I wouldn't doubt that for a second. I'm just a stickler for historical accuracy. (And besides, her *real* life -- even as short as it was -- sounds like it was *so* much more interesting than The Disney Version.)
Don't compare Warren's legal earnings with Hillary's bribe-taking.
We all KNOW that these same corporations have an agenda and have been helped before after making "donations". I know, I know, just because they provided cash and made their intent know, doesn't mean that it's a bribe. They just give money to candidates who (ahem...) might help them.
How come no one bribes gives ME money ($600,000 for a 14 minute speech)?
"And we here at Serious Journamalism Department ALSO uncovered that Elizabeth Warren refers to her work as 'practicing' law. Shouldn't a PROFESSOR of law at a top-tier school be knowledgeable enough to be beyond the 'practice' phase of her career? HUH? WHAT ABOUT THAT? HUH?"
"Remember when they spent months reporting that she had given speeches to Goldman Sachs for money!!!! -- while ignoring the part about Donald Trump getting paid $150,000 by a Ukrainian oligarch to Skype in for a 15-minute talk, and then routing the cash through his charitable foundation where it would be conveniently un-taxed?"
I certainly DO remember that.
I also remember that the role of Chief Accuser about those speeches was played by one Rudy Guiliani, a man who, at that very moment, was sometimes pulling down $300K a month giving speeches at $50K a throw.
It's a Misogynist Po-wypepo incendiary attack.How dare a woman with an office job get paid more per hour than a decent hard working Virginia coal miner man earns in a week. (sub in appropriate Trumpkin deplorable occupation that is rapidly vanishing)There is no logic to it. It does not make any sense as a criticism if you think about it. It is not aimed at thinking people.
My theory on this revolting issue is that there are some women journalists who unfortunately have bought into a sort of scarcity scenario: that is, they believe there is only a certain very limited amount of power that women are allowed to have access to in politics and politics-adjacent fields.
So when a woman comes along who looks likely to gain some of that political power, they act like someone is literally stealing their stuff, as if there are is only ten gallons of water on the life raft and Hillary or Warren or Ocasio-Cortez is using it to shampoo her hair.
It is possible to have empathy with this behavior: it's the kind of thing that people who historically have been oppressed sometimes do out of fear. Bit that doesn't excuse a mindset that repeatedly had led not only to egregious journalism but also arguably had had disastrous real-life political consequences.
I wouldn't doubt that for a second. I'm just a stickler for historical accuracy. (And besides, her *real* life -- even as short as it was -- sounds like it was *so* much more interesting than The Disney Version.)
Don't compare Warren's legal earnings with Hillary's bribe-taking.
We all KNOW that these same corporations have an agenda and have been helped before after making "donations". I know, I know, just because they provided cash and made their intent know, doesn't mean that it's a bribe. They just give money to candidates who (ahem...) might help them.
How come no one bribes gives ME money ($600,000 for a 14 minute speech)?
"And we here at Serious Journamalism Department ALSO uncovered that Elizabeth Warren refers to her work as 'practicing' law. Shouldn't a PROFESSOR of law at a top-tier school be knowledgeable enough to be beyond the 'practice' phase of her career? HUH? WHAT ABOUT THAT? HUH?"
She was supposed to be a virgin!!!
And, in this case, idiot hack woman writing these articles.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Benjamin Franklin (1776): "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
What a hysterical bitch he was.
I had a law school prof who moonlighted as a Federal District Court Judge.
I thought he was excellent in both capacities but I suppose Annie Linskey would argue otherwise (if he had been a woman, that is.)
"Remember when they spent months reporting that she had given speeches to Goldman Sachs for money!!!! -- while ignoring the part about Donald Trump getting paid $150,000 by a Ukrainian oligarch to Skype in for a 15-minute talk, and then routing the cash through his charitable foundation where it would be conveniently un-taxed?"
I certainly DO remember that.
I also remember that the role of Chief Accuser about those speeches was played by one Rudy Guiliani, a man who, at that very moment, was sometimes pulling down $300K a month giving speeches at $50K a throw.
It's a Misogynist Po-wypepo incendiary attack.How dare a woman with an office job get paid more per hour than a decent hard working Virginia coal miner man earns in a week. (sub in appropriate Trumpkin deplorable occupation that is rapidly vanishing)There is no logic to it. It does not make any sense as a criticism if you think about it. It is not aimed at thinking people.
No, they don't. What they want is for Trump to win so they can whinge again about what a lousy bunch of losers the DNC puts up.
Oh, the comments on the WaPo story itself are ragin' at them for their sexism. Which is kind of unusual, but welcome.
Not if they would smile more while they are doing it.
Don't tell Trump!
Pretty sure too many of the Trumpkins believe...
Those who can do. Those who can't Teach.They can burn in hell.
My theory on this revolting issue is that there are some women journalists who unfortunately have bought into a sort of scarcity scenario: that is, they believe there is only a certain very limited amount of power that women are allowed to have access to in politics and politics-adjacent fields.
So when a woman comes along who looks likely to gain some of that political power, they act like someone is literally stealing their stuff, as if there are is only ten gallons of water on the life raft and Hillary or Warren or Ocasio-Cortez is using it to shampoo her hair.
It is possible to have empathy with this behavior: it's the kind of thing that people who historically have been oppressed sometimes do out of fear. Bit that doesn't excuse a mindset that repeatedly had led not only to egregious journalism but also arguably had had disastrous real-life political consequences.
None of it makes any sense, of course.
WaPo hack lady is just too chicken to call Warren Pocahontas.