Fillibuster-proof majority

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Spectre? He's such a turncoat Dem>Rep>Dem again, I really don't see why you'd welcome him.

Put down the Xbox controller. The man's name is Arlen Specter.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Taking the money of the Republicans and changing to Democrat mid campaign.

No, the campaign ended years ago. He's in the last third of his term.

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Of course considering how he welcomed the bailout and stimulus packages with open arms, and is whining now that "the right chased him away", I'd say the old fossil did it to further his career. He's 79. It was loooking doubtful he'd get in as a Republican.

Limbaugh or Hannity? Both?

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

YES! I'd love ever so much for someone to bash his skull in--if I may make a suggestion: impale him with a cactus first. Jackals like him DO tend to run away.

Quick! Name one position that Al Franken has taken on any issue (without leaving this page or phoning a friend)?

Can't do it? Then wtf are you talking about?

Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity

Bull****? This is like the 2nd or 3rd recount. It was Franken losing by 500 votes at election night, now he's winning by 200? 700 votes clean out of nowhere. Now THAT is bull****.

Try "first". This was an automatic recount that was required by state law due to the extremely low margin between the two candidates.

Votes didn't mysteriously appear "out of nowhere". The purpose of a recount is to establish as precise a count as possible and diminish the margin of error which is inherent to any election. Both sides have presented challenges to some category of ballot or another. These challenges are decided by election officials and/or judges, therefore some ballots aren't "counted" until after a court has ruled on them, which can sometimes cause dramatic swings.

In other words, please consider knowing what you're talking about before going off half-cocked. Thanks in advance.

[Achilles]

Norm Coleman concedes.

Senate Dems will have filibuster-proof majority when they re-convene. The next year should be interesting.

[Agincourt]

Well if the Dems do get the filibuster-proof majority, will it really mean they'll use it? I remember when they took the house and senate in 2006, but they didn't take advantage in cutting funding for the war. They didn't push to charge Bush for war crimes, impeachment, or many other goals that they promised.

I see the Dems as being better than the Republicans, but they have the problem of being lazy or unable to work towards a common goal. Will they really be able to get things done if they have the 60 margin? I know that they can't when a filibuster blocks them, but will this yield noticeable results?

[Q]

Yes, I believe that it will. It will guarantee that the Republicans will gain control of both houses in 2010, just like they did in 1994.

[Agincourt]

Is that a joke? I don't interpret smiles very well.

I just don't see either party in full control being a good thing, as each either act for their own interests or not at all.

[Q]

Neither do I. Obama would still be president, and the Republican congress and the Democratic president would go back and forth thwarting each other's spending schemes and we'd end up with a budget surplus like we did in the 90s.

[Totenkopf]

Or, more likely, a much lower deficit.

[Agincourt]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Or, more likely, a much lower deficit.

Well the way I see it is that the best you can hope for is not to be stagnant all the time. It seems much better to have more of both party members working together than the significant majority almost perfectly segregated on everything.

[Q]

Well, that didn't last long.

[Totenkopf]

A trend that hopefully will be further busted this next election cycle.