If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Elizabeth Warren believes the SCOTUS is too far right. Vows to fix that in 2016 *wink*   (politico.com) divider line 94
    More: Obvious, U.S. Supreme Court, Warren, Supreme Court, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Maria Cantwell, Democratic Coalition, Richard Trumka, vows  
•       •       •

1421 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 10:52 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-09 10:53:54 AM
In related news...water still wet, sun still shining.
 
2013-09-09 10:54:28 AM
 
2013-09-09 10:54:30 AM
I'll vote for the liberal okie.

/that's our word
 
2013-09-09 10:57:02 AM
Is Elizabeth Warren the new Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi?

I assume I'll be hearing about how ugly she is pretty soon.
 
2013-09-09 10:57:10 AM

Coach_J: In related news...water still wet, sun still shining.


It's not just the courts, Ms. Warren, it's also the government. But if headway can be made here, it would be a great start.
 
2013-09-09 10:58:17 AM
Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.
 
2013-09-09 10:58:39 AM
I'd take her over Hillary.
 
2013-09-09 10:59:13 AM
How could any regular citizen not like Warren? I remember the first time I saw her like 6 years ago on Bill Moyers' show and thinking "someday she'd make a fine President". Hey, it could still happen.
 
2013-09-09 10:59:52 AM

Rapmaster2000: Is Elizabeth Warren the new Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi?

I assume I'll be hearing about how ugly she is pretty soon.


Nah, Warren at least got to her position by herself. Hillary used baby boomer guilt over Bill's love of chubby girls to get herself elected and Pelosi got into office because she can raise money for liberals due to her massive corporate backing.
 
2013-09-09 11:01:38 AM
Warren would be the real most liberalist presidents evar, I doubt she would have let the banks launder money for cartels while the NSA spies on americans while she beat war drums to bomb Syria... you'd hope anyway.
 
2013-09-09 11:05:27 AM

Wooly Bully: How could any regular citizen not like Warren?


People have a vague, unfocused anger at Wall Street without a real understanding of how horrible the big banks are and how lawless the financial system has become.  Warren has been one of its most outspoken opponents and managed to defeat a tough Wall Street-funded opponent to take her seat.  She's the best shot at the real deal we've had in a very long time.
 
2013-09-09 11:06:17 AM

AnotherBluesStringer: I'd take her over Hillary.


I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.
 
2013-09-09 11:06:25 AM

Rapmaster2000: Is Elizabeth Warren the new Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi?

I assume I'll be hearing about how ugly she is pretty soon.


You mean you haven't heard that already? And I'm surprised there hasn't been a squaw comment yet...
Just like with Clinton and Pelosi, there's an outright irrational hatred that rivals Obama derangement syndrome. An old white guy democrat is at least the right color for Republicans, even if he still needs impeached for daring to govern while Democrat, but a woman or minority? Foaming at the mouth insanity.
 
2013-09-09 11:08:02 AM

Zombie Butler: I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.


So you'll vote for Warren if she's the nominee, but won't vote for Clinton if she is instead?
 
2013-09-09 11:08:32 AM

AnotherBluesStringer: I'd take her over Hillary.

 
2013-09-09 11:09:38 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: Rapmaster2000: Is Elizabeth Warren the new Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi?

I assume I'll be hearing about how ugly she is pretty soon.

You mean you haven't heard that already? And I'm surprised there hasn't been a squaw comment yet...
Just like with Clinton and Pelosi, there's an outright irrational hatred that rivals Obama derangement syndrome. An old white guy democrat is at least the right color for Republicans, even if he still needs impeached for daring to govern while Democrat, but a woman or minority? Foaming at the mouth insanity.


The "Nancy Pelosi is so ugly" meme is bizarre.  She's in her 70s.  Are septugenarians supposed to be hot?
 
2013-09-09 11:10:50 AM
Hey, Republicans, you still glad Elizabeth Warren isn't the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chair? You sure did stick it to dem libz!

Say, what's Sen. Scott Brown have to say about all this?
 
2013-09-09 11:11:46 AM
Give 'em hell Senator.
 
2013-09-09 11:15:31 AM

Outrageous Muff: Nah, Warren at least got to her position by herself. Hillary used baby boomer guilt over Bill's love of chubby girls to get herself elected and Pelosi got into office because she can raise money for liberals due to her massive corporate backing.


grist.files.wordpress.com

She got to where she is by lying about being from India, libtardo!
 
2013-09-09 11:16:44 AM

Shrugging Atlas: Zombie Butler: I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.

So you'll vote for Warren if she's the nominee, but won't vote for Clinton if she is instead?


Nope, wayyyyy too insider for me. If they put her up I guess I'll vote green or not vote for the presidency at all.  I just can't ethically vote for that lady. At least Obama gives inspiring speeches while stroking the backsides of power, she doesn't even inspire at all AND I think she'll  Stroke harder and faster than him.
 
2013-09-09 11:18:10 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: An old white guy democrat is at least the right color for Republicans


Slight digression here, but even mentioning this fact can cause a certain type of person to go completely apesh*t and scream that even mentioning race in this way proves that you're the real racist.

