Did you vote today?
It took me about 40 minutes to vote.
Printable View
Did you vote today?
It took me about 40 minutes to vote.
Yep. I usually do early voting to rule out any wait times, but I slacked off this year and went today at 5:00. I waited 1 hour, 5 minutes. :fist:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
GO PERRY! :01:
No (as I'm not American).
Looks like a decent result for the Democrats though from news reports. Tbh it seems about time the U.S woke up to Bush (he really is a bit of a tool) and the Republicans. Heck it might even stop some of the hate (Western hate at least) towards America if the suggested results stick.
I think this has been a very shrewd move by Bush. Going into the Presidential elections all the trouble can be blamed on the Democrats.:rolleyes:
I don't understand USA elections (is this like the equivalent of our local elections?) but that Hilary Clinton chap seems pleased with herself so that must be a good thing.
I don't really understand either. Is Hilary Clinton the president now? :blink:
If the results stick, I guess a congratulation is in order.
Atleast it's better than the alternative.
To clarify: Democrats have both the senate and the congress at the moment.
I think only half of the seats in the two houses come up for election every two years. Anyone elected sits a term of 4 years. The Presidential Election takes place in two years time. It means that halfway through a Presidents 4 year term, he/she can lose control of both houses. I think that has happened this time. Have not seen the full results yet. As I said 'I think'.:)
The Americans will correct me soon.:rolleyes:
My entire knowledge of the American political system comes from watching The West Wing, and most of that is :whoosh:
But I think that happened to President Bartlett once, and it wasn't a good thing, because nothing ever got done. :idunno:
Nothing changes there then. Everything that went wrong over the last 6 years has been Bill Clinton's fault ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I voted. The wait wasn't too long. I think maybe 1/2 an hour total. I was happy to see a lot of people out voting for this midterm election.
So if the democrats control both what effect does that have on POTUS. Does he need them to agree legislation / policy or can he just do what he wants, since he can't be re-elected anyway.
And also, which is the upper house and what is the difference between them.
The senate would be the upper house I believe. I'm not sure how comparable it is to the british system though.
Bush would have to reach out to democrats for majority support now. Of equal importance, the possibility for an investigation into the Iraqi matter would be open...
As it stands now the democrats took the congress by a large margin, while barely taking control of the senate (by as little as a few thousand votes in their favour in some states); while the republicans can demand a recount in those states...
Yes, he will.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Seats in the House (total of 435) are two-year terms, and stand for election coincidental with presidential elections and mid-term as well.
Senate terms are six years, and 1/3 of the 100 seats stand for election every two years.
The House is in Democrat hands now, and I am quite sure the Senate will follow when results are officialized.
Does anyone think the Republicans cheated at all (at all).
Thanks for the correction.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Yes, he will.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Seats in the House (total of 435) are two-year terms, and stand for election coincidental with presidential elections and mid-term as well.
Senate terms are six years, and 1/3 of the 100 seats stand for election every two years.
The House is in Democrat hands now, and I am quite sure the Senate will follow when results are officialized.
Does anyone think the Republicans cheated at all (at all).
Is the Senate elections 33, 33, 34 or do they have another system?
Yes.:rolleyes:
Just as Hilary may be moving into the Whitehouse the chances are the Conservatives could be regaining England (not sure if Scotland will still be part of the UK by then).
Will J2 be taking an extended vacation in a Cotswold village and become a real ale buff? :shifty:
As to your first, it is done in rotation, I don't recall which year of the rotation it is, and it doesn't really matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?
If Hillary ever moves back into the White House, you will have as houseguests myself and the Missus, as well as four cats and a retrieving dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I am an ale buff, but would beg your expertise in learning the fineries of rampant consumption.
Hillary really showed what she was made of this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
A few facts:
She deigned her Republican opponent not worthy of a debate, and did precious little campaigning, as to do so would have been seen as acknowledging her competitor, which she was not about to do; she treated the election as if she were running unopposed.
She won by a ridiculous margin.
She still managed to spend $30 million on her re-election, which is some sort of record for an incumbent.
Hilary sucks ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4As to your first, it is done in rotation, I don't recall which year of the rotation it is, and it doesn't really matter.
What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?
If Hillary ever moves back into the White House, you will have as houseguests myself and the Missus, as well as four cats and a retrieving dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I am an ale buff, but would beg your expertise in learning the fineries of rampant consumption.
Hillary really showed what she was made of this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
A few facts:
She deigned her Republican opponent not worthy of a debate, and did precious little campaigning, as to do so would have been seen as acknowledging her competitor, which she was not about to do; she treated the election as if she were running unopposed.
She won by a ridiculous margin.
She still managed to spend $30 million on her re-election, which is some sort of record for an incumbent.
Probly why she won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Do you think that the Conservatives will win the next General Election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Maybe if Gordon is made leader, the English have always had problems with the party having a Scottish (or Welsh) leader.
Tony did a great job of convincing them he was actually English.
That's a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Hilary sucks ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4As to your first, it is done in rotation, I don't recall which year of the rotation it is, and it doesn't really matter.
What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?
If Hillary ever moves back into the White House, you will have as houseguests myself and the Missus, as well as four cats and a retrieving dog.
I am an ale buff, but would beg your expertise in learning the fineries of rampant consumption.
Hillary really showed what she was made of this time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
A few facts:
She deigned her Republican opponent not worthy of a debate, and did precious little campaigning, as to do so would have been seen as acknowledging her competitor, which she was not about to do; she treated the election as if she were running unopposed.
She won by a ridiculous margin.
