Midterms: The Very Best (and Worst!) Outcomes
Here are the best—and worst—outcomes of the midterm elections.
The Best!
1. We threw the bums out
Even the Republican stalwarts at Fox News agree the GOP takeover of the Senate was a protest vote against President Obama and his failed policies, not an endorsement of Mitch McConnell and his party-mates. It's always good to see politicians held accountable at the ballot box.
2. Pot legalization
Voters in Alaska, Oregon, and Washigton, DC legalized recreational marijuana, dealing another body blow to the war on drugs. A majority in Florida backed medical marijuana, but the total fell short of the 60 percent necessary for approval there.
3. Public-Sector Unions Lost Big.
Democrat Gina Raimondo became governor of Rhode Island despite being opposed by public sector unions for her central role in reining in out of control pension plans. Republican Govs. Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Snyder in Michigan were re-elected despite taking on public-sector unions, too.
The Worst!
1. Minimum Wage Hikes
Voters in four states approved hikes in the minimum wage. Whatever the intentions might be, making workers more expensive by legislative fiat will make it that much harder for the least-skilled people to find jobs.
2. Berkeley, California Passes Sin Tax on Soda
The People's Republic of Berkeley overwhelmingly passed the country's "first real sin tax on soda in the United States." The tax will increase the cost of a 20 ounce soda by 10 percent.
3. The GOP Senate is ready to spend
The bipartisan budget agreement reached late last year increased spending beyond the levels set by sequestration. And while many of the new Republican senators have been vague on what programs they would cut, they all have pledged to support defense spending and to "protect" and "preserve" Social Security and Medicare. That almost certainly means spending hikes over the next two years.
About 2 minutes. Produced by Meredith Bragg. Written by Nick Gillespie.
Scroll below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
That's gold, Gillespie. Gold!
OT: Dem Mega-Donor Commutes to Work on Gas-Guzzling Yacht
When I clicked on that, at the top of the article was a link to another article....accompanied by a pic of an aircraft carrier.
And I thought, "DAYUM!"
I'm not sure I'd call that a yacht...it's more like an over-sized motorboat.
Any boat that has a motor room, servant quarters, a smaller boat, and a sink next to the grill because the full-size galley is too far away, is a yacht.
And costs $850,000.
Must be bigger than it looks, then. It looks more like a fancied-up charter boat.
Fancy enough for me.
"Berkeley, California Passes Sin Tax on Soda"
Not high on the concern chart. Nobody shops in Berkeley other than the people who live there, so they got what they deserve.
Yeah, I'm fine with that. Although I wonder if it applies on campus, which is state property.
Imagine the signs in Top Dog!
Will this apply, to organic, artisanal, cruelty free, soda?
Not so. Berkeley Bowl is the Greatest Grocery Store on earth.
"The People's Republic of Berkeley." Hah, love it!
The phrase has been going around since the '70s, I think.
Back then, it was kind of a joke. Not anymore.
To me the best moment may have been Alaska passing the marihuana amendment. We needed a Red state to do that lest the idea become branded as some Blue state weirdness, like eating Arugula
Anything other than iceberg and Romaine is unamerican!
*puts down arugula spliff* You're supposed to eat arugula?
That's a tough one. I don't know if any red states have any planned referendums coming up. I bet that KY would pass one if they put it up though. I used to live there and there are lots of rednecks, but they are the 'leave me the fuck alone' type of rednecks and cannabis growing and use was very popular there when I lived there a few decades ago.
I'm thinking maybe Western Red states, like AZ or MT?
I'd be surprised if MT did. When I lived there (some time ago now), it was a lot of "family values' Republicans who would see MJ use as a threat to their kids.
I agreed with them then but have since been enlightened.
I agreed with them then but have since been enlightened
I wish I could find a way to enlighten my wife about that. She was just talking about the new legalization wins here, and she doesn't get it. I keep trying. Economy wise, she's a pretty libertarian free market girl. But I can't seem to get her to stop being such a SoCon. Oh well, I will keep trying.
I was pretty much a SoCon - and I still hold those moral beliefs. But (1) historically I see the folly of trying to enforce them by law; (2) as a Christian, I have come to believe there are all kinds of bad consequences for religion if you use the state to try to enforce religion-based morality.
I'm trying to get my wife to that point. Big believer in ten-step type programs (did wonders for my brother), and also a believer -- but everything that the government has done on this issue has been incredibly toxic and devastating to liberty, to boot.
This is absolutely true. SoCons tend to hype the law of unintended consequences until it comes to their pony. The fact of the matter is that you can't change hearts by forcing people to put on a facade of righteousness. In fact, that is the fastest way to harden people's hearts.
It's double especially dumb for the "grace solely by faith" denominations to be so preoccupied with people's actions. By the beliefs of their own religion, molding people into unbelieving automatons following the letter of the Bible does nothing to help people's eternal souls. I have such a hard time with conservative christians, because they've siloed their faith away from their politics. They can be the most devout person ever, but they're a TEAM player, no matter the Bible's teaching.
It's double especially dumb for the "grace solely by faith" denominations to be so preoccupied with people's actions. By the beliefs of their own religion, molding people into unbelieving automatons following the letter of the Bible does nothing to help people's eternal souls.
Bingo! This was one of the key points for me.
Also, if you're going to enforce some aspect of biblical law, you have immediate problems. Even is you toss out ceremonial law stick with, say, the 10 commandments, you have to execute people for envy. Which means we're all dead. (this was all part of my theology maturing (?)).
The problem for a lot of conservative Christians is they look back to Puritan Massachusetts as a model - no space to go into that here - but it is a key aspect of the way a lot of Christians look at politics.
".....they look back to Puritan Massachusetts..."
Is that the same Massachusetts where more than half of the children were born out of wedlock to underage girls? That one?
That sure makes sense.
Out of wedlock: depends on what time period. During the first 30-40 years or so, number of women pregnant a marriage, or with children already was close to zero. From the perspective of people who want a well-ordered, highly moral, god-fearing society, it's a pretty good model.
The problems, of course, are myriad. As you point out, it quickly changed. The bigger problem is that this was a largely voluntary society. That is, if you didn't want to live in, say, Dedham, Mass, you didn't have to. The SoCon approach now require everyone to live under those laws.
And there are a lot more problems to that take multiple books to deal with such as killing lots of Indians.
Yes, and the thing about Puritan Mass was that it was full of Puritans! Church and state were merged in an "unholy union." Modern Christians seem to completely miss the entirety of 1 Cor 5.
Yes, and the thing about Puritan Mass was that it was full of Puritans! Church and state were merged in an "unholy union."
True. In defense of the Puritans (but not modern Christians) there really wasn't any other model in Christendom: "one prince, one faith." They simply couldn't conceive of competing faiths because that way led to complete and utter chaos. That was the basic assumption of what would happen in Rhode Island: that the colony would simply dissolve into lawlessness.
The problem for a lot of conservative Christians is they look back to Puritan Massachusetts as a model - no space to go into that here - but it is a key aspect of the way a lot of Christians look at politics.
My dad is a line towing, Christian Republican. I had a discussion about this with him once, and the way he was looking at politics was "We need to make sure we legislate our morality before someone else legislates theirs."
The problem for a lot of conservative Christians is they look back to Puritan Massachusetts as a model
So do the proggie Christians. My Facebook feed at Halloween was full of them railing about "corporate" candy and how horrible it is to let kids get Reese's cups or somesuch. AGW, the inherent racism of opposition to Obama, and the evil of GMOs, Koch Brothers, and Monsanto are held as religious dogma.
The SJW movement has a strong whiff of Puritanism, and the Christian Prog SJWs are nearly indistinguishable from their Plymouth Colony philosophical forebears.
Growing up, I got tired of having to constantly stop and make sure I was peeling away all the politics and social beliefs that Christianity came wrapped in.
My parents' church would frequency list parts of creeds or confessions of faith in the bulletin. The pastor would read a section and then the congregation would respond. I refused to participate unless I had had time to read it before hand. It seemed incredibly dishonest to blindly read aloud something called a "confession of faith" without first making sure that "yep, I believe this." Especially since I wasn't sure I believed most of what Calvin had to say concerning pre-destination.
Yet 99.9% of everyone else just recited whatever was placed in front of them.
I usually lead with the whole "locking human beings in a cage" thingy.
I just tried that approach, but I'm not at my most patient tonight.
*scratches head*
Do you have a cage in your house right now?
Because.....
Yes, good idea... the old "cop and pothead" bedroom game. That one's a classic!
I meant saying that I don't myself use pot, but I don't agree with locking people in cages who do.
That's what I meant too. The second one was a joke.
Suuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrree.
I'll be surprised if it passes in either of those states. My guess is that the next state to legalize will be Maine. And I don't think we can call that a red state. But at least it's an eastern blue state, so there's good news.
