View Full Version : 8 DAYS TO DECIDE: Both Parties Predict Control of House
GOP chief Michael Steele forecasts a wave of anti-Democratic voting on Election Day while his Democratic counterpart, Tim Kaine, says a strong get-out-the-vote effort will hold back a Republican takeover of Congress
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/party-leaders-predict-victory/
Note:Published October 25, 2010
TLAM Strike
10-25-10, 07:51 AM
I predict that whomever wins both sides of congress accomplishes nothing in the next two years... :doh:
It sounds like a very likely scenario.... :hmmm:
SteamWake
10-25-10, 08:52 AM
I predict that whomever wins both sides of congress accomplishes nothing in the next two years... :doh:
Even that would be an improvement over the current spend like theres no tommorow policys.
TLAM Strike
10-25-10, 09:37 AM
Even that would be an improvement over the current spend like theres no tommorow policys.
I'm afraid that ending reckless spending would be an accomplishment and thus not something congress will do after the election. :cry:
Bilge_Rat
10-25-10, 09:53 AM
The GOP will win control of the House, the Dems will retain control of the senate, so gridlock ahead for the next 2 years.
mookiemookie
10-25-10, 09:59 AM
Even that would be an improvement over the current spend like theres no tommorow policys.
I predict that the government will continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, regardless of who's in charge.
Republican control of both, or just one as long as the Senate has a filibuster option (unlike the recent disaster of a supermajority democrat senate—remember that Bush did nothing without the consent of the dems, he had bare majorities, unlike Obama) is a good thing.
Downside is it will improve Obama's chances in 2012 since he'll be forced into the center by congress. Americans want a centrist (center-right, if anything), which is what Obama ran on (even though he was clearly lying given his record (the part he allowed us to see, unlike, say, his previous records which were "lost")).
Aramike
10-25-10, 11:00 AM
I predict that whomever wins both sides of congress accomplishes nothing in the next two years... :doh:God willing...
Sailor Steve
10-25-10, 11:23 AM
I predict that whomever wins both sides of congress accomplishes nothing in the next two years... :doh:
And further that if side-in-control wins, side-out-of-control will blame the other side plus the president for the sins of the world, and if side-out-of-control wins, side-in-control will blame the other side for gridlock and opposing their grand plans.
I also predict that whoever wins, WE lose.
Takeda Shingen
10-25-10, 11:29 AM
I also predict that whoever wins, WE lose.
Agreed.
My prediction is that Team R wins the House and Team D retains control of the Senate. Regardless of who wins and loses, the game remains the same.
AVGWarhawk
10-25-10, 11:34 AM
I also predict that whoever wins, WE lose.
:yep:
SteamWake
10-25-10, 12:44 PM
Anything that places a speed bump on the raceway to socialisim is a 'win' as far as I'm concerned.
Not so much team R vs team D but rather a re-establishment of common sense and accountability. In other words a move towards conservatisim.
I guess I'm a little more optimistic than you guys and hope for the best.
Bubblehead1980
10-25-10, 02:28 PM
Senate is a toss up, House will go Republican.Obama will not move to the center, too much of an ideologue and even if he did, people won't forget so easy with him.
Best case they take control of both houses so they can cut funding for obamacare while the case for repeal is making it's way through the courts.They can make sure things like cap and trade do not become law.They can stop the lavish spending and express lane towards socialism. Basically, Obama will not have a blank check anymore. Hopefully GOP will launch some investigations into Obama, which is absolutely what needs to happen.
GOP only takes the house and picks up Senate seats, well that will be nice too, will take away their majority and the so called "moderate Republicans" who are left who have to run for election in 2012 have been put on notice by voters, so they will be less likely to vote for the not so american policies pushed by Dems.
However it works out, it'll bring back some balance and take away Barry's free reign he has enjoyed for two years.
Ducimus
10-25-10, 03:17 PM
I also predict that whoever wins, WE lose.
Truer words were never spoken.
krashkart
10-25-10, 03:52 PM
Only eight more days and the political ads go away for awhile. :yeah:
That's about all that will change. :dead:
Takeda Shingen
10-25-10, 05:00 PM
Anything that places a speed bump on the raceway to socialisim is a 'win' as far as I'm concerned.
Not so much team R vs team D but rather a re-establishment of common sense and accountability. In other words a move towards conservatisim.
I guess I'm a little more optimistic than you guys and hope for the best.
If it were only a move towards conservatism, but it isn't. Rather, it is a move back to Republican Neo-Conservatism. We've been seeing it since 1994, and it is something I have a hard time being optimistic about.
The Neo-Cons were firmly rejected by the voters two years ago, and rightfully so. However, due to our crappy two-party system, the alternative was to vote for their opposites, the Progressives. Since they have faired no better during their tenures, they will be voted out and replaced, again, by the Neo-Cons. Until viable choices are available as third, fourth and fifth parties, America will continue to be on a treadmill. Hardly anything worth being excited about. As krashkart said, we can at least be thankful that those ads will disappear.
Platapus
10-25-10, 06:48 PM
And my prediction is that no matter what the outcome it won't be as bad as we fear, nor as good as we wish. It will be OK.
Neither party is going to upset the status quo as both sides have too much to lose.
It will be OK. :yep:
Nancy P says they haven't gotten credit for all they have done , curtiously given by the Schnit radio show. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/125621-pelosi-we-havent-really-gotten-the-credit-for-what-we-have-done
Armistead
10-25-10, 10:28 PM
Both parties are a total loss. The GOP doesn't believe in capitalism as much as they push free enterprise, ect.. Back in the 70's about 40% of Americans held 80% of the wealth, today about 9% of wealthy hold 80% of the wealth. In ten years they will hold about 90% of the wealth. This is elitism and what the GOP follows. Tax breaks and less regulations won't create many jobs, just a small percent of lower paying jobs. Voodoo economics, where you give corporations breaks and the wealth makes it way down doesn't work in a global economy. Corporations once worked for Americans, now they work for anyone but Americans.
No, the Dems are not much better. Capitalism and a strong business agenda with proper regulation to protect our jobs is what we need and it ain't gonna happen.
We have major crisis that will break this nation in 20 years. SS and Medicare alone just paid to the baby boomers is 60 trillion dollars in debt, more money in all banks and stock markets in the world. Those programs are gone. Most of us will lose our healthcare in the next 10 years. Sadly, I've watch every company in the construction industry in our area drop employee healthcare or the employee pays it all.
We will be a two class society, so get rich now or be part of the 90% living in povety in the next 10-20 year.
krashkart
10-25-10, 11:14 PM
And my prediction is that no matter what the outcome it won't be as bad as we fear, nor as good as we wish. It will be OK.
Neither party is going to upset the status quo as both sides have too much to lose.
