Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Issues Misleading Claim That Three Industries Are Responsible for 70 Percent of Carbon Pollution

One of those industries is just…“industry.”


Elizabeth Warren claims three industries are responsible for 70 percent of carbon pollution. One of those industries is…"industry." 

Any time a politician makes an argument using a single, simple statistic, it is worth investigating its origins. That is especially true when that politician is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). 

Take, for example, her claim at last week's CNN town hall on climate change that 70 percent of airborne carbon pollution comes from three industries. Warren made this argument in response to a question about whether the government should tell people which lightbulbs they have to use. 

"This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we're all talking about," she said. "They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, straws, and cheeseburgers when 70% of the pollution of the carbon that we're throwing into the air comes from three industries." Because this is 2019, Warren also posted the claim on Instagram. 

So, which three industries are to blame? The helpful fact-checkers at Politifact looked into this question and found the source of Warren's statistic. 

It does not show that three industries are to blame. 

Instead, Warren's claim comes from an Environmental Protection Agency's document stating that more than 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to three sources. The first is "transportation," which accounts for about 29 percent of emissions. The second is "electricity production," which accounts for about 27 percent. 

You may have noticed that these are both activities, not industries. Transportation, in particular, encompasses a variety of different economic sectors, from trucking and freight rail to personal air travel and driving—which is to say, the sort of individual consumer economic decisions that Warren says are a distraction. 

You may be thinking: This is just quibbling. But then we come to the third category, which accounts for about 22 percent of emissions. And this is where things get weird. The third category is just…"industry." All of it. 

"Industry," I think it is fair to say, is not an industry. If just three industries are responsible for all carbon emissions, then "industry"—the catch-all term for the entirety of industrial activity in the country—cannot be one of them. 

Warren's campaign has been more careful about characterizing the sources of carbon emissions in other forums. But it's still telling that this was how Warren chose to frame the issue in a major cable news forum and that her team made the decision to re-post the moment on social media. And it is representative of a tendency of Warren's that I explored at length in the latest issue of Reason: It is a framing that, while based in a legitimate source, is presented in a way that seems designed to mislead for political convenience. 

In this case, her characterization is presumably intended to leave the impression that the bulk of emissions come from a few powerful bad actors, that the only people who would be affected by her energy plans would be rich industrialists with well-waxed mustaches who own large buildings with menacing smokestacks. In Warren's telling, they are the ones who will be hurt, rather than, say, ordinary people driving cars and heating their homes and buying light bulbs and perhaps even hoping to enjoy hamburgers or tasty beverages with straws that do not crumple into damp napkins when you use them. It was Warren's way of implying, without quite saying so, that this won't really affect you. 

As John Reilly, the co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, told Politifact, Warren's response "may lead to the implication that the cost of reducing these emissions will fall on industry. To the extent that myth is perpetuated, that is a problem. One way or another, we will all bear the cost of doing things differently." 

Indeed, it is worth noticing what Warren did not say—whether the government has a role in regulating which light bulbs consumers use. She called this question, and others like it, distractions. But if anything, it is Warren's own response that appears to have been constructed to distract from the issue at hand.  

NEXT: Michael Bloomberg's Anti-Vaping Crusade Is Objectively Pro-Tobacco

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This really may be “the most important election ever”.

    1. Thank you for making me laugh. Your comment was priceless. 🙂

      1. ITT, Tony spills the beans that he has multiple socks obsessed with his political opponents sucking dick. It’s actually more sad than gross. And it’s very gross.

      2. This election will — without a doubt — change the course of history. It will be “the most important election ever ever!”

    2. At the time, 2016 was the most important election ever. And since that one went the wrong way, 2020 is even more important because we have to fix the damage resulting from 2016 — recession, concentration camps, The Handmaid’s Tale (meaning the real life version playing out in the US; not the TV show), astronomical spike in hate crimes, etc.

      1. Meh… 5/10. Do one on this but without mentioning Obama. I know… a real challenge!


        The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed on Wednesday that a 10-year-old girl from Guatemala died while in U.S. custody last year, bringing the total number of known migrant child deaths to six in the last eight months. Democrats are calling for an investigation into the case, and because the agency had kept her death quiet since September of last year, some members are alleging a cover-up.