Won't someone think of the suffering this kind of talk causes old white guys?

/ old white guy, and this always cracks me up
 
2013-09-09 11:19:41 AM

Shrugging Atlas: Zombie Butler: I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.

So you'll vote for Warren if she's the nominee, but won't vote for Clinton if she is instead?



I can't speak for Zombie Butler, but as for myself, I'd vote for either of them.

However I'd be a couple orders of magnitude more willing to volunteer for Warren. I'd even phone bank for her all year long and I F'ING HATE PHONE BANKING. I think Clinton would be a competent President but I probably wouldn't fall in love with her. I'd knock on a few doors for a Clinton GOTV effort if she's the nominee but to my mind it would be kind of an afterthought to making sure Sen. Ron Johnson's defeated.
 
2013-09-09 11:22:54 AM

EyeballKid: Hey, Republicans, you still glad Elizabeth Warren isn't the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chair? You sure did stick it to dem libz!

Say, what's Sen. Scott Brown have to say about all this?


Scott Brown will call her "professor" as if that's a pejorative term and attack her on the native American thing..
 
2013-09-09 11:26:16 AM
Oh, back on the topic of SCOTUS ideological orientation, one of my favorite NY Times Infographics was one showing how the balance shifted with every appointment. It did an amazing job of pointing out how remarkable Thomas' appointment was, replacing one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the court (T. Marshall) with one of the most conservative.

I've looked online for it several times with no success. +11,000 internets to anyone who can find this thing online.
 
2013-09-09 11:40:31 AM

Shrugging Atlas: Zombie Butler: I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.

So you'll vote for Warren if she's the nominee, but won't vote for Clinton if she is instead?


This.  I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.
 
2013-09-09 11:45:13 AM

Wooly Bully: / old white guy


Oh thank God. Let's hope the actuarial tables work.
 
2013-09-09 11:45:44 AM
All we gotta do is get rid of Scalia.

Looks like the republicans might hook him up to machines though to keep him around knowing that without him no fear based or religious based ethics can become law. But I repeat myself.
 
2013-09-09 11:49:41 AM

Mrbogey: Wooly Bully: / old white guy

Oh thank God. Let's hope the actuarial tables work.


Nurse, some tampons for this troll, stat!
 
2013-09-09 11:54:42 AM
I'm not convinced she's interested in running.  But, if she is, I hope she's starting to study foreign policy.  It's going to be the obvious weakness that the GOP will attack her on.  She seems very focused on fixing some of the more damaging domestic policy issues that are hamstringing the US right now.
 
2013-09-09 11:59:10 AM

jcooli09: I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.


upload.wikimedia.org
Not a first pick for prez by any means, but he's one of the few Republicans who can act like a grown-up, and he's probably no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And, a Captain Beefheart fan at that! If Republicans were smart, this would be their nominee in 2016.

So, obviously it will be Rand Paul.
 
2013-09-09 12:02:25 PM

phaseolus: Oh, back on the topic of SCOTUS ideological orientation, one of my favorite NY Times Infographics was one showing how the balance shifted with every appointment. It did an amazing job of pointing out how remarkable Thomas' appointment was, replacing one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the court (T. Marshall) with one of the most conservative.

I've looked online for it several times with no success. +11,000 internets to anyone who can find this thing online.


Do you mean this one? It's not a NYT one I don't think, but it's the only one I can find that sounds like what you mean.
 
2013-09-09 12:04:43 PM

EyeballKid: jcooli09: I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x313]
Not a first pick for prez by any means, but he's one of the few Republicans who can act like a grown-up, and he's probably no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And, a Captain Beefheart fan at that! If Republicans were smart, this would be their nominee in 2016.

So, obviously it will be Rand Paul.


Sorry, he's still a Republican, just not an insane Tea Derper Republican.
 
2013-09-09 12:09:21 PM

enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.


I would vote for this ticket SO HARD. But I'm not sure the "Harvard Professor / Nerdy Jewish Comedian 2016" ticket can win an election anywhere outside of Aaron Sorkin's wet dreams.
 
2013-09-09 12:12:57 PM

EyeballKid: jcooli09: I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x313]
Not a first pick for prez by any means, but he's one of the few Republicans who can act like a grown-up, and he's probably no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And, a Captain Beefheart fan at that! If Republicans were smart, this would be their nominee in 2016.

So, obviously it will be Rand Paul.


He was one of the first (or possibly the first) candidate to get kicked out of the primaries last time, so he's no no chance in hell unless he goes full derp.
 
2013-09-09 12:14:59 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: EyeballKid: jcooli09: I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x313]
Not a first pick for prez by any means, but he's one of the few Republicans who can act like a grown-up, and he's probably no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And, a Captain Beefheart fan at that! If Republicans were smart, this would be their nominee in 2016.

So, obviously it will be Rand Paul.

He was one of the first (or possibly the first) candidate to get kicked out of the primaries last time, so he's no no chance in hell unless he goes full derp.


Lesson learned, don't you think? Based on this primary, 2016 is going to be a zoo. I can't wait.
 
2013-09-09 12:15:44 PM

phaseolus: Oh, back on the topic of SCOTUS ideological orientation, one of my favorite NY Times Infographics was one showing how the balance shifted with every appointment. It did an amazing job of pointing out how remarkable Thomas' appointment was, replacing one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the court (T. Marshall) with one of the most conservative.

I've looked online for it several times with no success. +11,000 internets to anyone who can find this thing online.


What was it Franken said a couple of years ago? Something to the effect of, since Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, no justice has been replaced with a more liberal justice.
 
2013-09-09 12:17:05 PM

phritz: enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.

I would vote for this ticket SO HARD. But I'm not sure the "Harvard Professor / Nerdy Jewish Comedian 2016" ticket can win an election anywhere outside of Aaron Sorkin's wet dreams.


I wouldn't mind living in Aaron Sorkin's wet dream, as long as that one chick from  Sports Night is in it, too.
 
2013-09-09 12:21:01 PM

enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.


I called the top of the ticket 6 months ago.

No way Franken is #2.

She'll be an absolutely horrible President, but she'll win easily.
 
2013-09-09 12:29:51 PM

The Bananadragon: Do you mean this one? It's not a NYT one I don't think, but it's the only one I can find that sounds like what you mean.



Not the same one, but it goes over a lot of the same ground as the one I'm thinking of.


UNC_Samurai: What was it Franken said a couple of years ago? Something to the effect of, since Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren, no justice has been replaced with a more liberal justice.



From what I can remember that was the the exact point the NYT infographic was illustrating - it showed how each opinion changed the court's balance. It may have been in response to some peoples' indignation at Franken's comment. I saw it in the Sunday print edition, I suspect it didn't stay on the NYT website more than a couple weeks.
 
2013-09-09 12:43:43 PM
I like her message, but her delivery makes her sound like a shrill harpy.
 
2013-09-09 12:43:45 PM

EyeballKid: jcooli09: I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.


Not a first pick for prez by any means, but he's one of the few Republicans who can act like a grown-up, and he's probably no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And, a Captain Beefheart fan at that! If Republicans were smart, this would be their nominee in 2016.

So, obviously it will be Rand Paul.


Ignoring the fact that he's not a Republican (unless he recently switched back), Hillary would have about as much chance at getting the GOP nomination as he would.

// He's the first non write-in I ever voted for in a Presidential election.
 
2013-09-09 12:48:36 PM

Mercutio74: I'm not convinced she's interested in running.  But, if she is, I hope she's starting to study foreign policy.  It's going to be the obvious weakness that the GOP will attack her on.  She seems very focused on fixing some of the more damaging domestic policy issues that are hamstringing the US right now.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/09/27/elizabeth-warren-fo re ign-policy/IvZ69ScGu6Ihr06rSNqOEI/story.html

There's nary a talking point nor a weasel answer in this whole interview. The woman knows her stuff.

The GOP doesn't have a single credible candidate on foreign policy, because to get through the primary as a Republican, your answer has to be "Jesus wants me to kill brown people".  Anyone who could consider a nuanced approach will get booed out of the room as Rick Perry and Allen West curb stomp a hobo for the television public.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:51 PM

enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.


Sorry, but no. Franken came out big for COICA/SOPA/PIPA, so there's no way I could vote for any ticket including him.

/you know a bill is really good if they have to keep changing the name in a desperate effort to confuse voters.
 
2013-09-09 12:57:48 PM
But what about that "I'm Ready for Hillary 2016" bumper sticker I got in the mail the other day?  Is that bumper sticker lying to me?
 
2013-09-09 01:04:14 PM

enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.


I would quit my job to work on that campaign.
 
2013-09-09 01:13:51 PM

jcooli09: Shrugging Atlas: Zombie Butler: I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.

So you'll vote for Warren if she's the nominee, but won't vote for Clinton if she is instead?

This.  I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.


Yeah, that was my point.  If you're left enough to Warren to win (and I mean that as a compliment), how on Earth would you consider anyone the Republicans have as a better alternative to Clinton?

I'd prefer Warren over Clinton any day; however, the idea of voting for any potential GOP candidate or throwing my vote away on some third party is a non-starter.  Not with the possibility of multiple Supreme Court seats opening during the next two terms.
 
2013-09-09 01:14:00 PM

HeartBurnKid: enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.

Sorry, but no. Franken came out big for COICA/SOPA/PIPA, so there's no way I could vote for any ticket including him.

/you know a bill is really good if they have to keep changing the name in a desperate effort to confuse voters.


He's at least up front about why he's for them, and I can respect the reason, if not the bills themselves and the implementation.
 
2013-09-09 01:14:54 PM

what_now: Mercutio74: I'm not convinced she's interested in running.  But, if she is, I hope she's starting to study foreign policy.  It's going to be the obvious weakness that the GOP will attack her on.  She seems very focused on fixing some of the more damaging domestic policy issues that are hamstringing the US right now.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/09/27/elizabeth-warren-fo re ign-policy/IvZ69ScGu6Ihr06rSNqOEI/story.html

There's nary a talking point nor a weasel answer in this whole interview. The woman knows her stuff.

