Elizabeth Warren Inserts Herself Into Elon Musk’s Takeover of Twitter
“Who’s going to have the power in our country? Are we going to make these decisions as a democracy, or is this going to be Elon Musk all by himself”
Elizabeth Warren is suddenly very interested in who owns and runs Twitter now that Elon Musk is taking it over. She wasn’t interested when conservatives were being thrown off the platform or when it was used to suppress a story that might damage Biden, but now she’s deeply concerned about one person having so much power.
This is par for the course for Warren, who loves to put herself in the middle of national news stories.
She also has a habit of going after Musk, who she has regularly accused of not paying enough in taxes.
Brandon Gillespie reports at FOX News:
Elizabeth Warren calls for new ‘rules’ to govern ‘unregulated’ social media amid Musk’s Twitter takeover
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called for new “rules” to govern “unregulated” social media amid Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s takeover of largely liberal Twitter.
During an appearance Wednesday on MSNBC’s “The Beat With Ari Melber,” Warren declared that “rules of the road” were needed for Big Tech, and that decisions about large communications platforms needed to be made “as a democracy,” rather than someone like Musk, who she claimed “plays by his own set of rules.”
“I see that we need to make two big changes. The first one is we need a wealth tax in America. And let’s talk about how Elon’s purchase here was subsidized by tens of millions of people who’ve paid their taxes every year,” Warren told host Ari Melber, referencing her past claim that Musk didn’t pay taxes.
“The second part is we need rules of the road for Big Tech. But ultimately what all of this boils down to is power,” she added. “Who’s going to have the power in our country? Are we going to make these decisions as a democracy, or is this going to be Elon Musk all by himself, off in a room, a bazillionaire, who just plays by his own set of rules?”
See her tweets below:
One billionaire—whose estimated net worth has gotten about 10 times larger since the start of the pandemic—is about to have the power to decide how millions of people can communicate with each other. It’s dangerous for our democracy to have so much power in so few hands.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) April 26, 2022
This deal is dangerous for our democracy. Billionaires like Elon Musk play by a different set of rules than everyone else, accumulating power for their own gain. We need a wealth tax and strong rules to hold Big Tech accountable.
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) April 25, 2022
This video is cued to start at the 4:00 mark. Just press play:
Notice how Warren keeps saying this is all about power. How about Biden’s new “Disinformation Governance Board,” is that all about power too? Sure looks that way, but I don’t hear Warren complaining about that.
Warren is worried about Musk’s takeover of Twitter for the same reason as everyone else on the left. They fear an even playing field. They thought this was theirs, and they could use it to their advantage.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I can’t wait for this to turn into a Senator Karen tweet storm. Musk is as good as Trump when it comes to depantsing a dumb-ass with mean tweets. Bring it on! Let’s get it started!
Lie-a-lotta needs to sit this one out. She should go back to flipping foreclosed houses!
Or selling Pow Wow Chow cookbooks.
Or inserting herself into other things – that are part of her body.
Fauxcahontas says what?
This is from the woman that gave us the slush fund CPFB.
This could be the definition of how Leftists use projection, pushing what they do onto their opponents.
Yes, it’s about power. A wealth tax would (for a short time) give Warren and others like her the power to bully billionaires (“Nice company you’ve got there. Be a shame if a 2 point increase in the wealth tax forced you to liquidate it”).
And “rules of the road” would obviously be used to take back the power to control the conversation that they fear losing.
Lizzy is easy to figure out. She wants to be in charge of everything, speech, money, etc.
She is a miserable, dried up, old scrunt of a Karen, and I apologize the country for yet another pathetic senator.
…which my state unfortunately inflicted on the country.
And don’t forget our other “estemed” Senator, Ed Markey. The dunce from Chevy Chase (who doesn’t even live in MA). What a pair, the Two Stooges.
It seems that MA has a “wealth” of stooge senators……
“The first one is we need a wealth tax in America.”
Oh how the times and the Times have changed.” Here’s a quote from a July 8, 1909 NYT editorial, titled “An Unnecessary Amendment,” during the period when Congress was making way for the proposed 16th Amendment, “When men once get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they are not easily cured of it.” When Peter is robbed to pay Paul, Paul’s unlikely to report the crime of robbery.
You see, once a leftist premise is accepted (progressive taxes are good; health care, housing are rights; a 4% wealth tax is especially good), then the leftists’ hard work is over. Amending and expanding is easy once the thin edge of the wedge, meaning the initial premise, has been accepted and put into place.
Once the 16th Amendment was added to the Constitution (February, 1913*) Congress swiftly enacted the Revenue Act of 1913 (October, 1913; Pub. Law 63-16. 38 Stat. 114), progressive rates a heralded feature. That statute was soothingly sold the same way. “Just the top, top earners will be paying, and at a really low rate.” But the 1913 statute was amended almost immediately [e.g., Revenue Act of 1916, War Revenue Act of 1917 (remember, war is Big Gov’s / Democrats’ best friend; lying is second nature to Democrats; Democrat Wilson ran on the platform of no US involvement in the European war, meaning that there would be dead Americans nor new taxes to pay war costs)]. Suddenly, a huge percentage of the naive, i.e., income earners who were “promised” to remain unaffected, was included among the so-called “top, top earners.”
And the rates: boy, did they go up! The “normal” (the so-called “small”) rate doubled, from 1% (1913) to 2% (1916) (at the high end); the “surtax” rate more than doubled, from 6% (1913) to 13% (1916) (again at the high end).
But it was the Revenue Act of 1918 that really brought the fangs out, setting the tone for what we are saddled with today, roping in everyone productive. No longer was the left singing a “just tax the wealthy” refrain. Now it was “Tax Everyone.” Take note of how fast that happened. The combined progressive high end tax rate was now >75%. The significance of the 1918 statute was the corralling of everyone productive into paying the income tax. And it remains with us >100 years later, except now an expanding Welfare Class (which didn’t exist in 1918; that magical event of “creation by statute” had to wait until Democrat LBJ’s Great Society programs) has been saddled onto a shrinking productive Tax-paying Class.
*Blame for the 16th Amendment goes to a group of “progressive” Republicans (yep, duplicitous RINOs have always been among us), from both houses of Congress, which pushed this effort over the top, led in no small way by the oily Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI). The 16th Amendment’s Article V amending resolution was passed by Congress in July, 1909, then sent out to the states for ratification. The 75% approval mark was reached in February, 1913 when Delaware said “Yes,” putting the proposal over the top
A “wealth tax” is about as useful, and clearly as dangerous, as the excessive fed/state/city taxes on Diesel fuel.
It always hurt the little guy, the ones the left claims to care about.
Billionaire ownership of prominent media platforms only a seem to become a problem when libertarian minded owners come along. I don’t recall similar levels of sustained outrage about Carlos Slim or Jeff Bezos from the d/prog. So the problem isn’t billionaire owners it’s the overall philosophy of the ownership; IOW deviation from the globalist neo feudal narrative by championing free speech and free expression in a true marketplace of ideas.
“Warren INSERTS Herself”
That says it all! She inserts herself. I’m not gonna say where she should be inserted, but it’s obvious.
Why, yes, Liz, we do. Because Musk is a visionary and an achiever and his inventions actually help people, whereas you’re just a loudmouthed socialist with a terminal case of competence envy.
Musk is paying all the taxes he owes, according to the rules, rules which were written up by… who? Hm… the stuff he makes works, the stuff you make doesn’t even satisfy you, much less anyone else.
I think we all know who we’d rather have in charge. And, God willing, we’ll eventually get there by cashiering useless drama engines like you.
Yes, I expected better of Elizabeth Warren by Jeff Jacoby
https://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby122921.php
Lie-a-lotta needs to sit this one out. She should go back to flipping foreclosed houses!
I have no idea why it reposted my old comment. As for Jeff, I had zero or negatives of Warren, so she never disappoints!
Wow! It must be tough being Warren. An inadequate vâgîna with penis envy. To have to go through life never accomplishing anything, then being pissed off at a man for creating something she wants to destroy. On top of that, now she wants to prevent a man from having success by buying another company.
I suggest that she does what incompetent women have done for ages… be happy that a man can do something she is incapable of doing.
While I am happy with my own level of success, I would never envy another man being more successful. Without Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, and many men before them, we wouldn’t have the country we have.
Cowabunga! Old Squaw bleats, no one cares. Relevance anyone, anyone…
Bueller?
Big Chief Pimple-on-her-tongue has spoken!
That’s a piercing.
A family heirloom, no less.
It belonged to her great^4 grandmother, Shrew Who Screams.
Warren has been trying very hard to re-insert herself into the POTUS election conversation. Very ambitious and opportunistic…that one is.
Princess Spreading Bull of the Kickapoo Joy Juice tribe had and has no problem with Amazon Jeff Billionaire Bezos owning the Washington Post. But then not many people who live outside the Beltway actually read the WaPoo. But she’s got her faux eagle feathers in an uproar over Musk.
Sit down and STFU you aging harridan.
Anybody notice that the ACLU seems strangely missing from free speech debates lately? Could it possibly be because they’re too busy writing publicity-stunt fluff-pieces for Hollywood blockbusters?
I’ve heard of “mission creep,” but I’ve never seen it do the dogpaddle before.
odd her profile pic changed in the 2 days these tweets appeared.
like one ugly pic was not good enough,,
That Elon continues to let her tweet gives the lie to much of her hand-wringing.
Chief Shrieking Crow is despised even in her own party. Hillary light.
A genuine SHREW.
Termagant and crone, Fauxcahontas, is such a manifestly miserable, insufferably self-aggrandizing narcissist and demagogue.
This harridan has never created a single job in the U.S., nor, managed a business, yet, she sees fit to lecture Bezos and Musk?
Fauxcahontas is as much a worthless empty a vessel as her fellow narcissist-demagogue, Occasional-Cortex.
Old and busted: “Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants.”
The new hawtness: “We can’t just let Twitter do whatever its new owner wants!”
Under its current ownership, by the way, Twitter is a publicly traded corporation. It may be in the privte sector, but it’s not (ahem) private private.
Elon Musk is planning to take Twitter private private, and he is secure enough financially and socially that the Left won’t be able to stampede him into doing their bidding.
That’s why they’re panicking.
This screeching harpy is…..oh well. They pull her out to play her part in this pantomime. Princess Wants a D:;k has been foisted on us by the equally f’d up state of Massachusetts. 🤬
The worst of it is the voters who keep sending her back. Maybe we should just consider nuking Massachusetts.
Remember when she tried to run for the presidency and hid/gace her oil stocks among her kids?
Maybe what we need instead of a wealth tax is a politician tax. A buck a word when they talk.
“Maybe we should just consider nuking Massachusetts.”
I consider DC to be a part of Massachusetts…
The significance of Pocahontas could increase to 1/1024th of 1% with the passage of all time and eternity.
How do you know when Elizabeth Warren is lying? Inquiring minds need to know.