Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-2014/#senate

GOP has 52 Senate seats and 223 House seats as of err... right now?

GOP has potential for 3 more... one is in definite run-off in LA.

I'm still tweaking out that Governor Quinn lost.

 RivenSkull wrote:
Bachman 2.0?

No, not at all. She has all the same extremist positions as Michele Bachmann, but is much more polished - she has learned well the lessons from Sarah Palin.

Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds. Or just impeach Obama.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:
Bachman 2.0?

No, not at all. She has all the same extremist positions as Michele Bachmann, but is much more polished - she has learned well the lessons from Sarah Palin.

Dunno about that... but, you'd be best to know.

Her voice drives me nutso more than Palin's.

*shrug*

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.

By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.

By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.

That's how it works.

Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.

Ya know... how it's supposed to work?

In other news... the Govenorship... this is insane:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...

Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?

Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.

Well... both of us were wrong.

Looks like Hogan is the next MD's governor! o.O

Red Wave™ indeed.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Despite all the noise, ObamaCare is fairly popular. The window to get rid of it has long passed. They might be able to get rid of stuff that needs to go (aka, actually fix the thing), but getting rid of it won't happen. There is too much on the line for the GOP and screwing with the ACA will hurt them too much in 2016.

You know... I don't buy that. (that ACA is very popular)

I think it's one of those deals where almost every individual part of the ACA is popular, but if you present "the ACA" people don't like it. But there are too many tangible benefits to where "repeal and replace" just wouldn't be popular, not that it is feasable anyway with the power of the veto. I still think they will do it at least once to pander to the base and they will probably do it early, but I really don't think they will push it much after that.

Fixes will probably happen, even though the GOP resisted them im public although they quietly made some key fixes with the Democrats already, but they will focus on being "good" to make a favorable impression for 2016.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.

By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.

That's how it works.

Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.

Ya know... how it's supposed to work?

They did that in the first 2 years. "Compromise" turned into rolling over for what the GOP wanted.

And when the Dems wanted to negotiate and did give ground last year, they didn't give "enough" and the budget wasn't passed and a government shut down happened.

And that's not counting the endless filibusters the GOP Senate did for things like appointees.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.

By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.

That's how it works.

Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.

Ya know... how it's supposed to work?

Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.

 RivenSkull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.

By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.

That's how it works.

Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.

Ya know... how it's supposed to work?

They did that in the first 2 years. "Compromise" turned into rolling over for what the GOP wanted.

And when the Dems wanted to negotiate and did give ground last year, they didn't give "enough" and the budget wasn't passed and a government shut down happened.

The GOP House passed bills to fund the government.

Reid/Obama had no interest in negotiating.

Speaking of which... Cruz and all are pretty much vindicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.

And where was this fething mindset between '08 and '10?

The fething ACA? Not one Republican voted for it, nor were given opportunity to be "at the table".

After tonight, the memo should be:
Dear Democrats: Your asses? They have been kicked.

So maybe that'll humble the current (D)s a bit.*

*not holding my breath

Ignore this message

 whembly wrote:

 RivenSkull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.

You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.

Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.

By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.

That's how it works.

Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.

Ya know... how it's supposed to work?

They did that in the first 2 years. "Compromise" turned into rolling over for what the GOP wanted.

And when the Dems wanted to negotiate and did give ground last year, they didn't give "enough" and the budget wasn't passed and a government shut down happened.

The GOP House passed bills to fund the government.

Reid/Obama had no interest in negotiating.

Speaking of which... Cruz and all are pretty much vindicated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.

And where was this fething mindset between '08 and '10?

The fething ACA? Not one Republican voted for it, nor were given opportunity to be "at the table".

After tonight, the memo should be:
Dear Democrats: Your asses? They have been kicked.

So maybe that'll humble the current (D)s a bit.*

*not holding my breath

Because the bill defunded massive parts of the ACA. The ACA was signed into law and the GOP continued to push to repeal/defund it. They wanted to re-negotiate things that had already been signed and passed. The GOP was trying to renegotiate things in the past. I mean if they want to do that, than can the Dems renegotiate the Iraq and Afghanistan war debt?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.

And where was this fething mindset between '08 and '10?

The fething ACA? Not one Republican voted for it, nor were given opportunity to be "at the table".

After tonight, the memo should be:
Dear Democrats: Your asses? They have been kicked.

So maybe that'll humble the current (D)s a bit.*

*not holding my breath

Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.

No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?

 RivenSkull wrote:

Because the bill defunded massive parts of the ACA. The ACA was signed into law and the GOP continued to push to repeal/defund it. They wanted to re-negotiate things that had already been signed and passed. The GOP was trying to renegotiate things in the past. I mean if they want to do that, than can the Dems renegotiate the Iraq and Afghanistan war debt?

Newsflash buddy...

It's not unheard of to repeal/change previously passed laws.

And yes, they'll try to but a "repeal" bill on Obama's desk to force him to veto it.

Then, what'll likely happen is to incrementally repeal the onerous parts of the ACA (ie, device tax, employer mandate, HHS regulations, etc...)

I'm glad Maryland Governorship fell to Republicans.

Repeal the fething Rain Tax (google it) first off, and maybe some of the dozens of taxes Martin O'Malley signed into law since 2007.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.

Wait... back up.

The GOP took over the House. They were duly elected too... right?

So, they passed bills galore and yet, Reid wouldn't floor it on the Senate... and yet it's the GOP's fault?

Me thinks you don't know the meaning of obstructionist.

No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?

Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.

Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.

Deal with it.

 nels1031 wrote:
I'm glad Maryland Governorship fell to Republicans.

Repeal the fething Rain Tax (google it) first off, and maybe some of the dozens of taxes Martin O'Malley signed into law since 2007.

Interesting. A bad idea, but still a problem that needs to be solved.

The only times the House made any bill that involved the ACA was one of the 54 times they voted to fully repeal or openly gut the law.

And then the GOP Senators filibustering judge and other position appointees to the point where we've not had a Surgeon General for well over a year.



But no, it's been the Dem's who have been obstructionists. Keep sipping that Ailes and Murdock coolaid

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.

Wait... back up.

The GOP took over the House. They were duly elected too... right?

So, they passed bills galore and yet, Reid wouldn't floor it on the Senate... and yet it's the GOP's fault?

Me thinks you don't know the meaning of obstructionist.
You just accused Obama of being obstructionist for passing the ACA (which is just passing a controversial law, pretty much the oppiste). The Ds are being obstructionist, I will agree, but so are the Rs. They have been against Obama from day one, It's what the tea party ran on. They have been against things that they actually support, just because Obama is the one putting them out there. If that's not obstructionist, I don't know what is.

No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?

Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.

Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.

Deal with it.

Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.

Wait... back up.

The GOP took over the House. They were duly elected too... right?

So, they passed bills galore and yet, Reid wouldn't floor it on the Senate... and yet it's the GOP's fault?

Me thinks you don't know the meaning of obstructionist.
You just accused Obama of being obstructionist for passing the ACA (which is just passing a controversial law, pretty much the oppiste). The Ds are being obstructionist, I will agree, but so are the Rs. They have been against Obama from day one, It's what the tea party ran on. They have been against things that they actually support, just because Obama is the one putting them out there. If that's not obstructionist, I don't know what is.

Actually, I accused Reid of being obstructionist (likely at the behest of Obama).

The Democrats got spanked largely because of the ACA and other Obama/Democrat's policies.

No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?

Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.

Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.

Deal with it.

Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?

 whembly wrote:

No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?

Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.

Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.

Deal with it.

Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?

Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.

Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.

Deal with it.

Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?

How could I? The were largely excluded from the drafting.

What? That has nothing to do with it. I want to know what changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it. It has nothing to do with whether or not they were allowed to participate.

My point exactly, they would just weaken it then vote against it anyway.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My point exactly, they would just weaken it then vote against it anyway.

Objection... speculative.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
My point exactly, they would just weaken it then vote against it anyway.

Objection... speculative.

Of course it speculation, by divining ball is at the cleaners!

 whembly wrote:

Honestly? I wouldn't know...

So you have no idea how the R's would "improve" it?

The House bills they were passing had in writing what they wanted to do to "improve" the bill. How could you know if they were trying to bring reasonable things to the table if you didn't know the contents of the bills?

 whembly wrote:
Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?

I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?

I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.

Sad thing is Reagan had further left policies than Obama

Wow, the Rust Belt went VERY red... I wonder if thats a sign of things to come in 2016?

 RivenSkull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Honestly? I wouldn't know...

So you have no idea how the R's would "improve" it?

The House bills they were passing had in writing what they wanted to do to "improve" the bill. How could you know if they were trying to bring reasonable things to the table if you didn't know the contents of the bills?

Dude... last fall, right before that "shut down", the house passed several variations of the budget.

ONE had it to simply delay the Employer Mandate. Result? Reid refused to floor it. Several months later? Obama unilaterally delayed the Employer Mandate.

Because... politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?

I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.

Wut?

You know it didn't matter once Reid et. el. instituted the Nuke Option™ for non-SC nominee...right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wow, the Rust Belt went VERY red... I wonder if thats a sign of things to come in 2016?

This is what a RED WAVE looks like: