[CRR]

Youngest state lawmaker:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04...-lawmaker/

Her pic:

   

Slightly better pics by googling her name.

WYB?

[MidWest]

(11-05-2014 11:44 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 10:09 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:30 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

Higher incomes in places like California and New York is the same as lower income in the midwest if we are talking about disposable income.

You seem to be trying to push some sort of agenda.

You're seeing an agenda where there isn't one, I'm not interested in having a debate about why blue states are richer, I want to know about the other way around so to speak.

Quote:

Basically why are the rich states blue?

(don't miss the distinction) Like I said you would not see that in other Western countries, you'd expect them to be electoral strongholds of the Establishment wing of the main centre-right party.

I looked it up and the blue states still have more disposable income but it goes same way to explaining this anomaly, especially in the Midwest.

Having lived in a red state (Texas) myself and a blue state (Illinois). I think the main reason is taxes and education.

Taxes in Texas are extremely low, and people don't pay income state taxes and minimum wage is currently at 7.25. Go to the country side in Texas aside for the blue cities of Houston, Austin, Dallas and on and you'll see how poor and broke it is there.

In Illinois we pay a lot of taxes, very high income state taxes, but minimum wage is at 8.25 and are pushing for a 10.00 dollar push by 2016. The higher taxes you pay, the more the state government has for roads, bridges, infrastructure, and things like that which in turn creates good jobs.

Liberals also tend to be more educated in the sense of college degrees.


Quote from this article:

Quote:

States that voted for Democrat Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election have, on average, a higher percentage of households that make $150,000 per year, and a lower percentage of households that make $25,000 or less per year, than the red states that supported Republican Mitt Romney, according to U.S. Census

Blue states also account for all but one of the top 17 states by percentage of households in the highest income bracket, with Alaska (12.8%) being the only red state to make the list. Red states, on the other hand, fall slightly below the national average, at 6.9%, and account for all but one (Maine, 5.6%) of the bottom 12 states by percentage of households making at least $150,000 per year.

The highest earner is D.C.—a blue district, not a state—where 20 percent of households make over $150,000 per year. One secret to D.C.’s high income might be its high concentration of well-educated individuals, where 53% of the population holds a bachelor’s degree, well above the national average of 28%.

Ranking in spot two is New Jersey, where 18% of households make over $150,000 per year. Once you factor in the cost of living however, those high incomes don’t sound quite as lofty. 68% of homeowners—compared to the national average of 32%—spend more than $2,000 in homeowner costs per month.

States that voted blue ranked better than red states for percentage of households making $25,000 or less per year (21.6% vs. 25.9%); putting blue states 1.7 percentage points below the national average of 23.3%, and red states 2.6 percentage points above it.

West Virginia comes close to ranking the most poorly again, with 32% of households making less than $25,000, but Mississippi (also ranking poorly on the Gallup-Healthways Well Being Index, in 48th place) outpaces it, at 34%.

http://time.com/2837593/blue-states-bara...ed-states/

[TheWastelander]

(11-05-2014 11:04 AM)elabayarde Wrote:  

Because repubs have a way of insulting every minority(which about half are men) at some point showing the utter disregarded for people of other creeds, races, ethnicities. Also Fox News paints repubs to be all extremely xenophobic. It's not true, but, conservatives don't disagree with the views enough to really put an end to the nonsense.

These are just things you heard from opposition sources.

They don't really try to reach out to most blacks because of the heavy Democratic influence in the inner cities. They see it as a lost cause not worth wasting time or money on, but they really shouldn't. Rand Paul is wising up on that.

Black men need to be split off from black women and libertarian Republicans can do it if they try hard enough. Black men get screwed because of bad socialist policies, the Drug War, child support laws, crime, etc. and they are about to get majorly screwed by amnesty for illegals coming down the pike. This will force more inner city folk to either get on the dole and/or turn to the black market.

If I were a Republican candidate in an election I'd be in the blackest parts of town slamming the ever-loving shit out of my opponent for being an amnesty-supporting, gay marriage-loving weirdo who hates black men and supports police unions.

[kaotic]

(11-05-2014 12:10 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Youngest state lawmaker:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04...-lawmaker/

Her pic:



Slightly better pics by googling her name.

WYB?

WNB but WVF - would vote for.

[DChambers]

(11-05-2014 12:17 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 11:04 AM)elabayarde Wrote:  

Because repubs have a way of insulting every minority(which about half are men) at some point showing the utter disregarded for people of other creeds, races, ethnicities. Also Fox News paints repubs to be all extremely xenophobic. It's not true, but, conservatives don't disagree with the views enough to really put an end to the nonsense.

These are just things you heard from opposition sources.

They don't really try to reach out to most blacks because of the heavy Democratic influence in the inner cities. They see it as a lost cause not worth wasting time or money on, but they really shouldn't. Rand Paul is wising up on that.

Black men need to be split off from black women and libertarian Republicans can do it if they try hard enough. Black men get screwed because of bad socialist policies, the Drug War, child support laws, crime, etc. and they are about to get majorly screwed by amnesty for illegals coming down the pike. This will force more inner city folk to either get on the dole and/or turn to the black market.

If I were a Republican candidate in an election I'd be in the blackest parts of town slamming the ever-loving shit out of my opponent for being an amnesty-supporting, gay marriage-loving weirdo who hates black men and supports police unions.

His name is Rand Paul.


Edit: Whoops, didn't see that you already mentioned him.

[It_is_my_time]

(11-05-2014 12:14 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 11:44 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 10:09 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:30 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

Higher incomes in places like California and New York is the same as lower income in the midwest if we are talking about disposable income.

You seem to be trying to push some sort of agenda.

You're seeing an agenda where there isn't one, I'm not interested in having a debate about why blue states are richer, I want to know about the other way around so to speak.

Quote:

Basically why are the rich states blue?

(don't miss the distinction) Like I said you would not see that in other Western countries, you'd expect them to be electoral strongholds of the Establishment wing of the main centre-right party.

I looked it up and the blue states still have more disposable income but it goes same way to explaining this anomaly, especially in the Midwest.

The higher taxes you pay, the more the state government has for roads, bridges, infrastructure, and things like that which in turn creates good jobs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Raising taxes does not create more tax revenue. And cutting taxes does not cut tax revenue. And states with lower taxes have better employment numbers.

If anything, higher taxes destroy jobs, as companies will move to a state with lower taxes, like we see with companies fleeing California for Texas. And now New York is trying to get new business by offering a no tax period on new businesses.

[Sonsowey]

America is so funny.

Republicans and Marijuana the big winners yesterday.

[Stun]

Credit where it's due, though: The Left did a fantastic job this year making sure nobody got away with saying the wrong thing on Twitter.

[MdWanderer]

I became even prouder of the results yesterday when I was parousing my Facebook and one of my female Facebook friends was posting how happy she was with the result. One of her friends posted "well too bad were fucked, ESPECIALLY women: the Republicans say bad things about single moms( who put themselves in that hole to begin with), advocate keeping low waged for women (a myth) and advocate rape!"

My friend told her "stop pretending women are victims, I work 60 to 70 hours a week and that's because I WANT to!"

[2Wycked]

(11-05-2014 12:14 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 11:44 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

[quote] (11-05-2014 10:09 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

Higher incomes in places like California and New York is the same as lower income in the midwest if we are talking about disposable income.

You seem to be trying to push some sort of agenda.

You're seeing an agenda where there isn't one, I'm not interested in having a debate about why blue states are richer, I want to know about the other way around so to speak.

Quote:

Basically why are the rich states blue?

(don't miss the distinction) Like I said you would not see that in other Western countries, you'd expect them to be electoral strongholds of the Establishment wing of the main centre-right party.

I looked it up and the blue states still have more disposable income but it goes same way to explaining this anomaly, especially in the Midwest.

Quote:

Having lived in a red state (Texas) myself and a blue state (Illinois). I think the main reason is taxes and education.

Taxes in Texas are extremely low, and people don't pay income state taxes and minimum wage is currently at 7.25. Go to the country side in Texas aside for the blue cities of Houston, Austin, Dallas and on and you'll see how poor and broke it is there.

In Illinois we pay a lot of taxes, very high income state taxes, but minimum wage is at 8.25 and are pushing for a 10.00 dollar push by 2016. The higher taxes you pay, the more the state government has for roads, bridges, infrastructure, and things like that which in turn creates good jobs.

Liberals also tend to be more educated in the sense of college degrees.

Quote from this article:

Quote:

snip

You mean you lived or live in Chicago?

No way in hell a down-stater has this opinion on jobs and infrastructure in the joke of a state that is Illinois.

Chicago's arrogance is killing the rural part (the majority) of the state.

[Sturmgeist]

(11-05-2014 12:10 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Youngest state lawmaker:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04...-lawmaker/

Her pic:



Slightly better pics by googling her name.

WYB?

WB.

