The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:05:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 74
Author Topic: The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII  (Read 167008 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #275 on: December 04, 2018, 11:22:56 PM »

The GOP can't survive the demographic changes. It's only a matter of time before they collapse completely.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #276 on: December 04, 2018, 11:46:54 PM »

Any argument that considers states as meaningful and independent entities is still colossally stupid. We're at a point with mass communication, mass culture, nationalized politics, etc. that there's no reason to consider states as truly independent collections of constituencies rather than some arbitrarily binned groupings of people. Put another way: we're at a point where most states have a large amount of variance within their constituencies, to the point that the differences among states are becoming meaningless so long as you know a person's education level, race, and gender. There isn't much difference in the political leanings or the between Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport Iowa, or between Fairfax County, VA and Prince George's County, MD, between Wendover, Nevada and West Wendover, Utah, etc. But the current representation system we have treats ridiculously them as totally separate political entities. So, any type of system which tries to do some fair weighting of "states" as if they had some sort of meaningful political identity is trying to weight something which isn't well defined enough to be meaningful. Keeping a system of political representation which is based on trying to balance out some weird political variables that don't really exist is horrible and indefensible when it creates massive inequalities in other ways, e.g., giving the 40 million people of California as much political representation in a major body of Congress as a state that's almost 1/80th its size.

I don't really care about the Connecticut Compromise. It's a product of a bygone era with incredibly different political needs and realities, and its mere existence isn't a sufficient argument for why it should continue to be followed. It's telling that all arguments in favor of incredibly biased systems of proportionment are justified by arguments that are ultimately "this is the way it is", or "this is the way it was", without ever giving an argument for why that is right or desirable.

Basically this and everything Solid and AndyHogan have said in this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=308408.msg6570518#new

Damnit! You found and exploited my debating weak point - passive-aggressively quoting me in the bad-posts thread without addressing any of my arguments. This has always been my rhetorical Achilles heel - it's why I was no good in my high school debate club.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #277 on: December 05, 2018, 12:33:50 AM »

Any argument that considers states as meaningful and independent entities is still colossally stupid. We're at a point with mass communication, mass culture, nationalized politics, etc. that there's no reason to consider states as truly independent collections of constituencies rather than some arbitrarily binned groupings of people. Put another way: we're at a point where most states have a large amount of variance within their constituencies, to the point that the differences among states are becoming meaningless so long as you know a person's education level, race, and gender. There isn't much difference in the political leanings or the between Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport Iowa, or between Fairfax County, VA and Prince George's County, MD, between Wendover, Nevada and West Wendover, Utah, etc. But the current representation system we have treats ridiculously them as totally separate political entities. So, any type of system which tries to do some fair weighting of "states" as if they had some sort of meaningful political identity is trying to weight something which isn't well defined enough to be meaningful. Keeping a system of political representation which is based on trying to balance out some weird political variables that don't really exist is horrible and indefensible when it creates massive inequalities in other ways, e.g., giving the 40 million people of California as much political representation in a major body of Congress as a state that's almost 1/80th its size.

I don't really care about the Connecticut Compromise. It's a product of a bygone era with incredibly different political needs and realities, and its mere existence isn't a sufficient argument for why it should continue to be followed. It's telling that all arguments in favor of incredibly biased systems of proportionment are justified by arguments that are ultimately "this is the way it is", or "this is the way it was", without ever giving an argument for why that is right or desirable.

Basically this and everything Solid and AndyHogan have said in this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=308408.msg6570518#new

Damnit! You found and exploited my debating weak point - passive-aggressively quoting me in the bad-posts thread without addressing any of my arguments. This has always been my rhetorical Achilles heel - it's why I was no good in my high school debate club.

At first, I thought you went on some rampage through that thread, so I opened it and looked for your posts there, and what do you know, that was your only post.

