It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican who once lamented not being able to call women 'sluts' loses to a women

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Arnie123
False.

One election story doesn't dictate an entire narrative and broadstroke, that's for ignorant OPs.

If the Repubs were such extremes, why not overwhelming wins for Dems yesterday?

Secondly, you have no republican friends, especially ones that are upset about being labeled with whatever label you can think of, not that important enough to even consider you as any measure of indication on any scale, just another group of nobodies.

People vote for a variety of reason and there will be pros and cons, but you go with what you feel will be the better outcome overall.

Ahem, Keith Ellison.


What would have been an "overwhelming" win, in your eyes?

At the local and state levels, democrats did quite well.


Not losing the senate.

Achieving more that what was historically the norm, which they didnt.

Achieving seats like the repubs did in obamas first midterm, which was an overwhelming win.


Again, at the local level they did do those things.

They didn’t lose the Senate, they never had it.


So losing ground in the senate, getting a slim lead in the house, and breaking about even in state elections is an overwhelming victory?

Seeing as how the incumbents party historiyloses many seats, I guess we can call it an overwhelming victory for them too!

Heck as long as we are going this far, I think Beto coming so close to winning was also an overwhelming victory for him!

Back in reality, none of those are in fact overwhelming victories, although there were victories made by both sides




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

glad he lost. sorry about your terrible logic.

voting for the guy isn't voting for calling women sluts. LOL. How absurd can you be?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Arnie123
False.

One election story doesn't dictate an entire narrative and broadstroke, that's for ignorant OPs.

If the Repubs were such extremes, why not overwhelming wins for Dems yesterday?

Secondly, you have no republican friends, especially ones that are upset about being labeled with whatever label you can think of, not that important enough to even consider you as any measure of indication on any scale, just another group of nobodies.

People vote for a variety of reason and there will be pros and cons, but you go with what you feel will be the better outcome overall.

Ahem, Keith Ellison.


What would have been an "overwhelming" win, in your eyes?

At the local and state levels, democrats did quite well.


Not losing the senate.

Achieving more that what was historically the norm, which they didnt.

Achieving seats like the repubs did in obamas first midterm, which was an overwhelming win.


Again, at the local level they did do those things.

They didn’t lose the Senate, they never had it.


So losing ground in the senate, getting a slim lead in the house, and breaking about even in state elections is an overwhelming victory?

Seeing as how the incumbents party historiyloses many seats, I guess we can call it an overwhelming victory for them too!

Heck as long as we are going this far, I think Beto coming so close to winning was also an overwhelming victory for him!

Back in reality, none of those are in fact overwhelming victories, although there were victories made by both sides


Overwhelming is just some subjective term you've made up in your head is my point. Although I agree, both sides had victories, but only one side actual lost something they had. Whether you view that as overwhelming or not though is completely understandable.

The Democrats took something they didn't have, the Republicans gained more control over something they already had control over.

If you go down to the State level, the democrats took A LOT more.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Arnie123
False.

One election story doesn't dictate an entire narrative and broadstroke, that's for ignorant OPs.

If the Repubs were such extremes, why not overwhelming wins for Dems yesterday?

Secondly, you have no republican friends, especially ones that are upset about being labeled with whatever label you can think of, not that important enough to even consider you as any measure of indication on any scale, just another group of nobodies.

People vote for a variety of reason and there will be pros and cons, but you go with what you feel will be the better outcome overall.

Ahem, Keith Ellison.


What would have been an "overwhelming" win, in your eyes?

At the local and state levels, democrats did quite well.


Not losing the senate.

Achieving more that what was historically the norm, which they didnt.

Achieving seats like the repubs did in obamas first midterm, which was an overwhelming win.


Again, at the local level they did do those things.

They didn’t lose the Senate, they never had it.


So losing ground in the senate, getting a slim lead in the house, and breaking about even in state elections is an overwhelming victory?

Seeing as how the incumbents party historiyloses many seats, I guess we can call it an overwhelming victory for them too!

Heck as long as we are going this far, I think Beto coming so close to winning was also an overwhelming victory for him!

Back in reality, none of those are in fact overwhelming victories, although there were victories made by both sides


Overwhelming is just some subjective term you've made up in your head is my point. Although I agree, both sides had victories, but only one side actual lost something they had. Whether you view that as overwhelming or not though is completely understandable.

The Democrats took something they didn't have, the Republicans gained more control over something they already had control over.

If you go down to the State level, the democrats took A LOT more.


Well I was responding to you askling what people would consider overwhelming.

I dont think this victory meets that definition.

However, you get no disagreement from me here.

The dems won something, I totally agree.

