Save America, Now.

I would vote for you. I disagree with some of your stuff. Other nations have achieved lower teen pregnancy rates just through sex education, and if we reform our educational system then that should fix the problem of the existence of completely incompetent parents. But, if you could even implement 1 or 2 of the changes you are suggesting it would be huge.
 
I didn't read the entire thread, but thought this would be the place to post the following:
RvizC.jpg
 
hey tigran, Obama never promised to build trains or do anything for the infrastructure at all, McCain promised bridges, road work, a new electrical system and a ton of new nuclear power plants to pave the way for electric cars

or weren't you paying attention to the words he said at the debate

just the way he said them
 
you're talking to a guy in a social state

germany is a social state too, france, they're doing great. FDR built the golden gate bridge, layed down new train track, built dams and powerplants and if all else failed he made people plant trees.

Not that government is efficient, but you can either shove tax payer dollars down the drain or use it somewhat

its too bad people don't actually read their own history, they would realize Obama isn't trying at all, or him and his whole team are just completely unqualified, which BP showed us
 
Last edited:
cogzinofa said:
In ranked choice voting you would take you ballot and rank all candidates for office. So say you have 3 candidates for president. You rank them in order of preference. As they tally votes candidates that don't have enough votes to win have their votes reassigned to other candidates. Person A ranks obama 1, some fictional guy 2, and mccain 3. Person B ranks mccain 1, the fictional guy 2, and obama 3. When they tally the votes, since neither front runner has enough to win, their votes get assigned to the second choice on each ballot, meaning the fictional guy wins.

In ranked choice voting you can't afford to alienate large swaths of the population. You have to remain liked enough by everyone to be ranked 2nd or 3rd on the majority of ballots. Under this kind of system the extremist polarization politics of today is more of a liability than a benefit.
Click to expand...

What you first described is called Borda voting, but your description implies Instant Run Off.

Both of these are flawed and inferior to range voting. RangeVoting.org - "Borda count" system
 
SuicideTaxi said:
All good ideas except the military one.

I particularly like the fact that we can kick anyone's ass at a moment's notice, and even though we're in debt up to our ass for it, I appreciate the technological research that has gone into keeping our military the ass-kicking machine that it is, and which has trickled back into the civilian sector for sooooo many modern conveniences and medical advances.

On a side note... Americans are way too fuckin stupid to ever accept any one of those points, anyway. Sorry Goshin, I woulda voted for you.
Click to expand...
We can continue to develop military technology without maintaining so much presence all over the world.
 
The sterilization part of the post is really dumb - mostly because the U.S. doesn't have a population problem. If anything, the trends are more likely that we'll end up like Russia and other places in Europe in where the government is actually actively encouraging reproduction.

See: Population decline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also quote from a random article dealing with this (not going to spend time looking for detailed sources)

According to the 2010 Census, the 2000s were the slowest decade of population growth in 70 years. The country’s population only grew by 9.7%, a significant dip from the 13.1% growth in the 1990s.
Click to expand...


Most of the U.S.'s population growth comes from immigration - not people already in the country reproducing.

If the U.S. has any problem relating to reproduction, it's simply that the distribution of births in relation to socioeconomic status is skewed. Middle to Upper class families are either at or slightly below replacement level (in that range anyways), which leaves the lower socioeconomic classes to account for most of the growth.

A draconian and invasive medical procedure that would fall directly on the lower classes in society would (if trends continue) put the U.S. below replacement level in population growth which would be awful for us as a country (particularly with tougher immigration laws).

You might want to try looking at the facts surrounding population growth instead of looking at the sensational headlines of

"LOL MINORITY WOMAN HAS 8TH KID THAT TAXPAYERS SUPPORT"

Because of all the problems facing the U.S., headlines like the above are extremely low on the priority list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top