Hey, there! Log in / Register
Nevertheless, she persisted
By adamg on Wed, 02/08/2017 - 9:53am
Here's the letter our senator was kept from reading on the floor of the Senate. At least treatment of Massachusetts senators has improved over the years.
Topics:
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
Or, she could lsted her legislative accomplishment thus far
That would have taken at least, 60 seconds....
Here's a fun exercise--everyone check your recent credit card statements and look at your interest rate. 18-24 %, right?
Just like it was in 2012, five years ago, when she ran on a platform of protecting the "hammered" middle class from the banks and corporations.
Legislation is hard, driving the useful idiots is a whole lot easier.
Moreover
she was elected to the office of Supreme Dictator, she did not face a senate majority of Republicans for her entire tenure, the previous session of congress was not the most obstructionist bunch of assholes in the 250-year history of the republic, and I'm a little teapot.
My interest rate was 18% in
My interest rate was 18% in 2009. It is 9% now.
One of the regulations implemented is how payments are applied so they can play games with your payment.
CFPB has recovered $11.8 billion for consumers so Trump wants to kill it. Drain the swamp he calls it.
Since you asked, Pepe Dude
Fun fact: you're on the internet. You could google "Elizabeth Warren record" and actually see her...you know...record. But that might stop you from believing alternative facts. I'm here to say: too f*ckin bad: Here is her record, Pepe.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412542
"From Jan 2013 to Feb 2017, Warren missed 12 of 1,217 roll call votes, which is 1.0%. This is better than the median of 1.4% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving. The chart below reports missed votes over time."
S. 65: Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act of 2017
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jan 9, 2017
Referred to Committee: Jan 9, 2017
S. 3511 (114th): Jessica Kensky and Patrick Downes Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Dec 7, 2016
Referred to Committee: Dec 7, 2016
S. 9 (114th): Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Dec 1, 2016
Referred to Committee: Dec 1, 2016
S. 3380 (114th): Accreditation Reform and Enhanced Accountability Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Sep 22, 2016
Referred to Committee: Sep 22, 2016
S. 3118 (114th): Derivatives Oversight and Taxpayer Protection Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jun 29, 2016
Referred to Committee: Jun 29, 2016
S. 3078 (114th): Retirement Savings Lost and Found Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jun 21, 2016
Referred to Committee: Jun 21, 2016
S. 3025 (114th): Graduate Student Savings Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jun 7, 2016
Referred to Committee: Jun 7, 2016
S. 2789 (114th): Tax Filing Simplification Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Apr 13, 2016
Referred to Committee: Apr 13, 2016
S. 2761 (114th): FAA Community Accountability Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Apr 7, 2016
Referred to Committee: Apr 7, 2016
S. 2744 (114th): Genetic Research Privacy Protection Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Apr 5, 2016
Referred to Committee: Apr 5, 2016
S. 2647 (114th): Behavioral Health Coverage Transparency Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 7, 2016
Referred to Committee: Mar 7, 2016
S. 2624 (114th): National Biomedical Research Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 3, 2016
Referred to Committee: Mar 3, 2016
S. 2598 (114th): Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 25, 2016
Referred to Committee: Feb 25, 2016
S. 2578 (114th): Reducing Unused Medications Act of 2016
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 24, 2016
Referred to Committee: Feb 24, 2016
S. 2436 (114th): Puerto Rico Emergency Financial Stability Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Dec 18, 2015
Referred to Committee: Dec 18, 2015
S. 2251 (114th): SAVE Benefits Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Nov 5, 2015
Referred to Committee: Nov 5, 2015
S. 1981 (114th): Equal Employment for All Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Aug 5, 2015
Referred to Committee: Aug 5, 2015
S. 1772 (114th): Schedules That Work Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jul 15, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jul 15, 2015
S. 1709 (114th): 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jul 7, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jul 7, 2015
S. 1381 (114th): Trade Transparency Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 19, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 19, 2015
S. 1342 (114th): A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study and issue a report that quantifies the energy savings benefits of operational efficiency programs and services for commercial, institutional, industrial, and governmental entit
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 14, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 14, 2015
S. 1320 (114th): Bailout Prevention Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 13, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 13, 2015
S. 1248 (114th): Fed Accountability Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 7, 2015
Referred to Committee: May 7, 2015
S. 1109 (114th): Truth in Settlements Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Apr 28, 2015
Passed Senate: Sep 21, 2015
S. 885 (114th): National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 26, 2015
Referred to Committee (Enacted Via Other Measures): Mar 26, 2015
Enacted via H.R. 1670 (114th): National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 2015
S. 793 (114th): Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 18, 2015
Referred to Committee: Mar 18, 2015
S.Res. 63 (114th): A resolution congratulating the New England Patriots on their victory in Super Bowl XLIX.
