What are /r/PoliticalDiscussion's favorite Products & Services?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Joe Biden is an inspiration, but he shouldn't run in 2020. I honestly don't think he'll have much of a chance. Some great democratic alternatives are Jason Kander of Missouri and Gavin Newsom. Kander may be a rising star in the party.

If anyone wants to get more insight on Kander, he spoke with former Obama advisers a few weeks ago. They encouraged him to be "front and center" in the party because he has the same sincerity that their boss had 10 years ago.

EDIT: You guys have convinced me that Newsom may not be the best choice. Someone once mentioned Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, but he's currently bidding for DNC chair.

>For example, how would a African-American family, same-sex couples, Muslim family, etc. be able to procure services in a rural area or a general area where the local inhabitants are not welcoming or distrustful of people who are not part of their communities.

before answering that question it's important to ascertain the underlying point. Libertarians tend to believe that irrespective of your good intentions, it's immoral to force somebody else to do something they don't want to often arguing it is involuntary servitude.

The most often posited example is this, if someone has a broken down car on the side of the road, while I should help them, is it right for the government to force me to help them? Is that not antithetical to freedom? If I'm picking my boyfriend and I chose to deny one because of his color is that wrong? yeah probably. Should the government force me to marry him? no of course not. While that's a more extreme example, libertarians see it as the same. They argue that while the result may not be bad, forcing people to engage in acts, with the threat of guns and being kidnapped and caged by police, is more immoral. A somewhat kantian perspective.

Many of them would argue that the vast majority of discrimination that led to the civil rights act was due to government intervention, often arguing that businesses would be forced to lose profit if they wouldn't serve blacks. Pointing to bus boycotts in the south and their effect.

here are some people that agree with this view

sowell a black economist

Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom

walter williams another black economist

Judge Posner in his book An analysis of Law and Economics and stated that private discrimination would be found to inefficient and would be corrected.

It’s important, though to step back and realize things can change pretty quickly. In their 2004 book , John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira predicted an unbeatable democratic majority starting in 2008 that was going to last a generation. Now here we are ten years later, talking about an unbeatable Republican majority that will last a generation.

But if you want to take a lesson from how the republicans reacted to 2006 and 2008: get motivated to win state government elections for Democrats before the 2020 census.

Maybe, but murky at best.

This is a good writeup on it.

Since there's no legal definition of "armed" and "attack" is murky as well, at best it would be an enormous stretch.

NATO wasn't built or designed for cyber attacks (outside of a war) and trying to press it into such service is a bad idea.

It's actually quite the opposite - 401K deferral rates actually go up as you get wealthier. On it's own, capping the 401K limit would be a progressive shift in the tax code.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea, and I have a sneaking suspicion this money wouldn't go to expand the EITC or anything. But it would actually be a tax increase on wealthy individuals.

Pennsylvania (Clinton +8): Clinton 45, Trump 37, Johnson 6, Stein 2

Pennsylvania Senate (Tie): McGinty 39, Toomey 39

North Carolina (Clinton +4): Clinton 46, Trump 42, Johnson 4, Stein 2

North Carolina (Ross +1): Burr 40, Ross 41

Source: CBS / YouGov Poll

>do we really have the moral high ground when we tell them to mind their own business?

Abso-fucking-lutely.

As summarized in a email to The Guardian in 2004:

>The US presidental election isn't just about foreign policy, it's about healthcare, taxes, education, transportation, natural resources and all manner of issues with little to no impact on the people of Britain.

>We live in a globalised, interconnected world. If China shuts its borders to US imports, you better believe American companies, shareholders and workers are affected. Should US citizens therefore have a direct say in Chinese policies? No - Americans should demand that their own elected leaders address the issues with their Chinese counterparts. The British have a similar voice in US policies - through your own elected representatives who have any number of diplomatic, economic and military tools at their disposal. You vote for your leaders and we'll vote for ours. Your problem is with your leaders, not ours.

But it still doesn't make sense that you should be required to pay the tax penalty when you would qualify for expanded Medicaid. That seems like a perverse side effect of the denial of the Medicaid expansion. If your local congressman is unresponsive, then contact someone nationally.

Quick search turned up this blurb on the healthcare.gov site:

>Under the law, most people must have health coverage or pay a fee. But you won’t have to pay this fee if you live in a state that hasn’t expanded Medicaid and you would have qualified if it had. This is called having an exemption from the fee. You can get an exemption when you apply for coverage in the Marketplace. Or you can apply for the exemption without having to fill out a Marketplace application.

PPP Poll of Nevada:

Hillary 45

Trump 42

Favorables:

Hillary: 40/55

Trump: 38/45

Senate:

Cortez Masto: 42

Heck: 41

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/498890836/poll-white-evangelicals-have-warmed-to-politicians-who-commit-immoral-acts

>In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelicals said that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now, 72 percent say so — a far bigger swing than other religious groups the poll studied.

If you think abortion is murder and you've got the choice between Clinton or Trump and this is the deciding issue for you, then it's pretty obvious who you should vote for.

The minority report wasn't actually written by anyone from the credentials committee, it was written by someone on the Sanders central office staff.

"The most egregious instance of the Sanders Campaign inciting disruption—and yes, violence—came as the State Convention’s Credentials Committee completed its work. Adam Gillette, part of National Delegate Operations Team for the official Sanders Campaign, drafted and arranged for a member of that committee to attempt to deliver an incendiary, inaccurate, and wholly unauthorized “minority report” charging that the Credentials Committee had fraudulently denied 64 Sanders delegates their eligibility. The final delegate count had provided the Clinton Campaign with a 33 delegate advantage in the hall; one can imagine the rage occasioned by this inflammatory charge, tossed into the tinderbox of a tense convention hall. Not only did this discredit the work of the Credentials Committee—which featured five Sanders delegates and five Clinton delegates and a Sanders co-chair, and who worked all day under extremely trying conditions to be fair and diligent in their duties—it called into question the entirety of the proceedings because it indicated to an irrational minority that the proceedings had been rigged against them. Forcing their way onto the dais to deliver this paranoid fantasy of fraud and delegate theft was clearly intended to throw the proceedings into disarray.

It succeeded. From that moment on, there was little hope for any peace or mutual understanding and respect between Sanders delegates and the NSDP; the mantra became simply that the convention had been stolen from the Sanders Campaign."

Among Russian liberals (something like 10-15% of the population), she's considered the best candidate for President. There was recently an article on Meduza (a Russian independent media outlet) titled "Good President, Bad Candidate," in which the author attempts to make sense of why Hillary isn't doing as well against Bernie.

He summarizes by saying,

>Clinton has many strengths — perseverance, unyieldingness and four years of experience in the highest public office. But all of these are good qualities for a president, and not a presidential candidate.

From what I can tell, Ukrainians seem to think the same thing.

Additionally, there's an article on thequestion.ru, where they ask journalists / notable figures what a Clinton presidency would mean for Russia.

One journalist responded with the following (which answers what Russian nationalists / Putin supporters would think):

>Nothing will change. Except that they'll change the family names on the bumperstickers that say, "Obama is a schmo."

Which is to say that the average Russian will hate Hillary just as much as they hate Obama, and instead of saying super racist shit about Obama, they'll say super sexist shit about Hillary.

64 were deemed ineligible before the convention.

8 of them showed up.

6 of those who showed up were granted entry.

Source.

Milton Friedman explains this really well in Capitalism and Freedom. Up to a certain point, the education of a person benefits all of society. They can take care of themselves, make a livable income, and learn basic morality in school. After a certain point, the education benefits them more than it benefits society. They can make a higher income, become more knowledgeable etc. Since it benefits them at that point more than it benefits society, that is when they should pay for their education.

I do believe; however, that there should be more opportunities for specialization of learning and trade school. I also think that experience should be valued more than a piece of paper degree from college, but that is a societal change and a total tangent...

Also, from a policy standpoint I find it very morally difficult to justify someone who is probably not making as much money paying for another person to go to college...

That sucks. Sorry to hear that. I found this page dealing with the exemption from the payment. Maybe with the premium increase you'll fall within the exemption.

Have you seen "Little White Lie"? (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/movies/little-white-lie-lacey-schwartzs-film-about-self-discovery.html)

There are tons of people of mediterranean-ish heritage that don't look "white", but they don't obsess about their status because they have enough corroborating data to back it up ("my family's from sicily, this is what my parents look like, etc"). While individual person-to-person random racism on the street is highly appearance-driven, race assessments in other situations are much more complex ("how do they talk?", "what's their last name?", "what's their economic background?")

FWIW my grandparents still don't consider Italians "white".

They might be talking about this: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10945

and this: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643

But I don't see those as particularly damning, so I'm also wondering if there's a smoking gun in another email I missed. If not, the current smoking gun seems more like a starter pistol.

I question the staying power while admitting it would be a huge success initially.

There's no doubt a market for these fringe political news "networks" but no one has struck oil. Sarah Palin tried it, failed. Glenn Beck tried it, and is in the process of failing. There's a couple more high profile examples and dozens of small timers.

Somehow I think that Trump losing would tarnish his reputation somewhat, even though there are going to be a lot of unhappy people.

The authors of Democracy for Realists argue the opposite, that direct democracy itself is often counterproductive since most citizens don't have the time to deeply understand many political issues.

They use the example of ballot initiatives to show that even when people come to the polls they often simply decline to vote on many initiatives at all. In addition, the mere wording of ballot initiatives affects how people vote. Can you really call that democracy in that circumstance?

Voting shouldn't be understood as supporting any policy position at all, but rather as a way to keep politicians accountable. Not that it is a great mechanism for that either, but attempts to use direct democracy instead of electing representatives will have counter-intuitive effects that won't produce better democracy.

This conversation is exactly what Trump wants to happen. Read this article, it's incredibly important to what's happening now with Trump and the media.

By pumping out a mixture of truths, half-truths, and outright lies the public never knows what to believe and what not to believe. The result is that facts become reduced opinions, nobody knows what's true or who to trust. Trump can then say to the public; look, I know the world is confusing and unpredictable - but I can provide you with strength and security. Not everyone will trust him, but he only needs a minority of loyal followers, and for the majority to be in a state of confusion and unable to respond.

Trump is taking a leaf directly out of the Putin handbook, it really is an incredibly dangerous situation.

Just heard today(but have yet to verify) that body cameras arw causing an increase in police shootings, a 3% rise. supposedly because the cop has greater proof thar their shooting was justified.

Edit, heres the source https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/321030516/Police-Body-Cams#from_embed take from it what you will.

The Vietnam ERA saw men who weren't connected enough to avoid the draft get shipped off to a jungle and possibly die. When they returned back broken they were called baby-killers by the same elitists that were lucky enough to avoid the draft by either being born female, or being part of the right family.

A good answer on Quora on how they were treated

We've swung very far in the other direction, and in my opinion it's trying to right the wrongs of the way the Vietnam-era military members were treated.

Hopefully it levels out and people can quit thanking me for my service when they found out I was in the military. It creates an awkward situation, and I didn't do it for them. I did it to set myself up better in life via the GI Bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jun/12/florida-nightclub-shooting-terrorism-suspect-updates

> "Florida senator Bill Nelson has just clarified his remarks about thinking of FBI intelligence officials, saying that some officials believe there is a link to "radicalism", an not necessarily the terror group Islamic State."

sigh Why isn't there some sort "please wait a minimum amount of time /before/ you start mentioning details"?

Everything you just wrote is the opposite of true. The whole idea of demographics shifts changing party dominance is a meme.

And here's a ton of sources about minorities buying guns in surging numbers recently.

https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/fee-for-not-being-covered/

> The fee is calculated 2 different ways – as a percentage of your household income, and per person. You’ll pay whichever is higher.

> Percentage of income > > 2.5% of household income > Maximum: Total yearly premium for the national average price of a Bronze plan sold through the Marketplace

Basically, the penalty, at minimum, is the price of getting healthcare at the cheapest, while being possibly vastly more at 2.5% of your income.

The problem isn't the mandate. People who 'can' get health insurance 'are' getting health insurance. The problem continues to be that there's a huge chunk of the country that needs it, but can't afford it, and can't afford to get on Medicaid since a good number of GOP states refused the Medicaid expansion for political reasons.

You might be interested in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt which has to do with the moral psychology of the left and right.

The main gist of the book is that people have several different hard wired foundations for morality... things that we are predisposed by human psychology to see as good vs. evil. He tentatively identified five of them as: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation (and he later added another: Liberty/Oppression). He ran a variety of studies to get people to rank how important each of these foundations were to them and discovered that people on the left prioritized Care/Harm over all others (Fairness/Cheating was also important to leftists but less so... the other three were not important at all). The right surprisingly was almost as compassionate ranking Care/Harm only slightly lower than the left did but they ranked all others much higher to the point where all five (and later six) moral foundations are ranked roughly equally in the right wing world view. In instances where left and right disagree there is almost always one or more of the other moral foundations which the right is balancing against compassion and which the left is disregarding as unimportant.

The book is of course much more involved that that discussing where and how he came up with his thesis, the experiments he did and his speculation about the social utility of each of the moral foundations and why they appear to be hard-wired in our heads and changes he made to his theory along the way. It's definitely worth reading.

The article points out that Art of the Deal isn't even one of the best selling business books, let alone 'one of the best selling of all time' and politifact rates it false http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/06/donald-trump/donald-trumps-art-deal-best-selling-business-book-/ "While the book was very successful, it comes nowhere near claiming the title of top seller. Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People and Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People easily outpace it."

Apparently he's never heard about "opposition research" which all campaigns do do hold the other candidates feet to the fire.

This isn't something "the media" just invented against Carson either. It's been done since ancient times. Was done by the Roman Cicero and is described in "such ancient texts as The Art of War, published in the 5th century B.C. by Sun Tzu."

"writers such as Thomas Paine or Benjamin Franklin conducted opposition research and published their results."

wiki:

Opposition research (often referred to as oppo) is a term used to classify and describe efforts of supporters or paid consultants of a political candidate to legally investigate the biographical, legal or criminal, medical, educational, financial, public and private administrative and or voting records of the opposing candidate, as well as prior media coverage. The research is usually conducted in the time period between announcement of intent to run and the actual election; however political parties maintain long-term databases that can cover several decades.

>It looks like Trump's resistance will never quite overcome its faction-based association.

Its already happening, White women are being told to "listen more and talk less".

Thats fair. There is also this:

> Subject: Re: Politico - Sanders: Democratic Party hasn't been fair to me

>Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.

>DWS

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477

In a recent poll 51% of americans favored a ban on muslim travellers.

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/30/majority-of-americans-now-support-trumps-proposed-muslim-ban-poll-shows/

There is a very substantial anti-muslim sentiment currently. Those asshats know as ISIS are messing it up for everyone. It would be sheer lunacy for HRC to do that. Trump would play on voter fears about what if HRC gets indicted or (god forbid) dies, then america has a muslim president who lowers our shields and allows the barbarian horde inside to kill us all.

I mean it only got 47 positive reviews out of 48 (the new york post didn't like it).

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/13th/

It's also not really about Trump. It's a documentary that traces the history of slavery to mass incarceration today, from a respected filmmaker. It's neither a "hit piece" nor anti-intellectual -- so not sure what synopsis you're reading....

Edit to add: Alan Peterson (Director of Hillary: The Movie and *Fahrenhype 9/11 - a truther doc) is no Ana DuVernay (Director of 13th and Selma). I promise you, she doesn't need "Dark Money" to make a documentary about the history of African Americans in this country. That's like saying James Cameron needed "dark money" to make Avatar because it thematically dealt with climate change.. You can disagree with the conclusions of her film, but this isn't in the same universe as counterfactual propagandistic garbage docs. It's just qualitatively a very different work. Maybe you should watch it before ignorantly shooting from the hip.

1950s Republicans are best summed up by this quote:

> Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

• Dwight D. Eisenhower

https://www.scribd.com/document/320429064/160802-Topline-Trend-v2-AP

Morning Consult: Clinton up 46-37 head to head, 41-33 with 3rd parties included. Clinton was up only 5 immediately after the DNC in their previous poll, so Clinton's lead has actually expanded.

I think these two articles say it best and explain why an example won't be found, and doesn't need to be found.

Barack Obama Never Said Money Wasn’t Corrupting; In Fact, He Said the Opposite

To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument

> And until the USPS gets off the hook on its absurd regulation of having to fund retirements for workers not even born yet, they're going to have to increase revenue.

What in the world is this about? (I looked it up - ARTICLE HERE - for those interested.)

So, is that just one of those insane regulations that was originally well-meaning, or was it pushed for by people who want to bankrupt the USPS and replace it with private ownership?

Directing subordinates to lie under oath is the first article of impeachment against Nixon. Cohen is alleging Trump directed him to lie under oath.

As for history books, I'd like to recommend this one?

If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.

But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.

There was the poll discussed in this article: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

> Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. ...

> Party seems to have had something to do with it — Sanders-Trump voters were much less likely than Sanders-Clinton or Sanders-third party voters to have been Democrats. Likewise, approval of President Barack Obama appears to be related — Sanders-Trump voters approved of Obama much less than other Sanders primary voters. ... And then there is race. Nearly half of Sanders-Trump voters disagree with the idea that "white people have advantages."

No no no, that's a myth and a damn widely spread one. Social security will not go bankrupt.

If nothing changes, you're looking at 75% of current payouts, not 0%.

>Of course, it would unacceptable for the program not to pay promised benefits, but it is wrong to imply that people face a prospect of not collecting Social Security 16 years down the road. There is no scenario under current law where that is possible.

The only way SS would actually go completely bankrupt would be if some massive political or societal change happened. Something like an extremely dramatic drop in the birth rate could do it, but if things like that are happening we have bigger issues than SS running out.

