Sign petition here!
Put Elizabeth Warren on the Banking Committee!
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/17/2012|
Really freeper? The election is over. You lost. Give it a rest R1. What is the point of trolling now?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/15/2012|
R1 = Scott Brown, soon to be a former Senator
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/15/2012|
Considering those she is up against, I hope she gets extra security.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/15/2012|
R5 didn't you go on about this elsewhere. Can't you get over it?
Perhaps it's time you take a short break from The Datalounge.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/15/2012|
[quote] Warren lost support among many liberals in MA
And yet she won the election against a popular incumbent despite the loss of support of "many liberals in MA." Oh well, guess independents and conservatives voted her in.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/15/2012|
[quote] most of whom voted for Warren with reservations
So, your relatives are Native American, too?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/15/2012|
It was never a "scandal."
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/15/2012|
It was only a scandal in the feverish minds of Scott Brown supporters.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/15/2012|
R5 when the "Native American" story broke in May her poll #s didn't budge. This was often pointed out when pundits started to wonder why Scott Brown brought it up during the debates (and risk his nice guy personea not doing it through others).
They remained neck and neck from the day the story broke until the 2nd debate when she started to inch ahead. The Native American thing was brought up then too.
MA is 60% Independents and those were the ones who broke more towards Brown ... Democrats stuck by her
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/15/2012|
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/15/2012|
I thought R1 was being sarcastic.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/15/2012|
[quote]Warren lost support among many liberals in MA once that scandal hit.
Nonsense. Warren beat Brown by 8 percentage points. Her support went up after Brown's ridiculous Native American attacks.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/15/2012|
They keep saying Brown loss because people associated him with the wackos of the GOP, and that he was polled as the most likable politician in MA, but is that still true? Do people still like him after his attacks on Warren?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/15/2012|
She didn't exploit, sweetie. I know you types can't deal with competence, but get over it and yourselves.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/15/2012|
[quote] Do people still like him after his attacks on Warren?
Dunno, but he'll definitely be back. The GOP won't let go of a semi-handsome, semi-young man who was able to project masculinity and win in a democratic state. He may run for congress or governor, or the GOP might appoint him to something like head of the RNC. He proved, with his stupid, racist attacks to be exactly the kind of guy the GOP loves. He'll go far with that crew.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/15/2012|
already ready to fight
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/15/2012|
I was hoping this would be the end of Brown, R21.
Why would a state like MA want him back?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/15/2012|
That's why I worry about Kerry getting either SOS or SOD.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/15/2012|
[quote]My bad [R19]. She didn't exploit - she only allowed Harvard to exploit it if it meant her career would be propelled forward. You're totally right on that detail, sweetums.
It did absolutely nothing to propel her career forward.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/15/2012|
[quote]There was nothing racist about his attack,
The Cherokee Nation thought otherwise.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/15/2012|
To add to the list of things that would survive a world-wide nuclear war (besides cockroaches and Cher): Cunty, mendacious, victimized and ultimately incompetent white guys like R18/20/25. At least then they could stake a true claim to superiority over one species on earth.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/15/2012|
R25, you are a total asshole. Brown said he could tell by looking at Warren that she wasn't Native American.
You can't tell someone's ethnic background just by looking at them, and thousands of people wrote in to say just that.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/15/2012|
Okay, r30. I'll do that:
[quote]Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995. He said he didn’t recall her Native American heritage ever coming up during the hiring process.
“It simply played no role in the appointments process. It was not mentioned and I didn’t mention it to the faculty,” he said.[/quote]
[quote]Fried said he learned about Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware background later when he found a picture of Warren’s mother and asked her about it. Both Warren’s grandparents on her mother’s side had Native American lineage, her campaign said yesterday.[/quote]
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/15/2012|
R25, given that this is a gay message board, your epithet is particularly offensive. It doesn't do much to forward your Holier-than-thou argument either.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/15/2012|
The fucking asswipes whining have hijacked the list. Please keep your comments to Warren on the banking committee or start your own damn thread.
I think it is a great idea. Harry Reid better get on board.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/15/2012|
I don't know who these fucktards are who think they know MA politics but they don't know jack.
The ONE thing holding Elizabeth Warren back was her vagina. My beloved home state has never elected a woman as governor or senator.
Because Warren was such an excellent candidate, she overcame the sexist bias and won. Brown's bullshit over her Native American heritage never hurt her campaign in the slightest.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/15/2012|
Warren will be on the Banking Committee. Kirsten Gillibrand gave up her seat with the understanding that it be given to Warren.
Which is yet another awesome thing Gillibrand has done.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/15/2012|
I love Gillibrand too, if she eventually finds her way to a run for the president's office sometime in the future, she has my full support.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/15/2012|
Not a surprise that someone who uses "Liberals" as an insult jumps easily to "Faggots". Thanks Trolldar.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/15/2012|
In the US Senate, where every Senator believes he or she would do a better job than ANY President and really ought to BE President, Gillibrand is raising some eyebrows with her aggressive ambition.
I like a lot of things about her but I am not wholly on board yet. We'll see how she handles things. Stepping aside on Banking to make room for Warren was a good move.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/15/2012|
Gillibrand is my state senate and I think she is great. Her voice however is her fatal fault. Such a disappointment.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/15/2012|
[quote]In the US Senate, where every Senator believes he or she would do a better job than ANY President and really ought to BE President, Gillibrand is raising some eyebrows with her aggressive ambition.
I'm not trying to throw shade here, but would you still stay that were she a man?
Because she's clearly ambitious, and I think is clearly setting herself up for a run at the White House, but that she's done just about everything right since she took her seat, is that a bad thing?
I mean, she understood, instantly, that if she was going to be the Senator for the entirety of New York, she had to represent its interests. And she's apparently well-liked enough that 30% of Republicans voted for her this year.
As far as I'm concerned, we need more people like her. And I'm very excited I'll get to be one of her constituents in a few months.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/15/2012|
Oh for heaven's sake.
Yes, VOTN, I would (and have) written the same thing about men. Given their sense of entitlement, it's even *more* true about male Senators. It's certainly been true of male senators for a lot longer. The men started it with the very first Senate we ever convened. How many thought they would be a better POTUS than George Washington? (Answer: Most of them.) What I wrote is actually a very old meme about US Senators. I'm surprised you haven't read/heard it before now.
The point is not really how Gillibrand represents New York, I'm sure she does a fine job. The point is how she navigates the Senate and the national stage over the next two years. If she grandstands, hogs the spotlight, pisses off her colleagues to the point where she cannot get their support or they actively undermine her, she's toast. It is no easy thing to raise your own national profile while keeping jealousy and backstabbing from your fellow Senators to a minimum.
The exact same thing is true for any male newcomer to the Senate with national ambitions.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/15/2012|
I, too, am impressed with Kirsten Gillibrand. She will be a good one to keep an eye on.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/15/2012|
Gillibrand doesn't seem overly ambitious to me. In fact, she often puts the interests of others ahead of her own and is usually a team player.
She has already said she will support Hillary in 2016 for President if Hillary runs.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/15/2012|
[quote]The exact same thing is true for any male newcomer to the Senate with national ambitions.
Except she's not a newcomer. She's been there for four years, and is about to start another six-year term in January. If she runs in 2016, she'll have been there for eight years, twice as long as President Obama when he ran. And she was in the House for two years before that. She's also going to have her overall seniority go up by a lot once the new Congress convenes.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/16/2012|
Are you talking about Kirsten Gillibrand, VOTN? She hasn't been there for 4 years yet, but I guess you are rounding it off.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/16/2012|
[quote]Are you talking about Kirsten Gillibrand, VOTN? She hasn't been there for 4 years yet, but I guess you are rounding it off
Pardon me. 3 years, 9 months, 3 weeks.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/16/2012|
"On the first day of the new session in January, the senators will have a unique opportunity to change the filibuster rule with a majority vote, rather than the normal two-thirds vote. The change can be modest: If someone objects to a bill or a nomination in the United States Senate, they should have to stand on the floor of the chamber and defend their opposition.
I'm joining Senator Jeff Merkley and six other newly elected senators to pledge to lead this reform on Day One, and I hope you'll be right there with us. Our campaign didn't end on Election Day -- and I'm counting on you to keep on working each and every day to bring real change for working families. This is the first step."
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/16/2012|
Wow very impressed with Gillibrand. Being a Senator or any representative from NY often they need to soften a stance with banks to fund campaigns. Hillary had to.
Warren is unique in that she got zero funding from wall street & the banking sector , she has more freedom & and a thorough understanding of bankruptcy to do a really good job.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/16/2012|
First step: She needs to have political funding from Wall Street declared a conflict of interest.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/17/2012|
Republicans are compulsively slapping their fat, wet breasts over Warren becoming a Senator. It drives them mad that she won - we have to have her back.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/17/2012|