Hey, there! Log in / Register
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.
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
PR's downside is that fringe
PR's downside is that fringe groups can eventually take over if skillfully manipulative. It allowed the NAZIs to take over Germany.
I wonder why the libertarians
I wonder why the libertarians haven't flocked to Cambridge as part of a Free Cambridge Project like they have for the Free State Project in New Hampshire.
The City of Cambridge LUVs
The City of Cambridge LUVs them and yet Harvard somehow avoids paying a lot them.
You need to learn your tax laws
Harvard and MIT don't "somehow avoid paying them" - they are institutions and FEDERAL law says they don't have to on their core educational facilities.
Also, how do you think the rest of Cambridge became so very sought after? Like, JOBS?
No libertarian takeover because...
...housing is too expensive for a zillion outsiders to all move in at once. Compare to parts of New Hampshire or Texas, where it's possible in theory.
Regular old voting allows
Regular old voting allows plenty of fringe groups to get elected, too. Google the white teabagger in Texas who just got elected by pretending to be black. I recall a similar story from Illinois about 20(?) years ago about a handful of Larouchites who got elected because their names sounded more "normal" than the ethnicy types they were running against.
With PR across the country
With PR across the country the US overall would look like Kentucky. Massachusetts would be 38-40% red vs the current sea of blue.
Re: Regular old voting allows
That cuts both ways, Scratchie. With the help of thousands of Irish-American votes, Democrats John O'Bryant and Jean McGuire, with their Irish-sounding names, were elected to the Boston School Committee at the height or immediately following the busing crisis. Few knew they were black. I believe O'Bryant even used green on white lawn signs with shamrocks. At the time, it was a brilliant strategy. Whether he knew it or not, the successful Texas candidate took a page out of Boston politics of the recent past. Also brilliant!
The Texas Story
was AWESOME, couldn't stop laughing. But it shows how uneducated most voters are, they blindly voted for someone completely misrepresenting himself.
Yeah - but Cambridge gave him the idea
Google the white uber liberal from Cambridge who got elected by pretending to be a native American.
Just wait until she beats
Just wait until she beats Hillary in the primary!
Please
All this country needs is another under qualified inexperienced pol/ community organizer in the WH
Just
Laughed out loud!
Google the white uber liberal
yep, that's why people voted for Senator Warren. Because she made people think she was Native American. Man, you guys are dumber than a sack of hammers, ain't you?
It's a funny comparison
However her pretending she was Native American allowed her to be in a omission to be elected.
However her pretending she
Wanna try that again, in English?
Seriously Scratchie
Whaddaya have a sack o' hammers for a head or sumpin.
Pretty obvious spellcheck changed position to omission.
The point is -
a) she lied on her application to claim native American heritage
b) this is how she got to be the ONLY member of Harvard Law faculty without an Ivy League law degree
c) she doesn't get that job, she probably doesn't live in Mass, about the only state someone like her could get elected in
and Voila - she's not a US senator.
Whatever you say, pal. Keep
Whatever you say, pal. Keep drinking that Kool-aid.
I realize you don't think her
I realize you don't think her claim to be Native American amounts to much. Some see it as being less than truthful. Many don't like voting for someone less than truthful. My daughter has more claim to be N.A. as she can actually trace it but would never think of using it on an application, realizing the benefit is for those who were wronged. I wonder when Warren was wronged for her ethnicity?
And who would this be
Other than in your deranged imagination, that is.
OH WAIT ... you mean the Senator who is, according to census records and genealogists, every bit as much of a Cherokee as the current Chief of the Cherokee nation?
Of course, her election had everything to do with her validated minority background and nothing at all to do with her being far more qualified and far more interested in representing the citizens of the Commonweath than Senator RovePuppett.
As you always say
CITATION?
Or are you saying there are doubts about the Chief's heritage due to lack of records?
The fact that you can't prove a negative is exactly what she is relying on and what she leveraged for professional advantage at different parts of her career.
A TV reporter asked her in an interview with her husband at her home flat out - do you have family pictures proving your Cherokee heritage. She said unequivocally - YES. The reporter said - can we see them. And she responded testily "They're not for you". Why? Was she embarrassed. If she has photographic evidence of her heritage why wouldn't she be proud to simply show these pictures. She lies, that's why.
Here you go
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/04/30/brown-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/r...
But, please, persist in the idea that she wasn't qualified otherwise and that MA voters gave a shit about her heritage.
The fact is that I and others decided that Senator Vatican Butsniff, a wholely owned subsidiary of Karl Rove, ceased to represent us long before the election. I'm sorry, but Catholic doctrine shouldn't have shit-all to do with what health care I have access to as a Vagina Bearing Citizen! Scott Brownnose didn't get that he would pay dearly for that bullshit. THAT IS WHY HE LOST!
