Does a vote for Mitt Romney constitute an act of treason?

[Silent Majority]

I find the idea that Capitalists are the only one's who could make wealth is sick

What is sick is that you show jealousy towards those that do make wealth.

Those with wealth wouldn't have any of it without the labor of others. It's sick to imply they do.

[Gauthier]

Treason? No.

But if you're below upper class and vote Romney you're either being blackmailed by your boss, suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, or an outright quisling.

[Gauthier]

If the original post describes an act of treason, then the same would apply to Obama, as well. (and all politicians protecting those pesky bourgeoisie.)

Exactly. If anything is treason it's thinking your vote is enough to change anything. Meaningful change only comes from organized action. Vote all you like, but know that your vote is meaningless unless you act to make the world a better place to live.

Yes, a hyper-hippy fantasyland where people only eat plant matter and animals are given human rights up to and including citizenship.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

When a young child goes around dropping his grandmother's china dishes because he likes the sound they make when they break, which is the course of action taken by a parent who loves that child:

1. Ignore it and pretend nothing happened
2. Point out to the child what he did and explain why he should not do that

You realize treason is a capital offense, right? It's not a slap on the wrist sort of thing.

Only under a bourgeois legal system.

[Norsklow]

You realize treason is a capital offense, right? It's not a slap on the wrist sort of thing.

Only under a bourgeois legal system.

Which is the case, ergo Raeyh is right.

Now back to business, Bluth, we've had enough prevarication.

[Acrainia]

Threads like this honestly make me hate these forums. The hypocrisy of some people here is staggering.

Is an opinion only valid if you agree with it? Is an ideology only legitimate if it is compatible with yours? Is a democracy only functional when everybody votes for somebody you agree with?

Are you so enlightened that you can write off anyone who disagrees with you as an idiot unworthy of taking part in politics? Are you so sure of your political ideas that you regard them as an intrinsic good, thus making any opposition to your ideas an intrinsic evil that must be destroyed?

If you agree with any of the above questions you cannot claim to support democracy or any real political freedom.

[Arumdaum]

Your topics of bigotry are getting really OLD really FAST.

Should we silence those who do not support the idea of global warming?
Should we call it treason to NOT vote for Obama? Because come on, that's the real title of this topic.

Not voting for Obama =/= voting for Romney.

[SaintB]

Insanity perhaps but not treason, since voting is lawful.

[Valourium]

Yes. People attempting to force others to live their lives other than how they want, defeating the freedom of religion and the idea of liberty itself. That is why a vote for Mitt is a vote against the very foundation of this nation!
If Romney wins, do you have any idea what it will spark?

[Christian Democrats]

Does a vote for Mitt Romney constitute an act of treason?

No, you loon.

[New Sapienta]

Yes. People attempting to force others to live their lives other than how they want, defeating the freedom of religion and the idea of liberty itself. That is why a vote for Mitt is a vote against the very foundation of this nation!
If Romney wins, do you have any idea what it will spark?

Voting to raise taxes=Voting to change someone's life.

[Gaveo]

It is generally accepted that war can be waged in domains other than physical confrontations on the battlefield. We hear talk all the time of "cyberwar," "economic warfare," "electronic warfare," etc., and it is widely recognized that these acts are very real attempts at forcing the victim of the aggressive act into submission.

Mitt Romney's stated platform constitutes yet another form of warfare against the United States: social warfare. He intends to squeeze the 99% until we capitulate to the 1%'s demand that we become their outright slaves, turning over all the fruits of our labor into their hands. This clearly satisfies one of the two Constitutionally permissible definitions of tyranny, namely "levying war against the United States."

Since ballots are secret it'd be impossible to convict any given individual, given the requirement for either two eyewitnesses or "confession in open court," of course, but still at least we'd know what to call the act itself.

What? Personally this is outright crazy, its the same as a Libertarian or Conservative saying Obama is from Kenya.

[Sedikal]

Oh for fucks sake.

Is everything extreme with you?

^ This

^yeah I'm going to have to agree.

[Viritica]

Your radical views never cease to amaze me, Bluth.

No, it doesn't. Metaphorical warfare is not the same as actual warfare.

[The Vermin Confederation of Mossflower]

Everyone I know is either a moderate republican, or a moderate democrat, with maybe one or two extremists either way.

Seeing extremists like OP everywere on the internet is scary and disturbing as hell.

[The All Powerful Republic of Edionia]

What a clueless liberal you are.

[Holy Trek]

It is generally accepted that war can be waged in domains other than physical confrontations on the battlefield. We hear talk all the time of "cyberwar," "economic warfare," "electronic warfare," etc., and it is widely recognized that these acts are very real attempts at forcing the victim of the aggressive act into submission.

Mitt Romney's stated platform constitutes yet another form of warfare against the United States: social warfare. He intends to squeeze the 99% until we capitulate to the 1%'s demand that we become their outright slaves, turning over all the fruits of our labor into their hands. This clearly satisfies one of the two Constitutionally permissible definitions of tyranny, namely "levying war against the United States."

Since ballots are secret it'd be impossible to convict any given individual, given the requirement for either two eyewitnesses or "confession in open court," of course, but still at least we'd know what to call the act itself.

In a word......YES

[Holy Trek]

What a clueless liberal you are.

What a typical hypocrit conservative YOU are

[CookieRaider]

It is generally accepted that war can be waged in domains other than physical confrontations on the battlefield. We hear talk all the time of "cyberwar," "economic warfare," "electronic warfare," etc., and it is widely recognized that these acts are very real attempts at forcing the victim of the aggressive act into submission.

Mitt Romney's stated platform constitutes yet another form of warfare against the United States: social warfare. He intends to squeeze the 99% until we capitulate to the 1%'s demand that we become their outright slaves, turning over all the fruits of our labor into their hands. This clearly satisfies one of the two Constitutionally permissible definitions of tyranny, namely "levying war against the United States."

Since ballots are secret it'd be impossible to convict any given individual, given the requirement for either two eyewitnesses or "confession in open court," of course, but still at least we'd know what to call the act itself.

Are you serious? If you aren't I do know what to consider this thread. Considering you are definitely a liberal, you are just making a Republicans job easy.
Why are you so fucking extreme. Even if you were to be a socialist.

EDIT: Added second line

[CookieRaider]

What a clueless liberal you are.

What a typical hypocrit conservative YOU are

How pathetic of a liberal YOU are.

[CookieRaider]

Seeing extremists like OP everywere on the internet is scary and disturbing as hell.

^This^

[Zweite Alaje]

Bluth, what the fuck is up with you dude? Stop this nonsense, it is unsocialist. Excerising ones right to vote is never treason. Sure voting for Romney is dumb, but hey people have the right to decide for themselves who they believe will be best.

I hated voting for Obama....again, but he's a marginally better choice, and currently the best offered up by the capitalist society we're trapped in.

[Perrytopia]

Isn't the United States political system already a "millionaires club" of sorts? In such a representative system, aren't we already at the mercy of this so called 1%? Will one president truly make a difference in an inevitable decline into the decadence known as the police state?

[CookieRaider]

Isn't the United States political system already a "millionaires club" of sorts? In such a representative system, aren't we already at the mercy of this so called 1%? Will one president truly make a difference in an inevitable decline into the decadence known as the police state?

No, considering it is the 1% to the 99%.

[Perrytopia]

Isn't the United States political system already a "millionaires club" of sorts? In such a representative system, aren't we already at the mercy of this so called 1%? Will one president truly make a difference in an inevitable decline into the decadence known as the police state?

No, considering it is the 1% to the 99%.

Well, if you insist
On second thought, I guess my above questions attempted to elicit an answer on whether the power of the aforementioned persons was so far reaching that a majority on the part of everyone else would be meaningless.