Fox News: Democrats projected to win control of U.S. House

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, Nilats said:

I'm not in any camp for sure... definitely not American enough for that. Same as I'm not in either pro- or anti Jair Bolsonaro camp... nobody is entitled to be in either one of those either. This is the hardest thing to break through to you - none of your conduct or behaviour proves that you are "better people" than anybody - it's quite the opposite I'm afraid ????

As for your contention about not being in any camp...i've already cited how you got the facts wrong in a way that favors the republican side.

I don't know why you bring up pro and anti Bolsonaro camps, but it certainly makes absolutely no sense to say that "nobody is entitled to be in either one of those either."

Did I ever claim to number myself among "better people"? Why the quotation marks? Your claim here certainly does nothing to establish your honesty? But it does say something about your understanding of quotation marks.

I think the problem is that I called you out on your surmise and your obvious bias, and you respond with some made up trumpery. It's truly bizarre that you say that nobody is entitled to be in either the pro or anti Bolsonaro camp of a person who enthusiastically endorses torture and makes vicious statement about gay people but on the basis of me challenging your grasp of the facts, you assert that I'm worse than anybody.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

That wasn't exactly an answer. Actually this year in lots of states premums are falling. And would have in a lot more if not for Trump's sabotage. And despite your comment that ACA is failing, despite Trumps attempts, enrollment is still very high. It may have fallen very slightly.

I didn't say it was failing, I said it was designed to fail. It was not constructed with the welfare of its users in mind. It was constructed for the benefit of health care providers and insurers instead. It should not be funded by premiums, it should be funded from the general treasury. It is fundamentally "not fair". Obama should have not, by Executive Order, suspended some mandates and not others on what was already law. It is a law that is harder to build on than it is to deconstruct. That's bad law.

[bristolboy]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

I didn't say it was failing, I said it was designed to fail. It was not constructed with the welfare of its users in mind. It was constructed for the benefit of health care providers and insurers instead. It should not be funded by premiums, it should be funded from the general treasury. It is fundamentally "not fair". Obama should have not, by Executive Order, suspended some mandates and not others on what was already law. It is a law that is harder to build on than it is to deconstruct. That's bad law.

And once 2010 came around there was no chance of improving on it given the Republicans' virtually unanimous opposition. But in fact there are lots of nations in the world that offer universal health care via the same principles that Obamacare is founded upon.

The goal is universal health care - how you get there is less important. Given that so many Americans get their health care via employers, it was a nonstarter to try and get there via single payer.

[PhonThong]

On 11/7/2018 at 5:54 PM, JAG said:

Let me get this straight.

You intend to lay off employees on the basis of how they voted? Absolutely shameless!

 

I know nothing of US labour law, but I would be very surprised if that is legal.

 

It is certainly unethical, and makes a mockery of the whole principle of the secret ballot.

 

Perhaps I can coin a new phrase - a "Trumpian" view of democracy?

My business is in a Right to Work State. A person can be let go for any reason or no reason at all. Perfectly legal. While you think it may be unethical. The feeling is, consumer confidence will decline and manufacturing will slow down. 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, PhonThong said:

My business is in a Right to Work State. A person can be let go for any reason or no reason at all. Perfectly legal. While you think it may be unethical. The feeling is, consumer confidence will decline and manufacturing will slow down. 

 

There's an inspiring defense: unethical but legal.

And the reason that there are right to work states that among other things make it difficult to unionize, is the Taft Hartley bill, the pernicious work of Republicans. One of the big reasons that the middle class does so much better in the northern European nations than in the USA is the existence of strong unions.

[bristolboy]

A bit of possible good news - at least for some of us:

Sinema takes slim lead in too-close-to-call Arizona Senate race

 

Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema took a narrow 9,610-vote lead over GOP Rep. Martha McSally Thursday evening as Arizona’s election authorities counted more ballots in the state’s uncalled Senate race.

The lead amounts to less than half a percentage point with over 1.8 million votes counted. McSally was up by 17,703 votes earlier in the day, before the counties processed another 160,000 votes — but about a half-million more votes remain to be counted across Arizona, according to both campaigns.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/08/sinema-takes-slim-lead-in-too-close-to-call-arizona-senate-race-978733

 

Let the cries of voter fraud begin!

[Becker]

29 minutes ago, PhonThong said:

My business is in a Right to Work State. A person can be let go for any reason or no reason at all. Perfectly legal. While you think it may be unethical. 

 

Spoken like a true base man-child supporter.

[ballpoint]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's an inspiring defense: unethical but legal.

And the reason that there are right to work states that among other things make it difficult to unionize, is the Taft Hartley bill, the pernicious work of Republicans. One of the big reasons that the middle class does so much better in the northern European nations than in the USA is the existence of strong unions.

Stop playing with the troll.  Now, go and wash your hands.

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A bit of possible good news - at least for some of us:

Sinema takes slim lead in too-close-to-call Arizona Senate race

 

Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema took a narrow 9,610-vote lead over GOP Rep. Martha McSally Thursday evening as Arizona’s election authorities counted more ballots in the state’s uncalled Senate race.

The lead amounts to less than half a percentage point with over 1.8 million votes counted. McSally was up by 17,703 votes earlier in the day, before the counties processed another 160,000 votes — but about a half-million more votes remain to be counted across Arizona, according to both campaigns.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/08/sinema-takes-slim-lead-in-too-close-to-call-arizona-senate-race-978733

 

Let the cries of voter fraud begin!

 

That's interesting, I had thought that race was called already. Personally I'd rather no races were called until all votes are counted, or at a minimum, that it is a mathematical impossibility that a trailing candidate might overtake the leader.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Becker said:

Spoken like a true base man-child supporter.

Unfortunately this right to work states fire for any reason thing predates the "trump" horror show for a very long time. 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

yes, im not but im happy to ridicule dems political nonsense for they have no agenda.

 

wbr

roobaa01

I don't agree that they have no agenda.

I can give you some common democratic agenda points, domestic ones anyway --

 

Increase minimum wage

Consumer protections

Access to health care for all Americans

Reduce cost of health care

Civil rights for workers, ethnic/racial/religious/sexual minorities

Women's equality

Preserve Roe vs. Wade (abortion choice)

Overturn Citizens United (impossible with current SCOTUS)

Action on global climate change

Transition away from fossil fuels

Tougher environmental policies

Policies to promote more affordable housing

Policies to promote more mass public transport in cities

 

Just off the top of my head. Many more things that differentiate democrats from republicans. People that say they are the same or that Hillary Clinton was as bad as "trump" if you care about such issues are TOTALLY WRONG. 

 

 

[roobaa01]

25 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't agree that they have no agenda.

I can give you some common democratic agenda points, domestic ones anyway --

 

Increase minimum wage

Consumer protections

Access to health care for all Americans

Reduce cost of health care

Civil rights for workers, ethnic/racial/religious/sexual minorities

Women's equality

Preserve Roe vs. Wade (abortion choice)

Overturn Citizens United (impossible with current SCOTUS)

Action on global climate change

Transition away from fossil fuels

Tougher environmental policies

Policies to promote more affordable housing

Policies to promote more mass public transport in cities

 

Just off the top of my head. Many more things that differentiate democrats from republicans. People that say they are the same or that Hillary Clinton was as bad as "trump" if you care about such issues are TOTALLY WRONG. 

 

 

thats why no leading dem figure stepped foward or strategic paper was launched about their political objective after they won ?? the only thing they announced was their trump evil person agenda instead of infrastructure agenda

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

thats why no leading dem figure stepped foward or strategic paper was launched about their political objective after they won ?? the only thing they announced was their trump evil person agenda instead of infrastructure agenda

 

wbr

roobaa01

You haven't been paying attention.

We don't have a democratic president to voice such agendas.

There seem to be 30 to 50 potential democrats running for president in 2020 so who exactly is the clear current leader?

The likely house new MAJORITY leader Pelosi mentioned some of those issues in her recent speech.

The NUMBER ONE issue in the house campaign was HEALTH CARE, about protecting protections of people with preexisting conditions.

The voters OVERWHELMINGLY in a real BLUE WAVE understood that the republicans were cynically lying about their policies on that. 

Sure the house election was also largely a referendum generally on pro or anti "trump" but again the top issue was health care.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

25 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

 

The NUMBER ONE issue in the house campaign was HEALTH CARE, about protecting protections of people with preexisting conditions.

 

 

I do believe health care is the number one issue. If you and the Democrats think all that is expected of them is to maintain a provision that already exists, that won't change given the divided Congress, that my friend is a recipe for a guaranteed loss in 2020.

Edited November 9, 2018 by lannarebirth

[roobaa01]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You haven't been paying attention.

We don't have a democratic president to voice such agendas.

There seem to be 30 to 50 potential democrats running for president in 2020 so who exactly is the clear current leader?

The likely house new MAJORITY leader Pelosi mentioned some of those issues in her recent speech.

The NUMBER ONE issue in the house campaign was HEALTH CARE, about protecting protections of people with preexisting conditions.

The voters OVERWHELMINGLY in a real BLUE WAVE understood that the republicans were cynically lying about their policies on that. 

Sure the house election was also largely a referendum generally on pro or anti "trump" but again the top issue was health care.

senate  dem 46 vs 52 reps

gubernational dems 23 vs 26 reps

house             dems 225 vs 200 reps still on

 

where is the blue wave ?? it is a tap trickle, 2020 trumps second term.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

senate  dem 46 vs 52 reps

gubernational dems 23 vs 26 reps

house             dems 225 vs 200 reps still on

 

where is the blue wave ?? it is a tap trickle, 2020 trumps second term.

 

wbr

roobaa01

What you seriously might consider is acquiring some actual knowledge of the us political system. For instance there are 100 senators in the US Senate. 46+52=98.

As  for governors you might want to ask yourself how many democratic governors were there before the elections and how many after? And further, you might want to ask how many citizens live in states with Democratic governors vs. how many live in states with Republican governors.

And it looks like the democrats will gain 35 seats in the House. Hardly a trickle, especially considering Republican gerrymandering. And it certainly seems to be enraging Trump.

 

[mtls2005]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-senate-elections.html

 

Senate

Of note:

Dems: 46,718,545 (57%)

Repubs: 33,879,703 (41.4%)

 

Looks blue to me

 

Eventually, the Senate will flip, just based on the changing demographics, maybe in 2022?

 

The Connecticut Compromise was just that, a compromise.

 

The increased turnout has got to be an even more depressing number for Republicans.

 

Say what you will about Trump, at least he's got the electorate fired up.

 

 

 

 

[Patriot1066]

2 hours ago, roobaa01 said:

senate  dem 46 vs 52 reps

gubernational dems 23 vs 26 reps

house             dems 225 vs 200 reps still on

 

where is the blue wave ?? it is a tap trickle, 2020 trumps second term.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Here is a big blue wave

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/surfer-rides-largest-wave-ever-watch-video-2018-5

 

Not the democrat small foundering wave.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Patriot1066 said:

What blue wave? It looked more like a slight swell foundering on the rocks of popular Donald Trumps strong will.

 

Here's a big blue wave

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/surfer-rides-largest-wave-ever-watch-video-2018-5

 

A real one!

ANd Donald Trump agrees with you. That's why he has accepted the results so peacefully.

[Morch]

On 11/8/2018 at 5:19 PM, Nilats said:

I'm not really a trump hater... but supporter - where's the evidence of that? I definitely wouldn't be interested in supporting either of the camps 100% ???? I see far too many problems on both sides, neither is even nearly acceptable for my standards. Just a hint instead of sending barrage of hate and insults - maybe your camp should consider to think why so many people voted for him in the first place... staying on the same course and doing what you are doing now doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.

 

What "standards" would these be? And other than a failed deflection, what does the above got to do with your previous post?

 

And seeing as you're having trouble with facts - most people voted for the other side - both in 2016 and on the recent elections. Funny how you don't seem all too bothered by the "barrage of hate and insults" coming from the right, or the President himself.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

On 11/8/2018 at 5:32 PM, roobaa01 said:

exactly but dems are too intolerant to bother

wbr

roobaa01

 

Coming from certain posters, such comments are really amusing.

[Sakeopete]

Good news for Trump now he can blame everything on the democrats leading up to 2020. 

[Nilats]

I'm not going to answer some obvious baters here... I made my simple point very clear earlier. Just on some other things you talked about in relation to the topic. I'm not an American, Trump doesn't represent me but a lot of things he says actually make sense - USA is nearly as big as China was 100 years ago, so it doesn't have nearly the same type, scale or list of problems as any other country - things are not so simple as compared to something Iceland or Finland which both have very small populations. But I think he's actually ridiculously consistent in at least trying to carry out his campaign promises. And the dems - well basically I think a lot of items on their agenda are completely ridiculous, and maybe belong to the world of fantasy rather than things related to running a country. And the main issue - the healthcare - almost all countries that have healthcare( btw I see nothing wrong with that at all) - had it since the 1960s - if dems haven't been able to bring a working healthcare system in the last 60 years - hey maybe that's good enough evidence that they are just not really up for the task. I'm not saying America shouldn't have it - but the guys who keep promising it consistently fail to deliver on their promises. I see no reason to hate Trump... he works on things he can actually get done under the circumstances. Even if I disagree with some things I still see him as a person with relatively high integrity working under extremely hard conditions.

[Patriot1066]

11 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I'm not going to answer some obvious baters here... I made my simple point very clear earlier. Just on some other things you talked about in relation to the topic. I'm not an American, Trump doesn't represent me but a lot of things he says actually make sense - USA is nearly as big as China was 100 years ago, so it doesn't have nearly the same type, scale or list of problems as any other country - things are not so simple as compared to something Iceland or Finland which both have very small populations. But I think he's actually ridiculously consistent in at least trying to carry out his campaign promises. And the dems - well basically I think a lot of items on their agenda are completely ridiculous, and maybe belong to the world of fantasy rather than things related to running a country. And the main issue - the healthcare - almost all countries that have healthcare( btw I see nothing wrong with that at all) - had it since the 1960s - if dems haven't been able to bring a working healthcare system in the last 60 years - hey maybe that's good enough evidence that they are just not really up for the task. I'm not saying America shouldn't have it - but the guys who keep promising it consistently fail to deliver on their promises. I see no reason to hate Trump... he works on things he can actually get done under the circumstances. Even if I disagree with some things I still see him as a person with relatively high integrity working under extremely hard conditions.

No one could say he hadn't tried to fulfill his election promises.

 

Love or hate him he has energised politics and shaken up the establishment who for years appear not to have listened to those affected by globalisation.

 

He is part of a phenomena now sweeping across Europe where the liberal elite are getting a big shock and a bit of a kicking. I am not sure they can believe they are being challenged or their decisions such as mass immigration and lack of national identity are so unpoular.

 

it seems people can only be pushed so far and to some Trump is seen as their saviour. 

[Patriot1066]

4 hours ago, Sakeopete said:

Good news for Trump now he can blame everything on the democrats leading up to 2020. 

And he will!!

[lannarebirth]

16 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I'm not going to answer some obvious baters here... I made my simple point very clear earlier. Just on some other things you talked about in relation to the topic. I'm not an American, Trump doesn't represent me but a lot of things he says actually make sense - USA is nearly as big as China was 100 years ago, so it doesn't have nearly the same type, scale or list of problems as any other country - things are not so simple as compared to something Iceland or Finland which both have very small populations. But I think he's actually ridiculously consistent in at least trying to carry out his campaign promises. And the dems - well basically I think a lot of items on their agenda are completely ridiculous, and maybe belong to the world of fantasy rather than things related to running a country. And the main issue - the healthcare - almost all countries that have healthcare( btw I see nothing wrong with that at all) - had it since the 1960s - if dems haven't been able to bring a working healthcare system in the last 60 years - hey maybe that's good enough evidence that they are just not really up for the task. I'm not saying America shouldn't have it - but the guys who keep promising it consistently fail to deliver on their promises. I see no reason to hate Trump... he works on things he can actually get done under the circumstances. Even if I disagree with some things I still see him as a person with relatively high integrity working under extremely hard conditions.

 

What we now call "Obamacare" was first proposed by Nixon in 1974. It was shot down by Democrats at that time and was resurrected by Romney and then Obama.

[JCauto]

32 minutes ago, Nilats said:

I still see him as a person with relatively high integrity working under extremely hard conditions.

So let's just examine this sentence. First, let's start with "integrity". Seems you don't understand its meaning.

Integrity - 

the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

"he is known to be a man of integrity"

synonyms:honesty, probity, rectitude, honor, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness

"I never doubted his integrity"

 

So...honesty? There's the 6,000 lies that have been documented and which are increasing by around 20 per day. Do you believe what he says? Then there's ethics and morals - he cheated on his three wives numerous times, he's notoriously corrupt in his business dealings...actually, let's save time. Can you give me one of these words in the definition that describes him? 

 

You seem to recognize though that governing the USA is a difficult thing, mainly because you have this opposition to whatever it is you wish to do. Do you recognize that the same conditions are in place for Democrats as well? Hence when they had control over the Congress they too couldn't just do whatever they wanted, there was this process called "rule of law" that makes things go slowly and carefully and require people who are opposed to be informed about what's happening and to have the right to try to get it changed. That's why the health care issue hasn't been resolved. Even when the Democrats have control of the Presidency and Congress, just as Trump has had for the last 2 years, they are not able to just do whatever they want, it has to be done according to rules and laws. 

 

If it makes you feel better, I believe that this slowness in getting things to change was deliberately cooked in at the start to prevent radicals from being able to shift things too quickly and easily. 

[JCauto]

23 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

What we now call "Obamacare" was first proposed by Nixon in 1974. It was shot down by Democrats at that time and was resurrected by Romney and then Obama.

Interestingly, so was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Another thing the Republicans started and are now committed to destroying. 

[lannarebirth]

18 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Interestingly, so was the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Another thing the Republicans started and are now committed to destroying. 

Yep. Affirmative Action and Title IX too. What under achievers our Presidents have become, and Congress too of course.

Edited November 9, 2018 by lannarebirth

[metisdead]

A post in violation of the following has been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.