Political discussion thread

Tumblr post about it

JJLehto wrote: hey whadya know Obama won. What a shocker. ... The GOP ran a candidate their own party didn't like, continually field bad candidates with a habit of saying stupid things, and faced an uphill battle statistically. But surely Romney was gunna win

surprised me, and with a million less votes, Obama can't exactly call himself 'popular' anymore.   I'm pleased though, at least he'll get the credit if the economy keeps improving.

Really, after such a failed presidency, the GOP could've easily won this one with a likable candidate. Of course, Romney is the very definition of likable.

I'm sad Vermin Supreme lost 

Edited by King of Loss - November 06 2012 at 22:22

a slight yay from me. Very slight

Obama has won and nothing will change.

thellama73 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: 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? Introducing financial incentives to that choice is inherently coercive... I don't see how it is coercive. I don't believe you can make people better off by removing choices from them. In one scenario, the person has two options. Option A: Sell kidney, get $10,000 dollars. Option B: Keep kidney, no money. You are arguing that the person will be made better off by taking Option A off the table, and I don't believe that is possible.

Yup. Or conversely I think that if Option A is available there'll be a coercive atmosphere to oblige it if it can help a third party make money. Same way as the Icelandic laws against a third party profiting from someone's nudity restrict people's options but also work against the existence of a system which coerces the vulnerable into personal sacrifice for the advantage of others.

The T wrote: Can someone explain me why the electoral college exists? It's so idiotic that a candidate can win popular vote (Gore 2000, apparently Romney 2012) but lose the election.

From my understanding, it primarily exists because of a combination of two things.

1) the slowness of transmitting information in the 1700s required them to use electors, so that if something major happened in the country between the time people voted and the time the votes reached Washington, the electors could change their mind as circumstances warranted.

2) to give greater weight to small states than is warranted by their population, as a concession to them agreeing to join the union in the first place.

Both of these reasons are irrelevant today and of course the system is idiotic and should be retired. I hope that if there is an electoral-popular split tonight we will have a serious talk about getting rid of it.

TGM: Orb wrote: 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? Introducing financial incentives to that choice is inherently coercive...

I don't see how it is coercive.

I don't believe you can make people better off by removing choices from them.
In one scenario, the person has two options.

Option A: Sell kidney, get $10,000 dollars.
Option B: Keep kidney, no money.

You are arguing that the person will be made better off by taking Option A off the table, and I don't believe that is possible.


Edited by thellama73 - November 06 2012 at 22:00

Wisconsin is interesting. They called it for Obama really early and Romney is still pretty far up in the popular vote. It is possible that it will flip, but the calls are rarely wrong.