Mid-term elect. post-mordem

[HighDemonslayer]

Most results will be in soon. What does it mean?

I don't have time to pontificate right now.

Feel free to start.


-n

[Slowsis]

Not sure yet, but no more Donald, though that might have happened anyway.

[BainbridgeShred]

What I expected to happen happened. Big wave for the Democrat's, and a big change in direction for the entire country. You can expect the next 15-20 years to be one of the most unpartisan times in American history, as the culture wars are finally drawing to a close because other issues are becoming much more important.

Also, I'm very glad that none of these races are extremely close for lengthy recount purposes.The Democrats are almost assured victory in both house and senate, and from what Bush already said, these last 2 years will be a lot let divisive than the previous six.

[HighDemonslayer]

Here in AZ, J.D. Hayworth hasn't conceded yet.

Apparently, there are ballots still to be counted (according to him)

I am glad Rummy is gone, but why wait until now?

Bush wanted the House to change hands.

You can expect the next 15-20 years to be one of the most unpartisan times in American history, as the culture wars are finally drawing to a close because other issues are becoming much more important.

I assume you mean non-partisan?

You are joking right?

Is the right and left going to hold hands, and sing Cum-ba-ya as we glide down the road of socialism?

I should understand Bainbridges' sarcasm by now.


We know that divisiveness drives the power-train of many politicians.

So class warfare, racial hatred, dissolution of U.S. sovereignty, will all continue at a faster pace.

and from what Bush already said, these last 2 years will be a lot let divisive than the previous six.

Why is that? Wont Bush face impeachment, or at least a litany of investigations (some of which he deserves)?

Will Bush use the Veto pen on all the liberal bills sure to come out of Congress. I bet not.

Bush is gleeful that his illegal alien Amnesty policy will be implemented, now that the liberal congress (he always wanted) is in control.

Our governor Nappy, in AZ, is clicking her heels at the guest-rapist program sure to come now. I hear audio of her glee at how now, the first and most important thing to do is for Congress to forgive, and encourage....no demand, that endless millions more foreign invaders impose on us.


Non-partisanship is a fantasy, that has never existed, except only to gull cowardly Republicans into giving away things.


There are other important issues, like the mass export of our ecomomic engine.

Hey, if the Dems can bring some economic protectionism, and help the U.S. worker (without taxing them to death), more power to them.

To bad all our "leaders" Rep, or Dem, are in the pockets of foreign interests.


-n

[BainbridgeShred]

You're extremely short sighted and frankly do not really understand what you are talking about. Culture wars have come and gone throughout American history, and America is finally sick of the bickering. That you think nonpartisanship is something that has never occured major scale in American history shows the disaster of your intellect.

We know that divisiveness drives the power-train of many politicians.

The opposite will be true from now until whenever it changes again.

So class warfare, racial hatred, dissolution of U.S. sovereignty, will all continue at a faster pace.

Class warfare will probably continue though greatly abided, but no; the trends pf racial problems and the disapearance of the American state that have been peaking since the end of the Cold War will actually reverse, and after the crisis situation ends we will most likely enter another phase of isolationism.

HDS, you have to realize that the best way to predict cultural trends is to look at what the common thought is, and then reverse it, because whatever it is at one point in time will be the opposite shortly.

Why is that? Wont Bush face impeachment, or at least a litany of investigations (some of which he deserves)?

No, the Democrat's are ready to playball with the Republicans, and Bush said he would do the same. The Democrat's have no interest in trying to impeach Bush, because it would hurt them politcally. Besides, all the Democrat's who just entered are mainly pretty moderate. Like I saicd, we're entering a time of moderacy.

[HighDemonslayer]

That does kind of bring me around to agree with your viewpoint.

Clearly, an era of mediocracy will emerge.


-n

[PegLegHolly]

tennesse voted republican. it was choice between and giant douche and a turd sandwich.


douches win this time... the turd sandwich will have its revenge.

[Splint]

What does it mean?

