# A Democrat in the White House will mean the end of the world



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Now that I have your attention...

Why does this seem to be a recurring theme? I've seen numerous threads foretelling all kinds of horrible things if Hilary becomes president, and today if Obama becomes President. I can understand Republicans not liking Democrats and wanting them to loose, but I find it odd that the same thing doesn't run the other way. I haven't heard any Democrats talk about how America will be doomed if McCain becomes President.

Is this just campaign strategy? Dems want to focus on how bad it's been with Bush in office and want people to look back at the last 8 years with remorse? Republicans want to focus on how bad it will be with Dems in office and get people to look at the next 4 years with fear?

I really don't care for any of the candidates on either side of the equation. I'm just curious about the real reason behind the rhetoric.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

The modern American is completely histrionic - I mean, we've become a society that sues when we're upset by too hot a drink, and we have to bring in teams of grief counselors to schools whenever a child skins his knees. Is it any surprise, really, that people will overreact catastrophically if an election doesn't go their way?

The Average American seriously needs to rediscover the once prevalent value of "courage", because the generation I'm seeing coming up behind me is frightening delicate.

That said, we are fortunate that our forebears had the cleverness and foresight to create a system of government that can weather a remarkable degree of incompetence and venality. I mean, it survived Nixon? Carter? Harding? I should scarcely think Hilary more dire than they.

As it stands, IF Hilary were to win I think we'll see a President with weak influence over legislation, and I think she'll use her power to revenge herself upon people she feels have wronged her - she'll be the Democrat "Nixon" in that sense. I also would expect a fair degree of scandal in the White House. She'll be a one term President.

Obama is more of an unknown. He's clearly the more liberal of the two. I actually think Obama is motivated at least in part by actual conviction (in contrast to Hilary, who is purely motivated by power) and he'll actually try to "do right". Not sure how that will play out, especially as untested as he is. He could be a great one, or he could just spin his wheels for four years. If he wins and doesn't screw it up, I can see him being a two-term president... and can it be any less obvious that Michelle Obama is positioning herself as "Hilary 2.0"? If Obama wins in 2008, I bet she makes a play for the Presidency around 2020 or 2024.

Anyway McCain will be swearing the Oath of Office in 11 months, so speculating about Democrats is simple academics.

DCH


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

It's all silly, silly nonsense. 

I guess when one party has control of all three branches of government for several years and still alienates three-quarters of the American public, there's not much left to do but blame the other side for all your f-ups.


----------



## connoisseurbeachcomber (Feb 2, 2008)

Read "The Republican Noise Machine" by David Brock.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-1134487-0069765?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=republican+noise+machine


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's not just America. This is not a jingoistic observation, but our recent economic downturn repeated the phrase " when American business catches a cold the world comes down with pneumonia." We may or may not still be the world's sole superpower, may be in decline vs communist China, India, a United Europe or the machismo posturing of one more El Supremo called Chavez. If there was a Pax Romana and a Pax Americana both came with a terrible price. But nobody cared much for what followed the roman collapse. From a tall cripple hiding in a Wastiristan cave awaiting the Mahdi to the world's financial institutions the ugly american, Great Satan, yankee imperialist is the only thing holding back even greater uncertainties. An old chinese saying is " may you live in interesting times" to which America can say " be carefull what you wish for, you may get it."


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

The Republicans (for the record, I am one) have consistantly been able to make hay with the dire warnings that if a Democrat takes control of the White House we will wind up with a 90% tax rate for everyone making more than $30,000 per year, socialized everything and Al-Qaida holding parades down Fifth Avenue. It plays to peoples fears. The Democrats, however, have consistantly not been able to put those fears to rest.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

KenR said:


> The Republicans (for the record, I am one) have consistantly been able to make hay with the dire warnings that if a Democrat takes control of the White House we will wind up with a 90% tax rate for everyone making more than $30,000 per year, socialized everything and Al-Qaida holding parades down Fifth Avenue. It plays to peoples fears. The Democrats, however, have consistantly not been able to put those fears to rest.


But isn't that what running for national public office is all about? Peddling to people's fears? Maybe a large chunk of the voting public is fed up with having dire predictions of impending doom shoved down their throats unless their man or woman gets in office. That might help explain Obama's popularity, particularly among the "delicate" generation of voters, as Dhaller called them. Obama goes for the high rhetoric of hope and change, ignoring the fact that he's inexperienced and not really prepared to be POTUS.

In retrospect, this is what the Reagan Revolution did so well...acknowledge and peddle the fear (the Soviets) but wrap in it a veneer of hope and pride. Few presidents have been able to do that.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I tend to think this is SOP by both sides, when they feel it will be effective. Can no one remember that if Dubya got elected (then re-elected) that the elderly would be living on the street, a jack booted thug would be asking for your "papers" on every street corner, etc? It is just something both sides do and people probably only tend to tune in when it is their affinity group involved.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Why does this seem to be a recurring theme? I've seen numerous threads foretelling all kinds of horrible things if Hilary becomes president, and today if Obama becomes President. I can understand Republicans not liking Democrats and wanting them to loose, but I find it odd that the same thing doesn't run the other way. I haven't heard any Democrats talk about how America will be doomed if McCain becomes President.
> 
> Is this just campaign strategy? Dems want to focus on how bad it's been with Bush in office and want people to look back at the last 8 years with remorse? Republicans want to focus on how bad it will be with Dems in office and get people to look at the next 4 years with fear?


It's a result of incumbency. Bush's popularity is low, and has been for a long time. Therefore, the Democrat marketing strategy is to keep pushing that button. That's why they can't say the word "change" often enough. (Why two life-long politicians spewing out the same tired socialist rhetoric that socialists have been peddling for 100 years constitutes "change" no one has been able to explain.)

In contrast, the Republican marketing strategy can't be "Let's have 4 more years!" If the president were popular right now, with a high approval rating, then that's what we'd be seeing, as we did in 1988.

At the same time, the Republican strategy can't be "change." They can't disavow the entire approach of the current Republican president. That would cause major harm to the brand "Republican", as marketing people say.

So, the Republicans are boxed in -- they can't be for change, and they can't be for the status quo. The only viable alternative marketing strategy for another Republican president has to be something like: "we'll still act like Republicans, but only the good parts of Republicanism ... and by the way, the Democrats would be worse."


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Of course, here in Berkeley, one hears that the end of the world is what another Republican in the White House will bring. But I'm sure that's no surprise. 

And some fundamentalist think that End Times are more assured (for some -- although not I -- that's a good thing) with a Republican in the White House.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Most fundamentalist that I know, if not all of them, vote Republican to Prevent the End Times.

Reagan changed the course of the Republican party. Ford was a moderate; pro-abortion, higher taxes... Both Bush's were a downgrade from Reagan. The Democrats were apologizing for America's well being during Jimmy Carters Presidency, which is pathetic (sicking). To bad Allan Keys is not running- he is a positive spirit.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

WA said:


> The Democrats were apologizing for America's well being during Jimmy Carters Presidency, which is pathetic (sicking).


Runaway inflation and 20 percent interest rates isn't what I'd call "well being." Ah, but to each his/her own, I guess.

Jimmy Carter apologists/revisionists amuse me.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

The Republicans scream that it will be the end of days if a Democrat is elected, because the Democrats will be soft on national security and military spending, while attempting socialize many things including health care. The Democrats scream that it will be the end of days, because they claim the Republicans will just cut taxes on the rich and help corporations make record profits, and to Hell with the poor.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

WA, TV evangelicals are supporting Israel to see the rebuilding of the temple, a prerequisite to the second coming. Voting republican to stall endtimes is about as silly. When Jesus comes, it's on his schedule, not pastor Hagee, Hal Lindsey & company.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

WA said:


> Most fundamentalist that I know, if not all of them, vote Republican to *Prevent the End Times*.


I was not aware voting Republican prevents the End of Days?  Maybe the Republican Party could adopt that as a slogan, generally: "VOTE REPUBLICAN and PREVENT the End of Days!" :idea: You'd have to be crazy to vote for a Democrat in that instance! :icon_smile_wink: Is their a scripture somewhere that provides a basis for that belief?  Also, I thought the End of Days, or Second Coming of Jesus Christ, was inevitable?  Maybe our actions on this earth can delay it, but prevent it? :crazy: Seems a little contrary to my understanding of scripture, but then I am not a fundamentalist. :devil:


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Maybe the Republican Party could adopt that as a slogan generally: "VOTE REPUBLICAN and PREVENT the End of Days!" :idea:


I heard Arnold Schwarzenegger used a similar slogan for his governator campaign a few years ago: "Vote REPUBLICAN and PREVENT the _End of Days (Part 2)_" :devil:


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

omairp said:


> I heard Arnold Schwarzenegger used a similar slogan for his governator campaign a few years ago: "Vote REPUBLICAN and PREVENT the _End of Days (Part 2)_" :devil:


Darn it! I thought it was an original idea!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Runaway inflation and 20 percent interest rates isn't what I'd call "well being." Ah, but to each his/her own, I guess.
> 
> Jimmy Carter apologists/revisionists amuse me.


Well, I didn't quite write that right. The US was doing so much better before Jimmy Carter, compare the rest of the world, that some Democrats thought we should be apologizing. The Democrats were out of their minds back then (and still are). The Democrats seemed to be anti America back then.

There is still some of that blame America for doing so well.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WA said:


> Well, I didn't quite write that right. The US was doing so much better before Jimmy Carter, compare the rest of the world, that some Democrats thought we should be apologizing. The Democrats were out of their minds back then (and still are). The Democrats seemed to be anti America back then.
> 
> There is still some of that blame America for doing so well.


Yeah, well at least I understood you. It is true that many Dems (certainly not all, but especially many of their activists) seem to have some sort of hate America first impulse. It trumps even their other impulse to hate humanity generally. Their world view seems to be that the Earth is a miraculous organism living in perfect equilibrium but for the cancer known as humanity, which might be reasonably benign but for the mutations caused by capitalism and religion; and the earth's best hope for survival is to amputate or radically treat its most mastisized organ, which is America.

Mike (speaking truth to power while humming kumbaya)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I still like the right wingers who would rather have Obama than McCain. 

Like Obama will have more respect for their agenda than McCain will. (rolls eyes.)


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yeah, well at least I understood you. It is true that many Dems (certainly not all, but especially many of their activists) seem to have some sort of hate America first impulse. It trumps even their other impulse to hate humanity generally. Their world view seems to be that the Earth is a miraculous organism living in perfect equilibrium but for the cancer known as humanity, which might be reasonably benign but for the mutations caused by capitalism and religion; and the earth's best hope for survival is to amputate or radically treat its most mastisized organ, which is America.
> 
> Mike (speaking truth to power while humming kumbaya)


Capitalism, religion, having a military, consumerism and SUVs. Oh, and aerosol sprays.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah, well at least I understood you. It is true that many Dems (certainly not all, but especially many of their activists) seem to have some sort of hate America first impulse. It trumps even their other impulse to hate humanity generally. Their world view seems to be that the Earth is a miraculous organism living in perfect equilibrium but for the cancer known as humanity, which might be reasonably benign but for the mutations caused by capitalism and religion; and the earth's best hope for survival is to amputate or radically treat its most mastisized organ, which is America.

Mike (speaking truth to power while humming kumbaya)



VS said:


> Capitalism, religion, having a military, consumerism and SUVs. Oh, and aerosol sprays.


Glad that's all sorted out. And so breezily too!

Next.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I dont know about the end of the world, but I dont have much hope for the long term economic expansion of this nation if we dont get a real fiscal conservative w some sack in the White House soon. (Oh yeah, FYI, Bush II was NOT a fiscal conservative....)


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

NewYorkBuck said:


> (Oh yeah, FYI, Bush II was NOT a fiscal conservative....)


Given that percentage wise he's spent more money than Lyndon Johnson that's quite an understatement.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

It's the end of the world as we know it? I feel fine. :icon_smile:


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

mpcsb said:


> Given that percentage wise he's spent more money than Lyndon Johnson that's quite an understatement.


Regarding Bush II's brand of "fiscal conservatism," I think the term "spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave" would be entirely appropriate. :icon_smile:


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

TMMKC said:


> Regarding Bush II's brand of "fiscal conservatism," I think the term "spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave" would be entirely appropriate. :icon_smile:


When I was a drunken sailor, I could only spend until I was flat broke, not until I was billions in debt. Therein lies the difference.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*The reality is...*

that today there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...politics and society itself is broken in this country and the people need to take them back from the fat wallets (many of whom reside here I imagine) that control it. Once people realize that the middle class (90% of the USA) and poor are being held content at their standard of living and raising debt, this country will turn into a burning pyre...I'm just afraid most of that 90% are too ill equipped upstairs to ever realize, or too content with thier possessions and rising debt to get out of their lazy boys. Then again, I'm just your basic run of the mill socialist school teacher, and all this pointless jabber depresses.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> that today there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...politics and society itself is broken in this country and the people need to take them back from the fat wallets (many of whom reside here I imagine) that control it. Once people realize that the middle class (90% of the USA) and poor are being held content at their standard of living and raising debt, this country will turn into a burning pyre...I'm just afraid most of that 90% are too ill equipped upstairs to ever realize, or too content with thier possessions and rising debt to get out of their lazy boys. * Then again, I'm just your basic run of the mill socialist school teacher,* and all this pointless jabber depresses.


