|
 
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:Are there any pro-gay marriage GOP candidates at all? I figured we'd get a couple this time around, and that Jeb would be one of them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Is Pataki officially in? Nope, no pro-gay marriage candidates on the GOP side either.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Who cares we still wiped the floor with you in 2014. And have yet to actually do anything with that floor wipe.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo if we don't have any solutions and just gently caress everyone over, we won guys! You losers!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:And have yet to actually do anything with that floor wipe. Think of how much worse it would've been in the Dems retained control of Congress!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
*uses scorched earth politics to win election* oh gosh guys we forgot to actually run on policy, what are elected officials supposed to do again?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:*uses scorched earth politics to win election*
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Jeb posted:“If we want to create a right-to-rise society, where people – particularly children born in poverty – if we want to have them have a chance, we have to restore committed, loving family life with a mom and dad loving their children with their heart and soul,” he said.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Are there any legal repercussions for just taking the money from your PACs and calling it quits? Taking the money directly would probably raise a few too many eyebrows. Instead you have the PAC hire a few relatives/friends on for well paid do nothing jobs and take the money in less obvious kickbacks. Yeah democracy!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
i am harry posted:But that isn't what you want at all so... I sometimes idly wonder if banning divorce is the next battle after banning abortion. EDIT: Of course I just finished reading The Handmaid's Tale, so I'm just a bit biased here. vvvv stole the words right out of my mouth vvvv ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 00:55 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I sometimes idly wonder if banning divorce is the next battle after banning abortion. Just give it another 20 years and the right wing will be using The Handmaid's Tale as an instruction book, just as they've been using 1984 for the last 30.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Taking the money directly would probably raise a few too many eyebrows. Instead you have the PAC hire a few relatives/friends on for well paid do nothing jobs and take the money in less obvious kickbacks. Yeah democracy! I don't know how the PAC/Super PAC system works. I thought they collected money for the candidate and just gave it to them in a lump sum to make bookkeeping easier or something.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:I don't know how the PAC/Super PAC system works. I thought they collected money for the candidate and just gave it to them in a lump sum to make bookkeeping easier or something. Nah, PACs/super PACs can't "coordinate" with campaigns directly. They are supposed to be non-partisan groups that lobby/support based on specific issues. Like an NRA PAC or whatever. Candidates don't have direct control over how the money is spent but in return the super PACs get to take basically unlimited donations. PACs are a little more limited but again are mainly used to get around the direct contribution limit placed on political campaigns.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Who cares we still wiped the floor with you in 2014. What's especially galling about this statement is that you people campaign while promising to "put the adults back in charge". Congratulations, I guess, on being a member of a party that's made up of petulant, whiny, racist children.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I sometimes idly wonder if banning divorce is the next battle after banning abortion.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Abortion is a fundamentally different issue from gay marriage or divorce. The only similarity is they were all heavily restricted or banned 100 years ago.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Who cares we still wiped the floor with you in 2014. And lost in 2012 v0v
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:And lost in 2012 v0v 2016 looks prime for a White House party. House & Senate aren't invited.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Donald Trump's hucksterism is so transparent and shameless, the thought of even a single person casting a vote for him in a primary is shocking to me. I used to work at a grocery store and my best friend there would invite me over to get baked and watch MST3K. He said he supported Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I used to work at a grocery store and my best friend there would invite me over to get baked and watch MST3K. He said he supported Donald Trump. Crow/Servo 2016, elect the first Artificial-American ticket (since Romney)!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Nessus posted:All things for the glory of the Party, eh? Some things, sure. Keep in mind I was originally responding to someone claiming that Huckabee's screed signalled the END OF THE GOP or something. So, the party is still glorious, I guess is my point
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:And have yet to actually do anything with that floor wipe. To be fair, the left did practically nothing with a greater majority in the Senate AND the Executive. Of course, since H-Rizzle was kind enough to allow procedural Senate rules to be changed with a simple majority, we're probably just setting the table.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Some things, sure. Keep in mind I was originally responding to someone claiming that Huckabee's screed signalled the END OF THE GOP or something. So, the party is still glorious, I guess is my point
