NationStates Jolt Archive

Will they? If so, which House?

I don't know how they'll do. I predict they'll at least control one house at least.

The House if not the Senate. In my opinon, people are tired of seeing the republicans and their ideas getting passed. So I think that people will have at lesat one house under Democratic control. I would personally vote Democrat if I were old enough...

nope

No way. It's very tough to knock out incumbents.

The libertarians will pull a surprise victory :D

No way. It's very tough to knock out incumbents.

It's tough but not impossible

I hope so!

Who knows what the situation will be in '08? I think the Dems have a better than even shot at taking one house in November, but we're a long way from then.

No way. It's very tough to knock out incumbents.

It is very hard, however if the Democrats continue to keep going and pour more money into the campaign, they should win enough to control the houses. The fact that the Republicans are doing poorly in the polls will prompt more people to run in traditional republican areas (Virginia for starters). The Contract With America allowed Republicans to gain control of Congress in the early 90's, and I think the Democrats will do something like that in 2006 and 2008

It is very hard, however if the Democrats continue to keep going and pour more money into the campaign, they should win enough to control the houses.

And how are they going to get the money?

It's tough but not impossible

Yeah, how else do we get different House members every election?


Congress Fact:
The incumbency rate is 96%, so that must mean that only 4% of our House members suck.

People who see the Democrats as the party to win (there is a lot of that), groups that see Democratic goals as the same as their's (Planned Parenthood, National Resource Defense Council, etc.), a lot of peace organizations, and once they start campaining, more money will come in

What a nice thought, but lets be realistic.

I think that the Dems have a chance at the Senate because the margin is very thin. If the GOP continues to shoot itself in the foot over immigration then it could be far worse. If the conservatives sit out then the GOP could lose the House as well, but the larger buffer is there.

If the Dems do it, its not going to be from any great inspiration from their side. Its going to be like two drunks stumbling towards a finish line. I don't think that either party truly represents mainstream America. The GOP is too corperate and the Dems are too liberal.

Yeah, how else do we get different House members every election?


Congress Fact:
The incumbency rate is 96%, so that must mean that only 4% of our House members suck.

The incumbency rate is extremly high (more likely to be indicted or die than lose in election) in normal election years. I think 2006 is not a normal election year. There is so much more for the Democrats to gain in this election than other elections in recent years

The incumbency rate is extremly high (more likely to be indicted or die than lose in election) in normal election years. I think 2006 is not a normal election year. There is so much more for the Democrats to gain in this election than other elections in recent years
It's looking more and more like 1994, the last time there was a major shift in Congressional power.

What a nice thought, but lets be realistic.

how is that not realistic? This time is just like the 1994 midterm elections. The Republicans have lost more and more power, polls show people want more Dems, they Contract With America failed miserably (more govt. not less)

The Democrats will regain Both the Senate,House Of Representives And the White House in 2008. Everyone is getting tried of the Republicans Screwing up the country's economy. President Bush is doing exactly what his father done When he was President,Making himself, Wealthy People & other Republican Richer

At least one, if not both. IT is somewhat possible for a third party to come in though.

At least one, if not both. IT is somewhat possible for a third party to come in though.

What party? I could see some splinter group of Republicans, probably moderates, but more well known groups like the Greens haven't done anything lately. If anything they'll take a few seats

It's looking more and more like 1994, the last time there was a major shift in Congressional power.

If Bush keeps doing his thing, the GOP can't get it's act together, and the Dems can keep theirs together, we're quite possibly looking at a post-watergate backlash...

Neither. The Republicans will bring up the ol' terrorists and gays. Fear works.

Who knows what the situation will be in '08? I think the Dems have a better than even shot at taking one house in November, but we're a long way from then.
Does it matter if the Democrats win? As far as I can tell their policies are very similar to the other party's. To me, the main purpose of a Democrat win would be a propaganda victory to demoralise conservatives.

The Democrats will regain Both the Senate,House Of Representives And the White House in 2008. Everyone is getting tried of the Republicans Screwing up the country's economy. President Bush is doing exactly what his father done When he was President,Making himself, Wealthy People & other Republican Richer

The US economy is not doing bad, its probably the only good thing that the GOP has going for it. Unemployment is stable, interest rate increases are about to top off and inflation is steady despite the rise in fuel costs.

The US economy is not doing bad, its probably the only good thing that the GOP has going for it. Unemployment is stable, interest rate increases are about to top off and inflation is steady despite the rise in fuel costs.

That's why the value of the dollar is dropping, right? And, you know, the whole defecit thing...

No, but they will gain some ground. Incumbents tend to be well entrenched in to their positions and it takes time to craft an attack strategy after regaining momentum, especially following 12 years of Congressional dominance by the other party. In my opinion, this is probably more like 1992 than 1994; the Democrats will gain some ground and the momentum will tip to them, but it will really hinge on what they do with it in that 2006-2008 period that determines the balance of power in 2009. If they use it like the Republicans did in 1992, they could very well bring about a Democratic sweep of Congress.

