2006 Senate Midterm Elections (or "Who do you want to ruin America this time?")

[firepokemon]

borderline flaming. Everything is borderline flaming. Yes I could have posted a better argued, more concise argument but that would require work.

I told this board three years ago the war was a mistake and it was based on lies and obvious mistruths. Lets face it, america fucked up. The world was your oyster on September 11 yet somehow you completely blew it, that the rest of world pretty much hates you or puts up with you cause you're so bloody rich.

History continues to repeat itself really. Vietnam was a war with support but then went to anger and this war went the same way. The United States need to stop being so religious and stop being so conservative. I just find it pathetic that the mid-term election was based on stupid issues such as stem cell research, same-sex marriages, abortion etc. The iraqi war and the war on terrorism as well as a few stupid scandals. I would have thought the campaign would be on proper issues. Such as better healthcare, getting more people out of poverty, security, global warming, economic transformation. But you don't see much of any of this.

[Roy Karrde]

You know I fail the believe that the world was our oyster just post 9/11, just like I fail to believe that there was true Bi-Partisanship post 9/11. Of course there was the first few months in which everyone loved us and we loved everyone and we had a whole feeling of Unison, everyone had flags on their cars or in their front yard, and America, as well as the world was one.

And then a few months later, before we even went into Afghanistan, the flags began to come down. Some Democrats and World Officials were saying we should spend time talking with Terrorists instead of invasion, and it all went down from there. The post 9/11 weeks was full of sympathy, but after a while that sympathy went away. And it is very easy to confuse sympathy with unity.

Also if the World hates us so much, why do they not deicde to turn away the billions upon billions we ship to Countries each year, from Third World countries to France we give away billions to them. So if they hate us so much, why not say no to the money?

As for this war, it differs alot from Vietnam, in Nam we had a war on all fronts, while the fighting remains strickly in Baghdad now days. In Nam we did not actually win the war against the North Vietnamese, as we did with Saddam's forces. There were not Elections held in North Vietnam like there are in Iraq, nor was there North Vietnamese government toppled. We also continue to make headway in Iraq, while we do not in Vietnam.

Now while the Iraq war did play a huge part in the election. Other parts were the strong economy that is roaring right now as I said above, along with the Border situation. As for security, I believe you can lump the Mexican Border as well as the War on Terror as a Security Issue. The reason though you saw so much on the Iraq war and scandles is becuase those were issues Dems knew they could make head way on. They kept away from the Economy that is helping Small and Large Businesses alike, they kept away from the Bush Tax Cuts that help all classes of people, and they kept away from the border. All becuase these were issues Republicans could win on.

Edit: Border line Flaming? You called me a F***ing Moron. and to Shut the F*** up. If that is not flaming then I don't know what is.

[mr_pikachu]

...

Jeez...

Let's get serious. Right now, I'm having a hard time finding posts that aren't flames in some manner or another. Would it kill everyone to just debate issues rather than scream at each other?

Furthermore, this seems pretty divergent from the topic I initially posted. Combine the off-topicness with the flame war and toss in the near-completion of the midterm elections (which, if you recall, was the point of this topic), and I'm about to close this thread myself.

Make your own topic if you want to yell at each other about Iraq.

[Blademaster]

...

Jeez...

Let's get serious. Right now, I'm having a hard time finding posts that aren't flames in some manner or another. Would it kill everyone to just debate issues rather than scream at each other?

Furthermore, this seems pretty divergent from the topic I initially posted. Combine the off-topicness with the flame war and toss in the near-completion of the midterm elections (which, if you recall, was the point of this topic), and I'm about to close this thread myself.

Make your own topic if you want to yell at each other about Iraq.

See, now that's funny...

I'm not the brightest guy around, but I'm thinking... wait, was it? Yes...? No...?

Yes! This post looks very similar to one of my own from about 50 posts back! Gee, ain't that interesting?

Just close it, Bri - I've looked in the Archives; no one ever shuts up about these debates until the topic is closed, so just do it now and get it over with.

-Blade

[Heald]

I sense some anger from you?

