Another heated election...

[DjfunkmasterG]

It seems that we are in the midst of another heated election here in the USA. The race for Senate has some very hot races including the Senate seat up for grabs in Virginia. The democrats are in need to two seats to become the majority in the senate, and late last night they swept the election for control of congress.

I guess it could be at least a day or so before we are able to find out what happens with the senate especially the seat in Virginia

[MinionZombie]

Was watching a bit of one of the news channels here in the UK last night (which seem to have grinded to a halt to talk about nothing but another country's political system :lol:), and someone was saying how that only twice before has the power not swung from one party to another, during the mid-terms. Is this the case, apparently one of the two times it didn't swing was during Bush's first term?

Excuse my ignorance/chinese whisper style misunderstanding from something I heard on TV if that's wrong, but just thought I'd add that anyway.

Kinda weird how, lately, American and British politics are kinda in-synch.

Nobody thought Bush-o would get back into power, yet he did. Nobody really believed Blair and his f*ck-up-brigade could get back in (as they've historically not managed that 3rd term hat-trick) but they did. Then this year's local elections in the UK grabbed away a shedload of power from Labour and handed out a considerable chunk to the Conservative Party (potentially the next government, and *fingers crossed* they will be). Now in America with your similar mid-term elections the balance of power is likewise shifting.

I was thinking last night about the Republicans and Democrats, would it be a fair observation that perhaps with the two political parties in America that there isn't really much center ground/center right/center left representation? The Republicans appear to be very right wing (all this anti-gay stuff and combination of church & state) and the Democrats appear to be very left wing (all these celebrities hopping on the bandwagon and such).

That's just how it seems/looks/appears to me sitting across the pond anyway...thoughts?

[DjfunkmasterG]

MZ, There are some moderate republicans and democrats. However, yes the majority either swing way left, or way right. The problem you have is when one party controls something for two long everything goes haywire. This happened when the democrats were in control back in the Reagan years through Clinton's 1st term. When the republicans took over it was a time for change. However, like the democrat led houose 12 years ago the republicans buried themselves in scandal after scandal, and pretty much pulled the same antics they capaigned against 12 years ago which allowed them to win control.

Right now the Democrats won control of Congress as of this election, the Senate is still undecided, but will likely remain republican controlled. Word around the campire in Texas is Pres/ Bush is none to happy that his party lost total control of congress and is teetering on losing the senate as well. The american people spoke up and now we just have to see where it takes us.

[MinionZombie]

Seems to be par-for-the-course with governments, they only last a finite amount of time before descending into scandal and in-fighting.

It happened in the dying years of the old Conservative government (they kicked out Thatcher and brought in John "the incredibly grey man" Major and that was the end of them, especially with the Prime Minister shagging someone who wasn't his wife.

Ironically, the current deputy prime minister John Prescott, slagged off Major and co for being sleazy and have affairs ... Prescott recently went through the mangler, however, for shagging his secreteries - with the door wide open. The sleaze generated by the Labour government has eclipsed that of the dying days of the Conservatives in the early 1990s. It's hilarious to watch a party you despise crumble.

All governments end up in chaos and sleaze and whatnot, the power goes to their heads and that's the end of that - time for a change, which ultimately leads the same bollocks - but at least that change works for a while and changes the slate. Roll on said change for the UK as well!

So, not really knowing what Congress is, does the Democrats now being in "control" of that make it harder for Bush and co to pass new laws and such?

[Arcades057]

MZ, correct. It will make things more difficult for him, but not insurmountably so. They, the Republicans, will have to make deals with the Democrats now, rather than just trying to force things through. Basically it means things just might ground to a halt in Washington. The Dems have shown that they do not want to work with Mr. Bush on anything except things that they, the Dems, want.

Will things change following this election? Not so much. One party loses control of the House, Nancy Pelosi is now Speaker, thus being third in line to the Presidency but I doubt they will try anything new. Bush has two years left, but the only logical person running against the next Republican candidate is Hillary Clinton, and unless she tries to pull a Hillary-Bill ticket, I doubt she'll even get 30% of the vote.

If the Dems controlled both the House and Senate, it might make some difference. As it is, they won quite a good number of well-deserved seats, but not enough, I don't think, to actually change the way things are.

With all of the so-called and true BS circulating about the Republicans prior to the election, it's a wonder they didn't scoop the whole thing. And I got a bit teary eyed when Lieberman won. Apparently not all Dems have gone south of sanity.

[dmbfanintn]

The Dems have shown that they do not want to work with Mr. Bush on anything except things that they, the Dems, want.



Um, OK, and when have the Rethugs ever shown any willingness to work with the Dems?

THAT door is locked from both sides, even I can admit that! That comment is very one sided and suggests that the Rethugs actually DO work with the dems occasionally, you know as well as I do, that couldn't be further from the truth!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Not every representative in the republican party was being sly or involved in scandle, there fore there was no reason to oust those not involved. We just needed to get rid of those whom sought to be above the law.


Once we grab the senate, which it looks like Virginia and Montana will be in the DEMS category... We move on to get the asswipe out of the white house. I can already smell the impeachment hearing. The bonfire is being built and they have someone ready to hold ole GW's feet to the fire. :mad: :lol:

THE NEW WORLD HAS BEGUN! :D

[dmbfanintn]

Once we grab the senate, which it looks like Virginia and Montana will be in the DEMS category... We move on to get the asswipe out of the white house. I can already smell the impeachment hearing. The bonfire is being built and they have someone ready to hold ole GW's feet to the fire. :mad: :lol:

THE NEW WORLD HAS BEGUN! :D

As much as I would like to see that happen DJ, Pelosi has already stated that if the D's win, there will not be impeachment articles brought up against W. I believe her.

Are you near the TV this morning? I can't watch from work. What are they saying about Va and Mt?

Are we going to take control of the Senate as well? How does it look right now. Please keep me informed! Thanks buddy!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Cnn.com dude :D

[coma]

Was watching a bit of one of the news channels here in the UK last night (which seem to have grinded to a halt to talk about nothing but another country's political system :lol:), and someone was saying how that only twice before has the power not swung from one party to another, during the mid-terms. Is this the case, apparently one of the two times it didn't swing was during Bush's first term?


What you heard was about two states I think. The States representatives were all Republicans (red state) and all incumbents lost to the democrats. So Now its a "blue" state. Usually some are dems some are GOP (republicans). To have one or the other is unusually. To have the whole state change over is highly unusual.

There is a lot of Right Wing representation. But there is only likewarm Left wing support. Fotgetting celebrities, The state representative Democrats are not particularly left wing. Most are kind of center with liberal leanings. Though the democrats are usually more diverse than the republican party, though the Republican party used to be way more diverse. I don't care what some fat ass radio show shriekers claim. That is the facts. And Im talking repesentatives not citizens. They are usually more grey area.

Until the late 60s Southern Democrats were the most far right wing party section and thats where most of the racists gravitated.

[axlish]

Bush still has the veto option, which he hasn't used yet. The Democrats still need the White House. 2008 just got a little more interesting.

[dmbfanintn]

Cnn.com dude :D

Duh! Of course!

[Zombie-A-GoGo]

Bush still has the veto option, which he hasn't used yet.

Yes he did. Once. To squash the publically popular stem cell research bill. It'll be interesting to see if he starts handing out vetos left and right now like he has been with those damn signing statements--which I'm sure he will. In fact, it'll probably reverse...not a single signing statement for the next two years but hundreds and hundreds of vetos. What a ****head. Anyway...

I figured we'd take the House, but I didn't count of the Senate--which is still "up in the air" at this point, but lead by Dems. I'm sort of concenred. I can't deny that it would feel really good to take the Senate as well, but I wonder how that might hurt our chances of taking the Presidency back in '08. At first, I thought that people will still be feeling the burn of absolute power from the last 6 years...but then, I also thought about how dramatically things have changed just in the last two years since that horrifying and terrible 2004 election. Never know, I guess. I'm not a fan of absolute power, and if I had a choice, I'd want us to have the House (I'd prefer the Senate, but whatchagonnado?), not have the Senate, and get the Executive in '08. The Senate and Exectutive would have been sweet, but oh well. And if we happen to get it all...I doubt I'd cry about it. :D

[Philly_SWAT]

Was watching a bit of one of the news channels here in the UK last night (which seem to have grinded to a halt to talk about nothing but another country's political system :lol:), and someone was saying how that only twice before has the power not swung from one party to another, during the mid-terms. Is this the case, apparently one of the two times it didn't swing was during Bush's first term?

Excuse my ignorance/chinese whisper style misunderstanding from something I heard on TV if that's wrong, but just thought I'd add that anyway.

Kinda weird how, lately, American and British politics are kinda in-synch.

Nobody thought Bush-o would get back into power, yet he did. Nobody really believed Blair and his f*ck-up-brigade could get back in (as they've historically not managed that 3rd term hat-trick) but they did. Then this year's local elections in the UK grabbed away a shedload of power from Labour and handed out a considerable chunk to the Conservative Party (potentially the next government, and *fingers crossed* they will be). Now in America with your similar mid-term elections the balance of power is likewise shifting.

I was thinking last night about the Republicans and Democrats, would it be a fair observation that perhaps with the two political parties in America that there isn't really much center ground/center right/center left representation? The Republicans appear to be very right wing (all this anti-gay stuff and combination of church & state) and the Democrats appear to be very left wing (all these celebrities hopping on the bandwagon and such).

That's just how it seems/looks/appears to me sitting across the pond anyway...thoughts?
I think that why our two countries's political landscapes seem very similiar is for a simple reason. The elite people in this world are in control, not "we the people". The idea of discussion, elections, etc. are just illusions to keep the masses from storming the castle, so to speak. I dont know much about British politics, but over here, it is pretty much the same people in charge all the time. Sure, minor players come and go, but the prime Senators and Congressmen have been around for decades. And even when someone is "voted out of office", they manage to stay around in some capacity, continuing to make a very fine living off of the public teat. I would assume that things are the same over there.

[coma]

. And even when someone is "voted out of office", they manage to stay around in some capacity, continuing to make a very fine living off of the public teat. I would assume that things are the same over there.
They become consultans for the corporations that used to lobby them and flow $$$ to them. Ala Cheney and Haliburton. Though there are LOTS of examples, that one being the most famous.

[MinionZombie]

Interesting you should mention the "making deals" with the Dem's aspect, when we had the general election in 2005, and Labour lost a bunch of seats and the Conservatives regained some ground it put the current, Labour, gubment in a position where they need the votes of the Conservative party to get any big things pushed through ... yet Labour are still insistent on pushing as much garbage through the system as they possibly can, they govern by sledgehammering away in such a scattergun fashion. Even if Britain stood up and said "NO!!!!!!" they'd think we we're all for it. :confused::eek:

Philly - indeed, even though they get booted out from one position, they'll find another, or find a less-public-eye job to work in. They always weasel their way back in, when they "resign" they're just being hired for another job straight away - heck, even if they were out of work for a while they've got plenty of money saved up to rely on. And yep, same here, you'll see a lot of familiar faces hanging around for quite some time, perhaps they become less public as time wears on, but they creep out of the woodwork now and then, sitting in the "back benches" as it's known over here.

[coma]

Interesting you should mention the "making deals" with the Dem's aspect, when we had the general election in 2005, and Labour lost a bunch of seats and the Conservatives regained some ground it put the current, Labour, gubment in a position where they need the votes of the Conservative party to get any big things pushed through ... yet Labour are still insistent on pushing as much garbage through the system as they possibly can, they govern by sledgehammering away in such a scattergun fashion. Even if Britain stood up and said "NO!!!!!!" they'd think we we're all for it. :confused::eek:


Alot of that is pushing laws that one party knows won't get through just so , at next election, say they didn't vote for it and up their own conservative/liberal credentials.

One thing they do here is , say, have a "free money for everyone" law. Everybody wants free money. But one party will attach a ammendment to "kill all the cutest kittens".
When the anti Kitty killers vote against the fine print add on they are ,of course, against "free money" and soft on "free money". That may be a dumb example, but no dumber than most tard o law packagaes. it a big scam insuring nothing good will ever happen

[Adrenochrome]

One thing they do here is , say, have a "free money for everyone" law. Everybody wants free money. But one party will attach a ammendment to "kill all the cutest kittens".
When the anti Kitty killers vote against the fine print add on they are ,of course, against "free money" and soft on "free money". That may be a dumb example, but no dumber than most tard o law packagaes. it a big scam insuring nothing good will ever happen

Not a dumb example at all, that's literally how it works LOL

[MinionZombie]

Aye I saw something like that on The Simpson's - the attaching smaller laws to other laws, which end up f*cking both over - I think that's the most retarded idea I've ever heard of, that is a measure that should be taken out ... although I suppose it could be used for good ... probably...

[7feet]

Mighty handy in appropriations bills.

"I'd like to fund some research, sir."

"Well, okay, but you're going to have to stick some M-80's up really cute kittens asses, and put the pictures on the front page of the Times."

"Uh..."

"C'mon kid, it's politics. Or, if you prefer, we can go back there and I'll stick it..."

Most people who want to run things shouldn't be trusted as a crossing guard.