Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

Do you mean in presidential elections or all politics? A HUGE reason for the vote here in GA is a huge chunk of our biggest city is not run by the backwards ass rednecks that live in the rest of the state. The educated people live in the city and they vote for obama, but I don't think you'll see nearly a huge turn out next presidential election. Further, if you mean in local politics, it would take 50 years for that to happen here.

I'm mostly talking presidential here, but state politics (particularly Senate/House races) will come with it.

I like how you call the Obama voters "educated people" and then immediately assume they won't turn out in 2016. Why? If Hillary runs, she's just as popular with minorities and youth as Obama is, and moreso with white people. Every Obama voter will be just as energized to come out again, especially if Obama campaigns for her (which he will).

Incidentally PPP came out with a poll of Georgia today, and while it's far off, the only GOP candidate who beats Hillary is Christie, 44-42. Otherwise she's tied with Bush (45-45), and wins over Rand Paul (48-43), Paul Ryan (47-44), Newt Gingrich (47-43), and Sarah Palin (51-38 lol).

It was a goal of Obama's campaign team to flip Georgia in 2008, and I think it's significant that OFA has only explicitly offered help to one candidate, Michelle Nunn. Voter turnout is always depressed across the board in midterms, but if they can boost AA and college turnout to presidential levels, you get a Democratic Senator. States like Georgia - and Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina - are where the Democratic Party is going to grow the most over the next few elections. There will be a time when even a majority of the Confederate states start voting blue, and it'll be entirely thanks to the Southern strategy.

 

[RoninChaos]

Obama is a Muslim rhetoric exists because corporations and proof of this is in its existence itself.

Snore.

Not to jump in on this, but don't the Koch brothers believe that Obama is a muslim and a socialist? Aren't they using their considerable influence to help push that agenda forward? And this in turn creates a rabid base that is against anything the president might support, even if it's good for the country?

 

[RoninChaos]

I'm mostly talking presidential here, but state politics (particularly Senate/House races) will come with it.

I like how you call the Obama voters "educated people" and then immediately assume they won't turn out in 2016. Why? If Hillary runs, she's just as popular with minorities and youth as Obama is, and moreso with white people. Every Obama voter will be just as energized to come out again, especially if Obama campaigns for her (which he will).

Incidentally PPP came out with a poll of Georgia today, and while it's far off, the only GOP candidate who beats Hillary is Christie, 44-42. Otherwise she's tied with Bush (45-45), and wins over Rand Paul (48-43), Paul Ryan (47-44), Newt Gingrich (47-43), and Sarah Palin (51-38 lol).

It was a goal of Obama's campaign team to flip Georgia in 2008, and I think it's significant that OFA has only explicitly offered help to one candidate, Michelle Nunn. Voter turnout is always depressed across the board in midterms, but if they can boost AA and college turnout to presidential levels, you get a Democratic Senator. States like Georgia - and Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina - are where the Democratic Party is going to grow the most over the next few elections. There will be a time when even a majority of the Confederate states start voting blue, and it'll be entirely thanks to the Southern strategy.

I'm saying this because I live in Georgia, sir. I see the Nobama stickers and all that other shit on my college campus, I see it when I go down town, I see them in the parking lot of the building I work in. And I see the people around here. I see those same things, same stickers, same vitriolic bullshit that is slung towards the president spoke aloud in every day conversation. I vote here on all manner of issues and in most districts that are outside of the perimeter democrats don't even show up. The same people that say the same shit with the same bumper stickers and same uniformed opinions are the ones who show up, not the democrats. At the last campaign rally/get together that I went to, in a NICE neighborhood, people were driving by, throwing rocks and yelling "Nigger lover!" to the people inside.

In regards to the Hilary comment, I feel the way I do because of the ethnic makeup of the town I live in and the surrounding areas. There were multitudes of black churches that came to vote for Obama simply because he was black. Atlanta has a high concentration of black people, especially in comparison to the rest of the state.

Pop your head into the Atlanta GAF thread and ask them if I'm right. About all of it.

