Let's Hear It for the Girls!

Dec 2015
12,854
11,796
Arizona
#1
Record numbers of women are heading to Congress!
More than 100 women were projected to win seats in the House of Representatives, easily shattering the record. Overwhelmingly they were Democrats who helped the party take control of the chamber.

Women have never held more than 84 of the 435 seats in the House. By 1:30 a.m. Wednesday as the votes were still being counted, 92 had already been declared winners.

“Women made history in a number of ways and were a significant force in flipping many districts from red to blue,” said Kelly Dittmar, a political scientist at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Many of the winning candidates campaigned on the need for better health care for all Americans. They come from a wide variety of backgrounds — from military veterans to teachers — and many had never run for office before.
Women made inroads in gubernatorial races, too, which are particularly important because of the upcoming redistricting battles.

In both Kansas and Michigan, women flipped states that had been under Republican control. The women who ran this year were remarkably diverse — black, Latina, Native American. But noticeably absent on ballots were more Republican women.

(Some of the women candidates ran on simple, blunt campaign slogans--like Michigan's new governor Gretchen Whitmer who's battle cry was: FIX THE DAMN ROADS!)

Are women fired up?? That's putting it mildly. Watch out boys, we're coming for your club.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...55347f48762_story.html?utm_term=.7bdfa7b6c481
 
Nov 2017
1,228
686
Virginia
#5
Ok, why didn't we hear it for this woman?



Can you guess what happened to her? Do you care? Do you really care about women? She got her seat taken by a man, a white man. It makes no difference to me, myself, that he's a man, a white man; I'm just trying to make the Democrats' heads explode, since they're the ones who like to cast white men as some sort of monster, and he's a Democrat & she's a Republican. :eek:
 
Dec 2016
3,672
1,896
Canada
#7
Ok, why didn't we hear it for this woman?



Can you guess what happened to her? Do you care? Do you really care about women? She got her seat taken by a man, a white man. It makes no difference to me, myself, that he's a man, a white man; I'm just trying to make the Democrats' heads explode, since they're the ones who like to cast white men as some sort of monster, and he's a Democrat & she's a Republican. :eek:
I want to hear from this woman, now that she's on her way to the House....don't you?
 
Likes: Lyzza
Nov 2017
1,228
686
Virginia
#8
I want to hear from this woman, now that she's on her way to the House....don't you?
I watched her interview on PBS Firing Line with Margaret Hoover, and she comes across as a person who genuinely has her heart in the right place, but that's not the problem. As a Democratic Socialist, she is someone who wants to apply the wrong things as "solutions" when it comes to economic policy issues. In other words, I think that she wants to do the wrong thing for the right reason; that's not too bad, it just means she needs to know which thing is the right thing to do. I'm happy so see that she's on the right side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue; this issue, along with the dominance of the GOP by the religious zealot types, is one of the reasons I don't quite identify as a Republican.

I'd rather have someone who goes to DC wanting to do things for the right reasons than someone corrupt go to DC. During the 2016 POTUS primary election, I voted for Bernie Sanders & the reason I did so was because even though I agree with Hillary Clinton's economic policy far more than I do with the socialist economic policy that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both advocate, I'd much rather have someone who isn't corrupt (or at least as negligent as Hillary Clinton was/is) in the White House.

Because Hillary became the Democratic Party's nominee for POTUS, I had no problem voting for Trump. When I first heard that Trump was running for president, I didn't even like him; initially I was even one of those individuals criticizing, castigating, chastising Trump, just like the lefties do now here on this forum, but once I started hearing his platform and seeing how the media and even the GOP vanguard types were treating him, I gave him a second look and realized that maybe he's the guy I want for POTUS. So far I have been very satisfied with how Trump has performed, with very few - if any - exceptions. One thing I disagree with was his decision to let the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem; he could've signed a waiver that kept the embassy where it was, and I think he should've signed this waiver every time, or at least until the situation in that part of the world improved to a point where the time would've been right (I'm not assuming that there would ever be a right time, BTW).

Anyways, with Ocasio-Cortez, I just hope she knows what sort of snake pit she'll be getting into when she goes to DC. I'm friends with someone who's a very libertarian member of the House of Representatives; I knew him since before he first won election & went to congress. We're not quite buddies, and I haven't spoken with him for quite a while, but he and I were Facebook friends until I replied to a comment about Kim Davis by denouncing her & within a few days I found that he had unfriended me on FB. He's someone who was well aware of how DC has a way of changing people who go to DC as politicians, from what they were before they were first elected. I'd say that overall he has done pretty well in avoiding the effects of being a member of congress in DC, but not long after that comment I made on FB about Kim Davis (back when she was a major topic of conversation), he unfriended me. After that happened, I emailed him to tell him that I would no longer discuss politics with him; I also said that I think DC is probably changing him & that maybe he should consider stepping down from office, or at least consider taking a break from it for a while. A short while afterwards I listened to an interview he did & he talked about how it was important to "clear the air" once in a while after spending some time in DC, so I'm happy that he at least seemed to have given what I wrote to him in the email some thought and consideration. The implied premise or assumption is that with a 5,000 friend limit, he bumped me out of his FB friends to make room for more politically loyal friends, or something to that effect, so the DC change in question was not something that the general public would've been able to easily observe.

Hopefully someone will give Ocasio-Cortez a heads up if she doesn't know what she's about to enter into when she goes to DC or isn't prepared. One thing I'm going to try to do, if I can, is to see if I can observe DC causing her to change. If she's a strong-willed & principled individual, she won't let it change her, and I'll respect & admire her for that.
 
Likes: right to left
Dec 2016
3,672
1,896
Canada
#9
I watched her interview on PBS Firing Line with Margaret Hoover, and she comes across as a person who genuinely has her heart in the right place, but that's not the problem. As a Democratic Socialist, she is someone who wants to apply the wrong things as "solutions" when it comes to economic policy issues. In other words, I think that she wants to do the wrong thing for the right reason; that's not too bad, it just means she needs to know which thing is the right thing to do. I'm happy so see that she's on the right side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue; this issue, along with the dominance of the GOP by the religious zealot types, is one of the reasons I don't quite identify as a Republican.

I'd rather have someone who goes to DC wanting to do things for the right reasons than someone corrupt go to DC. During the 2016 POTUS primary election, I voted for Bernie Sanders & the reason I did so was because even though I agree with Hillary Clinton's economic policy far more than I do with the socialist economic policy that Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both advocate, I'd much rather have someone who isn't corrupt (or at least as negligent as Hillary Clinton was/is) in the White House.

Because Hillary became the Democratic Party's nominee for POTUS, I had no problem voting for Trump. When I first heard that Trump was running for president, I didn't even like him; initially I was even one of those individuals
criticizing, castigating, chastising Trump, just like the lefties do now here on this forum, but once I started hearing his platform and seeing how the media and even the GOP vanguard types were treating him, I gave him a second look and realized that maybe he's the guy I want for POTUS. So far I have been very satisfied with how Trump has performed, with very few - if any - exceptions. One thing I disagree with was his decision to let the US embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem; he could've signed a waiver that kept the embassy where it was, and I think he should've signed this waiver every time, or at least until the situation in that part of the world improved to a point where the time would've been right (I'm not assuming that there would ever be a right time, BTW).

Anyways, with Ocasio-Cortez, I just hope she knows what sort of snake pit she'll be getting into when she goes to DC. I'm friends with someone who's a very libertarian member of the House of Representatives; I knew him since before he first won election & went to congress. We're not quite buddies, and I haven't spoken with him for quite a while, but he and I were Facebook friends until I replied to a comment about Kim Davis by denouncing her & within a few days I found that he had unfriended me on FB. He's someone who was well aware of how DC has a way of changing people who go to DC as politicians, from what they were before they were first elected. I'd say that overall he has done pretty well in avoiding the effects of being a member of congress in DC, but not long after that comment I made on FB about Kim Davis (back when she was a major topic of conversation), he unfriended me. After that happened, I emailed him to tell him that I would no longer discuss politics with him; I also said that I think DC is probably changing him & that maybe he should consider stepping down from office, or at least consider taking a break from it for a while. A short while afterwards I listened to an interview he did & he talked about how it was important to "clear the air" once in a while after spending some time in DC, so I'm happy that he at least seemed to have given what I wrote to him in the email some thought and consideration. The implied premise or assumption is that with a 5,000 friend limit, he bumped me out of his FB friends to make room for more politically loyal friends, or something to that effect, so the DC change in question was not something that the general public would've been able to easily observe.

Hopefully someone will give Ocasio-Cortez a heads up if she doesn't know what she's about to enter into when she goes to DC or isn't prepared. One thing I'm going to try to do, if I can, is to see if I can observe DC causing her to change. If she's a strong-willed & principled individual, she won't let it change her, and I'll respect & admire her for that.
btw, the picture comes from the much earlier profile picture back when her campaign first began, and she was frozen out by the DNC, New York Democratic leadership and the MSM for putting her name forward to primary Joe Crowley...the establishment Dem that the DNC preferred to inherit the leadership from the Party's geriatrics. It was used as the cover image by the Jimmy Dore Show when they posted the short interview with her back in the summer of 2017, and yes, Jimmy was one of the few people she could line up an interview with back then! I doubt she's forgotten how she was treated by the Party establishment or why she decided to run against Crowley in the first place!

I'm not surprised that a libertarian would consider a socialist candidate's solutions as bad or unhelpful, but she represents what the people in her largely brown and black district see as their problems and solutions.
That early interview...and the ones she will be doing from now on that she's got her seat in Congress, will likely be more inclined to lay it on the line than the ones she did during the campaign season when prominent Dems were trying to get her to tamp down her image as a leftist radical a bit. BUT, in her acceptance speech last night, she went right after ICE and the abuses and likely crimes being done on the Southern border! But, she didn't say she would work to abolish ICE, as she did earlier on in her campaign against Crowley for the Democratic nomination...maybe that's being pragmatic a little, because it would be impossible for an outsider to move the establishment Dems, say nothing about Republicans to call for the end of that unnecessary bureaucratic arm of government created near the end of Bush's first term, which, like the DHS umbrella itself, interferes with customs and immigration enforcement, while doling out money to private security companies and private prison operators.
 
Likes: Lyzza

Similar Discussions