Home | About | Donate

Turns Out Most People Don't Want to Give Their Business To A Small Insecure Money-Grubber


Turns Out Most People Don't Want to Give Their Business To A Small Insecure Money-Grubber

Savagely telling it like it is, our favorite woman warrior Elizabeth Warren shredded the presumptive Drumpf this week, citing his infamous 2007 "drooling over the idea of a housing meltdown" as he smelled profits, asking, "what kind of a man" roots for people to lose their homes and jobs, and righteously answering, “A small, insecure money-grubber who doesn’t care who gets hurt, so long as he makes some money off it." Except now that he's out and loud and boorish for all to see, he isn't: Bookings are down about 60% at his pseudo-glitzy hotels.


"our favorite woman warrior Elizabeth Warren" You mean the one who won't support Bernie, who never veers from supporting Israel's cruel, illegal policies and acts?


Now that's REALITY (ala TV) for ya! Cheeto's popularity proves that "there is a fool born every minute" and that "ignorance is bliss." First prez candidate ever to NOT release tax returns, spouts unbridled misogyn/zenophobia, follows the will of the wisp changing course based on what's trending, he and his financial ventures have bankrupted more than seven times, married four (or more?) times, etc. Hey, what's not to like?

Simply and tragically amazing but not surprising considering that the nation was hoodwinked by hanging chads, SCOTUS and the like thus bringing a fool into the highest office in the land:
GWB for eight miserable years, no less.

This quote from Benjamin Franklin sums up the character of the orange man:

"He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money."


Her Net Worth is estimated at between 3 and 10 million dollars. Certainly no Donald Trump but hardly working class.


US economic history consists of a series of booms and busts from 1776 through 1929, characterized by bubbles, followed by what were called "panics" in each decade (panics were recessions and depressions). More fortunes were made during that era by capitalists engaging in securities fraud and buying assets low during the panics than were made by bricks and mortar industrialists who actually created something. The bubble/panic cycle provided opportunities that enabled the robber barons and the gilded age.

FDR's New Deal regulations limited the opportunities for fraud and bubbles, thereby buffering the downturns in the business cycle, ending panics and limiting opportunities for capitalists to buy assets low..

As the corporations and the politicians they own started dismantling the New Deal regulations, bubbles and recessions returned. No politicians have been more instrumental in that dismantling than the Clintons,

Trump is simply articulating what capitalists have always done when the opportunity is available. Warren has conveniently overlooked Clinton's role in making the opportunity available to Trump.


I've been a fan of EZ for years; amazing person. But I'm curious about the level of vehement argument against the Donald. He's no worse than most of the available candidates, but much more coarse. Is coarseness a valid argument against him? He's implied a more sensible war policy, and questioned trade agreements - both frightening the military industrial folks and the neocons military agressiveness who are all shoveling $ at HC (one of the dem's resident neocons). Coincidence?