Sen. Elizabeth Warren

[Pete7469]

She's as phony as they get. Her primary accomplishment in life is being a fake Indian and a fake lawyer. Here answer to every problem is simple - redistribute the wealth and punish success at every level.

She's a great candidate. I hope she challenges Hillary for the Democrat nomination. Between Biden, Sanders, Warren, traumatic brain injured Hillary, and the various moonbats that will crawl out of the woodwork between now and then, the DNC debates will be highly entertaining.

I am not looking forward to that. Even the soundbytes on news blurbs will be painfully insipid. I won't subject myself to such trauma.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"As a child in small-town Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren yearned to go to college and then become an elementary school teacher—an ambitious goal, given her family’s modest means. Early marriage and motherhood seemed to put even that dream out of reach, but fifteen years later she was a distinguished law professor with a deep understanding of why people go bankrupt. Then came the phone call that changed her life: could she come to Washington DC to help advise Congress on rewriting the bankruptcy laws?

Thus began an impolite education into the bare-knuckled, often dysfunctional ways of Washington. She fought for better bankruptcy laws for ten years and lost. She tried to hold the federal government accountable during the financial crisis but became a target of the big banks. She came up with the idea for a new agency designed to protect consumers from predatory bankers and was denied the opportunity to run it. Finally, at age 62, she decided to run for elective office and won the most competitive—and watched—Senate race in the country.

In this passionate, funny, rabble-rousing book, Warren shows why she has chosen to fight tooth and nail for the middle class—and why she has become a hero to all those who believe that America’s government can and must do better for working families."

A Fighting Chance: Elizabeth Warren: 9781627790529: Amazon.com: Books

Interiew on PBS: Sen. Warren on ?A Fighting Chance? for every American

And now the stupidest among us can replay Native American jokes since they have no ability to counter Sen. Warren's words.

Elizabeth Warren could and WOULD promote the kind of public policies that would do far more to help poor and middle class White conservatives in terms of education, job training, and economic opportunity than all the conservative politicians put together. That means that she's a threat to politically conservative hegemony in the red states. Consequently, I think it's a forgone conclusion that she will be portrayed as a communist and worse.

I keep waiting for middle class conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee, but it's like trying to rouse a person who's in a coma. Some conservatives don't seem to grasp the concept that the rich get richer off the cheap labor of the poor and the favorable policies of the state gov'ts toward the wealthy which the wealthy pay for with campaign contributions. Yet these people keep supporting politicians who essentially give away the rights to natural resource exploitation to well-connected business interests for next to nothing and who also support policies that only serve to hobble the average person when it comes to moving up and out of the economically poorer strata of society like generations of Americans have previously been able to do far easier than can be done today.

yes, the "socialist and/or commie" slurs have been around for a long time. And for some, they never seem to get old. I'm fairly conservative economically (if paying your bills and not running up debt is a "conservative" position) so I'd be interested in seeing if any of her positions are too far left for me.

 

[zeke]

She wants to tax the rich more for roads and bridges. As if the rich are the only ones who use roads and bridges.

Simple as that.

A progressive income tax (which I favor) does just that. So her advocating a progressive tax system isn't a deal breaker for me.

We already have a progressive tax system. She wants MORE from the rich.

I'm perfectly okay with a progressive tax system. That is what Thomas Jefferson himself advocated.

There are progressive taxes, and then there are punitive taxes. Warren feeds into the mentality that all rich people's money are ill-gotten gains and are therefore pilferable. This is how they allay their guilty consciences. They have to justify in their minds that what they are stealing belongs to them.

Not sure why this is such a problem for you.

Yep more people than just the rich use the bridges and roads (from your analogy) and we all pay taxes of some sort to support roads and bridges. Unfortunately our roads and bridges need a lot of money spent to repair them.

Government only has one income stream; taxes.

If the government funds the repairs, it needs to pay for them.

Could raise taxes on the middle class. There are more of us using the roads and bridges.
But us middle class folk have been a little strapped for cash for some reason lately.

So why not tax the people that have seen great gains in income and wealth? Those very very rich people.

Why do you think that such a strange idea?

 

[bedowin62]

A progressive income tax (which I favor) does just that. So her advocating a progressive tax system isn't a deal breaker for me.

We already have a progressive tax system. She wants MORE from the rich.

I'm perfectly okay with a progressive tax system. That is what Thomas Jefferson himself advocated.

There are progressive taxes, and then there are punitive taxes. Warren feeds into the mentality that all rich people's money are ill-gotten gains and are therefore pilferable. This is how they allay their guilty consciences. They have to justify in their minds that what they are stealing belongs to them.

Not sure why this is such a problem for you.

Yep more people than just the rich use the bridges and roads (from your analogy) and we all pay taxes of some sort to support roads and bridges. Unfortunately our roads and bridges need a lot of money spent to repair them.

Government only has one income stream; taxes.

If the government funds the repairs, it needs to pay for them.

Could raise taxes on the middle class. There are more of us using the roads and bridges.
But us middle class folk have been a little strapped for cash for some reason lately.

So why not tax the people that have seen great gains in income and wealth? Those very very rich people.

Why do you think that such a strange idea?

well for one genius we already have a federal fuel tax that is supposed to pay for infrastructure

 

[g5000]

A progressive income tax (which I favor) does just that. So her advocating a progressive tax system isn't a deal breaker for me.

We already have a progressive tax system. She wants MORE from the rich.

I'm perfectly okay with a progressive tax system. That is what Thomas Jefferson himself advocated.

There are progressive taxes, and then there are punitive taxes. Warren feeds into the mentality that all rich people's money are ill-gotten gains and are therefore pilferable. This is how they allay their guilty consciences. They have to justify in their minds that what they are stealing belongs to them.

Not sure why this is such a problem for you.

Yep more people than just the rich use the bridges and roads (from your analogy) and we all pay taxes of some sort to support roads and bridges. Unfortunately our roads and bridges need a lot of money spent to repair them.

Government only has one income stream; taxes.

If the government funds the repairs, it needs to pay for them.

Could raise taxes on the middle class. There are more of us using the roads and bridges.
But us middle class folk have been a little strapped for cash for some reason lately.

So why not tax the people that have seen great gains in income and wealth? Those very very rich people.

Why do you think that such a strange idea?

1) Level the playing field in the markets, and the revenues would come streaming in. No need to raise taxes.

2) Ban all tax expenditures. That would level the tax playing field, and the revenues would come streaming in. In fact, we give away so many tax expenditures ($1.2 trillion a year), we could actually LOWER everyone's tax rates by bannning them. Everyone's!

3) Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. Pay five years longer into the system, take out of the system five years less. We are living way longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. Revenues would come streaming in. No need to raise taxes.

See, that's the difference between someone who knows how to increase wealth and someone who only knows how to redistribute it. Warren is a redistributor.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Which words? Where she claimed she was part Indian to get hiring preference at Harvard?
The words where she claims the deck is stacked against people while she lives in a $14M house and makes over $1M a year?
The words where she claims that business owners didnt really build their businesses?

You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to flack for that nasty lying piece of shit. But you're just the cocksucker to do it.

Exactly what I would expect ^^ from the stupidest among us. Thanks Rabbi for more evidence that you're a liar, a fool, vulgar and an asshole.

Uh while uoure a hyper partisan that never looks at a democrat with a critical eye, what did he say that was false?

 

[Pete7469]

We already have a progressive tax system. She wants MORE from the rich.

I'm perfectly okay with a progressive tax system. That is what Thomas Jefferson himself advocated.

There are progressive taxes, and then there are punitive taxes. Warren feeds into the mentality that all rich people's money are ill-gotten gains and are therefore pilferable. This is how they allay their guilty consciences. They have to justify in their minds that what they are stealing belongs to them.

Not sure why this is such a problem for you.

Yep more people than just the rich use the bridges and roads (from your analogy) and we all pay taxes of some sort to support roads and bridges. Unfortunately our roads and bridges need a lot of money spent to repair them.

Government only has one income stream; taxes.

If the government funds the repairs, it needs to pay for them.

Could raise taxes on the middle class. There are more of us using the roads and bridges.
But us middle class folk have been a little strapped for cash for some reason lately.

So why not tax the people that have seen great gains in income and wealth? Those very very rich people.

Why do you think that such a strange idea?

well for one genius we already have a federal fuel tax that is supposed to pay for infrastructure

Never mind how much money the government wastes. Bed wetters whine about "middle class taxpayers" being a little strapped for cash lately without considering what people do when they're a little strapped for cash.

They spend what they have more frugally.

God Forbid the government do so.

 

[g5000]

We are paying into Social Security for the same number of years as our ancestors did. But we are drawing out for decades longer than they did.

This is beyond ridiculous. We need to pay in at least five years longer and draw out five years less.

5.4% of the population was over 65 in 1935 when SS was created. Today, that figure is 13.1%.

Common sense.

 

[g5000]

Not sure why this is such a problem for you.

Yep more people than just the rich use the bridges and roads (from your analogy) and we all pay taxes of some sort to support roads and bridges. Unfortunately our roads and bridges need a lot of money spent to repair them.

Government only has one income stream; taxes.

If the government funds the repairs, it needs to pay for them.

Could raise taxes on the middle class. There are more of us using the roads and bridges.
But us middle class folk have been a little strapped for cash for some reason lately.

So why not tax the people that have seen great gains in income and wealth? Those very very rich people.

Why do you think that such a strange idea?

well for one genius we already have a federal fuel tax that is supposed to pay for infrastructure

Never mind how much money the government wastes. Bed wetters whine about "middle class taxpayers" being a little strapped for cash lately without considering what people do when they're a little strapped for cash.

They spend what they have more frugally.

God Forbid the government do so.

Precisely!

The government has expanded its scope and size astronomically. Gee, I wonder why it keeps running out of money as we keep giving it more power and responsibilities?

Hmmm...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Mother Jones is not exactly an unbiased source.

As for the article about the 10 things the CFPB has done, most of that is bullshit. Foreclosures are up. And did you look at those paltry amounts the fines have been? It's a speeding ticket.

But like I said, I strongly believe in a level playing field. Unfortunately, the "reforms" that have been enacted have not even come close to achieving that. Reform was not just suffocated in the crib, it was gutted and eaten.

"Mother Jones" leans left, the posts above attacking Sen. Warren are not fair or balanced, are they?

Reform requires reformers and a willingness to compromise for the benefit of the many. Real Breaking News is when a member of the H. of Rep. Republican Caucus doesn't vote in lock-step.

lock-step


comical; there is much more diversity of opinion in the Republican Party


libs are losers who lie to themselves

You really are a fool. The members of the Republican caucus all dress alike (up to their ties) and all use the same words on the same day during their news conferences. Stepford Wives were more diverse.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which words? Where she claimed she was part Indian to get hiring preference at Harvard?
The words where she claims the deck is stacked against people while she lives in a $14M house and makes over $1M a year?
The words where she claims that business owners didnt really build their businesses?

You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to flack for that nasty lying piece of shit. But you're just the cocksucker to do it.

Exactly what I would expect ^^ from the stupidest among us. Thanks Rabbi for more evidence that you're a liar, a fool, vulgar and an asshole.

Uh while uoure a hyper partisan that never looks at a democrat with a critical eye, what did he say that was false?

Nothing. She did actually say those things and the facts are as I presented them. But those are inconvenient truths to a cocksucker like Cumcatcher. So he has to deflect clumsily by calling people names.
I dont know what is so attractive about a privileged white woman lawyer making tons of money preaching that middle class people are being screwed by the wealthy elites.
Then again I failed to see the attraction of Obama.

 

[buckeye45_73]

"Mother Jones" leans left, the posts above attacking Sen. Warren are not fair or balanced, are they?

Reform requires reformers and a willingness to compromise for the benefit of the many. Real Breaking News is when a member of the H. of Rep. Republican Caucus doesn't vote in lock-step.

lock-step


comical; there is much more diversity of opinion in the Republican Party


libs are losers who lie to themselves

You really are a fool. The members of the Republican caucus all dress alike (up to their ties) and all use the same words on the same day during their news conferences. Stepford Wives were more diverse.

Wow you really missed the point. To liberals it's all about appearance, but lets look at that for a sec. Do liberals not wear normal suits as well? Or are you talking about Barney Frank adds diversity with his lavender handkerchief?



I think he really meant in terms of policy and belief. Liberals have to be abortion loving commies. I notice all their groups believe the same thing on every issue and will not endorse republicans at all, even if they believe the same stuff.

 

[g5000]

lock-step


comical; there is much more diversity of opinion in the Republican Party


libs are losers who lie to themselves

You really are a fool. The members of the Republican caucus all dress alike (up to their ties) and all use the same words on the same day during their news conferences. Stepford Wives were more diverse.

Wow you really missed the point. To liberals it's all about appearance, but lets look at that for a sec. Do liberals not wear normal suits as well? Or are you talking about Barney Frank adds diversity with his lavender handkerchief?



I think he really meant in terms of policy and belief. Liberals have to be abortion loving commies. I notice all their groups believe the same thing on every issue and will not endorse republicans at all, even if they believe the same stuff.

There are pro-gun Democrats. Quite a few.

There are also pro-life Democrats.

 

[g5000]

Senators Casey, Manchin, and Donnelly are all pro-life. And all Democrats.

Democrats For Life of America

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seriously? Here's an example: ObamaCare. Obama's signature achievement. Forcing healthy people to buy health insurance so they can overpay in order to offset the subsidies which support health insurance for high school dropouts.

And look at all the increased taxes in ObamaCare which are there to pay for those subsidies.

That's wealth redistribution.

It's also socialism since the State is taking over the production of health care. It now acts as gatekeeper to your access to health care, and determines how much and what kind of insurance you must have, and how much your employer must give you, and how much profit the insurance corporations are allowed to make!

And Warren and her ilk are right there, cheering this on.

mmm, do you support those who do not buy auto insurance since they have never had an accident a good policy? Or believe we should all wait until we suffer a heart attack or cancer before we try to buy health insurance? Was the previous system better, when the tax payers subsidized the uninsured by providing them health care in emergency rooms and public hospitals?

I see what you are doing there. Allow me to unpack your argument.

1) I can buy auto insurance from any auto insurance company in America. I can also choose what kind of coverage I want. These two things give me tremendous bargaining leverage.

My employer does not subsidize my auto insurance, and so I do not lose my auto insurance if I change jobs. I can keep the same auto insurance for decades and receive big discounts for doing so. I can also bundle my various insurance policies, and get even more discounts.

Another benefit of not having my employer subsidize my auto insurance is that I am not held hostage as to what auto insurance plan I have to accept. If my employer were to subsidize my auto insurance, they would be able to buy it from any insurerer in the country, and therefore would have quite a lot of bargaining leverage with the insurance companies.

What's more, the goverment does not provide auto insurance for the poor or the elderly. The government is not the biggest player in the auto insurance market, not even a big player, and therefore is not tying its competitors hands by writing the rules which create a playing field to its advantage to everyone else's disadvantage.

Is ANY of this true for health insurance?

Nope.

2) I would like to see evidence that the voluntarily uninsured are a net negative cost to our health care system.

You won't find any.

The Left is positively schizophrenic when it comes to the voluntarily uninsured. When the Left is exhibiting Split Personality A, they call the voluntarily uninsured "freeloaders" without providing any evidence they are a net negative. When the Left is exhibiting Split Personality B, they are demanding the voluntarily uinsured buy insurance because their money is needed for OTHER PEOPLE, which is clearly proof they are a NET POSITIVE.

This extra money being taken from the voluntarily uninsured will be going to the involuntarily uninsured, one third of whom are high school dropouts. THERE are your freeloaders! ObamaCare is all about wealth redistribution of the very worst sort.

3) The "previous system" was very bad. It definitely needed reform. It needs the reforms I touched on in 1). As for emergency rooms, the taxpayers only paid about $50 billion a year toward ER care for the indigent. Out of a total $2.4 trillion spent on healthcare each year in America.

You offer a good argument as do most sophists. The practical application of what you wrote does not offer a solution to the problem of health care in America. What existed before the PPACA didn't work for too many Americans; the problem with the PPACA began with the all out effort to prevent reform and the continued efforts to prevent reform by those who profit by what came before and those who represent them.

No one seems to be looking for a win-win solution to Health Care in America, for the GOP it is a zero sum game (and I hope they lose) and for the supporters of Obamacare we see a lack of courage.

Go to any hospital and watch what goes on. In every case an open eyed observer will see RN's providing care to patients - for example, asking the patients pain level, taking the patients blood pressure and checking fluids - much of which is routine and takes little more than 5-minutes. Then the RN become an account clerk, spending two or three times as long coding what s/he had done and justifying why it was necessary.

