Quote from: paxmao on September 28, 2024, 06:57:18 PM

Ok, so given these conditions it would seem that it is not an equilibrated proposal. I mean, both are near in the polls, popular vote an swing vote are largely undecided and it is fine to bet 1:1. But, given the conditions, there is an advantage to Suchmoon - that is, If any of the candidates dies before the election, the other player is certain to get a draw or a win. For now two attempts have been made on Trump vs zero for Kam so...

Why do you say that? I don't see anything explicitly about that in the conditions, and suchmoon told me by PM that if one of the two died at this point they would still be on the ballot the same. Maybe he tried to scam me, lol.

Quote from: suchmoon on Today at 12:22:07 AM

I don't know if I have the "ideal" candidate, just some less bad than others. I don't recall what specific policies Sanders was proposing. I would definitely support a serious candidate who would offer e.g. a proper healthcare reform. But that's unlikely to happen in my lifetime, what with healthcare lobby being probably third most powerful after defense and gun lobbies.

I am going to agree on this. Although I am generally in favor of leaving things to the private sector, I am not so much in healthcare because demand is inelastic. If the prices go up in a restaurant or the service gets worse you can go to another one or eat at home, you have several options. But if you have a heart attack you need to be treated now and you are not going to shop around.

Besides, things like this indicate that there is something sick, never better said, with how things work in the USA:

100 million people in America are saddled with medical debt

Medical bills account for 40% of bankruptcies (this article is old but I assume things haven't changed much).

The gambling sector has not historically given examples of good self-regulation either, and in this case I also believe that state intervention is a good thing.

Quote from: suchmoon on Today at 12:22:07 AM

Also anyone with a backbone to stand up to the whole racist immigration rhetoric would always have my support for obvious reasons.

Well, the racist rhetoric like “they are eating the cats” is worthy of an asshole but here I think we will differ because uncontrolled immigration processes, massive in a period of time, bring problems and historically it has been so (ghetto formation, non-integration, pressure on public services, etc.).

In the same way that saying “they are eating the cats” is a bullshit that wants to demonize all immigrants, thinking that if you put in millions of immigrants in a short period of time without background checks they will all be wonderful people who will not cause any problems is another bullshit. And I believe that in the case of the Democrats they do it from a business perspective as I explained above, it is a way to buy voters.