If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[Ostroeuropa]

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

The rule of thumb I use is that if someone advocates nationalizing stuff, they are a socialist. If they argue against privatizing things, they are a social democrat.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

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.

The difference being that most people aren't politically active, and that Obama has not only supported socialism verbally, but has enforced socialism politically through his white house policies. See, Obamacare, TAFT, the GM bail out, as well as his plan to take over student loans etc.

[Galloism]

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

Oh it's a really fucking bad idea, don't get me wrong.

And I somewhat doubt that there would be a large-scale military desertion either. There would be some, no doubt, but, as you said, without the infrastructure to control, maintain, equip, and arm those weapons that they might make off with, it won't last long.

Hackers will bypass the kill switches or, if they're fast enough, lock out the receivers that would receive such kill messages, but that will take time, and time is something of a hot commodity in war.

In short, the federal government will strike fast, hard, and with military precision while the rebels are still getting their shit together.

It's a really bad idea. no NATO required for it to be such.

[Laerod]

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.

The difference being that most people aren't politically active, and that Obama has not only supported socialism verbally, but has enforced socialism politically through his white house policies. See, Obamacare, TAFT, the GM bail out, as well as his plan to take over student loans etc.

And what are the Republicans gonna do about it if he wins?

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

The difference being that most people aren't politically active, and that Obama has not only supported socialism verbally, but has enforced socialism politically through his white house policies. See, Obamacare, TAFT, the GM bail out, as well as his plan to take over student loans etc.

And what are the Republicans gonna do about it if he wins?

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

[Galloism]

And what are the Republicans gonna do about it if he wins?

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

If they have any intelligence, they'll start figuring out what the people want and begin moving that direction.

[Neo Art]

None of this is meant to imply that the "red" states don't have value to this country, they certainly do. They're our bread basket, and home to most of our natural resources. If the "red" states got up and left violently, the "blue" ones would be pretty well fucked.

But they don't supply stuff that we CAN'T get elsewhere. It'll be a major fucking problem, but it's doable. Especially since the "blue" states would still have viable trade routes (we'd control the costs, the Canadian border, and routes through Mexico). The effects would send ripples through the global economy, triggering a crisis that makes our current circumstances look positively rosey, but we'd survive it.

The "red" states on the other hand, wouldn't. Not in any sense we'd recognize as "surviving" anyway. Modern life is just too tied in to interconnectivity.

It's also not practical. Even the most die hard republican states at best are 2:1 in favor of the right. Which means even if you can get 18 million of Texas' 27 million to join you, the other 9 million would give a resounding "go fuck yourselves" and run for their lives.

There's never going to BE a secession scenario because you're never, EVER, going to get enough people on board with the idea to do little more than create some bunker in the hills of Montana that does little more than mildly annoy the ATF..

But in some nightmare situation where secession ACTUALLY happens, the south just can not win. Technologically, demographically, politically, it can't happen. They will lose.

They'll trigger a global financial meltdown, but they will lose.

[Neo Art]

And what are the Republicans gonna do about it if he wins?

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

Throw fists at WHOM?

[Saruhan]

And what are the Republicans gonna do about it if he wins?

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

"We had to destroy the village to save it"

[Ostroeuropa]

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

Throw fists at WHOM?

it was the JEWS that cost us this election, then and the GAYS and the BLACKS.
*fumes*
etc

[Vetalia]

The difference being that most people aren't politically active, and that Obama has not only supported socialism verbally, but has enforced socialism politically through his white house policies. See, Obamacare, TAFT, the GM bail out, as well as his plan to take over student loans etc.

Mandating the purchase of health insurance from private businesses isn't socialism...state capitalism, maybe, or corporatism. That's a whole lot worse than socialism.

Bailing out GM was socialist in the sense that the government directly owned an interest in the company, I will agree, as one of the key components of socialism is the government owning the means of production. However, it was a necessary evil because the industry as it existed at the time literally could not survive the collapse of GM; the entire supply chain was so reliant upon GM and the other major manufacturers that the failure of one would collapse the others in short order. It was an unprecedented state of affairs, although I do believe there should have been more effort to restructure the industry to prevent recurrence and the need for additional bailouts.

Obama's student loan program, ironically enough, does a lot to restore market mechanisms in the field...previously, private lenders received a guarantee from the government for their loans (not unlike, say, Fannie and Freddie) which encouraged them to lend out as much as they could and charge as much as they could, with colleges and universities complicit in the scam to jack up tuition and fees because they were getting paid with guaranteed money.

