Party of hate?

[watcher1]

Actually, Gia, this supports Watcher to a tee.

Thank you. Moderation is the only way this country will get back on track.  But that is okay.  I kind of like when Gia singles me out. 

[Katiebee]

Considering that minimum wage is now below the same level 10 years ago, while executive compensation has increased by some 100% over the same period, I think that it's fairly obvious that the compensation is skewed to give more money to those who already have more money, and screw the people who actually fuel the economy.

[MissBarbara]

While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.

That is doubly untrue. "Excesses and foul dealings" are found equally in both parties, as is relying on the contributions of wealthy backers. Nor is the GOP "exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite." Even without the modifiers ("exclusively," "only"), it's still untrue.

The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.

Nor is the current Democratic party the party of Lincoln, not by a long shot.

[Athos_131]

Considering that minimum wage is now below the same level 10 years ago, while executive compensation has increased by some 100% over the same period, I think that it's fairly obvious that the compensation is skewed to give more money to those who already have more money, and screw the people who actually fuel the economy.

[Katiebee]

While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.

That is doubly untrue. "Excesses and foul dealings" are found equally in both parties, as is relying on the contributions of wealthy backers. Nor is the GOP "exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite." Even without the modifiers ("exclusively," "only"), it's still untrue.

The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.

Nor is the current Democratic party the party of Lincoln, not by a long shot.

No they aren't. However, given the party platforms, I know which one supports me and my interests, and the interests of a great number of people. I do not tie my voting to racial or religious bias, as, unfortunately, so many in this country do.

I attempt to make an informed and considered choice when I vote to support a particular candidate from a particular party. As it currently stands, I don't think I could vote for any candidate under the Republican banner, simply because they are supported by the Tea Party, which in my view are only a few short steps from authoritarians, or parden my Godfrey, fascists.

[MissBarbara]

While I have no doubt that excesses and foul dealings are to be found in the Democratic party, they are not exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite.

That is doubly untrue. "Excesses and foul dealings" are found equally in both parties, as is relying on the contributions of wealthy backers. Nor is the GOP "exclusively tied to only a wealthy elite." Even without the modifiers ("exclusively," "only"), it's still untrue.

The current Republican party is NOT the party of Lincoln. That went away a long time ago.

Nor is the current Democratic party the party of Lincoln, not by a long shot.

No they aren't. However, given the party platforms, I know which one supports me and my interests, and the interests of a great number of people. I do not tie my voting to racial or religious bias, as, unfortunately, so many in this country do.

Just playing the devil's advocate for a moment, isn't voting for the candidate that "supports me and my interests," rather than the well-being of the country as a whole, a very selfish way of voting? This is not a personal criticism, since I often do the same thing myself -- and demanding completely altruistic voting misses a very important point.

I attempt to make an informed and considered choice when I vote to support a particular candidate from a particular party. As it currently stands, I don't think I could vote for any candidate under the Republican banner, simply because they are supported by the Tea Party, which in my view are only a few short steps from authoritarians, or pardon my Godfrey, fascists.

I do the same thing. I vote in every election, including the primaries, and I do my homework beforehand, usually stepping into the voting booth with a piece of paper in my pocket.

I would never not vote for a candidate exclusively because her or she is a Republican, but, like you, I feel comfortable not voting for a candidate that is backed by the Tea Party. I disagree with the TP both in theory and in practice.

[Katiebee]

I try to separate my purely self-interest desires from my well-being desires. The former would be closer to the view of voting for bread and circuses, the latter being closer to the view of voting for what benefits us all in general. So when I look to see who supports me and my interests, I TRY to hold true to the well-being test. So yes, my pocketbook is both as I see it. I am in the realm of those whose purchases fuel the economy. The larger pocketbooks, while containing more money/wealth, etc, do not contribute as much to the economy since they are fewer in number and as such don't purchase as much or as often as the rest of us.

The old saw about selling at a loss but making a profit on volume is what is important. While that is factious it does illustrate that profit is driven by selling volume, otherwise cost rises.

[watcher1]

I do the same thing. I vote in every election, including the primaries, and I do my homework beforehand, usually stepping into the voting booth with a piece of paper in my pocket.

I would never not vote for a candidate exclusively because her or she is a Republican, but, like you, I feel comfortable not voting for a candidate that is backed by the Tea Party. I disagree with the TP both in theory and in practice.

I wish more voters did what you do. Sadly, many vote for a candidate because of their looks or all the negative campaigns.

[MissBarbara]

I wish more voters did what you do. Sadly, many vote for a candidate because of their looks or all the negative campaigns.

I'm not trying to contradict you, but do you really think, in this day and age, that people vote for candidates based on their "looks"? If you mean physical appearance (handsome, pretty, etc.) I'd doubt that happens in significant numbers.

After all, Ashley Judd, who makes my heart melt, didn't even make it to the primary. But that's probably a bad example. 

