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

[Patriot1066]

41 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

How important was any house win much less a massive one? Just imagine if it hadn't flipped. That would tell the world Americans affirm the rule of the bizarre demagogue and there would be no check on his power whatsoever.

The house was a truly national election.

The senate was quite limited to mostly heavily republican states.



Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Jingthing

 

Ok you win!

 

I have lost will to continue!

 

I’ll give you that the win was bigger in the house than expected, and concede that he lost a lot of votes as the voting demographic changed, but he was always going to loose in the mid terms.

 

You win!

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Jingthing

 

Ok you win!

 

I have lost will to continue!

 

I’ll give you that the win was bigger in the house than expected, and concede that he lost a lot of votes as the voting demographic changed, but he was always going to loose in the mid terms.

 

You win!

 

"....he was always going to loose in the mid terms."

 

There were many Trump supporter posts on here, prior to the elections, asserting otherwise.

[Jingthing]

 
"....he was always going to loose in the mid terms."
 
There were many Trump supporter posts on here, prior to the elections, asserting otherwise.

Including red wave "trump."
The truth is the Republicans should have gained seats based on the booming economy alone.
Any party would have with a normal president.
But 45 is so remarkably abnormal it went the other way. Bigly.
Yes usually there are some gains for the opposition party but not if there's a booming economy.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Nyezhov]

52 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

 

 

I’ll give you that the win was bigger in the house than expected, and concede that he lost a lot of votes as the voting demographic changed, but he was always going to loose in the mid terms.

 

 

of course, when Obama got crushed in the midterms it meant nothing.???? 

 

. The Democrats have no policies other than pandering to their various interest groups so they wont be able to help solve the major issues of the day that concern the American people. Even the few reasonable ones now have to pander to the Socialist wing of their party. So basically, all its going to be is a Trump hate fest and party internecine war. 

 

Once Trump gets his next Supreme Court pick watch the poop fly LOL.

 

Dont lose heart, 2020 is only two years away. I cant wait to watch such heavyweights as Corey Booker and Whats Her Name Harris go at it, Maybe Alexandria will run. ????

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

of course, when Obama got crushed in the midterms it meant nothing.???? 

 

. The Democrats have no policies other than pandering to their various interest groups so they wont be able to help solve the major issues of the day that concern the American people. Even the few reasonable ones now have to pander to the Socialist wing of their party. So basically, all its going to be is a Trump hate fest and party internecine war. 

 

Once Trump gets his next Supreme Court pick watch the poop fly LOL.

 

Dont lose heart, 2020 is only two years away. I cant wait to watch such heavyweights as Corey Booker and Whats Her Name Harris go at it, Maybe Alexandria will run. ????

Obama got crushed because he didn't authorize criminal investigation of banking and hedge-fund malefactors. He actually did a great job of avoiding a depression but he misplayed the politics. But Trump doesn't have the excuse of an economic meltdown. The economy is posting strong numbers and still the Republicans got battered. And there is also the fact that were it not for widespread gerrymanering the democrats would have done even better in house races.

And if Trump's recent appointments to the Supreme Court play out as expected, Republican candidates in purple states are going to have a lot of explaining to do to their electorates. Cory Gardner and Susan Collins come to mind.

And the single biggest issue for voters is health care. And the Republicans ran scared on that for good reason. After years of trying to get rid of protections for people with pre-existing conditions they did a turnabout in the mid terns and claimed they supported that. Which is an incoherent position given their opposition to Obamacare and the current attempt of 20 Republican attorney generals to have Obamacare ruled invalid. There's a conservative judge who has waited until the elections are over before he issues his decisions. He will rule that Obamacare is invalid. Eventually it will get to the Supreme Court, If they support that ruling, and the odds are 50-50 they will, all hell will break loose on the Republicans.

And even in Red States referenda supporting increases in the minimum wage passed. Do you think possibly the House might author similar legislation and enjoy the spectacle of the Republican Senate shooting it down? 

And do you think maybe it might be popular to slash the tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy and apply the savings to infrastructure or health care? You'll notice that the Republcans didn't run on their tax cuts.

As for the prospective Democratic candidates, where was Obama in November of 2006?

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

of course, when Obama got crushed in the midterms it meant nothing.???? 

 

. The Democrats have no policies other than pandering to their various interest groups so they wont be able to help solve the major issues of the day that concern the American people. Even the few reasonable ones now have to pander to the Socialist wing of their party. So basically, all its going to be is a Trump hate fest and party internecine war. 

 

Once Trump gets his next Supreme Court pick watch the poop fly LOL.

 

Dont lose heart, 2020 is only two years away. I cant wait to watch such heavyweights as Corey Booker and Whats Her Name Harris go at it, Maybe Alexandria will run. ????

 

But but but Obama.

 

Oh, the Democrats are "pandering to their various interest groups", whereas Trump....? Yeah, I'm sure you thought you had a point there, somewhere. Or maybe not. The amount of contrived partisan waffle some posters spew makes it hard to tell.

 

Your on-going attempt (or rather talking point) portraying all the Democrats as basically far-left, or influenced by such is dully noted. Kinda makes them whines about associating Trump supporters and the Republican party with extreme-right group sound lame, but eh. Expecting consistency or integrity from some posters is an exercise in futility.

 

 

[Nilats]

11 hours ago, candide said:

I know why she argued against statism and it does not weaken my point. She was for ultra-liberal capitalism, a minimal role for the state, and against altruism. And was happy to benefit from it when she needed it.

Your whole point is very weak because you are obfuscating what she argued in the first place... Her definition of "Altruism", is apparently not at all how most people interpret when they hear it - and it's sad that apparently if you know that and you are exploiting it. She never argued against helping people... she never argued against something like fire department or medicare specifically... Her argument against *Altruism* is mostly to prevent wars and corruption when people are being brainwashed and sacrificed  for means that never benefit them or their community - in fact they usually hurt them - she argued against Nazism, Communism and corruption of crony capitalism... Seems you missed the point entirely.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nilats said:

Your whole point is very weak because you are obfuscating what she argued in the first place... Her definition of "Altruism", is apparently not at all how most people interpret when they hear it - and it's sad that apparently if you know that and you are exploiting it. She never argued against helping people... she never argued against something like fire department or medicare specifically... Her argument against *Altruism* is mostly to prevent wars and corruption when people are being brainwashed and sacrificed  for means that never benefit them or their community - in fact they usually hurt them - she argued against Nazism, Communism and corruption of crony capitalism... Seems you missed the point entirely.

Utterly false, Ayn Rand was against government redistribution of wealth. She considered that theft. Programs like Social Security and Medicare, amongst other programs, are based on that concept. Have you actually ever read Ayn Rand?

[Nilats]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Utterly false, Ayn Rand was against government redistribution of wealth. She considered that theft. Programs like Social Security and Medicare, amongst other programs, are based on that concept. Have you actually ever read Ayn Rand?

She considered that theft because of corruption of the state - i.e. it's rarely used for the actual "redistribution" -its only purpose is to enrich people at the top - that was her exact argument. Did she specifically argue against basic Medicare or fire fire department for example? Since you made the claim you must present the evidence - everybody is still waiting for it. Never read her, seems like people who claim to have read her still have zero understanding just what she was trying to say.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Nilats

[Scott]

I think we've had enough of the off-topic remarks about Rand.  

 

I don't know much about her politics, but did see an interview with her and she was asked about how roads should be built (if not by gov't) and she replied to the effect that if someone wants a road they should built it themselves.

 

Now back to the topic, please.  