Damned straight. Your political system is a piece of crap geared to help rich conservatives, but anyone who tries to oppose it is labelled as Anti-Americans by the knee-jerk right.

Lying is saying a known falsehood, the President did not know there were not Weapons of Mass Destructions in the country, infact everything pointed that there was.

How can something point to something that doesn't exist? All he had was a bunch of Intel that was mainly based on severals shades of shit, including horse, bull and camel, plus Saddam not letting weapons inspectors into his country. Believe it or not, Saddam was and still is a paranoid nutcase - would you want some podgy German lumbering around your military if you were a paranoid and crazy leader of a country? Of course not.

Saddam allowed a Al-Qaeda terrorist to remain in his country in a safe house, he allowed Al Qaeda training camps in his country, and allowed Al Qaeda to prepare for the coming invasion. Saddam also paid money to those that became Suicide Bombers. Yes your right, Saddam had no contacts with Terrorism!

He did those things mainly to piss off America. He never had any actual say in what they did. After all, the USA allowed Cuban rebels to return to Cuba only to get massacred, plus the less said about the Contra affair the better. You got terrorists to do your dirty work, so either lead by example or don't whine about it.

And who's fault is it that the Soldiers were badly equipped, lets look at how much Clinton and the Democrats cut funding in the 90s for the military, I believe some one brought up Kerry's voting record for the Military a few pages back, this is where that record becomes very relivant.

So what? Bush had over 2 years to reverse that and he didn't. You didn't need that military equipment because Clinton and Kerry did not think that any president after them would be stupid enough to go into a needless war that has only ruined the lives of thousands, and probably more, and the only people that have had any sense of victory from this war are those that were going to be killed by Saddam but now they are not - now they only have to worry about getting shot or bombed by the insurgency - caused by the invasion - or the invaders themselves. It just goes from one personal hell to another, right?

I don't remember the U.S. Troops capturing and beheading Journalists, or shooting and trying to kill hundreds of innocent Iraqis, infact I remember just the opposite that during the invasion the US led effort had the lowest Civilian Casulty rate. It wasn't until afterwards with the IEDs made by the terrorists that the casulty rate went up.

If the Coalition hadn't invaded, there would've been no backlash against any non-Iraqi engineers or journalists etc. by the insurgency. By invading we (since we're a coalition) put thousands of innocent people in danger. Besides those tortured, maimed or otherwise humilated in the US concentration camps-I mean, Abu Grahib, I suppose the figures didn't care to count the bodies they couldn't be bothered to find, like when they were bombing Baghdad and other cities in a vain hope to hit Saddam and his regime, even though they were probably in bunkers or, more likely, hiding in holes near their hometowns.

If going in and taking down the Nazis caused more people in Europe to be pissed at us, and those oppressed by the Nazis being the only ones that were the victors of that war, does it make the cuase any less just? Does pissing off millions, to save the lives of millions make the cause any less just? When has the court of Public Opinion dictated when we should save people?

First off, Godwin's Law has been invoked. Secondly, stop pretending America did all the work in the defeat of Germany.

This analogy doesn't work, mainly because the Nazis were taking over Europe through war and had actually declared war on the UK, US and the other allies, whereas Iraq was persecuting its own citizens. I'm not saying that's any better or worse, but if you compare the victory over Germany to the victory over Iraq, the victory over Germany was great one, whereas the victory over Iraq was a Pyrrhic victory at best. Not only had we stopped the German persecution of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies etc., we had saved many countries and people who would've otherwise been killed due to German occupation. In invading Iraq, we may have saved thousands who would've otherwise been killed by Saddam, but in the process thousands have been killed, both Iraqi and non-Iraqi, plus our interference in the Middle East has caused enough fear and hate of the West to encourage more attacks on Western targets, endangering even more lives. Let us not forget that the CIA are to blame for Saddam's rise to power.

Europe is not pissed off at America for saving them during the World War (Europe consisting of France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, others who weren't taken over by the Soviets etc.). More or less everyone benefitted from the defeat of Germany, even Germany itself, in the end. Many died, but peace has been brought about. In the case of Iraq, many have died, and the situation has worsened.

Beep Wrong! Having a Blow Job in the office is not a impeachable offense, all it does is degrade the highest office of the land. LYING about it, to a grand jury. And remember lying, which is telling a known falsehood, in a attempt to persuade people. That is a impeachable offense.

Beep Wrong! Blow job doesn't count as a sexual relation under the bizarre law at the time. I really don't care otherwise, the guy only lied about getting a blow job, either way. If you still argue 'WELL LYING IS STILL LYING' then you're an idiot, because, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether or not some guy got a blow job, or whether he lied about it, Hell, he's only human. If you get so anal about some guy lying about a blow job, yet you don't bat an eyelid when your President practically sentences thousands to their deaths with an expensive and fruitless war, then you have serious morality issues.

To start off, in the middle of Clinton's 2000 term, his Economic polices caused the economy to start taking a nose dive, this was a result of not having any security for the post .com bubble burst. Combined with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, this country was heading for a Depression not seen since the 1930s. Now what do you do when heading into a Depression? Do you try to balance the budget like Republicans tried to do during the 1930s and thus drive the depression further, or do you spend, spend, spend, and get money circulating. You spend, spend, spend. It wouldn't help to have a balance budget with double digit unemployment now would it? As for the tax cuts, I guess my middle class family is rich becuase we recieved money from them, as did everyone else. It also helped spur off new jobs and continues to make new jobs. That is why several prominant democrats including Hillary Clinton, have said they do not want to erase the Bush Tax Cuts!

By 'taking a nose dive', do you mean 'longest sustained economic expansion in history' and 'highest level of job creation ever recorded'? I'd figure the signals of a depression were, you know, people losing jobs and a very much distinct lack of economic expansion, plus a budget deficit, all exactly the opposite of what happened during Clinton's presidency. So, now we've ruled out that there was, in fact, no depression and no double-digit unemployment at the beginning of Bush Jr's Presidency, we can throw the bullshit out the window. It wasn't until Bush Jr. made the tax cuts and followed supply-side economics 'just like Daddy taught him to', despite the fact that they failed horribly for his father, like they would for him, that there was a depression. Many Republicans, despite having little or no knowledge of economics, or in fact anything, whatsoever, blamed this on the cyclical slump that must've obviously been caused by Clinton, despite real economists figuring differently and projecting that, had Clinton's policies remained in place, the US would've had a 5.6 trillion surplus, enough to invade Iraq over and over, if you wanted to.

First, we have unemployment the lowest it has been in years, and we have the economy roaring for the time being, so I doubt there are many that have had their lives ruined by Bush. For New Orleans the line of blame starts first at the Mayor, yes that Democrat Black Mayor who said that New York had a Hole in the Ground, that Mayor who said that all those School Busses that could be used to ship out people before the Hurricane hit, couldn't be used, becuase they were "Under Water" of course he was commenting that they were under water AFTER the Hurricane. Then the blame goes up to the Governor, Yes the Democrat Governor, who could not see the stupidity of the mayor of New Orleans and decided to leave it in his incapable hands. Finally the blame comes to the President, who should have ordered more Natioanal Guard troops faster.

It's a trickle up effect. The Mayor deserves the most amount of blame for being a complete idiot, then the Governor for her complete neglegence, and then the President for not forseeing the utter stupidity of those people, and ordering more troops to cover such a large area.

No, no lives at all ruined, except those who have to pay for expensive social security thanks to Bush depleting the 'social security lockbox' desperating needed by America's poorest people. Bush could've saved money by not approving stupid shit like sending rockets to Mars, but he likes his toys better when they are out of the toybox, so go figure.

As for the Katrina victims, yes, failure can be blamed at all levels, but as President, he had the power to take the initiative and help the victims of the hurricane. Instead he only turned up when a camera was there, shook a couple of hands, then jetted away.

Since March 2004, 63 000 jobs have been lost per month, despite the fact that at the very least 150 000 need to be created per month in order to keep up with population growth.

Jesus F'ing H Christ, is it easier to just blame Bush than to actually look into these things?

I never blame anyone unless they are at fault. And, believe or not, George W. Bush is at great fault. He isn't fit to run a hot dog stand, let alone a superpower. I come from the country of shitty politicians, but I'd say that Bush beats them all hands-down in terms of pure shittiness.

[Roy Karrde]

Heald before we continue on, and I really want to continue on, I suggest we move this to another topic or private chat such as what DTZ and I have done. Mr. Pikachu has asked us several times to stay on topic, so I suggest we respect his wishes.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Today is a happy day for America, no more Rumsfeld, and maybe now we'll get stem cell research and the drinking age lowered to 18 like in most civilized nations.

I'm really upset that Chaffee lost the Rhode Island Senate election though, I was really pulling for him. It really means that people weren't voting on issues in Rhode Island, just voting for a democrat because he was a democrat. Chaffee supports legal abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and the environment and is against the death penalty, the war, and the Bush tax cuts, he's more liberal than the majority of democrats. Whitehouse's only platform was that the White House (major pun intended) sucks and Bush is an idiot and that Chaffee was a Republican. Very sad.

"I believe some one brought up Kerry's voting record for the Military a few pages back, this is where that record becomes very relivant."
Again you mispelled relevant. Seriously, you should watch Voyager more, they love saying irrelevant. Also, Kerry is a decorated war hero, I think he knows a little something about what he's talking about. You shouldn't assume that he's stupid just because he doesn't agree with you.

"Having a Blow Job in the office is not a impeachable offense, all it does is degrade the highest office of the land"
Ah come on man, don't insult blow jobs. You, like every male on the face of the planet, love them. If the president is guilty of being a man, then so be it.

[Musourenka]

Other than the resignation of Rumsfield, I really don't see how this is a happy day for America. I don't see the downward trend being reversed anytime soon.

[Roy Karrde]

Just going to mention a few things, DTZ yeah I was busy while typing. Anyway Kerry has been wanting to shove a stick in the Military's eye since Nam. He voted against every spending raise for the military and every military development in the 90s. The Dems wanting to cut Military Spending even though the threat of Terrorism continued to grow, is why we are having problems now. And Clinton having no spine to use the Military to go after Terrorism, isn't a excuse to cut Military Funding.

Anyway now that I got that out of my system. I wanted to share a few quotes from today's Russ Martin Show

"Give them a few years of this chick * Nancy Pelosi * and a House run by Democrats, and people will be wanting to Tongue kiss Republicans" - Russ

"And after listening to this chick * Nancy Pelosi again * for two years, people will start rethinking Hilary for President in two years" - Clo
"Why wouldn't Hilary make people rethink Hilary for President" - Russ

Both of these came after a speach Nancy Pelosi gave a very very negative speach on Iraq, just a day after the election.

[DarkTemplarZero]

What does the military have to do with protecting the nation against terrorism? Apparently the invasion of Iraq has actually hurt the war on terror according to an intelligence report: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/27092006/...-s-report.html, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ts_1159343079/
And also the Daily Show made some good jokes about it, look it up on Youtube. So naturally, cutting military spending makes sense and instead focusing on less inflamatory ways of fighting terrorism, i.e. intelligence and security forces in the United States. Besides, notice that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States way back when in 1998, after which the Clinton administration tried to hunt him down covertly for two years and Clinton claims he "got closer to killing him than anyone since". Notice that bin Laden was completely unsuccessful in harming the United States until Clinton's administration was long gone?

and while Pelosi isn't the greatest speaker of the house (She voted for the Patriot Act and the No Child Left Behind Act >.< ) but nevertheless I think that generally she'll send the country in the right direction. Besides, at least she's better than Dennis Hastert.

And a few quotes from the Daily Show that I enjoy:

"If the events of September 11, 2001, have proven anything, it's that the terrorists can attack us, but they can't take away what makes us American -- our freedom, our liberty, our civil rights. No, only Attorney General John Ashcroft can do that."

"President Bush recently challenged Iraqi soldiers still fighting U.S. troops like so: 'My answer is bring 'em on.' For those of you who may be criticizing Bush for acting like a movie cowboy, let me remind you: he's actually acting more like a movie cheerleader."

(referring to this picture taken in Abu Ghraib : http://photos.signonsandiego.com/gal...obj_MINI_1.jpg ) "Some people think that's torture. To me, that looks like cheerleading practice."

[Blademaster]

ENOUGH WITH THE QUOTES ALREADY!!!

And w00t for Rumsfeld getting the boot.

[Roy Karrde]

Alright really this is the last time I am posting a off topic post and then we should split the topic.

First of course the war in Iraq will boost Jihadism among the most radical, they were just looking for a excuse. As for cutting spending, Osama had planned and orchestrated several terrorists attacks during the Clinton administration, thousands died, it was only a matter of time that we had to go after him with our military, but the democrats continued to make cuts in it. Weakening it and weakening it until when we had to go to war, we had a shadow of what we once had.

And yeah your right, Clinton did get closer to Osama than anyone else, such as the time that he had a chance to bomb Osama's terrorist camp but wanted two varifications instead of one, which is near impossible. Or the time that he was practically given Osama Bin Laden but choose to allow him to be exported back to Afghanistan. Abd Osama was harmless during the Clinton Administration? Tell that to those that died in the 93 World Trade Center explosion, a event that Clinton didn't even go and visit! Tell that to those that died in our Embassys in Africa, where Osama conducted two bomb attacks that kill hundreds. Tell that to the brave men and women of the USS Cole who were killed in 2000 by Osama Bin Laden.

We have been in a War on Terror since the early 90s, only one side has been fighting it. The other side spent eight years cutting the military while we were in this war, they spent eight years allowing the enemy to build his force, to attack us at home and abroad, and they spent eight years blowing oppertunity after oppertunity to capture the leader of Al Qaeda, even when he was gift wrapped with a bow on top of his head.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Well I'm sorry if Clinton wanted to be sure that he wasn't bombing a large group of civilians, because if he did there would've been mass outrage and anti-American sentiment flying all over the place. It's a consideration that Bush apparently never thought of.

And as for the war in Iraq boosting Jihadism, it's not just the most radical. By most estimates 50,000 civilians were killed. If Americans killed your completely innocent son, wouldn't you be just a bit more inclined to join the Jihadist movement?

What have we done to bin Laden by going after him with the military? We searched for him for a while, let the "Northern Alliance" i.e. a bunch of Afghan warlords who sells completely innocent people to the United States as prisoners to be sent to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Read up on the Tipton Three and watch the Road to Guantanamo if you don't believe that there are innocent people at those "prisons", if you could call them that.), take over the hunt for him, and five years later we've found nothing.

The Cole incident happened three months before Clinton left office, he didn't exactly have a chance to go and find whoever did it. Bin Laden didn't plan the attack on the Cole, however, that was Ali Qaed Sinan al-Harthi, who was killed by a Predator Drone in 2002. Next, the claim that Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden to the United States, there's no evidence of that and the Clinton administration has always denied that this ever happened. Clinton did, however, authorize the assassination of bin Laden and put a 5 million dollar bounty on his head. And as for the 1993 WTC explosion, that was not even al Qaeda, but a group lead by Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman that was supposidly linked to al Qaeda. However, thanks for bringing up the 1993 WTC attack, because that was an example of how a response to a terrorist attack should be conducted. Within two years everyone involved was captured, despite the fact that one of them managed to flee to Pakistan, and they were all given fair trials and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, unlike the horrific mess we've gotten ourselves into in Afghanistan and Iraq without even capturing the man responsible.

[Roy Karrde]

First I want to say that we are going off topic again, we need to get back on it or DTZ you need to make your own topic.

Now with that out of the way, the only Civilians that he would have killed would be Osama's wife and Children, everyone else there were training camps in the multitude of times that Clinton had to bomb him. Also the event I am talking about is the event that happened in Sudan. Sudan was getting sick of Osama using their country to stage terror attacks, so they gave Clinton three options: They will go in and arrest him, handing him over to the United States so that he can stand trial in New York for the 93 WTC Bombing, or they will go in and kill him and everyone else in there, or they will kick Osama Bin Ladin out of the country and force him to flee to Afghanistan.

3 Guesses on which one Clinton decided on.

50,000? Most estimates are that the INSUGRENTS have killed over 100,000. Check that number again and who did it, not the US, not the British, the Insurgents. Meaning Bathist, Iranians, and Al Qaeda. Also remember that this war had the least amount of civilian casulties going in, the main amount of civilian casulties have been from Insurgents.

Now what have we done to Bin Ladin? We have shut down his control over his entire network, we have made him nothing more than a hermit. Also while you try to attack the Northern Alliance, remember that the Northern Alliance did more to try to kill Bin Laden than the Clinton Administration ever did. They sat up bombs to try and kill Bin Ladin when his car passed by, along with other attempts. The problem is we never supported their cause. As for Guantanamo Bay, have you been there? Have you gone to visit? No I didn't think so, then again neither have I, but I have talked to people that have. Mainly people that went down there when the Media was invited to go down to Guantanamo Bay. Down there are some of the scariest, most deadly people this world has ever seen.

As for the Cole Incident. Osama Bin Ladin announced he did it just hours after the event happened, the CIA task force sent to monitor Bin Ladin said it was him. We had a Submarine sitting just a few hundred miles away from his training camp ready to launch cruise missles. But again Clinton did not have the spine to do it. As for claiming there is no evidence about Sudan? I refer you to the 2001 Vanity Fair Article for my first piece of evidence

NEW YORK --VANITY FAIR HAS OBTAINED LETTERS and memorandums that document approaches made by Sudanese intelligence officials and other emissaries to members of the Clinton administration to share information about many of the 22 terrorists on the government's most-wanted list, including: Osama bin Laden.

And here is one of the quotes from one of the Negotiators of the deal

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

Or if you need further proof, how about the Last US Ambassador to Sudan, who served during the Clinton Administration.

ACCORDING TO TIM CARNEY, THE LAST U.S. AMBASSADOR to Sudan, whose posting ended in 1997, “The fact is, they were opening the doors, and we weren’t taking them up on it. The U.S. failed to reciprocate Sudan’s willingness to engage us on some serious questions of terrorism. We can speculate that this failure had serious implications—at least for what happened at the U.S. Embassies in 1998. In any case, the U.S. lost access to a mine of material on bin Laden and his organization.” He tells Rose, “It was worse than a crime. It was a fuckup.”

What do you have to say about that now?

As for the first WTC Attack, I refer you to the USA Today Article.

WASHINGTON — U.S. counterterrorism officials are focusing on a Kuwaiti lieutenant of Osama bin Laden with links to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a key architect of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

Osama helped the WTC attack, his men were apart of it, and we never caught the main people that sat it up, we caught the expendables, we caught those that Osama was willing to give up. And you call that a way to fight terrorism? Through the court system? That is beyond laughable. Why don't you tell those that have died from the second WTC attack, or those that died from the USS Cole, or those that died from the Embassy Bombings, or those that died from any of Al Qaeda's attacks from 1993 on about how well the US effort with the Court System fought terrorism.

I have said it before and I will say it again, we were at war, get it? WAR since 1993. You cannot fight a war with the courts. But apparently Democrats never realized that.

[mr_pikachu]

TO GET THIS BACK ON TOPIC...

Allen has conceded to Webb in Virginia. This means that, with the two Independents siding with Democrats, the Republicans have lost control of both the House and the Senate (as well as the majority of governors).

[Heald]

So instead of having a lame President, you just have a lame duck President...

Sorry, that was terrible.

