Roy Cho vs. Scott Garrett - NJ 5th District
luvlifeAfter reading up on Cho (I had never heard of him), while neither candidate is perfect, (no politician is), Cho doesn't have a chance. Not in the 5th District anyway. This corner of NJ is the conservative stronghold, and Garrett will be re-elected, again, because he is a conservative.
JeffersonRepub From the Blue Jersey website:
To NJ05 local Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans:
Please consider making the time to vote in November in the mid-term elections. I urge you vote for the Democrats, especially Roy Cho. Cho is standing in opposition to Scott Garrett after 12 years as our representative in Congress:
•Garrett recently voted against appropriating $58 million to the DHS for drug research to address the Ebola virus. He voted against spending $30 million to DHS for the Centers for Disease Control to specifically address the rapidly escalating Ebola emergency in Africa.
•He has voted to kill every major environmental proposal before him since 2002. He voted against re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; against bills for equal pay for women for the same job as a man and was 1 of only 9 members of Congress to vote to derail the authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
•Garrett was the only NJ representative who voted against lowering interest rates on student loans and the only one to vote against ending the shutdown of the government a few years ago
•Garrett was one of only 11 Congressmen who voted against emergency relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina and on Nov. 3, 2012, when NJ's congressional delegation called for federal disaster assistance in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, Garrett was the only member of the state's delegation who refused to sign the letter. He FINALLY voted FOR something for victims of Hurricane Sandy after 66 days, with a bill that basically said insurance companies must be made to honor claims by people who had paid their premiums.
yankeefan 
ianimal @JR - Thanks - I too have been trying to read up on Cho, not too much out there on him. I'm just not impressed with Garrett whatsoever . . . . still a week left to research.
The debate is online here:
https://wrnjradio.bandcamp.com/track/5th-congressional-district-forum
LeRoy Grimace Well I guess we'll see if we are what we say we are and vote this Washington insider out just on that principle alone. Not that we have a clue who Roy Cho is.
But we certainly know what this DC dinosaur is: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/roy_cho_for_congress_in_the_fifth_district_editorial.html
mistergoogle @JeffersonRepub the race seems closer than it should be if you look at the polls: http://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey's_5th_Congressional_District_elections,_2014#Polls
Polls are used to shape election outcomes, depending on the source. I've all but given up on the accuracy of polls, regardless of whose side I'm on.
In that link, one of the polls is quite different from the other two.... who to believe? The average still shows 47% to 39%, Garret. That's not considered close in elections.
The election is just around the corner, we'll find out soon enough.
REALLY not much out there on Cho, other than "vote for me, because I'm not him" (Garret).
NJ.com says as much: "here's everything we think is wrong with Garret. [list of grievances] We don't know ANYTHING about Cho other than the fact he is not Garret. We encourage his election." LOL Now that's some politically intelligent journalism right there.
But hey- if a non-voting, no experience senator can get elected president, then a non-voting, no experience kid should be able to get elected to the House. Such is the intelligence of our voting sector. We truly get the government we deserve.
ia,
I did not know that. Certainly could affect things. But hey- they'll get NJ ALL BLUE no matter what it takes!!! It's just a matter of time.
JR, not sure if you noticed, but the 5th District lines have been redrawn and now include not just Warren and Sussex, but also a small part of Passaic County and a pretty big chunk of Bergen County. I would say a Republican still holds an advantage, but there are a lot of Democratic voters in Bergen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_5th_congressional_district
Calico696 Point is the Warren County "vote the bums out" is about to vote hypocrite.
Guys a charmer though; I hear the women just love him.
cho is a carpet bagger who voted in the wrong district possibly breaking the law in doing so, and missed voting at all in several recent elections, and now he wants to represent us? ( i don't think so))
it's a strawman technique to conflate legitimate support for one particular candidate with keeping the beltway machine going and not wanting change, that's a non-starter logically,
scott garret has voted for smaller government and real accountability over and over again, he is a refreshing counter voice to the PC correct madhouse down there inside the beltway. Washington needs more like him, not less, people who have actual character and stand firm for what they believe in instead of the chameleon like skin changers who you can never pin down because they change with the wind (like most of the demoncrats do, and yes too many republicans do also, boehner has just got to go, really outlived his usefulness, and pelosi and harry reid, and a few more,)
keep garret in even though it's been 12 years, i'm ok with this one. he has not been corrupted like the others have, imho.
now to defeat corey booker, he's just gotta go. and next round out with menendez, he's truly creepy
no matter who you are, or where you stand on these issues, all of you , that means all of you, including you over there and the guy hiding behind you, go out and vote, make the choice, do the research, evaluate the candidates and the issues and go out and vote.
make the effort, just do it, GO OUT AND VOTE !
(dont make me come over there)
BrotherDog Calico,
I think we did get ours, but I also think they got thrown away with the UMPTEEN catalogs my wife gets in the mail. The catalog thing is really ridiculous. She never even ASKED for most of them. It's like spam, but in the snail mail box.
Hmmm, we haven't gotten ours yet. I asked my husband about it last night because he gets the mail most days. I thought in the past, they came at least 2 weeks before the election.
Calico
They may be in today's mail. Haven't gotten mine yet either (Hopatcong), but the time frame is usually 1 week before the election. (Though I imagine some may send them sooner.)
Phil D. 
"it's a strawman technique to conflate legitimate support for one particular candidate with keeping the beltway machine going and not wanting change, that's a non-starter logically" Uh, Scott Garret IS the Beltway Machine but at least he votes. He is primarily financed by Securities and Investment dollars (lots of that in our District) Insurance (ditto), and Commercial Banks (well, we have banks, just not commercial ones). Well, at least he's financed by the Beltway Machine.
His campaign is motherhood n apple pie but his voting record is the rigid right hand of God with a finance-industry twist. He once prosed teaching intelligent design in the schools.
Of course he voted NO on the Boehner to sue Obama bill, only one of five Repubers to do so, and he voted NO on the Fiscal Cliff compromise, the only Republican to do so. That's weird, but let's cherry pick some issues and see where he stands (from Ballotipedia.com:
"Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right Strongly Opposes
Comfortable with same-sex marriage Strongly Opposes
Vouchers for school choice Strongly Favors
Keep God in the public sphere Strongly Favors
Human needs over animal rights Favors
Higher taxes on the wealthy Strongly Opposes
Support & expand free trade Favors
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens Strongly Opposes
Prioritize green energy Strongly Opposes
Expand the military Favors
Stay out of Iran Strongly Opposes
Privatize Social Security Strongly Favors
Never legalize marijuana Opposes"
Not my cup of tea, but at least not a partier.
I consider it my civic duty to vote any and all republicans out of office - not that the dems make a lot of sense these days but I have a hard time finding a republican who lives on planet earth. I'd love to see them on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader. Garrett is a fossil, a relic of a different age who needs to be put out to pasture. Christie too while we're at it!
That being said, Cho is no winner. I had hope for Booker but even he seems to be not so mighty as to keep his beak clean. Seems like NJ can't dig up a half decent politician lately. Guess Christie buried them when he buried Bridgegate.
Clearly, I'm not from this area originally.
alpha1beta I think many of you are waaaay too wrapped-up in the two-party paradigm.
Both parties are moving us towards bigger government and less liberty.
A newly-minted congressional representative gets to Washington. If he/she is not a total sociopath or control-freak, they are full of idealism and have a sense of mission. Then, after a few pleasantries with the "experienced" pols, they are presented with a bill for "dues" to their respective political party. Usually they are six-figure invoices.
"Now", they are told, "you don't have to pay these if you don't want, but if you don't :
- any legislation you might try to introduce will go nowhere
- you will not be a co-sponsor, either
- you will not get on any committees" (and you won't anyway unless you pay us even more than your basic dues)
And so on...
So, how do I, a pol who wants to make a "difference", pay this bill....especially if my campaign funds are almost nil?
The "experienced" pols "want to help you." They know how the game is played.
"Just go over to that building, (an RNC or DNC call center) call these people (big corporations or special interest groups) and ask them to help you."
I won't belabor the point, but you get how it goes from there.
And, it's been said, that the biggest contributions come from the farthest ends of the spectrum issue-wise....or the biggest corporations, profit-wise. That may answer some questions you have about why your guy...or gal...did sh*t you didn't like.
jjmonth4 "I consider it my civic duty to vote any and all republicans out of office - not that the dems make a lot of sense these days but I have a hard time finding a republican who lives on planet earth."
Funny, I used to feel the same way about democrats. You'll come around, in time (to the realization you are being played like a fiddle)
jjmonth4 GETS IT:
"I think many of you are waaaay too wrapped-up in the two-party paradigm.
Both parties are moving us towards bigger government and less liberty."
Who's running against Booker? I don't see any signs anywhere
Update: Looks like the Express-Times endorsed Cho:
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/eitorial_roy_cho_in_new_jersey.html#incart_river.
I am with (Jujata) To me, Garrett is the best congress person of them all in the beltway.
To BD's comment.
cho is a carpet bagger who voted in the wrong district possibly breaking the law in doing so, and missed voting at all in several recent elections, and now he wants to represent us? ( i don't think so))
I find it amazing at all the Carpert Baggers that get to run in the North East states.
Scott Brown, Cory Booker, Jeff Bell, Hillary Clinton, Roy Cho, to name a few
Old Gent I'm definitely going with the "anybody but Garrett" vote this year. If Cho wins (longshot, I know) and doesn't work out then we can try to correct the mistake in two years.
RAD You wouldn't even know there is Senatorial race in NJ. No ads on TV and no signs anywhere. You would think the Republicans would putJust up someone who had a chance but I guess in this State that is probably impossible. Never seen a Senate race or lack thereof like this in my lifetime.
kb2755 kb2755,
It's always like around here (5th District), which tells me there's been no real threat to Garret these many years.
auntiel Garrett isn't a Senator, JR. He's talking about Pedendez and Booker essentially running unopposed.
"Pedendez"??
I'm having trouble associating the emotionally charged "carpet bagger" label without thinking about how that would apply to a heavily gerrymandered district with a rep from the complete opposite side of the state.
I'm also having trouble with the no experience part because Garrett's million dollar mailings sure don't paint that picture.
For sure around this area you put an R after the name and they win 60-40 on an ideology basis which suits Garret. I agree that Cho doesn't stand a chance, but the gerrymandering has been diluted with the last redistricting. That's why it's 55-45 instead of 80-20 as usual.
So we get a non-listener and a nobody with . Doesn't matter, we loose. It's the old Woody Allen joke in "Bananas" - the evil of two lessers. No good choices here.
Full disclosure: one of these candidates nearly smashed the crap out of my friend Bubba D. I don't hold that against him, the brake pedal got pressed in the nick of time. I just wonder if like campaign law loopholes or unbridled Wall St hedge fund tax break greed, car insurance non-payment is on the agenda. Not exactly the accountability promised.
GC "Doesn't matter, we loose. It's the old Woody Allen joke in "Bananas" - the evil of two lessers. No good choices here."
That, my friend, sums up politics in the US in the last 30 years (at least).
>>You'll come around, in time, to the realization you are being played like a fiddle.<<
JR gets it, too.
My dad used to say that when you're young, inexperienced in life, idealistic, and want everything given to you....you're a democrat. When you grow up, gain more life experience, work hard for your family, home, money, and are lucky enough to own a business... you become a republican. You decide where you fit in.
USAfirst jjmonth - who do you support this election cycle?
i get it to, we are being played by both parties in the us vs them paradigm, both republicans and democrats have increased the size , scope and reach of government, and that's bad.
what is your proposal for change?
Article from this morning with more info on Cho vs. Garrett here.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/elections/index.ssf/2014/10/race_for_new_jerseys_5th_congr.html#incart_river
Calico - same here, still no ballot???
Link below is an ad that was just released yesterday by "Cho's" camp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60zrStcGXHc
With 7 out of 10 voters coming from Bergen, Cho's home county, the vote will be certainly different than that past.
The polls are tightening but it will take a hail mary still for Cho to win.
But Garrett is the epitome of a Washington poll albeit from the darkside but apparently that does not bother half the "vote em all out" constituency. Unfortunately on the social issues he's a troglodyte; on financial issues he's no quarter, and on most of his votes he's a bit extreme. His denial of Sandy was outrageous for example. I mean I know he lives in the hills, but.......
And another "repeal obamacare and replace it with something that works" but after 12 years in Congress, he still does not have much more than a clue as to what that is. An intelligent design indeed.
only thing tightening is cho's and gogo's knikers,
cho is a transplant who has no idea about NJ issues, that's why he's a carbet bagger.
and choo voted illegal in a district in which he doesn;t live, and then missed several votes aftewards.
cho's not involved, cho's not a NJ guy, cho's not a good fit for us here in the garden state,
not even close.
jjmonth - what are your recomendations this election cycle ?
Am I even still in the 5th District? The article says a large swath of Warren County was removed, I have to assume it was the southern portion where I am, right? LOL, I have no idea...
Nope... I'm now in 7th District Leonard Lance country. I don't even remember moving, lol.
ia....
I guess our sample ballots will tell us that info, but in the meantime.... where did you find it?
Holy crap!! I think Mansfield Twp is now in District 23???? Or am I reading this wrong???
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/municipalities.asp#M
effing gerrymandering bastards.... ANOTHER REASON WE HAVE TO THROW ALL THE BASTARDS OUT!!!
Just look up your town name on Wikipedia... one of the pieces of information it provides is Congressional District. Phillipsburg, Alpha, Lopatcong, Pohatcong, Greenwich, Franklin and Harmony all got moved to District 7. Mansfield is still in District 5.
LOL, that's your state legislative district, not your federal congressional district.
Robert A Voter BD, I think Mark Quack, er, Quick, is on the 5th District ballot this year as well.
voter Check here to find your district since Hackettstown seems to be right on the line between 5th and 7th. www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Or if the sample ballot ever gets here...
My sample ballot arrived, and I am now in District 4 (Diamond Hill)
Garrett/Cho is still on my ballot tho....? Just like the IRS/tax code, the election system seems to be too complicated for it's own good.
JR - You're confusing the different types of districts. You are in the 5th US Congressional District, the 23rd New Jersey State District, and in Mansfield's 4th District. There are districts at each of the federal, state, and local level. HTH
BD - I am a resident of PA, and see no one on the ballot whom I would endorse with my vote. I am not voting in this election.
What to do with the political system: Like Grandpa and Granny's computer operating system,it has been corrupted by them clicking on things they really don't understand. In their case, we roll our eyes and shake our heads because we know there are some bad people preying on the ignorant either through fake threats (virus alert!) or fake carrots (you WON!, click here!)...and the computer is obsolescent and inefficient.
You buy a whole new computer.... or a refurbished one purged of corruption.... that follows the fundamental system rules and does things the way Granny and Grandpa expect them to be done.
Easier with computers than with political systems.....
Calico - you should get the sample ballot tomorrow. We got ours today on the other side of town.
Vic jjmonth4
Some times I wonder if my vote is even counted. I always vote. Some times I leave one blank some times for third party and some times I write in but I many times I dont see it reflected in the finale tally.
Mine arrived today too (Hopatcong). Glad to finally have it in my hands.
Funny thing is, we had two different campaign signs, both of which looked as though a "Schindelar" was running with two other candidates. I'd never heard of him/her, but I did just notice that a couple of days ago the original signs were replaced with a title that showed a "Schindelar" running for School Board with two other people and the other sign showing a "Schindelar" running for Borough Council.
