Looks like the Dems could take a pasting in the senate this time around.
GOP could win 54-55 seats, though I'd expect them to win one or two fewer than that due to the inevitible nomination of wignuts as has happened the last two elections.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/22/how_obamas_job_approval_could_sway_senate_races.html
QuoteObama's Job Approval Points to 2014 Trouble for Democrats
By Sean Trende - January 22, 2014
With the advent of this election year, the time to turn from generalities/playing field pieces to tracking specific races is fast approaching. But before picking up my series on competitive Senate races (I wrote on three with relatively well-formed dynamics last year: Kentucky, Montana, and Arkansas), I do have a few more things to say about the playing field.
As a general matter, the journalistic narrative hasn't yet caught up with the deterioration of the Democrats' political standing since the early summer. Polls showing tight Senate races in New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and Michigan are met with surprise and disbelief. But they are exactly what we'd expect to see given the president's national job approval rating. I think they're accurate barometers of the state of the races.
I noted at the end of last year that the Senate playing field in 2014 is substantially worse for Democrats than it was in 2010. If Democrats ultimately suffer losses in marginal seats at the rate they did in 2010, we'd expect them to lose nine to 10 seats. This time, I'm going to take a slightly different tack, and look at these races from the point of view of the president's job approval.
It's no secret that I think elections are largely referenda on the party in power. Jay Cost noted in late 2011 that the state-by-state outcomes in the 2004 election corresponded heavily to President Bush's job approval in the state as measured by exit polls. Bush lost only four states where his job approval was positive, and won zero states where his job approval was negative. Going back to 1972, incumbents rarely win the votes of those who do not approve of them.
This correlation makes perfect sense for presidential elections, but in fact it extends beyond those races. As I've noted, presidential job approval is one of the best predictors of House election outcomes. In 2010, Nate Silver's postmortem took this down to the individual race level, observing that the Democrats' debacle might best be thought of as an "aligning election," where right-of-center congressional districts elected Republicans while left-of-center congressional districts continued to elect Democrats (indeed, you could probably characterize the entire 2006-to-2010 series as "an alignment").
But what about Senate races? Here the evidence is sketchier. For one thing, there are a relatively small number of events, especially once you rule out uncompetitive races. In addition, a candidate generally has to be a pretty good natural politician who is well suited for his or her state to win a race in the first place (though obviously this isn't always the case). Because of this, many politicians have built improbable careers by separating themselves from the national party. There are many examples, but consider the case of Susan Collins of Maine, who won her 2008 race against a credible opponent by 23 points, even while Bush suffered from an astounding 53 percent net negative approval rating in her state.
We've nevertheless seen Senate races begin to converge on presidential approval, doubtless a function of the much-remarked-upon polarization of our polity. Here is a list of the competitive Senate races from 2010, comparing Obama's job approval in the state (according to the exit polls) with the Democrat's vote share:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fimages%2Fwysiwyg_images%2Fchart2-1-22.gif&hash=437f3c137c1c4df9677e1dc55573b0c3b9bed09f)
As you can see, for the most part these line up nicely. To be sure, there are important outliers. But these outliers tend to be explicable: Mark Kirk was an unusually strong candidate for Illinois, and the president's approval in Kentucky was probably below what a "Kentucky Democrat" would expect to receive. But for the most part, presidential approval and Democratic performance lined up pretty nicely in the competitive 2010 Senate races.
In 2012, unfortunately, we only have presidential job approval numbers in a handful of states, so we have to estimate a bit. President Obama ran two points ahead of his vote share nationally. If we assume this held true across individual states -- and in the aggregate, it has to -- we probably get a rough estimate of his job approval in that state. If we then compare it to Democratic senators' share of the vote in those states, we find a decent correlation. It's not as strong as it was in 2010, but presidential job approval explains 50 percent of the variance. Here's the chart:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fimages%2Fwysiwyg_images%2FObamaJAChart1.jpg&hash=a03964a4fddfb753f3d8bfade42324500e5da84d)
Seats that are underlined are those where the Democrat would have to run unusually poorly to lose the seat. By contrast, seats that are colored blue are ones where the Democrat would have to run better than Democrats have typically run, absent some sort of extenuating circumstance, to win.
Most importantly, seats that are colored red are those where the Democrat would have to run better than any Democrat in the past two cycles in order to win. Blue seats are the types that Democrats have won, but usually only with some sort of explanation attached (e.g., Todd Akin). Again, that doesn't mean that a Democrat couldn't pull it off. It's just to illustrate how unusual it would be for a Democrat to do so.
As you can see, at 50 percent job approval in the RCP Average, the Arkansas and West Virginia seats are in deep trouble for Democrats. The seats in Montana, Alaska, Louisiana and South Dakota are vulnerable. If Obama were at 50 percent nationally, they would have a decent shot at winning Georgia, and have an uphill climb in Kentucky. Minnesota is an afterthought if Obama is at 50 percent, while Democrats would have to run well behind the president in places like Iowa, New Hampshire and Colorado to lose. North Carolina could go either way.
This is how most journalists seem to see the races right now: A few contests that are largely unwinnable by Democrats, some where they are in trouble but can win, and a bunch of others where Republicans might be able to win under the correct circumstances. This is the conventional wisdom that solidified in the spring of last year. It was the correct analysis at the time, when the president was at 50 percent.
But over the course of the summer, his job approval numbers slid into the mid-40s. The conventional wisdom didn't follow. Given that movement, we would expect to see races in Colorado, New Hampshire, Virginia and Iowa become competitive, while Democrats in races in Michigan and Minnesota would start looking shaky. Individual polling started to suggest this, although it was largely dismissed.
With the movement of the president's job approval numbers into the low 40s, the Democrats' Senate odds would deteriorate considerably. Things should look dire for Democrats in the three open seats in red states, as well as for the four "red state" Democratic incumbents (Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mary Landrieu, and Mark Begich). Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado and Virginia should look pretty rough, and Oregon, Michigan and Minnesota could be truly competitive.
In fact, polls largely validate this view. The following chart uses our job approval estimation technique and applies it to the most competitive matchups in each state. States where the polling predates the Obamacare rollout are in blue:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fimages%2Fwysiwyg_images%2Fchart6-1-22.jpg&hash=8dde035e74013d5bd055fe83b4c1e2828c4ff2c1)
It's not perfect, but again, there's a statistically significant relationship between Obama's estimated job approval and the Democrat's vote share. As we might expect, the relationship breaks down somewhat in states where there is older polling, as well as where Obama's approval is low to begin with (given Obama's persistently high approval among African-Americans, it's unlikely that he could really fall to 36 percent in Louisiana).
The Democrats still lead in most of these states, sometimes by healthy margins. But we can't escape the suggestion that their future is bound up with the president's job approval. Now, to be clear, in some of these races the Republican challenger will flame out, and the Democrat will begin to run ahead of the president's job approval. If Al Franken's opponent doesn't catch fire -- which is perfectly plausible -- Franken will probably win by a decent margin. Likewise, Republicans in Iowa and Colorado are, respectively, either untested or have tested poorly.
But some of these challengers will catch fire, and some of these races will surprise us. If the president's job approval is still around 43 percent in November -- lower than it was on Election Day in 2010 -- the question would probably not be whether the Democrats will hold the Senate, but whether Republicans can win 54 or 55 seats. Given the numbers right now, that should not be unthinkable.
But there's a flip side to this. If Obama's job approval does bounce back -- which is exactly what happened in 2012 -- there's a reasonable chance that Republicans could walk away from this cycle with just a handful of pickups. As we'll see in the next article, that could have major implications for 2016.
Ugh. This bullshit. I need to isolate myself until December.
Too soon.
FYI there's an article in today's NYT about the myth of the Republican advantage derived from gerrymandering. It appears to be a summary of a scholarly article. The authors ran simulations of thousands of different voting districts and found that a "vanishingly small" number change the electoral outcome.
They claim the disconnect between Democratic popular vote superiority and Republican control of the House is rather explained by the very high concentrations of Democratic voters in urban areas (and college towns) and the more diffuse spread of Republicans in suburbs and exurbs.
Course, one of the authors is at the Hoover Institute so it will be fairly easy for some of you to claim bullshit.
That's like dietary advice from the Mayo Clinic.
I like how we Americans vote a guy in as Prez and then (almost) invariably regret it 2 years later.
For a country with such low voter turnout, seems like all you guys do is have elections.
They're actually pretty easy to ignore.
How convenient for Mr. Aiken. :ph34r:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/clay-aikens-primary-opponent-dies-at-his-home/2014/05/12/c13c3780-da35-11e3-a837-8835df6c12c4_story.html
QuoteClay Aiken's primary opponent dies at his home
By Associated Press, Updated: Tuesday, May 13, 9:30 AM
ASHEBORO, N.C. — The entrepreneur who was locked in a too-close-to-call Democratic primary with former "American Idol" singer Clay Aiken died Monday, his family said.
Keith Crisco, 71, died "after an accidental fall" at his home in Asheboro, about 65 miles west of Raleigh, according to a statement from his family.
"He was a remarkable man with a tremendous dedication to his family and to public service," the statement said.
Aiken was leading Crisco by fewer than 400 votes after the contest last Tuesday. Unless Crisco can come from behind during a final tally of the votes this week, Aiken will be the nominee, state elections board spokesman Josh Lawson said. If Crisco does win, local Democrats would select the nominee, Lawson said. The vote is expected to be certified Thursday.
The winner will face Republican incumbent Renee Ellmers in November in the GOP-leaning 2nd Congressional District.
Crisco had been North Carolina's top business recruiter for four years under former Gov. Beverly Perdue, who left office in 2013. Crisco was born to a Republican family on a Stanly County dairy farm in North Carolina, he said in an interview last month.
"I did pull corn. I did plow. I did milk cows. I did do all the things you do on a small farm," Crisco said.
He got a scholarship to study science at the county's Pfeiffer University. There, he met his wife and her family of yellow-dog Democrats, and Crisco said he converted.
He went to Harvard University to study for a master's of business administration, which he earned in 1968, then returned to North Carolina to work for textile giant Burlington Industries. In the early 1970s, Crisco was selected as a White House Fellow, and he spent a year in President Richard Nixon's Commerce Department.
"Keith came from humble beginnings. No matter how high he rose - to Harvard, to the White House and to the Governor's Cabinet - he never forgot where he came from," Aiken said in a statement. "He was a gentleman, a good and honorable man and an extraordinary public servant. I was honored to know him."
In 1986, he and partners formed Asheboro Elastics to produce elastics for home furnishings and medical and industrial uses. He joked that the company's mission was to "hold your underwear up." The company was renamed AEC Narrow Fabrics and is now run by hired executives, his sons and a son-in-law.
His business success allowed him to lend $500,000 to his campaign against Aiken, according to financial statements filed last month.
Crisco won a city council seat in Asheboro and said his business background appealed to independents and Republicans who could help him beat Ellmers in November.
"You cannot win this district with just the Democrat vote. You must have a broad base of support of independents and, yes, some Republicans. And that's what I can bring," Crisco said.
Apparently Citizen United is backfiring on the GOP big time.
The Dems have out raised the GOP $595 million to $461 million
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/
Quote from: derspiess on January 27, 2014, 01:03:03 PM
I like how we Americans vote a guy in as Prez and then (almost) invariably regret it 2 years later.
Or just the angry malcontents vote come out in force in midterms.
Poor Grimey. Gets axed a question and does a poor job not answering :(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/40-painful-seconds-of-alison-lundergan-grimes-refusing-to-say-whether-she-voted-for-president-obama/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 12, 2014, 08:36:48 PM
How convenient for Mr. Aiken. :ph34r:
I'd still vote for the dead guy.
I got a flyer for someone running for the local school board yesterday. The very first attribute she listed was that she "Respects the law." (Though, to be fair, that does set her apart from most politicians in the Sunshine State.)
When I'm at work, AdSense thinks I'm in Florida. So I've been getting all the Florida political banner ads on websites.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2014, 10:37:42 AM
When I'm at work, AdSense thinks I'm in Florida. So I've been getting all the Florida political banner ads on websites.
I'm sorry. :(
So, based on their ads, who do you think is the bigger scumball; Crist or Scott?
I don't think I've seen any Scott ads.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2014, 10:52:58 AM
I don't think I've seen any Scott ads.
Orlando must be a battleground market then, because they're on all the time here
Quote from: Savonarola on October 10, 2014, 10:50:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2014, 10:37:42 AM
When I'm at work, AdSense thinks I'm in Florida. So I've been getting all the Florida political banner ads on websites.
I'm sorry. :(
So, based on their ads, who do you think is the bigger scumball; Crist or Scott?
I never liked Crist even when he was a Republican, so I'm biased on that. His wife, on the other hand...
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2014, 11:15:51 AM
I never liked Crist even when he was a Republican, so I'm biased on that. His wife, on the other hand...
Is made of 100% recycled plastic:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffranktorresblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F10%2Fcarole-crist.jpg&hash=b07ca566e42ac0d6d57598faf5d1f8dc49c28ff0)
Show me before pics or I don't care.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2014, 12:28:33 PM
Show me before pics or I don't care.
Okay:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0cnZuxWx-2xWs5LDypojGBl6KUobod2kTdcRIHV6y62MTkHME)
Well it was worthwhile. Looks much better now.
Mmm, chocolate.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2014, 12:36:31 PM
Well it was worthwhile. Looks much better now.
Material Science and Industrial Engineering FTW!
So this video is supposed to convince kids that they should vote? Can I turn out to ban Lena Dunham from working in television/film?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rijpU5yD55I
OMG WTF
Dumb vid, but I still get a little kick out of it whenever I hear that song.
Oh, the huge manatee.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 10, 2014, 05:34:01 PM
Dumb vid, but I still get a little kick out of it whenever I hear that song.
Well I like Turn Down For What and its video but not this take on it.
Clearly it needed more throbbing sex organs and ceiling collapses.
Yes!
Grimey does it again, this time more spectacularly going off on a tangent about her duties as secretary of state and even invoking AWR TREWPS who lay their lives on the line.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/debate-grimes-again-refuses-answer-obama-vote-question-n225201
Medical marijuana is on the ballot in Florida. I heard a political ad in which the speaker claimed that opposition to medical marijuana came from Big Tobacco; who wanted to continue to push their poisonous, cancer-causing product and prevent people from using medical marijuana in order to get well.
:smoke::tinfoil:
:lol:
Fivethirtyeight has the Republicans at a 66% chance to take the Senate as of yesterday.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/
Just voted early. Abstained on the very close Iowa open Senate race.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
Abstained on the very close Iowa open Senate race.
Wuss.
I figured I'd take Frau Spiess to the polls with me the morning of 11/5 rather than mail in her ballot. I get two hours off to vote on election days, so we'll probably have a nice breakfast afterwards.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 23, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
Just voted early. Abstained on the very close Iowa open Senate race.
Why? I can't imagine not voting for the senate in a swing state. Are both candidates uniquely terrible this time around?
I didn't like either one.
You should have voted for the Green candidate. Both as a protest vote and to blow Seedy's mind.
So when are all of the results done and dusted, the Thursday morning after next?
Or will exit polls give the lowdown on the Wednesday evening?
I'm voting team Shareholder Value. Every Dem running this year is awful.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 23, 2014, 07:51:06 PM
You should have voted for the Green candidate. Both as a protest vote and to blow Seedy's mind.
Only other people on the ballot were a dude running as a Libertarian and one dude running as an independent.
I am still waiting for my absentee ballot in the mail. :(
Quote from: mongers on October 23, 2014, 07:53:04 PM
So when are all of the results done and dusted, the Thursday morning after next?
Or will exit polls give the lowdown on the Wednesday evening?
We should have a pretty good idea on election night (a week from next Tuesday). Then again, there are some runoff and possible recount scenarios that could leave the Senate balance in doubt until January.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2014, 10:08:28 AM
Poor Grimey. Gets axed a question and does a poor job not answering :(
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/40-painful-seconds-of-alison-lundergan-grimes-refusing-to-say-whether-she-voted-for-president-obama/
I really don't get her. She's so afraid of being associated with the president, she's managed to not be associated with the electoral process. :lol:
I mean, are white women really that scared of black people down there?
Been to Fredericktown lately, Seedy? :D
I'm actually thinking of going there sometime within the next year to visit the Monocacy battlefield.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 12:12:39 PM
Fivethirtyeight has the Republicans at a 66% chance to take the Senate as of yesterday.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/
It's actually a compelling aspect of American political history in the making. This way, by controlling both houses, the GOP will actually be creating even more gridlock for Hillary Clinton so she can actually accomplish even less than Obama. The only thing they hate more than an uppity black man that doesn't know his place is a woman--and a Clinton woman to boot? Aw hells yeah.
Then the GOP will finally have its vengeance against Bill, in true Gambino style--and what more awesome, classical mobster vengeance can you want than by going Capone in 2016 and forcing your biggest political enemy since LBJ to watch his wife get politically raped and killed before he dies? That is some hardcore political gangsta shit there.
Seriously though, we are looking at a phenomenon of political polarization not seen since Reconstruction. It's pretty fascinating to watch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2014, 10:36:49 AM
Seriously though, we are looking at a phenomenon of political polarization not seen since Reconstruction. It's pretty fascinating to watch.
Politics has always been nasty, but yeah the polarization does seem more pronounced than it has in quite a while. I wonder how long it will sustain itself.
Quote from: Savonarola on October 20, 2014, 04:12:08 PM
Medical marijuana is on the ballot in Florida. I heard a political ad in which the speaker claimed that opposition to medical marijuana came from Big Tobacco; who wanted to continue to push their poisonous, cancer-causing product and prevent people from using medical marijuana in order to get well.
:smoke::tinfoil:
I have no opinion on that issue. But I can tell you that after seeing the ad 50 times on youtube I am firmly in favor of Issue 1. CONSERVE OUR WILDLIFE AREAS
I voted. It seems I am in some sort of weird jurisdiction that does not get to vote for Austin Mayor or City Council. I am in the 'extra-territorial jurisdiction' :hmm:
I guess this is how Puerto Ricans feel.
Strangely, I never received any information about voting. I know voting is happening at the local church near me on the 4th but no one has tried to swing me on anything. :weep:
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2014, 09:23:00 PM
I voted. It seems I am in some sort of weird jurisdiction that does not get to vote for Austin Mayor or City Council. I am in the 'extra-territorial jurisdiction' :hmm:
I guess this is how Puerto Ricans feel.
I am about a mile and a half outside of Cincy city limits. I don't get to vote in any city elections but thank God we're not in that horrible school district.
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:24:28 PM
Strangely, I never received any information about voting. I know voting is happening at the local church near me on the 4th but no one has tried to swing me on anything. :weep:
Uncontested NY races.
This election is the first time I have been getting targeted ads on YouTube. Feels kind of strange.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:24:28 PM
Strangely, I never received any information about voting. I know voting is happening at the local church near me on the 4th but no one has tried to swing me on anything. :weep:
Uncontested NY races.
Uncontested in that the other candidates have no chance of winning?
I mean at least we typically get the board of elections pamphlet that details the few office and the ballot props. I just looked and we do have some ballot measures this time around - including one around redistricting process.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 27, 2014, 09:46:42 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 27, 2014, 09:24:28 PM
Strangely, I never received any information about voting. I know voting is happening at the local church near me on the 4th but no one has tried to swing me on anything. :weep:
Uncontested NY races.
This election is the first time I have been getting targeted ads on YouTube. Feels kind of strange.
Yeah, well it's even more strange when YouTube thinks you're in a different state :)
When I lived in NYC there was this girl doing door-to-door canvassing for some latino running for the state assembly and she insisted on giving me the whole presentation despite me politely insisting that I was a foreigner and that I couldn't vote.
You shoulda come on to her. Either she'd leave in a hurry, or she wouldn't...
She wasn't: hot
Looks like some of these have momentum to me
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-update-the-momentum-mirage/
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzxT4V2U.png&hash=091a85800b873736cce55b28f6a4f7f7a0a873ca)
Going to go do the early voting today.
I filled out our sample ballots & am ready to vote next Tuesday. Those damned non-partisan elections require some research.
Also, my nosy co-worker downloaded the voting records for people on his street and is going to go canvass them :rolleyes:
Looks like the GOP has a 3/4 chance of capturing the senate.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-need-chaos/
Maybe. Hijinks will abound. :P
I just want to see Harry Reid's reaction.
Yahoo!
http://news.yahoo.com/one-way-the-economy-will-win-if-republicans-sweep-the-midterms-165140151.html
QuoteHow the economy will win if Republicans sweep the midterms
Political forecasters have busied themselves for months trying to figure out how the Washington agenda will change if Republicans win the Senate in Tuesday's midterms and control both houses of Congress for the next two years. The best news for businesses, however, isn't what will happen during the 114th Congress, but what won't happen.
No matter how convincing a Republican sweep may be, the GOP still won't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which means the next two years will entail the same sort of do-little divided government we've had for the last four. President Obama will pursue the same set of policies, with the same lackluster results.
"Obama's legislative priorities will continue to be ignored or defeated in Congress as they have since 2011," writes Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution. "The underlying reality of presidential-congressional relations will remain the same."
One thing will be very different, however. If Republicans are fully in control of Congress, they'll need to show voters they can be trusted with the nation's business—if they have any hope of regaining the White House in 2016, that is. Destructive stunts such as shutting down the government (Republican playbook, c. 2013) or threatening another default on U.S. debt (c. 2011, 1995) would give Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democratic presidential contender is in 2016 an enormous campaign gift. Voters deeply distrust both parties and are motivated these days largely by an impulse to punish whichever one seems to screw up the most. Just ask Obama.
Do no harm
Winning the Senate, in fact, could cause more trouble for Republicans than playing the familiar role of sideline heckler. Voters expect the party in power to do something tangible that improves their own prospects, which might be irrational, but nonetheless dominates elections. One reason Democrats are on their heels in this year's midterms is a failure to fix a sluggish economy. If Republicans have to answer the same frustrations in 2016 (when the election map favors Dems much as it favors the GOP this year), all of this year's gains could be reversed.
That would make it extremely foolish for Republicans to do anything that threatens the economy. When the government shut down last year for 16 days because Congress wouldn't pass spending legislation, Americans blamed Republicans over Democrats by a margin of nearly 2 to 1, and the GOP's favorability ratings sank to record lows. Republicans also got the blame when Congress waited until the last second to approve a new federal borrowing limit in 2011, risking default on U.S. debt and sending the stock market into a six-month tailspin. If such antics occur while Republicans control both houses of Congress, it could be political suicide for the party.
Republicans show signs of getting the message, with new House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy saying the GOP goal in 2015 will be "restoring competence in government." Even Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican bomb-thrower and de facto envoy to the Tea Party, has proposed a serious legislative agenda that focuses more on accomplishing Republican goals than thwarting Democratic ones.
Business leaders have complained bitterly about Washington infighting that harms growth, leaves urgent problems unresolved and makes the United States a global laughingstock. In particular, CEOs cite the uncertainty that comes from not knowing what the government's tax and spending policy will be more than a few months ahead of time, along with a lack of interest in funding infrastructure and other things that typically enhance the nation's competitiveness.
If the Republicans do control Congress next year, the first test of their newfound interest in competent government will come around March, when the federal borrowing limit will need to be raised again. Each extension of the borrowing limit has become a ritualized battle between small-government conservatives who believe the economic pain of budget ultimatums are worth it, and just about everybody else.
There will still be a determined band of hard-core House Republicans next year who want to repeal Obamacare, repeal it some more, and after that, repeal any remnant of Obamacare that hasn't already been repealed. They're likely to make -- all together now: repealing Obamacare -- a condition of passing a debt-ceiling extension, as they have in the past. The outcome of those negotiations will demonstrate whether the GOP's most conservative bloc is wagging the whole Republican party or just the tail.
Businesses have other priorities beyond Congress doing no harm, including tax reform that would lower and simplify corporate rates, immigration reform that would make it easier to hire foreigners and trade liberalization. There will be a lot of jabbering over those issues, but major moves on any of them are unlikely given that both parties will be thinking more about winning in 2016 than taking care of business in 2015. If the do-nothing government simply does nothing destructive, it will be a sign of progress.
Ted Cruz is already hinting at impeachment. Yay for America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 12:57:18 AM
Ted Cruz is already hinting at impeachment. Yay for America.
Could be a big boost for Obama...it worked for Clinton.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 12:57:18 AM
Ted Cruz is already hinting at impeachment. Yay for America.
The Republicans are not going to be fooled by Ted Cruz's act again....well ok not so soon anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 12:57:18 AM
Ted Cruz is already hinting at impeachment. Yay for America.
I wouldn't think they'd be that dumb, but I didn't think they'd cause a government shutdown.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 12:57:18 AM
Ted Cruz is already hinting at impeachment. Yay for America.
On what grounds?
I guess the fact this congress & the next one are not going to achieve anything is now totally 100%.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 01:18:58 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 12:57:18 AM
Ted Cruz is already hinting at impeachment. Yay for America.
The Republicans are not going to be fooled by Ted Cruz's act again....well ok not so soon anyway.
Sure they will, especially when the vote him as majority speaker. Obama may be Cruz's #1 target, but Mitch's private bathroom is in his sights at the moment.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2014, 08:38:09 AM
I guess the fact this congress & the next one are not going to achieve anything is now totally 100%.
Think it's fun now, wait until Barbara Boxer has to hand the chairmanship of the Environment Committee over to the Senate's biggest EPA hater, fossil fuel industry puppet and author of
The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.
I suspect President Obama's last 2 years will be filled with veto busy work, doing stuff like killing spending bills with "Personhood Amendments" attached.
Obama's last 2 years & the first 4 years of Clinton/Clooney/Donkey president of 2016.
These particular Republicans don't care about the future, not even of their own party. There will not be a single Senate confirmation of anybody: no judges, no ambassadors, on executive branch leadership, nobody. They need to lynch the negro now, now, now and make him pay for his uppityness.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2014, 08:38:09 AM
I guess the fact this congress & the next one are not going to achieve anything is now totally 100%.
This is not true. The current Congress can't achieve anything because the House wants to do Republican things, and the Senate wants to do Democrat things. So they never want to do the same thing, and nothing gets done.
Assuming the republicans win, both the House and Senate will want to do Republican things. So they will do Republican things. Those things will then be vetoed by the president.
:hmm: GF may be right after all. :hug:
Seedy your shrillness has reached new heights. :P
The Daily Show will be epic, not to mention Chris Mathews.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:06:37 AM
Seedy your shrillness has reached new heights. :P
The GOP that we once knew keeps getting more and more distant in the rear view mirror, man. It's an embarrassment.
We voted.
Looking for an Ohio GOP sweep :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:06:37 AM
Seedy your shrillness has reached new heights. :P
The GOP that we once knew keeps getting more and more distant in the rear view mirror, man. It's an embarrassment.
This I will agree with. But, what is the cause for the Dems to take a big hit like this? Are they just as disconnected?
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
This I will agree with. But, what is the cause for the Dems to take a big hit like this? Are they just as disconnected?
It would be unusual if the Dems held on. It's the pattern that elections during a second term president swing to the other party.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:06:37 AM
Seedy your shrillness has reached new heights. :P
The GOP that we once knew keeps getting more and more distant in the rear view mirror, man. It's an embarrassment.
This I will agree with. But, what is the cause for the Dems to take a big hit like this? Are they just as disconnected?
From what little I've read, the cause is that this time around the demographics in the seats being contested favour the GOP. 2016 looks to be the Democrats' year by the same metrics.
Don't know if it's true, but that's what I've heard said.
This year will be dangerous for Democrats in swing states who rode Obama's coat tails in 2008. 2016 will be dangerous for Republicans in swing states who won due to Obamacare backlash. But they can be saved by a strong Presidential candidate.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:06:37 AM
Seedy your shrillness has reached new heights. :P
The GOP that we once knew keeps getting more and more distant in the rear view mirror, man. It's an embarrassment.
This I will agree with. But, what is the cause for the Dems to take a big hit like this? Are they just as disconnected?
Obamacare and Obama. Neither are particularly popular right now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2014, 11:55:28 AM
This year will be dangerous for Democrats in swing states who rode Obama's coat tails in 2008. 2016 will be dangerous for Republicans in swing states who won due to Obamacare backlash. But they can be saved by a strong Presidential candidate.
One strange quirk is that the GOP stands to lose some of the governorships they won in the glorious midterm of 2010. Republicans simply overachieved in governor races that year and won't win as many elections this year.
Plus apparently not all Democrat gubernatorial candidates are as horrific as the one they put up in Ohio. Seriously, that dude (can't even remember his name) is such a bad candidate even I'm embarrassed for him.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2014, 08:38:09 AM
I guess the fact this congress & the next one are not going to achieve anything is now totally 100%.
Trade deals will probably get done if GOP takes over. Of course, the furriners have to hold up their end too.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
This I will agree with. But, what is the cause for the Dems to take a big hit like this? Are they just as disconnected?
Every two-term President since Eisenhower has had
both houses of Congress in the opposition's hands during the last two years of office. It's just what we do. It's come down to be a normal aspect of business. That, plus the demographics of off-year voters, the wasted Democratic votes, burnout, etc.
Personally, I'm wondering if amending the Constitution for one 6-year term as opposed to the 4+4 option wouldn't work out better for our Presidential politics, and get more shit done.
What shit needs done?
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
What shit needs done?
Presidents doing their jobs instead of spending all that time trying to get reelected for one.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2014, 11:55:28 AM
But they can be saved by a strong Presidential candidate.
So they have no hope? :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 01:03:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
What shit needs done?
Presidents doing their jobs instead of spending all that time trying to get reelected for one.
Or doing fundraising AMIRIGHT???
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2014, 01:04:00 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2014, 11:55:28 AM
But they can be saved by a strong Presidential candidate.
So they have no hope? :(
Alternately, they can be saved by a particularly weak Democratic candidate. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:05:02 PM
Or doing fundraising AMIRIGHT???
They're the leader of the party. There's some room on the schedule for that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 01:07:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:05:02 PM
Or doing fundraising AMIRIGHT???
They're the leader of the party. There's some room on the schedule for that.
NYC says go home, Obama. Also apparently the town I lived in, in MA, still grumbles about how he messed up the runways at their aiport. :D
Guys when do the results/exit polls start coming in?
Being a Brit we're wedded to election results on Thursday evening, so for some reason I assumed you'd be voting on the 6th. :huh:
Should start seeing some around 7:00 or 8:00pm Eastern. They used to have them way earlier than that but they wait for the polls to close these days.
Holder sent DOJ poll monitors to my county :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:17:04 PM
Should start seeing some around 7:00 or 8:00pm Eastern. They used to have them way earlier than that but they wait for the polls to close these days.
Thanks for that, so around 2-3 am GMT, doable for me, if I prop the eyelids up. :)
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:20:10 PM
Holder sent DOJ poll monitors to my county :rolleyes:
Awesome.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:20:10 PM
Holder sent DOJ poll monitors to my county :rolleyes:
Serves you right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 01:23:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:20:10 PM
Holder sent DOJ poll monitors to my county :rolleyes:
Awesome.
Good thing I didn't see any around our polling station. If one of them got in my face, I'd drop that motherfucker.
*name the movie reference
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:30:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 04, 2014, 01:23:50 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:20:10 PM
Holder sent DOJ poll monitors to my county :rolleyes:
Awesome.
Good thing I didn't see any around our polling station. If one of them got in my face, I'd drop that motherfucker.
*name the movie reference
Birth of a Nation?
:rolleyes: Step Brothers
Voted anti incumbent on pretty much everything today. Especially Governor.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:20:10 PM
Holder sent DOJ poll monitors to my county :rolleyes:
They heard people were going around buying and selling votes.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 04, 2014, 02:18:22 PM
Voted anti incumbent on pretty much everything today. Especially Governor.
FIGHT THE POWER.
We voted for every libertarian on the ballot. All two of them.
Same here. Except Governor. Nathan Deal can eat a dick. The Carters are coming back!
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 03:19:19 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 04, 2014, 02:18:22 PM
Voted anti incumbent on pretty much everything today. Especially Governor.
FIGHT THE POWER.
We voted for every libertarian on the ballot. All two of them.
I was tempted to vote libertarian for governor. The last I saw he was polling up around 9%; that's how unlikable both major candidates are.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2014, 03:22:32 PM
I was tempted to vote libertarian for governor. The last I saw he was polling up around 9%; that's how unlikable both major candidates are.
Did you vote for pot?
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2014, 03:22:32 PM
I was tempted to vote libertarian for governor. The last I saw he was polling up around 9%; that's how unlikable both major candidates are.
Yeah, some unpleasant choices in FLA.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2014, 03:24:32 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2014, 03:22:32 PM
I was tempted to vote libertarian for governor. The last I saw he was polling up around 9%; that's how unlikable both major candidates are.
Did you vote for pot?
Yep, I voted for pot, for wetlands and to jack up sales tax to support the schools here in Brevard County. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2014, 03:24:32 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2014, 03:22:32 PM
I was tempted to vote libertarian for governor. The last I saw he was polling up around 9%; that's how unlikable both major candidates are.
Did you vote for pot?
:wacko: :unsure:
Don't blame me, I voted for kettle.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 04, 2014, 03:29:45 PM
Yep, I voted for pot, for wetlands and to jack up sales tax to support the schools here in Brevard County. :)
:smoke:
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
What shit needs done?
The tax code that hasn't been reformed in 30 years, immigration, trade, deferred maintenance on bridges and roads, to name a few.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2014, 03:40:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
What shit needs done?
The tax code that hasn't been reformed in 30 years, immigration, trade, deferred maintenance on bridges and roads, to name a few.
That stuff can get done without changing the presidential term length.
Anyway, it looks like WV is going to elect its first Republican senator in 55 years. Never thought I'd see it.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 11:36:56 AM
We voted.
Looking for an Ohio GOP sweep :)
I voted all R's too.
There was a cop inside entrance to my polling station. I felt intimidated!
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2014, 06:00:41 PM
I voted all R's too.
Bah. Ohio Republicans are as squirrelly as they come.
Even though I live up in Cracker County, I'm still a Baltimore County property tax payer, so I never changed registration. Voted all Ds, even though I had initially considered abstaining from governor, since Brown was O'Malley's LG and those fuckers cost me my job.
There was a Libertarian running for Attorney General that's made the race closer between the Democrat and the Fascist Party nominees, but that just felt...wrong. Libertarian Attorney General. Tits on a bull.
We only have 5 contested partisan races here. There are a few positions for which someone is running unopposed, plus a bunch of non-partisan positions (judgeships, Board of Educations, etc.). Voted for 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat
Grimey is getting destroyed. :cool: Hello, Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 07:14:46 PM
Hello, Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky :showoff:
For now.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 07:14:46 PM
Grimey is getting destroyed. :cool: Hello, Senate Majority Leader from Kentucky :showoff:
Late reporting cities? Recent polls had them close-ish.
All the news stations are calling for Mitch. With 10% counted he's up 16 points.
Nate Silver already called it for McConnell. It's the only call he's made so far.
Edit: Tea Party fail?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 01:00:38 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 11:39:50 AM
This I will agree with. But, what is the cause for the Dems to take a big hit like this? Are they just as disconnected?
Every two-term President since Eisenhower has had both houses of Congress in the opposition's hands during the last two years of office. It's just what we do. It's come down to be a normal aspect of business. That, plus the demographics of off-year voters, the wasted Democratic votes, burnout, etc.
Personally, I'm wondering if amending the Constitution for one 6-year term as opposed to the 4+4 option wouldn't work out better for our Presidential politics, and get more shit done.
Eh, he'd be a lame duck immediately. What we need to do is repeal the 22nd amendment.
LOL, The Angry Potato just called John Kasich "Rick Santorum without the insanity."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2014, 07:40:00 PM
Eh, he'd be a lame duck immediately. What we need to do is repeal the 22nd amendment.
:yes: Bubba 4 Life. :smoke:
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 07:45:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2014, 07:40:00 PM
Eh, he'd be a lame duck immediately. What we need to do is repeal the 22nd amendment.
:yes: Bubba 4 Life. :smoke:
Right sentiment, wrong Clinton.
Quote from: garbon on November 04, 2014, 07:54:58 PM
Right sentiment, wrong Clinton.
Agree.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgunshyassassin.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F06%2FGeorge-Clinton-21.jpg&hash=864919a60ac5117d05f24b41c5708d60d482c72c)
btw, I have a feeling that I'm the only person in the United States who has voted for both Ted Kennedy and Mitch McConnell for US Senate. :)
Do you think Grimes was hurt by having a compound name? I know a lot of people who will vote against a person reflexively if they have that. Kentucky seems like exactly the type of place that would happen.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:32:06 PM
Do you think Grimes was hurt by having a compound name? I know a lot of people who will vote against a person reflexively if they have that. Kentucky seems like exactly the type of place that would happen.
It's Kentucky. She's a woman.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:32:06 PM
Do you think Grimes was hurt by having a compound name? I know a lot of people who will vote against a person reflexively if they have that. Kentucky seems like exactly the type of place that would happen.
She was probably hurt more by having Hillary campaign for her for some idiotic reason, and also for refusing to answer a reporter's question about whether she had voted for Obama in 2012. :sleep:
QuoteSmoking pot without a doctor's note? Right now that's only legal in Colorado and Washington. But that could change soon.
Voters in Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia will vote Tuesday on whether to legalize recreational marijuana.
Proposals in Alaska and Oregon will let adults 21 and older buy up to one ounce of marijuana at a time. They'll also regulate pot retailers much the way they do liquor stores, requiring shops to get a license and pay state taxes on the marijuana they sell.
Washington, D.C.'s legislation, on the other hand, won't actually allow anyone to sell marijuana. But it would make it legal for anyone to possess less than two ounces of pot. If voters approve the measure, it will be up to the D.C. Council to set up a system to regulate businesses and sales.
Alaska, Oregon and D.C. have already legalized medical marijuana, along with 21 other states. Florida is voting on that measure Tuesday.
Advocates say legalizing pot diverts money from drug cartels and puts it into the hands of licensed business owners and, by way of taxation, the state. In fact, Colorado brought in about $38 million in tax revenue on marijuana sales made through August, the most recent numbers available. Some of that is slated for new schools.
Pot will drive more tax revenue, but it also requires regulatory oversight, which adds to a state's expenses. So it's not clear just how much of a financial windfall legalizing it will actually be for states.
For instance, some of the funds raised in Colorado are funding an agency that issues licenses for retailers and growers. Money will also be steered to education programs teaching kids to stay away from drugs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 08:35:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:32:06 PM
Do you think Grimes was hurt by having a compound name? I know a lot of people who will vote against a person reflexively if they have that. Kentucky seems like exactly the type of place that would happen.
It's Kentucky. She's a woman.
Well I mean it's more of a why don't you have your husband's name, are you anti family? That sort of thing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 08:35:10 PM
It's Kentucky. She's a woman.
We've had a female governor before. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:36:49 PM
Well I mean it's more of a why don't you have your husband's name, are you anti family? That sort of thing.
It's probably because her dad is Jerry Lundergan, who was chairman of the Kentucky Democratic party at one point.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 08:35:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:32:06 PM
Do you think Grimes was hurt by having a compound name? I know a lot of people who will vote against a person reflexively if they have that. Kentucky seems like exactly the type of place that would happen.
She was probably hurt more by having Hillary campaign for her for some idiotic reason, and also for refusing to answer a reporter's question about whether she had voted for Obama in 2012. :sleep:
:D rats jumping off a ship
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2014, 08:38:05 PM
Ugh.
Martha Layne Collins from Baghdad (Kentucky). :cool:
McConnell is making his leadership pitch right now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:41:20 PM
McConnell is making his leadership pitch right now.
I like McConnell. He's a good dude. Fuck all y'all bitches. :)
No surprises so far, looks like the Dems will win in New Hampshire and N.C., but lose in Georgia.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 08:42:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:41:20 PM
McConnell is making his leadership pitch right now.
I like McConnell. He's a good dude. Fuck all y'all bitches. :)
Fire your gun into the air...
MAH CLIP
fucking Wolf calls it like a football game. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 06:12:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2014, 06:00:41 PM
I voted all R's too.
Bah. Ohio Republicans are as squirrelly as they come.
Even though I live up in Cracker County, I'm still a Baltimore County property tax payer, so I never changed registration. Voted all Ds, even though I had initially considered abstaining from governor, since Brown was O'Malley's LG and those fuckers cost me my job.
There was a Libertarian running for Attorney General that's made the race closer between the Democrat and the Fascist Party nominees, but that just felt...wrong. Libertarian Attorney General. Tits on a bull.
Here's what I don't get. Yeah, O'Malley really fucked you, but at least you still have hope. If Republicans ever took power, they would do everything they could to ensure that you never work again, or that if you do you'd be doing menial labour for $2 an hour, 14 hours a day, with no overtime. The Democrats have many, many faults, but the current crop of Republicans are crossing the line from the venality and corruption that we in the West have come to expect of our politicians, into the territory that is commonly thought of as 'evil'.
Show some sense.
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 08:35:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 08:32:06 PM
Do you think Grimes was hurt by having a compound name? I know a lot of people who will vote against a person reflexively if they have that. Kentucky seems like exactly the type of place that would happen.
She was probably hurt more by having Hillary campaign for her for some idiotic reason, and also for refusing to answer a reporter's question about whether she had voted for Obama in 2012. :sleep:
Not to mention her idiotic commercials.
So - do the 'out-of-this-world' Republicans gain control back in the Senate?
Will they shred Obamacare to Oblivion after all?
G.
Hillary campaigned hard for Grimey in Northern KY. Gave Grimey zero lift, apparently.
Abortion Barbie loses in TX.
Maryland too close to call? Come on.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2014, 08:54:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 06:12:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2014, 06:00:41 PM
I voted all R's too.
Bah. Ohio Republicans are as squirrelly as they come.
Even though I live up in Cracker County, I'm still a Baltimore County property tax payer, so I never changed registration. Voted all Ds, even though I had initially considered abstaining from governor, since Brown was O'Malley's LG and those fuckers cost me my job.
There was a Libertarian running for Attorney General that's made the race closer between the Democrat and the Fascist Party nominees, but that just felt...wrong. Libertarian Attorney General. Tits on a bull.
Here's what I don't get. Yeah, O'Malley really fucked you, but at least you still have hope. If Republicans ever took power, they would do everything they could to ensure that you never work again, or that if you do you'd be doing menial labour for $2 an hour, 14 hours a day, with no overtime. The Democrats have many, many faults, but the current crop of Republicans are crossing the line from the venality and corruption that we in the West have come to expect of our politicians, into the territory that is commonly thought of as 'evil'.
Show some sense.
Nice post. :cool:
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2014, 08:54:27 PM
Here's what I don't get. Yeah, O'Malley really fucked you, but at least you still have hope.
Lulz, hope. There is no hope here.
QuoteIf Republicans ever took power, they would do everything they could to ensure that you never work again, or that if you do you'd be doing menial labour for $2 an hour, 14 hours a day, with no overtime. The Democrats have many, many faults, but the current crop of Republicans are crossing the line from the venality and corruption that we in the West have come to expect of our politicians, into the territory that is commonly thought of as 'evil'.
Show some sense.
Which is why I voted Brown, and held my nose as I did it. But he was a main player in the drama that brings me here to this point of time, and in space. And I am still very, very angry.
Personally, seems like a nice guy. Black Catholic, MIT grad, flew Black Hawks in Iraq and got the Bronze Star when he was called up when he was a state delegate. Married a widow whose first husband was a state trooper that died in an on-duty car accident.
The GOP candidate is an FSU grad, made his money in commercial real estate brokerage, founded an anti-tax organization that publishes its own studies pooh-poohing government spending nuisances like schools and roads. Ick.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 09:19:25 PM
Abortion Barbie loses in TX.
Next you will announce it rained in England.
Our long state nightmare of brainless Perry is almost over. Welcome Governor Abbott, glad to have you.
Of course we also just elected a completely unqualified, inexperienced, populist douchebag of the highest order as Lt. Governor. A new State nightmare begins. Could we stop electing barely functioning drooling morons to high office? I mean geez I just ask for a colorless functionary as a baseline here.
My mother is out voting right now. She took my filled-out sample ballot. Mrs. MIM did the same when we early voted last week.
Women are great. :)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 09:31:21 PM
My mother is out voting right now. She took my filled-out sample ballot. Mrs. MIM did the same when we early voted last week.
Women are great. :)
She wanted to know who not to vote for.
Not sure what was up with this, but in Georgia there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit the general assembly from raising income taxes.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Not sure what was up with this, but in Georgia there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit the general assembly from raising income taxes.
Sounds selfexplanatory.
What, ever?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Not sure what was up with this, but in Georgia there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit the general assembly from raising income taxes.
Sounds like one of those things California passes that later causes them to go bankrupt.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 09:29:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 09:19:25 PM
Abortion Barbie loses in TX.
Of course we also just elected a completely unqualified, inexperienced, populist douchebag of the highest order as Lt. Governor. A new State nightmare begins. Could we stop electing barely functioning drooling morons to high office? I mean geez I just ask for a colorless functionary as a baseline here.
God bless Texas.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 04, 2014, 09:31:21 PM
My mother is out voting right now. She took my filled-out sample ballot. Mrs. MIM did the same when we early voted last week.
Women are great. :)
Just like 2012, my mother was just waiting for somebody, anybody to dare to ask her for her photo ID at the polls. Even though our state doesn't do that. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2014, 09:37:15 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Not sure what was up with this, but in Georgia there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit the general assembly from raising income taxes.
Sounds selfexplanatory.
Making it unconstitutional for the legislature to raise income taxes seems insane, don't you think?
My sister is coming over to get my sample ballot once mom gets back. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 09:29:41 PM
Of course we also just elected a completely unqualified, inexperienced, populist douchebag of the highest order as Lt. Governor. A new State nightmare begins. Could we stop electing barely functioning drooling morons to high office? I mean geez I just ask for a colorless functionary as a baseline here.
I'm sure everyone just thought he was Dan Patrick the sportscaster, not some retard with the same name. They were probably putting their height and weight on the ballots.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 04, 2014, 09:35:52 PM
Not sure what was up with this, but in Georgia there was a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would prohibit the general assembly from raising income taxes.
We have an amendment on the ballot here in NC to allow the defendant in a criminal case to waive their right to trial by jury if they wish.
Wolf is starting to repeat to much.
Tom Tillis
Tom Tillis
Tom Tillis
Um dude....its Thom Tillis.
Looking more like a GOP sweep in OH. Really should have brought my broom to the polling place.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 09:50:57 PM
Looking more like a GOP sweep in OH. Really should have brought my broom to the polling place.
Last time we didn't have a GOP sweep in Texas I was in Middle School. Jealous?
Man, Wolf is excited about Shaheen.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 09:50:57 PM
Looking more like a GOP sweep in OH. Really should have brought my broom to the polling place.
One party rule looks to continue in Georgia too. Georgia is a very poorly run state, all things considered, so it seems bad Republicans keep control of everything. But then, I think it was just as poorly run when the Democrats ran everything. Maybe that is an indictment of single party states, or maybe just an indictment of Georgia.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2014, 09:52:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 09:50:56 PM
Um dude....its Thom Tillis.
Who cares? I don't
I just like typing Thom Tillis. It is such a stupid fucking name.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2014, 08:54:27 PM
If Republicans ever took power, they would do everything they could to ensure that you never work again, or that if you do you'd be doing menial labour for $2 an hour, 14 hours a day, with no overtime.
How would they prevent someone who could make money hiring someone at $2.01 from paying them that much?
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 09:53:46 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 09:50:57 PM
Looking more like a GOP sweep in OH. Really should have brought my broom to the polling place.
Last time we didn't have a GOP sweep in Texas I was in Middle School. Jealous?
Almost. But perennial one-party rule is not really healthy.
Quote from: Grallon on November 04, 2014, 09:12:38 PM
So - do the 'out-of-this-world' Republicans gain control back in the Senate?
Will they shred Obamacare to Oblivion after all?
G.
Stay tuned for the next episode.
For the third straight election, a "Personhood Amendment" is resoundingly rejected in Colorado. If the Colorado GOP spent their energies on other things, think what they'd accomplish.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 10:00:29 PM
For the third straight election, a "Personhood Amendment" is resoundingly rejected in Colorado. If the Colorado GOP spent their energies on other things, think what they'd accomplish.
They did. Legalizing pot.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 10:00:29 PM
For the third straight election, a "Personhood Amendment" is resoundingly rejected in Colorado. If the Colorado GOP spent their energies on other things, think what they'd accomplish.
They'd propose other amendments that get rejected 3 straight times?
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 10:00:29 PM
For the third straight election, a "Personhood Amendment" is resoundingly rejected in Colorado. If the Colorado GOP spent their energies on other things, think what they'd accomplish.
They did. Legalizing pot.
They figured once everybody was high they would vote for their amendment? Cunning plan.
Megyn Kelly looks radiant tonight.
Rachel Maddow too.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 10:00:29 PM
For the third straight election, a "Personhood Amendment" is resoundingly rejected in Colorado. If the Colorado GOP spent their energies on other things, think what they'd accomplish.
They did. Legalizing pot.
Not up on the details of the colorado pot legalization, but I wonder if the GOP may not have been the driving force behind that. :hmm: :P
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 10:04:53 PM
Megyn Kelly looks radiant tonight.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2014, 10:06:34 PM
Rachel Maddow too.
:lol: C'mon, it's Election Night. These political junkies don't get any more moist than this. My man Chris Matthews is knocking over lampshades with his hard-on. I think he actually concussed Ed Rendell, who is still on the floor behind the stage desk.
Ed's down on Florida, looking for brats. There are none to be found.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 04, 2014, 10:02:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 10:00:29 PM
For the third straight election, a "Personhood Amendment" is resoundingly rejected in Colorado. If the Colorado GOP spent their energies on other things, think what they'd accomplish.
They did. Legalizing pot.
Of all the drugs. :rolleyes: I mean, really now. What a dirtball drug.
I am pretty sure the very best running backs in history use that wondrous drug.
Cuome keeps his governorship. His Rep adversary, Astorino, made such weird tv ads. Atleast in upstate NY.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 04, 2014, 10:32:48 PM
Cuome keeps his governorship. His Rep adversary, Astorino, made such weird tv ads. Atleast in upstate NY.
I voted for Cuomo. :)
Gillespie falls down by 0.1% as the 99th percent of precincts report. :lol:
That has to be such a tease for him. Come in as a longshot, grab a lead and hold it all night, only to fall short by something like 0.1%.
What race is that Dorsey?
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 10:24:11 PM
I am pretty sure the very best running backs in history use that wondrous drug.
You better hope not, because I'm not sure the current sheriff in your town is going to be as cool with that as the last one was.
QuoteGOP on track to hold House majority
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.vam.synacor.com.edgesuite.net%2Fe7%2Fe9%2Fe7e9c1399d1aba2a215be45242aa60f6db1a0719%2Fh%3D300%2F%3Fapp%3Dportal%26amp%3Bsig%3D51bb5d0af651d7aec4a10085af72a45b1861319cd3f8649845ba7095250d4d73&hash=d82af112f522bee40c23c70b161894ac5d84e868)
So an interesting dynamic in Georgia, where there is a senate and governor's race.
The Senate is Sam Nunn's daughter vs. a rather unattractive businessman (on the record saying his career was about outsourcing jobs).
The Governor's race is Jimmy Carter's son vs. an incumbent governor who is kind of meh.
Zell Miller, our democratic senator that strongly endorsed Bush, backed Nunn and the incumbent governor.
So just looking at the people in the race, the Senate race is the one that should be close (Sam Nunn was popular here, Carter not very much anymore). But right now, the governor's race is closer.
I think it goes to show voters are voting party in the senate races and less so the candidates, at least in Georgia.
from 538:
Quote11:11 PM It's Just ... About ... Over
Republicans' chances of winning the Senate are now 99 percent, based on the ABC News projection that Republican David Perdue has won in Georgia without a runoff and Republican Pat Roberts has won in Kansas.
also
QuoteLisa Mascaro writes in the Los Angeles Times that at least one African-American Republican candidate and possibly two openly gay Republican candidates could win House seats today.
Paving the way for garbon '16?
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 11:27:56 PM
also
QuoteLisa Mascaro writes in the Los Angeles Times that at least one African-American Republican candidate and possibly two openly gay Republican candidates could win House seats today.
Well, you win enough seats, you can let a few token minorities have some.
Crist has conceded.
Wow. Nick Joe Rahall from my old home district in WV has finally been unseated. WV now has three GOP congressmen and a GOP senator. Never thought I would live to see the day.
Republicans may have at least 54 Senate seats. Obama has gone from powerful Democratic majorities to an even weaker Congressional position than Bush in 2006.
Quote from: derspiess on November 04, 2014, 11:35:09 PM
Wow. Nick Joe Rahall from my old home district in WV has finally been unseated. WV now has three GOP congressmen and a GOP senator. Never thought I would live to see the day.
Yeah, I thought Rahall was as secure as any House seat in the country. It wasn't that long ago that he was getting something like 75-80% of the vote in general elections.
Everyone is calling it for the 'Yes' in legalizing pot in Oregon. It passed in Washington DC as well, and should pass in Alaska once the polls close.
Medical Marijuana failed in Florida.
And boom goes the dynamite.
Joni Ernst's laugh annoys me but she's still somehow endearing.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2014, 11:36:50 PM
Republicans may have at least 54 Senate seats. Obama has gone from powerful Democratic majorities to an even weaker Congressional position than Bush in 2006.
No big loss since he couldn't get that much done even with powerful Democratic majorities. This will hurt the Republicans in 2016 though because for whatever reason we just keep passing control from party to party hoping somebody will not suck someday.
Quote from: Valmy on November 04, 2014, 11:52:12 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 04, 2014, 11:36:50 PM
Republicans may have at least 54 Senate seats. Obama has gone from powerful Democratic majorities to an even weaker Congressional position than Bush in 2006.
No big loss since he couldn't get that much done even with powerful Democratic majorities. This will hurt the Republicans in 2016 though because for whatever reason we just keep passing control from party to party hoping somebody will not suck someday.
I think there is a chance this works out for the best. It is tough to accurately assign blame when no one controls congress. In the past, some of the best moments of government we've had have been when the president and congress were in different parties.
What is probably more likely is that congress now will just pass more stupid shit that gets vetoed, and Obama says fuck those guys and issues a bunch of executive orders which the courts strike down.
Guys, it's all good. Barack called Senate and House leaders for a meeting Friday. Maybe he'll even make it a beer summit. Next two years will be: progress.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:06:41 AM
Guys, it's all good. Barack called Senate and House leaders for a meeting Friday. Maybe he'll even make it a beer summit. Next two years will be: progress.
Remember when Obama tried to reason with the Russians? There are some men that you just can't reach. And really, the Republican leadership is probably a lot less reasonable than Putin.
Look out, Mrs. derspiess. Daddy's on his way.
Holy shit, NBC calls Hogan for MD Governor. Wonder how people in Fredericktown voted :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2014, 09:24:46 PM
The GOP candidate is an FSU grad, made his money in commercial real estate brokerage, founded an anti-tax organization that publishes its own studies pooh-poohing government spending nuisances like schools and roads. Ick.
Goodbye, schools and roads. :lol:
Ironically, my brother-in-law will be looking for a job now; he works for the Lt. Governor's office. IS NO ONE SAFE
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:13:58 AM
Look out, Mrs. derspiess. Daddy's on his way.
Tonight I will: let her sleep. She earned it.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
Holy shit, NBC calls Hogan for MD Governor. Wonder how people in Fredericktown voted :D
I'm sure the the Bud Dry is popping all over the Grand Wizard's front yard.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:16:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
Holy shit, NBC calls Hogan for MD Governor. Wonder how people in Fredericktown voted :D
I'm sure the the Bud Dry is popping all over the Grand Wizard's front yard.
Why ask why?
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:18:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:16:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:14:55 AM
Holy shit, NBC calls Hogan for MD Governor. Wonder how people in Fredericktown voted :D
I'm sure the the Bud Dry is popping all over the Grand Wizard's front yard.
Why ask why?
The only reason a person could possibly not vote for a black candidate is because they are racist.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2014, 12:19:09 AM
The only reason a person could possibly not vote for a black candidate is because they are racist.
I would take you to rural Frederick County, but I wouldn't want to be lynched by association.
And yet....like a beacon of hope in the darkness...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailychronic.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2FCa-Gov.-Jerry-Brown.jpg&hash=3fa5389b9e74bc2a823e1e357d62df0d92222c75)
At any rate, calling Frederick "Frederickstown" isn't gonna get you many votes there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:22:17 AM
And yet....like a beacon of hope in the darkness...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailychronic.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2FCa-Gov.-Jerry-Brown.jpg&hash=3fa5389b9e74bc2a823e1e357d62df0d92222c75)
Yeah, I guess a moonbeam could be considered a beacon.
Oh, and you can totally cancel Martin O'Malley's reservations at the Cedar Rapids Motel 6 for the foreseeable future. Brown's loss just completely sank his candidacy.
Quote from: dps on November 05, 2014, 12:23:43 AM
Yeah, I guess a moonbeam could be considered a beacon.
The man did lines of coke off Linda Ronstadt's body. What have you done?
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:23:30 AM
At any rate, calling Frederick "Frederickstown" isn't gonna get you many votes there.
Yeah, what is this, the 1850s? :lol: Newb.
Butch Otter wins in Idaho. What a name.
Quote from: sbr on November 04, 2014, 11:47:40 PM
Medical Marijuana failed in Florida.
They got 57%, why did they need 60%?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:26:28 AM
The man did lines of coke off Linda Ronstadt's body. What have you done?
That's pretty impressive, really.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2014, 12:39:37 AM
Quote from: sbr on November 04, 2014, 11:47:40 PM
Medical Marijuana failed in Florida.
They got 57%, why did they need 60%?
I was just going off of what was called by pollsters, never saw the numbers.
Here's an exit poll quote for ya, derspeiss. :lol:
QuoteGun regulations were at the top of the list for David Walton, a 69-year-old who lives in Dundalk and threatened to leave the state if gun owners were not given more rights.
"I am planning my escape route," Walton said. "As long as they've got a state here hell-bent on disobeying the Constitution, I'm not going to stick around to try and repair it. I'm moving to Tennessee, where there are low taxes and it's firearm-friendly."
MAH RIGHTS
CNN's coverage is worst so far. Between Van Williams's bizarre theories on what Republican voters support and the incoherent rants of that scary latina woman, it gets the WTF Award. And Candy Crowley looks like she needs some carryout delivered ASAP.
Umm why are the guys on Fox News wearing cowboy hats and handkerchiefs?
Ugh, CNN. I'd rather listen to Greg Gumbel and Dan Dierdorf plod through election results.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:52:02 AM
Umm why are the guys on Fox News wearing cowboy hats and handkerchiefs?
Probably celebrating the defeat of that Texas whore you hate so much. Whoo, doggies.
Meanwhile on Esquire HD, back-to-back broadcasts of the 1985 Red Dawn. :lol:
I used to work with a guy who looked exactly like Bret Baier. And he sounded like Garrison Keillor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:55:05 AM
Meanwhile on Esquire HD, back-to-back broadcasts of the 1985 Red Dawn. :lol:
Don't try to distract me :angry:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 12:55:05 AM
Meanwhile on Esquire HD, back-to-back broadcasts of the 1985 Red Dawn. :lol:
You know, I never got why they melted down after the execution scene. Sure, it's cold and they're tired of fighting, but they were being served on a platter to the Cossacks by one of their own.
But I suppose when Powers Boothe is written out of the script, shit just goes downhill for you.
No shit. I'd totally go Robert and execute the rat. But Powers Boothe was the glue that held them together.
He would have survived if he'd had his awesome bullet proof mustache.
Early results from Alaska have GOP taking back the other senate seat, independent beating incumbent GOP governor and legal pot passing.
Cool, cool.
How was the voter turnout?
Four more years of Silly government ahead of us.
Quote from: Syt on November 05, 2014, 02:20:04 AM
How was the voter turnout?
I think Iowa might have set a record for an off year.
Had to have set a record for ads in an off year.
Sandra Fluke lost her race. I has a sad :(
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 09:33:57 AM
Sandra Fluke lost her race. I has a sad :(
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.littlestuffedbull.com%2Fimages%2Fcomics%2Fhaha082109%2Fhaha-cap164.jpg&hash=2cdf087c750fe4be0f46cb4ab1405568224d94aa)
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 09:33:57 AM
Sandra Fluke lost her race. I has a sad :(
Then this is good news!
:shifty:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/
Quote from: Syt on November 05, 2014, 02:20:04 AM
How was the voter turnout?
Across Maryland, apparently 40% of registered voters, compared to 54% in 2010.
Baltimore city itself had the worst, though; about 19% of registered voters, compared to 34% in 2010. Pretty sad numbers, even for Dazzling Urbanites.
Ohio was 40% as well, down from 49% in 2010.
We had elections this past sunday in Quebec...turnout 4%.
Ok, it was school boards elections.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 09:58:12 AM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/
QuoteThis type of error is not unprecedented — instead it's rather common. As I mentioned, a similar error occurred in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2012. It's been about as likely as not, historically. That the polls had relatively little bias in a number of recent election years — including 2004, 2008 and 2010 — may have lulled some analysts into a false sense of security about the polls.
Which is why relying so heavily on statistical analysis in a discipline that doesn't lend itself well to predictive analytics--namely, Political Science--sucks so much. Politics is a crap shoot subject to human whim, not a science. IM A POLI CRAP MAJOR
Extra bonus: Meri's governor is a Republican now. HAHA
:lol:
I'm not laughing at Seedy's new governor though. No sir.
I am.
A nine point GOP victory in Maryland is inconceivable. :huh:
That's like a Republican winning the mayor of DC.
People must have been pissed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 11:19:29 AM
A nine point GOP victory in Maryland is inconceivable. :huh:
It's an election for governor. It is probably the high profile race people are most likely to vote for the guy rather than the party. Lots of democratic states get republican governors. A similar dynamic has given NYC republican mayors like Guiliani and Bloomberg (before he became independent).
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 12:11:40 PM
People must have been pissed.
2010 was such a bad year for the democrats it is hard to see how they don't come back in 2016.
On the other hand, 2018 should be a very bad year for the Democrats. Not sure how the republicans managed to f up so bad in 2012.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Extra bonus: Meri's governor is a Republican now. HAHA
I remember someone saying a few years ago that voting in that State wasnt as important because the Dem candidate would always get elected. I guess enough voters felt that way yesterday. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 10:37:31 AM
Which is why relying so heavily on statistical analysis in a discipline that doesn't lend itself well to predictive analytics--namely, Political Science--sucks so much. Politics is a crap shoot subject to human whim, not a science. IM A POLI CRAP MAJOR
Is there a clubhouse where we can meet up and self-flagellate over our choice of major?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 12:25:03 PMI remember someone saying a few years ago that voting in that State wasnt as important because the Dem candidate would always get elected. I guess enough voters felt that way yesterday. :(
"Now many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo-goo syndrome.' Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." —Paul Weyrich, Co-Founder of the Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority, 1980
As true for Republican election strategy now as it was in 1980.
Quote from: Norgy on November 05, 2014, 12:25:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 10:37:31 AM
Which is why relying so heavily on statistical analysis in a discipline that doesn't lend itself well to predictive analytics--namely, Political Science--sucks so much. Politics is a crap shoot subject to human whim, not a science. IM A POLI CRAP MAJOR
Is there a clubhouse where we can meet up and self-flagellate over our choice of major?
Let me check with Mom.
How many entertaining shenanigans do you guys expect to see between Boehner and Cruz?
Quote from: Norgy on November 05, 2014, 12:25:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 10:37:31 AM
Which is why relying so heavily on statistical analysis in a discipline that doesn't lend itself well to predictive analytics--namely, Political Science--sucks so much. Politics is a crap shoot subject to human whim, not a science. IM A POLI CRAP MAJOR
Is there a clubhouse where we can meet up and self-flagellate over our choice of major?
Seemed like a fun idea at the time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Extra bonus: Meri's governor is a Republican now. HAHA
I remember someone saying a few years ago that voting in that State wasnt as important because the Dem candidate would always get elected. I guess enough voters felt that way yesterday. :(
It was a very close race 4 years ago. This one shouldn't have been that huge of a surprise.
I remember a while back there was a Republican who was ahead in Illinois until he was caught having an affair and dropped out. Alan Keyes replaced him and got destroyed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Extra bonus: Meri's governor is a Republican now. HAHA
I remember someone saying a few years ago that voting in that State wasnt as important because the Dem candidate would always get elected. I guess enough voters felt that way yesterday. :(
There was a republican governor here as recently as 2003, and this state regularly sends republicans to congress. It's the presidential vote that always* goes to the Democratic candidate.
*at least for the past 20 years. This state voted for Native Son Reagan, as well as GHW
Illinois politics could tilt rightward as the South Side continues to empty out.
Quote from: Maximus on November 05, 2014, 01:19:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 12:25:03 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 05, 2014, 10:50:12 AM
Extra bonus: Meri's governor is a Republican now. HAHA
I remember someone saying a few years ago that voting in that State wasnt as important because the Dem candidate would always get elected. I guess enough voters felt that way yesterday. :(
There was a republican governor here as recently as 2003, and this state regularly sends republicans to congress. It's the presidential vote that always* goes to the Democratic candidate.
*at least for the past 20 years. This state voted for Native Son Reagan, as well as GHW
Back in the day they also went big for Lincoln.
Looks like Obama will get to start using the veto a lot more.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2014, 01:27:32 PM
Looks like Obama will get to start using the veto a lot more.
Obstruction!
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 01:27:09 PM
Back in the day they also went big for Lincoln.
The Republic and Democrat labels aren't really useful beyond 50 years ago, if that.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 01:21:45 PM
Illinois politics could tilt rightward as the South Side continues to empty out.
It could. Chances are it would be no less corrupt.
So did America win last night?
Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2014, 01:34:42 PM
So did America win last night?
Depends on which America you ask. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 02:28:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2014, 01:34:42 PM
So did America win last night?
Depends on which America you ask. :D
I think it's similar in many countries; one Britain is doing very well, the elites and the surrounding metropolitan bubble, the other Britain/s not so well.
Just asked the 2,600 Rolls-Royce engineers given marching orders yesterday.
If the elites are doing so well, why aren't they buying more Rolls Royces? :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2014, 02:36:23 PM
I think it's similar in many countries; one Britain is doing very well, the elites and the surrounding metropolitan bubble, the other Britain/s not so well.
Just asked the 2,600 Rolls-Royce engineers given marching orders yesterday.
Did you ask the one by one, or as a group?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2014, 02:42:35 PM
If the elites are doing so well, why aren't they buying more Rolls Royces? :hmm:
Aero engines, two entirely separate companies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 02:44:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2014, 02:36:23 PM
I think it's similar in many countries; one Britain is doing very well, the elites and the surrounding metropolitan bubble, the other Britain/s not so well.
Just asked the 2,600 Rolls-Royce engineers given marching orders yesterday.
Did you ask the one by one, or as a group?
You must find your literalism a bit of a handicap going through life.
Quote from: mongers on November 05, 2014, 02:46:14 PM
You must find your literalism a bit of a handicap going through life.
Yi doesn't see layoffs as human beings. They don't fit into the spreadsheet boxes, what with having limbs and children and all.
Funny how Mongers using the wrong verb form turns into another opportunity to accuse Yi of being Gordon Gekko. :lol:
Seedy doesn't syntax as an English.
There is now a gay Republican in Congress. :huh:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2014, 02:55:19 PM
There is now a gay Republican in Congress. :huh:
Remember the foot tapping incident.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2014, 02:55:19 PM
There is now a gay Republican in Congress. :huh:
And now there's a(nother) Republican who hates gays in Congress. And all sorts of other things. :lol:
QuoteIt's official: in January, Jody Hice will be sworn in as the next Congressman from Georgia's 10th District. This is a man who has called Islam, the second-largest religion in the world, "a totalitarian way of life with a religious component" that "does not deserve First Amendment protection." In his book he calls legal abortion "worse than Hitler's six million Jews or Mussolini's three hundred thousand," adding that "the genocide in America is inexcusable!" In 2004, he told the Athens Banner-Herald that he doesn't "see a problem" with women running for office "if the woman's within the authority of her husband." On his radio show he blamed Sandy Hook and other school shootings on "kicking God out of the schools, and... kicking God out of the public square." He once misquoted a satirical essay by a gay writer as evidence that homosexuals preying on children was "part of the 'gay manifesto'" and part of the "radical agenda that is currently threatening our nation."
As Matthew Pulver of the Flagpole writes, Jody Hice believes a lot of things that make him sound insane. Last night, he won a seat in Congress.
Why didn't we just let the South secede?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2014, 02:58:58 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2014, 02:55:19 PM
There is now a gay Republican in Congress. :huh:
Remember the foot tapping incident.
Oh, I'm sure there are several foot tappers who haven't been outed yet. :P
You usually don't see a guy running in the GOP as a gay man though.
Quote from: Berkut on November 05, 2014, 03:05:46 PM
Why didn't we just let the South secede?
But wait, there's more!
QuoteThen there is Mr. Hice. Having once called evolution a lie from "the pit of hell," Mr. Broun, the departing representative from Georgia, would be hard to beat on the inflammatory front. But Mr. Hice has a record. He once said of women in politics, "If the woman's within the authority of her husband, I don't see a problem. "
He compared the recent appearance of red "blood moons" to prophecies that preceded the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Israeli statehood and the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. In a satirical book, he claimed he had found a homosexual agenda to "sodomize your sons" by seducing them "in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us/politics/midterm-elections-house-republicans.html?_r=0
I put him as the odds-on favorite to be the next Congressman to be caught with a dick in his mouth.
It's not too late!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 05, 2014, 02:55:19 PM
There is now a gay Republican in Congress. :huh:
My mother voted for him.
QuoteRelax—Both Parties Are Going Extinct (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/04/relax-these-midterms-mean-less-than-you-think.html)
Our parties are shrinking because each in its own way can't come to terms with decentralization. But it's real, and it's going to bury them.
It's safe to say that by the end of today, a large chunk of Americans will be bitterly disappointed. If Republicans win big, Democrats will hang their heads and cuss the Koch brothers. If the GOP fails to snag the Senate and a fistful of statehouses, its partisans will mope around and blame Ebola-infected illegal immigrants for the loss.
But whichever side emerges victorious, both Republicans and Democrats should face up to a much bigger truth: Neither party as currently constituted has a real future. Fewer and fewer Americans identify as either Republican or Democratic according to Gallup, and both parties are at recent or all-time lows when it comes to approval ratings. Just 39 percent give Democrats a favorable rating and just 33 percent do the same for Republicans. Not coincidentally, each party has also recently had a clear shot at implementing its vision of the good society. If you want to drive down your adversary's approval rating, just give him the reins of power for a few years.
See the rest at the link.
Out of curiousity, when has one party actually had the "reins of power"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 04:14:12 PM
Out of curiousity, when has one party actually had the "reins of power"?
National Republicans in the "Age of Good Feelings"
Reconstruction maybe.
New Deal also.
1933-45.
Lay off Frankie.
The National Review warns the GOP not to fall into the "Governing Tap": http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392082/governing-trap-editors
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2014, 04:46:22 PM
Lay off Frankie.
That's what I would have told him at the time as well.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 04:14:12 PM
Out of curiousity, when has one party actually had the "reins of power"?
Obama's first term as president featured a large majority in the house and at points a supermajority in the senate.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 05:00:02 PM
and at points a supermajority in the senate.
Big myth, consistently regurgitated. The Dems never had the supermajority of 60.
When did Captain Chappaquidick kick the bucket?
August 2009.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2014, 12:39:37 AM
Quote from: sbr on November 04, 2014, 11:47:40 PM
Medical Marijuana failed in Florida.
They got 57%, why did they need 60%?
State constitutional amendments in Florida require a 60% super majority.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 05:12:10 PM
When did Captain Chappaquidick kick the bucket?
I think CdM isn't counting Byrd, because he wasn't in good health.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 05:00:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 04:14:12 PM
Out of curiousity, when has one party actually had the "reins of power"?
Obama's first term as president featured a large majority in the house and at points a supermajority in the senate.
But even then, the party was hugely divided against itself. The most popular leader in the party was incredibly weak and inexperienced, and the strongest leader in the party was incredibly unpopular and high-handed. And the third leader was just venal and short-sighted.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 05:17:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 05:12:10 PM
When did Captain Chappaquidick kick the bucket?
I think CdM isn't counting Byrd, because he wasn't in good health.
Neither was the Senate, because you can't vote from a hospital bed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 05:08:56 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 05:00:02 PM
and at points a supermajority in the senate.
Big myth, consistently regurgitated. The Dems never had the supermajority of 60.
They did for part of 2009. And don't get all aspie on us and differentiate the two independents that caucused with the Dems.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 05:17:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 05:12:10 PM
When did Captain Chappaquidick kick the bucket?
I think CdM isn't counting Byrd, because he wasn't in good health.
Neither was the Senate, because you can't vote from a hospital bed.
I know he was in and out of the hospital, but the last time he was admitted was just days before he died.
I don't think there was a single filibuster the Republicans pulled off because the Democrats only had 59 votes because Byrd wasn't well.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 05:30:22 PM
They did for part of 2009. And don't get all aspie on us and differentiate the two independents that caucused with the Dems.
He's right. They needed Snowe and Specter or the third lib Republican to pass Obamastimulus.
Or at least one of those three.
No, I think Specter had already jumped parties. Snowe and 2 others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 05:34:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 05:30:22 PM
They did for part of 2009. And don't get all aspie on us and differentiate the two independents that caucused with the Dems.
He's right. They needed Snowe and Specter or the third lib Republican to pass Obamastimulus.
Or at least one of those three.
No, I think Specter had already jumped parties. Snowe and 2 others.
Yeah, but that is because he didn't get some democratic members.
Bottom line he had enough votes for stimulus, which was a good thing and helped rescue the economy, and he had enough votes for Obamacare (aka Romneycare, aka Heritagecare), which has lots of warts, but overall is a good thing.
Obama's faults are not in his legislative agenda which has been pretty sound. It has been in his management of the exec branch. Which is why it is too bad that those faults have been punished by removing useful legislative votes.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 05:30:22 PM
They did for part of 2009.
Yeah, it was called "recess". :P
QuoteAnd don't get all aspie on us and differentiate the two independents that caucused with the Dems.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.outsidethebeltway.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2F111th-Senate.png&hash=a6d38b7517151764c217e2c669f5a2b91cd20aa0)
QuoteWhat this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:
From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman's challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy's illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
Yes, a stunningly sustained period of legislative action, rivaling only LBJ.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2014, 05:42:47 PM
Bottom line he had enough votes for stimulus, which was a good thing and helped rescue the economy, and he had enough votes for Obamacare (aka Romneycare, aka Heritagecare), which has lots of warts, but overall is a good thing.
I thought he didn't have enough votes for Obamacare, so they had to sneak it in on a concurring resolution, or whatever they call it.
Quote from: Savonarola on November 05, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2014, 12:39:37 AM
Quote from: sbr on November 04, 2014, 11:47:40 PM
Medical Marijuana failed in Florida.
They got 57%, why did they need 60%?
State constitutional amendments in Florida require a 60% super majority.
It seems ridiculous that one has to amend the state constitution to legalize weed. Can't that be done with normal legislation?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 05:17:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 05:12:10 PM
When did Captain Chappaquidick kick the bucket?
I think CdM isn't counting Byrd, because he wasn't in good health.
Neither was the Senate, because you can't vote from a hospital bed.
They don't allow folks to vote electronically these days?
You shouldn't actually have to be present if you're ill.
So sad that people are blaming obama for his failures and voting in such a way that it will be even harder for him to do anything.
Enjoy a few years of no government yanks! :cheers:
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
So sad that people are blaming obama for his failures and voting in such a way that it will be even harder for him to do anything.
Enjoy a few years of no government yanks! :cheers:
I didn't want anything he had on offer. :blurgh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2014, 07:52:04 PM
They don't allow folks to vote electronically these days?
You shouldn't actually have to be present if you're ill.
It's the United States Senate, not America's Got Talent.
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
Enjoy a few years of no government yanks! :cheers:
The Eisenhower years! :cheers:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 08:10:08 PM
It's the United States Senate, not America's Got Talent.
Tell that to these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nuoduwf3es (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nuoduwf3es)
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
If it gets the TPP through relatively fast, it will almost be worth the subsequent investigations and impeachment proceedings.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
Depends what you mean by gridlock. If no one proposes any legislation is it still gridlock?
About the only thing I can see being passed is trade treaties, as Joan mentioned.
Anyway, I would love to have the Republicans look foolish next year so that it can prepare the way for the rightful coronation. Something that should have taken place say in '08. :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
Well, some people are saying there will be even more gridlock than there has been the past few years, but that's not really possible, so I guess that's a good prediction.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2014, 07:50:44 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on November 05, 2014, 05:15:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 05, 2014, 12:39:37 AM
Quote from: sbr on November 04, 2014, 11:47:40 PM
Medical Marijuana failed in Florida.
They got 57%, why did they need 60%?
State constitutional amendments in Florida require a 60% super majority.
It seems ridiculous that one has to amend the state constitution to legalize weed. Can't that be done with normal legislation?
Sure, but it won't be; at least not in the foreseeable future.
Is criminalization of weed currently in the Florida constitution? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2014, 10:02:59 PM
Is criminalization of weed currently in the Florida constitution? :unsure:
By no means am I an expert on Florida constitutional law, but my guess is probably not--this was an attempt to by-pass the legislature and put a provision in the state constitution taking the power to criminalize weed away from the legislature.
Asoka
There should be a 60% threshold on all referenda. Maybe higher, or maybe we should just get rid of them.
We just got a constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from raising income taxes.
I don't know if there have been constitutional amendments, but there have been previous property tax cuts on the ballot, and those always seem to pass.
Anyone who knows anything about Atlanta, knows traffic gridlock, and no reasonable public transportation. The transportation network is past the breaking point. There was recently a special election for a metro atlanta 1% sales tax to fund a transportation upgrade. Every major leader, Republican and Democrat, supported it. Major employers and the chamber of commerce begged people to support it. The result? Crushing defeat.
It is a terrible way to govern. Voters are going to chip away at the tax base until our government services are (even more) crippled.
I read that in Washington, they had 2 proposals on the ballot:
1) prohibiting required background checks for gun purchases,
2) requiring background checks for gun purchases
It turned out that 1) failed and 2) passed. But, apparently polling indicated that there was a chance that both would pass. Possibly some people were confused by the wording, possibly the polls were wrong, or possibly voters are just stupid.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 05, 2014, 10:51:21 PM
I read that in Washington, they had 2 proposals on the ballot:
1) prohibiting required background checks for gun purchases,
2) requiring background checks for gun purchases
It turned out that 1) failed and 2) passed. But, apparently polling indicated that there was a chance that both would pass. Possibly some people were confused by the wording, possibly the polls were wrong, or possibly voters are just stupid.
In WA, all you need to get an initiative on the ballot is enough signatures and certification of same by the proper state authorities. So having two contradicting initiatives, while very uncommon, is not impossible.
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
So sad that people are blaming obama for his failures and voting in such a way that it will be even harder for him to do anything.
Enjoy a few years of no government yanks! :cheers:
The point is that we don't want him to do anything anymore since everything he touches turns to ashes. His Presidency has been one continuous train wreck of incompetence and failure.
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
Well, with Harry Reid out as Senate Majority Leader the biggest obstruction has already been removed. People have been largely ignorant as to how much he acted as a road block on virtually everything. It was Reid who decided to stop even working on budgets 5 years ago and blocking amendments on virtually all bills in order to prevent having to have the Senate ever vote on popular GOP amendments that the leadership didn't like. The thuggish Harry Reid complete poisoned the well in the Senate thru these maneuvers.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
So sad that people are blaming obama for his failures and voting in such a way that it will be even harder for him to do anything.
Enjoy a few years of no government yanks! :cheers:
The point is that we don't want him to do anything anymore since everything he touches turns to ashes. His Presidency has been one continuous train wreck of incompetence and failure.
Sounds like 1994 rhetoric. :)
Obama just needs to channel Bill Clinton(maybe less interns/cigars), and his legacy is assured. :P
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Anyway, I would love to have the Republicans look foolish next year so that it can prepare the way for the rightful coronation. Something that should have taken place say in '08. :mad:
You're smoking crack if you think she'll ever get elected President! She is a rather unskilled politician without any accomplishments of note and long past her sell by date. Her husband had all the talent, she doesn't have shit. The Democrats don't back a loser like that. The democrats tend to chose their candidates the way you'd chose a one night stand: you see a mysterious attractive stranger and before you know who he is your making out with him and only after you wake up in the morning do you start to realize with whom you went to bed. The GOP looks at a candidate as a potential spouse: you carefully evaluate him over a longer period of time, he might not be very exciting, you'll detect some flaws but figure that in the end he is a dependable person you can settle down with.
Hillary is yesterday's news, to anyone under 30 she is ancient history, boring and uninteresting. The Stupid young voters are a critical core democratic constituency to turn out in both the primary and general election and they're not going to get excited by her to bother coming out to vote. The lazy poor don't sho up for the crucial primaries, the progressive clerical class doesnt trust her because she has always been extremely cautious and calculating in her positions, all of which means that the rent-seeking class isn't going to back a sure loser.
The only way she would get the nomination if the Democrats can't fi any other plausible candidate due to the extreme unlikelyhood of the voters wanting a third democratic presidential term after this train wreck and are thus unable to find a candidate.
And let's face it, the two usual talent pools for presidential candidates are usually the Senate or the governors mansions and where are the Democrats prospects? Where are the successful, charismatic candidates for the Dems to choose from? Where the GOP currently has an embarrassment of riches with over a dozen young, charismatic and successful potential candidates the Democrats are simply an embarrassment.
Wasting my time to read lengthy Hans drivel? No thanks! :blurgh:
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 06, 2014, 12:32:00 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 05, 2014, 07:52:34 PM
So sad that people are blaming obama for his failures and voting in such a way that it will be even harder for him to do anything.
Enjoy a few years of no government yanks! :cheers:
The point is that we don't want him to do anything anymore since everything he touches turns to ashes. His Presidency has been one continuous train wreck of incompetence and failure.
Sounds like 1994 rhetoric. :)
Obama just needs to channel Bill Clinton(maybe less interns/cigars), and his legacy is assured. :P
Clinton's first two years were a train wreck, but he was flexible and adaptive. He brought in new talent, he switched focus and co-opted GOP positions since he was naturally a moderate.
Obama is dogmatic and insular. He lives in a bubble, surrounded by sycophants who worship him and never challenge him. His press conference today revealed that he has learned nothing. It has been kinda funny watching the press slowly realize how poorly he is suited for the job. Who knew President of the United States is probably not a good entry level job for someone with no actual work experience whatsoever?
Of course I poin this out eight years ago, only someone either extremely naïve or extremely stupid could have thought that he would be able to do the job.
It Has been funny watching old tingles coming to that sudden realization over on that network nobody watches.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:51:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Anyway, I would love to have the Republicans look foolish next year so that it can prepare the way for the rightful coronation. Something that should have taken place say in '08. :mad:
You're smoking crack if you think she'll ever get elected President! She is a rather unskilled politician without any accomplishments of note and long past her sell by date. Her husband had all the talent, she doesn't have shit. The Democrats don't back a loser like that. The democrats tend to chose their candidates the way you'd chose a one night stand: you see a mysterious attractive stranger and before you know who he is your making out with him and only after you wake up in the morning do you start to realize with whom you went to bed. The GOP looks at a candidate as a potential spouse: you carefully evaluate him over a longer period of time, he might not be very exciting, you'll detect some flaws but figure that in the end he is a dependable person you can settle down with.
There is something to that, but in a way you can't blame the Democrats. In the past 40 years, they've had good luck getting previously obscure politicians elected President, but losing the White House when they nominate someone who had already been well known. Look at the record: 1976--a Georgia governor who basically no one outside the state of Georgia had heard of a year earlier won. 1992--an Arkansas governor who only blip on the national radar before his Presidential campaign had been a controversy that erupted over the refusal of his opponent in the governor's race to shake his hand wins. 2008--a Congressional backbencher is nominated and wins.
OTOH: 1984--a former Vice-President who before that had been a moderately well-known Senator (though, I suppose, mostly known for being a protégé of Hubert Humphrey rather than for anything he himself had actually done) is nominated and loses. 2000--Another former Vice-President who had previously been d prominent Senator--more prominent than the candidate in 1984--is nominated and loses. 2004--a somewhat well-know Senator is nominated and loses.
QuoteAnd let's face it, the two usual talent pools for presidential candidates are usually the Senate or the governors mansions and where are the Democrats prospects? Where are the successful, charismatic candidates for the Dems to choose from? Where the GOP currently has an embarrassment of riches with over a dozen young, charismatic and successful potential candidates the Democrats are simply an embarrassment.
I think you're over-rating the current Republican Senators and governors.
Quote from: dps on November 06, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
I think you're over-rating the current Republican Senators and governors.
Indeed. It seems to me that a lot of the Republican 'young talent' is nationally unelectable due to their extremism. You're not going to win the White House on conspiracy theories and anti-abortion screeds.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-_9TzDGjJDWQ/VFnfDyJrMwI/AAAAAAAAHdY/WQUVRFlXsAg/w672-h363-no/us-house-2014-elections-map.PNG)
2014 House election results.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:20:15 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
Well, with Harry Reid out as Senate Majority Leader the biggest obstruction has already been removed. People have been largely ignorant as to how much he acted as a road block on virtually everything. It was Reid who decided to stop even working on budgets 5 years ago and blocking amendments on virtually all bills in order to prevent having to have the Senate ever vote on popular GOP amendments that the leadership didn't like. The thuggish Harry Reid complete poisoned the well in the Senate thru these maneuvers.
We will now have a "cleaner" separation of powers with a GOP controlled Senate and House, which is why I think there will be more things with this arrangement than there had been. If Obama can be convinced to play ball (his speech yesterday does not seem to have been a good start), shit may actually get done.
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2014, 08:59:05 PM
Anyway, I would love to have the Republicans look foolish next year so that it can prepare the way for the rightful coronation. Something that should have taken place say in '08. :mad:
She didn't seem to help many of the people she campaigned for this year. See: #hillaryslosers
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:20:15 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
Well, with Harry Reid out as Senate Majority Leader the biggest obstruction has already been removed. People have been largely ignorant as to how much he acted as a road block on virtually everything. It was Reid who decided to stop even working on budgets 5 years ago and blocking amendments on virtually all bills in order to prevent having to have the Senate ever vote on popular GOP amendments that the leadership didn't like. The thuggish Harry Reid complete poisoned the well in the Senate thru these maneuvers.
We will now have a "cleaner" separation of powers with a GOP controlled Senate and House, which is why I think there will be more things with this arrangement than there had been. If Obama can be convinced to play ball (his speech yesterday does not seem to have been a good start), shit may actually get done.
:lmfao:
That is fucking priceless.
WHy would Obama play ball, both houses are now full of people who hate him simply because he's not part of the GOP white esthablishment.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
We will now have a "cleaner" separation of powers with a GOP controlled Senate and House,
Shame you won't have a cleaner separation of the fruits and nuts in the GOP. The House is going to be just as silly now as it was before. I don't think they're going to play ball with the GOP-controlled Senate as much as you think they will.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2014, 10:04:48 AM
:lmfao:
That is fucking priceless.
I know, I know-- too optimistic. I'm expecting the President to act better than a petulant child.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2014, 10:04:48 AM
:lmfao:
That is fucking priceless.
I know, I know-- too optimistic. I'm expecting the President to act better than a petulant child.
Why? You seem quite happy when Ted Cruz does it.
I do not cruise with Cruz if he acts childish.
lulz, "if", he says.
Pretty much always Standing with Rand, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 05, 2014, 08:40:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 05, 2014, 08:32:42 PM
I predict there will be less gridlock than people are saying.
If it gets the TPP through relatively fast, it will almost be worth the subsequent investigations and impeachment proceedings.
Stopping that steaming pile of shit from going through is one of the few reasons I have to support the Democrats. <_<
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:28:28 AM
Stopping that steaming pile of shit from going through is one of the few reasons I have to support the Democrats. <_<
What's good for Japan is good for America. Squee. Mew.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
Pretty much always Standing with Rand, though.
Even when he acts childish?
When does that happen?
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
Pretty much always Standing with Rand, though.
Good. He can tag you in from the ropes when psycho nut Tom Cotton hits Paul with a folding chair when he isn't looking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 10:32:42 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:28:28 AM
Stopping that steaming pile of shit from going through is one of the few reasons I have to support the Democrats. <_<
What's good for Japan is good for America. Squee. Mew.
I'm shocked that you support an agreement that is basically welfare for Shareholder Value, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#US_Responses).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:25:39 AM
Pretty much always Standing with Rand, though.
Good. He can tag you in from the ropes when psycho nut Tom Cotton hits Paul with a folding chair when he isn't looking.
Tom seems like a nice guy.
I think Joni Ernst is the one who oughtta be at the top of your watch list, Seedy. She's a woman who doesn't support the things you think she ought to.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:43:46 AM
I'm shocked that you support an agreement that is basically welfare for Shareholder Value, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#US_Responses).
You're never going to get past Shareholder Value, ever. Labor is dead, and laborers don't care. The die is cast but it doesn't matter, because Wall Street always wins rigged games. So you might as well leverage it into a favorable foreign policy device in the middle of the world's largest arms race.
MAH PIVOT
Better to prop the Nips up as a counterweight to the Chinks.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:43:46 AM
I'm shocked that you support an agreement that is basically welfare for Shareholder Value, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#US_Responses).
Interesting link Moldy. Didn't know you were such a fan of Noam Chomsky and labor unions when it came to trade treaties.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:56:53 AM
I think Joni Ernst is the one who oughtta be at the top of your watch list, Seedy. She's a woman who doesn't support the things you think she ought to.
You mean Michele Bachmann of the Midwest? She still thinks WMDs were actually in Iraq. Then again, so does Hansy, so there ya go.
Michelle Bachman is the Michelle Bachman of the Midwest. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:18:53 AM
Michelle Bachman is the Michelle Bachman of the Midwest. :huh:
Fine. Jodi's from the Mid Midwest, then. Enjoy your new batshit Senator.
At 18, already too old to be married off in West Virginny, but luckily there's the State House to fall back on. Good for her!
QuoteThe Republican wave lifted many boats last night, including that of 18-year-old Saira Blair. The college freshman was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates in a landslide—she earned 63 percent of the vote to her 44-year-old Democratic opponent's 30 percent—and officially became the youngest lawmaker in the country. She'll represent a district of about 18,000 people in the eastern part of the state, near the Maryland border.
The Wall Street Journal describes Blair as "fiscally conservative," and she "campaigned on a pledge to work to reduce certain taxes on businesses." Her website boasts an "A" rating from the NRA and endorsements from West Virginians for Life. As a 17-year-old, Blair primaried the 66-year-old Republican incumbent Larry Kump and advanced to the general election—all while legally being unable to cast a vote for herself. Democratic attorney Layne Diehl, her general election opponent, had only good things to say last night about the teenager who beat her: "Quite frankly, a 17- or 18-year-old young woman that has put herself out there and won a political campaign has certainly brought some positive press to the state."
Blair, an economics and Spanish major at West Virginia University, will defer her spring classes to attend the legislative session at the state capitol. There, she'll join her father and campaign manager, Craig, who is a state senator.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Fine. Jodi's from the Mid Midwest, then. Enjoy your new batshit Senator.
Am I safe in assuming she's batshit because she opposes abortion?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:14:07 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:43:46 AM
I'm shocked that you support an agreement that is basically welfare for Shareholder Value, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#US_Responses).
Interesting link Moldy. Didn't know you were such a fan of Noam Chomsky and labor unions when it came to trade treaties.
I'm opposed to large corporations manipulating the law to give themselves an advantage. This treaty has that in spades, particularly the IP provisions. It just so happens that I find common ground with Chomsky and the unions on this one.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:18:53 AM
Michelle Bachman is the Michelle Bachman of the Midwest. :huh:
:D
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 11:37:38 AM
I'm opposed to large corporations manipulating the law to give themselves an advantage. This treaty has that in spades, particularly the IP provisions. It just so happens that I find common ground with Chomsky and the unions on this one.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Fine. Jodi's from the Mid Midwest, then. Enjoy your new batshit Senator.
Am I safe in assuming she's batshit because she opposes abortion?
Meh, she's batshit for so many other delightful reasons than just wanting to confer full legal citizen status to a zygote at the moment of conception. Like still believing that WMDs were in Iraq because her husband said so. Or that states can nullify federal laws. Or that the United Nations could eliminate Iowa private property rights. Or that her Smith & Wesson is for personal defense against the government. Or impeachment, or abolishing the EPA and Department of Education, et cetera, and so on.
Like I said, enjoy your new batshit Senator.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 11:37:38 AM
I'm opposed to large corporations manipulating the law to give themselves an advantage.
Then you're in the wrong country in the wrong century, man. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 11:37:38 AM
I'm opposed to large corporations manipulating the law to give themselves an advantage.
Then you're in the wrong country in the wrong century, man. :lol:
I know it's quixotic at this point, but I'm still an idealist in some ways. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 11:37:38 AM
I'm opposed to large corporations manipulating the law to give themselves an advantage.
Then you're in the wrong country in the wrong century, man. :lol:
Yes, Just don't forget that larger government influence in the economy helps doing that shit. So it's not like the Democrats want to fight it, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:48:48 AM
Meh, she's batshit for so many other delightful reasons than just wanting to confer full legal citizen status to a zygote at the moment of conception. Like still believing that WMDs were in Iraq because her husband said so. Or that states can nullify federal laws. Or that the United Nations could eliminate Iowa private property rights. Or that her Smith & Wesson is for personal defense against the government. Or impeachment, or abolishing the EPA and Department of Education, et cetera, and so on.
Like I said, enjoy your new batshit Senator.
I would be interested in knowing your source of information for the details of Ms. Ernst's views, but I have a strong suspicion you will not tell me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:48:48 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Fine. Jodi's from the Mid Midwest, then. Enjoy your new batshit Senator.
Am I safe in assuming she's batshit because she opposes abortion?
Meh, she's batshit for so many other delightful reasons than just wanting to confer full legal citizen status to a zygote at the moment of conception. Like still believing that WMDs were in Iraq because her husband said so. Or that states can nullify federal laws. Or that the United Nations could eliminate Iowa private property rights. Or that her Smith & Wesson is for personal defense against the government. Or impeachment, or abolishing the EPA and Department of Education, et cetera, and so on.
Like I said, enjoy your new batshit Senator.
:punk: That's my Seedy.
Hi, I'm Jonie Ernst. I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm......
MAKE EM SQUEAL
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 11:37:38 AM
I'm opposed to large corporations manipulating the law to give themselves an advantage. This treaty has that in spades, particularly the IP provisions. It just so happens that I find common ground with Chomsky and the unions on this one.
Please elaborate.
The EFF page (https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) on the issue has the details on the IP section. Basically, the agreement as the US wants it would give media companies significant power to manipulate the markets for their products (see "parallel importation"), exert more control over their products after first sale (see "regulate temporary copies"), and stifle competition and complaint through the legal system (see "place greater liabilities on internet intermediaries" and "enact a 'three-step test' language that puts restrictions on fair use"), It would give all companies a legally-binding means of locking consumers and businesses into their products (see "escalate protections for digital locks").
Other than the IP portion, the portions dealing with pharmaceuticals would give those companies even more power to manipulate pricing in that market as well.
The only freedom granted by this partnership will be the freedom for large companies and industry groups to create artificial markets at their whim.
Appears to be Bachman batshit
QuoteWASHINGTON -- Voters in Iowa elected Republican Joni Ernst to the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, making her the state's first woman senator.
Ernst, a state senator and lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard, catapulted to stardom during the GOP primary with ads featuring her castrating hogs and pulling a handgun from her purse. The spots also helped Ernst win support from prominent Republicans, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. The woman who branded herself a "mother, soldier, leader" convinced Republicans she was the party's best chance to turn red a Senate seat held by retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin.
While Ernst propelled herself to victory by painting herself as a Midwestern woman who grew up on a farm, Democrats pointed to questionable statements to claim she's a hard-right conservative, if not a conspiracy theorist.
Agenda 21
While campaigning last November, Ernst backed a right-wing theory that the United Nations' sustainable development plan Agenda 21 is a conspiracy that would enable the government to strip Americans of their freedom and eliminate private property rights.
All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I've seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don't have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it's bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.
States Can Nullify Federal Laws
At a forum held by Iowa's Faith & Freedom Coalition in July, Ernst suggested that states can somehow nullify laws passed by the federal government.
You know we have talked about this at the state legislature before, nullification. But, bottom line is, as U.S. senator, why should we be passing laws that the states are considering nullifying? Bottom line: our legislators at the federal level should not be passing those laws. We're right ... we've gone 200-plus years of federal legislators going against the 10th Amendment's states' rights. We are way overstepping bounds as federal legislators. So, bottom line, no we should not be passing laws as federal legislators -- as senators or congressman -- that the states would even consider nullifying. Bottom line.
WMDs In Iraq
Ernst told the Des Moines Register's editorial board in May that she believed there were weapons of mass destruction found during the United States' invasion of Iraq. From the Daily Beast:
"We don't know that there were weapons on the ground when we went in," she said, "however, I do have reason to believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." When a Register reporter quizzed her on what information she has, Ernst said, "My husband served in Saudi Arabia as the Army Central Command sergeant major for a year and that's a hot-button topic in that area."
Ernst later clarified those comments in a statement conceding that there were no WMDs in Iraq, although the country had used them before.
47 Percent Mentality
Audio recorded by Radio Iowa in 2013 revealed that Ernst, like many conservatives, holds a "makers vs. takers" view toward social welfare programs. But as Greg Sargent reported, her comments went further than former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's infamous "47 percent" video.
We're looking at Obamacare right now. Once we start with those benefits in January, how are we going to get people off of those? It's exponentially harder to remove people once they've already been on those programs ... we rely on government for absolutely everything. And in the years since I was a small girl up until now into my adulthood with children of my own, we have lost a reliance on not only our own families, but so much of what our churches and private organizations used to do. They used to have wonderful food pantries. They used to provide clothing for those that really needed it. But we have gotten away from that. Now we're at a point where the government will just give away anything.
Climate Change Skeptic
While hardly unique among Republicans, Ernst has claimed she does not possess the scientific knowhow to weigh in on whether humans are causing climate change. But she did chalk it up to "cyclic changes in the weather" during an interview in May.
Yes, we do see climates change, but I have not seen proven proof that it is entirely man-made. I think we do have cyclic changes in weather, and I think that's been throughout the course of history. What impact is man-made. ... but I do think we can educate people to make good choices.
She Really Likes Her Gun
An ad featuring Ernst shooting at a target that is supposed to represent the federal government isn't the first time she has used such a stark metaphor. Speaking at a 2012 NRA event, Ernst said her firearm would help protect her if the government imposes on her rights.
I have a beautiful little Smith & Wesson, 9 millimeter, and it goes with me virtually everywhere. But I do believe in the right to carry, and I believe in the right to defend myself and my family -- whether it's from an intruder, or whether it's from the government, should they decide that my rights are no longer important.
Ernst also has suggested that President Barack Obama should be impeached, expressed openness to privatizing Social Security, called for abortion providers to be punished if a fetal personhood bill were passed, and opposed a federal minimum wage hike.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/joni-ernst-conspiracies_n_6104820.html
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
The EFF page (https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) on the issue has the details on the IP section. Basically, the agreement as the US wants it would give media companies significant power to manipulate the markets for their products (see "parallel importation"), exert more control over their products after first sale (see "regulate temporary copies"), and stifle competition and complaint through the legal system (see "place greater liabilities on internet intermediaries" and "enact a 'three-step test' language that puts restrictions on fair use"), It would give all companies a legally-binding means of locking consumers and businesses into their products (see "escalate protections for digital locks").
Other than the IP portion, the portions dealing with pharmaceuticals would give those companies even more power to manipulate pricing in that market as well.
The only freedom granted by this partnership will be the freedom for large companies and industry groups to create artificial markets at their whim.
The entire purpose of granting patent protection is to create the power to create artificial markets. While a reasonable person can certainly disagree about the optimal level of patent protection, characterizing the level proposed by the US as "welfare for Shareholder Inc." seems over the top.
And when you say the only freedom, does that mean the treaty would not include anything else? No reductions in tarrifs or nontarrif barriers?
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:51:28 AM
you see a mysterious attractive stranger and before you know who he is your making out with him and only after you wake up in the morning do you start to realize with whom you went to bed.
Really Hans, don't ask, don't tell.
:)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 12:02:31 PM
I would be interested in knowing your source of information for the details of Ms. Ernst's views, but I have a strong suspicion you will not tell me.
You don't even finish movies so I wouldn't expect you to know your own candidate's platforms, you condescending ass twat. But, even with the risk of getting ensnared by the Yicratic Method, since your preferred economic model has given me a lot of free time the last couple years, I'll play along with a Google search.
Personhood Amendment sponsorship:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/10/22/editorial-amending-constitution-simply-statement/17693041/
Iraqi WMDs:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2014/05/13/jodi-ernsts-stunning-iraq-wmd-claim
State Nullification of Federal Laws:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/joni-ernst-nullification_n_5631097.html
You know, we've discussed her before on this board: she was the one a couple years ago that said local law enforcement could and should arrest Federal agents for enforcing Obamacare.
Mah Guns against Mah Government:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/10/23/the-real-problem-with-joni-ernsts-quote-about-guns-and-the-government/
United Nations conspiracies, there are Bangladeshi Blue Helmets parachuting into the corn fields of Cedar Rapids:
http://news.yahoo.com/will-joni-ernst-s-flirtations-with-the-political-fringe-haunt-her-in-november-223054974.html
Impeachment and other general silliness:
http://news.yahoo.com/joni-ernst---impeachment--of-obama-should-be-on-the-table-204439051.html
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:43:46 AM
welfare for Shareholder Value, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#US_Responses).
It's not really about economics at all. It is a diplomatic initiative to corner China and increase US regional standing. Hence (I assume) seedy's reluctant support.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2014, 12:54:59 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on November 06, 2014, 10:43:46 AM
welfare for Shareholder Value, Inc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#US_Responses).
It's not really about economics at all. It is a diplomatic initiative to corner China and increase US regional standing. Hence (I assume) seedy's reluctant support.
You assume correctly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 12:32:56 PM
The entire purpose of granting patent protection is to create the power to create artificial markets. While a reasonable person can certainly disagree about the optimal level of patent protection, characterizing the level proposed by the US as "welfare for Shareholder Inc." seems over the top.
The stuff that Baron/EFF is talking about is mostly copyright issues, not patent. The ban on parallel imports does raise an eyebrow as the Supreme Court recently ruled that such grey goods imports are OK after a first sale, so it could be viewed as an attempt to expand copyright rights via treaty.
Rev. Al says the election was a defeat for the Clintons.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 01:41:11 PM
Rev. Al says the election was a defeat for the Clintons.
Logical fallacy: argument from lack of authority
So, since my bro-in-law is going to be looking for work with the change in gubernatorial administration, the 7 year old had some suggestions: being a veterinarian, or better yet, working for McDonald's.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 12:20:15 AM
Well, with Harry Reid out as Senate Majority Leader the biggest obstruction has already been removed
Yeah his little strategy didn't work out to well.
QuoteThe point is that we don't want him to do anything anymore since everything he touches turns to ashes. His Presidency has been one continuous train wreck of incompetence and failure.
True but that is the standard now for both parties. We will see if your people do not entirely suck this time.
I just found out that the governor of Idaho is named Butch Otter. That is the best gay porn name I have ever heard. :lol:
100 women in Congress for the first time ever. :)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/11/05/there_are_100_women_in_congress_for_the_first_time_ever.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/11/05/there_are_100_women_in_congress_for_the_first_time_ever.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fpolitics%2F2014%2F11%2F141104_POL_womenCongress.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg&hash=60e2a8af743f20c52ac7ae8ab3b138820271852e)
:(
Quote from: Martinus on November 06, 2014, 03:37:33 PM
I just found out that the governor of Idaho is named Butch Otter. That is the best gay porn name I have ever heard. :lol:
Welcome to page 17 :rolleyes: :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 06, 2014, 03:39:11 PM
100 women in Congress for the first time ever. :)
I bet you feel: empowered.
Does otter have some special significance in the gay lexicon?
Just wait until Peter North gets elected governor of California, Mart. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 03:45:55 PM
Does otter have some special significance in the gay lexicon?
Yes. It means a lean hairy man. It's like a "skinny bear".
Quote from: Caliga on November 06, 2014, 03:46:24 PM
Just wait until Peter North gets elected governor of California, Mart. :)
:cheers:
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 03:41:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 06, 2014, 03:39:11 PM
100 women in Congress for the first time ever. :)
I bet you feel: empowered.
Man, since the election you've really dialed up the Whore Hate to 11. :lol:
After 4 hours, you're supposed to call your doctor, dude.
take 1 whore pill every 4 hours.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 03:48:03 PM
Man, since the election you've really dialed up the Whore Hate to 11. :lol:
Well, that came out of nowhere. Examples, plz.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 03:56:29 PM
Well, that came out of nowhere. Examples, plz.
Basically every time you mention women or gender, it comes across as whore-hate given your past record.
Same thing that happens to me pretty much any time I address you or Yi or anything even peripherally related to politics. I come across as swiping at or baiting you due to past history.
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2014, 04:00:53 PM
Basically every time you mention women or gender, it comes across as whore-hate given your past record.
Seriously? Wow. You may be the most hypersensitive person on the board, then.
I know Seedy is taking the piss at least part of the time when he makes his accusations. You seem to actually believe yours.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 06, 2014, 04:00:53 PM
Basically every time you mention women or gender, it comes across as whore-hate given your past record.
Seriously? Wow. You may be the most hypersensitive person on the board, then.
See what I mean?
I post something intended to be a mild joke and even include a self-deprecating comment, and you take it at face value :lol:
No, I don't see what you mean.
Still not sure I buy Jake's post being a "mild joke".
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 05:02:25 PM
Still not sure I buy Jake's post being a "mild joke".
Seriously? Wow. You may be the most hypersensitive person on the board, then.
It's hypersensitive mutual assured destruction!
BTW, my post was totally a mild joke.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
We will now have a "cleaner" separation of powers with a GOP controlled Senate and House, which is why I think there will be more things with this arrangement than there had been. If Obama can be convinced to play ball (his speech yesterday does not seem to have been a good start), shit may actually get done.
Yes, it's the dawn of a new era of GOP strategy, one that will usher in a new age of OH WAIT
QuoteJohn Boehner, Mitch McConnell vow to kill Obamacare
By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 11/6/14 7:29 AM EST Updated: 11/6/14 8:59 AM EST
POLITICO
House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, outlining their legislative vision for the last two years of Barack Obama's presidency, are vowing to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday evening fresh off the Republican Senate takeover and major GOP House gains, the leaders largely maintain their commitment to reaching legislative compromise and cutting through Washington paralysis.
But the Republican House speaker from Ohio and incoming Senate majority leader from Kentucky noted that a commitment to creating jobs "means renewing our commitment to repeal Obamacare, which is hurting the job market along with Americans' health care." The ACA remains a politically divisive issue, and further attempts at repeal would surely be met with significant Democratic opposition and a White House veto.
The GOP leaders also said they would approach governing differently than Democrats did in 2008, when Obama entered the White House with major House and Senate advantages and passed the stimulus bill, financial regulation and health care reform. "[W]e won't repeat the mistakes made when a different majority ran Congress in the first years of Barack Obama's presidency, attempting to reshape large chunks of the nation's economy with massive bills that few Americans have read and fewer understand," Boehner and McConnell wrote.
At a Wednesday press conference to discuss the GOP victory, McConnell appeared to downplay a potential repeal attempt, noting that Republicans would not have 60 votes to override a presidential veto. Still, the senator said that Republicans remain strongly opposed to the law. "If I had the ability, I'd get rid of it," he said.
The op-ed served as a sign of the congressional leaders' legislative wish list as Republicans enter 2015 with strong majorities in both chambers. Other commitments highlighted in the column included authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline and reforming the Tax Code.
A spokesman for current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid slammed the pledge to repeal the ACA, saying that it showed Republicans aren't willing to compromise and are ceding authority to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
"One day after the election Senator McConnell is already letting Senator Cruz set the agenda," Reid communications director Adam Jentleson said in a statement on Thursday. Cruz, a tea party favorite, has remained steadfast in his commitment to trying to repeal Obamacare.
"Conspicuously absent from Senator McConnell's vision for the next Congress: the word 'compromise,'" Jentleson added.
If there is going to be a requirement that ordinary Americans read and understand any bill that is passed, then I guess there won't be trade deals after all. Or tax legislation, or financial institutions legislation, or pretty much anything . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2014, 04:50:01 PM
Don't be so hyper-sensitive.
Quote from: Maximus on November 06, 2014, 05:09:22 PM
Seriously? Wow. You may be the most hypersensitive person on the board, then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 05:11:53 PM
It's hypersensitive mutual assured destruction!
Quote from: Maximus on November 06, 2014, 05:12:55 PM
BTW, my post was totally a mild joke.
:lol:
does this mean we will have fracking forever? :yeah:
Quote from: LaCroix on November 06, 2014, 07:34:42 PM
does this mean we will have fracking forever? :yeah:
At least until we get fusion power.
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2014, 10:04:48 AM
:lmfao:
That is fucking priceless.
I know, I know-- too optimistic. I'm expecting the President to act better than a petulant child.
Well, at least the President wants to meet with Mitch McConnell now, which will only be the third time in six years. It is funny how the Democrats keep pushing the meme that Republicans won't wo with Obama when Obama has refused to meet with GOP leaders for virtually his entire presidency.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:16:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:56:53 AM
I think Joni Ernst is the one who oughtta be at the top of your watch list, Seedy. She's a woman who doesn't support the things you think she ought to.
You mean Michele Bachmann of the Midwest? She still thinks WMDs were actually in Iraq. Then again, so does Hansy, so there ya go.
From the NYtimes last month:
"From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemicaFrom 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government's official count was classified.
The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States' encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm's way and from military doctors. The government's secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war's most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds. warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government's official count was classified.
The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States' encounters with chemical weapons in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm's way and from military doctors. The government's secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war's most dangerous jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.."
Read and weep.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 06, 2014, 06:47:17 PM
If there is going to be a requirement that ordinary Americans read and understand any bill that is passed, then I guess there won't be trade deals after all. Or tax legislation, or financial institutions legislation, or pretty much anything . .
I would settle for congress understanding the bills it votes on, but that is probably too much to ask for.
You forgot to bold these parts, Party Animal.
Quotechemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.
Quotefrom the remnants of long-abandoned programs
And they're still finding munitions in Vietnam and Verdun, too.
The purpose of that bullshit war wasn't to discover and destroy the WMDs from 1981, but to stop the weapons programs in place identified at the time by faulty intelligence.
Dubya, Uncle Dick and Uncle Rummy have all copped to it, why can't you?
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 01:41:11 PM
Rev. Al says the election was a defeat for the Clintons.
Supposedly it does hurt Hillary, hearing that from other pundits. She campaigned for many candidates and all or most lost, so it probably shows some lack of support for her. Maybe bigger impact is that these candidates who lost won't be able to campaign for her in their states like they could have if they held office. Even Bill didn't fare so well, and all seats in Arkansas are now in Republican hands.
Didn't hurt Jim Webb. One. Damned. Bit.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 08:59:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 10:10:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2014, 10:04:48 AM
:lmfao:
That is fucking priceless.
I know, I know-- too optimistic. I'm expecting the President to act better than a petulant child.
Well, at least the President wants to meet with Mitch McConnell now, which will only be the third time in six years. It is funny how the Democrats keep pushing the meme that Republicans won't wo with Obama when Obama has refused to meet with GOP leaders for virtually his entire presidency.
Democrat pols have also complained that Obama doesn't even meet with them nearly often enough.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 06:31:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 06, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
We will now have a "cleaner" separation of powers with a GOP controlled Senate and House, which is why I think there will be more things with this arrangement than there had been. If Obama can be convinced to play ball (his speech yesterday does not seem to have been a good start), shit may actually get done.
Yes, it's the dawn of a new era of GOP strategy, one that will usher in a new age of OH WAIT
QuoteJohn Boehner, Mitch McConnell vow to kill Obamacare
By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 11/6/14 7:29 AM EST Updated: 11/6/14 8:59 AM EST
POLITICO
House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, outlining their legislative vision for the last two years of Barack Obama's presidency, are vowing to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday evening fresh off the Republican Senate takeover and major GOP House gains, the leaders largely maintain their commitment to reaching legislative compromise and cutting through Washington paralysis.
But the Republican House speaker from Ohio and incoming Senate majority leader from Kentucky noted that a commitment to creating jobs "means renewing our commitment to repeal Obamacare, which is hurting the job market along with Americans' health care." The ACA remains a politically divisive issue, and further attempts at repeal would surely be met with significant Democratic opposition and a White House veto.
The GOP leaders also said they would approach governing differently than Democrats did in 2008, when Obama entered the White House with major House and Senate advantages and passed the stimulus bill, financial regulation and health care reform. "[W]e won't repeat the mistakes made when a different majority ran Congress in the first years of Barack Obama's presidency, attempting to reshape large chunks of the nation's economy with massive bills that few Americans have read and fewer understand," Boehner and McConnell wrote.
At a Wednesday press conference to discuss the GOP victory, McConnell appeared to downplay a potential repeal attempt, noting that Republicans would not have 60 votes to override a presidential veto. Still, the senator said that Republicans remain strongly opposed to the law. "If I had the ability, I'd get rid of it," he said.
The op-ed served as a sign of the congressional leaders' legislative wish list as Republicans enter 2015 with strong majorities in both chambers. Other commitments highlighted in the column included authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline and reforming the Tax Code.
A spokesman for current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid slammed the pledge to repeal the ACA, saying that it showed Republicans aren't willing to compromise and are ceding authority to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
"One day after the election Senator McConnell is already letting Senator Cruz set the agenda," Reid communications director Adam Jentleson said in a statement on Thursday. Cruz, a tea party favorite, has remained steadfast in his commitment to trying to repeal Obamacare.
"Conspicuously absent from Senator McConnell's vision for the next Congress: the word 'compromise,'" Jentleson added.
Obamacare is an unpopular train wreck. The damage to date would have been much worse if our God-Emperor had decided he had the power to unilaterally ignore or change portions of the law the cause the most damage.
Say, weren't the exchanges supposed to open on OCT 1? Why are they now suddenly not opening until next week, contrary to the law? It is as if Obama wanted to wait until after some indeterminable event this week to expose the public to the obamacare exchanges? I'm sure it is a sign of confidence in the exchanges by Obama :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 09:15:05 PM
You forgot to bold these parts, Party Animal.
Quotechemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein's rule.
Quotefrom the remnants of long-abandoned programs
And they're still finding munitions in Vietnam and Verdun, too.
The purpose of that bullshit war wasn't to discover and destroy the WMDs from 1981, but to stop the weapons programs in place identified at the time by faulty intelligence.
Dubya, Uncle Dick and Uncle Rummy have all copped to it, why can't you?
That there was bad intelligence on this is of course true. But it is also true that Hussein did not destroy his arsenal as required by the cease fire agreement, which justified the invasion.
It is also true that he kept his old chemical weapons manufacturing capabilities, which had been tagged by the UN inspectors are were supposed to be destroyed but Hussein blocked that from happening. (After the war much of the machinery started popping up in Beirut, where looters had sold it as scrap metal with the UN tags still attached.
The intelligence on new WMD programs proved to be mostly wrong, but the critics leave out that he never fully dismantled his old capabilities. Sorry, having to get rid of all WMD means all of it, not just some parts.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 09:31:19 PM
That there was bad intelligence on this is of course true. But it is also true that Hussein did not destroy his arsenal as required by the cease fire agreement, which justified the invasion.
It is also true that he kept his old chemical weapons manufacturing capabilities, which had been tagged by the UN inspectors are were supposed to be destroyed but Hussein blocked that from happening. (After the war much of the machinery started popping up in Beirut, where looters had sold it as scrap metal with the UN tags still attached.
The intelligence on new WMD programs proved to be mostly wrong, but the critics leave out that he never fully dismantled his old capabilities. Sorry, having to get rid of all WMD means all of it, not just some parts.
You're dealing with a despotic government that was a mess of organizational structure with a rank hierarchy operating on a basis of fear and corruption. Between the IIW, GW1, Northern Watch/Southern Watch, Operation Don't Mess With Texas and all the little bombings in between, they were a basket case. Even they didn't know what they had. You give the Iraqis' ability of keeping tabs of canisters here and there far too much credit. More incompetence than intent was at play.
Apparently ISIL has found some of the old caches of WMDs but likely the stuff isn't very useable, at least not as intended. It's old and much degraded. Maybe they can get some of the chems out of artillery shells or bombs to try and use it otherwise but the stuff isn't likely to be very toxic anymore.
They will not be able to repeal it (ACA). They will squander 2014 by losing big in 2016 if they try.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 06, 2014, 09:51:28 PM
They will not be able to repeal it (ACA). They will squander 2014 by losing big in 2016 if they try.
It'll be a dumbass move if the Repubs put much effort into repeal, but they should have some good luck with modifying some parts of it that will sit well with Dems and Repubs, like maybe the medical devices tax, and other parts. I think it's too big and too ingrained to be just repealed. It is still a mess though and needs some serious overhaul.
Quote from: KRonn on November 06, 2014, 10:05:07 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 06, 2014, 09:51:28 PM
They will not be able to repeal it (ACA). They will squander 2014 by losing big in 2016 if they try.
It'll be a dumbass move if the Repubs put much effort into repeal, but they should have some good luck with modifying some parts of it that will sit well with Dems and Repubs, like maybe the medical devices tax, and other parts. I think it's too big and too ingrained to be just repealed. It is still a mess though and needs some serious overhaul.
Obamacare will die in time for three reasons: it is deeply unpopular, it is an unworkable frankensteinian construction, and the GOP will amend it piecemeal with popular measures that will accelerate the collapse.
Chemical warheads are bulky and difficult to use and certainly were no threat at all to the US.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2014, 10:22:36 PM
Chemical warheads are bulky and difficult to use and certainly were no threat at all to the US.
Of course the threat was that Hussein might give it to a group like al Qaeda to use in a terrorist attack. You don't think that wouldn't have been a threat?
After the fall of Afghanistan the surviving al Qaeda members were streaming into Iraq to set up shop there. Indeed, the next big al Qaeda plot foiled after 9-11 was an attempt to youse ricin poison in London and Paris, a plot that was hatched by al Qaeda in Iraq.
I'm sure it was pure coincidence that the U.S. found large quantities of castor beans(used to make ricin) in Iraqi ammo bunkers.
But I'm sure it was all because Hussein just didn't have any real control over what was goin on in Iraq, him being known for his laissez faire government principles. Saddam Husein was really kind of a proto-liberatarian who didn't reall keep close tabs on what went on in his country, the poor sap.
A lot of conservatives wondered why Bush never fought back on this issue, but I know that he understood that the Democrats will just keep changing their rationale since they weren't interested in an honest debate, so there was no point to argue.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2014, 11:34:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Fine. Jodi's from the Mid Midwest, then. Enjoy your new batshit Senator.
Am I safe in assuming she's batshit because she opposes abortion?
She believes in a whole bunch of black helicopter type conspiracy theories.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/joni-ernst-bruce-braley-agenda-21-conspiracy-theory
Quote◾Ernst has alleged that the federal government is partnering with the United Nations to force Iowans off their land and into urban cores as part of a conspiracy called Agenda 21. At a campaign event last November, she said:
All of us agreed that Agenda 21 is a horrible idea. One of those implications to Americans, again, going back to what did it does do to the individual family here in the state of Iowa, and what I've seen, the implications that it has here is moving people off of their agricultural land and consolidating them into city centers, and then telling them that you don't have property rights anymore. These are all things that the UN is behind, and it's bad for the United States and bad for families here in the state of Iowa.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 10:36:11 PM
Of course the threat was that Hussein might give it to a group like al Qaeda to use in a terrorist attack. You don't think that wouldn't have been a threat?
Not really. I mean sure in a theoretical sense but if Hussein gave al Qaeda conventional warheads that would be no less dangerous. Chemical Weapons are certainly unpleasant but they are no more destructive than regular weapons. They are certainly much harder to use on top of that. Hell they probably would have posed a much larger threat to untrained al Qaeda stooges who tried to use them than us. So I would be more concerned about large stocks of TNT personally.
QuoteAfter the fall of Afghanistan the surviving al Qaeda members were streaming into Iraq to set up shop there. Indeed, the next big al Qaeda plot foiled after 9-11 was an attempt to youse ricin poison in London and Paris, a plot that was hatched by al Qaeda in Iraq.
I'm sure it was pure coincidence that the U.S. found large quantities of castor beans(used to make ricin) in Iraqi ammo bunkers.
Lots of things can be used to make lots of stuff. Were any other sorts of beans or bean-related products found?
QuoteBut I'm sure it was all because Hussein just didn't have any real control over what was goin on in Iraq, him being known for his laissez faire government principles. Saddam Husein was really kind of a proto-liberatarian who didn't reall keep close tabs on what went on in his country, the poor sap.
Actually it was because he was a proto-Antidisestablishmentarian.
QuoteA lot of conservatives wondered why Bush never fought back on this issue, but I know that he understood that the Democrats will just keep changing their rationale since they weren't interested in an honest debate, so there was no point to argue.
Yes lets pretend the fact your points are idiotic and you have nothing is because of mean old Democrats.
Quote from: Valmy on November 06, 2014, 11:13:09 PM
QuoteAfter the fall of Afghanistan the surviving al Qaeda members were streaming into Iraq to set up shop there. Indeed, the next big al Qaeda plot foiled after 9-11 was an attempt to youse ricin poison in London and Paris, a plot that was hatched by al Qaeda in Iraq.
I'm sure it was pure coincidence that the U.S. found large quantities of castor beans(used to make ricin) in Iraqi ammo bunkers.
You do know that castor beans are not actually beans and are not edible, are tightly controlled in trade since they are very dangerous and only castor oil derived from it is useful in for some industrial products such as nylons, perfume, and soap. I'm sure the Iraqi military was storing castor beans in heavily protected ammo bunkers because they were trying to get into the nylons business.
You know who has chemical weapons? Assad
You know who is using them? Right now? Assad
You know who doesn't give a shit? Pretty much everyone.
Oh except ISIS.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2014, 12:36:27 AM
You know who has chemical weapons? Assad
You know who is using them? Right now? Assad
You know who doesn't give a shit? Pretty much everyone.
Oh except ISIS.
Well Obama drew a line.
It will certainly not be remembered as one the finest moments in 21st century American foreign policy.
The only way Sadddam would have given Al Quaeda chemical weapons would have been from exploding artillery shells onto the terrorists.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 09:18:19 PM
Didn't hurt Jim Webb. One. Damned. Bit.
How about Web Hubbell? OH YEAH I WENT THERE
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 09:42:12 PM
You're dealing with a despotic government that was a mess of organizational structure with a rank hierarchy operating on a basis of fear and corruption.
But enough about the Obama Administration.
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 09:22:35 PM
Say, weren't the exchanges supposed to open on OCT 1? Why are they now suddenly not opening until next week, contrary to the law?
Because the implementation has been undermined and sabotaged at every turn in most Republican held states? As I understand it, the exchanges are working well enough in states - Republican and Democrat held - where they implemented the ACA in anything resembling good faith.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 09:42:12 PM
You're dealing with a despotic government that was a mess of organizational structure with a rank hierarchy operating on a basis of fear and corruption.
But enough about the Obama Administration.
Is this erection going to last until the 2016 primary season, or just until January?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 07, 2014, 10:32:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 10:00:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2014, 09:42:12 PM
You're dealing with a despotic government that was a mess of organizational structure with a rank hierarchy operating on a basis of fear and corruption.
But enough about the Obama Administration.
Is this erection going to last until the 2016 primary season, or just until January?
I'll let you know.
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 10:29:42 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on November 06, 2014, 09:22:35 PM
Say, weren't the exchanges supposed to open on OCT 1? Why are they now suddenly not opening until next week, contrary to the law?
Because the implementation has been undermined and sabotaged at every turn in most Republican held states? As I understand it, the exchanges are working well enough in states - Republican and Democrat held - where they implemented the ACA in anything resembling good faith.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
You so funny, the reason the obamacare website doesn't wo is because the GOP isn't fixing it for him? :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
So why the delay of reopening the website for this enrollment periods until after the election? Why the delay on the decision on amnesty for illegal aliens until after the election? Why the delay on keystone pipeline until after the election?
Yeah, it's all bad news for the party of incompetence and corruption so they wanted to put it off as long as possible.
Delaying the Keystone pipeline probably had little effect on ACA state exchanges. :hmm:
So you concede it affected amnesty for illegals. :ph34r:
So what did Obama mean when he said this:
QuoteObama: 'To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to [vote], I hear you, too.'
He mostly means Republicans don't have an electoral mandate.
People are unhappy, but that doesn't mean they want to just adopt the GOP agenda wholesale.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 03:45:37 PM
He mostly means Republicans don't have an electoral mandate.
Which should suit them fine, since apparently they need to avoid falling into the "governing trap".
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 03:50:46 PM
Which should suit them fine, since apparently they need to avoid falling into the "governing trap".
Boehner made it clear in his press conference yesterday he thinks he has a mandate on Obamacare.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 03:52:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 03:50:46 PM
Which should suit them fine, since apparently they need to avoid falling into the "governing trap".
Boehner made it clear in his press conference yesterday he thinks he has a mandate on Obamacare.
The House and Senate should schedule quick symbolic votes on Obamacare repeal, and if it gets rejected let the issue drop, and if it gets approved, then Obama will just veto it, and then let the issue drop. That should satisfy the base. They don't have the votes to override a veto, so wasting time on it is stupid.
So what message do you guys think the voters sent?
Dorsey: That's what Gloria Borger (CNN talking head) predicted.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 04:02:21 PM
Dorsey: That's what Gloria Borger (CNN talking head) predicted.
There is the possibility that they could seriously try to sabotage the legislation by doing something like overturning the individual mandate. They might even have the votes to override a veto on that (though I really doubt it). They could at least embarrass the president.
The problem that they will have is that they will look like assholes if they don't succeed, by highlighting the issue they will force it back to the forefront of the news debate shows and many people will see that initiatives that seem bad at first glance (like the individual mandate) are actually thought out policies that make sense, and if they do succeed they will take blame for whatever failure follows (plus give an excuse to Obama).
If they want to sabotage it, they do what they did last year: not approve the funding.
I was thinking about this earlier, and had the question why they didn't pass it as an entitlement--i.e. no need for annual appropriations. Anyone know the answer to this?
Because of the metric system?
QuoteFuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves. Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.
Fuck em all. There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility. This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.
I wonder if this is the kind of attitude we can expect from the new Congress.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 07, 2014, 03:59:59 PM
The House and Senate should schedule quick symbolic votes on Obamacare repeal, and if it gets rejected let the issue drop, and if it gets approved, then Obama will just veto it, and then let the issue drop. That should satisfy the base. They don't have the votes to override a veto, so wasting time on it is stupid.
That's pretty much what Cruz said he wanted to do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 03:52:58 PM
Boehner made it clear in his press conference yesterday he thinks he has a mandate on Obamacare.
Yeah, it's my impression that the incoming GOP majorities feel they have a mandate on repealing Obamacare and possible on not approving any kind of administration nominees. They also, as I understand it, believe they have a mandate on not providing any action on immigration issues.
I'm unaware of any pro-active mandate having been expressed, but perhaps time will show.
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/06/white_women_didnt_just_fail_wendy_davis_they_failed_the_rest_of_texas_too/
:weep:
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 04:34:35 PM
Yeah, it's my impression that the incoming GOP majorities feel they have a mandate on repealing Obamacare and possible on not approving any kind of administration nominees. They also, as I understand it, believe they have a mandate on not providing any action on immigration issues.
I'm unaware of any pro-active mandate having been expressed, but perhaps time will show.
At least here, they didn't really run on any agenda other than blocking Obama.
The ads republican ads featured the same things over and over:
-A soundbite of the Democratic candidate saying "I'll defer to the president" (said in a democratic debate when asked what she would do on some topic)
-A soundbite of Obama endorsing the Democratic candidate saying she will help him do his work (sometimes played at the beginning and ending of the ads)
-The Republican candidate saying he will stop the Obama agenda and Obamacare.
It was the first election I can remember that was won by a party with no positive agenda.
Every election the party that got more votes think that it's a "sweeping victory for all the dippiest ideas we have" when the 52-48% margins are nothing of the sort.
It has turned into a big bluffing game. The only real mandate is if you control all three levers.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 04:49:46 PM
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/06/white_women_didnt_just_fail_wendy_davis_they_failed_the_rest_of_texas_too/
:weep:
Good old Wendy Davis. I predict she will go somewhere she will never be seen or heard from again: her own show on MSNBC.
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
Every election the party that got more votes think that it's a "sweeping victory for all the dippiest ideas we have" when the 52-48% margins are nothing of the sort.
This was a pretty big win for the GOP, though.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
Every election the party that got more votes think that it's a "sweeping victory for all the dippiest ideas we have" when the 52-48% margins are nothing of the sort.
This was a pretty big win for the GOP, though.
I wish you joy of your victory :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
Every election the party that got more votes think that it's a "sweeping victory for all the dippiest ideas we have" when the 52-48% margins are nothing of the sort.
This was a pretty big win for the GOP, though.
I wish you joy of your victory :hug:
I'm not gloating (at this precise moment), just pointing out what I thought was obvious.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:18:09 PM
I'm not gloating (at this precise moment), just pointing out what I thought was obvious.
And I did not intend to imply that you were gloating. You're right, it was a pretty solid GOP win and I hope it provides some of the positive results you were hoping for.
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:12:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
Every election the party that got more votes think that it's a "sweeping victory for all the dippiest ideas we have" when the 52-48% margins are nothing of the sort.
This was a pretty big win for the GOP, though.
I know Obama is getting flack for saying it, but the turnout was exceptionally low. I saw it was the lowest turnout since WWII. The voters in the next election cycle are likely to be much different. We are entering a pattern of Republican waves in non presidential election cycles, and Democratic tsunamis in presidential cycles (at least since 2008).
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 05:19:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:18:09 PM
I'm not gloating (at this precise moment), just pointing out what I thought was obvious.
And I did not intend to imply that you were gloating. You're right, it was a pretty solid GOP win and I hope it provides some of the positive results you were hoping for.
Aww. Even if you don't mean any bit of it, thanks for saying so :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:26:52 PM
Aww. Even if you don't mean any bit of it, thanks for saying so :hug:
:hug: I mean it.
We can always get into the actual content of "positive results" and/or snark at some point in the future. Right now, you won and it's time for you guys to enjoy that and plan what to do with your victory.
Quote from: frunk on November 07, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
Every election the party that got more votes think that it's a "sweeping victory for all the dippiest ideas we have" when the 52-48% margins are nothing of the sort.
Well it depends. If you run on a platform to do something, and you win, then by golly you have a mandate to do so. That's even where you might not have even won 50% of the vote.
If however you haven't run on much of a platform though, well, it's hard to say you have much of a "mandate".
Quote from: derspiess on November 07, 2014, 05:12:51 PM
This was a pretty big win for the GOP, though.
In 2010 it was 52/45% voting for Republicans in the House of Representatives, in 2014 it was 52/47% with a significantly more unpopular Democrat president. These are margins that say "let's see what you can do", not "we throw ourselves prostrate at your feet to do with us what you will".
Quote from: Jacob on November 07, 2014, 04:34:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 07, 2014, 03:52:58 PM
Boehner made it clear in his press conference yesterday he thinks he has a mandate on Obamacare.
Yeah, it's my impression that the incoming GOP majorities feel they have a mandate on repealing Obamacare and possible on not approving any kind of administration nominees. They also, as I understand it, believe they have a mandate on not providing any action on immigration issues.
I'm unaware of any pro-active mandate having been expressed, but perhaps time will show.
It's a little difficult to talk about mandates. The Republicans dominated the House, but the House elections don't really imply a mandate, due to gerrymandering by racists. The Senate is a little different, but it seems to me that most of the states electing right now were the Midwest and the South, which are bastions of Jesus-screeching, gun-use and other Republican stupidity.
Hey, derspiess, did you hear that in WV, the Republicans captured both houses in the state legislature. That's almost unbelievable. When I was in high school, IIRC the Democrats had a 33-1 edge in the state Senate and a 91-9 edge in the House.
Saw this on Facebook, it's from Daily Kos, but then again...South Carolina
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2F114858%2Flarge%2FSCexitpoll.jpg%3F1415308197&hash=2e7eda83fab630a509203eb9319ed9a3b74e9f15)
Dems raised $731,321,968 and spent $648,783,350
GOP raised $574,492,069 and spent $543,507,001
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/
Looks like the GOP staff deserves a raise, while the Dems need some heads to roll.
Such a waste of money.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2014, 12:48:00 AM
Such a waste of money.
Local TV/Radio stations and Youtube would disagree. :sleep:
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2014, 12:48:00 AM
Such a waste of money.
That doesn't even count the money raised by individual candidates.
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
Hey, derspiess, did you hear that in WV, the Republicans captured both houses in the state legislature. That's almost unbelievable.
Yeah, I never ever thought that would happen, in addition to the three congresspeople and one GOP senator.
QuoteWhen I was in high school, IIRC the Democrats had a 33-1 edge in the state Senate and a 91-9 edge in the House.
Yeah, and now the people have finally come to their senses and have overthrown the old order.
Long Live the 2014 Revolution.
Quote from: derspiess on November 09, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Long Live the 2014 Revolution.
It's the coal, stupid. :P
Quote from: derspiess on November 09, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Long Live the 2014 Revolution.
I don't know. When that happened in Texas it was literally the same guys, they just changed their party label. Is that what happened here?
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2014, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 09, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Long Live the 2014 Revolution.
I don't know. When that happened in Texas it was literally the same guys, they just changed their party label. Is that what happened here?
Pretty much. West Virginia was always the last of the Dixiecrat holdouts, and the Byrd political machine has run its course, dead and buried. After 6 years of Obama = coal hate and the shrinking political power of the coal union, their opponents have naturally gravitated to the GOP.
Do we have an Languishites in Tennessee? Looks like becoming a high ranking democratic nominee is laughably easy there, and almost anyone here would be an improvement compared to who's actually run.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/08/charlie_brown_democratic_candidate_for_tennessee_governor_the_72_year_old.html
Dude lost
70.33% to 22.83% :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2014, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 09, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Long Live the 2014 Revolution.
I don't know. When that happened in Texas it was literally the same guys, they just changed their party label. Is that what happened here?
That happened in only one case I know of-- the guy who unseated the Ayrab dude who had held my old district's House seat since the 70s was an ex-Dem. As far as I know, the others are gen-yoo-wine Republicans. Senator-elect Capito definitely is (her dad was a GOP governor). The McKinley dude has have a GOP pedigree with a name like that.
But as before I'll defer to Seedy and his vast knowledge of WV politics :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
But as before I'll defer to Seedy and his vast knowledge of WV politics :lol:
It's West Virginia. Not exactly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, dude.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
But as before I'll defer to Seedy and his vast knowledge of WV politics :lol:
It's West Virginia. Not exactly a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, dude.
Yeah. Which is why it's laughable that you can't even get it right.
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 10:57:53 AM
Yeah. Which is why it's laughable that you can't even get it right.
Oh, nonsense. Coal has swung the majority of the conservatives from the Democrats to the GOP over the course of the last several years, which made the specific targeting of certain long-standing incumbents as an election strategy a hell of a lot easier, The End.
I listed one Democrat-turned-GOP politician who won in WV. Do you know of any others?
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
Quote from: dps on November 07, 2014, 11:41:21 PM
Hey, derspiess, did you hear that in WV, the Republicans captured both houses in the state legislature. That's almost unbelievable. When I was in high school, IIRC the Democrats had a 33-1 edge in the state Senate and a 91-9 edge in the House.
Heh, there needs to be the same thing here in Massachusetts, for a while anyway, to straighten this corrupt and broken mess out. At least voters elected a Republican governor but with a vast majority of Dems in the state legislature he'll need to tread lightly. But there have been many big problems here to address that I would hope Dems and Governor will find plenty of common ground.
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 11:35:52 AM
I listed one Democrat-turned-GOP politician who won in WV. Do you know of any others?
He was just the icing on the cake. It took more than a half dozen Republicans to unseat incumbent Democrats to get him into that position.
It's OK, d. These things happen to state political parties over time. I know that keeping West Virginia blue gives your anger and hatred an outlet to rage against those damned dirty Democrats and their murderous unions, but WV has been slowly turning red for several years now.
In WV a large part of it is simply the dying off of a generation of old people who voted for anything with a "D" next to it.
Quote from: KRonn on November 10, 2014, 11:45:16 AM
At least voters elected a Republican governor but with a vast majority of Dems in the state legislature he'll need to tread lightly. But there have been many big problems here to address that I would hope Dems and Governor will find plenty of common ground.
Same thing happened in Maryland; the voters either returned incumbent Democrats or voted for new ones, it was just the Governor's mansion that changed hands. Which means it was more of an indictment of Brown as a weak candidate and the popular loathing of The Governor Everybody Loves To Hate, Marty O'Malley, than it was for the GOP platform.
Although, derspiess would appreciate Michael Peroutka's winning of a seat at the Anne Arundel County council. Admitted "neo-confederate" and former member of the League of the South, said civil rights are "make believe" rights and that MLK was proof that welfare violates natural law, which come from the Bible. Your kind of guy, d. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 11:50:18 AM
but WV has been slowly turning red for several years now.
No shit. Pace accelerated quite a bit this year, though.
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 11:53:30 AM
In WV a large part of it is simply the dying off of a generation of old people who voted for anything with a "D" next to it.
Yes, that also happens to state political parties over time. We call that "demographics".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
Although, derspiess would appreciate Michael Peroutka's winning of a seat at the Anne Arundel County council. Admitted "neo-confederate" and former member of the League of the South, said civil rights are "make believe" rights and that MLK was proof that welfare violates natural law, which come from the Bible. Your kind of guy, d. :P
I sense some typical Seedy exaggeration there :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 12:03:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 11:50:18 AM
but WV has been slowly turning red for several years now.
No shit. Pace accelerated quite a bit this year, though.
So why all the shit-giving?
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
Although, derspiess would appreciate Michael Peroutka's winning of a seat at the Anne Arundel County council. Admitted "neo-confederate" and former member of the League of the South, said civil rights are "make believe" rights and that MLK was proof that welfare violates natural law, which come from the Bible. Your kind of guy, d. :P
I sense some typical Seedy exaggeration there :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:06:03 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 11:53:30 AM
In WV a large part of it is simply the dying off of a generation of old people who voted for anything with a "D" next to it.
Yes, that also happens to state political parties over time. We call that "demographics".
Yep. Not too often that one party has such a death grip on state politics like the Demoncrats had, though. Stop harshing my buzz.
Gay guy fail :(
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2014, 03:20:34 PM
Gay guy fail :(
I thought the guy won. Or was that a different guy?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
Although, derspiess would appreciate Michael Peroutka's winning of a seat at the Anne Arundel County council. Admitted "neo-confederate" and former member of the League of the South, said civil rights are "make believe" rights and that MLK was proof that welfare violates natural law, which come from the Bible. Your kind of guy, d. :P
I sense some typical Seedy exaggeration there :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html)
A racist GOP official?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 04:59:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
Although, derspiess would appreciate Michael Peroutka's winning of a seat at the Anne Arundel County council. Admitted "neo-confederate" and former member of the League of the South, said civil rights are "make believe" rights and that MLK was proof that welfare violates natural law, which come from the Bible. Your kind of guy, d. :P
I sense some typical Seedy exaggeration there :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html)
A racist GOP official?
:lol: A HuffPo hit piece. They need to mention David Duke's name more.
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 05:19:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 04:59:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:07:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 12:00:26 PM
Although, derspiess would appreciate Michael Peroutka's winning of a seat at the Anne Arundel County council. Admitted "neo-confederate" and former member of the League of the South, said civil rights are "make believe" rights and that MLK was proof that welfare violates natural law, which come from the Bible. Your kind of guy, d. :P
I sense some typical Seedy exaggeration there :hmm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-hutson/meet-marylands-white-nati_b_5572556.html)
A racist GOP official?
:lol: A HuffPo hit piece. They need to mention David Duke's name more.
Do you dispute the statements made by the man or that he's a member of a Lettowist group?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
Do you dispute the statements made by the man or that he's a member of a Lettowist group?
I dispute that Lettowist is a word.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
Do you dispute the statements made by the man or that he's a member of a Lettowist group?
What statements did the man make?
On the charge of Lettowism, the verdict is guilty as charged: http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=270
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 05:19:50 PM
:lol: A HuffPo hit piece. They need to mention David Duke's name more.
Do you dispute the statements made by the man or that he's a member of a Lettowist group?
If it's not in the Weekly Standard, derfetus ain't believing it! It's a hit piece! RAWR
Quote"The purpose of civil government is to protect God-given rights," he said. "There are some people who have socialist or Marxist views of government, and when they don't agree with you, they call you names.
"An intellectually honest understanding of my position would be that I believe, like many Americans, that taxes are too high, that government at all levels is out of control, and this is caused by government officials who ignore the limits placed on government by God and the Constitution," Peroutka said.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/campaign-2014/bs-md-ar-candidate-extremist-claim-20140621-story.html#page=1
The League of the South's emblem :lol: WHITE ON BLACK ON GRAY:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.splcenter.org%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FUntitled1.png&hash=b9b26fdd405985212cffb75009bfc48dab02e3c1)
Quote"They always call us a neo-Confederate group. We are not a neo-Confederate group. We are a Southern nationalist group," Hill said. "We believe in a free and independent South. Our focus is on the present and the future, not the past. We don't want to bring back the 1850s or the 1860s."
The league advocates for Southern secession to create a new governance for Southern states, including Maryland. Hill said the group first must get candidates elected to local offices before formally pursuing secession.
The organization, founded in 1994, advocates ideals such as reverence for Christian teachings, men who respect and protect "our women," a monetary system backed by gold and silver, abolishment of most taxes and the revival of state militias, according to its website.
The group seeks to "advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means," and "separate ourselves from the cultural rot that is American culture," according to the website.
Meanwhile, looks like they're putting together a cadre. Hope they have monkey bars.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.splcenter.org%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F09%2FUntitled7.jpg&hash=f49b12f6b4dcc927c2f36e3c25bc78192a530700)
Squee. Mew. Apply today, derfetus!
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 05:42:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
Do you dispute the statements made by the man or that he's a member of a Lettowist group?
What statements did the man make?
You need to break your conservative conditioning sometimes.
I don't use a conditioner.
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 03:44:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2014, 03:20:34 PM
Gay guy fail :(
I thought the guy won. Or was that a different guy?
When I checked news today I saw an article by Atlantic that gays didn't make it into congress. Apparently the gay guy had to concede to his opponent over the weekend.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 10, 2014, 11:50:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 11:35:52 AM
I listed one Democrat-turned-GOP politician who won in WV. Do you know of any others?
He was just the icing on the cake. It took more than a half dozen Republicans to unseat incumbent Democrats to get him into that position.
But the question derspiess was responding to was whether or not control of the state legislature was flipped because of Democratic incumbents simply changing parties and getting re-elected as Republicans. Now, I'll admit that for the state as a whole I don't know how much that happened if at all--I do know that of the WV Republicans who was elected to the US House had previously been a Democratic member of the state legislature, but as far as I can tell that was about it.
I don't think that there's any doubt that many previously Democratic
voters in WV had always been conservative (at least on many social issues), but again, the question was about sitting members of the legislature changing parties.
I don't think that it's fair to slander Lettow by comparing him to this guy. Sure, Lettow has quirky, overromantic ideas about history. But there's a difference between feeling a strange attachment to people who lived in your country a hundred years ago as compared to thinking that the last two hundred years of political and moral advancements were a huge mistake. Lettow's a kook, but this guy is just a total asshole.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 10, 2014, 07:29:46 PM
I don't use a conditioner.
Yeah, if you keep your hair short you really don't need it.
Quote from: Neil on November 10, 2014, 09:32:39 PM
I don't think that it's fair to slander Lettow by comparing him to this guy. Sure, Lettow has quirky, overromantic ideas about history. But there's a difference between feeling a strange attachment to people who lived in your country a hundred years ago as compared to thinking that the last two hundred years of political and moral advancements were a huge mistake. Lettow's a kook, but this guy is just a total asshole.
League of the South was Lettow's group. Lettow's an okay person though. There is no malice in his neo-confderacy thing. It's just a result of his warped upbringing.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2014, 07:45:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 03:44:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2014, 03:20:34 PM
Gay guy fail :(
I thought the guy won. Or was that a different guy?
When I checked news today I saw an article by Atlantic that gays didn't make it into congress. Apparently the gay guy had to concede to his opponent over the weekend.
That sucks.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 07:25:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 10, 2014, 05:42:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
Do you dispute the statements made by the man or that he's a member of a Lettowist group?
What statements did the man make?
You need to break your conservative conditioning sometimes.
That's all he said? I admit it's a little silly, but not earth-shattering.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179345/democratic-party-favorable-rating-falls-record-low.aspx
QuoteWASHINGTON, D.C. -- After the midterm elections that saw the Democratic Party suffer significant losses in Congress, a record-low 36% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of the party, down six percentage points from before the elections. The Republican Party's favorable rating, at 42%, is essentially unchanged from 40%. This marks the first time since September 2011 that the Republican Party has had a higher favorability rating than the Democratic Party.
RACISS