[Truth Teller]

(11-05-2014 11:43 AM)CRR Wrote:  

I'd be interested to hear what people hope the Republicans propose (if anything) regarding the following issues:

1) Student loans.
2) ACA/Obamacare. If repeal, then what?
3) If spending cuts, what to cut.
4) Jobs/underemployment.
5) Financial regulation.

Or anything else one hopes to see them focus on

I'm pretty apolitical, but here's what I think the solutions should be (not what they will be).

1. Federal student loans need to end now. It's just an excuse so colleges can keep jacking tuition up. It's endemic of a social problem we have, that problem being the conception that you have to go to college.

2. The ACA can be fixed, but repeal is stupid. There are enough problems in the healthcare system with it. It's even MORE of a disaster without it.

3. Spending cuts are tough. Social Security and Medicare have to be on the chopping block. Combined, they're over half the budget. Nobody wants to talk about them because the other side will say that they're taking away Grandma's Medicare and Social Security checks.

4. Pass a jobs bill that actually does something. During the Depression, we had a WPA and a CCC building things and fixing infrastructure. Our infrastructure now is threatening collapse. We need those programs now more than ever before.

5. Dodd-Frank isn't a bad bill. The typical GOP response to financial regulation in the past has basically been to ignore the problem. After Glass-Steagall was repealed, it was only a matter of time before the financial sector crisis caused economic downturn.

[berserk]

(11-05-2014 11:44 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 10:09 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 09:30 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

@worldwidetraveller overall America's blue states have higher incomes and higher GDP per capita's then red states, and you can see this play out very clearly on the county level income map I posted.

Higher incomes in places like California and New York is the same as lower income in the midwest if we are talking about disposable income.

You seem to be trying to push some sort of agenda.

You're seeing an agenda where there isn't one, I'm not interested in having a debate about why blue states are richer, I want to know about the other way around so to speak. Basically why are the rich states blue? (don't miss the distinction) Like I said you would not see that in other Western countries, you'd expect them to be electoral strongholds of the Establishment wing of the main centre-right party.

I looked it up and the blue states still have more disposable income but it goes same way to explaining this anomaly, especially in the Midwest.

You're trying to make sense of a binary system that cooks all kinds of differences down to team blue or red.

In Europe, you have several left and right wing parties and centrist parties.

As regards economic policy, up until Obama, Democrats would be considered quite far right in most of Europe.

Democrats and Republicans clearly don't in any meaningful way explain the US political landscape.

Obama is a socialist and a cultural-marxist, but most SJWs would find their compatriots in Europe in centrist-left parties. These centrist-left parties, often call themselves social-liberal (meaning social-libertarian:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) and can have economic policies which are far right but social policies which are far left, such as feminism, cultural-marxism, and other SJW ideas.

People who vote for such parties are usually well off. They go by different names, often referring to them as some local variant of 'luxury socialists', the implication being sitting around in expensive houses in safe neighborhoods feeling good about themselves by wanting to save the world, while those who suffer from their ideas live with it in low income neighborhoods, where abortions, welfare and violence are the result. You will also find the staunchest group of anti-christians in this European group.

I am sure what you're seeing is a reflection. A bunch of people in safe neighborhoods fully removed from the consequences of their policy.

[TheWastelander]

(11-05-2014 03:54 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(11-05-2014 11:43 AM)CRR Wrote:  

I'd be interested to hear what people hope the Republicans propose (if anything) regarding the following issues:

1) Student loans.
2) ACA/Obamacare. If repeal, then what?
3) If spending cuts, what to cut.
4) Jobs/underemployment.
5) Financial regulation.

Or anything else one hopes to see them focus on

I'm pretty apolitical, but here's what I think the solutions should be (not what they will be).

4. Pass a jobs bill that actually does something. During the Depression, we had a WPA and a CCC building things and fixing infrastructure. Our infrastructure now is threatening collapse. We need those programs now more than ever before.

They already did this and spent a ton of money. They claimed it'd create shovel-ready jobs.

What happened to that?

Furthermore, Obama and some Dems refusing to approve the fourth phase of the Keystone Pipeline has hurt this economy and the employment situation.

[Sonsowey]

What can Republicans and Obama agree on to get done?

[TheWastelander]

(11-05-2014 04:11 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

What can Republicans and Obama agree on to get done?

Bombing ISIS and expanding the NSA.

[WalterBlack]

(11-05-2014 03:59 PM)berserk Wrote:  

You're trying to make sense of a binary system that cooks all kinds of differences down to team blue or red.

In Europe, you have several left and right wing parties and centrist parties.

As regards economic policy, up until Obama, Democrats would be considered quite far right in most of Europe.