She still managed to spend $30 million on her re-election, which is some sort of record for an incumbent.
Perhaps by '08 you will have learned the first entire first bar of the score, rather than just the first note...;)
Saddam sentenced to be hung and the British terrorist sentenced to 40 yearsQuote:
What sort of Republican cheating do you believe took place?
just before the elections. Too much of a coincidence methinks.:)
Ooooh, you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Just think of the international complicity required.
Damn Republicans-their popularity overseas cannot be denied.
They are called puppets. Bush pulls the strings or moves his fingers according to which puppet. I use the word puppet as an all-encompassing term.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Ooooh, you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Just think of the international complicity required.
Damn Republicans-their popularity overseas cannot be denied.
The word:naughty:
Gee, you mean the Iraqis really don't want to hang Saddam? :whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboabThey are called puppets. Bush pulls the strings or moves his fingers according to which puppet. I use the word puppet as an all-encompassing term.:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think the majority probably do.
Not those who supported him when he was in power tho', obviously.
Democrats control the House and Senate.
George "Macaca" Allen conceded defeat and did not demand a recount.
He bowed out rather graciously as well.
Now all we need is a Democratic (or Independent) President to seal the deal in '08.
Republicans had their chance and they severely mishandled the ball.
I am liking the changes Nancy Pelosi wants to make. They are severely logical.
Watch Mr. Smith Goes To Washington and The Distinguished Gentleman.
She wants to...wait for it.....make it so Congressman can't receive gifts.
She wants to piss of lobbyists and special interests.
She wants to bring some integrity to congress (that's been sorely lacking).
Hell I can't accept gifts from customers and I'm just a grunt tech.
Why the hell should people that affect everyone's life be able to.
While congress is at it, why not change that stupid fucking President pardoning crap?
Put some logic in this shit. I can see pardoning for some death penalty cases (governors can do it) especially if the conviction was questionable but being able to pardon some rich fuck like Marc Rich is ridiculous.
I also like the Republican (can't remember his name) that is spearheading the fight against earmarking funds for pork.
He ran unopposed in his state (people probably like his common sense).
I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I wonder why you couldn't remember his name?
Cos' I couldn't.:blink: I don't know about his other views but this one that he spearheads is quite logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I think you mean Tom Coburn (R-OK).Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I wonder why you couldn't remember his name?
Bridge To Nowhere anyone?
Might I add that this affects the entire congress and not just Dems or Repubs.
Nancy Pelosi has a very irritating laugh. I wish I didn't know these things, but CNN is on way too much here. <_<
:shuriken:
I think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerI think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I'm glad you said that. I watched that show but I couldn't think for the life of me who the guys name was or where I saw it. Was buggin me earlier. :frusty:
Thanks, clocker.:happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerI think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I loves teh 60 Minutes.
Flake is another one, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerI think he's referring to Jeff Flake (R-Az), profiled on 60 Minutes last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.
I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?
I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(
Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
I didn't know that he had leukemia (spelling?) :OQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Total shocker. :dabs:
Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:OQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Flake is another one, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.
I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?
I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(
Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.
60 Minutes hasn't done anything of note for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™Wow I can't believe you don't watch 60 Minutes (very often)!:OQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Flake is another one, yes.
One of that new faces in the Republican party-you'll be hearing more from him.
I don't watch 60 Minutes very often....did you hear Ed Bradley had died?
I was a bit non-plussed at the news. :(
Oh wait- there's more, so much more...:whistlingQuote:
Originally Posted by MagicNakor
60 Minutes gets stories that I don't normally hear about or rather, they delve and get the meat of a story and get interviews that no one else comes close too.
They have gone from being the oldest and best to merely the oldest.
In a situation such as this surely your whole system of Government becomes pointless.
Congress just won't led POTUS do anything and vice versa. You will have a Government in perpetual conflict. Or does it not work like that in real life. Do they manage to reach working compromises.
Sometimes there is no hope those elected will produce results :unsure:
sourceQuote:
Dead Ringer: Deceased Candidate Wins Election With Voters in Dark
By E&P Staff
Published: November 10, 2006 10:15 AM ET updated 1:30 PM
NEW YORK Things were so bad for Republicans this week in the midterm elections they couldn't even beat a dead man in North Carolina.
A candidate for a county board there, who was still appearing in newspaper ads the weekend before the Nov. 7 election, earned an easy victory, gaining 12,000 votes — despite being dead for a month.
Union County elections officials knew about his death for weeks, but did not inform voters, even though the newspaper ads and endorsements continued.
"We are instructed that it's not our job to do that," said Shirley Secrest, elections director.
The late Sam Duncan was the top vote-getter Tuesday for two seats as supervisor on Union County's Soil and Water Conservation board. He was running for re-election as his four-year term expired.
The Democratic Party distributed literature and sample ballots backing Duncan near the polls on election day. Democratic Party officials said they didn't know Duncan had died when they placed the ads and printed the literature, but did not know later.
Former sheriff Frank McGuirt said he had helped Duncan gain enough votes to knock out a board chairman who had served for many years. "I was shocked to know that poor Sam was gone," McGuirt told the Charlotte Observer. "I guess I had just missed that obituary." A check by E&P for such an obituary also came up empty, at least on a quick search.
An appointment will now fill Duncan's seat.
Meanwhile, in Texas, a Republican, Rep. Glenda Dawson, was re-elected
despite her death in September. In this case, her passing was no secret, but her campaign was criticized for sending out campaign mailers just before the election touting her record -- but not mentioning that she had died.