USA Mid-Term Election Results

[Meshugger]

So, any bets on the republicans trying to abolish Obamacare within 6 months?

[kgambit]

So, any bets on the republicans trying to abolish Obamacare within 6 months?

 

First the GoP must muster the necessary 3/5ths of the Senate (60 votes) to invoke cloture on a Democrat filibuster on any bill designed to repeal Obamacare.  Their slim majority makes that unlikely albeit not impossible. 

What is more likely to happen is the GoP will attempt to amend Obamacare by attaching riders to must pass legislature.

Edited November 5, 2014 by kgambit

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So, any bets on the republicans trying to abolish Obamacare within 6 months?

I bet they try and fail within the first month of the new session. Gridlock occurs, Republicans take the majority of the blame, and Democratic presidential candidate gets a boost.

 

This is just my guesstimate though, don't take it as fact.

[Valsuelm]

So, any bets on the republicans trying to abolish Obamacare within 6 months?

 

Not gonna happen. Republican 'leadership' is bought and paid for by the same people who bought and paid for Reid and Pelosi. They are seriously corrupt and incompetent people, as well as anything but real leaders.

 

If McConnell and Boehner are replaced, which I don't see happening, then perhaps we'll see the Repubs do something meaningful. Sans that, it's just going to be more of the same BS.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

So, any bets on the republicans trying to abolish Obamacare within 6 months?

I bet they try and fail within the first month of the new session. Gridlock occurs, Republicans take the majority of the blame, and Democratic presidential candidate gets a boost.

 

This is just my guesstimate though, don't take it as fact.

 

Nah, the President gets blamed for everything anyway, when Democrats took over Congress in 2006 it made it even worse for the Republican presidential candidate, if that was possible.

 

Midterm elections is when the low info voter stays home, so it gives a certain advantage to the Republicans. In this case the Democrats were dragged down by an obviously completely incompetent and out of his depth President, who is nevertheless supremely arrogant and lawless, and seems to care about foreigners, terrorists and traitors far more than American citizens. The economy may be doing decent compared to the rest of the pinko world, but it's not perceived as such as income has stagnated and labor participation rate keeps dropping. Add to that a foreign policy that's going from one catastrophe to another, and it all added up to a bloodbath for the Dems.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Wrath of Dagon

[Namutree]

 

 

It's nice to see Americans to finally wake up from their socialistic dream when it turned in to a nightmare.

Now all they need is an actual president in the place of a historical joke.

....

 

Obviously you haven't got the faintest clue what socialism is. Obama isn't even ~close~ to being a socialist. He's not even a social democrat. Please, stop posting utter nonsense.

Say what? Obama is almost a commie, check his background.

 

Obama's no socialist really. Just a populist with a love of economic protectionism and cronyism. Not unlike the previous president.

[Namutree]

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault.

 

Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

[BruceVC]

 

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault.

 

Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
• He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan
• He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment
• He refused to attack Syria without the UN support
• He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS

 

I think you seem to live in the alternate reality

 

Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ?

[Volourn]

"He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment"
 

So did Bush.

 

\Bush only dealt with one ISIS like group and that was AQ which is why Afghanistan was invaded. Or did you forget that fact?

 

I don't think Bush or Obama are 'warmongers'.

 

I think the biggest issue facing US gov't and war is it simply isn't PC nowadays. You simply can't go in. To deal with something like ISIS you need to use as much force as possible. That should mean boots on the ground and taking back those cities. You aren't going to 'succeed' by simply lobbing bosses. That works  for invasions al taking out the Hussein Iraqi gov't or the Taliban from their seat of power but it doesn't solve things long term.

 

Go in all the way or don't go in at all.

 

Obama: "ISIS is bad and evil. They must eb stopped."

 

*lobs a few bombs*

 

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

 

LMAO

 

You would think they'd learn from the Iraq Invasion mistakes.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault.

 

Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
• He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan
• He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment
• He refused to attack Syria without the UN support
• He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS

 

I think you seem to live in the alternate reality

 

Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ?

 

 

But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF.

 

So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. 

[Kroney]

I must confess that I don't really understand American politics, or Americans in general, really. To British eyes both American parties seem like different sides of the same right wing coin. Perhaps one is slightly more toward the centre than the other, but neither approach what we would understand as "liberal".

 

But then I can't understand why half the country would lambast and so passionately detest something as so basically humanitarian as a health service, so I suppose I shall continue to look on confused.

[Valsuelm]

I must confess that I don't really understand American politics, or Americans in general, really. To British eyes both American parties seem like different sides of the same right wing coin. Perhaps one is slightly more toward the centre than the other, but neither approach what we would understand as "liberal".

