American Politics

[Tiny 12]

With all the necessary information at one's fingertips now, why not check first before repeating false history? . The Republican Party began in 1854, staunchly opposed to slavery and Mormonism. Uncle Ho and the communists ousted the French colonizers at Dien Bin Fu in 1954. JFK sent in "advisors. This morphed into the Vietnam War, called "The American War" by its residents. Type in Gulf of Tonkin resolution, 1964. May 11,1961. JFK sent 400 special forces and 100 other military advisors to South Vietnam. On the same day he ordered the start of clandestine warfare against North Vietnam by South Vietnamese agents under the direction of the CIA. He also ordered the South Vietnamese forces to infiltrate Laos to disrupt communist bases and supply lines. John James Rambo is a fictional character. John Heisley, son of flag designer Newt Heisley is depicted on the POW MIA flag. He was never a POW, but had the gaunt look of one to his father.

You're late to the conversation. Several very intelligent and very partisan posters believe the American economy (GDP and jobs) performs like gangbusters when Democrats are president and turns to sh*t when Republicans are president. If you look at the historical record, you'd think they have a point. You look closer and the reason is because Republicans were in office during most of the recessions, and during the start of the COVID pandemic. And indeed at least one of the posters holds Republican presidents and policies responsible for all the recessions, and for the worldwide COVID pandemic.

Anyway I believe you can make a stronger case that Democratic presidents are responsible for wars, than Republican presidents are responsible for recessions. Now do I believe either of those theories? Well, no. Hell no. I'm just trying to make a point.

Did Democratic presidents start those wars? Of course not. But it's just as ridiculous to say Republican presidents started the recessions.

[RamDavidson84]

With all the necessary information at one's fingertips now, why not check first before repeating false history? . The Republican Party began in 1854, staunchly opposed to slavery and Mormonism. Uncle Ho and the communists ousted the French colonizers at Dien Bin Fu in 1954. JFK sent in "advisors. This morphed into the Vietnam War, called "The American War" by its residents. Type in Gulf of Tonkin resolution, 1964. May 11,1961. JFK sent 400 special forces and 100 other military advisors to South Vietnam. On the same day he ordered the start of clandestine warfare against North Vietnam by South Vietnamese agents under the direction of the CIA. He also ordered the South Vietnamese forces to infiltrate Laos to disrupt communist bases and supply lines. John James Rambo is a fictional character. John Heisley, son of flag designer Newt Heisley is depicted on the POW MIA flag. He was never a POW, but had the gaunt look of one to his father.

No Rambo was real. All three movies were filmed with actual combat footage. Look it up. LOL.

[Beijing4987]

With all the necessary information at one's fingertips now, why not check first before repeating false history? . The Republican Party began in 1854, staunchly opposed to slavery and Mormonism. Uncle Ho and the communists ousted the French colonizers at Dien Bin Fu in 1954. JFK sent in "advisors. This morphed into the Vietnam War, called "The American War" by its residents. Type in Gulf of Tonkin resolution, 1964. May 11,1961. JFK sent 400 special forces and 100 other military advisors to South Vietnam. On the same day he ordered the start of clandestine warfare against North Vietnam by South Vietnamese agents under the direction of the CIA. He also ordered the South Vietnamese forces to infiltrate Laos to disrupt communist bases and supply lines. John James Rambo is a fictional character. John Heisley, son of flag designer Newt Heisley is depicted on the POW MIA flag. He was never a POW, but had the gaunt look of one to his father.

[EihTooms]

Google "House Popular Vote. " You'll see a link on aei.org that says Republicans got 51% of the popular vote to Democrats' 47%. I assumed 222 Republican and 213 Democrat seats to get the 2% margin for the Republicans in the House.

That link though was from November 18.

If you do what I told you to do with Google, the first link will be to the Cook Political Report, which right now shows Republicans with a 2. 9% margin in the popular vote and a 1. 6% margin in House seats, with two seats undecided.

I picked the aei.org numbers because they were staring me straight in the face and I didn't have to do any math.

As of this writing, the Cook source I assume you referenced states Repubs have so far garnered 50.7% of the popular House vote. I don't see a percentage for how successfully the Repubs' voter suppression rigging worked against the Dems. Maybe you need to be a subscriber to see that. We could assume the Dems would be close to 49.3% minus any stray third party votes.

The AEI source, as you pointed out, is by now more than two weeks behind on the vote count. Moreover, it is an opinion piece from a winger Washington Examiner writer who, as far as I can tell, provided no source for where he came up with his 51% to 47% figures.

[RamDavidson84]

I have said it before that I think GDP is a terrible metric for anything other than GDP. Has nothing to do w general prosperity or happiness. Arms production.

I noticed in my time here that USAns tend to have a hyperfixation with economic stats. As if the solutions to life lie within. Success and happiness are not found in statisitcs. If you were to ask me if my parents have had a big influence upon me, I wouldn't check the amount of money they have spent on me and make a decisiion.

Nah we all just got a lot of debt and were always focusing on paying it off. House mortgage, car loan, credit card specifically for international strip clubs, pension, savings, etc. One thing that always makes me sad is when I return home to these fat ugly selfish mother fucking American slobs after seeing the latin beauties for a few days. It makes me think, shit if I lived in Latin America I would want socialism too, all you need is a roof and food with all that pussy walking around haha. America is the world's corporate office, a nation of upper middle class frenemy's and the people who serve you coffee / donuts who are only good enough for a Hello, and good bye.

[RamDavidson84]

Wilson started WWI? I could have sworn that it was Austria after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.

Roosevelt started WWII? I could have sworn that it was Hitler with a strong second to Tojo.

Truman started the Korean war? I could have sworn that it was Kim il Suck.

LBJ started the Vietnam war? I could have sworn that it was Uncle Ho.

You obviously have no clue about Republicans or Democrats. If you knew anything at all, nobody (at least not me) said that Lincoln was a liberal Democrat. The Republican party in the 1860's was very liberal. "Upon its founding, it supported classical liberalism and economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

Please don't fall into the same trap as every member of the Moron Brigade does. That trap is "Republicans opposed slavery in 1860 and Democrats supported it in 1860 so that means that Democrats still support slavery."

LOL funny post. I actually thought USA did start Vietnam with a black flag attack on our own ship in the Pacific? How did Vietnam start? The one thing about nam I do know is that it did not end well and the best movie hero of all time served in Nam with distinction. John J. Rambo LOL. He's Tooms and thanks worst nightmare! Lololol.

[Tiny 12]

Do you have a link for your 51% to 47% votes and such.

Google "House Popular Vote. " You'll see a link on aei.org that says Republicans got 51% of the popular vote to Democrats' 47%. I assumed 222 Republican and 213 Democrat seats to get the 2% margin for the Republicans in the House.

That link though was from November 18.

If you do what I told you to do with Google, the first link will be to the Cook Political Report, which right now shows Republicans with a 2. 9% margin in the popular vote and a 1. 6% margin in House seats, with two seats undecided.

I picked the aei.org numbers because they were staring me straight in the face and I didn't have to do any math.

[Tiny 12]

You obviously have no clue about Republicans or Democrats. If you knew anything at all, nobody (at least not me) said that Lincoln was a liberal Democrat. The Republican party in the 1860's was very liberal. "Upon its founding, it supported classical liberalism and economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

Apologies. I'm the poster boy for classical liberalism. I'm not very knowledgeable about Abraham Lincoln. But if he was a classical liberal, he was all right!

[Tiny 12]

World War I. Wilson / USA joined the war. Nobody in the USA "started" WW I.

World War II. Japan attacked USA military base in Hawaii, Germany declared War against the USA, both already waging war in the Pacific and in Europe. Nobody in the USA "started" WW II.

Korean War and Cold War. USA did take a side. But nobody in the USA "started" those.

Vietnam War. The French were at war with North Vietnam. They were driven out. Nobody in the USA "started" that war. Eisenhower, a Republican, replaced the retreating French with USA military personnel in 1954. He didn't have to. But he spent the rest of his presidency making a case for our increasing responsibility to prevent the "Domino Theory", his chosen term, of South East Asian nations falling to Chinese Communist rule one by one, totally committing the USA militarily to the war by word, deed, treaty and action.

At most, LBJ enacted a "surge" in Eisenhower's total military commitment in order to hopefully put an end to the lingering quagmire we were stuck in thanks to Eisenhower's years' long words, deeds, treaty and action all through the previous Happy Days years.

The War on Terror (Iraq / Afghanistan) - George W. Bush, Republican. Yep. I'm guessing the reason that was the only one you got sorta kinda right is because you were a relatively awake and alert adult at the start of it and it did not require any reading and research. Just a guess though.

Now, one could argue the 9/11 Attack "started" a war with somebody. However, it shouldn't have been with Iraq and only tangentially with Afghanistan. It was GW Bush's idiocy, vengeance for his dad's blunder re sleeping through Hussein asking if it was ok with us if he invaded to annex Kuwait and hundreds of lies that plunged us into those quagmire wars. Oh, and yep, he was a Republican.

