Desperation

In Connecticut, Democrats tried to bar people from voting if they are wearing World Wrestling Entertainment clothing. The explanation was that it would amount to electioneering, or advertising in the polling place, since the Republican candidate for senate, Linda McMahon, is the former CEO of WWE. McMahon's husband and current CEO of WWE, Vince McMahon, filed suit, and a federal judge ruled in his favor.

In Las Vegas, voters have complained that ballots for early voting are coming pre-marked for Harry Reid.

In Illinois and New York, the state governments, both controlled by Democrats, conveniently "forgot" to send out absentee ballots to troops who are serving overseas in time for them to be returned by the deadline. Even though they were two weeks late in arriving in some cases, they are only being given one extra day to return them.

Despite all these shananigans and more, this will be the song that the Dems will be singing on Wednesday morning:

I just hope the republicans don't pull a doublecross and have us singing it afterwards. Lots of big talk going on now, but I suspect all it means in reality is right winger revenge.

So what would that mean? Well, probably a return to making sure that the size of your wallet determines the amount of rights you have. Huge subsidies for those with the big wallets. Maybe a couple gun rights restored, or protected, but if it's just a bigger emphasis on the right to shoot birds and rabbits with a shotgun it won't mean much. Possibly a push to boost the economy by building more prisons and hiring more cops to create jobs. And of course defense contractors will be packing their bags for Washington just in time for Christmas with visions of big fat contracts dancing in their heads.

Probably be a new anti-gay campaign. No doubt a massive waste of money to continue a pointless drug war that's cost us more than Iraq has. The moral crusaders will rejoice and attack in all directions accompanied by a new big push on insisting that Americans need to assimilate to Christianity or be tormented as they see fit.

Meanwile in the shadows the liberals will be planning counter attacks hoping to derail things near and dear to thier republican adversaries. Americans want real change but once again they'll just do the teeter totter. Vote left, vote right, up and down and going nowhere as usual.

+1 on all that, Ratzilla. With the exception of:

Quote :

I just hope

I have no such hope. The only difference between the Dems and the Repubs lies in WHICH parts of the constitution they will ignore and HOW they will squander our money. The Dems prefer ever-expanding (and always underfunded) socialist entitlements and social engineering schemes... while the Repubs prefer corporate handouts and massive deficit spending on "defense" and unnecessary wars. The War on Drugs has no lack of support in either party.

I just didn't care enough to vote this time. The Supreme Commandress kept nagging me to fill out my early-voting ballot; finally I told her to just fill it out however she wanted, and I'd sign it. So I guess she gets two votes this year.

Personally, I think that the Republicans will take the House. I doubt they'll take the Senate, but the Dems' barely-workable majority will be whittled down. In practical terms, the outcome of this election is already predetermined... it doesn't really MATTER whether the Repubs take over one, both, or neither chamber of Congress. Even with their 'supermajorities', the Dems could barely get anything accomplished over the past couple years (the Republicans are MASTERS of obstruction- and for that I thank them). With this election- the Dems' ability to pass sweeping legislation will be rendered null and void.

If Obama and Co. are gonna accomplish anything over the next couple of years, they're gonna focus more on the executive branch. As such, I'm gonna make a few predictions as to what the next couple of years are gonna look like:


"Don't Ask; Don't Tell" will be repealed in some fashion.

A pull-out of Afghanistan will begin in earnest, and MOST of our people will be out of Iraq by 2012 (not 2011 as initially planned).

The economy will make a moderate (though not spectacular) comeback, and the stock market will continue to rally on a combination of moderate economic recovery and a CRASHING value of the dollar.

Obama and mainstream Democrat politicians in general will finally admit openly that they support gay marriage... now that it's become a politically viable position. I.e. they're being followers here, not leaders... but better late than never.

Obama/Hillary will beat Romney/Palin easily enough in 2012. Biden will be put out to pasture.

California will decriminalize pot for recreational use, and it'll become a big national issue. Obama and the Dems won't have the balls to fully jump on the legalization bandwagon.

Nothing will change regarding illegal immigration.




I will say that in my opinion, the most effective federal government that we've had during my short lifetime was a combination of a Democratic executive and a Republican legislature. With a Democrat president, we weren't trying to fight the whole goddamn world... and with a Republican legislature, we weren't spending like drunken sailors on entitlements and social engineering. I HOPE we'll see something similar over the next couple of years.

I'd have to agree that a democrat president verses a republican legislature seems to stifle some bad laws, but the struggle between the two sides also stifles alot of good legislation regardless of who is on top.

I'd still like to see an explosion of intelligence in the republican party and have Ron Paul get their nomination, but I might as well wish that I'd win 100 million in the lottery or find a fortune in lost gold because it's more likely to happen.

Your prediction of Obama/Hillary in 2012 is the closest possibilty I've seen to a true 2012 doomsday prophesy.