        1. While I understand the impulse to provide a counter-balance, you suck at this.

    3. One thing we DO know is the UN claims 24% of all carbon emissions comes directly from the United States military and the wars, the planes, the ships. But don’t expect a toady like Liz Warren to stand up and state THAT little fun-fact, proving she’s just the next Israel-Firster and Defense Department shill. But at least that psycho Bolton is gone. Next up: That psycho Pompeo.

      1. I can find no reference that supports this accusation. The closest I can find is that the US military produces about the same GHG emissions as Peru and would be 47th if listed as a nation, but that is nowhere near 24% of all carbon emissions, even if we are just counting human created carbon emissions (excluding carbon from metabolism).

        1. Jim may have been smoking when he wrote this.

          1. Read the UNESCO report, dummies. If we’re to believe the UN on warming/change, I’ll buy into their report on military activities. Military machinery doesn’t address the emissions of carbon. Add in rockets, infrastructure, logistics bringing supply and manpower to the machines of war and the US military does indeed rack up UNESCO’s findings. War is a filthy, filthy business. And business is good.

    4. Photo caption:
      “I am getting an M……is there a Michael here that has recently lost a loved one? Michael I have a message for you from your….mother, is it? Yes. She says your carbon foot print is way too big.”

      1. ROTFLMAO 🙂

        1. We hope you have a carpeted floor!

      2. I would tune into a couple of episodes of “The Mystic Indian” on the CW.

      3. ( . Y . )

  2. Sorry, but Warren is a deceptive cunt. She may be stupid, and saying things like this unintentionally, but more likely gets so wrapped up in her righteous mission that truth, or even accuracy, does not matter.

    1. Spot on. Her whole life is a series of lies.

    2. gets so wrapped up in her righteous mission that truth, or even accuracy, does not matter.

      Wouldn’t be the first time. See Suderman’s deep dive from the print issue.

    3. the same way she unintentionally said she was a native american?

      1. Did she unintentionally say that while applying for a job?

    4. The best part of this nonsense is the Politifact article linked above:

      “Warren said that three industries account for 70% of the carbon that goes into the air. That’s imprecise. It is accurate to say that transportation, producing electricity and industry writ large are the three largest sources of greenhouse gases and represent more than 70% of the problem….We rate her statement Half True”

      It is imprecise? Half True? OMFG. So I guess it is half true if I said three black kids robbed a store, when in fact it was 3 security guards of indeterminate racial origin.

      1. Politfact bends over backwards to find a shred of “truth” in any Democrat’s comments while simultaneously nit-picking the other side to death. If some R says “45% of X does Y.” and the actual number is 45.6%, PF will stamp a “FALSE” on it. But a D says “45% of X does Y” and the number is actually 12%, PF will say “The Senator overstates the magnitude, but is correct that there is a problem” HALF-TRUE. PF on Ds is like Justice Roberts on Obamacare.

  3. “Instead, Warren’s claim comes from an Environmental Protection Agency’s document stating that more than 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to three sources. The first is “transportation,” which accounts for about 29 percent of emissions. The second is “electricity production,” which accounts for about 27 percent.”

    I take issue with Warren characterizing everything she doesn’t like as capitalism rather than as individuals making choices.

    She’s basically trying to dehumanize whatever behavior she wants to abolish using the coercive power of government.

    In other words, she won’t speak the truth that she wants to attack your standard of living by severely restricting your access to cheap electricity and transpiration, so she talks about going after “industry” instead.

    1. Ken….What I find especially grating about her is her absolute conviction and stridency of knowing so many things that just aren’t so. And then demanding I just go along with it.

      Fauxcahontas would love to project the image of being a sound and sensible Mom giving we children sound and sagacious counsel but she comes off as the overbearing Mother-in-Law to the average American. She just does not connect to Joe & Jane Sixpack. That will be her undoing.

      1. My experience has been that a lot of suburban moms are living vicariously through her. They relish the thought of themselves, through her, giving Trump (and all those racist misogynists who idolize him) the shrill scolding he so richly deserves.

        1. She need not be Prez to scold Trump, she’s been doing that for 3+ years.

          She’s a harpy.