 

I know more than a few people on your island that do understand and appreciate American politics, so you don't speak for all British. You are correct in that both major parties are essentially the same at the end of the day, but so are the two major parties on your island, as well as in most other nations. In most regards, at the national level, it's the illusion of choice, not actual choice.

 

The word 'liberal' in the context of politics was perverted a long time ago, and nowadays if one looks under the facade it means something far from it's original and true meaning, one that was synonymous with 'free'. Thinking along the political line of left, right, center is thinking in a box that was manufactured for you and designed to divide and conquer.

 

But then I can't understand why half the country would lambast and so passionately detest something as so basically humanitarian as a health service, so I suppose I shall continue to look on confused.

They don't. You're just buying into some propaganda that says they do. Many just don't think the government should be involved in it. And many more that are ok with government involvement don't think the current involvement in the form of 'Obamacare' by the government is a good thing. Almost no one is against healthcare in the US.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Kroney]

Just one little point: Nowhere did I claim to speak for anyone other than myself in the understanding American politics stakes. As you were.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault.

 

Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
• He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan
• He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment
• He refused to attack Syria without the UN support
• He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS

 

I think you seem to live in the alternate reality

 

Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ?

 

 

But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF.

 

So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. 

 

 

Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment  in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the  Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ?

 

But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003

[Valsuelm]

Just one little point: Nowhere did I claim to speak for anyone other than myself in the understanding American politics stakes. As you were.

My apologies. I misinterpreted your 'To British eyes...' statement in that regard.

[Kroney]

I should, however, have specified that I was referring to a *national* health service.

[Guard Dog]

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

And then I want to ask what is the political objective of the Republicans winning the House and Senate..what does this mean?

 

 Bruce, after all the political discussions we've had over the years is it really surprising to you that I would vote against the President and his agenda in any national election? Do you really need me to go over the reasons why... again?

 

But, remember one thing; and If I could tell the Republican leadership anything it would be this: Hating the Democrats is not the same thing as loving the Republicans. They have a golden opportunity here they did nothing to deserve other than be the lesser of two evils. If they use that opportunity to promote smaller, more responsible government, champion personal liberty and freedom, and check Obama's dumber ideas and destructive impulses they can begin rebuilding their brand. In short, they need to listen to the libertarian caucus within their ranks.

 

The they go out and become Democrat-lite, or empower the neo-con factions or the religious right factions or just fall apart due to infighting then they will be gone in two years.

 

I hope they are up to the task but nothing about McConnell and Boehner's history suggests they are. We'll see.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Guard Dog

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault.

 

Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
• He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan
• He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment
• He refused to attack Syria without the UN support
• He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS

 

I think you seem to live in the alternate reality

 

Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ?

 

 

But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF.

 

So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. 

 

 

Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment  in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the  Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ?

 

But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003

 

 

By taking military actions against Taliban, Al-Qaida, etc. organisations instead of supporting local law enforcements and keeping open ended authorization for use of military force also means that he keeps his country in warlike state and there is high change that those local law enforcements and governments lose their authority in eyes of their citizens (which can strengthen popularity of those who openly oppose them and USA [and other western countries]). Of course there are compelling reasons why those drone and special force strikes are done (which ineffectiveness and inability of those local authorities are probably most compelling ones). But such military actions come with cost that USA is seen as hostile country by many (outside of USA) and that those military actions aren't accepted by all people in USA and same time some people in USA see them as too lenient, which both weakens Obama's popularity and strengthens his opposition. It is not easy situation to him (as he is too warmongering for at least some of his supporters and he isn't warmongering enough to people in his opposition), but I am not sure if that factored very much towards result of this election, as usually foreign policy don't factor very much in elections in USA.

[BruceVC]

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

And then I want to ask what is the political objective of the Republicans winning the House and Senate..what does this mean?

 

 Bruce, after all the political discussions we've had over the years is it really surprising to you that I would vote against the President and his agenda in any national election? Do you really need me to go over the reasons why... again?

 

But, remember one thing; and If I could tell the Republican leadership anything it would be this: Hating the Democrats is not the same thing as loving the Republicans. They have a golden opportunity here they did nothing to deserve other than be the lesser of two evils. If they use that opportunity to promote smaller, more responsible government, champion personal liberty and freedom, and check Obama's dumber ideas and destructive impulses they can begin rebuilding their brand. In short, they need to listen to the libertarian caucus within their ranks.

 

The they go out and become Democrat-lite, or empower the neo-con factions or the religious right factions or just fall apart due to infighting then they will be gone in two years.

 

I hope they are up to the task but nothing about McConnell and Boehner's history suggests they are. We'll see.

 

 

Yeah you have always been unequivocal in your position on Obama so I understand your reasons for voting for the Republicans

 

I am also interested to see what transpires now that the Republicans control the House and the Senate and how this will effect the political landscape going forward

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But my question is really towards those people who voted for the Republicans. I am interested in the main reasons why? Is it because the USA economy isn't doing well..no it can't be that because the USA economy has recovered nicely. Is it because Obama is some kind of warmonger....no he has avoided conflicts.

 

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault.

 

Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad.

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
• He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan
• He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment
• He refused to attack Syria without the UN support
• He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS

 

I think you seem to live in the alternate reality

 

Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ?

 

 

But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF.

 

So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. 

 

 

Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment  in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the  Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ?

 

But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003

 

 

By taking military actions against Taliban, Al-Qaida, etc. organisations instead of supporting local law enforcements and keeping open ended authorization for use of military force also means that he keeps his country in warlike state and there is high change that those local law enforcements and governments lose their authority in eyes of their citizens (which can strengthen popularity of those who openly oppose them and USA [and other western countries]). Of course there are compelling reasons why those drone and special force strikes are done (which ineffectiveness and inability of those local authorities are probably most compelling ones). But such military actions come with cost that USA is seen as hostile country by many (outside of USA) and that those military actions aren't accepted by all people in USA and same time some people in USA see them as too lenient, which both weakens Obama's popularity and strengthens his opposition. It is not easy situation to him (as he is too warmongering for at least some of his supporters and he isn't warmongering enough to people in his opposition), but I am not sure if that factored very much towards result of this election, as usually foreign policy don't factor very much in elections in USA.

 

 

I agree almost completely with what you are saying, the USA only uses drones in Western Pakistan because of the ineffectiveness of the Pakistan authorities in dealing with the Taliban and AQ

 

But I can also sympathize with the Pakistanis because they have probably been the worst victims of Islamic extremists and in many respects they do try to stop there influence but they don't t control the tribal areas that border Afghanistan. These areas are mostly under the control of various clans and the Taliban has much influence in those regions

 

So now the USA doesn't help things with drones because they do undermine the Pakistan military authority but end of the day the USA has to act to protect its troops in Afghanistan by selective targeting of Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership

[kgambit]

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)

 

 

 

 

No he did not Bruce.  The US troop withdrawal was actually agreed to by Bush before Obama took office.  Obama simply adhered to an already agreed upon timeline for the troop withdrawal.  And in point of fact, Obama attempted to extend the SOFA with Iraq which would have kept US ground troops in Iraq beyond that time frame.

 

Why you insist on giving him credit for an agreement he was simply a bystander to is beyond me.

Edited November 6, 2014 by kgambit

[Guard Dog]

A picture is worth 1000 words... here is two of them

 

US House Election 2008:

 

US House Election 2014:

 

Congratulations Barack! You have accomplished on thing the Republicans never could: Resurrected their brand! 

[Meshugger]

Colorado seems to have done a complete switch-a-roo.

 

But yeah, Obama usage og JSOC has been nothing but appaling. No matter how you spin it as necessary evil, "hard decision" or no other option. This peaceful Nobel Laureate has personally approved murder for over 2000 guys.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

A picture is worth 1000 words... here is two of them

 

US House Election 2008:

 

US House Election 2014:

 

Congratulations Barack! You have accomplished on thing the Republicans never could: Resurrected their brand!

 

To be fair, this was an election with a pretty low turnout while 2008 had a very large turnout. Will be interesting to see how 2016 goes and how turnout will compare.

 

 

How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has

 

 

• got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003)

 

 

No he did not Bruce.  The US troop withdrawal was actually agreed to by Bush before Obama took office.  Obama simply adhered to an already agreed upon timeline for the troop withdrawal.  And in point of fact, Obama attempted to extend the SOFA with Iraq which would have kept US ground troops in Iraq beyond that time frame.

 

Why you insist on giving him credit for an agreement he was simply a bystander to is beyond me.

I don't get why presidents generally get credit for what happens in their tenure, despite them generally having little to do with events. It's not a good way to observe things, but some people insist on such an ignorant view. *shrug*

[Zoraptor]

He refused to attack Syria without the UN support

This is wrong as well, he would have attacked after the 'red line' was crossed whatever the UN said- after all, Russia and China weren't going to allow anything authorising force through the UNSC- but couldn't muster the support needed from allies or US politicians. Then he had to be bailed out of the mess/ was out manouevred by the Russians which was deeply embarrassing.

 

And that pretty much encapsulated Obama's problem, it's now apparent from many events that he has no real spine. It's a different problem from GWBush's consistent poor judgement- and rather less serious in its practical effects for the US- but no less fatal for a politician.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Zoraptor