Hey, there! Log in / Register

Lining up in the cold rain to hear one of our better known Massachusetts presidential candidates

Neighborhoods: 
Ad:

Comments

This article sums up a portion of comments on this thread.

up
Voting closed 32

This is good practice to prepare for the bread and soup lines we will be lining up in if her economic plan ever becomes a reality.

up
Voting closed 85

Care to place a wager?

up
Voting closed 31

What is the wager and how much wampum do you want to place on it?

up
Voting closed 51

in bread and soup lines if Warren is president. Let's set some terms. I don't know what "wampum" is, as I use US dollars, but I will assume it is a buzzword that gets big points on sites like Breitbart and WND.

up
Voting closed 50

how much wampum

I will pay for a feature to block racist dogwhistlers like this one, if you will not ban them. I bet many others will as well.

up
Voting closed 72

that I wrote a few years ago when they turned up the wattage on the frayed power cord feeding FISH's frontal lobe in the cryochamber deep beneath the Rand Institute.

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/19385-universal-hub-killfile

It's pretty low-fi, but if you install TamperMonkey and load this, it makes the comments section here at least tolerable.

That said: Adam, I'm having some trouble figuring out your rationale for letting the trolls have the run of the place. A lot of us have stopped commenting or reading, because the brazen misogyny and racism in the comments makes the whole site feel hostile.

up
Voting closed 34

who's comments never even end up appearing and when they do they're lost in a sea of rampant hostile ravings of ignorance and senility.

It's ruining this site, Adam.

up
Voting closed 16

As one who used to comment somewhat regularly, I now just completely skip most comments sections because of the old boomer trolls.

up
Voting closed 23

I have neither patience nor sympathy for those you would likely block when they are at their worst. But this “block them” thing is embarrassing. If someone made threatening statements or created a genuinely hostile environment then I have no doubt Adam would act appropriately. Sealing yourself off in a JavaScript echo-chamber strikes me as a huge and disappointing error in judgment. It’s the last thing we can afford to do if we want to get anything meaningful done. These are challenging times and we’re going to need to get thick skin and plug our nose at times to get through them to a better place. But we will. Now how to stop people from posting about things they know absolutely nothing about is another story. That I can get on board with.

up
Voting closed 32

If people choose not to wallow in toxic filth, that's their choice, not yours. What is your objection to giving them the tools to do so?

Oh, and the "these are challenging times" callout is a load of nonsense. Some of us have been the targets of this toxicity our entire lives. Don't talk to me about a "thick skin" or "plugging our nose at times". You make your choices, allow others to do the same.

up
Voting closed 20

I had used your "killfile" successfully in the past but at some point it must have became incompatible with something or other I was using and stopped working. I will it try out again.

I know when the Disqus commenting software package people finally added a "block" option
it made reading various blogs/websites a much better experience. I had hoped Adam would
add this option on by now but maybe the software package he uses doesn't offer this possibility.

up
Voting closed 7

Maybe you should refocus that on making your own life better?

up
Voting closed 26

The pot calls the kettle black?

up
Voting closed 5

You're the one with the no complaining policy, no?

up
Voting closed 16

You're the one with the no complaining policy, no?

What are you talking about?

up
Voting closed 6

Making native-american jokes about Warren isn't so different from making orange jokes about Trump. Each is a slight about the authenticity of their respective candidates.

The same comment applied to Sharice Davids would be entirely different, but applied to Warren, in the context of wagering money, it's fair game, and not a bad joke.

up
Voting closed 1

Trump chooses to be orange. It is funny because despite getting plenty of feedback on what his self tanner looks like, he continues to use it.

Warren is accused of cultural appropriation. She has responded and apologized. It is no excuse for perpetuating negative jokes about native people.

up
Voting closed 1

continue to get away with posting thinly veiled racist, misogynistic, and just downright pathetically dumb comments time and time again and nothing is ever done about it?

It's just so tiresome, adam.

up
Voting closed 8

give it a fuckin rest for christ sake

up
Voting closed 38

Warren's plans would certainly be bad for the stock market. While you may say - HA - then the rich who own most of the stocks will lose money, you would be forgetting the second and third level effects:

a) the wealth effect of a rising stock market is real and powerful - a substantial drop in the market would have a significant effect on the real economy

b) the most responsible of us have retirement accounts that are heavily reliant on stock performance, and not just the rich. You probably need to make at least 5-6% on your investments to make them last through a 30 year retirement with cost of living increases. Drop the market by 15%, with compounding, and you probably cut at least half a decade off of most people's savings.

c) the biggest impact will be on pensions. I'm personally of the opinion that the next long term downturn in the market will be a reckoning for all kinds of pensions. If you saw what happened in Rhode Island where people got about 60 cents on the dollar, count on that happening to state and municipal employees all around the country.