The GOP doesn't have a single credible candidate on foreign policy, because to get through the primary as a Republican, your answer has to be "Jesus wants me to kill brown people".  Anyone who could consider a nuanced approach will get booed out of the room as Rick Perry and Allen West curb stomp a hobo for the television public.


One:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-09-09 01:23:46 PM
davidkretzmann.com


I'm pretty sure she's too "liberal" to be allowed to get the Democratic nom.

If Warren does get nominated, I will strongly suspect it will be yet another bait-and-switch where the "liberal" candidate calling out for real reforms turns into a president that might be (very) generously called center-right, if by center-right you mean things like expanding the surveillance state, not giving a rat's ass about human rights, and only pushing through a small handful half-hearted symbolic reforms while doing nothing to stop wealthy sociopaths from grabbing up ever larger percentages of the wealth of the working class.

I was fooled by Clinton and Obama.  If Warren gets on the ballot and turns out to be the same deal I may never vote again-- I'll just stay home and do something productive, like masturbate.
 
2013-09-09 01:41:56 PM
I would love to see Warren run in 2016 just to see the Clintonistas' heads explode.
 
2013-09-09 01:44:16 PM

UNC_Samurai: what_now: Mercutio74: I'm not convinced she's interested in running.  But, if she is, I hope she's starting to study foreign policy.  It's going to be the obvious weakness that the GOP will attack her on.  She seems very focused on fixing some of the more damaging domestic policy issues that are hamstringing the US right now.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/09/27/elizabeth-warren-fo re ign-policy/IvZ69ScGu6Ihr06rSNqOEI/story.html

There's nary a talking point nor a weasel answer in this whole interview. The woman knows her stuff.

The GOP doesn't have a single credible candidate on foreign policy, because to get through the primary as a Republican, your answer has to be "Jesus wants me to kill brown people".  Anyone who could consider a nuanced approach will get booed out of the room as Rick Perry and Allen West curb stomp a hobo for the television public.

One:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 428x599]


Didn't he switch parties and become a Democrat?
 
2013-09-09 02:15:56 PM
Honestly, I cannot fathom how T.P.s don't love her. She is absolute anti-establishment. There is nobody in politics right now that fights for the common citizen against BOTH political parties like she does. She attacks big business and calls the government out of all it's shenanigans. I understand that there is a lot of stupid out there, but she clearly explains taxation through a second grade level of english. Even the derpist derp should be able to get that.

Her biggest impediment will most likely be the Democratic party which is fully submerged in the waters of big business.
 
2013-09-09 02:16:51 PM

Riche: [davidkretzmann.com image 720x530]


I'm pretty sure she's too "liberal" to be allowed to get the Democratic nom.

If Warren does get nominated, I will strongly suspect it will be yet another bait-and-switch where the "liberal" candidate calling out for real reforms turns into a president that might be (very) generously called center-right, if by center-right you mean things like expanding the surveillance state, not giving a rat's ass about human rights, and only pushing through a small handful half-hearted symbolic reforms while doing nothing to stop wealthy sociopaths from grabbing up ever larger percentages of the wealth of the working class.

I was fooled by Clinton and Obama.  If Warren gets on the ballot and turns out to be the same deal I may never vote again-- I'll just stay home and do something productive, like masturbate.


If you've watched Warren and what she says and does, you know she's legit talking about her beliefs. And the Democratic Party isn't the same hivemind as the Republicans. They would pursue Warren if they saw the GOP frothing over her.

If you don't vote, I expect never to hear a complaint from you about how the people in power are doing.
 
2013-09-09 02:19:04 PM

CarnySaur: I like her message, but her delivery makes her sound like a shrill harpy.


So she should, what- simper more?  Maybe coo a little?  Get bent.
 
2013-09-09 02:20:29 PM

Zombie Butler: AnotherBluesStringer: I'd take her over Hillary.

I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.


Yeah that balanced budget sucked.
 
2013-09-09 02:25:58 PM
Yes, the supreme court, which upheld nightmarish ObamaCare and kept the second amendment intact by a 5-4 margin, is far too right wing.
 
2013-09-09 02:27:21 PM

PapaChester: Honestly, I cannot fathom how T.P.s don't love her. She is absolute anti-establishment. There is nobody in politics right now that fights for the common citizen against BOTH political parties like she does. She attacks big business and calls the government out of all it's shenanigans. I understand that there is a lot of stupid out there, but she clearly explains taxation through a second grade level of english. Even the derpist derp should be able to get that.

Her biggest impediment will most likely be the Democratic party which is fully submerged in the waters of big business.


If the Tea Partiers were true populists, yeah, they could love her. But the undercurrent of all of their rhetoric is invariably that Those Other People are ruining Our America, and their idea of who Those Other People are is some combination of immigrants, homos, sekret mooslims, and especially those damned liberals and their job-killing, tree-hugging regulations. Warren will never get any traction with that crowd.
 
2013-09-09 02:32:35 PM

Riche: If Warren gets on the ballot and turns out to be the same deal I may never vote again


That's your right, but it also means you then shouldn't biatch about what the elected president does ever again, since you took no part in trying to do something about it.
 
2013-09-09 02:44:46 PM

austerity101: Riche: If Warren gets on the ballot and turns out to be the same deal I may never vote again

That's your right, but it also means you then shouldn't biatch about what the elected president does ever again, since you took no part in trying to do something about it.


Total bunk.
 
2013-09-09 02:52:51 PM

austerity101: Riche: If Warren gets on the ballot and turns out to be the same deal I may never vote again

That's your right, but it also means you then shouldn't biatch about what the elected president does ever again, since you took no part in trying to do something about it.


Or it could mean he throws up his hands and takes up the Carlin view on voting.
 
2013-09-09 02:55:19 PM

Triple Oak: If you don't vote, I expect never to hear a complaint from you about how the people in power are doing.


Oh, I'll keep biatching, and there's not a thing you will be able to do to stop me.

Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it.  And shame on you for even suggesting it.

This is true especially in states like mine, where third parties are effectively forbidden from even getting on the ballot.  I am denied even a symbolic protest vote.

I absolutely refuse to ever again vote for "the lesser evil" like Obama. I do not want to legitimize his actions in even the smallest amount.

I want a REAL option, goddamnit!  I see our "elected" government becoming less and less legitimate with each passing election.

===========

Like I posted earlier, maybe Warren actually is "the real deal."  I certainly hope so.  Both national parties are so terribly corrupted that if she does manage to get nominated I will be pretty suspicious of her-- willing to give her a chance, probably, but still suspicious.
 
2013-09-09 03:01:34 PM

Riche: Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.


It's been so very effective, too. It's what stopped us from going to war in Iraq, and what headed off the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Now, tell me that a few hundred votes could have done as much!
 
2013-09-09 03:14:09 PM

BMulligan: It's been so very effective, too. It's what stopped us from going to war in Iraq, and what headed off the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Now, tell me that a few hundred votes could have done as much!


I know of a few people who would beg to differ:

msnbctv.files.wordpress.com


www.myhero.com


And I thought I was being cynical!

/IOW, GFY.
 
2013-09-09 03:16:37 PM

Riche: BMulligan: It's been so very effective, too. It's what stopped us from going to war in Iraq, and what headed off the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Now, tell me that a few hundred votes could have done as much!

I know of a few people who would beg to differ:

[msnbctv.files.wordpress.com image 830x623]


[www.myhero.com image 550x420]


And I thought I was being cynical!

/IOW, GFY.


If you think what those men did was mere "biatching," I'm afraid you and I are going to have trouble communicating.
 
2013-09-09 03:25:11 PM

phaseolus: Oh, back on the topic of SCOTUS ideological orientation, one of my favorite NY Times Infographics was one showing how the balance shifted with every appointment. It did an amazing job of pointing out how remarkable Thomas' appointment was, replacing one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the court (T. Marshall) with one of the most conservative.

I've looked online for it several times with no success. +11,000 internets to anyone who can find this thing online.


Is it this?
Link
 
2013-09-09 03:25:34 PM

BMulligan: If you think what those men did was mere "biatching," I'm afraid you and I are going to have trouble communicating.


We already are, if you think I define "biatching" as just typing things on Fark.
 
2013-09-09 03:29:24 PM

phaseolus: Oh, back on the topic of SCOTUS ideological orientation, one of my favorite NY Times Infographics was one showing how the balance shifted with every appointment. It did an amazing job of pointing out how remarkable Thomas' appointment was, replacing one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the court (T. Marshall) with one of the most conservative.

I've looked online for it several times with no success. +11,000 internets to anyone who can find this thing online.


Here is a page with some more infographs.
 
2013-09-09 03:32:02 PM

llortcM_yllort: UNC_Samurai: what_now: Mercutio74: I'm not convinced she's interested in running.  But, if she is, I hope she's starting to study foreign policy.  It's going to be the obvious weakness that the GOP will attack her on.  She seems very focused on fixing some of the more damaging domestic policy issues that are hamstringing the US right now.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/09/27/elizabeth-warren-fo re ign-policy/IvZ69ScGu6Ihr06rSNqOEI/story.html

There's nary a talking point nor a weasel answer in this whole interview. The woman knows her stuff.

The GOP doesn't have a single credible candidate on foreign policy, because to get through the primary as a Republican, your answer has to be "Jesus wants me to kill brown people".  Anyone who could consider a nuanced approach will get booed out of the room as Rick Perry and Allen West curb stomp a hobo for the television public.

One:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 428x599]

Didn't he switch parties and become a Democrat?


He was an R when he voted against the Iraq War Resolution, doesn't that count for something?
 
2013-09-09 03:38:54 PM

Riche: I was fooled by Clinton and Obama.  If Warren gets on the ballot and turns out to be the same deal I may never vote again-- I'll just stay home and do something productive, like masturbate.


