And voter suppression, not to mention that voters in rural, Republican states votes count more than voters in urban, Democratic states votes do.Thus the republican efforts to be able to overturn elections.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And voter suppression, not to mention that voters in rural, Republican states votes count more than voters in urban, Democratic states votes do.Thus the republican efforts to be able to overturn elections.
That's not what makes them bigots. It's things like opposing gay or interracial marriage, for example.Just because Grandpa thinks "boys can be girls and girls can be boys" or that calling mothers "birthing people" is crazy talk doesn't make him a "bigot".
Hope you're not insinuating that I am....That's not what makes them bigots. It's things like opposing gay or interracial marriage, for example.
Case in point, maurice in this very thread. Hopefully you're not defending him too.
Nonsense. I would venture to guess 60+% of Americans would identify this way if given the choice.I don't think fiscally conservative and socially progressive fit together very well.
I was thinking not but I also haven't seen any denunciation.Hope you're not insinuating that I am....
Didn't know that was required.I was thinking not but I also haven't seen any denunciation.
If you have a question it's reasonable to ask.Didn't know that was required.
I think his post was inappropriate and wrong.
From now if you don't "denounce" someone elses post I'll just assume you agree with it.
ANd now it'll be gone for the foreseeable future. So again, the only people who should be "terrified" are people that use it as a talking point to vilify the "other side".That "bullet" was put away until Clarence Thomas put it back in the chamber. Progressives, Democrats and Independents will be happy to put this away again which is why there is a legislative bill to do so.
Like wives everywhere!That's why huey is so adamant about gay marriage. He doesn't want to have to suck dick anymore. 🤣
WTF are you talking about? The only way it will be gone is by codifying this into law. Thus the effort that you guys on the far right are whining about. The Democrats are not leaving this sit so they can use it for political reasons, they are fixing it. Contrast that with the republicans and immigration - they won't propose anything to actually fix that situation because they want to use it to spread fear among their base. That's true across the board with republicans - no policies, no proposals, only obstruction and fear mongering.ANd now it'll be gone for the foreseeable future. So again, the only people who should be "terrified" are people that use it as a talking point to vilify the "other side".
Which is happening - with republican support. So pay attention and keep up.WTF are you talking about? The only way it will be gone is by codifying this into law. Thus the effort that you guys on the far right are whining about.
Only because the Democrats are pursuing it. Stop pretending like there is widespread republican support of this - there's not. The Democrats are the ones addressing this issue, most of the republicans still choose to obstruct.Which is happening - with republican support. So pay attention and keep up.
And who is "you guys"? Ive been in 100% support of this for years. Maybe someday you'll learn you're nowhere near the smartest person in the room and quit assuming.
Doesnt matter how it got passed, it got passed. So that bullet is out of chamber, like I originally said. No more fear mongering on that one - I know that upsets you, but im sure you'll find a way to cope...probably more elementary level insults on random forums.Only because the Democrats are pursuing it. Stop pretending like there is widespread republican support of this - there's not. The Democrats are the ones addressing this issue, most of the republicans still choose to obstruct.
I fully realize I'm not the smartest person, but most definitely smarter than your dumb ass.
It hasn't been passed yet, dipshit. And if this was supported by republicans as you have suggested we should reasonably expect more than half the Senate to vote for it, at least. But that's not the case. Only 12 voted to advance the bill. 37 voted against it - a 2:1 ratio among republicans against this bill and you're trying to crow about the republican support of it. GTFO.Doesnt matter how it got passed, it got passed. So that bullet is out of chamber, like I originally said. No more fear mongering on that one - I know that upsets you, but im sure you'll find a way to cope...probably more elementary level insults on random forums.
Is this your first time paying attention to a bill process? Procedural vote will always pass.It hasn't been passed yet, dipshit. And if this was supported by republicans as you have suggested we should reasonably expect more than half the Senate to vote for it, at least. But that's not the case. Only 12 voted to advance the bill. 37 voted against it - a 2:1 ratio among republicans against this bill and you're trying to crow about the republican support of it. GTFO.
When it does pass it will be in the rearview mirror and the democrats will be focused on solving the other issues in front of them. And republicans will continue to obstruct.
You dumb shit - you're the one who claimed it had passed. It hasn't. JFC.Is this your first time paying attention to a bill process? Procedural vote will always pass.
And as you said, it'll be in the rearview - hence they can no longer use it as ammo to villfy. So if we could fast forward through you inane drivel, we end right where we started. Next time, if you have nothing to add, just skip the blathering.
Like i said, is this your first time watching a bill being passed.You dumb shit - you're the one who claimed it had passed. It hasn't. JFC.
And the Democrats won't use it after it passes because they will be too busy trying to fix other issues.
It's funny when you argue against yourself. LOL - you're king of the self-own.
Like you said - BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA. Here's what you said:Like i said, is this your first time watching a bill being passed.
And thank you for finally agreeing with me. Not sure why it took you a dozen posts restating what I've already said, but we got you there.
The bill hasn't passed - you were wrong. That "bullet" still needs to be fired. A few more of your republican brethren change their mind and the bill is in trouble again. And that could happen when those republicans get pressured by 2/3 of their caucus. But you go on claiming, wrongly, that the bill has already passed and this is now a non-issue. The rest of us will stick with reality.Doesnt matter how it got passed, it got passed. So that bullet is out of chamber, like I originally said. No more fear mongering on that one - I know that upsets you, but im sure you'll find a way to cope...probably more elementary level insults on random forums.
Well, were on our third trip around in your twilight zone, so I'm going to just let float around in their awhile.Like you said - BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA. Here's what you said:
The bill hasn't passed - you were wrong. That "bullet" still needs to be fired. A few more of your republican brethren change their mind and the bill is in trouble again. And that could happen when those republicans get pressured by 2/3 of their caucus. But you go on claiming, wrongly, that the bill has already passed and this is now a non-issue. The rest of us will stick with reality.
One of the biggest differences between Democrats and republicans is that Dems work to SOLVE the issues to make America better where repubs work to USE the issues for their political gain.
I don't think that is fair, just because someone votes no to a bill doesn't mean they are against it. Maybe Chuck is a big ole homophobe, maybe he doesn't care what people do in their personal lives, maybe he doesn't think the federal government has the right to make laws about marriage. I have no idea why he voted no, and I am guessing you don't either. Or maybe there was something else in that bill that Chuck didn't like, politicians are known to do things like that. Call it one thing, headline with something, then throw a bunch of other things in there to make you look bad if you don't vote for it.I find it so incredibly sad that Iowa's own Chuck Grassley voted against this. I also think it's more than fair to label him a homophobic because of this.
Your point was that the bill has already passed so it can't be an issue now. That's wrong. It's still an issue until it gets passed. THAT is the entire point.Well, were on our third trip around in your twilight zone, so I'm going to just let float around in their awhile.
I'm glad you agree that this will no longer be a topic that can be used for fear mongering though. That was the entire point. Enjoy yelling at the wall though.
Then let him identify what it is he is against. As such, there's no other interpretation than he's against this bill. And 2/3 of republican Senators agree with him.I don't think that is fair, just because someone votes no to a bill doesn't mean they are against it. Maybe Chuck is a big ole homophobe, maybe he doesn't care what people do in their personal lives, maybe he doesn't think the federal government has the right to make laws about marriage. I have no idea why he voted no, and I am guessing you don't either. Or maybe there was something else in that bill that Chuck didn't like, politicians are known to do things like that. Call it one thing, headline with something, then throw a bunch of other things in there to make you look bad if you don't vote for it.
Why do you think there has been an all out panic by Republicans to suppress as much of the vote as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for people they don't want voting to go vote?Geeze with those number I can’t believe a Republican would ever win another election again.
I agree, that is what I am trying to say, let him clarify why he voted no before labeling him.Then let him identify what it is he is against. As such, there's no other interpretation than he's against this bill. And 2/3 of republican Senators agree with him.
Nope, again showing you're lack of ability to read and/or comprehend. I clearly stated not only am I 100% in favor of the crux of the bill, I have been for many years.Your point was that the bill has already passed so it can't be an issue now. That's wrong. It's still an issue until it gets passed. THAT is the entire point.
By labeling this effort "fear mongering" it appears you do not support the marriage bill. Is that true? If so, why not? If you do support it, why is it "fear mongering"?
There's no reason to wait, he's had ample time. It's very clear that he and 2/3 of the Senate republicans are against the marriage bill.I agree, that is what I am trying to say, let him clarify why he voted no before labeling him.
Yep - you were absolutely wrong that the bill has passed.Nope, again showing you're lack of ability to read and/or comprehend. I clearly stated not only am I 100% in favor of the crux of the bill, I have been for many years.
