Republicans win control of US Senate - Polidicks

[QUOTE=mfreyrie;46415566]I'm not american, so please explain. What do you hate about Obama? I mean, your employment rate is back at the pre-crisis level, it's highly unlikely that Ebola will ever spread outside Africa and to blame him about deep phenomena like ISIS and the new cold war with Russia is... stupid. Am I missing something?[/QUOTE] It goes back to the 2008 general election, when republican voters were being hammered with information about how dangerous Obama was. It's not unusual for the two parties to demonize eachother's candidates, but they had [I]a ton[/I] of really widespread rumors and generally convenient facts to work with when it came to Obama. It made McCain's loss much more devastating than it normally would've been, and the far-right, which ended up forming the Tea Party, never got over it. Romney's loss in 2012 made them even angrier because that time around it was all about how Obama [I]really was[/I] as bad as they said back in 2008, and cowardly mainstream republicans like Romney wouldn't tell them they were right.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46415848]So people want a higher minimum wage, access to abortion, and legal pot... [/QUOTE] Majority wins, there are just more people who have things higher on the agenda than what you listed.

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;46415626]You would have to go all the way back to the 19th Century to find a president who has used less executive orders per year than Obama. [/QUOTE] Pure numbers aren't the important thing. Executive Orders are reserved to the president for him to enact legislation. It's the biggest power given to the executive branch, and it's there so that the president can take whatever steps are necessary to enforce policy without every last little detail going through Congress. The issue is that Obama hasn't just passed EOs in this capacity, but also to change things like healthcare policy, and has threatened to use EOs to effect change on gun control and immigration. EOs aren't meant for setting policy, and within a government explicitly designed to prevent any one branch from being able to effect significant political change on its own the idea of the President being able to both decide policy and then enact it is a serious issue. Most people aren't aware of it on this level but the perception is definitely that, as a President, Obama has refused to compromise on contentious issues and has often taken matters into his own hands when he couldn't get what he wanted from Congress. A lot of people really feel that having a Congress that can stand up to him is a good thing.

I always vote Republican, but the representative for my district [i]didn't even have a challenger.[/i] Nothing pisses me off more than not being able to vote a useless incumbent out of office (in this case it was a democrat who only got elected because of his name recognition).

Its not even majority wins. If it were, you would see a vast difference in the elections. Of course, this is implying that the populous rules and not land area. Take Texas for example. The ubran areas of the state vote Democratic while the rural parts historically have voted Republican. [quote]There are 8,952 voting precincts in Texas. In the densest third of precincts, Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012, winning 1.71 million votes compared to Romney's 1.48 million. However, Romney's easy wins in rural areas and the suburbs were vital to his triumph statewide.[/quote] Even with a majority of people voting for Obama, Romney won ultimately because of the land mass of rural, republican voting counties [t]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldsberry-texas-allpresidentialvotes-map.png?w=1024[/t] [t]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldsberry-texas-electoral-distribution-map.png?w=1024[/t] [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mapping-the-changing-face-of-the-lone-star-state/[/url] Our system is strange. Most people have a love-hate relationship with it.

Dark times are coming.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;46415625]His health care act and his stance on gun control are hated on often in Texas. He also gets blamed for what Democrats do as presidents always are.[/QUOTE] I find it hard to believe that Texans hate the gun control policies of one of the most gun-friendly presidents in history

Hooray for 2 more years of not getting anything done?

[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;46414597]More taxes for the poor[/QUOTE] Wouldn't it be the opposite less taxes for everyone [editline]5th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;46416811]I find it hard to believe that Texans hate the gun control policies of one of the most gun-friendly presidents in history[/QUOTE] Just because he scared the populace into panic buying of guns and ammunition (ESPECIALLY .22 LR FUCK HIM) doesn't mean that he's gun-friendly

[QUOTE=laserguided;46414289]So they won both their congress and their senate. Most Americans must support their policy yes?[/QUOTE] Sadly not. Less than half of my state voted, and the one's that did vote weren't the ones who should have. (by that I don't mean anyone shouldn't vote, but that young people, and those indifferent to the process really should be getting to the polls.)

[QUOTE=Code3Response;46416535]Its not even majority wins. If it were, you would see a vast difference in the elections. Of course, this is implying that the populous rules and not land area. Take Texas for example. The ubran areas of the state vote Democratic while the rural parts historically have voted Republican. Even with a majority of people voting for Obama, Romney won ultimately because of the land mass of rural, republican voting counties [t]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldsberry-texas-allpresidentialvotes-map.png?w=1024[/t] [t]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/goldsberry-texas-electoral-distribution-map.png?w=1024[/t] [URL]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mapping-the-changing-face-of-the-lone-star-state/[/URL] Our system is strange. Most people have a love-hate relationship with it.[/QUOTE] So it's about majority land holders, not the mass of the populace.

I hate when people say "The parties are the same thing they're both fucking you over!" No, both parties stand on different sides of issues.. And individually, senators of different parties have much different voting histories.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;46415625]His health care act and his stance on gun control are hated on often in Texas. He also gets blamed for what Democrats do as presidents always are.[/QUOTE] The only thing Obama has done with guns is expand rights.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;46416811]I find it hard to believe that Texans hate the gun control policies of one of the most gun-friendly presidents in history[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Obama[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]gun-friendly[/QUOTE] lmao, a president who: 1) Banned the re-importation of US-made weapons 2) Banned the import of popular Russian weapons 3) Wants to reinstate the AWB 4) Wants to limit magazines to 10 rounds 5) Wants to limit the import of antique weapons 6) Wants to broaden the power of the ATF is gun-friendly?

what's really making me cringe is people saying "glad I didn't vote" when one party they didn't like won

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;46416919]lmao, a president who: 1) Banned the re-importation of US-made weapons 2) Banned the import of popular Russian weapons 3) Wants to reinstate the AWB 4) Wants to limit magazines to 10 rounds 5) Wants to limit the import of antique weapons 6) Wants to broaden the power of the ATF is gun-friendly?[/QUOTE] The Russian weapons thing was quite recent was it not? As in, in response to Putin being a fucking ass with Ukraine. And I don't think I ever recall Obama wanting to limit magazines or whatever, that was state governors and shit actually trying to do something about the stupendous number of shootings rather than brushing it aside with a hefty "muh RIGHTS" or whatever. Ineffectual? Maybe, but at least they tried something.

[QUOTE=da space core;46414692]I honestly don't get republicans idea of trickle down economics The last time they tried it, Hoover was president Ask him how that went[/QUOTE] They don't. Republicans are basically just hardcore capitalists. They use their wealth and authority along with the "american dream" to convince the workers that what is best for the wealthy is best for everyone. Morons eat this up, hook line and sinker. This is why there are poor people who hate unions and government assistance (which they also rely on). I mean you can't possibly get any fucking dumber than that.

I've always liked the Sunny in Philly way of thinking about voting. "Should I vote for the Republican who's blasting me in the ass or the Democrat who's blasting me in the ass. Politics, it's all one big ass blast." Obviously voting is important but sometimes you really feel like it makes no difference voting in our bullshit bipartisan system. Fortunately some people do break the mold, its just hard to see who that is when you're bombarded with mudslinging ads.

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;46416919]lmao, a president who: 1) Banned the re-importation of US-made weapons 2) Banned the import of popular Russian weapons 3) Wants to reinstate the AWB 4) Wants to limit magazines to 10 rounds 5) Wants to limit the import of antique weapons 6) Wants to broaden the power of the ATF is gun-friendly?[/QUOTE] And made it legal to carry firearms in federal parks. Which was the only action taken that really was about firearms themselves.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46416945]The Russian weapons thing was quite recent was it not? As in, in response to Putin being a fucking ass with Ukraine. And I don't think I ever recall Obama wanting to limit magazines or whatever, that was state governors and shit actually trying to do something about the stupendous number of shootings rather than brushing it aside with a hefty "muh RIGHTS" or whatever. Ineffectual? Maybe, but at least they tried something.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf[/url] The Russian weapons were banned under other sanctions but in terms of 'gun friendliness' its still a negative. [editline]5th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;46416978]And made it legal to carry firearms in federal parks. Which was the only action taken that really was about firearms themselves.[/QUOTE] Passed by Congress with a 70% yea-vote before Obama was inaugurated, it wasn't his choice

Nothing will change. The republicans wont even try to repeal Obamacare because Obama would just veto it. What I found interesting were these stats: Vote by Race: [quote] Total-----Democrat------Republican------Other/NA White----------38%-------------[b]60%[/b]------------2% Black----------[b]89%[/b]-------------10%------------1% Latino---------[b]62%[/b]--------------36%-----------2% Asian----------49%--------------[b]50%[/b]-----------1% Other---------[b]49%[/b]--------------47%------------4% [url=http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/main]Source: CNN[/url] [/quote] Majorities bolded I had no idea how reliant republicans were on white voters. I read a report that says by 2040, The US is expected to become a multiplicity of races meaning that no one race will outnumber another, with white people expected to be at 30%. I wonder what the republican party will do when southern republicans can no longer pander to southern white peoples' fear of foreign things, like non-english speakers, gays, homosexuals, blacks, latinos, asians, etc.