I agree with you about negative campaigning, or the introduction of the "fear factor." But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.

[Gina Marie]

But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.

Are you being facetious? Have you seen Fox or MSNBC in the last year?

[watcher1]

But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.

Are you being facetious? Have you seen Fox or MSNBC in the last year?

You need to take a trip to the Lincoln Museum in Springfield, IL.  They have a room dedicated to campaign posters that slandered Abraham Lincoln every which way, none that could be published in today's climate.

[MissBarbara]

But, historically speaking, negative campaigning is nowhere near what it was 100-150 years ago, when partisan newspapers would print outright lies about opposing candidates.

Are you being facetious? Have you seen Fox or MSNBC in the last year?

I'm perfectly serious. Keep in mind that 100 years ago newspaper readership was 4-5 times that of a show on Fox or MSNBC (or Huffpost), and editors and reporters would have found the concept of being unbiased or balanced laughable in the extreme.

Candidates -- including presidential candidates -- were accused of every crime imaginable. Suggesting that Obama might be foreign-born is a far cry from accusing a candidate, with trumped-up or made-up evidence, of Rape (Cleveland), murder (Jackson), bigamy (Jackson again), felonious assault (Polk), being half human and half baboon (Lincoln), financial crimes (Hayes), adultery (Harding), and on and on.

So, speaking seriously, negative campaigning and mudslinging today pales in comparison with that of 100-150 years ago.

[Lois]

That is why the de-evolution by some is considered particularly sad.

[Lois]

Yet another wing-nut, hate filled moment.

Louie Gohmert worries that gay soldiers “getting massages all day” leave us “vulnerable to terrorism”

A discussion of the U.S. military's campaign against Ebola takes a very strange turn VIDEO



Texas congressman Louie Gohmert has offered us plenty of hot takes during his decade in Congress, weighing in on everything from “terror babies” to how “criminal aliens” and Ebola  are part of a Democratic war on women. This week, Gohmert had further insight to offer, warning that America’s Achilles heel in the fight against terrorism could be gay soldiers “getting massages all day.”

On Tuesday, Gohmert appeared on the Point of View radio show to discuss the deployment of U.S. military forces to west Africa to combat the Ebola outbreak in the region. And since he was on the topic of the military, Gohmert decided it was as good a time as any to blast open military service by gay soldiers.

“I’ve had people say, ‘Hey, you know, there’s nothing wrong with gays in the military. Look at the Greeks,’” the Tea Party favorite said. “Well, you know, they did have people come along who they loved that was the same sex and would give them massages before they went into battle.”

But, Gohmert added, the U.S. confronts an entirely different situation today — and allowing gay soldiers to serve openly means that “[y]ou are ultimately vulnerable to terrorism.”

“But you know what, it’s a different kind of fighting, it’s a different kind of war and if you’re sitting around getting massages all day ready to go into a big, planned battle, then you’re not going to last very long,” Gohmert said. “It’s guerrilla fighting. You are going to be ultimately vulnerable to terrorism and if that’s what you start doing in the military like the Greeks did … as people have said, ‘Louie, you have got to understand, you don’t even know your history.’ Oh yes I do. I know exactly. It’s not a good idea.”

For the record, a study by the respected Palm Center found that the repeal of the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy hasn’t harmed military cohesion, readiness, or morale. But who are you going to believe — pointy-headed experts or that fearless prophet of truth from Tyler, Texas?

Watch Gohmert delve into Greek history below, via Right Wing Watch:

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/24/louie_gohmert_worries_that_gay_soldiers_getting_massages_all_day_leave_us_vulnerable_to_terrorism/

[Gina Marie]

[Gina Marie]

I know he said it two and a half years ago, but it still rings true today...

And here is the bottom line question: If a man hates Blacks, hates Hispanics, and hates Muslims, which party do you think he would identify with and vote for?

[joan1984]

Colin Powell, and his ilk, have made it quiet clear since 2008 that they are no longer supporters of the Republican Party, and this is only more carping from Democrats and Democrat Supporters.

I know he said it two and a half years ago, but it still rings true today...

And here is the bottom line question: If a man hates Blacks, hates Hispanics, and hates Muslims, which party do you think he would identify with and vote for?

[Gina Marie]

Colin Powell, and his ilk, have made it quiet clear since 2008 that they are no longer supporters of the Republican Party, and this is only more carping from Democrats and Democrat Supporters.

His ilk? Carping? There is plenty of petty faultfinding from both parties, but in this case... No.

This is another case of Republicans speaking out against reprehensible behaviour within their own political party, and then being branded by their peers as RINO's for not being "extreme enough". It has been the scourge of the GOP in the last couple decades.

[Katiebee]

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.

[MissBarbara]

Kind of like a gentler and kinder version of The Night of The Long Knives.

Nice Godwinism...