The prior thread with this title seems to have been somehow "memory holed" so let's try again.
We are 1 month away now from the start of what I've been calling "THERMIDOR 2022"
That's a reference to a reaction of moderates following a revolution, such as that which occurred in Paris on 9 Thermidor (July 27) 1794 and resulted in the fall of Robespierre. (This time Robinette Biden....so many parallels to 1794)
A return to conservative / moderate rule after a Leftist revolution that has nearly destroyed this country's economy, our border security, national security and our social order.
So, aside from the usual Marxist / Leftist trolling and whining that this thread is certain to attract, what do you think is going to happen?
House ? Senate? Both? More?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-08-2022).]
Not that California matters as it is captured by the anti-science leftist. But 23 million Democratic Party voters just received their inflation checks this month.
Biden just pardons all low level drug offenders, and the Democratic Party machine is in full force to get every single one of them registered and vote Democrats.
Usual homeless population voter drives by providing rides and cigarettes. This is common every election cycle.
Dems drive to get all the undocumented to be registered democrat and to vote.
Stacy Abrams, an election denier, already has said the Whitehouse has congratulated her on her win.
The racist and drug addict Fetterman has already tapped into the Dems war chest for millions of dollars.
And Republicans can't get off the abortion issue, which will cost them most women voters.
Randy, I think the Republicans sweep in the House, but I really think that with some recent legislative wins that return voting back to state-Constitutionality, we may even see a majority in the senate. This would be fantastic.
Here's something we need to consider... this election favored Democrats in terms of number of seats up for reelection. There were more Republicans up for reelection than Democrats, which gave them a greater opportunity for them to pick off seats. But next election... 2024, it favors Republicans in that there will be more vulnerable Democrat seats up for reelection than there will be Republicans. So if Republicans take the senate in November... we'll keep it in 2024, and potentially even gain significantly if we elect a Republican president. I'm not holding out hope, but we could get really close to the kind of final numbers for Republicans that the Democrats saw in 2008 when they had a super majority. I'm thinking we end up with 55-56 seats in 2024... obviously not a super majority, but enough that we can pick up a vote here and there to find consensus.
Remember, it takes someone with a 'member', to get someone pregnant. But the D-evil people don't believe intimate actions lasting minutes (when you're a limp member soy-boi) with SEXUAL REPRODUCTION ORGANS can result in a bundle of joy cells. But D-evilmembers believe in no consequences or personal responsibility. "It's the system!" "It's my neighbors fault!" "I didn't do it!" "Not my fault!"
If I had access to my SFX goodies in storage 700miles away, I know the perfect props I could make that would cause a stir this Halloween. Perfect roe v Wade based visuals to show the youngsters what a portion of the country thinks of them future "breeders" or current "eaters" wasting elists precious resources they want for themselves.
Ray, the problem I have with this... is that I don't believe that Democrat politicians really care, or had any intent to do anything about it.
Let's consider the fact that back in the 70s when Roe v. Wade was decided by the court, the presiding reason was based entirely on the 4th Amendment, essentially, the right to privacy. The positive of course is that it led to Nixon's privacy speech, and the creation and subsequent passage (by Ford) of the Privacy Act... even though it's still somewhat flawed.
But the dissenting opinion was that this was a failed decision, that the court was essentially creating legislation. The court essentially wrote legislation by breaking out pregnancy into trimesters, and defining what was and wasn't allowed within them. Most Democrat lawyers... (and this is true) determined that this was wildly inappropriate for the court. Even famous Democrat legal scholars like Archibald Cox stated that this would likely be overturned because it grossly exceeded the authority of the court.
For decades, it was stated that Roe v. Wade would be overturned at the earliest opportunity. The Democrats did nothing. Even when the SCOTUS leak occurred, the Democrats acted like they had no idea this was coming (despite 40+ years of people saying it would), and yet still did nothing. Then... when the official ruling came out, Democrats were shocked. It's like... not a single point during the 40+ years did they attempt to bother making a Federal law for or against.
