Let me hear 'em 
[quote]AHA wrote:
Let me hear 'em
[/quote]
(1) You will meet Lixy in a bar and become best brahs! 
(2) The United States will take a giant step away from worldwide military hegemony as we simply can’t afford it any longer. The rest of the world takes the order provided by the US military for granted (they should actually fund it, IMO), so expect a dramatic increase in things like the Somali pirates. Those pirates are a preview of what’s about to happen worldwide.
(3) States and cities will declare bankrupty, seeking to get out of public pension and health insurance contracts. Teachers and cops will suffer terribly as pet projects get spared.
More of the same rape and dickery from the two major parties.
Jack Spirko, who runs The Survival Podcast, has this theory that the US will go into a fake recovery in 2010 and 2011, and then the real crash will come.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
More of the same rape and dickery from the two major parties.[/quote]
This.
I predict that I will take that final step into becoming a full-blown alcoholic, sometime during the summer.
Get some fat, toothless, white trash, thirty-something woman pregnant and have to take a job at McDonalds to support her, the baby, and her three kids from prior marriages.
Get scabies.
Gain 30 lbs. of pure fat.
Sell one of my kidneys for booze money.
Sell my car and buy a van for use as my primary residence.
Lose my teeth after getting in a drunken bar brawl with a group of drunk illegals.
Cry. A lot.
Attempt suicide, but fail and wind up paralyzing myself in the process.
Cry.
Find Jesus.
You Americans have too much time on your hands…
You talking about Congressional elections? My predictions:
Democrats will lose between 20 and 30 seats in the House. Not because Democrats are failing, but because some districts swung too far in rejecting Bush that their constituents are mis-represented. So, a small adjustment. Democrats will still control the House.
Democrats will still control the Senate. No Democrats will lose their seats in the Senate to a Republican. There will still be 58 Democratic Senators, 2 independent Senators, and 40 Republican Senators.
Obama will still hover around 50% approval rating, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. Not great, but better than Bush’s numbers by a long shot.
In 2012, the Republican primary candidates will be lackluster, and there will be a 2nd Obama term. Oops, I skipped ahead. 
[quote]K2000 wrote:
You talking about Congressional elections? My predictions:
Democrats will lose between 20 and 30 seats in the House. Not because Democrats are failing, but because some districts swung too far in rejecting Bush that their constituents are mis-represented. So, a small adjustment. Democrats will still control the House.
Democrats will still control the Senate. No Democrats will lose their seats in the Senate to a Republican. There will still be 58 Democratic Senators, 2 independent Senators, and 40 Republican Senators.
Obama will still hover around 50% approval rating, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. Not great, but better than Bush’s numbers by a long shot.
In 2012, the Republican primary candidates will be lackluster, and there will be a 2nd Obama term. Oops, I skipped ahead. ;-P[/quote]
You might be more right then you know. I too tend to thing nothing will really change with the exception of a slow recovery where each month is a little better then the one before it.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
[quote]K2000 wrote:
You talking about Congressional elections? My predictions:
Democrats will lose between 20 and 30 seats in the House. Not because Democrats are failing, but because some districts swung too far in rejecting Bush that their constituents are mis-represented. So, a small adjustment. Democrats will still control the House.
Democrats will still control the Senate. No Democrats will lose their seats in the Senate to a Republican. There will still be 58 Democratic Senators, 2 independent Senators, and 40 Republican Senators.
Obama will still hover around 50% approval rating, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. Not great, but better than Bush’s numbers by a long shot.
In 2012, the Republican primary candidates will be lackluster, and there will be a 2nd Obama term. Oops, I skipped ahead. ;-P[/quote]
You might be more right then you know. I too tend to thing nothing will really change with the exception of a slow recovery where each month is a little better then the one before it. [/quote]
I’m not sure if that sentiment is wholly optimistic or wholly pessimistic. It’s at least partly disappointing.
Living in Vermont, going to a liberal law school, I have to say that even this crowd isn’t enthusiastic about Obama or the economy. Those approval ratings mean nothing AT ALL - there is simply too much possibility that a significant chunk of that number is the result of active denial or just plain old hopefulness.
To the OP:
Please admit that this thread was at least partly motivated by a sadistic desire to listen to Americans bemoan the state of affairs over here.
I mean, come on.
Unemployment peaks at 12% at the end of 2010. Flat to negative GDP. Democrats lose the house and maybe hold the senate with 51-52 seats until 2012 where they lose the majority. Obama throws congress under the bus because of the way the country is feeling, they point fingers back at him. Reid and Dodd both lose their seats. Health Care and the EPA ruling on Carbon Dioxide both contribute to the poor economy and becomes their undoing.
I think Obama’s approval slides down to the low 30’s by year end. If a major foreign policy event happens his drops down into the 20’s. An affair is exposed that makes Bill and Hillary’s crackup seems like a grade school crush gone awry. Michelle threatens a tell all book.
Hillary announces she will run against Obama in the primary because “she can no longer stand by and watch the country crumble” or words to that effect. Loses the primary in a close race. Civil unrest goes from being rare in the US to a common occurrence.
Obama is gone in a landslide by just about any Republican who runs against him in 2012. Replaces Carter as the worst president int he past 100 years, even w/o the affair prediction coming true.
Democrats lose much support in the House and Senate, if they continue to vote on insanely expensive programs that produce little to no results. Even if they stop doing so, the stimulus package’s lackluster results may be too much to bear for voters. Obama continues to lose support- from the people and his own party (gotta love that Democrat party unity eh?)
Realignment- the people will start waking up from their anti-Bush hangover to realize they elected a bunch of spendy schmucks to run the legislative and executive branches.
The Redskins win the 2012 superbowl. Red Dawn happens. The world ends, and I drive a Mustang around the desert ala Mad Max.
[quote]Therizza wrote:
The Redskins win the 2012 superbowl. [/quote]
Against the Chiefs or the Browns?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Unemployment peaks at 12% at the end of 2010. Flat to negative GDP. Democrats lose the house and maybe hold the senate with 51-52 seats until 2012 where they lose the majority. Obama throws congress under the bus because of the way the country is feeling, they point fingers back at him. Reid and Dodd both lose their seats. Health Care and the EPA ruling on Carbon Dioxide both contribute to the poor economy and becomes their undoing.
I think Obama’s approval slides down to the low 30’s by year end. If a major foreign policy event happens his drops down into the 20’s. An affair is exposed that makes Bill and Hillary’s crackup seems like a grade school crush gone awry. Michelle threatens a tell all book.
Hillary announces she will run against Obama in the primary because “she can no longer stand by and watch the country crumble” or words to that effect. Loses the primary in a close race. Civil unrest goes from being rare in the US to a common occurrence.
Obama is gone in a landslide by just about any Republican who runs against him in 2012. Replaces Carter as the worst president int he past 100 years, even w/o the affair prediction coming true.[/quote]
Since Congress doesn’t seem to care what we think (poll after poll shows that we don’t want their health care plan for ex), I think people will just give up and quit voting. No matter who you vote for, they turn out to be weasels. Republicans and Dems…all criminals.
Hide your money as best you can, drop out, and let the system try to keep going without its best serfs.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Therizza wrote:
The Redskins win the 2012 superbowl. [/quote]
Against the Chiefs or the Browns?[/quote]
Sorry SteelyD… it will be the Toronto Bills.
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
Sorry SteelyD… it will be the Toronto Bills.
[/quote]
Yes, please. Take them off of our county budget.
We will be shaken by a large body of evidence, emerging from the world of genetics, that men are not, and never have been, equal in ability. Nature vs. Nurture politics will be center stage.
While the prevalence of young earth creationism turned some off from the right and conservatism, genetic science will blur which party is more “science friendly.” Many on the right will highlight differing nature, arguing that social and economic outcomes across class, race, and ethnic groups can’t be equalized. Indeed, they will embrace the science. Pointing out that we are wasting resources and dumbing down, in the attempt. This will not negate nurture though. Conservatives will maintain that nurture is still neccessary to maximize outcomes within each group. But ultimately, equal outcomes, when looking at the sum of mankind, is ineffecient and unrealistic. Warning: Some evangelicasl will not follow along.
Many on the left will try to minimize, or outright deny, the new consensus. Others will grudingly recognize it, but declare that genetic winners are morally and legally obligated to keep trying to equalize outcomes with much greater centralized planning. Not because it can happen (equal outcomes), just because we’re suppossed too.
Talk of permanently sterilizing violent and sexual offenders will gain ground. Same with lower IQ single mothers who’ve already had one child while living off of government assistance. Though this will be seen as voluntary, in exchange for long term government assistance. We will justify this through genetic findings about the nature of violence, sexual activity, and IQ (especially differences between the classes). I wouldn’t be surprised if the non-denial left actually led this movement in order to save precious entitlment programs from a cold hard reality.
This will not all happen in 2010, of course. But history will record the foundation was set in that year. The foundation for what may be the greatest debate humankind will ever see.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We will be shaken by a large body of evidence, emerging from the world of genetics, that men are not, and never have been, equal in ability. Nature vs. Nurture politics will be center stage.
While the prevalence of young earth creationism turned some off from the right and conservatism, genetic science will blur which party is more “science friendly.” Many on the right will highlight differing nature, arguing that social and economic outcomes across class, race, and ethnic groups can’t be equalized. Indeed, they will embrace the science. Pointing out that we are wasting resources and dumbing down, in the attempt. This will not negate nurture though. Conservatives will maintain that nurture is still neccessary to maximize outcomes within each group. But ultimately, equal outcomes, when looking at the sum of mankind, is ineffecient and unrealistic. Warning: Some evangelicasl will not follow along.
Many on the left will try to minimize, or outright deny, the new consensus. Others will grudingly recognize it, but declare that genetic winners are morally and legally obligated to keep trying to equalize outcomes with much greater centralized planning. Not because it can happen (equal outcomes), just because we’re suppossed too.
Talk of permanently sterilizing violent and sexual offenders will gain ground. Same with lower IQ single mothers who’ve already had one child while living off of government assistance. Though this will be seen as voluntary, in exchange for long term government assistance. We will justify this through genetic findings about the nature of violence, sexual activity, and IQ (especially differences between the classes). I wouldn’t be surprised if the non-denial left actually led this movement in order to save precious entitlment programs from a cold hard reality.
This will not all happen in 2010, of course. But history will record the foundation was set in that year. The foundation for what may be the greatest debate humankind will ever see.
[/quote]
That’s a good post. Not because it’s right, because, well, who knows - people (be they from the right/left/upside down) are great at denying/skewing scientific findings to fit their ideologies - but because our understanding of the influence of natural and nurturing processes should be reasoned on the basis of sound science, and it should influence our policy decisions and worldviews in general.
What do you think of the possible tragedy that nature/nurture science could become as poltically motivated as environmental science?