That's the reality of her "plans" - and that's even before we get into the direct impacts of her overambitious taxing and spending plans.

Food lines - maybe not. But it won't be happy times - for rich and poor alike - especially when the rich run out of money to fund all this stuff (great piece in the WSJ a couple weeks ago about the knock-on effects of her wealth tax).

up
Voting closed 51

Municipalities won't be able to use it. Municipal workers pay into their pension. And that pension goes right back into the economy.

When corporations cut pensions, the taxpayer has to take up the slack.

Publicly traded companies should have a higher minimum wage, 85% healthcare and pension vesting in 10 years or less. Companies sell stock to raise capital. A company that doesn't provide enough pay to keep employees the off foodstamps, section 8, ACA and social security then they should not be allowed sell stock. Companies in the stock market are supposed to have real value created by success.

And look at Uber and Lyft. Their offerings were basically pump and dump scemes that are falling apart. They artificially inflated the pay for drivers to agrressively acquire markets to the point of undercutting public transportation prices. Both empires are built on legions of non employees that will go bankrupt paying for leases and car loans they can't afford when the bottom drops out. And then who pays? the taxpayer.

up
Voting closed 34

1) Municipalities invest heavily in the stock market. If there's a crash, it will have a tremendous effect on their ability to pay pensions. Rhode Island made a deal - something like we can give you 100% for another 5-10 years and then zero. Or we can pay you 60 cents on the dollar under the otherwise same terms. well managed places like NY and Mass may be fine. Most other states will be a disaster.

2) Not true - if you save 10% of your gross income, plus social security, a middle income worker should be able to replace 100% of their income in retirement. For higher earners more reliant on savings than Social Security, you probably need to save 15%. Again, implement a wealth tax, crash the market on a long term basis - bump that 10% to 15% and the 15% to over 20%.

3) again, what fantasy land do you live in where these numbers for publicly traded companies work? If you made those rules, most of these companies wouldn't remain public . They'd take themselves private or move overseas to a more friendly environmen and the rest of us would have almost nowhere to invest. (that's a bit of a problem even now - but entirely different discussion)

4) the market is already sorting out Uber and Lyft. They will not only survive, but thrive. Eventually. they are not standing still. They are evolving with the market and legal environment. At least one of them will be fine if not both.

up
Voting closed 18

As long as you stay on the merry go round of circular reasoning, Crony Capitalism will keep pretending they can't afford to pay workers fairly.

Elizabeth Warren is straight forward and predictable. The stock market won't crash. Corporations aren't going anywhere because the rest of the world is even more socialist. The economy will chug along because poor and middle class people spend money instead of hiding it overseas.

How about number 5, where you explain why it is a good idea for the taxpayers to subsidize housing, food, pensions and healthcare for the employees Target, Walmart and other profitable businesses.

up
Voting closed 35

The stock market won't crash.

"We've broken the economic cycle!" Famous last words.

up
Voting closed 1

The stock market won't crash because of a leader as predictable as Warren.

up
Voting closed 0

I missed one little part the first time around -
.
"...well managed places like NY..."
.
umm... New York? Well-managed? public pensions??!!!!
.
Did somebody tag NYC or Albany with a Bizarro ray while I wasn't looking?

up
Voting closed 7

But their pensions are well funded and well managed. Kinda comes with the Wall Street territory - a lot of talent that gets fed up with working for the private sector ends up in Albany.

Same goes for Mass and the Financial District.

up
Voting closed 2

Well, that is a surprise.
.
Considering labor contracts like NY has with MTA, where they're at more risk than other states to get gouged because very-generous overtime pay is factored into pension (not just base pay) - I had my doubts.

up
Voting closed 1

"the most responsible of us have retirement accounts that are heavily reliant on stock performance"

Outside of Trump U. alums and Larry Kudlow, using heavy stock reliance as a basis for retirement would never be considered being responsible with one's savings.

