Senate Races 2014
Quote: kewljReally? Both Joni Ernst and ted Cruz have mentioned impeachment being on the table, TODAY, November 5, the first day after the election.
What difference does that make? Neither can do a thing about it.
If anyone wants to see what I'm referring to, google The Kennedy-Dodd Waitress Sandwich.
I don't see where this ass-kicking was any kind of changing of the guard. The repubs took back some senate seats in tradition red states that they lost in 2008 on Obama coattails. They won a few so called purple states like Iowa, Colorado as well.
As we have mentioned before, the 2016 senate map looks very different. Republicans defending 23 seats to democrats 10 and they are defending 6 senate seats in traditional blue states like Pennsylvania and Illinois that were won during the big republican off-presidential year win in 2010. It is highly unlikely those candidates, like Tooney in Pa can win such a blue state during a presidential year when more of the population comes out to vote.
On this day after the election, I just don't see where all that much has changed. Each party still has their big problems.
For the democrats it is that they can't get their voters out to vote during mid-term elections (2006 being the abnormality). Generally during midterms 30-35% of the eligible voters vote, compared to 60% during presidential elections. If you look at it by the numbers midterm voters are more white and older, meaning the dems just can't seem to get the young and Hispanic and black voters (their base) to vote.
For the republicans, they have 2 problems during presidential elections that will continue to play out, regardless of who the nominees are. One is the map....the (outdated) electoral college way we do presidential elections. It does not favor them. There are 18 sates that have voted democratic through the last 6 presidential election and that includes 2 republican wins. Those 18 states (plus DC) total 242 electoral votes. With about 100 electoral votes really up for grabs, the dems only need get less than a third of those to win while the repubs need two thirds.
The second issue for repubs is the Latino or Hispanic vote. That is the fastest growing block of voters in the country and the repubs are on the short end of that block by margins of close to 3-1. That means their electorate that they can pull voter from is shrinking each cycle. They are going to have to get their smaller pool of people out to vote at higher rates each time in order to keep pace. Either that or try to prevent the other side from voting, which has been their strategy, but even that will only help in the short run. In the long run, if they don't find a way to be more inclusive, they will continue to have a shrinking share during presidential elections.
So last nights elections changed nothing, IMO, the dems have a big advantage during presidential elections, the repubs have a big advantage during non-presidential year elections.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat difference does that make? Neither can do a thing about it.
Didn't say they could. Just don't keep saying it is only the dems talking about impeachment.
Quote: kewljMy post election analysis: Dems got their ass kicked (That's an easy assessment). But what does it change. Not a whole lot. Repubs will have the ability to pass some bills, but if they aren't things the president will sign it won't matter. Just more stalemate that was almost inevitable anyway.
I don't see where this ass-kicking was any kind of changing of the guard. The repubs took back some senate seats in tradition red states that they lost in 2008 on Obama coattails. They won a few so called purple states like Iowa, Colorado as well.
As we have mentioned before, the 2016 senate map looks very different. Republicans defending 23 seats to democrats 10 and they are defending 6 senate seats in traditional blue states like Pennsylvania and Illinois that were won during the big republican off-presidential year win in 2010. It is highly unlikely those candidates, like Tooney in Pa can win such a blue state during a presidential year when more of the population comes out to vote.
On this day after the election, I just don't see where all that much has changed. Each party still has their big problems.
For the democrats it is that they can't get their voters out to vote during mid-term elections (2006 being the abnormality). Generally during midterms 30-35% of the eligible voters vote, compared to 60% during presidential elections. If you look at it by the numbers midterm voters are more white and older, meaning the dems just can't seem to get the young and Hispanic and black voters (their base) to vote.
For the republicans, they have 2 problems during presidential elections that will continue to play out, regardless of who the nominees are. One is the map....the (outdated) electoral college way we do presidential elections. It does not favor them. There are 18 sates that have voted democratic through the last 6 presidential election and that includes 2 republican wins. Those 18 states (plus DC) total 242 electoral votes. The states that have voted republican during the last 6 presidential elections total 204 electoral votes. So that is basically your starting point 242 to 204 for the dems. With about 100 electoral votes really up for grabs, the dems only need get a third of those to win while the repubs need two thirds.
