Hey, there! Log in / Register
Double loser claims Massachusetts residents drove to New Hampshire to vote
By adamg on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 11:00am
Boston Magazine reports on Scott Brown's allegations during his "monthly on-air spongebath" on Herald radio. Of course, Brown might be the one person able to recognize Mass. voters filling in ovals north of the Merrimack - since he uniquely lost a Senate race here, then traveled north to lose a Senate race there.
Free tagging:
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.
Comments
Warren is such a huge upgrade
Warren is such a huge upgrade over a guy who had so little to offer that he brought up the fact that he drove a pick up truck in every speech he gave.
Really
What's she done for us lately? Or for that matter - ever?
Why don't you look it up
And see?
Seriously, Stevil, you're losing it. Unless you are doing the standard "what has she done for ME ME ME ME ME ME ME" refrain that you so love to sing.
I have
Her legislative record is effectively zero.
Unless you are referring to the CPFB or something which despite their claims is no prize.
Warren
Given that Republicans have controlled the House since she was elected to the Senate, and Republicans were first able to filibuster everything proposed by the Democratic majority - then they took over the majority, judging a Democratic Senator's effectiveness based on legislative accomplishments is not a fair metric. This is particularly true with Obama-era Republicans who refuse to accept anything proposed by Democrats, not matter how much it reaches across the aisle -- they've even turned down their own bills if Democrats support them. Republicans have openly said that compromising is the same as defeat, so no one can claim that Democrats' (like Warren) inability to get legislation passed is because they're just not good enough at compromising, or are "too partisan."
Otherwise, off the top of my head - just a couple of months ago, Warren aggressively questioned now-former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf during a Senate Banking Committee hearing about the abusive and predatory practices the company engaged in by screwing over their customers. A few weeks after the questioning (in which Warren told him to resign) went viral, he resigned. That's something.
Ooooohhh Scary questions
Exactly the point - she has a big mouth - and doesn't get much done. Hell - even her Democratic colleagues don't like her.
He didn't resign because of that - Wells took off his golden handcuffs and there was no upside to sticking around. (and as for the tongue lashing - I watched a chunk of the hearings - EVERYONE took a swipe from both sides of the aisle)
I did crack up on one point though - Warren asked "why aren't you in jail?"
Well - for one thing he didn't break any laws (regulations and ethical violations - yes, not laws apparently). She's a LAWMAKER. The real question - especially after the financial crisis is "Why didn't you get any laws passed that would have put him (and all the other crooks on Wall Street, of which there is no shortage - it's just that most of their crimes are legal) in jail?"
BIg mouth
As a relatively junior senator from a minority party whose every move is blocked by the opposition party, that's pretty much the only tool you've got at your disposal. I think she's using it effectively and for good.
Save your brain
This is a guy who thinks that WalMart can run the schools, pay unqualified people less than minimum wage, and magically raise test scores in a state where you need to be close to perfect to be a merit scholar as it is.
Either that, or he's been inhaling what he's selling.
Why
Are you shifting the scope of the discussion? Shouldn't you at least provide something positive that Scott Brown did in comparison?
And to the other person's point, you should look it up: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/is-elizabeth-warren-...
This was one of the first few results in googling "what has elizabeth warren accomplished in the senate".
Like her or not, she's done positive things. It doesn't sound like you've done any significant research, unless, of course, you'd like to provide reasons why anyone should think otherwise.
Reasons to think otherwise
Try reading the article you linked to.
Guess we just have differing opinions on
what is successful. You still didn't provide anything beneficial that Brown did, by the way.
Guess so
I define success as getting things done - not getting on TV. By that measure, Donald Trump is the most successful person in the country these days (and hey - at least he's built and sold some nice buildings - gotta at least give him that). Hey - Hillary was in the minority while in the Senate and she got a few things done - especially after 9/11 - why can't Warren in the wake of the financial crisis - hmmm?
Brown actually had a decent record for a short stint in the senate - especially on Veteran's issues. He's not the brightest bulb in the string - but whether him or someone else - all else aside - Mass could use a Republican or two in Washington right now (House or Senate).
And I'll repeat - Warren and I actually agree on a lot of issues, probably more issues than I agreed with Kennedy on. The difference was that Ted got things done - no matter who was in power (and despite it being harder today - he'd probably still be effective).
There is a double standard
Comparing a first term Senator to someone whose career was in the Senate? Would the comparison or criticism be made if Warren was a man? She's already been criticized for not getting along with her colleagues (contradicting what was in the Atlantic article).
Trump is successful? He claims to have built buildings. By himself? No one else was involved? What about other builders? Are they somehow deficient in comparison. We should remember that Trump is proving himself to be one of the most dishonest people in the nation. He settled the Trump University suit because he knew he was wrong and deceitful. Otherwise why not keep the suit going considering the other suits against him have tended to go in his direction. What of the suits currently against him. How many Presidents have started office the defendant in nearly 100 civil suit many with a common theme: that Trump cheated them.
Is exaggeration and lying the mark of a success? From churches to boy scouts there is a singular message about lying: its wrong. Consistent lying is the mark of a man of failed character. But perhaps making money is more important than character, honesty and all those old fashioned virtues. Welcome to the 80s. Is Ronald Reagan President again?
There is a double standard
Comparing a first term Senator to someone whose career was in the Senate? Would the comparison or criticism be made if Warren was a man? She's already been criticized for not getting along with her colleagues (contradicting what was in the Atlantic article).
Trump is successful? He claims to have built buildings. By himself? No one else was involved? What about other builders? Are they somehow deficient in comparison. We should remember that Trump is proving himself to be one of the most dishonest people in the nation. He settled the Trump University suit because he knew he was wrong and deceitful. Otherwise why not keep the suit going considering the other suits against him have tended to go in his direction. What of the suits currently against him. How many Presidents have started office the defendant in nearly 100 civil suit many with a common theme: that Trump cheated them.
Is exaggeration and lying the mark of a success? From churches to boy scouts there is a singular message about lying: its wrong. Consistent lying is the mark of a man of failed character. But perhaps making money is more important than character, honesty and all those old fashioned virtues. Welcome to the 80s. Is Ronald Reagan President again?
I think the issue I take
In your critique is that the only metric that you give to senators is that they write their own legislation. Voting for or against good/bad legislation is just as good of a metric, yet you don't seem to think the same way. Or, that she participated in such a way to facilitate good/bad legislation facing the ultimate fate that it did. I mean, there are other things she's done as a senator that are much to her credit as fulfilling her obligations in her role in a positive manner, but you don't seem to want to give her the same credit. What is the measurement of quality you're applying to her that makes her worse than Scott Brown, or, fine, I'll give you your soapbox, not being a good senator?
Your definition of success
You do? And yet you keep comparing Warren unfavorably to Scott Brown, the dudebro's dudebro? So please tell us, since you've refused to answer the direct question of just what Scott Brown accomplished in the Senate that makes Warren look bad in comparison: what is the foundation for your admiration and affection for Scott Brown? I've seen a lot of (not very) grownup fratboys who get all misty over Brown - is that also your reason for being such a fan?
Read my other posts
Period
Is she in the GOP?
No, she isn't so your point is pretty much invalid.
The current GOP Senate leadership has sprinted away from the good old days of clubby legislature where Ted Kennedy and Phil Gram or whoever could make deals as part of their avowed plan to hamper the Obama administration.. It's a polarized body much more so than in recent memory so laying blame on the minority party for lack of legislative accomplishment is weak sauce.
Was actually referring to her record as a whole
Last time I checked (I think in 2015) - she had like zero or 1 meaningful sponsored bill. I will say - she's been a bit busier over the past 12-18 months - so she has been filing some legislation based on a search I just did rechecking her legislative record. I don't think anything has passed, but at least she's proposing a few things - and perhaps that's partly to your point. But part of my point is even her fellow Dems don't like her. Not saying a lot gets done in Washington - but SOME things do get done. And there are enough mid-western Republicans whose constituents hate Wall Street as much as she does - those kinds of laws should be a layup for her - even as a minority. Zip/Zilch/Nada (and even though I'm in the biz - I do probably agree with her on most of her Wall Street views. It's amazing what people get away with in this business - and it's all perfectly legal - what comes across my desk all too frequently is disgusting, and not a thing anyone can do about it as things stand)
difference being
the Midwestern common folk who hate Wall St elect leaders who won't do shit about it, and actively work to make it EASIER for the financial "industry" to steal/cheat/scam their way to riches I cannot imagine. We elected Warren in this state almost solely to go to Washington and scold these MFers, and that's what she's doing. Being in the senate minority if she even gets some of her proposed legislation LOOKED AT I consider that a plus. You also have yet to point out anything...ANYTHING...Scott Brown accomplished aside from getting on his knees for the GOP.
I for one will keep voting for Pocahontas so long as she keeps being a thorn in everyone's side down there. I almost don't care if she ever "accomplishes" anything by your metrics.
Twice your posts mention that
Twice your posts mention that she is disliked by her colleagues. Yet the Atlantic article states that she is liked and respected - by colleagues. So what is the source for the statement that she is disliked by colleagues? Without offering evidence the remark disliked by her colleagues sounds closer to a statement such as she is harsh or pushy (which for a man of course would be stated are strong and forceful).
The article also notes that while her legislative accomplishments are not numerous (whose is?) she is yet influential. In college I learned that there is authority and then there is power. Authority would come in a bill being passed. Power is in the influence.
Considering that the current Republican leadership had declared that their rule is based on "my way or the highway" to criticize a first term Senator for lack of bills passed is ignoring the reality of a government run by people who don't want government to exist and are willing to shut it down (and did for a few weeks - again!).
So lets recap:
What is the evidence that her colleagues dislike her?
What is the response to the Atlantic's writer's statement,
1-2
1) All I can say is believe what you want to believe
2) Fingerprints on legislation - what does that mean? I can't even define that, much less measure it. And if no Democratic legislation is getting past a Republican House and Senate - how could it be getting to Obama's desk anyway - the whole statement is logically flawed. Or are you saying her fingerprints are all over Republican legislation? Or are other Democratic senators simply more effective at getting their legislation past the Republicans, proving my point that she is ineffective?
Respond to the Atlantic article?
Where is the evidence that Warren is disliked by her colleagues? Make an accusation and then pretend it wasn't made once challenged?
I didn't use the term fingerprints. It was used by the Atlantic writer. Yet the phrase is common. It means that a person's input can be perceived.
Where was it written that no legislation is making its way to the White House? Perhaps the reference is to the quote,
Note the description that Warren's record is typical of her class.
Careful
Heavens sake! You'd better get a rearview mirror if you're gonna backpedal at such high speed. Sorry, Steevil, clearly YOU are the one believing what you want to believe. You were provided with contradictory evidence and asked to shore up your own opinion, and this is the best you can come up with.
Learn to read
Between the lines
Read the invisible pixels?
I can't. They're invisible.
Pandering for a job in the Trump admin
As a resident of Plaistow, which borders Haverhill MA, I can tell you New Hampshire wants nothing to do with MA (Other than being a source of their jobs). You need an ID to vote here.
All the towns electoral staff are people who grew up here and who work in town. They know everybody because you have to go to them at the town hall for your license, property taxes and dog license.
Scott Brown is full of crap and he knows it. But he loves to pander. He pandered to the people of Mass and the people of NH. Thankfully both saw thru him.
Hopefully Trump will too.
All the towns electoral staff
So in other words, there's no actual need for Voter ID laws.
Sigh
As I said on Twitter...
"And now... a word from CrazyTown"
bqwhtever.
bqwhtever.
Bqhatevwr
I mean, we may as well get it right.
Bqhwtxyzvwr.
Bqhwtxyzvwr.
My friends did that
They live in Boston and voted in NH. Granted - they are registered in NH where they own a home and just live here during the week in a rental. Same for a couple of my neighbors.
Maybe that's what Scotto saw?
Unfortunately for him, it's all perfectly legal.
He shook hands with Curt Schilling at a polling place?
I mean, I wouldn't put it past him, but ...
LOL
I could just see Schilling trying to vote in NH, and coming up with some pathetic reason why that was acceptable, too.
This is Boston!
We built a statue to that lovable rogue Mayor James Michael Curley whose campaign song ended with the slogan "vote early and often"
Hate to break it to you ...
But Curley's been dead for a few decades now.
Rats off
to ya!
Ditto for Larry and Moe.
Ditto for Larry and Moe.
Who's Scott
Brown?
Some jackass who loves the
Some jackass who loves the limelight and is willing to sell his soul, his daughters souls (and bodies) for a chance to feed at the public trough.
He's some asshole
who drives a pickup truck.
HTH
Here's my chance
to repost the thing I post every time someone brings up wide-scale voter fraud. Mostly it's anonymous internet trolls, but we live in a brave new world where the president-elect thinks it's a good idea to question the legitimacy of an election he won, so what the hell.
From Lawyers, Guns & Money:
Waaaaay back in college
A long time ago during my college days I knew two kids that voted twice. They had been registered in their home states and they registered here in Massachusetts. They voted by absentee ballot in Connecticut and in person in Massachusetts. I'm pretty sure they didn't swing any elections in either case. I don't like when people say it doesn't happen because it does but I don't think it happens in any meaningful numbers to matter.
No one said it doesn't ever happen
No one said it doesn't ever happen. It happened in this election; there's a case of a Trump voter who attempted to vote twice and was caught. The contention is that voter fraud on the scale that would tip an election -- any election -- does not happen, and certain on the scale alleged by the serial liar, Donald Trump. Does. Not. Happen.