Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

U.S. Congress Part 116


thebluefood

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Good Idea or Bad Idea:  Dems fighting against the 'demonization' of the term "Regulation".  

 

 

 

 

They suck as explaining things. Even common sense. Worker and Consumer Protection should be easy. But they can't figure it out. We had a guy say he could shoot somebody on the street and still be cool. That seemed to work. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skinny21 said:

Good Idea or Bad Idea:  Dems fighting against the 'demonization' of the term "Regulation".  

 

 

It does bother me.  Reading people announce that Republicans enjoy starving poor people to death, or similar things.  

 

OTOH, I do find myself judging people based on their actions.  The thought experiment, if you will, is "I have a theory, that Person X believes Y.  Let's look at Person X's actions, and see if I can find a case where, if that person actually believed Y, then he would have acted differently than he actually acted."  

 

If I can't find such an exception to the theory - If I can't find a single case where an imaginary person who believes Y would have acted any differently from the way Person X actually acts - then well, that's not proof, but I can't just throw out the theory, either.  

 

For example, there's one poster in Tailgate who I've been watching to see if there has ever been a case where an imaginary professional Internet troll, being paid by the Republican Party, would behave differently that the poster.  And I've been watching for 10-15 years, and haven't seen a difference yet.  

 

And, back to the label "Republican", I have to say that they sure do seem to be really consistent with an imaginary person who honestly believes that America would be a better place if the bottom 75% of Americans had their pay cut in half.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skinny21 said:

I know I will.  And if Dems have control of the congress in 2020 and gerrymander the ever loving **** outta this country, I'm still gonna ***** about gerrymandering.  

 

The Supreme Court claimed they're going to start taking on partisan gerrymandering.  Only seven ****ing years too late.  I have no doubt that they'll become very active in overturning gerrymandered districts if a Democratic wave occurs in 2020.  Gerrymandering is poisonous to the health of a Democracy.  But a decade of mirror image gerrymandering from Democrats is exactly what Republicans deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't see a thread for this specifically, not worth starting one

 

in VA we have a governors election. the primaries were just done.

 

my measuring stick to date is:
Do they support Trump?
Because if they do, then I cannot vote for that person. I cannot fathom how anyone who takes such a job seriously could support Trump and what his administration has been doing so far, except if you put party above all and I'm not supporting that.

I'm not asking republican candidates to come out and lambast the president, but at least walk that line between going completely against the party and selling your soul to it.

 

I will use the same measuring stick in near-future senate/house elections.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see people using the 'its been R forever' argument, but that's sort of ignoring what really went on here, isn't it?

 

we have the DNC funneling a ton of money, the most in history, into this race because they thought they found a weakness. In fact, the whole 'R for 40 years' argument really goes to show you how much importance they put on this race to spend that much money.

 

It's closer than it was in November (20ish points then?) but they spent a ton of money and lost. There's a story there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

I see people using the 'its been R forever' argument, but that's sort of ignoring what really went on here, isn't it?

 

we have the DNC funneling a ton of money, the most in history, into this race because they thought they found a weakness. In fact, the whole 'R for 40 years' argument really goes to show you how much importance they put on this race to spend that much money.

 

It's closer than it was in November (20ish points then?) but they spent a ton of money and lost. There's a story there.

 

The story is how close these races are when they weren't close 7 months ago. Both sides spent tons of money as they will every election cycle. I guarantee that the GOP House members are paying attention to just how close these races have gotten. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

I see people using the 'its been R forever' argument, but that's sort of ignoring what really went on here, isn't it?

 

we have the DNC funneling a ton of money, the most in history, into this race because they thought they found a weakness. In fact, the whole 'R for 40 years' argument really goes to show you how much importance they put on this race to spend that much money.

 

It's closer than it was in November (20ish points then?) but they spent a ton of money and lost. There's a story there.

Republicans spent a ton of money (perhaps more than Dems) too in a place they should never have even thought of losing.  So far Dems have pulled off wins in local elections (in liberal states) that have gone R for decades and have come close in bigger elections that have gone R for decades in Conservative states. The SC race was also surprisingly close and there was no expectation that it would be.

 

The question is how does this all translate to bigger races in swing states and incumbent republicans in liberal states and dems in conservative ones.

Edited by visionary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does Ossoff try to mimic Obama's cadence?

 

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

Republicans spent a ton of money (perhaps more than Dems) too in a place they should never have even thought of losing.  So far Dems have pulled off wins in local elections (in liberal states) that have gone R for decades and have come close in bigger elections that have gone R for decades in Conservative states. The SC race was also surprisingly close and there was no expectation that it would be.

 

The question is how does this all translate to bigger races in swing states and incumbent republicans in liberal states and dems in conservative ones.

 

Right, that's one way of looking at it.

 

Except the dems lost. The R's spent all that money and successfully protected their turf.

 

I don't know that there's much for the dems to gain by being close after spending that sort of money.

 

Though I must admit that level of political tactics is quite a bit over my head, so maybe I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

LOL Trump's a ****ing anchor.  He's the reason these races have been close.  The actual truth is that Democrats haven't yet figured out how to pry away Republican strongholds.  It's going to take a lot more than spending a ton of money on ads and mailers and attracting national attention to your campaign for a few months.  Democrats are literally going to have to go into these places and engage with the voters and recruit quality local Democrats for candidacies at the municipal and state level.  It's going to take a long term effort to establish lines of communication with these polities and change hearts and minds.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...