Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back to voting: IF a US citizen is registered; that person "should" vote IMHO. Although looking at Hillary and Trump, neither choice sets well with me, to be fair.
Do they? Where have you traveled too? I've been to places which on a map there's a border...but once you get there...the people themselves don't identify with the "countries" that are separated by an imaginary line on a map, as they identify with the villages they live in. Sure, 1st world countries have borders...but to say all countries have borders (in which, for geographical/map purposes they do) - but you'd be surprised at what areas in the world don't give a poo about their so called border.
The system we have now has enforcement mechanisms, If someone violates your rights, they are punished within a court of law. That doesnt happen in a libertarian society.
In a libertarian society...there still is rule of law. We're not talking anarchy here - just reduced government and a more focused government.
Everyone who can vote, should...even if you don't vote for politicians, you can vote on local tax levies or state propositions for law changes.
That old saying, " If you don't vote, you can't complain." That has guided me through all elections. Sure, you can still complain; but if you vote, you can REALLY COMPLAIN! lol
It is plain foolish to not vote. Because if you don't vote, someone who does will make decisions for you, and not necessarily to your advantage.
I see the Asian American low vote turnout as a problem, rather than an explanation or excuse for its relative economic position. That also belies the fact that in many communities Asians are pretty well-organized politically (such as in San Francisco).
Again, for the Asians they are testament to that whether it was a Democrat or a Republican in office they still thrive economically along with the education among their youth. Which goes to show you it's not about the incumbent it's the mentalities of the people. In a capitalist free enterprise society, let me do what I need to do and use my skills and I'll be ok. I don't need some president to determine my fate in this type of system.
I'm not sure if you're black as well, but if you are then you'd know that we are always looking for some savior to save us rather than individually getting ourselves together. This is why even though I didn't vote I really wish Trump would get in office. (He's not going to, Hillary is the shoe-in) but Trump would have black people start to put the thinking caps on.
Except it's not really all that equal. They're a protected group of people, while others who are of the non-white group aren't as protected. The thing about equality is that it comes at the expense of someone else every time. This is why some people really don't believe there can be equality. Only that you can change the face of inequality. Either you can just trade places, and keep in the system of protectinonism which sustains inequality. Or you have natural inequality because people are different with different decisions and different results.
Uh.....yeah......if there is inequality then logically equality comes at the expense of someone else, because everything is relative. In other words, if you have a higher status as a race, even if your absolute socioeconomic position does not change, fostering another race to be on the same level will come at the expense of the superior status of the latter race. Every action creates a reaction or has a consequence.
Quote:
I think there is a subtext I see in your post. "Don't try anything new, because what we have so far is working so well". Here is a secret, what we have now isn't working. What we have in the economy today are people failing and people kicing the can down the road. This is why a lot of Libertarians remain frustrated because we understand finance and economics. As a matter of fact I would say economics is a big part of the Libertarian platform. There are some very bright and smart Libertarian economist who are insanely fiscally responsible.
Uh....I never said that I was averse to implementing the Libertarian way....ergo....something new. What I said was that a consequence of doing that would be calamitous to the economy. If one has been a heroin addict and then tries to go cold turkey.....they are going to feel like they are dying as their body goes through withdrawal. Today, metaphorically of course, politicians and consumers just keep getting high off the debt.....because they don't want to go through the withdrawal pains from "austerity" that Libertarian policy would result in. Hence, I was just pointing out to you that people and politicians will never, in mass, vote to go through such pain....voluntarily. That means that ultimate result of the current way of doing things is.....OVERDOSE/economic collapse. Therefore, you must think I am in favor of economic collapse, if you think I am in favor of continuing to do things the way they have been done.
Quote:
What you have is faith in the status quo. You aren't so much worried about replacing a working system, because evidence proves our current system doesn't work. Instead you want to sustain the current system because it's a system that you're use to. It's familiar. And Libertarianism, in your mind is unfamiliar.
No....I have no faith in the status quo. I have said as much. Why do you keep using the straw man fallacy?
There will never be equality in America until we shame all smarter citizens to be a cohort of the lowest common denominator in our society. We are headed towards that progressive goal. Some rejoice at the prospect.
No. That is pure obfuscation. I know that there is individual variation. I know that some people, regardless of how hard they try, will never be able to run as fast, jump as high, deduce as well, induce as well, remember as well...ect....as others. Hence, there can never be equality as a result of the nature of individual variation. Some individuals are just going to be naturally better at some things than are others. However, what I am talking about is racial equality. I do not feel that one race has a NATURAL advantage over the other in what it takes to be successful socioeconomically. Thus, the outcomes of the race should be close to equal in regards to socioeconomic and if they are not, then there is some external force, past and or present, that has caused the inequality, lest one wants to throw natural racial inferiority back on the table to explain the inequality.
Thus, the outcomes of the race should be close to equal in regards to socioeconomic and if they are not, then there is some external force, past and or present, that has caused the inequality, lest one wants to throw natural racial inferiority back on the table to explain the inequality.
Well, a couple of correspondents on this thread have done exactly that.
One thing to be sure about when discussing "unequal outcomes," however, is to be sure the actual correct causes have been discerned.
As a gross example, "unequal tenured professors of nuclear physics" is not likely a problem created at the end of the pipeline by how colleges tenure professors of nuclear physics, but caused by factors much, much earlier in the pipeline.
It is plain foolish to not vote. Because if you don't vote, someone who does will make decisions for you, and not necessarily to your advantage.
I see the Asian American low vote turnout as a problem, rather than an explanation or excuse for its relative economic position. That also belies the fact that in many communities Asians are pretty well-organized politically (such as in San Francisco).
You just do not get it. Not voting as a STRATEGY, is what we are talking about. Not voting as a strategy has the goal of waking up a party to OFFER us something or we will not help them win. That may mean we allow that party to lose an election so that the next election they will come with a platform that RESPECT and REPRESENTS our needs.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 05-13-2016 at 09:06 AM..
Everybody should always vote in every election that applies to them. Everybody has a civic duty to vote. Just because you are disgusted with the parties and the candidates does not relieve you of this duty to vote. You may have to vote for the lesser of two weevils but you still have that duty.
You just do not get it. Not voting as a STRATEGY, is what we are talking about. Not voting as a strategy has the goal of waking up a party to OFFER us something or we will not help them win. That may mean we allow that party to lost an election so that the next election they will come with a platform that RESPECT and REPRESENTS our needs.
Thank you sir. Every other group understands you get a tangible AGENDA from these politicians on what they will do to benefit them and only then do you give them a vote. Black folks are the only ones that do it backwards. We spread love and give it up to any Democrat that comes along and then later were twiddling thumbs saying "watcha gonna do for us?" Which is why we're in the position were in. These democrats play the game of "oh yea well help minorities *air quotes*" and then they pass policies to benefit the white guy that's 1/25th Cherokee and the guy that looks like Zac Efron but says he's Hispanic.
It's called leverage. It's just like business, if you want customers to patronize you, meet their standards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
