Dems will keep the House and Senate
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Peace only comes through the complete and total destruction of one side by the other. The Democrats need to prepare for that.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Demodummies dug their own grave.
Eh; unless there is something else big going on, people pretty much vote their wallets.
Good Luck
New member
That is the assumption that caused 1994 to be such a big surprise to the party in power. A lot of people vote on other issues even when they are not in the forefront, probably because when it comes to their wallets, they see little practical difference between the two parties.
'94 was about healthcare.
This year, voters are voting the economy. There really is no other issue.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Meh, its going to be an uphill battle for Rossi. The fact that Murray is the "dumb one" of WA's senators is his major asset.
I'd say a guy like AG Rob McKenna taking the governorship in 2012 is much more likely. Then again, he's currently the most popular R in the state...
hotdog
Victory Shall Be Mine
Washington needs someone who cares about energy security getting elected to the Senate. The same as every other state in the U.S. America needs to invest more money in renewable/nuclear energy then China.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Anybody talking about less taxes and smaller government doesn't even have a nodding acquaintance with reality. For one thing, the government can't shrink while the population is growing. For another, the fucking Tee Shirts only want smaller government and fiscal restraint when it involves policing the crooks in the business world. Shit-for-brains Rand Paul thinks there is such a thing as a self regulating market. He probably believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin, as well, but has some how failed to notice that every single instance of deregulation has NOT resulted in more competition, but less, and not less fraud, but more. All this has a deleterious effect on our economy, and bears a significant cost. Meanwhile, the Teabaggers want abortion banned in all cases, including rape, and they want to expand the already bullshit War on Terror to be an even more bullshit War on Islam. Do these mouth-breathers realize that it's going to cost more, not less, if the government is going to be in the business of guaranteeing that every pregnancy results in a live birth? Have they even thought about the costs, both in treasure and in blood of starting a holy war with Islam? Who the fuck starts a holy war in the 21st Century, anyway? What kind of lamebrain still claims the President is not a citizen and a Muslim, as if the former hadn't been shot down by every federal court in which it has landed (a very conservative SCOTUS allowed to stand a $20,000 fine to Orly Taitz for wasting the court systems time and resources with her bogus birther claims), and as if the latter was even relevant (US Constitution,Article VI, paragraph 3: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.")
God back in schools? 37 states NEVER had school prayer.
Christian Nation? The Founders didn't think so. The Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 made the following unequivocal statement: " Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Italics mine). This treaty was read aloud to the Senate in its entirety. The Senate, which at that time counted 7 signers of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution among its members, ratified the treaty unanimously, and President John Adams, also a founder, signed it. Back we go to the text of Article VI of the Constitution (paragraph 2 this time): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Anybody not understand how the above makes us an officially secular nation? If you don't, you have no business discussing American politics. Or voting.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. Population has nothing to do with it. Limit government to its Constitutionally mandated enumerated powers, and it will shrink to less than half of its current size.
2. Why do you cite the draft treaty? The final doesn't have that language.
Personally, I’d like to see more liberals elected. . IMO, that’s a better outcome than electing more republicans. And I’d like to do away with the overt and unprecedented abuse of the senate filibuster. Do we need more Bernie Sanders….or more Rand Pauls? To me it’s a no-brainer. Although, there’s little doubt that Dems are going to get wiped out because the economy sucks and also for acting more like Ben Nelson democrats rather than FDR democrats.
The democrats never exercised a super majority because the GOP in an unprecedented way required a 60 vote majority for virtually anything of consequence. And unlike Bush’s first term in office, where he was able to get bi-partisan votes from Democrats on significant legislation, the GOP strategy after January 2009 was to deny Obama even one single republican vote on any major legislation, in an effort to make governance impossible.
I haven’t forgotten that republicans in the 1990s used their congressional majority, first and foremost, to try to destroy a competent and relatively popular Democratic president with non-stop investigations into blowjobs, and a plethora of phony scandals about Hillary murdering Vince Foster, Travel Office gate, FBI file gate. If the republicans get a congressional majority expect to see non-stop witchhunts into Obama’s birth certificate and/or other blatant nonsense. Rightwing talk radio and the GOP media have convinced - according to polls - what, about half (?) of republicans and teabaggers that Obama isn't actually an american, and is indeed some sort of fourth-columnist Kenyan marxist. Teabaggers are going to want to see blood, if they get their rightwing nut jobs elected to congress.
With a republican majority, you won’t see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed, you won’t see a single effort to pass legislation to bypass the SCOTUS ruling on citizens united, you won’t see any legislation on climate change, you might even see a return to the GOP’s tried-and-true practice of trying to introduce constitutional bans on gay marriage and flag burning. This isn’t a well guarded secret. Modern republicans have never shown any sustained interest in health care, civil rights, environment, or efforts to empower the middle class…. to the extent republicans are interested in legislation, their only focus is on deregulation, and tax cuts overwhelmingly benefiting corporate multinationals and the rich. In other words, on balance, they want to return to the policies of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. That shouldn’t surprise anyone.
We’re now seeing the final results of 30 years of reaganomics come to complete fruition. Deregulation, income inequality approaching that of the third world, and policies that are designed intentionally by conservatives and their blue dog democrat enablers to disenfranchise the middle class. This isn’t the mid 1990s when our problems were relatively mild. There’s a sh*tload of problems that need to be addressed, that won’t be addressed by electing teabagger republicans. Economic and social problems of this scale and nature have pretty much always been addressed with progressive policies, from Teddy Roosevelt, to FDR, to LBJ. That’s pretty much a historical fact.
Jefferson, Madison, and the "wall of separation"
The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[13][14] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[15] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference. As he stated:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter[16] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7, 1801. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
The phrase "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, the founder of the colony of Rhode Island, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[13][14] The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter[15] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference. As he stated:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Jefferson's letter was in reply to a letter[16] that he had received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7, 1801. In an 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson would use the same theme:
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I'm shocked that a treaty with Tripoli would not throw the Holy Bible in the faces of those damn Muslims!!!
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Population has nothing to do with the size of the government? Really?? So Denmark and China have the same expenditures? Put the crack pipe dpwn.
The draft treaty? What the fuck are you talking about? That wasn't a "draft treaty" whatever the hell that is. That was the ratified, signed treaty, negotiated by Joel Barlow, signed in Tripoli on November 4, 1796, ratified unanimously by the Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by John Adams on June 10, 1797. That treaty was in force for four years until it was broken by the Pasha of Tripoli in 1801 because he wanted increased tribute payments and Thomas Jefferson refused to accede to his demands. A second treaty was negotiated and signed in 1805, after the US Marines kicked ass and took names in the First Barbary War. The second treaty did not have Article 11, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the inclusion of that article in the first t reaty, and its unanimous ratification clearly shows that the religious right's claims that the founders based the nation on the Christian religion are false, and since that article was never repealed by the Senate, it remains a part of the supreme law of the land. Draft treaty, my ass.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. You've created a straw man argument. Again, reduce the federal government to its Constitutionally mandated powers, and the size of the government will decrease dramatically. Do you deny this?
2. It was replaced, therefor the first one may be considered a draft. Thomas Jefferson clearly didn't care for Article 11.