It's one thing for CE to disagree, and another thing to put this in the bad posts gallery. What on EARTH is wrong with the post? It's actually a fairly good argument that not only explains why states are nothing like they used to be and do not serve the same purposes (more or less), but also points out the rather hollow arguments against reforming the Senate: "this is the way it is." Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I think a good chunk of the resistance to this from conservatives is probably tied to their knowledge that the Senate favors their interests considerably, by design, and so their minds just naturally form a protective barrier around the current idea of the Senate, almost inseparable from their natural inclination towards self-preservation. It's not even just the Senate, you can see this play out with all sorts of things, from basic rules on voting (eg voter suppression) or even something that should be as simple as investigating fraud. Not only are there crickets from the GOP on the NC fraud case, but hacks like 2016 popping in and throwing in "DEMOCRATS STEALING ELECTIONS." It's almost comical how reliable the conservative response is to these things.

This is also the reason why Senate reform will probably never pass without Democrats controlling the number of states required to amend the constitution. Republicans in their current form will never, ever agree to a system that weakens their influence, no matter how little the old system makes sense or how unfair it is. Everything the GOP has done up to this point indicates they would rather rule a deeply unfair and unequal system than compete in a fair one. And if one ever wavered in such a thought, the rash of lame duck power stripping bills all but reaffirms it.
Logged
AtorBoltox
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,984


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #278 on: December 05, 2018, 08:33:15 AM »

What's wrong with quoting Hitler if you agree with the quote? I quote Malcolm X, LBJ, and Woodrow Wilson all the time but have vehement political disagreements with them. Honestly the fact that you guys are being such p*ssies over a quote is astonishing. If words hurt you that much, God help you when you actually go through hard times in your life.
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,136
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -5.91

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #279 on: December 05, 2018, 09:06:32 AM »

What's wrong with quoting Hitler if you agree with the quote? I quote Malcolm X, LBJ, and Woodrow Wilson all the time but have vehement political disagreements with them. Honestly the fact that you guys are being such p*ssies over a quote is astonishing. If words hurt you that much, God help you when you actually go through hard times in your life.
Wow. That might be the dumbest take I've ever read.
Logged
Coastal Elitist
Tea Party Hater
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,251
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.71, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #280 on: December 05, 2018, 12:09:40 PM »

Any argument that considers states as meaningful and independent entities is still colossally stupid. We're at a point with mass communication, mass culture, nationalized politics, etc. that there's no reason to consider states as truly independent collections of constituencies rather than some arbitrarily binned groupings of people. Put another way: we're at a point where most states have a large amount of variance within their constituencies, to the point that the differences among states are becoming meaningless so long as you know a person's education level, race, and gender. There isn't much difference in the political leanings or the between Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport Iowa, or between Fairfax County, VA and Prince George's County, MD, between Wendover, Nevada and West Wendover, Utah, etc. But the current representation system we have treats ridiculously them as totally separate political entities. So, any type of system which tries to do some fair weighting of "states" as if they had some sort of meaningful political identity is trying to weight something which isn't well defined enough to be meaningful. Keeping a system of political representation which is based on trying to balance out some weird political variables that don't really exist is horrible and indefensible when it creates massive inequalities in other ways, e.g., giving the 40 million people of California as much political representation in a major body of Congress as a state that's almost 1/80th its size.

I don't really care about the Connecticut Compromise. It's a product of a bygone era with incredibly different political needs and realities, and its mere existence isn't a sufficient argument for why it should continue to be followed. It's telling that all arguments in favor of incredibly biased systems of proportionment are justified by arguments that are ultimately "this is the way it is", or "this is the way it was", without ever giving an argument for why that is right or desirable.