 

[Oblivion]

Teabagger congressman challenged on Obamacare at town hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmLeIkWQsw

 

[Black Mamba]

I agree that it is in the long-term interest of the Republican party as a whole to tamp down on the craziness of its base. But from the perspective of, say, a Republican congressman from the Deep South who represents a deeply conservative district, it is very advantageous to regurgitate the fringe talking points, as it weds you to your most fervent political supporters and is a way of fending off primary challenges. The willingness of the conservative grassroots to take down their own leaders makes courting them all the more attractive. In my own admittedly rudimentary conception of how politics operates, politicians are entities interested in two things above all: ensuring their own survival and pursuing their own advancement. When the party leadership is strong enough, it can mitigate the harmful effects of these selfish desires. However, in the case of the modern GOP, the leadership is too weak and the grassroots too powerful to force everyone to work for the long term interests of the party. If you conceive of a political party as not simply a cohesive whole that works in its own interest but instead a collection of actors working to ensure their place in the power structure of the party, then the GOP's dysfunction makes a lot more sense than if it was the result of simple stupidity.

I'm not going to try to guess the root causes of the right wing's hysteria because it's something I'd have to do a lot more research and thinking about.

I mostly agree with all of this but I'd say my key point is that the politicians decided a few years ago to partake in policies that made it worse. In essence, they expanded the radicalization of the base and their ignorance for what they perceived as a short term gain. But now it got too big for them and it has forced them into a position where they have to really radicalize themselves or lose their position.

This all could have been averted if years ago they decided to take a different route. I don't believe for a second that they were forced to take this route back in 2009 due to pressure from the base. Had they dictated terms like compromising with Obama/Dems and not misleading their party, they'd be better off right now and the base would be far less radicalized while achieving some of their policy goals. Their actions in 2009 are what created the enormous buildup of pressure today that exists that they're now causing their reactions. They opened pandora's box.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I more agree than disagree, but I also think it's more complicated than we're allowing in this thread. A Republican party that would elect 46 black Senators would be a completely different party in many ways progressives would find favorable. That doesn't mean they'd be "liberal" however.

Of course, it's more of a hypothetical/thought experiment. The point being that black conservatives have to be extreme on a variety of issues to succeed in the republican party today, just as republican women tend to take quite extreme positions on abortion and gender equality (example: Marsha Blackburn arguing women don't want equal pay laws). The days of JC Watts types are over.

Likewise if we had 46 female republican senators at least 44 would be staunchly pro-life., just like the males who currently hold those seats.

 

[The Librarian]

 

[Oblivion]

I more agree than disagree, but I also think it's more complicated than we're allowing in this thread. A Republican party that would elect 46 black Senators would be a completely different party in many ways progressives would find favorable. That doesn't mean they'd be "liberal" however.

Yes, in the same way that the Wii was a vastly more powerful console than the gamecube.

 

[Black Mamba]

Not to jump in on this, but don't the Koch brothers believe that Obama is a muslim and a socialist? Aren't they using their considerable influence to help push that agenda forward? And this in turn creates a rabid base that is against anything the president might support, even if it's good for the country?

Yes, but the politicians and pundits have willingly gone along with it.

I don't agree that they were forced into it. As I gave the example of Akin and rape. The GOP and its talking heads made a choice to embrace that thought in order to stir up the base for short term gains. They didn't have to make that choice. That's where EV and I differ. His opinion is they had to make that choice and we'd expect them to make that choice. Evidence suggests otherwise.

Fenderputty - Drugs is much different. Tthat's a pretty united front between the 2 parties and its root goes way back and institutional more than anything. Also didn't they change the coke vs crack recently?

I disagree with some of what you say, but i'd like to move on from this convo. My position has been explained enough, I think.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm not sure how we ended up having a "but is it really art?" argument in PoliGAF.

You might prefer to say the American right has become reactionary rather than saying that the GOP has become reactionary, but so what? The GOP is the party of the American right. The two are not neatly severable. In fact, a lot of what's been happening in the last few years is best explained by the GOP coming to discover that the two are not neatly severable! So what benefit do we get from drawing the distinction?

