Dems Takes U. S. House!
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Jesus was able to read hearts. He called them what their character reflected. The term used was not to embarrass or to put down. They were low-down, quiet, smooth and deadly (poisonous). Can you truly call a follower of Jesus a land scavenger, the "uncleaned" animal ("pig")? Don't double down on wrong. Be true to the Word. CMOf course, many here aren't followers of Jesus since they reject who He is. They follow a false christ.
So, Reformed, those you deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
***********************************************I'm saying I don't know how a Christian in good conscience could support the Democratic Party given their positions.
You're being evasive. Yes or no? Can a Dem be a Christian?
I would sincerely question it.
Would it be fair for me to say the same about Republicans
No, it wouldn't.
The Republicans platform toward Russia and Ukraine, Christian? Who changed it?
What are you referring to?
Read the Republican's 2016 election platform. This is a part of Muller's investigation.
Why don't you just provide it?
Is not this is the so-called reasons to buy, collect, and sell instruments of death (guns) and not be a member of a militia. These same "so-called Christians become judge, jury, and executioners in taking a life in a school or one's home. Guns were made to kill.
Love how you evaded the issue.
Following where you ran too. CM
No you didn't. You ignored the fact that Democrats are in favor of intentionally murdering babies.
-
***********************************************
@C_M_ said:
Jesus was able to read hearts. He called them what their character reflected. The term used was not to embarrass or to put down. They were low-down, quiet, smooth and deadly (poisonous). Can you truly call a follower of Jesus a land scavenger, the "uncleaned" animal ("pig")? Don't double down on wrong. Be true to the Word. CM@reformed said: Of course, many here aren't followers of Jesus since they reject who He is. They follow a false christ.
@C_M_ said: So, Reformed, those you deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
Did you forget to answer my question above? This is important. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
***********************************************
@C_M_ said:
Jesus was able to read hearts. He called them what their character reflected. The term used was not to embarrass or to put down. They were low-down, quiet, smooth and deadly (poisonous). Can you truly call a follower of Jesus a land scavenger, the "uncleaned" animal ("pig")? Don't double down on wrong. Be true to the Word. CM@reformed said: Of course, many here aren't followers of Jesus since they reject who He is. They follow a false christ.
@C_M_ said: So, Reformed, those you deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
Did you forget to answer my question above? This is important. CM
Nope didn't forget it, just like you didn't forget (I'm sure) @GaoLu charge against you regarding certain things to which you have offered no rebuttal or explanation so they must be true?
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
***********************************************
@C_M_ said:
Jesus was able to read hearts. He called them what their character reflected. The term used was not to embarrass or to put down. They were low-down, quiet, smooth and deadly (poisonous). Can you truly call a follower of Jesus a land scavenger, the "uncleaned" animal ("pig")? Don't double down on wrong. Be true to the Word. CM@reformed said: Of course, many here aren't followers of Jesus since they reject who He is. They follow a false christ.
@C_M_ said: So, Reformed, those you deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
Did you forget to answer my question above? This is important. CM
Nope didn't forget it, just like you didn't forget (I'm sure) @GaoLu charge against you regarding certain things to which you have offered no rebuttal or explanation so they must be true?- This a shameful and unnecessary distraction from our discussion and the question of the reasoning that grew out of it.
- GaoLu is no longer a part of the New CD (by his own choice). He said, if return briefly, he wouldn't be engaging in any meaningful discussions.
- For someone who demands proof for everything, you seem ready to believe what GaoLu said he himself in passing couldn't prove. This is telling of your demand for proof in other matters and your willingness to believe a garbage accusation in passing. As a Christian, counselor, and spiritual leader, why would he or you surmising and disinformation in a public forum that's designed to reflect Christ? Hint: In case you missed it, I just rebutted it. Case closed!
- What holds as true or the truth, without the context or knowing the whole story is bearing false witness. Modern terms slander, lying, and malicious tale-bearing. All these the Bible condemns. We have been called a "cesspool" at CD, let's not become one, and prove it.
- My mother taught me that when a person lies on you, live so no one would believe it.
- If you want to have a discussion a particular topic and not accusing a CD Member, you still have that privilege. Start the thread. Like all others, I would give it consideration for participation.
- I am not a dog that runs after every bone (post). I am a free participant in CD and not a slave.
Now that I have indulged your detraction, I would like you to please answer my question:
@ C_M_ said: Those you, Reformed, deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
I remain. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
***********************************************
@C_M_ said:
Jesus was able to read hearts. He called them what their character reflected. The term used was not to embarrass or to put down. They were low-down, quiet, smooth and deadly (poisonous). Can you truly call a follower of Jesus a land scavenger, the "uncleaned" animal ("pig")? Don't double down on wrong. Be true to the Word. CM@reformed said: Of course, many here aren't followers of Jesus since they reject who He is. They follow a false christ.
@C_M_ said: So, Reformed, those you deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
Did you forget to answer my question above? This is important. CM
Nope didn't forget it, just like you didn't forget (I'm sure) @GaoLu charge against you regarding certain things to which you have offered no rebuttal or explanation so they must be true?- This a shameful and unnecessary distraction from our discussion and the question of the reasoning that grew out of it.
- GaoLu is no longer a part of the New CD (by his own choice). He said, if return briefly, he wouldn't be engaging in any meaningful discussions.
- For someone who demands proof for everything, you seem ready to believe what GaoLu said he himself in passing couldn't prove. This is telling of your demand for proof in other matters and your willingness to believe a garbage accusation in passing. As a Christian, counselor, and spiritual leader, why would he or you surmising and disinformation in a public forum that's designed to reflect Christ? Hint: In case you missed it, I just rebutted it. Case closed!
Well that's it. That's what was needed, a denial. Now it is up to @GaoLu to bring proof.
- What holds as true or the truth, without the context or knowing the whole story is bearing false witness. Modern terms slander, lying, and malicious tale-bearing. All these the Bible condemns. We have been called a "cesspool" at CD, let's not become one, and prove it.
You do those things on a regular basis to people who support the 2nd Amm.
- My mother taught me that when a person lies on you, live so no one would believe it.
I don't think that means be silent on the issue.
- If you want to have a discussion a particular topic and not accusing a CD Member, you still have that privilege. Start the thread. Like all others, I would give it consideration for participation.
- I am not a dog that runs after every bone (post). I am a free participant in CD and not a slave.
Now that I have indulged your detraction, I would like you to please answer my question:
@ C_M_ said: Those you, Reformed, deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
I remain. CM
I believe I apologized for the pig comment did I not? Yes, I did. So it is interesting that you and @Bill_Coley bring it up.
-
@reformed said:
I believe I apologized for the pig comment did I not? Yes, I did. So it is interesting that you and @Bill_Coley bring it up.
No, please go back and read our conversation. I don't know how you and Bill got into this. I am not dealing with anything old.
@ CM said: Jesus was able to read hearts. He called them what their character reflected. The term used was not to embarrass or to put down. They were low-down, quiet, smooth and deadly (poisonous). Can you truly call a follower of Jesus a land scavenger, the "uncleaned" animal ("pig")? Don't double down on wrong. Be true to the Word. CM
@reformed said: "Of course, many here aren't followers of Jesus since they reject who He is. They follow a false christ".
And then I asked:
@ CM said: So, Reformed, those you deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
And then I asked again after the distraction:
@ CM said: Now that I have indulged your distraction, I would like you to please answer my question.
And, then again:
@ C_M_ said: Those you, Reformed, deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"?
I am not interested in "beating a dead horse" or carrying on with an "apologized for the pig comment" between you and Bill.
Our exchange is fresh talk. So once again, from our conversation:
Those you, Reformed, deemed or those who declared themselves to be the non-Christians on CD, you or any Christian is justified in calling them "pigs"? YES or No?
