WCPhils

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

daytripper75

So in other words we shouldn't even try?


Screw that.

__________________

TunerAddict

You really shouldn't. Unless you like wasting your time, effort, and money.

daytripper75

I'd rather say I tried, than just submit to the system as is.

__________________

due 07

Indeedle.

I mean, I'm voting for Jill Stein, but I live in a blue state and will be voting anyway, so yeah.

willT08

Thanks man

Well if I was daytripper I'd vote Jill Stein. Unless you're in a swing state, your single vote isn't gonna mean much to Obama or Romney but it'd mean a lot more to her.

__________________
Siktir Musik
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube

TunerAddict

If you think spending time, effort, and money so that you can always say that "you tried," then go for it.

While you're at it, might as well try to outrun Usain Bolt in the 100m dash.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but it is just the reality of the situation. As a result of how our democracy operates, people form into 2 distinct parties to compete for power. Change the system and other parties becomes viable. If you leave it as is, you won't see a 3rd party compete, because the size requirements to compete in our system are just too large.

daytripper75

You're right. I give up. I'm not even going to vote now.

__________________

eGraham

Good on ya.

__________________






I'm Ron ****ing Swanson

TunerAddict

I don't vote, man. Utility of voting is outweighed by its costs.

KISSmyass666

Mitt romney is a ass. In the 33 degree.

__________________
-(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and
(")_(") help him on his way to world domination.

I can't say i'm not. I suck at spelling too. Sorry.

mojomike

This is the first I've heard of Jill Stein and this Green New Deal so pardon my ignorance but I would like to air some concerns...

Not going to lie. There's some good stuff in that Green New Deal. But these two points here mean that none of it matters because your country would go bankrupt in a month (that's a hyperbole, calm down).

Public sector jobs are funded by one of two means. Either taxes or debt. By creating arbitrary public sector jobs just for people who can't find work in the private sector you're effectively throwing money down a black hole. The fact that these jobs would otherwise not exist were it not for the artifical need to 'prevent unemployment', necessarily means that you're giving someone a good wage for doing completley unnecessary work. There's no added value to the economy from the job being done. Furthermore, would each job be invented to match the person's particular skill set? This idea is completely unrealistic. You may as well just give them the money at which point it's just glorified welfare. And on a somewhat related note, what if someone is simply not willing to work?

Cutting the military budget by 50% as proposed would go a long way to helping fund these kinds of programs but it wouldn't be nearly enough given some of the other things in there (ie. free education, free healthcare).

Personally, I think 'free education' is a nice but misguided idea simply for the fact that many areas of study simply do not add value to the economy. Again, it's basically throwing money away. Sure it's nice that little Johnny can learn all about Medieval History but then what's he going to do when it's time to enter the workforce? Sit in one of those fancy public sector jobs doing something that isn't needed and is completely unrelated to what he learned anyway? Education should be subsidized as needed by the market (both public and private). At least healthcare has the benefit of keeping people alive and healthy and therefore paying taxes. Which brings me to the next point:

You would need more than a proportional taxation scheme. The proportion would have to be exponentially increasing to generate any substantial amount of income which would at least be somewhat offset by the obvious disincentive for higher earners to stay in the country. Some of that money would likely also have to be redirected to crack down on increased tax evasion.

I just don't quite see all of this being feasible. Which I mean, is probably not all that much of a criticism given the other parties' platforms.

due 07

PA is a swing state (and an important one at that), idk what was up with that link.

willT08

Damn link deceiving me. Then please daytripper, go vote Obama. If Romney gets in the whole world is gonna feel repercussions.

__________________
Siktir Musik
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube

WCPhils

Yea, I thought it may have been a little off, but I don't really know enough to make that call.

I knew PA was a swing state.

daytripper75

PA is an important state, yes. The state has gone Democrat for a while now. There is little chance that Romney can win it.


Hell, even Kerry won PA in 2004.

The last time PA went Republican was in 1988.

__________________

WaterGod

Obama is up by 11 in PA. Hardly much of a swing state anymore.

captaincrunk

Conventional means are less than worthless. You're validating the system. Now the asshats can say "you voted for us, you even had other options!"

We should probably just fire them and stop voting or something

__________________

NEW UG ALBUM! GET UG ELECTRONIC ALBUM: DISC THREE TODAY!

due 07

Oh I didn't realize. Although idk if that number takes into account the voter suppression efforts and the fact that republicans will be better at getting people out to the polls on election day.