I was totally surprised at the DC initiative passing like it did, and by a wide margin. More Maryland and Virginia residents will be spending vacation time or weekends in DC, I have a feeling.
AZ would probably be a good one for it if the entire political establishment of the state wasn't so uniformly against it. Every politician since I've moved here with any power or name recognition -- from that worthless fucktard Arpio to the twin bitch governors from hell, Brewer and Napolitano -- has been dead set against it, as have our courts. We have had to pass medical MJ three times, and it's only taken this last time (the other two times it was struck down by the courts and later by the legislature as a result of federal pressure -- thanks, Janet Reno!).
Won't happen, but our political culture is good for it and it would pass if it weren't for the toxic assholes we have in power.
I'm not surprised by what you just told me. And I think a lot of it has to do with the population of old curmudgeons who vote that flock to sunny warm states like AZ and FL after retirement, which is why the initiative failed yesterday in FL.
Once some of these old geezers kick the bucket and the old geezers moving there are from my gen, the latter stage of the boomers, it will pass. So you need to wait 10 years there, or at least 5.
True. Jackass snowbirds coming in for NY vote here with zero understanding of our politics or modus vivendi, and now we're being overflooded by the California fucktards who want to outlaw smoking and sane business policies. Much ink has been spilled about the corrosive effects of the white AZ rancher type or the Mexican immigrants, and it's all from the people who are really and truly fucking our fair state's politics: out-of-staters. As an Arizonan, I'm dead set against immigration and anyone trying to make it across the border should be shot without remorse -- provided that they are coming in from our western border or NY, that is.
Those old curmudgeons were rolling huge spliffs of Mexican pot when they were teens.
Nothing planned in Louisiana because Jindal won't sign. Almost everyone here wants it. It would pass tomorrow if we didn't have a douchebag as governor.
It is coming.
So CO is blue? I'd call it purple, not blue
Definitely not blue, but OR and WA are trending to an ever deeper shade of blue
"To me the best moment may have been Alaska passing the marihuana amendment. We needed a Red state to do that lest the idea become branded as some Blue state weirdness, like eating Arugula"
That's a good point Bo.
Sarah Palin endorsing the referendum would have been great, if only for the sheer entertainment value of it.
I can remember when pot was more or less legal in Alaska - back before the Reagan Revolution and his busy body wife's Just Say No bullshit.
Double down Obama, double down on progderp!
These morons never learn do they? One thing I know about the stupid party is that they are not stupid enough to actually impeach Obama, but if he really does try all of this shit that the crazies at Salon are suggesting, they will do something to stop him, short of impeachment. But I guess the Dems are like some type of gluttons for punishment, because this is just the kind of shit that resulted in yesterdays 'ass whuppin' for the Dems. It sounds like they want more of the same.
Well Dalmia is advocating the "progderp" on Immigration.
This is something I talk about daily, with my wife who is a legal immigrant here, and with a lot of other people. No one that I know supports mass amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's not popular and if the Dems think they got destroyed last night, they haven't seen anything yet if they arrogantly do that by executive order against the will of most Americans.
Now let me add this. If you want to accuse me of being some type of xenophobe, let me first say this.
You want to allow Mexicans to just walk across the border here and give them all the legal rights and protections that American citizens enjoy? Fine, but there's this little thing known as reciprocity. Which means, I can also just walk across that border anytime I like and enjoy all the rights as a citizen of Mexico. I think that it was Derptologist who has a blog with an excellent write up example of this idea.
Mexico is notoriously unwelcoming to anyone who sneaks in from their southern border.
Which is why the Guatemalans just bypass Mexico and keep going until they arrive here.
Which means, I can also just walk across that border anytime I like and enjoy all the rights as a citizen of Mexico.
Don't college kids do this and receive more rights than citizens of Mexico?
No they just can afford to buy better treatment from Mexican authorities.
It's interesting how Michael Bloomberg now proceeds to ass rape the rest of America, even though he holds no public office. I'm now realizing that term limits are a bad idea. I wish New Yorkers could have kept this guy forever.
Well maybe he wants to do all of that, but in reality, he's just an impotent little twerp who happens to be very wealthy. Mostly what he's done is wasted a lot of his own money on failed gun control efforts, but he's hardly, as far as I know really affected much of anything.
Well his gun control efforts just succeeded here in Washington, because Initiative 594 passed and now we will have absurd background check rules on EVERY gun sale or transfer. Supposedly to not do the background check, even when giving a gun to a relative with no money changing hands, will be a felony. And since most of us are not FFLs, this should have a nice chilling effect on private gun sales, which is exactly what the gun grabber scum want.
