Forum index / General Chat / Mid-term Elections

Mid-term Elections

30 posts · page 1 of 1

post #1
08 November 2006, 18:50 UTC#1
The Democrats won the House and it's looking like they're winning the Senate too. This is a damn good day for America. Does anyone care/have an opinion? And did anyone old enough vote? Finally America can (hopefully) get going in the right direction.
post #2
08 November 2006, 19:00 UTC#2
shut up ray!:)
post #3
08 November 2006, 19:01 UTC#3
It's not my fault you're an un-educated dolt! What's the matter Cody, MTV not give you enough election coverage? Too stupid to understand what the numbers mean?


<3 you :wub:
post #4
08 November 2006, 19:29 UTC#4
Marijuana legalization in Nevada and Colorado lost :sad:
post #5
08 November 2006, 19:30 UTC#5
Haha, now you'll never be able to get high again!

No wait...
post #6
08 November 2006, 19:44 UTC#6
QUOTE(RayBorDumB @ Nov 8 2006, 07:50 PM) [snapback]395788[/snapback]

The Democrats won the House and it's looking like they're winning the Senate too. This is a damn good day for America. Does anyone care/have an opinion? And did anyone old enough vote? Finally America can (hopefully) get going in the right direction.


Damn good day for Canada aswell! I'm not sure how the political system works there, but if the Democrats win both, no more worrying about George W. There's going to be a huge shift with Bushs' government decimated, hopefully it goes the right way. Not that you can get much more conservative than Bush...
post #7
08 November 2006, 19:47 UTC#7
Yeah, that's what I was talking about mostly, the fact that Bush's power is basically gone without the support of Congress. It's back to the bi-partial government it was 15 years ago. Basically with the shift back to Democratic control and the Congress being a lot more evenly-distributed means for the entire world that America's war mongering and conservative legislation and diplomatic policy will change and be a lot better for the global community.
post #8
08 November 2006, 19:48 UTC#8
I heard that it's drawn with the senate at the moment? Not that I actually listen that much.
post #9
08 November 2006, 19:54 UTC#9
Well, it's Democratic edge 50-49 and there's one state that's still being decided, Virginia, and as of now, Virginia is leaning towards the Democratic candidate. The most the Republicans can hope for is to have the Rep. Candidate in Virginia win so they can tie it up, 50-50. But it's looking like Virginia's going to elect the Democrat. So, good news. Plus Donal Rumsfeld just stepped down as Defense Secretary, which is really good. He's known as the architect of the war in Iraq and with him gone maybe we'll be more apt to get the hell out of there.
post #10
08 November 2006, 19:57 UTC#10
QUOTE(RayBorDumB @ Nov 8 2006, 08:54 PM) [snapback]395806[/snapback]

Plus Donal Rumsfeld just stepped down as Defense Secretary, which is really good. He's known as the architect of the war in Iraq and with him gone maybe we'll be more apt to get the hell out of there.

It'll still be a long time before America or Britain fully pull out. We fucked too much up of their country's way of life, and we made it no where near as good as we planned, so they can't just leave it, it would make it more of a mockery than it is.
post #11
08 November 2006, 20:02 UTC#11
True that man, but as far as an exit strategy goes and a timeline of when they want to get shit done, it'll be more likely to happen with the Democratic Congress and fresh faces in the Defense Dept.
post #12
08 November 2006, 21:42 UTC#12
What does this stuff all mean? I've heard a lot about it today but don't really know what's what.
post #13
08 November 2006, 21:50 UTC#13
I think all politicians are inconherant assholes, the only reason people voted for democratics is because mainly of bush, if he was a democrat, people would probably vote republican.
post #14
08 November 2006, 21:52 UTC#14
Well, the US Gov is made up of three branches...Judicial, Executive, and Legislative. The Legislative branch is made up of what's known as a "bi-cameral" Congress. Meaning two houses - the House of Representatives and the Senate. And every 2 years Senate seats are voted for and since America is primarily a 2 party system and there are 100 seats in the Senate, 50 of them go up for grabs every other year. This year is an election year known as a "Mid-term" because it's midway through the President's term (4 years). Anyway, this year the 50 seats went up for grabs (electorally) and the Democrats needed to get the 51-49 seat edge on the Republicans so that the Democratic ideology and platform can have a chance to flourish (primarily exiting Iraq and other "liberal" standpoints). And it has basically happened that way this year in the Senate.
The House of Representatives is the other house of Congress and it went overwhelmingly to the Democrats by like 35 seats or something? There's a much larger number of seats in the House of Reps, based on population of the state they represent.
Anyway, it all means that America's become more liberal and more likely to become a lot friendlier on the global front.
post #15
08 November 2006, 21:57 UTC#15
IPB Image

post #16
08 November 2006, 22:05 UTC#16
It really does boil down to the necessity of everyone in the world, no matter what nationality you are, to hunt and kill ManBearPig.



I'm super cereal.
post #17
08 November 2006, 22:08 UTC#17
QUOTE(RayBorDumB @ Nov 9 2006, 01:05 AM) [snapback]395852[/snapback]

It really does boil down to the necessity of everyone in the world, no matter what nationality you are, to hunt and kill ManBearPig.



I'm super cereal.

EXCELSIOOOOOOOOOOOR :D no but seriosuly. Ray you know your shit. Do you really think that the us style of government is the best one? and the election system? (im sorry that it sounds silly but I couldnt be arsed to think of proper words.. english is only my 3rd language)
post #18
08 November 2006, 22:09 UTC#18
This is good. Republicans are nazis who hate porno and stuff.
post #19
08 November 2006, 22:09 UTC#19
What do the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches do individualy or what do they consist of etc?
post #20
08 November 2006, 22:10 UTC#20
QUOTE(WEAK @ Nov 9 2006, 01:09 AM) [snapback]395854[/snapback]

This is good. Republicans are nazis who hate porno and stuff.

and stuff :laugh: weak is a dirty man
post #21
08 November 2006, 22:22 UTC#21
QUOTE(j0nes @ Nov 8 2006, 07:08 PM) [snapback]395853[/snapback]

QUOTE(RayBorDumB @ Nov 9 2006, 01:05 AM) [snapback]395852[/snapback]

It really does boil down to the necessity of everyone in the world, no matter what nationality you are, to hunt and kill ManBearPig.



I'm super cereal.

EXCELSIOOOOOOOOOOOR :D no but seriosuly. Ray you know your shit. Do you really think that the us style of government is the best one? and the election system? (im sorry that it sounds silly but I couldnt be arsed to think of proper words.. english is only my 3rd language)

Well, I think that Democracy in itself is a great idea and one of the best ways to run a country. Just like real Communism would be great if it could work actually. But that's the problem with Democracy too, pure Democracy is somewhat impossible to achieve on account of there being countless people either too lazy or too stupid to understand all of the issues and what they believe. I guess that as far as what we can do as a nation to have a centralized government whilst keeping our independence is our form of a Representative Democracy. I've never lived anywhere besides America, so I don't know how well other nations work out, but it seems that all countries have problems with corruption and disenfranchisement of large groups of people, no matter what form of government they have. So I really don't know what the answer is, as long as there are shitty people doing shitty things, a country's going to be shitty. It's just a matter of satisfying enough people at a time to keep the image of stability and social harmony. I guess the idea of election of the candidate you really want in charge is the best way in my eyes. If not through election it would seem like the government could put any douchebag in there they please. I don't know really though, I guess it works if it's done right, it's just very rarely done right.
post #22
08 November 2006, 23:20 UTC#22
Yeah not exactly what I meant to ask... but yeah ok. oh btw Finland has least corruption in the whole world! HOORRAY! erm.. ok... and yeah I agree what with you said.


I meant the system that you vote for a guy who votes for the president or whatever... I dont get it... you dont vote directly on the candidate?

QUOTE
"the President, is elected indirectly by the people, through electors of an electoral college. In modern times, the electors virtually always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, Congress, are directly elected.


This is what I meant.... I dont see the point in voting for ellectors...
post #23
09 November 2006, 00:18 UTC#23
Yeah, the Electoral College is for the Presidential election. And it really is stupid. It basically means that each state is given a sort of "point value" based on the population of the state. So, California has the most points because it has the highest population, it will have like 27 points or electoral college votes because of its population. Whichever candidate gets the most electoral college votes win. A big state with a lot of people like California carries a lot of weight and electoral votes while a state like North Dakota or Alaska has very few electoral votes because of its small population size. So basically if the majority of a state votes for the Democratic candidate then that candidate gets the electoral votes for that state and whichever candidate gets the most electoral votes wins the election. So techinically a candidate could get the least votes from the least people in America, like 45% of the popular vote and his opponent could get 55% of the votes and the guy with fewer votes would win the election if he won the majority of the votes in states with large populations that have the most electoral points to it. Like New York, California, Ohio, Florida, Pennsyvania, Texas etc. So really it's not election by popular vote, but election on a state by state basis giving weight to the states with a higher population.

Edit- Bush was originally elected in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote by 2% he still won because he got the most electoral votes from the electoral college by winning the states that had the most weight to them.
post #24
09 November 2006, 03:12 UTC#24
damn ray...you know your shit dont you...I didnt vote cause im crippled
post #25
09 November 2006, 03:15 UTC#25
You should've cast an absentee ballot! Or a provisional! Kids these days.
post #26
09 November 2006, 03:27 UTC#26
im not that political...sry Image file not present in the recovered backup
post #27
09 November 2006, 03:31 UTC#27
That's fine, you don't have to be. Just sucks when people act like they know and make assumptions about things they don't understand. Image file not present in the recovered backup
post #28
09 November 2006, 03:33 UTC#28
I didn't vote because I don't give a fuck, either way it'll still suck. Too many ignorant people would cancel out my vote anyways.
post #29
09 November 2006, 03:36 UTC#29
True that! I hate it when people just vote on party lines because it's what their parents or friends or neighbors do.
post #30
09 November 2006, 22:18 UTC#30
Yey, go democrats! Mabe they'll improve out "nucolor" weapons program!