Election 2012 - The Thread

Actually looking at the positives and negatives of Gary Johnson and he has those positives.

The only negatives that it states are his not so strong debating skills and questionable campaigning on a national level. The second one I don't completely understand. Critical?
 
By the way, if I really want to agitate, I should add that I feel Scenario 4 isn't just the 'true' scenario, but evaluating based on Scenario 4 and making an honest decision based on that reality is a moral imperative, as opposed to a protest vote.

Yes, I called protest votes immoral.
 
I hate to double post, but I want to do some more evaluation here and de-mystification, especially on the subject of economics. I'll disclose that despite studying economics and public policy in college, I don't have a degree, nor am I a professional economist by trade. These are some very basic knowledge-based assumptions and analysis of the candidates' stances:

Taxes and Economic issues:

Romney/Ryan: The Republican ticket looks at taxes as either an across the board or top-down proposition. Their essential economic view is Reaganesque in outlook, that the supply side (whom they've decided to label 'Job creators' this cycle, a qualitative assessment they haven't backed up with facts) regulates the economy and creation of jobs. Therefore they posit that creating better conditions for the supply side (companies, investors, business entities), they will be more willing to take risks (invest, hire, expand, etc) and thus re-engage forward movement on the economic front. Therefore their strategy is to cut taxes on what they deem small business and larger businesses as well as investor, hence the phrase 'trickle-down economics'--that the opportunity for profit, advancement, and growth is top down. If the big-shots are doing well, you will too, because they just might hire you, pay you more, make products cost less, etc. They favor an across the board federal income and capital gains tax cut. The caveat is that many of the middle class and lower already do not pay federal income tax (and in fact, share most of the overall tax burden through the federal PAYROLL tax and sales tax).

Obama/Biden: The Democratic ticket is almost the inverse of this philosophy. They espouse the idea that growth is demand-based, a view I'd wager a majority of economists share. Demand drives the market. When there is greater demand, there is more potential business, and companies can offset the cost of expansion by expected profits. If you meet demand, you will increase profits. The Democratic ticket is asserting that the slow economy is one that lacks consumer demand, because consumer confidence is low (but has been climbing, lately) because real income isn't keeping pace with inflation (thus people are holding onto their money as opposed to spending), and there is apprehension about the future. It is the general populace, the consumer, who is risk-averse in this view, not the companies. Thus the Democratic ticket favors rolling back taxation rates on the top ~97% to Clinton-era levels, while keeping federal income and payroll taxes low on the middle and lower class. The idea is that with their tax burden eased, the populace has more discretionary income to spend on goods and services, therefore increasing demand.

Additionally, the Democratic ticket thinks demand can be stimulated (like in 2009) by occasional payouts, and public works. We'll get to that.

Budgetary concerns:

Romney/Ryan - It's difficult to evaluate the budgetary aims of the Romney-Ryan ticket because they're pretty nebulous with their details. The core assumption is that by reducing the federal deficit, we can also reduce the effective tax burden because the government will not need as much money. This is achieved through restructuring of entitlements such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs, as well as tax reform. Notably, the Romney-Ryan ticket asserts that they will close taxation loopholes and some exemptions, though at this time they haven't expressed which loopholes. This isn't a partisan point, it's a simple observation. At this point, we just don't know. There is an increase in the budget for the military under Romney-Ryan, and an alteration on the budget based on their expectation to repeal to Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

A major point of contention is that the Romney-Ryan budget slashes programs for the middle class and poor, which in conjunction with their tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthiest is 'pro-rich'. Many assessors have been unable to figure out how this balances the budget, and the other major sticking point is that the Romney-Ryan budget relies on a concept called 'dynamic scoring', i.e. the idea that the lowered tax revenue (due to their projected tax cuts) will be offset by the supposed growth it will cause in the economy (more money is earned, therefore more is taxed at the same rate). The Congressional Budget Office refuses to accept Dynamic Scoring in its evaluation of budgets.

Obama/Biden - Their projected budget ideas aren't new, but this serves as useful information. Continued restructuring of entitlements such as Medicare through the Affordable Care Act, There is supposed savings in the budget through winding down the two wars (before we pulled out of Iraq, there was a projected fund for said war, and savings are assessed from not paying into that). The CBO also dislikes this, and it is in fact a gimmick. Truthfully, we would be spending less money by having our troops come home, but it isn't actual ledger savings. It's projected savings. Revenue increases are a part of the Democratic agenda, i.e. higher taxation rates on the wealthiest Americans and some tax exemptions removed on the middle class. Effectively, taxes would go up on the middle class no matter who is elected; it's a matter of scale. Programs that benefit the poor and middle class would remain in place, even though they may be re-assessed for their effectiveness.

The major sticking point is that the Republicans assert that the Obama-Biden ticket wants to engage in more deficit spending. Neither party is projected to make a deficit-neutral budget. The big difference is the democrats want to invest in education, infrastructure, public works, and stimulus. There's some valid reasoning here even if it is done through 'printing money' by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. Economists have evaluated that interest rates are about as low was they are going to go, so now is as good a time as ever to engage in deficit spending, which will be required either way, now or later, to rebuild the decayed American infrastructure, which some analysts say is on the verge of crumbling. These, the Democrats say, would increase jobs, pay, and demand. It is the classic New Deal argument made by FDR.

In no way does either party achieve a balanced budget, but the policies they two parties intend to enact with this revenue-negative spending are concretely different.
 
I hate to double post, but I want to do some more evaluation here and de-mystification, especially on the subject of economics. I'll disclose that despite studying economics and public policy in college, I don't have a degree, nor am I a professional economist by trade. These are some very basic knowledge-based assumptions and analysis of the candidates' stances:

Taxes and Economic issues:

Romney/Ryan: The Republican ticket looks at taxes as either an across the board or top-down proposition. Their essential economic view is Reaganesque in outlook, that the supply side (whom they've decided to label 'Job creators' this cycle, a qualitative assessment they haven't backed up with facts) regulates the economy and creation of jobs. Therefore they posit that creating better conditions for the supply side (companies, investors, business entities), they will be more willing to take risks (invest, hire, expand, etc) and thus re-engage forward movement on the economic front. Therefore their strategy is to cut taxes on what they deem small business and larger businesses as well as investor, hence the phrase 'trickle-down economics'--that the opportunity for profit, advancement, and growth is top down. If the big-shots are doing well, you will too, because they just might hire you, pay you more, make products cost less, etc. They favor an across the board federal income and capital gains tax cut. The caveat is that many of the middle class and lower already do not pay federal income tax (and in fact, share most of the overall tax burden through the federal PAYROLL tax and sales tax).

Obama/Biden: The Democratic ticket is almost the inverse of this philosophy. They espouse the idea that growth is demand-based, a view I'd wager a majority of economists share. Demand drives the market. When there is greater demand, there is more potential business, and companies can offset the cost of expansion by expected profits. If you meet demand, you will increase profits. The Democratic ticket is asserting that the slow economy is one that lacks consumer demand, because consumer confidence is low (but has been climbing, lately) because real income isn't keeping pace with inflation (thus people are holding onto their money as opposed to spending), and there is apprehension about the future. It is the general populace, the consumer, who is risk-averse in this view, not the companies. Thus the Democratic ticket favors rolling back taxation rates on the top ~97% to Clinton-era levels, while keeping federal income and payroll taxes low on the middle and lower class. The idea is that with their tax burden eased, the populace has more discretionary income to spend on goods and services, therefore increasing demand.

Additionally, the Democratic ticket thinks demand can be stimulated (like in 2009) by occasional payouts, and public works. We'll get to that.