Does the Obama/Hillary prediction surprise you?

Hillary has long been positioning herself for the Oval Office. Some among the Republicans claim that Hillary is gonna lead a democratic mutiny in 2012... but that's pure fantasy IMO. Sure, she's ruthless enough to do it if she could pull it off... but she's also smart enough to know that she can't. Her best bet is to ride Obama's coattails into 2016 just like Bush 1 did with Reagan.

And if she can convince Barry to go along with it, that's exactly what she's gonna do IMO. Joe is no longer the safe bet that he was in 2008. Now that your average person knows something about him (not just people who keep up with politiks), he's seen as the crazy old uncle... he's a liability. Not only that, but adding Hillary to the ticket will cause quite a stir- just what Obama and Co. need if they're gonna recapture the mood of 2008.

As for the Republicans... a lot can change in two years, but right now I don't think they have a chance in 2012. Just like in 2008, the party is too fragmented to unite behind a single VIABLE candidate. The party establishment clearly favors Romney... but I don't think they truly understand what a handicap his Mormon faith will be. Evangelicals won't vote for him... not reliably. Even with the addition of Palin to placate the TeaBaggers, I just don't see the evangelicals going for Romney. And with Palin on the ticket, they can forget about the independent vote. The only hope I see for Republicans in 2012 is if they manage to find some new candidates. Their current crop of front-runners just aren't viable. Their only hope that I can see is maybe the Marco Rubio guy if he pans out. But he's probably too little too late.

I think the Hillarcow would be a libility. Too many men in her own party hate her. And I think the evangelical vote is always safe to go republican unless some holy nut runs on the reform party. It's not like they'd vote for a democrat or even a libertarian.

Remember, the favorite republican way to get votes is telling everyone a vote for anyone but their candidate is a vote for the democrats. It's a scare tactic that's worked for them so far and the Perot race only strengthened it even though I know democrats who voted Perot too.

Bighead wrote:

If Obama and Co. are gonna accomplish anything over the next couple of years, they're gonna focus more on the executive branch. As such, I'm gonna make a few predictions as to what the next couple of years are gonna look like:


"Don't Ask; Don't Tell" will be repealed in some fashion.

Whatever. Who cares? It's not going to restore fiscal responsibility to the country.

Bighead wrote:

A pull-out of Afghanistan will begin in earnest, and MOST of our people will be out of Iraq by 2012 (not 2011 as initially planned).

Probably a good prediction. They'll try to use it as a positive in the 2012 campaign.

Bighead wrote:

The economy will make a moderate (though not spectacular) comeback, and the stock market will continue to rally on a combination of moderate economic recovery and a CRASHING value of the dollar.

The overall economy is supposedly already starting to grow slowly. Of course, the government claims there is no inflation. Try tracking grocery prices for six months and telling me that with a straight face. They distort the numbers to suit the message that they want. And both parties do it.

If the Reid/Pelosi Congress passes any sort of ridiculous spending bills, including Cap 'n' Tax, in a lame duck session in November and December, it will kill any sort of chance that the economy will come back stronger.

Bighead wrote:

Obama and mainstream Democrat politicians in general will finally admit openly that they support gay marriage... now that it's become a politically viable position. I.e. they're being followers here, not leaders... but better late than never.

Not sure that this will happen, even though I agree that it's a viable political position.

Bighead wrote:

Obama/Hillary will beat Romney/Palin easily enough in 2012. Biden will be put out to pasture.

If the Republicans nominate Romney, they deserve to lose. I don't care who the vice presidential nominee is.

Bighead wrote:

California will decriminalize pot for recreational use, and it'll become a big national issue. Obama and the Dems won't have the balls to fully jump on the legalization bandwagon.

There is a growing number of voices advocating the legalization of marijuana among people who otherwise are considered conservative. Begin with Ron Paul, and soon to be Rand Paul. John Stossel regularly speaks out on legalization on Fox News. I've seen him shoot down both O'Reilly and Hannity in debates on the issue. You're right about the Democrats not having the balls to do it. I would also say that the old-line Republicans are the same way. But the libertarianization of Congress and the presidency won't take place on Tuesday. It will take several election cycles and an untiring effort.

Bighead wrote:

Nothing will change regarding illegal immigration.

Probably right.

Bighead wrote:

I will say that in my opinion, the most effective federal government that we've had during my short lifetime was a combination of a Democratic executive and a Republican legislature. With a Democrat president, we weren't trying to fight the whole goddamn world... and with a Republican legislature, we weren't spending like drunken sailors on entitlements and social engineering. I HOPE we'll see something similar over the next couple of years.

I'm guessing that you're referring to the economic success of the mid to late 1990s. However, much of this was due to the technology explosion that took place during that period. The increase in tax revenue allowed the government to be fiscally irresponsible and hide behind the "balanced budget." In reality, so many programs were taken off-budget that it made Clinton and Gingrich look like geniuses. And people on both ends of the political spectrum bought it. Unless we have some similar breakout in a sector of the economy, we're going to have to face the fact that 82% of the federal budget is now being spent on entitlements and servicing the debt, and that percentage is growing rapidly. When it gets to the point where that number exceeds 100%, the country will become another Greece. The difference is that we don't have the EU and the US to bail us out. In other words, we'll be fucked.

I'm shocked that you and I agree on so much, EP. I even mostly agree with your points on 'fiscal responsibility'. Where we might disagree, though, is on any implication that the Republicans have been or will be any more responsible than the Democrats. Historically, the Republicans have been as bad as the Dems... even worse in many cases. Neither party is fiscally responsible... and it's a pipe-dream to think that they ever will be.

And yes, we have the U.S. to bail us out... that is, we have the printing presses. The Fedgov is printing money like a Banana Republic right now, and I expect it to continue for some time. That's our bailout. I don't like it any better than you do, but given our political and monetary system... it was inevitable.

Bighead wrote:

I'm shocked that you and I agree on so much, EP. I even mostly agree with your points on 'fiscal responsibility'. Where we might disagree, though, is on any implication that the Republicans have been or will be any more responsible than the Democrats. Historically, the Republicans have been as bad as the Dems... even worse in many cases. Neither party is fiscally responsible... and it's a pipe-dream to think that they ever will be.

That's why one party or the other needs to be changed, or another viable party needs to be formed. Social issues be damned. This is about the survival of the country.

Bighead wrote:

And yes, we have the U.S. to bail us out... that is, we have the printing presses. The Fedgov is printing money like a Banana Republic right now, and I expect it to continue for some time. That's our bailout. I don't like it any better than you do, but given our political and monetary system... it was inevitable.

It's our bailout until hyper-inflation hits and the Chinese decide that they can't afford to buy our debt anymore.

I think if politics were a fairly even 3 way split of republican and democrat with the other third being Libertarian it'd fix alot. Since Libertarians have common ground with both parties it might help keep laws from being unconstitutional at least.

I think the Reform Party was on the right track until they stuck the far right Pat Buchannon, and the eco-nut John Hagelin in there from the Natural Law Party that thinks government should always decide what's good for us. I still think those two loons were planted in there to derail the threat the Reform Party posed to the two party monopoly.

What we really need most is not just a new party or change in the present ones. We need a change in the voters to make it happen.

Maybe a mix of 25% of each of these 4 parties and it could work to some degree.

The Other One wrote:

In NYC, Los Angeles, or the other big liberal lunatic asylums that might work. But there's not that many local democrats quite that stupid. Well maybe some.

Whats 13 Trillon among friends, pass the saki

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

In NYC, Los Angeles, or the other big liberal lunatic asylums that might work. But there's not that many local democrats quite that stupid. Well maybe some.

You'd be surprised how many people, when asked yesterday if they were going to vote today, responded in all seriousness with, "There's an election tomorrow?"

No more Pelosi. Kansas is pro-gun pro-republican as expected, but I'm surprised that a 63% majority voted to give the mentally ill a right to vote.

I'm wondering if the voters understand the difference between slow and mentally ill. Might be the public should have been educated on the difference between down syndrome or mild psychological disorders and an inability to grasp reality.

But of course an inability of voters to grasp reality is why there's so many losers in office now.

i........................am,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,s........l........o............w............; except in the bedroom then i am supper fast lol

zeke wrote:

i........................am,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,s........l........o............w............; except in the bedroom then i am supper fast lol

Hey zeke, what's for supper?

Drive-through?

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

And yes, we have the U.S. to bail us out... that is, we have the printing presses. The Fedgov is printing money like a Banana Republic right now, and I expect it to continue for some time. That's our bailout. I don't like it any better than you do, but given our political and monetary system... it was inevitable.

It's our bailout until hyper-inflation hits and the Chinese decide that they can't afford to buy our debt anymore.

Ok folks, I'm am a goddamn prophet. And here's the proof.

Note the misleading headline... we didn't just print $600 Billion. We printed $900 Billion. That's damn near a Trillion... conjured outta thin air.

"Quantitative Easing"

Regardless of the wisdom of this action, it's gonna continue. Because the ONLY alternative is some combination of tax increases and spending cuts... and the political will doesn't exist for either.

Well... default is also a possibility. But I reckon that's several years down the road, and we'll manufacture a war as an excuse for the default (CHINA ATTACKED US- fukc you, we ain't gonna pay $hit!!)

How are you a prophet when you just basically said they would continue to do what they were already doing? you're paying attention more than some, but it's no great vision to say the grass will be green again tomorrow

Oh ye of little faith.