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 3, 2015
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Feb 4, 2015
S. 320 (114th): Medical Innovation Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jan 29, 2015
Referred to Committee: Jan 29, 2015
S.Res. 589 (113th): A resolution honoring the life of Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, Massachusetts, from 1993 to 2014.
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Nov 20, 2014
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Nov 20, 2014
S. 2432 (113th): Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jun 4, 2014
Failed Cloture: Jun 11, 2014
S. 2292 (113th): Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 6, 2014
Referred to Committee: May 6, 2014
S. 2117 (113th): Smart Savings Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 12, 2014
Passed Senate: Sep 16, 2014
S. 2060 (113th): TEACH Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 27, 2014
Referred to Committee: Feb 27, 2014
S. 2053 (113th): A bill to direct the Architect of the Capitol to place a chair honoring American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action on the Capitol Grounds.
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 27, 2014
Referred to Committee: Feb 27, 2014
S. 1993 (113th): Veterans Care Financial Protection Act of 2014
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Feb 4, 2014
Referred to Committee: Feb 4, 2014
S. 1898 (113th): Truth in Settlements Act of 2014
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jan 8, 2014
Ordered Reported by Committee: Jul 30, 2014
S. 1837 (113th): Equal Employment for All Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Dec 17, 2013
Referred to Committee: Dec 17, 2013
S.Res. 287 (113th): A resolution congratulating the Boston Red Sox on winning the 2013 World Series.
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Nov 5, 2013
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Nov 5, 2013
S. 1282 (113th): 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jul 11, 2013
Referred to Committee: Jul 11, 2013
S. 1186 (113th): Essex National Heritage Area Reauthorization Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Jun 19, 2013
Referred to Committee: Jun 19, 2013
S. 897 (113th): Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: May 8, 2013
Referred to Committee: May 8, 2013
S.Res. 115 (113th): A resolution commending the heroism, courage, and sacrifice of Sean Collier, an officer in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Department, Martin Richard, an 8-year-old resident of Dorchester, Massachusetts, Krystle Campbe
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Apr 25, 2013
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Apr 25, 2013
S.Res. 101 (113th): A resolution condemning the horrific attacks in Boston, Massachusetts, and expressing support, sympathy, and prayers for those impacted by this tragedy.
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Apr 17, 2013
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Apr 17, 2013
S. 885 (114th): National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 2015
Sponsor: Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
Introduced: Mar 26, 2015
Referred to Committee (Enacted Via Other Measures): Mar 26, 2015
Enacted via H.R. 1670 (114th): National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 2015
Now then - STOP LYING!
Stop trying to mislead
18 bills in total have been passed into law with her name on them.
All introduced by other members of the Senate, which means she hasn't had a single bill signed into law which SHE introduced.
https://www.congress.gov/member/elizabeth-warren/W000817?q={%22bill-status%22:%22law%22}
If it's so easy
How about you compare to other members of the Senate?
For example, Ted Cruz, senator during the same period, only has 8 bills signed into law, all of which he is a cosponsor on and didn't introduce.
Methinks you don't have a good grasp on how Congress works (which is that it largely doesn't and introduces a lot of things that never see the light of day).
EDITED: I realized it was mean to compare a Republican senator during Obama to a Democratic one. So, during the same period (113th-114th Congress):
Ed Markey: 16 (introduced 0)
Bernie Sanders: 8 (introduced 2)
In fact, it appears that perhaps one should not measure one's impact in the Senate by how many bills they pushed through to the President, but maybe the quality of those bills, or how they may have helped the whole process along. You know - substance.
Good job debunking BS
Damn fact - always a problem for trolls
I checked my credit card statement
It also says interest paid $0 because I don't spend money I don't have.
You're not really shocked that the Democrat said they would do something that benefits the middle class and then didn't do it, right?
Mommy &! Daddy may be middle class Willy
But you need to get a job before yo can achieve economic classification
Being a lounge lizard is not a job
Yes, do check your credit card
See how your interest rate is clearly listed and it has a statement of explanation of what it would cost for you to pay the minimum balance?
That's Senator Warren's legislative accomplishment, the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau
And if you end up paying late one month
notice how they cant penalize you with a $50-100 surcharges anymore, but rather something proportionate to the amount you owe. Thank Liz for that too.
I'm a liberal snowflake, but
I'm a liberal snowflake, but come on. Do you think credit card companies are charities? That is how they make money. Don't like it, don't be late or don't use them. They are very clear, because of consumer protection laws, of what those late fees are.
Sorry, what now?
Keep throwing spaghetti at the wall, eventually something might stick, huh?
Either CFPB is too powerful: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/05/30/Critics-Say-Consumer-B...
Or now you're saying it's totally useless because your credit card rate didn't go down?
Do you even know what the CFPB does? No?
Not all opinions are equal. Informed ones are more important than uninformed ones. Back of the line.
18?!?
Why are you paying an 18% interest rate on your CC's? You should try making your payments on time, not only is it Personally Responsible, it's also fiscally responsible in the long run.
Seems to me that Mitch was out of order
The referenced material of her speech is already on the Senate record from when Sessions was being considered for federal judgeship. It was not deemed to be out of order then, and so I don't really see how she can be deemed out of order for referencing that.
Well, that's what I get for trying to apply logic, anyway.
Your first mistake
was trying to ascribe logic to the actions of this man. No such justifications apply. He's seen the path to cutting his own tax rate, and will trample any man woman or child between him and that shiny brass ring. Today, Muslims, LGBT, and women are the ones he's realized he needs to hurl under the bus to accomplish his goals. Tomorrow, who knows? He, and his dark half-brother Paul Ryan, are the symptoms, but their constituents are the disease. I'd lump him into my "always punch a nazi when you see one" statement, but I'd be afraid that my hand would just be absorbed into the flagellating, gelatinous mass that takes up the space where most of us have jawbones and skulls.
Rule XIX, for those of you
Rule XIX, for those of you not steeped in the rules of the United States Senate, deals with the decorum Senators must maintain when exercising floor debate. Sub-section 2 of Rule XIX says this:
2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
When Elizabeth Warren accused, even by covering it in Ms. King’s words, Senator Sessions of “using the awesome power” of his office to chill the vote of black citizens, which is demonstrably untrue, she was warned by the chair. She continued. Mitch McConnell then cited sub-section 4 of Rule XIX when he arrived on the floor to put a stop to this nonsense:
4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding Officer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. Any Senator directed by the Presiding Officer to take his seat, and any Senator requesting the Presiding Officer to require a Senator to take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.
Please explain how it's
Please explain how it's "demonstrably untrue" that Sessions tried to suppress black voters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/magazine/the-voter-fraud-case-jeff-se...
You're missing the point of the rule
The rule exists to allow for a level of decorum in the body. True or not, it was a personal attack on a member of the Senate, which is out of order. As the first half of the infamous quote goes, she was warned about violating the rules.
Honestly, for a Senator with the level of education she has, she lacks a basic knowledge of rhetoric. There are subtle ways to make that point, but she did what she did for her political reasons, and McConnell did what he did for his political reasons. The Senate Rules, though, support the gentleman from Kentucky's argument.
Not a personal attack
It has enormous amounts to do with how Jefferson Davis KKK Sessions is completely unfit for the office that he has been nominated to.
Senators are allowed to discuss the shortcomings of their peers when discussion whether or not they are fit for confirmation to other offices.
You need to learn up and grow up if you like to make excuses for why racist bullying by a particular racist bully cannot be discussed because of decorum when racist bullies are being vetted for an office where racist bullying is disqualifying.
Back up and read Rule 2
CCD was nice enough to type it out for you (or cut and paste it.)
The Rules of the Senate exist so that grown ups can debate things like the way grown ups should. Again, there are ways to express why the Senator from Mississippi is not qualified for the job without doing what she did. That she kept on doing what she did after being warned speaks a lot of her ability to handle parliamentary procedure.
So I'm confused
as to why at least three other male senators read the same letter without being silenced.
And remember in 2015 when Ted Cruz called McConnell a liar? He wasn't silenced either.
Was this done in formal session?
Honestly, I dunno, and I'm not sure of the rules wouldn't apply, but I'll just throw that out there.
Upon further review
(i.e. searching the Congressional Record), I found that only one Senator read that letter on the floor of the Senate during Sessions confirmation to be AG, and that would be the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and she did it yesterday. It was read earlier, when Sessions was not a member of the Senate
I do recommend reading the "debate" after McConnell sanctioned her. Very interesting. Partisan, but very interesting.
(note, I amended this response to note that references to the King letter on the floor of the Senate was earlier. I just read the Globe article on the kerfuffle.)