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Congratulations, I guess, on being a member of a party that's made up of petulant, whiny, racist children. Only one party's fielding racial/ethnic minorities this time but whatever you need to tell yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Only one party's fielding racial/ethnic minorities this time but whatever you need to tell yourself. Antisemitism eh? That'll get you kicked out of the Rs.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
A drat traitor against his state. If I were a nationally-visible politician from Texas I'd be scooping Listeria-ridden Blue Bell as fast as I could.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Only one party's fielding racial/ethnic minorities this time but whatever you need to tell yourself. Pay no attention to the man in the White House. What have you done for me lately Democrats? Guess I'll have to go with the far more racially diverse Republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Only one party's fielding racial/ethnic minorities this time but whatever you need to tell yourself. I can point to a million Democratic African-Americans with the same amount of political experience and chances of being nominated as Ben Carson, but whatever you need to tell yourself so you can pretend you don't hear dog whistles
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Only one party's fielding racial/ethnic minorities this time but whatever you need to tell yourself. You're one of those guys who honestly believed that Sarah Palin being on the Republican ticket in 2008 meant they cared about women, aren't you? News flash: Practicing tokenism to an absurd degree does not mean you give a poo poo about minorities. With the possible exception of Rubio, your racial/ethnic minorities are exclusively sideshows with about as much electability as a ham sandwich. And given the choice, I'd vote for the ham sandwich, because at least it wouldn't embarrass us in front of foreign leaders. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 03:38 on May 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Pay no attention to the man in the White House. What have you done for me lately Democrats? Guess I'll have to go with the far more racially diverse Republicans. And apparently Jews no longer count as minorities! I'm not sure whether I should be chagrined that minority status is overlooked when it's inconvenient, or jubilant that the moment of equality has finally arrived.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Weltlich posted:And apparently Jews no longer count as minorities! I'm not sure whether I should be chagrined that minority status is overlooked when it's inconvenient, or jubilant that the moment of equality has finally arrived. No, they like you. That's why they don't lump you in with the Other.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:No, they like you. That's why they don't lump you in with the Other.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Pay no attention to the man in the White House. What have you done for me lately Democrats? Guess I'll have to go with the far more racially diverse Republicans. Even though you opened the door here, it would feel a little gauche pointing out that your guy is half caucasian, so I'll just point out that the republican lawmakers elected in 2014 broke through several diversity barriers.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:News flash: Practicing tokenism to an absurd degree does not mean you give a poo poo about minorities. With the possible exception of Rubio, your racial/ethnic minorities are exclusively sideshows with about as much electability as a ham sandwich.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Even though you opened the door here, it would feel a little gauche pointing out that your guy is half caucasian, so I'll just point out that the republican lawmakers elected in 2014 broke through several diversity barriers. A party that is 95% white male with a smattering of women, african americans, and latinos is not diverse. Even the RNC acknowledges that they have a diversity problem, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. And I'm sorry that Obama isn't black enough for you. Hopefully, we'll one day find a black man whose lineage is less polluted by the blood of the white man.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:A party that is 95% white male with a smattering of women, african americans, and latinos is not diverse. Even the RNC acknowledges that they have a diversity problem, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. Well this post objectively overstates the lack of diversity in the GOP.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Even though you opened the door here, it would feel a little gauche pointing out that your guy is half caucasian, so I'll just point out that the republican lawmakers elected in 2014 broke through several diversity barriers. You have to be a loving gimmick. Even diehard Rush listeners aren't (usually) this stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Even though you opened the door here, it would feel a little gauche pointing out that your guy is half caucasian, so I'll just point out that the republican lawmakers elected in 2014 broke through several diversity barriers. First black female Republican doesn't count as a diversity barrier. Oh look, numbers. Politico because it was the first Google result posted:Still, the Republican gains are modest. Of the roughly 250 Republicans expected to be in the 114th Congress, 87 percent are white men, according to David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report. That’s down from 89 percent in the current Congress. Yep. Very diverse, those Republicans. Not tokenism at all.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 05:36
|
|
