The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Why I will be voting 3rd party - pt2

I think he was pointing out the second page of the article where they show that, while Obama isn't interfering with the military ballots, his administration only started helping grease the wheels of the process when polling data suggested that those votes could help him rather than hurt him, as the original assessment of that voting group showed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting I can guarantee that RMoney would have never even made it past the primaries if we had this in most states, and even if he had, these guys would seem unelectable compared to the entire field

Hmm, interesting concept. I cant see any reason off the top of my head not to use it, it probably would be a lot better than our current way.

Nice cut and paste, I thought you didn't go for this. Lets all put up some talking points from the left or right and get nowhere.

"If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be the fourth Republican president in the Reagan regime."

More propaganda, there was only one Ronald Reagan. The Republicans have left the Reagan regime behind when Reagan left office.

I am surprised you so violently object to this article, from where I stand it was complimenting Romney. He is certainly undeserving being compared/associated with Reagan.

Derid says, "...the GOP and Dems are the same in all but name..."

Except for things like abortion, health care, size of government, taxes, welfare, defense spending, entitlements, government spending, and probably a number of things I'm forgetting.

If they were exactly the same, legislation would be passing by unanimous consent. Since it's not, I'm guessing they're not.

Abortion - social wedge issue designed to split and distract people away from things that really matter.

Health Care - Lots of rhetoric, but Bush Medicare Part D, Romneys promises to "save" ponzi scheme entitlements, and much much more... not a lot of difference. Health Individual Mandate was a GOP creation - the GOP doesnt like the current Obamacare because of 2 reasons 1) it was designed to create additional Dem constituencies of dependence, and 2) Its unpopular so can be siezed upon for political Capital.

Size of Govt - GOP may be for some sort of smaller Govt than the Dems... but its like comparing Saturn to Jupiter. One is larger than the other, but theyre still both huge. Both candidates fully endorse TSA, Homeland security, and an extremely large, unnecessary, and unbeneficial (to anyone but the ruling bureaucrats , contractors and privacy violating machine manufacturers ) police state.

Taxes - lots of rhetoric here, but mostly its focused on taxing the wealthiest, and its all rhetorical political smoke and mirrors. If the Dems really cared about it, it would have happened in Obamas first two years.

Defense spending - Obamas still spending 800B on defense. Romney would apparently increase it drastically - and while I was a big supporter of Romney's initial push regarding Naval spending and R&D , his latest push for vastly increasing land armaments has left me gaping at the utter stupidity.

Entitlements - GOP might have a slight edge here, since they would probably at least voucherize medicare....eventually...

Govt Spending - Hard to see how the GOP is going to reduce spending while saving entitlements and doubling the military. They both spend money like its water. In fact, saying that is probably inaccurate - because the Fed has, under Bush and Obama make sure that money is in fact more plentiful than water. Since water is a finite resource, digital currency without any tie to a real world commodity is infinite.

--

Legislation does not pass by unanimous consent all of the time, because though both parties basically function the same and are the same creatures of corruption - the beneficiaries of said corruption can be different. They fight over "show" issues, to determine who gets to dole out the goods. Both parties are, at this point, basically existing solely to extract wealth and power from the us, and hand it to their benefactors, friends, and cronies.

Both parties are about free handout to corrupt banksters. Both parties are about corporate welfare and subsidies to their constituents, both parties are happy to give free reign to the Monsantos of the world , both parties favor regulation that favors established business interests over the market competition.

Sure, there are some honest elements of each party. But those elements are not in control.

Both parties got caught breaking their own rules, to quash the grassroots at their own conventions.

Both parties are about more debt, less freedom, bankster bailouts, useless wars, and voodoo economics. Sure, there are some differences around the edges - and major differences of style and rhetoric.

But Obama looks very much like Bush, and I suspect Romney will look almost exactly like Obama. Except for a greater religious tilt to some policies and enforcement. Possibly a greater eagerness to shuffle off to more expensive, useless wars. Mitt would probably ease up on stifling energy regulations some, which would be a benefit.

Neither will address the fundamental issues in a meaningful way.

I disagree. This can only be called a deflection tactic if you believe that a child in incubation is just so much random tissue, as likely to become a toaster oven as it is to become a human. If, like me, you believe there is a much greater chance (nearly infinitely greater) of that tissue becoming a human, then aborting it is murder. The right not to be murdered is one of our founding principles. I don't think that can be dismissed out of hand as merely a partisan issue designed to divert attention, or as an issue that doesn't really matter. Next it will be ok to euthanize your grandparents because, "they don't really contribute any longer."

I'm not making the argument that it isn't used as a diversion, but to claim that it actually is just a diversion is different.

Its the difference between "will become", and "is".

Its not *what it *could become, but rather what it currently *is that is important. Sperm is unlikely to become a toaster either, and only likely to become a person.

Or maybe we are all genocidal maniacs. Perhaps Hugh Heffner should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity, his magazine being responsible for the deaths of untold trillions of people.

The abortion issue is just an unfortunate outcropping of the Catholic Church, and Pope Paul VI psychotic rambling titled "Humanae Vitae". For some unfortunate reason, protestants have taken up the Catholic line en masse.

Deciding a fertilized egg is a human, really has no relationship to killing your grandparents. Its a religious opinion. I have no objection to people who choose not to pursue abortions or contraception out of their religious beliefs of course, thats their call. I do not particularly care for having that view enforced on others at gunpoint though.

But so many people have made abortion their primary voting issue, and vote for candidates that are otherwise complete corrupt trash - but hey, theyre pro-life! - that I have a very difficult time not feeling a strong level of disgust at the issue in general. The issue is a magician's trick - they wave abortion in front of the electorate with one hand , while they pocket the electorate's money and liberty with the other.

I know you probably think differently on the issue Kaotic, and thats cool - I just have a hard time forgiving the "pro life" political movement for all the damage they have inadvertently caused in this country, and am somewhat peevish on the issue.