Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 05, 2014

Nate Silver: [W]e continue to see Republicans as slightly more likely than not to win a net of six seats this November and control of the Senate. ... A late swing toward Republicans this year could result in their winning as many as 10 or 11 Senate seats. Democrats, alternatively, could limit the damage to as few as one or two races. Still, the most likely outcome involves the Republicans winning about the six seats they need to take over the Senate, give or take a couple.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That'll be Obama's worst nightmare.
He'll have to veto those 350 bills piled up on Harry Reid's desk.

#1 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-08-05 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

He'll have to veto those 350 bills piled up on Harry Reid's desk.

#1 | Posted by Huguenot

As he probably should, since many of the bills you speak of are likely to be more assistance to the oligarchs.

#2 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-05 07:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

GOP Slight Favorite to Retake Senate

So what will that change? They won't have the 2/3 needed to overcome obama's veto. So even if congress passes their insane teab*gger bills promoting the agenda of billionaire polluters and theocrats, they won't become law.

Whether or not the senate goes red, congress will still do nothing that obama will sign, and he'll do nothing congress will approve.

Then in 2016 when the dems come out to vote, senate will turn blue again.

Can anyone give a reason a slightly red senate would change anything?

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-05 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

HUSSEIN Obama will still have the "veto pen" and the GOP will NOT have enough votes to override a veto. The wing-nuts can pass lots of CRAZY bills, only to see them vetoed.

#4 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-08-05 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Silver is mistaken.

#5 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-05 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It will be a nightmare for Obama because his whole narrative will have to change. He won't have Reid shielding him from bills he doesn't have the political capital to veto. His approval numbers would drop onto the twenties.

#6 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-08-05 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

The GOP is going to lose at least one race in the south.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-05 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Flag:

It will be a nightmare for Obama because his whole narrative will have to change. He won't have Reid shielding him from bills he doesn't have the political capital to veto. His approval numbers would drop onto the twenties.

#6 | Posted by Huguenot

He doesn't need political capital to veto bills, he just needs 1/3 of the senate to be dem, and he'll have it.

You know how bills work, right?

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-05 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"It will be a nightmare for Obama..."

Will be? I don't think he is having too many Sweet Dreams right now.

It is still gonna suck if it happens. Strange times we are living. But, I imagine all times seem like strange times to those living them. It is like we are purposely ensuring we will get nothing done.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-05 10:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

If that happens Obama will have to deal with an uncooperative Congress.

Ah well. If that's what the people want, then let them have it.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-06 01:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing will change if they take the Senate except as someone up thread said that Obama won't be able to depend on Reid to block votes that pass the house. Sure Obama can veto them but, that changes the narrrative he's built about the House not passing legislation. He'll turn into the president of no.

#11 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sure Obama can veto them but, that changes the narrrative he's built about the House not passing legislation. He'll turn into the president of no.

#11 | Posted by Dalton

Yeah that'll really hurt his reelection campaign.

And if the bills he's vetoing are to defund social security, give tax breaks to billionaires, and ban all minorities, it's only going to help his image.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

His (Obama's) approval numbers would drop onto the twenties.

#6 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-08-05 08:26 PM | Reply |

That would depend upon exactly what he is vetoing, yes?

Nah, his polling numbers would go up, almost assuredly. He'll have a God-given chance to play the role of the strong man, fighting for what's right.

Obama's poll numbers are bound to go up anyway, if the GOTP takes the Senate. They just won't be able to contain that impeachment talk. They don't have the self-control. Talking and threatening is what life is all about for them.

#13 | Posted by Zed at 2014-08-06 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah that'll really hurt his reelection campaign.

And if the bills he's vetoing are to defund social security, give tax breaks to billionaires, and ban all minorities, it's only going to help his image.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is the problem with you that are so emotionally invested in Obama. You ask a question and all you have is some silly response about his reelection. This has to do with 2016 as much if not more than anything else. I also think that if the GOP wins the senate and they don't come in with ideas about jobs and starting the process of immigration reform they will get killed in the presidential 16 race. Good god I just caught your little gem about "ban all minorities". God help us.

