If Obama Wins, Wither the Republicans?

[Galloism]

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.

Which would have made it a far better bill... if it had made it.

Sad to say, it was killed.

[Laerod]

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

/not a mod

In all fairness, the discussion on the consequences of a hypothetical Republican rebellion (far-fetched as that might be) is on topic. It's the banter about what constitutes socialism that is the irrelevant bit.

[Eirenia]

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.

[Vetalia]

"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.

True, I can't argue that.

[Dendarii Mountains]

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

/not a mod

In all fairness, the discussion on the consequences of a hypothetical Republican rebellion (far-fetched as that might be) is on topic. It's the banter about what constitutes socialism that is the irrelevant bit.

I was referring to the use of nicknames. Though I believe a reminder to observe civility is never amiss.

[Neo Art]

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

/not a mod

The topic is "what will happen if Romney loses". Someone mentioned "rebellion".

Pointing out, in detail, how the only thing armed rebellion against the United States government will accomplish is the traitors dead in the gutter like dogs is directly on that topic.

[Neo Art]

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.

Cancer? No, not a cancer. Anyone who, like YS, would threaten a violent insurrection if the people do not vote for his prefered candidate is not a cancer. Or a tumor. Or a plague. I dislike dressing things up in fancy euphamisms and symbolism when a much more rational term is appropriate.

Anyone who threatens violence to deter a political outcome is one thing, and one thing only.

A terrorist.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

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.

Not at all. This country was founded because of the efforts of revolutionaries who resisted taxation. Do I want things to get that bad? No, but I don't see any other option the republicans must toss threats, be honest and hinder the democrats in anyway possible.

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.

The problem is a lot larger than the military budget, it would be great if the Republicans and Democrats could agree on cutting military spending, but the Democrats wouldn't want to cut welfare spending. That's just uncompromisable, because they have to cut those programs, because they're insolvent.

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.

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table. I predict that the republicans/conservatives will eventually have to do this. If they don't then they'll be no more democracy, because democrats will have so much voting power that the republicans simply won't be able to influence decision making at a federal level.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Cancer? No, not a cancer. Anyone who, like YS, would threaten a violent insurrection if the people do not vote for his prefered candidate is not a cancer. Or a tumor. Or a plague. I dislike dressing things up in fancy euphamisms and symbolism when a much more rational term is appropriate.

Anyone who threatens violence to deter a political outcome is one thing, and one thing only.

A terrorist.

You've yet to realise the severity of the situation in the United States.

[Saruhan]

Cancer? No, not a cancer. Anyone who, like YS, would threaten a violent insurrection if the people do not vote for his prefered candidate is not a cancer. Or a tumor. Or a plague. I dislike dressing things up in fancy euphamisms and symbolism when a much more rational term is appropriate.

Anyone who threatens violence to deter a political outcome is one thing, and one thing only.

A terrorist.

You've yet to realise the severity of the situation in the United States.

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

[Galloism]

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.

The problem is a lot larger than the military budget, it would be great if the Republicans and Democrats could agree on cutting military spending, but the Democrats wouldn't want to cut welfare spending. That's just uncompromisable, because they have to cut those programs, because they're insolvent.

I must point out that social security is not insolvent, which is the single largest welfare program. In fact, it has a huge slush fund (that Congress keeps raiding for money). It's suffering a little thanks to the payroll tax cut, but that's something that expires at the end of this year (unless Congress extends it... again).

Medicare is not insolvent, although it is struggling thanks to rising medical costs and our not-do-anything-about-it approach to medical costs. However, an instituted medicare tax which goes into effect... (12? 13? can't remember) on investment income over $250,000 will probably close that gap.

Several states have insolvent unemployment programs thanks to Congressional interference, but the federal unemployment program is solvent. It's even made loans to several states.

So... what welfare programs are insolvent at the federal level exactly?

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table. I predict that the republicans/conservatives will eventually have to do this. If they don't then they'll be no more democracy, because democrats will have so much voting power that the republicans simply won't be able to influence decision making at a federal level.

It's not democracy when you follow the will of the majority of the people?

[Neo Art]

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table.

Do you...um...do you think that we somehow didn't think you meant that. We know you meant that. And we have spent pages now detailing how secession will not be successful.

Threatening to wage a war you can't win is not a successful threat.

It IS however something else entirely. Threatening to commit an act of armed agression against the United States unless certain political goals are met is by definition terrorism.

And any republican who, in the course of his employment as a representative in the US Federal Government, and while acting as a duly elected member of the US Federal Government, commits said act should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and executed for acts of terrorism against the United States.

[Farnhamia]

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table.

Do you...um...do you think that we somehow didn't think you meant that. We know you meant that. And we have spent pages now detailing how secession will not be successful.

Threatening to wage a war you can't win is not a successful threat.

It IS however something else entirely. Threatening to commit an act of armed agression against the United States unless certain political goals are met is by definition terrorism.

And any republican who, in the course of his employment as a representative in the US Federal Government, and while acting as a duly elected member of the US Federal Government, commits said act should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and executed for acts of terrorism against the United States.

Not only terrorism, but waging war against the United States is by definition treason. For citizens, of course.

[Galloism]

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table.

Do you...um...do you think that we somehow didn't think you meant that. We know you meant that. And we have spent pages now detailing how secession will not be successful.

Threatening to wage a war you can't win is not a successful threat.

It IS however something else entirely. Threatening to commit an act of armed agression against the United States unless certain political goals are met is by definition terrorism.

And any republican who, in the course of his employment as a representative in the US Federal Government, and while acting as a duly elected member of the US Federal Government, commits said act should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and executed for acts of terrorism against the United States.

I know what I'm going to do if war brakes out and my state is on the southern side.

I will drive straight to my brother's house if the roads are open.

If the roads are not open (IE, roadblocked to prevent escape), I will hotwire an aircraft at the local airport and fly to my brother's house. There's enough mountains around and I know them well enough to stay below radar until crossing the border into the northern states.

I'll deal with the theft charge later.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Cancer? No, not a cancer. Anyone who, like YS, would threaten a violent insurrection if the people do not vote for his prefered candidate is not a cancer. Or a tumor. Or a plague. I dislike dressing things up in fancy euphamisms and symbolism when a much more rational term is appropriate.

Anyone who threatens violence to deter a political outcome is one thing, and one thing only.

A terrorist.

Well, I was trying to be nice, but yes, one could make that argument successfully.

[Norsklow]

Fine, I'll type it. If the democrats, and the liberals wish to go down the path they want to go down if Obama wins then Republicans need to threaten them with secession, and if not secession then war has to be put on table.

Do you...um...do you think that we somehow didn't think you meant that. We know you meant that. And we have spent pages now detailing how secession will not be successful.

Threatening to wage a war you can't win is not a successful threat.

It IS however something else entirely. Threatening to commit an act of armed agression against the United States unless certain political goals are met is by definition terrorism.

And any republican who, in the course of his employment as a representative in the US Federal Government, and while acting as a duly elected member of the US Federal Government, commits said act should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and executed for acts of terrorism against the United States.

A few loose ends tightened up in a post I generally agree with.

Threatening to commit an act of armed aggression against the United States unless certain political goals are met is by definition an act of war.

And any resident who commits said act should be arrested, tried, convicted, imprisoned and executed for acts of TREASON against the United States - since waging war against your own country certainly is treason.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results. What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

[Gauntleted Fist]

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results. What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

I'm sorry, I was unaware that Germany, France, and the U.K. were all starving. I'll revise my opinion in light of this fact. Oh, never mind, no, I won't. Because it's not true.

[Neo Art]

Not only terrorism, but waging war against the United States is by definition treason. For citizens, of course.

I'm not saying you can't advocate secession. Private citizens like you, me, or this silly fellow can advocate whatever we damned well please. We can TALK all we want about whether we should seceed.

You can't, however, legally attempt secession.

And if some damned fool republican wants to talk about secession at a rally, or in his home, or on Fox News, whatever, fine, have at it, let the voters deal with him.

But any elected official, any offical of the United States Federal government who stands on the floors of the US Congress, while the legislative body is in session and advocates for secession, has gone beyond advocating. That person is now using his or her power as a United States Representative, on the floors of the United States Federal Government, to advocate war with the United States.

And any individual who does that has gone beyond advocating, and has now used his/her political power to attempt secession against the United States Federal Govenment.

And that is treason.

And in this country we execute traitors. And while this may be a shock for some to see these words come out of my "mouth" I do truly believe that anyone who uses his elected power to attempt secession against the United States government is a traitor and a terrorist and should be put to death.

[Saruhan]

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results. What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

What the fuck happened to Europe that I haven't heard of? Last time I checked, there was no war, no mass poverty, no famines. So where the fuck is this coming from?

[Laerod]

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results.

Really? Which ones?

What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

Takes one to know one, eh?

[Fnordgasm 5]

Cancer? No, not a cancer. Anyone who, like YS, would threaten a violent insurrection if the people do not vote for his prefered candidate is not a cancer. Or a tumor. Or a plague. I dislike dressing things up in fancy euphamisms and symbolism when a much more rational term is appropriate.

Anyone who threatens violence to deter a political outcome is one thing, and one thing only.

A terrorist.

You've yet to realise the severity of the situation in the United States.

You would destroy the US just because the Democrats win?

[Wamitoria]

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.

The house isn't what's important, the Senate is. Here's why:

The modern conservative movement in the United States is in large part completely reliant on their interpretation of the constitution their way. We have four justices on our Supreme Court in their seventies; two liberals and two conservatives. One of those liberals I expect to resign in the next four years (Ginsburg; she's not in the best of health these days) and one of those conservatives I expect to resign (Kennedy). Scalia won't be gone until he kicks the bucket; the man simply loves his job waayy too much to resign.

When you see one of the conservatives on the court replaced with a liberal, all proverbial hell will break loose on capitol hill. At this point in time you will see the conservative movement finally whittle itself down to it's radical, ultra-conservative, white base for good. Also, this might actually start violence.

Granted, it's possible this will also happen earlier during the upcoming discussions on immigration reform.

[Samuraikoku]

Gotta change with the times. If Obama wins, the Republicans face the choice of doing so, or extinction.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Cancer? No, not a cancer. Anyone who, like YS, would threaten a violent insurrection if the people do not vote for his prefered candidate is not a cancer. Or a tumor. Or a plague. I dislike dressing things up in fancy euphamisms and symbolism when a much more rational term is appropriate.

Anyone who threatens violence to deter a political outcome is one thing, and one thing only.

A terrorist.

You've yet to realise the severity of the situation in the United States.

That there are a bunch of over dramatic blowhards who, realizing no one buys their "well, I'm moving to somewhere that matches my values, like Iran!", are threatening to become treasonous terrorists toward the majority if they don't get their way? That they want to scaremonger their way into office? So essentially Spanish Fascists, only fatter, more opinionated and less likely to act?

They are annoying it is true, but not especially worrisome since they are all talk, thankfully.

You've yet to realize the vile blasphemy towards Allah and the prophet Muhammed

A-ha, clever, but your analogy does not compare. I'm not defending a faith-based system, and the threats to the American way of living and well-being of Americans are very real. If Obama wins, he's going to spend. Not only is he going to spend, he's going to push for the same European socialist policies, expand Government and disregard America's debt. The outcomes are predictable; famine, mass poverty just to name a few. How do I know this? because many nations have made the same mistakes that the US is making now, and it has always yielded the same results. What Obama is doing is insanity; pure and simple. I've met people who are so convinced that they're right that it's impossible to convince them otherwise even with all of the evidence in the world. Just look at Christians as an example. These people are dangerous in power, and unfortunately there are very few ways to deter them.

So you are both a mind reader, since you know what Obama is going to do, and capable of seeing the future, since you know what is going to happen?

I should ask - presumably these European socialist policies are in practice in Europe as we speak - which countries?

And which of these countries are currently in the grip of famine and mass poverty? And do you know what those words mean, because if you are saying Sweden or something, I think some people in Africa might have a bone to pick with you over definitions.