US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[Ithekro]

And that is why a lot of them with vote Romney. They ahve managed to put Obama in a light of one of the things they grew up fearing/hating the most. Communism.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But that's exactly why I am mad; that the nation as a whole now are fine with outright plain lies broadcasted on national television.

I gave up on Romney a long time ago; I am now judging the American People for how they give a charlatan legs to run on. This is reinforced by constant online reminders that Romney "won the debate because the undecided voters are just that stupid".

America cannot survive if nearly half the voting population choose Romney. That kind of mental ineptitude implies imminent Ancient Rome style social collapse. And I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

Fair enough. Needless to say, the very fact Romney being there is an obviously bad indication.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And that is why a lot of them with vote Romney. They ahve managed to put Obama in a light of one of the things they grew up fearing/hating the most. Communism.

communism may be history, but its close cousin socialism sure is gaining traction here

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Aegir

Fair enough. Needless to say, the very fact Romney being there is an obviously bad indication.

Sadly, if Romney wasn't running for president this time around, it would've been Rick Santorum at that debate. *facepalm* to that.

Originally Posted by flying ^

communism may be history, but its close cousin socialism sure is gaining traction here

Yeah, because America becoming more like some modern day European countries is so downright awful. Yup! We all know France and Austria today are just as bad as Communist China back in the 1970s or the Soviet Union back in the 1960s!

[Ithekro]

And internationally it is still debatable if it is a good or bad thing. I've not decided actually. I was entirely against it a decade or so again because I was told to be against it as a hold over from the Cold War (as I grew up during the end of that era). My girlfriend at the time was a little younger and questioned "why is socialism wrong? Why was it worth fighting against?" Every answer I had came down to despotism of the communist countries and their economical rivalry with capitalism, rather than socialism itself.

[Vexx]

Darn those roads, fire/police, public education, safety nets so people don't just starve in the streets. Just horrible. Use of the word "socialism" as a derogatory says more about the user than it does about any thing else.

Oddly enough, almost all of our allies and fellow democracies seem to be outperforming us in almost every category. Well... unless a person is one of the "1%" I guess (or really the 0.01%).

[Ithekro]

My question what were those services considered before Marx or even later before socialism became a bad word sometime between the 1920s and 1950s? As they are not considered socialism by those opposing socialism.

[Vexx]

It just shows many people use the word "socialism" without having the slightest idea what it actually means. Its why we'll often see Barack called "communist/marxist/socialist/nazi/fascist" -- the users don't have the slightest clue what those words mean or that they're contradictory to apply to the same thing.

Socialism ( /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/) is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Such people call Canada "socialist" or Germany "socialist" - neither is an example of a failing state. They're both clearly democracies and capitalist. In fact they, their businesses, and their people seem to be faring quite well overall by any measurement. How strange.

[Irenicus]

The problem with Barack is that he is not nearly socialist enough. He should have gone Lenin on Romney's ass, then we have something to talk about.

Until then people can stuff it with their socialism hatred.

In fact, my father who never paid any attention to politics and just started now is leaning towards Romney because he thought Obama wasn't assertive enough (sigh)...and because he is angry that Obama (or the entire US government, really) gave so much money to the big banks, who promptly stashed the cash, when people like him -- us -- suffered.

I'm trying to convince him that the latter objection is going to be much, much worse under a proper Republican government, that the pressure of ridiculous health insurance we face everyday is part of what's going on, and that it's really to our family's economic disadvantage if the robber baron activity goes any further. He is not inherently anti-government, moreover he favors Obama's foreign policy (as immigrants, i.e. part of the rest of the world, we knew full well how hated Bush was by everybody not on the F'YEAH AMURIKA high), it's just that he started paying attention to this year's election politics right *at* the moment that Mr. Romney did his most dramatic chameleon shifting yet and President Obama is at his worst for some reason.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It just shows many people use the word "socialism" without having the slightest idea what it actually means. Its why we'll often see Barack called "communist/marxist/socialist/nazi/fascist" -- the users don't have the slightest clue what those words mean or that they're contradictory to apply to the same thing.

Fascism. I see more of a push for fascism coming from republicans than democrats. People will put the blame on the democrats for some of it, too, due to things like the NDAA issue, where the blame really falls mostly on GOP officials.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Such people call Canada "socialist" or Germany "socialist" - neither is an example of a failing state. They're both clearly democracies and capitalist. In fact they, their businesses, and their people seem to be faring quite well overall by any measurement. How strange.

Plenty of nations in western Europe that could be called socialist nations, and most of them are doing well or fine.

Oh snap, I forgot I saw something absurd today. There was a stand on the side of the road with some signs positioned around it, and some signs said "Pull over it you want to stop Obama" and I saw two signs that had Obama with a Hitler mustache shopped on his face. It is absurd. Look, I don't sing the praises for Obama, but he just ain't that bad and he is definitely no Hitler. But sure, let's all pretend he is some evil Marxist dictator that hates Disney movies and kicks puppies. I mean, that's got to be it, I mean he is a democrat, and black, and a moderate liberal, and he's black...yeah, he's gotta be an evil tyrant.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by flying ^

communism may be history, but its close cousin socialism sure is gaining traction here

I think going to the doctor for free, working the less possible or paying 4 euros to go to university quite admirable. You sure you don't want to come here to check yourself?

You really don't want? I'm sure it would please you after some years.

[Vexx]

The interesting thing to me is that conservatives aren't going batshit crazy over what Romney *said* during the debate. He completely re-invented himself center-right instead of far right, rewrote history to claim he'd never said things that he is documented to have said to appease the far right. It was quite interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us...to-center.html

I probably said a dozen times, "Oh, that'll have the far righters just going crazy ..." after a Romney line (e.g. claiming he won't cut taxes for the wealthy).

My favorite moment was watching him utterly flash-bang distract from his determination not to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions be able to get insurance.

[NinjaRealist]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

America cannot survive if nearly half the voting population choose Romney. That kind of mental ineptitude implies imminent Ancient Rome style social collapse. And I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

You say this as if Rome style social collapse hasn't already occurred. Bad news guys, this is The Fall of the Roman Empire.

There might not be any turning back.

Originally Posted by Vexx

The interesting thing to me is that conservatives aren't going batshit crazy over what Romney *said* during the debate. He completely re-invented himself center-right instead of far right, rewrote history to claim he'd never said things that he is documented to have said to appease the far right. It was quite interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us...to-center.html

I probably said a dozen times, "Oh, that'll have the far righters just going crazy ..." after a Romney line (e.g. claiming he won't cut taxes for the wealthy).

My favorite moment was watching him utterly flash-bang distract from his determination not to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions be able to get insurance.

That's because people who are liberal or conservative are so blissfully unaware that they don't even see their party monikers for the misnomers they are.

The parties really ought to be called Social Liberals and Social Conservative. When it come to politics, they're both essentially Plutocratic Oligarchs. We live in a Plutocratic Oligarchy.

Only everyone is trying to pretend like they don't notice.

[Xacual]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The interesting thing to me is that conservatives aren't going batshit crazy over what Romney *said* during the debate. He completely re-invented himself center-right instead of far right, rewrote history to claim he'd never said things that he is documented to have said to appease the far right. It was quite interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us...to-center.html

I probably said a dozen times, "Oh, that'll have the far righters just going crazy ..." after a Romney line (e.g. claiming he won't cut taxes for the wealthy).

My favorite moment was watching him utterly flash-bang distract from his determination not to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions be able to get insurance.

That's because too many people focused on the fact that he was "rolling over Obama" to actually listen to the bile he was spewing forth. It just proves that none of them really care about Romney at all, they just want to see Obama out of the white house, and it's pathetic.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xacual

That's because too many people focused on the fact that he was "rolling over Obama" to actually listen to the bile he was spewing forth. It just proves that none of them really care about Romney at all, they just want to see Obama out of the white house, and it's pathetic.

And that's when Democracy dies.

For the last six months, the more I follow the election the lower the opinion I have of Americans. Not ALL Americans, but the average opinion.