However, I've noticed some very strong proposals from Democrats in the past few months; the Clean EDGE Act is one I'm particularly interested in and if they can make progress with it it may be a major strength in their campaign especially if gas prices remain high or Iraq does not improve significantly.

They might be able to gain more ground than they would normally if the recent flurry of good ideas continues in to November. Plus, with the conservative base increasingly at odds with the Administration and support for gay marriage bans weakening, the Republicans might not be able to use the "traditional values" card anymore, which would be a major problem in the South and Midwest.

That's why the value of the dollar is dropping, right? And, you know, the whole defecit thing...

The dollar goes up and the dollar goes down. Nothing new there. Other countries are not investing in the greenback because of the world political stance of the US. Its not the fault of the economy. They have cold feet.

As for the defecit, thats a fact of life. Its always going to be there. Which is just the way Alexander Hamilton set up the finances of the country. If the government is running surplusses ad infinitum then they're taking too much money from the people. Plus with the US Nuclear Stockpile and military who is going to call us on our loans. :mp5:

That's why the value of the dollar is dropping, right? And, you know, the whole defecit thing...

The value of a currency has little to do with its economic strength. It has to do with the supply of currency versus the demand for it. In the case of the US, the dollar is weaker because of our economic strength; we're buying a lot more in imports than we export due to consumer demand stemming from a domestic economy stronger than that of many of our trading partners.

A deficit means we're shipping more dollars out of the US and in to the world markets than we're taking back in via imports, and when combined with the budget deficit, the loosening of the money supply from 2001-mid 2004, (which is also causing stronger growth and more imports) the supply of dollars has grown dramatically while the demand for them is unable to keep pace. As a result, the value of the currency will fall until the demand for dollars rises to the supply or the supply of dollars falls to meet demand; if the budget were balanced, the Fed kept rasing rates, and the trade deficit were to narrow considerably the value of the dollar would rise accordingly.

Even so, a strong dollar is not necessarily desirable; it makes our exports more expensive and results in job losses and reduced growth in our industries and services. However, a weaker dollar also makes imports more expensive and drives up the price of commodities (about 22% of the rise in the price of oil is directly related to currency depreciation since 1999), which results in inflation and slower growth. The goal of monetary policy is to keep the dollar stable at a level neutral to both imports and exports and to keep it attractive as a reserve currency.

Will they? If so, which House?

They won't take back either house because the leadership does not have a messege for the American People. They only bash bash bash but nothing else.

People who see the Democrats as the party to win (there is a lot of that), groups that see Democratic goals as the same as their's (Planned Parenthood, National Resource Defense Council, etc.), a lot of peace organizations, and once they start campaining, more money will come in

I guess you forgot the fact that the Democratic Party is far behind the Republicans in fundraising. :rolleyes:

yea thanks Dean. You are a real leader.

Does it matter if the Democrats win? As far as I can tell their policies are very similar to the other party's. To me, the main purpose of a Democrat win would be a propaganda victory to demoralise conservatives.

Or the exact opposite.

They won't take back either house because the leadership does not have a messege for the American People. They only bash bash bash but nothing else.

And what exactly is the republicans' great message to the American people?

And what exactly is the republicans' great message to the American people?

About the same as the Democrats. Bash Bash Bash and that pisses me off too.

yea thanks Dean. You are a real leader.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :D LOL


BTW, I think the Democrats will have a landslide in the House of Representative. But the GOP might (barely) hang on in the senate.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :D LOL


BTW, I think the Democrats will have a landslide in the House of Representative. But the GOP might (barely) hang on in the senate.

I'll take this bet.

I hope they win both, because they will run hostile investigations into absolutely everything, and that'll make this forum a very fun place to be.

Does it matter if the Democrats win? As far as I can tell their policies are very similar to the other party's. To me, the main purpose of a Democrat win would be a propaganda victory to demoralise conservatives.
The big differences to me will be oversight and subpoena power. Right now there's no oversight because the Republicans won't police themselves (and why would they? The Dems wouldn't either if they held all the cards). And there's no investigative power because there's no subpoena power. Put Dems in control of one house of Congress and you'll see all manner of scandal pop up.

I hope they win both, because they will run hostile investigations into absolutely everything, and that'll make this forum a very fun place to be.

Now this is true

Neither. They're all still riding the "We're not Republicans and that's the only reason why you should vote for us" wagon, and that won't work with voters.

it will be a very close election

i think it may be clsoer to a 50 50 then one party having majority control and if one party does it will only be by a couple of seats.

The libertarians will pull a surprise victory :D
I wish.

No, with the way things are, there is no way the Dems WON'T get both parts of Congress under their control. Unless, of course, they fuck it up with their typical bungling idiocy.

What party? I could see some splinter group of Republicans, probably moderates, but more well known groups like the Greens haven't done anything lately. If anything they'll take a few seats

are you smoking something...what do you think america is a multi party system....goo we're not some kind of worthelss parliamentary system with no party having any kind of real majority the greens...wow...genuis

The dollar goes up and the dollar goes down. Nothing new there. Other countries are not investing in the greenback because of the world political stance of the US. Its not the fault of the economy. They have cold feet.

As for the defecit, thats a fact of life. Its always going to be there. Which is just the way Alexander Hamilton set up the finances of the country. If the government is running surplusses ad infinitum then they're taking too much money from the people. Plus with the US Nuclear Stockpile and military who is going to call us on our loans. :mp5:


im likin that plan

I think if they play their cards right, they could effectively take over both the senate and the house. The Republicans are too arrogant and over confident and refuse to see whats happening outside of the Capitol Beltway, and if they continue forcing these divisive smokescreen issues they will certainly loose.

I wish.

No, with the way things are, there is no way the Dems WON'T get both parts of Congress under their control. Unless, of course, they fuck it up with their typical bungling idiocy.


News Flash: Libertarians ARE Republicans. They receive a considerable ammount of funding directly from the GOP. A totally invalid party.

are you smoking something...what do you think america is a multi party system....goo we're not some kind of worthelss parliamentary system with no party having any kind of real majority the greens...wow...genuis
...first off, you're misinformed. Multi-party governments can be stable quite easily depending on how they are run. It is, in fact, the two-party system that is a problem. We need a true centrist party, and I want to turn the Libertarian party into that.

News Flash: Libertarians ARE Republicans. They receive a considerable ammount of funding directly from the GOP. A totally invalid party.
...considering most of the other crap you've spouted, I find this incredibly hard to believe. Source? Proof? Because if you're right I'll stop being a Libertarian in a hurry and found my own party.

The Dem's need to get Barack Obama in the picture. He won the illinois senator vote by a land slide.... 70% of the vote. Now, if only they could get him to be a major party leader.... I have a feelin' that they'd win.

Perhaps Obama could run for president. Of course, some may not think it wise, he doesn't have as much experience as other contenders. I think he'd be a good choice.

The Dem's need to get Barack Obama in the picture. He won the illinois senator vote by a land slide.... 70% of the vote. Now, if only they could get him to be a major party leader.... I have a feelin' that they'd win.It helps when you run against a whackjob like Alan Keyes. Not to say Obama wouldn't have won anyway, but probably not a 70% win.

I don't think the Democrats will win the Senate, and I do not think they will win the House.

Edit: Should they win control in Congress, though, I think it will help the Republicans in the end.

~ Romandeos.

no idea. but i voted both houses out of wishful thinking.

It is possible, but one never can tell.

Look at the case of one Tom Delay. In the court of public opinion, the man is a criminal. A cheat, liar, and general all around crook. His poll numbers were way the hell down and the Republican Party pulled a few other people to run against him in the primaries for his re-election this year because not even his own Party wants him.

So what happened?

He won the primary. In the 60s percentile. Had he not resigned, he *would* have been re-elected this year in November.

It is quite obvious that one of three things has happened:

1] People really do like Republicans like Tom Delay, they just won't admit it openly.

2] The Republican Party got together with Satan and the Stonecutter Lodge and made a deal where no matter what they do - up to and including eating live babies on television - they get to stay in office.

3] The Rapture has happened and this is what it's like to be left behind.

It is possible, but one never can tell.

Look at the case of one Tom Delay. In the court of public opinion, the man is a criminal. A cheat, liar, and general all around crook. His poll numbers were way the hell down and the Republican Party pulled a few other people to run against him in the primaries for his re-election this year because not even his own Party wants him.

So what happened?

He won the primary. In the 60s percentile. Had he not resigned, he *would* have been re-elected this year in November.

It is quite obvious that one of three things has happened:

1] People really do like Republicans like Tom Delay, they just won't admit it openly.

2] The Republican Party got together with Satan and the Stonecutter Lodge and made a deal where no matter what they do - up to and including eating live babies on television - they get to stay in office.

3] The Rapture has happened and this is what it's like to be left behind.
Actually, DeLay was in a world of shit from what I hear--he'd gerrymandered himself into a much tighter district because he counted on his position, but Lamont was going to give him a scare. You're in Texas--do you think Lamont stands a chance with DeLay out of the race?

Actually, DeLay was in a world of shit from what I hear--he'd gerrymandered himself into a much tighter district because he counted on his position, but Lamont was going to give him a scare. You're in Texas--do you think Lamont stands a chance with DeLay out of the race?

I don't know. I have very little faith in the voters in Sugarland to do the right thing, though.

It helps when you run against a whackjob like Alan Keyes. Not to say Obama wouldn't have won anyway, but probably not a 70% win.

Heh. True that. Still, even people like myself who don't live in Illinois have been found to like him as a democrat leader.

Heh. True that. Still, even people like myself who don't live in Illinois have been found to like him as a democrat leader.
Oh, I see him as a rising star, no doubt, and barring scandal, he can probably hold that Senate seat as long as he wants it. And he strikes me as the kind of guy to take a shot at the big seat eventually--I hope he gives it a run.

Oh, I see him as a rising star, no doubt, and barring scandal, he can probably hold that Senate seat as long as he wants it. And he strikes me as the kind of guy to take a shot at the big seat eventually--I hope he gives it a run.

Same.

I'd also like to see him try to run as president in the future. If not in '08, then in '12.

Or the exact opposite.
What? Democratic victories will make conservatives feel optimistic and proud of themselves?

I don't know. I have very little faith in the voters in Sugarland to do the right thing, though.
Sugarland? What a name for a place! What is this Sugarland like, and why is it so-called?

Sugarland? What a name for a place! What is this Sugarland like, and why is it so-called?

The buildings are made of fudge, the rivers of maple syrup, and the Soylent Green is PEOPLE!

The buildings are made of fudge, the rivers of maple syrup, and the Soylent Green is PEOPLE!
Are Hansel and Gretel aware of this?

They wont get anything because they dont stand for anything. On big issues they just agree with the republicans and fail at it. Theres no real difference between the two parties because they both just pander and never do anything. So even if they do get control nothing will change. US policy at home and abroad, for better or worse, will not change any time soon.

They wont get anything because they dont stand for anything. On big issues they just agree with the republicans and fail at it. Theres no real difference between the two parties because they both just pander and never do anything. So even if they do get control nothing will change. US policy at home and abroad, for better or worse, will not change any time soon.

Reminds me of home, with Labour pretending to be Thatcherites, and the Conservatives pretending to be Labour pretending to be Thatcherites, and the Liberals pretending to be both, and then dumping their most popular leader for 80 years.

However, if they are so similar, why is there so much polarisation? Odd, don't you think?

However, if they are so similar, why is there so much polarisation? Odd, don't you think?
Because the things they disagree on, they really disagree on, and the loudest voices in both parties are the ones on the edges who disagree on more than most people do.

I think if they play their cards right, they could effectively take over both the senate and the house. The Republicans are too arrogant and over confident and refuse to see whats happening outside of the Capitol Beltway, and if they continue forcing these divisive smokescreen issues they will certainly loose.

Sounds like the Democrats as well.

Sounds like the Democrats as well.

I can recall a time when any 'but the other feller'-post was known as a Yo Mamma...

The Dem's need to get Barack Obama in the picture. He won the illinois senator vote by a land slide.... 70% of the vote. Now, if only they could get him to be a major party leader.... I have a feelin' that they'd win.

1) he was running basically unopposed as Ambassador Keys really was a fill in.

2) He's too junior to be the Senate Majority Leader or Senate Minority Leader or any leader at the moment. Give him a few more years and he probably will be.

and 3) Not without a messege they will not win. That is what killed them in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

It helps when you run against a whackjob like Alan Keyes. Not to say Obama wouldn't have won anyway, but probably not a 70% win.

I agree 100%

I'm voting "both houses" to give legitimacy to my personal pipe dreams. Too bad it sounds so much like "A plague o' both your houses!"

What? Democratic victories will make conservatives feel optimistic and proud of themselves?

Actually, it'll revitalize the Republican Party. They will consolidate, regroup and come back.

One wonders if there's a power struggle quietly going on within the Democratic Party - they've been far quieter on Bush than I expected.

They are also doing some interesting infighting. Howard Dean and the DNC campaigned against Mayor Nagin, and lost. They sent millions of dollars to his opponent, and sent people to work against Nagin.

Didn't seem to work.

One wonders if there's a power struggle quietly going on within the Democratic Party - they've been far quieter on Bush than I expected.

They are also doing some interesting infighting. Howard Dean and the DNC campaigned against Mayor Nagin, and lost. They sent millions of dollars to his opponent, and sent people to work against Nagin.

Didn't seem to work.

They are doing the samething in PA against Santorum. I do not believe this tactic is going to work.

Reminds me of home, with Labour pretending to be Thatcherites, and the Conservatives pretending to be Labour pretending to be Thatcherites, and the Liberals pretending to be both, and then dumping their most popular leader for 80 years.

However, if they are so similar, why is there so much polarisation? Odd, don't you think?
Theres polarisation because they differ somewhat on stupid little issues like gay marriage which gives preaches in the south and in Kansas a boner just thinking about banning it.

But on big issues they are the same. No ones suggesting more of a socialist system to be more like some places in Europe. niether party cares about the enivironment, both parties support the war on terror, the war in Iraq and support secret military operations around the world. And both blindly support Israel. So what is the difference exactly?

One wonders if there's a power struggle quietly going on within the Democratic Party - they've been far quieter on Bush than I expected.

They are also doing some interesting infighting. Howard Dean and the DNC campaigned against Mayor Nagin, and lost. They sent millions of dollars to his opponent, and sent people to work against Nagin.

Didn't seem to work.As you may expect, I follow the DNC pretty closely, and I didn't hear anything about this. Now I certainly could have missed it, but it's unusual for the DNC to back a candidate when both are Democrats, so I'd like to see some evidence of this, especially since I haven't been able to find any in my own searches.

They are doing the samething in PA against Santorum. I do not believe this tactic is going to work.There's absolutely no infighting in PA, at least not involving the DNC. There was some friction because national party leaders really wanted Casey and some locals wanted Pennachio, but in the end, Casey handily won the primary and the DNC is backing him. There's no infighting involved there.

Not if Diebold has anything to say about it...

Not if Diebold has anything to say about it...

Not this conspiracy again.

There's absolutely no infighting in PA, at least not involving the DNC. There was some friction because national party leaders really wanted Casey and some locals wanted Pennachio, but in the end, Casey handily won the primary and the DNC is backing him. There's no infighting involved there.

Nazz....I live in this state. The DNC is doing all they can to unseat Santorum and it isn't going to work. Not with Idiot Casey who stands for nothing but his daddy's name. They are sending in all the liberal heavy hitters and they are the ones talking. Casey stands for nothing.

I never said there was infighting in PA.

It would be a good thing if they did, but I doubt it. I think they're likely to beat out a lot of Republican incumbents. Enough to reign in Bullshit, but not a majority in both houses.

Edit:
Oh, wait, '08. Following the current trajectory, I expect Bush will make the GOP into a historical party like the Whigs by '08. I thought you meant '06.
The only thing that could maintain a Republican congressional majority into '08 is the stupidity of American voters. Bush capitalized on that in '04, but his worst constitution-shredding civil rights-defying crimes were still mostly secret back then. None of the current revelations are going to go away, and if experience is any guide, Bush and his gang will come up with more totalitarian boners before '08.

Oh yeah, the Hitler Pioneers, er Bush Pioneers, at Diebold might be able to hand both the '06 and '08 elections to the Republicans. Then comes the time for violent revolt. All I can say is the Democrats better learn to love guns real quick.

Actually, it'll revitalize the Republican Party. They will consolidate, regroup and come back.
I don't know about that. Republican victories didn't really appear to do that for the Democrats.

Nazz....I live in this state. The DNC is doing all they can to unseat Santorum and it isn't going to work. Not with Idiot Casey who stands for nothing but his daddy's name. They are sending in all the liberal heavy hitters and they are the ones talking. Casey stands for nothing.

I never said there was infighting in PA.
Corny--you were responding to DK's post where he was claiming that the DNC was taking sides between two Democratic party candidates in New Orleans, and since you didn't clarify, the assumption must be that you were talking about the same thing in PA. As for the DNC's attempt to unseat Santorum, guess what? That's their job. So why act all unsettled by it?

I don't know about that. Republican victories didn't really appear to do that for the Democrats.

That's because their politics are dominated by the extreme Left. The Republicans aren't being runned by the extreme Right yet.

Corny--you were responding to DK's post where he was claiming that the DNC was taking sides between two Democratic party candidates in New Orleans, and since you didn't clarify, the assumption must be that you were talking about the same thing in PA. As for the DNC's attempt to unseat Santorum, guess what? That's their job. So why act all unsettled by it?

Because they have tried attack politics in the past and it has yet to work.

I personally expect the democrats to be on the verge of winning up until October, when some stupid little thing will come along, the party will become divided and the Republicans will actually gain seats.


What would be funny is if we suddenly "find" bin Laden in October.

That's because their politics are dominated by the extreme Left. The Republicans aren't being runned by the extreme Right yet.
Take that, reverse it, and you've got it right. The Democrats haven't been dominated by the extreme left in decades. If anything, the Dems sell out their left wing at every chance in hopes of getting some ever-elusive "centrist" voter.

Take that, reverse it, and you've got it right. The Democrats haven't been dominated by the extreme left in decades. If anything, the Dems sell out their left wing at every chance in hopes of getting some ever-elusive "centrist" voter.

Apparently no one is buying it and its a good thing to for this is not what is happening. Anyone who watches the news can tell you that.

That's because their politics are dominated by the extreme Left. The Republicans aren't being runned by the extreme Right yet.

Ahh! HAhahahahahahahaha!!! That's SO funny. It's like Bizarro World you're living in... "Black is white, freedom is slavery; Democrats are extreme, Republicans are moderate."

God, I think I blew milk out my nose that was so funny. Wow, Corneliu, you are either the funniest guy out there or a psycho! I can't tell which...:confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

Take that, reverse it, and you've got it right. The Democrats haven't been dominated by the extreme left in decades. If anything, the Dems sell out their left wing at every chance in hopes of getting some ever-elusive "centrist" voter.

The most irritating thing about the Democrats is they are really a kind of everybody-else party. If you don't like Republican Laissez-faire-capitalism and religious-tyranny, Democrats are the only credible party in town.

What America needs is real multi-party democracy.

The most irritating thing about the Democrats is they are really a kind of everybody-else party. If you don't like Republican Laissez-faire-capitalism and religious-tyranny, Democrats are the only credible party in town.

What America needs is real multi-party democracy.

Multi meaning more than one. We have more than one party. Actually, we have more the two parties.

Not this conspiracy again.

Again?

Its (http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/36660.php?) Still (http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/14593675.htm) happening (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.voting12may12,0,2148061.story?coll=bal-local-headlines).

Oh and you can check out these links as well...

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/May/theworld_May644.xml&section=theworld
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002991127_voters13m.html
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/27634.html
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=17019507&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=police-probe-into-city-postal-vote-fraud-name_page.html
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1144140003213060.xml&coll=2
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2155411,00.html

And tell me it wont happen again.

Apparently no one is buying it and its a good thing toed:I assume you mean, "too" for this is not what is happening. Anyone who watches the news can tell you that.

Got it. You actually believe this crap. :rolleyes: Jebus Holy Freaking Crud.
Keep watching Fox News, Corn-boy, maybe you can keep the lies alive in your soul. The rest of us are just going to live in the real world, and maybe try to fix it a little.

*snip*

Ironically it was those same machines that had votes already on them for the Democratic Candidate in Philadelphia.

So yes....again. I really do hate conpiracy theories.

Got it. You actually believe this crap. :rolleyes: Jebus Holy Freaking Crud.
Keep watching Fox News, Corn-boy, maybe you can keep the lies alive in your soul. The rest of us are just going to live in the real world, and maybe try to fix it a little.

I watch all the cable news channels and read the Washington Post (not the times)

Ironically it was those same machines that had votes already on them for the Democratic Candidate in Philadelphia.

So yes....again. I really do hate conpiracy theories.

Im so glad you provide a source.

Apparently no one is buying it and its a good thing to for this is not what is happening. Anyone who watches the news can tell you that.
I have an offer for you, Corneliu. I want to have a meaningful discussion with you on why you feel the Democratic party is beholden to their most extreme elements. I'm serious here--I'll dial back the snark and quiet the dismissive tone as long as you take the conversation seriously, but when I mean seriously, I mean that you need to talk about issues and programs the Democratic party supports, show how and to what degree it supports them, and maybe even provide a top member of the party supporting the agenda. We can do it here or in a separate thread if you wish. And I'm not looking at this as a one winner/one loser sort of debate either--I'm really curious as to what you consider the far left in terms of policies and positions. Maybe that will help me understand why we see the world from such different angles. Interested?

I have an offer for you, Corneliu. I want to have a meaningful discussion with you on why you feel the Democratic party is beholden to their most extreme elements. I'm serious here--I'll dial back the snark and quiet the dismissive tone as long as you take the conversation seriously, but when I mean seriously, I mean that you need to talk about issues and programs the Democratic party supports, show how and to what degree it supports them, and maybe even provide a top member of the party supporting the agenda. We can do it here or in a separate thread if you wish. And I'm not looking at this as a one winner/one loser sort of debate either--I'm really curious as to what you consider the far left in terms of policies and positions. Maybe that will help me understand why we see the world from such different angles. Interested?

Let me think about this one Nazz.

God Bless America and Our Forces overseas and God Bless the President of the United States!

These sentiments are mutually exclusive at present.

It's looking more and more like 1994, the last time there was a major shift in Congressional power.

Clinton had a higher approval rating than Bush.

These sentiments are mutually exclusive at present.

You have a problem with her signature?

Does it matter if the Democrats win? As far as I can tell their policies are very similar to the other party's. To me, the main purpose of a Democrat win would be a propaganda victory to demoralise conservatives.

I'd settle for that. I'd prefer a fairly passive weak government to the pack of criminals we got in there now.

You have a problem with her signature?
Yeah...

Clinton had a higher approval rating than Bush.

Not much higher; it was still less than 50%. This was without a major US military engagement overseas, without two severe hurricanes, and without $3 gasoline; Clinton may have had even lower ratings were those conditions also in place...and that's why Bush is so vulnerable.

Im so glad you provide a source.
Yeah Corn-Man, where is that source. The voting machine errors I've seen so far have all "erred" to the Republicans favor. I would be interested in seeing real evidence of a machine "erring" in the other direction. I don't like conspiracy theories either.
Especially when it looks like they could be true

Yeah...

And what is your beef with it?

It is very unlikely that the Dems will be able to take control of either house come the midterm elections. For, while there is immense dissatisfaction with congress as a whole, most everyone has a positive image of their own representative or senator, and very few incumbents are likely to be voted out.

Not much higher; it was still less than 50%. This was without a major US military engagement overseas, without two severe hurricanes, and without $3 gasoline; Clinton may have had even lower ratings were those conditions also in place...and that's why Bush is so vulnerable.
Yeah, Clinton was a little ham-handed when he got into office and caught it from both sides. Pushing NAFTA and selling out on the gays in the military issue cost him support from his base and the opposition never really warmed to him until the economic situation turned around in 1995. Factor in the mess that Bush the elder left him in Somalia and the OK City bombing and it was no wonder his approval ratings were hurting.

But the Democratic Congress largely brought it on themselves too--lots of corruption in the House with the check cashing scandal, and the Speaker was forced to step down for ethics violations--shades of Tom DeLay?--so the Democrats were ripe for the picking, and Gingrich did a terrific job with about two months to go of nationalizing the election. That's what the Democrats are hoping to do this time, and so far, it looks like it's working. More and more articles are popping up about how Republican leaders are worried, and about how more races are in play--and the more it's reported that the Dems have the advantage in November, the more that reality comes into being. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Again?

Its (http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/36660.php?) Still (http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/14593675.htm) happening (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.voting12may12,0,2148061.story?coll=bal-local-headlines).

Oh and you can check out these links as well...

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/May/theworld_May644.xml&section=theworld
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601712.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002991127_voters13m.html
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/27634.html
http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=17019507&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=police-probe-into-city-postal-vote-fraud-name_page.html
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1144140003213060.xml&coll=2
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2155411,00.html

And tell me it wont happen again.
One of the problems with the third article, espescially, is the fact that these machines may have a hole in their data security and software integrity, but there's another safety measure covering that. The Diebold machines have physical locking mechanisms over all of the possible places where you can physically put a data device into the machine.

edit: Furthermore, most of the articles you posted are totally irrelevant to the Diebold Voting machines. Blackwell had 178 shares of Diebold Stock, which he has since sold for a loss. Another instance we can see is where a Republican in New Hampshire spent his election day calling the Local Dems to jam their phone lines. Meanwhile, the State of Pennsylvannia has sequestered their voting machines. That's what their supposed to do. I know my county keeps the damned things locked in a giant vault for most of the year.

On a side note, I'm the resident expert on those damnable Diebold Voting Machines, as I'm the one on this forum with the most experience with them. Last summer I was in the employ of my County Board of Elections as one of the lower level supervisors of the certification of those things. I've personally handled well over five hundred of those things.

In our spare time, several of us tried to hack one of the things to make it play Oregon Trail. We failed.

And what is your beef with it?
(Sigh) Just what I said. "God Bless America," and, "God Bless the President," are mutually inconsistent. When Bush wins America loses.

(Sigh) Just what I said. "God Bless America," and, "God Bless the President," are mutually inconsistent. When Bush wins America loses.

And your basing this on a sig of a person you do not know.

Corneliu--are you going to take me up on my offer?

One of the problems with the third article, espescially, is the fact that these machines may have a hole in their data security and software integrity, but there's another safety measure covering that. The Diebold machines have physical locking mechanisms over all of the possible places where you can physically put a data device into the machine.

edit: Furthermore, most of the articles you posted are totally irrelevant to the Diebold Voting machines. Blackwell had 178 shares of Diebold Stock, which he has since sold for a loss. Another instance we can see is where a Republican in New Hampshire spent his election day calling the Local Dems to jam their phone lines. Meanwhile, the State of Pennsylvannia has sequestered their voting machines. That's what their supposed to do. I know my county keeps the damned things locked in a giant vault for most of the year.

Diebold has the keys. Diebold is owned and controlled by a Bush Pioneer. Without the back doors, you can trust your local elections people to remove any surprises left by the manufacturer:confused: :eek: :confused: . With them Diebold can still get back into their machines. Also this involves network security. The encryption software is what ensures the integrity of the information as it goes over the network. Physical locks don't do jack for that.

And your basing this on a sig of a person you do not know.

The person is irrelevant to what I am saying. The sig could belong to a died-in-the-wool frickin' communist and it wouldn't change what I'm saying. I'm criticizing the content of what is being said. I am not criticizing the person. So, again, my knowledge of the person is irrelevant.

Now if I were saying, "You poopy-headed stupid person. You know nothing. You are a forty-year-old-virgin in your mom's basement writing stupid things on your computer and trying to make bombs," things would be different. As things stand, nothing you are saying on the subject of this sig is... sig-nificant. The argument your making isn't about discussing ideas, it seems to be an argument from intimidation. Try to make it look like the other person is engaging in some sort of ad hominem smear to shut them up.
"Aristotle? My dear fellow-" (a weary sigh) "if you had read Professor Spiffkin's piece in-" (reverently) "the January 1912 issue of Intellect magazine, which-" (contemptuously) "you obviously haven't, you would know-" (airily) "that Aristotle has been refuted." From one of your people I suspect.

I'm simply saying. Again. That the two statements: "God Bless America," and, "God Bless President Bush," express logically incompatible sentiments. And I know it didn't mention Bush by name, but if the signature is referring to the current holder of the Oval Office, the premise remains the same.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum and pitlh.

The person is irrelevant to what I am saying. The sig could belong to a died-in-the-wool frickin' communist and it wouldn't change what I'm saying. I'm criticizing the content of what is being said. I am not criticizing the person. So, again, my knowledge of the person is irrelevant.

And your criticism is baseless.

I'm simply saying. Again. That the two statements: "God Bless America," and, "God Bless President Bush," express logically incompatible sentiments. And I know it didn't mention Bush by name, but if the signature is referring to the current holder of the Oval Office, the premise remains the same.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum and pitlh.

Where in the sig did she say God Bless President Bush? She didn't.

And your criticism is baseless.

Where in the sig did she say God Bless President Bush? She didn't.

Freaking DUH!!!!

"God Bless the President of the United States," implicitly means Bush at the moment. Seven years ago it would have meant Clinton. If she means Lincoln or Carter she should explicitly say that.

I haven't made a single argument about the person. She stated her opinion, I stated mine. Neither of our opinions was in any way about the other person.

Maybe you should actually read my posthttp://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11006102&postcount=115. It explains all of this.

I feel as if I know you from this little sub-thread. You appear to be someone who is very DENSE when he knows he is wrong. If you can actually refute my statement go for it. If you are going to just ignore what I say and argue irrelevancies then let us dispense with this.

Freaking DUH!!!!

"God Bless the President of the United States," implicitly means Bush at the moment. Seven years ago it would have meant Clinton. If she means Lincoln or Carter she should explicitly say that.

And it could very well mean the office of the President. You can respect the office but not like the person in that office.

And I already refuted it with this post.

it wont matter, the US is a corrupt facist police state anyway.:mad:

it wont matter, the US is a corrupt facist police state anyway.:mad:

Or not.

And it could very well mean the office of the President. You can respect the office but not like the person in that office.

And I already refuted it with this post.

Actually, I don't see any post where you refuted what I said. Unless you're trying to call this:

And your criticism is baseless.

From Post #116Post #116 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11006522&postcount=116)
a refutation. If so it's kind of sad, because it doesn't point out anything that might be wrong about my thesis.

it wont matter, the US is a corrupt facist police state anyway.:mad:

No. It isn't. America, for all its flaws and contradictions is still the freest, most just countries in the world. Some of us would like to keep it that way. And the best way to do that is to wash the Capitol and the White House clean of their current occupants.

No. It isn't. America, for all its flaws and contradictions is still the freest, most just countries in the world. Some of us would like to keep it that way. And the best way to do that is to wash the Capitol and the White House clean of their current occupants.

Then we need to elect 100 new senators and 435 new house members.

Then we need to elect 100 new senators and 435 new house members.
I can live with that. Of course, personally, I'm only responsible for two of those senators and one of those representatives. Distributed systems rock.

I can live with that. Of course, personally, I'm only responsible for two of those senators and one of those representatives. Distributed systems rock.

Notice the word we :D

Notice the word we :D
Cool. As long as we don't have to fluffle:fluffle:

Notice the word we :D
and, of course, there's another reason why they shouldn't be re-elected.

everytime they're re-elected, they get a pay raise.

and, of course, there's another reason why they shouldn't be re-elected.

everytime they're re-elected, they get a pay raise.

That does suck :(

Cool. As long as we don't have to fluffle:fluffle:

awww.....no fluffle? :(

and, of course, there's another reason why they shouldn't be re-elected.

everytime they're re-elected, they get a pay raise.

Since some time in the early '90s, Pete De Fazio has been voting against all pay raises, and quietly plowing all of them into charitable causes in the local community. Food for Lane County, scholarships and the like. A small reason why he's the only politician out there currently who I like and respect. Democrat or Republican. I'll actually miss him when we throw out all the incumbents. You do promise to get rid of all your guys too, right.

awww.....no fluffle? :(

I don't know you that well. And I'm saving them all for my jealous Republican wife.

Will they? If so, which House?
Yes. But only if there is a God. And He is kind.