Skip to content

Elizabeth Warren on Donald Trump

You’ve probably heard a few sound bites from this speech, but likely nothing from the most important part. Trump claims that he can’t be bought, but now that he is the presumptive Republican nominee, he has pivoted and is now begging for money from the same Wall Street bankers who already own our political system (especially because of Citizens United). I guess Trump didn’t have to be bought, because he was already a cheerleader for the rich and powerful.

Need proof? Trump has already promised to dismantle Dodd-Frank. That’s right, he wants to take us back to the situation that caused the economic collapse of 2008 — the biggest recession since the Great Depression. And why shouldn’t he? He’s already bragged that he made lots of money during that time buying up property on the cheap.

So when Trump makes bad business decisions, he declares bankruptcy and leaves the rest of us holding the bag. And when the economy goes south, he makes lots of money. For Donald Trump, it may be win-win, but for the rest of us it is lose-lose. Will we ever learn?



  1. Hassan wrote:

    Elizabeth Warren is gutless, coward and hypocrite (perhaps corrupt as well). I really liked and respected her when she was running for senate and when she got there. I am as conservative as it can get, but I love people of principles and convictions no matter how opposite they are from mine.

    Yet she did not have courage to stand up to Hillary and endorse Bernie before Massachusetts primary to help him win. I guess she is sexist as she preferred a corrupt woman over a man whom she agrees with. Or may be it was political corruption and becoming part of establishment. Whatever it is, she is coward and hypocrite. She should talk about herself and Hillary before she can talk about an easy target (Trump).

    Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:30 am | Permalink
  2. Ralph wrote:

    Hassan – in a retort to the video you posted, Clinton recently explained to George Stephanopoulos that the original financial (de)regulation bill, the one that Warren describes to Moyers in your video clip (tightening bankruptcy rules on credit cards for the middle class and thus favoring Wall St.) and which, after meeting with Warren, Hillary lobbied Bill to veto (which he did) was one that was later modified to a version that Hillary then voted for as Senator, arguing that such restrictions would help defend single mothers from ex-husbands nefariously using the existing, less restrictive, bankruptcy rules to avoid child support payments. In the end, that bill also failed to pass.

    So this is the nature of our political system. Bills coming to the Senate and House floors for a vote are very often a complex mish-mash, loaded with various riders and amendments (ie. pork) favored by this or that congressman, and may even contradict or be entirely unrelated to the original intent of the bill, and so often make voting for or against a “damn if you do, damn if you don’t proposition”. This is why line-item veto has long been a desire for Presidents (and rejected by Congress for obvious reasons of power politics). So it’s fairly easy for anyone to slam an opponent on this or that vote they may make on pending legislation.

    Hillary, and perhaps Warren in certain respects, may hardly be as pure as the driven snow. After all, politics is hardball and she’s not at Harvard anymore, but I’m not seeing either (and esp. Warren) as the “gutless, coward, and hypocrite” that you seem to ascribe to them. Warren’s reluctance to endorse either candidate before the Mass primary, and even up to the present, could just as easily be interpreted as wishing to appear neutral in a tight race that is, at long last, now all but decided. She may be hedging, but that is a far cry from corrupt. IMHO, she has more integrity and smarts than anyone on the political scene in recent history. We need more like her in DC.

    Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 9:27 am | Permalink
  3. Joe Blow wrote:

    What if Warren supports a woman candidate because that’s the way her principles and convictions are.

    Unless you’re incredibly hypocritical you’d have to support that.

    Friday, May 27, 2016 at 2:48 am | Permalink
  4. Wildwood wrote:

    Warren needs to be able to work with both of them, so I think taking a middle ground is politically wise. I suspect she is like me, ether Sanders or Clinton is fine with her. She is far from the gutless, hypocrite that you suggest.

    Clinton is no more corrupt than most of Congress or most of our past presidents. If you can not bring yourself to vote for a corrupt person then you should vote for yourself. I realize that who I pick probably has done things I would not like, but it always boils down to who can move things in the direction I want them to go. And compared to Trump she will have go a long way to match his level of corruption.

    Trump seems to slough off his many disgraceful actions. Why is there no talk about his probable connections to the mob? Why did one wife accuse him of rape and then recant? Why is he seldom confronted with his constant barrage of lies he tells? Why is not more made of his frequently contradictory statements? I have noticed several times that someone will come out with something they say he did and a week later take it all back. Are they being threatened? Paid off? Both? You worried about corruption, try looking under a few Trump rocks.

    Friday, May 27, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink
  5. Hassan wrote:

    WILDWOOD, is Bernie corrupt? Trump is known asshole

    Friday, May 27, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink
  6. Iron Knee wrote:

    Hassan, like it or not Sanders does not have the popular votes nor the pledged delegates to be the Democratic nominee. You seem to think Clinton is corrupt, but you (and Carter) admit that Trump is far far more corrupt. So the issue now is, how can we stop Trump? Attacking Clinton will not help Sanders win the nomination, it will only help Trump.

    Read this:
    Washington is one of the few states that holds both a caucus and a primary. As usual, not that many people showed up for the caucus, and Sanders won by 46 points. But this week (on Tuesday) Washington held a primary, and more than three times as many people voted. The result? Clinton won by around 6%. The same thing happened in Nebraska (Clinton lost the caucus by 14 point, and won the primary by 7 points).

    The only reason Sanders hasn’t been humiliated out of the race is because of the states that hold a caucus instead of a primary. And it wouldn’t even matter if all of those primaries were open — Sanders would still lose big. The bottom line is “Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.”

    Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:30 pm | Permalink
  7. Wildwood wrote:

    Hassan, Sanders is the least corrupt, but I don’t think he is perfect either. I would be happy to vote for him, but that is very unlikely to happen.

    Friday, May 27, 2016 at 10:48 pm | Permalink