Thank You, America. - by Nicker
jtr7 on 7/11/2012 at 13:49
Quote Posted by demagogue
So... What's the best FB doomsday posts you guys have been getting?
First one in on my feed:
Quote:
Obama makes history once again...he's the only Muslim president who ever ruined a great country and got reelected....
Shame on you America! ... Shame on you!
I guess I won't turn the TV on for another 4 years.
Renault on 7/11/2012 at 15:19
Quote Posted by Nuth
I'm most worried about the effect Obamacare will have on the economy. Businesses are already gearing up for it by cutting workers' hours below 30/week to avoid some of the impact. I think it's going to be a tremendous drag on the economy once it really kicks in.
Yep. I'm a recruiter, and all I've heard clients say regarding hiring over the past 90 days is "we're waiting for the election." Now with nothing to stop Obamacare, my sector is probably headed for a nosedive. It's the primary reason I voted for Romney, and while that's all a bit selfish, I just don't overall see Obama doing much to spark the economy. Unemployment rates in my state are exactly where they were 4 years ago, around 7.5%, having been as high as 9% just a year or two ago.
To all those declaring "Thank God Obama won," are you really that enthusiastic about what Obama will do, or was Romney just that awful of an alternative for you? I'm guessing the latter - not exactly a rosy outlook for the future.
DDL on 7/11/2012 at 15:47
So..unemployment is falling? Quick, change tack! :p
There's a definite danger in considering "current statistics" rather than trends, especially when something as obtuse and gigantic as "the economy" is concerned. It's like steering a supertanker.
I could equally argue, for instance, that the measures implemented by the Obama administration took a couple of years to halt the downward spiral, and are now starting to kick it back in a positive direction. Only time will tell.
I also find the whole 'obamacare' thing just depressing (especially since the claims that it ruins small businesses seem to be..highly contested), because healthcare just seems like such a fundamental human right. It seems amazing that something so basic and so essential (we all, without exception, benefit from medical care) could've got to such a fucked up state as it was. It's still fairly fucked up (healthcare is not, at its root, something that works with an insurance-based model) but at least now it's marginally better.
As for the next four years, well: it'll be interesting. Second-termers tend to be more gutsy, after all.
And you're right, Obama isn't exactly the second coming (he is, as noted by LittleFlower, very rightwing), but if the only viable alternative is EVEN MORE rightwing, then yeah: that's not an alternative. It's not so much Romney himself (though it is a bit Romney himself) but the entirety of the republican party. Maybe they'll go so far right they come out the other side and reform as ultraliberals? That would be interesting.
Chimpy Chompy on 7/11/2012 at 15:51
Seems odd to call Obama "very" right wing.
Stitch on 7/11/2012 at 15:51
Quote Posted by Peanuckle
Obama got the majority of the Hispanic vote because of his immigration policies. He'll relax immigration laws and let in as many hispanics as possible to inflate his voter base. It'll all but ensure Democratic victories forever. And once that happens they can safely ignore Republican voters because we'll be about as powerful as the Green Party.
So is this the new paranoid conspiracy theory the right is clinging to to avoid facing the harsh reality that their current voter base is shrinking?
Look, this really isn't that complicated: much of the current Republican platform is designed to appeal to straight white males, a demographic whose influence and reach declines with every passing four years. America is changing and the Republican party has refused to change with it.
Republicans now have a choice: they can take a long, hard look within and rework their platform into a more populist form of modern conservatism. Or they can keep on keeping on, in which case their power will erode with each passing election.
And for whatever it's worth, the second amendment isn't going anywhere. Democrats lost the battle of opinion on that one a long time ago (and rightly so, in my opinion).
Jason Moyer on 7/11/2012 at 15:55
I don't really understand why anyone outside the US gives a shit since this election would have had 0 impact whatsoever on our relationships with other countries. We're still going to have our stupid military bases in countries that don't want them there, we're still going to illegally detain foreign nationals in Gitmo, we're still going to base our entire foreign policy around the arrogant belief that we know what's best for everyone else, and Obama is going to continue adding to his record of overseeing illegal assassinations. I have my reasons for not wanting Romney to win (like being an arrogant prick who never worked a day in his life and whose entire skillset consists of knowing how to take a large inheritance and grow it through leveraged buyouts) but there's little to no difference in how either party deals with other countries. Then again, most people seem amazed when you point out that Democrats have started more wars in the past 100 years than Republicans have.
If I were the GOP leadership, I would do everything I can to nominate Gary Johnson for 2016. Not because I believe he is the best choice to run this country (although, being a 2-term governor who won both elections in landslides, he'd be the most experienced Republican candidate), but because they need a new, consistent direction that doesn't involve the fundamentalist base that Reagan built and is now preventing them from winning on a national level. A guy who believes in non-interventionist foreign policy, separation of church and state, drug decriminalization, and small/efficient government would have a much better chance of winning in 4 years than whichever toolbox they end up nominating.
CCCToad on 7/11/2012 at 16:03
Quote Posted by Renzatic
You know what's really fucked up? Washington and Colorado have now officially legalized weed.
YOU'LL BE NEAR THE WEED, HENKE! MOVE TO VANCOUVER!
I voted in favor of that. Not surprisingly, the people rallying against it consisted mainly of law enforcement officials and organizations. The war on drugs is massively empowering to them, and they don't want the trough to dry up.
Chimpy Chompy on 7/11/2012 at 16:07
I'm more concerned with who's more hawkish right now than who was launching invasions in the 60s or whatever. Also stuff like drone strikes is questionable but not equivalent to launching a new invasion.
Other matter is the environment, America doesn't decide our fate single-handedly of course (how many power stations has china opened lately...) but its still one of the big players.
Plus also there are people I care about living in the US!
The US does seem to get far more foreign interest in its elections than anyone else. But, well, its big, powerful and a dominant cultural force in the west so... so it's kind of inevitable.
CCCToad on 7/11/2012 at 16:08
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I don't really understand why anyone outside the US gives a shit since this election would have had 0 impact whatsoever on our relationships with other countries. We're still going to have our stupid military bases in countries that don't want them there, we're still going to illegally detain foreign nationals in Gitmo, we're still going to base our entire foreign policy around the arrogant belief that we know what's best for everyone else, and Obama is going to continue adding to his record of overseeing illegal assassinations. I have my reasons for not wanting Romney to win (like being an arrogant prick who never worked a day in his life and whose entire skillset consists of knowing how to take a large inheritance and grow it through leveraged buyouts) but there's little to no difference in how either party deals with other countries. Then again, most people seem amazed when you point out that Democrats have started more wars in the past 100 years than Republicans have.
Style over substance. The American right loves their obnoxious, flamboyent saber rattling whereas Obama casts himself as a sophisticated, diplomatic, socialite. IN other words:
Quote:
Why didn't someone tell me that Obama was seeking "fundamental change", applies "critical theory" to conclude that American does much evil in the world, and is all about getting "payback for poverty [and] payback for foreign wars"? If you see that person on the ballot, please let me know. I'd like to go canvass for him. Or, as Brad Reed put it: "Kenyan anti-colonial socialism looks a lot like American imperial neoliberalism these days . . . ."
Quote:
If I were the GOP leadership, I would do everything I can to nominate Gary Johnson for 2016. Not because I believe he is the best choice to run this country (although, being a 2-term governor who won both elections in landslides, he'd be the most experienced Republican candidate), but because they need a new, consistent direction that doesn't involve the fundamentalist base that Reagan built and is now preventing them from winning on a national level. A guy who believes in non-interventionist foreign policy, separation of church and state, drug decriminalization, and small/efficient government would have a much better chance of winning in 4 years than whichever toolbox they end up nominating.
This year demonstrated that GOP would rather lose the election than compromise the good old boy club. They'll never do it though. The candidate with the strongest support from the grassroots had the positions you like and the GOP establishment did everything in their power to make sure that their guy wasn't threatened by him.
Jason Moyer on 7/11/2012 at 16:26
Quote Posted by Brethren
I just don't overall see Obama doing much to spark the economy.
If you want someone to jumpstart the economy, why would you vote for the party whose official economic policy is "do nothing"?