But you do you, Stevey.

up
Voting closed 7

The stock market is not the economy.
and yes i have a 40k and IRA.
If you are so worried about paying for her plans then i assume the exploding deficit worries you as well . Since that will eventually cripple the economy and stock market.
Worrying about the stock market and the effects of the wealth tax is a scare tactic. BTW it would take an awful long time for the rich to run out of money to pay the extra taxes. Generations in reality.

up
Voting closed 33

the exploding deficit doesn't worry me, it PETRIFIES me. This can't end well. I never supported Trump's tax cuts without accompanying budget cuts.

this is not a scare tactic. It's math (again - the WSJ article is an excellent piece about the compounding effect of the wealth tax and why every country that has tried it has canned it). the biggest problem (on top of the fact that it may not be constitutional) is the cash flow. Most of these "billionaires" own very illiquid assets. The compounding effect of generating cash to pay for these taxes is enormous and wipes out huge amounts of wealth (an example I use - where does Bob Kraft come up with $50 million a year to pay for the value of the Pats? And since that significantly reduces the value of the asset - how is all that factored into Warren's calculations). This is a disaster in the making.

Not generations - years. Here's the article if you can get past the paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-pay-the-wealth-tax-sell-everything-1...

up
Voting closed 18

During the Eisenhower era, a period of unprecedented prosperity for blue and white collar workers, taxes were miles above where they are now. I'm sure you'd claim those rates would be unacceptably high.

As for Bobby Rub'n'Tug, the Patriots make an estimated $170M per year in profits so that's where he 'comes up with' $50m.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/foxborough/new-england-patriots-named-se...

Part of the problem with your arguments is that you never seem to bring up that companies like Fedex have gone from paying hundred of millions in taxes to zero but instead focus on how we can't afford stuff. No duh! That's why we need to reform and increase taxation.

up
Voting closed 26

I assumed the pats would be valued at $1 billion and generate about $50 million in taxes. A company making $170 million a year in today's market would be worth 20 times that - or $3.4 billion. A 6% tax on that wipes out the profit - meaning the actual value is zero (even a billionaire's ego wouldn't pay much for a franchise that loses money every year after taxes).

Now let's assume more normal times of a 15x multiple - that values the Pats at $2.5 billion (and here's your first problem with a wealth tax - what multiple do you use on this?). But even there, after taxes the Pats now net only about $50 million. Now the value of that company goes from $2.5 billion to less than $1 billion. So now the tax on that asset is say $25 million or so and the government collects a fraction of what they thought they'd get.

And then what happens if the Pats start sucking and make half as much. Does Kraft get a refund?

Lots of ways to slice and dice this, but the solution is the same - it's a massively stupid idea.

up
Voting closed 15

assumes that the only motivating factor in business is the unfettered accumulation of money and by extension that millionaires and billionaires are inevitable.

in other words: you aren’t debunking arguments for higher taxation, you’re just saying that economic inequality is fine. which, cool that’s your opinion, but i’d argue that a close study of the effects of inequality over the last 40-50 years in the US wouldn’t support your claim.

supply side economics has never worked; this is something republicans in politics understand - hence why they don’t complain about the growing deficit or the increasing government intervention in markets (tariffs, farms, etc.), as long as massive tax cuts continue to siphon money upwards at a historic rate.

up
Voting closed 20

...does that have to do with anything that I posted?

You are like Trump. Out of any logical argument you start spouting all kinds of stuff to distract from the point that a wealth tax is a moronic idea espoused by an even more moronic (or genius) politician trying to buy your vote by telling you she'll get you all kinds of free stuff (knowing full well this is an idiotic concept, but it will get her press and votes from people uneducated enough to understand the consequences of a policy like this).

up
Voting closed 3

now you’re talking about the wealth tax? i was responding to your comments about billionaires who would be dissuaded from participating in the market if faced with higher corporate tax rates.

up
Voting closed 11

It's theft. And just one reason this policy might not even be constitutional.

I can guarantee you that if you buy businesses that pay 100% tax, you will never become a millionaire or a billionaire.

Assuming you are actually a Berklee Alum - you do realize that without rich people we don't have Jordan Hall, Symphony Hall or Berklee in anything resembling its present form. Many of the great masterpieces we enjoy in classical music wouldn't exist either - Mozart would have been too busy harvesting the wheat to write music if rich people weren't paying his salary.

In fact, you might want to google "giving pledge" to see just how much some rich people are willing to give back. Or will you find fault in even that?

You don't help poor people by making rich people poor.

up
Voting closed 3

Who's talking about 100% taxes? Nobody but Stevil. It popped up in his fantasy about what the awful progressives are saying, so he thinks he can pretend it's something they really are saying. In fact, Warren proposed a 2% tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to a stratospheric 3% on wealth over $1 billion. Again, only Stevil is talking about a 100% tax.

In fact, Trump himself floated a similar measure in 1999 as he explored a presidential bid as a prospective Reform Party nominee.
up
Voting closed 9

If you have an asset (say a business) worth $1 billion and it generates a profit of $60 million and you tax that asset at 6%, that's 100% tax. Her tax is up to 6% now for assets over $1 billion - so assuming you made $1 billion and this is your second billion. This is another problem with this - others have noted that the income tax started out only on the ultra rich. Now it applies to everyone to at least file.

Now to you, that billion dollar asset is worthless as your return is zero. It's worse if you own say a $1 billion in treasury bonds yielding 2% (good luck with that) - now your return is -4% and that's BEFORE you also pay the income tax owed on that (although maybe there is a provision in there somewhere for an offset - that's accounting, not finance)

(Trump is also a moron - just a different kind and you'll note I repeatedly say I will have nothing to do with him, so not sure why you quote a 20 year old proposal from him)

up
Voting closed 1

You mixed up her wealth tax plan her with corporate tax plan

How the Real Corporate Profits Tax Works

This new tax only applies to companies that report more than $100 million in profits — about the 1200 most profitable firms in the country last year.That first $100 million is left alone, but for every dollar of profit above $100 million, the corporation will pay a 7% tax. Any company profitable enough to hit the Real Corporate Profits Tax will pay that tax in addition to whatever its liability might be under our current corporate tax rules.

That means Amazon would pay $698 million in taxes instead of paying zero. And Occidental Petroleum would pay $280 million in taxes instead of paying zero.

https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/real-corporate-profits

up
Voting closed 8

you can't google and you can't read:

"That’s why we need a tax on wealth. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax taxes the wealth of the richest Americans. It applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more—roughly the wealthiest 75,000 households, or the top 0.1%. Households would pay an annual 2% tax on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and a 6% tax on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion."

From https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

Only an idiot devoid of economic, financial and accounting skills would support something this crazy. And only someone completely lacking in critical thinking skills would be dumb enough not to see through the blatant populism.

up
Voting closed 1

You are doubling down on your mistake.

The wealth tax applies to households. You don't know much about business if you think that business valued at one billion would be privately held as a sole proprietorship. Even under the current system it would be stupid to do that.

I am sure even if you understood the plan, you would disagree, but your 100% tax example shows that you don't understand it.

up
Voting closed 12

Most rich people are rich because they own businesses and their ownership stake in the business is part of their household net worth. It doesn't have to be a "sole proprietorship". It can be all kinds of different ownership structures. Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg aren't rich because they have lots of "household wealth". Their wealth is their ownership of a piece of Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook. Trump (and many others) are rich because they own companies that own lots of real estate. And so on.

I understand the plan perfectly. It's moronic (and will never happen because only Warren and maybe Sanders are stupid enough to support it).

Do you want to dig any more holes for yourself? You're already way in over your head and I don't care how tall you are.

up
Voting closed 2

I guess you agree that your 100% tax example doesn't apply since you seem to have forgotten it. Calling the plan moronic doesn't demonstrate an understanding of how a wealth tax works. Did you forget how google works too?

up
Voting closed 10

How do you not get that if you own and investment that make 6% off of an investment's value and you tax it at 6% of that value there is zero left?

up
Voting closed 1

do you believe that your earnings increase your net value, dollar for dollar?

up
Voting closed 6

???

up
Voting closed 3

your imaginary victim has 1,060,000,000. According to her plan the first 50 million is not subject to wealth tax. the next nine hundred and fifty million is taxed at 2% which= 19 million. the remaining 60 million is taxed at 6% = 3,600,000. So the that wealth tax bill is 22,600,000.

As I said before reading comprehension 101.

up
Voting closed 9

Yes I get that - I'm looking at the impact on investments over $1 billion to keep things simpler.

Granted - that's only a few hundred people - but they do have a phenomenal amount of wealth and such a tax would dramatically change the investment landscape.

And that's before we get into the issue of constitutionality and the literal armies of IRS agents and accountants you'll need to straighten this stuff all out.

You want to fix this - use the estate tax system, not some cockamamie unmanageable wealth tax.

up
Voting closed 0

Unlike you, Warren didn't pull her numbers out of the air. Do you understand math? Is there a scenario where 100% of earnings would be taxed? How would you know, since you can just change the subject and move the line. As usual your comments are unrelated to facts and designed to deceive and inflame.

up
Voting closed 9

If you are already a billionaire, basically any additional assets you accumulate are worthless or virtually worthless because the tax eats up 100% of any anticipated earnings generated. Why would anyone own an asset that generates a net zero return?

up
Voting closed 1

You really don't know what magical set of circumstances would create a 100% tax on earnings, do you?

up
Voting closed 6

It's been explained to you five times already.

The progressive mantra:

Give away money, or steal from the rich...because
When shown that doesn't make sense, obfuscate the issue
When shown that they are obfuscating, call the other person a racist
When shown the other person isn't a racist, call them a Nazi

Declare victory while being devoured in the jaws of defeat

up
Voting closed 1

You have lied and cut pasted paragraphs that you obviously did not (or could not) read. To be clear I am not trying to convince you to agree with her plan, I am just pointing out that your comments are meant be dishonest or you don't understand her plan.

up
Voting closed 7

Sorry Adam - hasn't happened in a while, seems to be picking up my left click on the save button twice.

up
Voting closed 0

N/T

up
Voting closed 0

*

up
Voting closed 13

So glad that Elizabeth Warren has an expert's knowledge of the economy and how it works, which is in sharp contrast to your misinformed maunderings.

up
Voting closed 23

And does not understand the first thing about economics, investing and taxes. I read and watch people every day that do understand these things and they laugh at her naive assumptions.

up
Voting closed 38

If there was any truth to this, you'd have cites.

up
Voting closed 18

N/T

up
Voting closed 20

I read and watch people every day that do understand these things and they laugh at her naive assumptions.

And you think that Google is going to tell me about the "people" that you claim to "read and watch every day" who "do understand these things", laughing at Elizabeth Warren.

Are you sure you've used these computer things before?

up
Voting closed 15

Try WSJ Warren Wealth Tax

Or CNBC Warren Wealth Tax

There's a wealth of info out there and there is no tax.

Happy New Year. see you in 2020.

up
Voting closed 14

Is there a reason why you never link?

up
Voting closed 6

up
Voting closed 6

We might also find all the OTHER economists - like most of them - who say the WSJ is a bunch of whining garbage.

(sips from Billionaire Tears mug)

up
Voting closed 8

NPR, NY Times, WaPo - any decent analysis comes back with the same thing.

There's a reason everyone that has tried it has dropped it.

up
Voting closed 1

And Robert Reich absolutely knows what he is talking about.

up
Voting closed 5

Very little to do with what Warren is proposing and nothing to analyze the ramifications.

Literally every article I've read on this (and that's a lot of articles) says that when the rubber meets the road, a wealth tax is a disaster - and indeed fails pretty much everywhere they try it.

And for the record, I'm a big fan of a much stricter estate tax (doing this once, after someone is dead is a very different animal).That's a "wealth tax" that can work (and recover some of what the government is due after Trumpy irresponsibly slashed taxes).

Warren's proposal is simply another of her attempts to buy the election without taking donations from rich people. Sounds a lot better to the masses when you say you are going to confiscate their assets instead of accept their contributions. And hey - October is a lovely time for a socialist uprising - right before the elections and all!

up
Voting closed 1

while we're at it, why don't we ask darren woods what he thinks of AOC?

you sound ridiculous

up
Voting closed 4

try NY Times and warren wealth tax if you prefer - the answer comes back mostly the same.

Horrible idea.

up
Voting closed 0

'The most responsible of us' is a very tidy way to blame poor and unlucky people for being less fortunate. Sure, lots of poor people have made lots of bad decisions but it's equally true that many people simply can't escape the cycle of poverty to get to a position where they have retirement benefits. And of course huge amount of people may have made excellent plans for retirement only to lose everything due to our non-functioning health care system which can wipe out a family in mere months.

UBI is a concept which has been shown to work better than trickle down economics and yet folks like you and the richer folks you aspire to be insist that only by making the rich richer can we improve everyone's lot. Self serving nonsense.

up
Voting closed 20

So the 80% of Americans that have little or no savings are victims?