The second issue for repubs is the Latino or Hispanic vote. That is the fastest growing block of voters in the country and the repubs are on the short end of that block by margins of close to 3-1. That means their electorate that they can pull voter from is shrinking each cycle. They are going to have to get their smaller pool of people out to vote at higher rates each time in order to keep pace. Either that or try to prevent the other side from voting, which has been their strategy, but even that will only help in the short run. In the long run, if they don't find a way to be more inclusive, they will continue to have a shrinking share during presidential elections.
So last nights elections changed nothing, IMO, the dems have a big advantage during presidential elections, the repubs have a big advantage during non-presidential year elections.
Excellent analysis Kewlj. I totally agree.
And it doesn't mean they would have to win the republican nomination for this to be an issue. They can not be on two ballots even in the PRIMARY, which means if they are on the republican primary for president, they can not be on the ballot for senate. There is a way around this situation though. Lets say Rand Paul was running for president in the republican primary. He could be on the presidential primary ballot in 49 states and not be on the presidential primary ballot in Kentucky, allowing him to remain on the senate ballot. He then wouldn't have to make that decision in the general election until after he knew if he had the nomination or not. Of course the down side is that he would be forfeiting his home state of Kentucky (which he was likely to win) in the presidential primary.
Quote: kewljMy post election analysis: Dems got their ass kicked (That's an easy assessment). But what does it change. Not a whole lot. Repubs will have the ability to pass some bills, but if they aren't things the president will sign it won't matter. Just more stalemate that was almost inevitable anyway.
I think it'll be interesting to see what bills get sent to the President and his reaction to them: the common theme from Democrats has been that Republicans have been obstructing and the common response from Republicans has been, "Hey, we pass bills, and then Harry Reid buries them!".
In the end, I think it's still a question of leadership, which I feel has been lacking on both sides. So will things change? Time will tell...
Quote: TheBigPaybakI think it'll be interesting to see what bills get sent to the President and his reaction to them: the common theme from Democrats has been that Republicans have been obstructing and the common response from Republicans has been, "Hey, we pass bills, and then Harry Reid buries them!".
In the end, I think it's still a question of leadership, which I feel has been lacking on both sides. So will things change? Time will tell...
I predict a slew of small bills that they date Obama to veto. Hoping Keysyone XL is first. Not going to see many so called omnibus bills IMHO. If Obama was smart he would start dealing say sign keystone to avoid being known as a dem who could not get minimum wage increased in his term.
I do not expect him yo do so. I do think we will see some pocket vetoes used if he can to avoid taking an official stand.
Quote: AZDuffmanI predict a slew of small bills that they date Obama to veto. Hoping Keysyone XL is first. Not going to see many so called omnibus bills IMHO. If Obama was smart he would start dealing say sign keystone to avoid being known as a dem who could not get minimum wage increased in his term.
I do not expect him yo do so. I do think we will see some pocket vetoes used if he can to avoid taking an official stand.
I see Keystone as more of a Warren Buffet/Goldman Sachs issue.
There are much bigger things at play here than politics.
Control of this country has gone corporate, it has zip to do with the people.
After all "we have always been at war with Eurasia". In the end there can be only one. I wonder if all of the contenders have this part figured out or if some of them think there is enough room at the top for all of "them"?
With only one at the top we can get back to building monuments to their greatness. Pyramids in the 21st century.
Quote: kewlj
So last nights elections changed nothing, IMO, the dems have a big advantage during presidential elections, the repubs have a big advantage during non-presidential year elections.
HUH? In the last 34 years, 20 of them
have had an R president. And last night
hog tied Obama from sending any more
lame people to the SCOTUS. It gives
the R's a better chance in 16.
Quote: petroglyphControl of this country has gone corporate, it has zip to do with the people.
Don't know who said it, but politicians should have to wear NASCAR style jackets with their sponsorships on it. Ought to be a constitutional amendment for it.
Quote: AZDuffmanI predict a slew of small bills that they date Obama to veto. Hoping Keysyone XL is first. Not going to see many so called omnibus bills IMHO. If Obama was smart he would start dealing say sign keystone to avoid being known as a dem who could not get minimum wage increased in his term.
I do not expect him yo do so. I do think we will see some pocket vetoes used if he can to avoid taking an official stand.
I'm hoping Keystone now goes too. My state has an interest in it. It's just stupid that Keystone hasn't been approved yet. We should be giving the money to our ally, Canada, not to our enemies in the middle east.
Quote: mickeycrimmI'm hoping Keystone now goes too. My state has an interest in it. It's just stupid that Keystone hasn't been approved yet. We should be giving the money to our ally, Canada, not to our enemies in the middle east.
What I find sad is these people who complain that the refined product "will go to other countries."
Yeah, folks, it is called "manufacturing" and "exporting." Two things we are supposed to encourage.
Or maybe not, after all corporations do not create jobs.......
Quote: mickeycrimmI'm hoping Keystone now goes too. My state has an interest in it. It's just stupid that Keystone hasn't been approved yet. We should be giving the money to our ally, Canada, not to our enemies in the middle east.
As always, "follow the money". Who makes money by shipping that crude in tanker cars versus a pipe?
I believe I have a solution, who's time may never come. But should. There is thousands of billions of dollars wasted, over and over again. Energy, wherever it is found be it natural gas [already tech for converting at the wellhead], wind [phony], clean coal, nuke, tidal, geo thermal or other need to be converted at the source to electricity. It is always a comparatively short distance to plug into the grid and the engineering has been done for a long time.
Whether its Prudhoe bay, Anwar, The Dakota deposits, New York gas, Louisiana etc. The means to transform all the energy to electricity is already available. Pipes have drawbacks as well, but are better than spilling [Warren Buffett's] tanker cars all over the place. This would kill a whole flock of birds with just a few stones.
I think most of the local auto/truck fleets need to immediately convert to running on natural gas, there seems to be a century or two readily available and much cleaner than diesel. Crude oil to me is almost to precious a commodity to waste for transporting people to and fro.
We need a Manhattan style project to make better electric cars and battery's. And, Thorium nuclear reactors instead of the fissile material bomb fuel making reactors we use now. A friend of mine took a tour at some mine out of Sedona Az, it fascinated me that the owner was driving a Chrysler electric car that was built in 1907. We had mass manufactured electric vehicles over a hundred years ago! It is still running and all the trillions of dollars blown on research for everything else is just an industry for wealth extraction, no one is really looking for a cure. The big money is in protecting the status quo. The money is in conflict, not solution.
Quote: petroglyph
I think most of the local auto/truck fleets need to immediately convert to running on natural gas, there seems to be a century or two readily available and much cleaner than diesel. Crude oil to me is almost to precious a commodity to waste for transporting people to and fro.
We need a Manhattan style project to make better electric cars and battery's. And, Thorium nuclear reactors instead of the fissile material bomb fuel making reactors we use now. A friend of mine took a tour at some mine out of Sedona Az, it fascinated me that the owner was driving a Chrysler electric car that was built in 1907. We had mass manufactured electric vehicles over a hundred years ago! It is still running and all the trillions of dollars blown on research for everything else is just an industry for wealth extraction, no one is really looking for a cure. The big money is in protecting the status quo. The money is in conflict, not solution.
Please feel free to convert your car and invest your money in this "Manhattan Project." We have perhaps a trillion bbl of crude and finding more all the time. It is useless unless it is used.
I like burning oil as well as the next guy, burning rubber too. I don't think anyone has told the truth about how much recoverable oil there is. Do you think there are economically recoverable fields such as Ghawar that we can get without killing a whole lot of people to get? I have read reports of some "super giant" fields but can't confirm, hope so.
Its also my opinion not to waste as much the norm in the US. Currently we are burning the least amount of petroleum in this country than we did since the 80's, don't have a graph in front of me but have seen.
I thought maybe it would be a good idea to leave some unburned for my grandkids so we wouldn't still have to be killing people for their resources when they are of age to be drone pilots, although they are practicing.
I could run that propane rig inside with the doors closed and it wouldn't even burn your eyes.
I have a friend that put two of the first natty gas semi's on the road in Cali, he said the air coming out the stack is actually cleaner than the air going in, weird.
Hey, I'm no tree hugger, I've done my share of damage, but morally can't do to ole mother earth what fukashima and Rockefellar did.
fyi, I'm very against wind or solar power with the technology currently being used
Quote: petroglyph
I thought maybe it would be a good idea to leave some unburned for my grandkids
We will come up with an alternative to gas
fairly soon. Oil is responsible for so much
more than fuel. Hundreds and hundreds
of products come from crude, you're
surrounded by them in your home and
car and everywhere you go, especially
the roads we drive on.
Quote: AZDuffmanPlease feel free to convert your car and invest your money in this "Manhattan Project." We have perhaps a trillion bbl of crude and finding more all the time. It is useless unless it is used.
Az, that wasn't really like you, I think you are just tired, and no doubt, rightfully so.
The gov, which you and I support now spends well over a trillion dollars per year, defending our right to cheap gas. We kill tens of thousands of innocent people and through these policy's of murder controls systems we are making enemies faster then we can drone them or starve them.
I guess that makes me guilty as well of voting for "the lessor of two evils". That's my vote right there. Make the US post office convert all their local delivery trucks to natty gas, let the employees fuel them right at the place of business, same for Fed ex, and any government vehicles where my plan would be reasonable [determined by me] and quit these awful wars.
My conversion was 300 bucks, during gas rationing or high price regular was over 3.00 and propane was under 2.
Reigniting the Crusades is not our war.
Quote: EvenBobWe will come up with an alternative to gas
fairly soon. Oil is responsible for so much
more than fuel. Hundreds and hundreds
of products come from crude, you're
surrounded by them in your home and
car and everywhere you go, especially
the roads we drive on.
That was my point above where I said "crude is almost" to precious to burn for simple transportation.
Quote: petroglyphAz, that wasn't really like you, I think you are just tired, and no doubt, rightfully so.
Sorry if that sounded harsher than intended. Yes, I am running on empty. That being said, I get upset when I get told "we need to convert" or "the government must get us off oil." What such a statement is in reality is a call for central planning, just like the USSR and China. It starved both countries and made shelves bare of consumer goods.
When the time comes we will find the substitute for oil, the time is decades away.
Quote: rxwineDon't know who said it, but politicians should have to wear NASCAR style jackets with their sponsorships on it. Ought to be a constitutional amendment for it.
Probably some old guy with a sore back and tired of having them piss down it and telling him its raining
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry if that sounded harsher than intended. Yes, I am running on empty. That being said, I get upset when I get told "we need to convert" or "the government must get us off oil." What such a statement is in reality is a call for central planning, just like the USSR and China. It starved both countries and made shelves bare of consumer goods.
When the time comes we will find the substitute for oil, the time is decades away.
Thanks, no problem. I was waxing regarding infinite growth on a finite planet.
Quote: petroglyphThanks, no problem. I was waxing regarding infinite growth on a finite planet.
Don't worry about that, the planet and growth will take care of themselves. In 100 years the issue will be population collapse, not growth. That group will have it really hard as this will be a problem never before seen on such scale.
"She said the chief message she took from Tuesday’s election, which saw Democrats eviscerated at all levels, is that voter suppression was a problem."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/5/nancy-pelosi-vows-to-stay-on-as-leader/
Please keep this lady as the House Minority Leader. Please. She completely misunderstands why the Democrats lost on Tuesday...she is the perfect person to help Republicans moving forward.
Winning is an opportunity for the Republicans but it does not come without pitfalls--how they do their part of the work of the government over the next two years will have a significant impact on the 2016 elections. The Democrats have a battle, too...they have a unpopular President and people like Nancy Pelosi helping run the party. They have to make some moves, and making Hillary the nominee may sound good now but she can't totally detach herself from the President since she served in his Cabinet.
This election helped make the next one even more interesting!
Quote: RonCNancy Pelosi has asked to stay on as the leader and this is what she saw as the message from the election:
"She said the chief message she took from Tuesday’s election, which saw Democrats eviscerated at all levels, is that voter suppression was a problem."
GOOD GRIEF! I often wondered what planet she lived on, but now I wonder if she didn't slide in from some parallel universe. This is the kind of statement they made in the old USSR or something, and I doubt even a propaganda minister in such a place would even try to get away with such a crazy statement.
Please, please let her keep her leadership role!
I usually watch all three networks, MSNBC, CNN, and FOX for anywhere from a few minutes to a couple hours a night during election periods. I flip back and forth to hear a wide range of different views and opinions. So, yesterday was interesting. As expected Fox saw this election as a mandate to govern and a repudiation of the president. MSNBC, put up a graphic showing that at the 6 year midterm elections the party in power loses 7.7 senate seats and 15 house seats. (I am not sure over what period of time this data was from). There point was that the losses in this election what appears to be 9 senate seats and single digit house seats is pretty close to average. Ok, whatever.
Now, I voted for this president twice. And I have been disappointed in his performance. He clearly is overmatched on foreign policy. Domestically, I think a large problem as been the obstruction he has faced from the other party. Some of that is politics as usual, but I think the level of obstruction has been pretty extreme vs this guy. There have been a number of times that he has proposed idea that were republican ideas (and I am not just referring to Obamacare, but other republican ideas) and as soon as he proposes them, the republicans completely flip and are against their own ideas. There seems to be many on the republican side that just hate this man. Hate is not an over use in this case. They would literally like to see him killed. I understand having different view and all. But the level of hate for this man, rises to something completely different. I don't want to say, but I do fear, race plays a part for some of these folks.
Now anyway, moving into my questions about this election. I have 2 really. The exit polls showed that the number one concern of voters was the economy. Now isn't the economy doing better? I certainly am doing better than 5 years ago, so maybe that taints my view. I realize recovery for many has been slow, but there has been some recovery. Living here in Vegas, I know this because we are all about tourism, and more people are visiting and spending than 5 years ago. We have data that shows this. If people have money to fly to vegas then they must have money to pay their rent and buy food. The stock market has rebounds what... 3 or 4 fold (depending on what exchange you are referring to). The Dow is at or just off an all time high isn't it? In the weeks before the election didn't gas drop to $3 a gallon, which is lowest in many years? Unemployment numbers are down, and I don't like this one, because the government, manipulates those numbers, not really accounting for people dropping off the back end and out of the work force, nor people who take a part-time job or two, when they can't find fulltime work. But this 'manipulation' of unemployment numbers is something that has been going on for decades. It's not an Obama thing, it's a government thing. So why recovery has been slow and I am sure painful for many, there has been a recovery. It doesn't seem to me like President Obama low approval rating is quite warranted on the domestic front.
My second question or thing that I don't understand, is a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. In the finals weeks of the election, we saw this supposedly unpopular president, booed and heckled at several events. But in every case that I saw, it was his own supporters that were doing so. In every case I saw it was young Hispanic people (probably activists), who were showing their displeasure that the president has not done anything on immigration as promised. That's fine....I understand their frustration.
Now obviously, the president wanted to get something done on immigration and at the start of 2014, the republicans vowed to tackle the matter as well, but as the year went on and we got close to summer, they decided to punt. Once the republicans refused to do anything on immigration as promised, why didn't the president do whatever he is now planning to do by executive action? I don't understand why HE waited until after the election, angering his own Hispanic supporters. I suppose there was some sort of thinking that doing it on his own would infuriate the republicans and really turn out their base. But their base was always going to turn out anyway. Seems to me, what he did was anger his own Hispanic and young supporters, who clearly sat out this election.
So there's some of my thoughts as I watched day-after coverage and questions, I hope some might help me make sense of. And if you respond to this post, please don't just through out your hate-filled nonsense. Have a reasonable, mature discussion of your views.
Quote: kewlj
Now, I voted for this president twice. And I have been disappointed in his performance. He clearly is overmatched on foreign policy. Domestically, I think a large problem as been the obstruction he has faced from the other party. Some of that is politics as usual, but I think the level of obstruction has been pretty extreme vs this guy. There have been a number of times that he has proposed idea that were republican ideas (and I am not just referring to Obamacare, but other republican ideas) and as soon as he proposes them, the republicans completely flip and are against their own ideas. There seems to be many on the republican side that just hate this man. Hate is not an over use in this case. They would literally like to see him killed. I understand having different view and all. But the level of hate for this man, rises to something completely different. I don't want to say, but I do fear, race plays a part for some of these folks.