By last month, I have decided that America had fallen lower than Iran. There is only one hurdle left; North Korea. Americans are still on average smarter than North Koreans... I hope.

You know what is disappointing? All the news media declaring "Romney Won the debate". That hurt, America. That really hurts me. Stupidity has infused itself deeper than I ever thought possible.

[Reckoner]

Romney won the debate because he presented himself better. It was the moderator's task to question his lies, or Obama's moment to attack him for what he was spewing, but the fact is that this didn't happen. Romney seemed like the more confident candidate, and he had a lot more passion.

If you break down the arguments - sure, romney's 5 lies per second make his entire debate performance worthless. For the average American voter though how are they supposed to know about something like the supposed "cut" to medicare isn't really an accurate statement if neither the moderator or Obama call him out on it?

I really hope Obama pushes back against Mittnocchio in the next debate. He seemed too caught off guard by the fact that Mitt would dare flip on all his positions.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Romney won the debate because he presented himself better. It was the moderator's task to question his lies, or Obama's moment to attack him for what he was spewing, but the fact is that this didn't happen. Romney seemed like the more confident candidate, and he had a lot more passion.

If you break down the arguments - sure, romney's 5 lies per second make his entire debate performance worthless. For the average American voter though how are they supposed to know about something like the supposed "cut" to medicare isn't really an accurate statement if neither the moderator or Obama call him out on it?

I really hope Obama pushes back against Mittnocchio in the next debate. He seemed too caught off guard by the fact that Mitt would dare flip on all his positions.

One way or another, Romney has brought lying into the mainstream. Americans now no longer care what anyone say anymore.

You know what happens when someone can declare the sky is green and water is red? When the nation has gone completely crazy. The war on facts had been won before it even began; Romney could promise the granting of immortality and giving you the ability to shoot laser from your eyes, and Americans will just shrug it off.

Americans are CRAZY! You are NOT allowed to have nukes any more.

Tell you what; I am THIS close to not just predicting a collapse of America; I might just start to wish for it. I am on the precipice of deciding the world is SAFER in the hands of the Chinese and the Russians.
And it pains me to say it because I HATE the Chinese government.


...Please, America. Please convince me that you are not batshit insane. I want to be wrong so very, very badly.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

No, I do not listen to brats "protesting" when they should be doing something else. These days "protests" are nothing but shows by the privileged that needs to be first stamped out and brought back to their sense. Peaceful protesting only applies to what should be protested against, and certainly not done to the extent it hinders others. How anyone can call those "peaceful" is beyond me.

Post-initial OWS was the biggest piece of idiocy I've seen next to Tiananmen and the 2012 Quebec Student Riots.

You didn't answer my question about what you'd have them do, though. Your only response to it seems to be "something else", which is hardly an answer. Though I like how you describe protests. Glad you weren't there to talk to MLK.

Originally Posted by flying ^

communism may be history, but its close cousin socialism sure is gaining traction here

Nazism may be history, but its close cousin fascism already has traction here.

Easy to say things, huh?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

My question what were those services considered before Marx or even later before socialism became a bad word sometime between the 1920s and 1950s? As they are not considered socialism by those opposing socialism.

Functions of a properly working society.

Originally Posted by NinjaRealist

There might not be any turning back.

I've already decided I'm probably going to convert my savings into Yen or Pounds at some point within the next few years. Just in case.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

One way or another, Romney has brought lying into the mainstream. Americans now no longer care what anyone say anymore.

No, Fox beat him to that by quite a few years.

[ganbaru]

Inside the campaign: Reinventing Mitt Romney
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...053.html?hp=t1

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by GDB

You didn't answer my question about what you'd have them do, though. Your only response to it seems to be "something else", which is hardly an answer. Though I like how you describe protests. Glad you weren't there to talk to MLK.

I did answer you question: What you called protests were not true protests, so they are not worth protecting in any sense.

As for MLK, I'm certain even you have the soundness of mind to differentiate a true protest for human rights and the bratty short-sighted ignorant stupidity that "protests" these days are. Not being able to tell the difference is something I truly worry about when it comes to most people who are not doing their responsibility.