A little perspective on 2014 Senate

[Ernie S.]

The Conservative movement is hardly racist. In reality, the Liberal/Progressive movement only prospered in the mid 20th century because they exploited race. The party of Jim Crow and the KKK became the party of "We'll give you free shit in return for your vote."
Conservatives vote in their and their country's best interest. They believe that the government has no mandate to provide charity for layabouts.
The rich do not steal the fruits of my labors. I pay a fair price for a product. If I feel I am not getting the wage I need, I gain qualifications that make me more valuable. I don't cry to government to foot the bill for my cell phone and flat screen.

Guy, we're not talking about the "Mid 20th Century".

Now, here's the thing. Once again, being the racist that you are, you once again equate 'Welfare' with "minority", when in fact, the majority of people getting welfare are in fact white.

In fact, while White people make up 42% of the poor, they collect 69% of government benefits/entitlements.

White People Make Up 42 of the Poor But Take in Whopping 69 of Government Benefits Your Black World

further the vast majority of blacks have jobs. Minority women are more likely than white women to work.

The Workforce Is Even More Divided by Race Than You Think - The Atlantic

You also repeat the canard that folks on welfare just want to live off of government benefits, when in fact 40% of people on SNAP have at least one family member with a job. Same with Medicaid and Section 8, where these folks are working, just not in jobs that pay enough. Sorry, man, the real "Welfare Queens" are the Walton Family.

The big lie behind food stamps


Now, as to which party exploits "racism", The thing was up until 1960, the GOP did not do bad with those blacks who were allowed to vote. Then Barry "Deep Down you Know He's Nuts" Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act and Nixon engaged in the Southern Strategy of trying to pick up those racist assholes who supported George Wallace when LBJ threw him out of the party.

Ronald Reagan doubled down with the "Young Bucks on Food Stamps" and "Welfare Queen with Cadillacs"" speeches. George H. Stupid gave us the Scary Willie Horton Ads. The message was pretty clear. Exploiting racism and blaming poor people for your problems as a working class white.

And when you talk about "layabouts", I kind of suspect in your case, they've hit the mark.

From Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative.

“It so happens that I am in agreement with the [anti-racial segregation] objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision,” writes Goldwater. “I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgment of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina. . . . That is their business, not mine. I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned . . . [and] should not be effected by engines of national power.”

 

[Papageorgio]

And you calling me a drooling retard is so mature. I've called you little more than teabagger.....A name proudly chosen by your own party.

Again, what should I call you?

Call me what ever you like.

Now, bullshitter is now whining? LOL!

You can't make this shit up.

 

[BULLDOG]

And you calling me a drooling retard is so mature. I've called you little more than teabagger.....A name proudly chosen by your own party.

It was not chosen by the Libertarian party, nor even the Republicans. A looter "comedian" coined the phrase.

Twist all you want. The right wing embraced the name right up until someone whispered in their ear. You can't spin that away.

 

[ShackledNation]

Do you truly think comparing the number of votes received in a nation-wide, 50-state, presidential election to state-wide senate elections in 9 states is relevant or valid in any way, shape, or form? This isn't even partisan idiocy, it's just idiocy.

I think if you are CLAIMING a mandate, then yes, 66 million votes in a nation wide election has more validity than apathetic election results in backwater states.

Here's the thing. I doubt very many people who voted for these GOP Senators weren't the same people who voted for Romney. You didn't change any minds, you just venue shopped to you find one you can win in.

Hense, you won the "Special Olympics" Midterms.

You can't compare nation-wide votes for President with individual senate races. That is like comparing inches and meters as if the units were the same length. If you don't understand why the comparison is invalid, then take a basic statistics class.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Twist all you want. The right wing embraced the name right up until someone whispered in their ear. You can't spin that away.

Keith Olberman coined the term and you use it as an epithet. And you're right, the blue hairs had no idea what a foul name you had hung on them.

Oh how you laughed at the old ladies who used your term, they had no idea what complete scumbags you leftists are. Oh how clever you were to defraud them by taking an honorable event in American history and perverting it.

But that is the entirity of you leftists, you corrupt anything good - you are a rot on society, you take what is good and corrupt it - it is your only talent.

 

[JoeB131]

What is racist about that post? Claiming that Democrats exploit race is a fact in evidence, proven by the coronation of king obama.

Okay, that you can't see that your stereotyping is racist, even AFTER I pointed out that most of what you believe about folks on welfare is wrong, I'm not sure there's much we can do for you.

 

[JoeB131]

You can't compare nation-wide votes for President with individual senate races. That is like comparing inches and meters as if the units were the same length. If you don't understand why the comparison is invalid, then take a basic statistics class.

I understand it perfectly well.

A nation wide vote is exactly that. A Nation wide vote.

A senate vote, usually in a backwater states with no big cities, is exactly that, a senate vote.

Only ONE of those indicates what a mandate of the people is.

 

[Roadrunner]

You can't compare nation-wide votes for President with individual senate races. That is like comparing inches and meters as if the units were the same length. If you don't understand why the comparison is invalid, then take a basic statistics class.

I understand it perfectly well.

A nation wide vote is exactly that. A Nation wide vote.

A senate vote, usually in a backwater states with no big cities, is exactly that, a senate vote.

Only ONE of those indicates what a mandate of the people is.

Don't you people realize how pathetic you sound, trying to deny this election was a thorough trouncing of Obama's policies.

OBAMA made it about his policies; he blatantly taunted the American people and shamed his Dem candidates by saying the election was about his policies, and no matter what Dem Senate candidates might say to get re-elected, they voted lockstep with him before and would vote lockstep with him again.

So give it up, it's really getting silly.

 

[Roadrunner]

You can't compare nation-wide votes for President with individual senate races. That is like comparing inches and meters as if the units were the same length. If you don't understand why the comparison is invalid, then take a basic statistics class.

I understand it perfectly well.

A nation wide vote is exactly that. A Nation wide vote.

A senate vote, usually in a backwater states with no big cities, is exactly that, a senate vote.

Only ONE of those indicates what a mandate of the people is.

The mandate of the people is reflected in the House.

The President is chosen by the states, the Senate represents the states, but the House is the people's House.

And the people are sick of Obama and Dems.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't you people realize how pathetic you sound, trying to deny this election was a thorough trouncing of Obama's policies.

OBAMA made it about his policies; he blatantly taunted the American people and shamed his Dem candidates by saying the election was about his policies, and no matter what Dem Senate candidates might say to get re-elected, they voted lockstep with him before and would vote lockstep with him again.

So give it up, it's really getting silly.

You won elecitons in backwaters that you never lost before. That's not impressive. Shame on the democrats for not fighting it. Shame on them for conceding so many races.

 

[JoeB131]

The mandate of the people is reflected in the House.

The President is chosen by the states, the Senate represents the states, but the House is the people's House.

And the people are sick of Obama and Dems.

Horseshit. If that was the case, the Democrats would have had a majority after 2012. Gerrymandering has long ago nullify any representation of the people.

 

[Roadrunner]

The mandate of the people is reflected in the House.

The President is chosen by the states, the Senate represents the states, but the House is the people's House.

And the people are sick of Obama and Dems.

Horseshit. If that was the case, the Democrats would have had a majority after 2012. Gerrymandering has long ago nullify any representation of the people.

If not for gerrymandering ghetto districts, there'd be few blacks in the House.

So, that dog don't hunt either.

Get over it, Obama's policies, and the Dems, got their asses handed to them and it does mean a lot, or there wouldn't be so much demlib pleadings that it doesn't mean anything.

 

[JoeB131]

If not for gerrymandering ghetto districts, there'd be few blacks in the House.

So, that dog don't hunt either.

Get over it, Obama's policies, and the Dems, got their asses handed to them and it does mean a lot, or there wouldn't be so much demlib pleadings that it doesn't mean anything.

Except not really. Being the Apartheid country we are, it takes a real effort to disenfranchise blacks.

No, guy, there's no real meaning to this record low turnout election in backwater states other than our democracy has a lot of dysfunction.

 

[Ernie S.]

What is racist about that post? Claiming that Democrats exploit race is a fact in evidence, proven by the coronation of king obama.

Okay, that you can't see that your stereotyping is racist, even AFTER I pointed out that most of what you believe about folks on welfare is wrong, I'm not sure there's much we can do for you.

You point out opinions. I point out facts

There is NOTHING anyone can do for you.

 

[JoeB131]

You point out opinions. I point out facts

There is NOTHING anyone can do for you.

I backed up my position with statistics. Most people on weflare are white, most people on assistance have jobs, most people on assistance are only on it for a short time.

You engaged in typical stereotyping so you could feel that you are "better" than they are.

 

[Meathead]

The mandate of the people is reflected in the House.

The President is chosen by the states, the Senate represents the states, but the House is the people's House.

And the people are sick of Obama and Dems.

Horseshit. If that was the case, the Democrats would have had a majority after 2012. Gerrymandering has long ago nullify any representation of the people.

How then do you explain the +7 and soon to be +9 in the Senate for Republicans? Did they gerrymander the Senate too?

Face it Joey, the ultra-liberal agenda got trouncned.

 

[JoeB131]

How then do you explain the +7 and soon to be +9 in the Senate for Republicans? Did they gerrymander the Senate too?

Face it Joey, the ultra-liberal agenda got trouncned.

Well, how do I explain it?

The fact the democrats didn't even contest three of their vacancies had a lot to do with it.

Of the four they won- AR, IA, NC, CO- Republicans have won those states in the past.

But here's the real thing. The GOP had the good sense not to nominate crazy people this time. Tillis in NC, for instance, struck a concilitory tone on Immigration and Gardner in CO had the good sense to disavow his previous crazy stances on Abortion.

Obviously, you don't understand American politics, so you don't understand how they work.

 

[Meathead]

The fact the democrats didn't even contest three of their vacancies had a lot to do with it.

Of the four they won- AR, IA, NC, CO- Republicans have won those states in the past.

But here's the real thing. The GOP had the good sense not to nominate crazy people this time. Tillis in NC, for instance, struck a concilitory tone on Immigration and Gardner in CO had the good sense to disavow his previous crazy stances on Abortion.

Obviously, you don't understand American politics, so you don't understand how they work.

They won those states in the past?! Do you know of any state where Republicans have not won in the past?

You can try to rationalize many things Joey: why keep getting fired from jobs, why you don't live in a shit hole and so on, but you can't even come close to explaining why the Democrats were trounced at every level of government from the senate, governers to state legislatures. The repudiation of the left-wing agenda on a national scale is far too concrete, far too obvious.

 

[JoeB131]

They won those states in the past?! Do you know of any state where Republicans have not won in the past?

You can try to rationalize many things Joey: why keep getting fired from jobs, why you don't live in a shit hole and so on, but you can't even come close to explaining why the Democrats were trounced at every level of government from the senate, governers to state legislatures. The repudiation of the left-wing agenda on a national scale is far too concrete, far too obvious.

Well, yeah, I understand things called "Cause and Effect".

And, no, an election in six backwater states with a 34% record low voter participation rate is more a repudiation of Democracy than Democrats. People have just kind of given up, and that's kind of sad.

 

[Meathead]

They won those states in the past?! Do you know of any state where Republicans have not won in the past?

You can try to rationalize many things Joey: why keep getting fired from jobs, why you don't live in a shit hole and so on, but you can't even come close to explaining why the Democrats were trounced at every level of government from the senate, governers to state legislatures. The repudiation of the left-wing agenda on a national scale is far too concrete, far too obvious.

Well, yeah, I understand things called "Cause and Effect".

And, no, an election in six backwater states with a 34% record low voter participation rate is more a repudiation of Democracy than Democrats. People have just kind of given up, and that's kind of sad.

They've certainly given up on that Hope&Change crap and Obama's vision of a socialist America, I'll give you that.