Basically the big concern for those that don't wanna read the article is that a company that is making new electronic polling booths for several states (including Ohio) is being directly funded by Mitt Romney and his family. To me this seems to be a MAJOR conflict of interest. Can we trust these to not be rigged? Will they be truly 100% fair? Or is this an attempt to compromise the integrity of the election? It's hard to say, but regardless of party, if this is the case, it should be investigated.
I think that's going to the conspiracy theory realm.
Politicians are often stupid, but not that stupid. Imagine if Romney were to really pull the strings to have the booths rigged, and it was later discovered. Nixon's Watergate scandal would be nothing compared to that. It would not only be a political suicide, it would be the end of his life. I don't think even Romney would be that stupid (no matter what you think of him.)
I would hope not. But I wouldn't put it past any politician, democrat or republican to lie, cheat, and steal to win. I mean, there's so many other problems with the election, why not add this to it?
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I just pray for the day we can get a real third party and we aren't forced to pick between someone who thinks throwing money at poor people is good policy, and a man who seems to be terrified of gay marriage.
I actually kind of envy those of you who live in a country where there are a handful of viable parties instead of exactly two.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Twelvepack wrote:
I just pray for the day we can get a real third party and we aren't forced to pick between someone who thinks throwing money at poor people is good policy, and a man who seems to be terrified of gay marriage.
I actually kind of envy those of you who live in a country where there are a handful of viable parties instead of exactly two.
^ Pretty much my thoughts exactly. When the Republican party is against science and the Democratic party is against independence, it becomes tough to like either one.
We need a Constitutional amendment to replace the current SMDP system with something else, like proportional representation, in order to ever have more than two viable national parties in the United States, or more than two viable parties in any given area (to take care of the example of the UK, where there aren't really any areas where the Tories, Labour, and LibDems are all competitive...usually two or fewer).
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
mmbossman wrote:
...and the Democratic party is against independence, it becomes tough to like either one.
What makes you say this?
If I am understanding you correctly, just because an ideology wants government to have more regulations (for Wall street, health care etc) and whatnot does not mean you are less independent. It means the government is trying to protect and enhance your rights and your liberty. That is how I interpretate socialism. Now you might feel if you'd like to start a company, that there are too many regulations and requirements to fulfill, that does not mean you are less independent (I am not implying you said this, I just wanted to let this out).
Over the years, I have greatly been influenced by Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. I regard both of them to be highly intelligent people (especially Jon Stewart). Whenever Bill Maher has republicans on his show, you can sense that there aren't much common sense in what they are saying. I remember Grover Norquist (R) saying he wants to pass on a bill which would prohibit any president to ever (I mean ever) to raise taxes... Even Nixon raised taxes a few times during his presidency.
Like when was the last time you heard a democrat saying something like: "the female body has a way to shut its own body down when when a woman has been raped". That's what a republican said. If you'd ask other republicans about their opinions about it, they say they would never say something like that.
It feels like the republican recipe to solve the economic crisis is to cut taxes. That's their answer to every economic crisis. I've seldom heard them say anything else, which is pretty astonishing.
It's also remarkable how a news network like Fox can get away with most of the things they are saying and reporting without any judicial repercussions. It's one thing to report something, but it's unforgivable to report something as a news corporation by clearly spinning the news. For instance, Stewart asked Obama: 'Is part of the investigation helping the communication between these divisions? 'Not just what happened in Benghazi, but what happened within. Because I would say, even you would admit, it was not the optimal response, at least to the American people, as far as all of us being on the same page."
Obama said in return: 'Here's what I’ll say. If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.We’re going to fix it. All of it. And what happens, during the course of a presidency, is that the government is a big operation and any given time something screws up."
The word optimal was first used by Stewart in the question. But Obama's use of it, sounded a bit that it could be used to portray him as somewhat casual about the deaths, lit up heavily conservatives, especially Fox News.
A person with common sense knows a president would never think a horrible tragedy isn't optimal.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
The core purpose of the government is to serve the citizens of the country, to protect their rights, freedom and safety, to always do what's best for the citizens. For this purpose it's the duty of the government to impose rules and laws on what's appropriate behavior and what isn't (ie. the kind of behavior that goes against those things that the government ought to protect and ensure) and do what's necessary to make sure that these rules are not broken, and to punish those who break them.
The rules should also be fair, and always conform to the basic tenets of human rights (such as the ones delineated by the universal declaration of human rights). Fair enforcement of rules and laws means that punishment should be proportional to the severity of the crime. Excessive punishment for a minor crime or way too lenient punishment for a major crime goes against this principle.
The government should also limit and restrict exploitation of citizens by other citizens (and from the government itself, of course). This means that strict rules and regulations must exist to stop, for example, private companies from exploiting employees or customers in a manner that's detrimental to the best interests of the citizens and the country.
For some reason many people in the United States want big corporations and rich people to be exempt from these rules and regulations, even if their behavior is detrimental to the citizens or even outright criminal.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
Warp wrote:
Twelvepack wrote:
who thinks throwing money at poor people is good policy
Care to elaborate on that?
Because it sounds like "let poor people die, who cares?"
That is ridiculous hyperbole.
There is a wide difference between letting people die in the street and throwing money at problems that arn't even financial in nature.
Problems with the schools? Increase funding!
Too many people homeless? More government subsidized housing!
Too many drug addicts? More cops and more government sponsored treatment facilities!
There are some problems that money doesn't solve, but that doesn't stop some politicians from trying it anyway.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
Problems with the schools? Increase funding!
Too many people homeless? More government subsidized housing!
Too many drug addicts? More cops and more government sponsored treatment facilities!
There are some problems that money doesn't solve, but that doesn't stop some politicians from trying it anyway.
And what would be, in your opinion, a better solution to those problems that a government can implement?
Sure, giving free food, medicine and housing to poor people is only fighting the symptoms, not the problem, but
a) the symptoms do need attention; they cannot be ignored, and
b) fighting the symptoms is more urgent because the proper solution is very unclear and regardless of what it is, requires time and significant changes at a fundamental level.
Sure, poor and sick people are, technically speaking, a burden to the society. However, in a civilized, working society people look after one another, and help others in need. They don't just selfishly abandon them to their fates. The government is in the best possible position to help those in need because of all the resources and means they possess.
While that's not the ultimate solution to the problem, it's still something that must be done.
Problems with the schools? Increase funding!
Too many people homeless? More government subsidized housing!
Too many drug addicts? More cops and more government sponsored treatment facilities!
You had me up until more cops. The rest seem like pretty good solutions to me. I mean, they shouldn't be the only solutions, but they should definitely be a part of it.
Obama is better than Romney, because he's liberal rather than conservative, so I would vote for him, because there's been a conservative imbalance so long in USA. But both of them are chosen and advertised by others than the people, so it's not really a democracy.
I don't believe much in politics, I think they're mostly there to keep things as they are, they can't really solve problems (like war, crime and poverty), they can only distribute money differently and say things that people like to hear, so that they get elected. Most problems are solved by science and technicians, so it would be better with a scientific society where nature is our only ruler.
Something that the president or whoever is in power should try to do is try to bring a permanent end to war, because war is too dangerous nowadays when we have nuclear weapons, so we continuously risk waking up in a post-apocalyptic world unless there is a permanent solution for war, like for instance abolishing money, because it seems like war is mostly just business: if people couldn't make billions by selling aircraft, tanks, weapons and stocks, war could probably be reduced by 80%. But there are a lot of other things that would have to be done too, like all nations uniting and agreeing to share everything on earth.
Other things that the presidents should do is end crime and poverty permanently worldwide. If poverty was eradicated, crime and war would automatically also decrease. Poverty could be eradicated by distributing all resources equally.
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
Warp wrote:
Twelvepack wrote:
Problems with the schools? Increase funding!
Too many people homeless? More government subsidized housing!
Too many drug addicts? More cops and more government sponsored treatment facilities!
There are some problems that money doesn't solve, but that doesn't stop some politicians from trying it anyway.
And what would be, in your opinion, a better solution to those problems that a government can implement?
In terms of drug politics, I'm really proud of my country. Although drugs are still illegal, we have a great governmental therapy program to help drug addicts. It uses these methods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_replacement_therapyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin_assisted_treatment
This system was established in the 90s and turned out to be very successful. In 2008, a popular initiative trying to revert this policy was rejected by 68% of the voters.
I just wish they would legalise cannabis.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Something that the president or whoever is in power should try to do is try to bring a permanent end to war, because war is too dangerous nowadays when we have nuclear weapons, so we continuously risk waking up in a post-apocalyptic world unless there is a permanent solution for war, like for instance abolishing money, because it seems like war is mostly just business: if people couldn't make billions by selling aircraft, tanks, weapons and stocks, war could probably be reduced by 80%. But there are a lot of other things that would have to be done too, like all nations uniting and agreeing to share everything on earth.
I can safely say they'll still be wars going on long after we're gone. Right now you are correct to assume they're about exploiting/protecting a countrys wealth i.e. oil, coal, gas, gold and diamonds. In the future its more likely to be about more basic things like water and farmland. Its one thing to preach idealistic views, but the sad truth is wars are all part of natural selection. However, it has brought various technologies to civilian life that are now largely taken for granted.
nfq wrote:
Other things that the presidents should do is end crime and poverty permanently worldwide. If poverty was eradicated, crime and war would automatically also decrease. Poverty could be eradicated by distributing all resources equally.
Again, idealistic views that are never going to happen. You can only contain and limit the problem. You can't erradicate them.
(I really have to wonder. Both of you sound like you are proud or something that you have avoided the big evil that's vaccines, and have got scot free so far. It really sounds like those people who say things like "I have been smoking for 30 years. No lung cancer. Clearly it's all BS."
Nothing to do with pride, I just have this belief that inserting things inside my body that don't naturally belong there (like smoke and injections of diseases, for example) is generally bad, but I'm not saying that vaccines are always dangerous. There are several cases where vaccines are good for you.
Mitjitsu wrote:
Again, idealistic views that are never going to happen.
Well, that's what they said about airplanes and flying to the moon. Before the airplane was invented scientists used to write books about why flight is impossible.
Decreasing poverty, crime and war by 90% might only take a few hundred years. Or maybe if we are all threatened by a nuclear war, it might motivate us to change even faster. The rapid evolution of science, technology and computers might also provide us with something that could unexpectedly solve those problems in a few decades.
Twelvepack wrote:
...?
What I mean is that the existence of money prevents resources from being distributed equally, because it's not profitable or because you can't take money from somewhere else, that's why politicians can't solve those major problems in society, even though they could be solved technically.
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
nfq wrote:
Twelvepack wrote:
...?
What I mean is that the existence of money prevents resources from being distributed equally, because it's not profitable or because you can't take money from somewhere else, that's why politicians can't solve those major problems in society, even though they could be solved technically.
I'm willing to bet a lack of currency would cause more problems than it would solve, lol.
What I mean is that the existence of money prevents resources from being distributed equally, because it's not profitable or because you can't take money from somewhere else, that's why politicians can't solve those major problems in society, even though they could be solved technically.
I'm willing to bet a lack of currency would cause more problems than it would solve, lol.
In a way, you're both right. Money was conceived as a simple way to quantify wealth in general and material reward for specialized labor in particular. The problem has risen when some of the world's cultures—European for the most part—have made it a point to possess and accumulate surplus wealth and elements of luxury consummation to consider themselves prosperous, even though this accumulation by itself doesn't solve any needs. The unhealthy addiction to material prosperity has been further strengthened by aspects of modern capitalism (in which, theoretically, everybody could achieve what only kings and warriors of the Antiquity were allowed to—little else, actually); conditioned by these aspects, people—us here, that is—don't generally like to part with what they have, and neither do nations as a whole, even though the amount of resources produced on Earth in total would be quite enough to end poverty worldwide. As a result, you get the paradoxical situation where nearly nobody likes that poverty exists at all, and there's everything available to remedy the situation, yet only a few people are willing to voluntarily step down their consummation habits in order to fight poverty, and the less people do it, the less other people want to, seeing how small the overall effect is.
This addiction to possession and material reward is our problem though; abolishing money until we solve it isn't going to help any.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I'm willing to bet a lack of currency would cause more problems than it would solve, lol.
There are a lot of people who think it would be a good idea though. Read about resource based economy. Also, in communism, one of the main goals is to abolish money, but no communist society ever got that far.
moozooh wrote:
This addiction to possession and material reward is our problem though; abolishing money until we solve it isn't going to help any.
I don't see addiction to things as a very big problem. Most people would be happy if their basic human needs are met. I don't think most people feel that they need a giant mansion, gold toilet seat and a jet parked on their front yard.
But yeah, there is still a lot of education and conditioning that would be needed, for people to be able to move into a moneyless society. Money couldn't be abolished just like that, tomorrow, there would be chaos.
Representative democracy has, and always will be, a way for the very rich to construct an oligarchy while making the people think they have control over it. Sure, it'd be nice if we had a voting system that was more friendly to 3rd party candidates, some direct democracy check to stop nonsensical and unpopular policies like the drug war, or a mechanism to actually enforce the constitution and prevent those in power from trampling on it, but what incentive does anyone have to give you these things? None, that's what. No pride of getting re-elected or altruistic desire for the people trumps all of the money that could be embezzled from campaign donations mega-corporations (I'd say even Ron Paul did this at the point in which his related by marriage campaign manager got paid from it) or the security of knowing that no one with connections to the military industrial complex has a reason to get you assassinated. Nothing will change until we put serious pressure on those in power to stop what they are doing, but that too will be fraught with practical and moral problems. Therefore, Nihilism 2012!
Representative democracy has, and always will be, a way for the very rich to construct an oligarchy while making the people think they have control over it.
Who is to blame? The voters.
Unless the voting system is actually rigged (which doesn't usually happen in modern civilized societies, no matter what some people might want to think), the people who get in power get there because people vote for them. They don't get there by buying themselves the position.
If some politician or party is known for its abuse of power, corruption and favoritism of the rich and their buddies, why do they stay in power? Because people vote for them. What does that tell about these people?
But what else do you suggest should be done? Back to totalitarianism, where the person with most power gets to be on top without asking the people?
