You can't make this shit up

[Carib Gyal]

But no one is predicting it will be by running this Donovan guy. Perhaps being a drama queen isn't going to change that.

Some things are extremely predictable...this will cause a media firestorm; this will keep the Eric Garner scenario stirred up rather than allowing it to die down and be replaced by some other news story; this will give the impression to many voters (and this is a traditionally Democratic area) that the party affirms what happened in the Garner case and is rewarding the prosecutor.

And he will win, as predicted. Even if some get their panties in a twist over it.

 

[pillars]

Sorta like the GOP needing to worry about "the black voters"

This is actually a strawman. The 11th congressional disttrict is heavily white, but it is also a swing district. And, the NYPD is not very popular right now in the wake of many allegations of human rights violations. This lack of popularity is seen not only with blacks, but also with many libertarian voters who feel like the pendulum has swung too far and that the constitution is under attack with the police as the arm of government erosion of civil liberties. The issue is not appealing to black voters, it is about not alienating voters in a swing district in a city where people feel increasingly ambivalent about what happened in the case of Eric Garner and other similar scenarios in recent years.

You know, some posters seem to see any criticism of a political decision as an attack, without realizing that sometimes, parties need to anticipate these outcomes in advance of selecting a candidate. In swing districts, it is generally advisable to select someone non-polarizing, if you want to retain the seat.

How New Yorkers feel about the NYPD - The Washington Post

 

[pillars]

Liberals are so pissed they don't get to personally control the grand jury process.

Funny stuff

You realize that the prosecutor's job is to uphold the laws on behalf of the people. If a prosecutor tailors evidence to a grand jury to help a police officer or officers avoid prosecution for violating the law, he or she has failed to do the job they were appointed to do.

Further, this isn't just about race. Many conservatives and libertarians are actually concerned about New York's police force being used as hired security to enforce an increasing erosion of civil liberties.

Are you not at all concerned about issue at all?

 

[pillars]

And he will win, as predicted. Even if some get their panties in a twist over it.

This kind of overconfidence resulted in Obama presidencies in 2008 and 2012.

 

[asterism]

The GOP who just won a major victory needs to be concerned about the appearances to people that didn't vote for them anyway?

Um....

Absolutely: You can t make this shit up Page 20 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It's relatively easy to win one election against a weak opponent. The difficulty lies in maintaining the victory.

That's one thing about both parties that frustrates me; both seem repeatedly to make short-sighted decisions that allow them to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Perhaps the winners of the last election aren't concerned about the wailing and criticisms from the losers.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent my views anymore so I'm a loser all round - meh.

 

[pillars]

Perhaps the winners of the last election aren't concerned about the wailing and criticisms from the losers.

In a largely democratic area, this attitude, while understandable, may also result in turning the district back over to the democrats. It is what it is.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent my views anymore so I'm a loser all round - meh.

Understandable. Both the democrats and republicans seem more interested in serving their corporate masters than in working for the people.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What's the point? Slow news day for the whackaloon left I guess.

 

[asterism]

But no one is predicting it will be by running this Donovan guy. Perhaps being a drama queen isn't going to change that.

Some things are extremely predictable...this will cause a media firestorm; this will keep the Eric Garner scenario stirred up rather than allowing it to die down and be replaced by some other news story; this will give the impression to many voters (and this is a traditionally Democratic area) that the party affirms what happened in the Garner case and is rewarding the prosecutor.

I think this move is intended to bait those who are already making the Eric Garner case bigger than many think it should be. Staten Island is where LOTS of New York cops live if I recall correctly.

 

[asterism]

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

In this case, it's all about appearances. Do you fail to grasp the impression that this leaves, and how it will be treated in the media? I'm sure that run of the mill Republicans get tired of the racism allegation, but damn. You do it to yourselves.

Even if this guy did nothing wrong, he's still a catalyzing figure who was in the middle of a media shitstorm and that anyone who is paying attention thinks may have dropped the ball on prosecuting the cops involved, whether he did so or not.

The thing is...you don't put a controversial figure into your slate of candidates when you're trying to change your identity.

The GOP who just won a major victory needs to be concerned about the appearances to people that didn't vote for them anyway?

Um....

Sorta like the GOP needing to worry about "the black voters"

No, sorta like the GOP not needing to worry about the race hucksters.

 

[Carib Gyal]

And he will win, as predicted. Even if some get their panties in a twist over it.

This kind of overconfidence resulted in Obama presidencies in 2008 and 2012.

And the massive Rep takeover of Congress just a couple of short months ago.

 

[pillars]

But no one is predicting it will be by running this Donovan guy. Perhaps being a drama queen isn't going to change that.

Some things are extremely predictable...this will cause a media firestorm; this will keep the Eric Garner scenario stirred up rather than allowing it to die down and be replaced by some other news story; this will give the impression to many voters (and this is a traditionally Democratic area) that the party affirms what happened in the Garner case and is rewarding the prosecutor.

I think this move is intended to bait those who are already making the Eric Garner case bigger than many think it should be. Staten Island is where LOTS of New York cops live if I recall correctly.

I believe that you are accurate, but I also wonder if it is a gamble that will pay off. Only time will tell.

 

[pillars]

And he will win, as predicted. Even if some get their panties in a twist over it.

This kind of overconfidence resulted in Obama presidencies in 2008 and 2012.

And the massive Rep takeover of Congress just a couple of short months ago.

How do you define massive? In the senate, Republicans hold their majority by 8 percent (8 senators). In the house, by 14% (57% Repub/43% Dem). Those aren't massive majorities. For instance, they are far short of the 2/3 majority needed to overturn a presidential veto.

And, the Republican party is not unified.

 

[Sarah G]

Liberals are so pissed they don't get to personally control the grand jury process.

Funny stuff

I'm not pissed about that, I just think they get it wrong sometimes.

 

[Sarah G]

And he will win, as predicted. Even if some get their panties in a twist over it.

This kind of overconfidence resulted in Obama presidencies in 2008 and 2012.

And the massive Rep takeover of Congress just a couple of short months ago.

How do you define massive? In the senate, Republicans hold their majority by 8 percent (8 senators). In the house, by 14% (57% Repub/43% Dem). Those aren't massive majorities. For instance, they are far short of the 2/3 majority needed to overturn a presidential veto.

And, the Republican party is not unified.

And there was no mandate.

 

[Carib Gyal]

And he will win, as predicted. Even if some get their panties in a twist over it.

This kind of overconfidence resulted in Obama presidencies in 2008 and 2012.

And the massive Rep takeover of Congress just a couple of short months ago.

How do you define massive? In the senate, Republicans hold their majority by 8 percent (8 senators). In the house, by 14% (57% Repub/43% Dem). Those aren't massive majorities. For instance, they are far short of the 2/3 majority needed to overturn a presidential veto.

And, the Republican party is not unified.

The voters in the district are predicted to be unified enough to vote in this Donovan guy that has you so melted.

 

[pillars]

The voters in the district are predicted to be unified enough to vote in this Donovan guy that has you so melted.

Predicted by who? Rasmussen?

lulz

 

[Statistikhengst]

asterism - to clear up your confusion, here is the posting where you quoted me and asked about the Neo-nazi thing:

You can t make this shit up US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Please notice the text that you quoted last. That text was from me:

Now, tell me, Asterism, who is the GOP majority whip in the HOR?

That is the person to whom I was referring, not Donovan.

I'm glad you have been able to read that back. Now what does that have to do with Donovan - the subject of this thread?

You're slow aren't you?

You really don't understand that, do you?

Wow. Sad.

I was comparing the instances where the GOP is making bad decisions, relating that the decision to run Donovan is just as bad as the GOP's decision to keep Scalise in the no. 3 position of the GOP in the HOR, because both decisions send TERRIBLE messages to minorites in the USA, minorities that the GOP must win over if it wants to be viable in presidential cycles.

I am so sorry that discernment is not your thing. I didn't realize that you need people to spoon-feed you everything, that the simple connection from point A to point B is simply not possible with you. Ok, noted for the future.

But at least you do now realize that I was indeed specifically referring to Steve Scalise for a reason and with the sentence where I have now bolded and put in size 7 the part of the sentence that you obviously missed, you realize now that you trolled for no reason, right? All you had to do was to go back and actually read the ENTIRE content, and you would have known.

So, you see, you called me "confused", but I was not, not in the slightest. You obviously were, because you missed a critical part of a text. If you are going to quote something, you should read it first.

This is part of why I laugh at so many Righties. They misread, they get all defensive, they attack personally (as you tried with me) and then, when confronted with their fuckup, they just kind of sulk.

This is fun.

I graciously accept your concession.

You can claim whatever you want, but it really looks like you're again trying to either cover for your confusion or that you are conflating one person with another for effect. I have not been defensive in the slightest, it is you who took a simple query about your geography and did your best to give me a "slap-down" and then demonstrated your lack of ability to discern who has been posting on this longer than whom.

Generalizing intelligence based on perceived political affiliation is another error, but I suspect your suffering with the Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing you from seeing your mistake.

It's all trivial at this point anyway, race-baiting is the last refuge of a failed platform so you've got that going for you.

Just as I thought. Total fail on your part. And not willing to admit your confusion. Yepp, yer a Rrrrrraging Rrrrrrrightie!

I claim nothing.

I wrote a text to which you responded. In the text, I was clearly referring the the Majority Whip of the US HOR. You asked me why I referred to "neo nazi". You got the man I was referring to in my text - Scalese - confused with another man, who is indeed the subject of this thread. But you know, it's not against the law (well, maybe in American Talibanland, it is...) to refer to ANOTHER person as well when making an argument. That's called adult discourse. This is how we exchange ideas and make comparisons.

Now, go run off and play with your Barbie and Ken dolls. Scoot, scoot. You are going to be a wonderful playtoy, I see.

meanwhile you are playing with your
Ken dolls dressing them in Barbie outfits

Uhm, no. You stole all the dolls!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

it's all about the black man
to hell with rule of law, bring on trial by lynch mob

In this case, it's all about appearances. Do you fail to grasp the impression that this leaves, and how it will be treated in the media? I'm sure that run of the mill Republicans get tired of the racism allegation, but damn. You do it to yourselves.

Even if this guy did nothing wrong, he's still a catalyzing figure who was in the middle of a media shitstorm and that anyone who is paying attention thinks may have dropped the ball on prosecuting the cops involved, whether he did so or not.

The thing is...you don't put a controversial figure into your slate of candidates when you're trying to change your identity.

The GOP who just won a major victory needs to be concerned about the appearances to people that didn't vote for them anyway?

Um....

A victory with only 36% VT. Guaranteed it will be around 60% in 2016, an entirely different ballgame.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[mudwhistle]

DA Who Failed To Indict Eric Garner s Killer Selected By GOP To Run For Grimm s Seat - Colmes Quarters

Daniel Donovan, the Staten Island district attorney who failed to indict the police officer who choke-holded Eric Garner to death, was selected by Republicans to run for Michael Grimm’s seat. Grimm resigned after pleading guilty to felony tax evasion.

It's all a vast rightwing conspiracy.

 

[pillars]

Even if the Republicans retake this seat in 2016, what damage are they doing elsewhere to their national image by running this particular candidate? Republicans often ask why they need to appeal to people of color. Well, one very pragmatic reason is that the demographics of the U.S. are shifting.

You aren't just winning today's election, you are creating an image with future voters that will be making decisions when the white demographic majority no longer exists. There's both a short game, and a long game, to be played here. Doing things that give the impression that the party doesn't care about the concerns of black voters just keeps black voters in the Democratic party rather than providing them with another option. And, based upon other issues, there are blacks who would likely shift, if they were given a reason to. I have a teenage son, and his image of the Republican party is not a favorable one. By making these decisions, the GOP may be shortening its lifespan, particularly as the greatest generation and the older boomers start to die off.

If you tarnish yourself in the eyes of young people, your longterm prospects aren't great.

Further, women are also sensitive to these kinds of issues, and you cannot win without them in the long run. The soccer moms, so to speak.