You may want to do a bit more research
The Huff Post article is basically an opinion piece based ENTIRELY on speculation. You might try reading it objectively - it's pretty obvious the author takes a personal experience and extrapolates it to Warren's family.
The Globe piece was later corrected as follows:
However, as New England Historic Genealogical Society spokesman Tom Champoux has subsequently admitted on May 9, the original source document was not an 1894 document, as the Globe’s correction today suggests. Instead, it was a 2006 family newsletter.
Keep trying
(and by the way - the original comment was a joke. Even a couple of anons got it. You and Scratchie need to grow a sense of humor).
And I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding Catholic doctrine other than you're a bigot.
You might just want to accept reality
That reality being: NONE OF THIS HAD FUCK-ALL TO DO WITH WARREN BEING ELECTED.
A MAJORITY of the CITIZENS of the COMMONWEALTH voted for her, and it WASN'T BECAUSE OF HER ETHNIC BACKGROUND.
It was because she wasn't Rove's handpuppet. It was because she had a strong background in saying NO to the banking industry. It was because Scott Brown's little Cosmo Coverboy act had worn thin in the face of MULTIPLE and REPEATED ANTI-WOMAN and ANTI-FAMILY votes.
Sorry if you are obsessed with the idea that ethnicity had anything to do with it. Just call it right wing delusion. The FACT is that BROWN LOST because he CHOSE to represent KARL ROVE and not the interests of the citizens of the commonwealth.
It is REALLY THAT SIMPLE. Just like Scott Brown ...
And here's another reality: Refusing to accept a representative that wants to force Catholic Doctrine into secular law IS NOT BIGOTRY. (I have a letter in return for a constituent letter from then Senator Brown reaffirming his "right" to force Catholic doctrine on women who are not Catholic using the federal laws) It is maintaining the separation of CHURCH AND STATE. Please refer to your constitution for details.
What does any of this have to do with Cambridge voting system?
US Senator isn't elected by a ranked-choice voting system, not even in Cambridge.
Nothing starts your day...
...like a swirly f-bomb.
You'd be surprised - I actually agree - Warren didn't win because of the native American non-issue. It also had little to do with Karl Rove. I don't recall Karl Rove EVER being a part of the mainstream discussion. It's even simpler than that.
Warren won because it's virtually impossible to win an election in a state when vast numbers of people will vote for the person with a D after their name even if the word Satan comes in front of the D (and there are equally moronic states that do the same with an R - just nowhere near here). Scott Brown, Gabriel Gomez, Charlie Baker - all moderate Republicans of varying degrees - not a right wing nutjob or Teabagger among them - and all lost. It's starting to look like the only way a Republican wins in Mass (the Coakley fluke aside), is to be a Democrat.
Mass has become irrelevant in Washington. Without a Republican in our delegation - preferably at least one Senator and maybe a couple in the House we will pay a price - if we haven't already. (unfortunately I think our two best Senate candidates and our two worst ran against each other in the last two elections - given a choice of the four I'd take Gomez, then Markey before Brown or Warren - but we're stuck for now).
I highly doubt Brown was voting to appease Pope Benedict - Popes Boehner or McConnell maybe - but not Benedict. As for your bigotry - "Vatican Buttsniffer" is offensive, even to a nominal Catholic like myself. Cut the crap.
Warren won because it's
That might possibly make sense if Brown hadn't been, you know, the incumbent. Or if we hadn't had four Republican governors in a row.
Here's a crazy idea: People voted for Warren because they thought she would represent their interests better than Senator Barn Jacket. Wow, what a concept!
The point is you go have all
The point is you go have all the freaky sex you want, get laid ten times a day if you can pull it off. But I don't want to pay for your birth control. Are you that dumb that you can't comprehend this or are you just going to go through life living off the tax dollars of those who actually work?
That's fine
And I don't want to pay for your broken arm or your Viagra, so I guess we're even.
Do you want to pay for children of the poor then?
Do you also want to pay for extensive surgery that could be prevented if Senator Barnjacket kept to his own private business and didn't want the Catholic church to interfere in private medical decisions?
PCOS - look it up. Oh, wait ... reality isn't in your world view.
Or, maybe, realize that it is incredibly cost effective to STFU and MYOB.
Even bigger downside is when
Even bigger downside is when an opposition party starts up a million splinter parties to act as spoilers and dilute the vote.
Wouldn't that dilute the *opposition* party's support?
n/t
Well I liked this part ,
Well I liked this part ,
“This is Cambridge,” he said, “and in Cambridge Notre Dame always beats Harvard 52 to nothing.”
That would be "in Boston"
Harvard Football doesn't play in Cambridge.
Bummer.
From the title of the post I thought there would be an explanation for why Cambridge votes crazy liberal.
See also http://www.fairvote.org/
See also http://www.fairvote.org/