American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Reid's name already checked on ballots in Nevada.

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/25511115/detail.html

[QUOTE=Toymann;413443]If my GOP boys get to 50 I'm in the money at madahos! Fear not Esten, I am actually predicting 51-49 for my team. Boxer looks like she is history after Obomanation was done in California. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Bzzzzzzzz! With Biden a 50:50 Senate is in effect a Democratic Senate.

Mitch McConnell's comment on Obama was widely covered today, on CNN, Yahoo and others. What does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believe the most important thing is? Is it jobs? The economy? The deficit? Healthcare? Immigration?

Nope. In an interview with National Journal, he said:
[b][i]"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. " [/i][/b]

Every time I hear this guy open his mouth he sounds cranky, bitter and inflexible. Now he comes out with this. Unbelievable! This quote will not soon be forgotten.

WH bristles over top Republicans' remarks.
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/wh-bristles-over-top-republicans-remarks/?npt=NP1[/url]

Even his home state Kentucky:
Mitch McConnell under fire for saying top priority is making Obama one-term president.
[url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/1008/rss01[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten;413472]Bzzzzzzzz! With Biden a 50:50 Senate is in effect a Democratic Senate.[/QUOTE]You are starting to stress my brother. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

That way you won't always be so far off the mark.

[QUOTE=Esten; 413473]Mitch McConnell's comment on Obama was widely covered today, on CNN, Yahoo and others. What does Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believe the most important thing is? Is it jobs? The economy? The deficit? Healthcare? Immigration?

Nope. In an interview with National Journal, he said:

[b][i]"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. " [/i][/b][/quote]Judging by the overwhelming asskicking that the Dems are likely to take next Tuesday, I'd say a plurality of the country is with him on that.

So, let me get this straight. He is an idiot for making a statement that you find objectionable, however more than 50% of the US voting public agrees with the statement. Me thinks you don't know so much about politics.

[quote=]Every time I hear this guy open his mouth he sounds cranky, bitter and inflexible. Now he comes out with this.[/quote]Sounds like the cacophony of birds singing at daybreak as Spring unveils itself. When hope springs eternal and change is afoot.

[quote=]Unbelievable! This quote will not soon be forgotten.[/quote]I sure as shit hope not. They need to shut down the money printing presses and send Obama back to Chicago or Cuba or wherever he chooses to retire.

If he set up residency in Bs As, he could run here.

[quote=]WH bristles over top Republicans' remarks.

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/wh-bristles-over-top-republicans-remarks/?npt=NP1[/url][/quote]


What a shock. The WH bristles when the opposition states that they want to defeat them. Well, here you have it. First time in politics the opposition has clearly stated its opposition to the entrenched powers.

[quote=]Even his home state Kentucky:

Mitch McConnell under fire for saying top priority is making Obama one-term president.

[url]http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101026/NEWS01/310260081/1008/rss01[/url][/QUOTE]


OK, do you really think that if there is an article taking issue with a statement (could be anyone's statement) that the statement is therefore invalidated? If so, every phony thing Obama has ever uttered has been invalidated because I can come up with at least one article opposing every thing he has said.

Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413489]Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day.[/QUOTE]You go with what you've got. Esten can be thanked for consistently leading with his chin. My only objection to this is that it implies that the arguments were less weak before, but I agree with you: Just when you thought they couldn't get any weaker, he posts links to articles saying that the White House bristles at these comments, and Democrats take issue with the notion that their boy will be a one-term president. Now there's news.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen his quote splashed all over the headlines. I wish we did. The majority of the American public want Obama and the Democrats stopped in their tracks. Knowing that Republicans support that agenda may be obvious to most, but getting that headline out there might get a bunch more Independents, who may not have been paying attention, to the voting booths where they can show that they concur.

The notion that Obama should be stopped, and that his agenda should fail, is hardly controversial. Likewise, the idea that this is Priority #1 is no surprise: Stop Obama, Dems and their agenda and you can get the economy back on track; fail, and we're in for more of the same. Likely voters have been expressing this in polls for the better part of a year, and they'll express it in voting booths in six days. It's akin to Juan Williams' statement that Muslim-clad passengers make him worry when he's on a plane. Most people think the same. But the PC Left bristles when someone puts voice to their own private thoughts. According to the Left, you can think it; you just can't say it. Same with the comments on Obama, but in six days, they'll find out that the majority of the voting public doesn't agree with them.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413495]Unfortunately, we haven't seen his quote splashed all over the headlines. I wish we did.[/quote]I believe that the selective coverage of that statement is due to the fact that if it were widely disseminated (Esten, that means spread all around to all the people) it might very well set a fire that the media (always on the look out to protect BHO) doesn't not want to risk touching off. That is, "if America is so sick of BHO's agenda that it will through democrats out of legislative office as if they were used banana peels, are they ready to cast off BHO? "

You never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. If you already know the answer and you don't like the answer, you sure as shit aren't going to ask the question.

[quote=] The majority of the American public want Obama and the Democrats stopped in their tracks. Knowing that Republicans support that agenda may be obvious to most, but getting that headline out there might get a bunch more Independents, who may not have been paying attention, to the voting booths where they can show that they concur.[/quote]Agreed. America wants BHO and the Dems stopped. They (majority of Americans) also know that their opportunity to term limit BHO to one term is in two years, not next week.

[quote=]The notion that Obama should be stopped, and that his agenda should fail, is hardly controversial.[/quote]Agreed. Quite the contrary issues like socialized medicine, cap and tax and immigration reform (I. E. Mint 20 million new democrat voters) are very controversial, which is plain to see in how they played out. Steadfast Republican opposition to Obama is not controversial at all, it is expected. If the voters don't get it (I. E. Strong opposition to Obama, the freshly minted republicans will get shown the door too.

[quote=] Likewise, the idea that this is Priority #1 is no surprise: Stop Obama, Dems and their agenda and you can get the economy back on track; fail, and we're in for more of the same. Likely voters have been expressing this in polls for the better part of a year, and they'll express it in voting booths in six days. It's akin to Juan Williams' statement that Muslim-clad passengers make him worry when he's on a plane. Most people think the same. But the PC Left bristles when someone puts voice to their own private thoughts. According to the Left, you can think it; you just can't say it. Same with the comments on Obama, but in six days, they'll find out that the majority of the voting public doesn't agree with them.[/QUOTE]Amen

Ok, let's get a couple of things straight. First, I believe that EK was a disastrous nomination to the SC, not only is she wholly without qualification, she is a life long political hack. Second, I am not a proponent of the death penalty as employed by the US criminal justice system (that doesn't make me soft on crime. Thirdly, I do not believe in judicial activism, even if the issue at hand is one to which I could be sympathetic.

However, EK got to opine on her first ever SC case which is on an absolutely flatulent (full of stinky air) issue. The question was whether or not one of the drugs used for lethal injection was safe. This was completely made up argument. The now deceased dirtbag's attorneys saw an opportunity to create a false argument because the US manufacturer stopped making it so the state of AZ had to buy it from a UK company.

"A judge had put the execution on hold because she said she was "left to speculate" whether this drug was safe for its intended use. "

WTF? Safe for its intended use? Hello? They are using it to kill him. So what if it has side effects? So long as one of the side effects isn't reincarnation or resuscitation, how the f-k could it matter?

[QUOTE=Esten; 411380]LOL. There's no additional risk for me beyond what I was ready to accept. I pay if Republicans win both chambers.

But you substantially cut your risk. Instead of paying if Republicans don't win [I]both[/i] Chambers, you now only pay if Republicans don't win [I]any[/i] Chamber. If you had real conviction you would accept the wager I proposed. I think you wussed out. [/QUOTE]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413518]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above. [/QUOTE]When is the exact measurement?

I still hold that there will be 52 republicans in the senate come Wednesday (theoretically of course since they won't be seated Wednesday.

However, there are two potential converts to the republican party that could convert to republicanism. They are of course Lieberman and Nelson (Ben of Nebraska. Either could be lured by the trappings of the ruling party. However, both are extremely unlikely to switch to the republican party. Nelson is more conservative than Lieberman, however, he was the final vote for Obamacare. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he could get through a Republican primary in order to retain his seat. Likewise, Lieberman, while able to get himself reelected as an independent happens to reside in CT which is full of self-loathing rich people who rather than actually doing something to make life better for others, they donate to liberals to make themselves feel better about their vapid existances.

I don't see any conversions post election, unless either Nelson or Lieberman decides to retire following the end of their current terms.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413518]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above. [/QUOTE]Fair point. And easy. You go by the Senate rules as to who holds power.

That's why you see all the stories saying Republicans need 10 seats (to 51) to take control of the Senate.

As far as timing, I would say as soon as all the Senate races are deemed decided. That might not be next week though, if some of the races are as close as the polls say.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413518]Esten and Toyman,

Question regarding your bet:

There are two Independents in the Senate, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT. Neither is up for re-election.

Who wins the bet if there end up being 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents?

Just thought you guys ought to sort this out in advance. I've requoted the post memorializing the bet, above. [/QUOTE]I win both ties. And more GOP whatever the number. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Toymann;413524]I win both ties. And more GOP whatever the number. Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]One small detail, you need both sides to agree for there to be a valid bet.

My bet is strictly about who holds power in each chamber. If you don't agree then bets are off.... I already let you get away with a watered down bet, now you want me to go along with giving you a win even if the Senate is considered to remain controlled by Dems? LOL You are getting desperate for your prize! Make the honorable bet Toymann, you know its all about who holds the power.

P.S. My original statement was "I pay if Republicans win both chambers." That's what you agreed to. A win means in control.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413489]OK, do you really think that if there is an article taking issue with a statement (could be anyone's statement) that the statement is therefore invalidated? If so, every phony thing Obama has ever uttered has been invalidated because I can come up with at least one article opposing every thing he has said.

Come on Esten, you're arguments are getting weaker by the day. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413495]

You go with what you've got. Esten can be thanked for consistently leading with his chin. My only objection to this is that it implies that the arguments were less weak before, but I agree with you: Just when you thought they couldn't get any weaker, he posts links to articles saying that the White House bristles at these comments, and Democrats take issue with the notion that their boy will be a one-term president. Now there's news. [/QUOTE]Let's see, first Walleye makes up an imaginary argument I never made (that McConnell's statement was somehow 'invalidated'). And then states the imaginary argument he invented is weak.

Then Stan jumps in in agreement.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[QUOTE=Esten; 413525]One small detail, you need both sides to agree for there to be a valid bet.

My bet is strictly about who holds power in each chamber. If you don't agree then bets are off. I already let you get away with a watered down bet, now you want me to go along with giving you a win even if the Senate is considered to remain controlled by Dems? LOL You are getting desperate for your prize! Make the honorable bet Toymann, you know its all about who holds the power.

P. S. My original statement was "I pay if Republicans win both chambers. " That's what you agreed to. A win means in control. [/QUOTE]I am a little confused. More GOP than Dems would mean control. YES? I also asked long ago that a 50-50 tie went to me as your team WAS IN CONTROL.59-41. Please clarify for all to see.

Happy Mongering All,

Toymann