I'm going to be disgusted if it's that close. But I'm going to be really, extremely disappointed if Romney wins. I'm even going to be afraid, because the kind of garbage I hear coming out of Republican mouthpieces lately reeks of the same messages and tactics seen in pre-war Germany. The entire Republican platform is running on promises, not facts; and often promises contrary to facts. Regardless of party affiliations, Romney's proven himself to be a deceitful opportunist. That's all that matters. I'm not going to make any ridiculous, childish threats like, 'If he wins, I'm going to Canada!' However I will say that I'm thankful that I have a career where I actually do have that kind of portability. My only barriers to emigrating anywhere in the civilized world are paperwork and whatever cultural adaptations my family will have to make (including speaking the native language).
That's outrageously hyperbolic and dramatic. All you have is overly alarmist partisan rhetoric. People act as if every election is the most important election in history, the world is ending, and the opposition is the sheer embodiment of Nazi principals. Romney's just some ordinary politician. And Obama's the same. You may not being making childish threats, but you certainly sound childish.
I take deep offense at being dismissed as being 'childish' and 'dramatic' for thinking this election matters and that politics matter. In my life I've been staunchly independent and critical of politicians on the whole. Recently however the entire Republican party has gone completely off the rails. If you think I'm hyperbolic, what of the 68 Nobel laureates who signed a letter stating, ["[Romney] supports a budget that, if implemented, would devastate a long tradition of support for public research and investment in science at a time when this country's future depends, as never before, on innovation."](http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/201...) And the LA Times for writing, "+Voters face a momentous choice+ in November between two candidates offering sharply different prescriptions for what ails the country. Obama's recalls the successful formula of the 1990s, when the government raised taxes and slowed spending to close the deficit. The alternative offered by Romney would neglect the country's infrastructure and human resources for the sake of yet another tax cut and a larger defense budget than even the Pentagon is seeking." The New York Times: "The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. +The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster+." The Washington Post: "So voters are left with the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s campaign: +promised tax cuts that would blow a much bigger hole in the federal budget while worsening economic inequality+. His claims that he could avoid those negative effects, which defy math and which he refuses to back up with actual proposals, are more insulting than reassuring." The Chicago Tribune: "One of these decades, the children in which we now invest our hope, and our love, will speak with today’s adults about the America that we bequeathed to them. +They will praise us for avoiding the financial ravages they watch other nations endure. Or they will condemn us for living ruinously beyond our means and forcing the enormous payback onto them+ -- a criminal act no previous American generation has committed against those that came next." The Economist: "All politicians flip-flop from time to time; but Mr Romney could win an Olympic medal in it." Bill Nye: "This is +the most important election of my life+." The Sacramento Bee: "+The scariest part of a Romney victory+ is the potential that he and Paul Ryan would attempt to shape the U.S. Supreme Court to match their religious and political beliefs..." The Winston Salem Journal, a Republican stronghold in my own state: "Romney’s policies — +warmed-over trickle-down economics — will make matters worse+." I find the majority of instances in which I try to be fair, I end up suffering for it. However, I'll go ahead and also cite the Los Angeles Daily News which endorses Romney, writing, "The nation's budget problems remain unsolved, +portending a new financial crisis ahead+."
(I do find it ridiculous that they claim Romney is a "seasoned leader" and they blame the partisanship divide on Obama rather than obvious programmatic obstructionism on the part of Republican congressmen, but that's another topic.) There's a lot of strong language out there. Plenty of people find this election to be of critical importance. You can't dismiss it all as political shenanigans from which you are largely immune. To think you can float above it all is a nice lie. What happens today will come to affect us, maybe not next week, but eventually, and tangibly. Now, the Nazi reference. The Republican agenda has seriously regressed in areas of civil and religious rights. The fact that Republican politicians keep coming up with acts that have broad, far-reaching powers with little oversight -- like the Patriot Act and SOPA -- as well as casting 'others' (homosexuals, women, blacks, gypsies, or whatever) as leeches and enemies do draw poignant parallels to Nazi political tactics. If you want to attack my views based on facts, historical trends, law, science, or any other meaningful thing, go for it. All you have is an attack on my character, which is stupid because this is the internet and you don't know jack about me. Moreover, it's what people do when they're empty-handed but want to win an argument by style.
I actually went to bed only a little later than usual. It always takes hours for all precincts to report, and typically the more populous ones are later to report owing to logistical issues. So I'm fine with waiting. Falling asleep, I consoled myself with the hopes that if Obama won things would continue on their present course, whereas if Romney won a Democrat-controlled Senate would mitigate the amount of damage he could do in four years. I'm naturally happy Obama won, but I'm pretty disappointed that we still have a Republican-controlled House and now have a more Republican-dominated state. I used to pride myself on being fiercely independent, a 'switch hitter' I told people. But in the past few years Republicans have seriously gone off the rails with their hypocrisies, obstructionist tactics, blame shifting, support of utterly discredited economic theories, and their backwards moral agenda. I'm really happy Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts. I hope she goes far.
I started to write a rational, researched response to your challenge, showing direct parallels and comparisons; but in that research, I've come to realize that there's an immense danger of getting hung up on labels and party-isms rather than focusing on acts. Broadly speaking, Hitler rose to power by turning the disenfranchised working class against the existing republic. As Nazism grew in popularity, Hitler used false news reports, ram-rodded legislation that gave his government sweeping powers, and revisionist history to solidify his place. That led to (forcible) disarming of civilians, property and asset seizures of people deemed "threats," book burning, then genocide, eugenics and war. The big question then, is who does that sound more like: modern-day US Republicans or Democrats? Even if we're able to keep ourselves in a debate from getting distracted by terms like "republic" and "socialist," it's too easy to cherry-pick from the timeline to support whatever position it is that you already have. My view is that US Republicans are far more guilty than Democrats of: - trampling on civil rights (the Patriot Act was a reactionary act authored by Republican congressmen and signed into law by a Republican president -- it reeks of Hitler's "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act") - consolidating governmental power despite being elected on a platform of fighting 'big government' and 'the existing corrupt, effete government' Republican congressmen refusing to work with Obama and Democratic congressmen, then blaming Obama for 'not getting anything done' More of the same - false flag attacks and projection (vastly overstating concerns of voter fraud in order to pass draconian voter registration laws which target groups more likely to favor non-Republican candidates More voter registration fraud Training poll watchers to mislead voters More of the same Elimination of early voting days
) The religious issue is a dicey one. I think it's clear that our Republicans are vastly more interested in pursuing religious agendas, or at a minimum to letting their decisions be guided by their alleged religious principles: Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" statement Richard Mourdock's rape pregnancy as a "gift from God" statement The mega-storm Sandy a result of human sin rather than anthropogenic climate change Texas replacing Thomas Jefferson with Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin in textbooks in order to question the foundation of this country's secular government... ... as well as replacing the word "democratic" with "constitutional republic" and other such Newspeak However I've found conflicting accounts of just what role religion played in Nazi Germany. Apparently the Nazi party as an entity denounced Christianity in favor of pagan symbolism, though Hitler himself was a fervent Christian and worked to restrain anti-Christian elements. What matters to me is that the Nazi regime enforced any religion at all and that they used religion to justify and bolster their stances. I feel strongly that government should neither draw from nor endorse any religion. I realize religious people tend to be offended when their faith is lumped together with all others as generic "religion" so I tend to avoid this topic. But it does matter to me. I'll finish by saying that all politicians lie. Calling it "lying" is really just a harsh way of saying "pandering." And all politicians pander to some extent. I'm also careful to distinguish between pandering (lying) and honest mistakes, because no one can reasonably be expected to perfectly remember everything. Plus, people sometimes genuinely change their minds about topics as they gain knowledge, responsibility and experience. It's harder to do that when you bear some authority, because it inherently makes you look like you are unsteady, can be influenced, and can't be trusted. But it's important (among thinking people, anyway) to be mature enough to keep taking in new information and to admit when you've been in error. As an example I can cite Obama's change in his stance on gay marriage. Is he pandering to a newly emerging majority? Is he legitimately, maturely changing his view after having had some years to consider the issue and gain experience? Maybe he's merely trying as a politician to follow the will of the people? No one can know his inner motivations, and it's all highly debatable. As another example I could call upon Romney's recent decision to cancel a swing state (Ohio) political rally in the face of a huge storm, then to replace it with a relief drive, only to have that event look very much like the political rally they planned from the beginning. Any rational person has to admit it looks bad. But one could argue from the POV of the event planners, that once you had a place set, staffers hired, food bought, music decided and so forth, why not go ahead and use all that? It's debatable. Better not to waste time on moot topics. What I'm concerned with is not changing of mind, nor mistakes in recall, nor basic pandering or questionable judgement. I'm talking about blatant misdirection, obvious and extreme cases of pandering, and getting facts (not views, FACTS) incorrect when they really are in your supposed area of expertise.
I meant to include a few sentences explaining just what I meant by the danger of getting hung up on labels. I couldn't quite figure where to include it in my missive, then I forgot about it. It's simplistic and incomplete to look at WWII from a current perspective and say something like, "Hitler disarmed the citizens and grew his governmental power -- just like Democrats want to do! And Hitler was a socialist! Fuck Democrats and their socialist Nazi agenda!" It's a ridiculous and sad misconception that Democrats are socialists. Equally so that Republicans favor small government, that Obama is a Muslim, and so forth. Those are all simplistic, inaccurate misconceptions -- lies spread by organizations whose best interests lie in getting you to consume their materials. Maybe those organizations are just selling the drama, or maybe they want you to feel and vote a certain way, or maybe part of their business plan includes significant income from benefactors who themselves have agendas that are unknown. Regardless, you can't trust them. The best any of us regular people can do is take in information from a variety of sources and assemble the truth from that. Blind men and the elephant, you know.
Nazi stuff is always hyperbole. It was when they did it to W, and it certainly was when they did it to Obama in those ridiculous anti-health reform ads that featured him with a Chaplin mustache. I think the reason right wingers think Mitt is moderate, and left wingers think he's conservative is because its not difficult to find a sound bite of him saying moderate things and extreme things about the exact same issues. If not for his Mormonism, I would think he is a Nihilist, as he seems to hold no conviction too close to his chest.