The level of obstruction he has faced has been very average. Back in the 1980s Reagan was told his budget would be "Dead on Arrival" in Congress. Other POTUS's faced just as bad if not worse. The difference is most men who became POTUS had to actually work with the other party in their careers. They knew how to broker a deal. They knew how to take what they could get when they could get it. Obama is incapable of any of this. He never stopped campaigning an attacking as it was all he knew. If you are attacking the other side they are not going to deal with you. What Obama does not understand is when you act this way you turn your opposition into enemies and your enemies into fanatics.
And please drop it with the racism thing. Race has nothing to do with disliking the man. I for one dislike him because he shares few if any of my personal values and beliefs as well as I find him arrogant and annoying. Saying race has something to do with it means you are saying "he is so great they must just hate his skin color." Come on.
Quote:Now obviously, the president wanted to get something done on immigration and at the start of 2014, the republicans vowed to tackle the matter as well, but as the year went on and we got close to summer, they decided to punt. Once the republicans refused to do anything on immigration as promised, why didn't the president do whatever he is now planning to do by executive action? I don't understand why HE waited until after the election, angering his own Hispanic supporters. I suppose there was some sort of thinking that doing it on his own would infuriate the republicans and really turn out their base. But their base was always going to turn out anyway. Seems to me, what he did was anger his own Hispanic and young supporters, who clearly sat out this election.
The GOP would not deal with him as after the budget deal and the way he kept on the attack he showed he is a person you cannot trust to make a deal with. So they made no deal, rightly concluding it would not matter to their prospects. Obama calculated wrongly that Hispanics "would have nowhere else to go" and "vote for the party saying they will support amnesty." He figured wrong, big time. Legally there is probably a large limit on the amnesty he can just pass on his own.
Put another way, he wanted to "vote present" like he has done on almost everything he has ever done, this time it did not work.
Quote: RonC
"She said the chief message she took from Tuesday’s election, which saw Democrats eviscerated at all levels, is that voter suppression was a problem."
That quote is not even in that article. except as something the author says she said. And the part they use as a direct quote doesn't have it either.
I usually take you as someone I don't have to fact check sources. Nor can I find any credible source for that quote or what she is specifically referring to.
All kinds of conservative blogs and news sources are quoting the non-quote though from the WT.
But that's how they get their "facts" I suppose
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry if that sounded harsher than intended. Yes, I am running on empty. That being said, I get upset when I get told "we need to convert" or "the government must get us off oil." What such a statement is in reality is a call for central planning, just like the USSR and China. It starved both countries and made shelves bare of consumer goods.
When the time comes we will find the substitute for oil, the time is decades away.
In the late eighties Russian fishermen were coming into Dutch Harbor. The one thing that shocked them the most was the supermarket. They had never seen a store where the shelves were all full.
Quote: rxwineThat quote is not even in that article. except as something the author says she said. And the part they use as a direct quote doesn't have it either.
Sorry if I did that wrong; I was quoting the article, not the former Speaker.
She did say (according to the article):
“To succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation. Only by changing our political environment and broadening the universe of the electorate can we build a strong sense of community and an economy that works for everyone,” she said.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/5/nancy-pelosi-vows-to-stay-on-as-leader/#ixzz3IJepYYeV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Quote: rxwineI usually take you as someone I don't have to fact check sources. Nor can I find any credible source for that quote or what she is specifically referring to.
All kinds of conservative blogs and news sources are quoting the non-quote though from the WT.
But that's how they get their "facts" I suppose
The writer paraphrased what she said but what else do you think the statement she made (again, according to the article):
“To succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation."
That says to me that we lost because we did not get enough participation. The main point is that she did not say they lost because what they were doing isn't working...
Quote: RonC
The writer paraphrased what she said but what else do yo think the statement she made (again, according to the article):
“To succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation."
That says to me that we lost because we did not get enough participation. The main point is that she did not say they lost because what they were doing isn't working...
There are three parts to that, and this is my take:
"we must inspire" - there is a lot of voter apathy, evidenced by low turnouts. Low participation affects every party. I'm not sure if anyone has taken a poll to determine how everyone who did not vote would have voted - wouldn't that be interesting?
