2010 Election Results

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxrac said:
Remember, there are some moderate democrats in senate that will side with republicans on some issues but only problem is filibuster policy can make looks ugly.

In bold, otherwise, there will be federal shutdown if Obama and GOP cannot agree on budget plan so anything that Obama wants is just void.

Do you think that Obama have a good chance to win the re-election if Obama decides to side with house GOP and closer with majority of Americans?
Click to expand...

He should of done that in the first place.

he is an elected representative, not a dictator.
 
Steinhauer said:
He should of done that in the first place.

he is an elected representative, not a dictator.
Click to expand...

Well, house of rep and senate were majority democrat so I doubtfully that they will work with republicans at first place.

Look at Bill Clinton's victory for re-election so how could you explain about why does he won the re-election?
 
Steinhauer said:
He should of done that in the first place.

he is an elected representative, not a dictator.
Click to expand...

since when the President has to answer to subordinate? :eek3:
 
Jiro said:
since when the President has to answer to subordinate? :eek3:
Click to expand...

Is the president a representative of the people, or a "ruler'.

Why exactly was there an American Revolution?
 
kokonut said:
We had expected that for weeks we would see huge wins in the HR and change in seatings in the Senate but not a majority win but certainly a shift from a once 60 seats now down to a simple majority. Even with 60 seats Congress still had trouble passing bills, imagine now with 51/52 seats. This arrangement is tactically in the favor of Republicans once 2012 rolls around. It is favorable to have control in the HR to initiate bills and pass them with Republican HRs setting the tone for a change with at least 231 seats (37 left to go at this time) where 218 seats is the majority magic number. A 51/52 seats majority in Senate does not mean "control of Senate" if you had learned anything over the last 4 years now when it came to passing bills.

Not a blood bath but a big thumpin where the American people have made their voices loud and clear, and a reminder of what's to come in 2012 if Congress lawmakers don't do their jobs be accountable for their own actions. We're looking at between 60 to 70 Republican HR seats and it'd be the biggest gain since 1938. It's really up to Obama on how he decides to work with Congress lawmakers rather than ignore Republicans like Mitch McConnell for 18 months while with his nose in the air sniffing, "I won."
Click to expand...

:lol: I like how you outshine this as a "Republican victory." Let's face it - you were expecting a huge turn-out at both levels - Senate and House..... and to your shocking disappointment.... Republican only achieved at the lowest level.... House.

feels bad, man. Republican's "polarizing" theme makes me laugh. They'll have to come up with something better than pretty faces and catchy conundrum.
 
Jiro said:
so you're saying the President has to answer to subordinate? not the other way around?


that is EXACTLY the way it works. The President is the subordinate of THE PEOPLE.

to free themselves from British Empire.... not from American President :)
Click to expand...

To free themselves of a dictator.
 
Jiro said:
:lol: I like how you outshine this as a "Republican victory." Let's face it - you were expecting a huge turn-out at both levels - Senate and House..... and to your shocking disappointment.... Republican only achieved at the lowest level.... House.

feels bad, man. Republican's "polarizing" theme makes me laugh. They'll have to come up with something better than pretty faces and catchy conundrum.
Click to expand...

Even Liberal MSM is declaring this as a historic GOP landslide victory.
 
*rolls eyes*

I really hate how Americans misinterpret British colonial policies.

The people didn't care about King George. He wasn't a dictator since the colonial policy was established by BRITISH POLITICIANS. The colonialists just wanted the same rights as people at home.

To compare what Britain did to America, it's similar to what America is doing to Puerto Rico. Only the Puerto Ricans are not angry... yet.
 
Steinhauer said:
that is EXACTLY the way it works. The President is the subordinate of THE PEOPLE.
Click to expand...
so you're saying the President has to answer to say.... soldier whose ranking is Private? I dunno about you but the ladder goes up, not down. That's why we the people elected him to lead us with the best of his ability. He has the power afforded by the Constitution and laws to make decisions - whether or not if we like it.

Steinhauer said:
To free themselves of a dictator.
Click to expand...
who's our dictator? Hu Jintao? :giggle:
 
Jiro said:
"....but falls short in Senate."

you missed that part.
Click to expand...

you missed the part about how many seats were turned over in any election since 1948.

You also missed the part about how many governor mansions were flipped too.

Oh, and that seat in Illinois ..... belongs to a republican now.
 
Jiro said:
so you're saying the President has to answer to say.... soldier whose ranking is Private? I dunno about you but the ladder goes up, not down. That's why we the people elected him to lead us with the best of his ability. He has the power afforded by the Constitution and laws to make decisions - whether or not if we like it.


who's our dictator? Hu Jintao? :giggle:
Click to expand...

Since when did Obama care about the Constitution? Or, THE PEOPLE?

The People rule this country, not the president.
 
btw Steinhauer.... ruler and dictator are not the same thing.

Secondly, as souggy said - the American Revolution wasn't about a rebellion against ruler or dictator. I mean... Boston Tea Market? I mean Party? hello?
 
You means "Rights of Englishmen."

Part of the reason why the colonists didn't recieve the same rights was because British America was created in 1607. The Bill of Rights of 1689 didn't come about until after the Glorious Revolution in 1688; thus the Parliament didn't see the need to extend the Bill of Rights to their colonies overseas. In fact, the idea of responsible government under British overseas policy didn't exist until 1837 to 1838 when there were two aborted uprisings in Canada.
 
Jiro said:
btw Steinhauer.... ruler and dictator are not the same thing.

Secondly, as souggy said - the American Revolution wasn't about a rebellion against ruler or dictator. I mean... Boston Tea Market? I mean Party? hello?
Click to expand...

Hello?


tyranny


tyr·an·ny   /ˈtɪrəni/ Show Spelled
[tir-uh-nee] Show IPA

–noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
Click to expand...
 
Oh wait, I'm recently learn about American Revolution in History 201.

It is all about against on Great Britain because of lack of representatives that colonies want and want break away from monarchy rule.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top