Obama wasn't all that liberal, even during the 2008 campaign. Still a better option than Clinton (I have a thing about dynasties, as should we all given how W turned out), Edwards (all the sincerity of a used car salesman), or McCain (W clone at that point) / Palin (yikes!).

Please DO get out and vote down-ticket if nothing else. Senate, House, governor, and State legislature races are all pretty important. (Citation: I live in NC).
 
m00
2013-09-09 03:49:43 PM

EyeballKid: jcooli09: I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.


Not a first pick for prez by any means, but he's one of the few Republicans who can act like a grown-up, and he's probably no more conservative than Obama is liberal. And, a Captain Beefheart fan at that! If Republicans were smart, this would be their nominee in 2016.

So, obviously it will be Rand Paul.


In 2016 republicans will put up a 1%er corporate shill, who will be an obscure figure until 2014 when the RNC starts pushing him.
 
m00
2013-09-09 03:56:46 PM

PapaChester: Honestly, I cannot fathom how T.P.s don't love her. She is absolute anti-establishment. There is nobody in politics right now that fights for the common citizen against BOTH political parties like she does. She attacks big business and calls the government out of all it's shenanigans. I understand that there is a lot of stupid out there, but she clearly explains taxation through a second grade level of english. Even the derpist derp should be able to get that.

Her biggest impediment will most likely be the Democratic party which is fully submerged in the waters of big business.


I'm somewhat tea party (I'm libertarian) and I think she's fantastic. She completely transcends liberal/conservative politics. She is pro-person.

I think she scares corperations and government enough the media will marginalize her and turn her into a democrat Ron Paul.
 
2013-09-09 04:17:36 PM

Shrugging Atlas: jcooli09: Shrugging Atlas: Zombie Butler: I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.

So you'll vote for Warren if she's the nominee, but won't vote for Clinton if she is instead?

This.  I can't think of a likely republican candidate that I'd like over Hillary.

Yeah, that was my point.  If you're left enough to Warren to win (and I mean that as a compliment), how on Earth would you consider anyone the Republicans have as a better alternative to Clinton?

I'd prefer Warren over Clinton any day; however, the idea of voting for any potential GOP candidate or throwing my vote away on some third party is a non-starter.  Not with the possibility of multiple Supreme Court seats opening during the next two terms.


I think Hilary is practically a Republican on the issues that are most important to me.  So for me it's a wash. Meh different strokes and all that.
 
2013-09-09 04:22:28 PM

danwinkler: Yes, the supreme court, which upheld nightmarish ObamaCare and kept the second amendment intact by a 5-4 margin, is far too right wing.


Not sure if serious. You mean the same Supreme Court that gave us Citizens United?
 
2013-09-09 04:24:04 PM

enry: Warren/Franken 2016

Book it, done.  You heard it here first.


Jesus, that would be awesome.
 
2013-09-09 04:26:35 PM

Devo: Zombie Butler: AnotherBluesStringer: I'd take her over Hillary.

I wont take Hillary at all, bleh another Clinton in the White house. Gods I hope not.

Yea Warren would get my vote.

Yeah that balanced budget sucked.


Yea I guess you're right. If only the banks weren't so big when the bill came due for fake accounting and casino gambling then we might still have one.

/yes I am aware of the Iraq war and Bush tax cuts. If that was your next thought to write down, ya missed it.
 
2013-09-09 04:32:28 PM

Riche: Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it. And shame on you for even suggesting it.


If you don't vote, nobody has any reason to listen to your biatching.  There are only two things politicians care about: money, and votes.  Most of us don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a politician, so that leaves our votes as our only influence.  If you don't even want to exercise the small amount of influence your vote gives you, then what you're saying is that you don't want these people to listen to you, because they won't.

Why do you think Social Security and Medicare are the "third rail" of politics?  Because old people vote in record numbers every single election without fail.  They vote in presidential elections.  They vote in midterms.  They vote in primaries.  They even vote for their local school board.  And that's why they have influence that few other demographics can even come close to touching.  Meanwhile, young people get screwed over and over and over again, and it's because, whether out of disgust or apathy, on the whole, we don't vote.

So yes, if you don't vote, don't complain.  Because if you do complain, all you're doing is pissing in the wind.
 
2013-09-09 04:37:07 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: phaseolus: Oh, back on the topic of SCOTUS ideological orientation, one of my favorite NY Times Infographics was one showing how the balance shifted with every appointment. It did an amazing job of pointing out how remarkable Thomas' appointment was, replacing one of the most liberal justices ever to serve on the court (T. Marshall) with one of the most conservative.

I've looked online for it several times with no success. +11,000 internets to anyone who can find this thing online.

Here is a page with some more infographs.



It's neither of these, but I think it was from the same print issue as one of your two links. Good clue, maybe I'll try searching around those dates...
 
2013-09-09 04:37:48 PM

HeartBurnKid: Riche: Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it. And shame on you for even suggesting it.

