Post by: grampster on September 19, 2007, 06:26:21 PM
Hillary is POTUS.
The House is solidly Democrat.
The Senate is solidly Democrat.
For the sake of argument, the Dem majority is as solid as the best majority that the Republicans have had recently.
What happens now?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 19, 2007, 06:27:57 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 19, 2007, 07:22:40 PM
Do you have the book of Revelation handy?
Think worse than that...
http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2391
Post by: gunsmith on September 19, 2007, 08:38:25 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on September 20, 2007, 03:00:18 AM
Quote
For the sake of argument, the Dem majority is as solid as the best majority that the Republicans have had recently.
Oh. Nothing changes, then, eh?
If nothing changes, nothing changes.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 03:36:33 AM
Unemployment skyrockets, leading to more govt programs. Eventually we look just like France.
Oh, and gun control measures make it basically too much hassle to own a gun.
Post by: HankB on September 20, 2007, 03:57:41 AM
. . . Eventually we look just like France. . .
Oh no, oh no . . . I am NOT giving up my soap, water, deodorant, and basic hygiene!
Post by: griz on September 20, 2007, 04:22:08 AM
Realistically? It will be just like Clinton the 1st: They will make several attempts to change everything and outlaw rich people, and the republicans will start acting like republicans and fight the legislation. Two years later the house and/or senate goes republican, and the process starts over again.
Post by: charby on September 20, 2007, 04:44:25 AM
OK.
Hillary is POTUS.
The House is solidly Democrat.
The Senate is solidly Democrat.
For the sake of argument, the Dem majority is as solid as the best majority that the Republicans have had recently.
What happens now?
Hillary is POTUS.
The House is solidly Democrat.
The Senate is solidly Democrat.
For the sake of argument, the Dem majority is as solid as the best majority that the Republicans have had recently.
What happens now?
To be honest I really don't know.
What I could speculate is that some form of Hillarycare will be passed.
There will be a time-line drawn with dates from troops leaving Iraq, probably won't be followed and the war will probably escalate because some of the extremists will be pissed because there is a women leader of the infidels now and attempt another attack similar to 9-11. Hillary will say that the escalation is to preserve human rights of the middle eastern people.
Republicans will take back the House and Senate in 2010 because Hillarycare causes lines outside doctor offices and spins us into deficit in the teens of trillion dollars.
2012 Hillary is defeated in her reelection campaign
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 04:45:59 AM
. . . Eventually we look just like France. . .
Oh no, oh no . . . I am NOT giving up my soap, water, deodorant, and basic hygiene!It's tete de veaux for you, mon ami! BWAHAHAHA!!!
Post by: onions! on September 20, 2007, 05:14:33 AM
Eventually we look just like France.
I wouldn't mind a mandatory 35 hour work week.
Well,it would suck-having no money-but I'd have more time to spend online complaining about everything & pining for a Socialist Eutopia.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 05:17:21 AM
Yeah, 35hr work week with paid 2-4 week vacations every year and almost guaranteed employment is great. If you're the one working. If you aren't it kind of sucks because it means you're unlikely to get a job.
Post by: Joe Demko on September 20, 2007, 05:21:24 AM
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 05:24:00 AM
The street sweepers get a work out.
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2007, 06:03:30 AM
Some kind of 'socialized medicine' 'single payer' (or whatever you want to call it) health insurance scheme attempt is inevitable. I think a majority of Americans favor 'universal health care' and would welcome a 'plan' where everyone is covered. It seems to me that employers currently pay most of the health premiums in this country and would jump at a chance to transfer the burden to someone else.
So if she has a majority of both Americans and employers on her side, she's there.
On national defense, who knows? I don't think she's a '60's 'all we are saying is give peace a chance' hippie (anymore), would retaliate immediately if we are attacked. OTOH, she wouldn't get entangled in 'preemptive' wars, either and the Dem congress wouldn't allow it.
On taxes, well you know where that's goin'. The upper 1%-15%...and corporations will get hit hardest. Nevermind that corporations don't pay taxes, they just add it onto the price and pass it along to you and me.
Gun control? That's been a loser for the Dems but there are still enough gun grabbing blissninnies in Congress to force something-maybe another AWB.
The size of fed.gov (Thanks Bush
) won't decrease under a Hillary admin but hopefully she'd address illegal immigration in some other way than amnesty. The next POTUS will have to deal with illegal immigration, the elephant in the living room is too big to ignore. AND, I think it's likely the Dems will be sharply divided whichever way she goes-'semi' moderate or hard left. So they'll schism like the Republicans, with lots of infighting.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 06:11:40 AM
True.
Virginia's most recent past Governor, Mark Warner, is a perfect example of this.
I truly expected him to be the archetypical Democratic governor in the same vein as Doug Wilder, who tried desperately to grab guns and push for a social services state that would rival DC or Maryland.
He was partially successful on the guns, managing to pass the one handgun a month law, but that has been partially rolled back since Wilder's term in office (much to his dismay).
Anyway, Mark Warner proved to be a pretty good friend to Virginia gunowners (far better than "Republican" Tom Davis has been for us in Congress) and was a fine governor overall.
He's now running for John Warner's (no relation) seat in Congress, and will very likely win it.
I'm a bit torn, because even though he's a very moderate Democrat, he'll still vote with the Democtrats most of the time.
Post by: longeyes on September 20, 2007, 06:18:54 AM
It may take a few years and a few catastrophes, but it's coming...
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 06:46:36 AM
Secession.
It may take a few years and a few catastrophes, but it's coming...
It may take a few years and a few catastrophes, but it's coming...
Actually, I doubt it. Civil wars are no fun, and civil war against the US military would be hell. Things would have to get unbelievably bad before a serious secessionist movement would get off the ground. As in "way worse than Cuba" bad. IMHO, of course.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 06:52:50 AM
There will be another election cycle.
If the majority of the people in the nation aren't happy with the way things are going, they'll vote to change the situation.
That happened in 1994, only 2 years after Bill Clinton resoundingly thwacked Bush I.
Clinton pushed through a large tax cut, people were disgusted with it, and the Democrats paid.
As for secession, you're joking, right?
There are virtually none of the regional issues extant today of the type that sparked the civil war.
Who would sucede?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 20, 2007, 06:57:56 AM
Who would sucede?
Vermont, maybe, but who would notice?
Post by: longeyes on September 20, 2007, 07:10:58 AM
Quote
Actually, I doubt it. Civil wars are no fun, and civil war against the US military would be hell. Things would have to get unbelievably bad before a serious secessionist movement would get off the ground. As in "way worse than Cuba" bad. IMHO, of course.
I didn't say civil war, I said secession. The "red" contingent will begin to realize that they are going to be submerged by the "blues." Demographic momentum and bad government policies. They will have a choice: get with the program or OPT OUT. National unity will be setting aside the Constitution and becoming a good little socialist/consumer. Those who think that the social predicates aren't there are dead wrong...but time will tell.
Oh yeah, one more consequences of a Democrat utopia: millions of Americans will start packing "illegally." Deteriorating social conditions in the new "everybody welcome" America will catalyze that.
California is the future, and I already live there.
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 07:12:31 AM
I didn't say civil war, I said secession. The "red" contingent will begin to realize that they are going to be submerged by the "blues." Demographic momentum and bad government policies. They will have a choice: get with the program or OPT OUT.
It's hard to envision how that would happen without violent suppression from Washington.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 07:29:25 AM
Given the ebb and flow of political fortunes in this nation on a rather cyclical basis, what makes you think that an upcoming situation where one party is in power exclusively would trigger an upwelling in secessionism?
What would be the catalyzing event?
And just where would these individuals coalesce?
Would we suddenly have a bunch of new states form?
Upper Peninsula Michigan as a red state?
East Maryland blue, West Maryland red?
North East Virginia a blue state shearing off Virginia?
Pennsylvania could end up as THREE new states...
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 07:33:59 AM
No, like the Carter years when Republicans were supposedly a dying breed (I remember reading a NYT article titled something like "Will the GOP Survive?") this too shall pass.
There are enough conservative Democrats in Congress that damage will be somewhat limited. There isn't a mandate for the kind of Great Society nonsense we've had in the past.
And with any luck it will give the GOP some time to re-think where they're going and come back with real ideas.
Post by: HankB on September 20, 2007, 08:02:21 AM
. . . Clinton pushed through a large tax cut, people were disgusted with it, and the Democrats paid. . . .
I don't remember my taxes going down during the Clinton administraton.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 08:04:28 AM
. . . Clinton pushed through a large tax cut, people were disgusted with it, and the Democrats paid. . . .
I don't remember my taxes going down during the Clinton administraton. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Crap.
You're right.
That should read tax increase.
Post by: longeyes on September 20, 2007, 08:12:07 AM
If I'm wrong and utopia breaks out, I'll be the first to applaud.
Mike, I can't give you specifics. Too many variables. I just don't see how "America" can survive without secession, whatever the final roster of teams and players.
