Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   It's time for an important milestone in the upcoming presidential election: Elizabeth Warren is the first candidate to strangle her campaign in its crib by announcing she's going to get money out of politics for good   (marketwatch.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Barack Obama, United States Congress, Joe Biden, Democratic Party, Supreme Court of the United States, Federal government of the United States, Vice President of the United States, President of the United States  
•       •       •

832 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Aug 2019 at 2:47 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



121 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-08-29 2:00:24 PM  
Ah yes, a classic case of killing a campaign by proposing *checks notes* incredibly popular policy.

Submitter, you are spare parts aren't ya bud.
 
2019-08-29 2:05:03 PM  
No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.
 
2019-08-29 2:08:20 PM  

Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.


Having no policy ideas until you're able to enact your policies without pushback is a great way to ensure that you're never in position to enact your policies without pushback.
 
2019-08-29 2:50:07 PM  
I'm thinking subby can't read.
 
2019-08-29 2:50:10 PM  
This headline brought to you Ernst and Young.
 
2019-08-29 2:50:12 PM  

Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.


The kind of reforms Warren is talking about are enormously popular among Conservative voters too. Maybe it's time these people had a talk with their representatives.
 
2019-08-29 2:51:03 PM  
Warren still has my vote ..
 
2019-08-29 2:51:26 PM  
No she won't.
 
2019-08-29 2:51:45 PM  

Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.


What should we do instead? Solely propose policies that can pass through a Republican Senate?
 
2019-08-29 2:53:03 PM  

Serious Black: Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.

What should we do instead? Solely propose policies that can pass through a Republican Senate?


For all the accusations of Fark's PolTab being a liberal echo chamber, there's a large number of people around here who think that's a valid idea.
 
2019-08-29 2:53:43 PM  
Just have to come up with another name for lobbyist.
He's not a lobbyist.  He's a Business Government Coordinator.  Lobbyist?  (Laughs) Oh, you know he never waits in a lobby.  Goes right in to the office.
 
2019-08-29 2:53:46 PM  

mikalmd: Warren still has my vote ..


I'm secretly rooting for her (trying to stay out of the primary side, since I'm not registered, and don't vote in primaries) if for no other reason that I want to see the re-publicans have their a**es handed to them by a girl.
 
2019-08-29 2:53:52 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Ah yes, a classic case of killing a campaign by proposing *checks notes* incredibly popular policy.

Submitter, you are spare parts aren't ya bud.


Popular with the people, but very unpopular with lobbyists.

Guess who has way more pull than the people under todays "anything goes" campaign finance regs.
 
2019-08-29 2:54:12 PM  

Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.


"Yeah, I was gonna make it into work today, but there are Republicans in the Senate, so..."


"We could perform a procedure that would save this child's life, but there are Republicans in the Senate."

Feel like Afroman can re-tool his tune to "Because there are Republicans in the Senate."
 
2019-08-29 2:54:28 PM  

A Cave Geek: since I'm not registered, and don't vote in primaries


I should amend that...not a registered partisan...of any stripe
 
2019-08-29 2:54:48 PM  

SpectroBoy: I'm thinking subby can't read.


That's being charitable. He saw the words "Elizabeth Warren" and made up the rest.
 
2019-08-29 2:54:50 PM  
We can't have money in politics and Democracy. We need to choose which one we want.

Ban lobbying.

Publicly fund elections.

Open the debates to other parties.
 
2019-08-29 2:55:25 PM  

A Cave Geek: mikalmd: Warren still has my vote ..

I'm secretly rooting for her (trying to stay out of the primary side, since I'm not registered, and don't vote in primaries) if for no other reason that I want to see the re-publicans have their a**es handed to them by a girl.


Warren v Trump in a debate would be the closest thing to porn for political junkies
 
2019-08-29 2:56:09 PM  

mikalmd: Warren still has my vote ..


yeah she is really winning me over. She has been consistent for years with her message and I haven't read her back tracking when placed in front of a crowd of rich donners.
 
2019-08-29 2:57:13 PM  

EyeballKid: Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.

"Yeah, I was gonna make it into work today, but there are Republicans in the Senate, so..."


"We could perform a procedure that would save this child's life, but there are Republicans in the Senate."

Feel like Afroman can re-tool his tune to "Because there are Republicans in the Senate."


Just stating the obvious.
 
2019-08-29 2:57:23 PM  

chewd: Popular with the people, but very unpopular with lobbyists.

Guess who has way more pull than the people under todays "anything goes" campaign finance regs.


Who give a sh*t? There's lobbyists for and against every single policy. A candidate whose policies don't piss some of them off does not exist.
 
2019-08-29 2:57:45 PM  
She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.
 
2019-08-29 2:58:57 PM  
citing the instance of Goldman Sachs GS, +2.30% paying Gary Cohn more than $250 million when he left the firm to lead President Trump's National Economic Council.

Where the Fark is my guillotine? Wait. It's the 21st Century. Where the Fark is my flying guillotine!?

/ Can haz plx?
 
2019-08-29 2:59:01 PM  

A Cave Geek: mikalmd: Warren still has my vote ..

I'm secretly rooting for her (trying to stay out of the primary side, since I'm not registered, and don't vote in primaries) if for no other reason that I want to see the re-publicans have their a**es handed to them by a girl.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-08-29 2:59:48 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-08-29 2:59:59 PM  
Let's vote her into the presidency and see if she can.

For kicks...

If she can't do it, worst case is, she is still president and Trump isn't.
 
2019-08-29 3:00:59 PM  

Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.


Sometimes by fighting and losing a battle you gain more than simply standing on the sidelines.

William Jennings Bryan's brand of populism is probably the best example of this.


/if you've never heard his speech called the "Cross of Gold", then you should do yourself a favor and listen to it.
 
2019-08-29 3:01:14 PM  

A Cave Geek: A Cave Geek: since I'm not registered, and don't vote in primaries

I should amend that...not a registered partisan...of any stripe


Have you considered changing that so you can do more than "secretly root" for her?
 
2019-08-29 3:01:40 PM  

chewd: Dusk-You-n-Me: Ah yes, a classic case of killing a campaign by proposing *checks notes* incredibly popular policy.

Submitter, you are spare parts aren't ya bud.

Popular with the people, but very unpopular with lobbyists.

Guess who has way more pull than the people under todays "anything goes" campaign finance regs.


And the people that pay those lobbyists also run the media, if they don't report on her then she may as well not exist to a large percentage of voters.
 
2019-08-29 3:02:39 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.


How do the candidates you prefer rate on soliciting support from multimillionaire donors?
 
2019-08-29 3:03:02 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.


If it's there, they're going to use it. Eliminate it, make lobbyists get real jobs, make the playing field more level.

Unless you want rich pricks to decide how you'll live your life.
 
2019-08-29 3:03:29 PM  
She also advocates "locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door" and eliminating the "golden parachutes" that companies pay some executives when they enter public service, citing the instance of Goldman Sachs paying Gary Cohn more than $250 million when he left the firm to lead President Trump's National Economic Council.

I absolutely support the policy in principle, but how would the law differentiate between a Congresscritter taking a cushy job with a fossil fuel lobby, and someone taking a legit job advocating for municipal broadband with Common Cause?
 
2019-08-29 3:04:53 PM  

Murkanen: Serious Black: Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.

What should we do instead? Solely propose policies that can pass through a Republican Senate?

For all the accusations of Fark's PolTab being a liberal echo chamber, there's a large number of people around here who think that's a valid idea.


We all seem to agree that Republicans are bad, the disagreement is whether or not Republican policies are bad. The "moderates" around here don't mind Republican policies so much as the fact that the wrong team is winning when Republicans win.
 
2019-08-29 3:05:19 PM  

Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

How do the candidates you prefer rate on soliciting support from multimillionaire donors?


Better question would be "have they said they wouldn't accept it and then did".
 
2019-08-29 3:06:58 PM  
What should be done : all super pacs : illegal. Giving money to politicians : illegal.

All campaigns should be financed by the state and thats it. If you take your own money or someone else money, you go to jail.
 
2019-08-29 3:07:20 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

How do the candidates you prefer rate on soliciting support from multimillionaire donors?

Better question would be "have they said they wouldn't accept it and then did".


If you rate hypocrisy as a mortal sin, sure, that would be a better question. Regardless, you haven't answered either MY question or YOUR question.
 
2019-08-29 3:08:18 PM  

A Cave Geek: A Cave Geek: since I'm not registered, and don't vote in primaries

I should amend that...not a registered partisan...of any stripe


come on over to Colorado. They let us unregistered voters vote in either party's primary (just not both).
 
2019-08-29 3:08:29 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Who give a sh*t? There's lobbyists for and against every single policy. A candidate whose policies don't piss some of them off does not exist.


Yeah, I'll wager that when youre talking about a policy that puts an end to lobbying, you will find that lobbyists are unanimously against it and any candidate who proposed it.

Good on Warren for calling attention to this problem tho.
 
2019-08-29 3:09:17 PM  
Warren proposes lifetime ban on members of Congress becoming lobbyists

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2019-08-29 3:09:50 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Ah yes, a classic case of killing a campaign by proposing *checks notes* incredibly popular policy.

Submitter, you are spare parts aren't ya bud.


I got that reference!

...allegedly
 
2019-08-29 3:10:32 PM  
Look, if you ban them from being lobbyists then the corporations and the .1% are going to have to resort to openly bribing politicians. Do you really want that?
 
2019-08-29 3:10:55 PM  

WhiskeySticks: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

If it's there, they're going to use it. Eliminate it, make lobbyists get real jobs, make the playing field more level.

Unless you want rich pricks to decide how you'll live your life.


She is literally running on platform plank of getting big money out of politics.

And then takes a check from a woman who has donated 7 million bucks to campaigns.

If she didn't campaign on that, this wouldn't be a problem. That it is, makes it her problem.

And, should she win the nom, it's going to get worse for her. I've been saying for a while that you can not run a $750m general election campaign $25, $50, $100 at a time. You just can't. And she knows it or she wouldn't have accepted that money.
 
2019-08-29 3:11:03 PM  

ursomniac: Dusk-You-n-Me: Ah yes, a classic case of killing a campaign by proposing *checks notes* incredibly popular policy.

Submitter, you are spare parts aren't ya bud.

I got that reference!

...allegedly


And that's what I appreciates about ya.
 
2019-08-29 3:11:37 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Murkanen: Serious Black: Mugato: No ones going to anything if the senate is still Republican. So it doesn't matter.

What should we do instead? Solely propose policies that can pass through a Republican Senate?

For all the accusations of Fark's PolTab being a liberal echo chamber, there's a large number of people around here who think that's a valid idea.

We all seem to agree that Republicans are bad, the disagreement is whether or not Republican policies are bad. The "moderates" around here don't mind Republican policies so much as the fact that the wrong team is winning when Republicans win.


I know I've accused Republicans of this very thing, opposing policies they previously supported because support at a given time would mean giving Democrats a win. Exhibit A: the flip-flop on whether Republicans would support a health care reform bill with an individual mandate.
 
2019-08-29 3:11:41 PM  

red230: Look, if you ban them from being lobbyists then the corporations and the .1% are going to have to resort to openly bribing politicians. Do you really want that?


Some are into public rimming.
 
2019-08-29 3:11:57 PM  

Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

How do the candidates you prefer rate on soliciting support from multimillionaire donors?

Better question would be "have they said they wouldn't accept it and then did".

If you rate hypocrisy as a mortal sin, sure, that would be a better question. Regardless, you haven't answered either MY question or YOUR question.


Biden takes it. I never said he didn't

But more importantly, he never said he wouldn't. Warren did.
 
2019-08-29 3:13:58 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

How do the candidates you prefer rate on soliciting support from multimillionaire donors?

Better question would be "have they said they wouldn't accept it and then did".

If you rate hypocrisy as a mortal sin, sure, that would be a better question. Regardless, you haven't answered either MY question or YOUR question.

Biden takes it. I never said he didn't

But more importantly, he never said he wouldn't. Warren did.


I hope none of your family and friends catch you being hypocritical.
 
2019-08-29 3:15:12 PM  

EyeballKid: "We could perform a procedure that would save this child's life, but there are Republicans in the Senate."


That is the Republican Healthcare plan.
 
2019-08-29 3:17:22 PM  

Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: Serious Black: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

How do the candidates you prefer rate on soliciting support from multimillionaire donors?

Better question would be "have they said they wouldn't accept it and then did".

If you rate hypocrisy as a mortal sin, sure, that would be a better question. Regardless, you haven't answered either MY question or YOUR question.

Biden takes it. I never said he didn't

But more importantly, he never said he wouldn't. Warren did.

I hope none of your family and friends catch you being hypocritical.


Pssst.

I'm not running for president making all sorts of promises I break.

So, there is that.
 
2019-08-29 3:17:53 PM  

Farkin_Crazy: WhiskeySticks: Farkin_Crazy: She is full of shiat.

Elizabeth Warren relied on a multimillion-dollar Democratic donor to cover the cost of an expensive voter database - a move that risks putting her campaign at odds with the spirit, if not the letter, of the pledge she made to abstain from "big money" fundraising.
In February, two months into her presidential campaign, Warren set herself apart from the rest of the Democratic field by swearing off the kind of pay-for-play fundraising that typically gives wealthy donors outsize access and influence: front-row seats at closed-door fundraisers, one-on-one-time with candidates, and private phone calls, known on campaigns as hourslong blocks of "call time" for soliciting big checks.
Warren officials said she did not violate that pledge when her campaign turned to one of California's top Democratic donors, a wealthy Silicon Valley physician named Karla Jurvetson, to help pay for access to a crucial voter database earlier this spring.

If it's there, they're going to use it. Eliminate it, make lobbyists get real jobs, make the playing field more level.

Unless you want rich pricks to decide how you'll live your life.

She is literally running on platform plank of getting big money out of politics.

And then takes a check from a woman who has donated 7 million bucks to campaigns.

If she didn't campaign on that, this wouldn't be a problem. That it is, makes it her problem.

And, should she win the nom, it's going to get worse for her. I've been saying for a while that you can not run a $750m general election campaign $25, $50, $100 at a time. You just can't. And she knows it or she wouldn't have accepted that money.


You do know that politicians tend to say one thing and do another, right? It's kind of their thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.