RE: Chambliss Wins! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


DomKen -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 2:13:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

she has no mandate and he is stronger within the party.

She has the same pseudo-mandate he has--if not moreso. Remember, his margin of victory was far from compelling and even farther from historic.

ROTFLMAO!
Stop trying to pretend it didn't happen. If 1 million votes was a mandate in 04, as you righties claimed, then 6 million votes is an enormous mandate.

Factually more people voted for Barack Obama than have ever voted for any presidential candidate ever. That's not psuedo anything.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 2:17:27 PM)

quote:

Factually more people voted for Barack Obama than have ever voted for any presidential candidate ever. That's not psuedo anything.

It's pseudo logic and very bad statistical analysis.

Your Dear Leader has no mandate (which fits because he has no clue either).

Which is why the Chambliss win is so handy--hopefully we will see at least two years of gridlock in Washington, and that might be just what this country needs (at least the Republicans know how to be a proper obstructionist minority party).




Evility -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 2:23:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
It's delusional to believe that the Democrats needed filibuster to achieve their goals.


The Democrats don't need it. They hold the majority of seats. Did you sleep through civics class?




Irishknight -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 2:24:37 PM)

Ken, thanks for answering the question.  He sounds like a jackass.

Kitten, I wish I could agree that the petty partisan crap was a thing of the past.  I've heard that said before and we ended up getting even worse.





DomKen -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:02:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Factually more people voted for Barack Obama than have ever voted for any presidential candidate ever. That's not psuedo anything.

It's pseudo logic and very bad statistical analysis.

Your Dear Leader has no mandate (which fits because he has no clue either).

Which is why the Chambliss win is so handy--hopefully we will see at least two years of gridlock in Washington, and that might be just what this country needs (at least the Republicans know how to be a proper obstructionist minority party).

What part of "most votes ever" are you having trouble understanding? Or are simply going to keep prevaricating and evading the truth rather than admit by the very logic you right wingers tried to shove down our throats in 2004 Obama has a mandate to make sweeping changes to this nation. Note that by sweeping I mean 6 times as big as privatizing social security which was what GWB claimed he had a mandate to do in 2004.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:06:29 PM)

quote:

Obama has a mandate to make sweeping changes to this nation.

He has no such thing. He has just enough rope to hang himself.

Hopefully, he'll make short work of it.




rulemylife -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:12:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

I think it has to do with the impossibility of a filibuster proof congress at the time but thats just a guess.

I also don't know a whole lot about Chambliss.  What has he done that draws such anger?  This is just curiosity, not anything else.


I take it you don't remember how he originally got elected. 

From the link:

"Chambliss came to the Senate in 2002 after defeating Democratic Sen. Max Cleland in a campaign that infuriated Democrats. Chambliss ran a TV ad that questioned Cleland's commitment to national security and flashed a photo of Osama bin Laden. Cleland is a triple amputee wounded in the Vietnam War."




kittinSol -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:34:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
It's delusional to believe that the Democrats needed filibuster to achieve their goals.


The Democrats don't need it. They hold the majority of seats. Did you sleep through civics class?



Did you sleep through the exchange that led to my post?




kittinSol -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:37:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Obama has a mandate to make sweeping changes to this nation.

He has no such thing. He has just enough rope to hang himself.

Hopefully, he'll make short work of it.


Hope away. It's a shame you aren't so virulent about the guy that is still sitting on the throne today.




Vendaval -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:42:16 PM)

General Reply - Dom Ken's reply reminded me about that infamous political ad.  Senator McCain expressed outrage over the content
 
Here is a link to the ad - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15561.html





kittinSol -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:47:21 PM)

Gross... especially gross that that pond scum was elected back in.






Vendaval -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 3:54:40 PM)

Yes, poor sportsmanship and dirty pool.




rulemylife -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 4:02:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

General Reply - Dom Ken's reply reminded me about that infamous political ad.  Senator McCain expressed outrage over the content
 
Here is a link to the ad - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15561.html




Which is exactly why McCain did not win.  He sold his principles to the highest bidder.

From your link:
"I'd never seen anything like that ad," McCain said at the time of the spot, which was widely condemned by Democrats. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield is "worse than disgraceful," said McCain. "It's reprehensible.”

Yet our little Johnny was out campaigning in the run-off for the man he called disgraceful and reprehensible just a few years earlier.




thornhappy -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 8:26:32 PM)

Deleted due to duplication.




masterBruce -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/3/2008 9:26:30 PM)

mccain dint win for one reason he tried to be to lib




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/4/2008 1:05:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

she has no mandate and he is stronger within the party.

She has the same pseudo-mandate he has--if not moreso. Remember, his margin of victory was far from compelling and even farther from historic.

ROTFLMAO!
Stop trying to pretend it didn't happen. If 1 million votes was a mandate in 04, as you righties claimed, then 6 million votes is an enormous mandate.

Factually more people voted for Barack Obama than have ever voted for any presidential candidate ever. That's not psuedo anything.


Well, I kinda go on the actual numbers.  Not in the sense that more people voted for Obama than any other candidate ever received.   You could also say that a hell of a lot voted for McCain , if you want to make that argument. 
More people may have voted, but that would be understandable.  More people are eligible to vote and there was a huge campaign to get out the vote.  Given the nature of the candidates and the distress of the country, I am glad more people voted than ever before.  Many of them on the Obama side of things were more than proud to proclaim that this was the first time they had ever even bothered to vote.
That said, I will go back to the numbers.
Obama received (unofficially, of course) 68,800,158 popular votes for 52.84%  of the total ~ a little more than 1/2
McCain received (unofficially, of course) 59,607,254 popul;ar votes for 45.78% of the total ~ coming up on 1/2?
The difference is barely more than 7%.  Maybe you consider that a mandate, but I don't.
 I also would not consider a 1,000,000 vote difference to be a mandate.  *shrug*
 
Now if you want to take the electoral college, the difference in the percentage is much more.  In this case it definitely seemed to work in Obama's favor.  Due to the nature of where he won (heavily populated states with a higher number of electoral votes, that is) Obama received (or will receive on Dec 13th), almost 68% of the electoral votes.  Quite a disparity, eh? 
 
Frankly I would think that, sheer numbers of voters aside, as that is a natural result of larger population and more eligible voters than ever before coupled with the fact that more people, many of them staunch democrats, let's not pull any punches here - ran out to vote for the first time ever~ ahem
PE Obama perhaps should have won by a hell of a lot more than a little over 9 million popular votes.  Out of over 130,000,000 total votes.
Just My opinion.  And please note My tag line.  I didn't vote for either of them. 




MarsBonfire -> RE: Chambliss Wins! (12/4/2008 5:20:20 AM)

It depends on how you define "mandate" I suppose. Bush slimed his way into office, winning by just 328 votes in FL back in 2000... and sending us down a path of two wars based on lies, drowned cities, and a shredded Constitution. In 2004, he won reelection by one of the narrowest magins in history. Yet, he claimed he had a "mandate" (apparently to run the country into the ground) with tons of "political capital" to spend after the election.

Obviously, republicans consider math to be a "soft science" changing the rules when it suits them. Not surprising, when you notice how the "Bush legacy team" has been rewriting history this last week. The Bush administration is, and will be considered shit on toast as far as history is concerned. America has never come closer to "1984" than when these assclowns have been in office.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2026
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125