Fuck Bloomberg. Fuck him even harder than he should have been fucked before. I cannot seem to get away from gun control scum no matter where I move.
That really sucks.
So I'm guessing that the progderps there can't envision having legal weed and guns at the same time?
But really, I'm sorry to hear that. It's a serious violation of the 2nd, and there's enough of, too much, of that already.
From what I've read there was a lot of support for it in King County (Seattle's county), which makes some sense, but the rest of the state is much less liberal and gun control-y, so I don't know what the hell happened. My guess is that the gun controllers crafted their message the right way to get people to vote for "common sense gun control", plus the Marysville school shooting was just a few weeks ago (what a godsend for the gun control scum that was, which is why they always get huge BAN BONERS and love school shootings), even though background checks wouldn't have done squat, as is always the case. There was a competing initiative, 591, which would have done the opposite: banned any background check regime stiffer than the federal rules. it got 40+% yes.
The gun grabber scum are going to see this victory and try and duplicate it everywhere else they can, mark my words. Get ready for the rest of you to find it coming to your state.
Isn't it amazing that some people insist on background checks before the exercising of the Constitutional right of gun ownership, and then insist that asking for an ID before voting is an outrageous imposition on civil liberties?
And isn't it bizarre that we have states legalizing a drug that the feds consider a Schedule 1 narcotic, equivalent to heroin?
I'm now for Voter ID more than ever. Think of it as a background check for Democracy.
It's for the children.
"Get ready for the rest of you to find it coming to your state."
I have no doubt you are correct. Good luck to 'em in Louisiana. I hope they pour a billion dollars into it.
Dude, that is exactly what I would have said about them trying it in Washington before yesterday. I'm kind of blown away that it passed, and not by 51/49, but like 60/40. This state, other than this new shit, is very gun-friendly.
That has been the law in California for years. Surprised it hasn't been copied in more states.
CA is hardly a bellwether for gun regulations.
I'm sure the bureaucracy to ensure that all of those "very effective" background checks are completed won't cost us a dime, either.
I loved the pro-594 commercial, though, with the weepy blonde chick, boo-hooing that a background check would magically have prevented her homicidal dad from trying to shoot her mom. Classic liberal thinking: "a law will stop this problem dead in its tracks!" *smh*
The fact is that they'll keep coming for our guns until we decide to use them.
It's not a statement for polite company, but it's an absolute truism.
I agree, they will never stop. But finally over the last years since Heller they have been taking a terrible beating. And I really did not expect them to get a victory here.
but he's hardly, as far as I know really affected much of anything.
As Epi pointed out, Gun Control in Washington, and Soda Taxes in Berkeley.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014.....udice.html
NY Times idiot writes piece stating that gun permit issuances discriminate against minorities so voter id laws will too. Ignoring the more subjective elements that make gun permits harder to obtain than, say, any other form of ID, he dossn't seem to realize that he argues that gun control, a leftist holy cow, systematically shafts minorities.
I would agree that in general government regulatory requirements are most difficult for those with the least resources and bureaucratic savvy to meet.
In the broadest possible sense.
However, if that idea is taken too broadly, it could be suggested that the entire welfare system, from Social Security, to food stamps, to public housing is racist-- or at the least, discriminatory towards those with the fewest resources.
Those with the fewest resources rely on government employees to interpret things and guide them, which creates dependence. Which is of course how the government employees like it.
The whole 'minorities can't get an ID' argument is laughable. They are arguing that the same people they want to enroll in a myriad of state assistance programs, navigating a maze of byzantine bureaucracy, can't find their way to the fucking DMV.
In reality, the people of little resources I know, especially minorities, have quite a bit of bureaucratic savvy. They have years of experience and game the shit out of the system. To say that these people can't get an ID is absurd.
I, on the other hand, have no such savvy. I do have an ID.
Remember a few years ago when this was a big deal in Pennsylvania? The lead plaintiff was an old black woman. They took her to the DMV to show that it would be impossible for her to get an ID, and... she got an ID. Oops!
"They took her to the DMV "
Er, did you notice something?
And old black woman that wasn't on medicare, medicaid, social security or any other government program? She was off the grid, eating from a backyard victory garden and a roof covered in solar panels?
It's amazing how some people can't even conceive of life situations different from their own.
