Democrats take back House in 2012?

D

deleted15807

Guest
Uhhhhhhhhhh, no there's not. The dems and repubs renewed the (sic) patriot act. They both passed indefinite military detention for US citizens in the NDAAf in the dem-controlled senate by a 93-7 (!) margin. They both love multi-trillion $ deficits and foreign military intervention: the Vietnam war was started by dems, and ended by a (villianous) repub.
Ohhhh, shall I go on?

You could go on. Vietnam? Why bring up ancient history? Whatever the political parties where 30, 40, 50 years ago have no semblance to what they are today. The Party of Lincoln as it is today certainly would not be in the business of ending slavery if it existed. States rights :wink:

To say 'they both love multi-trillion' deficits doesn't completely explain what drives those numbers which is the conservative absolute love of tax cuts and war both of which drive the deficit higher and are driven by who is in the White House proposing the federal budget.

Are the democrats perfect? No. Is it better to vote for them and pull them to the center and 'left' instead of going over the cliff with the republicans? Yes.
 

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
193
Gender
Male
As far as the Democrats taking back the United States Congress it is way too soon to tell. The largest problem is the current tone of the Republican candidates towards each other. If they are not careful what they will succeed in doing is to create an atmosphere where a Democratic landslide could take place.

Many errors have been made on both sides of the fence, and both sides have had failed policies.

Nationwide the Republican Party has had so many failures as to be laughable, and fortunately most of those people are not running for the Presidency this time around.

The Democrats have also had their failures as well, but the biggest failures we could engineer would be repeats of past errors on either side.

Those who tout one groups thinking over the other as if it was a mantra guaranteed to work have not carefully studied the history of the past.

Republicans these days need to drop the line "tax and spend" from their vocabularies.
When Ronald Reagan took over the office of Governor in California he chanted the mantra of "no new taxes" and then proceeded to enact the largest tax increases in the history of that State. In spite of the verbal promises his record in the White House was not exactly stellar either when it came to taxation. He had many good accomplishments and many failures which marked his presidency. The same can be said of Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and the worst of the bunch which was George W. Bush. In a mild defense of George W. Bush, the man was a monumental scape goat for special interests and "big business" on nearly every level. The problems with that presidency will not come completely into the light for another 4 or 5 decades.

The History of this country is very interesting when it comes to the war between the two top parties.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for office there was a similar outcry from those who were racist and anti-semetic. Where the claims in the most recent years by extremists have been to cast doubt on the actual birthplace of our current sitting president the same kinds of charges were leveled at Roosevelt. Those out to "get" Roosevelt had a history created with his actual last name being "Rosenfeld" and his history as being a person of Eastern European Jewish ancestry. There were horrible and vile things said and published against F.D.R. While extremists the equivalent of what we have today painted one picture, history has actually shown his administration as being one of the most effective in the history of this country. At the same time his Vice President was Harry S. Truman, and after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman with World War still in progress showed himself in bad times to be an equally competent leader.

The other day I heard a joke regarding the United States Congress.

"How many Congressmen does it take to change a lightbulb?"

The answer:

"Nobody knows, it's never been done!"

Right now, until all of us get behind campaign finance reform we have and will continue to have "the best government money can buy".

These same forces that have purchased your elected representatives are now controlling who is nominated and who actually runs. The extremists seen on both sides are "manufactured" to direct your vote to "their" person. If they think that multi-millionaire Mitt Romney will best serve their interests over yours, they will find ways to direct billions of dollars quietly into all the places necessary to get him elected. The rest of his views are not important. They don't care about gay rights, abortion, and the only fiscal responsibility they care about is their own continued ability to get YOUR money. If they think that their interests would best be served by Newt that is where they will throw their money.

Did you ever wonder why campaigns of become so reprehensible? The reason is that the money bearers know that the average American will never read the congressional record to in fact know what their Congressman or elected representatives have been doing. They have learned that the average blue collar working guy and the average "soccer Mom" will listen to and buy the Tabloid mentality and the personal attacks never bothering to verify the validity of the statements. This has been proven again and again. If you doubt my logic and research here look at the horse race between Mitt and Newt. Newt gets accused of wanting "open relationships" and his poll numbers crumble. Mitt opens his mouth and sticks his foot into it with statements regarding the poor already having a great "safety net", and there is an outcry and a slip in the poll numbers for him.

What is quite likely is that there will probably be changes but that neither side will have a clear and decisive majority. A clear and decisive majority could very quickly and easily turn on the money under the table. As long as you have a monumental group of indecisive individuals more interested in fighting each other than getting anything done, they win and we lose.

Unless there is something earth shaking, which is possible, Obama will get his second term and the balance between Democrats and Republicans in Congress may shift, but it will not be enough to give anyone a clear majority and end the fighting. That is my prediction with the information I see right now. . . . . Only time will tell in truth. . . .
 
Last edited:

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Trump just announced he's endorsing Gingrich (who I'd love to see as the nominee but I'm not hopeful). Birds of a feather and all that. Watching the Republicans cannibalize themselves is my new favorite spectator sport.

Well, that's what the NYT and the AP thought last night and this morning. Now apparently he's saying his endorsement goes to Romney. Honestly, who the hell cares what that empty suit says or thinks. He's billionaire trailer trash, plain and simple.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, that's what the NYT and the AP thought last night and this morning. Now apparently he's saying his endorsement goes to Romney. Honestly, who the hell cares what that empty suit says or thinks. He's billionaire trailer trash, plain and simple.

Simply incredible but totally delightful. No one cares, or ought to care, I might say, about him or his opinion. Still, watching the Repubs throw themselves to the lions is just fascinating, and amusing in the extreme.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Simply incredible but totally delightful.

Aw, hon, that's how I feel about you. :heart: And it's amusing to see your posts go up when we're just sitting 15 feet apart from each other. (For those who don't know, I'm at my desk and Nick8 is out on the balcony reading LPSG on my MacBook.) Now jump in the shower... we have a busy day ahead.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, that's what the NYT and the AP thought last night and this morning. Now apparently he's saying his endorsement goes to Romney. Honestly, who the hell cares what that empty suit says or thinks. He's billionaire trailer trash, plain and simple.

Simply incredible but totally delightful. No one cares, or ought to care, I might say, about him or his opinion. Still, watching the Repubs throw themselves to the lions is just fascinating, and amusing in the extreme.
Clearly someone cares including all of us nutcases that are glued to our devices waiting to find out which one he goes for and which one goes away crying.


It's mainly about how much Trump can get himself in every public venue so he can show how orange his skin is, how unnaturallly white his teeth are and how his combover is a color nobody has seen before and held in place with chemicals that could easily destroy thousands if the wind shifts in the wrong direction.

One media blip said he may just be stringing people along as a way to remind people his latest Celebrity Apprentice show is going to be better than ever (compared to what?)

Equally annoying are the media that are salivating as they prepare stories to run in which ever direction they need.......why doesn't the media Ignore him and end the stupidity? Plus the candidates who all seem to want his endorsement more than they seem to want our vote or to help us as a country.




Maybe he will show up at The Super Bowl Sunday and make another announcement at half-time.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Aw, hon, that's how I feel about you. :heart: And it's amusing to see your posts go up when we're just sitting 15 feet apart from each other. (For those who don't know, I'm at my desk and Nick8 is out on the balcony reading LPSG on my MacBook.) Now jump in the shower... we have a busy day ahead.

I'm clean and nearly human now, you charmer. And we've got to go--lunch in Boca with my sis waits for no man.

Clearly someone cares including all of us nutcases that are glued to our devices waiting to find out which one he goes for and which one goes away crying.

Well, I care in the sense that I note him and his opinions, but a bigger buffoon I've rarely seen. He and his pronouncements--about anything--have no effect on me apart from entertainment, nor should they on anyone else.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think 2012 is Obama's to lose, and he likely has it sewn up.

Could the Demo ticket be Clinton/Obama in 2016? What would stop Obama from being Hillary's running mate? I believe the prohibition is on being elected President more than twice. Even if Obama had to fill out part of Hillary's term, according to my reading of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution he could serve again as president for up to 4 years before he'd have to pass on the next election. Plus, in theory this process could repeat itself with a succession of Democratic presidents (who resign shortly after taking office) and we could have Obama in the White House for the next 20 years. Hmmm.
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I think 2012 is Obama's to lose, and he likely has it sewn up.

Could the Demo ticket be Clinton/Obama in 2016? What would stop Obama from being Hillary's running mate? I believe the prohibition is on being elected President more than twice. Even if Obama had to fill out part of Hillary's term, according to my reading of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution he could serve again as president for up to 4 years before he'd have to pass on the next election. Plus, in theory this process could repeat itself with a succession of Democratic presidents (who resign shortly after taking office) and we could have Obama in the White House for the next 20 years. Hmmm.
What would stop this would be a public outcry wherein the laws would be amended so it could not be done in the future. If he pulled it off once, there would be a change of some sort presented and approved by both houses and if the President refused to sign (vetoed it) they'd get together the 2/3 to override the veto. The people would demand it and would threaten the future political career of every one of them if they didn't get it passed.

Additionally, you'd have to find enough people that wanted to play this kind of game, where they'd run, be elected, then the day after being sworn in would hand everything over. If you want the TeaParty people to win, then by all means go with this method because there would be a widespread rebellion.

Obama has proven himself to be as bad if not worse than any President before him. The only times he's taken a positive action is when it's been about getting voter support towards his all important re-elect. He would not have signed anything to end the Don't ask don't tell if it wasn't for the votes. He still doesn't offer vocal support for same sex marriage, so he's no different from his predecessor.
 

HUNGHUGE11X7

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Posts
2,353
Media
154
Likes
6,732
Points
468
Age
48
Location
Earth/USA/GA! DEEP IN YOUR THROAT,See vid TO SEE H
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male