If you don't vote, nobody has any reason to listen to your biatching.  There are only two things politicians care about: money, and votes.  Most of us don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a politician, so that leaves our votes as our only influence.  If you don't even want to exercise the small amount of influence your vote gives you, then what you're saying is that you don't want these people to listen to you, because they won't.

Why do you think Social Security and Medicare are the "third rail" of politics?  Because old people vote in record numbers every single election without fail.  They vote in presidential elections.  They vote in midterms.  They vote in primaries.  They even vote for their local school board.  And that's why they have influence that few other demographics can even come close to touching.  Meanwhile, young people get screwed over and over and over again, and it's because, whether out of disgust or apathy, on the whole, we don't vote.

So yes, if you don't vote, don't complain.  Because if you do complain, all you're doing is pissing in the wind.


Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by withholding, not giving, your vote.
 
2013-09-09 04:40:09 PM

danwinkler: Yes, the supreme court, which upheld nightmarish ObamaCare and kept the second amendment intact by a 5-4 margin, is far too right wing.


Citizens United.

That is all.
 
2013-09-09 04:50:29 PM

Ned Stark: HeartBurnKid: Riche: Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it. And shame on you for even suggesting it.

If you don't vote, nobody has any reason to listen to your biatching.  There are only two things politicians care about: money, and votes.  Most of us don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a politician, so that leaves our votes as our only influence.  If you don't even want to exercise the small amount of influence your vote gives you, then what you're saying is that you don't want these people to listen to you, because they won't.

Why do you think Social Security and Medicare are the "third rail" of politics?  Because old people vote in record numbers every single election without fail.  They vote in presidential elections.  They vote in midterms.  They vote in primaries.  They even vote for their local school board.  And that's why they have influence that few other demographics can even come close to touching.  Meanwhile, young people get screwed over and over and over again, and it's because, whether out of disgust or apathy, on the whole, we don't vote.

So yes, if you don't vote, don't complain.  Because if you do complain, all you're doing is pissing in the wind.

Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by withholding, not giving, your vote.


Which is why old people have no influence at all, right?

/Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by voting for someone else, not by not voting at all.
 
2013-09-09 04:52:59 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Is it this?
Link



This is the article that went with the graphic I'm wishing I could see, but that simple bar chart is the only one they seem to have put online. Because of the size, I'm guessing. It spanned two pages, but wasn't very tall. Oh, well...
 
2013-09-09 04:54:48 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: CarnySaur: I like her message, but her delivery makes her sound like a shrill harpy.

So she should, what- simper more?  Maybe coo a little?  Get bent.


No, just not sound like a shrill harpy.
 
2013-09-09 04:56:02 PM

HeartBurnKid: Ned Stark: HeartBurnKid: Riche: Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it. And shame on you for even suggesting it.

If you don't vote, nobody has any reason to listen to your biatching.  There are only two things politicians care about: money, and votes.  Most of us don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a politician, so that leaves our votes as our only influence.  If you don't even want to exercise the small amount of influence your vote gives you, then what you're saying is that you don't want these people to listen to you, because they won't.

Why do you think Social Security and Medicare are the "third rail" of politics?  Because old people vote in record numbers every single election without fail.  They vote in presidential elections.  They vote in midterms.  They vote in primaries.  They even vote for their local school board.  And that's why they have influence that few other demographics can even come close to touching.  Meanwhile, young people get screwed over and over and over again, and it's because, whether out of disgust or apathy, on the whole, we don't vote.

So yes, if you don't vote, don't complain.  Because if you do complain, all you're doing is pissing in the wind.

Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by withholding, not giving, your vote.

Which is why old people have no influence at all, right?

/Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by voting for someone else, not by not voting at all.


Yes, that is why old people have influence. They are consistently willing to flush someone who steps out of line even if it means losing a seat.
 
2013-09-09 04:56:47 PM

Ned Stark: HeartBurnKid: Ned Stark: HeartBurnKid: Riche: Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it. And shame on you for even suggesting it.

If you don't vote, nobody has any reason to listen to your biatching.  There are only two things politicians care about: money, and votes.  Most of us don't have the kind of money it takes to buy a politician, so that leaves our votes as our only influence.  If you don't even want to exercise the small amount of influence your vote gives you, then what you're saying is that you don't want these people to listen to you, because they won't.

Why do you think Social Security and Medicare are the "third rail" of politics?  Because old people vote in record numbers every single election without fail.  They vote in presidential elections.  They vote in midterms.  They vote in primaries.  They even vote for their local school board.  And that's why they have influence that few other demographics can even come close to touching.  Meanwhile, young people get screwed over and over and over again, and it's because, whether out of disgust or apathy, on the whole, we don't vote.

So yes, if you don't vote, don't complain.  Because if you do complain, all you're doing is pissing in the wind.

Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by withholding, not giving, your vote.

Which is why old people have no influence at all, right?

/Spoiler alert: you exercise influence over politicians by voting for someone else, not by not voting at all.

Yes, that is why old people have influence. They are consistently willing to flush someone who steps out of line even if it means losing a seat.


Exactly.  Because they vote in every damn election.
 
2013-09-09 04:57:24 PM

Riche: Triple Oak: If you don't vote, I expect never to hear a complaint from you about how the people in power are doing.

Oh, I'll keep biatching, and there's not a thing you will be able to do to stop me.

Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it.  And shame on you for even suggesting it.


Again, if you stop voting, you will really have no grounds to complain. Of course I can't stop you, but your complaints will be of little merit at that time. I'll repeat what I said, because it's valid: "If you don't vote [as you had suggested you would stop doing], I expect to never hear a complaint from you about how the people in power are doing." I do like how worked up you got about it though, very touchy subject I see.
 
2013-09-09 05:05:43 PM
There are people who are interested enough in politics to argue about it with strangers on the internet, but not interested enough to actually vote?

Total apathy might be sort of understandable, but that just doesn't make any sense at all.
 
2013-09-09 05:46:07 PM
Elizabeth Warren speaks with fork tongue
 
2013-09-09 08:02:41 PM

Rapmaster2000: Sergeant Grumbles: Rapmaster2000: Is Elizabeth Warren the new Hillary Clinton/Nancy Pelosi?

I assume I'll be hearing about how ugly she is pretty soon.

You mean you haven't heard that already? And I'm surprised there hasn't been a squaw comment yet...
Just like with Clinton and Pelosi, there's an outright irrational hatred that rivals Obama derangement syndrome. An old white guy democrat is at least the right color for Republicans, even if he still needs impeached for daring to govern while Democrat, but a woman or minority? Foaming at the mouth insanity.

The "Nancy Pelosi is so ugly" meme is bizarre.  She's in her 70s.  Are septugenarians supposed to be hot?


She was a fox a few decades ago. I'd let her whip my caucus into shape back in the day.
 
2013-09-09 08:03:23 PM
I love this woman, volunteered for her campaign, but think she would make a terrible president. Not because I disagree with her political stances; I'm four-square behind her. Unfortunately, she's a terrible public speaker and too well, nice to play the kind of hardball one must if you want to be the President. Look how she folded in the face of the "Liawatha" swift-boating. I think she can be most effective right where she is.
 
2013-09-09 09:44:25 PM

Mercutio74: I'm not convinced she's interested in running.  But, if she is, I hope she's starting to study foreign policy.  It's going to be the obvious weakness that the GOP will attack her on.  She seems very focused on fixing some of the more damaging domestic policy issues that are hamstringing the US right now.


They won't even get that far. It'll all be sexist condescension, start to finish. (Wouldn't want our President nuking everyone during 'that time of the month', amiright?) yuk yuk.

I'd vote for her in the primary just to see the presidential debates. It'll be a bloodbath, no matter which moron gets the R nod.
 
2013-09-09 09:54:35 PM

Riche: Triple Oak: If you don't vote, I expect never to hear a complaint from you about how the people in power are doing.

Oh, I'll keep biatching, and there's not a thing you will be able to do to stop me.

Biatching is my right. Biatching is my duty as an American citizen. biatching is damn near the only thing left to us voters who want real change on the national level.

So no I WILL NOT shut up.You will just have to farking deal with it.  And shame on you for even suggesting it.

This is true especially in states like mine, where third parties are effectively forbidden from even getting on the ballot.  I am denied even a symbolic protest vote.

I absolutely refuse to ever again vote for "the lesser evil" like Obama. I do not want to legitimize his actions in even the smallest amount.

I want a REAL option, goddamnit!  I see our "elected" government becoming less and less legitimate with each passing election.

===========

Like I posted earlier, maybe Warren actually is "the real deal."  I certainly hope so.  Both national parties are so terribly corrupted that if she does manage to get nominated I will be pretty suspicious of her-- willing to give her a chance, probably, but still suspicious.


Unfortunately for all of us, the lesser evil is still the best option. Until our system evolves, a lot, we're stuck with tweedle dee or tweedle dum. And tweedle dum is always a worse choice. Always.
 
2013-09-09 10:12:21 PM

phaseolus: GreatGlavinsGhost: Is it this?
Link


This is the article that went with the graphic I'm wishing I could see, but that simple bar chart is the only one they seem to have put online. Because of the size, I'm guessing. It spanned two pages, but wasn't very tall. Oh, well...


A variation on this? From GreatGlavinsGhost's other link.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-09-09 10:18:46 PM

bizzwire: Unfortunately, she's a terrible public speaker


As somebody who's heard her speak on a couple occasions now, what are you talking about? She seemed to be pretty good to me. A little professorial at times, but nowhere near terrible. Reasonable, not great, at the rousing stuff, and decidedly above average with the meat of the speech.

If you want terrible, watch some of the less hyped speakers at the recent March on Washington. Talk about terrible oratory...
 
2013-09-10 11:46:15 AM

EyeballKid: Hey, Republicans, you still glad Elizabeth Warren isn't the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chair? You sure did stick it to dem libz!

Say, what's Sen. Scott Brown have to say about all this?


"You can't win, Republicans. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

/revenge, served cold
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report