row_33 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, TtownBillsFan said: One of the few times I can both understand what you're saying, AND agree with it! Keep it up! I will try to improve on my spalshpergerian chat board mannerisms..... Edited February 21, 2018 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 Quote Early Tuesday evening, Democrat Linda Belcher was pronounced the winner of the special election in Kentucky’s House District 49, a seat that Donald Trump carried by a 72-23 margin in 2016 and that went 66-33 for Mitt Romney in 2012. Her 68-32 victory represents a ridiculous 45-point improvement on Hillary Clinton’s performance. https://www.vox.com/2018/2/20/17034262/kentucky-special-election-linda-belcher 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 20 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Drooler Tiberius. Was that so messed up that you needed to quote him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 gerrymandering was done by the Dems during 1944 to 1994 to accommodate the guarantee of a few African-American victories for the House. will overturning all this lead to a diminution of the Congressional Black Caucus? an irony that dare not speak its name... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 4 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Was that so messed up that you needed to quote him? Needed it to establish context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Tiberius said: https://www.vox.com/2018/2/20/17034262/kentucky-special-election-linda-belcher Is that Bob's wife and the mother of Tina, Louise, and Gene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 9 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: "In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that no more than 125% of a precincts eligible voters can cast ballots on election day". That rule is just silly. They should change it to "In the event more than 125% of a precincts eligible voters cast ballots, excessive Republican votes shall be discounted until the number of votes casts does not exceed 125%" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, /dev/null said: That rule is just silly. They should change it to "In the event more than 125% of a precincts eligible voters cast ballots, excessive Republican votes shall be discounted until the number of votes casts does not exceed 125%" I meant to add to their language that none of these rules apply to the City of Philadelphia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Democrats' House campaign committee: "Party has no plan for a national messaging strategy on gun reform, citing the 'geographically and culturally diverse House battlefield'" http://thehill.com/homenews/house/374961-dems-want-gun-control-but-worry-it-could-cost-them-midterms . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 1 hour ago, B-Man said: Democrats' House campaign committee: "Party has no plan for a national messaging strategy on gun reform, citing the 'geographically and culturally diverse House battlefield'" http://thehill.com/homenews/house/374961-dems-want-gun-control-but-worry-it-could-cost-them-midterms . After all the states' rights they've trampled in the past ten years, they punt on an issue which is federal, Constitutional issue? The Democrats don't actually stand for anything, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 14 minutes ago, DC Tom said: After all the states' rights they've trampled in the past ten years, they punt on an issue which is federal, Constitutional issue? The Democrats don't actually stand for anything, do they? They stand for election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: The Democrats don't actually stand for anything, do they? They do, but only when their focus groups and pollsters say they should take a stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 They stand against The Bill of Rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Dems stand for being the impossible c-unit of a mother-in-law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Senator Bill Nelson: Gun Debate Will Help Democrats Bill Nelson, the Democrat Senator from Florida, seems to think the gun control debate is going to help his party in the midterms. Gun control is normally a loser issue, but you have to understand that when Nelson says ‘gun control debate’ what he really means is the coordinated smear campaign against Republicans and the NRA (more…) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 Kind of reminds me of California in the 1990's with Pete Wilson going after immigrants. The backlash sorts of makes people get more politically active A silver lining: “Many consider the Donald Trump presidency a detriment to the values of human rights and the international order. But there is a silver lining: Civil society engagement and interest in politics has increased exponentially. According to a study by the School of Public Affairs at American University, people were three to four times more likely to engage politically, including discussing politics, signing petitions, attending rallies, donating to a political cause, or joining a political interest group after Trumps election.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Kind of reminds me of California in the 1990's with Pete Wilson going after immigrants. The backlash sorts of makes people get more politically active A silver lining: “Many consider the Donald Trump presidency a detriment to the values of human rights and the international order. But there is a silver lining: Civil society engagement and interest in politics has increased exponentially. According to a study by the School of Public Affairs at American University, people were three to four times more likely to engage politically, including discussing politics, signing petitions, attending rallies, donating to a political cause, or joining a political interest group after Trumps election.” The recent Harper's feature essay notes that Trump has caused a kind of chaos that has turned liberal assumptions upside down for the treatment of women by Hollywood and the MSM. Still won't give him credit for this though... So the Dems want to open up the Feinstein rotten borough Senate seat for an honest contest? Thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 4 hours ago, row_33 said: So the Dems want to open up the Feinstein rotten borough Senate seat for an honest contest? What, exactly, about the prior four (forty? ) years of Democratic election maneuvering makes you think they want an honest contest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: What, exactly, about the prior four (forty? ) years of Democratic election maneuvering makes you think they want an honest contest? Of course they do. Their definition of "honest" being "we win," of course. Any other result is "Russian hacking." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: What, exactly, about the prior four (forty? ) years of Democratic election maneuvering makes you think they want an honest contest? i mean holding a primary in the first place when there was an incumbent that wasn't planning on leaving or "had to go" a legit primary.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts