Warren Buffett is really looking forward to 2016. Sure, the Buffett rule didn’t work out – partly because it turns out his secretary only pays more in taxes than he does because his wealth is packed into capital gains – but he’s already hedging his bets that Hillary Clinton’s administration will have a more favorable bent towards his ideas. In fact, he just loves Hillary Clinton, and thinks that, without a doubt, she’ll be the next President of the United States.
That is, if she’s doesn’t fall prey to a devastating illness.
“Yeah, I’d bet money on both of those. And I don’t know whether Intrade has started their calculations yet, but maybe as time goes along you’ll be able to actually bet money. The odds may be up on that. But sure she’s a — things could always happen in politics, including illnesses or something of the sort. But she’s extremely likely to be the Democratic nominee, and I think she’s very likely to be the president of the United States.”
InTrade hasn’t started their calculations because they shuttered in 2013, but no one expects Warren Buffett to be up to date on the latest online gambling opportunities. And it’s interesting that he brings up her health, being that she, at a spry 67, is far younger than Buffett, who is seeing the better side of his 80s, and is still far younger than, say, John McCain was when he launched his Presidential campaign. Buffett might just be speaking off the cuff. But it is, at least, important to keep track of these sorts of throwaway comments, since when Hillary finally announces her intention to run for President, it will obviously only be dastardly sexist Republicans who will question her fitness to serve.
Buffett, of course, refused to stop his reign of terror there. After all, Hillary Clinton isn’t the only female in power that he has advice for. Elizabeth Warren (net worth $8.5M) has made her populist name attacking the rich, especially Wall Street investors like Buffett, and Buffett doesn’t quite like her tone.
In a Monday interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Buffett argued that Warren should be “less angry and demonizing.”
“I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonizing. I believe in ‘hate the sin but love the sinner,'” he said. “And I’m not sure that I’ve fully convinced Elizabeth Warren that that’s the way to go…
But Buffett, who supports Clinton’s campaign, said Warren and other legislators should be more willing to embrace compromise.
“I think the whole nature of governing — particularly when you’ve got a divided government like we have now — is that you end up with bills that each side doesn’t like but they like it better than doing nothing,” he continued. “I mean, that’s the way that government has to function. And it does not help when you demonize … the people you’re talking to.”
For Internet Feminists, the word “angry” associated with the name of any female legislator who agrees, generally, with their ideological position, should come with a trigger warning. Imagine if a Koch brother had gone on television and referenced an Angry Elizabeth Warren’s Quixotic crusades on behalf of the common man as being devoid of heft but full of fury – half of the Internet’s screeching harpies would turn from their Womens’ Studies Masters’ thesis research piles to rage impotently at the hapless and unsuspecting denizens of Twitter, firing off emails to MoveOn.org and declaring a virtual Internet war, complete with petitions, grammatically-challenged painted signs and papier-mache vaginas. Sponsors would be called! Petitions would be drafted! Smelling salts and fainting couches would be ordered by the dozens!
None of that will happen, if only because Hillary Clinton is expecting more signed checks.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.