It means the Democrats better not fuck up or they will be blaimed for everthing that happens from this point on. They have made a lot of promises that I hope they make good on. They need to take the reigns and run hard and fast to accomplish the types of changes in healthcare, jobs, wages, and wars that they have promised. They have about a year and a half to make significant effective changes to better this country or they will wind up losing at least one of the houses and possibly the presidency in '08

It also means that history could be made if the new Senate Judiciary Committee launches impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. If they should be impeached, that would make Nancy Pelosi the President of the United States.

[BainbridgeShred]

Brad, you're just releasing frustrations with the Bush administration that you've probably had since '00, that especially increased probably during '02. Your opinions are not the opinions of most democrat's in this country, and people do not want to see the president impeached, and don't see him as deserving of it. The Iraq war was very popular when it began, and most people believe that Bush and his cabinet truely did think WMD's were there. Altogether though, your ideas just alienate people.

[HighDemonslayer]

t means the Democrats better not fuck up or they will be blaimed for everthing that happens from this point on.

I don't know, I think the hate for Bush should be able to enable blame for the Iraq war, and his disasterous globalization for years beyond his 2nd term.

They need to take the reigns and run hard and fast to accomplish the types of changes in healthcare, jobs, wages, and wars that they have promised.

I don't know what promises they made, or any plan to create jobs or have healthcare for all.

The people didn't give them a mandate to do any of that stuff. They voted against moron Bush, or stayed home because they didn't like gay, junkie Republicans.

Most states had ballot initiatives that slapped the Democrats and liberal Bush in the face.

They have about a year and a half to make significant effective changes to better this country or they will wind up losing at least one of the houses and possibly the presidency in '08

ehhh, The White House is up for grabs, for Hillary probably, there is no candidate to oppose her. Her balls are bigger than any Republican candidate who has been mentioned.

It also means that history could be made if the new Senate Judiciary Committee launches impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. If they should be impeached, that would make Nancy Pelosi the President of the United States.

Impeachment without removal, is a waste of time, as demonstrated by the Clinton debacle.

Republicans will not vote for removal, if it means Nancy Legosi as president.


I suspect impeachment proceedings, will be focused on one of the most frivolous issues, instead a real reason, like Clintons impeachment.

The true crimes, will be ignored, and something like Abu Ghraib prison will be advanced as the reason.

Perhaps Bush will sign every piece of legislation, in exchange for no impeachment, then get, duped, and be impeached anyway. Ha!


One thing is for sure, that the Dems will advance the number 1, most critical issue that effects our nation, and the world:

Gay marriage



-n

[Splint]

Brad, you're just releasing frustrations with the Bush administration that you've probably had since '00, that especially increased probably during '02. Your opinions are not the opinions of most democrat's in this country, and people do not want to see the president impeached, and don't see him as deserving of it. The Iraq war was very popular when it began, and most people believe that Bush and his cabinet truely did think WMD's were there. Altogether though, your ideas just alienate people.

How quaintly naive. The Iraq war was not "popular" it was a war played very strongly in the media so it was the dish du jour. Some people supported going to Iraq because The Bush administration fabricated evidence suggesting that Saddam had links to Al Quaida and that he was in possession of WMD's.

Bush has flat out lied to the American people and even admitted yesterday that he deliberately misled the media last week when he said Rumsfeld was staying in office. He's a liar and has done committed outrageously impeachable offenses.

If proceedings don't go through for Bush's impeachment, but they went through for Clinton, then this is one sorry country.

[BainbridgeShred]

I'm to high to read everything to respond point by point, but one thing, yeah Bush did lie in Iraq, but now isn't the time to worry about it. I don't support any wars in other countries like president GW (George Washington), but now that we're there, we have to atleast attempt to win. I believe victory is possible still.

Also, anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is going to be elected has smoked themselves RETARDED. Everyone's saying she's the front runner for the Democrats, and that might be true unless other viable canidates step up. If Hillary is elected, she will be soundly defeated by a Guiliani or McCain. Romney could probably beat her too I believe. The reason I know this is because Hillary is a symbol of a different time, and republicans really suceeded in making her a symbol before she wanted to be. Times are changing.

[HighDemonslayer]

True, Hillary is not totally locked in for the Presidency.

But Guiliani is a liberal, who has no support outside of New York. I wont vote for him.

McCain is a liberal, Manchurian candidate, that everyone knows is a liberal open-borders cheerleader.

There is probably file cabinets full of documents and strategies to defeat McCain in a presidential race (since the 2000 primaries).


Surely we would need to investigate all the types of torture McCain underwent, and advance the idea that he is a damaged product, who has secret racist hatred for gooks, and would start a nuclear war with China...etc...etc.

Either side of the political aisle can be convinced that McCain is undesirable. The left will believe that he is a racist, war-monger.
The right will believe that he was programmed to become a socialist sleeper agent while imprisoned in Vietnam (evidenced by his support for all sorts of leftist ideology, and no conservatism whatsoever).

Don't forget that old Keating scandal, also.

Romney is a Mormon, and though I have no particular opinion of Mormons
in general, that disqualifies him outright for the Presidency (see South Park).

Long shot:

Hillary might not want the presidency, as she can run things from behind the scenes, as some kind of shadow, globalist government. A North American Union would be perfect for that.

[BainbridgeShred]

The type of tricks that kept McCain out of office in '04 simply wouldn't work this time around.

[HighDemonslayer]

McCain didnt get the nomination in 2000.
The left didn't even have to use it's weapons against McCain. They tucked them away for a later day.

If, or when McCain triangulates himself, and gets the Repub. nomination,
the big guns will come out, and the humuliation, demonization, and destruction of mcCain will occur.

McCain is a media darling, only so long as it is useful for others.

He will look pretty pathetic, stammering about how the media hates him, when they stab him in the back.

Also, I thought McCain ( and Giuliani), suffered from some sorts of cancer, in addition to his old age, this should disqualify him.

-n

[Splint]

yeah Bush did lie in Iraq, but now isn't the time to worry about it. I don't support any wars in other countries like president GW (George Washington), but now that we're there, we have to atleast attempt to win. I believe victory is possible still.

He didn't just lie in Iraq.

Article II Section I of the Constitution is the presidents oath of office:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He absolutely did not even try to preserve, protect or defend the Constitution when he allowed and while he still allows illegal wire taps to be performed without court orders and then purjured himself when he said he wasn't doing it.
When IS the right time to prosecute a criminal at the highest level of government?

And what the hell does victory in Iraq mean? Every single bit of evidence coming out of that country states that everything the US has done over the last 3 years has met with disaster. Terrorism exists there now when it didn't before, the newest tally says 150,000 Iraqi civilians are dead since we invaded. Over two thousand US troops are dead with and estimated 40-50,000 injured to the point of full disability. What is victory? Victory at this point would be for the US to pull out and allow the Iraqi gov't to ask the UN for an international peacekeeping force if they really need or want the help. A US presence in Iraq only inflames the overall situation and causes more and more resentment toward our country.

The attitude that "now we're there we should win" was great for the first five minutes of this war, but it's the same fuckin' attitude that cost about a million lives in Vietnam. Bring the troops home to their families instead of fighting a war that has no bearing on the US or benefit to the Iraqi people.

[BainbridgeShred]

We could've won in Vietnam too if it wasn't for nancies like yourself.

And the Iraq War currently has no bearing on the US or benefit to the Iraqi people? What the fuck are you even talking about Brad? If you want to bring the troops home then just say it, but don't act like we wont be reaping the repprocussions from your defeatism for the next 20 years, along with the Iraqi people, because who the fuck knows whats going to happen to them if we pull out.

[HighDemonslayer]

This thread is not about Iraq. But........

The troops aren't coming home. They have to stay over there until they get killed, or have the morale get so low, as to destroy any fighting spirit left in America's true patriots.

If the troops came home
, they would string up the Bushes and Clintons together on the same gallows, and the public would cheer.

exception: Troops who demonstrate their loyalty, by firing on American citizens, or by herding them into FEMA concentration camps, will be allowed back.



The complete hand-over of our nation to illegal aliens, and the dissolusion of our economy, needs to have our troops rotting overseas.

Until those fighting men have been castrated, or drugged into submission, they can't be allowed to come home.


Besides, they wouldn't even recognize the country they would be coming home to.


-n


note: expect the Patriot Act to survive, so they can use it's powers to send most of us to gay-re-education camps.