You're no cynic. You see the objective reality. It's not all bad for Americans though, because were any other people (such as Canadians or Brits or Malaysians) to be put under the same system, they'd vote just as poorly. The United States is such an important country, that it really really matters to the rest of the world that its political process is protected from corruption and other evils. Reforms in the USA would not only do Americans well, but it would do the world a lot of goodness. Unfortunately, all most Canadians and others can seem to do is spew their hatred or say destructive things towards the United States rather than recognizing that a strong and morally good USA is a blessing to the rest of the world.luckydog71 said:
The DEMS should take power of Congress
- Thread starter luckydog71
- Start date
Exactly.jjinvan said:
The Losers are going to win. Those Dems deserve the same equal contempt that Americans have towards Republicans for their lack of leadership or vision. Watch what happens in the next 2 years, and I'll bet the Dems will come up with no solutions for the most critical problems. They'll do exactly as they have done since 9/11, for 5 years, which is NOTHING.
Well - 7 pollees got it right (or is that left?). I was not one of them.
The house will be a dog fight. Actually, I think there will be a lot of squabbles between DEMS. There are a lot of egos in the new majority and they will spend time building their own fiefdom.
I think a lot of DEMS will be energized and see the 08 presidential race as winnable for the DEMS. Many will now be positioning themselves to be the nominee or VP.
The senate is going to be very partisan. It looks like it will be 49/50 split with Joe Lieberman holding the balance of power. I wonder how Hilary feels now after snubbing Joe during the election.
The house will be a dog fight. Actually, I think there will be a lot of squabbles between DEMS. There are a lot of egos in the new majority and they will spend time building their own fiefdom.
I think a lot of DEMS will be energized and see the 08 presidential race as winnable for the DEMS. Many will now be positioning themselves to be the nominee or VP.
The senate is going to be very partisan. It looks like it will be 49/50 split with Joe Lieberman holding the balance of power. I wonder how Hilary feels now after snubbing Joe during the election.
luckydog71 said:
The Dems won huge in the H of R last night and sure enough there will recounts to determine which party gets control of the Senate.
BTW what's with James "the Rage'in Cajun" Carvell (sp?) these days? Cancer? AIDS? He looks he's already got one foot in the grave. He's very thin and gaunt.
Also it was nice to see former CFL QB JC Watts on CNN last night. Eventhough he is a Republican.
How does Jesus feel about the Democratic victories in the election?
Is he happy that the poor, downtrodden and needy may get more help?
Or is he pissed that gays, abortion rights advocates and "evil doers" will get more help?
Is he happy that the poor, downtrodden and needy may get more help?
Or is he pissed that gays, abortion rights advocates and "evil doers" will get more help?
The DEMS won the senate too, without a recount…….dirtydan said:The Dems won huge in the H of R last night and sure enough there will recounts to determine which party gets control of the Senate.
BTW what's with James "the Rage'in Cajun" Carvell (sp?) these days? Cancer? AIDS? He looks he's already got one foot in the grave. He's very thin and gaunt.
Also it was nice to see former CFL QB JC Watts on CNN last night. Eventhough he is a Republican.
I never watch CNN, so I did not see JC Watts. I did not know he played in the CFL. I have not seen Carvelle for a long time….maybe his wife bitch slapped him…
Some observations:
- The DEMS won big….. I do not hear the GOP whining about votes not being counted.
- The deciding senate seat had over 2 million votes cast. The DEMS lead by 750 votes. The state has an automatic recount when it is that close. The GOP candidate conceded the race to the DEMS without a recount. A far cry from the way Gore handled himself in 2000.
- The DEMS are back tracking from their position on the Iraq war during the election. They are no longer calling for immediate withdrawal. They want to bring the troops home “after they have achieved their mission”. I guess it is easier to be a critic than it is to be in charge.
In Virginia the margin was 7502 votes. Virginia law says that you can demand a recount if the margin is less than 1% of the total cast which put the number at 24,000 votes. However, Virginia uses e-voting with no paper trail which means the canvass that is required before the votes are certified will accomplish the same thing as a recount. They just readd the numbers from the machines to see if they are correct. There were only 31,000 provisional and military ballots which are the only ones on paper. It would be difficult to make up 7502 votes out of 31,000 if the addition of the various machines wasn't seriously in error.luckydog71 said:
It was classy of Allan to conced once the machine count was certified, because it would have looked bad if he had demanded a recount.
The Democrats are indeed in a hard place now on the Iraq question. There are only a limited number of viable ways to extract the USA from Iraq.
1. Just leave. This means that the Islamic hard liners will declare victory and concider the USA weak.
2. Just leave after 6 months or a year. This means the Islamic hard liners will have to wait to declare victory.
3. Put another 400,000 troops in Iraq, close the Iran and Syrian borders, do a house to house search for weapons, jail most of the young men, get the oil wells working, the pipelines working and extract as much oil as the USA can. This will not be concidered by the Democrats, concidered and put aside by everyone else and the USA doesn't have and can't get an additional 400,000 troops.
I think the Democrats will take option 1
Yes, the DEMS did win big. You are also not listening if you didn’t hear/don’t hear the whining… just in New York alone: Republican U.S. Rep. Sue Kelly & Republican state Sen. Nick Spano have refused to accept their defeat and are demanding recounts. I also believe there are still 10 undecided Congressional election results across the U.S. … is it that they’re all too close to call… or that there might just be a little ole whine fest at play somewhere?luckydog71 said:
You mean that U.S. election travesty in which 6 million Floridians went to the polls and where the official margin of victory was 537 votes… 537 votes! … where Gore had the election stolen from him by the hanging chad and butterfly ballot fiascos, by Katherine Harris, by the U.S. Supreme Court, etc. Oh ya… did Gore get even get a chance at a recount? Just imagine if your country could have endured that recount, how ever long it took – are you better off today than you were 6 years earlier? Exactly what have the Republicans done for you in the 6 years since the 2000 election?luckydog71 said:
As for your Virginia reference, that margin of victory was 7500 votes, not the 750 you mistakenly mention… and the voting was electronic. You may choose to infer the incumbent Republican Senator George Allen took some form of “high road” in not calling for a recount… however; in this new era of electronic voting a recount takes on a new methodology that lends itself to a great deal of conjecture… that one of the reasons Allen didn’t press for a recount is that an electronic voting recount is understood to also include an analysis of the software on each and every electronic voting machine. Given the ongoing concerns about the 2004 Diebold influences, particularly in Ohio, can the GOP really afford close scrutiny of electronic voting software?
I thought all we ever heard was that “the DEMS have no position on Iraq”… but now you state they’re back tracking on their position. I don’t believe I ever heard anyone of substance call for an immediate withdrawal… is that how you interpret Murtha’s position? I believe there’s been a consistent message as relates to a phased withdrawal from Iraq… and that U.S. troops are to be re-located to strategic close proximity staging points, should they be needed. It’s an easy Google ….. here’s a Reuter’s link from September: “Leave Iraq by 2008, Dem. veteran candidates say”luckydog71 said:
I also believe you’ll see consistency from the Democrats in terms of expressed oversight concerning Iraq. There will be accountability for those who invented the reasons for going to war and for those who personally benefited by going to war. This will be a point in your history to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands killed by the Iraqi war and a point to acknowledge that all citizens of the world have been put at greater risk by the emboldening of terrorists. This will be your time to acknowledge to the world that the Iraqi war was wrong.
The Republican party severely screws the pooch and now you feel the need to posture about a Democratic party approach to (attempt) to “manage and clean it up”.luckydog71 said:
Besides… I thought the Shrub was still in charge.
(think the lame duck Shrub can match this)Excellent reply to luckydog71, obtn. Since he gets his information from Fox News, it's no real surprise that his point of view is somewhat skewed.
All of us have our way of looking at the world and when it's threatened or shown to be not quite what we thought it was, we naturally get defensive. I so loath George W. Bush that I could see video footage of him personally attending to lepers and I'd convince myself it wasn't true. But the fact remains that the Bush administration has botched pretty much everything it has touched, with the exception of implementing huge tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich. Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons had an agenda from day one and 9/11 gave them the opportunity to get the ball rolling.
They fabricated that there were WMD's in Iraq, they hinted at (in Cheney's case, actually stated as fact) a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda where none existed and they used fear again and again to convince the American public it was necessary to invade Iraq. That they seriously believed they'd be greeted as liberators and that Iraqi citizens would put flowers in the barrels of American soldiers' guns shows their total disconnect from reality. The fact that three and a half years later Iraq is a quagmire that gets worse by the day speaks to their inablity to plan for any post-invasion possibilities beyond the one they anticipated.
How the Democrats could possibly do worse than these clowns is a mystery to me. And to restate what I've said here before, in my opinion the Democrats are only a slightly less extreme version of the Republicans. For any Americans to think of them as "left-leaning" is to demonstrate how completely Americans are out of touch with what constitutes a true political spectrum. If one drew a line down the middle of a six inch wide piece of paper with that line representing the centre of the political spectrum, the Republicans would be two inches to the right of the line and Democrats would be half an inch to the right of it. We'll have elected a majority Green Party government here in Canada before the USA will have anything that even comes close to being a viable party that represents the left of the political spectrum.
All of us have our way of looking at the world and when it's threatened or shown to be not quite what we thought it was, we naturally get defensive. I so loath George W. Bush that I could see video footage of him personally attending to lepers and I'd convince myself it wasn't true. But the fact remains that the Bush administration has botched pretty much everything it has touched, with the exception of implementing huge tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich. Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons had an agenda from day one and 9/11 gave them the opportunity to get the ball rolling.
They fabricated that there were WMD's in Iraq, they hinted at (in Cheney's case, actually stated as fact) a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda where none existed and they used fear again and again to convince the American public it was necessary to invade Iraq. That they seriously believed they'd be greeted as liberators and that Iraqi citizens would put flowers in the barrels of American soldiers' guns shows their total disconnect from reality. The fact that three and a half years later Iraq is a quagmire that gets worse by the day speaks to their inablity to plan for any post-invasion possibilities beyond the one they anticipated.
How the Democrats could possibly do worse than these clowns is a mystery to me. And to restate what I've said here before, in my opinion the Democrats are only a slightly less extreme version of the Republicans. For any Americans to think of them as "left-leaning" is to demonstrate how completely Americans are out of touch with what constitutes a true political spectrum. If one drew a line down the middle of a six inch wide piece of paper with that line representing the centre of the political spectrum, the Republicans would be two inches to the right of the line and Democrats would be half an inch to the right of it. We'll have elected a majority Green Party government here in Canada before the USA will have anything that even comes close to being a viable party that represents the left of the political spectrum.
While I wouldn't rate Julius Caesar Watts as one of the greats of the CFL, he did have a decent career with the now defunct Ottawa Rough Riders from 1981, 1983-86 and the Toronto Argonauts for part of the 1986 season. He left after a short while because politics was calling. His highlight would have been taking the Rough Riders to the Grey Cup despite the team having a 5-11 record and narrowly losing to the 14-1-1 Edmonton Eskimos by a score of 26-23. The Riders were up 20-1 at the half. Watts was your classic hot/cold QB.luckydog71 said:
Gore the Democrats had every right to complain back in 2000. The electoral system was a sham and quite frankly it still is despite some improvements.luckydog71 said:
[/QUOTE]luckydog71 said:
Quite frankly LD, the immediate withdrawal stuff is a load of crap. From what I have glean over the news the Dems have never said they would immediately yank all of the US troops out of Iraq. I think there is good emasure of Republican subtrefuge (sp?) at work here. Meaning taking something the other party and twisting the hell out of it in an attempt to cloud the other party's message. And what of the Republicans? All of a sudden Bush has an open mind when it comes to getting out of Iraq.
If there is one lesson to be learned from the Vietnam War for the US that is if there is a waning of popular support for a war then it does not matter one iota how well the troops are fighting. Despite the hollow rhetoric about prevailing, Bush and others have realized they fucked up BIG time. But what else can one expect when such an administration misled the country when it came to Iraq? Does anyone really know what the war is being fought over? The initial reason long ago was proven to be a rock solid lie.
JustAGuy said:
That maybe so, but the Greens are really just Liberals with a strong grasp around a tree. On the political spectrum the Greens are really everywhere they can be and they keep denying it. Such a party leaves itself open to repeat the same things of the government before it. That's not say such a party can't succeed. However it is good reason for me to be just as wary of the Greens as I am when it comes of the unprincipalled manouvering of the goddamn Liberals.
BTW, I hear for the Liberal leadership convention next month the keynote speaker will be Howard Dean.
Almost forgot, hooray for Bernie Sanders, senator-elect and a socialist. From where? Where else, but Vermont. Democrats 50, Republicans 49, Socialist 1.
I was using hyperbole when I said Canada would elect a Green majority government before the USA had a national political party that represented the left side of the political spectrum, dirtydan. I'm 60 years old. I'll have been dead for another 60 years (at least) before the Green Party ever wins a majority in a national election in Canada. That's an optimistic assessment of when America will have a left leaning political party that could actually win control of Congress.dirtydan said:
As to Bernie Sanders, what qualifies as a "socialist" in the USA is someone who believes that American citizens ought not to have to see every penny they have saved get sucked into the health care system vortex if they were to contract a catastrophic illness. That's a pretty radical idea south of the border and the American Medical Association gets their collective knickers in a knot anytime some wild-eyed socialist suggests it.
Lastly, aren't you missing Joe Lieberman in your list of Senators? He ran and was elected as an independent from Connecticut when the Democrats in that state chose not to nominate him to run in this election.
And now for a European viewpoint
Here is a pertinent thought from Belgian, Paul Belien, who worries that Europe has abandoned the USA and delights in US troubles, wishing the USA ill at every turn. He worries that it means the end of Europe, and not the end of the USA.
I have expressed concern that a victory of the Democrats in the U.S. might have very serious consequences, especially in Europe, if this leads to a withdrawal of the US Army from Iraq. Most Europeans are satisfied that the Pelosi band won, but if Iraq ends in a debacle for the U.S. this will seal the fate of Europe.
'The reason why so many Europeans are pleased with the Democratic victory is because they see it as a vindication of their own anti-Americanism. Some Europeans will deny this, and say that they are not at all anti-American – just anti-Bush or anti-neocon. It this were true one might just as well argue that the reason why the regimes in Iran and Syria are pleased with the outcome of the American elections has nothing to do with anti-Americanism but only with feelings of antipathy towards the Bush administration. I do not buy that argument. Anti-American feelings are growing in Europe. I think these feelings will exa****ate in the coming years for three reasons, all of which have to do with the current crisis in Europe:
(1) Its welfare states are on the brink of implosion;
(2) Its moral and legal order is collapsing, while the influence of radical Islam is growing;
(3) Its nation-states are falling apart."
the article:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1641
Here is a pertinent thought from Belgian, Paul Belien, who worries that Europe has abandoned the USA and delights in US troubles, wishing the USA ill at every turn. He worries that it means the end of Europe, and not the end of the USA.
I have expressed concern that a victory of the Democrats in the U.S. might have very serious consequences, especially in Europe, if this leads to a withdrawal of the US Army from Iraq. Most Europeans are satisfied that the Pelosi band won, but if Iraq ends in a debacle for the U.S. this will seal the fate of Europe.
'The reason why so many Europeans are pleased with the Democratic victory is because they see it as a vindication of their own anti-Americanism. Some Europeans will deny this, and say that they are not at all anti-American – just anti-Bush or anti-neocon. It this were true one might just as well argue that the reason why the regimes in Iran and Syria are pleased with the outcome of the American elections has nothing to do with anti-Americanism but only with feelings of antipathy towards the Bush administration. I do not buy that argument. Anti-American feelings are growing in Europe. I think these feelings will exa****ate in the coming years for three reasons, all of which have to do with the current crisis in Europe:
(1) Its welfare states are on the brink of implosion;
(2) Its moral and legal order is collapsing, while the influence of radical Islam is growing;
(3) Its nation-states are falling apart."
the article:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1641
On the other hand, I'm sure that Osama Bin Laden is unhappy about the outcome. The Bush administration has done more to bring new recruits to his cause and brought his dreams of jihad closer than he could have dreamt possible.Randy Whorewald said:
The actual count is 49 DEMS 49 GOP 2 Independents.dirtydan said:So just what is the real Senate count?
Lieberman said he will caucus with the DEMS so the gives them a majority.
It ought to be interesting 2 years.
Joe has generally supported Bush on Iraq.
I wonder where he comes down on Hilarycare. She has revived her national health care plan.
The rules of the senate are such that unless you have a super majority (60 seats) the minority can block everything. So I think there will be a lot of talk and no action. Just a minute that is what we had for the last few years in the senate.
