Political discussion thread

The only important vote to be cast today would be one for Gary Johnson.  If he breaks the 5% mark nationally the libertarian party will gain ballot access and funding equal to that of the uniparty.  At this point in time, they spend half of their money trying to maintain ballot access from scumpublican challenges.  A vote for Romney or Obama essentially changes nothing and deems your vote meaningless.  That said, I would rather see an Obama re-election because maybe, just maybe, it can set in motion the changes that need to be made within the republican party.  A Romney election crushes the good parts of the tea party and any prayer of libertarian influence within the party for at least 5 years while also assuring that when the current system melts down (Mittens sure as hell ain't stopping what's coming) that capitalism is incorrectly blamed (the media would be more than happy to paint corporatist Mittens as some friend to capitalism).  If Obama wins we lose another 4 years, if Romney wins we're liable to lose all hope that a national election will ever mean anything again.  It saddens me to, once again (or for the first time), see so many go spineless into this election day falling for the age old script that your vote only matters if you agree to forgo principle and submit to one of two colors representing the same evils.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Great economy except for the bubble and it crashing and all. And no wars, except those covert and overt military operations that we just didn't call wars. And he was nothing with regards to something on the side when compared to JFK.

thellama73 wrote: tamijo wrote: 10.000 $ may seem a bit more if you got 375$ at the account, than it does if you got 10.000.000 $  Yep. And it's harder to buy caviar if you are poor too. So what?

If you cant tell the diffrence yourself, i dont think it matter if i try to explain it.

But my mom voted Libertarian for some smaller things, tho, so that's good.

The T wrote: ^I didn't know about the 5% rule (though I think Smartpetrol mentioned it). Your point is quite good MoM. I think 4 years is too long though.

 

That's Stalin, isn't it

thellama73 wrote: The complaint that's it's unfair for people with money to get better medical care than people without boils down to an argument that money should have no value. If you believe money should have no value, fine, but you should understand that is what you are arguing for.

Generally, I agree that people with more money should be able to buy better private insurance, although it's important that there's a minimum coverage for everyone. But in the example of the kidney donation, it's not "better vs. worse". It's "kidney vs. no kidney", which in the case of life-threatening conditions boils down to "life vs. death". The idea that a matter of life and death should be resolved via commercial means seems wildly inappropriate to me.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: The complaint that's it's unfair for people with money to get better medical care than people without boils down to an argument that money should have no value. If you believe money should have no value, fine, but you should understand that is what you are arguing for. Generally, I agree that people with more money should be able to buy better private insurance, although it's important that there's a minimum coverage for everyone. But in the example of the kidney donation, it's not "better vs. worse". It's "kidney vs. no kidney", which in the case of life-threatening conditions boils down to "life vs. death". The idea that a matter of life and death should be resolved via commercial means seems wildly inappropriate to me.

But providing money for kidney donors will result in more kidney donations.

So you would rather save fewer people as long as they're not rich?  Isn't that the same " one person's life is worth more than another's" problem that was mentioned before?

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Ohio-Green-Party-Candidate-Sues-to-Block-Voting-4012763.php

Edited by King of Loss - November 06 2012 at 16:48

thellama73 wrote: King of Loss wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Ohio-Green-Party-Candidate-Sues-to-Block-Voting-4012763.php http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233311/E_voting_machine_swaps_Obama_vote_for_Romney_taken_offline?taxonomyId=12 A serious concern I think. The reports I heard had Romney votes changing to Obama, so I expect the errors will cancel each other out, but still there should be no errors at all. I was fortunate enough to vote with a paper ballot in my district.

Edited by King of Loss - November 06 2012 at 16:53