The problem with health care and The Congress is systemic, and those who benefit from the status quo will continue to roadblock all efforts to create viable, fair and working systems.

 

[The Rabbi]

You really are a fool. The members of the Republican caucus all dress alike (up to their ties) and all use the same words on the same day during their news conferences. Stepford Wives were more diverse.

Wow you really missed the point. To liberals it's all about appearance, but lets look at that for a sec. Do liberals not wear normal suits as well? Or are you talking about Barney Frank adds diversity with his lavender handkerchief?



I think he really meant in terms of policy and belief. Liberals have to be abortion loving commies. I notice all their groups believe the same thing on every issue and will not endorse republicans at all, even if they believe the same stuff.

There are pro-gun Democrats. Quite a few.

There are also pro-life Democrats.

And we see how much power the pro life Dems had during Obamacare when they were bought off so easily with the promise of a presidential signing order.

 

[g5000]

mmm, do you support those who do not buy auto insurance since they have never had an accident a good policy? Or believe we should all wait until we suffer a heart attack or cancer before we try to buy health insurance? Was the previous system better, when the tax payers subsidized the uninsured by providing them health care in emergency rooms and public hospitals?

I see what you are doing there. Allow me to unpack your argument.

1) I can buy auto insurance from any auto insurance company in America. I can also choose what kind of coverage I want. These two things give me tremendous bargaining leverage.

My employer does not subsidize my auto insurance, and so I do not lose my auto insurance if I change jobs. I can keep the same auto insurance for decades and receive big discounts for doing so. I can also bundle my various insurance policies, and get even more discounts.

Another benefit of not having my employer subsidize my auto insurance is that I am not held hostage as to what auto insurance plan I have to accept. If my employer were to subsidize my auto insurance, they would be able to buy it from any insurerer in the country, and therefore would have quite a lot of bargaining leverage with the insurance companies.

What's more, the goverment does not provide auto insurance for the poor or the elderly. The government is not the biggest player in the auto insurance market, not even a big player, and therefore is not tying its competitors hands by writing the rules which create a playing field to its advantage to everyone else's disadvantage.

Is ANY of this true for health insurance?

Nope.

2) I would like to see evidence that the voluntarily uninsured are a net negative cost to our health care system.

You won't find any.

The Left is positively schizophrenic when it comes to the voluntarily uninsured. When the Left is exhibiting Split Personality A, they call the voluntarily uninsured "freeloaders" without providing any evidence they are a net negative. When the Left is exhibiting Split Personality B, they are demanding the voluntarily uinsured buy insurance because their money is needed for OTHER PEOPLE, which is clearly proof they are a NET POSITIVE.

This extra money being taken from the voluntarily uninsured will be going to the involuntarily uninsured, one third of whom are high school dropouts. THERE are your freeloaders! ObamaCare is all about wealth redistribution of the very worst sort.

3) The "previous system" was very bad. It definitely needed reform. It needs the reforms I touched on in 1). As for emergency rooms, the taxpayers only paid about $50 billion a year toward ER care for the indigent. Out of a total $2.4 trillion spent on healthcare each year in America.

You offer a good argument as do most sophists. The practical application of what you wrote does not offer a solution to the problem of health care in America. What existed before the PPACA didn't work for too many Americans; the problem with the PPACA began with the all out effort to prevent reform and the continued efforts to prevent reform by those who profit by what came before and those who represent them.

No one seems to be looking for a win-win solution to Health Care in America, for the GOP it is a zero sum game (and I hope they lose) and for the supporters of Obamacare we see a lack of courage.

Go to any hospital and watch what goes on. In every case an open eyed observer will see RN's providing care to patients - for example, asking the patients pain level, taking the patients blood pressure and checking fluids - much of which is routine and takes little more than 5-minutes. Then the RN become an account clerk, spending two or three times as long coding what s/he had done and justifying why it was necessary.

The problem with health care and The Congress is systemic, and those who benefit from the status quo will continue to roadblock all efforts to create a viable, fair and working system.

I don't know how you have missed all my posts on this forum kicking the GOP in the nuts for doing nothing to reform healthcare when they had all the power.

