Hey, there! Log in / Register

Maineiac campaigns for Mass. senate candidate

Paul LePage braved our shores yesterday to speechify in Waltham for Republican senate candidate Geoff Diehl, NBC Boston reports.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Ad:

Comments

Are there really Massholes that support and would listen to someone like LePage?

up
Voting closed 32

Seems clear. He's doing all the right things for that.

up
Voting closed 21

Like campaigning?

Here's the reality:no credible republican would run against a democrat with 65%+ approval rating (and where 2/3 of the remaining 35% are sane people). Notice that you didn't see Tisei or Tarr or other rationals jumping in to that race? Um. Yeah.

up
Voting closed 19

Having a campaign marked with racism and buoyed by locals that pass as "celebrities" who are also knee deep in the racism that Diehl tries to perpetuate to the Howie Carr listeners who are dying quicker than Diehl can kiss their asses?

Or by "right" do you mean the cowardly way he alternately runs from and embraces Trump depending on how bad Trump fucked up that particular day?

Or by "right' do you mean hiring a "strategist" as stupid as Holly Robichaud who got caught taking money from the Saudis to keep Americans from suing them for paying for 9/11 while working for Diehl and Diehl being too much of a pussy to even bring it up?

Fuck him. Warren will crush him like the greasy little wet spot he is.

up
Voting closed 43

Bleach the room. Throw out the table wear.

Racist with a supposed elbow problem supports lunatic swampbilly should have been the headline.

Paul LePage's Maine is economically (and culturally) Mississippi With Snow. The state's growth has been in Portland where the new money invested has backing from people that are a pox to LePage's worldview.

Maine outside of Portland and some of the coast survives on Government Welfare for People, Government Welfare for Corporations (Bath Iron Works - bring us naval ships that we don't need), tourism to the ski areas, Penobscot Bay and Bar Harbor, along with meth production coupled with the occasional timber clear cutting.

Racist Paul Is Small City Trump and Geoff Diehl is Abington Trump.

up
Voting closed 39

I believe was Beth Lindstrom's quote.

up
Voting closed 26

Of hate on both sides against both sides. What is the answer?

up
Voting closed 7

But false equivalence certainly isn't the question.

And questioning hate certainly isn't hate.

up
Voting closed 3

A nice deflection in the first several comments labeling President Trump, Governor LePage and Representative Diehl as racists when only Senator Warren has the real racist track record. For years, Warren lied about her ethnicity to get ahead and then further mocked Native Americans by submitting a plagiarized crab cake recipe to Pow Wow Chow. She refuses to take a DNA test to clarify the issue, relying on family folklore told to her by long dead "Maw Maw and Paw Paw." Despicable. Two Boston firefighters were fired for lying about their race but Warren is venerated.

While I expect the status quo, this could still be an interesting, very low turnout election. Most of the 1,000,000+ Trump voters in MA will come out to support Diehl and many will vote against Baker. It's sad that there's no enthusiasm on the Democrat side with two unknowns. If the Dems had a moderate candidate for Governor (virtually impossible given the far-left nominating process) Baker would be toast.

up
Voting closed 27

Fish proves that his own personal reality makes mine look normal by comparison. Just Google "LePage racist" and sit back and watch the results come back like you just hit the jackpot at Twin Rivers on penny slots.

As far as Warren, you have not a shred of proof against her claim of heritage, and it's quite enjoyable to watch the levels your ilk will go to besmirch a woman who actually made a few bucks in life honestly, listened to her grandma and isn't loyal to a pussy grabbing scumbag who has let the agency you created to protect consumers be turned over to a corrupt little pimp like Mulvaney.

up
Voting closed 11

Dude, are you a bot?

up
Voting closed 14

Me?

up
Voting closed 26

Fish. It's like algorithmic right wing word mashing, at this point.

up
Voting closed 7

$ javac -Xlint:none the-fish-bot.java
$ java the-fish-bot

Fauxcahantas far-left liberals put fluoride in our drinking water because the illegal Muslim terrorists plagiarized them

up
Voting closed 25

Because it is never racist for a white guy like you, fishbait, to speak on behalf of native peoples.

Yeah. Right.

You are also a real idiot if you don't think there are a lot of us whose ancestors got here centuries before yours did who 1. have Native ancestry, 2. have the 23 and Me to show for it, and 3. support Liz Warren.

Then again, it takes a REAL IDIOT to try to repeat some stupid and racist campaign meme that already failed dismally for an incumbent.

up
Voting closed 17

... any evidence that documents Elizabeth Warren having lied about her ethnicity to get ahead?

Examples would be, a college application or an employment application on which she checked some racial identity other than "white", or having applied for a scholarship or fellowship program targeted at specific racial or ethnic groups, or any materials submitted to her tenure committee that suggested a racial or ethnic identity other than "white"

up
Voting closed 14

she is listed as a minority recipient of a teaching award at Penn in 2005, yet in from 1981-1987 she listed herself as white.

she will always be a fraud.

up
Voting closed 28

How do you conclude that it is she who is a fraud and not Penn?

up
Voting closed 26

Can you link to these things so that we know that they are real and not the result of repeating lore and such?

up
Voting closed 15

to support their anti-Warren slurs, because they're all transparent lies.

You can hate Liz if you want to, but all you accomplish by pretending she advanced her career with her purported native ancestry is proving you're a gullible right-wing dumbass. Liz asserted her native ancestry for an employee directory profile *after* she had been hired. Harvard may give preference to minorities in its hiring practices, and you may object to that, but that did not figure in her landing the job.

Sorry, but them's the facts. Where she's from, many people are told they have native ancestry by their families, and it's a point of pride. Nobody thinks, "Hey, maybe my parents are lying." I'm not from Oklahoma, but I have a similar story. I don't brag about it, and have not verified it with a spit test, but family lore says we have a native ancestor.

Maybe if I worked at Harvard, that might make me seem cooler, and maybe I'd put that down in the company directory after I'd been hired. That's crucially different from asserting native ancestry before I got the job, when it might have factored, fairly or not, in my hiring.

Massachusetts voters saw through this pathetic bullshit when they sent Scott Brown packing.

But keep posting that ridiculous nonsense, "Patricia". It's useful to spot you for what you are. If I were you, I wouldn't create a verified account here, either. You and hapless registered humps like Fish have the critical thinking skills of an amoeba.

up
Voting closed 10

According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck website, Warren did list herself as a minority in directories of law professors between 1986 and 1995. It's a good read, unless you consider Factcheck "fake news."

up
Voting closed 24

"Warren, on a 1973 application to the Rutgers Law School, declined to apply for admission under the Program for Minority Group Students, and that she listed herself as white on an undated personnel document at the University of Texas, where she worked from 1981 until 1987."

up
Voting closed 22

factcheck.org. Like Swirly - do you need the link

My account - can't reset my account for quite some time.

Sorry it bothers you.

up
Voting closed 21

too. It says, let me quote for you: "No proof has emerged that confirms that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is, as she has claimed, part Native American. Likewise, no proof has surfaced that Warren was previously hired as a professor by any university based on her alleged heritage." [emphasis added]

That's from the article's first paragraph.

Maybe "amoeba" was too generous.

up
Voting closed 0

Down in the third paragraph, where they cite the Boston Herald, who in turn cite a handful of Harvard Crimson articles that reference Warren as a "minority" as opposed to a woman.

I think the polite thing to say is that there is some controversy about how Senator Warren noted her ancestry and leave it at that. That said, a statement such as

None of the anons here will ever find citations to support their anti-Warren slurs, because they're all transparent lies.

does not quite hold water.

up
Voting closed 14

the blocks with, "For years, Warren lied about her ethnicity to get ahead", which is the biggest, most transparent lie of the brain-dead Fauxcahontas crowd. It's the one pile of horseshit that they stubbornly babble on about, despite how the very articles they like to cite as evidence actually contradict them.

"HERE: READ THE LINK!" "Um, that factcheck.org piece you're citing actually debunks your argument. You just have to read it all the way to the second sentence." That's some risible right-wing dumbassery right there.

Without a factual basis for the contention that Liz used her purported ethnicity to get ahead professionally, her story is simply one of believing family lore and being proud of it.

Trying to make that into a high crime based on pretend outrage about the sanctity of native heritage, especially when the notion is introduced by a notorious racist turd here, begs for insults to the irrational Liz-haters' intelligence.

I get it: your original bullshit got exposed for what it is, and now you have to fall back on something much weaker: "She's saying she has native ancestry, but maybe she doesn't. Never mind that she never benefited professionally or politically from this contention. LOCK HER UP!"

Ugh: the Howie Carr crowd is so damned feeble.

up
Voting closed 22

But since you only read the first paragraph of an article, here's what paragraph 3 says-

The Boston Herald reported that Warren had previously been touted in the 1990s by officials at Harvard Law School, where she was a tenured professor, as an example of the faculty’s diversity. That led to the revelation that Warren — citing only anecdotal evidence — claimed to be part Cherokee and Delaware Indian, and had listed herself as a minority in a directory of law professors from 1986 until 1995.

But I decided to dig a little deeper in the reporting hole. And what did a spokesperson from Harvard Law School tell the Crimson in 1996?

Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic, said Mike Chmura, spokesperson for the Law School.

Although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.

You ask for proof. When proof is offered, you claim that it doesn't prove anything. Sure enough, there is nothing that says that Warren touted her Native American heritage when she applied at HLS, but it is safe to say that there is evidence that may point in that direction.

up
Voting closed 33

Nobody is challenging the notion that Warren claimed native ancestry, or that Harvard repeated it as proof of their diversity.

But once again: there's zero evidence that it advanced her career. That's the giant takeway from that piece, which is why it's Sentence Number Two. And repeated three times elsewhere throughout the article.

You're making a baseless leap with your claim of "evidence pointing in that direction". I don't blame you: the second you acknowledge the major point of the article, you're left with nothing but runny BS, just like every other Fauxcahontas-chanting schmuck.

up
Voting closed 16

Fair enough. My point was just that there is evidence that points in that direction, one of the main pieces of evidence being that the school touted her ancestry as proof of diversity amongst the faculty.

Not to move this over too far to a different topic, but what do you think about those crazy folk who claim that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election? I mean, there's been no proof, so the charges are baseless, right?

up
Voting closed 20

has not been produced yet. That puts us both in the position of waiting for actual evidence, because that's what, you know, rational people do.

You can hold your own suspicions, but you cannot make those into assertions of fact, just as I cannot say, "It's a known fact that Trump colluded with Russia." Yet the Fauxcahontas numbnuts keep going around presenting evidence-free assertions as fact -- and then pointing to articles that literally spell out that there is no evidence to support their arguments and a lot that debunks them (like the copious testimony of hiring officials who flat-out deny that ethnicity had anything to do with Warren's hiring) -- which is why they deserve to be called effing eedjits.

Wanna wager who comes through with actual evidence first: Mueller or the String-Warren-Up crowd? I'm guessing you're not dumb enough to take that bet.

up
Voting closed 22

She did list herself in a directory as a minority, and as a further fact, her Native American heritage was touted the people who hired her while she was listed as a minority in a directory. That's what the fauxcahontas crowd is on about (as opposed to me, who kind of doesn't care.)

Conversely, Russian hackers stole info from the DNC and Clinton campaigns and released them through wikileaks. That said, I'm not going to get my buns in a knot if people say the Russians influenced the elections.

up
Voting closed 23

of those facts are in dispute. But that's explicitly *not* what the Fauxcahontas crowd touts.

They're repeating the same naked lies that Fish did here: "She used her ethnicity to advance her career." That's patently false. When you shine the light of facts on this bullshit, they backpedal into, "But-but-but maybe she's not actually native!"

And making that into anything more than a big "So effing what?" is pure irrational hatred, clutching at any kind of hollow straw to discredit Warren. None of these rightie twits actually gives a shit about Harvard faculty directories, or faculty diversity, or the imagined sin of believing what your parents tell you about your native ancestry.

They just hate Warren, and will repeat any easily-debunked lie to slander her. In Massachusetts, such people get called out as spittle-flecked morons, and nobody sheds a tear when they slither off to New Hampshire or New Zealand.

up
Voting closed 4

It might not be proven, but that doesn’t make it false. And to this day, she refuses to admit that her claim of being Native American is untrue. Honestly, I don’t like it when politicians double down when a statement of theirs is proven untrue. That’s why I was a Johnson voter in 2016.

up
Voting closed 5

Gary Johnson?

up
Voting closed 15

Had Bill Weld as his VP candidate.

up
Voting closed 20

He was also a moron, who, unlike Jill Stein who would not go away after helping fuck the country, had the good sense to crawl under a rock for a few months after the election.

And Bill Weld? Bill Weld? A man who has never met a drink he could turn down? Allegedly, of course.

I want to thank you for the stirring insight.

up
Voting closed 15

evidence do not and never will equal facts.

Liz could take the spit test, with two possible outcomes. One, she has native ancestry, and the wingnuts would not believe it: think Obama birth certificate. Two, she doesn't, and her highly reasonable explanation that she believed what her family told her, as most people did before 23andMe (and still do, absent genetic testing) -- especially in Oklahoma, where native ancestry is a huge point of pride -- would not be credited.

White Americans generally don't devote a moment's thought to the horrible plight of natives here, but we love the idea of having a native ancestor. It's kinda cool, man, especially when you've never had to suffer any of the heinous exploitation and racism that natives with less or no white ancestry do.

So in Liz's defense, that's exactly the kind of family lore that elders love to pass down and their progeny rarely scrutinize. My own family is an example: when I was eight, my grandma told me I have a Sioux ancestor. "She grew up in Iowa, so that checks out," said my young brain. She also told me an ancestor of ours invented the Eskimo Pie. I was more skeptical there: if true, where was our ice-cream fortune? But I was happy and proud to believe the former story, have repeated it occasionally into adulthood.

Thus I would feel a little silly if maybe not surprised to learn that story is apocryphal, but would also object to being deemed a huge fraud for not questioning it, especially because like Warren, I have never used it for affirmative-action purposes. Nobody wants to believe that Nana was just baselessly puffing up your family pride.

One crucial, patent fact remains: regardless of the truth of her ancestry, Warren's claim was never considered in her hiring, was not even first recorded in that faculty directory until well after she had the job. This essential fact will continue to be deliberately ignored by the slavering rightie mouth-breathers, even if in their hearts they know it to be true. Ultimately, this is what makes them unconscionable, worthy of derision as despicable liars and/or desperate fools.

The Liz-haters have endlessly demonstrated that they are neither rational thinkers nor arguers in good faith. There is zero point in trying to correct their lunacy and mendacity. They're either on Fox News, or watch it and believe what it tells them, FFS. Facts and reason bounce off their skulls like soccer balls off brick walls.

up
Voting closed 20

They're funny things. You note

One crucial, patent fact remains: regardless of the truth of her ancestry, Warren's claim was never considered in her hiring, was not even first recorded in that faculty directory until well after she had the job.

Yet Warren was listed as a minority in directories up to her start at HLS, and as was noted in 1996, was still touted as such after her hiring. You can dispute these well documented things, but others see them as facts, and it bears up.

The thing that amazes me is that she has doubled down on the claim even as it's been disproven, and it looks like the die hard supporters are doing the same. She'll win reelection this fall (she's done an adequate job and should be reelected for that, but then again I said that about the guy before her) but if she is put up against the orange headed one, this will destroy her and allow for 4 more years of Trumpdom. Remember that.

up
Voting closed 18

admitted they hired her as a minority, a woman!!!

BTW i am pretty sure those Scott Brown supporters running around in headdresses and doing war whoops really helped him. Also this Pocahontas and other name calling is the real offensive stuff. Lepage will be out in January, maybe he is looking for a new job in MA

up
Voting closed 34

Any Harvard employee will tell you - they do a survey. It is not linked to your employment or any affirmative action. Just a post-hiring survey.

I just applied for a job at Harvard. They collect the info separately from your application. If you apply for another job, it isn't saved over because it isn't associated with your name.

up
Voting closed 16

This is pretty standard practice in corporate America too. There are some sort of diversity points they are trying to claim so every single year we get an anonymous survey to self-identify ourselves across a number of characteristics that would be blatantly illegal to ask before hire, and is completely optional.

up
Voting closed 17

comment deleted because i think i misinterpreted your comment

up
Voting closed 29

A racist rant is *definitely* the way to convince others when accusing someone else of being racist! I'm convinced!

/scarcasm

up
Voting closed 25

I'm sure it was a malapropism, but I think it would be educational for us to define scarcasm.

scarcasm /ˈskärˌkazəm/; noun; the use of irony to mock or convey contempt, in the face of unbelievable intellectual dishonesty, unhinged bigotry, or meaningless Trumpian wordplay, with the effect of leaving oneself mentally scarred by the encounter.

up
Voting closed 4

I figured that bigoted lump of old-man dander had crawled up his own asshole and died at some point.

up
Voting closed 13

I know republicans aren't good with numbers but last checked Trump's approval rating in MA was a hilariously bad 32%.

And Trump's racist track record stretches back 40 years! You would have to be incredibly uninformed or just in denial to think he isn't racist. Just last year he said a judge wasn't capable of doing his job because of his Mexican ancestry. He said white supremacists who murdered and beat black people were "fine people". Only someone who is SUPER racist would look at Trump and think he isn't a racist in comparison.

up
Voting closed 26

The only approval rating that matters is on election day.

up
Voting closed 26