The Hill
reports that Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Tom Udall, read the letter. Jeff Merkley read part of the letter. Will check CR later, but unable to do so now. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/318515-sanders-dems-read-co...
Senator Sessions of “using
[citation needed]
Really?
Adam literally blogged the link.......
Here its is again if scrolling to the top of the page is to complicated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/read-the-let...
Really, Really?
Not sure if this is trolling or you're being obtuse or what, but the *citation needed* was clearly a reference to the "demonstrably untrue" statement
Reading comprehension failure
Erik G was asking for a citation from CCD about CCD's allegation, not about the larger story.
Demonstrably Untrue?
Please demonstrate your truth with some reputable sources.
In the meantime, let's see what the ACLU thinks:
https://www.aclu.org/feature/confirmation-sessions
Hopefully you understand....
that the actions the letter criticizes predate Sessions being a senator. The office in the letter referred to as is a U.S. attorney, and the discussion at hand today is not about his Senate-worthiness, but rather his worthiness of being Attorney General. Mooch McConnell is basically saying that no senator can ever be criticized for what they ever did, when their suitability for a Cabinet Position is being debated. Please explain to me how that is good for our country when the body which is supposed to review Cabinet appointments cannot if the appointed person comes from their own ranks?
So it's OK
So it's OK when Sen Jeff Merkley (Oregon) reads the letter, as he just did?
Do you interpret Rule XIX...
Do you interpret Rule XIX to mean that if a Senator is nominated to a position requiring the Senate's advice and consent, no other Senator can speak against that appointee's record?
Not to mention
Anything that could be construed as criticism was directed at Sessions in his capacity as nominee for Attorney General, not in his capacity as a United States Senator. If they plan to invoke such arcane rules, shouldn't that disqualify any sitting senator from a cabinet appointment?
Except it wasn't
I read through it quicky, but it looks like it wasn't included in the senate records for some reason. It wasn't even publicly available until Tuesday when the W Post got a copy?
For a law professor she doesn
For a law professor she doesn't seem to understand or care about the senate rules as rewritten by Harry Reid while she was in the senate to silence similar treatment by Republicans of Obama's appointees. She was reminded of the rules for the engaging in the same behavior. If Warren didn't like the rules she should have protested the changes by Reid at the time, but she was fine with screwing the minority party when part of the majority. Turnabout is fair play.
Please state your qualifications
Are you a law professor? No?
Then you are the one who is very likely misinformed.
Senator
I'm sure there's good intentions behind it, but grandstanding like this really turns middle/lower class people off to politics.
If you think that highlighting Sessions's racist past is
important, you won't view Warren's effort here as grandstanding. If you don't think it's important, you are already turned off by outspoken liberal politicians like Warren.
Accusations of grandstanding always sound to me like, "I don't like what you're saying, so shut up already." Politicians making speeches to make political points is not what turns people off to politics. It's being in the pocket of moneyed interests at the expense of the citizens they're supposed to represent, and being sanctimonious hypocrites, that gets people disengaged.
Like Warren or not, she's one of the few people in Congress who seem to give an actual shit about ordinary working- and middle-class citizens. Pointing out her meager legislative record is a very tired, utterly hypocritical talking point in the Mitch McConnell era.
She built the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Last I looked, the GOP was set to destroy it, giving Wall Street free rein to further exploit and defraud consumers like you and me. What else has Trump and his craven GOP lapdogs in Congress accomplished for you lately?
If she gave a shit she'd be
If she gave a shit she'd be filing bills, which she isn't and doesn't. Both Markey and her predecessor Brown, do more and did more in the same span of time she has managed to do nothing but blow hot air.
Why waste her time?
Nothing she proposes will get passed.
Because it's her job and it
Because it's her job and it never stopped Ted Kennedy from proposing legislation. Just because a bill fails in one session doesn't mean it can't be discussed, revised, and resubmitted in a later session under more favorable circumstances.
It's one part of her job
But it's not her entire job. Keep trying.
Why waste her time?
Sounds similar to when Harry Reid allowed countless Republican bills to collect dust on his desk/floor for 8 years....politics are funny sometimes, huh?
If you cared
You would run against her and show all of us how skilled you are at being our senator!
You might even learn a few things about the kinds of compromises that need to be made, and what effective tactics are!
Oh, but that's like 100 hour workweeks and learning and thinking and all that tricky stuff, right?
Yeah she cares about the
Yeah she cares about the middle class while collecting $350k to teach a single class at Harvard... all the while criticizing others about greed. Am I the only one to find that a bit hypocritical?
How is it hypocritical?
Do you believe that rich people cannot advocate for the middle class without giving up their money? I don't understand how her salary here equates to greed. You could argue that Harvard should not pay her that much, but they likely would not if it wasn't market value for a speaker/professor of her stature. If she were advocating lowering taxes on the wealthy, or raising taxes on the middle class, so that she could keep more of her money, that might be greed.
I thought you righties believed in the free market, like
a private institution paying its professionals whatever salary the market will bear.
Are you dumb enough to believe that Warren taking a lower salary would make those poor benighted Harvard students' tuition go down?
The CFPB isn't about crimping Wall Street's ability to make profits, but to make sure they don't commit fraud on consumers, or saddle taxpayers with more hundreds of billions to bail them out because they can't manage risk sensibly.
How do you feel about Trump's attempt to repeal the fiduciary rule? How's that for helping the little guy? Sucker.
Try making a post once in a while where your naked hypocrisy isn't out there for everyone to point and laugh at.
Well
When Mitt Romney ran for President he was scolded for being "the 1%" and not being able to relate to the middle class. When Charlie Baker ran for Governor, he was scolded for living in Swampscott and being too wealthy to understand the middle class. Which is it, can you be wealthy and compassionate to those less fortunate, or are you automatically barred from public office?
There are plenty of relatively wealthy politicians who still
worked to better the lives of working- and middle-class workers. Wealth isn't an immediate disqualifier, in my book. Watch what they do, not the size of their bank accounts.
Trump, for instance, touts himself as the great savior of the working man, yet nearly every one of his Cabinet appointees, and every policy he has advanced so far, seems determined to make the very rich even richer at everyone else's expense. Trade war? You're paying for that. Bringing manufacturing jobs back? They mostly got aced by automation, not free trade or outsourcing; they don't exist to bring back. Tax plan? You are getting so screwed for the benefit of the 0.01%. Immigration policy? Crimping tech's ability to innovate is going to hurt you in the long run. Environmental protection? Have some coal runoff in your drinking water. Climate change? You're going to be left to drown while the rich move inland. Education? The funding for your public schools is being redirected to religious schools. And so on, and so on, and so on.
Cripes, what chumps Trump's non-wealthy supporters are.
Probably you are
because I have a feeling that you think Trump is a working class hero and he is a billionaire, yet somehow Warren's former salary sticks in your craw,
Warren worked her way UP
Trump was given money by daddy and sheltered from having to share his "military experience" with the actual military.
She sure did...
Worked her way up from meager beginnings living off the reservation in a teepee, shooting off bows and arrows, and now she's squawking every 5 minutes on tv or the Senate floor.
Hard work pays off!
Peculiar that she abandoned her Indian heritage once she got the Senate vote... seemed like such a prideful thing for her. Strange approach.
You have no idea what a law professor does
Obviously.
Tell us what work you do, and we can tell you how overpaid you are and lazy you are too?
HINT: professors do a lot MORE than TEACH CLASSES.
She is not paid do teach
I'm so sick of this canard.
If you know anything about the economics of major research universities, you know that professors aren't paid to teach classes, they are paid to do research.
Do you speak for ALL of them?
Do you speak for ALL of them?? Since we are talking about sweeping generalizations about 90% of the electorate. Low and middle class voters also don't tend to vote in very high numbers either. They also tend to vote on whatever the campaigns put in front of them and not tiny events that happened 2 years before election
I'd actually like to know
I would actually like to understand what you mean by your comment. Are you saying that it turns everyone off to politics, or is there something about this that specifically turns off middle/lower class people? Also, what do you mean by grandstanding?
Cheers for nailing the
Cheers for nailing the Charles Sumner reference. I had him on the brain anyway after running by his statue in the Public Garden this weekend.
Poor baby southern gentlemen just can't stand it when Massachusetts folks call them on their racism.
Couple of things
*In my long and varied experience, most people who crack jokes about southerners and call them racist at the drop of a hat, are not from Massachusetts and came here from other parts of the country, including the south.
Same applies for the phrase 'flyover country' , which I never heard nor used growing up here. I first heard the expression from a Midwesterner who hated where they were from.
*The south has by far the largest black population, far higher on average than any other region. White southerners are, on average, far more used to being around large numbers of black people (especially if they're lower middle class, working class, or poor) than the usual elites in places like New England who almost universally come from places with tiny black populations. And when these same people criticise and mock 'lower class' Bostonians (in their eyes anyone who has a 'lower class' Boston accent) as being racist, the truth is 'lower class' whites outside of non-southern rural areas, are,on average, far more used to living among, working with, and going to school with a very diverse group of people, including blacks.
Old saying....
I don't have a citation for this:
If your employer has a rule
If your employer has a rule to not the office email system to write negative things about other employees, is that a bad thing?
Warren could have easily voiced her sentiments at a press conference or with Twitter.
If your employer has a rule
...yes? OMG, how is this even a question? That is not merely a bad thing, it's a deeply insane, appalling thing. If you find out that a coworker is doing something terrible – from secretly destroying others' work to smearing feces on the walls of the bathroom (neither of which is a made-up example) – normal workplaces expect you to report that by any means available. Email's a good one, what with making a written report and being discreet and fast.
I have actually worked at a place insane enough to have such a no-badmouthing rule. It was a safety office for a certain large, famous institution in the Boston area. Nobody was allowed to make any criticism of the VP's secretary who was basically family to the VP. She was the person who was supposed to log the safety reports, and she was shoving them in a box under her desk and never putting them in the computer. Everyone working there knew.
It made the front page of the Globe when, as was inevitable, somebody almost got killed. "How could this possibly happen?" Well, I found out how such a thing could happen when I was the person brought on to enter all those safety reports into the tracking system. One of the first things the VP told me, in my first hour on site, is that I wasn't to say anything bad about the VP's secretary, the person who hadn't been doing her job in years, endangering the safety of hundreds of employees.
Because, I guess, protecting this monster's fee-fees – and privileged status – was more important to them than if people got killed.
So, in answer to your idiotic question: yes. Yes, it's a bad thing. It's such a bad thing that the instituting of such a policy should be grounds for immediate termination of the idiot manager who does so.
And my god you should feel like an utter moron for suggesting otherwise.
Huh?
Your comments shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose of the Senate reviewing and debating cabinet appointments when you confuse that with twitter feeds.
trump scares me
liz warren being elected in four years scares me just as much.
The perception
Here i uber-liberal MA is she would be a good candidate. However nationally she has NO chance of ever being elected POTUS.
"nationally she has NO chance of ever being elected POTUS"
yeah, no way this country elects someone that has "No chance of being elected POTUS."
have you heard about the cheeto?
Seems to me that this rule that prevents critical statements
about other Senators, thus impeding a proper vetting process, means that Sessions should resign from the Senate so he can go through a proper confirmation process for a Cabinet post.
It is ridiculous to pretend that he's being vetted in any reasonable way if his Senate colleagues cannot bring up anything critical about his record because he is still a Senator. He should be subject to the same scrutiny as everyone else that is aiming to run a giant chunk of the Executive branch. If Senate decorum gets in the way of that, he has to get out of the Senate.
Senate rule (and other rules....while we're at it)
“The rule applies to impugning conduct or motive through any form or voice to a sitting senator–form or voice includes quotes, articles or other materials.”
Sounds like a clear violation to me, no? Newsflash: they didn't create this rule today to silence our Caucasian Indian Senator.
While we're here, another favorite is "Hillary won the popular vote" and the #notmypresident nonsense. Trump won the electoral college, which is the main goal of a presidential campaign, right? If the popular vote is so important and should be the benchmark, why hasn't it been changed yet? We've had 44 other Presidents.....Really strange.
If the rules don't suit you or whoever else, lobby for change...nothing wrong with that....you can't change the rules once the game begins....and this is a complete outrage to the left.
Do the rules apply to you guys or just when they're convenient?
I'm not arguing the rules.
As I've said before, I think Sessions should have resigned before his vetting because the Senate's rules on decorum prevented a proper examination of his record.
But I have to ask: how do you feel about Liz being censured, but her male colleagues being allowed to read the same letter later? Rules being rules, and all.
Rules, etc.
Looks exactly like you're arguing about existing rules after the game started, but what do I know.
To be honest, I didn't watch any of it because Warren's Caucasian Indian voice is the stuff nightmares are made of... but from what I read, she was called out a few times and continued to break the rule.
One of her male colleagues also had this to say before reading from the letter: "I wanted to take a few moments now and share some of the letter that was discussed earlier and share it in a fashion that is appropriate under our rules."
I don't think it was the letter itself that was an issue. Isn't she a former law professor from Harvard? You'd think someone with her credentials would know better....being an all-knowing uber-liberal from Harvard and all.
