If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[New Chalcedon]

Conservatives, and like-minded individuals might as well consider more primitive options if Obama. Worst-case scenario is that red states secede from the unions. Considering that Obama is a blatant socialist I see no reason why not to.

The only people who consider President Obama to be a "socialist", far less a "blatant" one, are grossly uninformed as to what socialism actually is. And most of them have no interest in actually learning what "socialism" is, they merely wish to paint Obama (and any incidental Democrats they come across) as one.

Like you.

[Neo Art]

Conservatives, and like-minded individuals might as well consider more primitive options if Obama. Worst-case scenario is that red states secede from the unions. Considering that Obama is a blatant socialist I see no reason why not to.

No reason why not to? Really?

How about the fact that the vast majority of "red states" would be bankrupt in a year if they tried?

Oh, I found it, this cropped up in discussion of Arizona secession:

I find these calls for Arizona secession utterly amusing for a few reasons:

1) In 2005 Arizona received $1.20 in federal funds for every dollar its residents paid in federal taxes. Essentially, the people of Arizona paid about $36 billion to the federal government and the state received about $45 billion. So the FIRST step in secession would be trying to figure out exactly how to account for a nine BILLION dollar annual shortfall. The United States does not, fiscally, benefit for including Arizona. Arizona fiscally benefits by being part of the united states, to the tune of about 9 billion A YEAR.

2) take a look at a map. If Arizona would seceed and form its own little nation, that nation would be quite unfortunately landlocked. And it's also in the middle of a desert. And shit doesn't grow too well in a desert. And if you can't independantly grow your own food, and the nation that surrounds you on all 3 sides is the one you just flipped a finger to, and decides to not let you import anything across their borders, well it puts you in quite a pickle, doesn't it? So not only would they have to figure out how to make up a 9 billion annual shortfall (probably much more as people of Arizona, having no interest in this grand new nation of theirs, flee to the United States in droves) but they'd also figure out how to sustain their infrastructure and feed their people when they're surrounded by 3 sides from the nation they just left, and their only viable trading route would be through, irony of ironies.....Mexico.

The US government wouldn't have to even fire a shot. They'd just wait until the people of the New Republic of Arizona, starving, cut off, and utterly devoid of basic infrastructure to the point they've devolved into a 3rd world country, overthrow their own crazy government and beg to be let back in.

[Hippostania]

Though I'm hopeful that Mitt Romney still has the power to win the election, like Reagan did in 1980, but I acknowledge that there is a fair possibility that Obama might win the election. Of course that's going to be a sad day for America, four more years of spending, failing economic policies, weak foreign policy and unbalanced budgets, but at least I know that because of that, America can finally get a Republican in the White House in 2016 to fix all the shit Obama has done.

And even if Obama wins the presidential election, Republicans might gain control of the House. That'll at least slow down Obama from implementing his destructive policies.

[New Bastion City]

Conservatives, and like-minded individuals might as well consider more primitive options if Obama. Worst-case scenario is that red states secede from the unions. Considering that Obama is a blatant socialist I see no reason why not to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Serrland]

Though I'm hopeful that Mitt Romney still has the power to win the election, like Reagan did in 1980, but I acknowledge that there is a fair possibility that Obama might win the election. Of course that's going to be a sad day for America, four more years of spending, failing economic policies, weak foreign policy and unbalanced budgets, but at least I know that because of that, America can finally get a Republican in the White House in 2016 to fix all the shit Obama has done.

And even if Obama wins the presidential election, Republicans might gain control of the House. That'll at least slow down Obama from implementing his destructive policies.

Republicans have held the House since 2010.

[Arumdaum]

Though I'm hopeful that Mitt Romney still has the power to win the election, like Reagan did in 1980, but I acknowledge that there is a fair possibility that Obama might win the election. Of course that's going to be a sad day for America, four more years of spending, failing economic policies, weak foreign policy and unbalanced budgets, but at least I know that because of that, America can finally get a Republican in the White House in 2016 to fix all the shit Obama has done.

And even if Obama wins the presidential election, Republicans might gain control of the House. That'll at least slow down Obama from implementing his destructive policies.

Fair possibility?

And the Republicans have held the House since 2010.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Conservatives, and like-minded individuals might as well consider more primitive options if Obama. Worst-case scenario is that red states secede from the unions. Considering that Obama is a blatant socialist I see no reason why not to.

The only people who consider President Obama to be a "socialist", far less a "blatant" one, are grossly uninformed as to what socialism actually is. And most of them have no interest in actually learning what "socialism" is, they merely wish to paint Obama (and any incidental Democrats they come across) as one.

Like you.

I've read the definition of socialism a good 50 times, so I'm pretty positive I got a good hold on what it is. Obama wants to tax rich more, and expand welfare. That's the primary view he espouses, and it's also what makes him a socialist.

No reason why not to? Really?

How about the fact that the vast majority of "red states" would be bankrupt in a year if they tried?

Any state could simply default on their debt and restructure their economy in order to become self-sufficient. If states ever realise that a secession is worth not having to deal with the hassle that is the federal government, they will do so - by war if necessary.

[Hippostania]

Republicans have held the House since 2010.

And the Republicans have held the House since 2010.

I confused the House and the Senate, sorry

[Phocidaea]

If Obama wins, it'll be a huge moral loss for the Republicans. The teabaggers will run out of morale, since they'll realize that their efforts did nothing to stop the president, and the Republicans will have a healthy four years to return to the center-right rather than the right-wing they've been sitting at.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will have an identity crisis. Their best president for years will be gone, and they'll have to hold either the House or Senate in order to resist conservative legislation.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

If Obama wins, it'll be a huge moral loss for the Republicans. The teabaggers will run out of morale, since they'll realize that their efforts did nothing to stop the president, and the Republicans will have a healthy four years to return to the center-right rather than the right-wing they've been sitting at.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will have an identity crisis. Their best president for years will be gone, and they'll have to hold either the House or Senate in order to resist conservative legislation.

Their best president for years(assuming that you meant decades) is some guy who lies, lets the fed run wild and has no backbone?

[Frisivisia]

If Obama wins, it'll be a huge moral loss for the Republicans. The teabaggers will run out of morale, since they'll realize that their efforts did nothing to stop the president, and the Republicans will have a healthy four years to return to the center-right rather than the right-wing they've been sitting at.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will have an identity crisis. Their best president for years will be gone, and they'll have to hold either the House or Senate in order to resist conservative legislation.

Their best president for years(assuming that you meant decades) is some guy who lies, lets the fed run wild and has no backbone?

No, not that George Bush guy, I think he's referring to the current administration.

[Neo Art]

Any state could simply default on their debt and restructure their economy in order to become self-sufficient. If states ever realise that a secession is worth not having to deal with the hassle that is the federal government, they will do so - by war if necessary.

You actually believe that don't you? That's so cute.

OK let's go through this. Who would this grand new nation trade with? They're only bordering two countries. The one they just fought a war with is one. Mexico is the other. Yeah. Mexico. Good luck getting MEXICO to trade with the southern states.

Well there's the ocean. Not the pacific, mind you, that's blocked off by California, Oregon, and Washington state. Which is unfortunate because that closes off the ENTIRE pacific rim, like China Japan and Taiwan, which is unfortuate because they make all your shit.

So you can go to the Atlantic. You'll maybe get a FEW states actually boarding the Atlantic ocean. Not many, because New England is pretty blue, and even Virginia and Florida are purple enough to not want to deal with this shit, but hey you'll get South Carolina.

Maybe even Georgia!

So you'll be able to bring in trade by sea. Well. Maybe not. See you only have limited coastal area. Who will be in position to blockade those coastal areas?

Oh, right, the United States Navy. Which would incidentally be a problem even if you did eke out an area on the West Coast. Pearl Harbor Naval Base and all.

Fuck.

OK, fine, let's say you get around the blockades, who do you trade with? Well, Western Europe. But remember, you "defaulted on your debt", destroying the credit rating of this grand new nation, thus making any and all foreign countries extremely reluctant to trade with you. So you're not going to get any trade out of the Old World without near crippling penalties. But ok, there's another problem.

