interesting analysis considering the economic, domestic, and international indicators are all significantly improved over the time that he took office.

Obama on the other hand has negotiated with desperate terrorists organizations and has even failed in that losing several bargaining chips for a traitor and a couple of oreos.

Donald Trump said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un - the leader of the single most desperate terrorist organization in the world. Similarly, Obama managed to secure the first international agreement with Iran in more than 40 years as well as international agreements with Cuba and deals regarding climate change.

Donald Trump has negotiated several great deals.

Yes, like Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, and Trump Magazine.

NONE of which are located on this stage despite Trump's declarations to the contrary.

 

[MrT]

That is your own bias speaking.
When you actually examine this issue, yes they do.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[TheGoverness]

That is your own bias speaking.
When you actually examine this issue, yes they do.

That's ironic as **** coming from you.

 

[justabubba]

Does anybody give a **** what Warren says about anybody?

they care so little that they post about it on a political forum

 

[justabubba]

"Small, insecure moneygrubber"? Petty.

The market crash was a terrible thing for most of us. That said, anyone who wouldn't jump at the prospect of making money for himself is a fool. I don't discount Trump for wanting to make money. So what? At least he's honest. Lots of people made money due to the crash, including me. My husband and I invested in our brother in law's flipping of houses that were foreclosed upon. I guess according to the Bankruptcy queen, I should have stayed at home and wrung my hands and complained about being a victim.

ok, then he's an honest, small, insecure moneygrubber

 

[justabubba]

some of the most fun of the campaign has been watching Elizabeth Warren decimate tRump in their twitter war

here is my favorite:

"There's more enthusiasm for @realDonaldTrump among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls."

lots more here:
Elizabeth Warren gives Trump a dose of his own medicine on Twitter - CNNPolitics.com

Warren2020

 

[jamesrage]

I really love Warren for handling these types of attacks. For starters, it allows a Presidential candidate like Sanders or Clinton to remain Presidential, which is something that Donald Trump only believes he can do because he is an egomaniacal asshole that claims an ability to do anything and everything better than anyone who has ever lived. Additionally, she is largely a target that has so far escaped any significant negative branding. Donald Trump has responded to Warren's attacks by calling her "goofy" and by trying to re-hash a 2012 controversy related to her alleged native American history. I don't see either having the same type of punch as the ones that Warren continues to lob against Donald, like these gems:



Elizabeth Warren escalates attack on 'small, insecure' Trump - POLITICO

Is it possible that Warren's combination of providing unity within the democratic party and her ability to act as an attack dog during the campaign could lead us to have an all-female democratic ticket?

She is certainly making that argument hard to ignore.

But offense to libs but Fauxchontas IE chief sitting bull**** is the last person Clinton should use to attack Trump.It would be like conservatives making big deal out Alex Jones attacking Clinton.

 

[Bucky]

Interesting analysis considering the economic, domestic, and international indicators are all significantly improved over the time that he took office.

Donald Trump said that he would talk to Kim Jong Un - the leader of the single most desperate terrorist organization in the world. Similarly, Obama managed to secure the first international agreement with Iran in more than 40 years as well as international agreements with Cuba and deals regarding climate change.

Yes, like Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, and Trump Magazine.

NONE of which are located on this stage despite Trump's declarations to the contrary.

A few interesting observations.

First off, defending the Iran deal as an "accomplishment" for the Obama administration is hilarious considering Iran isn't even abiding by the terms set forth. We gave a terrorist state how many millions of dollars? That deal will go down as one of the worst deals in the history of the United States.

It would be a start to begin negotiating with North Korea. You have a leader in Kim Jong un that has been pleading with Obama for him to call and Obama has refused.

Amazing how liberals can spin a negative into a positive. The Cuba trip was an embarrassing footnote for the Obama administration. These climate change agreements simply hurt our interest. Not help.

 

[justabubba]

A few interesting observations.

First off, defending the Iran deal as an "accomplishment" for the Obama administration is hilarious considering Iran isn't even abiding by the terms set forth. We gave a terrorist state how many millions of dollars? That deal will go down as one of the worst deals in the history of the United States.

It would be a start to begin negotiating with North Korea. You have a leader in Kim Jong un that has been pleading with Obama for him to call and Obama has refused.

Amazing how liberals can spin a negative into a positive. The Cuba trip was an embarrassing footnote for the Obama administration. These climate change agreements simply hurt our interest. Not help.

what part of the iran deal is iran not meeting?

 

[Bucky]

what part of the iran deal is iran not meeting?

I'll provide a thorough analysis soon. I'm headed to a meeting.