It happens that I believe that there are many pragmatic/nihilistic politicians in the GOP who would really prefer to stop being reactionary because they'd rather win elections, but until they actually successfully take control of the party, I don't think it really matters. For example, I believe that Boehner is one of these pragmatists, but in a practical sense, if he's holding to the Hastert Rule, he is indistinguishable from a true brother of Calhoun.

A better way to explain the situation is to say that Republican establishment is the ISI, teaparty is the Taliban and Democratic party is India.

 

[@____@]

Whoever said that Republicans weren't fans of videogames?

An anti-Hillary Clinton group has releaunched an online game that allows people to virtually slap the former secretary of state every time she speaks.
"Slap Hillary" has been on the internet since around 2000, but The Hillary Project--an organization that plans to "wage war on Hillary Clinton's image"--reposted the animated game this week, according to CBS.

But some on the left have criticized the game, saying it condones violence against women.

EMILY's List launched a petition demanding that every Republican 2016 candidate pledge to refuse money from The Hillary Project and other groups advocating violence against women.

"This ridiculous behavior is why no amount of "re-branding" is going to help Republicans win over women voters -- they just don't get it," EMILY's List Communications Director Jess McIntosh said in a statement Wednesday. "Violence against women isn't a 'game.' Slapping a woman for speaking isn't actually a joke. It's just gross."

 

[rocketknight]

I like existing in a world where I can pretend all my favorite dreamy progressive pundits sit around in a tree house joking with each other.

 

[User 406]

Whoever said that Republicans weren't fans of videogames?

No Kinect support?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm saying this because I live in Georgia, sir. I see the Nobama stickers and all that other shit on my college campus, I see it when I go down town, I see them in the parking lot of the building I work in. And I see the people around here. I see those same things, same stickers, same vitriolic bullshit that is slung towards the president spoke aloud in every day conversation. I vote here on all manner of issues and in most districts that are outside of the perimeter democrats don't even show up. The same people that say the same shit with the same bumper stickers and same uniformed opinions are the ones who show up, not the democrats. At the last campaign rally/get together that I went to, in a NICE neighborhood, people were driving by, throwing rocks and yelling "Nigger lover!" to the people inside.

In regards to the Hilary comment, I feel the way I do because of the ethnic makeup of the town I live in and the surrounding areas. There were multitudes of black churches that came to vote for Obama simply because he was black. Atlanta has a high concentration of black people, especially in comparison to the rest of the state.

Pop your head into the Atlanta GAF thread and ask them if I'm right. About all of it.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But what you're describing happens in even the bluest states, except maybe the New England ones. I live in Minnesota which has the longest streak of voting democrat in the country, and there's plenty of backwoods racist fucks to go around. Our Republicans aren't any less crazy than anyone else (look at Michele Bachmann), it's just that the cities are able to outvote the rednecks. That same thing will happen in Georgia and other red states. North Carolina is a great example of this. Obama's victory in 2008 was a completely different map than previous Dem wins in the state.

 

[empty vessel]

I mostly agree with all of this but I'd say my key point is that the politicians decided a few years ago to partake in policies that made it worse. In essence, they expanded the radicalization of the base and their ignorance for what they perceived as a short term gain. But now it got too big for them and it has forced them into a position where they have to really radicalize themselves or lose their position.

This all could have been averted if years ago they decided to take a different route. I don't believe for a second that they were forced to take this route back in 2009 due to pressure from the base. Had they dictated terms like compromising with Obama/Dems and not misleading their party, they'd be better off right now and the base would be far less radicalized while achieving some of their policy goals. Their actions in 2009 are what created the enormous buildup of pressure today that exists that they're now causing their reactions. They opened pandora's box.

I think you can chastise or morally fault individual politicians all you want. Certainly, the deserve it for being terrible people. My point is that one should not expect any different.

 

[APF]

Of course, it's more of a hypothetical/thought experiment. The point being that black conservatives have to be extreme on a variety of issues to succeed in the republican party today, just as republican women tend to take quite extreme positions on abortion and gender equality (example: Marsha Blackburn arguing women don't want equal pay laws). The days of JC Watts types are over.

