Actually I wouldn't tell people where I'm from anyway, for security reasons. There are too many loony left-wing nutjobs on this site, and I don't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time.

Dammit, I knew that brown acid was dodgy.

Just to reiterate this point :

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politi...sis/index.html

Democrats just went 0-4. When will they win?


I don't know about you guys, but when I keep getting my ass handed to me in something, I start maybe looking at doing something different to get a result I like.

Democrats are getting their clocks cleaned across the country. When I say everyone despises you people, and the results keep backing me up, when does a reasonable person realize that there's a possibility that they are wrong?

(removed unacceptable content -- wn)

You are getting your asses handed to you by a racist, misogynist, anti-semite, homophobic, treasonous bigot. How is this possible? Either reality is not what you think it is, or you live in a country full of hateful, awful people and you didn't know it. Which one is the most likely correct answer?

Trump! Trump! Trump!

Democrats down another $23 Million on another failed campaign. They should keep this up.

Hahaha! Snowflakes trying to use "we're rubber, you're glue...". *snicker*

Gooood, goood. Let the hate flow through you.

why do you guys keep trying to redirect the word snowflake

it must be super accurate/hurtful for you to be constantly trying to culturally appropriate this word

You appear to be unqualified to identify hate.

Actually, progressive-minded philosophers and scientists were the first to postulate and discover that human beings are each unique like snowflakes.

ye I know of Thrasymachus, Aristotle gave that snowflake the first atomic wedgie in recorded history

..who you support.

The irony, you have missed it.

Losing in a close race in that district is actually not bad for the dems, but I'm not a dem so I don't have the emotion invested that I have seen some do.

Why not? Dems not regressive enough for you?

You could maybe spin this way if Dem candidate lost by less % points than what Hillary lost by and if they did not spend all that money believing it was a winnable District but that is not the case.

If that is how you want to spin it, I can't stop you.

Two things:
- this is, and I know you know this, the first of any of the special elections that Democrats actually had a chance in (and even then it's still uphill, like 63% of this district voted for Tom Price ~7 months ago)
- if the overall record really matters that much, though, consider this post from alpha (assuming it's right, I haven't checked his work):

lol wil showboating after Republicans win in Georgia.

PS: remember that alt-right movement that was supposed to be catching fire across Europe?

Before I respond I want to point out that wil's posting is basically of the level I'd expect right before someone commits a mass shooting of some kind.

Right, it would've been a huge deal if the Democrats had won, and for precisely the same reason it is not a huge deal that the Republicans won. Basically, no one would ever have expected the Democrats to win this race before it began.

Again, this does not accurately describe reality.

Yesterday, the Democrats lost two right leaning districts by fairly low margins.

On election day 2016, the Democrat candidate won the popular vote, and Democrats gained seats in both houses of Congress. Where do you see Democrats "getting their clocks cleaned"?

And before you say it, I know the popular vote doesn't decide who wins. But clearly the issue is one of strategy, not popularity. Nationally, Clinton was more popular than Trump.

lol the weird looking thing is his pride and joy

We know you're here, wil.

you delusional people should be expecting the trump wave in 2018

How would you know? Were you following James Hodgkison's Twitter feed?


Yesterday: Regressives give Democrat $23M to win in Georgia.
Today: We never had a shot anyway.



Do you know what "nationally" means? ***Hint, it's not California and New York***

She only had more popularity in certain enclaves and high population centers. IF she had had national appeal, she would have been our President - this is what the Electoral College ensures.

This is NOT Clinton's National Appeal:

You don't actually seem to know what "nationally" means.

You have this exactly backwards. Clinton was more popular because she got more votes. That's what "popular" means.

You know that citizens vote and not land, right? Like, we can actually count the people and add their votes.

"Clinton was only more popular if you count areas where people live" is the lamest excuse ever. lol Jiggs2.0