Are you under the impression that people have to yearly show ID to keep on ever government program or pay bills? These people usually had valid IDs and then they expired as they became older and more 'shut in'
So you admit she's not registered to vote.
It's amazing how some people can't even conceive of life situations different from their own.
Are you under the impression that people have to yearly show ID to keep on ever government program or pay bills?
And this is really... really rich. Really rich. Do you have ANY fucking idea how often I have to provide my social security number to do shit, on a bi-monthly basis?
That's you. Now get this: some people's experience may be different!
That's you. Now get this: some people's experience may be different!
WHO GIVES A FUCK?!! We are told CONSTANTLY by the left how utterly impossible it is to navigate the byzantine bureaucracy that is the social welfare system. DURING THAT TIME, give them a FREE VOTER ID.
We have this thing called Technology.
What's you last name, Ma'am?
Can you give me your birth date?
Last four of your social security?
Yep, you can vote.
So you think we should use some easier method to bypass the requirement of a Gov. Issued photo ID and you're arguing with me...why? I agree
2. Birth certificates can be a real piano to get copies of. And 10 dollars, is that an appropriate poll tax?
You're arguing against voter ID.
Have you now switched your position to only argue against photo-id-- an ID only issued at a DMV between the hours of 10:45am and 2pm, closed for lunch?
I never made such an argument, and everyone who seems to argue against Voter id seems to imply this is the ONLY reliable form of voter id.
It is not. I believe that a large amount of ineligible voters and voting could be snuffed out with a simple unique ID and tracking system to make sure you didn't vote twice.
"It is not. I believe that a large amount of ineligible voters and voting could be snuffed out with a simple unique ID and tracking system to make sure you didn't vote twice."
Agreed on this, but that isn't what's being implemented under voter ID laws
Agreed on this, but that isn't what's being implemented under voter ID laws
To be honest with you Bo (I'm a little hopped up right now because I didn't win ANYTHING in this election), I'm not convinced of any massive, coordinated voter fraud.
What I'm convinced of is hundreds of thousands of voters across the country literally believe they can vote in multiple jurisdictions because they may maintain residences across several.
I'm honestly more concerned with legitimate, registered voters, voting two, three or more times.
Your problem is you can't CONCEIVE of ANY voter ID situation which doesn't involve driving to the DMV, getting your picture taken and going through some ongoing yearly paperwork process.
Do you have a social security card? Exactly, neither do I. Haven't had a social security card since I was about 17. Yet that 9 digit number keeps on a rattlin' about in my head.
And my ss card was funny, didn't even have my pitcher on it!
What do you even think you're talking about now? Really, I'm asking. SS cards are not photo IDs, and knowing your SS is even more worthless.
Birth certificates do not expire. And you can get a new copy anytime for $10.
With that birth certificate in hand, you can get a state photo ID.
Stop making shit up.
1. With just a BC? Post 9/11 most places require more than just that.
2. Birth certificates can be a real piano to get copies of. And 10 dollars, is that an appropriate poll tax?
1. With just a BC? Post 9/11 most places require more than just that.
Yeah. I'm going to need both my birth certificate and my SS card when it comes time to renew my license. Fortunately I put them together when I got my marriage license, so it's all there. At the time I only had my SS card.
2. Birth certificates can be a real piano to get copies of. And 10 dollars, is that an appropriate poll tax?
Had to send away to the state where I was born to get the birth certificate. It wasn't an overnight process.
But I think you're missing the point (as usual). You are arguing over a voter ID, as in a new card and database to prevent fraud by keeping track of where a person is registered to vote to prevent them from voting in more than one place, as well as being a piece of identification. Looks to me like Paul is only arguing that at poll time a person shows the same ID they would use to rent a car or buy alcohol or cigarettes.
Is "piano" a thing like "tow the lion"?
An old black woman who couldn't get an ID but was mysteriously registered to vote?
I can do this all day.
Never heard of the Motor Voter acts mail in sections?
It's Bo, you can do that til the cows come home and it'll just bounce right off.
Yes, the argument that she must have valid ID because she's registered to vote fails to move me. Now is that because 'Bo' or because the argument rests on a demonstrable ignorance of registration laws?
Here's an interesting passage from an article that tries to DEBUNK the myth of massive voter fraud:
What do we learn from this passage? What we learn is, we don't really know, it's hard to really match anyone up, all we can do is extrapolate, and we don't have the resources to investigate.
I'm not super-comfortable knowing that there might-- or might not-- be a large number of people in this country engaging in active or accidental voter fraud-- when we've just proven that the act of voting is one of the most potential violent acts a person can commit.
http://www.politifact.com/pund.....eople-vot/
"They took her to the DMV "
Er, did you notice something?
Yes, I noticed that, just as people are often given rides to the polls, she got a ride to the DMV. If the latter is not a barrier, why is the former?
Yes, it's total bullshit. The Dems need illegal voters. And dead ones, and dogs and cats, dead dogs and cats...
"The Dems need illegal voters. "
Oh, hogwash. Sometimes the Dems are just more popular than the GOP. You'd do best to face that fact.
Sometimes the Dems are just more popular than the GOP. You'd do best to face that fact.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that they truly believe that they can solve their unpopularity by importing millions of poor, uneducated, 3rd world people and get their votes by making them dependent on government. They really do believe this, you know that, right? Or do you just believe that the Dems have so much empathy for foreigners, just like they do for blacks?
For the very few that believe that most of them want such people to be citizens first.
It doesn't matter if they're citizens. That's what Motor Voter does: signs people up to vote, even when they aren't citizens.
I think you mean less unpopular.
Funny how that cuts both ways, no Bo?
Of course, nothing funny about it. I have just as much impatience with the Lefts excuses when they lose (secret campaign donors! Rigged election machines! Voter suppression) than I do the conservative versions (massive urban illegal fraud!!)
Do these laws create bureaucrats to help people get the State Approved Papers?
"he argues that gun control, a leftist holy cow, systematically shafts minorities."
He is not arguing it, he is admitting it.
Mask slips revealing that is a feature not a bug.
Of course. It was the original purpose of gun control and still a very big part of it.
I guess when you have a wave, some dregs will be swept in with it
"Gordon 'Dr. Chaps' Klingenschmitt, a radical anti-gay Religious Right activist who brags of having once tried to rid of woman of the 'foul spirit of lesbianism' through an exorcism and who openly proclaims that 'American law needs to reflect God's law and that our foreign policy must be based on the Bible, won election to the Colorado House of Representatives last night...Klingenschmitt is a viciously anti-gay theocrat who believes that gay people 'want your soul' and may sexually abuse their own children, which is why he says they should face government discrimination since only people who are going to heaven are entitled to equal treatment by the government"
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/.....xBvwy.dpuf
Wow. How bad was the Democratic candidate to lose to this guy?
It's possible that the Dem wanted to take people's guns. This nutjob just wants to ban gay sex. I know which one I am more leery of. Yes, the one who actually might have a chance to act on his sick fantasy.
You can watch this jackhole take on gays and lose, or watch reasonable, educated progressives take on guns and win. Choices choices.
No shit.
Great counter-concern-troll.
Bo, How bad was the shit head loser in this election? Please document it for us.
Klingenschmitt is a viciously anti-gay theocrat who believes that gay people 'want your soul'
He should move to Russia, Putin will embrace him I'm sure.
Klingenschmitt is a viciously anti-gay theocrat who believes that gay people 'want your soul'
He should move to Russia, Putin will embrace him I'm sure.
Better yet, move to Iran. That's where all the religious nuts are.
Ahem. I believe there are a few in Iraq and Syria.
Ah theocrats, the people who believe that Jesus wanted to rule with an iron fist and spread his love at gunpoint.
Ah yes, the "Let's find the looniest local and unknown Republican and use him as a symbol for the entire party" gambit.
I notice you make similar complaints when people here quote, say, obscure leftist bloggers or even random commenters on blogs.
are you referring to yourself?
I come bearing gifts of Democratic Underground.
It's suddenly clear... a lot of folks here seem to believe in supply-side politics
Well someone doesn't know what supply side economics is.
Will your nonvoting sister or aunt or next door female neighbor vote if DEATH is the alternative?
Will it help if the Gardner's and Ernst's and Cruz's go on national television and assure you they plan on eliminating ALL birth control
Well, since that's not going to happen anywhere outside of your imagination, then I guess you had better come up with something else.
Its not their imagination. It is what he was told. As for coming up with something else, if they were capable of doing so they wouldn't have doubled down on the War on Women meme, or gun control, or Racism!, and so on. From what Obumbles said today I am under the impression they are going to double double down now.
I think Epi is right in his comment below.
Best selection: "terrorists were taking the Senate "
I threw more intelligent temper tantrums when I was 6. These are scorned people. Their identity was up for vote and they lost, and now their feelings are hurt.