What you're doing is called "evading the question"
So, you don't actually know anything. You're completely ignorant, and the only reason for your presence here is to keep repeating "Caucasian Indian", like a particularly stupid child who's just learned a dirty word and wants to rile up the grownups. Did you learn that from your fuehrer, Benito Dorito, who referred to her as "the Indian"?
More ridiculous comments from you...
Here's another thought... you have real trouble with simple concepts so we will go slow. Is it a requirement to hear someone's voice in order to comprehend what was said? I've read written transcripts of what people have said off and on for years....I didn't look for the actual footage every single time. That makes me ignorant?
Have you ever just read quotes that were attributed to someone or did you have to find video footage in order to avoid being viewed as ignorant? That was a good rant, your conclusions are astounding... classic stuff.
Everyone knows she's the Fake Indian, it's been out there for years I didn't just hear that recently. Shes a white woman that "identifies" as Indian... btw, Obama already has a copyright on the term "The Fuhrer"
Manners over justice?
Valuing manners over justice is how discrimination gets perpetuated and the status quo is reinforced. The Senate's collegiality is an anti-democratic farce.
I think Senator McConnell kind of proved the point.
Using the rules like that is not a good look.
She persisted
I think it's worth it to note
that calling a racist a racist citing material from the wife of arguably the most famous figure in civil rights, does not represent an instance of "impugning his character". The purpose of these hearings is to discover whether the candidate is the correct person for the job. In a role that is supposed to be based solely on the rule of law, in which "all men are created equal", in which everyone is subject to the same rules, rights, restrictions... I think it's SUPER important to note a.) times in the past when this nominee has made it quite plain that he DOESN'T view everyone as equal and will likely not treat all people as such and b.) just plain said some really racist stuff. If Senator Warren isn't within her right to get up in front of the senate and point out, ONCE AGAIN his very, very obvious shortcomings for the role... what is the purpose of having hearings at all? That's due diligence. Because it proves he's not suited to the job of being impartial.
If a nominee's "character" is being "impugned" by restating actual facts, things that have HAPPENED, things that he's SAID... are we no longer allowed to point out the obvious? Do facts and past actions have any validity?
What's more, and what I think should be discussed further, is that once she was censured, other excerpts of the letter were allowed to be read by Senator Merkley without any repercussion.
The problem here for me is twofold: pointing out the incredible shortcomings of a cabinet nominee whose past behavior and actions would make him unsuitable for the job is something breaking the rules, and the fact that someone else, doing nearly the same thing, who was a man (don't bother coming at me with your misogynistic bs replies, I can't deal with children today) isn't censured for his behavior.
If our elected officials aren't allowed to ensure that we as citizens have the best and most upstanding people ON OUR BEHALF, (few of whom are completely sparkly clean and without reproach, I KNOW) if they are not allowed to challenge the veracity of a person's background and character, why do we have an appointment process to begin with? Let's just say that Elizabeth Warren is out of line for calling a racist a racist (because she's been one of the loudest voices in opposition to this administration, and they're sick of it; it's quite transparent), and let Trump appoint whoever the hell he wants!
And whether she did what she said she'd do on the banking task force, blah, blah, blah (and it's stunning how many people want to talk about bills being passed who don't have any idea how bills are passed), that's completely tertiary to the main point which is SHE STOOD UP AND CALLED A RACIST A RACIST AND WAS ESSENTIALLY TOLD TO SHUT UP.
I think it's also worth it to note.....
Go see what Dr. Alveda King had to say about Warren's performance today. She's also related to "arguably the most famous figure in civil rights" and had the complete opposite view.....Warren is a fraud.
How about ...
You cough up a citation on that?
Alveda King is a Trumpkin
For what it's worth, here's a citation of Alveda King's statement. She is a long-standing member of the religious right, an anti-choice activist, a supporter of Herman Cain who asserted without possible proof that he was not guilty of sexual harassment, and a Trumpkin. I think we can ascribe motivations other than family feeling and love of truth to her statement.
Asserted without proof that he was not guilty?
Did you really just write that someone is guilty until proven otherwise?
King is a Trumpkin
So unless a member of the King family parrots the liberal nonsense that we see every day, their commentary should be discounted and they should be ridiculed.
Your logic is always sound....God bless.
Google.....
Why is it so difficult for you to look on google and search through the various left and right wing news sources.
You seem to know everything about everything except how to use google.
I'll start posting the links for you in the future I guess.
