What If Scenario: 2014 Dems Take House and 60+ Seats in Senate?

[Redfish]

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

your point is-------------------?

...that the "will of the people" and $3.59 might get you a small coffee at Starbucks, but it takes a lot more green and influence to shape the geopolitical landscape; and the real power brokers in this country (I.E. those who buy and sell politicians and lawmakers on a regular basis) have an uncanny knack for imposing their wills on the masses.

valid point, but I don't think the influence is as great as you imagine. I spent over 40 years in the "evil military industrial complex" and I can assure you that defence contractors do not control the government.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's my dream scenario, because revolution would follow soon after.

Same scenario if Republicans took house, 60+Senate and executive.

The revolution might take an extra year or so, since my Libertarians and Constitutionalists will tolerate fascism under a Republican regime for a little longer than Dems (who admit they are totalitarian).

 

[kwc57]

I hope Rafael (Cruz) & his TPM buddies in the House shut down the gov't

So, you right wingers are good with having your social security, V.A., and disability benefits cut off? Because I certainly am.

I know I'm not a right winger and I don't think dot.com is either. I'm actually hoping the TPM come to their senses. But I doubt it happens.

It's not really about Obamacare per se. The law may be more good than bad, though I'm not a fan. But the real issue is the TPM simply do not believe that revenue should be raised to provide healthcare to those who don't have it. That's not gonna win any natl elections. It makes the gop the defacto opposition party, with no ability to lead, and every intention of derailing anything the majority party does. It's unhealthy for society to have that inability to compromise.

Unless you're one of the poor suckers who is rowing the boat for all the pleasure cruisers. There are those of us who find those candidates appealing and will vote for them in a heartbeat.

 

[francoHFW]

What a crappy citizen you are, 2A- change the channel, hater dupe...

The GOP has blocked everything, Commiefish, duh.

 

[Redfish]

What a crappy citizen you are, 2A- change the channel, hater dupe...

The GOP has blocked everything, Commiefish, duh.

Idiot!. they can't block anything, they control one house of congress, the dems have the senate and the POTUS.

If they could have blocked anything they would have blocked the terrible legislation called ACA, but they could not because they did not have the numbers, and still don't.

you are a victim of MSM and administration liars---------they are lying to you frankie, every day they are lying to you and you suck up the lies like a hungry piglet at the sows teat.

 

[francoHFW]

What a crappy citizen you are, 2A- change the channel, hater dupe...

The GOP has blocked everything, Commiefish, duh.

Idiot!. they can't block anything, they control one house of congress, the dems have the senate and the POTUS.

If they could have blocked anything they would have blocked the terrible legislation called ACA, but they could not because they did not have the numbers, and still don't.

you are a victim of MSM and administration liars---------they are lying to you frankie, every day they are lying to you and you suck up the lies like a hungry piglet at the sows teat.

The Pubs have had a filibuster or the House except for less than 6 months, 7/7/2010 till 2/4/2010, stupid- do you need a diagram.... Ay caramba...

 

[Vox]

That's my dream scenario, because revolution would follow soon after.

Same scenario if Republicans took house, 60+Senate and executive.

The revolution might take an extra year or so, since my Libertarians and Constitutionalists will tolerate fascism under a Republican regime for a little longer than Dems (who admit they are totalitarian).

it shows that you are very young.

the revolution is the WORST case scenario.

All revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels.
Thomas Carlyle

 

[Rozman]

That is just too scary to contemplate......

 

[Capstone]

valid point, but I don't think the influence is as great as you imagine. I spent over 40 years in the "evil military industrial complex" and I can assure you that defence contractors do not control the government.

With all due respect, I'd feel a lot better about your assurance in the absence of stories like this.

[. . .]Wednesday's 10-7 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supporting an authorization of military attacks on Syria may have been affected by varying levels of financial support the senators got from political action committees representing the defense industry, and from the companies' employees.

On average, a 'yes'-voting senator received 83 percent more money from defense contractors than one who voted 'no. [...][emphasis Capstone's]

Shoring up my cynicism WRT the illusion that party affiliation matters:

[. . .]The phenomenon crossed party lines. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three Republicans to vote in the affirmative, collected the largest amount – $176,300 – for his campaigns. The next largest numbers belonged to Democrats, including $127,350 given to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and $101,025 given to Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

All three voted yes.

As I'm confident you're aware, though, the defense industry is only one of a number of snakes in the den of vipers influencing lawmakers and policies (foreign and domestic) in Washington DC.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's my dream scenario, because revolution would follow soon after.

Same scenario if Republicans took house, 60+Senate and executive.

The revolution might take an extra year or so, since my Libertarians and Constitutionalists will tolerate fascism under a Republican regime for a little longer than Dems (who admit they are totalitarian).

it shows that you are very young.

the revolution is the WORST case scenario.

All revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels.
Thomas Carlyle

[MENTION=44192]Vox[/MENTION]
So you'd prefer slavery to the Progressive/Neo-con hybrid under neo-feudalism, rather than attempting to use your 2nd Amendment right to Restore the Rule of Law?

Were the fruits of the American Revolution stolen by scoundrels (not including Alexander Hamilton)?
Was 1776 fought by fanatics?
Was 1776 conceived by ordinary honest men, or ivory tower intellectuals?

This quote only applies to NWO orchestrated revolutions, like Lenin/Stalin/Mao and the like.

If there's ever going to by a time to Restore the Rule of Law, the sooner the better.

 

[Vox]

That's my dream scenario, because revolution would follow soon after.

Same scenario if Republicans took house, 60+Senate and executive.

The revolution might take an extra year or so, since my Libertarians and Constitutionalists will tolerate fascism under a Republican regime for a little longer than Dems (who admit they are totalitarian).

it shows that you are very young.

the revolution is the WORST case scenario.

All revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels.
Thomas Carlyle

[MENTION=44192]Vox[/MENTION]
So you'd prefer slavery to the Progressive/Neo-con hybrid under neo-feudalism, rather than attempting to use your 2nd Amendment right to Restore the Rule of Law?

Were the fruits of the American Revolution stolen by scoundrels (not including Alexander Hamilton)?
Was 1776 fought by fanatics?
Was 1776 conceived by ordinary honest men, or ivory tower intellectuals?

1776 was NOT a revolution per it's definition.

Americans from the cradle are notorious for misusing the correct terminology and it still continues ( can't stand the misuse of the term liberal or socialism)

The war for Independence was NOT a revolution.

At the very same time on the other side of the puddle the real revolution was taking place ( not by exact dates, but American war for Independence wasn't an overnight battle as well) and it was an example of the Carlyle quote. So were all other European revolutions. And not only European, but for the convenience we'll consider only them.

Americans were fighting the soldiers not slaughtering civilians - do you understand the difference?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If the Dims take the House and retain the Senate, then what I've been saying for a long time is proven true.
Today most Americans want cradle to grave nanny-state entitlements including more, not less of Obamacare, and as much government regulation on virtually everything as they can get.
Most then obviously also want amnesty, and are ready to give up much of their gun rights.
Also most would obviously want the coal, oil, and natural gas industries to die.

In short, the majority obviously would want what once made America the greatest force in the world, to die a slow death, and just be like any other pussy-ass nanny euroweenie country.

 

[Claudette]

Not to discount the ongoing covert war against Syria that's been funded and carried out under the table on Obama's watch, but it seems far more probable to me that there will be an overt operation in Syria, most likely in the future aftermath of another ill-conceived (but better thought out) false provocation.

Given his own statements, President Obama wouldn't have felt compelled to seek Congressional approval in the first place, had the attack of August 21 fulfilled certain criteria.

All we've been giving to the rebels has been humanitarian aid, boots and uniforms- NOW we're giving arms to the good rebels.TRY WATCHING SOME REAL NEWS WITH ACTUAL JOURNALISTS ON SITE...

He would have done it without congress, but probably not without the Brits...

Yeah, helping the "rebels" worked so well for us in Lybia and Egypt But I guess obama's goal is to have the muslim brotherhood in charge of every country in the mid east.


Other than regime change, which you libtards alwasy accuse Bush and Reagan of, we have no business in Syria's civil war. The USA has no vital interest in who runs syria, because not matter who comes out on top, they will be controlled by Russia and Iran.

I agree.

We have no business in Syria. Syria means nothing to the US. Let em all kill each other for my money.

As for Francoass?? Yup. He's a biased fucking idiot. One I doubt would like to pay the taxes that he will be paying if the Dems win the whole deal next election cycle.

Believe me his tune will change if the Dems hold the WH, House and Senate. The Dems never met a tax they didn't want more of.

 

[Redfish]

valid point, but I don't think the influence is as great as you imagine. I spent over 40 years in the "evil military industrial complex" and I can assure you that defence contractors do not control the government.

With all due respect, I'd feel a lot better about your assurance in the absence of stories like this.

[. . .]Wednesday's 10-7 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supporting an authorization of military attacks on Syria may have been affected by varying levels of financial support the senators got from political action committees representing the defense industry, and from the companies' employees.

On average, a 'yes'-voting senator received 83 percent more money from defense contractors than one who voted 'no. [...][emphasis Capstone's]

Shoring up my cynicism WRT the illusion that party affiliation matters:

[. . .]The phenomenon crossed party lines. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three Republicans to vote in the affirmative, collected the largest amount – $176,300 – for his campaigns. The next largest numbers belonged to Democrats, including $127,350 given to Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and $101,025 given to Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

All three voted yes.

As I'm confident you're aware, though, the defense industry is only one of a number of snakes in the den of vipers influencing lawmakers and policies (foreign and domestic) in Washington DC.

Sorry, but my years of working with DC has caused me to believe that corporatism, NWO, Cabals, and evil rich jooooooooooz, are figments of the imagination of fiction writers (and some journalists).

Its fun to think that there is some mysterious group of super elites meeting in the basement of a bank in Zurich making decisions that control the world------but its fantasy.

 

[Capstone]

Sorry, but my years of working with DC has caused me to believe that corporatism, NWO, Cabals, and evil rich jooooooooooz, are figments of the imagination of fiction writers (and some journalists). [...]

I'm not sure whose argument you're alluding to there, but apart from the data used to expose the Senators mentioned in the article in my previous post (sourced here -- there's nothing fictitious or nefariously journalistic about raw facts and numbers, Redfish) , here's a fairly recent case-study (published in the Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 25, No. 401, 2009) of the return potential for corporate lobbying expenditures.

In this paper we use audited corporate tax disclosures relating to a tax holiday on repatriated earnings created by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to examine the return on lobbying. We find firms lobbying for this provision have a return in excess of $220 for every $1 spent on lobbying, or 22,000%. Repatriating firms are more profitable overall, but surprisingly, profitability is not a predictor of repatriation amount. Rather, industry and firm size are most predictive of repatriation. Cash on hand, a proxy for ability to repatriate, is not associated with the repatriation decision or the repatriation amount. This paper provides compelling evidence that lobbying expenditures have a positive and significant return on investment.[emphasis Capstone's]

It also provides compelling evidence that lobbying is an amazingly effective means of influencing legislators and regulatory bodies for the expressed purpose of increasing profits for multinational corporations (supposed repatriation incentives notwithstanding -- *wink wink*).

To say nothing of the influence of certain other 'special interest' lobbyist groups ...or the goddamned FED, although there's plenty to be said on all counts based solely on the reported facts and numbers.

But listen, despite my relative youth, I'm not so naive as to imagine that I could ever change the mind of someone as experienced as you, so if you don't mind, I won't bother anymore.

 

[rightwinger]

2014? I don't think so

The Senate cycle favors the Republicans. In 2016 all the seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 are up for grabs.
They still have their filibustered House majority. But that majority can be eroded in 2014 and overrided in 2016 if Hillary can turn out the Democratic vote

What changes will we see if Democrats gain further control?

1. Improvements to Obamacare
2. Immigration reform with worker VISAs and a path to citizenship
3. More balanced energy policy
4. Global warming initiatives
5. A liberal Supreme Court
6. Reasonable gun controls

 

[kwc57]

2014? I don't think so

The Senate cycle favors the Republicans. In 2016 all the seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 are up for grabs.
They still have their filibustered House majority. But that majority can be eroded in 2014 and overrided in 2016 if Hillary can turn out the Democratic vote

What changes will we see if Democrats gain further control?

1. Improvements to Obamacare
2. Immigration reform with worker VISAs and a path to citizenship
3. More balanced energy policy
4. Global warming initiatives
5. A liberal Supreme Court
6. Reasonable gun controls

Hillary? Seriously? Screwing the pooch on the 3 AM call and then stating "what does it matter" are the albatross around her neck. Regardless of how much the party loyalists will defend her, those are her Weiner selfies that will be her undoing. She is unelectable in a national election.

 

[rightwinger]

2014? I don't think so

The Senate cycle favors the Republicans. In 2016 all the seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 are up for grabs.
They still have their filibustered House majority. But that majority can be eroded in 2014 and overrided in 2016 if Hillary can turn out the Democratic vote

What changes will we see if Democrats gain further control?

1. Improvements to Obamacare
2. Immigration reform with worker VISAs and a path to citizenship
3. More balanced energy policy
4. Global warming initiatives
5. A liberal Supreme Court
6. Reasonable gun controls

Hillary? Seriously? Screwing the pooch on the 3 AM call and then stating "what does it matter" are the albatross around her neck. Regardless of how much the party loyalists will defend her, those are her Weiner selfies that will be her undoing. She is unelectable in a national election.

Lets be serious

THESE Republicans have no chance of beating Hillary (or any other Democrat) in 2016

 

[Redfish]

2014? I don't think so

The Senate cycle favors the Republicans. In 2016 all the seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 are up for grabs.
They still have their filibustered House majority. But that majority can be eroded in 2014 and overrided in 2016 if Hillary can turn out the Democratic vote

What changes will we see if Democrats gain further control?

1. Improvements to Obamacare
2. Immigration reform with worker VISAs and a path to citizenship
3. More balanced energy policy
4. Global warming initiatives
5. A liberal Supreme Court
6. Reasonable gun controls

Hillary? Seriously? Screwing the pooch on the 3 AM call and then stating "what does it matter" are the albatross around her neck. Regardless of how much the party loyalists will defend her, those are her Weiner selfies that will be her undoing. She is unelectable in a national election.

Lets be serious

THESE Republicans have no chance of beating Hillary (or any other Democrat) in 2016

1. the only way to improve it is to repeal it and start over
2. why do you want to legalize criminals who violated our borders and our laws? Why shit on the people who immigrated here legally?
3. WTF does that mean? less coal and oil and more wasted money on solar adventures?
4. global warming is a hoax. we have already wasted enough money on that lie
5. liberal SCOTUS? welcome to the united states of Karl Marx
6. we already have reasonable gun control. what we need is reasonable mental health control.

RW, I seriously suggest that you spend some time in Cuba, they are practicing all of the things that you advocate

 

[Redfish]

2014? I don't think so

The Senate cycle favors the Republicans. In 2016 all the seats the Republicans picked up in 2010 are up for grabs.
They still have their filibustered House majority. But that majority can be eroded in 2014 and overrided in 2016 if Hillary can turn out the Democratic vote

What changes will we see if Democrats gain further control?

1. Improvements to Obamacare
2. Immigration reform with worker VISAs and a path to citizenship
3. More balanced energy policy
4. Global warming initiatives
5. A liberal Supreme Court
6. Reasonable gun controls

Hillary? Seriously? Screwing the pooch on the 3 AM call and then stating "what does it matter" are the albatross around her neck. Regardless of how much the party loyalists will defend her, those are her Weiner selfies that will be her undoing. She is unelectable in a national election.

Lets be serious

THESE Republicans have no chance of beating Hillary (or any other Democrat) in 2016

lets be serious, even the DNC is not dumb enough to run Hillary. She will not be your candidate. Maybe you can run Al Sharpton.