Political discussion thread

thellama73 wrote: But providing money for kidney donors will result in more kidney donations.

...and also introduces the ethically dubious issue of people selling their organs because they need money.

thellama73 wrote: So you would rather save fewer people as long as they're not rich?

I never said that they shouldn't be rich. I said that organ donations should be organized in such a way that nobody (including rich people) is favored. What should be done is to increase the number of organ donations by other means, such as replacing the current opt-in model (if I'm not mistaken) with an opt-out model or, preferably, a mandated choice concept where every citizen is forced to make a decision on whether or not they want to become organ donors after their death. There's no need to commercialize the system and deal with all the ethical issues that come with that.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: But providing money for kidney donors will result in more kidney donations. ...and also introduces the ethically dubious issue of people selling their organs because they need money. thellama73 wrote: So you would rather save fewer people as long as they're not rich? I never said that they shouldn't be rich. I said that organ donations should be organized in such a way that nobody (including rich people) is favored. What should be done is to increase the number of organ donations by other means, such as replacing the current opt-in model (if I'm not mistaken) with an opt-out model or, preferably, a mandated choice concept where every citizen is forced to make a decision on whether or not they want to become organ donors after their death. There's no need to commercialize the system and deal with all the ethical issues that come with that.

Naturally, I strongly disapprove of coerced organ harvesting by the government.

Why shouldn't people sell their organs because they need money? If they value the money more than their organ, why shouldn't they be allowed to make that choice?

Epignosis wrote: Yahoo!'s poll, for what it's worth: POLL Who did you vote for? President Barack Obama   43% Mitt Romney   57% 400,114 votes Voters head to the polls » And that should say "Whom," not "Who."

Well right there, proving to be a trustworthy source
Guess we shall see but really, looking at it and thinking from every angle, it may be tight, but I cant see Obama losing.
Ultimately, the undecided, the apathetic, the wavering...how many will really go Romney? What drive is there for them?
2004 all over again, just the parties are flipped.

Eh it don't matter, either way George Wubya Term #4 amirite gaiz?? And if it does end up close, looks like both parties have their army of lawyers ready to decide the election. Ron Paul was already killed by his party, who knows how many people were disenfranchised. It all stinks so bad

For the first time I'm not gunna watch on seats edge. Gunna go to the gym, get a burrito after, and wait for the madness to settle. It's strange feeling.

JJLehto wrote: manofmystery wrote: King of Loss wrote: 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. That's good, because I do not trust these e-machines. There is ZERO transparency. At least in paper ballots, you can find evidence of paper ballots.     Funny, when I got into my voting booth I put on these sunglasses I found and it said Goldman Sachs where Mirack Obamney's name should have been.  Believe they were both of the OBEY party. I like to go with the Corporatist Party but either way I did indeed vote Gary Johnson. Thought I may have some last second doubt but nope. There's no other candidates for Senate/House/Local so I was forced to go lesser of 2 evils and vote Democrat down the line. Guess I'll just have to run in 2014! Vote JJ if you hate war and love drugs.

Blacksword wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Just wondering what others' thoughts are on this. It seems to me, and this is one of the reasons I'm so disgusted with the Republican party these days (one of, note), that as a whole, the Republican party is more judgmental and more fearful. When I say fearful, I'm talking about conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality (Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Terrorist, for example). But I base this on nothing else but what I have observed, personally. What do you think? I also think that the leaders of the Republican party join in this judgmental and fearful attitude more often than the Democrats. But once again, 100% based on personal observations. An example of this played out - I read an article the other day about stock trends and presidents, and how the stock market often dips when a Republican President is replaced by a Democrat. This seems ridiculous to me, especially considering the economy was strongest during a recent Democrat President, but then I remember all the fear and Armageddon predictions I've heard from Republican friends of mine (if you elect Obama, he's going to outlaw cars!). I'm guessing there are more devout Christians among republican supporters. They are more likely to believe in end times scenarios, if they are already predisposed to believing in something that can't be scientifically substantiated. End times prophecies actually work quite well for politicians, because the more people who can be pursuaded that the world is going to end whenever, the more people you have with a nihilistic view of the world, and a sense of resignation; that they can't effect change on anything. I like to sit outside the left/right thing, because I see it as a means of dividing people who should really be pulling together and standing up to government in order to make it serve the people, not the other way round. If you take a step back you'll see that the liberals actually push their own scaremongering ideas, and their own dubious racially motivated agenda's, but unlike their conservative counterparts, who are generally too witless to disguise their feelings, clever liberals disguise it as humour and irony. I can't post Youtube clips from work, but just look up Bill Maher and Michael Moore's recent anti Romney messages. There are clips of pensioners in care hoes saying they're gonna to rip Romneys testicles off if he wins. Bill Maher jokes that if you're white and you vote Romney "The black guys know who you are and where you live, and they'll get you" It's disgusting really, but liberals like this get away with it, because they do it with a sardonic smile, but you know theit vitreol is very real. Try and tweet what you're going to do to Obama if he wins, and see how quick the FBI come knocking at your door.

King of Loss wrote: JJLehto wrote: manofmystery wrote: King of Loss wrote: 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. That's good, because I do not trust these e-machines. There is ZERO transparency. At least in paper ballots, you can find evidence of paper ballots.     Funny, when I got into my voting booth I put on these sunglasses I found and it said Goldman Sachs where Mirack Obamney's name should have been.  Believe they were both of the OBEY party. I like to go with the Corporatist Party but either way I did indeed vote Gary Johnson. Thought I may have some last second doubt but nope. There's no other candidates for Senate/House/Local so I was forced to go lesser of 2 evils and vote Democrat down the line. Guess I'll just have to run in 2014! Vote JJ if you hate war and love drugs. and Formula One instead of Trashcar?

Of course, but politically I have to support NASCAR. F1? No way...that would come off as "out of touch" and "elitist"


Hey! Surprise of the century! NJ has gone Obama. Oh wait...
Interested to see the county results. Mine's a pretty heavily democratic county but I believe it went Christie in our Governor race, and it is a pretty mixed county: cities, suburbs, rural (for our standards) poor as sh*t, affluent as sh*t, middle class. Will be interesting to see how we break.

Missouri has the most votes for Johnson so far REPRESENT

I don't know. That lead in Ohio is starting to close fairly fast. But I agree, it doesn't look good for Mitt though.

I do think he's going to have Florida locked up fairly soon however, for reasons that Logan already mentioned.

And yes, while I wavered between Romney and Johnson today, I ultimately went for Johnson. I'm more excited by our congressional race though. It was won by Thomas Massie, who's a really young guy just getting into politics. He ran as a Republican but given things I've heard him say and his website, he seems to have a lot of strong libertarian leanings. Plus Ron Paul and Young Americans for Liberty are 2 of the groups that endorsed him, so I'm eager to see what decisions he will ultimately make.


Edited by horsewithteeth11 - November 06 2012 at 20:35

I think Virginia is safe for Romney. I would expect the northern part near DC and Maryland to be more heavily blue, so the southern part will probably go Romney.

So far, everything is going as I predicted. Colorado is narrowing and so is Ohio with less than half the vote in. It all comes down to Ohio for Romney.