Tina Kotek completely and utterly destroyed her opponent by getting a whopping 87% of the vote. She gained an even larger percentage of the vote than she did the last time she ran. She will now likely become the speaker of the house in Oregon, since the democrats broke a 30-30 tie in seats and gained a majority.

There was another thread about this, 'Update on my campaign', which mysteriously disappeared when it was updated with the outcome.

Sounds like there was a good swing the the 'left' in Oregon state then, I wonder how this will impact the state as they head into the future... one hopes that the people are more cared for and the community spirit is able to shine through...

more rain than England? I didn't know that was possible...

and assisted suicide is actually a good thing, if you are in that much pain and your outcome is just more pain until death then no point living in agony...

Kemp: by people you mean rich white guys, or at least the established upper classes... The fact you don't respect the workers means your opinions not worth considering....

Btw I can 100% guarantee that you nor any of your family are 'saddled' with taking care of me or my family... Also I am reasonably certain that my and my families contribution to the welfare of our community outweighs any cost we may have incurred over our lifetimes.... The fact that you and your family breathe mean that you are not as well balanced...

BTW

Mister Spock: "People are more productive and enjoy a higher standard of living when they're not "cared for" by their government, You_Fool. That I'm saddled with the cost of taking care of people like you taxes the standard of living of my family. In our humble opinions, you're not worth it."

You_Fool   "Kemp: by people you mean rich white guys, or at least the established upper classes... The fact you don't respect the workers means your opinions not worth considering...."

1.  He didn't say rich, white, guys, or upper classes.  You read that into it.
2.  You got insulted by what he didn't say.
3.  You punished him by ignoring him based on what you imagined he said.
4.  You will be sued by BBC1 for infringing their copyright

"To ignore this, as if America never got anything right and is now starting to get it right by copying broke-ass Europe, is just embracing propaganda and, frankly, lying."

Dammit you should be giving the counter speech to the State of the Union

Yell: I read into it because that is the group of "people" who benefit from the "free" market in the Libertarian's (i.e. Kemp) perfect world, this is mostly because Libertarian's are in general rich white guys. Also whilst I defined 2 classes in my rant I didn't define who was in them, and the only definition that could be taken would be a broad stroke "good" people are workers and "bad" people are rich white guys. And neither did I say that growth was impossible, nor was breaking the shackles of a class structure. Good reading into my post with your own ideological blinkers on... I got insulted, and consequently ignored his point, based on the general ideology behind his statement, that less government interference is always better, and thus by extension (given Kemp's normal position on such things) that the free market should be left to do it's "best."

Kemp: I am sorry that you feel the need to troll, i know that you are unable to have feelings or think logically least your overlords remove body parts, but do try and keep quiet in the corner...

"this is mostly because Libertarian's are in general rich white guys. "

And poor people w/o jobs are disproportionately black people. You're suggesting we should read into this anything about race? That's disgusting.

If people of an ideology tend to be generally rich, maybe they're on to something.

"and the only definition that could be taken would be a broad stroke "good" people are workers and "bad" people are rich white guys."

Again your argument is racist and presumes that anyone who benefits from free markets is a criminal. Where does the robbery occur in free markets, again? This is a presumption upon which you base your position, so where's the backing argument/explanation?

"And neither did I say that growth was impossible, nor was breaking the shackles of a class structure. "

Your arguments are based on the presumption that growth is irrelevant, suggesting it's impossible/negligible and accounts for no benefit to society. Your arguments are very clearly based on the presumption that class structure is predetermined: Your focus is on welfare to the poorest of society with absolutely no regard for the poorest becoming middle-earners, let alone better.

"I got insulted, and consequently ignored his point, based on the general ideology behind his statement, that less government interference is always better, and thus by extension (given Kemp's normal position on such things) that the free market should be left to do it's "best.""

You ignored the general ideology behind my statement, whining about a joshing remark about your ideology. That's not the intellectual high ground, ignoring my argument when it's too tough for you to respond.

I make no absolutist claim that "less government is always better." Taken to the extreme, this would be a no-government position which I clearly do not advocate. You're just beating up a straw-man because you refuse to touch my content.

My arguments were that the free market usually produces better than statism. This is clear with every example on the planet for all of human history. While there are certainly other factors in play like culture, government corruption, etc, the fact is that freer peoples always tend to have higher standards of living than people with less freedom. You're absolutely refusing to touch this fundamental argument, instead focusing on personal insults.

If you really are the better man in this "debate" (waiting on you to enter it!), then squash me on a civilized content-driven discussion. Supposedly you're absolutely refusing to discuss ANY content solely because I said "people like you," referencing your ideology. If you're right and I was SOOOOO rude and stupid in saying that, ignore it and squash me on the subject. So long as you refuse, that's on you. I'm not the one hiding. I've layed out my argument.

I dare you to actually respond to it with something other than "well you're for the rich!" I gave you a better argument than that. Where's yours?

It would be really fun if when people refer to "numbers" that can be broken down, they actually showed said numbers!  That would be fun! 

Not that I disagree... but yeah... it's sort of weird to base a claim on uncited statistics. 

I'm sorry, I thought you were broke too.

Matter of fact, I don't believe Europe has a 16 trillion debt atm.

I think Europe's been around a little longer than that

I think by February it was around 10 trillion we're so much better off! *sigh*

160 trillions, how many years' gdp is that??