I have said many times the GOP sold the American people down the river on health care. The Democrats telegraphed for a very long time what they would do if given the chance, and the GOP did nothing to counter them. Nothing.

I am just as angry at the GOP for its ineptitude and cowardice as I am at the Democratic Party for its socialistic tendencies.

 

[ron4342]

.

She would be a very formidable national candidate.

She's very passionate, she keeps her messaging extremely simple/simplistic, and she's absolutely committed to turning America into a European-style social democracy, roughly two or three steps to the left of modern-day France.

The GOP should be concerned about her, and they could definitely learn from her messaging style.

.

Whoaaaa! Your feeling this strongly about her has convinced me to give her my vote.

 

[buckeye45_73]

mmm, do you support those who do not buy auto insurance since they have never had an accident a good policy? Or believe we should all wait until we suffer a heart attack or cancer before we try to buy health insurance? Was the previous system better, when the tax payers subsidized the uninsured by providing them health care in emergency rooms and public hospitals?

I see what you are doing there. Allow me to unpack your argument.

1) I can buy auto insurance from any auto insurance company in America. I can also choose what kind of coverage I want. These two things give me tremendous bargaining leverage.

My employer does not subsidize my auto insurance, and so I do not lose my auto insurance if I change jobs. I can keep the same auto insurance for decades and receive big discounts for doing so. I can also bundle my various insurance policies, and get even more discounts.

Another benefit of not having my employer subsidize my auto insurance is that I am not held hostage as to what auto insurance plan I have to accept. If my employer were to subsidize my auto insurance, they would be able to buy it from any insurerer in the country, and therefore would have quite a lot of bargaining leverage with the insurance companies.

What's more, the goverment does not provide auto insurance for the poor or the elderly. The government is not the biggest player in the auto insurance market, not even a big player, and therefore is not tying its competitors hands by writing the rules which create a playing field to its advantage to everyone else's disadvantage.

Is ANY of this true for health insurance?

Nope.

2) I would like to see evidence that the voluntarily uninsured are a net negative cost to our health care system.

You won't find any.

The Left is positively schizophrenic when it comes to the voluntarily uninsured. When the Left is exhibiting Split Personality A, they call the voluntarily uninsured "freeloaders" without providing any evidence they are a net negative. When the Left is exhibiting Split Personality B, they are demanding the voluntarily uinsured buy insurance because their money is needed for OTHER PEOPLE, which is clearly proof they are a NET POSITIVE.

This extra money being taken from the voluntarily uninsured will be going to the involuntarily uninsured, one third of whom are high school dropouts. THERE are your freeloaders! ObamaCare is all about wealth redistribution of the very worst sort.

3) The "previous system" was very bad. It definitely needed reform. It needs the reforms I touched on in 1). As for emergency rooms, the taxpayers only paid about $50 billion a year toward ER care for the indigent. Out of a total $2.4 trillion spent on healthcare each year in America.

You offer a good argument as do most sophists. The practical application of what you wrote does not offer a solution to the problem of health care in America. What existed before the PPACA didn't work for too many Americans; the problem with the PPACA began with the all out effort to prevent reform and the continued efforts to prevent reform by those who profit by what came before and those who represent them.

No one seems to be looking for a win-win solution to Health Care in America, for the GOP it is a zero sum game (and I hope they lose) and for the supporters of Obamacare we see a lack of courage.

Go to any hospital and watch what goes on. In every case an open eyed observer will see RN's providing care to patients - for example, asking the patients pain level, taking the patients blood pressure and checking fluids - much of which is routine and takes little more than 5-minutes. Then the RN become an account clerk, spending two or three times as long coding what s/he had done and justifying why it was necessary.

The problem with health care and The Congress is systemic, and those who benefit from the status quo will continue to roadblock all efforts to create viable, fair and working systems.

yeah yeah, we know you want single payer, because youre a fucking idiot.

so what is your point? Are the nurses doing stuff doctors should do? Or is it about the accounting? In that case is your problem with who does the accounting or that it's done in the first place?

 

[g5000]

Warren is Plan B. If the pschopaths on the Right manage to take down Hillary with a tsunami of manufactured bullshit, the Democrats will haul out Warren.

Joe Biden is having nightmares. "How do I destroy these two women without coming across like a misogynist?"