"we must educate" - sounds like she feels a more educated voter will vote the way she wants. The way I see it, a more educated voter will vote for someone who is more likely going to do what they want, rather than blindly vote on a party line. Most of the time the uneducated voter can follow their party line and do ok for themselves, though, meaning they get what they want, or at least get what they think the want, so I don't see that changing much.
"we must remove obstacles" - probably the clearest reference to voter id laws. Could also be referencing early voting, absentee voting, long lines, or other reasons, like perhaps not enough polling places or inconveniently located ones.
Quote: AZDuffman
And please drop it with the racism thing. Race has nothing to do with disliking the man.
The race card is hilarious. When Obama
won twice nobody on the Left mentioned
he won because of his race. Yet losing in
2010 and 2014 it's all about his race. You
can't have it both ways.
Quote: RonC“To succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation. Only by changing our political environment and broadening the universe of the electorate can we build a strong sense of community and an economy that works for everyone,” she said.
She is cryptically saying she wants to legalize the 11 million illegals and give them the vote.
Quote: mickeycrimmShe is cryptically saying she wants to legalize the 11 million illegals and give them the vote.
She didn't say that. You said that. Anyone who uses a paraphrase from the Washington Times to interpret Nancy Pelosi is simply parroting spin. The Washington Times is a joke of a newspaper and everyone there knows it.
Quote: beachbumbabsShe didn't say that. You said that. Anyone who uses a paraphrase from the Washington Times to interpret Nancy Pelosi is simply parroting spin. The Washington Times is a joke of a newspaper and everyone there knows it.
I know what her ulterior motives are. She see's those 11 million illegals as potential votes for democrats.
Quote: beachbumbabsShe didn't say that. You said that. Anyone who uses a paraphrase from the Washington Times to interpret Nancy Pelosi is simply parroting spin. The Washington Times is a joke of a newspaper and everyone there knows it.
The Washington Times is no more of a joke than the New York Times.
Here is what she is quoted as saying:
“To succeed, we must inspire, educate and remove obstacles to participation. Only by changing our political environment and broadening the universe of the electorate can we build a strong sense of community and an economy that works for everyone,” she said.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/5/nancy-pelosi-vows-to-stay-on-as-leader/#ixzz3IJepYYeV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Since you are convinced we are wrong, why don't you tell us what you see in that statement?
This is the same person that told us something about passing the bill to see what was in the bill.
Quote: mickeycrimmWatch out, Babs. I just ordered Ann Coulter's book "How to talk to a liberal."
LMAO...like she knows.
Americans have entrusted Republicans with control of both the House and Senate. We are humbled by this opportunity to help struggling middle-class Americans
That is so funny, I almost spit up on my screen. lol. So, Mitch and boner are humbled, hahahaha. It gets better.
"Your concerns will be our concerns. That’s our pledge." I'm getting warm and fuzzy, thanks Mitch. When you find out who these tools are actually speaking too, everything makes more sense. When you here any of them speaking, making promises, just imagine that they are speaking to and for their sponsors. Try it, they are not speaking to you they are speaking at you.
Old episodes of "the twilight zone" got nothing more unbelievable than our congress's speeches that the public with glossed over retinas seem to eat up between quarters of the NFL.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-05/republicans-lay-out-agenda-repeal-obamacare-authorize-keystone-save-children?page=2
Again the pols "stand for the issues", the issues that effect you and your family the most, [cheers], haha, who the hell are these guys talking too? Let me quote a touch from Chupa,322
Chupacabra-322's picture
Exactly. Spot on! The Globalist Policy "All Done By Design, All Done By Agenda" of the following will continue:
War Crime Torture.
Criminal NDAA.
Criminal Patriot Act.
Criminal NSA Illegal Sping of Americans.
Criminal arming, funding & training of AL CIA duh.
Criminal CIA destabilization campaigns of Soverign Nations.
Criminal Drone Assassinations / Murder of innocents Worldwide.
Criminal QE & Economic Terrorism.
Criminal CIA drug running & money laundering through the Tax payer bailed out Criminal TBTFBanksters.
Criminal False Flag Campaigns.
