Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does 51.1% v 47.2% and winning 26 states v. 24 states constitute overwhelming?
Overwhelming would be more like 58.8% v 40.6% and winning 49 states.
Most of the western states that went red have more empty acres than population, and unfortunately for you, land and cows don't get a vote. Most of the states with substantial population centers--you know, actual people--went blue.
The electoral college is the only count that matters, and no matter how you try to pretend otherwise, a 332-206 electoral college win is a trouncing.
How does 51.1% v 47.2% and winning 26 states v. 24 states constitute overwhelming?
Overwhelming would be more like 58.8% v 40.6% and winning 49 states.
The amount of votes in the 26 states was about 70+ electoral votes more than those of the 24. Had electorally it had been a tighter race, I'd be willing to agree with you.
The house passed several budget bills that were rejected by the Democrat senate or never made it off of Reid's desk for a vote.
Why do you refuse to focus on the fact that the Democrats had majority in both houses and a Democrat in the WH for two years and still never passed a budget.
The amount of votes in the 26 states was about 70+ electoral votes more than those of the 24. Had electorally it had been a tighter race, I'd be willing to agree with you.
Some people seem to think that each state get only one vote it seems. And here I thought everyone knew how the electoral college worked.
The house passed several budget bills that were rejected by the Democrat senate or never made it off of Reid's desk for a vote.
Why do you refuse to focus on the fact that the Democrats had majority in both houses and a Democrat in the WH for two years and still never passed a budget.
How many of those Republican budget bills the House passed included defunding or getting rid of ACA all together?
$24 billion of our money squandered by Ted Cruz and his grandstanding. That seems like a pretty substantial "hurt" to me.
What is your source for the $24 B squandered during the 21 hour filibuster and state specifically how you were "substantially hurt." ---- or is that just your "stratospheric hyperbole" presenting itself in a vague and unsupported allegation?
What is your source for the $24 B squandered during the 21 hour filibuster and state specifically how you were "substantially hurt." ---- or is that just your "stratospheric hyperbole" presenting itself in a vague and unsupported allegation?
Sure. This is what Standard & Poors said about the impact of Cruz's shutdown:
"The shutdown has shaved at least 0.6% off of annualized fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth, or taken $24 billion out of the economy. The closer we get to breaching the debt ceiling, the higher we expect the economic impact to be."
Your allegation as the Cruz personally "squandered $24 B" during his filibuster. Your source does not support your claim. The link you posted did not say that Ted Cruz' 21 hour filibuster cost tax payers $24 B. It said the government shut down. The shutdown resulted from the Democrats in the Senate refused into support the continuing resolution that was passed by the house.
The deadlock centered on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 20, 2013.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to the Affordable Care Act, and passed it in revised form on September 27, 2013.
The House reinstated the Senate-removed measures, and passed it again in the early morning hours on September 29. The Senate declined to pass the bill with measures to delay the Affordable Care Act, and the two legislative houses did not develop a compromise bill by the end of September 30, 2013, causing the federal government to shut down due to a lack of appropriated funds at the start of the new 2014 federal fiscal year.
As you can see, in reality, the shutdown was caused by the Senate's obstructionist actions in changing the bill to fund a unilaterally enacted bill and refusing to compromise for the sake of the people you claim suffered as a result of the Senate's refusal to work with the house.
Your allegation as the Cruz personally "squandered $24 B" during his filibuster. Your source does not support your claim. The link you posted did not say that Ted Cruz' 21 hour filibuster cost tax payers $24 B. It said the government shut down. The shutdown resulted from the Democrats in the Senate refused into support the continuing resolution that was passed by the house.
The deadlock centered on the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 20, 2013.[SIZE=2] [/SIZE]The Senate stripped the bill of the measures related to the Affordable Care Act, and passed it in revised form on September 27, 2013.
The House reinstated the Senate-removed measures, and passed it again in the early morning hours on September 29. The Senate declined to pass the bill with measures to delay the Affordable Care Act, and the two legislative houses did not develop a compromise bill by the end of September 30, 2013, causing the federal government to shut down due to a lack of appropriated funds at the start of the new 2014 federal fiscal year.
As you can see, in reality, the shutdown was caused by the Senate's obstructionist actions in changing the bill to fund a unilaterally enacted bill and refusing to compromise for the sake of the people you claim suffered as a result of the Senate's refusal to work with the house.
And yet the filibuster and government shutdown had no effect on the ACA from starting. So much for Rafael Cruz's showboating.
Most of the western states that went red have more empty acres than population, and unfortunately for you, land and cows don't get a vote. Most of the states with substantial population centers--you know, actual people--went blue.
The electoral college is the only count that matters, and no matter how you try to pretend otherwise, a 332-206 electoral college win is a trouncing.
Despite your bovinaphobia, the electoral map paints the same picture that most elections paint. The right and left coast have the dense voters that vote Dem and the rest of the nation (those flyover states that the liberals ignore or demean) vote GOP.
If you compare the electoral map from 2008 to 2012, Obama did not gain any additional states. The same states had additional electoral votes based on population growth. If everyone loves Obamacare so much, why couldn't he turn any other/new states blue?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
