Groulxsmith posted:After mulling this over, part of me actually agrees with Henry. I was talking about his very subject last night over Gtalk with DorkRex, just after the Break-fast. As he rather succinctly put it, as only he can, "Obama might be a shit sandwich 90% of the time," but his effect w/r/t the Overton Window is undeniable. For one, you had some of the bastions of regressive thought in the mid south actually deliver their electoral college votes to a Ivy League-educated black man - now that they've made that leap, there's no going back. We've done the same with healthcare- sure it's a far cry from universal single payer, but our parents can now cover us a few years longer- something our generation will long remember. The tea baggers might bleat about creeping socialism for all te wrong reasons, but you're developing the first generation of Americans in 100 years who aren't afraid of the word and might think "hey, maybe they're onto something in Sweden and Canada." We even have moderate icons like Jon Stewart self-identifying as a socialist- who would have seen that under a McCain-Palin regime?
The only area in which I disagree with D-REx is the notion of Obama spending his windfall of political capital once he achieves lame duck status, maybe pulling a "January surprise" and decriminalizing marijuana or decorating full support for gay marriage. Sounds doubtful now but he's proven me wrong before.
Anyway he gets back to NYC on Sunday, and we're meeting up for a luve tapin of the Nerdist podcast later in the week, I'll share some of your ideas by him if for no other reason than to be the devil's advocate.
why do these dumb ass liberals keep thinking that obama is lax on marijuana laws when he intensified efforts to criminalize medical marijuana. i wonder how much it has to do with lily white liberals stereotypical notions of black people they got from watching the wire and never socializing with one irl
Goethestein posted:democracy is a terrifying idea.
ggw posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:i am a staunch monarchist
Same. support your local Bayerischer Heimat- und Königsbund
i got my obamaphone
guidoanselmi posted:
yase. epic thisery. you have my 5s goonsire
GoldenLionTamarin posted:i am a staunch monarchist
same, and it seems we're not alone. a co-worker of mine came up to me last week and thanked me for making some pro-monarchist remarks; he is apparently a royalist and agreed that American society produces an upper class that lacks class. Then he made comments about what is best for the realm; clearly royalism is one of the fastest growing political movements in the US, prior to that day I only knew of 1 royalist therefore that is a 100% increase in just a single day. If you converted that same day, it would be a 200% increase. Extrapolate that out and I will be a duke before long.
Lykourgos posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:i am a staunch monarchist
same, and it seems we're not alone. a co-worker of mine came up to me last week and thanked me for making some pro-monarchist remarks; he is apparently a royalist and agreed that American society produces an upper class that lacks class. Then he made comments about what is best for the realm; clearly royalism is one of the fastest growing political movements in the US, prior to that day I only knew of 1 royalist therefore that is a 100% increase in just a single day. If you converted that same day, it would be a 200% increase. Extrapolate that out and I will be a duke before long.
bless you grumblefish
MadMedico posted:If you are a monarchist do you have to believe in the divine right of kings?
No, not all royalists believe in the divine right of kings, and there are different ideas of what that divine right is.
I am not so much for monarchy as I am for peerage and aristocracy, so the crown in my vision is not all powerful. The dual monarchy served as generals, placed votes in the gerousia, served religious and ceremonial functions, but did not enjoy a divine right to absolute power. That's different from the vision held by kings like Charles I, or Chinese emperors.
GoldenLionTamarin posted:i am a monarchist because of aesthetics and counter-enlightenment thought
I don't even know what the enlightenment is because thanks to the classics I entirely avoided the dark ages. The term seems to refer to one of many steps on the road back to Classicism.
My hope is to inspire a country's judiciary and/or law enforcement body to take up Classicism, or convert a non-democratic ruling party to the ways of superior ancient men.Then there will be a moral revolution, by men in a position to enact reform with existing, armed institutions, kings becoming philosophers and philosophers becoming kings.
Edited by Lykourgos ()
Lykourgos posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:i am a monarchist because of aesthetics and counter-enlightenment thought
I don't even know what the enlightenment is because thanks to the classics I entirely avoided the dark ages. The term seems to refer to one of many steps on the road back to Classicism.
My hope is to inspire a country's judiciary and/or law enforcement body to take up Classicism, or convert a non-democratic ruling party to the ways of superior ancient men.Then there will be a moral revolution, by men in a position to enact reform with existing, armed institutions, kings becoming philosophers and philosophers becoming kings.
Lykourgos posted:like I said, 200% increase in support in just 1 day, hard to argue with the statistics mate so move over there's another man in town.
a doubling is only a 100 percent increase idiot human
CARACAS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - With both presidents facing tight re-election fights, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gave a surprise endorsement to Barack Obama on Sunday - and said the U.S. leader no doubt felt the same.
"I hope this doesn't harm Obama, but if I was from the United States, I'd vote for Obama," the socialist Chavez said of a man he first reached out to in 2009 but to whom he has since generally been insulting.
Chavez is running for a new six-year term against opposition challenger Henrique Capriles, while Obama seeks re-election in November against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Venezuela's election is next weekend.
"Obama is a good guy ... I think that if Obama was from Barlovento or some Caracas neighborhood, he'd vote for Chavez," the president told state TV, referring to a poor coastal town known for the African roots of its population.
Chavez is one of the world's most strident critics of Washington and his 14 years in office have been characterized by diplomatic spats and insults at the White House.
He called former U.S. President George W. Bush a "drunk" and the "devil." After an initial overture to Obama came to nothing, he said the new president had disappointed progressives the world over and was the "shame" of Africans.
But Chavez was back in a conciliatory mood in a TV interview with friend and former vice president Jose Vicente Rangel.
"After our triumph and the supposed, probable triumph of President Obama, with the extreme right defeated here and there, I hope we could start a new period of normal relations with the United States," he said.
"Obama recently said something very rational and fair ... that Venezuela is no threat to the interests of the United States," he added.
Since coming to office, Chavez has projected himself as the head of a global "anti-imperialist" movement inspired by his friend and ideological mentor Fidel Castro of Cuba.
Relations with Washington improved briefly after Obama took office in January 2009 and promised more engagement with Latin America. Chavez toned down his tirades against the "Yankee empire" and shook hands with the new U.S. leader at a summit.
But months later, he accused Obama of sticking to Bush's foreign policies and capitalist agenda, and the tirade against the United Sates began again.
Despite the ideological gulf between Washington and Caracas, both sides take a pragmatic approach when it comes to business, with OPEC member Venezuela remaining the United States' fourth biggest crude supplier.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/30/venezuela-election-obama-idUSL1E8KU37A20120930
Lykourgos posted:swampman posted:Lykourgos posted:like I said, 200% increase in support in just 1 day, hard to argue with the statistics mate so move over there's another man in town.
a doubling is only a 100 percent increase idiot human
Uhh it was a tripling, from one adherent to three.
your own previous posts contradict this, you only know of one other adherent, and the third is a prospective adherent to be hypothetically gleaned from this thread in an alternate future reality from another dimension
GoldenLionTamarin posted:aesthetics
Lykourgos posted:GoldenLionTamarin posted:i am a staunch monarchist
same, and it seems we're not alone. a co-worker of mine came up to me last week and thanked me for making some pro-monarchist remarks; he is apparently a royalist and agreed that American society produces an upper class that lacks class. Then he made comments about what is best for the realm; clearly royalism is one of the fastest growing political movements in the US, prior to that day I only knew of 1 royalist therefore that is a 100% increase in just a single day. If you converted that same day, it would be a 200% increase. Extrapolate that out and I will be a duke before long.
bump
“I’m very curious to see which one of these two clinically sociopathic individuals will present the most convincing and authentic approximation of an actual human conscience tonight,” said Cincinnati-area voter Miranda Harrick, 40, adding that both candidates, like all successful politicians, were undeniably skilled at such calculated artifice. “I think whoever is able to best manipulate me into thinking they experience normative emotional states such as empathy and regret will probably have my vote come November, so I’m excited to see what happens.”
The debate figures to be especially important for undecided voters, 91 percent of whom said in a pre-debate poll that they were still waiting for one sociopath to win them over with the perfect combination of superficial charm, deluded grandeur, and pathological lying.
According to polls, viewer consensus following the first debate suggested Mitt Romney had performed a far more convincing impersonation of someone with real feelings and a capacity for human compassion. Voters praised the former governor’s ability to conceal his complete social disconnection and underlying hostility behind a wall of colloquial rhetoric and an approximation of warmth they described as “much more realistic” than Obama’s.
“Last debate, Romney was a great sociopath,” said Florida voter Jeff Yu, 28, who remarked that the Republican candidate’s impressive ability to simulate the appearance of caring had improved markedly since the beginning of the campaign. “He looked very comfortable and confident up there, even against a seasoned sociopath like Obama. He really helped me ignore the reality that to him, as to any politician, social interaction is nothing but a never-ending game of deception and psychological subterfuge, the only object of which is personal gain.”
Following Obama’s noticeable hesitancy during the first debate, many of his supporters expressed worry that he was struggling to effect emotional normalcy with the same single-minded cunning and feigned humanity he exhibited in 2008. They agreed the pressure is now on the president to show that he has not forgotten how to callously manipulate the American public into thinking he is anything at all like them.
“I want to see that same beguiling sociopath who, four years ago, conned me into believing his psyche was somehow differently wired from every other charming, sociopathic politician who had ever lived,” said Obama supporter Phoebe Greenwald, 43. “What happened to all his seemingly earnest, though of course meticulously contrived, rhetoric about hope and change that made us all like him and think he was in some way psychologically healthy and well-adjusted, which of course no human being in the history of modern politics ever has been?”
“Obama just needs to do what Joe Biden did last week,” Greenwald added. “I mean, he masterfully out-sociopathed Paul Ryan, which is no easy task, believe me."
No matter the outcome of tonight’s debate, sources agreed that the most talented sociopath will likely be elected in November and, depending on what kind of support he might receive from like-minded sociopaths in Congress, will then spend the next four years satisfying his malformed brain’s ceaseless thirst for power and glory.
gyrofry posted:bump
RJFire posted:HenryKrinkle posted:is there any rational argument for refraining from voting for Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 US presidential election that isn't based on pie in the sky revolutionary accelerationism or contrarian nihilism about how nothing really matters since everything is fucked anyways?
just curious.The two parties get worse every single year. If every single year we vote for the lesser evil, we're just going to get more evil next year. The democrats are a right wing party. That they pay lip service to being left wing while jailing people forever without trial, start wars, and pine for the same corporate bucks, is what they are really about.
They have to act like a left wing party to get my vote this time. They had a majority in both houses and still couldn't get single payer or a public option passed, but not because republican put up an opposition to it. They oppose healthcare reform. They take money from the insurance industry and the banks just like the republicans. They represent private property just as much as Romney.
nah that won't happen
