There is ZERO evidence it prevents anything other than common sense.
The White House tennis pro 
her.
It prevents some people’s hearts from beating, so we’ve got that going for us.
1 Like
Thank him, working hard!
A more negative person than me might suggest that that was a bribe to avoid investigation, but I think they just really really want to MAGA!
1 Like
Yeah yeah, that’s the ticket.
Fyp
2 Likes
Yes. Was in a higher paying field than retail and food service though.
2 Likes
Are you responding to something I or someone else said?
Hillary Clinton wanted to give herself the best chance by boosting Donald Trump and hoping he was the republican nominee but look how that “strategy” worked out. I’d rather not give actual nazis any money based on the “strategy” of a billionaire but that’s me
Sure but that’s not the point. The point is that these Dems keep getting attacked for taking money from a “Joe Arpaio supporter” but that’s not accurate.
3 Likes
Ahh yes the side that wants money out of politics, thought Liz was down for that too and against billionaires but hey things change I guess. I mean even without the arpaio angle people shouldn’t be okay that anti super pac Liz changed her tune after 15 million came her way lol
I’m actually more mad she took 15 million but mentioning joe arpaio tilts people so might as well throw in that tidbit
Edit: but since this Liz convo doesn’t really matter much and I think we’ve all talked about it in the primaries thread I’ll drop it because I don’t care for it much anymore
2 Likes
well for starters the quoted phrase ‘joe arpaio supporter’ doesn’t appear anywhere in this thread other than in your posts
it was ‘donor’
but please, mince words about how giving money to nazis so they can get on tv and spew their hate is good strategy and policy
big money in politics that also flows to nazis that run concentration camps is not good
I don’t think it’s a good strategy either, or at least not worth the high risk, but that is the proper context.
Saying “Joe Arpaio donor” with no context is intentional misrepresentation. It’s a device to smear Elizabeth Warren by falsely creating the impression that she’s no different from Donald Trump and is secretly very right wing, when in reality the correct takeaway is that she’s not so different from Barack Obama and is secretly not as left wing as she initially let on.
Although, the current meta among the people throwing around “Joe Arpaio donor” is that Barack Obama IS the same as Donald Trump, so at least they’re consistent.
4 Likes
the person that gave elizabeth warren is a big money donor who thinks that its a good idea to boost the message of nazis with her free money, it’s really terrible
big money in politics should be abolished, but no one cares about that any more
you’re the one making Donald Trump comparisons, not me. I’m just making some absolute statements like "No one with a soul should give money to Joe Arpaio’s campaign for any reason
If that sounds as bad as what Republicans and Trump do (Trump literally pardoned this guy), it’s because it is, not because I’m twisting words around
Maybe your point is that Barack Obama sucks shit too? I can get down with that
I can’t stress this enough, if you are a person that gives money to Joe Arpaio for any reason, you are scum of the earth. It is not defensible.
I’ll reserve my words for what I think of people who defend a person that would give money to Joe Arpaio
just can’t stop shaking my head. guys guys, she’s not a full time nazi donor, she just does it when she thinks its a good idea