The epitome of racism is falsely claiming Native Am. status
The epitome of racism is falsely claiming Native American status. Blonde haired, blue eyed, Elizabeth Warren is a disgrace for claiming minority benefits, especially when her far-left supporters are only able to find a 1/32 chance. A $6 million mansion in Cambridge, claiming poverty while driving a rare, British MG convertible in high school (one of her three cars then), buying houses from poor, confused elderly and flipping them for significant profit, $350,000 for teaching one class at Harvard, plagiarized Crab Cake Omelette in Native cookbook "Pow Wow Chow" and more. Great to see Warren as a leader of what's left of today's Democrat party.
Warren, like her party, is the face of fraud. It was nice to see the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. say that Warren is playing the race card. After all, as a "woman of color" Warren prevented real minority women from getting her jobs. Even the 1980's Boston Fire Department fired the infamous Malone brothers (white) for checking the minority box.
BINGO!
I have faux outrage Warren hate BINGO!
I heard a great rumor, Fishy. One you will LOVE! I heard that Liz Warren's Social Security Number does not match her state of birth! OMG TERRORIST!
BTW - I worked at Harvard. The system does not work like your fevered talkingpoints addled imagination tells you it does. Not that you let reality or truth ever get in your way ...
Prove your statements
Your have made many statements that are false. Cite your specific source for each of them. When you don't, it will be your confirmation that you are a liar of immeasurable proportions
You can't convince an idiot with facts,
like the fact that Liz's claim to native heritage happened well after she was hired, so couldn't have been an affirmative-action factor in her hiring.
My grandmother told me I have native blood, and it's something I have attested to with pride my whole life, as happens with hundreds of thousands of Americans, even though all we have in the way of proof is some relative's anecdote. If I were asked about it on a questionnaire for an employee directory some months after being hired for my job, as Liz did, I might have checked that box, too. Most of us don't question that family lore, and until recently, there wasn't a cheap, easy way to test it. One of my siblings did the DNA spit test: yep, it's there. (We can still only speculate on why Second Cousin Frankie disappeared for a few years: jail time in Nevada is the consensus. That one is a bad seed.)
Only the GOP, with its long history of screwing over natives, could have the gall to blow this up into the kind of fake scandal that they have. My favorite bit of hilarious red-faced rightie outrage: the plagiarized recipe! That's practically terrorism! Newsflash, you ludicrous putzes: there are no original recipes in employee cookbooks.
I was never happier than when Spanking-New-Barn-Coat Scottie Brown went down in flames against Warren for flogging that ridiculous lie. You can fool some morons a lot of the time, but the majority of MA voters know hateful, transparent desperation when they see it.
As for asserting that a white person claiming some native ancestry, even if it turns out to be another example of the most common dubious family myth in the country (according to American genealogical researchers, who note that it is especially prevalent in Warren's home state of Oklahoma), is somehow racism? That word: I do not think it means what you think it means.
Warren believed what her parents and grandparents told her, but regardless of whether it's a folk tale or reality, it didn't help her career at Harvard. Them's the facts.
I was just thinking to myself
'Gosh, self, I wonder what the epitome of racism is..."
It could be the KKK lyching thousands of black men from trees. Nah.
Perhaps Jim Crow and the system of American apartheid? Nah.
It could be the Founding Fathers agreeing that black slaves don't count as people, not quite. They count as 3/5ths of a person for their states, but only the white guys get to vote that share. Nah.
It could be apartheid in South Africa. Nah.
It could be Adolf Hitler and the Final Solution. Nah.
How about King Ludwig and his exploitation of the Congo, resulting in the mutilation and murder of millions? Nah. None of these is quite enough of an epitome.
I've got it. I'm going to go with Elizabeth Warren checking the box for Native American descent on an employee survey. Yeah, that's definitely it. The Epitome of Racism. Yup, right yar.
Time to give it up cons.
Even Baker is siding with Warren on this one.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/08/charlie-baker-sides-with-el...
Counterarguments to invoking Rule. Senate Parliamentarian
Looking for ideas, hints, tips, pointers about potential counterarguments... besides a) waiting for a forthcoming Election or b) persuading the Presiding Officer to check with the Senate Parliamentarian whether or not the invoking Senate Rule IX s 2 actually does or doesn't apply to current Proceedings.
Along lines of Appeal there are legal counterarguments to an invocation of Senate Rule IX s 2. "2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Proc...
Office of the Parliamentarian of the Senate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate
Alternative Rules
http://ur1.ca/qghnx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order#Application_to_s...