Likewise if we had 46 female republican senators at least 44 would be staunchly pro-life., just like the males who currently hold those seats.

43 I think, based on current Senate. At the same time though, I do think there's something to be said for the idea that people who are normally statistically-correlated to hold a certain position might be more inclined to be either a) crypto-believers or b) at the very least sympathetic to it / pliable under the right circumstances. People who profess beliefs for political reasons vs their own personal ideology are by far more useful to those who oppose those beliefs, especially if there's a sense of a mood-shift of the general public towards your stance (eg on gay marriage, for example. Let's uh not think about abortion though, because sadface.)

 

[B-Dubs]

Sorry, what? Are you saying that if the GOP had a bunch of black senators, it would be like two GOPs duct-taped together?

Damn man, that's exactly what he's saying

 

[rocketknight]

Damn man, that's exactly what he's saying

I think you'd have to tape together more than two GOPs to reach the same amount of black power you can get in this generation's Democratic console.

 

[Wilsongt]

Also did you guys know it was really liberals who supported slavery? Also Calhoun was our guy!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/06/The-Pro-Slavery-Roots-of-the-Modern-Left

Someone needs to remind them that the demographics and ideology of the two parties switched in the 1960s during the civil-rights era...

 

[Oblivion]

Sorry, what? Are you saying that if the GOP had a bunch of black senators, it would be like two GOPs duct-taped together?

Was hoping someone would say that.

*brofist*

 

[PhoenixDark]

Someone needs to remind them that the demographics and ideology of the two parties switched in the 1960s during the civil-rights era...

They never acknowledge this basic history. It wasn't a quick switch, obviously many dixiecrats remained in the democrat party. But by 1972 it was pretty clear.

 

[Wilsongt]

Teabagger congressman challenged on Obamacare at town hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmLeIkWQsw

He got chewed up and spit out. He's so goofy looking, too.

 

[RoninChaos]

Yes, but the politicians and pundits have willingly gone along with it.

I don't agree that they were forced into it. As I gave the example of Akin and rape. The GOP and its talking heads made a choice to embrace that thought in order to stir up the base for short term gains. They didn't have to make that choice. That's where EV and I differ. His opinion is they had to make that choice and we'd expect them to make that choice. Evidence suggests otherwise.

Fenderputty - Drugs is much different. Tthat's a pretty united front between the 2 parties and its root goes way back and institutional more than anything. Also didn't they change the coke vs crack recently?

I disagree with some of what you say, but i'd like to move on from this convo. My position has been explained enough, I think.

I was just pointing it out. I agree with you that they aren't forced but I would say there is more than likely some appeal to align with people like the Koch brothers because of their substantial amount of monetary resources.

As I stated a few months ago, I truly believe the gerimandering will work against the GOP and the country in the long run. Gerimandering these districts is going to facilitate their push to the extreme right and the country is going to push back I think. Another do-nothing congress should seal the deal.

 

[Black Mamba]

I think you can chastise or morally fault individual politicians all you want. Certainly, the deserve it for being terrible people. My point is that one should not expect any different.

And as I've proven, we can expect different. Those who cast it off as an acceptable response are part of the problem.

I was just pointing it out. I agree with you that they aren't forced but I would say there is more than likely some appeal to align with people like the Koch brothers because of their substantial amount of monetary resources.

No doubt. I just think it's important to identify that they chose it and it wasn't a necessary decision to make. As you later explain, it was even the wrong one.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Someone needs to remind them that the demographics and ideology of the two parties switched in the 1960s during the civil-rights era...

It's a little more complicated than that, which makes it harder. The Democratic Party was always the party of liberal (by US definition) policy and the GOP was always they party of business interests. But the Dixiecrats for Democrats despite otherwise having a lot in common with the GOP.

 

[el retorno]

It's a little more complicated than that, which makes it harder. The Democratic Party was always the party of liberal (by US definition) policy and the GOP was always they party of business interests. But the Dixiecrats for Democrats despite otherwise having a lot in common with the GOP.

What is liberal as changed though. Though I do agree that the simplification of the 1960s being a turning point is overblown. The 1800s democratic party was closer to the modern republican platform in policy and the republican party with its abolitionist wing (and then radical reconstructionist) was really the first time people looked to the federal government to right a wrong by forceful action.

