Page 1 of 1

Btw, Congrats America!

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 18:51
by Being645
I for one am rather glad about your choices ... :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: ...

It was almost incredible and it was painful and depressing to see what happend during the past two decades to a country
that was once the herald of freedom, equality and humanity, indeed ... and which developments this had effected ...

But now, ONE large step is done, definitely and evidently so. Some automatics are brought to a halt.
One more free breath daily ... 51% is enough to get out of the mess.

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 19:40
by lazarus corporation
I'm also pleased with the result.

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 19:55
by sultan2075
It's welfare/warfare statism (Democrats) instead of warfare/welfare statism (Republicans).

I suppose if you think that the US collapsing under a mountain of debt, further eroding civil liberties, and incrementally abandoning the rule of law is good, then the result is good. I disagree, but in a "democracy" the people get the kind of government they deserve.

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 21:10
by Bartek
i like vision of another four years without another who-knows-for-who/what- needed-war.

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 22:39
by lazarus corporation
sultan2075 wrote:It's welfare/warfare statism (Democrats) instead of warfare/welfare statism (Republicans).

I suppose if you think that the US collapsing under a mountain of debt, further eroding civil liberties, and incrementally abandoning the rule of law is good, then the result is good. I disagree, but in a "democracy" the people get the kind of government they deserve.
The way I see it, if Romney was elected the US would still collapse under a mountain of debt, civil liberties would still be further eroded, and the rule of law would dtill be incrementally abandoned. AND rights would be stripped from women, from the LGBT community, etc.

So of the two possible results, the result that happened is better (or less evil) than the one that didn't.

Unless, of course, you're Donald Trump.

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 23:14
by Pista
lazarus corporation wrote:
Unless, of course, you're Donald Trump.
Does he stil have a dead ferret on his head?

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 23:22
by lazarus corporation
Pista wrote:
lazarus corporation wrote:
Unless, of course, you're Donald Trump.
Does he stil have a dead ferret on his head?
I believe he also has one in his head, based on his less-than-graceful reaction to his favoured candidate losing the election:

Image

In Trump World, if your side loses a democratic election then it's not democracy.

Romney, to be fair to him, was gracious in defeat in his concession speech. But then it wasn't Romney himself who lost the Republicans the election, it was the Birthers and the Tea Party and the other nutters (like Trump) who put off so many centrists.

Posted: 07 Nov 2012, 23:27
by nowayjose
lazarus corporation wrote: But then it wasn't Romney himself who lost the Republicans the election
Romney is clearly in the wrong party.

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 00:23
by stufarq
lazarus corporation wrote:In Trump World, if your side loses a democratic election then it's not democracy.
That's assuming you accept that that an election where the public votes for the people who will actually choose the president for them is democratic.

Re: Btw, Congrats America!

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 00:32
by 6FeetOver
Being645 wrote:I for one am rather glad about your choices ...
Neither one of those candidates was *my* choice, this time around. :evil:

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 00:34
by 6FeetOver
lazarus corporation wrote:...it's not democracy.
Nope! Hasn't been for a long, long time. :urff:

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 00:35
by 6FeetOver
lazarus corporation wrote:I'm also pleased with the result.
Perhaps because you don't live here. :wink:

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 00:48
by sultan2075
lazarus corporation wrote:
Romney, to be fair to him, was gracious in defeat in his concession speech. But then it wasn't Romney himself who lost the Republicans the election, it was the Birthers and the Tea Party and the other nutters (like Trump) who put off so many centrists.
I think that is a very large part of it. I think he also made a mistake during the primaries, in trying to get to the right of Rick Perry on immigration, which further alienated the Hispanic vote. Another problem is lack of party discipline--nut-jobs like Missouri's Akin should have stayed on message instead of mouthing off about the supposed intrusion-countermeasures that women have in their ovaries.

The Republican party is essentially a coalition party--traditionally, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and libertarians. In the 60's, a group of leftist intellectuals (chiefly social scientists) broke with the Democratic party over what they perceived as Democratic softness on the USSR, and support for welfare-state programs that do not work (they opposed them because they did not work or did more harm than good, mind you--not because they thought such programs were unconstitutional expansions of federal power. Their objection was practical, rather than principled).

These leftist intellectuals--the neoconservatives--enter the Republican party and rise to prominence and influence, especially in the George W. Bush presidency. They have the old progressive faith in the exporting of Western civilization and liberal democracy that leads directly to the attempt at nation-building in Iraq (marginally successful) and Afghanistan (a squandering of blood and treasure). Today, the Republican party is an uneasy mixture of these four factions. If they want to be a successful party going forward, they need to emphasize the libertarian and fiscally responsible side of things, and put less emphasis on social issues; they also need to make a break with the neoconservative view of American power (our role should be "benevolent global hegemony" according to neocon intellectuals Kristol & Kagan).
lazarus corporation wrote: The way I see it, if Romney was elected the US would still collapse under a mountain of debt, civil liberties would still be further eroded, and the rule of law would dtill be incrementally abandoned.
Unlikely, or at least less likely. One of the major objections I have to Obama and the Democratic Party in general, going back to the early 20th century, is their blatant disregard of the Constitution--especially separation of powers. Another major objection I have to Obama is his absolutely reckless spending--I thought Bush spent like a drunk sailor on shore leave. O? He makes Bush look like an amateur. Worse still, he has somehow managed to convince the middle-class that increased taxes for the rich will pay for his lavish and unrestrained spending. They won't--in fact, higher taxes on the rich are a p*ss in the ocean of debt and spending that he (and W., to a much lesser extent) are responsible for. The middle class will feel the hurt.

Another objection I have is the continual interference with the market, both through crony capitalism (Solyndra, for example) and the bank and auto bailouts, which encourage further risky behavior on the part of banks and auto companies.

lazarus corporation wrote: AND rights would be stripped from women, from the LGBT community, etc.
I'm sorry my friend, but you have been propagandized. What rights would be stripped from women? The answer is none--not even abortion, which is de facto law in this country. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, all that would do is return the question of abortion to the states (which is, honestly, where it belongs, since the Constitution is a grant of specific and limited powers to the federal government and is utterly silent on the question). What rights would be stripped from the LGBT community? Marriage? That wasn't a major issue in the Romney campaign to begin with, but I will concede that Republicans need to change their approach to it--most Americans either support it or are indifferent to it. The Republicans should take an active role in crafting the response to the issue such that it does not infringe on religious liberty.

Or perhaps the state should be out of the marriage business entirely--after all, marriage is one of two things: a religious sacrament (and therefore none of the state's damn business) or a private contract between two consenting adults (and therefore none of the state's damn business).

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 00:53
by sultan2075
stufarq wrote:
lazarus corporation wrote:In Trump World, if your side loses a democratic election then it's not democracy.
That's assuming you accept that that an election where the public votes for the people who will actually choose the president for them is democratic.
We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.

The electoral college serves a few different functions, the most important of which is that it represents the states (as political entities) and the people (as citizens) Hence the number of electors from a given state is the number of representatives in the state (apportioned by population) plus two (every state is equal in the senate, with two senators). It also forces candidates to try and craft a national constituency rather than just appealing to specific localities.

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 01:56
by 6FeetOver
sultan2075 wrote:We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.
:lol:

Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 08:33
by lazarus corporation
SINsister wrote:
lazarus corporation wrote:I'm also pleased with the result.
Perhaps because you don't live here. :wink:
That's probably true - my main interest in the US Presidency (as someone outside the US) is foreign policy rather than domestic issues, and I think Obama's foreign policy is slightly better* for the world than Romney's was likely to be: I think Obama will drag the UK into fewer wars than Romney would.

* Note for purists: "slightly better" is not an indication of complete support.

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 09:16
by Izzy HaveMercy

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 10:35
by markfiend
The neo-cons (and by extension the rest of the Republicans) have only themselves to blame for pandering to the Religious Right "theo-cons". And even though I think yes, it lost them this election by driving away the moderates, I also think that they'll double-down on the crazy before (if they ever) see sense and jettison them. Look out for Santorum-Bachmann 2016!

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 12:54
by Pista
I did enjoy Trump's little hissy fit :lol:

I also adore the "intelligence" of some of the people actually allowed to vote

I'm moving to Australia if Obama wins

:notworthy:

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 13:34
by sultan2075
SINsister wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.
:lol:

Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?
Well, yes. His objection was to part of the republican aspect of the government. We are significantly less of a republic than I (or Madison) would like.
James Madison, in [i]Federalist[/i] No. 39 wrote: What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.

Posted: 08 Nov 2012, 20:51
by 6FeetOver
sultan2075 wrote:
SINsister wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:We're not a democracy. We're a democratic republic.
:lol:

Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?
sultan2075 wrote:Well, yes. His objection was to part of the republican aspect of the government. We are significantly less of a republic than I (or Madison) would like.
Oh my gosh - I didn't mean to be obnoxious, nor was I attempting to mock you or split hairs. :D :wink: :P

What I meant, in my roundabout manner, was that what we really have here is a:


plu·toc·ra·cy
[ploo-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1.the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2.a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3.a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.


...and that pisses me off to no end.
:von:

Posted: 09 Nov 2012, 01:14
by sultan2075
SINsister wrote:
sultan2075 wrote:
SINsister wrote: :lol:

Don't mean to be rude, but...*cough*...seriously?
sultan2075 wrote:Well, yes. His objection was to part of the republican aspect of the government. We are significantly less of a republic than I (or Madison) would like.
Oh my gosh - I didn't mean to be obnoxious, nor was I attempting to mock you or split hairs. :D :wink: :P

What I meant, in my roundabout manner, was that what we really have here is a:


plu·toc·ra·cy
[ploo-tok-ruh-see]
noun, plural plu·toc·ra·cies.
1.the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy.
2.a government or state in which the wealthy class rules.
3.a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.


...and that pisses me off to no end.
:von:
You know I love you! I didn't think you were obnoxious or hair-splitting.

I agree with you and disagree with you (or more accurately: I agree with you but don't want to do so!): we are not officially a plutocracy, but as a practical matter we are. This is our fault, though--i.e., we the people are to blame. This is because of a general lack of civic virtue and political knowledge. If the American people knew more about politics and the Constitution, demagogues like Obama would not get elected (not that the Republicans are all that much better in my eyes. As some of you may remember, I voted for McCain in 2008. I threw up in the back of my mouth after doing so, but held it down. I voted for him because he would have been ever-so-slightly better than Obama. Romney--though not sufficiently libertarian for me--would have been vastly superior to Obama).

It is theoretically possible for a non-millionaire/billionaire to reach high office. This happens regularly in the House, though less so in the Senate, and even less so in the Presidency. But on paper, the President is not that powerful--the problem is that we allow him to abuse the power he has. It all comes back to the people: in a democracy (or, more accurately, democratic republic blah blah blah), we get the kind of government we deserve.

Re: Btw, Congrats America!

Posted: 09 Nov 2012, 01:50
by Being645
SINsister wrote:
Being645 wrote:I for one am rather glad about your choices ...
Neither one of those candidates was *my* choice, this time around. :evil:
Yes, I understand. The Cold War is over. Though, it's colder than it was before even,
and all of this despite so-called sexual revolution - thanks to some heroic sado-maso / (self-)destruction counter-revolution ... :urff: :wink: ...

* I'm glad they didn't win that soon again ... :twisted: ...

Posted: 09 Nov 2012, 08:58
by Izzy HaveMercy
For me it is simple.

This picture just showed me why Obama was the best choice.

Image

IZ.