All this idiotic tantrum throwing is funny on some level, but I feel awful about it as well. The fact that we have these emoting children-in-adult-bodies running around, guiding public discourse is downright scary.
Someone got really high last night and read too much of Atwood's A Handmaiden's Tale.
Well someone doesn't know what supply side economics is.
Progs don't know what anything is. They have surpassed TEAM RED's odd KULTUR WAR embrace of being nonintellectual and unsophisticated as a virtue, and have literally adopted knowing nothing about anything other than what their political masters tell them as their virtue. They proudly do not read the works of different thinkers. They will gladly trumpet their ignorance to any forum that will have them. They now actively make themselves stupider as part of their philosophy. It's astounding to watch.
It's a figment of the Internet. You or I could go over there and tear their fantasies down point-by-point, and salt the metaphorical fields, winning in a rout, but it would have no effect. Internet discourse is mere sparring and social signalling, and has no value to them beyond that. As you say, they are not interested in intellectual growth or expanding their horizons. They are RIGHT dammit! because feelings are not wrong! Their so-called "philosophy" is to feel their way from issue to issue, taking the expedient and gratifying position, no matter the still-small voice in the back of their head that says "this is bullshit!"
Oh, I totally agree, but for slightly different reasons. The internet has allowed echo-chambering on a scale never before conceived of. For people prone to wanting absolutely no dissenting voices or differing opinions, it has allowed them to wall themselves off from anything but the most asskissing, backslapping forums where only one rigid party line is allowed and the slightest deviation will get you banned.
This guy is what happens when that becomes your entire intellectual input. Except there are millions of people like him/her, people equally as ignorant and stupid and proud of it.
This is not to say the internet is a bad thing--it's a great thing--but with new technology comes change that has to be adapted to, both good and bad.
Especially when you commit so much of your identity to your politics. Admitting that you're wrong or that someone who disagrees with you may be right stops being a part of discourse and becomes an existential threat to your well-being.
I...uh...wow. That isn't the only thing he doesn't understand.
I applaud you for plumbing the depths of stupid there, but take it easy, you don't want to go blind.
He seriously seems to believe that supply side economics means that people will just manufacture whatever the fuck they want and everyone will somehow be forced to buy it.
Because consumers are automatons who mindlessly follow the dictates of their kkkorporate masters.
Because consumers are automatons who mindlessly follow the dictates of their kkkorporate masters.
That's why it's better that the government takes over all production and makes the widgets that they decide everyone will want. That way there is no choice and everyone has the same widget. Equality!
I have pointed out many times that proggie mentality is one in which only a small, limited number of explanations are allowed and only one course of action no matter the issue or situation.
Case in point; the gibberish quoted earlier by a prog saying that the Rs elected blacks because those blacks are white supremacists. I would bet you can also find one saying that republican women officeholders are supporters of the ciswhiteheteropatriarchy.
No matter how much info they have, no matter what they see with their own eyes, they can't draw a sensible conclusion. Only a few explanations are available to them by reflex. It is the opposite of thinking. It is more like the religious fanatic that quotes the bible to you no matter what you say to them.
This is a really interesting way of putting it. They only have so many conclusions they are allowed to reach, so everything gets explained in the ways that arrive at that conclusion, no matter how far-fetched or absurd.
I had conversations like that as a child with some true believer Southern Baptists. It was just the climate I grew up in. I remember the 1969 moon landing and I was with a friend of mine at his house. His grandmother a longtime Southern Baptist was sitting on the porch. I will never forget this.
My friend and I were discussing the first human moon landing, when his grandmother piped up and said 'It's not real, they didn't go there!'. I asked her why not. Here is a close proximity the conversation that went on:
Me: Why not?
grandma: Because, the Bible!
Me: What? What about the Bible?
grandma: Because the Bible!
Me: What does the Bible say about the moon landing. I've read the entire thing several times and there's nothing in there about the moon landing.
grandma: That's right, boy! If God intended people to go to the moon, he'd of built some stairs to get up there!
Me: .... uh.....
Same thing with the 6000 year old earth. You cannot reason with those people. They'll just start saying: Well, let me see, Adam begat Able, and ...
The proggies don't realize just how much like religious fundies that they really are.
Moon landing
+1
Wow, Hyperion, amazing. I've had many amusing conversations with leftists, but nothing like that. It sounds like something out of fevered leftist propaganda.
Damn man. You are old. Older than me. And I feel old.
No matter how much info they have, no matter what they see with their own eyes, they can't draw a sensible conclusion. Only a few explanations are available to them by reflex. It is the opposite of thinking. It is more like the religious fanatic that quotes the bible to you no matter what you say to them.
