Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802

    Republicans take control of Senate [CNN Breaking News]

    We have history here:

    The Republicans take control of Senate, House of Representatives (in addition to currently controling the white house and the US Supreme court which is mainly run by Republicans).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    5,137
    Is that bad news or good news?
    Fluid Hosting, LLC - HSphere Shared and Reseller hosting - Now with HIGH AVAILABILITY
    Fluid VPS - Linux and Windows Virtuozzo VPS - Enterprise VPS with up to 2 GB guaranteed memory!
    Get your N+1 High Availability Enterprise Cloud
    Equinix Secaucus NY2 (NYC Metro)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802
    Originally posted by FHDave
    Is that bad news or good news?
    It depends on persons views, really. Democrats describing it as the "Loss of check and balances"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Alabama of course
    Posts
    1,576
    If the democrats controlled it then the republicans would be crying... quite frankly I think there should be 3 major parties and not two just to spice things up and keep it from being a left or right issue and add a middle in there somewhere
    KnownHost Managed VPS Specialists
    Fully Managed VPS, Hybrid,and Dedicated Servers
    KnownHost is hiring! Click here for more information!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    ahhhh politics smolitics. They're all pretty much the same. They're all owned by special interest groups and big business. Don't see much difference these days.
    • AussieHost.com • Aussie Bob, host since 2001 •
    • Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!! •

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802
    Originally posted by DanielP
    If the democrats controlled it then the republicans would be crying... quite frankly I think there should be 3 major parties and not two just to spice things up and keep it from being a left or right issue and add a middle in there somewhere
    In our state, and it is only a speculation by the news agency so far: An unknown "other" party person (whom almost never heard of) has won 28,000+ votes. That is now, speculated that his last name is the same name as a very reputable senator, and people have confused it. LOL

    but at any rate, I agree with Aussie Bob; "They're all owned by special interest groups and big business."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Posts
    2,588

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    9,037
    hardly history, America doesnt have any history
    Matt Wallis
    United Communications Limited
    High Performance Shared & Reseller | Managed VPS Cloud | Managed Dedicated
    UK www.unitedhosting.co.uk | US www.unitedhosting.com | Since 1998.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    783
    Disappointing.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    3,729
    I think it will be interesting to see what happens. The last time they took control they hadn't had it for 40 years and they went a bit nuts with it.

    This time, things are a bit more settled, and the margins have been close for quite a while in the senate, so the transition will probably be a bit smoother, with a bit less nose thumbing.

    Should definately be interesting to see.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    857
    Daniel,

    I don't think a three party system would work.

    Lets say there are two candidates.
    60% of them want to vote for cand1.
    40% for cand2.

    Now you add third candidate who leans more towards lets say cand1's views. Doesn't matter if cand1 is liberal or conserv. You can imagine it however you want it. For the sake of argument lets say conservitive.

    Now the third guy is just as popular as candidate on. So now it is split up:
    Cand1: 35% was 60%
    Cand2: 38% was 40%
    Cand3: 27% the new guy

    So where Cand1 should have one as the majority of the voters are Conserv. The liberal Cand2 wins.

    Of coarse that could also work the other way around in favor of the conservitive instead of the liberal.

    Thus the reason for a two party system.
    <?
    header("Location: http://www.hostevolve.com/");
    ?>

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    1,074
    i don't feel a three party system will work out very well. in the us, unfortunately, it seems only the left leaning are motivated enough to action, thus, a 3 party system (using the greens as the basis for my example) only serve to divide the democratic party into splinters and enable what you see is happening now. the conservative right consolidating victory against the divided left and in turn enabling the conservative right to force through their nauseating motions onto the country and world.

    i would propose the consolidation of the green / democratic / independent parties, however that is quite unlikely to happen.

    also, i've heard lots of suggestions about that the U.S. switch over to a parliamentary system, with proportional representation (which i personally support the idea). in this system, the percentages of representatives would actually represent the percentage of votes -- as an example, where the voting population votes 12% green, 6% independent, 2% natural law, 40% democrat and 40% republican, you MIGHT end up with something like a (parliamentary) House of 10% Green, 4% Independent, and the rest evenly Democrat and Republican.

    of course, that would take alot of effort, time, people and money to achieve and unfortunately, i don't know if there's as much profit to be made from a fairly representative system, so, i doubt that could ever happen anyways.

    does anyone know what voter turnout was nation-wide? i'm expecting it to be relatively low. it's just sad to see that it comes down to roughly around 1/4 of the citizens in the us approve of the people mis-handling the fate of the world.

  13. #13
    I think political parties are the stupidest thing in politics today. Yes, they worked in the past, but now days there are way too many issues on the table. One person simply cannot hold all views by a particular party. It isn't human nature. Everyone has slightly different beliefs and ideals, but because of the two main parties they just blanket over candidates to "cover all the issues".

    The BIGGEST problem is ignorant voters. Most people don't follow candidates, don't know the issues, so they vote a straight ticket regardless. Some even vote simply because that's what their parents voted 40 years ago. They don't have the brain power to make decisions for themselves.

    It really pisses me off, because people don't vote with their brains (most people) but rather just vote because they are in xxx party. While I know it can't really be changed, I feel something differently needs to be done. There is too much partisan politics controlling such minute decisions, makes things take much longer to pass and ends up costing the taxpayer even more money.

    Why not just drop the party affiliations altogether? Let candidates show us what they are really fighting for, who they care about, and what kind of person they are without slapping a big DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN stamp on their forhead. This way they can focus more on doing what is right rather than doing what fits with their party affiliation.

    Democrats have good qualities, republicans have good qualities. Why not get the best of both by letting politicans piecing together their own beliefs and agenda rather than conforming to what they are told to do because of their party.

    That being said.. I vote with my own brain, and not by scandals you see on TV. I pick candidates regardless of their political party and assess the various things they stand for. If they want to change something that is very important to me, that's who gets the vote, regardless of political party. Unfortunately there are too many sheep in this country who are too ignorant to make a decision for themselves.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    120
    The bi-cameral (sp?) system has created a multitude of problems, the least of which not the "career politician". When you have somebody who has made a career out of being a politician, their personal interests, and professional needs are going to take precedence over the public good. People receive campaign contributions from special interest groups and once elected, must repay those contributions by way of how they vote and how they interact during their term. Hopefully, if they didn't botch things up too bad, they can repeat the process for the rest of their working life.

    IMHO, what needs to happen is that there needs to be strict term limits on ALL political offices held on a campaign basis. In addition, there needs to be checks on campaign funding. There are actually a ton of 3rd party candidates out there, but none of them can touch the amount of money that goes into a campaign, save for a few like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, and neither of them could touch the Republican or Democrats in the elections.

    I think the 3rd parties are a good thing, so long as they have the same footing as everyone else. If its a situation where a 3rd party has an iota of the support that the two major parties do, then they only serve to divide one party one way or the other...historically, its always worked that way, Gore/Nader, Wilson/Roosevelt etc. The only way to do that is to limit the funding they can recieve and especially limit the special interest groups funding abilities.

    Also, it should be mandated that any incumbant running must continue a full time schedule of his/her duties in office before ANY campaigning can take place....I like Jesse Ventura's idea about how incumbants shouldn't be able to campaign before 4pm or on the weekends Think GWB could have possibly been a productive governor when he spent the last 6 months of his term parading around the country?
    Not only do I think for myself, I AM myself

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    Ohh.. yes is "gooder" for the country http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...538899806.html
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,042
    America might end up with a 3 party system... like it or not. Remember that nifty Green Party? Well all they need is 5% of the popular vote in a presidential election to be conidered a "primary party", which means additional funding.

    Besides that a few states are looking at the run-off election system, which DOES provide opportunity for other parties to co-exist with the current 2 party system. So who knows, it has to change some how .

    hardly history, America doesnt have any history
    We have a history of beating the crap out of the Brittish (not to mention saving their butts a few times) (yes I was joking).
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Downunder
    Posts
    2,296
    what's the percentage of people who actually vote in USA ?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Alabama of course
    Posts
    1,576
    I don't lol... I'd guess that less than 40% of us vote if that many...
    KnownHost Managed VPS Specialists
    Fully Managed VPS, Hybrid,and Dedicated Servers
    KnownHost is hiring! Click here for more information!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Downunder
    Posts
    2,296
    less than 40 % ?

    a few years back I recall it was 37% but I'd be interested if there's any way of finding out what percentage voted this time

    it means that less than half the people chose this result !

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    actually in the past 4 years its gone up...I heard somewhere about 50%. Problem is we have these lazy aholes who take their freedom for granted they don't vote!
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Downunder
    Posts
    2,296
    I cop a fine if I don't vote !

  22. #22
    nice idea that, fine people for not voting without good reason. we could do with that in the uk. our turnouts are low.
    --
    Rich

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    LOL they should do that in the usa..unless you have a excuse...most employers here let you leave no problem vote and come back...so I think it kills about everyones excuse
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  24. #24
    Not only do many employers allow you to take time off to vote, but they have this thing called an absentee ballot if you can't be present on voting day. Really, how much easier can it get?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,042
    Actually if your employer doesn't let you vote it's a fairly huge fine. Legally they HAVE to let you leave if you request it. However, giving fines in America for not voting is unconstitutional. Remember we have the "Right" to vote no the requirement.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    1,074
    i don't see why you're blaming ALL of the voters NOT voting on laziness or "taking their freedom for granted". agreed, some just don't care, but, also realize that a large portion of the country are completely disenfranchised and feel there really isn't that much of a choice for them, so why bother.

    in many races, such as north carolina and some of the more rural states, really all you can do is vote DEM or REP. if you do not agree with either of those parties' policies (and as touched on before, it rarely seems a politician runs on their belief's rather, their party lines) GREENS's have no presence NOR are they even recognized as a legitimate vote if you write them in (using NC as my example) and the LIBERTARIAN party is just weak and ineffective. (again using NC as my example) so, it's quite easy to see how a large group of people are disenfranchised and just do not even bother.

    i just think the blame can be evenly spread among the media, the politicians, the voters, and the current political system where it always just seems as if winner takes all rather than equal representation for all.
    Last edited by skylab; 11-07-2002 at 03:52 AM.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Melbourne Downunder
    Posts
    2,296
    what I can do here is go up to the polling booth, have my name crossed off (therefore no fine) and go and mark a big x across the whole ballot paper

    but to me it seems like spitting on the people before me who fought -- and died don't forget -- to ensure that I had the right to vote

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    105
    I think this has shut everyone up about the whether the 2000 Presidential elections were fair. Seems Bush does have alot of support. Personally (although I'm British and not American) I think Bush has been doing a pretty good job considering what he's had to deal with in his short period in power.
    Simon Wallis
    United Communications Limited
    Shared | Reseller | Managed Dedicated
    www.unitedhosting.co.uk | www.unitedhosting.com | Since 1998.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802
    Here is something Dan Rather said, at the end his broadcast (2AM) on the election night.

    I am paraphrasing it, as this is not the exact quote:
    “We have man and woman overseas fighting for us, fighting for our rights and our freedom. If you decided not to vote, what where you doing that was more important ?”

    I think that is very well said.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    120
    Yeah, AceWeb, that about sums it up. It's not your right to vote, its' your damn responsibility. We were talking here @ the office yesterday about how it'd be a great idea to withold people's paychecks until they vote. If you don't vote that week, no paycheck. There'd be a way of making sure that happens. What's really odd is that there is apparently twice as many registered Democrat voters, but they don't go out and vote!

    It is sad, no doubt, that people don't vote. You figure all this effort was put into place to create a democracy 200+ years ago (which isn't that long all things considered), and everyone takes it for granted.
    Not only do I think for myself, I AM myself

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,042
    My responsibility? Really? Yeah let me tell you something about "my responsibility". This recent election the Republican party won straight across, as they have done for the last several years. In fact, the clostest race was won by 60% vote for the republican candidate. In my state, of registered voters (which I am) over 80% are registered republicans.

    So keeping that in mind, I'm supposed to take time off work to go vote for candidates that WILL NOT WIN? I'm a registered Democrat, and I'll tell you how I feel when I come home for lunch at 3:00 during the 2000 presidential election and my state was already given to Bush. So tell me why I should vote again?

    Now that I'm done ranting, it does make me very nervous having a republican super-majority. First of all, Bush now has the power to attack Iraq anytime he wishes, which Rep. and Dem. both gave him.

    The idea of attacking another country unprovoked, just because we "think" they may be building a nuclear bomb, and because we don't like the way the country is ran, scares the hell out of me. I'm not saying the Saddem is an inncoent bystander, but attacking a poverty-stricken country, unprovoked, sounds a lot like terrorism to me.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  32. #32
    Third parties can work if we institute Instant Run-off Voting. This system would allow me to, using the 2000 Presidential election as an example, vote for Nader as my first choice and Gore as my second. In that situation my vote would count as a vote for Nader and also for Gore or something like that, do a google search and learn more, it's pretty neat. Several countries (and US states) have adopted this system with great success.
    Originally posted by UH-Simon
    I think this has shut everyone up about the whether the 2000 Presidential elections were fair.
    Nope, it doesn't.
    Originally posted by comphosting
    So keeping that in mind, I'm supposed to take time off work to go vote for candidates that WILL NOT WIN? I'm a registered Democrat, and I'll tell you how I feel when I come home for lunch at 3:00 during the 2000 presidential election and my state was already given to Bush. So tell me why I should vote again?
    Yes you are. Even if your candidate loses, it helps keep the other candidate honest. Also, voting is a right, privilege, and duty. Many in the world don't have an opportunity to cast one, we take it for granted.
    Colin

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802
    Comphosting,

    Unless you work 12 hours a day, I do not see a problem with finding time to vote. But let say you cannot (as I know people who cannot vote for some reason on that day): There is early voting (I think it starts 2 weeks before election). Finally, there is Absentee Voting (they send you the form; you fill it out, and send it back). So honestly, if people really wanted to vote, there are 3 ways to do so, and I do not see a problem with it.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    120
    Originally posted by comphosting
    So keeping that in mind, I'm supposed to take time off work to go vote for candidates that WILL NOT WIN? I'm a registered Democrat, and I'll tell you how I feel when I come home for lunch at 3:00 during the 2000 presidential election and my state was already given to Bush. So tell me why I should vote again?
    Well, there's two ways of looking at it....the first, is of course, that by not voting, you are giving up your opportunity to voice an opinion at all. At that point, it's really pointless to have an opinion one way or the other on any political issues.

    The other way of course, is the classic voters' paradox which seems to be what you're arguing. I wish I could take credit for the following, but this is actually from Moby's website, and despite the fact that he's hardly a political commentator, his points are very good (factor out whether or not you like his music):

    "Consider that the percentage of people of voting age who actually vote in a midterm election is oftentimes around 30%.
    so you figure there are 200 million people of voting age in the United States. 30% of 200 is 60. So 60 million people voted in the mid-term elections, and most of the races were quite close, with republicans winning by one or two percentage points (obviously this is not the case in the house, where re-districting has guaranteed huge wins for democrats and republicans alike. but that's a different, and more corrupt, issue altogether). So if a republican wins by 2 percentage points it doesn't necessarily mean that the country as a whole has become more conservative. It just means that the small and vocal minority of right-wing conservatives are more likely to vote in mid-term elections than the rest of us. The party-faithful among right-wing republicans LIVE to vote in mid-term elections, cos they know that that's when their votes will really matter. so you have all of these special interest groups making sure that all of their acolytes are voting en masse.
    so back to the math:
    60 million people voted.
    roughly 30 million people voted for conservative and republican canditates.
    30 million is 15% of 200 million. so roughly 15% of the people of voting age in the united states voted for conservative, right-wing canditates.
    It's like the simpsons where bart runs for class president against martin, but only martin and his friend vote, so they win with 2 votes."

    The main problem is that when _EVERYBODY_ begins to think in terms of how their vote doesn't count, eventually the only people left are the people who have extreme right or left wing views, and the rest of America (the majority by far) has no say whatsoever.

    So whatever your party affiliation is, vote in the future!!
    Not only do I think for myself, I AM myself

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,042
    That's the funny part, the Gore VS. Bush compaign showed how little our votes count. Gore won by POPULAR VOTE, but because of the system we have in place Bush won... doesn't sound like my vote counts a whole lot...

    Once again even if EVERY registered Democrat & Indepent voted in my state, we would still be outvoted by republicans... lose-lose situation. I'll tell you what, you point me to an honest politician, from ANY party, and I'll be the first at the voting booth... oh yeah, there's no such thing.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    120
    Originally posted by comphosting
    Once again even if EVERY registered Democrat & Indepent voted in my state, we would still be outvoted by republicans... lose-lose situation.
    Well, you'll most certainly lose if nobody bothers to show up. Clinton literally won because he got younger voters out to polls when he was against George sr. and Jesse Ventura won because he got a lot of new people to the polls. When people who normally don't vote get out there...it makes a difference. And there _ARE_ more registered democrat voters by a large margin nationwide than republicans.
    Not only do I think for myself, I AM myself

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,042
    Yes I agree, but I've pretty much decided that all in all, they are all a bunch of dishonest rich bastards anyway. So, as I said before, the day I see a truly honest politician, is the day I'll vote again.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    120
    "the day I see a truly honest politician"

    IM oh so HO, this will happen when special interest groups are _NOT_ allowed to fund campaigns, term limits are put on every office and campaigning is restricted to weekends and after 4 for incumbants.

    Will anybody vote for me if I run for president with that platform?
    Not only do I think for myself, I AM myself

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona
    Posts
    2,564
    Originally posted by comphosting
    My responsibility? Really? Yeah let me tell you something about "my responsibility". This recent election the Republican party won straight across, as they have done for the last several years. In fact, the clostest race was won by 60% vote for the republican candidate. In my state, of registered voters (which I am) over 80% are registered republicans.

    So keeping that in mind, I'm supposed to take time off work to go vote for candidates that WILL NOT WIN? I'm a registered Democrat, and I'll tell you how I feel when I come home for lunch at 3:00 during the 2000 presidential election and my state was already given to Bush. So tell me why I should vote again?

    Now that I'm done ranting, it does make me very nervous having a republican super-majority. First of all, Bush now has the power to attack Iraq anytime he wishes, which Rep. and Dem. both gave him.

    The idea of attacking another country unprovoked, just because we "think" they may be building a nuclear bomb, and because we don't like the way the country is ran, scares the hell out of me. I'm not saying the Saddem is an inncoent bystander, but attacking a poverty-stricken country, unprovoked, sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

    actually you're quite wrong. In my state (arizona) the difference for our governship was like 2,000 votes. Democrats won sad . The thing about iraq is totally wrong. We know they dont have the capabilities (yet atleast) to build a nuke. Its about chemical weapons. They are 10 times easier to make, a bit small (the effective range I mean), but they can screw everything up, they can make your lounges fill up with blood....make your skin all jacked up. If you really think iraq is poor your totally wrong. Most are rich there because of oil. I read an article (in a magazine called "World" Ill scan it if you would like). Stating how Saddem (your "innocent" ruler) was letting out convicts, Because he feared the usa attacking him and wanted to create havoc (still dont get why he did this).
    -Robert Norton
    www.SophMedia.com

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    11,868
    Originally posted by interactive


    If you really think iraq is poor your totally wrong. Most are rich there because of oil.
    Oh my!!!!
    Shared Web Hosting - Reseller Hosting - Semi-Dedicated Servers - SolusVM/XEN VPS
    LiteSpeed Powered - R1Soft Continuous Data Protection - 24/7 Chat/Email/Helpdesk Support
    Cpanel/WHM - Softaculous - R1soft Backup - Litespeed - Cloudlinux -Site Builder- SSH support - Account Migration
    DowntownHost LLC - In Business since 2001- West/Center/East USA - Netherlands - Singapore

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •