Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by tacotiklah, Nov 7, 2017.
I would say it's given attention because it is symbolic, more than ironic.
He's only missing it because he wants to have his righteous fit.
The fact that someone in THAT part of the state won running on an anti-gun platform is especially telling. In Roem's case, that district is changing and Marshall played it like an idiot - but that was all he had, because he hadn't done anything actually useful in the House. Hurst winning in Roanoke, though, was a shock even to me - as was Carter taking out Jackson Miller, the majority Whip.
Despite how it's being portrayed in the national media - although the inclusiveness of the election is refreshing - this was a repudiation of the do-nothing GOP HoD that had no problem spending a large chunk of their part-time jobs debating a 20 week abortion bill that wouldn't have survived the state Supreme Court, much less the SCOTUS, but wouldn't fix the damn roads and bridges.
^Bingo. As a former resident who is still nearby: It's getting attention because it was part of a larger, State-wide movement, in which Dems trounced the GOP by margins not seen since the late 1800's. The northern districts have pretty much always been the bluest part of the State's purple gradient, but now the rural districts seem to be changing hue.
This could easily be short lived, but it's giving folks a glimmer of hope, that while 2016 may have been a result of voter apathy, it seems to have resulted in waking voters up from that apathy.
What we're experiencing is essentially the Republicans subjecting their voting base to "Sophie's choice". They'll pick one or two items that the core supporters are uncompromising on (Guns, God, Gays, etc.) and then they'll run an absolutely abhorrent ghoul against the Democrat as basically a dare to the voters as to which which part of their conscience they'll listen to.
The whole 'tough, straight shooter' candidate thing might've worked for Trump because he has a whole cabinet of people to cushion the policy part of whatever incendiary thing he tweets, but I don't think that kind of politics works at a local level.
I agree. Pretty much no one I know personally ever votes along party lines for local people. In fact, some people I know make it a habit to simply vote against the incumbent in local elections, since the incumbents almost always win by huge margins, as a sort of a statement, even if they know nothing about the contender. Personally, I actually really enjoy studying up on local candidates and weighing them out for what they believe in and how well I assess they'll be able to enact their beliefs, then casting a vote for whomever seems the least destructive. When I lived in Michigan and Indiana, I almost always picked all losers every time, but here, I think the masses tend to think a little more like I do. Pretty much the last thing I care about when researching a candidate is that candidates anatomy or sexual preferences.
This must be a cynical New Englander thing, because everyone I know does the same thing
Man, I WISH they did that here. It's as partisan and depressing where I live as presidential elections. We get the same heinous people getting re-elected over and over and over again, and all ads are purely attack ads with the occasional "I'M A FAMILY MAN WHO STANDS WITH WALKER," there's NEVER anything about issues apart from abortion. The last guy who had any integrity in listing specific issues he cared about and avoiding attack ads finally got shovelled out a few years ago.
So I guess we probably have an opening for someone like this that talks about how they'll fix frickin roads instead of just how they'll keep guns and TRADITIONAL BATHROOMS or whatever.
Look, I'm going to tell everyone now, I don't give a fuck if they're transgender or not, I saw we have a metalhead in the White House, that's all I need to know. Up the goddamn irons!
Yeah, only left-wing news sites are trying to push the transgender thing so much (well...and bigoted sites that are using it as a sign of the end times, of course). I love that all interviews with her involve her responding to idiot questions like "HOW DOES THIS AFFECT TRANSGENDER RIGHTS AND REPRESENTATION IN THE COUNTRY?! ARE YOU PROUD TO BE PART OF SUCH A HUGE LEGACY?!?!" by just sort of going "yeah, I'm transgender...anyway, here's what I'm going to do in office." That's EXACTLY what we need and is the most positive kind of representation possible. Identity politics alienates most of the country, people like her do not. I agree totally with an op-ed I saw in the NYT that was titled something like "Danica Roems is boring. That's a good thing."
Are you sure the right didn't push it at all? It's surprising, the idea that the Republican opposition didn't attempt to push it, and (I suspect) not actually reflective of reality itself.
I do remember a lot of white people noting that Obama was the good kind of black candidate, not being too forward with his race.
It's good to note that a substantial part of the US responded positively to Trump's embrace of identity politics and of white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
It's also useful to be aware that Republicans have been pushing and embracing identity politics, specifically anti-non-hetero legislation and anti-minority legislation and gerrymandering, for decades. It's been their promoted brand, which makes your attribution of this in general to the left seem quite ignorant, whether genuinely or deliberately, of the realities which undermine your proposed narrative.
Read what you quoted. The ones that made it a big deal are bigoted.
Splitting hairs, but she's in the House of Delegates in Virginia, not in the White House. That is, unless Trump is keeping a really big secret.
(he IS kind of a blubbering vagina when someone hurts his feelings, if his Twitter feed is any indication...)
Either way, White House, House of Delegates, they're in the Government and to me, that's awesome. Won't lie, I was drunk when I made that post a few nights ago.
Your ignorant, lie/fabrication-filled, bigoted posts clearly illustrate otherwise.
There's also the matter of, while you're free to have whatever opinions you want, you also need to own them and if a certain opinion generates a lot of negative backlash, part of holding that opinion is being prepared to weather that backlash. You can't say something highly controversial, and then simultaneously expect to be free from all repercussions for having that opinion.
I'd almost respect you a little more if you stated your opinion, and then were prepared to actually defend your reasons for it, rather than "don't agree? Don't respond" and taking that kind of a cheap copout.
Choosing the "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" retort doesn't work if your words are drenched in bigotry, dude.
I wanted to include that, but I thought two concepts in one email would be too much for them to handle.
This whole warped view of the 1st Amendment is far, far, far too common among the GOPuritan/Domionist Sect. The view that their “freedom of speech” means they can say whatever they want, free of comment, critique or criticism, no matter how ignorant, bigoted, inaccurate, hypocritical, etc. is astoundingly hypocritical given how frequent they try to shut down, shout over, ban, etc. speech (which almost always reflects reality) they don’t like.