UBI - that's a funny word. And an even funnier concept. Analysis shows it might work in a small, fairly homogeneous population. Many/most economists would tell you if you tried it in a country like ours it would be almost impossible and be ineffective. We are not Sweden or Norway.

up
Voting closed 20

You think American oligarchic capitalism is the best possible system? For real? Real basic wages are stagnant, healthcare costs ruin people but sure, a minority of the population is doing very well. People born into stable, wealthy (relative to average, not meaning 1%) do well. People born into poverty generally can't escape poverty due to the erosion of real wages and benefits.

You think the gig economy is better than a good job where a blue collar family can buy a house? You think this system can't be improved so more people live better lives?

We are not Sweden or Norway because the kind of venture capital which runs amok here doesn't exist there. Read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IN8ZX7A/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UT...

.... and tell me more about how this is a good system.

Here's an article which references a study done by Rumsfeld and Cheney (surely your kind of people) that showed that mostly people still wanted to work and be productive with a UBI - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/who-really-stands-to-win-f...

Let's look at this another way - the trillion dollar Trump tax cuts have done nothing but explode our deficit without increasing productivity, investments or distributed benefits. Why not try something else? Let me guess, we suddenly can't afford this now that the Sacklers and Kochs have topped off their offshore accounts, right?

up
Voting closed 23

Or listen to her? Easy choice.

up
Voting closed 59

You'll have to get used to listening to the "shrill" voice of a woman president eventually, and it probably won't be a Republican woman.

up
Voting closed 49

Fine. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee. If Warren, it's hello third party - AGAIN!

Warren - please. Dumbest smart person I know.

And a total fake. If you're going to lie as a politician, you should at least be good at it.

up
Voting closed 50

If Warren, it's hello third party - AGAIN!

Promise? Because that would be awesome. Next best thing to folding your ballot and wiping your ass with it. Please promise you will?

up
Voting closed 20

And far from that there are very good reasons, especially in Mass to vote third party. In my opinion anyone that voted Hillary or Trump ended up with dirty toilet paper in their hands last time around. I wasn't fooled by either of them. My only wish is that Weld had been at the top of the Libertarian ticket - there might have been a fighting chance to have the election thrown to the House or at least get an independent party a place at the table in the 2020 election - but alas, it was not to be.

up
Voting closed 24

...do you even math?

Never mind...

up
Voting closed 17

Do you know how the electoral system works?

If it's an even split and an independent party wins literally just one state and nobody gets a majority, the election goes to the House (a la Jefferson and Quincy Adams). Even Rhode Island or Montana could then be the swing vote depending on how the electoral college vote falls. The thought was at the time that a moderate conservative like Johnson, or more likely Weld could have swayed Republicans who then owned the majority, to vote for the third party rather than the crazy Republican nominee we ended up with.

Far more likely was that if the Libertarians got 5% of the vote they would have gotten some advantages this time around - I believe some public funding and a place in the debates. Unfortunately, Johnson only pulled 3.3%.

Remember - there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans and if trends continue, there will soon be more independents than Democrats and Republicans COMBINED!

up
Voting closed 15

Do you know how the electoral system works?

I do. You, on the other hand...

Remember - there are more independents than Democrats or Republicans

...don't seem to understand that what you call "independents" are in fact unaffiliated voters. They are not "third-party voters". But do enjoy your fantasy.

up
Voting closed 26

a) Where is the systemic error in my understanding of the electoral system that you allude to?

b) Never said they were third party - but they are mostly disinterested in party politics and if you can find a way to energize them in a couple of states, you never know. (hard as they are a very diverse group and probably less passionate about the extreme positions the major parties have moved toward).

Again - I had no delusions of any third party "winning". There was the very remote chance a third party (if they had a better candidate) could take a swing state or two (Minnesota for example with a penchant for independents). More likely, and perhaps better, would have been a third party that got 5% of the vote and in turn we got a louder and more moderate voice on the stage. Not to be - and probably not for 2020 either. Some day, eventually, if the major parties continue to move to the far edges.

up
Voting closed 15

voters still have to choose a party ballot. Which is why so many of them choose not to vote in primaries.

To encourage greater voter participation, and to give ALL candidates an equal footing, we need to abolish the practice of having separate party-based ballots at the primary and put ALL candidates, including independents, on a single primary ballot.

up
Voting closed 6

In many states unenrolled voters aren't even allowed to vote in primaries.

up
Voting closed 8

Requiring an unaffiliated voter to choose a party ballot limits their choices. Yet, having a single ballot does not prevent a party loyalist from choosing only candidates from the party they support.

Also consider the additional costs and logistics of requiring separate ballots for each party. Effort and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Lastly, although an unaffiliated voter remains unaffiliated after casting their ballot (which wasn't always the case in Massachusetts), their ballot choice is recorded and becomes part of the public record for the election. So much for the concept of a secret ballot.

If we want to get serious about attracting more voters early in the process, these are some of the things we need to seriously consider changing.

up
Voting closed 4

Requiring an unaffiliated voter to choose a party ballot limits their choices. Yet, having a single ballot does not prevent a party loyalist from choosing only candidates from the party they support.

Also consider the additional costs and logistics of requiring separate ballots for each party. Effort and money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Lastly, although an unaffiliated voter remains unaffiliated after casting their ballot (which wasn't always the case in Massachusetts), their ballot choice is recorded and becomes part of the public record for the election. So much for the concept of a secret ballot.

If we want to get serious about attracting more voters early in the process, these are some of the things we need to seriously consider changing.

up
Voting closed 0

just saying, that's how it works. and in many states unenrolled voters don't get to vote in primaries at all.

up
Voting closed 3

Parties make the rules for their primaries. Do you understand how any of this works? At all?

up
Voting closed 3

In MA, it's state law. The state parties have no say in who is eligible to vote in their primaries -- primaries that the state pays for, btw.

up
Voting closed 1

hello third party - AGAIN!

Unless you're voting in Michigan or Wisconsin, no one cares. (thanks, Electoral College!)

up
Voting closed 16

I never mentioned her gender except to say "her"
Do you think all women are shrill?

up
Voting closed 34

play dumb. We've heard it a million times before. And we'll hear it a million times again.

up
Voting closed 21

Was it me or you who used the word shrill?
In your head a person who isnt a fan of Sen. Warren must be some kind of creep who calls other women shrill?
That says more about you than it does about me.

up
Voting closed 30

like yourself NEVER call women candidates shrill! I just made it up out of whole cloth all by myself this morning!

up
Voting closed 6

Wow, you are amazing. I'm also not a fan of Trump,does that make me a leftwing turd as well?

up
Voting closed 20

I'm also not a fan of Trump

As are any number of misogynists who contributed significantly to the dreadful state we're in today. Google "never trumpers".

up
Voting closed 7

Disingenuous dimwits like this should be banned, but barring that, at least let us block them.

(watch him double down with "strident" next)

up
Voting closed 19

Don’t you have enough self control to simply ignore or not read a comment? Why is a block feature necessary? Everyone has different opinions and if Adam bans those with opposing opinions then that makes him a weak bigot. He does a decent job of letting people with differing opinions post. Turn on CNN if you are bothered by words on this blog.

up
Voting closed 32

Google "signal to noise ratio".

up
Voting closed 9

Ibb, I'm sensing that you're having some difficulty with the whole "pseudo-public discourse means other people might express themselves in your hearing - even people who don't agree with you, even trolls" thing.

Have you considered that a news site/blog with a comment box might not be your cup of tea?

Would you be happier in the Diogenes Club?

up
Voting closed 23

8|
.
.
.
<...was about to say something pithy, self-assured, and judgmental about the candidate when I realized that if I had gone today I would have been standing by myself in the damp chill for three hours outside Old South Church, not Old South Meeting House...>

up
Voting closed 5

Warren is a talented and inspiring speaker. If you've never heard her speak, I feel sorry for you. She's done many town halls around the Bay State, so it's not as if you haven't had opportunities.

(of course, some of you prefer misogynistic hatred to facts, so it's probably better that you stay home and spray spit on your monitor)

up
Voting closed 37

Cool.

up
Voting closed 15

So I go over to Youtube where 17 people are watching her official Boston New Years Speech video and I notice she says her father was a janitor.

That is hilarious.

Her own brother stated: "My Dad was never a janitor,"

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/10/26/kellogg-apologizes-for-l...

up
Voting closed 33

So I am watching the live stream now on youtube (she has not live-mentioned anything about janitors or indians yet) and it seems like this Bernie Sanders guy is really, really popular judging by the live comments. Trump comes in second. Warren is a distant third on her own video feed comments.... or fourth... there is a poster who does NOT like Jewish people and is not afraid to comment about it. I can't tell who they support.