Could be part of the problem too. Just saying.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

which part? That I'm a socialist, or chose a profession that puts the greater good over personal financial gain?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> which part? That I'm a socialist, or chose a profession that puts the greater good over personal financial gain?


The profession I can think of that strikes the most, almost always for an increase in monetary compensation, is that of teachers. Even the UAW is not on strike as often as the NEA. From the front page of www.nea.org :



> NEA, says Weaver, is seizing every opportunity to push for smaller class sizes, *competitive educator salaries,* and higher academic standards.


Just saying.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> which part? That I'm a socialist, or chose a profession that puts the _*greater good*_ over personal financial gain?


One of my favorite terms. Would you care to tell what what the "greater good" means?


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> One of my favorite terms. Would you care to tell what what the "greater good" means?


greater good...for the betterment of society...for the benefit of "people" in the way Marx and Engels would have used the word.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> The profession I can think of that strikes the most, almost always for an increase in monetary compensation, is that of teachers. Even the UAW is not on strike as often as the NEA. From the front page of www.nea.org :
> 
> Just saying.


The problem with teachers is that for the most part we DON'T DESERVE to have competetive salaries because in my opinion, most teachers are not good ones. I like to think of myself in the minority, but if you think about it, we've all gone to "primary-middle-high school" for 12 or 13 years, and of those years how many teachers can you remember that made a difference in your life? For me, I remember maybe 3 or 4. Three or Four out of maybe a hundred (remember in MS and HS we have at least 8 teachers a semester). To me thats unacceptable. Why? Honestly, most people get into the field because they can't hack it elsewhere, you all have heard the saying. I work with teachers who don't even like kids, and they disgust me. I will post a new thread about this for the continuation so as not to hijack this political thread...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> greater good...for the betterment of society...for the benefit of "people" _*in the way Marx and Engels would have used the word.*_


At least you're honest! By the way, Marx and Engels' vision really turned out to be a good thing when taken to its logical conclusion did it not?


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> At least you're honest! By the way, Marx and Engels' vision really turned out to be a good thing when taken to its logical conclusion did it not?


Was a brilliant idea, but when put in the hands of corruptable human beings, an impossibilty...much like the "Democracy" we Americans think of as just below godliness.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Was a brilliant idea, but when *put in the hands of corruptable human beings*, an impossibilty...much like the "Democracy" we Americans think of as just below godliness.


As opposed to Angels? I will take self government, with all its constituent pitfalls and limitations, over centralized authority invested in one person.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> As opposed to Angels? I will take self government, with all its constituent pitfalls and limitations, over centralized authority invested in one person.


We do not have "self government" here...not when politicians have succeeded in fostering the apathy that has half of our society not taking advantage of their most basic right-to vote. And I won't even mention money in politics...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Was a brilliant idea


No, it really wasn't. Communism was never "good on paper," as one often hears on campuses and in coffeehouses.

Even when you set aside all of the moral issues and the questions of human fallibility and corruptibility, you *cannot* have an efficient economy without private property and the free setting of prices. It is impossible, no matter how good (or bad) your intentions are.

An economy is incredibly complex. Prices are signals to production. When you interfere with prices, you get meaningless signals. It becomes impossible to determine what goods to produce, and how much of them, without a functioning price system.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Democrat*

Gentlemen

It was a freaking republican that turned the rest of us into a democrat! I am a retired soldier, and voted for the nut that is now in the white house. He turned a lot of us into the democrat side.
We, need to turn things around here. And, the hell with the world. It is this country, my friends. That needs help. 
Sad story, nothing decent there in the Democrat model.
God, I want Gore!
LOL

Nice day my friends


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> It was a freaking republican that turned the rest of us into a democrat! I am a retired soldier, and voted for the nut that is now in the white house. He turned a lot of us into the democrat side.
> We, need to turn things around here. And, the hell with the world. It is this country, my friends. That needs help.
> ...


I'll take Buckley! $5, friend?


----------