[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;46416994][url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf[/url] The Russian weapons were banned under other sanctions but in terms of 'gun friendliness' its still a negative.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to be "gun friendly" or anything considering they are tools designed with the express intent of destroying or killing. But whatever. The ability to own them to hunt with and sport with shouldn't really suffer too hard with magazine restrictions surely, just adapt the rules of the sport to work with it or something. There's some good in that document, allowing more research into gun violence could probably solve a lot of debates about this shit for you guys, trying to stop people researching it has always eluded me. As for home defence that's another matter entirely. But my stances on this are pretty well known by now I'm sure.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46417251]I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to be "gun friendly" or anything considering they are tools designed with the express intent of destroying or killing. But whatever. The ability to own them to hunt with and sport with shouldn't really suffer too hard with magazine restrictions surely, just adapt the rules of the sport to work with it or something. There's some good in that document, allowing more research into gun violence could probably solve a lot of debates about this shit for you guys, trying to stop people researching it has always eluded me. As for home defence that's another matter entirely. But my stances on this are pretty well known by now I'm sure.[/QUOTE] hey you know what sounds like a fucking terrible idea? Turning this thread into a shit slinging gun-debate! Hows about we don't do that. [editline]5th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;46417160]Nothing will change. The republicans wont even try to repeal Obamacare because Obama would just veto it. What I found interesting were these stats: Vote by Race: Majorities bolded I had no idea how reliant republicans were on white voters. I read a report that says by 2040, The US is expected to become a multiplicity of races meaning that no one race will outnumber another, with white people expected to be at 30%. I wonder what the republican party will do when southern republicans can no longer pander to southern white peoples' fear of foreign things, like non-english speakers, gays, homosexuals, blacks, latinos, asians, etc.[/QUOTE] contrary to the stereotype, most older white voters don't vote republican because they're xenophobic, racist, or hate the gays, they mostly vote republican because their stance on the taxation of richer people. Nobody wants to see something they earned disappear or dwindle, especially when you're retired.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417264]hey you know what sounds like a fucking terrible idea? Turning this thread into a shit slinging gun-debate! Hows about we don't do that.[/QUOTE] That's what I was trying to avoid with the last sentence. Good work trying to stir shit though, you're getting good at that. Still don't get why gun-rights advocates are so concerned about people wanting to even discuss this shit. That also completely eludes me.

Yaaay, more dithering and bullshit drama coming up as a result of a highly divided bipartisan roster of representatives who play more on differences in policy than they do actual fucking change. [I]We're all so much better off now[/I] that the other side can have some time to fuck up.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417264]hey you know what sounds like a fucking terrible idea? Turning this thread into a shit slinging gun-debate! Hows about we don't do that. [editline]5th November 2014[/editline] [B]contrary to the stereotype, most older white voters don't vote republican because they're xenophobic, racist, or hate the gays, they mostly vote republican because their stance on the taxation of richer people. Nobody wants to see something they earned disappear or dwindle, especially when you're retired.[/B][/QUOTE] there are too many people who don't get this

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46417264]hey you know what sounds like a fucking terrible idea? Turning this thread into a shit slinging gun-debate! Hows about we don't do that. [editline]5th November 2014[/editline] contrary to the stereotype, most older white voters don't vote republican because they're xenophobic, racist, or hate the gays, they mostly vote republican because their stance on the taxation of richer people. Nobody wants to see something they earned disappear or dwindle, especially when you're retired.[/QUOTE] But why would it be that [i]white[/i] people have those opinions more than others? I think the issue really is that old people vote more than young people. Old people are more conservative in general, and more afraid of new things. Regardless of the reasons [i]why[/i], it's evident that republicans rely on the white vote. Whites make up 75%, and 60% of that is 45%. where the near 50/50 difference between democrats and republicans comes from is how minorities vote. mostly democratic, but the republicans are making more and more effort to pander to them, which helps. The issue that the republicans will face is: Can they captivate the minority voting demographic quickly enough before whites are no longer the significant voting population that they used to be. The future of the republican party in the long-term is dependent on this metric. either way, the republicans are going to have to significantly change their party platform to be more liberal. They will have to beat the democrats at their own game.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;46417378]But why would it be that [i]white[/i] people have those opinions more than others? I think the issue really is that old people vote more than young people. Old people are more conservative in general, and more afraid of new things. Regardless of the reasons [i]why[/i], it's evident that republicans rely on the white vote. Whites make up 75%, and 60% of that is 45%. where the near 50/50 difference between democrats and republicans comes from is how minorities vote. mostly democratic, but the republicans are making more and more effort to pander to them, which helps. The issue that the republicans will face is: Can they captivate the minority voting demographic quickly enough before whites are no longer the significant voting population that they used to be. The future of the republican party in the long-term is dependent on this metric. either way, the republicans are going to have to significantly change their party platform to be more liberal. They will have to beat the democrats at their own game.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because Democrats aren't racist at all and don't refer to black conservatives as "mouthpieces" or "Uncle Toms". It's kind of what happens when one party gets falsely painted as racist.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46417278]That's what I was trying to avoid with the last sentence. Good work trying to stir shit though, you're getting good at that. Still don't get why gun-rights advocates are so concerned about people wanting to even discuss this shit. That also completely eludes me.[/QUOTE] dood if you want to debate gun rights all day thats cool man, all the more power to yah, but theres a time and a place to do it and this thread is neither of those things. Theres a thread in MD last I checked for you to go debate gun control in, if that threads not around go make another.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46417433]Yeah, because Democrats aren't racist at all and don't refer to black conservatives as "mouthpieces" or "Uncle Toms". It's kind of what happens when one party gets falsely painted as racist.[/QUOTE] When democrats say they're for women and minorities they really mean liberal women and minorities. They don't care when people like Herman Cain get called racist things or when women like Sarah palin have misogynistic comments constantly made about her.* Whether you agree with their policies or not should be irrelevant to how they're treated in the common square.