Budgetary concerns:

Romney/Ryan - It's difficult to evaluate the budgetary aims of the Romney-Ryan ticket because they're pretty nebulous with their details. The core assumption is that by reducing the federal deficit, we can also reduce the effective tax burden because the government will not need as much money. This is achieved through restructuring of entitlements such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs, as well as tax reform. Notably, the Romney-Ryan ticket asserts that they will close taxation loopholes and some exemptions, though at this time they haven't expressed which loopholes. This isn't a partisan point, it's a simple observation. At this point, we just don't know. There is an increase in the budget for the military under Romney-Ryan, and an alteration on the budget based on their expectation to repeal to Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

A major point of contention is that the Romney-Ryan budget slashes programs for the middle class and poor, which in conjunction with their tax cut that mainly benefits the wealthiest is 'pro-rich'. Many assessors have been unable to figure out how this balances the budget, and the other major sticking point is that the Romney-Ryan budget relies on a concept called 'dynamic scoring', i.e. the idea that the lowered tax revenue (due to their projected tax cuts) will be offset by the supposed growth it will cause in the economy (more money is earned, therefore more is taxed at the same rate). The Congressional Budget Office refuses to accept Dynamic Scoring in its evaluation of budgets.

Obama/Biden - Their projected budget ideas aren't new, but this serves as useful information. Continued restructuring of entitlements such as Medicare through the Affordable Care Act, There is supposed savings in the budget through winding down the two wars (before we pulled out of Iraq, there was a projected fund for said war, and savings are assessed from not paying into that). The CBO also dislikes this, and it is in fact a gimmick. Truthfully, we would be spending less money by having our troops come home, but it isn't actual ledger savings. It's projected savings. Revenue increases are a part of the Democratic agenda, i.e. higher taxation rates on the wealthiest Americans and some tax exemptions removed on the middle class. Effectively, taxes would go up on the middle class no matter who is elected; it's a matter of scale. Programs that benefit the poor and middle class would remain in place, even though they may be re-assessed for their effectiveness.

The major sticking point is that the Republicans assert that the Obama-Biden ticket wants to engage in more deficit spending. Neither party is projected to make a deficit-neutral budget. The big difference is the democrats want to invest in education, infrastructure, public works, and stimulus. There's some valid reasoning here even if it is done through 'printing money' by way of the Federal Reserve Bank. Economists have evaluated that interest rates are about as low was they are going to go, so now is as good a time as ever to engage in deficit spending, which will be required either way, now or later, to rebuild the decayed American infrastructure, which some analysts say is on the verge of crumbling. These, the Democrats say, would increase jobs, pay, and demand. It is the classic New Deal argument made by FDR.

In no way does either party achieve a balanced budget, but the policies they two parties intend to enact with this revenue-negative spending are concretely different.

I wish there was a thank you button on the mobile site.
 
When people vote for candidates who have no shot at winning, I believe they do it so when shit goes wrong they can say:

"Hey don't blame me, I voted for _______ ________"

I'm sure some people do, but I don't give a shit about covering my ass in this situation. I voted for Schwarzenegger as governor of California, in part because I thought he was such an unorthodox candidate that he could shock the system a bit. He didn't, and probably only made things worse overall, but if that makes me culpable for his mistakes, whatever.

By the way, if I really want to agitate, I should add that I feel Scenario 4 isn't just the 'true' scenario, but evaluating based on Scenario 4 and making an honest decision based on that reality is a moral imperative, as opposed to a protest vote.

That's okay if you don't really want to see change, but if you do, voting for the same mold of idiots election after election expecting any better results than last time isn't much more based in reality than contemplation of a protest vote. You can vote however you like and justify it similarly, that's fine, but to paint a vote for actual change as "immoral" is pretty ridiculous. Beyond that, if that scenario you describe is the reality in black and white, I'd still rather vote to reject that reality at the risk of appearing "immoral".

Another way of looking at it:

-"Why waste your one measly vote on someone who has no chance of winning?"
-"Why waste your one measly vote piling on top of countless others who are mostly misinformed, uninformed or lacking the willpower to deviate from the norm?"

Is the second scenario really any better than the first? It's a wash at best.
 
Freyith, are we still immoral to vote Gary Johnson.

Even if there is a end game plan for doing so?

I'll admit his chances are extremely low. If he could've got in the debates I think his chances would sky rocket.

Jesse Ventura won a governer position running 3rd party he polled only at like 8%. But once he got in the televised debate he sky rocketed.



But if I can vote for him this time. And next time There is a increase. I could atleast argue that libertarian party or 3rd party interest is growing. And eventually they could become viable. If there is NO increase I can't make that argument and thus stuck w/o any evidence to back up my claims.

If I can atleast convince enough people to also convince enough people that you have a steady growing statistic.

You can better convince people overtime in the future that 3rd party is a valid choice.

But only if you got evidence to back you up.



Gary Johnson's views take from both parties.

Kill Crony capitalism with Fair Tax
Legalize marijuanna as the first step to ending the drug war.
Legalize Gay Marriage (federal level)
Smaller government
Legalize Prostitution
He will cut defense budget, he will only go to war if congress declares one, he wants to pull out of middle east.
He's against Drone strikes
He's against Guantanamo
he's against NDAA
he's against Patriot act.
He's against laws that let the government spy on you.
He's for internet freedom.

For anyone curious, this is a great segment on him talking about his policies
 
I think the concept of a third party candidate is wholly, or at least partially irrelevant because of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Why? Unless you are Ross Perot--the last national 3rd party/independent candidate to get anything near a legitimate share of the vote--you will not have the financial resources to break out into the national spotlight. That is, unless you tap an existing party structure. This is not to mention the rules that have changed since that make it harder for third party candidates to get equal access to both airtime, debates, ballots, etc.

It would be nice if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got onto the debates this year. But it didn't happen. The silver lining is that I've got credible sources talking about how the Citizens United case could be overturned soon, since there is significant disagreements over the overall implications of this money free-for-all. As it stands, any 3rd party candidate will be outspent both in airtime, ground game, and preparation.

I also propose the following thought-experiment in addition to the above information. Suppose Gary Johnson got elected. By some miracle. I'm throwing away all common sense in order to get to this point, but there it is. He's in office. How will he govern? The two parties will have zero incentive to work with someone who is not on their caucus. They aren't going to know if he's got their backs on certain issues, or how his cabinet will be formed. Will it be all Independents and Libertarians? Or will he appoint cabinet secretaries from the two parties? Any effort from a third-party candidate will be blunted by the fact that they wouldn't carry in a wave of third-party legislators large enough to render the two-party majority-minorities into mere pluralities (a coalition government as you see in Parliamentary democracies).

Not. Going. To. Happen. That's the simple truth to it. Not as the rules stand, not as the two parties stand. So, while you might not like my reasoning that voting 3rd party at the national level is immoral because it's essentially non-participatory ego-masturbation, you can't get around the fact that it does nothing in the current environment. Also, don't construe that as me approving of the situation. It just is what it is.

I should add that if you don't like this, whining loudly about the two party system isn't going to do all that much about it unless you're intent on getting organized in order to change election rules from the local level upward in order to be more of a level playing field. So have at it. But simply voting for candidates that won't stand a snowball's chance won't change it. In fact, it could even dampen the possibility of success if the two main parties start to notice a seismic shift in popular opinion, going out of their way to make the rules amended to preserve their power base. Then you'd really be effed.
 
I loved what he said about him being a devout catholic, but not imposing his views on others

I REALLY didn't want to get into this here, but this comment posted next to all the accusations of Paul Ryan lying sort of grinds my gears. The comments that you are referring to by Joe Biden are also lies. The man said he believes as the church does that life begins at conception. The thing is, logically speaking, if you believe that then you believe abortion is murder. Say what you will about not imposing your views on others, which I agree with actually, to a point. No sane human being can condone murder. So, the simple fact is that Joe Biden is either lying about his beliefs or he's a murderous psychopath. And as little as I like Biden, I am pretty sure he's not the latter. His claims that the Catholic hospitals and other institutions would not be required by Obamacare to support services the Church opposes are also lies, as anyone who has read the legislation knows.

When people vote for candidates who have no shot at winning, I believe they do it so when shit goes wrong they can say:

"Hey don't blame me, I voted for _______ ________"

This on the other hand Marshall, I totally agree with. Voting for a candidate with no shot at winning serves no purpose.

I think the concept of a third party candidate is wholly, or at least partially irrelevant because of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Why? Unless you are Ross Perot--the last national 3rd party/independent candidate to get anything near a legitimate share of the vote--you will not have the financial resources to break out into the national spotlight. That is, unless you tap an existing party structure. This is not to mention the rules that have changed since that make it harder for third party candidates to get equal access to both airtime, debates, ballots, etc.

It would be nice if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got onto the debates this year. But it didn't happen. The silver lining is that I've got credible sources talking about how the Citizens United case could be overturned soon, since there is significant disagreements over the overall implications of this money free-for-all. As it stands, any 3rd party candidate will be outspent both in airtime, ground game, and preparation.

I also propose the following thought-experiment in addition to the above information. Suppose Gary Johnson got elected. By some miracle. I'm throwing away all common sense in order to get to this point, but there it is. He's in office. How will he govern? The two parties will have zero incentive to work with someone who is not on their caucus. They aren't going to know if he's got their backs on certain issues, or how his cabinet will be formed. Will it be all Independents and Libertarians? Or will he appoint cabinet secretaries from the two parties? Any effort from a third-party candidate will be blunted by the fact that they wouldn't carry in a wave of third-party legislators large enough to render the two-party majority-minorities into mere pluralities (a coalition government as you see in Parliamentary democracies).

Not. Going. To. Happen. That's the simple truth to it. Not as the rules stand, not as the two parties stand. So, while you might not like my reasoning that voting 3rd party at the national level is immoral because it's essentially non-participatory ego-masturbation, you can't get around the fact that it does nothing in the current environment. Also, don't construe that as me approving of the situation. It just is what it is.

Agreed with this also. In order for any party other than the Republicans and Democrats to become a major party, they would have to replace one of those two parties as one of the two major parties. This has happened precisely once if you don't count the earliest days of the republic. That would be when the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1850s. That occurred because the Democrats supported slavery, and the Whigs failed to reach a consensus on slavery, so the Republicans filled the necessary void of an anti-slavery party. As long as both current parties make sure they each take a different side of the hottest issues, no other party has a chance.
 
I think the concept of a third party candidate is wholly, or at least partially irrelevant because of the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. Why? Unless you are Ross Perot--the last national 3rd party/independent candidate to get anything near a legitimate share of the vote--you will not have the financial resources to break out into the national spotlight. That is, unless you tap an existing party structure. This is not to mention the rules that have changed since that make it harder for third party candidates to get equal access to both airtime, debates, ballots, etc.

It would be nice if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein got onto the debates this year. But it didn't happen. The silver lining is that I've got credible sources talking about how the Citizens United case could be overturned soon, since there is significant disagreements over the overall implications of this money free-for-all. As it stands, any 3rd party candidate will be outspent both in airtime, ground game, and preparation.

I also propose the following thought-experiment in addition to the above information. Suppose Gary Johnson got elected. By some miracle. I'm throwing away all common sense in order to get to this point, but there it is. He's in office. How will he govern? The two parties will have zero incentive to work with someone who is not on their caucus. They aren't going to know if he's got their backs on certain issues, or how his cabinet will be formed. Will it be all Independents and Libertarians? Or will he appoint cabinet secretaries from the two parties? Any effort from a third-party candidate will be blunted by the fact that they wouldn't carry in a wave of third-party legislators large enough to render the two-party majority-minorities into mere pluralities (a coalition government as you see in Parliamentary democracies).

