Then this election will mean everything. Obama better have his Veto pen handy if they don't.

and when they did, it required a lot of DEM arm twisting too. "If only we had both houses" is just the excuse you'll see until they do, and then it will be "we need 60 in the senate" and if they ever have that again, it will be something else.

Oh, boy!

Come on make a prediction!!!

Or just shit stir.

Me neither.

But I remember when I predicted he'd call for cuts, and I was right. Seems like you're still pretty irritated by that.

those terrible events are really really really really likely to happen very very very soon.

That allows you to maintain your clairvoyance about the evil Obama and his dastardly plans, regardless of what actually happens.

Which is what you statement does. Obama is going to do something evil, you just can't say what it is or when it will happen. But folks should be very upset about it.

not me. I don't recall having ever brought it up on ce Obama made his position clear.

I only made that prediction when I did to raise the alarm that mischief was afoot. At this point, people basically understand that, if they ever will.

It didn't require clairvoyance of any sort, just eyes, ears, and a reasonable grasp of English.

It just avoids saying what it will be.

Then others can join you and be very upset about the things that will probably maybe happen very very soon.

Just to pick one example, did Obama not railroad through three job-destroying "free" trade bills?

Do you think he'd turn down the TPP if given the chance? Or other "free" trade anti-personnel bombs?

See .. you started way back when, by saying Obama was going to GUT and SLASH social security.

It never happened.

Now, you use "TPP" as a catch all.

But that, like your "other free rade anti-personnel bombs" reference, is detail free.

It is just more nonspecific outrage. The kind of outrage that requires no real details.

Which is the best kind of outrage ... even if nothing ever happens ... the outrage came to be and served its purpose.

You avoid details and specific predictions because doing so allows the outrage to exists no matter what happens.

conversation over.

the pukes were hell bent on cutting SS up until Obama suggested some cuts then there was no more talk of cutting SS from the pukes. I think and I think the President knew that all he would have to do to stop the shit talk was to suggest what he did. It worked and 2 years down the road and no more talk about cutting SS, 'ceptin on DU that is

over letting the Bush tax cuts expire?

Great bluff!

He ended up agreeing to make 82% of them permanent.

I think the record shows that the Republicans couldn't get Cantor and his Tea Party lunatics to agree on the deal to cut SS because it wasn't enough of a cut.

Obama is a BASTARD!!!!

I didn't know that!

I'll have to check into that.

If it does point me in the direction so I can confirm it for my own satisfaction because cantor and his lunatics would have taken anything they could have gotten providing that they didn't look like they were working with the president cause if that was to be they damn sure wouldn't do it even if it was what they wanted. Thats what the record I've been following will show anyway

I know you say you are not against Obama but if your record of OP's is any indication I think that is bull too

But if he agrees to cutting SS - with the chained CPI or agrees to the Keystone pipeline, then I'm fucking done.

... I'm done too!!!

It's more unwarranted and unmerited jabs at a Democratic President again.

I still remember 1994. Bill Clinton shit sideways and went half blind after the mid-term ass kicking. Then he turned right.

If public opinion shifts, then shouldn't the POTUS shift with it? I mean, you've got liberals here day in & day out telling us how much he sucks, which seems like a pretty coordinated effort. That is, if you pay attention to the leftier-than-thou nonsense that passes for internet liberalism these days.

They're just hanging around long enough to say I told you so, if we lose the Senate. Of course, it's the internet, where you never know who you're really speaking to, "Better Believe It" showed us that.

That's been demonstrated over and over.

So no, if people who previously identified themselves as Democrats fail to turn out, it does not mean the country has shifted right. It will mean the mushy "middle" has once again proven themselves too unreliable to bank on.

What does that mean?

and the ones who do maybe shouldn't vote anyway if we want a dem majority that is. We have a lot of posters who claim to be dems running up and down the halls of du screaming the dems are going to lose, the dems are going to lose when in reality they just might be wolves in sheep's clothing

Both out to hurt Dem turnout, for very different reasons.

and holds Kansas,GA,and KT.

At best Dem's have 6 pickup possibility's In 2016 If things go our way

Illinois
Wisconsin
Ohio
PA
NH
Florida

slim possibility NC could be competitive

Missouri might have been a chance of ousting Blunt but Jay Nixon and other MO Dem's have pissed off blacks In Mo why should they
come out to vote.No Mo democrat can get elected without strong turnout In St louis and Kansas City but it was more important to protect white police who likely vote Republican over the poor Blacks who are part of democratic base.

If we lose 8 or 9 seats In november GOP will have a permanent republican congress till at least 2022.

The country will be hurting with the social safety being cut under GOP congress and all hope is on Obama to veto

And get ready for the Obama impeachment of 2015 although they won't be able to remove him from office.

We will just have to deal with it and hope the repub clown car implodes. I'm really wondering what the impact will be with the TX voter ID law for this election? Wouldn't you think that there would be close to rioting in the streets if hundreds of thousands of people can't vote?

Needs a 2/3 vote.

Amazing how many ways the voter suppression movement rears its ugly head, innit?

No doubt!

what made you choose the handle BOGUSPOTUS?

I chose Boguspotus because when I signed up here it was 2001! As you can see I hardly ever post stuff, I'm a lurker big, big time. And I really enjoy reading DU and people's commentary here every day. But I just recently decided to post more - why not? It's only been a few years over a decade : )
And if I get a chance to change my handle, I will.