Dean/Murray!

Liberal with a helping of libertarianism.

Hold on, what do the lighter shades mean? Is blue Ds that oppose and red R's that support? If so, what's with that dark red CD in NY?

Light red is a Dem that opposes, light blue is a Dem with an unknown position, and dark red is a GOP supporter. The NY district is Richard Hanna, who endorsed SSM earlier this year.

Thanks.

Yeah... down with those horrible right wing democrats that supported equal rights for women and minorities, pro choice policies, lowering the voting age to 18, repealing "right to work" laws, and abolishing the electoral college in favor of a direct popular vote.  All clearly horrible policies that will bring us back to the stone age.

As if Jesse Jackson didn't stand for those things and more?

So is anyone who disagrees with you on any issue at all right-wing? If so, you have a very strange definition of left vs. right.

And that's how we ended up with modern day Democratic party. Also I voted strategically for the Democrats or Progressives a couple times earlier instead of Socialist party, and I didn't vote for Socialist Labor against the Socialists despite agreeing more with their platform.

I'm not sure how this answers my question...

We shouldn't expressly condemn it... but we shouldn't condone it either. Nothing public - perhaps if the SoEA wants to privately talk to the Israeli about it, that'd be okay, but no public condemnation.

Yeah... down with those horrible right wing democrats that supported equal rights for women and minorities, pro choice policies, lowering the voting age to 18, repealing "right to work" laws, and abolishing the electoral college in favor of a direct popular vote.  All clearly horrible policies that will bring us back to the stone age.

As if Jesse Jackson didn't stand for those things and more?

So is anyone who disagrees with you on any issue at all right-wing? If so, you have a very strange definition of left vs. right.

Hold on, what do the lighter shades mean? Is blue Ds that oppose and red R's that support? If so, what's with that dark red CD in NY?

The only real protest vote is a vote for Kemp to end the sclerotic one-party rule of the right-wing Democratic party. Then we can elect a left-winger in 1992.

Cuomo?

Hormonal 20RP12.

Yes, the old 20RP12.

The new 20RP12 might have changed his political views, but he hasn't changed his fetishes. I mean, haven't you noticed how obsessed his is with black Republicans? And just exactly what big wiggly things are his style?

Yes, including this "black" Republican.

What sort of saucy things have you been doing with 20RP12, Oldiesfreak?

McCarthy, the Democratic party is too right-wing now.

Do you know what McCarthy actually stood for?

Protest vote is protest vote.

You could vote for, say, Lenora Fulani.

McCarthy, the Democratic party is too right-wing now.

Do you know what McCarthy actually stood for?

[Michele Bachmann Campaign Schedule: 10/24 - 10/30]

Michele Bachmann Campaign Schedule: 10/24 - 10/30

10/24:
Supporting our troops in Ames
Burning Obama in effigy
Taking it to the haters in Des Moines

10/25:
Eating corn dogs
Barnstorming throughout Iowa
Rally with Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) in Cedar Rapids

10/26:
Praying to Jesus!
Doing some hip thing with the 18-24 crowd
Exposing scandal within Romney campaign

10/27:
Barnstorming throughout Minnesota
Looking at a map and flying back across the border
Rally in Ames

10/28:
Kidnapping world's greatest scientists to work on a weather-controlling machine
Rally in Cedar Rapids with Rep. Allen West (R-FL) touting experience with drought relief

10/29:
Barnstorming throughout Iowa
Dance lessons with Marcus
Dance lessons with Louis Gohmert

10/30:
On the seventh day, God rested.

Debate answer to come later

Does a case have to be made against SSM? No one needs to prove "wrongness" (which seems like a bizarre argument to me). A positive action has to be made to make it happen. Current law doesn't "ban" same-sex marriage, there is simply no provision in some localities defining a same-sex union as a marriage. It's legally and socially incomparable to interracial marriage since those were expressedly prohibited (i.e., everyone understood that it was still marriage, but some people still opted to ban it). Which makes sense - race (and thus miscegenation) is a modern construct (much like SSM) so "interracial marriage" more or less was prohibited ex post facto.

It's very much more of a question of whether the state should revise its current definition of marriage (or have one at all), so deontological ethics (certain actions being "moral" or not) don't seem to be relevant. I'm mixed on whether the state should define marriage, largely because marriage as a contractual institution predates state definition even if the family is the model for the state and the state is the natural outgrowth of family.

On the other hand, SSM redefines the relationship between the state and the family into one between the state and individual, which seems like dangerous precedent (but something that has unfortunately probably already happened to many people if they're supporting the legal enshrinement of SSM).

What is with your obsession with "the family"? Are the willfully single not people? Do they not count?

Looks like the corrupt, racist, right-wing "Democratic" party has surged back into the lead.

I like the bit where you called the party that recently had a black Vice-President and elects its leaders by popular vote racist and corrupt because they didn't nominate exactly whom you wanted them to nominate.

Maybe he just doesn't like how we broke the glass ceiling for Italian-Americans in US politics.  If anything, our party is becoming even more diverse. 

True. The Republicans seem to still be riding on Frederick Douglass as evidence that they aren't racist, just like a certain poster I could name.

If Ron Paul costs the Republicans a win, I think I'll just break down and cry.

If Eugene McCarthy and that Fulani lady cost the Democrats a win, I think I'll do the same.

It'd be fun if this were to go to the House.

Looks like the corrupt, racist, right-wing "Democratic" party has surged back into the lead.

I like the bit where you called the party that recently had a black Vice-President and elects its leaders by popular vote racist and corrupt because they didn't nominate exactly whom you wanted them to nominate.

Judging purely from what you've posted here, this looks like a hell of a lot better plan for Social Security than anything that's been proposed so far in the last several years, so good for Begich.

A stain on FDR's otherwise illustrious Presidency.

[no money]

Obama has certainly been a good President for the 1%.

Right because the poors aren't allowed to invest in the stock market

Friend, do you not understand the meaning of 'poor'?  It means = no money!

..No, it means less than a certain amount of money which doesn't necessarily mean no money!

I'd like Feingold for Obama's VP.

A few days, I think. I got here by obsessively Googling "gop iowa poll" all throughout December 2011.

The first day tricked me into thinking this would be an interesting election.

Come on, another Bayh vs Kemp? Because it will go differently this time for some reason? Because another moderately sized Democratic victory is just what this timeline needs? I support Jackson, for interesting elections.

Seriously. You people are killing the game with this boringness.

Some of us prefer to have the TL rooted in reality, thanks

We threw reality out the window back in 1872.

I think we should have made Woodhull Eternal President, like Kim il-Sung.

OK. Abolish the Presidency. Make Woodhull Dear Leader and Cain Great Leader.

Kemp's winning! Come on, guys, I want to break the 1900-1916 election winning streak!

I'd vote for every Soviet premier/general secretary over Thatcher.

So you think Stalin is better than Thatcher?

I gather you don't know much about Tweed.