I cant answer anymore in the affirmative in regards to support. 3 times now in fact. You're inability for basic comprehension is a you problem.Yep - you were absolutely wrong that the bill has passed.
And the question was if you are supportive of this marriage bill passing. Simple yes or no will suffice and then an explanation, if you are for the bill passing, of why pushing this is "fear mongering" in your eyes. Or if the answer is no, why not?
FTR - I've played this game with you many times and I don't expect an answer. You will dance and spin but will avoid a direct answer if history repeats. It's funny.
Again, you're wrong. You've never said you support the bill only that you support gay marriage or "the crux" of the bill. You've still not said a simple "yes, I support the bill". And you've also not explained your rationale about being for the passage of this bill to protect gay and interracial marriage while simultaneously claiming the Democrats proposing/pushing for this bill are "fear mongering".I cant answer anymore in the affirmative in regards to support. 3 times now in fact. You're inability for basic comprehension is a you problem.
Blah blah blah im riley, i cant read. I like to yell at clouds.Again, you're wrong. You've never said you support the bill only that you support gay marriage or "the crux" of the bill. You've still not said a simple "yes, I support the bill". And you've also not explained your rationale about being for the passage of this bill to protect gay and interracial marriage while simultaneously claiming the Democrats proposing/pushing for this bill are "fear mongering".
Let's see some more of those spin moves. LOL
LOL - called it. LOL. You won't answer and you won't ever admit you are wrong. So insecure. But by all means, carry on. It's highly entertaining.Blah blah blah im riley, i cant read. I like to yell at clouds.
You can't read and/or comprehend the most explicitly written statements, so I might as well just keep poking you since your response is going to be the same regardless.LOL - called it. LOL. You won't answer and you won't ever admit you are wrong. So insecure. But by all means, carry on. It's highly entertaining.
Please cite the post where you answered with a definitive yes or no. Or the one where you explained the reason you support the marriage bill while claiming the Dem support of it is "fear mongering".You can't read and/or comprehend the most explicitly written statements, so I might as well just keep poking you since your response is going to be the same regardless.
Post #52. Now hush.Please cite the post where you answered with a definitive yes or no. Or the one where you explained the reason you support the marriage bill while claiming the Dem support of it is "fear mongering".
We all know you will come back with some other lame response that doesn't address the questions posed, but it's always fun making you dance.
And look, not one yes or no in that post. LOL. This bill hasn't been in the works for years - there was no need until recently.Post #52. Now hush.
Which is happening - with republican support. So pay attention and keep up.
And who is "you guys"? Ive been in 100% support of this for years. Maybe someday you'll learn you're nowhere near the smartest person in the room and quit assuming.
Youre trying way too hard. That post cannot be any more clear in the affirmative. I'm sorry you're burdened with the plight of comprehension abilities akin to a toddler, but that's your issue, and no one needs to acquiesce to your woefully inept abilities.And look, not one yes or no in that post. LOL. This bill hasn't been in the works for years - there was no need until recently.
You can't help yourself.
LOL - showing you your ass is easy peasy. All I have to do is use your own attempts to deflect and refusals to provide a direct answer as exposure. You won't answer with a simple yes or no to whether you support the marriage bill being proposed in Congress. You won't provide an explanation either.Youre trying way too hard. That post cannot be any more clear in the affirmative. I'm sorry you're burdened with the plight of comprehension abilities akin to a toddler, but that's your issue, and no one needs to acquiesce to your woefully inept abilities.
For the fourth time, your reading comprehension ineptitude is no else's shortcoming except your own.LOL - showing you your ass is easy peasy. All I have to do is use your own attempts to deflect and refusals to provide a direct answer as exposure. You won't answer with a simple yes or no to whether you support the marriage bill being proposed in Congress. You won't provide an explanation either.
The funny thing is you think you're being coy when, in actuality, everyone else recognizes it as weakness and insecurity. You're special in that regard.
Again, exposing you has been fun.
The GOP has none nothing to help 99% of the people with taxes in the last fifty years. For several years the GOP has done nothing but try to be re-elected.people's political views change. Many progressives, especially white progressives who move into middle class and above, become a bit more conservative as they start feeling the brunt of taxes; and especially as they get older and their formerly progressive ideas are now attacked by a new group of progressives and called archaic.