Meet the new Totalitarian Authoritarian Fascist Militarized Police State Boss. Same as the old Boss.
Is the changing of the guard going to change any of these issues? Because their issues they said are my issues.
And while the new guys who are sponsored by the same people who sponsored the last guys and hand out cushy 6 figure jobs after their "service" are at it, there is some other stuff they can fix.
I'm sick of the revolving door. I want true constitutional lawyers going over these characters votes and fealty to lobbyists and look for the slightest hint of favoritism do to correlated campaign contributions. If any improprieties are thought to exist, I want these guys "tried" by a jury of "my peers".
These people are mostly criminals, they need to be perp walked out of office and publicly tried and if found guilty, publicly hung.
Good God, me companeros, when has it ever gotten better for the middle????????
Quote: beachbumbabsLMAO...like she knows.
“If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said — unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.”
Ann Coulter
“Very late,” Sharpton responded. “Cokie, he went out two weeks ago, while Clinton went all over the place. Is this a Clinton defeat? Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton…the cavalry is coming in. Well, the cavalry got beat. Is this a Clinton defeat? I think we’re Obama obsessed.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/06/sharpton-election-a-defeat-for-bill-and-hillary-clinton-not-obama-video/
Now it is a Clinton defeat. I beg to tell the feces fiasco fiend that the results seem to show that even the Clintons could overcome the President's poor performance.
Quote: RonC“If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said — unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.”
Ann Coulter
As if this doesn't apply to conservatives... This quote instantly made me think of b9 (good riddance)! God forbid if he ever responded directly to anything but always brought up some unrelated argument.
Ann Coulter is always wrong about just about everything. Her books are written for children. I picked one up in a store once and was shocked by how large the font was. I was surprised there were no illustrations!
Quote: mickeycrimmWatch out, Babs. I just ordered Ann Coulter's book "How to talk to a liberal."
Fantastic book, read it twice. I've read all of
Ann's books, she is scary smart.
From 'How to Talk to a Liberal:
Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes. But if this doesn't work, you might have to actually argue with a liberal...
A major impediment to arguing with liberals is: They refuse to argue. Liberals' idea of a battle of wits is to say "Bush lied!"
Quote: EvenBobFantastic book, read it twice. I've read all of
Ann's books, she is scary smart.
From 'How to Talk to a Liberal:
Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes. But if this doesn't work, you might have to actually argue with a liberal...
A major impediment to arguing with liberals is: They refuse to argue. Liberals' idea of a battle of wits is to say "Bush lied!"
Can I interpret that to mean that you refuse to accept social security and medicare? Didn't think so. So you want what everyone else wants, to be able to talk smack about lib policy [ss and medicare] but receive it at the same time. There is a word for that.
Can I suggest that if you wish to change any ones mind over to what you seem to perceive is right thinking, then start by not calling them names.
Yeah, Bush lied, Clinton lied, and so on and so forth. Politician is synonymous with lie, cheat, and double speak. Maybe she has some valid points, as do you and me, but the truth is these politco's quit "serving" the people as well as the country a long time
I was going to put this list up to repute your statement but by golly I too think many of them are no good. There are exceptions to your description of not willing to debate points. For instance, one I admire is Howard Zinn, "peoples republic", it would really surprise me if you were familiar.
Others not commonly thought to avoid discussion on that list: Seymour Hersh, Galbraith, Panetta, Noam Chomsky isn't usually associated in either lacking of wits or unwillingness to discuss "on the points".
You are spot on with how to talk to a liberal!!! So true!!!
1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.
2. If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.
3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.
5. If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.
6. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.
7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.
8. If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of grade school for saying his teacher's "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.
9. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.
10. If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can't find work, you live in a country run by idiots.
11. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
If you are offended by this article, you probably voted for the idiots who are running our country into the ground.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/11/05/90-year-old-ww2-veteran-and-two-clergymen-face-60-days-in-jail-for-feeding-the-homeless-in-florida/
Is this more of a conservative or liberal thing where you do this to people? It is just like if you throw food out for squirrels, when you run out they won't go away.
Also,http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/05/29/couple-fined-746-for-the-crime-of-feeding-homeless-people-in-florida-park/
Don't those darn do gooder's really make you angry?