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 08:14:30 AM
By which I mean, do you remember the political, social, and economic climate of the 1970s in the United States?
You'd have to be, at a minimum, 40 years old to truly appreciate what I'm asking/talking about.
Post by: longeyes on September 20, 2007, 08:20:02 AM
Post by: Leatherneck on September 20, 2007, 11:07:31 AM
Quote
I'm a bit torn, because even though he's a very moderate Democrat, he'll still vote with the Democtrats most of the time.
Shack. Warner is not a bad guy, but he's a Democrat, which makes him the enemy in the Old Dominion. But Alexandria and fairfax will likely get him elected to replace RINO Warner. Net loss for the good guys, IMO.If Hillarycare gets passed, I predict a mass exodus of Docs to "Boutique Medicine" with a limited number of fee-paying patients.
TC
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 20, 2007, 11:11:57 AM
OK.
Hillary is POTUS.
The House is solidly Democrat.
The Senate is solidly Democrat.
For the sake of argument, the Dem majority is as solid as the best majority that the Republicans have had recently.
What happens now?
Hillary is POTUS.
The House is solidly Democrat.
The Senate is solidly Democrat.
For the sake of argument, the Dem majority is as solid as the best majority that the Republicans have had recently.
What happens now?
Hillary care. Great, its free. But you wait for 4 hours behind 10 illegal aliens to get it at the family doctor. A trip to Urgent care or the ER takes 12-24 hours.
Gun control. Lots of it.
We'll still be in Iraq. Why? Because the left wing nutjobs running the Democrap party will be too busy pursuing thier liberal agenda to get anything useful done.
Post by: HankB on September 20, 2007, 11:27:11 AM
. . . Right now it's just sound and fury and the gnashing of teeth, but when we start getting hit with serious legislation and serious social restrictions that change our lives and our futures and those of the people we care about most, the games will be over . . .
Some of this is starting already . . . I've noticed more and more laws are affecting regular people directly and not just in the abstract . . . things like mandatory emissions tests on new cars . . . requiring new valves on existing propane tanks for your BBQ if you want them refilled . . . so called "McMansion" restrictions that limit even modest improvements to your own home . . . flush restrictions on toilets . . . mandated use of compact fluorescent bulbs . . . removal of effective bug killers like Diazinon and Dursban from the market . . . the push to collect sales taxes on out-of-state purchases . . . converting existing roads to toll roads . . . You've heard the old story about boiling a frog? We're just barely on "low" now - wait until we get up to "simmer" . . .
Post by: K Frame on September 20, 2007, 12:12:30 PM
Angst with the government was FAR greater in the 1970s than it was today, fueled by the lingering effects of Vietnam, Watergate, and a protracted period of economic hardship.
Talk about how bits and pieces of the United States will start to break away under a Democratic administration have about as much potential for happening as did all those celebs actually leaving after Bush was relected in 2004.
Lots of big talk from Alec Baldwin, Barbara Streisand, and others, but no actual exodus.
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 12:17:16 PM
Talk about how bits and pieces of the United States will start to break away under a Democratic administration have about as much potential for happening as did all those celebs actually leaving after Bush was relected in 2004.
Yep. It's been pointed out that Germans in the 1930s thought they were free. If people can living in the Third Reich honestly believed themselves free, what are the odds that a serious fraction of the populace would realize they had lost their freedom if the US turned into a full-fledged police state someday?
In other words, we probably wouldn't even have a revolution if soldiers started running checkpoints along all the major highways. We sure as heck aren't going to have any revolution over Hillarycare.
--Len.
Post by: longeyes on September 20, 2007, 12:38:56 PM
Quote
Angst with the government was FAR greater in the 1970s than it was today, fueled by the lingering effects of Vietnam, Watergate, and a protracted period of economic hardship.
I respectfully disagree. While there were pockets of truly pissed-off people back then, the issue today is that half the country no longer believes in the values that got us here and that the people who control the major institutions of America would have been considered wild-eyed socialists forty years ago. The mainstream American culture itself has changed, has been subverted. We were pretty well united in waging The Cold War against the USSR; today the values of the USSR have been absorbed by our own elites.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 12:53:45 PM
Pissed off people included students and very large segments of the Black population, many of whom created riots on a scale we have not seen since.
Also included many Southerners who formed their own party.
As for the people who "control the major institutions" I have no idea who they might be.
But it should be some comfort that a McGovern couldn't run today, much less get the nomination.
And Nixon, that arch-conservative, probably added more alphabet agencies to the gov't than anyone since FDR.
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2007, 05:31:03 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 05:44:38 PM
I think you completely missed longeyes point, Rabbi.
No, I understood his point. I think its dead wrong, but I understood it.
Post by: longeyes on September 20, 2007, 07:42:13 PM
Quote
But it should be some comfort that a McGovern couldn't run today, much less get the nomination.
McGovern took one state and D.C. How many will Hillary take? How many would Obama take? You are making my point: What was radical in 1972 is now mainstream.
Nixon was no more an "arch-conservative" than Bush.
Post by: Antibubba on September 20, 2007, 09:20:20 PM
Quote
What happens now?
I wake up screaming, covered in sweat. Then I look at my signed photo from President Thompson's inauguration, and I settle down to sleep.
Post by: gunsmith on September 20, 2007, 09:44:59 PM
Quote
2012 Hillary is defeated in her reelection campaign
And we elect Jeb Bush
Quote
Nixon was no more an "arch-conservative" than Bush.
Nixon got us modern China which is poisoning our children and our food while deconstructing(SIC) our economy. Oh yeah, he reportedly hated handguns. And spent like a drunken lib creating lots of gov't programs we are still stuck with...some conservative he was.
Post by: longeyes on September 21, 2007, 05:50:27 AM
By James Politi in New York
Published: September 20 2007 19:41 | Last updated: September 20 2007 19:41
Carlyle agreed on Thursday to sell a 7.5 per cent stake in itself to an arm of Abu Dhabis government the latest US private equity group to bring in a sovereign wealth fund as a big investor.
Blackstone sold a near 10 per cent stake in its management company to the Chinese government in May. A different arm of the Abu Dhabi government bought a stake in Apollo Management in July. Selling stakes to international sovereign wealth funds has become a popular way for US buy-out groups to cash in on their booming businesses while expanding their influence in new markets. The Carlyle deal demonstrates that the credit squeeze has not halted such transactions.
Mubadala, the arm of Abu Dhabi which has invested in sectors as diverse as Libyan oil exploration and Ferrari, the Italian motor company, is paying $1.35bn for the Carlyle stake.
The deal was struck at a 10 per cent discount to a valuation of $20bn for all of Carlyle. The Washington-based buy-out group agreed to guarantee a floor to Mubadalas investment, pledging to compensate the arm of the oil-rich emirate if Carlyle goes public and the share price drops.
Carlyle co-founder David Rubenstein said, in an interview with the Financial Times, that the deal gave his firm more capital to invest in our funds and more flexibility in terms of deciding whether to go public .
Mr Rubenstein said the relationship with Mubadala could foster co-investments, although he did not identify any particular sectors. Several Gulf investors have invested heavily in Carlyle funds but the firm has not done many deals in the Middle East.
The investment comes as Carlyle faces pressure on Capitol Hill from lawmakers who want to impose a tax hike on the private equity industry.
The deal could also come under political scrutiny if Carlyle pursues sensitive takeovers in areas such as defence, technology or critical infrastructure.
Carlyle has alerted key lawmakers to the deal, including Chuck Schumer, the New York Senator, and Bush administration officials at the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 05:57:04 AM
Quote
2012 Hillary is defeated in her reelection campaign
And we elect Jeb Bush
Now that would be a nightmare
Quote
Nixon was no more an "arch-conservative" than Bush.
Quote
Nixon got us modern China which is poisoning our children and our food while deconstructing(SIC) our economy. Oh yeah, he reportedly hated handguns. And spent like a drunken lib creating lots of gov't programs we are still stuck with...some conservative he was.
OTOH, trading with them is way better than doing a cold war style nuclear arms race with them dontcha think?
Post by: gunsmith on September 21, 2007, 10:32:07 AM
Quote
OTOH, trading with them is way better than doing a cold war style nuclear arms race with them dontcha think?
I for one yearn for the days of the Red and Iron curtain.
Where THEY could be Big Brother and anti freedom instead of the republicrats we have now installing cameras and telling kids to snitch on their parents and not letting high school kids thank God during their commencement speech.
Russia has "stay at home and have sex to make babies days" and we have very effective H'wood propaganda
telling us not to (or to have abortions)
Post by: Tuco on September 22, 2007, 04:41:38 PM
What happens now?
A new group of people begin crabbing about a new list of things, for up to eight years.
Those who threatened to move to ....uh.... Switzerland? if she was elected, don't.
All the things that really matter
- Family
Friends
Personal Health
Spiritual Health
The constitution will still stand, no worse off than under any other past or present administration.
Hillary will get uglier and uglier.
Pretty much, same s#!t, continued, with a different face.
Soakers, realist.