And Here We Go: Presidential Election Day 2012

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

If there isn't bombings in it, Hippo doesn't think it is harsh enough.

He's young. The young have no subtlety. Or worse, mistake it for spinelessness.

As a young person not calling for bombing the shit out of Iran, I object to that.

Oh, and congratulations to Obama. That too.

[Norstal]

I'm not sure you know what corporatism is.

I'm not sure anyone in NSG understand political science terms.

I think you'd be wrong there...

Right, so, which one of his economic policies is considered corporatist and which branch of corporatism does it subscribe to?

[Norsklow]

I'm not sure you know what corporatism is.

I'm not sure anyone in NSG understand political science terms.

I think you'd be wrong there...

I believe you equate corporatism with an increased influence of corporated profit motivated entities. The 2 have nothing to do with eachother.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I think you'd be wrong there...

Given that neither's policies are remotely close to corporatism, I think he'd be right.

Needless to say I do rather disagree but that's ok.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yeah, true Americans stand for what the United States was founded on. Since people who voted for Obama do not stand for those principles, they can't be considered real Americans. Attempting to turn America into a center-left social democratic hellhole that many liberal college students are doing is nothing but of treason, and America does not need traitors.

No.

BOB: Let's check the Constitution on that one, Steve.
STEVE: You got it, Bob. According to Article III, Section 3 of the US federal constitution, treason is defined as follows-

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

BOB: Steve, that phrase "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort", what does that mean?
STEVE: Well Bob, that means that you have to either help someone commit an act of war against the USA or commit one yourself.
BOB: And is voting for candidates which will work toward implementing social democracy in the United States to be considered an act of war?
STEVE: Only in the most obscure line of reasoning imaginable, Bob. It's impossible to construe a vote for candidates who will either directly implement universal healthcare or serve as stepping stones toward that end as committing an act of war against the United States or helping someone else to do so. You might challenge the constitutionality of implementing a universal healthcare system, but calling a vote for doing so an act of war simply cannot be reasonably done.
BOB: I see. So we're looking at a clear case of hyperbole here.
STEVE: A huge one, Bob.
BOB: Alright, I suppose that's it then. Thanks for tuning in, and have a nice day or night.

[Page]

So, what does this mean for the Supreme Court? It seems even a second Obama term might not shift the 5 - 4 conservative majority and give hope to rid of the Citizens United atrocity.

I'll be sad to see Ginsburg go if she retires, I think she is easily the best of the 9 justices on the court right now.

[Norsklow]

He's young. The young have no subtlety. Or worse, mistake it for spinelessness.

As a young person not calling for bombing the shit out of Iran, I object to that.

Oh, and congratulations to Obama. That too.

But upon observing you as young person calling the overthrow of Capitalism, I object to your objection, dear sir.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I think you'd be wrong there...

I believe you equate corporatism with an increased influence of corporated profit motivated entities. The 2 have nothing to do with eachother.

Nope.

I would say that, as an example, the erosion of workers rights points in a particular direction.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's funny because they are right.

We are a nation that has a weakness for snapping up soundbites and rushing to judgement, and people do rush to judgement. We are changing, as a nation, because of education, and we are less insular and shielded from the realities of the world as our population balance shifts towards these younger, educated Americans.

The problem is - those things would still be true if Romney had been the victor. And while Beck would have been claiming this as a landslide, grassroots manifestation of American conscience - the simple truth is that the proportion of people that had rushed to judgement, or voted based on soundbites - would have been the same - because that's something that is an underlying truth.

And they may even be right that the 'America' they recognise is on it's way out, and they may be right that it's because of education - but if America changes direction because they are better educated... that's a good thing.

That depends on the nature of the result, and not upon the nature of the cause.

Yes and no. It's a good thing for America to evolve. The founders knew it would. It's 'good' that America changes as it's citizens change.

The specific direction America evolves in might not be 'good' for all Americans - and we've seen that over the last few years, as America transitioned into an increasingly militaristic semi-theocracy.

[Norsklow]

So, what does this mean for the Supreme Court? It seems even a second Obama term might not shift the 5 - 4 conservative majority and give hope to rid of the Citizens United atrocity.

I'll be sad to see Ginsburg go if she retires, I think she is easily the best of the 9 justices on the court right now.

Indeed, Status Quo. As I've said before.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I think you'd be wrong there...

Right, so, which one of his economic policies is considered corporatist and which branch of corporatism does it subscribe to?

Well seeing as you've not even told me who exactly makes me suspect that you're barking up the wrong tree

[Norstal]

Right, so, which one of his economic policies is considered corporatist and which branch of corporatism does it subscribe to?

Well seeing as you've not even told me who exactly makes me suspect that you're barking up the wrong tree

Obama. Now, answer my question or rescind.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Well seeing as you've not even told me who exactly makes me suspect that you're barking up the wrong tree

Obama. Now, answer my question or rescind.

What about Romney?

[Norstal]

Obama. Now, answer my question or rescind.

What about Romney?

Giving me the first will reveal to me your knowledge of what corporatism, won't it?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

What about Romney?

Giving me the first will reveal to me your knowledge of what corporatism, won't it?

How are you qualified to make such a judgement?

[Mavorpen]

Giving me the first will reveal to me your knowledge of what corporatism, won't it?

How are you qualified to make such a judgement?

He has more posts than you.

[Zaras]

Yeah, true Americans stand for what the United States was founded on. Since people who voted for Obama do not stand for those principles, they can't be considered real Americans. Attempting to turn America into a center-left social democratic hellhole that many liberal college students are doing is nothing but of treason, and America does not need traitors.

-snip-

Plus, it's fucking ludicruous to call social democratic states "hellholes" when they are objectively the best states in the world to live in by just about every statistic. Shows an incredible lack of self-awareness, perspective, and basic empathy for other people.

It's repulsive and beneath contempt to put money ahead of people.

[Norsklow]

Yes and no. It's a good thing for America to evolve. The founders knew it would. It's 'good' that America changes as it's citizens change.

The specific direction America evolves in might not be 'good' for all Americans - and we've seen that over the last few years, as America transitioned into an increasingly militaristic semi-theocracy.

If you think I have less distaste for the opposite direction, you are mistaken. Not that that has a great deal to do with what I consider of much greater importance.

America has a crap-load of racial issues ( not just black and white, you know?) to confront, including America's position within the Americas. ( nothing much to do with militarism or theocracy, I think)

These are closely related to the changing of Americans, have nothing to do with education, and believe you me, are of extreme importance to America's future. YO MAMA!

The need to reinterpret continuously what an American is not caused by education, or the future, or the past, but by the immediate present, and how Americans understand themselves at this moment in time.

I repeat YO MAMA! And it is not a blacks-only issue either.

[Norstal]

Giving me the first will reveal to me your knowledge of what corporatism, won't it?

How are you qualified to make such a judgement?

I'll ask my Political Science professor. I'll ask ASB (who has a degree in Poli Sci). I'll look up the internet.

Now, are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to spam?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

How are you qualified to make such a judgement?

He has more posts than you.

[Reploid Productions]

Hrm. Sounds like the overnight crew has gone a lot softer on folks in here for their behavior, and that there's been an upswing in bad behavior overnight. Everybody was for the most part behaving quite well yesterday, even after the results were announced. I am disappoint that this has apparently not continued.

Consider yourselves on notice, Bitch Mode Reppy is back on deck.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

How are you qualified to make such a judgement?

I'll ask my Political Science professor. I'll ask ASB (who has a degree in Poli Sci). I'll look up the internet.

Now, are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to spam?

So you actually cannot make that call? Oh well. Now had you approached this in a more equitable manner I might have been more inclined to discuss this with you. However when you start bandying words and phrases like "No one on NSG knows pol sci terms*, rescind and spam...well...

* oh...you do realize that ASB does post here...so I find it odd that you say on the one hand that no one on NS knows nothing and then invokes a poster as a sort of expert witness.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I have to say, it amuses me hearing a Finnish teenager who (I'm presuming) has never been to the United States calling native-born citizens of said United States "not real Americans".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Keep the tears rolling.

Yeah, true Americans stand for what the United States was founded on.

Which is democracy, correct? Voting Democrat, surprisingly enough, does not equate to destroying democracy.

Since people who voted for Obama do not stand for those principles, they can't be considered real Americans.

So the people who voted for President Obama of the Democratic Party, a party which doesn't oppose democracy, in democratic elections, hate democracy? Am I reading that correctly?

Attempting to turn America into a center-left social democratic hellhole

Yes, because turning America into Scandinavia would constitute foul oppression.

that many liberal college students are doing is nothing but of treason, and America does not need traitors.

Treason is attempting to overthrow the government and/or state, and as Socialdemokraterne has already pointed out, under the US Constitution, that isn't treason.

Also, it amused me earlier on in this thread where you railed against the "special interest" groups and "minorities" that voted Obama. Given that Obama has been re-elected with a substantial lead in the Electoral College and a lead of about 2% in the popular vote, wouldn't a better conclusion to draw be that the majority of voting Americans don't want the Republican Party, and that you claiming that said party is right for America isn't actually going to change the facts of the election?

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes and no. It's a good thing for America to evolve. The founders knew it would. It's 'good' that America changes as it's citizens change.

The specific direction America evolves in might not be 'good' for all Americans - and we've seen that over the last few years, as America transitioned into an increasingly militaristic semi-theocracy.

If you think I have less distaste for the opposite direction, you are mistaken. Not that that has a great deal to do with what I consider of much greater importance.

I have no idea where your sympathies lie, and I don't think it matters. It's hard to argue that the last decade or so has been a triumph for America. At best, we're reestablishing ourselves, right now.

America has a crap-load of racial issues ( not just black and white, you know?) to confront, including America's position within the Americas. ( nothing much to do with militarism of theocracy, I think)

These are closely related to the changing of Americans, have nothing to do with education, and believe you me, are of extreme importance to America's future. YO MAMA!

The need to reinterpret continuously what an American is not caused by education, or the future, or the past, but by the immediate present, and how Americans understand themselves at this moment in time.

I repeat YO MAMA! And it is not a blacks-only issue either.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. If your point is that America is changing demographically, I agree. If your point is that America is changing, in part, because of an 'American' zeitgeist that's affecting all of the Americas, again I agree.

But other than that, I'm finding it hard to see what you're saying that actually opposes what I said. I'm not arguing that America is not changing demographically - quite the opposite.

[Farnhamia]

I have to say, it amuses me hearing a Finnish teenager who (I'm presuming) has never been to the United States calling native-born citizens of said United States "not real Americans".

Yeah, true Americans stand for what the United States was founded on.

Which is democracy, correct? Voting Democrat, surprisingly enough, does not equate to destroying democracy.

Since people who voted for Obama do not stand for those principles, they can't be considered real Americans.

So the people who voted for President Obama of the Democratic Party, a party which doesn't oppose democracy, in democratic elections, hate democracy? Am I reading that correctly?

Attempting to turn America into a center-left social democratic hellhole

Yes, because turning America into Scandinavia would constitute foul oppression.

that many liberal college students are doing is nothing but of treason, and America does not need traitors.

Treason is attempting to overthrow the government and/or state, and as Socialdemokraterne has already pointed out, under the US Constitution, that isn't treason.

Also, it amused me earlier on in this thread where you railed against the "special interest" groups and "minorities" that voted Obama. Given that Obama has been re-elected with a substantial lead in the Electoral College and a lead of about 2% in the popular vote, wouldn't a better conclusion to draw be that the majority of voting Americans don't want the Republican Party, and that you claiming that said party is right for America isn't actually going to change the facts of the election?

Careful, the Mods are very close to declaring disagreeing with him an offense like "troll-naming."