No one has said that a law would be unconstitutional... the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision merely means that there's no law respecting for or against abortion... so it automatically goes to the states. The Democrats... at any point in the past 40 years, could have passed some reasonable legislation. The only thing the Democrats have done, is push through the house, some wildly unrealistic abortion law that allows abortion up to and including the point that the baby is already born. As I said previously... if there was any chance that this would have actually passed, the majority of the people who voted for it in the house would NOT have actually voted for it.
This has been nothing except a means to get out the vote for Democrats. It's like I've always said, the Democrat party has no intention of actually solving any problems whatsoever. It's only to gain and maintain power. The more problems the better, it's just more issues they can campaign on to fix... and I really wish you would recognize this.
My personal opinions about abortion aside... there are more than enough people in the house, AND the senate right now that would be willing to pass some form of abortion law. The lowest common denominator would likely include allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, as well as harm to the mother. Again, my opinions not withstanding, there's more than enough support to get something like this passed. But have the Democrats bothered to pass such a thing? Absolutely not. Don't expect the Republicans to, because they generally as a whole do not support abortion. But if the Democrats were really leading the charge on this issue, they would actually do something about it.
When they had a super majority... and yes, they HAD a super majority from 2008-2010. They could have easily passed a law "codifying" (I hate that word) Roe v. Wade into law, which would have made that court decision irrelevant.
.
And that's what I want you to recognize... none of what they're doing is actually about solving problems... it really isn't. It's about creating victims and then placating them temporarily to maintain their control, and force more and more people under government dependence.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ray, the problem I have with this... is that I don't believe that Democrat politicians really care, or had any intent to do anything about it.
Let's consider the fact that back in the 70s when Roe v. Wade was decided by the court, the presiding reason was based entirely on the 4th Amendment, essentially, the right to privacy. The positive of course is that it led to Nixon's privacy speech, and the creation and subsequent passage (by Ford) of the Privacy Act... even though it's still somewhat flawed.
But the dissenting opinion was that this was a failed decision, that the court was essentially creating legislation. The court essentially wrote legislation by breaking out pregnancy into trimesters, and defining what was and wasn't allowed within them. Most Democrat lawyers... (and this is true) determined that this was wildly inappropriate for the court. Even famous Democrat legal scholars like Archibald Cox stated that this would likely be overturned because it grossly exceeded the authority of the court.
For decades, it was stated that Roe v. Wade would be overturned at the earliest opportunity. The Democrats did nothing. Even when the SCOTUS leak occurred, the Democrats acted like they had no idea this was coming (despite 40+ years of people saying it would), and yet still did nothing. Then... when the official ruling came out, Democrats were shocked. It's like... not a single point during the 40+ years did they attempt to bother making a Federal law for or against.
No one has said that a law would be unconstitutional... the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision merely means that there's no law respecting for or against abortion... so it automatically goes to the states. The Democrats... at any point in the past 40 years, could have passed some reasonable legislation. The only thing the Democrats have done, is push through the house, some wildly unrealistic abortion law that allows abortion up to and including the point that the baby is already born. As I said previously... if there was any chance that this would have actually passed, the majority of the people who voted for it in the house would NOT have actually voted for it.
This has been nothing except a means to get out the vote for Democrats. It's like I've always said, the Democrat party has no intention of actually solving any problems whatsoever. It's only to gain and maintain power. The more problems the better, it's just more issues they can campaign on to fix... and I really wish you would recognize this.
My personal opinions about abortion aside... there are more than enough people in the house, AND the senate right now that would be willing to pass some form of abortion law. The lowest common denominator would likely include allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, as well as harm to the mother. Again, my opinions not withstanding, there's more than enough support to get something like this passed. But have the Democrats bothered to pass such a thing? Absolutely not. Don't expect the Republicans to, because they generally as a whole do not support abortion. But if the Democrats were really leading the charge on this issue, they would actually do something about it.
When they had a super majority... and yes, they HAD a super majority from 2008-2010. They could have easily passed a law "codifying" (I hate that word) Roe v. Wade into law, which would have made that court decision irrelevant.
.
And that's what I want you to recognize... none of what they're doing is actually about solving problems... it really isn't. It's about creating victims and then placating them temporarily to maintain their control, and force more and more people under government dependence.
You do realize your trying to use logic with a Sesame Street puppet, right?
The SCOTUS did not rule on anyone controlling anyone else. The Court ruled that abortion isn't a right, and by proxy isn't health care. The SCOTUS did EXACTLY what the old angry hag said it would do. OAH said the ruling was a poorly written piece of legislation that could be over ruled. Old ruth wasn't right about much of anything, but she called this one. You have no evidence of men controlling women, the the SCOTUS won't back your play.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I like Ray... we're both from South Florida. I know he's reading it though, even if he may not like what I'm saying.
YEARS of documented evidence on this forum shows that he only communicates in simplistic, Orwellian, bumper sticker slogans and his bizarre "haiku".
quote
Originally posted by ray b:
WOMAN LIFE FREEDOM ROEMEMBER
Once you get beyond one or two very simple sentences I'm not convinced he's actually able to follow along Todd.
You can say that you "like" him, and that's fine, but I can assure that being a crazed Marxist / Leftist he hates you with a white hot fury because of what you believe and stand for, even though he isn't capable of actually understanding it.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-14-2022).]
Once you get beyond one or two very simple sentences I'm not convinced he's actually able to follow along Todd.
You can say that you "like" him, and that's fine, but I can assure that being a crazed Marxist / Leftist he hates you with a white hot fury because of what you believe and stand for, even though he isn't capable of actually understanding it.
said the guy who thinks anyone not 100% in lockstep with his goose stepping struts must be a marxist as that is all he understands rump worship or some commie BS with nothing and no one in the middle between the extremes
what a narrow limited almost BLIND world view you and your followers have here
and yes the world wide results of being against the tide will show
woman life freedom is an idea only fools oppose at their peril
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 10-14-2022).]
next to the bit about counting as 3/5 of a person also a slave thing
So should we also hold to a flat Earth belief as well sense at the time that was a belief of many. OR do we go by the current interpretation of an educated and refined society? If YOU want to live in the stone age, THAT is YOUR handicap, NOT a trait of those you hate. BTW, Ray, the Constitution DOES NOT say slaves are 3/5. The Constitution says ALL humans have the same rights and slavery is banned. Just a news flash for the slow.
So should we also hold to a flat Earth belief as well sense at the time that was a belief of many. OR do we go by the current interpretation of an educated and refined society? If YOU want to live in the stone age, THAT is YOUR handicap, NOT a trait of those you hate. BTW, Ray, the Constitution DOES NOT say slaves are 3/5. The Constitution says ALL humans have the same rights and slavery is banned. Just a news flash for the slow.
I was speaking in context of the Current use and interpretation of the Constitution. I did not say the Constitution never said people are less than people. I used a metaphor to relate the current interpretation to the old, like the current understanding of the Earth being a sphere vrs the old misunderstanding that it was flat. I understand what it used to say, and rejoice that it doesn't say it anymore.
One strength of our Constitution is that it may be modified if there is enough support from a widespread and much varied base. Another strength is that it protects the minority opinion.
The more I look into it, the more I've come to think that the Republicans are likely going to dominate this election period. They only need to pick up one seat... just one seat, in order to get the Senate... and there's a good chance they may pick up 2. Unless the Democrats completely manipulate the election, I'm convinced it's going to be a wipeout for Democrats, and I'm going to be thrilled. They've totally destroyed our military, our economy, literally everything they've touched.
The more I look into it, the more I've come to think that the Republicans are likely going to dominate this election period. They only need to pick up one seat... just one seat, in order to get the Senate... and there's a good chance they may pick up 2. Unless the Democrats completely manipulate the election, I'm convinced it's going to be a wipeout for Democrats, and I'm going to be thrilled. They've totally destroyed our military, our economy, literally everything they've touched.
Think about what you have just said:...... 1) 2 seats isn't a domination. But I understand you didn't say the Republicans will only take 2. You have the opinion that the likelihood is more. But how many more do you think? My opinion is that to call.it a domination there should be at least double digits, 10 or more, otherwise it is just a simple swing. 2) given that you haven't mentioned the House, I wouldn't call it a domination. My opinion is to be able to call it a domination, the Republicans need to aquire a super majority in Congress. 3) job performance of Brandon AND his clear state of mental and physical decline should be enough for the voters to have a no confidence referendum on him. If the "polls" do not show such a opinion, then there is no domination on the Republican's side of the issue. It actually is the opposite, the democrats have dominated the distribution of disinformation, thus having a dominant position over the voters.
Truth should influence people, NOT Hitler style democrat propaganda. Censorship, suppression, lies and corruption. Anything less than taking the House and Senate is a failure on the Republicans part. They are gambling on political traditions, being nice, professional and bipartisan to gain respect as politicians. I don't like their strategy. I have little faith in the Republicans dominating anything but the typical losses and disappointment they are infamous for.
Think about what you have just said:...... 1) 2 seats isn't a domination. But I understand you didn't say the Republicans will only take 2. You have the opinion that the likelihood is more. But how many more do you think? My opinion is that to call.it a domination there should be at least double digits, 10 or more, otherwise it is just a simple swing. 2) given that you haven't mentioned the House, I wouldn't call it a domination. My opinion is to be able to call it a domination, the Republicans need to aquire a super majority in Congress. 3) job performance of Brandon AND his clear state of mental and physical decline should be enough for the voters to have a no confidence referendum on him. If the "polls" do not show such a opinion, then there is no domination on the Republican's side of the issue. It actually is the opposite, the democrats have dominated the distribution of disinformation, thus having a dominant position over the voters.
Truth should influence people, NOT Hitler style democrat propaganda. Censorship, suppression, lies and corruption. Anything less than taking the House and Senate is a failure on the Republicans part. They are gambling on political traditions, being nice, professional and bipartisan to gain respect as politicians. I don't like their strategy. I have little faith in the Republicans dominating anything but the typical losses and disappointment they are infamous for.
I said, "Republicans are likely going to dominate this election period."
That to me means the Governor's races, Senate, House, and local elections combined. Senate is definitely not going to be a domination, but they will regain a simple majority in the senate.
I think we get 2-3 Governor seats, and ~40+ seats in the House, and at least 1 seat in the Senate.
This is a "bad" election term for Republicans. There are more Republican seats up than Democrat seats in the Senate... had Biden done even a half-way decent job... we'd be talking about the Democrats picking up seats. 2024 will be really bad for Democrats... based on the election map. There will be a greater number of risky Democrat seats up, and the more solid red Republican seats will be up. If things persist, Republicans could potentially get close to a super majority in 2024 in the Senate.
I think that the American voter is smarter than most of us are willing to admit. We like to say that "You and I are smart, but that guy over there is really stupid." That's not smart. We are all average. That's right. You and me and that guy over there: average.
Now, the reason I say that is that with most of us average folks understanding the trouble the country is facing, the only way the left could possibly win is by cheating (again).
We are being told that we are gaining ground on the criminal class, the aristocracy. Who is telling us that? I don't trust anyone who is trying to tell me what "that guy over there" is thinking.
Yeah, you can call me a "conspiracy theorist"...as long as you can convince me that you and that guy over there believe everything that the government and the news media tell us.
You see, I don't think all those fat people with the pussy hats and rainbow flags actually vote. But you can bet the guy who sold them that stuff does, and he is the guy who is steering this juggernaut. If you push and pull a juggernaut, sooner or later it will run you over.
I don't trust anyone who is trying to tell me what "that guy over there" is thinking.
