Republicans take the Senate

[And1129]

The military won't see much change from now unless something else crazy happens overseas.  What will probably really happen is major changes and challenges to the Healthcare (Obamacare) industry and the future of social security. 

[DhaniBoy]

America is currently led by Obama, Obama came from Democrats, Democrats still control the Senate at this time in the White House, all policies in the White House of course dominated by the Democrats, as we all know that Democrats prefer diplomacy than republican who likes deploying troops to fight, I hope republican democrat can emulate in making its foreign policy ... 

[Spendulus]

America is currently led by Obama, Obama came from Democrats, Democrats still control the Senate at this time in the White House, all policies in the White House of course dominated by the Democrats, as we all know that Democrats prefer diplomacy than republican who likes deploying troops to fight, I hope republican democrat can emulate in making its foreign policy ...  

lol...actually, you know nothing about US politics and have been well fooled by your media.

To find warmongers, look at Muslims in Africa, Putin, the Ukraine and Crimea, or the ISIS/Al Queda groups in the middle east. 

They are all warring along quite happily.

[Westin Landon Cox]

As Spendulus indicated with his list, the historical evidence does not support the idea that wars are more likely to start under Republicans than Democrats. Bob Dole got in some hot water in the 1970s when Bob Dole pointed this fact out in one of Bob Dole's debates.

Nevertheless, most people do seem to believe that Republicans are the pro-war party and the Democrats aren't. It's strange, but I guess there are lots of things lots of people believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

[Spendulus]

As Spendulus indicated with his list, the historical evidence does not support the idea that wars are more likely to start under Republicans than Democrats. Bob Dole got in some hot water in the 1970s when Bob Dole pointed this fact out in one of Bob Dole's debates.

Nevertheless, most people do seem to believe that Republicans are the pro-war party and the Democrats aren't. It's strange, but I guess there are lots of things lots of people believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, the phrase used to be "Hawk"....and there were and are lots of Democratic hawks.  But you don't see the term being used anymore.

Add the Cuban missile crisis under Kennedy(D) to the list, which brought us to the brink of nuclear war....

[Listless]

Mitch McConnell's face commands respect for his gruesome power.

[jaysabi]

The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.

Let's get real, shall we?

1.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW1.  D.
2.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW2.  D.
3.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Korean war.  D.
4.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Vietnam war. D.

I guess "get real" means trying to think things out from facts, or better still, from first premises, and not just spouting a party line spin.

No, clearly "get real" means misconstrue as meaningful historical coincidence, and ignore all historical context so you can attempt to prove a shallow point.

Huh?  The basis of the argument was Repubs not Dems are Warniks, right?

Fraid I am not seeing evidence to support that.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the response. It seemed to me you were attempting to disprove it by just listing the party affiliation of the POTUS during four arbitrarily selected wars. This doesn't make sense because WWI and WWII had declarations of war, which means the party affiliation of the POTUS is irrelevant, because it's Congress that decided to go to send troops somewhere, not the President. Therefore, you're left with a list of party affiliations of the POTUS during a biasedly-picked sample of US wars, which ignores all historical context surrounding the wars in attempt to draw significance and a correlation from coincidence. In other words, the list doesn't prove what you want it to.

Not to say I disagree with your point, I believe Democrats are just as war-happy as Republicans. My point was just your list doesn't support that conclusion because the party affiliation of the POTUS is not directly related to the war.

[Spendulus]

The Democrat party voted for the Iraq war all the same as the Republicans did, and the rank-and-file dems had access to the same intelligence files as Bush did.

Let's get real, shall we?

1.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW1.  D.
2.  Party affiliation of POTUS during WW2.  D.
3.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Korean war.  D.
4.  Party affiliation of POTUS during the Vietnam war. D.

I guess "get real" means trying to think things out from facts, or better still, from first premises, and not just spouting a party line spin.

No, clearly "get real" means misconstrue as meaningful historical coincidence, and ignore all historical context so you can attempt to prove a shallow point.

Huh?  The basis of the argument was Repubs not Dems are Warniks, right?

Fraid I am not seeing evidence to support that.

Perhaps I misinterpreted the response. It seemed to me you were attempting to disprove it by just listing the party affiliation of the POTUS during four arbitrarily selected wars. This doesn't make sense because WWI and WWII had declarations of war, which means the party affiliation of the POTUS is irrelevant, because it's Congress that decided to go to send troops somewhere, not the President. Therefore, you're left with a list of party affiliations of the POTUS during a biasedly-picked sample of US wars, which ignores all historical context surrounding the wars in attempt to draw significance and a correlation from coincidence. In other words, the list doesn't prove what you want it to.

Not to say I disagree with your point, I believe Democrats are just as war-happy as Republicans. My point was just your list doesn't support that conclusion because the party affiliation of the POTUS is not directly related to the war.

Actually I think we are in agreement, mostly. 

The spin I was objecting to was as I understood it "Republicans Like War", with implicit that Dems do not like it or are somehow morally superior.   

Utter nonsense. 

However, I didn't pick some biased sample, I just went right down the list of major wars of the 20th century and simply listed the party of the Commanders in Chief.  I guess a valid rebuttal might be "Yeah but since 1990...."

[maurya78]

So the democrats have finally paid the price for Obama s dithering on anything even vaguely resembling domestic or foreign policy

[lamaze]

So the democrats have finally paid the price for Obama s dithering on anything even vaguely resembling domestic or foreign policy

It might take time again for the democrats to gain their foothold of the US congress.

[Elwar]

Nobody remembers things more than a year away.

Remember last year when Republicans shut down the government and everyone talked about the political price they would have to pay in the 2014 elections?

That was so long ago.

[deluxeCITY]

Nobody remembers things more than a year away.

Remember last year when Republicans shut down the government and everyone talked about the political price they would have to pay in the 2014 elections?

That was so long ago.

I think that was the liberal media saying that. It was their way of trying to manipulate congress into giving up their demands and giving into the demands of president obama