The Official Election Results Victory Thread!!

• QuakerOats

  stlouiedipalma;544839 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that the electorate is impatient. They swept the D's into power in '08 and swept them right out in '10.

  
  They swept them back out because the media failed in its duty in '08 when they swept them in to report that they were THE MOST RADICALLY LIBERAL TRILLION DOLLAR SPENDERS IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION. Now that everyone knows this, it was an easy decision in '10; hopefully the damage inflicted in the last 2 years can be overcome.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;544940 wrote:Marco Rubio does not fit the definition of an anchor baby. One his parents were here legally when he was born in 1971 and they were subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Two the amnesty and special status granted his parent were for a specific reason for a specific group of people. Its was not general amnesty that some on the left favor.
  
  We were engaged in a cold war that at that time was on the verge of turning hot. A revolution accured in a Cuba, just 90 miles south of our border. Because Cuba's leader allied himself with our enemy in the war Cuba immidiately became a balltleground. So our government sypathized with refugees in this particular case and gave them special status.
  
  Also I think you are misrepresenting what many so called "tea party" type folks believe the 14th amendment says.
  
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
  
  In order to be granted citizenship at birth one of the parents and by default the baby have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That does not apply to any baby born within the borders of the USA. There are several cases this clearly would apply to; children born to forces of an invading army, children born to foreign diplomats, children born to foreigners vacationing in the US, and yes children born of foreigners here illegally.

  
  
  That's not how english works. The part within commas isn't necessary to the sentence. Merely adds information. If we take out that we get.
  
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;545042 wrote:That's not how english works. The part within commas isn't necessary to the sentence. Merely adds information. If we take out that we get.
  
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  So in other words babies born to members of invading armies recieve birthright citizenship? Or foreign tourists? Diplomats? No way that was the intention of the amendment.
  
  The context of that part of the 14th was solidify the citizenship of the slave population. Who were under the jurisdicition of the US.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I Wear Pants;545042 wrote:That's not how english works. The part within commas isn't necessary to the sentence. Merely adds information. If we take out that we get.
  
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  
  No, it really really needs to read as previous. It has to be very plain that those people are subject to the jurisdiction and everything therein. That way, nothing can be contrived to suit a person with a special interest, or to slant the meaning to whatever way suits an immediate need, tangible or otherwise.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;545053 wrote:So in other words babies born to members of invading armies recieve birthright citizenship? Or foreign tourists? Diplomats? No way that was the intention of the amendment.
  
  The context of that part of the 14th was solidify the citizenship of the slave population. Who were under the jurisdicition of the US.

  
  They aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. of A either.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;545061 wrote:They aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. of A either.

  
  You are wrong. The slaves were under the jurisdiction of the USA at the time.
  
  Also, anyone who can read English can see that the 14th says they have to be "born or naturalized" AND "be under the jurisdiction".
  
  If a Canadian is vacationing in the US and goes into labor early, has the baby in a US hospital and then goes home, that baby is NOT a US citizen, period.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;545089 wrote:You are wrong. The slaves were under the jurisdiction of the USA at the time.
  
  Also, anyone who can read English can see that the 14th says they have to be "born or naturalized" AND "be under the jurisdiction".
  
  If a Canadian is vacationing in the US and goes into labor early, has the baby in a US hospital and then goes home, that baby is NOT a US citizen, period.

  
  Well the SCOTUS agrees with me.
  
  See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. They found that the language "subject to the jurisdiction" thereof in the 14th amendment encompassed this common law tradition.
  
  This is the holding of the case: a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;545042 wrote:That's not how english works. The part within commas isn't necessary to the sentence. Merely adds information. If we take out that we get.
  
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  Not to be "that guy," but if you're gonna give English lessons, you might want to make sure all your sentences have subjects.
• jhay78

  

  I Wear Pants;544863 wrote:He didn't blame the Republicans. He just said that they can expect to be voted out if they don't fix shit in two years. The Democrats were.

  
  Democrats had the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. If they gave two bleeps about the economy and jobs, they wouldn't have spent the better part of their term ramming Obamacare through.
  
  Republicans have a majority in one house of Congress. Different circumstances. Right about now, they should be considered a success if they prevent legislative disasters, let alone "fixing" stuff.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;545098 wrote:Well the SCOTUS agrees with me.
  
  See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. They found that the language "subject to the jurisdiction" thereof in the 14th amendment encompassed this common law tradition.
  
  This is the holding of the case: a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

  I agree with this particular legal statement by the court. The federal government has passed laws that define for us who these subjects of foreign powers are, granting them permanent resident status and allowing them to carry on business.
  
  I have not found any evidence indicating Wong Kim Ark's parents were in the country illegally when he was born according the the laws of the time. So his citizenship was valid.
  
  This is why we have laws concerning foreign subjects status in our country, to assure that the ruling of the court is followed. If you want me to respect the rule of law and the courts ruling, then those foreigners entering this country to establish permanent residence and do business need to respect and follow the rule of law. Otherwise the ruling is a farce. Anyone can just waltz across the line drop a baby and claim they have permanent residency and have no legal documents to prove it.
• IggyPride00

  

  Republicans have a majority in one house of Congress. Different circumstances. Right about now, they should be considered a success if they prevent legislative disasters, let alone "fixing" stuff.

  House Republicans are kind of screwed though.
  
  They are going to have to agree to a budget of some kind, and that is going to entail either signing off on a $1 trillion+ deficit or publicly committing to huge cuts in defense, SS and Medicare/Medicaid if they are serious about getting the budget under control.
  
  Agreeing to a massive deficit will have them tarred and feathered as having not learned their lesson (the public expects this from Democrats) or public anger over massive entitlement cuts (which is what it would take to put a big dent in the deficit) will produce another wave in 2012 as backlash.
  
  Democrats have the same problem in that regard, but I don't think it is unrealistic at all to think that we will continue to see political purging of elected officials as long as the electorate is uneducated/unrealistic about just how big the problem is and how long it will take to reasonably do something about.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I think you're wrong.
  
  Most of us who voted to "purge" the Democrats that helped create such a mess, and increased the deficit with some pretty stupid stuff (the stimulus and Obamacare) understand it will take more than one budget to get things in order. If the GOP does its job and stops any more of this crap from being passed, the public will give them some time to figure out what needs cutting, how much and on what timeframe.
  
  More important right now is for them to address issues related to the economy: like eliminating a hostile attitude toward business by extending tax cuts, lowering the corporate tax rate (which is ridiculously higher than most countries) and similar measures that help promote job creation.
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78;545141 wrote:Democrats had the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. If they gave two bleeps about the economy and jobs, they wouldn't have spent the better part of their term ramming Obamacare through.
  
  Republicans have a majority in one house of Congress. Different circumstances. Right about now, they should be considered a success if they prevent legislative disasters, let alone "fixing" stuff.

  Republicans had the same advantage in the earlier part of the decade and that didn't work out very well either.
• IggyPride00

  

  Writerbuckeye;545207 wrote:I think you're wrong.
  
  Most of us who voted to "purge" the Democrats that helped create such a mess, and increased the deficit with some pretty stupid stuff (the stimulus and Obamacare) understand it will take more than one budget to get things in order. If the GOP does its job and stops any more of this crap from being passed, the public will give them some time to figure out what needs cutting, how much and on what timeframe.
  
  More important right now is for them to address issues related to the economy: like eliminating a hostile attitude toward business by extending tax cuts, lowering the corporate tax rate (which is ridiculously higher than most countries) and similar measures that help promote job creation.

  
  In all fairness I think you're giving the electorate way too much credit.
  
  In 2008 they kicked Republicans out of office for screwing things up, and then in 2010 they kicked Democrats out of office because it wasn't fixed yet.
  
  If the wild election swings have shown us anything the past decade, it's that the independents who are causing these swings don't like either party, they have an incredibly short memory, and they also don't have any patience.
  
  After the 2004 election, Karl Rove famously crowed about the "permanent Republican majority". By 2008 Democrats had amassed a filibuster proof majority and massive House advantage. 2 years after that, Republicans cleaned their clocks.
  
  If unemployment and the deficit are still high in 2012, Obama and the Republicans will be thrown out of office not because the electorate likes Democrats, but because in a 2 party system if you're mad and frustrated your only recourse is to vote for the other guy.
  
  I would like to have your confidence, but I have seen nothing from this electorate for the past decade that says they are going to suddenly be patient and just wait for things to get better.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If Obama and the Dems had used the past two years to actually work on the economy and not fuck around mostly with Obamacare and Cap & Steal, among some other things -- then you'd have a more valid argument.
  
  What I saw was a president and congress who seemed to be doing anything BUT working to help fix the economy. It was like they had the super majority and wanted to push through these other things while they could -- and the REAL issue of the day, the elephant in the middle of the room, was mostly ignored.
  
  Keeping in mind that Republicans DON'T HOLD THE POWER in D.C. and only have one third of it, it's gonna be pretty hard to hold them culpable for the entire process when the Senate and the President are Democrats. Even if the House comes up with proposals to help the economy, which I fully expect they will focus on, there are still two possible roadblocks there.
  
  The electorate may be impatient and not too bright on some things, but I do think they understand that it's the Democrats who are still in power and have yet to prove to ANYONE that they are ready to work on the economy as the first priority. Because when they do that, it will be the first time they've done it since Obama was elected.
• IggyPride00

  

  Nice to see that incoming Republican House banking chairman is wasting no time in paying back his corporate masters. Less than 48 hours after the Tea Party inspired victory, it is back to business as usual.
  
  Bachus has been a huge recipient of Wall Street financial services money, and has already urged regulators not to rigidly implement the Volcker rule, which is designed to limit the risk banks can take with their proprietery trading.
  

  The Volcker rule sought to prevent banks from putting a firm's capital at risk by prohibiting proprietary trading and banning certain relationships with hedge funds and private-equity funds.

  Prop trading is often a big cash cow for banks, and they fought tooth and nail to keep it out of fin reg. They did significantly water it down when the bill finally passed, but they want complete freedom to use tax payer insured funds to trade their house account.
  
  Nice to see that there was no interruption to business as usual in Washington even though the names and faces may change a bit. When the corporate masters of Congress (and this applies to both parties) say jump, it appears no one in Washington can resist asking "how high?" Kind of depressing if you ask me.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594473849188154.html
• jhay78

  

  IggyPride00;545274 wrote:In all fairness I think you're giving the electorate way too much credit.
  
  In 2008 they kicked Republicans out of office for screwing things up, and then in 2010 they kicked Democrats out of office because it wasn't fixed yet.
  
  If the wild election swings have shown us anything the past decade, it's that the independents who are causing these swings don't like either party, they have an incredibly short memory, and they also don't have any patience.
  
  After the 2004 election, Karl Rove famously crowed about the "permanent Republican majority". By 2008 Democrats had amassed a filibuster proof majority and massive House advantage. 2 years after that, Republicans cleaned their clocks.
  
  If unemployment and the deficit are still high in 2012, Obama and the Republicans will be thrown out of office not because the electorate likes Democrats, but because in a 2 party system if you're mad and frustrated your only recourse is to vote for the other guy.
  
  I would like to have your confidence, but I have seen nothing from this electorate for the past decade that says they are going to suddenly be patient and just wait for things to get better.

  I don't consider the majority of the electorate geniuses, but I think you oversimplified the '08 and '10 elections.
  
  There were several reasons for the Democrat sweep in '08:
  
  1) Bush fatigue, along with two wars
  2) historical circumstances (first black prez), and the surrounding cult of personality/media hype for Obama
  3) and yes, the usual "bad economy" argument that votes the current party out of power
  
  This year was different, being a midterm and not having a big name at the top of the ticket (thus lots of young voters stayed home). I think the electorate this time, while having the usual "not enough money in my wallet" syndrome, were well-informed and rightfully pissed about the legislative agenda the Dems had pushed so hard. I don't underestimate the media's role in swaying ignorant voters in 2012, but I think this time was different.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;545126 wrote:Not to be "that guy," but if you're gonna give English lessons, you might want to make sure all your sentences have subjects.

  
  Well played sir.
  
  But it doesn't lessen the fact that I was right about that. The meaning is drastically changed if you follow standard English practices that we all learned in school or just read it as one continuous thing ignoring the commas.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  New Speaker Boehner with an Op-ed in the WSJ this morning on his plan for moving forward. Gotta say, I like it so far.
  Points:
  No earmarks.
  Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote
  No more "comprehensive" bills
  No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker's office
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594280015549088.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
• BGFalcons82

  

  ptown_trojans_1;545635 wrote:New Speaker Boehner with an Op-ed in the WSJ this morning on his plan for moving forward. Gotta say, I like it so far.
  Points:
  No earmarks.
  Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote
  No more "comprehensive" bills
  No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker's office
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594280015549088.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  Hhmmmm....where did we hear that before? I think it was just about 25 months ago or so. :rolleyes:
• QuakerOats

  Writerbuckeye;545293 wrote:If Obama and the Dems had used the past two years to actually work on the economy and not fuck around mostly with Obamacare and Cap & Steal, among some other things -- then you'd have a more valid argument.
  
  What I saw was a president and congress who seemed to be doing anything BUT working to help fix the economy. It was like they had the super majority and wanted to push through these other things while they could -- and the REAL issue of the day, the elephant in the middle of the room, was mostly ignored.
  
  Keeping in mind that Republicans DON'T HOLD THE POWER in D.C. and only have one third of it, it's gonna be pretty hard to hold them culpable for the entire process when the Senate and the President are Democrats. Even if the House comes up with proposals to help the economy, which I fully expect they will focus on, there are still two possible roadblocks there.
  
  The electorate may be impatient and not too bright on some things, but I do think they understand that it's the Democrats who are still in power and have yet to prove to ANYONE that they are ready to work on the economy as the first priority. Because when they do that, it will be the first time they've done it since Obama was elected.

  Thank you.
• IggyPride00

  

  ptown_trojans_1;545635 wrote:New Speaker Boehner with an Op-ed in the WSJ this morning on his plan for moving forward. Gotta say, I like it so far.
  Points:
  No earmarks.
  Let Americans read bills before they are brought to a vote
  No more "comprehensive" bills
  No more bills written behind closed doors in the speaker's office
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594280015549088.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  
  I hope like hell the "no earmarks" thing happens. I have found sadly though that often times when it has been proposed it never happens because without the ability to use earmarks to "bring the bacon home", Congress critters make themselves more vulnerable to being voted out of office. Since job #1 around Washington seems to be self preservation (rather than representing their constituents) no one seems to be willing to walk away from this invaluable tool (being earmarks).
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  BGFalcons82;545642 wrote:Hhmmmm....where did we hear that before? I think it was just about 25 months ago or so. :rolleyes:

  
  lol, yeah, missed your post.
• fish82

  

  IggyPride00;545648 wrote:I hope like hell the "no earmarks" thing happens. I have found sadly though that often times when it has been proposed it never happens because without the ability to use earmarks to "bring the bacon home", Congress critters make themselves more vulnerable to being voted out of office. Since job #1 around Washington seems to be self preservation (rather than representing their constituents) no one seems to be willing to walk away from this invaluable tool (being earmarks).

  
  Boehner might have a small dooshey streak in him on occasion...but in his entire career, he's never brought a single earmark back to the district.
• IggyPride00

  

  Boehner might have a small dooshey streak in him on occasion...but in his entire career, he's never brought a single earmark back to the district.

  I don't doubt he might personally want to do it. The problem has always been getting the rest of the caucus to agree.
  
  Hannity has railed for 2 years now on the refusal of the Republicans in Congress to abstain from earmarks as a way to differentiate themselves from Democrats and show they are serious about spending control.
  
  There is just a huge reluctance on the part of either party to pull the trigger and give it up because of the power it gives them at re-election time to show their constituents all the wonderful things they brought them.