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

I can see America gearing up for a Hillary presidency by moving the GOP more to the right to counter her.

#15 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-06 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Gar, not "moving the GOP," but moving the Senate more to the right.

#16 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-06 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | POSTED BY DALTON

Don't point a gun at him, Speak.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-06 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

think that if the GOP wins the senate and they don't come in with ideas about jobs and starting the process of immigration reform they will get killed in the presidential 16 race.

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014

Then they are going to get killed, aren't they?

The GOP can't talk about jobs or anything else outside that narrow universe they've created for themselves. It's say it's about five inches wide at the present time.

Besides, bashing Obama is what they do, what they do best, and what they wish to do only. If they get the Senate it may actually be the worst thing for them. They'll make the mistake of thinking that the country likes them or agrees with them.

#18 | Posted by Zed at 2014-08-06 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

And if the bills he's vetoing are to defund social security, give tax breaks to billionaires, and ban all minorities, it's only going to help his image.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you have any proof of defunding social sucurity or banning minorities or do you just practice fear mongering as a way of life?

Tax breaks are also good for the middle and upper class, my god you people solely focus on the top 1% and the bottom 20% forgetting the other 79% that truly make this country work. Is class warfare and social division all you know how to do? do you actually have any ideas or working principles to improve the state of affairs in this country, besides more power to the federal governemnt?

#19 | Posted by danv at 2014-08-06 12:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the problem with you that are so emotionally invested in Obama.
#14 | Posted by Dalton

I'm not invested in obama at all. He's been a wuss since day 1, surrounding himself with wall street whores and letting the repubs steamroll him again and again.

He's simply MUCH better than the alternative. I'm not a democrat, I'm just extremely anti-republican.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

-He's simply MUCH better than the alternative.

Reality-based statement don't go around here, lawdog.

www.youtube.com

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-06 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you have any proof of defunding social sucurity or banning minorities or do you just practice fear mongering as a way of life?

Tax breaks are also good for the middle and upper class, my god you people solely focus on the top 1% and the bottom 20% forgetting the other 79% that truly make this country work. Is class warfare and social division all you know how to do? do you actually have any ideas or working principles to improve the state of affairs in this country, besides more power to the federal governemnt?

#19 | Posted by danv

Did you really take my "banning minorities" joke literally? Really? I would hope that would be so obviously insane that it would be clearly humorous, but I guess with today's republican party, you could see it as within the realm of possibility.

No, tax breaks do not always help society. We had a healthier middle class when the rich paid a lot more in taxes. You're still buying into a fallacy that's been disproven by facts and history. Crying "class warfare" when someone points out how badly the rich have pillaged this country (now moving their corporations overseas to avoid supporting the society which birthed them) yet never considering the rich repeatedly trying to gut the safety net a part of that same class war.

Yes I have a solution to MOST of the problems this country faces. PUBLIC ELECTION FUNDING. Government power isn't a problem. Government CAPTURE by special interests is. We need a powerful government, we just need it acting in the interests of the voters instead of the big donors. Public election funding would achieve that.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

"GOP Slight Favorite to Retake Senate"

I have no idea if this is remotely true but if we assume to be for purposes of discussing it here....how is this possible?

I've been told (here) that this country does not lean right. The only reason why the GOP has the House is because of gerrymandering.

The Senate too? Surely you whiners aren't going to blame this on gerrymandering, are you?

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Did you really take my "banning minorities" joke literally?"

you're a hysterical purse swinging crazy. You either believe that or you want folks to think you believe it.....maybe for no other reason than to just be noticed.

you've been slapped. now go sit in the corner.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"GOP Slight Favorite to Retake Senate"
I have no idea if this is remotely true but if we assume to be for purposes of discussing it here....how is this possible?
I've been told (here) that this country does not lean right. The only reason why the GOP has the House is because of gerrymandering.
The Senate too? Surely you whiners aren't going to blame this on gerrymandering, are you?

#23 | POSTED BY EBERLY

No. If it happens they'll blame it on racism.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-06 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The GOP can't talk about jobs"

why not? anybody can "talk" about jobs. nobody has to deliver on them. It's because single politicians can't generate jobs like they pretend. It's a mirage and they know it.

But all politicians run on "jobs" and how they'll create them and the other guy won't or can't.

People lap that crap up every election cycle. IOW, all politicians are full of it on jobs they'll create.

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've been told (here) that this country does not lean right. The only reason why the GOP has the House is because of gerrymandering.

The Senate too? Surely you whiners aren't going to blame this on gerrymandering, are you?

#23 | Posted by eberly

No, it's because it's a mid term. Dems won't turn out.

Republicans spend years whipping their voters into anger and paranoia in order to get them to come out and vote and it works. Dems only show up to vote for the president. If voting were mandatory, the country would experience a MASSIVE leftward swing. Why do you think repubs are always trying to suppress voter turnout - they know that the more people vote, the more they lose. Howbout that - fewer people participating in democracy helps your party hold power. That's gotta be a funny feeling, no?

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Which would be proof positive that the country is populated by millions of clueless duffuses.

#28 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-06 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lol. Anger and paranoia coming from the ban minorities and republicans want to ban birth control crowd. You guys are delusional.

#29 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lol. Anger and paranoia coming from the ban minorities and republicans want to ban birth control crowd. You guys are delusional.

#29 | Posted by Dalton

Um. No one wants to ban minorities. Well i'm sure a handful of deep red base repubs do, but they don't get national attention. There are, however, SEVERAL republicans in power who would like to ban birth control if they could. Your second place presidential candidate in 2012 said states should be able to ban it if they want. That's not delusion - it's republican HISTORY.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which would be proof positive that the country is populated by millions of clueless duffuses.

#28 | Posted by nutcase

Those clueless doofuses are an intentional result of our crappy education system and the myth that "both parties are the same so why bother voting". That myth is spread by the plutocrats so that only their hateful racist base is motivated enough to come out to vote.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Republicans spend years whipping their voters into anger and paranoia in order to get them to come out and vote and it works"

both sides do this. if you can't admit that then you're as bad as corky.

"Why do you think repubs are always trying to suppress voter turnout - "

voter suppression efforts only work on morons.....you know...like you.

"Howbout that - fewer people participating in democracy helps your party hold power."

my party? just because you lean with your chin every day here doesn't mean that I have a party I'm beholden to....like you. Being beholden to either party is what I loathe.

Jesus Christ.....you poor sap.

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Dems only show up to vote for the president. "

IOW, they are morons, lazy, and fail to vote in their best interests.

gee...isn't that EXACTLY what you accuse GOP voters of?

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Dems only show up to vote for the president. "

IOW, they are morons, lazy, and fail to vote in their best interests.

gee...isn't that EXACTLY what you accuse GOP voters of?

#33 | Posted by eberly

Yes, the dem base is lazy. But when they do vote, they at least vote for the people who would help them the most.

But the repub base are morons, who have voted against their own interests for 30 years because they think abortion and whiteness are more important than upward mobility.

Being lazy is far less destructive than being a highly motivated moron.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes, the dem base is lazy. But when they do vote, they at least vote for the people who would help them the most."

understand, I'm not calling them lazy....but you think folks who don't show up or who fail to vote in there interest is being lazy and moronic. But those folks are just like those who vote GOP...they think they are voting in their best interest. that's all. It doesn't mean they are.

"....they think abortion and whiteness are more important than upward mobility."

I know a lot of party line GOP voters. You apparently know zero.

"Being lazy is far less destructive than being a highly motivated moron."

You are the latter, it seems...so you should STFU about it.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

understand, I'm not calling them lazy....but you think folks who don't show up or who fail to vote in there interest is being lazy and moronic. But those folks are just like those who vote GOP...they think they are voting in their best interest. that's all. It doesn't mean they are.

#35 | Posted by eberly

Really? The peeople who don't vote think they're voting in their best interest? Care to explain that to me?

I'm sure you know a lot of GOP party line voters. Who else would hang out with you besides that MENSA crowd?