Now that I have the sample ballot, I can see that it's possibly a husband and wife, each one running for a separate seat. Never heard of either of them before either. Have to read the newspaper interviews to find out their positions - or try to anyway... .
jjmonth4 - thank you for your perspective, while i see where you are coming from, and while at the same time i understand that both political parties are playing us for fools most of the time, and i see the problems, corruption and malfeasance in our government structures, i still get in that batters box and take my swings the best i can,
in other words, i get your frustration and your disgust with the current state of affairs, however i urge you to get involved, try and make a difference in your corner of the world, it may start with your local own council/committee, it may start with how your schools are being run, but to quit, step back, communicate how foolish everyone else is for participating is (in my opinion) somewhat less than what you can do to effect positive change.
i don't like the republicans, i don't like the demoncrats, and i certainly have major issue with the way our government is currently structured and run, but i think that we all have a social responsibility to try and make a difference in any way we can.
so i am going to vote, even though i see the flaws with the candidates on the ballot, and i see the problems with the NJ legislature and the congress down there in washingtion.
i promote certain issues, candidates and specific legislation that are important to me when and where i can to try and make a flawed system better, i can't just quit the game and say "oh well, they are really bad over there"
i urge you to do the same thing . . . .
get involved, make a difference, it's just the right thing to do . . . . .
What I like is now it seems proper to ask public officials who they voted for and take umbrage if they don't confess.
I don't understand why "who you voted for" is supposedly "secret" anyway.... if that's how you believe, stand up proudly. Don't vote for what you apparently believe in, then deny it or don't admit it. Cowardice.
If you're a liberal democrat who believes in big spending big government expansion of social programs banning guns social justice and raising taxes, be proud and admit it!
If you're a conservative who believes in cutting government spending smaller government constitutional rights being left the hell alone and lowering taxes, be proud and admit it!
And for all who fall in-between.... ditto.
For those exact reasons JR.
So much for rights of the individual if you're compelled, either by public pressure or by law, to expose private things.
mg,
I'm not talking about "law"... I'm talking about people who are too cowardly to admit their political positions.... which of course begs the question, if they don't want anyone to know what their political beliefs are.... why?
As far as public pressure goes- whether you are a politician or are running to be elected- tough crap. Comes with the territory. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Personally, I see ZERO problem with the public demanding to know how someone voted IF THAT PERSON IS ASKING US TO BE PUT IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY- MAKING DECISIONS FOR US. You're damn straight I want to know how they voted.
BD - I don't think I will "make a difference" by voting.
In NJ's election, I might make my tiny fraction of a mass opinion known by voting on the public questions (I agree with Mark MC. on the first, kind of hung-up on 2 and 3, since I don't know how much the Highlands Council would skim if #2 passes and I question who would really end up benefitting from #3.)
Voting, especially on the national level IMO, will make no difference except to reassure the real powers-that-be that the 'Mericans are still sufficiently distracted to get back to their productive...or non-productive (but we need to keep the productives pissed)...slavery.
Here's a pretty insightful video, supposedly from some TV series, that outlines some of my feelings on the matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMqcLUqYqrs
Actually, Jeff Daniels (the pariah in the video) also starred in "Escanaba in Da' Moonlight."
That movie matters more to me than voting in this election.
So do a whole bunch of other things.....
Cho has just recently moved to Bergen County to run for this spot. Due to redistricting this is possible. Liberals will still lose!
Tiger townie @LG - thanks for the link you posted above, it validated my decision on who I'm voting for and by doing so to vote AGAINST the other!
The Demo's redistricting was the last time Garrett ran and he still won. There savior refused to run and that screwed them up.The amazing thing to me is the Bergen Record said vote no on question #2. Probably the only paper in the state to do so.
USAFirst - my dad used to say the same thing! They were both right. When I was in college I was a total liberal democrat and marched on campus for women's rights and abortion, etc. Then, I grew up, had my first ultra-sound when I was pregnant with my first child and my husband lost his job and started a business. Slowly, we both got more and more conservative, eventually changed parties and now we are right of the republicans.
My neighbor says democrats are just selfish people who want the government to do everything for them, give them everything free and take care of them cradle to grave and republicans are the independent, driven types who feel you should work hard and take care of yourself and your own family. Democrats say that's mean and selfish...not to me.
Heidi Just watched the Jeff Daniels clip jjmonth. I agree with you, his statements reflect my views as well.
What show is that from?
Justintime "I'm not talking about "law"... I'm talking about people who are too cowardly to admit their political positions.... which of course begs the question, if they don't want anyone to know what their political beliefs are.... why? "
The same reason they don't want you to know their religious positions or their sexual positions... because frankly, it's none of your damn business.
Really? Is this what it's come to... people who have neither the time nor the inclination to debate politics with you are "cowards"? I would use a different term... "sensible" comes to mind.
Well, with regards to electing someone to office, it most certainly IS my damn business, since their political beliefs ARE their "resume".
Right on Iman; last time I checked, there was a curtain around the polling booth.......
And to "My neighbor says democrats are just selfish people who want the government to do everything for them, give them everything free and take care of them cradle to grave and republicans are the independent, driven types who feel you should work hard and take care of yourself and your own family. Democrats say that's mean and selfish...not to me."
Oh, I feel so unclean.......
Heidi, when you get your Social Security or Medicare check, thank a Democrat; if you don't thank a Republican......... When you vote, thank a Democrat, when you couldn't, thank a Republican. If you believe in Civil Rights, thank a Democrat.....
Ah, I feel cleaner now.
the civil rights act was championed by congressional republicans who had to work against an entrenched democratic house who were adamantly against it. the Democrats didn't want it passed. it was because of the republicans that the civil rights act was passed into law.
i just love the revisionist history that paints all republicans as evil,
it was a republican president who issued the emancipation proclamation that freed the slaves during the civil war, a republican did that.
"the civil rights act was championed by congressional republicans who had to work against an entrenched democratic house who were adamantly against it. the Democrats didn't want it passed. it was because of the republicans that the civil rights act was passed into law.." vs. "If you believe in Civil Rights, thank a Democrat....."
You're both spinning this so much it's dizzying. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally proposed by Kennedy and was passed during the Johnson administration. It required the support of BOTH parties to pass. It did have significant Republican support - and in fact overall Republican support on some of the votes was somewhat better than the Democratic support.
BUT the vote breakdowns on the various votes show much more of a north/south divide than a Democrat/Republican divide. (South in this case means state that had been part of the Confederacy). Northern Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported it whereas southern Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly were against it.
Heh, heh. Dogster, I did not list Republican accomplishments of which I am sure there are a few. However, as the plaque says....... But if you think Democratic accomplishment "paints all republicans as evil," I think you have put your finger on your own problem.
(from wiki, speeches, news clippings, etc.)
As to Civil Rights and Republicans: The Civil Rights Bill was called for by JFK in his 1963 civil rights speech, it was his bill. Before the speech he briefed Republican Senate Leaders, the Republicans who indeed did agree except for "provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations." That would be going to far.......
It went, as JFK wanted it, to the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee where it was strengthened. Then to Democratic-led Rules Committee where the Virginia Congressman segregationist leader did indeed say he would tie it up forever.
JFK assassinated, the master manipulator of the Congress, now President Johnson took up the charge preaching to a joint session of Congress " "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long." Mr. Smith finally relented.
Democrat Mike Mansfield then did an end run around Mississippi Democrat segregationist leader of Senate Judiciary and sent the bill for debate in the Senate. Southern Democrats, plus a lone Republican, filibustered for close to two months, two Democrats and two Republicans drafted weaker compromise bill, and Humphrey pushed the vote to end the filibuster.
The bill passed 73-27. Somehow, I do not see Republican champions, I see JFK and LBJ as the real champions with a nice team mix after that but Democrats carrying the big sticks. Seems fair considering Southern Democrats were the worst players in the Congress on this.
So, when you pull apart the vote, yes, the Republicans were more for it than the Democrats. That's where your revisionist history forgets the champions and claims credit for the whole thing even though they didn't write it, they didn't amend it, they did help water it down, and they did vote for the final version. Great partners, yes, champions, almost.
When you go inside the vote, you can see it was a North, South thing and the Republicans basically did not exist sout of da Mason Dixon. So Southern Democrat were about 95% against, Southern Republicans, 100% against.... Northern Democrats about 95% for, Northern Republicans, uh oh, 85% for.
Good try to carpetbag the Civil Rights Bill as a Republican Strategy. There were notable Republicans, a number of them, that voice support, and yes they were champions. But Republicans did not champion the bill.
PS: It's a plaque from Northeastern Illinois University that they say means he was a democrat; not the party, but the concept. They get a lot of guff.
Small additional point:
Democrats of that day were NOT like today's democrats. By comparison, they were democrats in name only, in many ways.
There are republicans I will NOT vote for, and "blue dog" democrats I WOULD vote for. I would have voted for JFK.
Does anyone have any information on any of the local Hackettstown and Warren candidates?
thanks RAD for confirming that overwhelming republican support enabled the civil rights act to pass even in the face of fierce democrat party opposition.
good
and it was a republican president who freed the slaves. that's also good,
at the end of the day both parties in their current form leave a lot to be desired,
so please take the time and go out and vote tomorrow, i'm recommending strongly to vote 'NO' on all three public questions this time around,
It was overwhelming "liberal" support that enabled the Civil Rights Act to pass and a "progressive" president who freed the slaves. Yet, now you throw these terms around with more than a little distaste.
You really shouldn't get hung up on the names of the parties, when comparing different historical eras... like the earth's polarity, they are subject to periodic swings. The old-time "Southern Democrats" who worked so hard to keep segregation intact are now the Republican base in the deep south.
When I was kid, I remember hearing how all of those countries that were part of the Red Menace held their elections. There was a ballot with different names on them, but they all belonged to the same select group of people who ran things.
We "Mericans knew it was all a sham, since voting for any of them would keep the Menace in power and the Red Stain would continue to oppress their people and try to take over the world!
Thank god we Americans have a choice!....well, only two choices....and they all sort of end up doing what they promised us they wouldn't do....and both sides can't seem to stop increasing the amount of money and freedom they take away from us....and the sometimes they'll covertly pass the Baton of Power to the other choice, knowing full well they will always get it back ....and they still keep most of you fighting amongst yourselves and clamoring for a different color of the same flavor Jell-O.
So we have a bi-partisan "soft" totalitarian government with much better marketing than the commies ever had.
And many of you fight each other and keep them in power, just like they want you to.
You are so right jjmonth4. I seldom win and I never miss voting. Three out of ten trying to going to the Washington jobs that are Carpet baggers and all spending lots of money for a cheep paying job. I am going with Joe Baratelli and Scott Garrett because I believe in their politics. I am going with Yes, No, Yes with the questions because i believe in my choices being best for the state after studying them. There is only a chance of one of my choices winning but I can hold my head high when I leave the booth.
I really hope Cho wins tomorrow. Garrett is for the corporations and the 1% ers, Unless you are in that group, I don't see why anyone would vote for Garrett. We need to get rid of Garrett.
Tony from Franklin I hope Garrett wins, I have no idea what Cho is "for", but Garrett protects the 2nd Amendment, and that's good enough for me... having to choose from the lessor of 2 evils. (and by "evil", I mean "politician". lol)
Listen to the debate someone listed the link for above. It is not hard to see how Garrett's hard line stance about taxes, i sclearly aimed at the 1% ers IMO, he may claim to care about us. Really he concerned about the raising of taxes on corporations and the 1%. In that debate Garrett mentions how his constiuents cannot pay for groceries, yet the GOP was the one who cut aid for food stamps. My wife and I both work.And receive no assistance at all, but if people need it, I support it. But Garrett voted against, police, Transportation, the NJEA and NEA both give Garrett an F grade on public education. There is nothing to me, that says Garrett gives a hoot about us. He is for the Corporate hard line Republican Tea Party agenda IMO. And they only really care about corporations, big oil denying climate change, and taxes on the 1/% and the rich. Cannot forget the military.
Like I said, unless you care a big CEO of a corporation or super rich. I don't think Garrett has our best interest at heart, and Cho looks he deserves a shot, he sure as heck cannot be any worse IMO.
Once again, "I'm not Garrett" isn't a good enough reason. If someone "deserves a shot", I'm going to need a reason other than "I'm not like the other guy." Not NEAR good enough.
Unless your goal was to sway people emotionally Tony, you might want to check a few of those "facts".
disclaimer: I'm not a Republicrat, so I couldn't care less who wins. There's zero difference between the two parties - both will pillage while they're in power, and in the end we'll all lose.
"There is nothing to me, that says Garrett gives a hoot about us."
Well, he certainly "gives a hoot" about constitutional rights, but maybe you don't care about those? Or maybe you care about only SOME of them? Just because you're (obviously) not a gun owner, doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment doesn't affect you, but perhaps you aren't yet politically savvy enough to grasp that.
Hey- whatever- vote for Cho. We'll talk again wed morning...
Let's pick an issue - I'm a gun owner and Life Member of the NRA (got that membership when it was on "sale" years ago) and I really don't want anyone making up more stupid rules. The NRA tells me my choice in my PA state district is Mario Scavello.
I ain't voting for him. I'm also not giving the NRA any more money for their Institute for Legislative Action (gave that up years ago after the BS registered letter I wasted time going to the post office to pick up.)
Mario, a Republican, is still for a whole bunch of sh*t I don't like....including "eliminating" the school property tax to help us taxpayers. Problem with even THAT one issue is the increase in the state personal income tax, increasing the sales tax to 7% and taxing lots more stuff, including food.
Local school taxes could still be levied to fund debt service.
Great job, Republicans! Democrats would protect an equally money-sucking status-quo.
The NRA is the most effective voice gun owners have in Washington. Why? Money, money, money and a bunch of voting minions. Trouble is, aside from considerable administrative and fundraising costs, most of the money goes to their congressional "friends" who in turn pay much of it into their Party Overlords in the form of "dues." These Overlords (R's and D's) continue to stir the pot by having one of their sides or the other do even more sh*t you don't like....and you who don't like it pay the side that, this time around, says they don't like it either.
Our system has been contaminated beyond repair by this all-to-common ...and historically recurring, theme.
I am sick to death of this garbage and refuse to participate in it any further.
As for you partisans, I find your that your arguments for one candidate or another indicate that the machine is still doing it's job and you're probably forming most of your opinions based on information garnered from the mass media.
Partisanship is for Dummies, IMO.
So, a pox on them all.
jj,
I actually agree on MOST points....
BUT... what's left to do? NOT vote? IF I'm going to vote, I have to figure out who will do the least damage. Of course I could not vote, and believe me- I have thought about it for awhile now, especially with all the voter fraud in recent years, it has me questioning whether the vote even MATTERS anymore- but again, if I don't vote, I feel like I can't bitch. Unless you've turned the corner to revolutionary, then that's a whole 'nuther story....
You voting tomorrow?
[for the record, I gave up partisanship years ago- I no longer consider myself a Republican {big R}.... my user name, JeffesonRepub, is short for Jeffersonian Republican, which in almost no way resembles the republican party today.]
By the same reasoning that you can't vote for someone who supports all the Constitution except for one part, how can you vote for someone who only supports one part? Worse than that, Garrett's used the Finance Committee to architect a PAC loophole around funding limits to get big hedge fund contributors. Then he's used the Finance Committee to give perks to the hedge funds. That's the banking collapse all over again. Others are trying to prevent collapse, Garrett is orchestrating it. And don't even get me started on the cultural elitism.
Cho's ad's do seem very "I'm not him", and being new to the area doesn't bother me as much as voting in the wrong place. You can find info if you want it, there's always candidates web sites in addition to the link to the candidate interviews so anything to the contrary is an excuse. But I don't blame anyone for not voting for him. A weak candidate with strikes against him. We need better than that.
What a bad set of choices.
jjmonth4 - I'm well familiar with Super Mario. My classmate gave him hell trying to clean up the County Commissioners. Mario repaid him by endorsing a Democrat for State Rep, but that wasn't such a good move.
Again, BDog, it was not exactly overwhelming, it was less that 85% yea by Congressional Republicans in both the house and senate. And the handful of Southern Republicans voted 100% against. Northern Democrats voted over 95% yes, 98% in the senate.
The "fierce" Democratic opposition came entirely from the South, was defeated both numerically and procedurally by Northern Dems and Republicans alike.
So great team support by the Republicans, but champions --- no, overwhelming ----- only if 85% yes is overwhelming. Otherwise it's spin. Especially since the bill itself was championed by JFK and LBJ, can you say liberal?
it's confirmed that the republicans got the civil rights act passed, good, history shows this to be true
it was the republicans who got it passed, (85% vote is overwhelming support) in the face of democratic opposition,
because it was the right thing to do
and it was a republican president who freed the slaves, another good thing to do, the emancipation proclamation was a truly progressive (thanks ian, you be right about this) forward step for the republican administration to take, and it was met with opposition from the other side
now, cho is a chump imo, garret while flawed as a human being and as a candidate will represent better than cho could ever hope to do.
vote garret today,
"By the same reasoning that you can't vote for someone who supports all the Constitution except for one part, how can you vote for someone who only supports one part?"
Because for me, that "one part" is the priority above all others. Without that part, the rest of it crumbles, in the end. (and yes, I know we probably disagree on that, but we're not debating that- we're discussing "how can you vote for someone...")
So all some scumbag politician has to do is pay a little lip service to the 2nd Amendment and he's got you wrapped around his little finger? What is it you like to say about "useful idiots"?
wow, ia.... you are less astute than I realized. Shame.
And besides, it's not "lip service" if the elected official does what he says he's going to do. And on 2A, Garrett has. Wow... imagine that... a politician actually keeping his promise....
Better the scumbag politician that pays lip service to the 2nd Amendment than the scumbag politician that actively tries to destroy it.
At least Garrett says "I support the 2nd Amendment." not "I support the 2nd Amendment, BUT..." like other politicians do. Of course the "BUT" is followed by a whole host of infringements that have nothing to do with supporting it.
Mark Mc. Sure, he's actually voted for the 2nd Amendment. He's also the biggest shill Wall Street banksters have in their pocket and is actively working toward bankrupting the middle class, one shady pro-bankster bill at a time.
I'm pretty sure their final solution is to get us to a point where we can't afford to pay for guns or ammunition any more, thus rendering the 2nd Amendment moot.
"thus rendering the 2nd Amendment moot"
....which is why all the hoarding in recent decades. Gun and ammo sales have skyrocketed in recent years, and not just since Newtown.... why do you think that is?
I think Garrett was actually there for the first signing of the bill of rights......
And calling him a banker's tool is just not fair.
He's a banker's tool as well as a useful idiot for the securities and investment community too. Not to mention the Insurance industry; probably lobbied for their HUGE Obamacare win. He's financed by the Money Machine as one of the most entrenched members of the Beltway Machine.
And all those unselfish people who hate government intrusion, don't want any helping hands for anyone and consider themselves independent, driven types who feel you should work hard and take care of yourself and your own family, just remember you voted for the guy with somebody else's hands so deep into his deep pockets that they can cinch up his socks. Independent hard working family man my petunias. He may be from NJ, but he is bought and paid for by New York and Connecticut.
Because some people are dumb enough to think that they can eat them once the banksters steal all their money and they can't afford to buy food? Or, they plan to use them to rob other people of their food?
If they were smart, they may want to try to cut off the banksters now while they still have some money of their own left instead of being their "useful idiots" chanting "from my cold, dead hands" all the way to the poverty line and below.
Everyone has their priorities. What THEY think is MOST important. When you've got jackasses, one whose in the banker's pocket but is pro-gun, and one who is (or will be) in the banker's (or someone's) pocket and I don't know what they stand for (altho, being a democrat, I will assume the democrat party platform), it's an easy choice. Still, unfortunately, the lesser of 2 evils, but if I'm going to vote at all, I have to base my decision on something.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. I'm not voting for someone because "I'm not that guy"- you'd have to be an idiot to vote for someone based on that. At least vote for him because your democratic party line voter, at least that's a reasonably valid.
Hey- if Cho were pro-gun, pro-life, wanted to cut govt spending and cut taxes, I'd vote for him, regardless of what party he was in.
" if Cho were pro-gun, pro-life, wanted to cut govt spending and cut taxes, I'd vote for him, regardless of what party he was in."
I still wouldn't. One "pro" vote, even on the topics important to you, would have absolutely zero impact on the overall success of the party agenda. They'll be told to "get in line" by the higher-ups or risk losing some sort of funding/support for future elections.
The Democrats have a platform that includes civilian disarmament. I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't have a majority in the House/Senate even if that means NOT voting for someone who is otherwise on my "side".
Plus, I've already voted today, so my duty is complete.
very sad to see how few options we had on the ballot. Only 1 person running for Mayor, Only the same 2 running for town council. Only 3 for BOE with 3 open spots. It's hard to get excited about local politics when there are no choices. Think i might want to run in the future. Look for vote Darwin signs on your lawns in 2015/16
darwin darwin - That's the answer to the question of what to do. I know I could never have the time to hold an office, but if you can then in local politics it only takes a few people to make it happen. Either a dozen people to get into the local party to change the platform or get enough strength to go independent. So many people are looking for the non-existent alternatives. School Boards are even non-partisan to get over the extreme bias. Only problem is after you get the job you may find you don't really want it. It only takes 100 signatures outside Shoprite to get on a ballot. Too many unopposed offices.
Mark,
While you know I agree with you, regarding the civilian disarmament, I don't see the GOP doing much defending that one.... they are driving us towards the same cliff, just at a slower speed than the dems.
If a democrat will fold in 30 seconds, a republican will fold in 2 minutes- but they'll still fold. MY GOP is gone, and I have a feeling it won't be reclaimed by conservatism, unfortunately. May be the making of a 3rd real party. Time will tell.
I'm much more concerned with those 3 public questions this time around.
And also, I've often said: if you already know you can't trust a politician, either because they are lying (now) or because they will not keep their promise/turn their back on what they ran on.... where does that leave us? Why bother voting? If they're just going to do what they damn well please anyway..... in the meantime, if you plan to keep voting, you have to use SOMETHING as the yardstick to measure a candidate by, and a large portion of that yardstick, especially for a new/unknown candidate, is what they say. I don't see any way of getting around that. The best you can hope for is "fool me one, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
TERM LIMITS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICES!!!!
I agree... term limits and two-round (i.e. runoff) elections would be a big step in the right direction.
So the issue got changed to guns from my comments RJ? How about Public schools, women's rights, climate change, corporate taxes, etc... You are stuck on guns. Garrett has been part of the least productive most dysfunctional congress we have ever had. But because he supports guns, you think he is the lessor of two evils. Insanity = doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result Albert Einstein. So electing Garrett back to congress, you are basically saying, Go be dysfunctional and do nothing for another 2 years. God bless you party line republicans. And no JR I do not own a gun, I don't hunt and have no need for a gun to protect myself or my family. But you can live in fear that the dems just want to take your guns away.
I'm not "stuck" on anything. But when there are 2 people running, and I disagree with one guy 90% of the time, and disagree with the other guy 100% of the time, who do you think I'm going to vote for? This isn't rocket science.
And yes- a politician who does nothing for 2 years IS better than a politician who does the WRONG THINGS for 2 years.
"But you can live in fear that the dems just want to take your guns away."
You DO know that they actually DID THAT recently in NY state, right?
"You DO know that they actually DID THAT recently in NY state, right?"
...and Connecticut, and California, and attempted to in New Jersey (and will try again)...
Lol. Funny stuff JR. You still don't address any issues I mention. Just your fear of losing your guns. So you are also against transportation, public schools, seniors, veterans, women's rights, big oil further denial on climate change. I am assuming you disagree with Cho 100%. So if you are against all of these things. I hope you do not have kids. Or I just don't understand what makes you guys tick, really. I consider myself a conservative, but the problem is I include the Earth unlike the Tea party and their big oil backing. Many things I don't agree with Obama on also, But if we let the GOP Tea party take control of the country, we are screwed IMO. Anyone remember where we where headed at the end of W.'s term. gas prices went from $1.60 to $4.40 under W., The stock market almost collapsed. Obama was thrown under a bus when he came into office. Under Clinton we had a economic surplus, W. Bush took care of that with an un-funded war on Iraq. Gave us the Halliburton loophole in 2005. Drove the national debt crazy. Under Obama the debt is at least being addressed under Obama, stock market up to 17,000, But you Repubs seem to suffer from short term memory loss or something.
I don't know if I agree or disagree with Cho, since I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GUY IS ABOUT, other than he wants to make sure we understand he is not Garrett LOL. Again- not good enough.
I didn't address your concerns, simply because I don't care to. You have no idea how I feel about the issues other than the 2nd Amendment and unborn babies' rights (see what I did there?)
You voted. I voted. We'll find out the results.
BTW- I'm not a Republican (big R)... I'm a conservative Jeffersonian republican (little r)
But if we let the GOP Tea party take control of the country, we are screwed IMO
But if the Tea Party took us back to a Constitutional government that would be my only hope for FREEDOM. IMO
Well, I "bit the bullet" and voted.
I can state, with almost absolute certainty, that none of my choices will win.
I will very likely NOT become the Governor of Pennsylvania or the PA state senator for District 40.
Tater the Kitten will very likely not make it to Congress this year, even though he has nice hair.
Joe Emerick is safe because, though I didn't vote for him, I didn't write my name in either. I already had enough on my plate....
Don't worry too much about me.....but keep an eye on Tater.
Cute kitties can be great teaching tools.
Another election to write in names, and it's a shame there is no opposition locally to vote for.
Denis oh, auntiel, haven't you SEEN THE VIDEO?!?!?!?!?!
warning: foul language spoken by little children:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1AdfW8jeUg
Not a fan of Cho, but the important thing is to vote, hopefully everyone on this site of age did just that...
iJay What's wrong with "people's rights" auntiel? Are women more deserving of "rights" than men, children, grandparents or nieces?
I know what your point is, of course. What if someone believes we all have equal rights, every *single* person (which is always the crux of the problem).
Here's a pic of Tater after I told him that I wrote him in for Congress. This is his "really, Jim?" expression.
There really isn't a point here, except that I think that even the attempt to elect a cute kitten to Congress would shed a lot of light on the way things "really" operate within the Beltway.
But many of you fight amongst yourselves and stay divided, just like they want you to.
jj,
I agree with you the 2-party system has become a weapon.... good cop vs bad cop. But writing in "clever" votes for your kitten certainly doesn't make you superior, or smarter, or oh-so-over-it any more than the rest of us.
You know, alot of people have fought and died so that you continue to have that right to vote. Perhaps consider not squandering it next time?
Jeff, you've pretty much admitted that you're one of the most cheaply bought suckers of the electorate. You're really in no position to lecture to anyone. If Scott Garrett told you that he was going to vote for your gun rights but sodomize your daughter, you've pretty much admitted that you'd leave the door unlocked for him.
A lot of people have fought and died for this country, JR. Some fought...and still fight...for a lot of made-up reasons to further political ends.
So many come back broken, or to broken families....or don't come back. Many who do are not well taken care of (someone please tell me what a great job the VA is doing.)
Voting for a kitten did not "squander my vote." My vote was squandered long before this election by a system so riddled with corruption and manipulation of a willing, ignorant voting constituency.
I am not superior, smarter....or anything...relative to the majority of posters on this board. In fact, there's a hell of a lot I need to learn more about.
I am just frustrated as hell the people can be "played like fiddles" by the power elite.
So, you're saying that facilitating the use of this "weapon" is MY obligation?
This means I am "obligated" to vote for one of the candidates chosen for me by those in power...even though I believe they will further erode my liberties?
And you base this on the fact that "people have fought and died" for this right??
Bullsh*t! As just one small example, I am still wondering why all those fine Americans were sent to fight and die in Vietnam....or to come back broken and wounded for life
I believe the 'Mericans of that era were proud not to "squander their vote" so as to elect the fools, con-men and evil geniuses who sent them there and escalated that war on false pretenses. Just one example ;-). One.
Ugggggh!
Jeff is a big proponent of the us versus them Republicrat duopoly. He has previously berated people for voting third party as wasting their votes... as if his delusional tunnel vision approach to voting is somehow superior.
See yah - Cho!
Now you can go back to South Jersey or NYC or whatever Socialist den you crawled out from.
RU jjmonth4, I think I understand where you are coming from but that doesn't help the situation. I am a political looser but not a QUITTER. All my children and nieces and nephews were born in NJ but NONE of them live here. If you give up on a national level,.perhaps you should look outside our borders for a more acceptable lifestyle.
Just because a piece of paper says people have rights, does not mean they don't get violated all the time.
And once again we've proven the point that despite terrible popular opinion of our elected officials, we continue to re-elect the same career incumbents again and again and again and again.....
eperot once agin, ia, your lack of understanding, of being able to "keep up", boggles the mind.
Your shallow rants are becoming not worthy of reply.
So, the GOP now has the senate. I don't expect much to come of it, the incestual relationship between the parties, essentially the "DC Party", will continue to give us more of the status quo BS.
I was glad to see the gerrymandering of our district did not effect the vote outcome, and we remain the conservative stronghold of the state.
Your are right JR. It's just the other party pulling the purse strings to feed the 47%
"What RIGHT does a woman NOT have???"
Apparently a woman does not have the right for equal pay for equal work; there's one.
Actually JR, the GOP has the Senate, and the House, but the Tea Party lost just like the Dems. GOPers opted to dump most of these schmucks during the primaries so now it will be interesting to see if they pass legislation that can become law or just roll out the same losing propositions of neocon boots on the ground, flat tax, constitutional balanced budget, and privatized social security with a heavy dose of repeal ObamaCare.
Meanwhile, the Dems decided to trot out the same ole unimaginative war horse ideas and policies with a twist of "I don't agree with Obama" and a dash of "ObamaCare what?" Somehow being two-faced with tired ideas and a lack a principles did not do it for them.
Bottom line: apparently the Republicans made "do nothing" work for them, now, unless they change their tune, it's the Dems turn.
Time will tell.
Old Gent, you say you "usually feel disgusted" when you are in the voting booth and that you are a "political loser" (and something about your nieces and nephews not living in NJ - I don't really know the context there)....but you're not a "quitter."
So, I assume you endorsed one of the "choices" chosen for you, like a good compliant citizen, even though most of them probably disgusted you.
In my opinion, voters smart enough to know that their choices all suck, yet vote for one of them anyway, are reverting to the logic used by the fly who keeps smashing itself into the window trying to get outside.
Your suggestion that I should leave my country because I refuse to endorse some hopelessly broken people tells me that I may not have conveyed what I was really trying to accomplish.
Endorsing a kitten for Congress is merely my version of a "modest proposal."
"Bottom line: apparently the Republicans made "do nothing" work for them, now, unless they change their tune, it's the Dems turn."
If history shows us anything, that will be correct.
jjmonth - voting for your kitty is not a wasted vote, an intentional under vote or alternate party candidate vote sends a message to those who pay attention to such things as election results
in your case the kitty write in tells those who win and those who lose that somehow they missed getting your vote, (now for one lonely kitty vote they most likely wont pay that much attention , it's true) but with a grass roots write in campaign, if your little kitty got several hundred or maybe even several thousand votes, then the message gets a little bit louder, and with time it starts to resonate
for what it's worth i agree with you, JR and Ianimal, the two party system leaves a lot to be desired, but i give you full props for getting in your car, going down to your polling place and casting your ballot your own way.
and i thank you for that, i had urged you to get in that batters box and take your swings, and you did it, good,
please stay involved in the future, it's the right thing to do
Its not because you refuse to endorse someone. It's because you are giving up. There are many ways to vote with out endorsing major parties. How else do you change direction. I only see things improving when we have a third party, and that will only come about by supporting off beat candidates and encouraging them. Let them know they are not alone.
