PDA

View Full Version : Tell me what you think



JDogger
10-18-2010, 10:21 PM
In a few weeks, elections will happen. Will we sweep out the old and replace it with the new?

What changes do you see, and how fast will they happen?

Do we spiral upwards?, or downwards?...and why?

Does a different team taking the field make a true difference?

Do party's really matter?

Who is really in control?

Pregunta's, por favor.

JD

depittydawg
10-18-2010, 11:49 PM
In a few weeks, elections will happen. Will we sweep out the old and replace it with the new?

What changes do you see, and how fast will they happen?

Do we spiral upwards?, or downwards?...and why?

Does a different team taking the field make a true difference?

Do party's really matter?

Who is really in control?

Pregunta's, por favor.

JD

Well as of now, I don't see the GOP winning control of either body. And if they do, it won't matter. They won't touch Social Security, Medicare, or back away from Empire. So our deficit will continue to skyrocket. They will try another round of stimulus by throwing more money to wall street and it won't work of course. Cause that ain't the problem.
Look for two more years of the same stalemate in Washington no matter which party wins.
If the Pubes do win control over the Senate or House, the fireworks will begin with investigations into anything and everything. If they can't find anything, they'll just make something up.
The problem with Republicans is they never stop campaigning anymore. Once this election is over, they will start their strategy for 2012. Governing doesn't seem to be on their radar anymore. Hasn't since 2006.

subroc
10-19-2010, 05:10 AM
Well as of now, I don't see the GOP winning control of either body...

Then you haven't been paying attention.

The GOP will win the house handily, maybe even a 25 seat margin.

The GOP will have "at least" 49 seats in the senate and may even end up with the 51 seats to control.

As far as "change" goes, I expect it will happen at the usual snail's pace of everything in DC. However, no extremist liberal agenda will be seen for miles.

The donkeys will have been harnessed again.

ducknwork
10-19-2010, 06:00 AM
Obama and congress will be forced to compromise on issues for the next 2 years, or O will be a two year lame duck.

BonMallari
10-19-2010, 07:17 AM
unfortunately,I think we will see more gridlock

Now let me ask this ...what is more important . what side "wins" or who is in control

BrianW
10-19-2010, 08:43 AM
I look for Obama, out of spite, to veto everything that comes out of a Republican led House, in order make it look as bad for 2012 as possible, whether he runs or not. "The GOP has been in charge for 2 years and things are worse..." Pelosi, as the new House Minority Leader, will still have her podium and a sympathetic media to rail against every proposal as "blitzkriegs on the poor, the hungry, the unemployed..."

I also expect more of an "imperial" Presidency with more EO's and appointments that circumvent the legislative/confirmations processes, that will produce even more confrontation and hostility between the branches.

I also believe that we'll see a reversal of the Demint policy in the Senate where the Dems will try to maximize the debate on any bill, in a "good for goose/gander" tactic.

As a result of the gridlock, I would predict a rise in the number of Independents running for office in 2012 as both the established parties prove ineffective over the next couple of years.

Basically, except for the last part, I expect the American People to continue to get the shaft for the next 2 years.

Buzz
10-19-2010, 08:46 AM
I look for Obama, out of spite, to veto everything that comes out of a Republican led House, in order make it look as bad for 2012 as possible, whether he runs or not. "The GOP has been in charge for 2 years and things are worse..."

In other words, you think that Obama will take a page from the republican playbook.

M&K's Retrievers
10-19-2010, 09:44 AM
Well as of now, I don't see the GOP winning control of either body. And if they do, it won't matter. They won't touch Social Security, Medicare, or back away from Empire. So our deficit will continue to skyrocket. They will try another round of stimulus by throwing more money to wall street and it won't work of course. Cause that ain't the problem.
Look for two more years of the same stalemate in Washington no matter which party wins.
If the Pubes do win control over the Senate or House, the fireworks will begin with investigations into anything and everything. If they can't find anything, they'll just make something up.
The problem with Republicans is they never stop campaigning anymore. Once this election is over, they will start their strategy for 2012. Governing doesn't seem to be on their radar anymore. Hasn't since 2006.

With apologies to Clint Eastwood and "Heartbreak Ridge"

Colonel Meyers: "Are you new to politics, DS?"

DS: "Yes Sir, just came over from supply"

Colonel Meyers: "Were you good at it?"

DS: "Yes Sir!"

Colonel Meyers" "Well then stick to it because you're a walking cluster ____ as a political know it all"

luvmylabs23139
10-19-2010, 10:02 AM
If the republicans take the house Pelosi will not be the minority leader.
Healthcare reform will be defunded.
Cap and Tax will be dead. It couldn't get thru senate when they had a super majority.
Even if the dems hold the senate and Reid gets reelected he is out as Senate majority leader.

Julie R.
10-19-2010, 10:06 AM
The problem with Republicans is they never stop campaigning anymore.

I think a better example of never stopping campaigning is your boy in the White House. He doesn't know how to do anything except campaign; and by that I mean someone winds him up, dresses him and plants him in front of teleprompters so he can spew a bunch of feel-good rah rah stuff someone else wrote. Take him off script and he can't even speak effectively; and he certainly doesn't know how to govern.

M&K's Retrievers
10-19-2010, 10:09 AM
In other words, you think that Obama will take a page from the republican playbook.

Like the Reps have been able to stop anything in the last 6 years.

Buzz
10-19-2010, 10:37 AM
Like the Reps have been able to stop anything in the last 6 years.

Yes, when they had the house, senate, the whitehouse, and the supreme court, they couldn't stop a thing.:rolleyes:

subroc
10-19-2010, 06:29 PM
lefties like to use the phrase "party of no" as is it has some real meaning when describing the republican party. Is there an expectation that democrats will be the party of yes when presented with the opportunity to say yes to legislation authored by republicans?

both parties are the party of loyalty to party politics.

YardleyLabs
10-19-2010, 06:31 PM
lefties like to use the phrase "party of no" as is it has some real meaning when describing the republican party. Is there an expectation that democrats will be the party of yes when presented with the opportunity to say yes to legislation authored by republicans?

both parties are the party of loyalty to party politics.
Not if that legislation is an effort to repeal what has already passed.;-)

M&K's Retrievers
10-19-2010, 06:33 PM
Not if that legislation is an effort to repeal what has already passed.;-)

I don't know about that. None of them are claiming responsibility for it.

subroc
10-19-2010, 06:57 PM
Not if that legislation is an effort to repeal what has already passed.;-)

the real party of no...

depittydawg
10-19-2010, 09:10 PM
[QUOTE=subroc;692456]Then you haven't been paying attention.

The GOP will win the house handily, maybe even a 25 seat margin.

The GOP will have "at least" 49 seats in the senate and may even end up with the 51 seats to control.

As far as "change" goes, I expect it will happen at the usual snail's pace of everything in DC. However, no extremist liberal agenda will be seen for miles.

The donkeys will have been harnessed again.[/QUOT

The Donkey's have been harnessed for over 25 years. Where have you been?

depittydawg
10-19-2010, 09:31 PM
I think a better example of never stopping campaigning is your boy in the White House. He doesn't know how to do anything except campaign; and by that I mean someone winds him up, dresses him and plants him in front of teleprompters so he can spew a bunch of feel-good rah rah stuff someone else wrote. Take him off script and he can't even speak effectively; and he certainly doesn't know how to govern.

Why do I not have issue with this? Oh, because it's true. Although, for a year and a half, the Dem's sort of kind of tried to get something done. The House was diligent, the President was asleep, and the Senate was .... well you can fill in the blanks.

BrianW
10-19-2010, 10:32 PM
In other words, you think that Obama will take a page from the republican playbook.
Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't grant veto power to Congress. That "playbook" doesn't apply to the Executive Branch.
Also, for the last 2 years, the "D's" have outnumbered the "R's" in both houses. The "R's" had no power to block anything, especially due to use of reconciliation. If the progressive "D's" couldn't get the moderate "D's" to go along with their radical agenda, is that the "R's" fault? Or is it the fault(s) of the agenda itself? The only reason the "D's" wanted "R's" to sign on is so they could claim some kind of "bipartisanship" and wouldn't have to take the upcoming ass-whuppin all by themselves.

If the "D's" are so happy/proud of what has been accomplished, why are so many of them running on anti-Obama/Pelosi, etc campaigns? :confused:

BrianW
10-19-2010, 10:38 PM
for a year and a half, the Dem's sort of kind of tried to get "something done". (quotation marks mine BW)
I think you're seeing that the People would rather have Congress do NOTHING that the wrong thing.

Buzz
10-19-2010, 10:42 PM
If the "D's" are so happy/proud of what has been accomplished, why are so many of them running on anti-Obama/Pelosi, etc campaigns? :confused:


Because they are dumb arses.

Democrats like Herseth-Sandlin are going down because people like me will vote against them. If we are going to have our representative in Washington voting like Republicans, we may as have a crazy as he!! tea party rep in there like Kristi Noem.

JDogger
10-19-2010, 11:34 PM
I thought this thread had lost it's legs. I'll answer my own questions.

The overwelming responces seem to be negative, however.


In a few weeks, elections will happen. Will we sweep out the old and replace it with the new?
Yes, but the new boss will look a lot like the old boss...

What changes do you see, and how fast will they happen?
None, and slow to happen, if they happen at all.

Do we spiral upwards?, or downwards?...and why?
A slow spiral downwards. Driving in the ruts is easier. Be prepared to scrape bottom though.

Does a different team taking the field make a true difference?
One could only 'hope' for 'change' ...eh?

Do party's really matter?
NO, it's not really a 'game'.

Who is really in control?
Now, where's the real control coming from?

JD

Any guess's on the last question?

depittydawg
10-19-2010, 11:53 PM
Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't grant veto power to Congress. That "playbook" doesn't apply to the Executive Branch.
Also, for the last 2 years, the "D's" have outnumbered the "R's" in both houses. The "R's" had no power to block anything, especially due to use of reconciliation. If the progressive "D's" couldn't get the moderate "D's" to go along with their radical agenda, is that the "R's" fault? Or is it the fault(s) of the agenda itself? The only reason the "D's" wanted "R's" to sign on is so they could claim some kind of "bipartisanship" and wouldn't have to take the upcoming ass-whuppin all by themselves.

If the "D's" are so happy/proud of what has been accomplished, why are so many of them running on anti-Obama/Pelosi, etc campaigns? :confused:

The Republicans needed nothing more than the threat of Filibuster. The Democratic Leadership was all to happy to let them play that card as many times as they wanted, without a challenge. The reality is neither of these political machines have the interests of the American people in their sights. There hasn't been a "progressive" agenda since the 1960s.

subroc
10-20-2010, 05:00 AM
The Republicans needed nothing more than the threat of Filibuster...


Wasn't just the threat of filibuster by democrats, the reason for the birth of the "gang of 14" during former President George W. Bush's administration?

This isn't a new tactic.

This isn't an original tactic.

This isn't a republican tactic.

This isn't a democrat tactic.

It is a senate tactic.

It is the way the place is run in case you have been sleeping for the past century or two.

depittydawg
10-20-2010, 04:10 PM
Wasn't just the threat of filibuster by democrats, the reason for the birth of the "gang of 14" during former President George W. Bush's administration?

This isn't a new tactic.

This isn't an original tactic.

This isn't a republican tactic.

This isn't a democrat tactic.

It is a senate tactic.

It is the way the place is run in case you have been sleeping for the past century or two.

I suggest you look up the history and use of the filibuster over the history of the nation. No, I'm not gonna do it for you. I've already seen the data. You can either look it up yourself are stay misinformed. Your choice.