[bristolboy]

Just now, Nilats said:

She considered that theft because of corruption of the state - i.e. it's rarely used for the actual "redistribution" -its only purpose is to enrich people at the top - that was her exact argument. Did she specifically argue against basic Medicare or fire fire department for example? Since you made the claim you must present the evidence - everybody is still waiting for it. Never read her, seems like people who claim to have read her still have zero understanding just what she trying to say.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would be incumbent upon you to prove that despite her repeated argument that under the guise of morality, governments were creating the conditions for totalitarianism. Ayn somehow supported programs like social security and medicare.  Ayn Rand was also against government programs that were created to benefit the rich. That she was against the latter, in no way implies hat she was for the former. It is simply ian ncoherent argynebtto to assert that given the black-and-white  basis of her "philosophy"  that she was for one and against the other. You're making this up.

Here's a link to a few articles from aynrand.org. These people are the keepers of the flame. 

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2014/06/30/is-wealth-redistribution-theft-and-does-it-matter

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2014/07/25/the-real-meaning-of-wealth-redistribution

https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2014/06/20/the-myth-about-ayn-rand-and-social-security

 

[baboon]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Including red wave "trump."
The truth is the Republicans should have gained seats based on the booming economy alone.
Any party would have with a normal president.
But 45 is so remarkably abnormal it went the other way. Bigly.
Yes usually there are some gains for the opposition party but not if there's a booming economy.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I went to a Michael Portillo speaking engagement on Saturday evening at that Mecca of western politics - the Whitley Bay Playhouse. For what it is worth, his opinion is that Trump will win 2020 easily enough and will serve the full term. Alas, I suspect he may well be correct...

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, baboon said:

I went to a Michael Portillo speaking engagement on Saturday evening at that Mecca of western politics - the Whitley Bay Playhouse. For what it is worth, his opinion is that Trump will win 2020 easily enough and will serve the full term. Alas, I suspect he may well be correct...

How very surprising from a pro Brexit tory.

It's too early to make predictions.

Nobody in the their right or right wing mind thinks he can't win a second term.

Not because he's a good president. He's the worst president in history.

But because he's so good at being a con man and propagandist. There is also the reality that he's degrading the American democracy in radical ways that would give him extra power to win all the elections he wants in future. Time to fight back! 

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

How very surprising from a pro Brexit tory.

It's too early to make predictions.

Nobody in the their right or right wing mind thinks he can't win a second term.

Not because he's a good president. He's the worst president in history.

But because he's so good at being a con man and propagandist. There is also the reality that he's degrading the American democracy in radical ways that would give him extra power to win all the elections he wants in future. Time to fight back! 

Don't get me wrong, I can't be doing with Trump at all. I just thought his (Portillo's) take may be of interest to the discussion.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

Don't get me wrong, I can't be doing with Trump at all. I just thought his (Portillo's) take may be of interest to the discussion.

Believe me, the majority of Americans that don't support "trump" are not taking the threat lightly. 

It takes more than the majority of votes and the majority of supporters to actually win a presidential election these days if you're not republican. That's a structural problem and it isn't going away.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

A must watch description of how bad things are now in the USA due to "trump." Maher calls it a slow moving coup and in this clip he explains why very well. The meat starts at about 2:25. I think many people especially non-Americans don't understand how SERIOUS this situation really is. They think just another crappy American president, they can change the channel next time. This time it won't be that easy.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jingthing

[Nyezhov]

6 hours ago, baboon said:

I went to a Michael Portillo speaking engagement on Saturday evening at that Mecca of western politics - the Whitley Bay Playhouse. For what it is worth, his opinion is that Trump will win 2020 easily enough and will serve the full term. Alas, I suspect he may well be correct...

Of course, its early,  and a lot could happen between now and then, but a lot of well respected analysts believe that. The problem the Democrats have is that they are now bound by their discredited PC left wing anti Trump ideology and stand for very little else. Their "friends" in the media will be jumping on every little anti Trump screed, and puffing up lightweights like Alexandria and Beto to the detriment of more reasonable Democrats, for example, like Joe Manchin, who would never survive the nominating process because he isnt "woke" enough. Coupled with upcoming scandals over the real abuse of FISA power by the Democrats, possible indictments against a whole slew of folks (Comey and McCabe come to mind, one of them lied to Congress) and the looming spectre of Hillary again, coupled with Wild Cards like RBGs health,  Avenatti and Beto make these next two years very interesting.

 

Its Trumps to lose but the Democrats are their own worst enemy, especially as they are not just supported by fascist left wing radicals (you cant chose your supporters) but embrace them, along with their policies....and indeed elect them and glorify them and are puffed up by a Media that plays to their own echo chamber. As long as Trump can keep the economy humming and satisfy the Moderate-Conservative preferences of Middle America, he is going to be a hard man to beat, and will get great help from guys like John James, the Black Conservative movement, the Asian Americans and Latinos. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Nyezhov

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Of course, its early,  and a lot could happen between now and then, but a lot of well respected analysts believe that. The problem the Democrats have is that they are now bound by their discredited PC left wing anti Trump ideology and stand for very little else. Their "friends" in the media will be jumping on every little anti Trump screed, and puffing up lightweights like Alexandria and Beto to the detriment of more reasonable Democrats, for example, like Joe Manchin, who would never survive the nominating process because he isnt "woke" enough. Coupled with upcoming scandals over the real abuse of FISA power by the Democrats, possible indictments against a whole slew of folks (Comey and McCabe come to mind, one of them lied to Congress) and the looming spectre of Hillary again, coupled with Wild Cards like RBGs health,  Avenatti and Beto make these next two years very interesting.

 

Its Trumps to lose but the Democrats are their own worst enemy, especially as they are not just supported by fascist left wing radicals (you cant chose your supporters) but embrace them, along with their policies....and indeed elect them and glorify them and are puffed up by a Media that plays to their own echo chamber. As long as Trump can keep the economy humming and satisfy the Moderate-Conservative preferences of Middle America, he is going to be a hard man to beat, and will get great help from guys like John James, the Black Conservative movement, the Asian Americans and Latinos. 

"Coupled with upcoming scandals over the real abuse of FISA power by the Democrats, possible indictments against a whole slew of folks (Comey and McCabe come to mind, one of them lied to Congress) and the looming spectre of Hillary again, coupled with Wild Cards like RBGs health,"

 

[Morch]

43 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Of course, its early,  and a lot could happen between now and then, but a lot of well respected analysts believe that. The problem the Democrats have is that they are now bound by their discredited PC left wing anti Trump ideology and stand for very little else. Their "friends" in the media will be jumping on every little anti Trump screed, and puffing up lightweights like Alexandria and Beto to the detriment of more reasonable Democrats, for example, like Joe Manchin, who would never survive the nominating process because he isnt "woke" enough. Coupled with upcoming scandals over the real abuse of FISA power by the Democrats, possible indictments against a whole slew of folks (Comey and McCabe come to mind, one of them lied to Congress) and the looming spectre of Hillary again, coupled with Wild Cards like RBGs health,  Avenatti and Beto make these next two years very interesting.

 

Its Trumps to lose but the Democrats are their own worst enemy, especially as they are not just supported by fascist left wing radicals (you cant chose your supporters) but embrace them, along with their policies....and indeed elect them and glorify them and are puffed up by a Media that plays to their own echo chamber. As long as Trump can keep the economy humming and satisfy the Moderate-Conservative preferences of Middle America, he is going to be a hard man to beat, and will get great help from guys like John James, the Black Conservative movement, the Asian Americans and Latinos. 

 

Other then the by-now-routine indulgence in conspiracy theories and pure fantasy, there relatively new party-line talking point makes an appearance. Namely, that the Democrat party is being "hijacked" by its more radical left-wing element. I doubt that other than the hype this actually reflects reality, but be that as it may - a rather ridiculous silence out of you and others on with regard to the Republican party being taken over by a con-man, and them extreme right-wing elements. Don't see you having much trouble with both the President and Republican politicians embracing such elements and notions, but eh...

 

The funniest bit about the nonsense post above is that its made after Trump and the Republicans lost an election. Just thought I'll point that out again, what with them "alternative facts" doing the rounds and damage control mode being engaged.

 

 

[bristolboy]

7 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Of course, its early,  and a lot could happen between now and then, but a lot of well respected analysts believe that. The problem the Democrats have is that they are now bound by their discredited PC left wing anti Trump ideology and stand for very little else. Their "friends" in the media will be jumping on every little anti Trump screed, and puffing up lightweights like Alexandria and Beto to the detriment of more reasonable Democrats, for example, like Joe Manchin, who would never survive the nominating process because he isnt "woke" enough. Coupled with upcoming scandals over the real abuse of FISA power by the Democrats, possible indictments against a whole slew of folks (Comey and McCabe come to mind, one of them lied to Congress) and the looming spectre of Hillary again, coupled with Wild Cards like RBGs health,  Avenatti and Beto make these next two years very interesting.

 

Its Trumps to lose but the Democrats are their own worst enemy, especially as they are not just supported by fascist left wing radicals (you cant chose your supporters) but embrace them, along with their policies....and indeed elect them and glorify them and are puffed up by a Media that plays to their own echo chamber. As long as Trump can keep the economy humming and satisfy the Moderate-Conservative preferences of Middle America, he is going to be a hard man to beat, and will get great help from guys like John James, the Black Conservative movement, the Asian Americans and Latinos. 

If anybody wants to gain insight into the paranoic and self-serving conspiracy theory concerning FISA, here'a  a good place to start:

Spygate: How Right-Wing Media Creates a Conspiracy Theory Out of Thin Air

"The plot goes like this: During the summer of 2016, on the clandestine orders of then-president Barack Obama, the FBI and CIA hatched an ambitious plan to topple the Trump campaign from the inside. In a scandal of unprecedented scope, Democratic politicians commandeered American counterintelligence resources to spy on their primary political opponent and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election. The Russia investigation that has dominated headlines for nearly two years is, in fact, a desperate smokescreen conjured up by terrified Deep State actors to conceal evidence of their own wrongdoing, and to frame the president for heinous crimes he didn't commit.

 

https://www.gq.com/story/spygate-conspiracy-theory-explained

Edited November 12, 2018 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use

[Patriot1066]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If anybody wants to gain insight into the paranoic and self-serving conspiracy theory concerning FISA, here'a  a good place to start:

Spygate: How Right-Wing Media Creates a Conspiracy Theory Out of Thin Air

"The plot goes like this: During the summer of 2016, on the clandestine orders of then-president Barack Obama, the FBI and CIA hatched an ambitious plan to topple the Trump campaign from the inside. In a scandal of unprecedented scope, Democratic politicians commandeered American counterintelligence resources to spy on their primary political opponent and boost Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election. The Russia investigation that has dominated headlines for nearly two years is, in fact, a desperate smokescreen conjured up by terrified Deep State actors to conceal evidence of their own wrongdoing, and to frame the president for heinous crimes he didn't commit.

 

https://www.gq.com/story/spygate-conspiracy-theory-explained

So this is a left wing conspiracy? IF AS YOUR POST SUGGESTS IT CAME FROM OBAMA!

Edited November 12, 2018 by Scott

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Patriot1066 said:

So this is a left wing conspiracy? IF AS YOUR POST SUGGESTS IT CAME FROM OBAMA!

You might want to think about what you wrote. It seems you are badly confused.

[Patriot1066]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Of course, its early,  and a lot could happen between now and then, but a lot of well respected analysts believe that. The problem the Democrats have is that they are now bound by their discredited PC left wing anti Trump ideology and stand for very little else. Their "friends" in the media will be jumping on every little anti Trump screed, and puffing up lightweights like Alexandria and Beto to the detriment of more reasonable Democrats, for example, like Joe Manchin, who would never survive the nominating process because he isnt "woke" enough. Coupled with upcoming scandals over the real abuse of FISA power by the Democrats, possible indictments against a whole slew of folks (Comey and McCabe come to mind, one of them lied to Congress) and the looming spectre of Hillary again, coupled with Wild Cards like RBGs health,  Avenatti and Beto make these next two years very interesting.

 

Its Trumps to lose but the Democrats are their own worst enemy, especially as they are not just supported by fascist left wing radicals (you cant chose your supporters) but embrace them, along with their policies....and indeed elect them and glorify them and are puffed up by a Media that plays to their own echo chamber. As long as Trump can keep the economy humming and satisfy the Moderate-Conservative preferences of Middle America, he is going to be a hard man to beat, and will get great help from guys like John James, the Black Conservative movement, the Asian Americans and Latinos.

Most of the immigrant communities are socially conservative and he needs to somehow convince them to vote in greater numbers for him. But its all about the economy really if people feel better off under his Presidency he is likely to do well!

[Patriot1066]

Just now, bristolboy said:

You might want to think about what you wrote. It seems you are badly confused.

Nope I am not?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Patriot1066 said:

Nope I am not?

If you are asking me a question then you must be.

[JCauto]

9 minutes ago, Patriot1066 said:

Most of the immigrant communities are socially conservative and he needs to somehow convince them to vote in greater numbers for him. But its all about the economy really if people feel better off under his Presidency he is likely to do well!

Yeah! Except that, according to you, the economy is doing great, yet they just lost the House. How is that possible? 

 

One way is that the economy could be working great for rich folks, but not at all for the middle class. Especially the middle class who were promised so much and voted Trump in to get it, yet are not gaining much if at all from the 1.6 Trillion added to the deficit and are being treated as fools by those they elected. So doubt that's going to be a good long-term play, especially as the anti-immigrant and pro-White agenda plays out.

[direction BANGKOK]

On 11/7/2018 at 10:49 AM, GinBoy2 said:

When I lived in California it used to piss me off that the networks were calling Presidential elections before our polls when even closed.

Now I understand the math, but it almost makes people think, 'why bother to vote at all'

 

So ditto, I'm all for (I think it's how the French do it) basically not reporting anything on election day, and just report when it's all done

It has always amazed me this does not get brought up more. There can't be anything much more influencial when it comes to voting, than people effectively seeing the future from the west coast. I am always making these comments how we, for some reason, think we are so advanced, but there are so many examples of how we clearly aren't. This is yet another example. 

[Nyezhov]

53 minutes ago, JCauto said:

Yeah! Except that, according to you, the economy is doing great, yet they just lost the House. How is that possible? 

Well considering that the party out of power generally wins off years, I reckon thats how its possible. The correlary to that is if President Obama was so wonderful vis a vis President Trump, why did he take such a "shellacking" (his words) in his first Midterms and another beating in his second? 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well considering that the party out of power generally wins off years, I reckon thats how its possible. The correlary to that is if President Obama was so wonderful vis a vis President Trump, why did he take such a "shellacking" (his words) in his first Midterms and another beating in his second? 

Obama was in some ways politically incompetent. Didn't want to channel rage against the bankers and such. So he had to contend with being blamed for the bad economy. IBut the economy is putting up lots of impressive numbers now, Despite which, and despite gerrymandering, the Democrats are going to score their biggest gains in 44 years. Somebody in this thread characterized that as a "trickle."

Edited November 12, 2018 by bristolboy

[attrayant]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Well considering that the party out of power generally wins off years, I reckon thats how its possible.

 

By such huge margins - again given the supposed great economy & low unemployment?

 

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

The correlary to that is if President Obama was so wonderful vis a vis President Trump, why did he take such a "shellacking" (his words) in his first Midterms and another beating in his second? 

 

1. Higher (although improving) unemployment.  Voters either didn't understand or didn't care that employment was steadily declining from Bush's 10% high, they only cared that it was still 8% or 6% or whatever it was at the time of the election.  Also, politicians are good at flat-out lying about the economy to drive voters to (or away from) the polls.  Trump himself said the economy was a "disaster" during the 2016 primaries!  Some voters likely believed it and didn't bother to do one bit of fact checking to see that it was a lie.

 

2. Redistricting.