It will be OK. :yep:
You're probably right about that. :salute:
nikimcbee
10-26-10, 12:02 AM
Only eight more days and the political ads go away for awhile. :yeah:
That's about all that will change. :dead:
The truth you speak:woot:.
nikimcbee
10-26-10, 12:08 AM
He's what I'd like to see happen if the power shifts.
1. Put barney frank/ chris dodd on trial for corruption.
2. Send pelosi a bill for all of her trips on air force planes.
3. Drive a stake thru healthcare:hmmm:.
nikimcbee
10-26-10, 12:10 AM
I'm more worried about local issues though. Hopefully we can break the gov't employee monopoly on power in this state.
With just seven days until Election Day, Democrats are picking up support on their home turf, as Republicans look to hang on to deliver upset wins.
The latest surveys were conducted on Oct. 23 by Pulse Opinion Research for Fox News. Each survey included 1,000 likely voters and has a margin of error of 3 points.
Next week’s final surveys will be available to Power Play subscribers through the America’s Election HQ app on Monday at 7 a.m., two hours before they’re released publicly.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/26/fox-news-polls-dems-make-gains-republicans-hang-tough-battleground-states/
Note:Published October 26, 2010
SteamWake
10-26-10, 10:41 AM
The Neo-Cons were firmly rejected by the voters two years ago, and rightfully so.
I dont believe that. I believe a 'rock star' got elected.
That and the palpable hatred for Bush.
Takeda Shingen
10-26-10, 02:02 PM
I dont believe that. I believe a 'rock star' got elected.
That and the palpable hatred for Bush.
So the banishment of the Republican Party had nothing to do with their policies and political philosophy, but the impending loss of the Democratic Party has everything to do with their's. That's some odd logic.
SteamWake
10-26-10, 02:09 PM
So the banishment of the Republican Party had nothing to do with their policies and political philosophy, but the impending loss of the Democratic Party has everything to do with their's. That's some odd logic.
Its simple... buyers remorse.
This isnt the change they were hoping for.
Takeda Shingen
10-26-10, 02:13 PM
Its simple... buyers remorse.
This isnt the change they were hoping for.
Okay. Same for the Neo-Cons. What's the point?
Bubblehead1980
10-26-10, 02:34 PM
Its simple... buyers remorse.
This isnt the change they were hoping for.
Unlike many in my age group I did not get caught up in "Obamamania" because after reading his books and looking into his backround as much as possible, in addition to listening to his speeches, I knew he was full of bs.I tried to tell people but they would not listen.Now many of those same people have admitted I was correct.
Sad thing is, sometimes our country as a whole has to learn the hard way.2012 is around the corner though and perhaps can redeem ourselves.
Tribesman
10-26-10, 05:04 PM
Unlike many in my age group I did not get caught up in "Obamamania" because after reading his books and looking into his backround as much as possible
Bubble, since you have been going on the birther /muslim wingnut reading fringe as regards your presidents background, do you not think your fellow schoolkids may have been laughing at you with good cause?
Bilge_Rat
10-26-10, 05:32 PM
This isnt the change they were hoping for.
what did voters expect?
what did voters expect?
Obama came into the limelight with that 2004 speech. He was well-spoken, and seemed pretty moderate. His voting record in the Senate, and back home in IL was very very far left by the usual left/right ranking schemes (the one used by the dems to rate themselves, and the reps to rank themselves tend to pretty close agreement). Least when he bothered to vote )(admittedly, a very poor sample size given his no-shows)
So he appears as a moderate, but his far-left voting record (again, using metrics the parties both use themselves) gets lost (dunno how).
Then he starts the job, and surprise, he's really far left. Was not surprising to anyone paying attention before hand.
UnderseaLcpl
10-26-10, 08:19 PM
I predict that the government will continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, regardless of who's in charge.
I predict that mookie is mostly correct. People don't seem to understand just how much political inertia is needed to change state institutions. Moreso, they often fail to understand that backing their own particularly justifiable cause, be it farms or green industry or military manufacturing potential or what have you, is exactly what makes mookie's statement true. You get a government like the one we have today by looking out for number one and going to Washington to make your case. Legislators who don't know any better will adopt your cause based on the number of votes it will garner and the advice of aides, which is why we continue to have subsidies and tariffs and trade protectionism in industries that are completely dead and without a world market. Other nations spend years trying to get an audience in Washington just trying to get limited permission to trade their wares in this country because of impossibly complex regulation and taxation. Is it any wonder that we have invoked the ire of much of the world with our message of free trade and free thought? Is it surprising that we have so much trouble convincing other nations that the free market is the way to go when we spend billions of dollars' worth of public and private funds at home to "guarantee" our own jobs and prosperity? A goal which, I might mention, is completely counterintuitive to the free-market model. We're basically saying that the rest of the world needs to play by rules that we are exempt from; abusing the wealth of our nation to take advantage of others.
This mindset has been backfiring for decades, as anyone who moans about the state of US exports and manufacturing can attest, and yet we do nothing to fix it. We are paying for failure based upon the judgements of people who largely know nothing about business, upon which, whatever the hardcore leftists may say, the economy is based.
Take it from me, I'm an expert in industries and endeavours that exploit the government. I'm not proud to say it, but I'm a pretty lazy guy. I'm a hard worker when I have motivation to work, but it is tough for me to find the motivation in the first place. In fact, I'm probably the worst libertarian in the world because I just don't want anything. I have no desire to get married or have kids or own a yacht or whatever because I just don't care about those things. There is very little that I want out of life. Adam Smith would be at a loss to describe my lack of self-interest.
Even so, I managed to gravitate towards a union railroad job that offered maximum pay for minimum effort and recently, a VA pension that pays over $2000 per month for service-connected disabilities, though I was never physically wounded. Anybody see anything wrong with that picture? I feel bad enough about it that I've submitted my request for a cessation of benefits, but how many people do that? Even with my request, I personally used nearly ten thousand dollars' worth of taxpayer money (mostly back-payed) for my own purposes before I realized what I was doing. In my defense, every one of my family and close friends said that I needed to get VA help because I wasn't "the same person", but I still owe every American here an apology for taking that money. Worse, it turns out that it isn't possible to return it, and I have compromised my integrity as a US Marine by accepting it.
I won't go into depth on my experiences, but the point is that even a person who prides him or herself on integrity is not necessarily a saint, let alone those who seek to abuse the system, or those who don't think about such things. These people are not neccesarily bad, but they find it easy to convince themselves that their own interest is the best interest of everyone. Sometimes, they don't even bother with that, they're just selfish jerks. That being the case, it is easy to see how industries, lobbies, and PACs become immovable financial and legislative obstacles. I seriously doubt that there is even one of you who would make a derious case for why I shouldn't get VA benefits. After all, I put my life on the line to oppose enemies of freedom and fight terror and all that other BS. I don't need to make a case because the establishment has done it for me. Nevermind that a lot of our troops and officers are dickless cowards and/or worthless. Take that same situation and apply it to farmers, or aluminum manufacturers, or the textile industry, or the steelmakers, or whatever. It's the same damn thing. Everybody has a freaking sob story. Everybody has a legislator and/or a legislative aid that is tasked with relaying this crap to the masses and making a case for it. It's always about somebody's job or kids or whatever the hell else an entity with political connections can come up with. It is, after all, easy to justify one's own livliehood. You just have to put a little thought into it and let human nature do the rest.
This is why I maintain the stance that government should be severely restricted. We're all people, and we all more or less care for each other, but the state is a tool for the less agreeable elements of our nature. It's easy to convince ourselves that what is good for us (Even if it isn't. I call upon any parent who has children that enjoy sweeties) is good for everyone, that's just a result of natural selection, as is the ability to rationalize that which is most inclined to our own benefit. This is why established political institutions are so dang difficult to dislodge, even in a Republican system. A proponent of freedom is not fighting just one enemy, but rather an amalgamation of self-interested parties who have found a common cause around which to rally. Together, they naturally result in the Washington garbage heap we have now, with literally thousands of of lobbyists. In giving them a political mechanism with which to realize their own agenda, we are giving them unlimited power, and this is doubly so when we accept a liberal interpretation of the Constitution (excuse me, but it doesn't make a bit of damn sense that a document focussed solely upon restriction of government powers would include a commerce clause that lets the government do whatever it wants based upon the interpretation of the Supreme Court.) Only with a state that has virtually no power to exploit can we ever be free of the self-justified interests of people who are, should we be honest, just like us.
And yet, this is what we have. Everybody wants something, but nobody wants to earn or give up anything. Human nature in a handbasket. That simple truth is how we have ended up with a federal government nobody is happy with and all the pork-laden bills and defecit and everything else.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, though, I see a change happening in the GOP. It is being forced to accept Tea-Party, Independant, and Libertarian ideals in order to maintain its status, which is not at all unusual for a major political party. The Reps and Dems have changed places many times over the past couple of centuries, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Republicans changing their platform in order to keep the vote. We're seeing this already, and the elections in November will give us an indication of how many people have grown disillusioned with the old system of state.
Again, however, I agree with mookie. The state is broken enough that hope for fiscal responsibility and any kind of immediate action has already been dashed by the hope of politicians for something, anything, that will secure their positon in 2012. When you build the political (two-party)machine in such a way, you shouldn't be surprised at the results.
Platapus
10-26-10, 08:21 PM
And I am sure I am not the only one who did not vote "for" Obama, but voted "against" McCain.
We didn't exactly have a stellar choice that year. :nope:
One of these days, I just want to be able to vote FOR a candidate. Just once so I can say I did it.
Bubblehead1980
10-26-10, 08:58 PM
Bubble, since you have been going on the birther /muslim wingnut reading fringe as regards your presidents background, do you not think your fellow schoolkids may have been laughing at you with good cause?
There you go again Tribes.You know a lot of people put you on the ignore list but I strangely enough enjoy your nonsense so I shall indulge you. I am no birther, I think there is some suspcious activity in that area and it should be investigated to clarify things which would prob ultimately prove he was born in the US.
Can not be disputed that he was raised a muslim and attended a muslim school.Do I think he is a muslim? no Obama's Islamic backround gives him a skewed view that makes him often act contrary to the best interests of the US when dealing with "muslim issues" such as the Mosque.I believe he is more an atheist than anything, which is fine with me because I'm an atheist although I dislike his claiming to be other but I let him pass on that mostly, public atheists just won't get elected to the Presidency in America at this time.
Well most people my age are idiots when it comes to politics, then they grow up.Most do not come into college with strong beliefs and opinions when it comes to political issues.I've read many times people tend to be pretty liberal when young and go conservative as they get older.Of course you have those who never do but point is most people my age are idiots in that regard and thus why Democrats try to court them, so they can exploit that like they do the poor, working poor and less educated.
Just love how many people who fell for the Obama facade have realized and several have personally told me I was right.I knew Obama was a Far Left hack way back and tried to tell people, esp my age group but they were caught up in it, oh well.
By the way, how are books authored by Obama himself "wingnut" reading material? The book "Dreams From My Father" was the last time Obama has been honest in public in a very, very long time.Obama was honest how he felt about race and many other things and it showed what a flawed person he really is.
The Audacity of Hope was mostly BS because he was a Senator by then and considering a run for President or already was in the early part of the race.
Bubblehead1980
10-26-10, 09:00 PM
And I am sure I am not the only one who did not vote "for" Obama, but voted "against" McCain.
We didn't exactly have a stellar choice that year. :nope:
One of these days, I just want to be able to vote FOR a candidate. Just once so I can say I did it.
I never understood how anyone could think Obama was less of a risk than McCain? lol I guess if everyone who voted had read his books and did some probing and not took their line from the press who were just in love with Barry O, they would not be shocked by what we have now.Ah well, we learned quick, thus what is coming tuesday.
SteamWake
10-26-10, 09:01 PM
what did voters expect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8
krashkart
10-26-10, 09:18 PM
...but I still owe every American here an apology for taking that money. Worse, it turns out that it isn't possible to return it, and I have compromised my integrity as a US Marine by accepting it.
Okay, but I will not accept your apology. You do know that they don't give those benefits out for just any ol' reason, right? Use it to get over the hump. That's what it's there for. :yep:
undersea, I pay loads of taxes. Your payment is one I'm happy to support. As far as I'm concerned, I'd axe almost all entitlement spending—say reduce all entitlement spending by 50%. I'd take a chunk of the savings from that and raise the pay of those at the sharp end by a lot (the rest to deficit/debt reduction).
People make the entirely bogus claim that teachers are not paid well enough all the time. That's clearly nonsense because public school pay rates are not far off private school teacher pay (usually higher I think)—a free market price.
Combat troops, OTOH, are not paid nearly well enough for what they do for us. Literally risking everything they have, or ever will have.
Apology not accepted, because it was not needed to tender one.
<S>
PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court has struck down a key part of Arizona's law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote or casting ballots.
Tuesday's decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/26/court-strikes-ariz-law-requiring-voters-prove-citizens/
Note:Published October 26, 2010
Bubblehead1980
10-27-10, 03:16 PM
PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court has struck down a key part of Arizona's law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote or casting ballots.
Tuesday's decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/26/court-strikes-ariz-law-requiring-voters-prove-citizens/
Note:Published October 26, 2010
Another BS decision from the 9th.Prob the most dangerous appeals court in the nation.
The Third Man
10-27-10, 03:18 PM
I need an ID to purchase Sudafed, but not to vote. Crazy!
Another BS decision from the 9th.Prob the most dangerous appeals court in the nation. in the bureaucracy track, :stare:
Despite Complaints About GOP Advantage.
There are more and more indications that when it comes to pouring cash into the 2010 midterm elections, it's Democrats who have the bigger funnel.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees boss Gerald McEntee announced to the New York Times Tuesday that the million-member union's latest batch of political ads will take the group's spending on the midterm elections to $91 million, far and away the most spending by any group this cycle.
Also on Tuesday, an analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that taken as a whole, Democrats and Democratic allied groups have raised and spent far more than their Republican counterparts -- $856 million to $677 million.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/27/todays-power-play-dems-dominate-campaign-cash-despite-complaints-about-gop-advantage
Note:October 27, 2010
Sadly it won't matter all that much.
Our only hope is to significantly cut "mandatory" spending. Failure to do this and we're hosed. Won't happen.
Platapus
10-27-10, 07:07 PM
Being a masochist at heart, I will try to introduce some facts in to the Arizona decision discussion. I doubt it will do any good here. :nope:
Let's look at this logically and not emotionally. Can Arizona implement a law that requires citizens to prove their citizenship?
First we need to start with the basis of our system of laws, the United States Constitution. Specifically Article 1 section 4
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. This means that the States are free to make the laws governing how they run federal elections but the Congress has the authority to change these laws. However, the Congress must change these laws through legislation.
In 1965, the Congress did so.
Voter Rights Act 1965 PL 89-110 42 U.S.C. 173 was that law and the federal regulation is represented by 28 CFR Part 51. One of the provisions of the VRA was that any changes to a state's federal election law must be pre-screened by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or, in the case of an election regulation be pre-screened by the United States Department of Justice. Arizona is one of those states subject to this pre-screening requirement.
This means that before Arizona can either change or implement a law affecting how Arizona runs federal elections, this change or implementation must be pre-screened by the US District Court for DC. Since this was not done, the proposed Arizona law is in conflict with the VRA and therefore is in violation of the Election Clause of the Constitution.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1996 PL 103-31 and 107 Stat. 77 governs how people can register, in their states, to vote in Federal Elections.
Under this law, there are three methods, and only three methods in which someone is allowed to register to vote in Federal Elections. The state does not have the authority to change this.
1. The first method of voter registration is described in Section
3, § 1973gg-3. This section provides that any application
for a driver’s license submitted to a state motor vehicle
authority “shall serve as an application for voter registration
with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant
fails to sign the voter registration application.”
2. The second method of voter registration, set forth in Section
4, § 1973gg-4, requires states to register federal voters by
mail using the Federal Form.
The form asks for either a SSAN or a Driver's license number. Barring that, the state will assign an identification number and the state sets the procedure for this. Only in this case can Arizona, through either law or regulation require someone to verify their citizenship.
3. The third method of federal voter registration is mandated
by Section 5, § 1973gg-5, which requires states to designate
certain state offices for voter registration. Targeting “the poor
and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s
licenses and will not come into contact with” motor vehicle
agencies.
Lastly the Help America Vote Act of 2002 PL 107-252 defines how a person who is registering for the first time can establish their identity.
HAVA requires any voter who registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a Federal election show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.
The proposed law from Arizona is in violation of the Voter Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. As a result, the decision to remand specific parts of the proposed Arizona law is appropriate.
Now my personal opinion: I think that anyone registering to vote in Federal Elections should be required to establish their citizenship or eligibility to vote. I think that is a reasonable expectation from the government.
That means that the appropriate procedure is to introduce in Congress a bill that modifies the VRA, NVRA, and HAVA. It is not permissible for one state to unilaterally decide whether they will or will not follow federal law and federal regulations.
There is a correct way to do this, and Arizona chose the wrong way.
So this decision has nothing to do with politics, it is not a liberal/conservative/Democrat/Republican issue at all. It is a legal issue and Arizona failed to follow the law.
Ducimus
10-27-10, 09:36 PM
http://www.cagle.com/news/CampaignAds10/main.asp
WASHINGTON -- Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.
The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.
It's certain that Republicans want to capitalize quickly on tea party-fueled anger and the antiestablishment fervor that they believe will provide momentum to accomplish an activist to-do list. It's equally clear, however, that the outsized expectations of a fed-up electorate and a crop of unruly newcomers could complicate the plans. So could Obama and fellow Democrats who will still be around after Tuesday's elections.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/gop-poised-big-gains-plan-b-cuts/
Note:Published October 28, 2010
sharkbit
10-28-10, 07:08 AM
Being a masochist at heart, I will try to introduce some facts in to the Arizona decision discussion. I doubt it will do any good here. :nope:
Let's look at this logically and not emotionally. Can Arizona implement a law that requires citizens to prove their citizenship?
First we need to start with the basis of our system of laws, the United States Constitution. Specifically Article 1 section 4
This means that the States are free to make the laws governing how they run federal elections but the Congress has the authority to change these laws. However, the Congress must change these laws through legislation.
In 1965, the Congress did so.
Voter Rights Act 1965 PL 89-110 42 U.S.C. 173 was that law and the federal regulation is represented by 28 CFR Part 51. One of the provisions of the VRA was that any changes to a state's federal election law must be pre-screened by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or, in the case of an election regulation be pre-screened by the United States Department of Justice. Arizona is one of those states subject to this pre-screening requirement.
This means that before Arizona can either change or implement a law affecting how Arizona runs federal elections, this change or implementation must be pre-screened by the US District Court for DC. Since this was not done, the proposed Arizona law is in conflict with the VRA and therefore is in violation of the Election Clause of the Constitution.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1996 PL 103-31 and 107 Stat. 77 governs how people can register, in their states, to vote in Federal Elections.
Under this law, there are three methods, and only three methods in which someone is allowed to register to vote in Federal Elections. The state does not have the authority to change this.
1. The first method of voter registration is described in Section
3, § 1973gg-3. This section provides that any application
for a driver’s license submitted to a state motor vehicle
authority “shall serve as an application for voter registration
with respect to elections for Federal office unless the applicant
fails to sign the voter registration application.”
2. The second method of voter registration, set forth in Section
4, § 1973gg-4, requires states to register federal voters by
mail using the Federal Form.
The form asks for either a SSAN or a Driver's license number. Barring that, the state will assign an identification number and the state sets the procedure for this. Only in this case can Arizona, through either law or regulation require someone to verify their citizenship.
3. The third method of federal voter registration is mandated
by Section 5, § 1973gg-5, which requires states to designate
certain state offices for voter registration. Targeting “the poor
and persons with disabilities who do not have driver’s
licenses and will not come into contact with” motor vehicle
agencies.
Lastly the Help America Vote Act of 2002 PL 107-252 defines how a person who is registering for the first time can establish their identity.
HAVA requires any voter who registers to vote by mail and has not previously voted in a Federal election show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.
The proposed law from Arizona is in violation of the Voter Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. As a result, the decision to remand specific parts of the proposed Arizona law is appropriate.
Now my personal opinion: I think that anyone registering to vote in Federal Elections should be required to establish their citizenship or eligibility to vote. I think that is a reasonable expectation from the government.
That means that the appropriate procedure is to introduce in Congress a bill that modifies the VRA, NVRA, and HAVA. It is not permissible for one state to unilaterally decide whether they will or will not follow federal law and federal regulations.
There is a correct way to do this, and Arizona chose the wrong way.
So this decision has nothing to do with politics, it is not a liberal/conservative/Democrat/Republican issue at all. It is a legal issue and Arizona failed to follow the law.
Please don't cloud the issue with the facts. :O:
:)
Sadly it won't matter all that much.
Our only hope is to significantly cut "mandatory" spending. Failure to do this and we're hosed. Won't happen. :hmmm:
When the 1965 law was written, no state would have even considered giving illegal aliens a DL. They'd have laughed.
The state next door to AZ (NM) as well as several others give DLs to illegals. As the regular US IDs get polluted with non-citizens, they become worthless as proof of citizenship.
The only reason democrats fight against IDs, etc, is they benefit from fraud, period.
krashkart
10-28-10, 03:01 PM
When the 1965 law was written, no state would have even considered giving illegal aliens a DL. They'd have laughed.
The state next door to AZ (NM) as well as several others give DLs to illegals. As the regular US IDs get polluted with non-citizens, they become worthless as proof of citizenship.
The only reason democrats fight against IDs, etc, is they benefit from fraud, period.
They didn't think of issuing special ID cards that look nothing like ours? Like, something that really stands out so there is no mistaking a non-citizen ID for a citizen's ID. :ping:
This sounds very complex, and require many ants in the head of the citizen!
The current law presumes only citizens will vote, and have State IDs.
If the voter registration cannot be forced to prove citizenship, then I'm all for draconian laws to get rid of all the illegals. Illegals should not vote, if we cannot do the simple thing, and check citizenship, then hunt them down like rats and kick them out.
The obama admin is all for massive increases in government jobs, hire the unemployed to hunt down illegals. ;)
The former president reportedly pressed Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Senate race in Florida and to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist's independent bid — but Meek says he's not a quitter.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/28/meek-florida-senate-race-until-end
Note:October 28, 2010
Bubblehead1980
10-29-10, 10:26 AM
The former president reportedly pressed Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Senate race in Florida and to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist's independent bid — but Meek says he's not a quitter.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/28/meek-florida-senate-race-until-end
Note:October 28, 2010
Imagine if a Conservative pulled this? They would be called racist etc but Billy "cigarman" Clinton does it and everything is okay.
As a Florida native I applaud Meek for staying in even though it is a lost cause for him, because Crist is a coward and sore loser, not to mention an Obama supporter.Charlie should just go ahead and change to Democrat because if he were Senator, he would no doubt vote with them.I voted for Rubio already.
Meek made a good decision, even though he knows that "the race is run," Clinton to appear in the image depends on his popularity, and that D has problems which are well known, well-planned strategy and hopes can not sort out the matter at the eleventh hour
Washington Ahead of Midterms.
WASHINGTON -- Just three days before pivotal midterm elections, comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert threw a "sanity" rally in the shadow of the Capitol that organizers insisted wasn't about politics.
But there were political undertones to Saturday's event as the two Comedy Central hosts entertained a huge throng stretched alongside the National Mall by poking fun at the nation's diversity and its ill-tempered politics.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/30/thousands-expected-stewart-colbert-rally-washington/
Note:Published October 30, 2010
Platapus
10-30-10, 04:53 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/30/thousands-expected-stewart-colbert-rally-washington/
Don Novello, who years ago played Father Guido Sarducci on "Saturday Night Live," provided the benediction.
That's a name from the past! :yeah::yeah:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0637038/
Godwin's law... in the non-digital OP.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/101030-sanity-hmed-10a.grid-6x2.jpg
Stewart/Colbert rally.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/31/rally-restore-sanity-jon-stewart-washington
krashkart
10-30-10, 07:32 PM
"It is a sad commentary that the two most important news shows are on the Comedy Channel," said Cohen. "In their comedic format they are doing what journalists should be doing."
:yep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
LOL
I predict that whomever wins both sides of congress accomplishes nothing in the next two years... :doh:
A pessamistic view, but sadly I agree 100% :cry:
CHICAGO - On his final campaign swing through four states in the Northeast and Midwest before Tuesday's midterm elections, President Obama is asking Democratic voters to go to the polls and help stem an expected Republican tide."Chicago, it's up to you to let them know that we have not forgotten, we don't have amnesia," the president told a large outdoor crowd late Saturday near his home, referring to the economic recession that hit during George W. Bush's presidency. He said the election is a choice between the policies that caused the problems and policies that will lead the country to better times.All four stops are in states Obama carried in 2008 -- Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Illinois and Ohio -- and where Democrats are struggling this year. He is to headline a final rally Sunday in Cleveland before returning to Washington for Halloween with his family and other children invited to the White House.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/31/obama-tries-salvage-dems-final-dash-begins/
Note:Published October 31, 2010
Blame A Misguided Message.Two governors sparred over the message Democratic candidates are sending this election— if it’s the right one and if it is even being heard at all.
Governor Ed Rendell, D-Penn., started it all by blaming the Republican voter excitement on his party’s bad communication. Rendell said on CBS “Face the Nation,” “I think this administration has done a great job... We just did a lousy job communicating it. We let the Republicans, to their credit, out-spin us a year-and-a-half ago, and we're paying the price.”
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/31/democrats-blame-bad-communication-republicans-blame-misguided-message
Note:October 31, 2010
krashkart
11-01-10, 06:50 AM
Is it over yet? http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=258&pictureid=2510
*nope* Dang! :O:
:haha: Tuesday will it be the last day, I think
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 07:25 AM
Godwin's law... in the non-digital OP.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/101030-sanity-hmed-10a.grid-6x2.jpg
Stewart/Colbert rally.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/31/rally-restore-sanity-jon-stewart-washington
Boy that went right over your head, didn't it?
Boy that went right over your head, didn't it?
I never saw any nazi posters at the tea party here in ABQ.
Not one.
I remember seeing some on the forums with BUSH as hitler (at a tea party rally, since a % of them hate Bush, too)...
mookiemookie
11-01-10, 09:19 AM
I never saw any nazi posters at the tea party here in ABQ.
Not one.
I remember seeing some on the forums with BUSH as hitler (at a tea party rally, since a % of them hate Bush, too)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody
It's mocking the tendency to paste Hitler moustaches on everyone you disagree with. Do a google image search for "obama hitler" and you'll see plenty of examples of what this sign is mocking. Since the point of the whole rally was "enough with the fearmongering bullcrap" there's your joke. Stop looking to be insulted or for the "ah-ha! we got 'em now!" moment. It was all about toning down the level of discourse in politics.
I suppose you missed these signs:
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/14/enhanced-buzz-3272-1288462680-3.jpg
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/17/enhanced-buzz-3289-1288475131-12.jpg
These are the same people that painted Bush as a Nazi for years.
I saw those posters right here in ABQ at a few of the anti-war rallies I drove past at the U.
Bush as Hitler, FAR more common than Obama as Hitler, sorry.
So here the left is complaining about exactly what they did for 7 years.
Now, when the shoe is (rarely) on the other foot, only then do we hear calls for moderation in language, etc. Where were left's calls for civility with Bush as Hitler (or as a chimp)? They were using moveon money to print the signs.
Sailor Steve
11-01-10, 10:52 AM
Well, tomorrow's the big day. Either the Bad Guys will win, in which case the country will go-to-hell-in-a-handbasket and we'll all be screwed, or the Good Guys will win, in which case Salvation-From-Above will be upon us - or would be if it weren't for those damned obstructionists who won't let our version of Paradise become a reality.
Of course which version is which depends entirely on which side managed to brainwash you first...oh, excuse me, I meant which way your independent thought processes have led you to the true truth, as opposed to the false truth propogated by those fear-mongering hate-spreaders.
Or is that fear-spreading hate-mongers?
Takeda Shingen
11-01-10, 10:56 AM
Well, tomorrow's the big day. Either the Bad Guys will win, in which case the country will go-to-hell-in-a-handbasket and we'll all be screwed, or the Good Guys will win, in which case Salvation-From-Above will be upon us - or would be if it weren't for those damned obstructionists who won't let our version of Paradise become a reality.
Of course which version is which depends entirely on which side managed to brainwash you first...oh, excuse me, I meant which way your independent thought processes have led you to the true truth, as opposed to the false truth propogated by those fear-mongering hate-spreaders.
Or is that fear-spreading hate-mongers?
I so want to make that entire post into my signature. Damn you, character limit!
Bubblehead1980
11-01-10, 02:21 PM
Yes, tomorrow is the "big day". We can let the bad guys(Obama and Dems) keep control of our congress so they may continue to run up massive debt and drag us further to the Left and to piss on the constitution (with things such as the healthcare mandate) while continuing to divide us ever further.
On the other hand, we can elect a better, more American oriented group of people that have emerged onto the scene to replace the trash who have been in charge. Constitutional Conservatives who believe in the things that have made America great and will stop Obama's dangerous agenda which aims to make us over into his far left vision where wrong is right and right is wrong.
Rhetoric aside, the choice is clear........two years and the policies have not worked, Obama is too arrogant/foolish to realize this and will continue to do so if unchecked with a Dem majority.Want America to survive and prosper again? Bring some balance in so he does not have a no limit credit card any long.Vote the Dems out.
I so want to make that entire post into my signature. Damn you, character limit!
Take a screen shot and post the image? It's worth reposting every two years, at least.
But that must seem quite nice to get it over with, so that you consider the other relevant things instead.
But that must seem quite nice to get it over with, so that you consider the other relevant things instead.
We can at least rest easy that nothing major will happen for at least 2 years.
Yes citizens, it is probably a relief, but for those who "run the race" a totally different thing
But that must seem quite nice to get it over with, so that you consider the other relevant things instead.
Over with? NEVER!
After tomorrow, it's a day of victory gloating, followed by a week of "Why did this guy win, why didn't that guy win, etc.", followed by a month of talking heads telling us why (a) everything is going to change and be all nice and cheerful, or (b) why this election is the worst thing that could ever happen and now the country is going down the drain. After that, there'll be a short break for the annual "War On Christmas", followed by the new year full of "What the Government is Doing Wrong, 2011 Edition", and then the campaigning starts for the 2012 primaries.
It never ends! And it doesn't even matter who wins, just which side gets to scream.
In other words, they start to "real problems" after polling
Course 2012 starts this january, right? Or is mid-2011 the start of the 2012 election? Glad I watch zero local TV. I turned it on to see something about the search for Rich's balloon, and was shocked at the political ads.
krashkart
11-01-10, 05:44 PM
Shocked by content or quantity? :haha:
Describe Political ads, that came up in front of your eyes,was that so bad?
It was just the quantity. Nothing more.
Sailor Steve
11-01-10, 05:51 PM
Yes, tomorrow is the "big day". We can let the bad guys(Obama and Dems) keep control of our congress so they may continue to run up massive debt and drag us further to the Left and to piss on the constitution (with things such as the healthcare mandate) while continuing to divide us ever further.
Whoooooooooosh!
Then you can just turn off, :O:
krashkart
11-01-10, 05:59 PM
It was just the quantity. Nothing more.
Ah yes, noticed the trend especially this past week. There are at least three per commercial break on the local channels here, one right after the other. It's crunch time for sure. Thankfully just one more night of it for the time being. :yep:
Ah yes, noticed the trend especially this past week. There are at least three per commercial break on the local channels here, one right after the other. It's crunch time for sure. Thankfully just one more night of it for the time being. :yep:
We have Direct TV (no cable in our part of the foothills), so they cannot target ads on any shows except for the local channels.
As a result I went from not seeing ANY political adds, to seeing whatever it was I saw the other day for 30 minutes. Stark contrast :)
Sailor Steve
11-01-10, 06:03 PM
I get a couple of emails every day from candidates telling my why I should vote for them. Those are the ones I cross off my list first.
Spam? Wow. Don't get that, except from the ones I emailed myself, and then got spammed til I told them to remove me (a couple dems that I emailed long letters saying in effect of they voted for the dumb healthcare law I'd vote a straight R ticket for the first time ever). All I got back were form letters telling me the candidate is working for healthcare reform, etc, not addressing my specific comments regarding my wife's medical practice here in ABQ, and the direct, negative impact the dumb law would have on her practice, and quality of care (or the fact that he should have held out for a payoff to NM like some "swing votes" did—if we're gonna get it, every state could have changed their vote, then demanded a HUGE "bribe" for their state to switch back since SOME got that deal.)
I really do vote 2 (sometimes more) parties in every election. Not this one.
But you have voted for the time I guess
Skybird
11-01-10, 07:06 PM
Der Spiegel had a longer editorial on the state of things in the US, looking at the hate-filled atmopshere, the numbers and finances, and the changes in American society and American job world. I assume these are the things that will (already have?) decided the elections.
A Superpower in Decline: Is the American Dream Over? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-726447,00.html)
The Desperate States of America are loud and distressed. The country has always been a little paranoid, but now it's also despondent, hopeless and pessimistic. Americans have always believed in the country's capacity for regeneration, that a new awakening is possible at any time. Now, 63 percent of Americans don't believe that they will be able to maintain their current standard of living.
And if America is indeed on the downward slope, it will have consequences for the global economy and the political world order.
The fall of America doesn't have to be a complete collapse -- it is, after all, a country that has managed to reinvent itself many times before. But today it's no longer certain -- or even likely -- that everything will turn out fine in the end. The United States of 2010 is dysfunctional, but in new ways. The entire interplay of taxes and investments is out of joint because a 16,000-page tax code allows for far too many loopholes and because solidarity is no longer part of the way Americans think. The political system, plagued by lobbyism and stark hatred, is incapable of reaching consistent or even quick decisions.
The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past. They devote almost no effort to reflection, and they condemn cleverness and intellect as elitist and un-American, as if people who hunt bears could seriously be expected to lead a world power. Demagogues stir up hatred and rage on television stations like Fox News. These parts of America, majorities in many states, ignorant of globalization and the international labor market, can do nothing but shout. They hate everything that is new and foreign to them.
(...)
There are ultimately two kinds of crises, says the economic philosopher. There are what Seidman calls the "end-of-life crises," the wars and natural disaster, and then there are the "way-of-life crises." He says that the current crisis must serve to question and change our way of life.
Seidman recalls the America of Obama's election campaign, when everything seemed possible. "I really hope that those who hate and yell are so visible only because they are louder," he says. "We would be in serious trouble if they actually are the majority."
And this one is in German, adding a face to the fate of so many once working middle-class citizens that were confronted with the ground being moved away under their feet.
"It has never been this bad" (http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/0,1518,725978,00.html)
"Verstehen Sie mich nicht falsch, die Lage war früher schon schlecht genug", sagt Bich Ha Pham, Direktorin des New Yorker Sozialdienstes Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies (FPWA). "Doch diesmal kann es wirklich jeden treffen."
When I look at Wall Street and the banks,it seems to me they have not learned anything, and act as insane as before, maybe even more. Former options the US once had, are no longer available. The Fed'S only responsibility seems to be: printing more money. What all this together means, should be clear:
The next Big Bubble Burst is already being prepared.
I expect more serious crisis in the future, at higher frequency. Needless to say that again it will not be an American-only issue, but effect all the world.
I wonder what any Republican president would/could do different. He might be less enthusiastic on bailouts,. or maybe he is even more enthusiastic.
But would any of these options make a difference anymore?
It's like a wild water trip. Once the going got so tough that the canoe can't reach the shore anymore, it then needs to ride the waves and dive down the falls and dangerzones and follows the will of the river. No matter who sits inside and handles the paddle - from some point on it simply does not matter anymore. Any opposite claim - may just be an attempt to announce a messiah who soon becomes the next scapegoat.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 07:53 PM
Der Spiegel had a longer editorial on the state of things in the US, looking at the hate-filled atmopshere, the numbers and finances, and the changes in American society and American job world. I assume these are the things that will (already have?) decided the elections.
A Superpower in Decline: Is the American Dream Over? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-726447,00.html)
Talk about a depressing read. I think i'll go slit my wrists now. :nope: I don't doubt it's analysis, but it is hard to take criticism from a foreign news source as bashing the US never seems to go out of style. That said, i personally find it well written and hard to refute or deny. Though most of my countryman will probably vehemently disagree.
The Third Man
11-01-10, 07:59 PM
Talk about a depressing read. I think i'll go slit my wrists now. :nope: I don't doubt it's analysis, but it is hard to take criticism from a foreign news source as bashing the US never seems to go out of style. That said, i personally find it well written and hard to refute or deny. Though most of my countryman will probably vehemently disagree.
I disagree. The Germans have felt oppressed since 1945, so I expect it from them. The alternative is obvious from the past.
Media always tend to get reactions, and attention and especially in the U.S. which still dominates world opionen in different ways, and in many other countries also to be pessemistisk or ironic in nobody's interest, and most aware citizens know this there is no news that must "shout out", so my conclusion is to believe in yourself and think long term, but that neither moralizing and complicate things unnecessarily, just wasted energy.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 08:22 PM
An attempt at a multi topic response in one link.
RE Attack ads, and our failing economy, ( or one reason why i think that article is probably on target.)
I heard this while driving to work today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2lDIHyqo7Q
Considering my job has been in jeopardy for awhile now, that ad i think, really worked on me. Which is a first. Normally they don't. I guess it just hit the right nerve, cause i hate outsourcing.
WTF, no brains laughs safe all the way to the bank, :huh:
Ducimus
11-01-10, 08:35 PM
WTF, no brains laughs safe all the way to the bank, :huh:
Come again?
The Third Man
11-01-10, 08:38 PM
The only poll which counts is imminent.
Ducimus
11-01-10, 08:40 PM
Yeah, i'm sure the country will improve immediately. :har:
Come again? I felt that she was only interested in their own "house" and not the workers, the video should be interpreted correctly,right?
That der spiegel thing falls into the common trap of exaggerating the magnitude of modern events. The current election cycle is no more hate filled or divisive than any other in American history. It could only be written by someone who hasn't actually looked into the history of the actual process, and not just the results.
The Washington administration was filled with backbiting, hatred, etc. The Adams/Jefferson cycles was horrific. Look into any of the old elections, and you see more of the same. Some is astonishingly dirty.
There is that youtube of fake attack ads that use REAL editorials written in favor of (or against) candidates 200 years ago. It's real. Elections in the past had political machines with goons (the famous democratic machines of the early-middle part of the last century). People were pretty well dictated to, and fraud and intimidation were SOP.
Look at the morons who said Gitmo was a gulag, or that Bush was the most repressive Pres ever (which is a joke, all 8 years probably didn't curtail the the total magnitude of lost civil rights during a typical month of the FDR Admin during WW2).
The notion that things are worse politically is so much rubbish.
President Obama said last week that even if Republicans want to work with him, they'll have to "sit in back."
But Democrats are the ones who could soon be out of the driver's seat on Capitol Hill. If Republicans seize the House of Representatives on Election Day, their members would win the chairman's gavel on nearly two dozen committees with oversight power covering everything from health care to environmental policy to the military. Expect a game of musical chairs to sort this all out. If Republicans win, they would have about two months to pick their leadership and from there, nominate and select committee chairs through the House Republican Conference. But the change-up would be more than symbolic -- the Republicans looking to take charge come January are vowing to crack down on what they see as the Obama administration's regulatory excesses.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/01/house-republicans-eye-committee-posts-promise-wave-obama-oversight/
Note:Published November 01, 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU
hehe
Skybird
11-02-10, 04:18 AM
Talk about a depressing read. I think i'll go slit my wrists now. :nope: I don't doubt it's analysis, but it is hard to take criticism from a foreign news source as bashing the US never seems to go out of style. That said, i personally find it well written and hard to refute or deny. Though most of my countryman will probably vehemently disagree.
I understand you. Some news soureces in Europe/Germany do like you said, they indeed like to "bash" the US, becasue either they belong to the left side of the media spectrum, or are very PC, which sometimes is both the same thing. But I would not count Der Spiegel amongst these - it is pretty much in the centre of the spectrum, much less left than sometimes it is claimed, also often better researched and written than almost all other online editions of German newspapers (it is also the only one running a translated English section), it is more objective, than many other national news. The worst of the popular nation-wide publications over here are Bild, Tageszeitung (TAZ), and Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ). A mixed bag is Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and Die Zeit, both often are seen as being conservative through and through, I see both as part-time conservatives. Focus and Tagesspiegel are easy-going and hardly ever demand too much of their readers, to put it that way.
However, your country once has been very powerful and influential in the world, and although now weakening, in certain areas it still is - even if not by strength, but weakness. What is happening over there, in your place, often hits us as well sooner or later. This to a much greater degree, then it is the case the other way around. Even some local poltiical event in the US, leading to chnages on the national level later on, can have influence on Europe and Germany, and the international market, at least in the past. On the other hand, I doubt that many Americans are interested in the elections for a regional parliament in one German federal state or that the minister president in Lower Saxony is an original Scotsman, nor does it mean much to the US' situation, it has no effect on the US.
It is understandable that many Europeans thus have a much higher interest in American politics, than Americans have in politics in European countries.
I use to search foreign news about mreports on Germany. I find it interesting to see how our national things are perceived from a foreigners' perspective. But there is not much such news.
To look at the US from an outsider'S perspective, has the advanatge of not suffering distorted percetion due to national and social trenches, you see thgings less selfish and more objective that way. On the other hand you are running the risk to miss details and specific contexts in which events and decisions are embedded, making it sometimes difficult to understand why something has been decided this and not another way. The same is true about Americans judging European nations. Both the insider'S and the outsider'S perspectives have advantages, and weaknesses.
For ten years, roughly, I am a member of this board, and over the years, my attitude and opinions from back then have slowly changed, at least in parts, due to two factors (ignoring the ovious thing that I am ten years older now):
In some things, namely social and economical things and issues of freedoms, I have slowly shifted towards views which are more typical for America than Europe, due to the exchanges and so,metimes bitter debates we have had here. That does not make me an American conservative, nor will I ever identify with that camp. There is still plenty to be criticised aboiut the US. But still - I have slowly adapted some American attitudes on some things. Not so much specific opinions and detailed views, but attitudes. I also turned decisively anti-EU, while shifting "westward".
(The other factor, which is almost unneeded to mention, I assume, is that I have turned from a careful critic and a guy who had plenty of diverse and contradicting input from theory as well as reality of Islam and found it diffic ult to make sense of it all, into an unforgiving opponent of Islam, attacking it for it'S original content and ideological message, and the mere fact that it now sits inside our nations. This shift took place due to the situation and related European politics move from bad to worse, the rise of the islamophile PC brigades, and it all becoming more and more insane. The more pushing and pressing the Islamic agenda became, the more determined I became in my rejection and opposition to it. I also finally learned to figure out how to arrange the many once apparently self-contradicting pieces of the mosaic, so that in the end a consistent picture emerged. )
So, what sometimes is said that nobody in this forum ever chnages his opinion by being here and debating, is not true, at least not for me. This forum has had it'S part in making me changing my mind - sometimes and on rare occaisons very massively, more frequently the chnage is not that obvious, but nevertheless effective.
So reading from a foreign perspective about one's own nest and ways of doing, must not be a bad thing, or a depressing one. Anbd although in past years this forum sometimes has driven me into real fury, all in all, when considering the total balance of these ten years, it has done more helpful things to my opinion-forming, than negative ones. Right and especially because things sometimes became so conflict-heavy and hot over here. It eiether helped me to feel more conviuction about my views - or demonstrated to me the need to correct some views of mine. And both things I rate as a positive.
The Democratic Congress that enacted President Obama's health care and economic agenda is at risk in an election that promises to shake up the political order across the nation
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/02/voters-poised-punish-democrats-ballot-box/
Note:Published November 02, 2010
Heated Campaign Ends as Votes Are Cast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03elect.html?_r=1&hp
Note:November 2, 2010
Polls starting to close.
I agree with a few guys I have read that say that this is NOT a Republican victory, but a Democrat loss. This election is a repudiation of the work of the administration and Democratic Congress since 2008. The Reps should be humble, and realize that if they don't work hard to be very different, they'll get their heads handed to them next time around.
Sailor Steve
11-02-10, 05:41 PM
The Reps should be humble,
:rotfl2:
Like that ever happens. It's always "Hooray for our side". Just read the posts that will start tomorrow on this forum.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/1/knowing-when-to-relinquish-the-reins/?page=1
Good points here (emphasis is mine):
Voters are not schizophrenic, but instead, misunderstood. Time and again, they turn against incumbents who assume too much control. As a result, new politicians have entered office believing voters have handed them a powerful mandate to take control. Democrats made this mistake after the 2008 election, but Republicans made the same mistake in 2000 and 2004.
...
Whichever party emerges victorious Tuesday, let's hope it does not interpret its victories as a mandate to take control, but as one to relinquish it. When it does, it will find that newly empowered consumers and entrepreneurs are well-equipped to solve many of our most pressing problems. They have the local knowledge, the on-the-ground expertise and - importantly - the ability to experiment.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/02/pelosi-democrats-on-pace-to-maintain-the-majority/
Pelosi: ‘On Pace’ to Keep Majority
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg
"To get out of this mess, we must abandon the notion that government needs to take control of things to make them better. Simply trying to move around aspects of the economy like chess pieces doesn't work" The article was very clear...
Cool, interactive map:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/#/House/2010
Very good and I like the set of, :yep:
Alan Grayson, one of the poster-boys for people that claim the left ios losing for not being far enough left, or vocal enough...
got his clock cleaned.
krashkart
11-02-10, 09:28 PM
Not watching so much the national scene at the moment, but it looks like Iowa is retaining her Supreme Court justices.
I voted against retaining any of them here in NM. Not that it will help here.
mookiemookie
11-02-10, 10:46 PM
Alan Grayson, one of the poster-boys for people that claim the left ios losing for not being far enough left, or vocal enough...
got his clock cleaned.
He was too beautiful for this world.
krashkart
11-02-10, 11:07 PM
Culver just conceded to Branstad in the governor's race. It was pretty close half an hour ago; 49% in favor of Culver. The tide has turned against activist judges, but only a small fraction of votes have come in. Chuck Grassley keeps his seat.
Just noticed that it's past 11 right now. Time flies. :haha:
Amazing to look at all the places Obama campaigned heavily...
the more he was there, the worse they did (PA, OH, VA, FL).
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.