If Romney Wins, Wither the Democrats?

[PapaJacky]

And OMGosh, I share my nation with imbeciles who'd sell their nation for an Obama-Phone!

Sorry, what's an "Obama-Phone"?

Urban myth about free phones for the poor that Obama allocated. The program started under Reagan, however.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Sorry, what's an "Obama-Phone"?

Urban myth about free phones for the poor that Obama allocated. The program started under Reagan, however.

Same bullshit. Same racist point of origin. Same disgusting attitude at the root of the problem these people represent.

[Tarvelia]

And OMGosh, I share my nation with imbeciles who'd sell their nation for an Obama-Phone!

Sorry, what's an "Obama-Phone"?

Just remember, you asked for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpx3wLAJE44

I do acknowledge, that this program was made possible from spendaholic republicans...

And I am really getting fed up with being called racist. It is, however, racist to vote for someone because he is black.

[Indira]

Couldn't really see the GOP stripping the unions on the basis that it seems unfeasable. From a PR perspective, it would kill them in the next election.

It seems that Fox News and Co. have made half the country believe that all unions are evil and probably a front for the mafia. Never mind the lessons of the 20th Century.

Even so, your claims seem to say to me (and I rarely use this term when talking about the American left) hyperbole

[Neutraligon]

Sorry, what's an "Obama-Phone"?

Just remember, you asked for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpx3wLAJE44

I do acknowledge, that this program was made possible from spendaholic republicans...

And I am really getting fed up with being called racist. It is, however, racist to vote for someone because he is black.

...If this was supported by the God of the Republican party why are they called Obama-phones and how is Obama responsible for it?

[Alien Space Bats]

Truth be told, I don't think any nomination by a democrat will pass unless the person nominated is very conservative. Since I doubt a Democrat will nominate someone reactionary enough, I doubt any nomination will be given the green light. Which makes me wonder what happens when you can't get a new Justice on the Supreme Court.

You work without the missing justices.

In mid-1861, the Supreme Court was supposed to have nine justices, but only six seats were filled: Peter Vivian Daniel (a Van Buren appointee) had died in May, 1860 and not yet been replaced; neither had John McLean (a Jackson appointee), who had died in April, 1861; and John Archibald Campbell (a Pierce appointee) had resigned in April, 1861, leaving a third unfilled vacancy. With almost half the Senate gone due to the wholesale departure of Southerners following Fort Sumter, it was hard to get around to the business of replacing them - and with the outbreak of war, there were other (and more pressing) matters at hand (like raising an army, building a navy, and raising taxes to pay for both). It took until the end of 1862 for all three vacancies to be filled, with David Davis being confirmed as Campbell's replacement on December 8th, 1862 (he had been appointed by Lincoln in October).

[Neutraligon]

Truth be told, I don't think any nomination by a democrat will pass unless the person nominated is very conservative. Since I doubt a Democrat will nominate someone reactionary enough, I doubt any nomination will be given the green light. Which makes me wonder what happens when you can't get a new Justice on the Supreme Court.

You work without the missing justices.

In mid-1861, the Supreme Court was supposed to have nine justices, but only six seats were filled: Peter Vivian Daniel (a Van Buren appointee) had died in May, 1860 and not yet been replaced; neither had John McLean (a Jackson appointee), who had died in April, 1861; and John Archibald Campbell (a Pierce appointee) had resigned in April, 1861, leaving a third unfilled vacancy. With almost half the Senate gone due to the wholesale departure of Southerners following Fort Sumter, it was hard to get around to the business of replacing them - and with the outbreak of war, there were other (and more pressing) matters at hand (like raising an army, building a navy, and raising taxes to pay for both). It took until the end of 1862 for all three vacancies to be filled, with David Davis being confirmed as Campbell's replacement on December 8th, 1862 (he had been appointed by Lincoln in October).

What I mean is if the Republicans stonewall any and all Democratic placed nominations to the court, then what is to stop Democrats doing the same when Republicans nominate someone. What happens if it is totally impossible to pass any nomination, people do die after all.

[Tarvelia]

Just remember, you asked for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpx3wLAJE44

I do acknowledge, that this program was made possible from spendaholic republicans...

And I am really getting fed up with being called racist. It is, however, racist to vote for someone because he is black.

...If this was supported by the God of the Republican party why are they called Obama-phones and how is Obama responsible for it?

The point was the ignorance and abject selfishness of the voter.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Republican party is in decline regardless of whether they win or loose. It's like the Whigs back in the 1850's. They have shown they are absolutley spineless when it comes to standing up to their beleifs, unless said belief is political suicide, then they make sure to blast it on the loudspeaker.

Both the Libertarian party and the Tea Party movement seem to be coming onto the scene as the new right, and maybe a hundred years from now they will be the two main political parties, because God knows America couldn't survive a hundred years worth of Democrat self-destruction...

[Gauthier]

Just remember, you asked for this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpx3wLAJE44

I do acknowledge, that this program was made possible from spendaholic republicans...

And I am really getting fed up with being called racist. It is, however, racist to vote for someone because he is black.

...If this was supported by the God of the Republican party why are they called Obama-phones and how is Obama responsible for it?

Same reason Obama gets blamed for the bank bailouts. Projectionism.

[Alien Space Bats]

If Romney actually wins, I'm half wondering if it will turn out like The Dead Zone.

Ah, so you're wondering if Mitt really is the White Horse of the Apocalypse, then, riding forth to conquer the world for Christendom with his nuclear bow?

"I looked and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest." - Revelation 6:12

[Gauthier]

If Romney actually wins, I'm half wondering if it will turn out like The Dead Zone.

Ah, so you're wondering if Mitt really is the White Horse of the Apocalypse, then, riding forth to conquer the world for Christendom with his nuclear bow?

"I looked and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest." - Revelation 6:12

He'd shoot Iran, China and Russia and that will turn out so well. It would make a game of DefCon look absolutely optimistic.

[Tarvelia]

...If this was supported by the God of the Republican party why are they called Obama-phones and how is Obama responsible for it?

Same reason Obama gets blamed for the bank bailouts. Projectionism.

Conservative Republicans like me opposed the bank bailouts, and we opposed GWB for alot of things, we just didn't hate him beyond reason like alot of you lefties did.

As for the term "Obama-Phone" it came from this ignorant woman in the video.

[PapaJacky]

Same reason Obama gets blamed for the bank bailouts. Projectionism.

Conservative Republicans like me opposed the bank bailouts, and we opposed GWB for alot of things, we just didn't hate him beyond reason like alot of you lefties did.

As for the term "Obama-Phone" it came from this ignorant woman in the video.

Bush's good deeds are far and few between, there was plenty of reason for anyone to hate him, lol.

[Neutraligon]

...If this was supported by the God of the Republican party why are they called Obama-phones and how is Obama responsible for it?

The point was the ignorance and abject selfishness of the voter.

I never understood what was wrong with being selfish. Isn't that kinda the point of elections, to have people vote for whoever benefits them the most?

[Gauthier]

The point was the ignorance and abject selfishness of the voter.

I never understood what was wrong with being selfish. Isn't that kinda the point of elections, to have people vote for whoever benefits them the most?

Selfishness is a virtue when it's by the Job Creators. When it's from the working class and below, it's encouraging parasitism and looting. *nod nod*

[Linux and the X]

Same reason Obama gets blamed for the bank bailouts. Projectionism.

Conservative Republicans like me opposed the bank bailouts, and we opposed GWB for alot of things, we just didn't hate him beyond reason like alot of you lefties did.

As for the term "Obama-Phone" it came from this ignorant woman in the video.

You acknowledge that she's ignorant. Why would you use her term? It makes you seem equally ignorant.

Also, my understanding is that the programme is privately funded anyway.

[Greed and Death]

all that would happen if the clayton union exemption were repealed is unions could not form multi employer organizations.
UAW, would become United Ford workers, United GMC workers and so on.

While they could legally do that, it would be an exercise in futility, and they'd either be turned into old fashioned company unions designed to depress wages, or they'd be snuffed out of existence.

No they would still collectively bargain, believe it or not single employer Unions exist, and in fact represented the majority of workers until the 1950's. You know that part of the 20th century where most of our labor advances occurred.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 1266731067



All that would happen is unions would be unable to to bargain as a group against all employers who are by law forbidden to negotiate as a group against them. Honestly, the current set of laws shifts too heavily in favor of the unions and not enough in favor of the consumers. I think requiring unions to only work with their employer would be a reasonable re-balancing or possibly how Europe does it where the industry as a whole negotiates with the unions.

[The Greater German Nation]

I remember reading on a subreddit what a group of LGBT followers would do if Romney got elected. The vast majority of them said that they would be relocating to Europe or Canada. Though lots of them had stated they were leaving the United States before the topic of the election came up.

Can we call it the trail of Queers?

[Trotskylvania]

While they could legally do that, it would be an exercise in futility, and they'd either be turned into old fashioned company unions designed to depress wages, or they'd be snuffed out of existence.

No they would still collectively bargain, believe it or not single employer Unions exist, and in fact represented the majority of workers until the 1950's. You know that part of the 20th century where most of our labor advances occurred.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 1266731067



All that would happen is unions would be unable to to bargain as a group against all employers who are by law forbidden to negotiate as a group against them. Honestly, the current set of laws shifts too heavily in favor of the unions and not enough in favor of the consumers. I think requiring unions to only work with their employer would be a reasonable re-balancing or possibly how Europe does it where the industry as a whole negotiates with the unions.

Said single employer unions, if they were effective at all, were organized by union federations, which would still place them in violation of antitrust.

[Urcea]

Could you devise a more realistic scenario please, perhaps maybe one in which you don't outline a Republican victory as an inevitable endorsement of dictatorship in the United States?

[Alien Space Bats]

Could you devise a more realistic scenario please, perhaps maybe one in which you don't outline a Republican victory as an inevitable endorsement of dictatorship in the United States?

Can you imagine a scenario in which Republicans are able to continue winning the White House after 2016 without denying huge swaths of the American populace their right to vote?

[The Amyclae]

Could you devise a more realistic scenario please, perhaps maybe one in which you don't outline a Republican victory as an inevitable endorsement of dictatorship in the United States?

Can you imagine a scenario in which Republicans are able to continue winning the White House after 2016 without denying huge swaths of the American populace their right to vote?

The millions of Democratic voters who know little of who is running, why 'their candidate' is running and only go to the polls courtesy of people like myself use that day to get a few more dollars out of their job instead of futilely endorsing one wing of the Property Party.

[Urcea]

Could you devise a more realistic scenario please, perhaps maybe one in which you don't outline a Republican victory as an inevitable endorsement of dictatorship in the United States?

Can you imagine a scenario in which Republicans are able to continue winning the White House after 2016 without denying huge swaths of the American populace their right to vote?

Very much so, I see a scenario where Republicans continue to ease on their Immigration platform (which has been a non-issue this campaign season) combined with an emphasis on new young Hispanic candidates will finally and conclusively put the Hispanic community in the Untied States into the GOP column. That is a powerful vote to have, especially considering the Hispanic population will make up a majority of the country by the time the century is out.

Why Hispanics? Well of course generalizations do not apply for everyone, but in theory a lot of Hispanics are religious and socially conservative, and would strengthen that aspect of the party (personally I would prefer if the Republican Party became less socially conservative and instead became intellectual conservative, but I digress) and the party as a whole.

Additionally, I do not think that the situation is as desperate as you may claim it to be. I do not see why the GOP would have to go to that length to win elections. They win them in the current system regularly.

[Linux and the X]

Could you devise a more realistic scenario please, perhaps maybe one in which you don't outline a Republican victory as an inevitable endorsement of dictatorship in the United States?

Can you imagine a scenario in which Republicans are able to continue winning the White House after 2016 without denying huge swaths of the American populace their right to vote?

They realise making the BNP wonder what in all fuck is wrong with them is a bad idea?