Basically this and everything Solid and AndyHogan have said in this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=308408.msg6570518#new

Damnit! You found and exploited my debating weak point - passive-aggressively quoting me in the bad-posts thread without addressing any of my arguments. This has always been my rhetorical Achilles heel - it's why I was no good in my high school debate club.
Your argument about the states is quite absurd. New York is not the same as California and Georgia is not the same as Texas. There is still very much a state identity for each state. Also assuming certain groups are going to vote the same way for the rest of history is absurd. If you look at history you can see that different groups have voted differently over time and I fully expect that to continue. I'm 100% sure that the Democrats will win back the senate at some point. If you look at the current trends you're favored to win the Senate back over time.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #281 on: December 05, 2018, 12:24:06 PM »

Smart move. They have a quickly aging population and cant replace their numbers fast enough. At least with immigration, they can stop an economic catastrophe.
Culture and religion is more important than money. Something marxists like you don't seem to understand.

Figures osr would put apost in here that dares to claim there's anything more important than money.


You didnt get my point did you lmao ,I bolded those because of the Marxist claim. The whole point of Marxists is they hate capitalism lol.


BTW: I think Family is the most important thing

That was hardly clear from your post. I think my misinterpretation was an easy one to make.

Incidentally, that is one of the primary, and arguably more valid, critiques of Marxism oh, that it attempts to boil all human interaction and drives down to economics.

Awful poster, as I have made clear for much of the reasons c a t h c o n points out, but this is an arguable Broken Clock moment
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #282 on: December 05, 2018, 12:26:25 PM »

What's wrong with quoting Hitler if you agree with the quote? I quote Malcolm X, LBJ, and Woodrow Wilson all the time but have vehement political disagreements with them. Honestly the fact that you guys are being such p*ssies over a quote is astonishing. If words hurt you that much, God help you when you actually go through hard times in your life.
Wow. That might be the dumbest take I've ever read.
Logged
💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)
peenie_weenie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,416
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #283 on: December 05, 2018, 09:10:57 PM »

Any argument that considers states as meaningful and independent entities is still colossally stupid. We're at a point with mass communication, mass culture, nationalized politics, etc. that there's no reason to consider states as truly independent collections of constituencies rather than some arbitrarily binned groupings of people. Put another way: we're at a point where most states have a large amount of variance within their constituencies, to the point that the differences among states are becoming meaningless so long as you know a person's education level, race, and gender. There isn't much difference in the political leanings or the between Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport Iowa, or between Fairfax County, VA and Prince George's County, MD, between Wendover, Nevada and West Wendover, Utah, etc. But the current representation system we have treats ridiculously them as totally separate political entities. So, any type of system which tries to do some fair weighting of "states" as if they had some sort of meaningful political identity is trying to weight something which isn't well defined enough to be meaningful. Keeping a system of political representation which is based on trying to balance out some weird political variables that don't really exist is horrible and indefensible when it creates massive inequalities in other ways, e.g., giving the 40 million people of California as much political representation in a major body of Congress as a state that's almost 1/80th its size.

I don't really care about the Connecticut Compromise. It's a product of a bygone era with incredibly different political needs and realities, and its mere existence isn't a sufficient argument for why it should continue to be followed. It's telling that all arguments in favor of incredibly biased systems of proportionment are justified by arguments that are ultimately "this is the way it is", or "this is the way it was", without ever giving an argument for why that is right or desirable.

Basically this and everything Solid and AndyHogan have said in this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=308408.msg6570518#new

Damnit! You found and exploited my debating weak point - passive-aggressively quoting me in the bad-posts thread without addressing any of my arguments. This has always been my rhetorical Achilles heel - it's why I was no good in my high school debate club.
Your argument about the states is quite absurd. New York is not the same as California and Georgia is not the same as Texas. There is still very much a state identity for each state. Also assuming certain groups are going to vote the same way for the rest of history is absurd. If you look at history you can see that different groups have voted differently over time and I fully expect that to continue. I'm 100% sure that the Democrats will win back the senate at some point. If you look at the current trends you're favored to win the Senate back over time.

Thanks for providing an actual argument, and I don't mean that snarkily.

It's not absurd to point out that treating state boundaries as hard boundaries of political interest is meaningless. You point out that states that are far apart are going to be politically different, which of course there is some evidence for (although your average voter in a place like Salem, Oregon is going to vote similarly to the average voter in a place like Annapolis, Maryland, and ditto for a voter in Ontario, Oregon and some tiny-ass place on Maryland's Eastern Shore). But consider the opposite side of that: places that are close together but are in different states will be much more similar to each other than they will be to many places in their own states. There are some developed parts of the Kansas City metro area where a single, four-lane road separates Missouri from Kansas. Are you really going to tell me that a voter on the MO side of the road is more similar to a voter in a place like Lebanon, Missouri than he/she is to a voter on the other side of the road (and likewise for a KCKS voter and a place like Colby, Kansas)? Of course not - that's absurd. But because states are so coarse-grained, those types of voters get lumped togethar according to which side of a state line they live on when there's no reason to assume they have similar interests. This is why lumping together states as if they have some sort of uniform, common interest is naive at best. And why try to preserve a system to explicitly balance the competing interests of certain types of states if the underlying assumption about whether or not states have common cause is flawed?

Another similar example of the banality of the idea of an political interest of a state is the fact that you can easily change the outcomes of political elections for the representations of millions of people by simply abosbing/jettisoning counties from certain states. This doesn't apply to the Senate per se but if you gave Toledo to Michigan, Trenton to Pennsylvania, and Waukegon to Wisconsin you would have changed the outcomes of the 2016 Presidential election. Are you really going to make the argument to me that each of those places are so culturally, economically, politically, etc. out of step with their neighboring states? No - it just goes to show how incredibly arbitrary and unstable it is to have national systems of representation that are based on binnings that were arbitrarily set in the 1800s.

The "interests of a state" was a meaningful phrase in the 1780s because the states were smaller and sparsely populated and because the economies were less diversified and much less interconnected than they are today. But because of transformations in the economy, ways we communicate, and ways that political coalitions operate, it's no longer meaningful to say that states have some sort of uniform political interest. Even many of our own House districts (which are smaller, more compact, and much finer grained) don't have what you could consider a common political interest. I won't speculate too much on what would be a superior system of representation to the Senate, but I will say that our current system 1) has way too few representatives, and this applies to both the House and Senate, and 2) a system which is more flexible in allowing its political boundaries to change (gerrymandering in the House shows this is not a perfect solution).

I don't really care about whether or not Democrats will be able to win back the Senate in 2060. If you follow the "Veil of Justice" approach then it doesn't really matter who is being disadvantaged by a system like this. But it is worth noting that the "average state" (i.e., average political unit which gets represented in the Senate) is something like +6% more Republican than the average voter. There's no reason for having one of our most powerful elected institutions set up to allow systematic bias against the average voter if the main value the system is trying to embody is fair representation?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #284 on: December 06, 2018, 10:28:29 AM »

The minimum penalty here should be no U.S Olympic Athletes of any kind at the 2020 Summer Games or the 2022 Winter Games.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #285 on: December 07, 2018, 02:15:19 PM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #286 on: December 07, 2018, 10:04:14 PM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.


IceSpear is becoming a parody of himself
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #287 on: December 08, 2018, 12:55:05 AM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.

Man, imagine if West Virginia ever elected a female Senator or something.
Logged
AtorBoltox
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,984


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #288 on: December 08, 2018, 01:58:37 AM »

If anything I'd dislike him even more, but obviously I disapprove either way.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #289 on: December 08, 2018, 11:06:01 AM »

A minority candidate/female candidate, should promptly launch a third party independent bid and try to deny both Trump and this hypothetical white male 270 electoral votes, and force the election to the House.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #290 on: December 08, 2018, 08:59:48 PM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.

Man, imagine if West Virginia ever elected a female Senator or something.

Her opponent was also a woman, so it's not like they had much choice.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #291 on: December 08, 2018, 09:00:25 PM »

If Lundergan Grimes runs again, McConnell easily could lose. He's never had to share a ballot with a President as unpopular as President Trump
Logged
RussFeingoldWasRobbed
Progress96
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,237
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #292 on: December 09, 2018, 12:11:20 AM »

Find better sources if you want to be taken seriously

Breitbart is one of the most legit news sources out there, what do you mean?

Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,624
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #293 on: December 09, 2018, 12:47:01 PM »

The world without any caucuses...

2016: Hillary wins IA (instead of tying), Bernie is just a gadfly getting 20% the rest of the way.

2008: Hillary wins IA and NH, Obama is just a blip on Super Tuesday (polling shows that southern blacks weren't for him originally since they didnt think he had a chance), Hillary rolls to victory (and probably blows the general election, but thats another discussion)

2004: Dean is just a blip, and Edwards doesn't amount to much other than the token southerner. Kerry wins, but picks Gephardt for veep.

2000: Not much different from reality.

1992:No candidate had strength outside his region though Bill Clinton successfully spun his NH loss into being a comeback kid. Brown was the caucus candidate, and would have been more insignificant. Clinton still wins just because the primary calendar is stacked for the south and its also a bigger region.

1988: This one is tough, but I think Gephardt just for name recognition, but maybe still Dukakis.

1984: still Mondale

1976: No Carter. Tight contest between Wallace, Udall, Bayh, Scoop Jackson, with each appealing to different groups?

I suspect Democrats (at least the activists) will regret this anti-caucus movement as future nominations become a name recognition contest.


What makes you think that Clinton would lose 2008? I'm not a fan of hers but literally any competent Democrat would win on the back of the economy that year



2008 hypothetical Clinton vs. McCain polling.

McCain leading MI and IL being tossup is all you have to know. Hillary was as much of a turnoff in 2008 as she was in 2016.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #294 on: December 09, 2018, 02:34:32 PM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.

Man, imagine if West Virginia ever elected a female Senator or something.

Her opponent was also a woman, so it's not like they had much choice.

You're kind of proving his point.
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,072
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #295 on: December 09, 2018, 02:47:45 PM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.

Man, imagine if West Virginia ever elected a female Senator or something.

Her opponent was also a woman, so it's not like they had much choice.

You're kind of proving his point.
Logged
Thunder98
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,573
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #296 on: December 09, 2018, 06:02:30 PM »

Logged
I Can Now Die Happy
NYC Millennial Minority
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,949
United States
Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: -4.70

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #297 on: December 09, 2018, 06:22:32 PM »

Find better sources if you want to be taken seriously

Breitbart is one of the most legit news sources out there, what do you mean?


What's so absurd or ignorant about this post?
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #298 on: December 09, 2018, 11:58:30 PM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.

Man, imagine if West Virginia ever elected a female Senator or something.

Her opponent was also a woman, so it's not like they had much choice.

You're kind of proving his point.

Um, what? I think you're totally missing the point that he's so down on the idea of West Virginia electing a woman as US senator he totally minimized the fact that both major party nominees in 2016 were women.

Seriously, am I missing something here or are you?
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,730


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #299 on: December 10, 2018, 11:55:11 AM »

Do you think that a resurrected Adolf Hitler could win WV-03 if he had an (R) next to his name?

Yes, and it wouldn't be close. He'd probably do better than Carol Miller since resurrected Adolf Hitler wouldn't have a vagina.

Man, imagine if West Virginia ever elected a female Senator or something.

Her opponent was also a woman, so it's not like they had much choice.

You're kind of proving his point.

Um, what? I think you're totally missing the point that he's so down on the idea of West Virginia electing a woman as US senator he totally minimized the fact that both major party nominees in 2016 were women.

Seriously, am I missing something here or are you?

I mean, for both major party nominees to be women, that has to mean that enough people from both parties were fine with women being in politics for women to win both primary elections.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 74  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 11 queries.