        2. While their husbands cringe at her act.

      2. Yep.
        And this is why no self-respecting male could ever vote for her

        1. She’s even more screechy than Hillary … by quite a bit.

    2. They’re naked about using the Bolshevism handbook these days.

  4. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about,” she said. “They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, straws, and cheeseburgers when 70% of the pollution of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air comes from three industries.”

    This is really just a variation on the standard leftist accusation of “divisiveness” on the part of people who don’t agree with them. See, it’s not an issue of the government regulating down to the molecular level every damn moment of your life, it’s the fighting back against such regulation that constitutes the strife. You’re the one causing the problem with your stubborn refusal to do as you’re told.

  5. A few “powerful bad actors”, like the people who make the lights turn on and give you gas for your car.

    1. Don’t forget those bastards who want to grow food and bring it to you. And don’t even get me started on those people who want to make things that you want and bring them to you. Assholes.

  6. “Elizabeth Warren Issues Misleading Claim That Three Industries Are Responsible for 70 Percent of Carbon Pollution.”

    Gee,what a surprise.
    Warren lied about heritage to get into a prestigious, exclusive Ivy League school, and now she’s lying about industries that are responsible for 70% of carbon pollution.
    Who would’ve thought she would do such a dastardly thing like that?

    1. You omitted the big lie: her propaganda “study” on medical bankruptcy.

      1. ^ This. That particular lie was pretty instrumental in getting Obamacare passed.

        1. It made her a star and may make her a President. Left wingers don’t care about lies or even good policy.

          But the most damning fact coming from her study is not that she is a self-serving liar without principles or morals (although she is that). It’s that academia and the media fully support those attributes. Academics know her study is bullshit. That’s why it isn’t widely cited by experts. But while they don’t cite her academic experts don’t criticize her directly either because they know it will effect their careers. They correctly understand academia supports far left activism as their first priority while truth and knowledge are somewhere in the also-rans.

        2. And it’s the sole reason she CFPB was founded – which was intended to be her fiefdom outside government control. This is how the EU advanced itself too: by delegating unrestrained authority to quasi-government agencies not accountable to anyone but other left wing bureaucrats.

          1. The CFPB is clearly unconstitutional. Why hasn’t it been challenged and tossed out?

  7. Maybe what she means by “industry” is people who are industrious. So all we have to do is be lazy and expect to be taken care of by somebody else. You know, act like her followers.

  8. It was Warren’s way of implying, without quite saying so, that this won’t really affect you.

    Or, more likely, it’s her way of implying that she doesn’t give a fuck if it affects you or not.

  9. The helpful fact-checkers at Politifact

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves…

  10. So the three biggest producers of carbon pollution are the areas of activity that make modern life possible on the technological age. Particularly those dense urban areas progressives are so fond of.

    Secondly, we would not be complaining about straws and cheeseburgers and whatnot, if the Democrats were not telling everyone they were going to ban everything they deem harmful (often deemed so by making stuff up).

    1. Yeah, the “fossil fuel industry” is you commuting to work and taking the wife and kids on vacation.

      1. It is pretty much everything you do and own that distinguishes you from someone living prior to the 18th century. Which is a hell of a lot if you know any history.

        1. By “history” you mean stuff that happened Before Twitter?

          1. “Some people did some things”. Meh.

    2. It always makes me dumbfounded how so many urbanites think that they could survive without fossil fuels. How does food get to the cities from where it was grown?

      1. All food comes from the neighborhood P-Patch, of course. These folks should be made to choose between charging their iPhone (made from crude oil) or turning on the lights in their loft apartments. They really want to save the planet, right?

  11. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about…”

    “I was told there would be no math.”

  12. Should I be surprised that the EPA tracks greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector, and apparently excludes all government activity?

    No. No I should not.

    1. It would be interesting to see where aircraft carriers, and the aircraft on them, stack up.

      1. Aircraft carriers are nuclear powered, so it would be the aircraft on them and some ancillary functions only.

        1. Good to know. Hope the democrat presidential candidates don’t learn this.

          1. As is our entire submarine fleet.

            1. This I knew.

              1. And if the F-104 hadn’t clipped the wing of the XB70 it is possible most of our aircraft would be too. NASA also has wanted at different times to use thorium reactors to power rockets and space craft.

  13. Well, I, for one, am SHOCKED to learn that a scolding old cunt who lied about her entire life story repeatedly would also issue misleading claims about other topics!
    And is it just me or does she look, sound, and act like some kind of 1930s Temperance Union scold?

    1. And is it just me or does she look, sound, and act like some kind of 1930s Temperance Union scold?

      Look at how she dressed in the ’80s and the picture is complete.

      1. Can I just take your word for it?
        I prefer to look at her as seldom as possible.

    2. This whole election is gonna be about how one Democratic falsehood is somehow worse than 10 billion Trump falsehoods, isn’t it?

      1. If it were just one you’d have a point other than the one on the top of your head.

        1. But if he combs his hair the right way maybe no one will notice.

          1. Thread actually your funniest post. You should have ended it with a “Haha”

          2. Doesn’t it seem that Bernie combs his hair with a balloon? I saw someone say that once, maybe even here, and it stuck with me and I laugh every time I see his picture.

      2. Tony is Juan Williams.

      3. It’s a pretty big one. Haha.

  14. I didn’t realize that the Democrats were just doing the bidding of the oil companies when they ban plastic straws.

  15. Warren lied about something? Did you also know that water is wet and the sun rises in the east?

  16. Lizzie Warren’s got an axe
    Will give the U.S 40 wacks
    When he heard what she will do
    Bernie Sanders pledges 42.

    1. Lizzie Borden would be proud… 🙂

    2. Ok. So 42 is now the low bar. Let’s see where this goes! Haha

  17. A politician lying? Unpossible.

  18. What is ‘carbon pollution’? Are we faced with soot falling from the skies? No wonder Chicken Little is frightened….

    1. Wouldn’t a responsible journalist point out that CO2 is a basic building block of life?

      1. “responsible journalist”


  19. Glad she is so up front with her lies. When she starts off declaring any form of the LIE that ‘carbon” is “pollution” per se, we KNOW she is lying. If SHE had no carbon in her body, she would no longer exist.

    She is a pluperfect example of “repeat a thing long enough, often enough, loudly enough, and it becomes “truth”.
    Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant.

    It it was, we MUST be about banning sodas and other carbonated beverages, wine, sauerkraut, coffee, bread, fermentation of animal fodder, all agriculture producing any form of meat, fish, poultry, and get busy about eliminating all forms of life that breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide… that list would most definitely include ol FauxCaHontas her sorry self.

    1. She is a pluperfect example of “repeat a thing long enough, often enough, loudly enough, and it becomes “truth”.

      She’s a condition that was completed prior to the indicative past tense?

      Fair enough.

      1. She had lied.

  20. And politifact calls it “half true”

    1. “And politifact calls it “half true””

      That’s actually a pretty amazing rating considering they gave it to Warren. What rating would it have been if Trump has said the same thing?


    2. Democrat says the “Sun rises in the West every morning” = Mostly True

      Republican says the “Sun Rises in the East every morning” = Mostly False. The sun is stationary relative to the Earth, and the rising is an illusion created by the Earth’s rotation.

      1. There was a site that was keeping all of the “true but…. ” ratings against Republicans. It was astounding. They would admit the statement was true… but then state because they didnt include democrat talking points, it was only half true.

  21. She will be unhealthy for this country if elected. She has already added a disease of CONSUMER PROTECTION ( or whatever the alphabet name is)! Any kid with a lemonade stand is more economically savvy .

    1. If you don’t care about consumer protection, why the fuck should anyone else care about business owner protection?

      1. Consumer protection already existed, and is there a special department dedicated to business owner protection? Besides the the consumer protection law she pushed into place actually harmed consumers. It damaged small banks and investment firms disproportionately. Small banks and investment firms are the ones most likely to finance loans and small businesses. The law actually benefitted the very people she claimed it was going to monitor while hurting their competition from smaller operations.

      2. People will die!

  22. It’s pretty impressive how much energy gets wasted arguing about the gas that is 0.04% of the atmosphere. You’d think the other 99.96% would get a little love. The whole idea that there is some bubbling catastrophe WRT CO2 is utterly ridiculous.

    1. You were in the classes for slow kids, weren’t you?

      Did they tell you, or did you have to figure it out by looking around at the other booger-munching retards?

      It’s a small percentage, thus it’s insignificant! Ipso facto! Just like arsenic.

      1. That isn’t quite how it works. In either case in your analogy.

      2. It’s unfortunate that you’re bad at humor. Almost had something here. #sad

      3. Tony, weird question, but did you play World of Warcraft around ten years ago?

        1. No but my boyfriend was way into it.

      4. Tony, you’ve constantly proven you dont know even the basics of climate. Why are you trying to call others out? Water is still the most dominant green house gas in the atmosphere. It will always be the most dominant. The fact that you dont know this proves you should shut the fuck up. Stop thinking you could even handle a middle school science kit dumbfuck.

        1. As my Biochem (graduate level) professor told us, anything greater than a 3% decrease in atmospheric CO2 would put us back in an ice age. It’s a fine line, which sort of proves his point but not the way he meant it.

          1. Well he’s a moron so…

          2. As my Biochem (graduate level) professor told us, anything greater than a 3% decrease in atmospheric CO2 would put us back in an ice age. It’s a fine line, which sort of proves his point but not the way he meant it.

            With 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere now, 3% is only a 12 ppm decline. CO2 has been increasing 1-2 ppm per year lately, so only about 10 years ago it was 3% less, and I don’t remember the ice age.

            He might have been correct if he said 30%, although that assumes one believes CO2 drives temperature, when the reverse has better evidence.

        2. oh look, idjit doesn’t know anything about equilibrium.

          1. Nobody cares why you fell down on the way to your evening meds.

          2. So a well published biochemist and plant physiologist doesn’t understand equilibrium? Because that was who I was quoting. How does my statement demonstrate a misunderstanding of equilibrium?

          3. The atmosphere is not at thermodynamic equilibrium. If it were there would be no change in concentrations of anything.

            Closed systems tend to go to equilibrium over time, but the earth and atmosphere each have numerous external influences and would take many years to approach equilibrium if left alone.

            The climate problem is really a kinetics issue more than an equilibrium issue.

        3. Oh my God you are so willfully uninformed it hurts my nutsack.

          Just google the talking point about water vapor you’re holding like a fat kid with a participation trophy that you actually think undermines all of climate research. I’m too tired to do it for you anymore. Just fucking… goddammit.

      5. yeah, the slow kids that woke up to the exact same temperatures I wake up to today. You self proclaimed climate geniuses keep telling me the world is ending. And yet, in over 30 years of “modeling” not a single model can accurately hindcast those same 30 years. To the great frustration of climate alarmists, the real-world instrumental record clearly shows that, not only is no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable. Aside from the drive for world socialism, the climate scare is based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of what some say could happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.

        However, the models do not work. That’s because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because scientists do not understand planetary climate processes well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2017 is one-third of what the average of 102 different climate models predicted. In fact, that climate model average is now almost one full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites have measured!

        It is also important to realize that your own local weather forecasts just one week ahead are accurate only half the time.

        1. Correct. Conventional models are off by about 2x the standard error, or outside the 97% confidence band, I.e. they are 3% likely to be right.

          Except there is a model that accurately fits the temperature of the last 150 years or so. But it does not have a strong dependence on CO2!

          See http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com/ or other work by Dan Pangburn.

        2. “It is also important to realize that your own local weather forecasts just one week ahead are accurate only half the time.”

          We’re likely in agreement regarding the watermelons and the “GLOBAL CATASTROPHE!!”, but this isn’t really relevant.
          I can’t tell you which roll of a die will show 6, but I can tell you that, on average, it will happen 1/6th of the time.
          An inability to predict specifics may or may not say anything about long-term trend predictions (and the catastrophists are wrong there, also).

        3. I’ll not do you the indignity of explaining the difference between weather and climate (or local temperature and average global temperature) as if this were 2005 Reason.

          I’ll leave aside the little slip of mentioning satellite data, something that’s only done by anti-climate-science ideologues who prefer the less accurate but less dire measurements of only-satellite method, a method rejected by actual climate science.

          We’re nearing 2 degrees over the 1950–1980 mean. And the important point is that people like you and the politicians don’t want to do anything about it, regardless of what the damage is.

  23. “As John Reilly, the co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, told Politifact, Warren’s response “may lead to the implication that the cost of reducing these emissions will fall on industry.”

    And as everybody knows, businesses will just suck it up and absorb the cost without passing it along to the consumer.

    Such a disingenuous cunt.

  24. Politifact rated Warren’s claim as 1/1024th true.

    1. Clap…clap…clap…

  25. This is cool. All we have to do is quit driving, flying, taking the bus, or utilize the railroads, quit manufacturing “stuff,” give up heated homes, and cooled homes, or maybe even homes themselves, and everything electronic, and all will be well with the world.

    We can ride around on our bicycles, eat the cabbage we grow on our roof-tops, and basically, have a slightly lower standard of living as that of pre-world-war-one Russia. Oh, wait, manufacturing bicycles is an industry. So we walk. Oh, wait, manufacturing shoes is also an industry, so we go barefoot. For that matter, so is manufacturing clothing an industry (I will leave the consequences of that up to your imagination).

    So, are we ready for the stone-age?

  26. “…Warren’s response “may lead to the implication that the cost of reducing these emissions will fall on industry….”

    Just like taxing businesses won’t cost tje customers anything; those guys just go out to the Jackson trees and harvest some.

  27. “You may be thinking: This is just quibbling.”

    How perceptive!

    1. Whataboutism. Great defense of an indefensible remark. You also are falsely stating this is her first such “misstatement” which is demonstrably false.

    2. “Wapo is the arbiter of truth” says the idiot.

      1. So are all 12,000 cited lies actually not lies. Some of them? What percentage of those are fake news? And how many lies does that imply you are okay with in a president? And does that number change if he or she has a (D) after his or her name?

        1. Did you play World of Warcraft ten years ago?

          1. My boyfriend did. I’m not into games that require me to interact with other real humans.

            1. There was a Tony I knew from back then. You two have a lot of parallels. Thought it might have been you.

    3. Shitbag’s collection of “lies” has this whopper:

      “The Media has a big responsibility to life and safety in our Country. Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years….”

      Claiming it’s a lie is the whopper; we had two full years of WaPo, among others providing a daily dose of whine regarding “The Russkis!!!!”, which was bullshit from day one.
      Yes, we’ve had constant Fake News from the legacy press, so WaPo get the double Pinocchio, and that was the third ‘lie’ in the list.
      No, I’m not going to waste time pointing out how many times WaPo lied about Trumps lies. WaPo lies as a matter of course; they have the cred of, oh, Pinocchio.

  28. How do you know she’s lying, and not just simply retarded?

    1. Retards can lie too.

    2. You have to have at least above average intelligence to come up with the bullshit she dishes out and sound halfway credible.

      1. Having a lot of plans does not mean any of them are actually good plans.

        1. I didn’t say they were good (note I called them bullshit). I instead contended it takes some modicum of intelligence to make her bullshit believable.

    3. I don’t think she’s retarded, at least not in the traditional sense. If she were as genuinely slow as she seems, she probably would not have made it as far in academia—not even by claiming to be Native American to catch a break.

      I think what’s going on is actually worse: she’s convinced that the American public is retarded and will swallow any sort of lie unquestioningly. I mean, one of the top three industries is “industry” and the other two are activities? Who is stupid enough to hear that and not pause to think about it?

      1. Well said.

  29. Why do pictures of Elizabeth Warren always make her look like she’s struggling to breathe in our atmosphere?

    1. Lizard people are aliens IRL.

  30. Speaking of faulty statistics, I just looked the unemployment figures in Seattle. It has to be wrong because it says 3.2%. It’s gotta be 32%, right, or maybe 302%? Can someone confirm for me?

    1. Still not funny to be a bad parody of a parody.

      Try harder.

      1. I wouldn’t call this parody— just mockery of the assertions of a robot revolution that were made here a while ago. I’m playing it str8, ok?

  31. Stupid cow should fuck off to north Korea if she wants to freeze in the dark, and leave us out of it.


  32. She must be a nightmare to work for and with.

  33. “Elizabeth Warren Issues Misleading Claim…”

    Ya know, when a scumbag lefty thug lies, it’s really fine to point out that the scumbag lefty LIED.

  34. This woman needs to go find Hillary and knock on the door to her cave.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.