Democrats and Republicans clearly don't in any meaningful way explain the US political landscape.

Obama is a socialist and a cultural-marxist, but most SJWs would find their compatriots in Europe in centrist-left parties. These centrist-left parties, often call themselves social-liberal (meaning social-libertarian:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) and can have economic policies which are far right but social policies which are far left, such as feminism, cultural-marxism, and other SJW ideas.

People who vote for such parties are usually well off. They go by different names, often referring to them as some local variant of 'luxury socialists', the implication being sitting around in expensive houses in safe neighborhoods feeling good about themselves by wanting to save the world, while those who suffer from their ideas live with it in low income neighborhoods, where abortions, welfare and violence are the result. You will also find the staunchest group of anti-christians in this European group.

I am sure what you're seeing is a reflection. A bunch of people in safe neighborhoods fully removed from the consequences of their policy.

‘luxury socialists’ are called “Champagne socialists” in UK.

I remember reading somewhere that for financial policy, in terms of European politics the US has no viable true left wing party. It has 2 right wing parties, and one party is more right wing than the other. Both the Republicans are Democrats are to the right of the UK Conservative party in terms of finance policy.

[Sonsowey]

Do Republicans have any interest in cutting subsidies to corn, soya, etc? Ethanol subsidies got to go and I think that could be something Reoublicans are into to cut spending.

Of course corn states are a huge voting bloc so probably that wont happen.

[Native Baltimoron]

It's really quite important to adjust disposable income relative to the cost of living. People pay quite a bit more for housing on the coasts, for example. I'd also note that the average gives a much less reliable picture of disposable income than the median.

I think the rural/urban divide is at least as informative as wealth in predicting party affiliation. Go a good distance outside the cities, even in a deep-blue state like Maryland, and you'll find there are a lot of conservatives.

[eradicator]

(11-05-2014 12:10 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Youngest state lawmaker:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04...-lawmaker/

Her pic:



Slightly better pics by googling her name.

WYB?

she would have to lose about 50 pounds before passing the boner test.

[berserk]

(11-05-2014 04:29 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  

‘luxury socialists’ are called “Champagne socialists” in UK.

I remember reading somewhere that for financial policy, in terms of European politics the US has no viable true left wing party. It has 2 right wing parties, and one party is more right wing than the other. Both the Republicans are Democrats are to the right of the UK Conservative party in terms of finance policy.

Funny, in Australia and New Zealand they are apparently called Chardonnay Socialists.

Called Limousine Liberals or Latte Liberals in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal.

You are what you drink.

[scorpion]

I can't believe anyone here still takes politics seriously. It's literally just like two little kids arguing over professional wrestling because they don't realize the whole thing is a work. It's fake. They are marks. They buy into the fake show and believe it's real. This is exactly what politics has become in the United States. You are never going to see any kind of sweeping changes, regardless of who is in office, because Democrats and Republicans aren't really two factions that hate each other and have totally different visions for the country. In reality, they are two wings of the same party, a party whose agenda is entirely controlled by the elite. Democracy is a complete sham because you don't have a choice at all. Democrat or Republican? Are you fucking kidding me? That's what you call a choice? It's like someone kicking you in the balls, but giving you the choice of them using their right foot or their left. That is modern American politics in a nutshell.

Anyone who thinks that any sort of positive change is going to come out of Washington is completely delusional at this point. The plan is simply to keep the train rolling until the wheels fall off. There is absolutely no will or intention to take the necessary steps to fix the problems we are facing, because those steps are so drastic as to be politically unfeasible in our current system. The buck will continue to be passed until the system implodes. That is the plan. None of these politicians (at least not the ones who have any real power) and certainly none of the elites who fund and control them give a single fuck about what happens to ordinary American people. They are not your friends. They don't believe anything they say. The goal is to get elected and obtain power, then utilize that power to enrich themselves and their allies. That's it. That is politics. That is how politics has always been played. The idealism attached to American democracy has always been a complete farce, and is especially so today.

Want to know what the Republicans are going to do with control of Congress? Absofuckinglutely nothing that matters. Will they seal off the border? Nope. Will they impeach Obama? Nope. Will they reduce the size of government? Nope. Will they propose a more sane foreign policy? Nope. They will simply continue to function as Obama's sparring partner, the heel to Obama's Babyface, (although with Obama's sagging popularity the Republicans may be the Babyfaces now, at least in the mind of the public, if not the media). So they will go back and forth pounding away at each other, meanwhile the country will continue to decline because none of the really big problems will ever be addressed.

[Slim Shady]

^Essentially spot on Scorpion. I do tend to go to both sides of your position occasionally though. When I go less extreme/more hopeful I do believe in Rand Paul as the one and only available savior. When I get more extreme/less hopeful I think that when the world crashes completely the elites are all going to go hide at the bottom of the new Denver Airport/Supercomplex/ New Zion.

And yes, the Republicans have been talking such big game, so why DONT they impeach Obama? He did do a bunch of unconstitutional shit with the Healthcare laws, and Syrian invasion right? Hold him accountable. But obviously they won't, and no one in the media will even really talk about it.

"“Why would anyone vote Republican?” Drudge tweeted. “Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!...It’s now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian, since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties.”
-Matt Drudge [9/23/13]

[Hedonistic Traveler]

(11-04-2014 07:09 PM)calihunter Wrote:  

I’m a die-hard liberal. It ruined my parenting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt...parenting/

Haha, that lady is retarded. My favorite exchange;

“Mom,” my daughter said, “people without money need help, and people with money need to help them.”

“Yes, that’s right,” I said.

“Well, I don’t have money, and you do, so you need to help me and buy this.”

Of course the mom can't figure out a way to explain why people who can't afford food are different than kids who can't afford a toy. Her problem is not that she's a liberal, it's that she is a moron.

(11-05-2014 12:10 PM)CRR Wrote:  

Youngest state lawmaker:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/04...-lawmaker/

Her pic:



Slightly better pics by googling her name.

WYB?

Liberals are already ripping on this girl.

They're doing it for Mia Love too.

Liberals get racist and sexist pretty quick if you disagree with them. I guess that's the basis of their politics though, that they know better than you do about how to run your life.

Did you guys read about Wendy Davis's campaign organizer having a meltdown on twitter. Pretty funny stuff.

Some of my favorites;

"If you're a student and you voted Republican, slap yourself eight times"

"If you're Hispanic and you voted Republican in this election, I strongly suggest you reevaluate your life"


Really just more of the same. Democrats letting you know that they're smarter than you despite their complete lack of success. And does Wendy Davis really know how to relate to the typical college student anyways?

At the end of the day though fuck both major parties. At the national level I'd rather throw my vote away on a 3rd-party than reward either party for only being the 2nd-worst option.

[DChambers]

(11-05-2014 05:40 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

I can't believe anyone here still takes politics seriously. It's literally just like two little kids arguing over professional wrestling because they don't realize the whole thing is a work. It's fake. They are marks. They buy into the fake show and believe it's real. This is exactly what politics has become in the United States. You are never going to see any kind of sweeping changes, regardless of who is in office, because Democrats and Republicans aren't really two factions that hate each other and have totally different visions for the country. In reality, they are two wings of the same party, a party whose agenda is entirely controlled by the elite. Democracy is a complete sham because you don't have a choice at all. Democrat or Republican? Are you fucking kidding me? That's what you call a choice? It's like someone kicking you in the balls, but giving you the choice of them using their right foot or their left. That is modern American politics in a nutshell.

Anyone who thinks that any sort of positive change is going to come out of Washington is completely delusional at this point. The plan is simply to keep the train rolling until the wheels fall off. There is absolutely no will or intention to take the necessary steps to fix the problems we are facing, because those steps are so drastic as to be politically unfeasible in our current system. The buck will continue to be passed until the system implodes. That is the plan. None of these politicians (at least not the ones who have any real power) and certainly none of the elites who fund and control them give a single fuck about what happens to ordinary American people. They are not your friends. They don't believe anything they say. The goal is to get elected and obtain power, then utilize that power to enrich themselves and their allies. That's it. That is politics. That is how politics has always been played. The idealism attached to American democracy has always been a complete farce, and is especially so today.

Want to know what the Republicans are going to do with control of Congress? Absofuckinglutely nothing that matters. Will they seal off the border? Nope. Will they impeach Obama? Nope. Will they reduce the size of government? Nope. Will they propose a more sane foreign policy? Nope. They will simply continue to function as Obama's sparring partner, the heel to Obama's Babyface, (although with Obama's sagging popularity the Republicans may be the Babyfaces now, at least in the mind of the public, if not the media). So they will go back and forth pounding away at each other, meanwhile the country will continue to decline because none of the really big problems will ever be addressed.

Correct. However the Democrats have gone full force off the deep end and are rushing head first towards the oblivion of the globalist agenda.

The Republicans at least have within their ranks a part of the party that still adheres to old conservative values that are the only antidote to this agenda. This conservative-libertarian wing of the party led by Rand Paul is the only hope for the nation in the coming years.