US mid-term elections

Flexichick · 8th November 2006, 07:13 PM

The Democrats took back the House, could possibly take back the Senate and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned.

It's like Christmas in November!

A clear signal to the Bush White House that people are NOT happy with the Iraq war and the lies that surrounded it.

If it wasn't raining gatos y perros, I'd do a little dance in the street

Flexichick · 8th November 2006, 11:03 PM

I'm wondering how much coverage and what the sentiment is on this around the world.

Anyone?

ValenciaSon · 8th November 2006, 11:09 PM

The senate remains split 50/50 by both parties but the republicans still have the advantage since ties can be shifted by the Vice President; a republican

The house does not have enough democrats for a supermajority vote (> 66%).

But at least the country is taking a turn towards a better direction, you gotta start somewhere

ValenciaSon · 8th November 2006, 11:10 PM

Just out of curiosity, did our elections make it to the news radar at all in Europe?

guapo · 8th November 2006, 11:14 PM

well it was the lead item on the BBC news tonight (does anybody still watch tv?) and I guess it will be on the front page of the newspapers tomorrow. So there is plenty of coverage here.

The question is what does it mean, will anything change or does it mean the US will be stuck with a lame-duck president for the next two years and is that a bad thing?

Alan · 8th November 2006, 11:25 PM

American politics are very important in all of the world, because, well, you have the weapons...

All of this goes back to the same argument. It's great that Bush isn't as strong, but I think the Democrats are only marginally better. You have a two party system: you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Clinton's administration still commited atrocities, but he did it with a smile on his face and he played the sax. What a guy! And you can't vote for a third party, for fear of "wasting your vote". I suppose it is wasting your vote.

In Scotland we have a form of proportional representation, which is better than first-past-the-post for many reasons. We have six main parties. You guys need that. It might help you control the power you have and aim it towards what the people want.

I have been enjoying reading about the swing towards the Democrats. My only fear is that it may not last long enough.

ValenciaSon · 8th November 2006, 11:32 PM

If the democrats don't eff it up it can last a good while, even grabbing the triumvirate come 08.

While no one is innocent, the republicans certainly outpaced the democrats in terms of corruption, arrogance, deception and an isolationist mentality which just about ostracized us from the world.

Is there a difference between the two parties in terms of integrity and cooperation? You betcha! Otherwise, the democrats wouldn't have had their victory thanks to the swing voters and Rumsfeld would still be the secretary of defense.

guapo · 8th November 2006, 11:35 PM

not so sure about that PR thing though, it is certainly no guarantee that there won't be abuses of power. See the link for the crazy sort of thing you can still get even with a government elected by PR.

gary · 8th November 2006, 11:52 PM

Soon someone will film the last helicopter to leave Iraq and Tim Rice will write the lyrics to the hit musical Miss Bagdhad

Dubyas dad should have finished the job the first time round...

Flexichick · 9th November 2006, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary

Soon someone will film the last helicopter to leave Iraq and Tim Rice will write the lyrics to the hit musical Miss Bagdhad

Dubyas dad should have finished the job the first time round...

Well, you're not the only one who thinks that......to paraphrase the Dixie Chicks "I'm embarrassed that Bush is an American"

ValenciaSon · 9th November 2006, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary

Soon someone will film the last helicopter to leave Iraq and Tim Rice will write the lyrics to the hit musical Miss Bagdhad

Dubyas dad should have finished the job the first time round...

As long as it ain't Andrew Lloyd Weber writing the lyrics and turning it into a musical!

guapo · 9th November 2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValenciaSon

As long as it ain't Andrew Lloyd Weber writing the lyrics and turning it into a musical!

talking of music (and I use the term loosely here) what about the other big story of the day - Britney filing for divorce

Alan · 9th November 2006, 12:12 AM

Absolutely. Any voting system has its problems. With PR, an incredibly small party can swing the balance of power by deciding who to side with to form a coalition. This is the case in Scotland at the moment. Labour would form a minority government without the Liberal Democrats.

But, my point is that the voice of the people matters, and when a small proportion of the people change their minds, that is reflected immediately in terms of how many politicians from each party get elected. At the moment, it is very difficult for a third party to appear, because a vote for that party appears to be (and therefore is) wasted.

South Park sums it up pretty well with the episode entitled "Douche and Turd".

ValenciaSon, I'm sure you're right that there's a difference. I particularly liked Al Gore's passion about the environment, which is something that is somewhat lacking from the current administration. Are they still as strong on those policies without Al Gore as heid bummer?

Voting for the other guys does not necessarily mean that they are the best people for the job either. I respect that you think they are and I'm not saying that I don't think they are. I'm playing my favourite game: devil's advocate. I don't know if this reached the US, but it was big news in Europe. In the French 2002 presidential election, Jacques Chirac (in France's version of the Republican party) was being challenged by Lionel Jospin (in their version of the Democratic party) and a third candidate: Jean-Marie Le Pen. The French were really pissed off by Chirac because of his right-wing policies; and the French do pissed off well. But they didn't want to vote for Jospin, because he was too much of a Liberal pansy. So, they voted for the third guy. A bit about Jean-Marie Le Pen: he founded the National Front party. This is a very far right, racist and facist party. The people of France did not want him in power. But they voted for him, to give Chirac a lesson. He actually won the first round, and it's lucky that there is more than one round because that was Chirac's only chance to win the electorate back (and he did). Yeah, it's a bit wordy, but it is possible for people to vote out of spite without really changing.

You see, you don't really have choice. You seem to have the choice of being aggressive or being aggressive. All in the pursuit of happiness, of course

But the problem is (as Eddie Izzard says) that you pursue happiness

and there isn't the choice not to, with a third party or PR.

But, as I say, I am delighted by these results. It shows, as far as is possible with your voting system, that the people are not happy with the Bush administration and it sends a great message out worldwide.

cubix · 9th November 2006, 05:15 AM

Al Gore never showed his passion for the environment when running in 2000, and even when he was V.P. he did not accomplish much in ways of the environment. Also, the environment is not a good campaign issue, I was reading an article about this issue, they found that something like 95% of americans wanted to protect the environment, but they did not think of it as a significant campaign issue.

On Bush being a lame-duck President, I don't think he will become one. I think if anything he will work with Speak Pelosi, and also remember how small the margin is. Also, Liberman might swing more republican due to the fact that he ran as a independent and the Democrats will not give him the committees and chairships he wants.

It has also been proven that the government is divided(President is one party and the legislature is the other party) more is accomplished than when the same party controls both.

Also, with this election. One really has to look at the last 3 months or so for the Republicans. We have the foley, we have DeLay, Abramoff, etc.

I am glad Rumsfeld stepped down, it is time for a change. The only thing that concerns me, is that the Republicans were voted out mainly due to Iraq, but yet the Democrats also do not have a plan. What mudslining is going to occur in 2008.

ValenciaSon · 9th November 2006, 12:56 PM

Well I just found out that James Webb is beating the Virginia incumbent senator George Allen. With this victory it gives the democrats ruling majority in the senate!

So we (dems) have the house and the senate! All that remains is the White House

If the democrats have a plan, you wouldn't of heard it since up until now, the republicans controlled the agenda on the floor of the house and the senate so you can't say the dems don't have a plan just because you haven't heard it.

gary · 9th November 2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValenciaSon

Well I just found out that James Webb is beating the Virginia incumbent senator George Allen. With this victory it gives the democrats ruling majority in the senate!

So we (dems) have the house and the senate! All that remains is the White House

If the democrats have a plan, you wouldn't of heard it since up until now, the republicans controlled the agenda on the floor of the house and the senate so you can't say the dems don't have a plan just because you haven't heard it.

Hope they do better than New Labour did when they took over in the UK.... now they might even be arresting a serving prime minister for cash for honours...

richardksa · 9th November 2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gary

now they might even be arresting a serving prime minister for cash for honours...

Oh please, please, please. Just to prove there is a God. But the others have to be locked up too.

What the heck - I'm moving to Spain.

gary · 9th November 2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richardksa

Oh please, please, please. Just to prove there is a God. But the others have to be locked up too.

What the heck - I'm moving to Spain.

i'm with you on that one... What about Madrid in april.. can you get the time off pumping the black stuff?

britinbangkok · 14th November 2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubix

Al Gore never showed his passion for the environment when running in 2000, and even when he was V.P. he did not accomplish much in ways of the environment. Also, the environment is not a good campaign issue, I was reading an article about this issue, they found that something like 95% of americans wanted to protect the environment, but they did not think of it as a significant campaign issue.

Cubix, actually that's not quite true. The family of one of my close friends in Texas is 'best friends' with the Gore's ie: they've travelled with them for years, had family events together etc. In the early 90s, my friend talked about Gore and his environmental campaigning. He's been obsessed with the environment ever since it became such a big issue in the 80s.

Crazy though, isn't it, that most Americans don't think the environment is a campaign issue? I've been out of the USA for almost 4 years now, and have absolutely no interest in ever living there again. It's stuff like that that just pisses me off about the US (not to mention their taking over the world, sticking their nose in other countries' business, their without question support of everything Israel does etc.). Lived there for 23 years and never loved the place.

But.....I am thrilled that the Dems have the majority. Don't think a lot will change, but it will put Bush in the position of lame duck President, which means he won't be able to pass extreme issues either (which unfortunately is what tends to often happen when a President is in a last term and doesn't have to worry about re-election).

ValenciaSon · 14th November 2006, 02:26 PM

I would hope that no one lumps the US policy makers along with everyone else in the US because alot of us are frustrated at the current administration's position on the environment, and interfering with other governments while taking an isolationist's stance with the rest of the world, amongst other issues. Believe it or not, most of us americans do not want to conquer the world, nor use it as our junkyard.

I'm not saying you must return to the US or that you can't have your own opinion, but in a country as large and diverse as the US, there must've been some redeeming qualities you found.

8th November 2006, 07:13 PM	#1
Flexichick Super Forero Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 106	US mid-term elections The Democrats took back the House, could possibly take back the Senate and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned. It's like Christmas in November! A clear signal to the Bush White House that people are NOT happy with the Iraq war and the lies that surrounded it. If it wasn't raining gatos y perros, I'd do a little dance in the street

8th November 2006, 11:10 PM	#4
ValenciaSon Hero Forero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Posts: 4,923	Just out of curiosity, did our elections make it to the news radar at all in Europe? Last edited by ValenciaSon; 8th November 2006 at 11:14 PM.

8th November 2006, 11:52 PM	#9
gary Samuri Forero Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 2,724	Soon someone will film the last helicopter to leave Iraq and Tim Rice will write the lyrics to the hit musical Miss Bagdhad Dubyas dad should have finished the job the first time round... Last edited by gary; 8th November 2006 at 11:57 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

8th November 2006, 11:03 PM	#2
Flexichick Super Forero Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NYC Posts: 106	I'm wondering how much coverage and what the sentiment is on this around the world. Anyone?

8th November 2006, 11:09 PM	#3
ValenciaSon Hero Forero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Posts: 4,923	The senate remains split 50/50 by both parties but the republicans still have the advantage since ties can be shifted by the Vice President; a republican The house does not have enough democrats for a supermajority vote (> 66%). But at least the country is taking a turn towards a better direction, you gotta start somewhere

8th November 2006, 11:14 PM	#5
guapo Mega Forero Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London Posts: 364	well it was the lead item on the BBC news tonight (does anybody still watch tv?) and I guess it will be on the front page of the newspapers tomorrow. So there is plenty of coverage here. The question is what does it mean, will anything change or does it mean the US will be stuck with a lame-duck president for the next two years and is that a bad thing?

8th November 2006, 11:25 PM	#6
Alan El Listo ;) Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 661	American politics are very important in all of the world, because, well, you have the weapons... All of this goes back to the same argument. It's great that Bush isn't as strong, but I think the Democrats are only marginally better. You have a two party system: you have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Clinton's administration still commited atrocities, but he did it with a smile on his face and he played the sax. What a guy! And you can't vote for a third party, for fear of "wasting your vote". I suppose it is wasting your vote. In Scotland we have a form of proportional representation, which is better than first-past-the-post for many reasons. We have six main parties. You guys need that. It might help you control the power you have and aim it towards what the people want. I have been enjoying reading about the swing towards the Democrats. My only fear is that it may not last long enough.

8th November 2006, 11:32 PM	#7
ValenciaSon Hero Forero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Posts: 4,923	If the democrats don't eff it up it can last a good while, even grabbing the triumvirate come 08. While no one is innocent, the republicans certainly outpaced the democrats in terms of corruption, arrogance, deception and an isolationist mentality which just about ostracized us from the world. Is there a difference between the two parties in terms of integrity and cooperation? You betcha! Otherwise, the democrats wouldn't have had their victory thanks to the swing voters and Rumsfeld would still be the secretary of defense.

8th November 2006, 11:35 PM	#8
guapo Mega Forero Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: London Posts: 364	not so sure about that PR thing though, it is certainly no guarantee that there won't be abuses of power. See the link for the crazy sort of thing you can still get even with a government elected by PR.

9th November 2006, 12:12 AM	#13
Alan El Listo ;) Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 661	Absolutely. Any voting system has its problems. With PR, an incredibly small party can swing the balance of power by deciding who to side with to form a coalition. This is the case in Scotland at the moment. Labour would form a minority government without the Liberal Democrats. But, my point is that the voice of the people matters, and when a small proportion of the people change their minds, that is reflected immediately in terms of how many politicians from each party get elected. At the moment, it is very difficult for a third party to appear, because a vote for that party appears to be (and therefore is) wasted. South Park sums it up pretty well with the episode entitled "Douche and Turd". ValenciaSon, I'm sure you're right that there's a difference. I particularly liked Al Gore's passion about the environment, which is something that is somewhat lacking from the current administration. Are they still as strong on those policies without Al Gore as heid bummer? Voting for the other guys does not necessarily mean that they are the best people for the job either. I respect that you think they are and I'm not saying that I don't think they are. I'm playing my favourite game: devil's advocate. I don't know if this reached the US, but it was big news in Europe. In the French 2002 presidential election, Jacques Chirac (in France's version of the Republican party) was being challenged by Lionel Jospin (in their version of the Democratic party) and a third candidate: Jean-Marie Le Pen. The French were really pissed off by Chirac because of his right-wing policies; and the French do pissed off well. But they didn't want to vote for Jospin, because he was too much of a Liberal pansy. So, they voted for the third guy. A bit about Jean-Marie Le Pen: he founded the National Front party. This is a very far right, racist and facist party. The people of France did not want him in power. But they voted for him, to give Chirac a lesson. He actually won the first round, and it's lucky that there is more than one round because that was Chirac's only chance to win the electorate back (and he did). Yeah, it's a bit wordy, but it is possible for people to vote out of spite without really changing. You see, you don't really have choice. You seem to have the choice of being aggressive or being aggressive. All in the pursuit of happiness, of course But the problem is (as Eddie Izzard says) that you pursue happiness and there isn't the choice not to, with a third party or PR. But, as I say, I am delighted by these results. It shows, as far as is possible with your voting system, that the people are not happy with the Bush administration and it sends a great message out worldwide.

9th November 2006, 05:15 AM	#14
cubix Mega Forero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United States Posts: 292	Al Gore never showed his passion for the environment when running in 2000, and even when he was V.P. he did not accomplish much in ways of the environment. Also, the environment is not a good campaign issue, I was reading an article about this issue, they found that something like 95% of americans wanted to protect the environment, but they did not think of it as a significant campaign issue. On Bush being a lame-duck President, I don't think he will become one. I think if anything he will work with Speak Pelosi, and also remember how small the margin is. Also, Liberman might swing more republican due to the fact that he ran as a independent and the Democrats will not give him the committees and chairships he wants. It has also been proven that the government is divided(President is one party and the legislature is the other party) more is accomplished than when the same party controls both. Also, with this election. One really has to look at the last 3 months or so for the Republicans. We have the foley, we have DeLay, Abramoff, etc. I am glad Rumsfeld stepped down, it is time for a change. The only thing that concerns me, is that the Republicans were voted out mainly due to Iraq, but yet the Democrats also do not have a plan. What mudslining is going to occur in 2008.

9th November 2006, 12:56 PM	#15
ValenciaSon Hero Forero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Posts: 4,923	Well I just found out that James Webb is beating the Virginia incumbent senator George Allen. With this victory it gives the democrats ruling majority in the senate! So we (dems) have the house and the senate! All that remains is the White House If the democrats have a plan, you wouldn't of heard it since up until now, the republicans controlled the agenda on the floor of the house and the senate so you can't say the dems don't have a plan just because you haven't heard it.

14th November 2006, 02:26 PM	#20
ValenciaSon Hero Forero Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Posts: 4,923	I would hope that no one lumps the US policy makers along with everyone else in the US because alot of us are frustrated at the current administration's position on the environment, and interfering with other governments while taking an isolationist's stance with the rest of the world, amongst other issues. Believe it or not, most of us americans do not want to conquer the world, nor use it as our junkyard. I'm not saying you must return to the US or that you can't have your own opinion, but in a country as large and diverse as the US, there must've been some redeeming qualities you found.