That country you just went to war with? The legitimate united states? Yeah, they're a member of some clubs. Not just the UN, but NATO as well. Yeah, NATO. Remember NATO? That group with the mutual alliance pacts? While they may weazle out of an "internal" US conflict, all the US has to do is recognize your independance, declare war on you, block your ports and wait for you to attack, triggering NATOS defense treaties. At best, the entire industrialized portions of Western Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) will lock out out. At worst they'll join in with their ally and bomb the piss out of you.

So now you have no trade alliances. Well, you can be internal. Sure. OK. Take a look at this map. All the oil, natural gas, renewable, hydro and nuclear plants? Our side of the border.

You have coal. Yeah, coal. Something that requires big heavy industrialized machines to dig out of the ground.

Where are all the factories located that MAKE all those big, heavy, industrialized machines?

FUCK.

Same with Oil. You got texas, sure, but the major sources of oil in the US comes from Alaska, and foreign imports. Also oil, again, takes a lot of shit to drill out of the ground, shit that breaks down fast. Shit you have no means of replacing.

Also, you don't have a lot of fresh water. Most of that is piped in from elsewhere.

So you have no power, no water, no electricity, no industry, and no means of GETTING those things.

You make food, and I'll give you that. Of course, without modern technology at the level supplied by the north, or foreign trade, you won't be able to make NEARLY enough of it to support your population. Which after 10-15 years will probably stabilize, after the famines kill off whomever didn't flee your stupid little country.

But that's KINDA like winning, right?

[Silent Majority]

lets the fed run wild

You realize the president has no say in what the Federal Reserve does right? (and with good reason)

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The only people who consider President Obama to be a "socialist", far less a "blatant" one, are grossly uninformed as to what socialism actually is. And most of them have no interest in actually learning what "socialism" is, they merely wish to paint Obama (and any incidental Democrats they come across) as one.

Like you.

I've read the definition of socialism a good 50 times, so I'm pretty positive I got a good hold on what it is. Obama wants to tax rich more, and expand welfare. That's the primary view he espouses, and it's also what makes him a socialist. right-leaning social democrat.

Here's a heads-up: if he's not out to destroy capitalism, which he plainly isn't (see GM, a bailout under his Presidency), then he isn't a socialist.

Try looking in places other than Conservapedia for definitions of socialism.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Conservatives, and like-minded individuals might as well consider more primitive options if Obama. Worst-case scenario is that red states secede from the unions. Considering that Obama is a blatant socialist I see no reason why not to.

The only people who consider President Obama to be a "socialist", far less a "blatant" one, are grossly uninformed as to what socialism actually is. And most of them have no interest in actually learning what "socialism" is, they merely wish to paint Obama (and any incidental Democrats they come across) as one.

Like you.

I've pretty much ceased listening to people who call Obama a socialist. Makes for a far less stressy life

[Eirenia]

If Obama wins, it'll be a huge moral loss for the Republicans. The teabaggers will run out of morale, since they'll realize that their efforts did nothing to stop the president, and the Republicans will have a healthy four years to return to the center-right rather than the right-wing they've been sitting at.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will have an identity crisis. Their best president for years will be gone, and they'll have to hold either the House or Senate in order to resist conservative legislation.

Their best president for years(assuming that you meant decades) is some guy who lies, lets the fed run wild and has no backbone?

A politician who lies?! Gee golly, you don't say. Better go with Romney/Ryan, who have never ever ever claimed false things. Certainly not to the degree that an academic researcher of political ads would say "I cannot recall a single presidential campaign ad in the history of American politics that lied more blatantly than this one," right?

[Laerod]

If Obama wins, it'll be a huge moral loss for the Republicans. The teabaggers will run out of morale, since they'll realize that their efforts did nothing to stop the president, and the Republicans will have a healthy four years to return to the center-right rather than the right-wing they've been sitting at.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will have an identity crisis. Their best president for years will be gone, and they'll have to hold either the House or Senate in order to resist conservative legislation.

Their best president for years(assuming that you meant decades) is some guy who lies, lets the fed run wild and has no backbone?

If you care about no backbone and lies, why would you support Romney over Obama? Also, what is this doing in a thread on what the Republicans might do if Obama wins?

[Phocidaea]

If Obama wins, it'll be a huge moral loss for the Republicans. The teabaggers will run out of morale, since they'll realize that their efforts did nothing to stop the president, and the Republicans will have a healthy four years to return to the center-right rather than the right-wing they've been sitting at.

If Romney wins, the Democrats will have an identity crisis. Their best president for years will be gone, and they'll have to hold either the House or Senate in order to resist conservative legislation.

Their best president for years(assuming that you meant decades) is some guy who lies, lets the fed run wild and has no backbone?

There has never been a politician who hasn't lied.

There has never been a person who hasn't lied.

Obama has more of a backbone than Romney could ever hope to.

And, yes, I mean decades.

[Galloism]

Any state could simply default on their debt and restructure their economy in order to become self-sufficient. If states ever realise that a secession is worth not having to deal with the hassle that is the federal government, they will do so - by war if necessary.

You actually believe that don't you? That's so cute.

OK let's go through this. Who would this grand new nation trade with? They're only bordering two countries. The one they just fought a war with is one. Mexico is the other. Yeah. Mexico. Good luck getting MEXICO to trade with the southern states.

Well there's the ocean. Not the pacific, mind you, that's blocked off by California, Oregon, and Washington state. Which is unfortunate because that closes off the ENTIRE pacific rim, like China Japan and Taiwan, which is unfortuate because they make all your shit.

So you can go to the Atlantic. You'll maybe get a FEW states actually boarding the Atlantic ocean. Not many, because New England is pretty blue, and even Virginia and Florida are purple enough to not want to deal with this shit, but hey you'll get South Carolina.

Maybe even Georgia!

So you'll be able to bring in trade by sea. Well. Maybe not. See you only have limited coastal area. Who will be in position to blockade those coastal areas?

Oh, right, the United States Navy. Which would incidentally be a problem even if you did eke out an area on the West Coast. Pearl Harbor Naval Base and all.

Fuck.

OK, fine, let's say you get around the blockades, who do you trade with? Well, Western Europe. But remember, you "defaulted on your debt", destroying the credit rating of this grand new nation, thus making any and all foreign countries extremely reluctant to trade with you. So you're not going to get any trade out of the Old World without near crippling penalties. But ok, there's another problem.

That country you just went to war with? The legitimate united states? Yeah, they're a member of some clubs. Not just the UN, but NATO as well. Yeah, NATO. Remember NATO? That group with the mutual alliance pacts? While they may weazle out of an "internal" US conflict, all the US has to do is recognize your independance, declare war on you, block your ports and wait for you to attack, triggering NATOS defense treaties. At best, the entire industrialized portions of Western Europe (Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) will lock out out. At worst they'll join in with their ally and bomb the piss out of you.

So now you have no trade alliances. Well, you can be internal. Sure. OK. Take a look at this map. All the oil, natural gas, renewable, hydro and nuclear plants? Our side of the border.

You have coal. Yeah, coal. Something that requires big heavy industrialized machines to dig out of the ground.

Where are all the factories located that MAKE all those big, heavy, industrialized machines?

FUCK.

Same with Oil. You got texas, sure, but the major sources of oil in the US comes from Alaska, and foreign imports. Also oil, again, takes a lot of shit to drill out of the ground, shit that breaks down fast. Shit you have no means of replacing.

Also, you don't have a lot of fresh water. Most of that is piped in from elsewhere.

So you have no power, no water, no electricity, no industry, and no means of GETTING those things.

You make food, and I'll give you that. Of course, without modern technology at the level supplied by the north, or foreign trade, you won't be able to make NEARLY enough of it to support your population. Which after 10-15 years will probably stabilize, after the famines kill off whomever didn't flee your stupid little country.

But that's KINDA like winning, right?

One minor correction.

If the US declared war on the new independent nation and blockaded it, the resulting retaliatory strike would not invoke a Mutual Defense Pact. In that case, the United States is the aggressor nation, and thus mutual defense pacts do not apply.

The rest of it is accurate, though.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

I've read the definition of socialism a good 50 times, so I'm pretty positive I got a good hold on what it is. Obama wants to tax rich more, and expand welfare. That's the primary view he espouses, and it's also what makes him a socialist. right-leaning social democrat.

Here's a heads-up: if he's not out to destroy capitalism, which he plainly isn't (see GM, a bailout under his Presidency), then he isn't a socialist.

Try looking in places other than Conservapedia for definitions of socialism.

GM bail-out wasn't capitalism, that was controlled economics. It was socialism as well given that it was a hand-out, as well as a loan using tax payer dollars. Unless you want to make the argument that it was capitalism which would completely null the definition of the word. Nevertheless, Obama doesn't care for capitalism, and his DNC made that blatantly apparent:
"I don't believe that firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid will grow the economy"
"America, no child should have her dreams deferred because of a crowded classroom or a crumbling school. No family should have to set aside a college acceptance letter because they don't have the money."

Obama makes it clear that he supports socialised schooling.

"Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we'll do it by reducing the cost of health care - not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it - not by turning it over to Wall Street."

He makes it clear that he supports socialist programs such as Medicare and social security.

"We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals"

If this isn't the espousing of a socialist I don't know what is.


Socialist. noun 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism

[Vetalia]

If this isn't the espousing of a socialist I don't know what is.

Socialist. noun 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism

Only problem is, that means pretty much everyone in the United States is a socialist...almost all people on all sides of the political spectrum support college aid, public education, Medicare and Social Security to one degree or another.

[Neo Art]

One minor correction.

If the US declared war on the new independent nation and blockaded it, the resulting retaliatory strike would not invoke a Mutual Defense Pact. In that case, the United States is the aggressor nation, and thus mutual defense pacts do not apply.

The rest of it is accurate, though.

Possibly, I mean it may be a justification used by NATO states to not get involved in an "internal" matter and then cast the US federal government as "aggressors" to try and get out of defense pacts, but that's a stretch. What's even more of a stretch is imagining NATO somehow NOT getting involved in an armed rebellion brewing inside the largest economic and military might in the world, and their most powerful ally.

Even if they mumble something about "defensive pacts, have to do it" the reality is the European NATO powers aren't going to let the US federal government stand alone at a time like that. Some internal terrorist problem, sure. Actual full scale insurrection? No. Not only are they not going to risk damaging their most valueable alliance but, even though the rebells almost certainly won't win, god help us all if they somehow DO.

But, to further this idiocy of "southern secession", who do you think is going to FIGHT this war for you, oh southern rebels? A few wingnuts with guns is not going to handle the US military.

And even if you think that you'll get some of the military to join you under some misguided belief that they're all "good old boys", think again, demographically, recruits to the US military are pretty evenly spread out, and represent a portion of the urban recruitment not terribly out of whack with the general population. And urbanites are much less likely to support this rebellion of yours.

Moreover your rhetoric of "fuck the federal government" may not go over so well with employees of the federal government.

But ignoring that, let's pretend you do get about half the military to join you. And along with that, about half the military assets.

Well you know what those military assets all come equipped with?

Remote kill switches.

Meaning all those boats and bombers and nuclear weapons and drones you got your hands on? They're all turned off. And the only people with the keys is the Pentagon.

So yeah, you may get your hand on a carrier or two, but unless you want to paddle that bitch home, you're gonna have to try to find a way past the encrypted servers that control the engine. Servers that were given a remote shut down signal the minute you fired your first shot.

I know somewhere in your heart you believe the south will rise again. It won't. This isn't 1862. It's 2012. And even if, in the most optimal conditions of a southern rebellion you may get your hands on some grunts, some guns, and whatever bullets you manage to scavange up, the north will have all the planes, the bombs, the drones, the industries, the power, the oil, the water, and the ports.

And the entire NATO alliance

[Eirenia]

If this isn't the espousing of a socialist I don't know what is.

Socialist. noun 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism

Only problem is, that means pretty much everyone in the United States is a socialist...almost all people on all sides of the political spectrum support college aid, public education, Medicare and Social Security to one degree or another.

Don't forget socialized police departments and socialized fire response.

[Silent Majority]

If your definition of socialism is the support of public education, social security, and medicare. Then Ronald fucking Reagan was a socialist.

[Laerod]

And the entire NATO alliance

To be quite fair, given the consequences foreign troops might have on public opinion, widespread NATO involvement, particularly with ground forces, is unlikely. Support in numerous ways, sure, possibly even naval action. But direct intervention into a ground war in the US is pretty much out of the question.