[POLL] Who are/would you vote for United States President?

[Lacius]

I did not notice that he switched posistions

Which means that he acknowledges climate change but doesn't want to do anything about it. Like I said earlier, that's arguably worse than the conservative point of view, which is to deny that climate change is happening at all.

Today, there are no federal laws mandating vaccinations, and that is as it should be. No adult should be required by the government to inject anything into his or her body.

Each of the 50 states has varying vaccination requirements for children, consistent with their responsibilities for public education and providing a safe environment for students who are required to attend school under state law. Likewise, each of the 50 states has varying opportunities for parents to seek exemptions from vaccination requirements for legitimate reasons of personal belief. That, too, is as it should be.

And while I personally believe some states' 'opt-out' provisions are not adequate in terms of personal freedom, those laws and requirements are appropriately beyond the scope of the federal government—including the President.

Clearly, if and when a major outbreak of a communicable disease occurs that crosses state lines or sweeps the nation, then appropriate levels of government have an obligation to act—and act rapidly. As President, it would be irresponsible to rule out scientifically and medically sound responses to such an emergency.

Government has a responsibility to help keep our children and our communities safe. At the same time, government has a responsibility to preserve individual freedom. Vaccination policies must respect both of those responsibilities. I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others. - Gov. Johnson

Personally I think that is a good policy and I support it. Plus in my own case this is a minor issue as I agree with him on issues I feel are more important such as freeing Ross Ulbricht, whistle blowers, abortion, social security, and other issues.

I believe much of his position is silly, particularly when he called a parent's personal belief a legitimate reason to not vaccinate one's child. He ends with, "I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others," but I believe it is the right of the state to impose the scientific understanding of vaccines on others, particularly when you're hurting more than just your own child when you don't vaccinate. It's an issue of public health, not just private health.

 

[RevPokemon]

Do explain, please. I'm in the mood for being entertained

He thinks that since they are the same party then they will push the same policies when it could not be further then the truth.

 

[Lacius]

He thinks that since they are the same party then they will push the same policies when it could not be further then the truth.

Obama and Clinton are in alignment roughly 99% of the time on policy. I can think of a couple instances in which Clinton is further to the left of Obama (e.g. TPP). I think it's fair to say a vote for Clinton is a vote to continue Obama policies; I just don't think that's a bad thing.

 

[RevPokemon]

Obama and Clinton are in alignment roughly 99% of the time on policy. I can think of only a couple instances in which Clinton is further to the left of Obama (e.g. TPP). I think it's fair to say a vote for Clinton is a vote to continue Obama policies; I just don't think that's a bad thing.

But the assumptions that they automatically will pursue the same policies in the same ways with the same ideas is foolish. The Clinton plans may very well have the same goals that Obama's but there execution will ultimately be different.

 

[Lacius]

But the assumptions that they automatically will pursue the same policies in the same ways with the same ideas is foolish. The Clinton plans may very well have the same goals that Obama's but there execution will ultimately be different.

They're obviously not the same person, but their policies and how they pursue them will likely be very similar.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

He thinks that since they are the same party then they will push the same policies when it could not be further then the truth.

No, that part is correct, it's the part where he said that "Osama, I mean Obama" was the worst thing that happened to this country that I'd like explained

 

[RevPokemon]

They're obviously not the same person, but their policies and how they pursue them will likely be very similar.

Sure but again, how they will execute them will be atleast a little different. Although if you do have a problem with Obama's policies then vote for someone else

"Osama, I mean Obama" was the worst thing that happened to this country that I'd like explaine

They feel his policies have hurt this country so he was a bad thing to happen to this country, so bad it is worse then 9/11.

I believe it is the right of the state to impose the scientific understanding of vaccines on others, particularly when you're hurting more than just your own child when you don't vaccinate. It's an issue of public health, not just private health.

I believe you could argue under NAP that it could be justifiable but I again think it is best as a mix of personal freedom with knowledge of public health. I support mandatory vaccines for all contagious illnesses but not for non contagious ones although they should be covered just the same.

 

[Lacius]

I support mandatory vaccines for all contagious illnesses.

Without religious and/or philosophical exemption? Because if that's the case, you and Johnson differ on this.

 

[RevPokemon]

Without religious and/or philosophical exemption? Because if that's the case, you and Johnson differ on this.

1. I know me and Johnson disagree on this. We disagree on many things but I agree more with him then Trump, Clinton, Stein, or Castle which is why I support him and will vote for him. For example, my support of Ross Ulbricht and he accordingly will pardon him (according to my talk with his mom). Ultimately this issue of vaccination is a non issue for me.

2. I, in theory am OK with religious exemptions but due to abuse I would be against religious exemptions. The only religious group against them is Christian Science AFAIK but the vast majority of religious exceptions are not in that group.

 

[Nightwish]

I find it interesting that you mention Puerto Rico specifically, because that's one of the territories that I was referring to about getting a voice should an AU be founded

And you think Americans would let them? That's hilarious!

I
Boy I wish I could. I have no means as of right now, though, as I am both underage and too poor to get there even if I wasn't, considering I'm planning on going to college in the next year and here in good ole 'murica that costs money

It usually costs some money everywhere. I suggest to anyone thinking about moving to the Eurozone to research how economically, politically and socially it's completely fucked up.

Dodd-Frank did and continues to do a lot of good, actually. It's also far from anything Wall Street supports.

A lot that isn't enough to prevent another derivative crisis very soon and did nothing to stop the leechings on the economy. I'm not particularly impressed, sorry.

You have it reversed.

It is true wages are stagnant, but that's not a recession.

Fine, I went too far. It's near secular stagnation, which no economist in the world knows how to deal with.

There is no evidence that GMOs have any negative effect on one's health.

I don't give a fuck. Food and medicine must be proven safe (within reason, like anything) to change the food chain and ingest daily. If they haven't bothered to test (they might have, I don't know) with a group that is very likely to be affected, then it's not safe.
You just have no idea how fucking terrifying it is to eat anything different. Be very, very thankful.

Also, the presence of GMOs is actually positively correlated with the use of fewer pesticides,

Of course it is, the pesticides go inside GMOs, not outside. Which I'm sure people with allergies and IBD/IBS love.

If I was American (which thankfully I'm not, as much as I dislike Trudeau he's still a far better president/PM than any candidate the USA has) I wouldn't even vote for anyone.

The guy who lied and approved TTIP and CETA?

I will be watching to see what happens with the tests being done on a Thorium-based fission for nuclear energy as it's said to be safer and Thorium is in high abundance.

The problem is that money to fund physical research is needed, otherwise it'll never be usable.

Although I really do not see how in 2016 there are people against evolution or climate change.

Well, I'm certainly against climate change.

 

[RevPokemon]

Well, I'm certainly against climate change.

Sorry. I never meant to imply you were.

 

[Lacius]

And you think Americans would let them? That's hilarious!

It usually costs some money everywhere. I suggest to anyone thinking about moving to the Eurozone to research how economically, politically and socially it's completely fucked up.


A lot that isn't enough to prevent another derivative crisis very soon and did nothing to stop the leechings on the economy. I'm not particularly impressed, sorry.

You have it reversed.

Fine, I went too far. It's near secular stagnation, which no economist in the world knows how to deal with.


I don't give a fuck. Food and medicine must be proven safe (within reason, like anything) to change the food chain and ingest daily. If they haven't bothered to test (they might have, I don't know) with a group that is very likely to be affected, then it's not safe.
You just have no idea how fucking terrifying it is to eat anything different. Be very, very thankful.


Of course it is, the pesticides go inside GMOs, not outside. Which I'm sure people with allergies and IBD/IBS love.



The guy who lied and approved TTIP and CETA?


The problem is that money to fund physical research is needed, otherwise it'll never be usable.


Well, I'm certainly against climate change.

Don't make the mistake of lumping all pesticides with the subsection of them that are chemical. In many cases, we're talking about genetically modified crops that artificially produce a protein or bacteria, for example, that acts as a natural pesticide, instead of using chemicals. I just wanted to make that clear before we start saying GMOs "have pesticides inside of them."

Thousands of studies have shown that GMOs are just as safe as their non-GMO counterparts, and it is the overwhelming scientific consensus. I can't say I'm aware of specific studies on people who already have IBS, but based on my limited experience with GMOs in my undergraduate days, there are going to be GMOs that are physiologically indistinguishable from their non-GMO counterparts once they get to your shopping cart, which is why much of this debate is nonsense. The only difference by that point, regarding the examples I'm thinking of, would lie solely in the genotype, not phenotype, and some extra nucleotides alone aren't going to hurt you.

I'm summary, GMOs are safe, and for some, I can't even come up with a hypothetical mechism for how they would be less safe.

 

[Monado_III]

The guy who lied and approved TTIP and CETA?

If I was American (which thankfully I'm not, as much as I dislike Trudeau he's still a far better president/PM than any candidate the USA has)

and TTIP isn't even Canadian, we have the CETA but TTIP is an US-EU deal.

 

[RevPokemon]

I'm summary, GMOs are safe, and for some, I can't even come up with a hypothetical mechism for how they would be less safe.

Simple. Because people don't know about them, which causes them to believe they are dangerous despite the fact they are not.

I also think there is a little part of fear is of corporations using them since some people feel corporations are always evil and always do harm, even when you have regulations that stop them and also lawsuits prevent them from doing things that are truly dangerous.

Also those companies lobbying against mandatory labels also (rightfully IMO)is concerning in the public eye.

Although let it be known that I feel GMOs are safe.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I also think there is a little part of fear is of corporations using them since some people feel corporations are always evil and always do harm, even when you have regulations that stop them and also lawsuits prevent them from doing things that are truly dangerous.

Actually, I don't think that this one is necessarily true, or at least consciously. It seems as though the people who are anti-GMO tend to be the same people who believe that a truly free market can't exist when regulations are imposed on corporations

 

[RevPokemon]

Actually, I don't think that this one is necessarily true, or at least consciously. It seems as though the people who are anti-GMO tend to be the same people who believe that a truly free market can't exist when regulations are imposed on corporations

In polling views among GMOs and vaccines are relatively close among liberals and conservatives although it should be noted liberals are more likely to support evolution and climate change.

Either way there are some people who do view the fact of corporations lobbying regarding GMOs to be concerning. But that is only one reason why I feel people could be against them but there are more of course.

Likewise my support of libertarian ideals is partially why I support GMOs.

 

[Jiehfeng]

I hate politics but, I remember something really significant from the South Park TV Series; democracy is always between a turd sandwich and a douche.

 

[SuzieJoeBob]

Senator Sanders lost the primary because Secretary Clinton received over 3 million more votes. It wasn't rigged.

When Democratic voters side with Hillary Clinton simply because she has a vagina and is married to Bill Clinton (which is a lot of them), rigging the votes is much more appealing to me. You can try to fix something in the DNC, but you cannot fix stupid.

 

[Lacius]

When Democratic voters side with Hillary Clinton simply because she has a vagina and is married to Bill Clinton (which is a lot of them), rigging the votes is much more appealing to me. You can try to fix something in the DNC, but you cannot fix stupid.

If you're going to claim that Clinton won the primary by 3 million votes because she has a vagina and is married to Bill, then you're more sexist than the people you're alleging voted for her on the basis of sex.

People largely voted for Hillary Clinton because she was a consequential First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State with high name recognition. To diminish her accomplishments and votes on the basis of sex is pretty sexist.

I hate politics but, I remember something really significant from the South Park TV Series; democracy is always between a turd sandwich and a douche.

The moral of the episode wasn't that a two-party democratic election is always a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche. The moral was that if one perceives the election to be a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche, and has no preference between the two candidates, it makes no sense to try and make that person vote for one of those candidates. In other words, the right to vote includes the right not to vote.

 

[Jiehfeng]

The moral of the episode wasn't that a two-party democratic election is always a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche. The moral was that if one perceives the election to be a choice between turd sandwich and giant douche, and has no preference between the two candidates, it makes no sense to try and make that person vote for one of those candidates. In other words, the right to vote includes the right not to vote.

We could debate on whether the intended moral was what I said or you said, but the truth remains the same; when comes choice, the wrong will always be chosen, just for the sheer fact that all the options available are all wrong.
It's like you are taken hostage, the ones who have taken you hostage give you a choice. "There are 7 fruits here. One of them is not poisonous. Choose wisely, because the fruit you choose, you will be forced to eat."
It's a 1/7 chance; 6 idiots, and one ray of hope for change. How many people in the world, or in the world of politics, do you think is capable of really not being either an idiot or a fool (a turd sandwich or a douche), to make the right change needed for a country? It's like finding a needle in a haystack. A 1 in a million chance to choose the right candidate in this situation.
Think about it, only idiots run for politics, because they either want to be a hero or be worshiped. And trying to be a hero just means you are trying to prove something to the world, that you're not just worthless, and when everyone else sees you as a hero, you see yourself as a hero too, because how in the world would 6-7 billion people be wrong?
So you're choosing between essentially the same thing.

TL;DR... for anyone chosen as candidate, America is inevitable to get fucked up.