Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama

[Endus]

Friend not only did you make that arrangement but we debated over it right before I was, uh, given a time out for ...something that ...you did as well but that doesn't matter point is I think its just slipped your mind no worries.

Anyways I'm going to stop right here because this is usually when bad things happen.

TTYL!

Then I'm sure you can dig up a link to where I said it.

It's that or admit you're lying.

So, are you saying a Canadian can be Queen of England, or that Canada is England? I'm confused. Your head of state is an unelected dictator from a another nation. Does that not make you a banana republic? I don't mean to insult you; I just am having a hard time seeing your distinction.

1> The Queen can't be a "dictator", since she has basically no authority whatsoever with which to "dictate". Again; she is NOT the head of government, despite you failing to grasp that concept.

2> The Queen is the Queen of Canada. That's her official title. I'd say she's a Canadian citizen, but the term doesn't actually apply to her or her family for complicated Constitutional reasons, but they don't need passports to come here, either, because they're not foreigners. The Queen may also have other titles, but those are separate and distinct from this one.

[Auxora]

Obama still would have beat Trump handily (he barely beat a very unliked Clinton, the swing state victories were all in the 1% range). The jump to 1,000 is including congressional appointments which is pretty disengenous considering that always changes with every Presidential party switch. The change was pretty minor overall.

It also doesn't give voters much credit as being intelligent if Fox thinks that people vote for governor and Congressional reps based on who they vote for President or what they think of him individually. People are smart enough to look at each candidate on their own. If a person dislikes Obama, they aren't going to necessarily vote for a Republican Congressional candidate who's bad over a good Democratic candidate. They vote for who they think is best. Most people I know don't vote straight down a ticket anymore.

The swing has more to do with the fact that for a good part of Bush's Presidency, and now the majority of Obama's Presidency, Congress got nothing done because of deadlock. Voters are tired of having a split Congress or a President who vetoes every bill, to the point that nothing has gotten done. That's been the case for most of the last 12 years, and it's why Congress has about a 15% approval rating. So it's not surprising to see them say, give 1 party a chance to actually do something (Republican in this case). So Republicans have no excuses now to get things done. And if they fail to produce results that improve the lives of voters (economy, education, crime, immigration, etc.), you'll 100% see things swing quickly the other way to Demo President with Democrats controlling Congress to give that a try. The Democrats not having great candidates overall at all sorts of levels hasn't helped them either, along with some failed campaigning. But I think it's more about people being tired of the deadlock than anything. They want the same party controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency to see if that actually can do something.

[Dug]

That's entirely her fault. If a person's own moral failures are more newsworthy than their policies, this is what happens. Maybe her policy should not have been "Barrack Obama's policies will live on in me" in a change election.

Same can be said for Trump yet the prevailing idea is that The Media™ was in cahoots with Clinton and totally had it out for donny boy. Let's just ignore the fact that every other word that comes out of his mouth is headline worthy and people by nature love controversy.

[Tijuana]

You didn't answer the question: The media can't both be in the tank for democrats and covering Clinton overwhelmingly negatively.

- - - Updated - - -



He didn't say anything about parties.

But, they CAN be overwhelmingly Democrats (97% in polling) and yet also want to sell their product: ratings based advertisements. This should not be so hard to keep up with. I'm not exactly a scholar over here...

[NineSpine]

Ok so, how does that mean Democrats have the same amount of power as they started with again? They lost 1000 seats, and the "singular power holder". How are they winning again?

I didn't say they were winning. They lose, even when they get the most votes. Republicans have very thoroughly undermined the American democratic system, and I'm glad you think that that is so lovely, but be careful what you wish for.

[Vyxn]

Friend not only did you make that arrangement but we debated over it right before I was, uh, given a time out for ...something that ...you did as well but that doesn't matter point is I think its just slipped your mind no worries.

Anyways I'm going to stop right here because this is usually when bad things happen.

TTYL!

and I will confer because I also had the same debate with Endus about he same topic and you are correct to drop it once you prove him wrong he is vindictive and will abuse his powers when you do so

[Tijuana]

Then I'm sure you can dig up a link to where I said it.

It's that or admit you're lying.



1> The Queen can't be a "dictator", since she has basically no authority whatsoever with which to "dictate". Again; she is NOT the head of government, despite you failing to grasp that concept.

2> The Queen is the Queen of Canada. That's her official title. I'd say she's a Canadian citizen, but the term doesn't actually apply to her or her family for complicated Constitutional reasons, but they don't need passports to come here, either, because they're not foreigners. The Queen may also have other titles, but those are separate and distinct from this one.

So, how are you a separate nation from England? Can you attack them with your military?

[Zyster]

Why is there still a thread going about conspiracy theories? Yes another one Endus, a mod, is actively participating in said conspiracy theory.

[Endus]

and once again you pathetically trying to hold on to the irreverence of the popular vote for what ever reason be it no mandate or what ever you use it for what ever justification it doesn't matter because once again he didn't win the popular vote because he didn't need to he didn't campaign to do so

I'm not sure you understand what "irreverence" means.

And all you're doing here is failing to understand anything I've said. I wasn't arguing that the popular vote should "win". You seem to be under that misbegotten impression, but nothing I said even suggested that. Try going back and reading what I actually said, rather than the nonsense you're pretending I said.

[NineSpine]

But, they CAN be overwhelmingly Democrats (97% in polling) and yet also want to sell their product: ratings based advertisements. This should not be so hard to keep up with. I'm not exactly a scholar over here...

I would love to see the poll that says the executives controlling all of the major media organizations are 97% democrats.

[Endus]

So, how are you a separate nation from England? Can you attack them with your military?

I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled at this point, and it's distracting from the thread, so I'm dropping it.

But if you're serious, jesus, go learn some basics about world politics.

[Tijuana]

Same can be said for Trump yet the prevailing idea is that The Media™ was in cahoots with Clinton and totally had it out for donny boy. Let's just ignore the fact that every other word that comes out of his mouth is headline worthy and people by nature love controversy.

I can't argue with that. While we are at it, can we point out that said media did not realize they were hated more than Trump, and then laughably mocked him, even though their own viewers agreed with Trump, effectively donating to his campaign?

[Wells]

So, how are you a separate nation from England? Can you attack them with your military?

Are you seriously spending this much time arguing that Canada isn't a sovereign nation?

[Tijuana]

I would love to see the poll that says the executives controlling all of the major media organizations are 97% democrats.

I would love to see evidence that a media mogul was taking editorial control away from his staff. That would be pretty huge news.

[Gestopft]

That's entirely her fault. If a person's own moral failures are more newsworthy than their policies, this is what happens. Maybe her policy should not have been "Barrack Obama's policies will live on in me" in a change election.

Not going to argue that. I've said before that the Dems biggest problem was the candidate.

Still hard to argue that the media was shilling for Hillary though. If they were, wouldn't they have tried to minimize the negative coverage of her instead of babbling about her scandals incessantly?

But they weren't "for" her- they care more about scandal than policy.

[Tijuana]

I'm pretty sure I'm being trolled at this point, and it's distracting from the thread, so I'm dropping it.

But if you're serious, jesus, go learn some basics about world politics.

Can you at least answer that last question? Can your army legally attack the UK, if you were to say, leave NATO?

If he won't answer it, can another Canadian? I'm genuinely curious.

[NineSpine]

I can't argue with that. While we are at it, can we point out that said media did not realize they were hated more than Trump, and then laughably mocked him, even though their own viewers agreed with Trump, effectively donating to his campaign?

I watched a lot of media over the course of the election, and I saw insane amounts of free, uncritical coverage of Trump. CNN hired his former campaign chief as a contributor even though he was still on the payroll and CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED to not say negative things about Trump. Get real.

[Vyxn]

It's the only thing left he can hold onto. Give him a break.

with most ideologues like Endus they cant admit their ideology is being rejected that they are wrong so they try to gasp onto any far fetched excuse why they didn't win but it is never because of their failed ideology

[styopa]

A "thing" invented by a Democrat, ironically enough. Well, the party that would become Democrats.

[NineSpine]

I would love to see evidence that a media mogul was taking editorial control away from his staff. That would be pretty huge news.

Is that your way of saying you don't have any such numbers and are full of shit?