On November 03 2010 11:45 Zealotdriver wrote: Fuck, we're getting owned in this election. Fucking republicans picked up at least 3 senate seats (out of 100 total, for the non-US teamliquiders) so far. The Democrats' pseudomajority has been completely broken now. The Republicans were impeding senate business before, now it will be even worse.
Its kind of okay though. Depends on what the Dems do with it, in '94 Clinton lost both house and senate. Since they had the power he shifted responsibility onto the republicans and they obviously didn't do a good job. If in 2 years time people see the republicans as retards and Obama's trying to do what he can to make things work 2012 will be different. Also, the effects of legislation passed in 09-10 will start to actually have effects and (hopefully) people will realize that it was the dems that passed that legislation. If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
On November 03 2010 11:49 Tufas wrote: I thought the democrats had 59 seats anyway so whats all the fuzz about ?
They did have 60 for the first couple months, before Scott Brown won MA after Ted Kennedy died. For the HCR bill they got the two independents to vote for it, Sanders and Lieberman
On November 03 2010 11:54 ZeaL. wrote: If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
This has never mattered in the past, why do you think die-hard repubs will change their minds now?
On November 03 2010 11:54 ZeaL. wrote: If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
This has never mattered in the past, why do you think die-hard repubs will change their minds now?
They won't. They'll just say tough luck, shouldn't have been so poor and not had health insurance. The retards in the middle are easily swayed by those kinds of emotional advertisements and they HAVE had issues with the previous state of health care in the US, they just have no idea what they want done about it because they're scare of "socialism". Show them a kid who would die if HCR is repealed and they will change their mind.
On November 03 2010 11:54 ZeaL. wrote: Its kind of okay though. Depends on what the Dems do with it, in '94 Clinton lost both house and senate. Since they had the power he shifted responsibility onto the republicans and they obviously didn't do a good job. If in 2 years time people see the republicans as retards and Obama's trying to do what he can to make things work 2012 will be different. Also, the effects of legislation passed in 09-10 will start to actually have effects and (hopefully) people will realize that it was the dems that passed that legislation. If the Republicans really go forward with their goal of killing the healthcare reform bill, they're going to get hammered by stories of kids with retinoblastoma about to die and were saved by the no pre-existing conditions part and they'll end up looking pretty bad.
...Yes, or the Tea Par-uh, I mean the Republicans, continue to ride the "Obama is driving the country into the ground" train all the way to 2012, using Obama's complete lack of accomplishments in the next 2 years as further proof of his ineptitude and poor leadership, while they groom some kind of abominable Palin Mark II Tea Party Edition candidate to run against him, on the "I will magically conjure jobs out of thin air" platform, and in 2 years people will instead see this as that time when "Muslim Hitler almost turned America into the USSR with that dastardly socialist healthcare bill".
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
On November 03 2010 11:33 HeadhunteR wrote: dumb Americans how can you expect one guy to solve problems in 2 years when you just had someone fucking up the country in debt and excessive expenses in warfare in 8 years.Voting for republicans wont help at all good luck to you all.
We don't expect him to fix everything in 2 years. However, we do expect him not to colossally fuck up our country with the kind of absolute shit that he signed over the past two years (stimulus package and Obamacare).
You mean, the stuff he campaigned on and was voted in to do?
lol, What? He had a clear health care plan when he campaigned for election? Or perhaps he already told everyone how much money he expected to spend?
Didn't know those where talking points before.....
How much have federal taxes gone up under Obama? Do you happen to know the number?
I think capital gains tax went up a few percentage points, however most Americans actually got a significant tax cut.
Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.
You don't need spoilers in this thread, it's for results! The California hold guarantees that Democrats hold the Senate, albeit with a slimmer majority.
@allyourbase: Yes, the Democratic House majority has fallen to Republicans. The major news networks have called that.
On November 03 2010 13:00 NovaTheFeared wrote: You don't need spoilers in this thread, it's for results! The California hold guarantees that Democrats hold the Senate, albeit with a slimmer majority.
@allyourbase: Yes, the Democratic House majority has fallen to Republicans. The major news networks have called that.
The spoiler alert is for a different reason, though... =P
On November 03 2010 12:52 Romantic wrote: Murray (D) vs Rossi (R) is very close in Washington (my state)
Currently 687,000 votes to 670,000. Hopefully it will go Murray because most of the votes are in from the conservative counties.
Murray vs Rossi is a nailbiter for sure, i'll be spamming F5 for a while. It'll suck if we don't have a clear winner because then it will be several days for the mail-in ballots to trickle in.
I do not care about who has more. I care the most about who doesn't have anything.
Refer to my sig
Wauw. The choice between socialism and capitalism isn't a binary one, but rather a continuum. And damn it, I told myself I wouldn't derail this thread any further, but there I go. Also my political science book would like a word with all of you guys spewing definitions around. Unrestrained socialism doesn't work. Unrestrained capitalism doesn't work. Seems pretty clear that the best choice is to be somewhere in between.
Back on topic, if Russ Feingold doesn't get reelected I shall abandon all hope for these United States for the next 2 years.
Feingold is almost definitely out, unfortunately. He shall be remembered for his No vote on the Patriot Act.
Actually, he's being remembered for his "yes" votes on the stimulus bill and Obamacare, which is why he's being sent home.
Stimulus bills and Obamacare, such evil has never been seen!
Republicans have never done such things, I'd imagine. They only signed into law the largest entitlement increase in decades along with budget killing tax cuts on purpose (it was indeed a stimulative attempt with a sunset clause, let us not forget):
Vote out Feingold, vote in "small government" Republicans!
Life is good comedy.
Bush might be a member of the republican party, but he sure as hell doesn't understand (much less represent) the concept of fiscal conservatism. His liberal expenses was why he was so universally detested among republicans and democrats alike.
QFT
I see a lot of people tossing around strange notions about what fiscal conservatism means. It does not mean deregulation to the point of anarcho-capitalism and it does not mean casually throwing around hundreds of billions of dollars just because you can.
Bill Clinton practiced fiscal conservatism. George Bush Jr. practiced idiocy. Judging all conservatives by the standards of Bush Jr. -- as so many people on this forum do -- is ludicrous.
I'll add this to your comment:
On November 03 2010 13:12 holdthephone wrote: so republicans are doing better than expected?
Depends on your citations... they could be picking up anywhere between 40-70 seats. They WILL take the house though and gain some ground in the senate.
On November 03 2010 13:12 holdthephone wrote: so republicans are doing better than expected?
They seem to be right on track for the pre-election estimates of ~55 in the House, 6-8 in the Senate. Still a few close races to call, but Republicans will definitely take the House and will definitely not take the Senate.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/28qzs04.jpg)
