US Presidential Election Poll

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

Presidential Election '12 Poll

Barack Obama (incumbent) Democrat
31
61%
Mitt Romney - Republican
10
20%
Gary Johnson - Libertarian
1
2%
Jill Stein - Green
3
6%
Ron Paul - Republican (actually Libertarian)
6
12%
Virgil Goode - Constitution
0
No votes
Rocky Anderson - Justice
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 51
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:13 pm

xander wrote:"Giving" to a charity in order to make a profit is orthogonal to charitable giving. Anyone who is willing to exploit a charity for their own profit is, as far as I am concerned, immoral. The rest is quibbling about degree.

xander

Does this mean buying a lottery ticket, which funds something like education, is immoral? I meant to ask this last week, but completely forgot. :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:34 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
xander wrote:"Giving" to a charity in order to make a profit is orthogonal to charitable giving. Anyone who is willing to exploit a charity for their own profit is, as far as I am concerned, immoral. The rest is quibbling about degree.

xander

Does this mean buying a lottery ticket, which funds something like education, is immoral? I meant to ask this last week, but completely forgot. :P

A key word there may be "exploit". Those kind of lotteries are often hugely unfair for the buyer, and it's hard to claim you're exploiting something when, statistically speaking, you're losing money while they're raking it in.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:00 pm

So, lotteries themselves are immoral?

True, you may not be exploiting the lottery, because you can't, but does that really change anything? In both cases, you are giving so that you have the possibility to reap a larger return, and in both cases, you are funding something worhwhile. In short, the approach of the individual is more or less the same, right?

Also, isn't a person who gives very very little, still giving more than those who give zero? :P

Remember, I'm not a Romney supporter, just askin' questions.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:45 pm

Feud wrote:Both move the effort from a more republican decision process to a more democratic one. Personally, I am not much in favor of them beyond the municipal level, with rare constitutional exceptions.

Holy shit! Do we actually agree on something political?!

xander

EDIT: Lotteries are a bad example. I consider lotteries to basically be a tax on people with a poor understanding of statistics. Those that buy lottery tickets tend to be less well educated and in lower income brackets. As such, lotteries are, at the end of the day, a regressive taxation scheme (rather than a charity). I would prefer that lotteries be eliminated, and schools be funded through increased income taxes, or taxes on luxury items (i.e. not food, clothing, and other essentials). And I say that as someone who lives in a state that runs on casino money.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:50 pm

So, was that a yes? :?

:P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:00 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:So, was that a yes? :?

:P

Buying a lottery ticket is not immoral, just stupid. Selling a lottery ticket is immoral. Still, lotteries are a bad example---they are not charities.

xander
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:16 pm

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:Both move the effort from a more republican decision process to a more democratic one. Personally, I am not much in favor of them beyond the municipal level, with rare constitutional exceptions.

Holy shit! Do we actually agree on something political?!

xander

EDIT: Lotteries are a bad example. I consider lotteries to basically be a tax on people with a poor understanding of statistics. Those that buy lottery tickets tend to be less well educated and in lower income brackets. As such, lotteries are, at the end of the day, a regressive taxation scheme (rather than a charity). I would prefer that lotteries be eliminated, and schools be funded through increased income taxes, or taxes on luxury items (i.e. not food, clothing, and other essentials). And I say that as someone who lives in a state that runs on casino money.


Isn't the lottery very much like voting in that case? The chance that your individual vote swings the election is probably smaller than the change you win the lottery don't you think?
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:48 pm

xander wrote:Buying a lottery ticket is not immoral, just stupid. Selling a lottery ticket is immoral. Still, lotteries are a bad example---they are not charities.

xander


I disagree about the stupid thing, unless you actually expect to win and get upset when you don't...I buy lottery tickets because I might win, I definitely won't win if I don't buy a ticket. Over here our major lotteries are not charities but do pay a percentage to "good causes", so that's nice too.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:56 pm

ynbniar wrote:I disagree about the stupid thing, unless you actually expect to win and get upset when you don't...I buy lottery tickets because I might win, I definitely won't win if I don't buy a ticket. Over here our major lotteries are not charities but do pay a percentage to "good causes", so that's nice too.

It is stupid if you don't understand the maths behind it. Like I said, most lotteries are unfair, this means that on average you spend more money than what you gain and in the case of lotteries the difference between gain/investment tends to be pretty massive.