All seriousness aside, Bush has paid the price of terrible policies and poorly-organised warmongering, and throwing Rumsfeld out like a bone to the hungry dogs will do little to appease the masses. Still, as I said before, only 2 years left of his term, then you'll have to face the prospect of having Hillary as a Presidential candidate. Have fun with that. Take it from a country who experimented with a female leader - they're bad news. Well, unless you like having the poorest 40% of your country facing huge job losses, tax cuts that only benefit the rich and the loss of welfare while the richest 5% benefit in terms of millions of dollars from the tax cuts...so it won't be much more different than Bush, I guess.

[Master Rudy]

Oh sweet Virginia why? ;.; Do you know how many votes Allen lost to?

[Roy Karrde]

I believe around 5,000 or less. More than enough to call for a recount, especially if you count the possible Election Fraud that the Dems were saying would happen before the election.

[DarkTemplarZero]

Well I'm not a big fan of Webb, but with him having consistently opposed the Iraq War and Allen being such a hypocritical douchebag I'm not surprised Webb pulled out a victory. Webb isn't even against the death penalty >.< and I was hoping that this might be a sign that Virginia would stop executing people left and right, oh well. At least things are better here in Jersey, where even the Republicans either oppose or are neutral on capital punishment.

And Heald, sexist remark much?

[Roy Karrde]

Allen had alot going for him and was being looked as the next front runner of the Republican Party. With such a close result there is a chance that the counts were wrong, or that there was vote tampering. Not saying there was, but for the last two major Presidential Elections, Republicans have had to deal with Democrats wanting recounts, so why can't we not ask for recounts of our own?

And Heald, there is one good Female Leader I know! Laura Roslin from Battlestar Galactica, I don't care if her views before the Colonies were nuked, were Liberal. I would vote for her over any other representative we have today.

[The Blue Avenger]

Not saying there was, but for the last two major Presidential Elections, Republicans have had to deal with Democrats wanting recounts, so why can't we not ask for recounts of our own?

Nobody's stopping you. Just be prepared for the backlash - like the Republicans gave the Democrats the first time around.

[mr_pikachu]

I think that's the main reason Allen's not asking for one. Besides, it's been a bad enough campaign for him, anyway. (Remember the "macaca" incident that turned everything around?) I'm sure this is something he wants to put behind him. Better for him and the GOP not to drag it out.

[RedStarWarrior]

Impeachment will not be occuring, regardless what those in other countries might be thinking, hoping.

Also, it's pretty easy to sit on the outside and make judgements without fulling understanding the intricacies of our government.

In conclusion, watch the flaming, no matter how amusing it is to make yourself look like an idiot, and let's actually discuss the issues.

[Jeff]

Absolutely, there's no way Bush is going to be impeached. Just because the Democrats now control both houses, does not mean every seat is now filled with a ravenous Bush-basher who can't wait to kick him out. In fact, most of the "Democrats" that were just elected are merely nominal Democrats. From what I'm seeing it looks like everyone is more interested in trying to play nice together. Sure I give that about a snowball's chance, but still, at least they're going to make an effort, and if they are going to make that effort I don't think impeachment will be on the agenda.

[RedStarWarrior]

The Democrat leaders in the Senate and House have already stated that it will not be a possibility.

[Roy Karrde]

While not under the best of circumstances, the Republicans have just gained back control of the Senate. Senator Tim Johnson is in Critical Condition right now with bleeding in his brain, he has just gotten out of surgery and the doctors are saying it is too early to determine what will happen.

What this may mean?
Well Tim Johnson comes from a Republican state, meaning that it is up to the Governor to appoint who takes his place. If the Governor, appoints a Republican from his own party, the Senate swings back to 50-50 and the Vice President has control over deadlock votes.

Anyway no matter what religion you are, I suggest you pray for the Senator and his family tonight, for the ordeal they are going through today and in the future days.

[mr_pikachu]

When I first saw this topic at the top of the forum, I thought to myself, "Didn't we let this thread die? What idiot revived the flame war?"

Then I read your post.

Dang... that's awful. Hopefully there won't be any further complications. I feel badly for him; not only is he clearly in grave danger with such a problem, but there must be enormous pressure on him from all sides as to whether to return to work. It's not a good situation.

Out of curiosity, if he is unable to return to the Senate immediately on Jan. 4 for the new session of Congress, would he then be forced to relinquish his seat? (I doubt it, since many Senators have skipped many meetings in a row before...) Or is there a more complicated process for deciding when someone has to give up his or her position?

[Heald]

What this may mean?
Well Tim Johnson comes from a Republican state, meaning that it is up to the Governor to appoint who takes his place. If the Governor, appoints a Republican from his own party, the Senate swings back to 50-50 and the Vice President has control over deadlock votes.

How likely is it that the Governor will choose a Republican? Because if he does, that's bullshit. It's virtually partisan nepotism.

[kainashi]

How likely is it that the Governor will choose a Republican? Because if he does, that's bullshit. It's virtually partisan nepotism.

very likely. that's america's government for you.

[Roy Karrde]

Well the Governor is Republican, and the state is VERY heavily Republican, so much that Bush won by 22 points there back in 04. The race with this guy was supposedly very tight also. Besides the voters voted for this guy, if he isnt able to serve then it is the Governor's choice and he will be going by the will of the state which is Republican. Hell the only reason this guy got elected was becuase he was very middle and down the line Democrat.

[Heald]

Well the Governor is Republican, and the state is VERY heavily Republican, so much that Bush won by 22 points there back in 04. The race with this guy was supposedly very tight also. Besides the voters voted for this guy, if he isnt able to serve then it is the Governor's choice and he will be going by the will of the state which is Republican. Hell the only reason this guy got elected was becuase he was very middle and down the line Democrat.

Wikipedia says South Dakota is generally Republican, not VERY heavily, but since some members of the board have a paranormal fear of anything said on Wikipedia and instead rely heavily on obviously biased media sources, we'll ignore that conveniently.

It isn't a matter of partisanship - since, as you said, it is a Republican state, the only reason he won was because he was a Conservative Democrat and he beat an obviously incompetent opponent. The voters didn't vote for him because of his party, they voted for him because of his views. Putting in someone who has differently views to him would be going against what the state wants.

Also, just because a state votes for a Republican for Governor or President is different to a Senate or Congress election. The Executive and the Legislative are two separate wings of Government and deal with different things.

If the Governor puts in a Republican, he is obviously doing it to serve his party and not his state and would be completely disrespectful of the incapacitated Senator, using his illness to their benefit, especially since putting in a Republican Senator would cause a drastic shift of power in the Senate.

If the situation was the other way round and it was the Democrats who had the oppotunity to seize a free seat from the Republicans and take control, no doubt you'd be seething at the thought of that.

[Roy Karrde]

I would be seething yes, but this isn't my choice, not only is this guy doing this to save his political career, but becuase it is what anyone else would do in his place in the Political World. And Wikipedia can say what ever they want about Generally or Heavily, a state doesn't vote for a Republican President by a overwhelming 22 points over his opponent and is considered Generally. Not to mention that the race between the two was very very close between the two.

Anyway it all comes down to him saving his own Political ass and making sure he gets re-elected by his base. The voters voted for Tim, statistics say that the people of the state voted for him and not the part. With him gone, its up to the Governor to choose what the will of the people would want, and the will of the people is obviously conservative in that state. Find another Conservative Democrat and the Governor may elect him. Then again Conservative Democrats are a rare breed.

[mr_pikachu]

Also, just because a state votes for a Republican for Governor or President is different to a Senate or Congress election. The Executive and the Legislative are two separate wings of Government and deal with different things.

True. On the other hand, how many voters do you think realize this?

As much as the system sucks, it's designed so that one person decides the fate of that Senate seat (and in this case, the Senate as a whole). Like it or not, we have no choice but to accept it until such time that the rules change. Until then, it is how it is.

I do see the merits of the system, by the way. It helps to guard against massive delays in scheduling a statewide vote whenever someone is unable to serve adequately. If you had a few of those in a row, the Senate could potentially be shut down for months. Giving one person the ability to decide saves a lot of time, money, and effort.

Let's just wish our best for Johnson and hope for his sake that he gets well quickly, regardless of what we may think about the Senate.