The progressive movement though co-opted the democratic party at the turn of the century(Though they weren't exclusive see Teddy). Wilson was the beginning of the turning point (income tax) and FDR solidified the democrats coming behind the use of the federal government for economic improvement as Republicans became co-opted by wall st. and the burgeoning financial industry. Socially the democrats were more racist and that's what really shifted in the 1960s. LBJ casted them aside and said you don't belong here. They then ran to the open arms of the conservative movement.

 

[zero shift]

I'm saying this because I live in Georgia, sir. I see the Nobama stickers and all that other shit on my college campus, I see it when I go down town, I see them in the parking lot of the building I work in. And I see the people around here. I see those same things, same stickers, same vitriolic bullshit that is slung towards the president spoke aloud in every day conversation. I vote here on all manner of issues and in most districts that are outside of the perimeter democrats don't even show up. The same people that say the same shit with the same bumper stickers and same uniformed opinions are the ones who show up, not the democrats. At the last campaign rally/get together that I went to, in a NICE neighborhood, people were driving by, throwing rocks and yelling "Nigger lover!" to the people inside.

In regards to the Hilary comment, I feel the way I do because of the ethnic makeup of the town I live in and the surrounding areas. There were multitudes of black churches that came to vote for Obama simply because he was black. Atlanta has a high concentration of black people, especially in comparison to the rest of the state.

Pop your head into the Atlanta GAF thread and ask them if I'm right. About all of it.

I'm so glad that I don't live in the South. I wonder how bad they are toward "muslims" like myself.

That being said, Obama still got 46% of the vote. It won't be that long until the growth of blacks turn that vote to 50.6%.

 

[Oblivion]

This is from the website of that teabagger group that called Obama the "47% negro" yesterday:

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/oklahoma-gop-congressman-confronted-about-obamacare-stance-a

Another GOPer having to explain this. The woman doesn't even care. She just wants a stand for the sake of it, lol.

Here a pro-Obamacare supporter confronts a NC Rep at a townhall. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmLeIkWQsw

What's interesting here is that his "solution" is boo'd. Basically supports high-risk pools but obviously people don't like that since it's pricey.

These town halls will decide how far the GOP is willing to go on this issue. I have my doubts that there will be enough support for them to shut down the gov't and stuff that they will cave (and they'd probably cave regardless).

When the GOP loses this Obamacare fight, it will be interesting to see the reaction. Will the hardliners put up their hands and give up for a cycle? Or will they try to punish them. It's kind of fascinating to watch.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

What is liberal as changed though. Though I do agree that the simplification of the 1960s being a turning point is overblown. The 1800s democratic party was closer to the modern republican platform in policy and the republican party with its abolitionist wing (and then radical reconstructionist) was really the first time people looked to the federal government to right a wrong by forceful action.

The progressive movement though co-opted the democratic party at the turn of the century(Though they weren't exclusive see Teddy). Wilson was the beginning of the turning point (income tax) and FDR solidified the democrats coming behind the use of the federal government for economic improvement as Republicans became co-opted by wall st. and the burgeoning financial industry. Socially the democrats were more racist and that's what really shifted in the 1960s. LBJ casted them aside and said you don't belong here. They then ran to the open arms of the conservative movement.

I accidentally left out the word "economic" in my first sentence. I do not think that's changed for either party. The GOP has always been the economically conservative party. Well, at least through the 1900s.

 

[Oblivion]

I accidentally left out the word "economic" in my first sentence. I do not think that's changed for either party. The GOP has always been the economically conservative party. Well, at least through the 1900s.

Not sure about that. Lincoln created the first income tax and approved of land grant colleges.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Not sure about that. Lincoln created the first income tax and approved of land grant colleges.

I meant going backwards. I can't speak to the 1800s, my 1800s history is not very strong.

 

[empty vessel]

And as I've proven, we can expect different. Those who cast it off as an acceptable response are part of the problem.

I think that's naive. And won't get you anywhere either. Of course, ultimately, criticizing individual Republican politicians who pander to their corporate-created base is not inconsistent with understanding how political parties empirically operate, even if it is relatively futile.

(You didn't prove anything, incidentally. This isn't a geometry class.)

 

[Oblivion]

Well, this should put a smile on everyone's face:

—In 2010, seniors voted for Republicans by a 21 point margin (38 percent to 59 percent). Among seniors likely to vote in 2014, the Republican candidate leads by just 5 points (41 percent to 46 percent.)

—When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives at the beginning of 2011, 43 percent of seniors gave the Republican Party a favorable rating. Last month, just 28 percent of seniors rated the GOP favorably. This is not an equal-opportunity rejection of parties or government — over the same period, the Democratic Party’s favorable rating among seniors has increased 3 points, from 37 percent favorable to 40 percent favorable.

—When the Republican congress took office in early 2011, 45 percent of seniors approved of their job performance. That number has dropped to just 22 percent — with 71 percent disapproving.

—Seniors are now much less likely to identify with the Republican Party. On Election Day in 2010, the Republican Party enjoyed a net 10 point party identification advantage among seniors (29 percent identified as Democrats, 39 percent as Republicans). As of last month, Democrats now had a net 6 point advantage in party identification among seniors (39 percent to 33 percent).

—More than half (55 percent) of seniors say the Republican Party is too extreme, half (52 percent) say it is out of touch, and half (52 percent) say the GOP is dividing the country. Just 10 percent of seniors believe that the Republican Party does not put special interests ahead of ordinary voters.

—On almost every issue we tested — including gay rights, aid to the poor, immigration, and gun control — more than half of seniors believe that the Republican Party is too extreme.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/old_folks_turning_away_from_go046289.php

You know what this means?

 

[el retorno]

I accidentally left out the word "economic" in my first sentence. I do not think that's changed for either party. The GOP has always been the economically conservative party. Well, at least through the 1900s.

There was an economic shift too. It just happened earlier. Wilson/FDR lead it.

As oblivion pointed out Republicans in the late 1800s were actually very fond of using the government as a force in the market.

Well, this should put a smile on everyone's face:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/old_folks_turning_away_from_go046289.php

You know what this means?

Dems in disaray

 

[Black Mamba]

I think that's naive. And won't get you anywhere either. Of course, ultimately, criticizing individual Republican politicians who pander to their corporate-created base is not inconsistent with understanding how political parties empirically operate, even if it is relatively futile.

(You didn't prove anything, incidentally. This isn't a geometry class.)

Says you. But it's exactly why the Dems gained seats in the Senate and while I'm unconvinced it kept Obama in the WH, it sure as hell increased his odds.

You know what this means?

Pretty sharp change. I'd love to know the exact reason for it. Obviously some old people died and some people officially became a senior to replace those. Still seems like a larger shift than just from that.

 

[B-Dubs]

Says you. But it's exactly why the Dems gained seats in the Senate and while I'm unconvinced it kept Obama in the WH, it sure as hell increased his odds.



Pretty sharp change. I'd love to know the exact reason for it. Obviously some old people died and some people officially became a senior to replace those. Still seems like a larger shift than just from that.

It could be their grandkids making them see the light. Or maybe he GOP has just gone that crazy.

 

[Oblivion]

Dems in disaray

Was actually going for "OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE OVER YOUR MEDICARE!".

Judges would have also accepted "bad news for Obama".

It could be their grandkids making them see the light. Or maybe he GOP has just gone that crazy.

Actually, it's cause the death panels turned out to be 25% more efficient than the CBO originally predicted.

 

[Gruco]

Pretty sharp change. I'd love to know the exact reason for it. Obviously some old people died and some people officially became a senior to replace those. Still seems like a larger shift than just from that.

Fewer "Obama trying to take your medicare and send you to his death panel" ads, I'm guessing.

Was actually going for "OBAMA'S GONNA TAKE OVER YOUR MEDICARE!".

Judges would have also accepted "bad news for Obama".

My gut reactions was "dead heat"

 

[Tamanon]

GOP is going to have real trouble on their hands when they're no longer running against a black man.

 

[Black Mamba]

Supposedly, drudge is reporting Megyn Kelly is taking Hannity's time slot soon on Fox. lolz.

 

[B-Dubs]

Supposedly, drudge is reporting Megyn Kelly is taking Hannity's time slot soon on Fox. lolz.

...and here I thought that slot couldn't get any worse

 

[Oblivion]

...and here I thought that slot couldn't get any worse

Hmm? Kelly's a moron, no doubt, but she's way more tolerable than Hannity. At least she doesn't always have that stupid smug face on all the time.

Spoiler

Also, she's the milfiest host on the network. Can't not take that into account!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Supposedly, drudge is reporting Megyn Kelly is taking Hannity's time slot soon on Fox. lolz.

I'll watch for the Lulz.
hannity to 10?

On another note. Some guy is making a Benghazi statue. You can even donate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ljkTjNsXu6Q

Marra's been contacted by politicians about the statue -- he won't say who -- and imagines that if it's bought it'll go up in D.C. "The statue there of MLK cost #120 million and it was made in China!" he said. "When this is done, it will cost much less, and Ican't imagine it would go anywhere else but DC. Hopefully it wouldn't be partisan, either. I'd like to see something in DC where they're all working together. And it doesn't really belong in New York City. I don't think it belongs in Libya."

 

[B-Dubs]

Hmm? Kelly's a moron, no doubt, but she's way more tolerable than Hannity. At least she doesn't always have that stupid smug face on all the time.

Spoiler

Also, she's the milfiest host on the network. Can't not take that into account!

That's why I find her worse. You know not to listen to Hannity because of his smug smile, that's how you know he's full of shit. Kelly is worse because of the reasons you mentioned, more people might actually take her seriously.

 

[Wilsongt]

Well, this should put a smile on everyone's face:



http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_08/old_folks_turning_away_from_go046289.php

You know what this means?

Skewed. The numbers are actually overwhelmingly in favor of the GOP. By a 50 point margin.

 

[Ataraxia]

Hmm? Kelly's a moron, no doubt, but she's way more tolerable than Hannity. At least she doesn't always have that stupid smug face on all the time.

Spoiler

Also, she's the milfiest host on the network. Can't not take that into account!

Care to explain why she's a moron? Have you actually watched her legal coverage? She's an extremely bright attorney with a solid grasp of legal issues. Or does being "milfest" mean dumb bimbo can't be smart?

 

[Oblivion]

Care to explain why she's a moron? Have you actually watched her legal coverage? She's an extremely bright attorney with a solid grasp of legal issues. Or does being "milfest" mean dumb bimbo can't be smart?

You're right. "Moron" probably wasn't the best descriptor. "Hack" would be more appropriate.

 

[thepotatoman]

Well, speaking of wondering how the right got so right to propose shutting down the government over this, here is an article posted in the Wall Street Journal written by one of our friends down at the Heritage Foundation.

President Obama, along with all the Democrats, will accuse Republicans of trying to shut down the government by giving the president a spending bill that he must veto. But there is no "must" about it. If the president opts to shut down all of government instead of just ObamaCare, that will be his choice, not the wish of conservatives.

In some ways I can see where this line of thought is coming from, even though that line of thinking just feels so very wrong for some reason that I can't quite put to the right words.

If a live grenade lands near two people, and one person needs to jump on it to save the other, whose fault do the deaths of the two people lie on should neither choose to jump on the grenade. Obviously it's still whoever threw the damn grenade. So basically whoever started this issue should carry all the blame, and who started it seems obvious but I don't know how I would go about proving that Republicans started this.

I mean the Democrats have never said anything but that they'd rather let the government shut down than to defund ACA, and their position on that probably does predate Republicans wondering if they should take the same line of reasoning replacing the word defund with fund.

So how do you guys respond to that sort of quote.

 

[pigeon]

So how do you guys respond to that sort of quote.

I really don't. That's literally the rhetoric used by hostage takers and abusers to control people. I would prefer just not to engage with it, because doing so is just allowing the speaker to define the battlefield. I'm happy to let public opinion be the judge of who's right.