Wilson started WWI? I could have sworn that it was Austria after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.

Roosevelt started WWII? I could have sworn that it was Hitler with a strong second to Tojo.

Truman started the Korean war? I could have sworn that it was Kim il Suck.

LBJ started the Vietnam war? I could have sworn that it was Uncle Ho.

You obviously have no clue about Republicans or Democrats. If you knew anything at all, nobody (at least not me) said that Lincoln was a liberal Democrat. The Republican party in the 1860's was very liberal. "Upon its founding, it supported classical liberalism and economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

No, Democrats started every darn one of those wars, except for the War on Terror. Every time a Democratic President's popularity tanks he starts thinking, "What can I do to make sure I can win the next election? Hmmm. I'll start a war!" Not only does the nation pull together and support our president, but a good war turbocharges the economy and provides lots of jobs! You've got your defense jobs and you got your cannon fodder. There's no better way to create a lot of good jobs than to start a war!

Now John F. Kennedy was particularly shrewd. First he hyped the USA Nukes in Turkey so the Soviets would take notice. And then when they retaliated by putting nukes in Cuba, not only did he improve his approval rating by standing up to the Ruskies, but he cemented his place in history! George W. Bush tried to follow in his footsteps with the whole weapons of mass destruction thing. Yeah he did win the next election. But nobody likes him anymore. He should have known. Every time you try to beat a Democrat at his own game, you f*ck yourself!

Well, anyway, it usually takes a Republican to end a Democrat War. Eisenhower and Nixon did with the Korean and Vietnam wars. And Reagan did with the Cold War. Trump had us well on the way to getting out of Afghanistan before Biden and Venezuela managed to steal the election from him with those Dominion voting machines.

Now Biden, he's a Democrat of a different breed. I've got to give him credit for not starting any wars. Yet. He's come up with a better idea! He's America's Sugar Daddy! America's Santa Claus! Bully for Biden!

Including the American Rescue Plan, an infrastructure bill, last years omnibus, a veterans fund, food-stamp and healthcare increases, semiconductor subsidies, the Inflation Reduction Act, and student-loan forgiveness, Democrats have added close to $5 trillion in new spending in two years.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-want-one-last-lame-duck-spending-blowout-congress-republicans-11669847552

[EihTooms]

Maryland (blue state) may have the most ridiculously gerrymandered Congressional districts in the USA. New Mexico (blue state) may be second, and Illinois (blue state) and California (blue state) deserve honorable mentions. New York this year would be way up there too if Democrat controlled courts hadn't forced the state to redraw the districts.

Basically both sides do it, gerrymandering.

This year, Republicans won the total popular vote in all Congressional districts by 51% to 47%. The % of actual House seats won by Republicans was 51%, compared to 49% for Democrats, so if anything it would appear the Democrat gerrymanders worked out a tiny bit better than the Republican gerrymanders this year.
....
I do like you Tooms, honestly. I know you live more on the edge than most of us. But as to this red winger stuff, please realize that cunnilingus performed during a woman's period is a great way to get Hepatitis C, especially if you've got open sores in your mouth.

Actually, if anything like that 51% to 47% result holds after all the ballots and votes are counted, I have and would still argue that was the result of the typically pro Repub Mainstream Media, Bill Maher and your Bothsider / Neithersider efforts along with the entire Repub Party's efforts since 2020 to suppress, obstruct, disenfranchise, hinder and thwart likely Dem votes. Which, along with their extreme gerrymandering rig, appeared to be the only overriding 2022 election campaign strategy.

Yes, Bothsides gerrymander when they can. Without exploiting that built-in rigging system, the Repubs would not have squeezed out a tiny handful of House seats gains. However, as we all know, that isn't the only rigging Repubs employed to reduce the number and percentage of Dem votes this time around in order to squeeze out that Red Tinkle:

Explainer: Republicans push to restrict mail-in voting ahead of U.S. November midterms

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rep...ms-2022-09-09/

Sept 9 (Reuters) - The Republican Party has pushed to enact new curbs on mail-in voting, which surged in the 2020 presidential election and fueled former President Donald Trump's false claims that he was robbed of victory by widespread voter fraud.

Citing security concerns, 18 states passed new legal limits on mail-in voting in the months after the election, from extra identification requirements to shortening the window in which mail ballots can be requested or cast.

Republicans sue to disqualify thousands of mail ballots in swing states.
The lawsuits coincide with a systemic effort by GOP leaders to persuade voters to cast ballots in person, not absentee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elect...-mail-ballots/

Republican officials and candidates in at least three battleground states are pushing to disqualify thousands of mail ballots after urging their own supporters to vote on Election Day, in what critics are calling a concerted attempt at partisan voter suppression.

After voters embraced mail ballots, GOP states tighten rules

https://apnews.com/article/health-co...cea15775f6da63

A monthslong campaign by the Republican Party, fueled in part by the false narrative of widespread fraud in last years presidential election, has led to a wave of new voting laws that will tighten access to the ballot for millions of Americans.

The restrictions especially target voting methods that have been rising in popularity across the country, erecting hurdles to mail balloting and early voting that saw explosive growth during the pandemic. More than 40% of all voters last fall cast mail ballots, a record.

Texas is the latest state to crack down, after the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill Tuesday taking aim at Democratic-leaning counties that have sought to expand access to the ballot.

Regardless of motives, these bills hurt voters, said Isabel Longoria, the election administrator of Harris County, which includes Houston. Voters are going to feel this the next time they go vote, and thats what Im most worried about.

Now I'm curious. Do you and other Bothsiders/Neithersiders have any examples of party-wide efforts by the Dems to make it more difficult for likely Repub voters or anyone else to submit their ballots, to cast their votes, to have their votes count, to suppress, obstruct, disenfranchise, hinder and thwart likely Repub votes or to reduce legal voting anywhere in the country as the Repubs have with the Dems?

And, Tiny, thank your for your safe cunnilingus tips. I appreciate that. Luckily it has been many years since I had an open sore in my mouth or damn near anywhere else within kissing, licking, sucking or fucking distance on my body for any reason and would tend to refrain from DATY or sex in general if I had one. On that topic, I had a splendid shaved pussy DATY experience last night with a lovely face, very hot body, 20-something year old Nana Plaza go-go girl, followed by her treating me to one of the better BBBJ+CIM+swallow experiences I've had in a while. I loved it when she smiled and said, "I have your babies in my tummy now" after swallowing my cum. But not really. I've had a vasectomy. There is nothing in her tummy that could make a baby. Still, very cute.

[Xpartan]

Maryland (blue state) may have the most ridiculously gerrymandered Congressional districts in the USA. New Mexico (blue state) may be second, and Illinois (blue state) and California (blue state) deserve honorable mentions. New York this year would be way up there too if Democrat controlled courts hadn't forced the state to redraw the districts.

Basically both sides do it, gerrymandering.

While technically true, the Democrats are resorting to it mostly in response to insane Republican gerrymandering, which has been especially aggressive in the last decade.

[PVMonger]

Great link! Now I understand. Wars boost GDP growth.

So here are the wars and the presidents who started them:

World War I - Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.

World War II - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat.

Korean War and Cold War - Harry Truman, Democrat.

Vietnam War - Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat.

The War on Terror (Iraq / Afghanistan) - George W. Bush, Republican.

I'd add Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War too, however I'm not sure what party he belonged to. The history books say "Republican", but posters here are saying he was really a Liberal Democrat. Not one of those Democrats who enslaved people, but rather a Truly Enlightened Democrat. I'm just not sure what to do with him.

I've only had a chance to read the executive summary so far, but this explains why Tooms is right about Democratic Party presidents and higher GDP growth. GDP growth is higher under Democrats because they start wars!.

Wilson started WWI? I could have sworn that it was Austria after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.

Roosevelt started WWII? I could have sworn that it was Hitler with a strong second to Tojo.

Truman started the Korean war? I could have sworn that it was Kim il Suck.

LBJ started the Vietnam war? I could have sworn that it was Uncle Ho.

You obviously have no clue about Republicans or Democrats. If you knew anything at all, nobody (at least not me) said that Lincoln was a liberal Democrat. The Republican party in the 1860's was very liberal. "Upon its founding, it supported classical liberalism and economic reform while opposing the expansion of slavery. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

Please don't fall into the same trap as every member of the Moron Brigade does. That trap is "Republicans opposed slavery in 1860 and Democrats supported it in 1860 so that means that Democrats still support slavery."

[JustTK]

Great link! Now I understand. Wars boost GDP growth.

I have said it before that I think GDP is a terrible metric for anything other than GDP. Has nothing to do w general prosperity or happiness. Arms production.

I noticed in my time here that USAns tend to have a hyperfixation with economic stats. As if the solutions to life lie within. Success and happiness are not found in statisitcs. If you were to ask me if my parents have had a big influence upon me, I wouldn't check the amount of money they have spent on me and make a decisiion.

[EihTooms]

Maryland (blue state) may have the most ridiculously gerrymandered Congressional districts in the USA. New Mexico (blue state) may be second, and Illinois (blue state) and California (blue state) deserve honorable mentions. New York this year would be way up there too if Democrat controlled courts hadn't forced the state to redraw the districts.

Basically both sides do it, gerrymandering.

This year, Republicans won the total popular vote in all Congressional districts by 51% to 47%. The % of actual House seats won by Republicans was 51%, compared to 49% for Democrats, so if anything it would appear the Democrat gerrymanders worked out a tiny bit better than the Republican gerrymanders this year.

The reason I quit arguing with you about your so called "irrefutable data" is because we're going through the same old stuff, over and over. You're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. And if for some reason I do, you'll probably cry, like the Mormon missionary who debated the foundations of his religion with me 20 some odd years ago. You're like a shaman who has determined that sacrifice of virgins is correlated with better harvests. He may be right as a result of coincidence, but it's not the sacrifice of the virgins that caused the good harvests.

I'll give Roosevelt and the Democrats credit for trying everything and the kitchen sink to get us out of a depression. But other than that, other conditions, like improvements in technology, globalization, demographic changes, the business cycle, what's going on in the rest of the world, wars (which mostly started during Democratic administrations), Congress, and a pandemic had much more influence on the state of the economy than which party the president belonged to.

I do like you Tooms, honestly. I know you live more on the edge than most of us. But as to this red winger stuff, please realize that cunnilingus performed during a woman's period is a great way to get Hepatitis C, especially if you've got open sores in your mouth.

Repubs usually turn out more heavily in midterm elections. But ballots and votes are still being counted in a very big and populace state. Do you have a link for your 51% to 47% votes and such. I mean, there was a moment when Trump claimed he was the winner and we should stop counting votes because, as planned by Repub state legislatures, they hadn't counted all the likely Dem mail-in ballots.

And there was that approximate 3,000,000 more votes for Hillary by the time all the ballots and votes were counted in California.

Just sayin'.

So you think it has just been a wild coincidence and maybe we're just not paying enough attention to every niggly piddly incidental detail for every legislative and stewardship decision over the past 100 years that Dems produced and presided over every economic boom time, historic jobs creation, none of the Great Recessions and Massive Job Losses while Repubs produced and presided over every Great Depression, Great Recession, Massive Job Loss and none of the boom times and historic job gains.

And that perhaps Repubs were just too busy producing their horrific economic results to be bothered with proposing, fighting for and passing One. Single. Positive. Meaningful. And Now Revered legislation at any time over the past 100 years whenever they controlled the White House, The House and the Senate.

Oh, and that neither you nor anyone else can name ANY political party other than the Dems who have produced and presided over the above mentioned positive economic results and ALL, not some, ALL of the above described legislation whenever they controlled the Big Three.

Yet you claim I am some blindly faithful, irrational "blue" partisan who refuses to acknowledge reality or the hidden data or the wisdom of voting Repub or the wisdom of helping Repubs win by Bothsiding or Neithersiding it so they can get in there and produce the only ultimate results they have managed to produce for at least 100 years over and over and over again.

LOL. Ok. Whatever soothes your Blindly Faithful Partisan Economic Disaster soul.

[EihTooms]

Tiny12:

Before someone starts to argue with me, this post is 100% satirical. One hundred percent. And it's not directed to you PVMonger, except the part about Lincoln being a Liberal. Honestly, good links, I'm going to come back to them.

I argued with the parts about who "started" some of the wars you cited because, although you might see it as 100% satirical, what you wrote is routinely repeated in Mainstream Media as though it were true.

But I didn't argue with the part about Lincoln because it did seem satirical. It isn't common for Repubs or their election supporting Bothsiders in Mainstream Media to assert that Lincoln was not a Repub even though there is no way a person with his record could win the Repub Party's nomination.

However, after every one of these Great Repub Economic Disasters, the Repub Party does swing into action disavowing that the Repub steward of it was a "real conservative" or a "real Republican."

They actually tried to float that bit about Reagan, Bush2 and Trump when their classic Repub economic agenda, policies and results crashed horribly. So the idea that they would disavow Lincoln for what most of them today would likely see as his "Emancipation Proclamation Disaster" and all that isn't as outlandish or obviously satirical as some might think.