2014 Midterms

[Nanker]

Tolerant left goes after Mia Love because a black woman getting elected to a Republican house will not "benefit the black community as a whole."

 

Race merchants are truly pathetic. She looks black? Really? Way to stay true to your racist ways, Huffington Post.

 

Story here.

Quote

 

Mia and others like her are seemingly out of touch with the political realities of African Americans and what remains at stake for them. It would be a mistake to assume that all black people are monolithic and share the same political inclinations -- the Pew Research Center estimates some 3 million self-identified black Americans are registered Republicans -- but there has yet to be a groundswell of support for the right-wing ideology among the vast majority of black voters. Thus, for most African Americans, it appears counterintuitive that someone black, female and Mormon could possibly endorse the GOP given its history of anti-Black, anti-feminist and anti-Mormon sentiment. Whether this is due to her LDS faith and the apparent Stockholm syndrome of black Mormons (in the past, the LDS church perpetuated racist folklore to justify the marginalization of black people) or due to her racial consciousness, this may not be so preposterous when we recognize that American politics is a deeply partisan and fractured system, in the business of servicing big corporations, wherein Americans are duped into voting their values even when they contradict their success as a social group. Black Americans are the only racial group that votes in a bloc and, arguably, the only group to vote their political interests. But Mia Love, viewing herself and others through the prism of individualism, strays from the political stances that would benefit the black community as a whole, which is why a political figure like her is so compelling.

 

Edited November 13, 2014 by Nanker

[IDBillzFan]

 

That pretty much sums up the collective group here every time gatorman posts something.

[IDBillzFan]

Keystone just passed Congress 256-131, with 31 Ds voting in favor.

 

Senate due to vote today.

 

What's a president to do?

[Doc]

Keystone just passed Congress 256-131, with 31 Ds voting in favor.

 

Senate due to vote today.

 

What's a president to do?

Once it passes the Senate, and it will, it's on like Donkey Kong!

[Taro T]

Once it passes the Senate, and it will, it's on like Donkey Kong!

More likely it dies via a pocket veto if it passes the Senate. After Mary is on record as being in favor of Keystone, then the President can do Harry's normal dirty work of letting stuff die. (Assuming it gets through the Senate.)

[Nanker]

Butch Cassidy now has a 16 point lead on Barry Landrieu.

The voters in LA are not stupid.

 

Cassidy was on TV yesterday saying the vote is a cynical effort by Hairy Reid to contrive a campaign point that she doesn't "always" side with B. O. He said Reid could have brought this to a vote at any time, and the only reason is he's interested in saving Landrieu's job - not create the new jobs the construction would make.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Nanker

[B-Man]

Are Democrats Losing the Jews? In this year’s midterms, Jews voted for Republican candidates more than they have in any election in the last decade.

 

 

 

 

 

Say goodnight, Mary

 

Here is a poll to brighten your day. Bill Cassidy leads Mary Landrieu by 16 points, according to a survey by Magellan Strategies.

[Doc]

More likely it dies via a pocket veto if it passes the Senate. After Mary is on record as being in favor of Keystone, then the President can do Harry's normal dirty work of letting stuff die. (Assuming it gets through the Senate.

Oh, I'm sure it will be vetoed.

[/dev/null]

More likely it dies via a pocket veto if it passes the Senate. After Mary is on record as being in favor of Keystone, then the President can do Harry's normal dirty work of letting stuff die. (Assuming it gets through the Senate.)

 

Obama's three branches of Government: a Pen, a Phone, and a Pocket Veto

[Taro T]

Oh, I'm sure it will be vetoed.

 

I'd be surprised if he'd actually veto it. I'd more expect Harry to play around w/ the timing so the President just wouldn't have time to sign it, and gosh darn it, he reeeeaaaaly wanted to but just couldn't find his signing pen in time. Those darn obstructionist Republicans hiding his pen and thwarting the will of the people.

 

Obama's three branches of Government: a Pen, a Phone, and a Pocket Veto

 

That's what PPP stands for, right?

[/dev/null]

Are Democrats Losing the Jews? In this year’s midterms, Jews voted for Republican candidates more than they have in any election in the last decade.

 

Democrats should find this very troubling. Considering three of Obama's staunchest allies have been Hollywood celebrities, Academics, and people who sit on their couch all day and vote for a living.

 

Losing Jews means losing Hollywood, which is who Academics and people who sit on their couch all day and vote for a living form most of their opinions and views of the outside world

[IDBillzFan]

This dies as an issue next week once Obama releases his amnesty EO because everyone will be asking Landrieu what she thinks of if, and let's be real, virtually no one is in favor of what Obama is about to do, and she'll have to turn on him again.

[Rob's House]

Keystone just passed Congress 256-131, with 31 Ds voting in favor.

 

Senate due to vote today.

 

What's a president to do?

 

I haven't been following that closely, but can anyone clue me in on what the counterargument to the Keystone pipeline is? I understand the aversion to Keystone light, but I don't get the resistance to the pipeline.

 

Democrats should find this very troubling. Considering three of Obama's staunchest allies have been Hollywood celebrities, Academics, and people who sit on their couch all day and vote for a living.

 

Losing Jews means losing Hollywood, which is who Academics and people who sit on their couch all day and vote for a living form most of their opinions and views of the outside world

 

Losing the Jews would be to the Dems what losing Walter Cronkite was to LBJ.

Edited November 15, 2014 by Rob's House

[Chef Jim]

 

 

I haven't been following that closely, but can anyone clue me in on what the counterargument to the Keystone pipeline is? I understand the aversion to Keystone light, but I don't get the resistance to the pipeline.

 

Mostly environmental issues. You know because those pesky pipelines are bursting holes and spewing crude on a daily basis.

[keepthefaith]

I'd be surprised if he'd actually veto it. I'd more expect Harry to play around w/ the timing so the President just wouldn't have time to sign it, and gosh darn it, he reeeeaaaaly wanted to but just couldn't find his signing pen in time. Those darn obstructionist Republicans hiding his pen and thwarting the will of the people.

 

 

 

Harry probably wants to "enhance" the bill with some taxes. green energy stuff and maybe high speed rail lines from the mexican border to various red states.

[Rob's House]

Mostly environmental issues. You know because those pesky pipelines are bursting holes and spewing crude on a daily basis.

 

What piqued my interest was someone on FB made some comment about the struggle between the economy and the environment and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how a pipeline is inherently bad for the environment. I guess that's it. It's not that it will cause a problem it's just that it could potentially cause a problem that might (but probably wouldn't) cause some minor "disaster" that we could build up to be more than it is.

[KD in CA]

Are Democrats Losing the Jews? In this year’s midterms, Jews voted for Republican candidates more than they have in any election in the last decade.

 

Say goodnight, Mary

 

Here is a poll to brighten your day. Bill Cassidy leads Mary Landrieu by 16 points, according to a survey by Magellan Strategies.

 

I'm not Jewish so I've never understood their devotion to Democrats. Most non-Jewish liberals can barely contain their outright hatred of Israel, with only slightly more acceptance of American Jews.

 

I guess the older generation is still scared off by the imagine of nasty rednecks, which doesn't really play into things in the places where most of American Jews live. As the mainstream GOP finally starts getting on board with settled social issues like abortion or gay marriage, I would think Jews would start to rethink their allegiance to a party that stands for little more than class and race warfare and buying votes via welfare.

 

What piqued my interest was someone on FB made some comment about the struggle between the economy and the environment and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how a pipeline is inherently bad for the environment. I guess that's it. It's not that it will cause a problem it's just that it could potentially cause a problem that might (but probably wouldn't) cause some minor "disaster" that we could build up to be more than it is.

I saw one idiotic Facebook post whining about GOP 'holding up a jobs bill for six years' but now passing Keystone.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

I haven't been following that closely, but can anyone clue me in on what the counterargument to the Keystone pipeline is? I understand the aversion to Keystone light, but I don't get the resistance to the pipeline.

 

There's a lot of warranted resistance to it, largely environmental, but more importantly (I would assume to most on here) it's about whether or not there are actual economic benefits to the pipeline's creation. There's a lot of talk about it being a "jobs" program but there isn't a lot of data to support that claim. My objection to the pipeline comes from the economic factors that are being sold to us by disingenuous corporate and international interests. There is very little evidence that any jobs, let alone the thousands promised, will be created from this let alone any sort of significant impact on the US economy or energy independence. The entire pipeline is a mirage, easy to politicize and easy for the general public to miss the fine print.

 

They project anywhere from 25,000 to 2,500 jobs will be created from the pipeline -- the real estimates are closer to 2,500 to 4,500 and those will be largely temporary jobs. A few articles recently have come out and said that there will be anywhere from 20 to 30 permanent jobs created by the pipeline, but that's just the start of it. $7 Billion is supposed to funnel into the American economy from the project (which is why pols like it, it's being sold by TransCanada and other interests as a job program) but the reality is it'll be less than half that much thanks to outsourcing much of the raw materials (the steel mainly) to China, India and other countries. So no real job creation, no real benefit to the American economy -- what's to love about it? Depends on who you ask.

 

The pipeline is pulling the crude from tar sands owned jointly byTransCanada and China, to be processed in the Gulf by companies co-owned by Saudi Arabia for resale to the rest of the world, including the US. That's right, the pipeline does nothing to lower the price of gas and instead does far more to help Canada, China and Saudi Arabia than it ever will for the United States of America. Worse, instead of promoting energy independence, it actually hampers those endeavors. So, there are economic benefits to this pipeline, though most of those will go to Canada, China, Saudi Arabia and India. About half of the projected $7 billion will funnel back into the US economy -- temporarily.

 

The above stated economic benefits will be debated by a lot on here, I'm sure, but those are the actual realities of it when you strip away the politics. The fact that it won't create real jobs, won't help with energy independence, and is in essence furthering our partnership with the Saudis while outsourcing much of the job to China and India should be enough to give people pause to reconsider it. But the idiots on the left won't let that happen because they want to talk more about the environmental side of the coin -- which is just as much of an illusion as the ones telling us the pipeline is going to be a boon for the economy.

 

The big bug-a-boo is the environmental impact of the pipeline. Not only is it not going to be a jobs program, nor will it promote energy independence, we're basically volunteering to run a pipeline across the breadbasket of America (over areas where the water table is very shallow and even a small spill would be catastrophic for the agriculture in the area -- let alone the nation) in order to help the Saudis and Canadians process the crude and sell it more efficiently. The fact that the State Department's environmental impact report was conducted by ERM, who partnered with the TransCanada to move the sludge on the Alaskan pipeline, should be a flashing warning sign -- but it's written off as paranoia. I've worked on enough large scale construction projects to know that no project goes off without a hitch, and we've already seen ample evidence of spills and environmental damages from similar pipelines in recent years to know that even if ERM's report is accurate, it still depends on flawless execution of the construction -- which never happens.

 

A lot of environmentalists also lament the fact that the pipeline will expedite the extraction of the tar sands, which would dramatically increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to unheard of levels. This argument is largely ridiculous, not because the numbers aren't true but because the pipeline's construction isn't going to determine if the tar sands are plundered -- it's going to happen, sooner rather than later -- so it's the weakest environmental argument against the pipeline out there -- but also the one that gets the most press because it wraps it all up into a nice Climate Change storyline.

 

Mostly environmental issues. You know because those pesky pipelines are bursting holes and spewing crude on a daily basis.

What piqued my interest was someone on FB made some comment about the struggle between the economy and the environment and I couldn't for the life of me figure out how a pipeline is inherently bad for the environment. I guess that's it. It's not that it will cause a problem it's just that it could potentially cause a problem that might (but probably wouldn't) cause some minor "disaster" that we could build up to be more than it is.

 

There have been a lot of damaging spills in just the past decade on similar types of pipelines.

 

2010: 840,000 gallons of bitumen were spilled into the Kalamazoo River, cleanup has already topped $1 Billion and continues to rise. If that happened to the Keystone pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer (the lifeblood of the midwest water table) it'd be lights out for agriculture in the plains states for decades. Think about the impact that would have on our economy, let alone ability to feed ourselves.

 

All these potential risks can be ours, if only we agree to help the Saudis, Canadians, Chinese, and Indians run a pipeline across our heartland. In exchange, we get (literally) less than a handful of jobs and maybe 4 billion. It's true what they say about Americans, we would sell our souls for the right price.

 

(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29michigan.html?_r=0)

[Tiberius]

Thanks Greg, that was interesting

[IDBillzFan]

I'm not Jewish so I've never understood their devotion to Democrats. Most non-Jewish liberals can barely contain their outright hatred of Israel, with only slightly more acceptance of American Jews.

 

It's absolutely mind-numbing.

 

I spent nine-years working for a company in NJ owned by a Jew, and the company had Jews in every department, and the odd thing to me is that unlike the stereotypical gatorman-like knob-gobbling follower, I've ALWAYS found them well-read, well-educated, highly intelligent and incredibly independent, so their allure to progressives never made sense to me.

 

You have to believe that after watching six years of the president pissing all over them and treating Netanyahu like dogschitt, they finally see progressives for the Jew haters they are and are starting to turn.