-
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!! Maine and New Jersey!
Two more states repudiated Trump and his policies. Republicans are in denial. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
@C_M_ said:
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!! Maine and New Jersey!
Two more states repudiated Trump and his policies. Republicans are in denial. CM
Trump wasn't on the ballot, you realize that right?
-
WHO CARES? A WAVE IS A WAVE! Besides, Trump said, every vote is for him or against him. Find some of his stump speeches. The House will investigate all of Trump's dealings. CM
PS. Don't try to defend or speak for Trump. You're going to make yourself sick. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
WHO CARES? A WAVE IS A WAVE! Besides, Trump said, every vote is for him or against him. Find some of his stump speeches. The House will investigate all of Trump's dealings. CM
That doesn't mean anything, you realize that right? And the House has already investigated and found nothing.
PS. Don't try to defend or speak for Trump. You're going to make yourself sick. CM
Not really, the sick ones are the Democrats, mentally sick.
-
That doesn't mean anything, you realize that right? And the House has already investigated and found nothing.
Republican House. They are blind guides, "dumb dogs that can't bark".
The Dems will show them what a real investigation looks like.
PS. Don't try to defend or speak for Trump. You're going to make yourself sick. CM
Not really, the sick ones are the Democrats, mentally sick.
I don't want you sick over Trump. Don't take him in your bosom. CM
-
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!! California!
One more state repudiated Trump and his policies. Some Republicans are still in denial. Day 666 of Trump's presidency (Friday), is there any type of hidden message here? CM
-
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!! -- Day # 670 of Trump Admin.
Utah!
One more state repudiated Trump and his policies. Some Republicans are still in denial. Mia Love gets no love from the people of her state. This brings Dems House wons to 39 Seats gained. CM
Post edited by C Mc on -
@C_M_ said:
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!! -- Day # 670 of Trump Admin.
Utah!
One more state repudiated Trump and his policies. Some Republicans are still in denial. Mia Love gets no love from the people of her state. This brings Dems House wons to 39 Seats gained. CM
Again, Trump wasn't on the ballot.
-
@C_M_ said:
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!!
Utah!
One more state repudiated Trump and his policies. Some Republicans are still in denial. Mia Love gets no love from the people of her state. This brings Dems House wons to 39 Seats gained. CM
Given the good economic conditions in which the midterms were held, in my view the magnitude of the Democrats' reversal of control in the House can objectively be called a "blue wave." To net a nearly 40 seat gain when the electorate feels as good as it does about the economy tells us that this election was a rejection of President Trump - his divisive rhetoric and serial mendacity, among other flaws. Only GOPers from the reddest of districts were sheltered from electoral rejection.
Unlike previous election cycles, however, I don't think things improve for Republicans in 2020 if Trump is still in office. The electorate's rejection of him is based far more on his character than his policies - and Trump's character is not going to change. He will always be an uninformed, incurious, and emotionally infantile narcissist who lies without awareness, let alone compunction. Such a president - on vile and despicable display in his decision not to hold the Saudi Crown Prince accountable for his role in the execution of a Washington Post journalist - has no source of power by which to reverse popular will because he is incapable of changing the conduct that drives it.
My strong sense is that Trump will not serve a full term because he will either resign or be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. But if he does survive, he will lose in 2020.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
The "Blue Wave" continues! One more House Seats for Dems!!!
Utah!
One more state repudiated Trump and his policies. Some Republicans are still in denial. Mia Love gets no love from the people of her state. This brings Dems House wons to 39 Seats gained. CM
Given the good economic conditions in which the midterms were held, in my view the magnitude of the Democrats' reversal of control in the House can objectively be called a "blue wave." To net a nearly 40 seat gain when the electorate feels as good as it does about the economy tells us that this election was a rejection of President Trump - his divisive rhetoric and serial mendacity, among other flaws. Only GOPers from the reddest of districts were sheltered from electoral rejection.
Unlike previous election cycles, however, I don't think things improve for Republicans in 2020 if Trump is still in office. The electorate's rejection of him is based far more on his character than his policies - and Trump's character is not going to change. He will always be an uninformed, incurious, and emotionally infantile narcissist who lies without awareness, let alone compunction. Such a president - on vile and despicable display in his decision not to hold the Saudi Crown Prince accountable for his role in the execution of a Washington Post journalist - has no source of power by which to reverse popular will because he is incapable of changing the conduct that drives it.
My strong sense is that Trump will not serve a full term because he will either resign or be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. But if he does survive, he will lose in 2020.
Again, Trump was not on the ballot.
-
@reformed said:
Again, Trump was not on the ballot.
- "In a sense, I am on the ticket,' Trump told a raucous election-eve rally in Ohio, one of three he held in the final hours before Election Day. "The midterm elections used to be, like, boring, didn't they?" he added. "Do you even remember what they were? People say midterms, they say, 'What is that, what is it,' right? Now it's like the hottest thing."
- PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: "A vote for Marsha is really a vote for me and everything that we stand for. A vote for Marcy (ph) is a vote for me. And a vote for Cindy is a vote for me. And a vote for Steve is a vote for me. Remember this. A vote for David is a vote for me and our agenda to make America great again."
- “I’m not on the ballot,” Trump conceded to the crowd in Southhaven, Miss. “But in a certain way, I’m on the ballot. So, please go out and vote.”
AND VIA CNN: (midterm exit poll results)
- Almost two-thirds said that Trump was a factor in their vote for the House today. About a quarter said their vote was in support of the President and almost 40% said that their vote was in opposition to him.
Of course the president wasn't on the ballot as in running for re-election. But he WAS on the ballot - and HE AND THE ELECTORATE thought he was on the ballot - as in seeking the electorate's judgment on his policies, achievements, and presidency.
If Trump wasn't "on the ballot," how do you explain the GOP's 40 seat loss in an economy this good? (Recall: In the last 50 years, the average midterm loss for the party in power has been 24 seats.)
-
@reformed said:
Again, Trump was not on the ballot.
A political parrot? He speaks ONLY what he hears from Trump. Ha, ha ha... CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Again, Trump was not on the ballot.
- "In a sense, I am on the ticket,' Trump told a raucous election-eve rally in Ohio, one of three he held in the final hours before Election Day. "The midterm elections used to be, like, boring, didn't they?" he added. "Do you even remember what they were? People say midterms, they say, 'What is that, what is it,' right? Now it's like the hottest thing."
- PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: "A vote for Marsha is really a vote for me and everything that we stand for. A vote for Marcy (ph) is a vote for me. And a vote for Cindy is a vote for me. And a vote for Steve is a vote for me. Remember this. A vote for David is a vote for me and our agenda to make America great again."
- “I’m not on the ballot,” Trump conceded to the crowd in Southhaven, Miss. “But in a certain way, I’m on the ballot. So, please go out and vote.”
AND VIA CNN: (midterm exit poll results)
- Almost two-thirds said that Trump was a factor in their vote for the House today. About a quarter said their vote was in support of the President and almost 40% said that their vote was in opposition to him.
Of course the president wasn't on the ballot as in running for re-election. But he WAS on the ballot - and HE AND THE ELECTORATE thought he was on the ballot - as in seeking the electorate's judgment on his policies, achievements, and presidency.
If Trump wasn't "on the ballot," how do you explain the GOP's 40 seat loss in an economy this good? (Recall: In the last 50 years, the average midterm loss for the party in power has been 24 seats.)
If we could only get a political parrot to repeat this. The largest number of people to vote in 2018 mid-terms. The next highest was in 1974. The Republicans were outplayed. The Dems has always targeted local races and the House, but pretend to want the Senate and to block Kavanaugh. This was truly a B.......lue Wave!
CM
-
@C_M_ said:
If we could only get a political parrot to repeat this. The largest number of people to vote in 2018 mid-terms (8.8 million). The next highest was in 1974. The Republicans were outplayed. The Dems has always targeted local races and the House, but pretend to want the Senate and to block Kavanaugh. This was truly a B.......lue Wave!
CMI like the wave!
One correction: The turnout in this year's midterms is currently at counted to be around 110 million, and is projected to end up near 113 million... a GREAT turnout, historically.
-
Says the biggest parrot on the board....
-
@CM: I think I've discovered where you might have found the 8.8 million votes figure that you included in an earlier post in this thread. To-date, 8.8 million MORE votes have been cast nationwide for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives than have been cast for Republican candidates. That large and rising number is pushing the national vote percentage victory for the Dems to nearly 8%, which is VERY large electoral victory.
-
You are so right! Thanks, Bill for your kindness, and research. I knew of the 8.8, million number and changed it because I couldn't verify it in a timely manner due to the impatience of several CD Users remaining.
The "Blue Wave" continues!!!
CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@CM: I think I've discovered where you might have found the 8.8 million votes figure that you included in an earlier post in this thread. To-date, 8.8 million MORE votes have been cast nationwide for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives than have been cast for Republican candidates. That large and rising number is pushing the national vote percentage victory for the Dems to nearly 8%, which is VERY large electoral victory.So in other words, about the same as it was in the 2016 presidential race when you factor in the independents that aren't usually present in mid-terms. Not really earth-shattering.
-
@reformed said:
So in other words, about the same as it was in the 2016 presidential race when you factor in the independents that aren't usually present in mid-terms. Not really earth-shattering.
It's not clear to me why you'd compare two elections results that you acknowledge are not comparable: a presidential race and a midterm election. Neither is it clear to me how you can summarily remove independent voters from a general or midterm election, in neither of which voter party affiliation has any impact. In primaries? Yes, party affiliation matters, but not in general elections, where any voter may vote for any candidate of any party.
But if we compare these midterms' House outcome to the outcome of 2016 general - what you'd call an "apples to apples" comparison - then 2018 was NOT like 2016.
- According to the data, in 2016, Republicans actually won the cumulative popular vote in House races by 1.4 million votes (1.1%) while losing six net seats to the Democrats. This year, Democrats won the popular vote in House race by 8.8 million votes (7.9%) while winning 39 or 40 net seats. In elections, a 1.1% victory is NOT comparable to a 7.9% victory. Neither is a net win of six seats comparable to a net win of 40 seats.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
So in other words, about the same as it was in the 2016 presidential race when you factor in the independents that aren't usually present in mid-terms. Not really earth-shattering.
It's not clear to me why you'd compare two elections results that you acknowledge are not comparable: a presidential race and a midterm election. Neither is it clear to me how you can summarily remove independent voters from a general or midterm election, in neither of which voter party affiliation has any impact. In primaries? Yes, party affiliation matters, but not in general elections, where any voter may vote for any candidate of any party.
But if we compare these midterms' House outcome to the outcome of 2016 general - what you'd call an "apples to apples" comparison - then 2018 was NOT like 2016.
- According to the data, in 2016, Republicans actually won the cumulative popular vote in House races by 1.4 million votes (1.1%) while losing six net seats to the Democrats. This year, Democrats won the popular vote in House race by 8.8 million votes (7.9%) while winning 39 or 40 net seats. In elections, a 1.1% victory is NOT comparable to a 7.9% victory. Neither is a net win of six seats comparable to a net win of 40 seats.
You also have to factor in the amount of retirements, the fact it was a mid-term, not presidential, etc. This really isn't all that impressive when you factor in all data.
-
@reformed said:
You also have to factor in the amount of retirements, the fact it was a mid-term, not presidential, etc. This really isn't all that impressive when you factor in all data.
It's "impressive" that the Dems won control of the House. Above all, there will be real checks and balances on Mr. Trump!!! CM
PS. A win is a win!!! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
You also have to factor in the amount of retirements, the fact it was a mid-term, not presidential, etc. This really isn't all that impressive when you factor in all data.
It's "impressive" that the Dems won control of the House. Above all, there will be real checks and balances on Mr. Trump!!! CM
PS. A win is a win!!! CM
If by "real" you mean deranged and delusional? Yes, you are correct.
-
@reformed said:
You also have to factor in the amount of retirements, the fact it was a mid-term, not presidential, etc.Every election cycle has its share of avenues of rationalization for supporters of the losing party; none that change the bottom line result, however.
This really isn't all that impressive when you factor in all data.
Doesn't what you would call an "apples to apples" comparison require that we compare these midterms' results to other midterms' results, and not to presidential election results?
And if we DO compare these results to presidential House election outcomes, what difference does it make? I looked at the results of every election - presidential and midterm - starting with the year 2000. (If you want to check my work, Google "United States House of Representatives elections, xxxx," replacing "xxxx" with the year in which the election was held. The Wikipedia result has the numbers I used.)
- OVERALL, in ALL nine elections previous to this year's midterms the average # of House seats lost/gained was 17, and the average percentage difference between the two parties' vote totals nationwide was 4.5%. By either metric, the Dems' 40 seat gain and 7.9% vote percentage advantage this year are notable.
- In the five presidential elections since 2000, the average # of seats lost/gained was 7.8, and the vote percentage difference averaged 3.0%. If you insist on comparing presidential elections to midterms, then this year's results are still notable.
- In the four midterm elections since 2000 previous to this years', the average # of seats lost/gained has been 29 (a figure that includes a 64 seat GOP gain in 2010!) and the average vote percentage difference has been 6.3%. This year's seat gain is a third higher than that average, and its percentage difference is 25% higher than the the previous midterms'. That STILL strikes me as notable.
- And finally, recall that you twice predicted that the GOP would hold the House, a fact which means that the Dems flipped AT LEAST 17 (77%) more seats than you believed they would. Were I you, I would find THAT notable.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You also have to factor in the amount of retirements, the fact it was a mid-term, not presidential, etc.Every election cycle has its share of avenues of rationalization for supporters of the losing party; none that change the bottom line result, however.
This really isn't all that impressive when you factor in all data.
Doesn't what you would call an "apples to apples" comparison require that we compare these midterms' results to other midterms' results, and not to presidential election results?
And if we DO compare these results to presidential House election outcomes, what difference does it make? I looked at the results of every election - presidential and midterm - starting with the year 2000. (If you want to check my work, Google "United States House of Representatives elections, xxxx," replacing "xxxx" with the year in which the election was held. The Wikipedia result has the numbers I used.)
- OVERALL, in ALL nine elections previous to this year's midterms the average # of House seats lost/gained was 17, and the average percentage difference between the two parties' vote totals nationwide was 4.5%. By either metric, the Dems' 40 seat gain and 7.9% vote percentage advantage this year are notable.
- In the five presidential elections since 2000, the average # of seats lost/gained was 7.8, and the vote percentage difference averaged 3.0%. If you insist on comparing presidential elections to midterms, then this year's results are still notable.
- In the four midterm elections since 2000 previous to this years', the average # of seats lost/gained has been 29 (a figure that includes a 64 seat GOP gain in 2010!) and the average vote percentage difference has been 6.3%. This year's seat gain is a third higher than that average, and its percentage difference is 25% higher than the the previous midterms'. That STILL strikes me as notable.
- And finally, recall that you twice predicted that the GOP would hold the House, a fact which means that the Dems flipped AT LEAST 17 (77%) more seats than you believed they would. Were I you, I would find THAT notable.
Honestly I believe the legitimacy of some of the races are questionable as well. Too many suspicious happenings.