Not. Going. To. Happen. That's the simple truth to it. Not as the rules stand, not as the two parties stand. So, while you might not like my reasoning that voting 3rd party at the national level is immoral because it's essentially non-participatory ego-masturbation, you can't get around the fact that it does nothing in the current environment. Also, don't construe that as me approving of the situation. It just is what it is.

I should add that if you don't like this, whining loudly about the two party system isn't going to do all that much about it unless you're intent on getting organized in order to change election rules from the local level upward in order to be more of a level playing field. So have at it. But simply voting for candidates that won't stand a snowball's chance won't change it. In fact, it could even dampen the possibility of success if the two main parties start to notice a seismic shift in popular opinion, going out of their way to make the rules amended to preserve their power base. Then you'd really be effed.

I know that simply just voting, then going back home and eating a taco and watching cartoons isn't gonna do anything.

I've done phone calls for Gary Johnson recently. So I'm somewhat active.

Him being president, doesn't mean people won't work with him. He is laying out his priorities on the table. So if you want to pass legislation about say, legalizing gay marriage you know he's got your back.

If you try to pass legislation to ban medical marijuanna use. It's obvious what his stance on that is. So expect him to Veto.

A libertarian is a mix of democrat's perspectives on civil liberties, with a mix of small government (what republicans claim their about but they aren't)

Obviously not all libertarians are exactly like one another.

Johnson = Fair tax
Ron Paul = Gold/Silver

ect ect.

It's not like once he gets into office even if it was in the seat of say a senate or a congress seat. That people would immediately not trust him. Over time they spend enough time together debating they start to learn about their colleagues, tendencies, and motivations.



You can't change a party from within, There is too much money in politics.




I think we all agree that we need to somehow... get money out of politics. Or find some way that politicians can't get legal bribes.



take a look at what the republicans did to Ron Paul supporters during the convention.



they'l just change the rules if you try to change it from within.
 
I REALLY didn't want to get into this here, but this comment posted next to all the accusations of Paul Ryan lying sort of grinds my gears. The comments that you are referring to by Joe Biden are also lies. The man said he believes as the church does that life begins at conception. The thing is, logically speaking, if you believe that then you believe abortion is murder. Say what you will about not imposing your views on others, which I agree with actually, to a point. No sane human being can condone murder. So, the simple fact is that Joe Biden is either lying about his beliefs or he's a murderous psychopath. And as little as I like Biden, I am pretty sure he's not the latter. His claims that the Catholic hospitals and other institutions would not be required by Obamacare to support services the Church opposes are also lies, as anyone who has read the legislation knows.

Your reasoning here is very flawed. Someone can have religious and/or moral beliefs and not act on them in terms of governing. Are you sure you're not transposing how YOU would govern given your own beliefs onto Vice President Biden? I think he gave an excellent answer on abortion, and from what I understand of the ACA, your second claim has very little substance to it other than being a GOP talking point.

To be sure, the Democrats are being lenient with religious institutions, who pay no tax, want to legislate from the pulpit, and still whine and moan. I say let's tax 'em down to size and subject them to the same standards as other employers if they want to have a voice in the political and public policy sphere.
 
Your reasoning here is very flawed. Someone can have religious and/or moral beliefs and not act on them in terms of governing. Are you sure you're not transposing how YOU would govern given your own beliefs onto Vice President Biden? I think he gave an excellent answer on abortion, and from what I understand of the ACA, your second claim has very little substance to it other than being a GOP talking point.

To be sure, the Democrats are being lenient with religious institutions, who pay no tax, want to legislate from the pulpit, and still whine and moan. I say let's tax 'em down to size and subject them to the same standards as other employers if they want to have a voice in the political and public policy sphere.

I'd love to know from where you derive your "understanding" of the ACA.

Also, you honestly expect me to believe that a human being can support an institution that he/she legitimately believes to be responsible for the deaths of millions? Give me a break. Biden has the same beliefs about abortion as anyone else who supports it.
 
Your reasoning here is very flawed. Someone can have religious and/or moral beliefs and not act on them in terms of governing. Are you sure you're not transposing how YOU would govern given your own beliefs onto Vice President Biden? I think he gave an excellent answer on abortion, and from what I understand of the ACA, your second claim has very little substance to it other than being a GOP talking point.

To be sure, the Democrats are being lenient with religious institutions, who pay no tax, want to legislate from the pulpit, and still whine and moan. I say let's tax 'em down to size and subject them to the same standards as other employers if they want to have a voice in the political and public policy sphere.

Yeah for how much they involve themselves into pushing their agenda onto other people who don't hold the same beliefs. They should atleast be paying taxes.


On the case like Abortion.

they believe it's killing a human with a soul in it.

So I can see why they try so hard to want to stop it. But this is america where we are suppose to have as much freedom as possible while being reasonable.

a fetus having a soul can't be proven thus making it a belief. when it comes to beliefs/woman's right to their body. On a case like this I believe you just have to follow your own beliefs and tolerate others.

IF you think we're going to hell for aborting let us go to hell. don't all children that die go to heaven?

if that's the case why would you want them to grow up to become a dick and possibly go to hell? let the hell spawns kill babies and send them to heaven. Double win for you right?

You should spread your belief of spirit in a fetus and convince people to your side through debate/proof/evidence.

IF you can't prove your case, expect there to be a divide.


No one is FORCING you to have abortions. So don't FORCE people to have babies.
 
I'd love to know from where you derive your "understanding" of the ACA.

Also, you honestly expect me to believe that a human being can support an institution that he/she legitimately believes to be responsible for the deaths of millions? Give me a break. Biden has the same beliefs about abortion as anyone else who supports it.

Considering your tone? Not really worth getting into, I guess. I mean, I can play that game too, if you so like. Also, since when is abortion an institution? Your rhetoric is funny and weird.

PS: Does me wanting to tax churches oppress your religion, brah?
 
I want some proof that a Church-run hospital has ever been forced to administer an abortion. Please. I mean, this line of reasoning falls squarely in the same category as 'welfare queens'. It's easier for anyone seeking a medical service to go directly to a provider willing to provide a procedure or avenue of treatment than to force a hospital or faith-affiliated clinic to do something. Is it because Church employees will be able to get contraceptives? Well, sorry, but I think the employee's right to get access to said contraceptives through their insurance trumps some nebulous moral territory belonging to the Church's faith, ever-more so since they're tax-exempt.

I should highlight here that under the ACA, churches would not be subsidizing the cost of contraception; that ball is in the insurer's court. So I see it as a patently false argument. If that's an attack on Christianity, then, well, time to put on my helmet, because I will argue for the rights of the individual over the non-rights of a religious institution to not feel queasy any day of the week.
 
Another double, but I thought I'd mention... my vote is now in. Didn't miss the mail this time around and got my absentee ballot out. Feels good, man.
 
Holy ass. I didn't realize Gary Johnson wanted to close the Fed.

Back to Candidate Limbo I go. :(
 
Explain to me why the Fed that does things like the libor scandal.

Is such a needed part of our government that holds very little checks and balances and isn't as transparent to it's motives as it should be?

please enlighten me. (no sarcasm I'm serious)

I'm ignorant to it's 100% necessity.

It's the main reason the gas prices are what they are.

Tell me why are we paying interest on money that's created out of thin air. Why it gave trillions to foreign banks that are "too big to fail?"

So please tell me the positives because apparently I've only found the negatives.
 
Top