#36 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 03:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yes, the dem base is lazy. But when they do vote, they at least vote for the people who would help them the most."

By allowing them to help themsleves to others wealth an property. Surely you can see that there are plenty who would "benefit" from such as policy, but at the same time have a moral objeciton to it. I don't own a Ferrari, but I don't think that the government should take one from someone else and give it to me.

"But the repub base are morons, who have voted against their own interests for 30 years because they think abortion and whiteness are more important than upward mobility."

Is a centrally planned economy run by progressives in my best interest? It surely didn't seem to be in Cuba, or Venezuela, or the USSR, or east Germany, or even one of the friendlier centrally planned governments like Yugoslavia. I'm 39. I feel I have reached the age where I no longer require someone to make decisions in my best interest. You seem to know my best interest better than me. It's either an asounding level of ignorance, or an astounding level of arrogance. Perhaps both, but none are redeeming qualities.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-06 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

By allowing them to help themsleves to others wealth an property. Surely you can see that there are plenty who would "benefit" from such as policy, but at the same time have a moral objeciton to it. I don't own a Ferrari, but I don't think that the government should take one from someone else and give it to me.

Is a centrally planned economy run by progressives in my best interest? It surely didn't seem to be in Cuba, or Venezuela, or the USSR, or east Germany,
#37 | Posted by madbomber

If you GOT your ferrari with the support of your nation, then you owe your nation part of your success. The whole "I earned it on my own so I owe nothing to nobody" line is an egocentric lie that rich guys tell themselves at night so they can sleep. Strange that you'd buy it though.

Is anyone recommending a centrally planned economy? No? So you're just making wild exaggerations and proving that you're chock full of fake republican talking points then? Got it.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

you've gotten way off track Speak.

I asked about Gerrymandering and how that is why this country leans left or right.

"I'm sure you know a lot of GOP party line voters"

I live in Kansas.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you GOT your ferrari with the support of your nation, then you owe your nation part of your success."

If I am able to purchase a Ferrari, is it not a safe assumption that I have already provided something for society, for which I was provided remuneration? Remuneration I used to purcahse the Ferrari? I mean, you would be correct if the government used taxpayer money to provide me with a Ferarri-I think it's a reasonable assumption that I would have a debt to the taxpayer. But then again, progressives tend to favor a paradigm where high income earners pay the bulk of the federal income tax burden, leaving others with no responsibility.

"The whole "I earned it on my own so I owe nothing to nobody" line is an egocentric lie that rich guys tell themselves at night so they can sleep."

Wht whole "you didn't make that" line is a lazy, dishonest lie progressives tell themsleves so that can justify legislation that allows them a legal right to spend other people's money on their pet projects, and still be able to sleep at night.

"Strange that you'd buy it though."

Must be the large amount of economics courses I took as a grad/undergrad.

"Is anyone recommending a centrally planned economy? No? So you're just making wild exaggerations and proving that you're chock full of fake republican talking points then? Got it."

Einstein is credited with saying that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You may not realize that you are recommending a centrally planned economy, but you're only showing your naiveity. The income earners who make the money you need in order to subsidize those of lower economic value, they get a vote too. Without them, progressivism fails. They are resources that must be controlled. And that will require a system that ensures they continue to produce wealth, even when they would otherwise choose not to.

#40 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-06 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I live in Kansas.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag

What gives in Kansas Eberly? I've been catching up on my civil war history and that state has been pretty radical for a long time. Maybe I've been getting bad information it's just from some of what I've read Kansas was pretty adoment about being a slave state and were even doing cross state line raids to scare people in other states to vote pro slavery. I guess I was surprised b/c it obviously isn't a southern state and being from Georgia I thought we would have been one of the more hardcore slave states.

#41 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

What gives in Kansas Eberly? I've been catching up on my civil war history and that state has been pretty radical for a long time. Maybe I've been getting bad information it's just from some of what I've read Kansas was pretty adoment about being a slave state and were even doing cross state line raids to scare people in other states to vote pro slavery. I guess I was surprised b/c it obviously isn't a southern state and being from Georgia I thought we would have been one of the more hardcore slave states.

Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 03:47 PM | Reply

Actually Kansas was a Free State the bastard neighbors missouri were the pro slave state. BTW We started the civil war before Ft Sumpter.

#42 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-06 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If I am able to purchase a Ferrari, is it not a safe assumption that I have already provided something for society, for which I was provided remuneration?

#40 | Posted by madbomber

No. You couldve just gotten your money by developing some new financial scheme that helps no one but wall street sleazebags.

But you got it in a society that paid to keep you safe, unpoisoned, and countless other contributions that later enabled you to come up with your money earning scheme.

If you invented a product, you shipped it on roads society provided, with workers society educated.

Your TAXES are how you repay society as a whole, yet the most successful people are the ones fighting the hardes to avoid paying them.

America helped you succeed, to then turn around and say you did it all on your own or to try and offshore your earnings is the most ungrateful, egocentric, factually-incorrect attitude you could possibly have. And that attitude is rampant in the republican party. It's practically their religion.

#43 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-06 03:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Actually Kansas was a Free State the bastard neighbors missouri were the pro slave state. BTW We started the civil war before Ft Sumpter."

yep. Kansas was fought over being a slave or not a slave state.

Pretty bloody actually. kind of like a swing state in a presidential election....except without all of the blood.

#44 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If I am able to purchase a Ferrari, is it not a safe assumption that I have already provided something for society, for which I was provided remuneration?"

yes, it is. There is a slight chance you inherited the money or you work in some place on wall street that cheats people or you are a broom pushing union member at a manufacturing plant earning $80K a year.

Both contribute little to the good of society but the point still stands that if you can afford a Ferrari then you contributed something of value to society, earned a good income and bought the Ferrari with money after you paid your fair share in taxes.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

@44

They don't call it bleeding Kansas for nothing.

#46 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-06 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks Eberly and Larry. I read that Kansas is where the civil war started. I've been reading about the James gang and their exploits during and after the war and was quite shocked at the racial anomosity there. Like I said growing up in the deep south I've always thought Georgia and the surrounding states would have been the most violent but, after reading about the different border raids I was surprised.

#47 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe I was wrong and the James gang was from Missouri and crossed over into Kansas for the raids?

#48 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe I was wrong and the James gang was from Missouri and crossed over into Kansas for the raids?

Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 04:12 PM | Reply

I Think you're correct.

#49 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-06 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

I Think you're correct.

#49 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-06 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag

I was amazed at the different groups that would just ride across the border execute several people. That and the back and forth between the two states.

#50 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 04:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I was amazed at the different groups that would just ride across the border execute several people. That and the back and forth between the two states.

Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 04:20 PM | Reply

The bastards to the east burnt the City of Lawrence Kansas to the ground. TO THE GROUND

#51 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-06 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The bastards to the east burnt the City of Lawrence Kansas to the ground."

they probably deserved it.

Bout time for another fire. Chickenhawks.

:-)

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

this guy was central figure in "bloody Kansas"

en.wikipedia.org(abolitionist)

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bout time for another fire. Chickenhawks.

:-)

Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 04:35 PM | Reply

Yeah they suck at football.

#54 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-06 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

en.wikipedia.org

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-06 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well Sherman did burn the entire state of Georgia to the ground. Not saying it wasn't necessary. Just saying.

#56 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-06 04:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"No. You could've just gotten your money by developing some new financial scheme that helps no one but wall street sleazebags."

Or I could have gotten my money as a porn producer, or marijuana farmer, or megachurch pastor, or(gasp!) hedge fund manager, or any other profession that you disapprove of. but the bottom line is the money I made was freely given in return for a good or service.

"But you got it in a society that paid to keep you safe, unpoisoned, and countless other contributions that later enabled you to come up with your money earning scheme."

But here's the thing. You seem to think that the high income earner owes more to society than the low income earner, despite the fact that they were provided with the very same protections. So you'll need to explain the disconnect in a way that's rational, as opposed to one that is intended to appeal to emotion.

