2018 mid-term

[Moiraine]

49 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

It was already posted and “sorry” doesn’t cut it. 

 

 

Did this get a rolleyes because it was a poor attempt at humor or because someone sucks at understanding I wasn’t being serious?

 

@GSG if it was you I am sad. 

[Ulty]

48 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I can not believe this piece of s#!t won.  Very disappointed in Iowa.

 

 

 

To me, the American value system is what needs to be fixed. Steve King's racism and vitriol (and Trump's for that matter) should be automatic dis qualifiers for any office, regardless of their policy positions. But not only do guys like this get elected in spite of these reprehensible characteristics, they get elected because of them. Lots of voters embrace this stuff. So we need to get to the root of why so much of America thinks in that way and why so many people celebrate and endorse candidates who go out of their way to be hateful, when similar attributes would not be allowed in virtually any other workplace in America.

 

We are in a moral crisis. If Republicans won because their messages on the economy, education, foreign policy, etc resonated with a educated public, that would be fine. But they win because they court the racist/xenophobic vote. 

 

[GSG]

5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Did this get a rolleyes because it was a poor attempt at humor or because someone sucks at understanding I wasn’t being serious?

 

@GSG if it was you I am sad. 

 

Wasn't me. I was straight-up ignoring you  

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, StPaulHusker said:

This is actually the way ANY voter ID needs to be handled.

 

If the US Government wants to require an ID for a RIGHT to vote, then the US Government should issue those ID's to everyone free of charge.

 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I have no problem with this.

 

 

I don’t have a problem with it either and think free IDs for everyone would be a good way to handle it. But let’s not kid ourselves about it being free. The government does absolutely nothing for “free”, we all (or some of us anyway) pay for it one way or another. Are they going to subsidize the cost of my drivers license while handing out these “free” IDs? Or do I get to pay for both?

[schriznoeder]

As of a few minutes ago, Democrats outpaced Republicans by 12,188,581 votes on the Senate side and 3,945,061 on the House side. That's a total of 16,133,642 votes! That looks pretty blue to me. But due to multiple states with small populations like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska being in play on the Senate side, and multiple gerrymandered districts on the House side, the net gain for the Democrats was only 25 seats. 

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

1 minute ago, JJ Husker said:

 

 

I don’t have a problem with it either and think free IDs for everyone would be a good way to handle it. But let’s not kid ourselves about it being free. The government does absolutely nothing for “free”, we all (or some of us anyway) pay for it one way or another. Are they going to subsidize the cost of my drivers license while handing out these “free” IDs? Or do I get to pay for both?

Driving isn't a constitutional right.  You have to pay for the privilege.

[Moiraine]

@JJ Husker There should be a free ID for everyone. Just like a social security card except the image gets updated. A driver’s license should be a separate thing.

 

And ya of course there is a cost but let’s not kid ourselves that it’d be expensive or not worth it. 

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

As of a few minutes ago, Democrats outpaced Republicans by 12,188,581 votes on the Senate side and 3,945,061 on the House side. That's a total of 16,133,642 votes! That looks pretty blue to me. But due to multiple states with small populations like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska being in play on the Senate side, and multiple gerrymandered districts on the House side, the net gain for the Democrats was only 25 seats. 

 

 

 

 

You don’t add those numbers up. 

[schriznoeder]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You don’t add those numbers up. 

 

I know. I was just making a point that there was overwhelming support for the Democrats despite less-than-overwhelming electoral results.

[QMany]

 

[Moiraine]

Scott Walker is losing by 1.2 points with 99% reporting and he can’t ask for a recount because in 2016 Trump won the vote by 23,000 votes which was slim and so:

 

Quote

After the 2016 presidential election, Walker signed a law that recounts would be allowed only when candidates are projected to be within 1 percentage point of each other.

 

[knapplc]

The press is emboldened by the Democrats winning the house, and they're not going to take crap from Trumpster anymore. 

 

Heartening to see. If they'd have treated this lying buffoon like this from the beginning of his campaign instead of as a useful sideshow, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

CNN receives a bomb just last week from a Trump supporter and this week he calls CNN, again, an enemy of the people.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, schriznoeder said:

As of a few minutes ago, Democrats outpaced Republicans by 12,188,581 votes on the Senate side and 3,945,061 on the House side. That's a total of 16,133,642 votes! That looks pretty blue to me. But due to multiple states with small populations like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska being in play on the Senate side, and multiple gerrymandered districts on the House side, the net gain for the Democrats was only 25 seats. 

 

 

It'd be interesting to know what kind of crossover happened between parties. I've been a registered R in Nebraska my whole adult life but I mostly voted Democrat in the major ballot categories yesterday.

[knapplc]

Womp Womp