Old Gent, agree 100%. There was a time when I thought voting 3rd party was squandering a vote, BUT NOW, since I see neither party is willing to work with independents, I see no other way to get a 3rd party started and viable. It would take years, but if not now, when? It's sort of like the lottery- if you don't play, you can't win.
JR, I thought about you today! They were talking about belief superiority on the radio this morning and you instantly popped into my head.
MB Isn't that what a belief is? Why would you believe in something you thought WASN'T "correct", "right", or "true"? That would just make you parrot, or a non-thinker.
Or an idiot.
Because a "belief" is just an "opinion" and there is no such thing as "right", "correct" or "true" when it comes to an opinion... only "consensus". The fact that you don't seem to understand that makes you a non-thinker.
Or an idiot. Albeit a "useful" one... the banksters thank you.
ia,
So that means, you believe that all of your "opinions" are WRONG, right? I mean, after all- they are your "opinions", so I guess you certainly don't hold them because you think they are "correct".
Well said, ianimal.
You're getting really nasty lately, JR. You need a vacation. At least from HL ;)
Well, MB, since that is "just your opinion", it apparently means nothing. ;)
All I'm saying is women's rights issue is a laughable joke. Been down that road for that past 40 yrs. Since the creation of civil rights, feminism and women being very well educated any person that still believes women are not equal is silly. The women in my family have always made the same pay as the man or men sitting next to them at the office, in the plant, driving a dump truck, or serving in the armed service, etc. Democrats have been using that scare tactic issue for years, it's not working anymore. Women are to smart for that. There are more women in college than men and more women in the work force. Todays women really do have to bring home the bacon. The rights women in America trumps the rights of men. I do believe in equal rights for all Americans no matter what. We don't wear Burkas and we are the strongest women on planet earth. Just ask a mother of three who works.
I think your both missing the point about "belief superiority". It's not about belief per se, but the "superiority" part translates into an unwillingness to respect anyone else and complete legislative grid lock. It's the playground kid whose mom tells the kid he has to share. So he smashes his own toy to bits and hands it to the other kids and says "at least if I can't play with it you can't either".
eperot - Don't count on it. Remember we're a small portion of people here, and even then look how many hem and haw agreeing with how terrible but then when pressed actually show they're in complete agreement.
PS. I like Tater. I have complete confidence in Tater's ability to work both sides of the aisle. Good choice. At least my two think so...
Who said opinions mean nothing? You really know how to spin things. You should run for office! But after your vacation. I can't imagine how nuts you would get if you actually had a horse in the race.
Oh, I totally understand it, GC. And this forum gives real life examples every single day. To be fair, MG represents the left in belief superiority (I think, I rarely read a whole post of his).
No vaca for me, MB. altho the election is over, and I'm glad the lessor of 2 evils won the senate race, we now have to brace ourselves for the "2-year presidential campaign." LOL
The only thing worse than Halloween starting in september, and Christmas starting before Halloween even gets here, is a 2-year presidential campaign. Ugh.
auntiel, with all due respect, I would ask you to read the following and then tell me women are treated equally:
Of 100 US Senators, 20 are female.
There are 6 female governors.
In the House, there are 362 men, and 76 women.
Nationally, full time employed women are paid 77 cents to every $1.00 full time employed men are paid.
The Republican party platform is pro-life...meaning they wish to overturn Roe vs Wade, which gives a woman the choice to decide . I think Germaine Greer said it best " If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".
In the US, I of every 6 women has been a victim of an attempted or completed rape. 1 of every 33 men have been victims of an attempted or completed rape.
Far from a comprehensive list, and a topic for a different thread, but your comments compelled me to reply. Still laughable?
There is now is going to be 100 women in congress auntiel. I think they can handle themselves.
Actually, JR, I'm pretty self-actualized insofar as I am able to distinguish my opinions from facts and reality. I've also been able to come to the realization that arguing my opinions with the same person or people over and over is a complete waste of my time.
But, as far as "wrong" or "right" relates to opinions, I have to point out that "consensus" has eventually determined social conservative opinion to be "wrong" on every social issue that has ever arisen (that I can think of). And just as you wouldn't think to advocate the reinstitution of slavery or stripping women of the right to vote today, people 100 years from now won't think twice about gay people being able to marry each other.
You'd be surprised to learn I am not a social conservative, with one "exception": I am anti-abortion, because I am anti-murder. Other than that, I couldn't care less what people do in the social political sphere.
Well said, IA. That's why I so rarely come on here anymore. My blood pressure stays much lower.
here are the results for Warren County:
if you scrolled down to Hackettstown it looks like quiet a few creative write in votes. And a ton of people that intentionally undervoted
http://www.co.warren.nj.us/Elections/Current%20Election%20Results/vote.pdf
You're right, I would be surprised... I seem to remember you being adamantly opposed to gay people being able to use the word "marriage", but I must be thinking of someone else.
They can use any word they want- but it won't be marriage, regardless of what the government legislation says. I believe in 100% equal rights for homosexual civil unions, and legislation to that end, if required.
I do NOT believe religious institutions that do not believe in homosexuality should be forced by law to marry homosexuals. "Separation of church and state" and all that....
Altho, that begs the questions... why not polygamy? Who are YOU to say I can't have multiple wives? Or a wife can't have multiple husbands? If it's ok with them, it should ok with us. After all, they aren't hurting anybody.
"To be fair, MG represents the left in belief superiority (I think, I rarely read a whole post of his)." Well, wouldn't want to read before I opined.......
Fact is sure, socially I am to the left, but economically, not so much. It's just that most of you are so far right almost everything looks left to you. Hey, I voted no on proposition 2, what do you want........
AuntieL, you are using your personal experience to generalize for an entire class as if you are average. Are you average? So, sure, you have equal pay to men, congrats. It's just that your work/pay experience is atypical; the facts say so and the facts say women are not paid equally to men. We too have the same picture in our house, the women have done equally to the men, educationally and economically. But that does not change the statistical averages, it just says your gifted, lucky, or both. You can assume that the facts are wrong, lies or made up, but I guess we could do that same with your story too.
Now the Dem's "war for women" was indeed a silly play. Does not change the fact about unequal pay, on average independent of your personal experience.
"Hey, I voted no on proposition 2, what do you want........"
Thank you, sir. For all the good it did.
More about the "war on women":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNV3FbottE
JR, I'm a married man and my marriage has nothing to do with any religious institution. I'm married to my wife, not to any God or government.
But, I agree that churches shouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies in contradiction of their tenets and dogma. I don't think anyone is advocating for that (well, I'm sure SOMEONE is, but they're certainly in the minority and won't ever reach a consensus for that outlook).
As far as polygamy goes, I'm all for allowing them to all be married. Sure beats the way it's set up now, where a guy is only legally married to one wife, which leaves the "sister wives" to be supported by the tax payers, since he has no legal obligation to any of them. But social change comes slow and we are obviously not to that point yet.
"But, I agree that churches shouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies in contradiction of their tenets and dogma. I don't think anyone is advocating for that "
Where there's a will, there's a way...this is merely the opening salvo on this issue, there will be MANY more, all across the country, as "same-sex marriage" becomes increasingly legalized.
NJ:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on/
No one was requiring the Church to perform any ceremony in that case. The Church has a pavilion that they rent out to the public; they can't pick and choose who they rent to based on discriminatory reasons. That's not the same thing; not even close.
It's kind of like if a Church holds a spaghetti dinner and says No Gays Allowed. That won't fly either.
Jesus welcomed all comers with open arms, today's christians should do the same thing
btw, in many islamic societies gays are put to death by stoning, i guess they have a real problem with it
JJ I'm with you 100%. Writing in names, or occasionally voting for 3rd party candidates is something that I seem do be doing more of each year. I appreciate that I have the right to vote, but many times I find myself disgusted by being forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils, or voting for someone who faces no opposition. As a former republican, now independent, I am disgusted with how partisan everything has become. There has always been partisanship, but never to this degree. Both parties are guilty of putting their political machine interests ahead of what's best for the country. That's why nothing gets done.
The actual event happened 7 years ago. If that was just the beginning, we would be well beyond it by now, no? Gays would be swinging from the chandeliers in St Patrick's Cathedral, doing gay stuff while the Pope was being whipped and forced to officiate their marriages while wearing studded leather.
You're also starting to sound more and more socially conservative (-;
And you can officially mark your calendars folks, Fonzie has jumped the shark.
Not just bait and switch the topic, or "I don't mind sheeple, I just want to be the shepherd", but the "slippery slope" that we can't do anything because we might eventually do everything defense. The election is cooked. Overdone, overemphasized, and just plain over.
ia,
No- because gay marriage LAWS are just now being passed. Give it time, as you said above-"social change comes slow and we are obviously not to that point yet."
...but with these laws coming into effect, we will be coming to that point, relatively soon in those areas where the laws have been passed. We'll come back and visit this again in a few years.
yeah, I'm sure the slippery slope of ever-increasing govt laws hasn't hurt anyone, especially in recent times....
This discussion just keeps morphing, like many have on this board.
GC is right. This election is over.
Hey, does anyone know when the next HHS chorus concert is? My daughter was in it from freshman through junior year, and I enjoyed them immensely....even last year when she wasn't participating. These concerts are some of the best free entertainment you will find in H'town. Last year's play (All Shook Up) was leagues ahead of other HS plays that I have seen, too.
ian, certainly not common but I recalled seeing this a couple weeks ago:
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364
If Obama illegally signs an Executive Order to legalize 9 to 16 million illegal aliens before Christmas.
After the American people spoke last night by rejecting his policies - there will be absolute holy hell to pay & would suspect this country would be in a near civil war scenario.
I dunno maybe that's what he wants?
I write in people's names in when I don't want to vote for the people on the ballet. Like those running in town. All council members, mayor and school board are going unopposed. That is crazy.
CJ. yes, the election is over and it was a good night for the 2nd amendment; quoted from breitbart :
the Second Amendment annihilated the left's relentless claim that 90 percent of Americans support more gun control.
On the gubernatorial level, in Arizona, pro-Second Amendment candidate Doug Ducey (R) beat gun control candidate Fred DuVaul (D). And in Florida, pro-Second Amendment incumbent Rick Scott (R) beat gun control candidate Charlie Crist. These victories were enhanced by the fact that Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly endorsed DuVal and Giffords' gun control PAC gave $100,000 to Crist's campaign.
The Second Amendment trumped their endorsement and their money.
In Texas, NRA-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott (R) won. In Maryland, NRA-endorsed gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan (R) won. In Alabama, NRA-endorsed Governor Robert J. Bentley (R) won. In Wisconsin, NRA-endorsed Governor Scott Walker (R) won. In Michigan, NRA-endorsed Governor Rick Snyder (R) won. In Nevada, NRA-endorsed Governor Brian Sandoval (R) won. In Ohio, NRA-endorsed Governor John R. Kasich (R) won. In Oklahoma, NRA-endorsed Governor Mary Fallin (R) won. In Wyoming, NRA-endorsed Governor Matt Mead (R) won. In Idaho, NRA-endorsed Governor Bruce Otter (R) won. In Kansas, NRA-endorsed Governor Sam Brownback (R) won. And in Maine, NRA-endorsed Governor Paul R. LePage (R) won against gun control candidate Michael Michaud (D). (On August 8, Breitbart News reported that Michaud was supported by Gabby Giffords.)
In Senate races, gun control Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) was defeated by NRA-endorsed Cory Gardner (R) and gun control Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) was defeated by NRA-endorsed Thom Tillis (R). In Kansas, NRA-endorsed Senator Pat Roberts (R) won. In Georgia, NRA-endorsed Senatorial candidate David Perdue (R) won. In Arkansas, NRA-endorsed Tom Cotton (R) won. And in West Virginia, NRA-endorsed Shelley Moore Capito (R) won, marking the first time that state has sent a Republican Senator to Washington DC in over five decades.
The spotlight was also on the race between NRA-endorsed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and pro-gun control challenger Alison Grimes (D). McConnell won handily.
NRA-endorsed Senatorial candidate Joni Ernst (R-IA) also won.
the Second Amendment won the day, Republicans won the Senate, and gun control took a beating.
Texas' new governor is going to try to get open carry passed. If he succeeds, it will become the guinea pig for the rest of the country, it will be interesting to watch...
JIT, that case is certainly more on point than the example that JR posted, but... and this is a very grey area, but at its core, it's a commercial enterprise and not a religious enterprise.
They strictly perform wedding ceremonies for money, which makes them a business that has to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Just as a Christian Scientist that owns a business isn't allowed to deny his employees health insurance because his religious beliefs forbid medical care.
If they are going to operate a commercial wedding chapel in a State where gay marriage is legal, they should contract with someone else to perform those ceremonies that their religious beliefs are in conflict with.
"If he succeeds, it will become the guinea pig for the rest of the country,"
Not sure why Texas would be a guinea pig... plenty of states already have open carry without any license requirements.
The hard part for Texas, despite the Governor being pro-open carry, is I've read articles stating that TX makes it very difficult to pass laws - so it might be a while before the Governor sees an open carry bill. Making laws hard to pass is a GOOD thing that NJ should adopt, because then you'll make sure the laws that DO pass are worth it and aren't some fly by night hack job like we get here.
Well, Texas already being thought of as a shoot-em up/castle doctrine state, it'll be interesting to see, if open carry gets passed, what happens to crime..... meaning, being Texas, everyone will expect it to be the "wild west", which of course isn't going to happen.
After open carry they should address the 30.06 (no guns allowed) and 51% (no guns in bars) statutes. Let private businesses post signs if they want, but drop the *criminal* firearms charges for a private property issue - most other states just consider it trespassing if you refuse to leave once asked to do so (which could be done for ANY reason - not just guns), not a felony just for being in there.
You'll never know the effect unless the NRA stops lobbying against violent death by gun statistical research so quit asking. I mean really, you just don't want to know the truth.
"You'll never know the effect..."
Well, then it's a good thing that Texas tracks crime data that the NRA doesn't object to.
Unfortunately for you, it shows that those people who possess a Texas CHL (concealed handgun license) are 8.6 times less likely to commit murder or manslaughter than those without a CHL.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/daniel-zimmerman/texas-chl-data-shows-happens-wild-west/
And, as one public comment on that page points out:
"Also impressive is looking at ALL crimes. Although CHL holders account for 1.99% of the total population of Texas, they are responsible for only 0.188% of total criminal convictions. This means that CHL holders are 10.6 times MORE law abiding than the general population."
So, carrying a gun in public is the problem? Sucks when the data disproves your fear, doesn't it?
jjmonth, if you want Tater to have a shot at the next election, you have to show the right wingers that he's a true 'Mericat...
ianimal - I wouldn't make Tater, or any animal, suffer that trauma and indignity to appeal to the America #1- foam-finger-waving crowd.
Besides, Tater would lose the support of GC's kitties, most of the other kitties and Iggles....or get a massive sympathy vote from them - if they realized what was going on. Giving him a professional sports franchise uniform to wear would accomplish much the same end, perhaps with less trauma.
On the surface, it would seem that a massive groundswell of support for a kitten in congress would "send a message" and deliver "change you can believe in."
But, if this support is based upon the same stimulus-response phenomenon that the 'Merican masses and laboratory rats share, the "message" will only be to develop a better stimulus...and they will.
Commenting is no longer available.