People on the left judge a person first, then what the person says. If they don't like something about the person, like their politics for example, then they will disagree with everything the person says rich down to the color of the sky.
That's why you so often see people on the left engaging in ad hominem fallacies. To them those are compelling arguments. It's like they think life is a court show where all they need to do is discredit the witness person to prove their testimony arguments to be wrong.
Conversely if the person can sufficiently impress our dear leftist, by having the correct politics for example, then our dear leftist will hang on every word and repeat the message like a parrot.
All the while applying no critical thought whatsoever to any of the arguments themselves.
Tony and AGW is a great example ("Are you smarter than an NASA scientist?"). Or the criticism the left heaps on Ayn Rand the person to discredit her writings ("She had an affair with a married man, so her philosophy is bunch of shit!").
C'mon Irish - shooting fish in a barrel. Big, fat, stupid, slow-moving fish.
Yes, but they're hilarious fish that flounder so wonderfully.
V no one is doing shit about all the criminality going on with the banks, politicians, and anyone that breaks the law as long as they're filthy rich.
Isn't it strange that the Democrats with 6 years of majority, also did nothing about those things either?
OBSTRUCTSHUNIST REPUBLINAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't anyone tell them the current politics over, say, the Export Import Bank
One of the worst was here in St. Louis. Sharon Carpenter, who resigned her office due to corruption (a whole lot of corruption), won it back again in a landslide.
Democratic control of cities is almost monolithic. Doesn't matter who the candidate is, as long as there is a D behind it, they win...
Some NY congressman (R) just got decisively re-elected, despite being under indictment for some tax thing.
Michael Grimm, the former FBI agent that once threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony. That dude's real piece of work, but despite all his shenanigans he still managed to get an endorsement from the Daily fucking News of all rags.
If you're a Democrat and can't get an endorsement from them against a corrupt and thuggish piece of shit like Grimm, you don't deserve to win.
I wanna add :
Here in Austin we defeated a big stupid choo-choo-boondoggle. I'm sure it'll still be on the ballot next time. And the next time. And forever, and'll it'll eventually pass. But still, every time it's defeated, it's 200 dollars a year that I don't have to pay. So it's still a NPV win. That's my opmtistic spin for the year anyways.
Here in Austin
Goddamn, I miss that place.
Okay, now that Republicans have their largest majority in congress since 1928 they are finally going to get down to business and immediately repeal Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, Brady, REAL ID [...list billions and billions of other major legislation here] and for good measure cut off funding to FinCEN, the TSA, and the BATF.
We await with bated breath.
No?
It's funny. Since election day, I haven't heard any politician utter the phrase, "repeal Obamacare."
People like Coulter and Hannity keep blaming "spineless" or "stupid" republicans for not doing more -- I live for the day when the scales fall from their eyes and they see that the GOP pols are playing them for dupes.
Yeah...I remember the 1994 Republican "wave" all too well. And 2006 with the Democrats. Liars and phonies all.
I bet there will be no attempt at all to repeal Obamacare, nor Dodd-Frank.
I don't know about that. This was right at the beginning of Boehner and McConnell's oped in the WSJ this AM:
"Looking ahead to the next Congress, we will honor the voters' trust by focusing, first, on jobs and the economy. Among other things, that means a renewed effort to debate and vote on the many bills that passed the Republican-led House in recent years with bipartisan support, but were never even brought to a vote by the Democratic Senate majority. It also means renewing our commitment to repeal ObamaCare, which is hurting the job market along with Americans' health care."
I'm not confident in how well they'll do, but they are talking about it.
Thomas Massie was talking about repeal this morning on the radio.
He says that repeal bills will finally make their way to Obama--even if only to show that nice big veto(and the names of all the Dems that voted against it)
SOX has been fully implemented for years. Repealing it will do nothing; even private firms follow it almost to the letter.
And let's be honest, if we're to have laws regulating business then SOX is an example to follow: it's short, clear, and concise and largely requires some amount of mens rea to violate. It's not perfect by any means, but the damage is done, it wasn't exactly severe, and it occurred during an expansion instead of in the midst of a chronic stagnation.
Ah, yes. The old "it's already fully implemented, therefore repealing it would piss off all the companies who already scrambled to comply with the new law" argument.
Just wait until SOX starts being used to prosecute commercial fishermen for dumping fish overboard. Oh wait...
Repeal it.