Philosophy Now Forum

Gotta catch me first.

Did you both vote?

The only person I have ever voted for was Champagne Sherry, and that was done under duress, the only rational reason for voting.

How does your state of indifference contribute to your country?

reasonvemotion wrote:How does your state of indifference contribute to your country?

I'm not indifferent at all, but I do have half a brain that tells me that whether or not I vote has absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything at all. And this is what amazes me, when I go into detail to explain why I'm right and you're wrong, it doesn't seem to phase you or others like you at all, and it makes me wonder if you're all psychotic or just nuts, because it's got to be one or the other!

Why cheer Obama just because his socialist programs have yet to bring us to our knees like the rest of the world?

U S of A is set to restage a Greek tragedy and you are in denial and already on your knees, but don't despair, you could be flat on your back sooner than you think and your country's economic probs could well plunge the country into years of recesssion. If you don't recognise this then you are the crazy one.

You celebrate the election of Obama, who represents the kind of socialistic thinking that has brought down Europe and may well bring down the USA, but I believe that Americans have the spirit of economic and personal liberty that the rest of the world lost a long time ago, and which will carry us through despite the socialistic leanings of Obama and his friends.

Mitt Romney was not a salvation, in fact if he had been elected, only the rich would have benefitted. I would have voted Obama, purely to prevent MR from taking office.

I wish you well as it will be a difficult journey hereafter for all.

You don't seem to realise that the rest of the world has abandoned socialism and that is why it is going downhill.

The health of a modern economy is based on the ability of the poor being able to buy things.
This low level demand is essential for the supply to flourish.

The most important thing socialism aims to do, is to improve the wages and working conditions of the poor.

If you beggar your neighbour as we are doing to Greece, Italy and Spain what happens is that you loose your markets and have no one to sell to. Soon even the healthy countries start to feel the pinch as their exports drop, they loose jobs and follow the path set by their impoverished neighbours.
You might say they can just look for other markets, but that would mean outcompeting China. The result is that wages are forced down, and wealth polarises.

A polarised economy is a sick economy.

The US is ticking along nicely precisely because it has not instituted austerity. In places like Spain where austerity has been imposed by the Eurozone unemployment has reached 25%. Spain is not importing much because it can't pay, and the countries that supply it are loosing work and jobs.

When a person is fat and bloated, as the economy is, what you don't do is cut off his hands and legs.

Romney is an expert in sash and burn asset stripping. He made is money by enjoying putting people out of work.
He is the last thing the US needs.

reasonvemotion wrote: I would have voted Obama, purely to prevent MR from taking office.

Please come to your senses and realize your single vote will never prevent anything, anywhere, anytime (what fools these mortals be).

bobevenson wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote: I would have voted Obama, purely to prevent MR from taking office.

Please come to your senses and realize your single vote will never prevent anything, anywhere, anytime (what fools these mortals be).

Democracy is BASED on the single vote.
Maybe you would prefer to live in China?

chaz wyman wrote:Romney is an expert in slash and burn asset stripping. He made his money by putting people out of work.

Why don't you try learning a little economics, like it is not the function of business to employ people, but to make products that people want to buy, at the lowest cost and highest price possible, consistent with maximum profit. If you don't understand this simple concept, please refrain from spreading your ignorance to others.

chaz wyman wrote:Democracy is BASED on the single vote.

I'm not arguing that point at all. What I am saying is that only a fool thinks his single vote is important or will have any effect on anything at all, and only a damned fool will try to convince me that I'm wrong!

bobevenson:

I'm not indifferent at all, but I do have half a brain that tells me that whether or not I vote has absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything at all

OK, so how does it work for you then? Ouzo aside, I know that can be your scapegoat at times, but I would like you to answer realistically, how would you envisage the American system to work effectively and how would a person or the people be chosen to do this. By the vote or otherwise.

reasonvemotion wrote:bobevenson:

I'm not indifferent at all, but I do have half a brain that tells me that whether or not I vote has absolutely no impact whatsoever on anything at all

OK, so how does it work for you then? Ouzo aside, I know that can be your scapegoat at times, but I would like you to answer realistically, how would you envisage the American system to work effectively and how would a person or the people be chosen to do this. By the vote or otherwise.

First of all, let me say that Ouzo is a philosophy, and not a scapegoat for anything. Regarding voting, although a person's individual vote means absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things, total votes are essential to get a candidate elected. That's where the Champagne Sherry Principle comes into play. The American Energy Party is the only party that understands the power of this principle. Come election time, the AEP will do no advertising at all compared to the billions of dollars spent by other candidates and political parties (the Champagne Sherry Principle is explained in detail in earlier posts). Actually, the AEP is the most democratic party of all. Everybody has a vote, including convicts, children, and babies in utero. If they are not capable of casting a vote in person, it will be done thrrough a surrogate, such as their parents. But the mechanics of voting itself should be drastically changed by replacing millions of voters with a scientifically designed sample of thousands that will yield results that are more accurate at far less cost.