No, I expect the government to subsidise research and development of new technologies as they have for the last 150 or so years.
[quote=âJonasEggeater, post:7, topic:79331â]
I would love to see Bernie on the ticket with Jill Stein.[/quote]
Dr. Jill Stein on Democracy Now: Senator and supporters, we want you.
Fair points generally, though if thereâs one thing we can count on from the modern GOP, itâs that substantive criticisms take the back seat to sensationalist ones.
Whoever the candidates are, for ALL the parties, I simply exhort people to vote their conscience.
Didnât notice youâd already posted this article, but it bears repeating!
2000 was my first presidential election. I voted Nader. In Ohio. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I still like those positions, but there is also this thing called reality and the fact that those views are a minority perspective. I will take a pragmatic politician on my side of the divide over a unicorn candidate these days. I thought there was no way Bush could win. I am not repeating that mistake with Trump.
It is also called compromise and it is something that is sadly missing from governance today.
And what if Bernie was your compromise?
Basic research is primarily supported by your federal tax dollars. Public support for basic research has yielded most modern advances in applied technology and medicine. Corporations often spin out from or leverage federally funded basic research to make these advances. So, I do expect the government to continue supporting and hopefully expand support for basic research. Federal support for basic research has been steadily declining for years and the sequester (remember that game of chicken?) is still wreaking havoc on research programs.
Compromise? Or vote for a third party that makes you 100% happy? Iâll take lesser of two evils and compromise. Nobody will be 100% happy, but thatâs what happens when you find a path between divergent views. It is not like the other 50% of the country that supports the GOP disappears if Sanders was elected or that they can simply be ignoredâŚ
And how much compromise would be too much? Bear in mind my political views are a lot closer to Emma Goldmanâs than Hillary Clintonâs or Bernie Sanderâs.
âNot Insaneâ is a really great slogan. Might need to borrow that somehow.
Well I would like a demarchy, but thatâs life.
Iâm convinced RBG is capable of staying alive out of sheer force of defiant will.
No. I actually retracted that almost immediately afterwards; as I said, voting for a third-party candidate is quite meaningful, if you believe in their platform and their candidate. I think having a strong third party showing is always very positive. But if youâre voting third party specifically (and only) to protest Hillary, then I have very little respect for that sort of thing.
Clinton supporters: Poor winners.
âNow you have to vote for her! Ha ha!â
No, we donât.
Just so weâre clear: you donât feel that preventing Trump from being elected, at all costs, is paramount?