The repubs won something else, and although it seems less significant seeing as how they already had the senate, the truth is 51 seats in the senate was not enough to pass much of trumps agenda.

So both sides won something, and people on both sides predicting a wave for their side were wrong.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: MisterSpock

Republicans love it when their candidates beat their girlfriends.



Lol this but un-ironically.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   
"Slut" can be used as an endearing term.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

So when Democrat voters elected Keith Ellison, they are endorsing misogyny and violent behavior toward women ? I don't think so but seems perhaps some do. I don't know if he was even guilty of what he was accused of but certainly would have looked at the other candidates, but voters and the national party dismissed it, and even degraded the woman for coming forward. Double standards and hypocrisy should 1 and 2 on the Democrats platform list.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: BlackJackal

First, I am ok with calling some women sluts.

Same with men who sleep around.

Are women special snowflakes that cant be criticized or joked about?

Second, do you have any proof that those 47.2 percent that voted for him were even aware of these comments? yet you brazenly claim they were ok with them with no proof they even knew the comments were made.

Third, the highest levels of the democrats ran on the idea that women must always be believed over men. In other words, based on your sex, something you have no control over, you are judges as being more likely to be a liar.

That is actual bigotry that was pushed front and center by the leaders of the democratic party.

So is it your contention that anyone who voted for a democrat is bigotted?


You miss the point altogether. Regardless of if those people knew he made those statements those people still voted for him. The perception is that even though those people are not misogynistic they will be labeled so because they voted for that guy.

That's the whole point right there. The Republican party should pull their support for candidates like this. These candidates should never be given the approval of the Republican party or the money of the Republican party. But they are.

If you don't want your voters to be called racists, misogynists, bigots, etc don't trout out flawed candidates.


Keith ellison was the second in charge of the entire dnc, and palled around and defended racist farrakhan.

The dnc not only kept him, they praised him.

Why do you ignore that and focus on only the repubs looking bad when calling promiscuous women sluts is far less troubling that hating all jews?


Yep, Keith Ellison is a # show himself. I agree. However, the difference right now between Democrats and Republicans is that the racist rhetoric of Trump is seeping into the party proper. More and more candidates like this guy are running and being elected.

In the Democratic party Ellison is a one off, The Republican's are facing an epidemic.

LINK


What racist trump rhetoric?

And I love how you now move the goal posts

Sure Ellison’s racism of palling around with Jew haters isn’t affecting the party

I mean it was the republicans that are constantly in about how evil Israel is and why the embassy shouldn’t be moved to Jerusalem

Oh wait...

Not to mention the racism against whites (and bigotry of low expectations for people of color) and bigotry against men that is front and center in the dem party



Oh, so your allowed to move the goal posts (Away from the topic at hand to Keith Ellison) but when I do it somehow you are shocked? Really?

Dude, Trump spent the entire lead up to the Mid Terms dehumanizing illegal immigrants. He tried to make them appear less than human to anger his base. He makes so many racist comments it's hard to list them all. Here are 10 of them.

LINK



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: BlackJackal

glad he lost. sorry about your terrible logic.

voting for the guy isn't voting for calling women sluts. LOL. How absurd can you be?



Not absurd at all. You have to view it from the opposite side of the partisan isle though. Republicans keep voting for these flawed candidates so the other half of the country assumes that by giving these flawed candidates their vote they are endorsing that person and in turn that persons behavior.

Please explain how that reasoning is absurd.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
This is the problem. Many of my Republican friends are upset over being labeled racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or bigots.

Here man this oughta make it easier for you-



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I didn't know "illegal immigrants" was a race. Thanks for the info!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Arnie123
False.

One election story doesn't dictate an entire narrative and broadstroke, that's for ignorant OPs.

If the Repubs were such extremes, why not overwhelming wins for Dems yesterday?

Secondly, you have no republican friends, especially ones that are upset about being labeled with whatever label you can think of, not that important enough to even consider you as any measure of indication on any scale, just another group of nobodies.

People vote for a variety of reason and there will be pros and cons, but you go with what you feel will be the better outcome overall.

Ahem, Keith Ellison.


What would have been an "overwhelming" win, in your eyes?

At the local and state levels, democrats did quite well.


Not losing the senate.

Achieving more that what was historically the norm, which they didnt.

Achieving seats like the repubs did in obamas first midterm, which was an overwhelming win.


Again, at the local level they did do those things.

They didn’t lose the Senate, they never had it.


So losing ground in the senate, getting a slim lead in the house, and breaking about even in state elections is an overwhelming victory?

Seeing as how the incumbents party historiyloses many seats, I guess we can call it an overwhelming victory for them too!

Heck as long as we are going this far, I think Beto coming so close to winning was also an overwhelming victory for him!

Back in reality, none of those are in fact overwhelming victories, although there were victories made by both sides


Overwhelming is just some subjective term you've made up in your head is my point. Although I agree, both sides had victories, but only one side actual lost something they had. Whether you view that as overwhelming or not though is completely understandable.

The Democrats took something they didn't have, the Republicans gained more control over something they already had control over.

If you go down to the State level, the democrats took A LOT more.


Well I was responding to you askling what people would consider overwhelming.

I dont think this victory meets that definition.

However, you get no disagreement from me here.

The dems won something, I totally agree.

The repubs won something else, and although it seems less significant seeing as how they already had the senate, the truth is 51 seats in the senate was not enough to pass much of trumps agenda.

So both sides won something, and people on both sides predicting a wave for their side were wrong.


I agree with most everything you said, accept that 51 votes was all it takes now (idiot move by dems) to pass legislation.

It will be easier because now you’d need more than one defector, but the 51 has always been plenty enough if you can bring the Republicans on board.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: BlackJackal

I didn't know "illegal immigrants" was a race. Thanks for the info!


Talking to Trump supporters is like trying to teach Toddler's, you have to spell out every little detail for them to grasp the concept.

So..... In our country what is by far the most populous racial makeup of the group known as illegal immigrants? Thats right! It is Hispanics! you get a gold star underpass61! So proud of you!

Also, what racial group of people are in that caravan that Trump liked to call names? That's right Hispanics! Very good!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

"Hispanics" aren't a race Einstein. I asked my wife.

ETA: The correct word is "ethnicity", but I know how hard it would be to push racism if you were truthful and accurate. Beside "Ethnicisist" (is that even a thing?) is so much harder to say than "Racist" so just keep on doin' what you're doin'


I'll just toddle along now
edit on 11 7 2018 by underpass61 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
You can use whatever word you want. Including "sluts" ... but it is only appropriate when the person you call a "slut" is indeed one. Otherwise, it is an insult and not simple a realistic observation.

Sorry that the truth hurts some people's feelings. Try being a bit more morally responsible, I guess. Maybe then wouldn't need all those abortions



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: underpass61

What they really mean to say is "nationalist" (which many of us proudly admit we are) and instead have conflated it with "Racist" "Nazi" or "White Supremacist"

It is intentional. Pay no mind to them. They just want to retaliate because they believe we made "liberal" and "progressive" dirty words. In reality, they should be blaming the far left



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

What is your point? They shouldn't be coming into the country illegally. It doesn't matter what the demographic make up is, they don't belong here unless they come in legally

Immigration is the most one sided issue possible in national politics: it is all about what is best for the country and not the individuals attempting to immigrate here



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: BlackJackal

I didn't know "illegal immigrants" was a race. Thanks for the info!


Talking to Trump supporters is like trying to teach Toddler's, you have to spell out every little detail for them to grasp the concept.

So..... In our country what is by far the most populous racial makeup of the group known as illegal immigrants? Thats right! It is Hispanics! you get a gold star underpass61! So proud of you!

Also, what racial group of people are in that caravan that Trump liked to call names? That's right Hispanics! Very good!



Hmmmm

Based on that logic, when democrats call republican supporters deplorable, or uneducated or dangerous, most of those people are white

So democrats are racist towards whites according to you



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: underpass61

What they really mean to say is "nationalist" (which many of us proudly admit we are) and instead have conflated it with "Racist" "Nazi" or "White Supremacist"

It is intentional. Pay no mind to them. They just want to retaliate because they believe we made "liberal" and "progressive" dirty words. In reality, they should be blaming the far left


Consider how many patriotic red blooded NATIONALISTS here in the USA actually consider the liberals/democrats the greatest threat to the US (you know, their fellow citizens of the nation to which they are so passionate about)....

In that context, I think Nationalist actually is inferring intolerance rather more so than patriotism.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I don't consider you threats to the US. At least not as a whole. Sure, there are elements among the left that threaten the country just as there are elements among the right that do the same. But as a whole, I don't have an issue with you all or your politics. It is OK to disagree and still respect the other person's opinion

At the end of the day, this new composition of Congress will unfortunately highlight how broken things are. We couldn't even pass laws with a House+Senate+WH super majority. So what does that say about the current state of affairs? What is the purpose of government when it can't or won't do the people's business?

Government isn't supposed to be about agendas and usurpation of power. It was created, by Americans, to uphold our Constitutional rights, solve contractual disputes, fight foreign wars, etc. We've done nothing but watch it expand (both in size, cost and function) which directly correlated to its dwindling effectiveness/efficacy

It highlights a significant set of issues, in my personal opinion




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join