Kelly @ Generation Cedar vs. the Election

[aggythenostic]

Oh Kelly! I particularly love when you sprout nonsense about things that are so far beyond you, you might as well be visiting from the moon. In this case, the election:

http://www.generationcedar.com/main/201 ... l#comments

[WTF in the comments about how Obama is going to 'end homeschooling?' Excuse me?]

[aggythenostic]

My favorite comment by the intellectual giantess that is Kelly. Although I will say this is the ONLY time in history that Romney will be accused of Socialism! LOL! What the hell is wrong with these people? Do they really believe that a country can be run tax-free? I can't even.

Keri,

“When do we get to the point where we just listen to the two men that are running? What do they stand for?Evil or Righteousness?â€

I think this may be one of the big obstacles in this debate. I think (is it the media’s fault?) that most Christians are unaware of what policies Romney stands for. Obama is for killing lots of babies, Romney some. Obama has an openly Marxist agenda, Romney’s is socialist, one step away from Marxist in the way government operates. Legalized theft, he doesn’t show any intention of stopping it. And there’s more, these are the highlighted points.

Refer to the scenario in the comment I left to Janlin…I can hardly say that Romney “stands for righteousness†but does not worship the same God we do AND plans to support legalized murder and theft. The last time I checked, those were pretty big deals.

“Besides this, I promised you in the countryside, that I would scatter you among the nations, and send you throughout all the countries; because you hadn’t done my laws, didn’t keep my rules, and had disrespected my Seventh Days, and you followed after your ancestors’ false gods. Besides this, I also gave you rules that weren’t good, and laws in which you wouldn’t live; and I ruined you in your own gifts, because you were sacrificing your own children, that I would make you empty, to the end that you would know that I am Yahweh.†Ez. 20

And I would add that the Walmart metaphor doesn’t remotely compare with asking a leader to rule over you.

[nokoanna]

Obama has an openly Marxist agenda, Romney’s is socialist

Openly Marxist? :lol: Speaking as someone who lives in a country run by Labour, not even they can be considered Marxist! Marxism is just like a swearword to these people. They seem to have no idea about what it actually means. :roll:

[Effie]

What? Where and how do anyone find any socialism in Romney's ideas?

As an ebil social liberal living in an ebil social democracy, I can tell that "Romney's" socialism isn't much to hang in the Christmas tree. I mean, really... :shock: I would flee the country if that was our idea of socialism...

[JesusFightClub]

Openly Marxist? :lol: Speaking as someone who lives in a country run by Labour, not even they can be considered Marxist! Marxism is just like a swearword to these people. They seem to have no idea about what it actually means. :roll:

For a while, the US right were chucking about "Gramscian" as a term of abuse, and none of them had the faintest idea who Gramsci was or what he wrote, just like they don't know what "Marxist" or "Marxism" means. Gramsci is hard going, and these were people who could barely spell their own names. It's a bit like how the same people use "taqqiya" nowadays.

[desertvixen]

What fucking planet is she on?

Obama is not a Marxist.

Romney is DEFINITELY not a socialist.

Please DO stay home and don't vote, Kelly.

[aggythenostic]

I think voting for the frackin' Constitution Party is a brilliant idea! Because no one cares, Kelly. NO ONE. You're not changing the world, you're a bitter spoon of arsenic against the tide that is rational thought and science. If you'd like to give up your rights as a woman because you love wearing 18th Century 'dress' - go ahead! I'll even drive you to the polls from that shiny new house that your god-fearing friends built for you. Oh snaps!

[Guest Anonymous]

Romney's for socialism if it's socialism for the rich. Raise taxes on us working families and cut the food stamps we use to feed our kids and give to the rich.

[aggythenostic]

Seriously, only Kelly would ever call Romney a 'Socialist.' Even HE would laugh at that. Those ladies seem to miss the most important parts of the gospel, don't they? ;) Something about taking care of each other....

[GolightlyGrrl]

If anything, Obama is a Rockefeller Republican. He is a centrist, and a little too cozy with Wall Street and the big Corporations for my liking. If he's a Marxist, then I'm Tim Tebow.

And Romney is a Socialist? Kelly must have pulled that out of her ass. In no way is Romney a Socialist. I just saw a speech given by Jean Zeidler on her father, the late Frank Zeidler. Frank Zeidler was one of three socialist mayors of Milwaukee. Mr. Zeidler was hugely concerned with public transporation, infrastructure, education, housing, public libraries, parks, civil rights, improving worker conditions, etc. Does that sound like Romney?

Kelly is as dumb as a potted plant. But her leg humpers are even dumber.

[bea]

Her reply to the Jewish commenter is especially rich. Apparently, the commenter should go study the writings of our founding fathers, because according to Kelly, you HAVE TO BE CHRISTIAN to be President.

And all of these people, so convinced the President is a Muslim. And note that it's called "Muslim," not "Islamicist." Good lord.

[desertvixen]

Apparently, the commenter should go study the writings of our founding fathers, because according to Kelly, you HAVE TO BE CHRISTIAN to be President.

I was surprised to see her admit that not all the Founding Fathers were Christian, but then she got onto her thing about how you don't have to SAY you're Christian, just embrace Kelly-approved Christian values.

That comment thread is... interesting.

I do agree that Romney wouldn't improve things but...Socialist, really? I like how she's upfront about believing the Mormons are a cult (not agreeing with her, but happy to see someone not beating around the bush about it).

[SealFan1963]

My favorite comment by the intellectual giantess that is Kelly. Although I will say this is the ONLY time in history that Romney will be accused of Socialism! LOL! What the hell is wrong with these people? Do they really believe that a country can be run tax-free? I can't even.

Wait, I thought when Obama was elected 4 years ago he was hated because he was a socialist and now he is a Marxist and Romney is the socialist? I'm so confused. :roll:

Plus the author of this blog has obviously never heard of the electoral college, because she believes a third person can win the election if only people were not cowards and would vote for that third party.

[Patsy]

Plus the author of this blog has obviously never heard of the electoral college, because she believes a third person can win the election if only people were not cowards and would vote for that third party.

Roll up, roll up, Patsy's revealing her meagre, meandering "reckons" on the political process!

Okay, here's how I THINK it works in the U.S.:

Everybody votes on the president. The form, everywhere, says "Barack Obama/Mitt Romney/Gary Johnson/Jill Stein/also some other dudes", and you get to pick one.

And here's how I THINK it works in Aus:

We don't vote for the Prime Minister. The form is different in every electorate, because we vote for local representatives. Whoever wins that gets a seat, and then if the majority of the seats are Labor, the head of the Labor party becomes PM.

If some candidate gets 10% of the votes and so don't get in, they can pass on those votes to their preference (unless you number your preferences for every single candidate on the form; then your vote gets sort of passed on to '2'). If, however, they get 60%, tada, they're a Member!

SO here's where I'm confused by what you say: my understanding is that our voting for the Member is like your voting for the president. If 60% of America voted for Jill Stein, what is it about the electoral college that would prevent her from becoming president?

[SealFan1963]

Roll up, roll up, Patsy's revealing her meagre, meandering "reckons" on the political process!

Okay, here's how I THINK it works in the U.S.:

Everybody votes on the president. The form, everywhere, says "Barack Obama/Mitt Romney/Gary Johnson/Jill Stein/also some other dudes", and you get to pick one.

And here's how I THINK it works in Aus:

We don't vote for the Prime Minister. The form is different in every electorate, because we vote for local representatives. Whoever wins that gets a seat, and then if the majority of the seats are Labor, the head of the Labor party becomes PM.

If some candidate gets 10% of the votes and so don't get in, they can pass on those votes to their preference (unless you number your preferences for every single candidate on the form; then your vote gets sort of passed on to '2'). If, however, they get 60%, tada, they're a Member!

SO here's where I'm confused by what you say: my understanding is that our voting for the Member is like your voting for the president. If 60% of America voted for Jill Stein, what is it about the electoral college that would prevent her from becoming president?

Since I suck at explaining things in detail, here is a Wikipedia link that does a pretty good job of explaining the electoral college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _States%29

[OkToBeTakei]

Since I suck at explaining things in detail, here is a Wikipedia link that does a pretty good job of explaining the electoral college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _States%29

OH boy that is confusing. I think I get it, but if somebody wants to do an idiots guide for the non US folk who are stupid like me. I'd be grateful.

[smores]

Basically,

Your vote is not a direct vote. It is a vote cast that a representative of your state, going to vote in the electoral college, uses as a guide to then cast a vote for the president. The electoral college is a gathering of representatives from all states and is supposed to be another check and balance in the US system, but it does not exactly work like that now.

Some states are winner-takes-all electoral votes, while others distribute those electoral votes amongst the representatives in the same fashion the state voted (i.e., 60%/40% vote means that 60% of electoral votes will go to one candidate, 40% to the other).

That is what makes "swing states" more important. If you live in one of 25 counties in Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc, your vote matters more. Here in OH I could move 30 minutes away and my vote would probably be 10 times more important than my real vote. Maybe even more. Those counties decide the electoral vote because most other counties and states vote predictably towards one side.

If you want to see more on how the electoral votes are predicted to look in this election, check out the fivethirtyeight blog on the NY Times - fivethirtyeight.nytimes.com Hope that helps a little.

[Boogalou]

Here's a kind of helpful video in explaining things (maybe).

OUS9mM8Xbbw

[OkToBeTakei]

So the representatives of your state are not duty bound to vote for who the citizens indicated in their vote???

That is NUTS!

ETA Thanks for the explanation and you-tube link :)

[Patsy]

:shock: That... seems worse than the pitfalls I'm aware of in the Westminster system, to say the least.

[desertvixen]

Okay, here's how I THINK it works in the U.S.:

Everybody votes on the president. The form, everywhere, says "Barack Obama/Mitt Romney/Gary Johnson/Jill Stein/also some other dudes", and you get to pick one.

The form will say Barack Obama or Mitt Romney everywhere, but what other candidates are on the ballot vary by state. In Nevada, where I vote (mailed my ballot yesterday) we have four choices: Obama, Romney, Gary Johnson (Libertarian), and Virgil Goode, who appears to be the Constitution Party guy. Here's his stand on issues: www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html

Whoever wins that gets a seat, and then if the majority of the seats are Labor, the head of the Labor party becomes PM.

Yes - the President is not considered the head of the party. The people down in the Senate and House actually act as party leaders, enforce "party discipline", etc. That's how we get into the whole fix where the President is one party, and the Congress is dominated by the other.