Line forming for @ewarren pic.twitter.com/z3qKBfokpG
— Jennifer Helfer (@JenHelfer) December 31, 2019
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.
Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy
Comments
okay sure
By berkleealum
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 3:38pm
while we're at it, why don't we ask darren woods what he thinks of AOC?
you sound ridiculous
Or google any other reputable source
By Stevil
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 6:11pm
try NY Times and warren wealth tax if you prefer - the answer comes back mostly the same.
Horrible idea.
Victim blaming again? Shocker
By Parkwayne
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:36pm
'The most responsible of us' is a very tidy way to blame poor and unlucky people for being less fortunate. Sure, lots of poor people have made lots of bad decisions but it's equally true that many people simply can't escape the cycle of poverty to get to a position where they have retirement benefits. And of course huge amount of people may have made excellent plans for retirement only to lose everything due to our non-functioning health care system which can wipe out a family in mere months.
UBI is a concept which has been shown to work better than trickle down economics and yet folks like you and the richer folks you aspire to be insist that only by making the rich richer can we improve everyone's lot. Self serving nonsense.
Victim blaming
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:50pm
So the 80% of Americans that have little or no savings are victims?
UBI - that's a funny word. And an even funnier concept. Analysis shows it might work in a small, fairly homogeneous population. Many/most economists would tell you if you tried it in a country like ours it would be almost impossible and be ineffective. We are not Sweden or Norway.
Yeah in a way
By Parkwayne
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 1:10pm
You think American oligarchic capitalism is the best possible system? For real? Real basic wages are stagnant, healthcare costs ruin people but sure, a minority of the population is doing very well. People born into stable, wealthy (relative to average, not meaning 1%) do well. People born into poverty generally can't escape poverty due to the erosion of real wages and benefits.
You think the gig economy is better than a good job where a blue collar family can buy a house? You think this system can't be improved so more people live better lives?
We are not Sweden or Norway because the kind of venture capital which runs amok here doesn't exist there. Read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IN8ZX7A/ref=dp-kindle...
.... and tell me more about how this is a good system.
Here's an article which references a study done by Rumsfeld and Cheney (surely your kind of people) that showed that mostly people still wanted to work and be productive with a UBI - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/who-...
Let's look at this another way - the trillion dollar Trump tax cuts have done nothing but explode our deficit without increasing productivity, investments or distributed benefits. Why not try something else? Let me guess, we suddenly can't afford this now that the Sacklers and Kochs have topped off their offshore accounts, right?
Root canal
By StillFromDorchester
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 9:48am
Or listen to her? Easy choice.
Poor thing.
By Coyote137
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 9:55am
You'll have to get used to listening to the "shrill" voice of a woman president eventually, and it probably won't be a Republican woman.
You mean President Klobuchar?
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 9:58am
Fine. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. If Warren, it's hello third party - AGAIN!
Warren - please. Dumbest smart person I know.
And a total fake. If you're going to lie as a politician, you should at least be good at it.
Oh. Please. DO.
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:37am
Promise? Because that would be awesome. Next best thing to folding your ballot and wiping your ass with it. Please promise you will?
Oh I will
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:42am
And far from that there are very good reasons, especially in Mass to vote third party. In my opinion anyone that voted Hillary or Trump ended up with dirty toilet paper in their hands last time around. I wasn't fooled by either of them. My only wish is that Weld had been at the top of the Libertarian ticket - there might have been a fighting chance to have the election thrown to the House or at least get an independent party a place at the table in the 2020 election - but alas, it was not to be.
Um...
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:06am
...do you even math?
Never mind...
Um...
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:14am
Do you know how the electoral system works?
If it's an even split and an independent party wins literally just one state and nobody gets a majority, the election goes to the House (a la Jefferson and Quincy Adams). Even Rhode Island or Montana could then be the swing vote depending on how the electoral college vote falls. The thought was at the time that a moderate conservative like Johnson, or more likely Weld could have swayed Republicans who then owned the majority, to vote for the third party rather than the crazy Republican nominee we ended up with.
Far more likely was that if the Libertarians got 5% of the vote they would have gotten some advantages this time around - I believe some public funding and a place in the debates. Unfortunately, Johnson only pulled 3.3%.
Remember - there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans and if trends continue, there will soon be more independents than Democrats and Republicans COMBINED!
Oh yes
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:35am
I do. You, on the other hand...
...don't seem to understand that what you call "independents" are in fact unaffiliated voters. They are not "third-party voters". But do enjoy your fantasy.
Please be specific
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:48am
a) Where is the systemic error in my understanding of the electoral system that you allude to?
b) Never said they were third party - but they are mostly disinterested in party politics and if you can find a way to energize them in a couple of states, you never know. (hard as they are a very diverse group and probably less passionate about the extreme positions the major parties have moved toward).
Again - I had no delusions of any third party "winning". There was the very remote chance a third party (if they had a better candidate) could take a swing state or two (Minnesota for example with a penchant for independents). More likely, and perhaps better, would have been a third party that got 5% of the vote and in turn we got a louder and more moderate voice on the stage. Not to be - and probably not for 2020 either. Some day, eventually, if the major parties continue to move to the far edges.
At the primary stage, these "unaffiliated"
By roadman
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:14pm
voters still have to choose a party ballot. Which is why so many of them choose not to vote in primaries.
To encourage greater voter participation, and to give ALL candidates an equal footing, we need to abolish the practice of having separate party-based ballots at the primary and put ALL candidates, including independents, on a single primary ballot.
That's the rule in Mass
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:17pm
In many states unenrolled voters aren't even allowed to vote in primaries.
Explain the need for this rule
By roadman
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:50pm
Requiring an unaffiliated voter to choose a party ballot limits their choices. Yet, having a single ballot does not prevent a party loyalist from choosing only candidates from the party they support.
Also consider the additional costs and logistics of requiring separate ballots for each party. Effort and money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Lastly, although an unaffiliated voter remains unaffiliated after casting their ballot (which wasn't always the case in Massachusetts), their ballot choice is recorded and becomes part of the public record for the election. So much for the concept of a secret ballot.
If we want to get serious about attracting more voters early in the process, these are some of the things we need to seriously consider changing.
Explain the need for this rule
By roadman
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:50pm
Requiring an unaffiliated voter to choose a party ballot limits their choices. Yet, having a single ballot does not prevent a party loyalist from choosing only candidates from the party they support.
Also consider the additional costs and logistics of requiring separate ballots for each party. Effort and money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Lastly, although an unaffiliated voter remains unaffiliated after casting their ballot (which wasn't always the case in Massachusetts), their ballot choice is recorded and becomes part of the public record for the election. So much for the concept of a secret ballot.
If we want to get serious about attracting more voters early in the process, these are some of the things we need to seriously consider changing.
No idea
By Stevil
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 5:10pm
just saying, that's how it works. and in many states unenrolled voters don't get to vote in primaries at all.
Go talk to the parties
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:39pm
Parties make the rules for their primaries. Do you understand how any of this works? At all?
Not in MA
By anon
Wed, 01/01/2020 - 10:06pm
In MA, it's state law. The state parties have no say in who is eligible to vote in their primaries -- primaries that the state pays for, btw.
And...?
By fungwah
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:43am
Unless you're voting in Michigan or Wisconsin, no one cares. (thanks, Electoral College!)
Why did you put shrill in quotation?
By StillFromDorchester
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:01am
I never mentioned her gender except to say "her"
Do you think all women are shrill?
Predictable that you would
By Coyote137
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:36am
play dumb. We've heard it a million times before. And we'll hear it a million times again.
Play dumb?
By StillFromDorchester
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:09pm
Was it me or you who used the word shrill?
In your head a person who isnt a fan of Sen. Warren must be some kind of creep who calls other women shrill?
That says more about you than it does about me.
Yeah, right-wing turds
By Coyote137
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:59pm
like yourself NEVER call women candidates shrill! I just made it up out of whole cloth all by myself this morning!
Now I'm a right wing turd?
By StillFromDorchester
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 6:21pm
Wow, you are amazing. I'm also not a fan of Trump,does that make me a leftwing turd as well?
Bwaaahahaha
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:40pm
As are any number of misogynists who contributed significantly to the dreadful state we're in today. Google "never trumpers".
Block function, Adam
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:38am
Disingenuous dimwits like this should be banned, but barring that, at least let us block them.
(watch him double down with "strident" next)
Don’t you have enough self
By Republican
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:54pm
Don’t you have enough self control to simply ignore or not read a comment? Why is a block feature necessary? Everyone has different opinions and if Adam bans those with opposing opinions then that makes him a weak bigot. He does a decent job of letting people with differing opinions post. Turn on CNN if you are bothered by words on this blog.
Another internet newb
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:41pm
Google "signal to noise ratio".
Ibb, I'm sensing that you're
By Rob
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 4:59pm
Ibb, I'm sensing that you're having some difficulty with the whole "pseudo-public discourse means other people might express themselves in your hearing - even people who don't agree with you, even trolls" thing.
Have you considered that a news site/blog with a comment box might not be your cup of tea?
Would you be happier in the Diogenes Club?
8|
By Rob
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:33am
8|
.
.
.
<...was about to say something pithy, self-assured, and judgmental about the candidate when I realized that if I had gone today I would have been standing by myself in the damp chill for three hours outside Old South Church, not Old South Meeting House...>
Wish I could be there
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:41am
Warren is a talented and inspiring speaker. If you've never heard her speak, I feel sorry for you. She's done many town halls around the Bay State, so it's not as if you haven't had opportunities.
(of course, some of you prefer misogynistic hatred to facts, so it's probably better that you stay home and spray spit on your monitor)
Cool.
By Republican
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:57pm
Cool.
Ruh Roh
By capecoddah
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:05am
So I go over to Youtube where 17 people are watching her official Boston New Years Speech video and I notice she says her father was a janitor.
That is hilarious.
Her own brother stated: "My Dad was never a janitor,"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/10/26/ke...
Update - Bernie wins the internet
By capecoddah
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:31am
So I am watching the live stream now on youtube (she has not live-mentioned anything about janitors or indians yet) and it seems like this Bernie Sanders guy is really, really popular judging by the live comments. Trump comes in second. Warren is a distant third on her own video feed comments.... or fourth... there is a poster who does NOT like Jewish people and is not afraid to comment about it. I can't tell who they support.
The live stream is up to 117 people watching. Good for her.
Update: capecoddah is a bitter cranky old troll
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:36am
Block function, Adam. This chancre does not need a platform.
Once again, stop reading and
By Republican
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:55pm
Once again, stop reading and acknowledging comments if they bother you. Happy New Year.
IBB
By Suldog
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 5:27pm
I will go smiling into the new year knowing that Adam will NEVER honor your desire to block other's freedom of speech. One thing we can count on here is that Adam allows fair comment whether he agrees or disagrees.
Suldog
Your link is off, about a brown cornpop (cereal)
By Dot net
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 12:04pm
According to other articles, her dad's last job was as a maintenance man at an apartment complex. His duties included mowing lawns and cleaning the pool. Janitor has become a derisive term in the US, connoting an outsourced cleaner, which is lower status, somehow than a custodian or caretaker nowadays.
But traditionally, the term and duties were synonymous, until cleaning became outsourced to the lowest bidder. Her dad had some traditional janitorial duties. I think quibbling about the term is asinine. Any job that benefits people is worthy of respect, even if some think the title of janitor is "downmarket".
Regardless, her military vet brothers stand behind her, which I think is the full message of the Globe article you were actually looking to cite: Elizabeth Warren’s brothers are a silent fixture of her campaign
Perception is reality in politics. Warren is a crackpot.
By O-FISH-L
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:18am
Most people have filled out a form where "race" is a question. The question is straightforward even if lying might enhance the applicant's chances. Most voters wouldn't dream of lying about this. Warren did. New and unending credibility questions are just window dressing at this point. She is correctly perceived as a crackpot with no chance.
Another troll
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:38am
Block function, Adam.
I mean, just look at the comments here. Look at it. It's a god damned disgrace. You're letting these dog-whistling spit-sprayers shit all over your site.
It's a crappy day and the roads are a mess
By Old Groucho
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:46am
The home health care aides and caretakers won't let most of them drive or leave the house for fear of breaking a hip (or worse) so they're listening to EEI and refreshing UHub all day to upvote their own comments.
It's pathetic.
You sound nice.
By Republican
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:55pm
You sound nice.
You know who Adam should block?
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 5:37pm
Look in a mirror.
A better idea would be to allow a diversity of opinions.
By the way, all this offense you are taking today? I do believe that might be an example of being a “snowflake.”
As for my opinion on the actual matter at hand, whatever. Some people want to see Warren speak. Others, not so much.
"a diversity of opinions"
By lbb
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 7:43pm
Allowing toxic haters to shit all over a post about a major political figure giving a speech is not fostering "a diversity of opinions". I know that you're againsty and disingenuous, but this is a bit much even for you.
Hey
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 10:22pm
If I ever went through the trouble of searching this website, might I ever stumble across a comment where you made “toxic” comments about the current President?
Fish only repeated a comment that was probably made 7 years ago based on the politician’s own statements. If that’s not fair game, Adam might as well shut down the comments portion of his website.
So, by your own logic, Trump
By anon
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 11:42am
So, by your own logic, Trump is disqualified as well, don't you think so? He's lied many more times about much bigger things.
two cents
By Luke Warmer
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:04pm
this turned into a stimulating thread, due to the quality of the arguments being made. the only value i place on the magagagagaga bile-spewing antiwoman hate troll thugs is that if you let them post we get to keep our eye on them--and that's important. ignoring them or banning them from posting is not the answer. yes, they are deplorable. but no, they are not capable of participating in an informed conversation, so when the bulk of the comments turn to legitimate arguments, the trolls are left in the dust in whatever Moscow flop house they are posting from. The answer is more informed debate to overwhelm trolls so that they go mum for the moment, not banning trolls.
What did she talk about?
By Don't Panic
Tue, 12/31/2019 - 2:20pm
Trolleys? We need more trolleys again.
Actually... no
By capecoddah
Sat, 01/04/2020 - 10:14am
Nope. I cannot figure it out.
The exchange of ideas seems top notch to me. The level of discourse appears no worse than a typical bike lane argument or the slugfests by the rare but extremely vocal posters who think do-not-prosecute lists are not insane.
If it wasn't for the exchange of ideas, and the graciously provided space to exchange them in, then idiots would still be wearing safety pins and pussy hats.
I mean, you all might actually vote for Biden if you don't hurry up and allow him to be crowd tested in unsanitized arenas.
Remember Dukakis? Y'all got stuck with him because Al Gore had not invented the internet yet.
Edit: Oh yeah.... have fun at your pro-Iranian-terrorist rally, traitorous chumps. Our president does NOT bomb aspirin factories.
Edit2: “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans.” Elizabeth "Beats War Drums" Warren
Pages