The live stream is up to 117 people watching. Good for her.

up
Voting closed 19

Block function, Adam. This chancre does not need a platform.

up
Voting closed 21

Once again, stop reading and acknowledging comments if they bother you. Happy New Year.

up
Voting closed 34

I will go smiling into the new year knowing that Adam will NEVER honor your desire to block other's freedom of speech. One thing we can count on here is that Adam allows fair comment whether he agrees or disagrees.

Suldog

up
Voting closed 25

According to other articles, her dad's last job was as a maintenance man at an apartment complex. His duties included mowing lawns and cleaning the pool. Janitor has become a derisive term in the US, connoting an outsourced cleaner, which is lower status, somehow than a custodian or caretaker nowadays.

But traditionally, the term and duties were synonymous, until cleaning became outsourced to the lowest bidder. Her dad had some traditional janitorial duties. I think quibbling about the term is asinine. Any job that benefits people is worthy of respect, even if some think the title of janitor is "downmarket".

Regardless, her military vet brothers stand behind her, which I think is the full message of the Globe article you were actually looking to cite: Elizabeth Warren’s brothers are a silent fixture of her campaign

up
Voting closed 24

Most people have filled out a form where "race" is a question. The question is straightforward even if lying might enhance the applicant's chances. Most voters wouldn't dream of lying about this. Warren did. New and unending credibility questions are just window dressing at this point. She is correctly perceived as a crackpot with no chance.

up
Voting closed 50

Block function, Adam.

I mean, just look at the comments here. Look at it. It's a god damned disgrace. You're letting these dog-whistling spit-sprayers shit all over your site.

up
Voting closed 25

The home health care aides and caretakers won't let most of them drive or leave the house for fear of breaking a hip (or worse) so they're listening to EEI and refreshing UHub all day to upvote their own comments.

It's pathetic.

up
Voting closed 17

You sound nice.

up
Voting closed 27

Look in a mirror.

A better idea would be to allow a diversity of opinions.

By the way, all this offense you are taking today? I do believe that might be an example of being a “snowflake.”

As for my opinion on the actual matter at hand, whatever. Some people want to see Warren speak. Others, not so much.

up
Voting closed 29

Allowing toxic haters to shit all over a post about a major political figure giving a speech is not fostering "a diversity of opinions". I know that you're againsty and disingenuous, but this is a bit much even for you.

up
Voting closed 7

If I ever went through the trouble of searching this website, might I ever stumble across a comment where you made “toxic” comments about the current President?

Fish only repeated a comment that was probably made 7 years ago based on the politician’s own statements. If that’s not fair game, Adam might as well shut down the comments portion of his website.

up
Voting closed 19

So, by your own logic, Trump is disqualified as well, don't you think so? He's lied many more times about much bigger things.

up
Voting closed 19

this turned into a stimulating thread, due to the quality of the arguments being made. the only value i place on the magagagagaga bile-spewing antiwoman hate troll thugs is that if you let them post we get to keep our eye on them--and that's important. ignoring them or banning them from posting is not the answer. yes, they are deplorable. but no, they are not capable of participating in an informed conversation, so when the bulk of the comments turn to legitimate arguments, the trolls are left in the dust in whatever Moscow flop house they are posting from. The answer is more informed debate to overwhelm trolls so that they go mum for the moment, not banning trolls.

up
Voting closed 6

Trolleys? We need more trolleys again.

up
Voting closed 10

And no mistake: I turned comments off on this. If you read the discussion on Elizabeth Warren's New Year's Eve speech, you can figure out why.

Nope. I cannot figure it out.

The exchange of ideas seems top notch to me. The level of discourse appears no worse than a typical bike lane argument or the slugfests by the rare but extremely vocal posters who think do-not-prosecute lists are not insane.

If it wasn't for the exchange of ideas, and the graciously provided space to exchange them in, then idiots would still be wearing safety pins and pussy hats.

I mean, you all might actually vote for Biden if you don't hurry up and allow him to be crowd tested in unsanitized arenas.

Remember Dukakis? Y'all got stuck with him because Al Gore had not invented the internet yet.

Edit: Oh yeah.... have fun at your pro-Iranian-terrorist rally, traitorous chumps. Our president does NOT bomb aspirin factories.

Edit2: “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans.” Elizabeth "Beats War Drums" Warren

up
Voting closed 6