US ELECTION RESULTS

[frigidmagi]

And I have no problem with a raise in states that need it. I voted to raise the AZ mimium wage because I felt it necessary. However California's representive should not tell Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and other states who are still trying to industralize to destory the advangates (lower cost of business for example) they hold over the larger states who already have all the factories, research labs and other elements of a deverse, healthy economy.

[Josh]

The Democrats are now in control (likely of both houses) and they will now have to do something besides be anti-Bush. They will expose themselves for what they are. Which pessimistically, not that much.

Speaking as someone who didn't vote for a single Republican this time around, I fear you're right.

This does feel quite a bit like the revolution of '94. The Democrats need to recognize that -that- didn't work out so well.

[Ra]

I got by more then easy on a salary of 6.50$ in Oklahoma.

I make $7.10, which is actually a bit more than minimum wage, and barely scrape by. I frankly need that extra bit of money, and so does everyone else I know that's stuck working for the Walton Empire.

I would agree with the state-by-state thing if not for the fact that Louisiana overwhelmingly shot down a minimum-wage increase not too long ago, IIRC; I don't trust the Baton Rouge legislature as far as I can throw it.

Oh, and back on topic; :cheers

I just stared in disbelief as my mom raged about how bad things are gonna be now that the Dems have the House. After all, one party in control of the country was democracy at its finest, just how the Founding Fathers wanted, am i rite??

[B4UTRUST]

While I was guilty of this at first as well, now it shocks me that people don't realize something very key and crucial.

The way things are won't drastically change. Bush will no longer steamroll shit through Congress, yes. He won't be as quick and able to do the things he wanted to do how he wanted them done. However, the Democrats won't be able to do much either. Any major changes that could affect Dubya's grand agenda will be vetoed by the man himself most likely if he can do it.

[Rogue 9]

The man has only used a single veto in his life; I doubt he's going to suddenly turn into Grover Cleveland now.

[Cynical Cat]

The man has only used a single veto in his life; I doubt he's going to suddenly turn into Grover Cleveland now.

And his party has controlled both House and Senate. He hasn't had much need of it. Now's a different story.

[B4UTRUST]

Yes, but he's never had to face serious opposition in Congress prior to this if I'm not mistaken. So it may not be an issue of him wanting to but rather having to, to keep his agenda

[Comrade Tortoise]

The man has only used a single veto in his life; I doubt he's going to suddenly turn into Grover Cleveland now.

No, he just uses signing orders to skirt around enforcing legistlation, like a ban on torture, he doesnt like

[frigidmagi]

I make $7.10, which is actually a bit more than minimum wage, and barely scrape by. I frankly need that extra bit of money, and so does everyone else I know that's stuck working for the Walton Empire.

I made 40 cents more then you working for Wally world and did great. I'm sorry your job sucks however.

I would agree with the state-by-state thing if not for the fact that Louisiana overwhelmingly shot down a minimum-wage increase not too long ago, IIRC; I don't trust the Baton Rouge legislature as far as I can throw it.

Then fix your damn state government because bluntly we shouldn't suffer due to the ineptness of your state government. You have any idea how many farmers are going to go under? Fuck, we're likely to lose the Ford plant which is always on the knife edge. The one thing that helped us keep it in OKC was the fact that it was cheaper than having one up in the rust belt.

My aplogies Ra, but the rest of us really don't want to be economy vassels to the coast and great lakes we would really like to develop our own industries.

[SirNitram]

Bush is going to use signing statements, not vetos. Vetos can be overridden; signing statements let him literally re-write laws into whatever he wants.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Bush is going to use signing statements, not vetos. Vetos can be overridden; signing statements let him literally re-write laws into whatever he wants.

There has GOT to be a way to constitutionally challenge those...

[SirNitram]

Bush is going to use signing statements, not vetos. Vetos can be overridden; signing statements let him literally re-write laws into whatever he wants.

There has GOT to be a way to constitutionally challenge those...

Find a law whose Signing Statement'd version is used against someone, appeal it up the chain.

Then find it doesn't stop him, the exact same way the NSA wiretapping being ruled unconstitution hasn't stopped him.