• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2010 Midterm Results Discussion

Whovian said:
It's called '**** HAPPENS'.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, if she paid via check and used the mail to deliver it, it's entirely likely that the letter got misplaced in the system, causing the delivery to be late and leading to the late charge.

Now wouldn't that just be ironic as hell? :lamo
 
Birdzeye said:
That just goes to show how effective propaganda is - no matter how untrue it is.
Click to expand...

propaganda---LOL!

from the likes of the nytimes, cnn, reuters, ap, bloomberg, politico, wapo...

where do think derive the links for all these horrible headlines about obamacare---the 1099's, the demand that employers cover up to 750K, the demand that insurers limit overhead to 15%, the burdening of the states with 12 million new enrollees unfunded, the massive expanse of the m's while simultaneously cutting their funding half a T, the double counting, the mandate on individuals to buy for themselves...

Arizona and Oklahoma vote to reject insurance mandate - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

two to one in redneck oklahoma, 55% in swingy arizona

the show-me's in missouri who are famously almost never wrong passed their measure c, 71 to 29, in august

Prop C passes overwhelmingly

obama's so outta touch he might as well be on another planet

so many excuses, keep em coming

utterly leaderly-like
 
Last edited:
Removed the sticky from the thread. Thanks again to those who contributed to an awesome discussion last night. Was a good time.
 
Coronado said:
No, it was done by someone mistakenly crediting your account late. There's not some big conspiracy against you to charge you a late fee.

As for the new law, it doesn't change the fact that fraud (which is what you are assuming the banks are engaged in) has been illegal for centuries.
Click to expand...

Then why was the practice so widespread, if it wasn't a "conspiracy?" You mean to tell me that so many of the same type of "mistakes" were made, by the different companies? Good grief, please tell me you don't really believe that.
 
Birdzeye said:
Then why was the practice so widespread, if it wasn't a "conspiracy?" You mean to tell me that so many of the same type of "mistakes" were made, by the different companies? Good grief, please tell me you don't really believe that.
Click to expand...
So there is a conspiracy to overcharge people with phony late fees?

Um, okay ... :screwy
 
Coronado said:
So there is a conspiracy to overcharge people with phony late fees?

Um, okay ... :screwy
Click to expand...

You notice, I put the word "conspiracy" in quotation marks to reflect the fact that I was quoting it from YOUR post. Now, care to answer my question about why the practice was so widespread?
 
Well the same could be said in any situation...you can choose to live in another state or another country....
 
Birdzeye said:
You notice, I put the word "conspiracy" in quotation marks to reflect the fact that I was quoting it from YOUR post. Now, care to answer my question about why the practice was so widespread?
Click to expand...
Prove that it's widespread.
 
Birdzeye said:
That is why people were clamoring for the recently passed law.
Click to expand...

you're out of touch, if people were clamoring they would have rewarded instead of punishing blanche lincoln, russ feingold, chet edwards, jim oberstar, john spratt, rick boucher, ike skelton, earl pomeroy and more than a hundred others

ask david obey, evan bayh, byron dorgan, bryan baird, brad ellsworth, bart gordon, marion barber, vic snyder, bart stupak and the other dozen bulls who retired rather than face the mighty electorate

ask the pelosi's and george miller's and louise slaughter's and john conyers's, nick rahall's and the other two dozen or so veteran votemakers likely to vamoose

it's no fun being in the minority, especially in the house, especially when your grip is accustomed to the gavel, especially when you're 75 years old

Pelosi, Among Others, Could Exit if Dems Lose House - TIME

do you know what OPENSHIPS like these portend for NEXT TIME?

did you see what happened in WA3, TN6 and 8, Ark 1 and 2, LA3, KS3, WV1, IN8, NY29, WI7, MI1, PA7, NH2?

all seats won by reds which almost surely wouldn't have been had their incumbents not gone down with the good ship obama

to turn over 1/6 of the us economy to the KIND OF PEOPLE WHO RUN THE DMV you gotta have a lot better cause than they do, err, did

sorry
 
theangryamerican said:
Here's the most recent figures for CO. Good race still going on there for the Senate.

United States Senator
88% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
Michael Bennet (D / Inc.) 779,661 47%

Ken Buck (R) 772,105 47%

Bob Kinsey (Grn) 35,605 2%

Maclyn Stringer (Lib) 20,489 1%

Jason Napolitano (Ref) 17,920 1%

Charley Miller (Un) 10,492 1%

J. Moromisato (Un) 5,283 0%


U.S. House Of Representatives - Dist. 5
99% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING
> Doug Lamborn (R / Inc.) 149,187 66%

Kevin Bradley (D) 66,243 29%

Brian Scott (Amer) 5,676 3%

Jerell Klaver (Lib)
Click to expand...

At this point Michael Bennet will almost certainly win, regardless of what the current results show. The outstanding votes are mostly from deep blue areas of Colorado.
 
Conservative said:
Right, Obama said, "We won, you lost" great way to compromise. I can only hope for that same kind of compromise now.
Click to expand...

Well, the Democrats had large enough margins that they didn't really NEED to compromise very much, aside from occasionally pulling a few Republicans along with them. For that matter, the Republicans didn't really need to compromise with Obama for the same reason. That has (hopefully) changed now. Since nothing is going to get done now without some bipartisan compromise, it is my hope that they will work together. Obama has indicated he'd like to work with the House Republicans. Boehner has given mixed signals about his willingness to work with Obama. I hope he proves to be more pragmatic now that he's the Speaker of the House.
 
Democrats lose centuries of seniority in House - Washington Times

please think about what this means moving forward

seeya in 2012

but in the meantime, there's the bush tax cuts---what's leadership gonna do, why can't they declare, why do they look so effete?

there's the fed's announcement this morning---another HALF TRIL of quantitative easing (think about what this means)

there's CHARLIE RANGEL and MAXINE WATERS---massive, embarrassing ETHICS trials---on the immdiate horizon

MEET jo bonner, your new CHAIR of house ETHICS

there's the battleground soon to be in all our faces over this mendacious mandate upon individuals to go out and BUY FOR THEMSELVES blue cross

there's florida---19 of 25 house districts this morning republican

do you appreciate florida's frontal role in presidential electorals?

there's ohio---13 of 18 reps are red

pennsylvania---12 of 19

michigan---9 of 15

virginia---12 of 13

the key commonwealth in 2000 was of course battleground-gore, florida

in 04 it was ohio

in 08, the mother of presidents, virginia

that's how far obama had moved the map

now it's new jersey, 6 of 11 house seats gop

washington, 5 of 9

illinois, 10 of 19

etc

SEA CHANGE, baby!

hang on

seeya in the parlors, progressives

what's your stand on bush tax cuts, again?
 
Conservative said:
Unfortunately the same quality run for public office. the only entity in the country that is recession proof is the Federal Govt. Amazing to me what passion liberals have for taking other people's money and their own ignorance in that some of that money comes from them. If they truly cared about how much money the govt gets they would send more of their paycheck without being asked.
Click to expand...

What amazes ME is that you can talk about how ignorant liberals are in one sentence, and then in the very next sentence display ignorance of a basic principle of economics: the Free Rider Problem. Of course no one is going to voluntarily contribute more of their paycheck to government; no one wants to pay for public goods because their marginal cost would outweigh their marginal benefit. This is why the government must mandate that EVERYONE does it.
 
Kandahar said:
What amazes ME is that you can talk about how ignorant liberals are in one sentence, and then in the very next sentence display ignorance of a basic principle of economics: the Free Rider Problem. Of course no one is going to voluntarily contribute more of their paycheck to government; no one wants to pay for public goods because their marginal cost would outweigh their marginal benefit. This is why the government must mandate that EVERYONE does it.
Click to expand...
but not everyone, nay, the majority, doesn't want the service to begin with! That's not free-riding, that's a representation problem!
 
The Democrats are probably poised to lose more Senate seats in 2012...but not because of anything that happened last night, or because I think the economy is still going to be bad, or because I think that Obama is still going to have approval ratings in the mid-40s, or any other such nonsense. Two years is a long time in politics or economics. It's impossible to predict what the economy will be like in 2012, or what the political scene will be like in 2012.

However, the Democrats probably WILL lose more Senate seats, purely for structural reasons that have nothing to do with policy, ideology, or the state of the nation. This class of senators was last elected in 2006...a Democratic wave year. As a result, Democrats are defending 23 seats and the Republicans are defending only 10. As a result, the Republicans will have more pickup opportunities. Furthermore, since it's a presidential election year, Democrats are probably more likely to win in blue states and Republicans are more likely to win in red states...whereas that trend is less pronounced in midterms. Unfortunately for the Dems, they are defending three seats in solid red states (ND, NE, MT) whereas the Republicans are defending only two in solid blue states (ME, MA). Additionally, ALL of the swing states with a senatorial election in 2012 have Democratic incumbents (except for Nevada).

This indicates to me that Democrats would lose Senate seats in a NEUTRAL political environment. In order to not lose any seats in 2012, they're probably going to need another big wave year like 2006.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
but not everyone, nay, the majority, doesn't want the service to begin with!
Click to expand...

Well that's why we have a republic, with periodic elections. If you don't like what your representatives are doing, vote for someone else.

DarkWizard12 said:
That's not free-riding, that's a representation problem!
Click to expand...

No, it's Free Riding...and is the main reason we HAVE government programs. If the private sector could effectively and profitably provide all the things that society demands, then we wouldn't need government to do so. But the private sector can't.
 
the mainstream media are finally starting to catch up with your prescient prof

House Map - Election Results 2010 - The New York Times

nyt has between 63 and 67 net pickups for the party of lincoln

i can simplify that a smidgen for you, if you'd like

if you give gabby giffords and raul grijalva to the dems (which you should, they're gonna be pretty hard to overtake at this point), ben chandler in KY, dan maffei in NY, gerald connolly in fairfax (north VA, the most important district in the country, the burbs outside the beltway, where incumbent connolly is leading by .4%, 900 votes, heading into a likely recount)---all dem "holds..."

and if you courageously call jim costa in CA's central valley for the cons, he's trailing cherry picker from hanford andy vidak by 2.8% with 100% counted...

then you're looking at a clearer conceit---reds will pickup 64 net, with 3 races still too close for anyone to call:

melissa bean in IL8, where reds lead by half a percent with 99% in

jerry mcnerny, my district, CA11, where hard hitting david harmer is ahead by .1% with 99% accounted

and WA2, where incumbent rick larsen trails upstart john koster, 49.6 to 50.4, with, however, only 64% of the vote vouched for

bottom line---you're looking at a gop PLUS of net 63 or 64 or 65

that includes, by the way, the THREE red to blue backsliders the party in power managed to pilfer---cao in new orleans, carney in castle's delaware, and charles djou in honolulu which my side only bagged in february because boss inouye held his breath until he was blue

fyi
 
All of the republican "wins" proves many Americans still cannot accept President Obama, as president. I never seen in politics a president who could not have -4- years to help out this nation and international policies.

A long list of presidents, including Bush Jr, received their full terms without so much personal and political attacks compared to what President Obama still receives.

This has nothing to do with the GOP political envision. If anyone thinks whatever "smaller government" means will regenerate anything positive- is mistaken.

This is a sign that many American's do not want someone like President Obama to succeed and I think any American who does not what his / her president to succeed is a traitor and very anti-American.

I wish President Obama will stop making apologies for his presidency; he doesn't need too. He is doing all he can in a slow divided congressional dynamic.

President Obama should publicly confront all these traitors who only want him to fail because of his tone of skin.

I have seen nothing during his presidency that would make me say he is not trying. The Bush Administration did not try to help our nation as a whole, because that wasn't their collective agenda.

If Clinton did not have the success due to the "Internet curiosity", what would have occurred during his presidency as well. But no one questioned Clinton and both Bush's tone of skin, ethnicity, race, character, etc. No one in America! No one hid behind politics to personally attack our last three presidents and thereafter.

This "message" was just another message in America that no matter how much you love this country or how much you would like to allow her to succeed, you will not receive the full support of this nation if you look like President Obama.

It's this simple and this tragic. It appears President Obama but be perfect in his next 2 yrs at president to be considered to have another term and that itself is also tragic.
 
progressiveny said:
All of the republican "wins" proves many Americans still cannot accept President Obama, as president. I never seen in politics a president who could not have -4- years to help out this nation and international policies.

A long list of presidents, including Bush Jr, received their full terms without so much personal and political attacks compared to what President Obama still receives.

This has nothing to do with the GOP political envision. If anyone thinks whatever "smaller government" means will regenerate anything positive- is mistaken.

This is a sign that many American's do not want someone like President Obama to succeed and I think any American who does not what his / her president to succeed is a traitor and very anti-American.

I wish President Obama will stop making apologies for his presidency; he doesn't need too. He is doing all he can in a slow divided congressional dynamic.

President Obama should publicly confront all these traitors who only want him to fail because of his tone of skin.

I have seen nothing during his presidency that would make me say he is not trying. The Bush Administration did not try to help our nation as a whole, because that wasn't their collective agenda.

If Clinton did not have the success due to the "Internet curiosity", what would have occurred during his presidency as well. But no one questioned Clinton and both Bush's tone of skin, ethnicity, race, character, etc. No one in America! No one hid behind politics to personally attack our last three presidents and thereafter.

This "message" was just another message in America that no matter how much you love this country or how much you would like to allow her to succeed, you will not receive the full support of this nation if you look like President Obama.

It's this simple and this tragic. It appears President Obama but be perfect in his next 2 yrs at president to be considered to have another term and that itself is also tragic.
Click to expand...
Two observations: History began prior to January, 2009. You should look into it.

Secondly, race only has to do with this insofar as Obama's lickspittles use it to assail others with policy differences. In other words, the only people paying attention to race are people like you, thus it is you that is the real racist.

The rest of your post is facile, idiotic drivel that doesn't merit a legitimate response.
 
progressiveny said:
All of the republican "wins" proves many Americans still cannot accept President Obama, as president. I never seen in politics a president who could not have -4- years to help out this nation and international policies.

A long list of presidents, including Bush Jr, received their full terms without so much personal and political attacks compared to what President Obama still receives.

This has nothing to do with the GOP political envision. If anyone thinks whatever "smaller government" means will regenerate anything positive- is mistaken.

This is a sign that many American's do not want someone like President Obama to succeed and I think any American who does not what his / her president to succeed is a traitor and very anti-American.

I wish President Obama will stop making apologies for his presidency; he doesn't need too. He is doing all he can in a slow divided congressional dynamic.

President Obama should publicly confront all these traitors who only want him to fail because of his tone of skin.

I have seen nothing during his presidency that would make me say he is not trying. The Bush Administration did not try to help our nation as a whole, because that wasn't their collective agenda.

If Clinton did not have the success due to the "Internet curiosity", what would have occurred during his presidency as well. But no one questioned Clinton and both Bush's tone of skin, ethnicity, race, character, etc. No one in America! No one hid behind politics to personally attack our last three presidents and thereafter.

This "message" was just another message in America that no matter how much you love this country or how much you would like to allow her to succeed, you will not receive the full support of this nation if you look like President Obama.

It's this simple and this tragic. It appears President Obama but be perfect in his next 2 yrs at president to be considered to have another term and that itself is also tragic.
Click to expand...

Typical rant when losing. Obama lost about 12% of the voters that voted for him. He set the bar way too high but is living up to his resume. He has shown that he is a community agitator and not a leader as his economic plan is one of massive expansion of govt and wealth redistribution, both totally rejected last night. It isn't the Federal responsibility to create jobs, create wealth, provide personal responsibility issues. Obama overreached and failed. You and others should have paid closer attention to his resume as you got exactly the person you voted for, an empty suit with no leadership skills or business understanding.

Results matter, not rhetoric, 4 million more people unemployed today than when Obama took office, higher unemployment on a month to month basis this year vs. last year when the recession ended, and it only cost 3 trillion dollars to generate those results. He overreached on healthcare trying to force Americans to buy what they don't want. He spent most of the stimulus money on Democrat constituent groups and state responsibility issues, and he basically told the American people I know best what is right for you. Last night the majority in this country told Nancy Pelosi, "YOU'RE FIRED!" and if Obama doesn't improve that will be him in 2012
 
progressiveny said:
All of the republican "wins" proves many Americans still cannot accept President Obama, as president. I never seen in politics a president who could not have -4- years to help out this nation and international policies.

A long list of presidents, including Bush Jr, received their full terms without so much personal and political attacks compared to what President Obama still receives.

This has nothing to do with the GOP political envision. If anyone thinks whatever "smaller government" means will regenerate anything positive- is mistaken.

This is a sign that many American's do not want someone like President Obama to succeed and I think any American who does not what his / her president to succeed is a traitor and very anti-American.

I wish President Obama will stop making apologies for his presidency; he doesn't need too. He is doing all he can in a slow divided congressional dynamic.

President Obama should publicly confront all these traitors who only want him to fail because of his tone of skin.

I have seen nothing during his presidency that would make me say he is not trying. The Bush Administration did not try to help our nation as a whole, because that wasn't their collective agenda.

If Clinton did not have the success due to the "Internet curiosity", what would have occurred during his presidency as well. But no one questioned Clinton and both Bush's tone of skin, ethnicity, race, character, etc. No one in America! No one hid behind politics to personally attack our last three presidents and thereafter.

This "message" was just another message in America that no matter how much you love this country or how much you would like to allow her to succeed, you will not receive the full support of this nation if you look like President Obama.

It's this simple and this tragic. It appears President Obama but be perfect in his next 2 yrs at president to be considered to have another term and that itself is also tragic.
Click to expand...

Boo hoo hoo.

Why do you have "wins" in quotation marks? Are you claiming they weren't actual wins?
 
Kandahar said:
The Democrats are probably poised to lose more Senate seats in 2012...but not because of anything that happened last night, or because I think the economy is still going to be bad, or because I think that Obama is still going to have approval ratings in the mid-40s, or any other such nonsense. Two years is a long time in politics or economics. It's impossible to predict what the economy will be like in 2012, or what the political scene will be like in 2012.

However, the Democrats probably WILL lose more Senate seats, purely for structural reasons that have nothing to do with policy, ideology, or the state of the nation. This class of senators was last elected in 2006...a Democratic wave year. As a result, Democrats are defending 23 seats and the Republicans are defending only 10. As a result, the Republicans will have more pickup opportunities. Furthermore, since it's a presidential election year, Democrats are probably more likely to win in blue states and Republicans are more likely to win in red states...whereas that trend is less pronounced in midterms. Unfortunately for the Dems, they are defending three seats in solid red states (ND, NE, MT) whereas the Republicans are defending only two in solid blue states (ME, MA). Additionally, ALL of the swing states with a senatorial election in 2012 have Democratic incumbents (except for Nevada).

This indicates to me that Democrats would lose Senate seats in a NEUTRAL political environment. In order to not lose any seats in 2012, they're probably going to need another big wave year like 2006.
Click to expand...

word

spot on perspective, i'm impressed

it's not partisan to point out the obvious

beyond harry reid, CA, mike buck, joe manchin (who only won because he put a bullet thru cap and trade, poster boy of anti-obamite democracy), joe miller and patty murray, there's hardly a ray of light for our luckless loser on pennsylvania ave

already in the crosshairs of neanderthals like me---ben nelson in nebraska, kent conrad (the gatekeeper's right hand man on obamacare, budget chair), jon tester in montana, sherrod brown in ominous ohio, bill nelson in florida (where the gop is galluping), claire mccaskill in always correct missouri (where roy blunt beat rubberstamp robin carnahan by FOURTEEN---uneheard of in the 50-50 show me state)...

combat boots webb in virginia (who will face former superstar gub and senator george allen, son of the hall of fame coach and brother of bruce allen who used to be al davis' gm in oakland before heading to tampa bay with gruden---we'll see if the super con from the commonwealth can overcame the macaca moment, 2006), maria cantwell the junior senator from washington...

and manchin's reupped in 2012---how do you think that's gonna affect his behavior in '11?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44289.html
 
Last edited:
progressiveny said:
President Obama should publicly confront all these traitors who only want him to fail because of his tone of skin.

This "message" was just another message in America that no matter how much you love this country or how much you would like to allow her to succeed, you will not receive the full support of this nation if you look like President Obama.
Click to expand...

what's changed since november, 08, exactly two years ago?

in a thread dominated on one side by LINKS and on the other by courageless excuse making, this is the most pathetic rationalization i've encountered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom