These 10 (Awesome) Quotes From Elizabeth Warren Make Her Unelectable As President

FILED TO: Headline Articles

So it looks like Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for President, much to the relief of Wall St and every other billionaire who thinks they don’t have enough money.

In reality it’s probably a good thing – Warren would never have got past the primaries anyway, and is far more potent as an outsider and can continue to hammer away at the decrepit system robbing millions of Americans of their hard earned money. As has always been the case, a mildly corrupt, corporate Democrat will make it through the primaries and face off against a run of the mill, robber baron Republican. And as has always been the case, the public will get screwed for the next 8 years by a President that either can’t do anything, or doesn’t want to.

Warren’s penchant for speaking truth to power sets her apart from 99% of American political figures who will say or do pretty much anything to get elected. Warren really doesn’t give a damn, and that makes her completely unelectable in a country that requires its presidential candidates to raise over a billion dollars just to be taken seriously.

Here are 10 quotes from Warren that make her toxic in the eyes of Wall St, and thus incapable of ever getting to the White House:

1. “People feel like the system is rigged against them, and here is the painful part, they’re right. The system is rigged.”

2. “If there had been a Financial Product Safety Commission in place 10 years ago, the current financial crisis would have been averted.”

3. “You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.”

"People feel like the system is rigged against them, and here is the painful part, they're right. The system is rigged."

4. “Look around. Oil companies guzzle down the billions in profits. Billionaires pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries, and Wall Street CEOs, the same ones the direct our economy and destroyed millions of jobs still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them. Does anyone here have a problem with that?”

5. “I do not understand how it is that financial institutions could think that they could take taxpayer money and then turn around and act like it’s business as usual. I don’t understand how they can’t see that the world has changed in a fundamental way, that it is not business as usual when you take taxpayer dollars.”

6. “Mitt Romney is the guy who said corporations are people. No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people.”

7. “You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything in your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did.”

8.  “In a democracy, hostage tactics are the last resort for those who can’t win their fights through elections, can’t win their fights in Congress, can’t win their fights for the presidency, and can’t win their fights in the courts. For this right-wing minority, hostage taking is all they have left, a last gasp for those who cannot cope with the realities of our democracy.”

 9. “If you’re caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you’re going to jail….Evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.”

10. “Nobody’s safe. Health insurance? That didn’t protect 1 million Americans who were financially ruined by illness or medical bills last year.”


If you love what we do here at the Banter, please consider becoming a Banter Member and supporting independent media! Readers get access to the Magazine and unlimited monthly articles

  • K. Martinez

    These quotes make her perfectly electable…just not by the far right/Tea Party/Koch brothers…Fortunately, that leaves the majority of America.

  • Homer5

    I would love to see her run in 2020. Four more years in the Senate would be great seasoning for her.

    Sadly the math on that is kind of tricky.

    If Hillary runs and wins in ’16 she is presumably in until ’24 and Warren will be in her mid-70s. [I’m not an “age-ist” but I think you can see the difficulty.]

    The best odds might be with a GOP Exec in ’16. I have little doubt that a Republican administration would be ripe for the picking by 2020. [I just don’t think my nerves could stand the strain.]

  • That River Gal

    Sadly EW has said repeatedly she will never run for POTUS. Like Sanders, she understands the POTUS can’t really get much done. They both know they better serve where they are. Their reasoning is sad, cynical, and absolutely, positively true. You have to respect that.

  • Peggy A. Kelley

    Everything she says is true. Please, please, run I will work like a dog to try to get you elected.

  • Vipsanius

    I think that is excellent that she is in the Senate. And, I think that we need her there.

    • ctchrisf

      Be nice if she was Majority leader :)

      • Vipsanius

        I can go along with that

  • Badgerite

    She really is great. I wish she could be president. But I have never gotten the sense that she wanted to be. I also think she is very valuable in the Senate.

  • Draxiar

    Damn I’m so happy I helped put her into office! Rock the Casbah Elizabeth!

  • Pink No More

    Did you know there’s more positions in the American Federal Government than President?

    Apparently a lot of people don’t.

  • feloniousgrammar

    Why do so many lefties think that anyone they like (or haven’t started to hate yet) should run for POTUS? Warren appears to be in her element now— she’s a senator and a wonk. We need good wonks to build new legal structures like consumer protection in Congress.

    • Jason

      It isn’t terribly hard to understand why we lefties might salivate at the idea of a genuinely progressive POTUS. But it is entirely possible that Warren is doing a lot more good as a senator that she might be permitted to do as POTUS.
      I can also say that we foreign nationals might prefer Warren because she is not so obviously hawkish as Clinton has been.

      • feloniousgrammar

        We’d get a lot more done with a whole lot more progressive and effective Congresspeople and a President that won’t veto liberal legislation. It doesn’t matter how progressive a person’s views are if they don’t have a strong coalition.

    • Sarah Moon

      The right just wishes they had so many great candidates to run. You were pulling dregs lay presidental election that even the talking heads were wishing they had someone better.

    • Lazarus Durden

      Because most people don’t understand how our system works. It’s why even people on the Left blame President Obama for “Not doing enough”.

      • PrMaine

        I mostly agree with you that people don’t understand how our electoral system actually works – and even those who do won’t admit it to themselves. Our dollarocracy treats money as the most important factor, not just in who wins election as president but who even gets to become a candidate for one of the two major parties. That is vitally important because our system and our media makes it essentially impossible for a third-party candidate to ever win.

        So why are we stuck with this two-party system? Is there any way to change it to give the voters more real choice? The problem is that so many of us do actually understand the problem of the spoiler vote. We understand that either the candidate put up by the Democrats or the Republicans will win. This means that if we vote for a third-party candidate our vote is most likely to become a vote for whichever of the two major party candidates we like least. That’s how it works – but is it possible to do anything to eliminate this quandary?

        I think there is and that the answer is to turn to balanced voting. Before I explain what that is, let me remind you that our voting rules are not specified in the Constitution so changing them, while difficult, is not an impossible challenge. The politicians in Washington cannot block how our states decide to vote so the change can be done at the state and local levels. We could try out some schemes for balanced voting at the local level (or even at a social club) to see how well it performs.

        First of all, our current system of voting is balanced provided that there are only two candidates; that is probably why we gravitate toward the two-party limitation. As voters, we have an equal opportunity to vote for a candidate as to vote against one (just vote for the other candidate). But when there are three candidates, our current system becomes unbalanced; we can vote for one of the three candidates but there is no effective way to express opposition to one of the three candidates (even though that is truly how most of us often feel). A balanced system of voting would give the voter this opportunity.

        One way to implement a balanced vote would be to allow each voter one vote for and a second vote against a candidate. The net votes for each candidate would be tallied as the votes for the candidate less the number of votes against the candidate. Interestingly, with this system the net number of votes for the three candidates would be zero.

        An alternative way to accomplish balanced voting would be to allow each voter to cast but one vote but to choose whether that vote is for a candidate or against a candidate. Note that a single vote against a candidate is somewhat like a vote for the other two just as a vote for one candidate is much like a vote against the other two.

        It is interesting to think of what might happen if we were to adopt one of these balanced voting systems, given the current domination of the two political parties. It might well be that the major party candidates would net close to zero votes, having as many votes for each as against them. It is worth considering, in this case, why would we want to elect either one of them. But more importantly, this would open the door to a win by a minor party candidate quite possibly winning with a small but winning majority of net votes.

        It seems quite likely that with such an event becoming possible because of the adopting of balanced voting, the media would start treating third party candidates with the respect they deserve.

  • feloniousgrammar

    My crystal ball is in the shop, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that Hillary Clinton could be elected and Elizabeth Warren could keep doing what she’s doing.

    She’s intelligent, knows what she’s talking about, and I believe that she takes democracy seriously. The more Democratic women in government the merrier.

  • Philip Lueders

    For now Warren is probably seen less as high threat and more as high annoyance by the objects of her on-the-nose rhetoric. Especially since, for now anyway, she has thrown support to Hillary Clinton for 2016.

  • Philip Lueders

    OMG..Too much truth to too much power in too short a time. See how it worked for JFK and MLK. Pray she watches her 6 O’clock. Grassy knolls too.


Subscribe to the Banter Newsletter!