• Calling Radicalism by it's Name - Barack Obama Strikes Back at GOP Rhetoric and Budget Policy
    83 replies, posted
All the republicans can try and pin on him is spending. Which as far as I can remember has been a "problem" since the 80's. That is something you can't pin on 1 person.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;35435658]You know nothing of socialism.[/QUOTE] It's an economic system where the labor force owns the means of production. What do I not know of it?
[QUOTE=MBB;35436892]It's an economic system where the labor force owns the means of production. What do I not know of it?[/QUOTE] That's more communism than socialism
Nope, he hit the nail on the head. The "transition stage" nonsense is Stalinist drivel, or "Europe-like" system is actually a mixed economy headed by [b]Social Democrats[/b]. What he fails to realize, of course, is that most of FP are not actual socialists - they're center-left Social Democrats.
Bout time someone said something, these people are crazy and making you all look worse from our point of view.
ask me the democrats are going to take back the senate and a bit of the house, and obama will be reelected. In 2016, god knows what will happen. Republicans fucked up their only chance.
[QUOTE=MBB;35436892]It's an economic system where the labor force owns the means of production. What do I not know of it?[/QUOTE] Damn you're misinformed.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35436928]That's more communism than socialism[/QUOTE] He's right to be honest, but of course not with his original comment. He would be stupid to think blurting out the word socialism will suddenly change opinion here. Facepunch is not full of childish southerners who think obama is on the precipice of overthrowing the system and putting in place an islamic communist H.I.T.L.E.R. system to take away their bibles and guns.
Ron Paul 2012!! He's the only who's actually stands by what he says!
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35438872]Ron Paul 2012!! He's the only who's actually stands by what he says![/QUOTE] He is, but he also thinks we should tie the ever expanding economy of 7 trillion people to the mining industry. Because, nothing says sustainability more than the depletion of rare metals.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35435007]The only good thing about a two-party system is that it guarantees some level of stability and reason. Not many people would actually identify as [I]Far Left[/I] or [I]Far Right[/I], and so there's a built in safety net for pretty much the exact situation the country is currently finding itself in. As soon as a party starts becoming too ideological, it loses the support of the swing voters, such as myself, who then throw their vote to the least insane sounding candidate. This loss of support forces the ideological party to reassess their positions, because political parties exist for one reason, and one reason only: to win elections. Of course, in my opinion, the GOP knows they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of beating out Obama this cycle. He's a strong military leader, a brilliant economist, a strategic populist. While he's losing support from the far left, he still has a strong foundation from the majority of middle-ground voters, and the far left will still vote for him simply because he's not the "other guy." The GOP has to know they're not winning this election, and so they're saving their power players, the realistic candidates, for 2016. The Republican party is just throwing sacrificial lambs into the grinder to feed the democratic process.[/QUOTE] You insult American Socialists by referring to the more Progressive wing of the Democrats as 'far left'. To think that they are in any way equatable to the Republican's most extreme wing is absolutely ridiculous. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35438872]Ron Paul 2012!! He's the only who's actually stands by what he says![/QUOTE] You can be consistent about terrible policies for your entire life, doesn't make you a good candidate.
Sticking with Obama seems pretty much the best option at the moment, what with an abundance of bad Republiconservative candidates threatening to fuck America's shit up. If there's a new reliable Democrat candidate this year, or at least in 2016, then that'd be a good thing too. Also, tying into fox '09s concerns of mineral depletion, the mining industry should turn it's gaze Beltwards, towards the great mass of space rocks between Mars and Jupiter; plenty of minerals there, all we need is better space travel tech (and space travel motivation) to get to mining up there.
[QUOTE=archangel125;35435046]I hadn't considered that before. And the Democrats and Republicans have both swung between crazy and reasonable over America's history. Like when T. Roosevelt ran for president. But why wouldn't that work with more than two parties? One would inevitably take middle ground, even if not consistently.[/QUOTE] Because with more parties then the party goals could get more specific and parties would align themselves farther left or farther right. This would mean that while all the parties would have less votes, they would NEED less votes to win. Therefore, they wouldn't need to focus on the moderate swing votes and they could appeal to their respective ideologies. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;35439035]You insult American Socialists by referring to the more Progressive wing of the Democrats as 'far left'. To think that they are in any way equatable to the Republican's most extreme wing is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE] It is far left in American politics.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35439248] It is far left in American politics.[/QUOTE] When the center is inverse totalitarianism, why even bother using the current political spectrum?
[QUOTE=ironman17;35439178]Also, tying into fox '09s concerns of mineral depletion, the mining industry should turn it's gaze Beltwards, towards the great mass of space rocks between Mars and Jupiter; plenty of minerals there, all we need is better space travel tech (and space travel motivation) to get to mining up there.[/QUOTE] this isn't trivial
[QUOTE=Megafan;35439035]You insult American Socialists by referring to the more Progressive wing of the Democrats as 'far left'. To think that they are in any way equatable to the Republican's most extreme wing is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I'd probably insult most Tea Partiers by referring to the most conservative members of the Republican party as "far right," too, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: neither of them means a drop of piss in an olympic pool. Highly ideological third parties will never see office. The framework of our election process pretty much guarantees it. We will probably see a gradual shift towards more progressive policies in the coming cycles, since that's the current trend, but anybody openly campaigning as a member of the American Socialist Party would get laughed off stage. Straight party ticket voters don't decide elections, swing voters do. The middle-ground of the petty partisan squabbles represents well over 1/3 of the vote, and is ultimately the deciding factor. In American politics, the socialist party and the tea party are seen as highly ideological fringe groups.
Darwinian Capitalism at it's best, people.
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35438872]Ron Paul 2012!! He's the only who's actually stands by what he says![/QUOTE]That doesn't make him a good choice. He's still a fucking lunatic on the highest accord with no bleeding idea how anything works and ideas that would make a schizophrenic feel normal. Ronnie Paul may stand by what he says, but that just makes him an incredibly dedicated maniac.
Shortly after he finished his speech: [img]http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/kickdoor.gif[/img]
Too bad Obama wants to kill coal mining jobs in my region. I'll probably vote for him anyways though, as we gotta look at the nation as a whole.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35434875]Not a single Republican candidate worth mentioning for the 2012 election. GOP expected to plead "temporary insanity" following the outcome.[/QUOTE] As a conservative I mostly agree, though I personally believe Jon Huntsman was the most tame of them all.
[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;35442806]As a conservative I mostly agree, though I personally believe Jon Huntsman was the most tame of them all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I would've voted for Huntsman if he weren't toeing off against Obama, but he's out of the race now anyway. It's better that way. Dropping out early might allow him to return for 2016, when he might actually stand a chance. All that's left are sacrificial sheep.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35439035]You insult American Socialists by referring to the more Progressive wing of the Democrats as 'far left'. To think that they are in any way equatable to the Republican's most extreme wing is absolutely ridiculous. [/QUOTE] I don't get why left wing and socialism yadda yadda has to be considered weak and evil in US politics.
[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;35438872]Ron Paul 2012!! He's the only who's actually stands by what he says![/QUOTE] doesn't matter if what he says is disagreeable
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35435451]ehhhhhh[/QUOTE] Can I take a moment to say that I absolutely love your avatar?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35441950]I'd probably insult most Tea Partiers by referring to the most conservative members of the Republican party as "far right," too, but I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: neither of them means a drop of piss in an olympic pool. Highly ideological third parties will never see office. The framework of our election process pretty much guarantees it. We will probably see a gradual shift towards more progressive policies in the coming cycles, since that's the current trend, but anybody openly campaigning as a member of the American Socialist Party would get laughed off stage. Straight party ticket voters don't decide elections, swing voters do. The middle-ground of the petty partisan squabbles represents well over 1/3 of the vote, and is ultimately the deciding factor. In American politics, the socialist party and the tea party are seen as highly ideological fringe groups.[/QUOTE] There was a time in American politics where Socialists and Progressives did stand on their own in Congress, albeit in few number as a result of the electoral process. However, in nations that use other methods, like proportional representation, the people who vote are more completely represented. In an ideal Congress, both wings of the political spectrum would be represented in a better way than just 'the conservative party' and 'the liberal party'. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Falchion;35443750]I don't get why left wing and socialism yadda yadda has to be considered weak and evil in US politics.[/QUOTE] Mainly due to the Red Scares and the generally Conservative-inclined nature of the American electorate. Regardless of what policy positions they actually support, more Americans consider themselves Conservative than those who consider themselves Liberal. [editline]5th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;35441950]Highly ideological third parties will never see office. The framework of our election process pretty much guarantees it. We will probably see a gradual shift towards more progressive policies in the coming cycles, since that's the current trend, but anybody openly campaigning as a member of the American Socialist Party would get laughed off stage.[/QUOTE] I'd also like to address this specifically, because you say it as if it's some inherent trait of American politics that has always existed, when that is not the case. You say that Socialists would always get laughed off stage? Look at them prior to 1940 and tell me they had no support. In Wisconsin and in Minnesota, third party Progressives and Democratic Socialists flourished. Even in Vermont today, an elected third-party (The Vermont Progressive Party) holds seats in the state legislature.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35444513]Regardless of what policy positions they actually support, more Americans consider themselves Conservative than those who consider themselves Liberal.[/QUOTE]To be frank, many Americans are more conservative than people in many other countries.
As said before it's just PR. Act all strong now but do shit all after. Deja vu?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;35444567]To be frank, many Americans are more conservative than people in many other countries.[/QUOTE] Well like I said, they consider themselves so. Many self-described Conservatives support universal healthcare or gay marriage, or some other Progressive policy.
[QUOTE=Falchion;35443750]I don't get why left wing and socialism yadda yadda has to be considered weak and evil in US politics.[/QUOTE] When the Great Depression hit, it was the inevitable result of capitalism. As the means of production and technology improve, the market can't keep up with it, and thus things lose their value (boom and bust capitalism). As a result, social unrest and interest in radical left-wing politics emerge. In response to this, the Red Scare was launched against growing support in communism and anarchism. The Cold War, a battle between capitalism and a state-capitalism, resulted in nationalism, and the modern far-right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.