"If you invented a product, you shipped it on roads society provided, with workers society educated. "

If I buy a product, it is shipped to me on roads that society provided, with workers that society educated. In fact the product is more valuable to me than it is the inventory, proven by the fact that he was willing to sell it.

So why is it that you would leverage a greater share of the responsibility for shipping on the party for whom the transaction was less valuable?

"Your TAXES are how you repay society as a whole, yet the most successful people are the ones fighting the hardes to avoid paying them."

Maybe because increasingly, they are the only ones paying taxes. Federal income taxes on the lowest bracket are the lowest they been in decades, if not ever. Taxes on the highest bracket continue to increase, with progressives calling for even more drastic increases.

#57 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-06 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Like I said growing up in the deep south I've always thought Georgia and the surrounding states would have been the most violent but, after reading about the different border raids I was surprised."

The deep south is not racist in the way that other areas are. Southerners have always lived in a mixed race environment, and even those who claim to hate other races find themselves able to get along.

But I guarantee you that your average whitebread from the Portland suburbs cringes a little bit when he is forced to go to northeast Portland, where one might find some of Oregon's limited number of black people. A different kind of racism, but racism all the same. Very, very common in white progressives.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-06 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's been typical for the party out of power in the WH to gain seats in midterm elections, but I doubt that'll be the case in 2016.

In the House, the only way the GOP have been able to hold a majority has been through gerrymandering districts to look like Rorschach Tests and through voter suppression efforts. Won't work for them forever. Not with only 25% of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans and an aging white Republican Party base.

#59 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-06 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"In the House, the only way the GOP have been able to hold a majority has been through gerrymandering districts to look like Rorschach Tests and through voter suppression efforts. Won't work for them forever. Not with only 25% of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans and an aging white Republican Party base."

Yeah. Because gerrymandering is beneath democrats...

And it might be worth remembering that more voters identify as conservative than do progressive. That's not to say they won't vote democrat, but they're not going to vote for the American version of Hugo Chavez that many progressives dream about having as an authoritarian figurehead.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2014-08-06 10:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

For AU:

Mitt Romney received Tennessee's 11 electoral votes after he garnered 59.48% of the popular vote in Tennessee, to Barack Obama's 39.08%.

Much like in previous elections, larger metropolitan areas such as Memphis and Nashville were won by the Democratic Party, but rural areas overwhelmingly favored the Republican Party. Barack Obama proved especially unpopular among the state's conservative electorate; consequently, Mitt Romney's 20.4% margin of victory was the strongest Republican win in Tennessee since 1972.

#61 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-06 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mitt Romney received Tennessee's 11 electoral votes after he garnered 59.48% of the popular vote in Tennessee, to Barack Obama's 39.08%.

President Obama won 62% of the electoral votes. :-)

#62 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-07 12:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It's been typical for the party out of power in the WH to gain seats in midterm elections,"

So, it's gerrymandering when it's the house, but it's....well something else to deflect when you can't blame it on gerrymandering.

Are you sure you haven't worn out the gerrymandering excuse a little too much?

I mean...you're really just trying to convince yourself of this anyway.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-07 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Gerrymandering is a grotesque subversion of Democracy, endorsed by our Courts and practiced by both parties. Add to this fake felon lists, mal-distribution of voting machines, and hackable "proprietary software" and you have made a mockery of Democracy. In Ohio in 2004 ballots were destroyed in violation of the law preventing a recount and no one was held accountable. In Florida in 2000 the will of the people was openly scorned with criminal mischief. The USA has no business taking it upon itself to police the world. It can only serve as a bad example.

#64 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-07 09:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

But I guarantee you that your average whitebread from the Portland suburbs cringes a little bit when he is forced to go to northeast Portland, where one might find some of Oregon's limited number of black people. A different kind of racism, but racism all the same. Very, very common in white progressives.
#58 | Posted by madbomber

Having lived in Seattle for quite some time, I understand what you're going for here. But I don't agree that white people doing a little bit of cringing is the real culprit when it comes to racism.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-08 12:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort