Should I vote for Walker in the imminent Wisconsin election?

[RodeoX]

Walker has won fair and square. I don't care for his policies, but the people have spoken. No worries, being a rich white man means I will personally benefit from republicans being in power.

[cbeast]

Walker has won fair and square. I don't care for his policies, but the people have spoken. No worries, being a rich white man means I will personally benefit from republicans being in power.

Not true. My family's industrial real estate has lost 75% of its value in Wisconsin. I would never start a business in Wisconsin.

[RodeoX]

Walker has won fair and square. I don't care for his policies, but the people have spoken. No worries, being a rich white man means I will personally benefit from republicans being in power.

Not true. My family's industrial real estate has lost 75% of its value in Wisconsin. I would never start a business in Wisconsin.

I am just trying to make lemonade from the lemon we have as gov. It's not easy.
The real sad part is that he won by sheer spending power. That is the most important lesson. You CAN buy elections in America now.

[BCB]

Now that they are getting rid of unions, I expect that pensions and social security will be eliminated.

Won't be long.

[justusranvier]

Now that they are getting rid of unions, I expect that pensions and social security will be eliminated.

It doesn't matter what anyone wants or doesn't want. There just isn't any possible way to out all the benefits that people were promised.

[benjamindees]

Hating them would be totally wrong but they tested their "it doesn't matter if Bush or Gore wins" view and when they got Bush, they were yelling about it being a disaster.  In their case, they proved conclusively that voting does indeed matter.

If you think Joe Lieberman wouldn't have pressed the button to implode the WTC towers, and then blamed Saddam Hussein and rammed through the PATRIOT Act and sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan just like Dick Cheney did, you're delusional.  The talking points might have been slightly different, but the result would have been the same.

The choice between Gore or Bush was irrelevant.  The program moves forward no matter who you vote for.

[Hawker]

Hating them would be totally wrong but they tested their "it doesn't matter if Bush or Gore wins" view and when they got Bush, they were yelling about it being a disaster.  In their case, they proved conclusively that voting does indeed matter.

If you think Joe Lieberman wouldn't have pressed the button to implode the WTC towers, and then blamed Saddam Hussein and rammed through the PATRIOT Act and sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan just like Dick Cheney did, you're delusional.  The talking points might have been slightly different, but the result would have been the same.

The choice between Gore or Bush was irrelevant.  The program moves forward no matter who you vote for.

In someone believed even half of that nonsense, they won't be happy with any election result.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Because if you don't even vote when you have the chance you allow other people to choose the government and it's nonsense that you later say "bad government"
Non voting=other votes for you and choose the government for you

And if you don't play in the lottery other people will and somebody else will get the prize instead of you.

Do you really think that's enough of a rationale to justify playing in the lottery?

(btw, "bad government" is a pleonasm)

It's useless to speak about anarchy and liberal id you guys don't even vote for what YOU want.

It's useless to vote. Your vote won't make any difference. Use your time better. (for instance, by supporting projects which may actually have some impact in the amount of freedom we experience)

[FlipPro]

May I suggest broadening your horizons?

Sure you can. But I'm not sure what that means.

If being "hung up on proof and logic" means that I care whether factual statements are true or false and that's a "simplistic ideal" should I expand my horizons by believing things that are false?

The bulk of your posts seem to be a request for proof. That is not discussion, but simply a tactic to avoid further trading of information. Your asking for proof does not constitute a refutation of information put forth. Furthermore, you also asked me once what would be required to demonstrate proof to me. I obliged you with an answer indicating that I essentially desired quality discourse, to which you said was not satisfactory.

Regarding taxation: your fanatical fixation on the concept is pointless until you have explored in detail and depth the issues which plague humanity, the environment, and the economy. The subject matter is deep. Explore those concepts, the ramifications of ignoring them and the ramifications of alternative methods to taxation, and then discuss them (in detail). At that point, your position on taxation might be respectable.

What is not respectable is a general denouncement of taxation without deep discussion. Anyone can spread the simplistic memes of their favorite political ideology. It says nothing.

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

Thank you for your service..

I am a Bitcoiner to the core.

However, I refuse to except fantasy world solutions to complex real world socio-economic problems we face.

[hashman]

Because if you don't even vote when you have the chance you allow other people to choose the government and it's nonsense that you later say "bad government"
Non voting=other votes for you and choose the government for you

And if you don't play in the lottery other people will and somebody else will get the prize instead of you.

Do you really think that's enough of a rationale to justify playing in the lottery?

(btw, "bad government" is a pleonasm)

It's useless to speak about anarchy and liberal id you guys don't even vote for what YOU want.

It's useless to vote. Your vote won't make any difference. Use your time better. (for instance, by supporting projects which may actually have some impact in the amount of freedom we experience)

+1

Representative democracy is neither. 

And that would still be true even if there were some attempt to make elections legitimate. 

[FirstAscent]

May I suggest broadening your horizons?

Sure you can. But I'm not sure what that means.

If being "hung up on proof and logic" means that I care whether factual statements are true or false and that's a "simplistic ideal" should I expand my horizons by believing things that are false?

The bulk of your posts seem to be a request for proof. That is not discussion, but simply a tactic to avoid further trading of information. Your asking for proof does not constitute a refutation of information put forth. Furthermore, you also asked me once what would be required to demonstrate proof to me. I obliged you with an answer indicating that I essentially desired quality discourse, to which you said was not satisfactory.

Regarding taxation: your fanatical fixation on the concept is pointless until you have explored in detail and depth the issues which plague humanity, the environment, and the economy. The subject matter is deep. Explore those concepts, the ramifications of ignoring them and the ramifications of alternative methods to taxation, and then discuss them (in detail). At that point, your position on taxation might be respectable.

What is not respectable is a general denouncement of taxation without deep discussion. Anyone can spread the simplistic memes of their favorite political ideology. It says nothing.

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

Thank you for your service..

I am a Bitcoiner to the core.

However, I refuse to except fantasy world solutions to complex real world socio-economic problems we face.

It's nice to be appreciated. Thank you.

[ElMoIsEviL]

I don't think anything you've said here actually factors in the complexity of the socio-economic system we find ourselves in and the natural dependencies it requires to continue.

That certainly may be the case. If you don't mind me asking can you explain the methodology you used to arrive at that conclusion so that I can learn for myself how to avoid making such mistakes in the future?

A general scan of your posts indicates that you're hung up on proof and logic, as opposed to providing information, other than your general distaste for taxation. Both are rather simplistic ideals in the larger scheme of humanity. May I suggest broadening your horizons?

Wow dude you're ignorant as all hell.

Broadening horizons? Unoriginal? Ok Mr. Hipster lulz.

Did you know that your penchant for Physics is ironic when viewed through your negative prism of unoriginality and anti-simplicity?

What I mean to say is that physics accepts that in order for a theory to be widely accepted it ought to be "simple", "short" and "elegant" or "beautiful". Hence the term "Beautiful equations".

Things, which are simple, are logical. Logic is, in part, the deconstruction, into smaller parts, of complex socio/economic phenomena. To state that something is "simple" and therefore wrong is anti-physics (irony coming from someone who claims to be speaking in support of Physics).

Honestly my friend... you use big words but your existentialism is lacking in context and content. You are simply ignorant, holding on to false ideas derived out of illogical premises. In other words... you believe things absent evidence and thus appear to be ignorant of your own ignorance.

[FirstAscent]

I don't think anything you've said here actually factors in the complexity of the socio-economic system we find ourselves in and the natural dependencies it requires to continue.

That certainly may be the case. If you don't mind me asking can you explain the methodology you used to arrive at that conclusion so that I can learn for myself how to avoid making such mistakes in the future?

A general scan of your posts indicates that you're hung up on proof and logic, as opposed to providing information, other than your general distaste for taxation. Both are rather simplistic ideals in the larger scheme of humanity. May I suggest broadening your horizons?

Wow dude you're ignorant as all hell.

Broadening horizons? Unoriginal? Ok Mr. Hipster lulz.

Did you know that your penchant for Physics is ironic when viewed through your negative prism of unoriginality and anti-simplicity?

What I mean to say is that physics accepts that in order for a theory to be widely accepted it ought to be "simple", "short" and "elegant" or "beautiful". Hence the term "Beautiful equations".

Things, which are simple, are logical. Logic is, in part, the deconstruction, into smaller parts, of complex socio/economic phenomena. To state that something is "simple" and therefore wrong is anti-physics (irony coming from someone who claims to be speaking in support of Physics).

Honestly my friend... you use big words but your existentialism is lacking in context and content. You are simply ignorant, holding on to false ideas derived out of illogical premises. In other words... you believe things absent evidence and thus appear to be ignorant of your own ignorance.

What have you said here? Explain again, because I do not get it.

Do you want to talk about the socio/economic trajectory of humanity? Or are those words too big for you? Whatever the case, I'm game! Start a thread, and let's have at it. Right now. Start the thread.