2014 Elections

[Mr.B]

"Wait, the resident homophobe is complaining about racism?"

Speaking of <yawn>, did you not comprehend the article? Did you read where I was complaining about anything?

What has my being a "homophobe" got to do with liberals being pissed with election results?

Uhhh...Banni.....You didn't answer my questions.....or is your mouth full of your "afoot" ?

:?:

duh.....?

[Another]

Jeffrey Sachs wrote for HuffPo 6 November 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pity the American people for imagining that they have just elected the new Congress. ...This was the billionaires' election, billionaires of both parties. And while the Republican and Democratic Party billionaires have some differences, what unites them is much stronger than what divides them, a few exceptions aside. Indeed, many of the richest individual and corporate donors give to both parties. The much-discussed left-right polarization is not polarization at all. The political system is actually relatively united and working very effectively for the richest of the rich.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

article

This is the most sensible comment on this whole thread. Thought you folks might be interested in some thoughts from someone living overseas (or maybe not, but who knows? it might shine some light into a few dark corners). These are actually the thoughts of several of us who were talking about this last night. Sorry if we seem cynical.

The phrase we were kicking around is "tempest in a teapot." Easy to explain, though. Repubs hated Obama's guts from day one, never for the right reasons. That's a given. But a lot of folks who believe in progressivism have figured out that he was never one of them, so they stayed home.

Whatever. The differences between Repubs and Demos are greatly exaggerated, as every reasonably intelligent person figures out sooner or later. There are a few differences of attitude and priority, but none worth speaking of with fundamentals. Both sold the electorate down the river decades ago, "conservative" or "liberal". As the saying goes, just follow the money.

Here are the things the new Repub congress will not touch.

(1) They won't "repeal Obamacare" (which wasn't really Obama's to begin with). They also won't do anything to fix the country's broken health care system, the most expensive in the world for what you get. Many of us have quietly concluded that only a single-payer system will begin to do what's needed, but neither party is going to touch that one. Too "socialistic".

(2) They'll not stop the overseas wars and the sort of incompetent meddling that created ISIS. Especially not with demented sociopath John McCain about to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee. Heck, they'll probably start more!

(3) They´'ll not stop Obama from pushing more corporate-controlled "free trade" agreements such as this Trans-Pacific Partnership which nobody knows what's in it except for what Wikileaks has let out (we know that it allows corporations to sue national governments if the governments do anything corporations interpret as interfering with their bottom line). The trade policy of the past 25 years is a big part of what's gutted the middle class while making China the world's biggest economy, and neither party is doing a thing to stop it.

(4) Being black-and-white Law & Order types, they will do nothing to stop the orgy of police violence and militarization of the country ... I probably don't need to elaborate this one.

(5) They won't do anything to stop the domestic or international spying ... no elaboration needed here, either.

(6) They won't do anything to stop the predatory federal student loan system that's getting millions of college students into a debt trap many will never get out of, with the lack of decent paying jobs.

(7) Speaking of which, they won't do anything to stop the publishing of unemployment numbers that are pure BS, with the labor participation rate at its lowest since the Great Depression. 5.8%? I've got a bridge to sell anyone who buys that!

(8) They will do nothing to stop the domination and gaming of the whole system by Big Money, since they know who's been buttering their bread all these years.

(9) They will do nothing to stop the endless spiraling of the official national debt (has it hit $17.9 trillion yet?) or the unofficial number which is a hell of a lot larger.

(10) They won't stop illegal immigration and a move toward amnesty because Democrats want the votes and Repub dominated corporations want the cheap labor.

(11) They won't stop the gay rights movement. Not that they should. Who you sleep with and marry is your business, not someone else's and not the government's. But my point is, conservatives want them to. They'll end up disillusioned. The people with real power don't give a damn either, but not for the reason I just gave.

Time to face the music, folks. The system is FUBAR. Nor will another pseudo progressive, Hillary Clinton, fix anything when she rides the coattails of an electorate turned against the do-nothing Republicans into the presidency in 2016. My prediction, you saw it here first.

[O Really]

Well before the election some pundits were suggesting that GOP control of the Senate would be good for the Dems in 2016. Continued gridlock was a certainty, regardless, but it will now be easier to blame the GOP for it. Many GOP seats will be vulnerable, unlike 2014 where more Dem seats were up for a vote. There's also a much higher turnout in POTUS election years. We'll see, it may have just been anticipatory sour grapes.

Republicans - at least what currently passes for Republicans - getting elected is never a good thing for Dems, or anybody except the super-rich for that matter.
But it's pretty obvious that the Republicans aren't going to do anything to endear themselves to the voters (and note that despite election wins, their favorability score remains below that of Dems or Obama.) So nationally, I think 2016 will be fine. At the state level, and not just NC, the gerrymandering may keep the Republicans in control for quite a while yet, as long as they don't do much serious damage between now and then.

[JTA]

"I can't decide what brings out the most wing-nuttery and moronic ranting......pre-election backbiting ads, or post-election back-biting, cussin', snarlin', sore losers."

"Any hooo.....let the games begin!" :violent: :violent: :violent: ........

The following article probably explains why 'Ol Boatrocker, who we haven't heard from in a while, came roaring back to life following the election......

"Liberals explode with racial hate after Tim Scott wins Senate race in S.C."


Tim Scott subject to racial slurs after election victory. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


During the election, liberal Democrats used the race card in an attempt to label all Republicans as racist. But when Tim Scott won his Senate race in South Carolina, liberals on Twitter went ballistic, hurling racial slurs against Scott, even though he has the honor of being the first African-American elected to the Senate from that state and the first elected to a statewide office since Reconstruction.

"Tim Scott is a damn Uncle Tom," one sore loser said on Twitter. "Yeah Tim Scott is the biggest Uncle Tom", another person said.

"You are not the first Uncle Tom," added another Twitter user. "Clarence Thomas wins."

"Nikki Haley wins in South Carolina," said a very angry Twitter critic. "Tim Scott-Uncle (expletive deleted) Tom is back. Lindsey Graham too. UGH. I hate the world."

Scott was first appointed to the Senate by Gov. Nikki Haley in December 2012 when Jim DeMint retired to head up the conservative Heritage Foundation.
At the time, NBC played the race card while liberals online hurled racist epithets.

He served in the House from 2011-2013 and was part of the influential House Rules Committee. Prior to that, he served on the Charleston County Council for 13 years and spent two years in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

After defeating Democrat Joyce Dickerson on Tuesday, Scott became the first black senator to be elected by popular vote in the South, the Huffington Post said.
He is also the first to be elected to both the House and the Senate. The victory also comes on the heels of claims by Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., that southerners
are racist and sexist. No doubt, if Scott were a Democrat, the critics on Twitter would be singing a much different tune.

The hypocrisy shown by leftists is nothing new. As we have reported time and again, conservative blacks are often targeted with racial hate from those who claim Republicans are racist.

The pain....oh, the pain.....!

What a bunch of racist assholes. For a party that always disparagingly calls the Republican a party of bunch of "old, white, males", you would think those particular people mouthing off on social media would be happy. Damned if you damned if you don't I guess.

Congratulation Tim Scott.

[Boatrocker]

Starting with Wednesday morning and continuing on into the afternoon, it's easy to see one liberal who went ballistic after the election results.......

(not mentioning any names or nothin'....but.....)

You have an odd definition of ballistic.

[Boatrocker]

. . . As a Republican, Scott is without doubt joining those who do not act in the best interest of most SC citizens, and especially not the black ones.

Kinda like a jew running on the Hamas ticket. Or maybe the better analogy would be a Palestinian running on the Likud ticket.

[O Really]

. . . As a Republican, Scott is without doubt joining those who do not act in the best interest of most SC citizens, and especially not the black ones.

... a Palestinian running on the Likud ticket.

Good one! That's it exactly.

[Boatrocker]

. . . The GOP could be mistaken if it thinks it has a mandate for an intrusive, repressive, anti-worker, gunhugging, anti-women, polluting agenda.

The TeaOP is not known for the sensitivity or accuracy of its political wind gauge.

[indago]

Journalists David Lieb and Thomas Beaumont wrote for The Associated Press 10 October 2014:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts and Gov. Sam Brownback, both locked in surprisingly tight re-election bids, each reaffirmed their support for a state constitutional ban on gay marriage as a court in Kansas' largest, most urban county granted a marriage license to two women. In this mostly Republican and rural state, any talk of gay marriage has typically worked in the favor of GOP candidates who are staunchly against it.

...Kansas' constitutional provision, approved with nearly 70 percent support, not only prohibits gay marriage but also denies same-sex couples any "rights and incidents" associated with marriage. ...Brownback spoke out for the ban, saying in written statement: "Activist judges should not overrule the people of Kansas." Roberts issued a similar statement, vowing to "continue to oppose liberal activist judges who defiantly ignore the will of the people."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article


All voters who do not endorse the gay lifestyle should check the record of candidates for office in their district and support those who are against a gay marriage.

Well, it looks like those two were the winners in the Kansas race. Makes sense that the people of Kansas know the right thing to do.

[rstrong]

The courts will overrule the Kansas ban on constitutional grounds, just as they've been consistently doing in other states

As I said before in this forum, the fight over same-sex marriage is essentially over.

There will be hold-out states, but they're becoming irrelevant. It's already official that for federal employees it doesn't matter if you live in a hold-out state. If you were legally married in a pro-civil rights state, you still get marriage benefits and protections. This is the route that national corporations are taking.

Nor can the federal government, military and major corporations take away marriage benefits when they transfer someone to a hold-out state. Their marriage benefits will be the same even in those states. And so the hold-out states' policies become irrelevant. Any attempt to block this will force REAL money and legal muscle into the battle.

It's over. Once again, civil rights won. Enjoy the dust bin of history, indago.

[Mr.B]

"....intrude upon and discriminate amongst consensual adult relationships..."

Obsessing over "gay" sex again.

[indago]

the Constitution-hating Pat Roberts and Sam Brownbacks of that era are now looked on with revulsion and pity.

How foolish you are, with crow feathers sticking out of your mouth. The people of Kansas were so filled with revulsion that they voted them back into office.

[indago]

How foolish you are, indago. I posted that on Oct. 11 and did not say that the revulsion and pity was going to develop within a month... (and other and sundry aberrations, ramifications, fixations, lamentations, hallucinations, and incantations)

That is correct: you didn't! You said NOW! And no amount of your Whining'nSniveling about it now is going to extricate you from your delusions. And speaking of your delusions, there is help for you, and, it is only a few mouseclicks away:

HELP

There you can sit down and have a nice, quiet chat with the men in the white coats while dining on tears and crow. You can delude yourself into believing that it is white wine and escargot.

[indago]

Faggotry today, Pederasty tomorrow. Those who support the proliferation of Faggotry might as well join and further their ambitions:

JOIN

[O Really]

the Constitution-hating Pat Roberts and Sam Brownbacks of that era are now looked on with revulsion and pity.

How foolish you are, with crow feathers sticking out of your mouth. The people of Kansas were so filled with revulsion that they voted them back into office.

They did vote them back into office, but apparently quite a few voters held their nose while clicking on their names. Most any poll/survey you look at shows both of them highly unpopular, with approval rates around 30%. (Gasp! even lower than Obama!) About a quarter of the citizens think Brownback's tax program is a good idea, and about 60% favor the state Supreme Court over-riding the legislation to force more money for schools.

Whether "revulsion" is exactly the right term or not, it's hard to claim it's very far off.

[indago]

Poor, poor indago, the word "consent" has too many syllables for her/him. S/he really needs that ESL class.

A very basic criminology and/or even middle school-level research class would help, too. The vast majority of pedophiles are otherwise straight and the vast majority of pedophiles are hetero-preference.

....I won't hold my breath waiting for your admission of error and apology. By definition, bigots like you are cowards with no honor or personal responsibility. That's why you're so desperate to find whole groups to delude yourself that you're superior to. Maybe your HELP site can assist you with that. Take an ESL class, too.

Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

"Poor, poor" Vrede, doesn't know the difference between pederasty and pedophilia. Backing away now, I see. And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is the way this would turn out.

[indago]

What difference, you illiterate thing?

pederasty

sexual relations between two males, especially when one of them is a minor.

Pederasty — Not to be confused with Pedophilia ...Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. ...Geoffrey Gorer and others distinguish pederasty from pedophilia

article

So, you are in denial, and attempting to blur the distinction between pederasty and pedophilia to that you can sustain your denial. Not surprising that you would now back away from your support of the homosexual lifestyle in this way, now that you see just where all this is heading.

[indago]

Given that you linked to NAMBLA as your example there is no practical distinction as far as this discussion goes, idiot.

Yes, I posted the link so that you could join up and further your proliferation of the homosexual lifestyle, but I see that you are still in denial, and backing away from your encouragements, and using diversionary tactics besides in an effort to obfuscate your intentions.

[indago]

I haven't acknowledged or denied anything... (and other and sundry aberrations, ramifications, fixations, lamentations, hallucinations, and incantations)

Well, now that you have gotten all that off your chest, why don't you fess up now and stop stumbling all over yourself backing away from your support for the faggotry that you had so vehemently supported earlier? Here, I'll post it again for you:

Faggotry today, Pederasty tomorrow. Those who support the proliferation of Faggotry might as well join and further their ambitions:

JOIN

[Mr.B]

Vrede wrote....indago wrote....Vrede wrote.....indago wrote..........I suppose this means me and Vrede ain't buds no more.....