Not sure what TAFT is, probably not familiar with the acronym.

[New Chalcedon]

And what are the Republicans gonna do about it if he wins?

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

I presume you mean 'fits' - like they've been doing since January 2009? And look what that's gotten them. Sure, they have the House back - for how long is up for debate - but they don't look like grabbing the Senate or the White House in what was, frankly, a 'gimme' election.

That's what the utter intractability of the Republican Party - on razor-sharp display since they retook the House and promptly started taking hostages over any and every issue - has won them. The widespread disgust of the American people, loss of (previously near-certain) Senate control after 2012 and loss of a viable path to the White House (unless you buy into the utterly brainless "poll skewage" meme).

However, given that most Republicans are of a similar stamp of thinking to yourself, if/when they lose this election that they should have won in a walk, their response will be to dig their heels in even further, rather than acknowledging that voucherising Medicare/Medicaid, privatising Social Security and doubling military spending (as they did last time they were in power, and have now expressed wishes to increase spending even faster this time) are not really popular positions.

All of which means that they will become a small core of 'true believers', increasingly irrelevant to American politics as their extremism increasingly turns off the voters they need to win over.

It can't happen soon enough.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

If they have any spine they'll start throwing fists.

Throw fists at WHOM?

The liberals, democrats and the leftists. Maybe not fists, but the Republicans need to start making legitimate threats to the party.

If they have any shred of intelligence they'll realise that what the people want isn't necessarily the best thing for the country, and it's probably not going to have another chance to when through the democratic process after this election. For this simple reason: Minorities and college students overwhelmingly vote democrat, and in four years they will have gained a larger share of votes.

Obama sincerely believes what he's doing is the right thing, and it's not. It puts him on the same caliber as Adolf and Stalin ideologically. People like him won't listen to sane logic or common sense, and the window for intelligent discussion from my perspective have closed. The republicans need to be honest, and begin to deliver ultimatums to liberals about seriously slashing the deficit, and cutting welfare. They need to get passionate, angry and threatening about it. They have to say "Hey, you can't do this or else we're going to stop you by all means necessary". It's the only rational option.

[Neo Art]

Throw fists at WHOM?

The liberals, democrats and the leftists. Maybe not fists, but the Republicans need to start making legitimate threats to the party.

Threats to do WHAT? Whine some more? That will help how?

or do you mean threats to seceed? Threatening to wage a war that you will without a doubt LOSE is not a threat.

[Laerod]

Throw fists at WHOM?

The liberals, democrats and the leftists. Maybe not fists, but the Republicans need to start making legitimate threats to the party.

Sounds like calling for illegal activity.

If they have any shred of intelligence they'll realise that what the people want isn't necessarily the best thing for the country, and it's probably not going to have another chance to when through the democratic process after this election. For this simple reason: Minorities and college students overwhelmingly vote democrat, and in four years they will have gained a larger share of votes.

Obama sincerely believes what he's doing is the right thing, and it's not. It puts him on the same caliber as Adolf and Stalin ideologically. People like him won't listen to sane logic or common sense, and the window for intelligent discussion from my perspective have closed. The republicans need to be honest, and begin to deliver ultimatums to liberals about seriously slashing the deficit, and cutting welfare. They need to get passionate, angry and threatening about it. They have to say "Hey, you can't do this or else we're going to stop you by all means necessary". It's the only rational option.

Oh my god, the beautiful irony.

[Galloism]

Throw fists at WHOM?

The liberals, democrats and the leftists. Maybe not fists, but the Republicans need to start making legitimate threats to the party.

If they have any shred of intelligence they'll realise that what the people want isn't necessarily the best thing for the country, and it's probably not going to have another chance to when through the democratic process after this election. For this simple reason: Minorities and college students overwhelmingly vote democrat, and in four years they will have gained a larger share of votes.

Obama sincerely believes what he's doing is the right thing, and it's not. It puts him on the same caliber as Adolf and Stalin ideologically. People like him won't listen to sane logic or common sense, and the window for intelligent discussion from my perspective have closed. The republicans need to be honest, and begin to deliver ultimatums to liberals about seriously slashing the deficit, and cutting welfare. They need to get passionate, angry and threatening about it. They have to say "Hey, you can't do this or else we're going to stop you by all means necessary". It's the only rational option.

Why can't we just cut the military budget?

That makes up the vast majority of the deficit. Cutting the budget of the single largest contributor to it makes the most sense.

[Saruhan]

Throw fists at WHOM?

it was the JEWS that cost us this election, then and the GAYS and the BLACKS.
*fumes*
etc

Wow, you really called that

[Galloism]

The liberals, democrats and the leftists. Maybe not fists, but the Republicans need to start making legitimate threats to the party.

Threats to do WHAT? Whine some more? That will help how?

or do you mean threats to seceed? Threatening to wage a war that you will without a doubt LOSE is not a threat.

Well, it is.

I could threaten to start a fight with Mike Tyson. I would most certainly lose, but it's still a threat.

It's just not a very effective one... and I like my ears.

[Neo Art]

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.

They don't need to directly militarily intervene. And I don't even care about NATO. I care about the nations that make up NATO. The entire Western Europe power structure.

I don't want to pull the "hur hur republicans can't win" line, but the red states actually CAN'T win, for two reasons.

The first is geographic and industrial demographics. They don't have any ports. They don't have any borders. Most of the power comes from plants outside those states.

Second, the US military has spent considerable time and effort ensuring that its assets can't be used in the wrong hands. That includes rebels. And even if they could swing some "good old boys" out of the military to their sides, the people who actually have the keys to the damned things, the top brass, are all high enough ranking that they'd see rebellion against the US as treason. It's God and Country to those people, not God and Georgia.

If a rebellion actually happened, and was small enough, the military can supress it on its own.

if it REALY got big enough that it would pose actual threat, then all they'd have to do is pull out, seal the borders, blockade the ports, and wait 3-5 years for the bulk of them to starve.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Obama sincerely believes what he's doing is the right thing, and it's not. It puts him on the same caliber as Adolf and Stalin ideologically. People like him won't listen to sane logic or common sense, and the window for intelligent discussion from my perspective have closed. The republicans need to be honest, and begin to deliver ultimatums to liberals about seriously slashing the deficit, and cutting welfare. They need to get passionate, angry and threatening about it. They have to say "Hey, you can't do this or else we're going to stop you by all means necessary". It's the only rational option.

Because democracy only works when they vote for the right candidates, right? You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and what you're advocating is much worse than what President Obama wants. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say it. Your thought process and those that advocate it are the cancer that is killing America.

[New Bastion City]

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

[Vetalia]

Because democracy only works when they vote for the right candidates, right? You have literally no idea what you're talking about, and what you're advocating is much worse than what President Obama wants. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say it. Your thought process and those that advocate it are the cancer that is killing America.

Well, I don't have a problem with taking a hard line on the deficit...it's dangerously unsustainable and we need to take action to address it now rather than wait for it to become a major crisis.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Well, I don't have a problem with taking a hard line on the deficit...it's dangerously unsustainable and we need to take action to address it now rather than wait for it to become a major crisis.

"Taking a hard line on the deficit" is not the same thing as "threatening people with consequences" if they don't do what they're told to do.

[Dendarii Mountains]

I would like to remind people of this: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=183223

/not a mod

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

The difference being that most people aren't politically active, and that Obama has not only supported socialism verbally, but has enforced socialism politically through his white house policies. See, Obamacare, TAFT, the GM bail out, as well as his plan to take over student loans etc.

Mandating the purchase of health insurance from private businesses isn't socialism...state capitalism, maybe, or corporatism. That's a whole lot worse than socialism.

Bailing out GM was socialist in the sense that the government directly owned an interest in the company, I will agree, as one of the key components of socialism is the government owning the means of production. However, it was a necessary evil because the industry as it existed at the time literally could not survive the collapse of GM; the entire supply chain was so reliant upon GM and the other major manufacturers that the failure of one would collapse the others in short order. It was an unprecedented state of affairs, although I do believe there should have been more effort to restructure the industry to prevent recurrence and the need for additional bailouts.

Obama's student loan program, ironically enough, does a lot to restore market mechanisms in the field...previously, private lenders received a guarantee from the government for their loans (not unlike, say, Fannie and Freddie) which encouraged them to lend out as much as they could and charge as much as they could, with colleges and universities complicit in the scam to jack up tuition and fees because they were getting paid with guaranteed money.

Not sure what TAFT is, probably not familiar with the acronym.

Sorry, I meant TARP.

Also, Obama pushed for a public insurance option, but it never went through.