If you want to gamble, by all means gamble, but I would recommend something with fairer odds.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:15 am

zjoere wrote:Isn't the lottery very much like voting in that case? The chance that your individual vote swings the election is probably smaller than the change you win the lottery don't you think?

If you want to make the analogy (I don't think it is a good one, but whatever), then voting is stupid. However, giving people the ability to vote (analogous to selling a lotter ticket, I suppose) is not immoral, as granting the right to vote is not exploiting those that are voting.

ynbniar wrote:I disagree about the stupid thing, unless you actually expect to win and get upset when you don't...I buy lottery tickets because I might win, I definitely won't win if I don't buy a ticket.

The probability of winning is zero to several decimal places. On average, you will make more money by keeping a savings account that pays 0.5% interest. Sure, you could win, but it is stupid to believe that you will. You are free to spend money on stupid things (I know I do), but that doesn't make them any less stupid. That said, the point was not that gambling is stupid (I happen to think that it is, but intelligent people of good will can disagree on the point), but that government sponsored gambling in the name of funding public projects is immoral.

ynbniar wrote:Over here our major lotteries are not charities but do pay a percentage to "good causes", so that's nice too.

If the point is to get money to good causes, then why not give to those causes directly? Instead of getting a one dollar lottery ticket that pays 10 cents to the local school district (or whatever), why not just give a dollar to the local school district (or whatever).

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:17 am

xander wrote:
ynbniar wrote:Over here our major lotteries are not charities but do pay a percentage to "good causes", so that's nice too.

If the point is to get money to good causes, then why not give to those causes directly? Instead of getting a one dollar lottery ticket that pays 10 cents to the local school district (or whatever), why not just give a dollar to the local school district (or whatever).

xander

Simple; he's immoral and wants to gain the impossible... ;p
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:43 am

xander wrote:
Feud wrote:Both move the effort from a more republican decision process to a more democratic one. Personally, I am not much in favor of them beyond the municipal level, with rare constitutional exceptions.

Holy shit! Do we actually agree on something political?!


Speaking of small odds... :wink:
User avatar
AIRburst95
level3
level3
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:01 am
Location: Seattle(ish), WA

Postby AIRburst95 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:06 am

Ok guys we called it last night but I just wanted to wait to see how my states ballot initiatives turned out (it came out pretty close actually)

As we all know by now, President Barack Obama will continue his time in office four more years.
He won the presidency by a total 303 electoral votes to 206, however since the electoral college system is only implemented in the US, and the lot of you live elsewhere, i'll make it simple for you all.



Popular Vote (Only Important State-by-State) Obama: 60,569,658 Romney: 57,747,115

Electoral College Obama: 303 Romney: 206



Currently the House of Representatives is controlled (majority) by Republicans 233 - 193

Currently the Senate is controlled by Democrats 53 - 45

In layman's terms, this simply means that for anything to pass as a law or otherwise through congress, it must be bipartisan.



Here are (in my opinion) some of the more important ballot measures from Washington State

Initiative Measure No. 1185 (for taxes and fee increases imposed by the state government to pass, they must garner 2/3 state congress support)

Yes - 64.68%

No - 35.32%

Referendum Measure No. 74 (same sex marriage legalization)

Approved - 51.67%

Rejected - 48.33%

Initiative Measure No. 502 (marijuana legalization)

Approved - 55.29%

Rejected - 44.71%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of the states in the Union feel free to leave a reply entailing your state measures.
User avatar
zjoere
level5
level5
Posts: 1623
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:40 pm
Location: Belgium

Postby zjoere » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:02 am

same sex marriage and marijuana? it's not fair if part of the states are getting less restrictive than us! We don't have legalized marijuana. Now how can we keep the moral highground? :wink:

Also some of you haven't signed up for the TWG yet, go do it now so it can rise above the spam!
You're so vain, you probably think this sig is about you
DHKold
level1
level1
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:29 am

Postby DHKold » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:49 am

Xocrates wrote:It is stupid if you don't understand the maths behind it. Like I said, most lotteries are unfair, this means that on average you spend more money than what you gain and in the case of lotteries the difference between gain/investment tends to be pretty massive.

Its seems difficult to have a closed economic circuit where everyone "statistically" win... And I would say, since nobody is forcing anyone to buy tickets, that there is absolutly no problems with ALLOWING people to buy them. I don't know how they are in USA, but here the gain probability are clearly indicated in the back of every ticket delivered.
I though USA was build on freedom, why forbid people to act stupid if they want to?

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests