Elections Results Thread

[stinkcat_14]

Let’s see what happens in two years, if they don’t start compromising. Everyone is tired of the gridlock. Even with the rigged districts, many might find themselves looking for a new job.

They didn’t compromise the last two years and most of them kept their jobs.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

There are some folks on this forum who would agree with this and still claim they represent American values of freedom and democracy.

Not me. I always held the position of Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush towards the GOP: become inclusive or become a permanent minority power without power or influence. I’ve stated this several times before on this forum, so I assume your reference to “some folks” does not include me.

 

[Cider]

President Obama will have to compromise…as will Mr. Boehner. The President will now be looking to his legacy and will hopefully follow the Bill Clinton model.

John

If was going to follow the Clinton model, he would have done so 2 years ago after 2010 when they lost the House. Nope didn’t happen. And I don’t think it will happen now.

 

[bellasbane]

No, no nerve hit, just interested in the truth. I kind of look at it like accusations of racism, people make such claims all the time with no evidence, you just learn to ignore it.

Anyone who thinks things were better in the “good old days” of this nation are in essence not so different from someone who would prefer that only landed white men were allowed to vote. They do not lament the loss of a reality, but the loss of white male privilege in a world marked by racism, sexism and discrimination.

 

[CMatt25]

I had a good election night. How about you?

“Good” is putting my night mildly. My night was great.

 

[PaulinVA]

This begs for clarification. Free birth control? Free health insurance?

I think the free phones and cell phones you refer to are paid for by the telephone companies as part of their Lifeline service. The program did not begin under Obama
usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/story/2012-06-01/low-income-lifeline-plan/55315532/1

No, but Lifeline was extended to include broadband under Obama. ObamaCare IS free or subsidized health insurance for the majority of Americans. Did you know that you can get subsidized health insurance if you make under 90,000 a year?! You are welcome.

The birth control mandate is well known.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Looks like the stock market does not like the result.

I hope this is not a bigger trend as average people have investments in stock.

 

[ManOnFire]

The left is totalitarian (okay “authoritarian” if you prefer) to its core and it will take full advantage of what the majority of voters gave it. And it will be more wide-ranging than I think most of us perceive.

I think it was Rhett Butler, of all people who said: (and I paraphrase) “There are fortunes to be made in the building up of a nation and fortunes to be made in its tearing down.” That does not apply only to money.

The question now, for the 48% or 49% of the populace who opposed Obama (more accurately, perhaps, those who surround him and back him) is how to make the unraveling of the country we thought we knew (most definitely including the oppression of religion by the state, which will be ongoing) work for them and for their families.

Personally, I took some survival actions before this election, have formulated others and have considerably more thought to put to this. As I believe the central feature of the Obamagroup program is the “Alinsky formula”; the purchase of the less prosperous 50% of the middle class at the expense, almost entirely, of the more prosperous 50% (the truly rich will be little, if any, affected, and the truly poor will not be helped) a person just over the line or who aspires to it, has a lot of work to do in preserving the prosperity of his own family. In moral terms, a Catholic has to realize that fully 50% of his co-religionists stand in defiance of the teachings of his religion. One may keep his own faith to himself (like my Irish ancestors were forced to do) but one must ensure that the deposit of the true faith is passed on to his children and grandchildren. We can perhaps positively affect some outside our families, but we cannot save the world. It is, however, within our power to save those to whom we owe the greatest duty. The Good Samaritan, remember, did not save all of the Roman Empire. He saved the one man nearest to him, and who it was possible to save. And, in this nation as it is now, that will be an ever-increasing challenge in a moral sense, as the American Church’s leaders, late to the challenge by decades, have been roundly defied by half of their own who, like the English Catholics of Henry VIII’s time, chose to stand with the earthly ruler rather than with the Church.

How very Ironic it is that those whose way of life and way of thinking oriented them to making their own way in the world are now much more “on their own” than ever they thought, through the ascendency of thinking so contrary to their own.

And how very strange is that aspect of humankind that somehow causes threats to be invigorating; that somehow causes defeats to firm one’s resolution.

And so, now to work. Be of good cheer!

Outstanding post, worth bumping. Obama’s form of progressive atheism will be the new paradigm shift, as King Henry VIII’s was 500 years ago.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And did they say Alabama voted to opt out of ACA?

Ala. voters oppose Affordable Care Act

Alabama voters have voiced their opposition to the new national health care law.

State voters on Tuesday approved Amendment 6, which says no one in Alabama can be forced to participate in any health care plan.

The Legislature approved the amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. That means the statewide vote essentially became an opportunity for voters to express their feelings on the federal law without having any impact on the law.

Alabama was 1 of 5 states with similar proposals on the ballot.

But they will still have to participate under ObamaTax?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Anyone who thinks things were better in the “good old days” of this nation are in essence not so different from someone who would prefer that only landed white men were allowed to vote. They do not lament the loss of a reality, but the loss of white male privilege in a world marked by racism, sexism and discrimination.

Did I ever say things were better in the “good old days”?

 

[Lochias]

Anyone who thinks things were better in the “good old days” of this nation are in essence not so different from someone who would prefer that only landed white men were allowed to vote. They do not lament the loss of a reality, but the loss of white male privilege in a world marked by racism, sexism and discrimination.

Spoken like someone with the blinders firmly in place.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I am starting to suspend users who are gloating, lashing out or in other ways posting uncharitably.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Spoken like someone with the blinders firmly in place.

Changing the subject is much easier than providing evidence of your claim.

 

[CMatt25]

Good things that have happened

A better thing is after running to what he thought would be a friendlier district for his reelection, the divisive Tea Party favorite Allen West lost!

 

[Lochias]

A better thing is after running to what he thought would be a friendlier district for his reelection, the divisive Tea Party favorite Allen West lost!

Keep gloating, sir.

 

[epan]

They didn’t compromise the last two years and most of them kept their jobs.

Good point. But, as Mr. Obama said in his rather remarkable acceptance speech, he has learned.

I believe that we have seen a pattern of presidents being ineffective in their first term, and then becoming more effective in the second. This was true of Clinton, and true of Bush. Part of it may be job experience gained, and networks formed in the first term. But I wonder if part of it is that the center elects the president. Therefore, presidents who want to win a second term don’t rock the boat much. They keep a lower profile. Second term presidents have an easier time rolling up the shirt sleeves and pounding on the bully pulpit.

We could use a strong leader, who uses the power and prestige of his office to call intransigent legislators onto the carpet, and who calls the lobbyists out. FDR and Kennedy come to mind.

I have only heard one first hand account of how Mr. Obama works. That account was that he did not take on those in the room who opposed him directly. He found a clever way of making his point without directly confronting anyone, and then he told them to go away for a couple of hours to rethink their proposal. He let everyone save face, as much as he could.

That sounds like an effective and respectful way to have a working relationship. But in the case of the House, who fail to work respectfully with others, I think he needs to instill some fear in them. He needs to speak to the public, and turn the voters against the people who won’t compromise. He needs to shine a bright light on them, so they shrivel up. If they want to act like children, then maybe they need their pants pulled down for a few smacks in front of the voting public.

 

[irishpatrick]

True. Nevertheless, Obama will be president for four years, and Harry Reid will be the lord of the Senate. They, along with the media will beat the House Repubs incessantly. Boehner will still be the speaker, and he can be bullied, as we have seen. The left will rule this nation for the foreseeable future, and no one should cherish any illusions that it will not. The left is totalitarian (okay “authoritarian” if you prefer) to its core and it will take full advantage of what the majority of voters gave it. And it will be more wide-ranging than I think most of us perceive.

I think it was Rhett Butler, of all people who said: (and I paraphrase) “There are fortunes to be made in the building up of a nation and fortunes to be made in its tearing down.” That does not apply only to money.

The question now, for the 48% or 49% of the populace who opposed Obama (more accurately, perhaps, those who surround him and back him) is how to make the unraveling of the country we thought we knew (most definitely including the oppression of religion by the state, which will be ongoing) work for them and for their families.

Personally, I took some survival actions before this election, have formulated others and have considerably more thought to put to this. As I believe the central feature of the Obamagroup program is the “Alinsky formula”; the purchase of the less prosperous 50% of the middle class at the expense, almost entirely, of the more prosperous 50% (the truly rich will be little, if any, affected, and the truly poor will not be helped) a person just over the line or who aspires to it, has a lot of work to do in preserving the prosperity of his own family. In moral terms, a Catholic has to realize that fully 50% of his co-religionists stand in defiance of the teachings of his religion. One may keep his own faith to himself (like my Irish ancestors were forced to do) but one must ensure that the deposit of the true faith is passed on to his children and grandchildren. We can perhaps positively affect some outside our families, but we cannot save the world. It is, however, within our power to save those to whom we owe the greatest duty. The Good Samaritan, remember, did not save all of the Roman Empire. He saved the one man nearest to him, and who it was possible to save. And, in this nation as it is now, that will be an ever-increasing challenge in a moral sense, as the American Church’s leaders, late to the challenge by decades, have been roundly defied by half of their own who, like the English Catholics of Henry VIII’s time, chose to stand with the earthly ruler rather than with the Church.

How very Ironic it is that those whose way of life and way of thinking oriented them to making their own way in the world are now much more “on their own” than ever they thought, through the ascendency of thinking so contrary to their own.

And how very strange is that aspect of humankind that somehow causes threats to be invigorating; that somehow causes defeats to firm one’s resolution.

And so, now to work. Be of good cheer!

The USA is a vast mission field, and it can only be approached one person at a time. That is the only way we can see a truly brighter day. Great post.

 

[ManOnFire]

Our job as Catholics now is to do what we’ve always done - pray that hearts turn back to God and the spiral of moral depravity this nation is wallowing in, via secular government, be lessened by the suffering that is surely to come, and even perhaps by the retribution that will be inflicted upon the godly. I expect our good bishops will pay the price for their courageous actions in condemning those things this administration is intent upon harming us with. In other words, watch out - I suspect there will be no holds barred now.

Catholics just voted for 4 more years of this, so why would you be hopeful that it will turn around??? The Church was sheepish and did not do ENOUGH to spell out the desired result, and will pay the price for it’s weak leadership.

 

[Lochias]

That sounds like an effective and respectful way to have a working relationship. But in the case of he Senate and the House, I think he needs to instill some fear in them. He needs to speak to the public, and turn the voters against the people who won’t compromise. He needs to shine a bright light on them, so they shrivel up.

…words fail me. I can be absolutely sure now, at least, that voting for Romney was the morally right thing to do.

 

[_Abyssinia]

washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/the-strategy-that-paved-a-winning-path/2012/11/07/0a1201c8-2769-11e2-b2a0-ae18d6159439_story.html

As part of his role, Ryan had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment. But Romney advisers refused his request to do so, until mid-October, when he gave a speech on civil society in Cleveland.

As one adviser put it, “The issues that we really test well on and win on are not the war on poverty.”