Elizabeth Warren: "I am not wealthy"

[EriktheRed]

This ain't gonna work, y'know.

 

[Trajan]

This ain't gonna work, y'know.

right, because shes one of them....

 

[California Girl]

Now, if she'd said "I am not worthy", I'd agree with her.

 

[Amelia]

Very tedious.

The language that we use consists of words, pauses, inflections and context. Elizabeth Warren, a person who has spent her entire life dealing with matters of finance and income inequality, did not make the claim that she is not wealthy in that interview.

The statement that you leeches are attaching yourselves to today included a pause.

I realize there are some wealthy individuals — I’m not one of them but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

She meant that she is not one of the wealthy people who have a lot of stock portfolios.

She knows that she's in the 1%, fellas. Please stop inventing negatives.

What part of she is wealthy and has millions in stocks don't you understand?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You people think i'm going to keep playing this game? I explained it to you three times. I think you get it. What is left is the question of your willingness to engage in honest dialogue.

Those of you who aren't.......in some really lame attempt to score imaginary internet points.......bore me.

 

[Amelia]

You people think i'm going to keep playing this game? I explained it to you three times. I think you get it. What is left is the question of your willingness to engage in honest dialogue.

Those of you who aren't.......in some really lame attempt to score imaginary internet points.......bore me.

In other words, you know that she did tell a fib and your inability to parse her words in any way which exonerates her caught up with you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You people think i'm going to keep playing this game? I explained it to you three times. I think you get it. What is left is the question of your willingness to engage in honest dialogue.

Those of you who aren't.......in some really lame attempt to score imaginary internet points.......bore me.

In other words, you know that she did tell a fib and your inability to parse her words in any way which exonerates her caught up with you.

No, dummy. There are no other words. You probabbly aren't being dishonest. You are really that stupid.

 

[1_Old_Man]

I don't care if she has more money than Mitt Romney (yeah, fat chance) - what I care about is her policy positions and that is why I have donated to her campaign, and her campaign alone, so far this year. As far as I'm concerned she is the best candidate for any office in the land in this election cycle. I hope the Senate is only a start for her. One of the finest women this nation has ever produced if you ask me.

 

[Amelia]

You people think i'm going to keep playing this game? I explained it to you three times. I think you get it. What is left is the question of your willingness to engage in honest dialogue.

Those of you who aren't.......in some really lame attempt to score imaginary internet points.......bore me.

In other words, you know that she did tell a fib and your inability to parse her words in any way which exonerates her caught up with you.

No, dummy. There are no other words. You probabbly aren't being dishonest. You are really that stupid.

Elizabeth Warren:

I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.

The facts:

Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.
Elizabeth Warren Suggests She's Not In The 1%

The dummy who repeats Warren's lie as if it is not a lie:

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

*face palm*

 

[DontBeStupid]

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

Anyone who watches the video would come to this conclusion as well, since it's pretty obvious what she is saying.

I suspect many here are posting without having watched the video.

Pretty typical.

 

[Amelia]

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

Anyone who watches the video would come to this conclusion as well, since it's pretty obvious what she is saying.

I suspect many here are posting without having watched the video.

Pretty typical.

Gadzooks, the denial is thick in here. If you saw the video and concluded the same as LoneLaugher, namely that "she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios", then you know that Warren fibbed.

Warren is wealthy and she has millions in stocks. What she said was the opposite of the facts.

I can hardly believe how well you spell considering that you post with both eyes closed. Good job.

 

[ladyliberal]

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

Anyone who watches the video would come to this conclusion as well, since it's pretty obvious what she is saying.

I suspect many here are posting without having watched the video.

Pretty typical.

Gadzooks, the denial is thick in here. If you saw the video and concluded the same as LoneLaugher, namely that "she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios", then you know that Warren fibbed.

Warren is wealthy and she has millions in stocks. What she said was the opposite of the facts.

I can hardly believe how well you spell considering that you post with both eyes closed. Good job.

I certainly did understand from the statement (which was a brief aside) that Warren was saying that she did not own many stock portfolios. This is certainly true, though fairly meaningless. A portfolio is simply any collection of stocks, so almost anyone can refer to the stocks they own as a single portfolio and thus plausibly claim that they don't own multiple portfolios. I saw no indication that Warren's statement, which was both factually correct and tangential to her main point, that she meant to imply either that she was not wealthy or that she did not own any stocks.

 

[Trajan]

Anyone who watches the video would come to this conclusion as well, since it's pretty obvious what she is saying.

I suspect many here are posting without having watched the video.

Pretty typical.

Gadzooks, the denial is thick in here. If you saw the video and concluded the same as LoneLaugher, namely that "she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios", then you know that Warren fibbed.

Warren is wealthy and she has millions in stocks. What she said was the opposite of the facts.

I can hardly believe how well you spell considering that you post with both eyes closed. Good job.

I certainly did understand from the statement (which was a brief aside) that Warren was saying that she did not own many stock portfolios. This is certainly true, though fairly meaningless. A portfolio is simply any collection of stocks, so almost anyone can refer to the stocks they own as a single portfolio and thus plausibly claim that they don't own multiple portfolios. I saw no indication that Warren's statement, which was both factually correct and tangential to her main point, that she meant to imply either that she was not wealthy or that she did not own any stocks.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios"

 

[GuyPinestra]

The gymnastics of the apologists is MESMERIZING!!

 

[Oldstyle]

As I suspected. I looked at the video.

They were discussing stock portfolio's and how members of Congress should not be trading while in office. She did not say that she is not wealthy....she said that she is not a wealthy person who has a lot of stock portfolios.

Just another attempt to misinform.

She's got stocks worth 8 million and she's not one of those wealthy people with a lot of stock portfolios? Run that by me again, Lone...because that sounds like a whole lot of grade A bullshit. I know it's suddenly "scandalous" to be good with money in this country (eye-roll) but for Warren to have that kind of a stock portfolio and brush the whole thing off as her not being wealthy is laughable.

 

[ladyliberal]

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios"

"I'm not one of them" is an interjection to her main point, which is "There are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios". Her statement is equivalent to "I realize there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios. I'm not one of them." The "one" which she accurately says she is not is a wealthy individual who has a lot of stock portfolios, not a general wealthy individual. I don't see a grammatical reason to interpret her statement differently. Further, it would make no sense for her to do so-- she is surely well aware that she has publicly disclosed her wealth.

 

[GuyPinestra]

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios"

"I'm not one of them" is an interjection to her main point, which is "There are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios". Her statement is equivalent to "I realize there are some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios. I'm not one of them." The "one" which she accurately says she is not is a wealthy individual who has a lot of stock portfolios, not a general wealthy individual. I don't see a grammatical reason to interpret her statement differently. Further, it would make no sense for her to do so-- she is surely well aware that she has publicly disclosed her wealth.

A 'stock portfolio' is a collection of owned stocks. In it's true sense, no one has more than one 'stock portfolio'. The woman told a fibber and stepped in the shit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Isn't this fun, LadyLiberal?

Some of them are aware and lying. Others are just unaware.

 

[Trajan]

Isn't this fun, LadyLiberal?

Some of them are aware and lying. Others are just unaware.

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home

have at it.

 

[ladyliberal]

Isn't this fun, LadyLiberal?

Some of them are aware and lying. Others are just unaware.

It's alright. I enjoy parsing grammar quite a bit more than most, but it's not clear how I can make the point any more clearly than you already have.