Bitcoin Forum

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13196-another-obama-executive-order-allows-seizure-of-americans%E2%80%99-bank-accounts

I guess this type of thing is why cryptocurrencies exist.

exactly why I'm voting for Romney.. have to get this tyrant out of office!

Because having a way to stop a person with the means and motive to be a flight risk is always bad.

Judicial oversight is such a drag.

I wish I could vote for Romney...
...but since I have an above average IQ, college education, a good job, above average reasoning skills, lack of substantial amounts of money, and I live in a diverse northern State, looks like I'm going to stick with Obama.  :D

So, you have all those things going for you, and still you vote for Obama? I believe you're lying about, at minimum, the IQ and reasoning skills.

Meh, believe what you want, I have no reason to lie.

I've watched all the primaries and debates...read all the articles and checked all the facts. Both sides have had their problems, but after seeing what Romney has said and done I just can't justify voting for him. He keeps spouting off the same spiel about 'jobs, tax cuts, and the economy', but he's just selling snake oil. If it was so easy to magically balance the budget, don't you think it would have been done by now?

The plans Obama has put in place during his term have a) helped get me healthcare, and b) helped lower my student loan payments by consolidating with the department of Ed. And now his JOBS Act will help to jump start my company.

Not to mention Obama already has presidential experience, which weighs a lot heavier on my mind than "I used to run a business and I was governor".

Anyway, just my 2 cents. Obviously I don't expect people to agree with me  :D

There's your problem. There are more than two sides. And the two "sides" you are presented with are more alike than they are different.

But at least by voting for Obama, he can lock in the "lack of substantial amounts of money".

Haha. Fair enough. Come back in five years and we'll see where you stand.

Therein lies the issue with politics in general, you assume just because someone has different opinions on the politics that are slapped all over tv results in them intellectually deficient. Bigotry is an excellent indicator of a feeble mind since the bigot in question cannot grasp why a person would have a different opinion on a situation/discussion/subject.

No, I assumed he was intellectually deficient because he saw only the two options. A quick perusal of even this subforum (to say nothing of this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103079.0) - Which admittedly is in need of a bump) would have shown him several others. Worse, he considers this lack to be "fully informed."

Well that's not very nice :P

We should also clarify that you're assuming I only see two options based on my response. The reality is that there are only two feasible options in the election. You can vote Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Roseanne Bar, or countless others...but the only two people that actually have a chance are either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I'm not one to waste my vote..

My estimation of your intelligence is moving up. ;)

However, given that: a) only one of the two "approved" options has any chance of winning, and b) they are functionally identical, why is it that you consider any vote to not be a waste?

It's the main reason why I support them.

The sophistication of the techniques the Elites use to steal from the common people livestock has grown for thousands of years.  Cryptocurrencies are one of the best self-defense weapons we have ever seen. 

Rommey or Obama are more of the same... nothing will change until Ron Paul or similar get to office.

Well in this case, you're asserting that only one person has the chance of winning, but since it's still a close race (based on current electoral maps, focusing on swing states) it's not quite possible to call it yet. In fact, it could be possible for each candidate to hit 269 and tie it up in the actual election, resulting in the House making the final decision.

To me, a wasted vote is a vote going to a candidate that doesn't have a chance of winning, which is essentially anyone outside of the two already "approved". Voting for either Obama or Romney isn't a waste.

I love how people think they HAVE to vote for the twin-headed dragon every single fucking election.

The reason other independent parties never have a chance is because everybody refuses to leave the two-party lines and then proceed to bitch about how 'broken' our political system is. Have some backbone, stand up for what you believe in for once instead of one of the two identical people shoved down your throat by the media because "hey, at-least my candidate isn't as bad as the OTHER candidate".

It's more subtle than that. Any vote an individual makes in a state which already is definitely one way or another is wasted since it can't affect the outcome. A vote for a third party sends a message that that third party has views which have some support and in a non-swing state, is possibly the most logical way to vote (assuming you don't actually support one of the big two).

Then again, if you find the current big-two candidates completely abhorrent, you may want to vote third party anyway. Really, you have to consider all the parts in play and any pat answers probably indicate a lack of thought.

Perhaps I was not clear. To rephrase: Since a) either Obama or Romney is going to be in the office no matter what, and b) Obama and Romney are essentially identical, Why vote for either? Why, in fact, vote at all, since whichever way you vote, it's wasted?

So you are voting for Obama despite him being such a cheap bastard as to not a) pay for 100% of your healthcare b) forgive all of your student loans and c) eliminate all payroll taxes instead of a measly $245B worth?  lets add a "chicken in every pot" while we're at it too.

Your vote has been bought cheaply my friend.

The choice this November isn't between Obama and Romney - it is between staying to watch the train wreck close up or leaving to watch from a distance.

Train wrecks are awesome, and when this titanic hits the bottom, Canada here I come.

So you can watch that trainwreck, too?

More wilderness, I can stay away from it easier there.

Unfortunately, they never have a chance because they never gain enough credibility in the masses. Just because we (in reference to our community) would rather see someone other than the two popular candidates, doesn't mean the other 240+ million voters agree. That's why I, and many millions of others, focus on the lesser of two evils to receive our votes. Having some "backbone" and "standing up for what you believe" is all well and good, but in the broad view it won't make much of a difference.  ;)


Hmm, fair point and I see what you're saying. That said, I can honestly say I don't have an answer to respond with.



Side Note: I like how this thread went from an article the OP submitted to a debate about voting :P

Lol what are you even talking about?

That point was the final straw that tipped me over into Anarchism. To quote Emma Goldman,  "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

Yeah.... That happens. Pretty much every thread gets down to base principles pretty quick. Which base principle can sometimes be predicted from the OP, but not always.

Rommey or Obama are more of the same... nothing will change until Ron Paul or similar get to office.
[/quote]

I agree but still think Romney will be the lesser of the 2 evils even though I don't totally believe in everything he stands for.

Well, if it's a choice between evil and less evil, why stop at "less evil"?

Go big or go home, baby.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ET5zMtAB1ns/Ti4Csfoe01E/AAAAAAAAEfc/dV9FpSeevqk/s0-d/CthulhuForPresident

HA!! +1

err.. +666 ...that's better



http://fashionablygeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/vote-nixon.jpg?cb5e28

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we ARE the "masses". There's a 50% chance that each of us is below average intelligence, but we all insist that we're in the upper half. To top it off, I hear the EXACT same rationale from everyone else who votes Republican/Democrat. They're all just trying to save the country from those fascists/communists on the "other side".

You aren't so smart. Neither am I. When everyone oh-so-cleverly tries to game the system instead of just voting for who they like best, this is what we get. If we all voted for who we thought was best, we'd all be better off. Maybe I'm naive for thinking enough people might grow a concience to make a difference, but there's a lot of naive masses out there just like me, and I'd feel like I lost even if I voted for the Republicrat who won.

Yes, and where do you think the money for a), b), and c) come from?  From future taxes that will hinder our economy.  You may enjoy the benefits today, but you and I and everyone else will be paying for it down the road in the form of higher taxes and devaluation of our money through increased inflation.

The working class generally votes republican, because they understand personal responsibility and sustainability.  The welfare-recipients (of which I'll include you in, since you are reaping benefits at the expense of taxpayers as mentioned above) generally vote democrat, because they want "more free stuff".  Or at the very least, they don't want their free stuff taken away.

Similarly, this is why you see college campuses filled with liberal-minded people - they aren't working for a living yet, and don't understand how their utopian dreams have real-world consequences. It's why those same people eventually turn conservative when they get out in "the real world" and begin to tire of seeing people gaming the system, stealing their tax dollars to sit on the couch and watch TV while they work hard to provide for themselves.

It's sad, really.  More and more of the US populace is dependent on government aid, and that's only our own doing, electing people who give out money like it has no consequence.  The easier it is to acquire free aid from the government (and it seems to be getting easier every day), the more people we will find who choose to not work a day in their lives, the less productive our country will be, and the more difficult it will be to balance the governmental budget without increasing taxes heavily.

Think about more than just the benefits you are receiving today.  Think about how those benefits will affect your tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtAiZLFRntk

Poor USA. Only two real parties...  ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

Ah yes, paying for things with taxes. Last I checked, that's how things worked in every developed country. And I pay taxes. I pay Federal, State, Social Security, Medicare, and Capital Gains. And you know what? Tax me a bit more..especially if it helps to subsidize the $160 a month I pay in health insurance...or if it helps my sister avoid $430 a month in healthcare premiums because she has a preexisting condition.

But let me guess...none of this applies to you. Do you have to worry about healthcare? Do you have to worry about absurd education costs? Guess what, in my experience and where I'm from the "working class" doesn't. Know why? Because they never pursued higher education (they barely finished high school), so they never have to worry about paying $550 a month in student loans as I do. They work in Unions, which provide ample pay and healthcare coverage.

My friend, it doesn't matter what party you're in or who you vote for that causes you to understand personal responsibility and sustainability. Regardless of who is brought into Office, America really needs to grow up, put on their big boy pants, and join the ranks of more developed countries like Canada, Greenland, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, and tons of others. Each of those countries is better at taking care of their citizens than we are.


Ah yes, college churns out liberals every day! Do you know why that is? I think the term is "Education"...

And to-date, I have never met an intelligent, college educated, "liberal" who joined the ranks of the "real world" and turned conservative..."liberal" is the term for a crazy leftist, just as "conservative" is the term for a crazy rightist. To switch sides that easily would you mean you're either incredibly mentally unstable, or just easily persuaded without any effort. I've lived in four states and visited dozens, and I have never encountered this phenomenon. Where do you live were you apparently see it often?


[sarcasm] Definitely. Don't you know, 47% of American's depend on the government for every whim! It must be true because a Republican stated it behind closed doors at an all white...whoops, I mean "rich"...dinner party, and Fox News said so. [/sarcasm]


Indeed I am. I'm thinking very long term...which is why I'm voting with my head this election, and not my wallet.

But I thought you said you were voting for Obama? ;)

Ha! touché  :D

You do not understand much about healthcare.  There is much to be gained by streamlining and diagnosing early.  The worst part of all is RIGHT NOW we are ALL PAYING to care for those who do not have insurance.  It is done in the ER and the cost is passed on to you in higher healthcare costs.  UNLESS YOU TURN PEOPLE AWAY TOTALLY YOU WILL PAY THIS COST. 

I do not like Obama care, but the cost of the program is not nearly as great as partisans imply.  A properly designed program (which Obamacare is NOT) could save a huge amount of money for this country. 



That is just pure propaganda.   Your smarter then that (I hope).

We really need voters who look deeper into the issues.   People who do not follow party over country.  Right now you will not ever balance the budget without compromise.  Both Obama and Romney have drawn lines in the sand that if they stick to them will bankrupt this country. 

If you still think college=learning or insurance=good healthcare, I don't think your education was worth it. I guess I didn't realize it until about 3 years into grad school though. The college liberals don't understand the world around them at all, I should know since I was one. All the things you mentioned that you think is helping you and others are actually slow scams. They are ponzi schemes become jobs programs the government had to step in and force people to participate in once they got too big to fail, every now and then something of value comes out of it but that is not the main purpose.

Please provide some data on that. From what I have seen almost all of the money goes towards chronic conditions for those over 55. ER bills are nothing compared to that.

Fixed. The laws requiring emergency care to be given regardless of ability to pay are only a small part of the problem, though.

Rights...........

They suck when you want to have power over others.

If all citizens had no rights, except the rights dictators decide we are worthy of, it would be much easier to catch the terrorists.

The cost of caring for people in the ER is not represented in the ER only.  The cost of many of the ER bills is NOT PAID.  It is then distributed over all of the other bills because the hospital needs to stay in business.   Over testing is a huge problem cost and Obamacare reduces this but does not eliminate it.  Proper tort reform would help here.  Finally malpractice insurance cost is passed on to all patients because of the lack of tort reform. 

I like data. What is the total cost of ER bills not paid per year? What is the total amount paid out per year for malpractice insurance? How have these numbers changed over time?

edit: I mean it was your claim so I assume you have looked into it. I have looked into where the money comes from and its purpose as it enters the medical system (and can post that data, from a big study of approx 40k people IIRC) but not yet where it goes after.

Obama passed a law so insurance companies can't let customers use co-pays for prescriptions now. I was paying $200 a month for insurance and got my prescriptions for $15 bucks, now I pay $200 a month for my prescriptions and have no insurance. Obama is completely screwing health care, ask anyone who works in the field. He does whatever he want's whether it's legal or not, there will always be some ignorant fools to back him up.

Explain what happened..  Did your insurance bill go up and you decided not to pay? 

Sounds fishy because Obamacare has not changed things in relations to co-pays on prescriptions.  Obamacare has made it so insurance companies cannot charge for preventative checkups (that save money long term) as well as birth control (which also saves money).

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

I heard (though I can't guarantee it's veracity) that the cost of screening everyone for everything they might have (but don't) far outweighs the potential savings. Of course, it'd be nice for the individuals to get early treatment and not die horribly but in terms of sheer economics, it's a policy that pushes the cost of healthcare up (and we have nowhere near enough healthcare providers for it anyway).

Real world experience in most of the 1st world disagrees.  Regular checkups (not screening everyone for everything) do save money.  

Or maybe the rest of the world values saved lives over the cost. 

No it wen't down $20 because they couldn't offer the same plans. It went from $15 copay to $1,800 a year deductible.  Up until a couple months ago generic prescriptions could be covered with a copay. Now if a insurance company wants to offer a copay they need to included brand name drugs. Which is not a affordable option, so copay's have been removed. I've been told this by a few people that work at Lifewise. I have looked around for alternatives and the only plans I've seen with smaller deductibles, more then make up for in monthly charges.

Well again Obamacare did not make the change you refer to.

Insurance companies are allowed to charge co-pays for drugs.  They are allowed to charge different co-pays for different classes of drugs or have no co-pay at all.  Requiring a co-pay does not trigger a need for brand name drugs.  You must be referring to a state law change. 

I worry you are basing these claims on shaky data (like of the quality normally presented in the news). Nothing is ever that simple, it always depends on context. For example, perhaps regular checkups for those over 55 or with some other risk factor saves money, but not for large swaths of people. Regular could also be like once every 10 years.