>He's not trying to limit the 1st amendment, unlike other presidential candidates.

You are pretty wrong here.

Trump says he wants to "open up" libel laws so that it is easier to sue the press. Our libel laws are restrained by the First Amendment. "Opening up" libel laws would be limiting or abolishing the First Amendment protections for free speech.

Today, Trump said that he would deport lawful residents if they expressed viewpoints deemed hateful. Every person in this country, whether they are citizens, lawful permanent residents, or anything else, has First Amendment rights as long as they are physically in this country. The First Amendment prohibits the government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. This policy is viewpoint discrimination.

Trump also spoke today (and previously) about requiring people in the US Muslim community to work with law enforcement to root out "radical islamic" terrorists. Treating one religious group differently than others violates the free expression and anti-establishment clauses of the First Amendment. It also violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

Those are off the top of my head. Trump is an enemy of the First Amendment.

> Some of the leaked emails had headers indicating they were SCI level, aka the 'lol that doesn't exist' level of security.

SCI isn't a higher level of security than Top Secret, and, AFAIK, people who get TS clearances also get SCI clearances since both require a single scope background investigation. Far from being "that doesn't exist" level, the use of SCI is rampant on job listings, and can be read about by curious perusers on Wikipedia.

Further, intent does matter. From 18 U.S. Code § 1924:

> (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

This independent article says it better

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-ethics-council-calls-for-incest-between-siblings-to-be-legalised-by-government-9753506.html

What it talks about is siblings that were separated at birth finding each other at later times and beginning a relationship. It is still incest even though both parties don't realize they were related and because it is incest both parties are sentenced to jail. The council said they should only decriminalize sibling relationships not relationships between parents and children.

The German Ethics Council also seems like a small/new group. More in line with thinktanks and not actual government branches or courts with power.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-Germanys-National-Ethics-Council

>Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

Now you go.

If you want a bit of everything, here's a short list. Not all of these are necessarily good books, easy reads, particularly fun, moral, or objectively correct, but they're all highly influential and worth looking into at the very least:

• Leviathan by Hobbes

• Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

• The Prince by Machiavelli

• The Republic by Plato

• Two Treatises of Government by Locke

• On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

• Democracy in America by de Tocqueville

• The Communist Manifesto by Marx

• Mein Kampf by Hitler

• 1984 by Orwell

• Animal Farm, again, by Orwell

• Das Kapital by Marx

• Atlas Shrugged by Rand

• The Social Contract by Rousseau

• The Rights of Man by Paine

• Brave New World by Huxley

• The Federalist by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

• Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

• The Audacity of Hope by Obama

• Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of the Power by Kant

• The Art of War by Sun Tzu

• The Jungle by Upton Sinclair

• On the Origin of Species by Darwin

Marx was an excellent writer, and could be quite witty. Make no mistake about that.

The Wealth of Nations is not comparable to The Communist Manifesto — one is, well, a manifesto. I would compare the former more to Das Kapital, and I can't read the later in the original German. They're both long works of political and economic philosophy, though Marx's is perhaps more important in being a critique of a system already in place, and the critic has all the advantages. Both are laborious to read.

Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is, in my opinion, a better read than The Wealth of Nations. Marx is in top form in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. I would consider both of those higher works of literature, and perhaps more revealing about their respective philosophies than The Wealth of Nations or The Communist Manifesto.

Using the word "justified" is begging the question.

I guess Americans didn't notice that torture never revealed any information, there were never any imminent threats involved, and the whole thing was illegal? Sounds like you didn't notice for one. Where's your outrage? But hey, if an innocent person can be detained for 13 years without habeas corpus and the outrage was... tepid, what could I expect?

Here's a question for you, if most people support torture, why did officials strenuously insist it wasn't torture, but rather "enhanced interrogation"?

> Palestinians can't be trusted to accept a peaceful solution.

At this point you just seem to be stubbornly holding to a pre-conceived bias despite being repeatedly disproven, and even after admitting to your own ignorance on the subject.

The Palestinian Authority has pushed hard for peace deals for years. Decades, even. They have been continuously shut down by the right wing government (or more specifically, Netanyahu) in Israel. At one point the Israeli negotiator even candidly admitted that the Israeli government have been deliberately dragging the negotiations out with unreasonable demands in order to buy time for changing the facts on the ground (i.e. with settlements).

Part of the reason behind Hamas' rise to power is that the Palestinian Authority's attempt for peace has been thoroughly discredited as being unproductive.

> You get nothing, you lose, good day sir!

This is how you provoke an Intifada. You can't make peace on the basis that the other side gets "nothing", unless you're prepared to genocide them.

Trump campaigned on the premise that the Obama recovery was a hoax and that he could do better... I'm not saying I agree with Trump myself, but is it not fair to hold him to his own campaign promises?

> "Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/upshot/the-real-jobless-rate-is-42-percent-donald-trump-has-a-point-sort-of.html

many of his voters seem to be people who felt like they were left behind by Obama's recovery.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/312844982/160516-Letter-DNC-RBC-NVDemsConvention

This is the full letter from the Nevada Dems. They reference the fact here:

Never mind that six of the 64 potential Sanders delegates referenced had been seated after investigation, or that most of the remaining 58 potential delegates had been disqualified—appropriately, and by a panel evenly split between the campaigns—for not being registered Democratic voters in Nevada. Never mind that the same Credentials Committee had disqualified Clinton delegates for various reasons as well. Never mind, further, that just eight of those 64 potential Sanders delegates even attempted to register for the State Convention.

I remember this article. Downside is how it tries to pin the blame on Goldwater. Who knew that the religious right was uncompromising too, making Congress the way it is.

>“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

The small government not supporting Civil Rights has not been fixed either, with Rand Paul having the same opinion with the Civil Rights Act in 2010 or so when talking with Rachel Maddow.

> Trump has very little on the ground organization in any of the states.

False.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/donald-trump-campaign-turnout-operation/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-donald-trumps-ground-game-looks-in-early-states-2015-11-23

>“But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”

That right there is 100% disqualifying.

Obligatory:

>Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. -- Barry Goldwater

> In my opinion the main evil of the present democratic institutions of the United States does not arise, as is often asserted in Europe, from their weakness, but from their overpowering strength; and I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the very inadequate securities which exist against tyranny. > >When an individual or a party is wronged in the United States, to whom can he apply for redress? If to public opinion, public opinion constitutes the majority; if to the legislature, it represents the majority, and implicitly obeys its injunctions; if to the executive power, it is appointed by the majority, and remains a passive tool in its hands; the public troops consist of the majority under arms; the jury is the majority invested with the right of hearing judicial cases; and in certain States even the judges are elected by the majority. However iniquitous or absurd the evil of which you complain may be, you must submit to it as well as you can.

...

> If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation, and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.

• Alexis de Tocqueville, <em>Democracy in America</em>, Chapter XV Part II

8. I'll take gas prices on. The price of gas has fluctuated a lot during the last few years, so making a claim that implies the president caused the price change is rather bold. From what I could find, the price of gas did technically double from when he got into office (~1.70/Gal) to the current price (~3.70/Gal), but that technicality overlooks the giant price crater in that exact time region that he stepped into office. 6 months earler it was at a high of 4.12/Gal. As another fun note, the second term of George Bush's presidency had pretty much the exact same change in gas price.

This sub is frequented by mostly hardcore partisan democrats with a strong minority of far-right libertarians. This is not the place to get an unbiased look at Obama. Better way to go about it is to look at what policies he's enacted and decide whether or not you agree with them. It seems like you are more in the mood for finding what political views you actually hold and not really wanting closure on Obama's presidency. Figure out what your core values are first and your views on different issues will pretty much sort themselves out. Individual liberty or collective good is a great place to start. Try reading various conservative or liberal thinkers. I suggest Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" or F.A. Hayek's "The Road To Serfdom" on the right, and Michael Walzer's "Spheres of Justice" or John Rawls' "Political Liberalism" on the left. See which one speaks more to you. I would expect someone of your background to favor the latter set of readings, but at least then you'll get a sense of what forms the basis for the other side and can begin to talk on their terms, build consensus and compromise, and actually help make this country better instead of vilifying the partisan enemy.

Except for the part where that isn't what happened.

Sanders' supporters on reddit seem to have jumped the gap from "differing interpretations of what happened" to "outright lying about what happened".

Why not look at actual polls lol.

I'm going to look at Iowa, which would give Sanders a greater share of the vote than national polling, just to be safe. Just as an fyi, the DMR doesn't have cross tabs so this is a bit of an educated guess. Also, since it doesn't have cross tabs, I have to include O'Malley, but it shouldn't make too much of a difference since he only has 4 points.

The DMR has Clinton at 48 (second choice 27), Sanders at 39 (second choice 33), and O'Malley at 4 (second choice 19).

If Clinton supporters and O'Malley supporters had to choose a secondary candidate, 33 out of 52 available (64%) will go to Sanders.

If Sanders supporters and O'Malley supporters had to choose a secondary candidate, 27 out of 43 available (63%) will go to Clinton.

If Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters had to choose a secondary candidate, 19 out of 87 available (22%) will go to O'Malley.

That leaves a third of Sanders supporters not supporting Clinton (roughly), which equals to 14% of Democratic leaning voters in the third whitest liberal state in the country (a weakness for Clinton). (As a comparison, 1 out of 6 (17%) Republicans would vote Clinton if Trump is the nominee, nationally).

So 33% of Sanders supporters need to be distributed. 10% will go to Trump. 9% will go to Rand Paul. 7% will go to Jill Stein. 4% will go to Gary Johnson. 3% will spread out to multiple other candidates and staying at home.

The general election spread is different though.

Apathy is the fault of the person feeling it.

EDIT: Okay, I obviously didn't explain what I was trying to say. The argument was that the system is designed to create voter apathy. I do not believe that it is rigged, just that the people who bring about change are those who are informed and willing to actually work within the system. Those that are not willing to inform themselves of the system, are by definition, apathetic.

It was in 2008. McCain supported it. Romney and the last four candidates in 2016 were climate deniers. Now all republicans voted to express disapproval of the idea of a carbon tax (can be similar to cap and trade).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jun/13/the-grand-oil-party-house-republicans-denounce-a-carbon-tax

Carbon tax and cap and trade are both "free market" "minimal regulation" solutions which is why economists almost universally support it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution

But that's the thing. You're implying that speaking fees are the equivalent of bribes. They aren't. They are a fee for a service provided, and it happens literally all the time.

One question I have is if any of these speeches that are being criticized occurred while Clinton was in office or running for office. This article seems to indicate that the Goldman Sachs speeches occurred in 2013. The only one it states occurred in 2015 was the CIBC engagement, and my research indicates that the engagement occurred Jan 2015. Clinton didn't launch her campaign until April.

So if that is the case, none of these paid speeches occurred while she was in office or running for office. If you're going to criticize Clinton for receiving money from the public speaking circuit while not running for office, you might as well criticize any candidate for receiving any money for anything at any point in time in their lives because it's obviously an attempt by the payer to buy influence.

The American Classical Liberal Party.

1. Switch to an estonia-style 20% flat tax with a standard exemption of $20,000 per person and simple online filing

2. Eliminate every penny of corporate and personal welfare and replace it with a negative income tax of $12,000 with a rate of 60%, meaning that for every dollar under $20,000 a year you earn you are subsidized $.60 on the dollar.

3. Nationally legalize marijuana, cocaine, and most hallucinogens, decriminalize the possession of other drugs. Do not nationally impose a 'sin tax' on these drugs.

4. Repeal the National Firearms Act, but implement universal background checks to whatever extent possible without impeding personal property rights.

5. Implement unilateral free trade, ie exit all trade deals but also eliminate all import and export tariffs.

6. Implement an 'ellis island' system for immigration - Disease check, Security check, done.

7. Work at the state level to repeal so called "right-to-work", as it imposes unnecessary restrictions on employers. On other side of the same coin, fair employment practices should no longer be mandated by law.

8. Replace the current pseudo-nationalized school system with a voucher system and strict standards for the new and existing charter schools

9. Eliminate 'double taxation', and replace it instead with a system similar to that described in "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman.

10. Muscularly enforce The Sherman Antitrust act, but repeal section 6 of the clayton antitrust act, and return to treating labor as a commodity. In addition, repeal the minimum wage, as it becomes an unnecessary impediment that merely creates unemployment when you implement a negative income tax.

I'll mock up a party logo when I get home from work. I'll also add a couple more positions in relation to social issues.

Here's the logo

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernie-sanders-puts-ge-verizon-boeing-on-his-corporate-tax-hit-list-2016-01-30

>“Here’s the reality of what goes on ... the total federal income taxes paid by General Electric, one of our large corporations, Boeing — very large — and Verizon since 2008, all those three corporations, add up to less than zero,” Sanders told an audience at a rally in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, on Friday. “Three major profitable corporations not only paid nothing in federal income tax, they actually got a rebate from the IRS.”

>Sanders claimed GE GE, +0.79% Boeing BA, +1.22% and Verizon VZ, -0.15% all together raked in more than $4.1 billion from the IRS between 2008 and 2013 after logging a combined profit of more than $102 billion. He cited data from a Citizens for Tax Justice report.

Clinton's position is a bit more nuanced than wholehearted support. She seems to support the death penalty provided ideal circumstances during trial (i.e. the defendant having the benefit of a robust defense). However, where there are failings in the protections of the accused she does not favour it.

Compare that to Trump, who is more of a cheerleader for the death penalty, I think that's an important distinction to make.

But again, the idea that liberalism or progressivism dominates American culture is at odds with the fact that this country just elected Donald Trump as president. Fox News is objectively more popular than CNN or MSNBC by a considerable amount in TV ratings, and there are mountains of right-wing news websites and blogs that cater to conservatives. Even freaking InfoWars.com has an Alexa ranking of about 1600.

If liberals like myself were actually dominating American culture, I don't think any of this would be true.

The margins are okay, but they make great money from other businesses who sell through Amazon but have their own logistics, or contract Amazon logistics services without making them the public storefront, as well as their popular internet infrastructure services.

Good little explanation on the Amazon strategy:

http://www.eugenewei.com/blog/2013/10/25/amazon-and-the-profitless-business-model-narrative

Example of mainstream conversation on Amazon's little back-and-forth with investors on net income:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-amazon-spending-like-a-drunken-sailor-2014-07-24

They've been building and upgrading fulfillment centers like crazy. Public financials suggest a company that makes money and immediately reinvests almost all of it to build a giant machine with which Bezos will one day unify the world under a benevolent, value-oriented dictatorship.

Lucy Flores denounced it. A lot of people are now calling her a Clinton plant or saying that everything is being fabricated.

I'd encourage you to read about the UN report &quot;Livestock's Long Shadow&quot;, and/or watch Cowspiracy on Netflix to learn more about the dairy/livestock industry's hugely negative impact on the environment and odd silence about that impact in political/environmental discourse

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman (though I wouldn't call him a conservative).

Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick (Also not a conservative but certainly not left wing as well. Though A Theory of Justice by John Rawls might be required before reading Nozick).

Bernie didn't refuse to speak at AIPAC, he offered to do a speech via video, just like Romney and Gingrich did in 2012, but AIPAC refused to let him do that.

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/18/aipac-rejects-sanders-offer-to-speak-via-video-as-romney-and-gingrich-did-in-2012/

Also, Bill Clinton was not a progressive (and Bush certainly wasn't, so I don't know why you brought him up as a progressive). His first term was probably more conservative than a second H.W. Bush term would have been and it certainly was more conservative than a Ross Perot term would have been.

It's a very nice map, I really like it. But, I know that the creator of the map is Daily Kos Elections, and that it has released it under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license, which means that while you are free to share and adapt it you must also attribute it, which you have failed to do. Please do.

Here's a flashback to Drudge's early exits in 2012.

>EXIT POLLS TIGHT

>R: NC, FL

>O: NH, PA, MI, NV

>TOSS UP: OH, VA, CO, IA

Guns are a major unifying issue for the right.

https://www.johnkasich.com/secondamendment/

Kasich did more than his share of pandering to gun people. You can even buy Gun Owners for Kasich bottle openers on amazon.

Realise nobody cares about "Norms" which throughout the Obama era just acted as a weight around the Democrats necks and that politics is actually about winning and pushing your ideology and not "compromise" and "bipartisanship" which generally just moves the Overton window in the direction you don't want it to go by nature? That would be a nice start.

>How can/should the next Democrat President/Administration take advantage of these broken Precedents.

Stack the Supreme Court FDR style or at least routinize appointments and ratfuck the Republicans from top to bottom. Seriously, why in hell should Democrats be stuck with a Supreme court that basically just voted for national "right to work" under the most absurd reasoning and weaponisation of the 1st Amendment?

Political Scientist Professor David Faris recently released a book on how and why the Democrats should fight dirty and ratfuck the Republicans instead of caring about Norms and gentlemans agreements that the right never really cares about beyond virtue signalling while they flaunt them the second they grab power anyway.

In addition to what others say, people constantly violate the law unknowingly and knowingly and at that level it's basically impossible to not be violating any number of laws. Three Felonies A Day is a great book about how we're all basically just unprosecuted felons at any time.

They didn't report or count the crowd sizes. They retweeted a comparison shot between Obama's first inauguration and Trump's.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/national-park-service-trump-tweet.html

>score of people who started with nothing

Those are called exceptional people. For every one of those people, there are thousands of more who make what their parents made http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-chart-shows-that-your-parents-income-determines-your-future-2015-07-24

Not everyone can be exceptional, by the very definition of the term. What about everyone else, fuck 'em?

Yeah, you would need a source because it isn't even being reported on which is god damn ridiculous.

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite

Does anyone why Bing Predicts has strong probability of a Clinton win? Any analysis of machine learning models?

Clinton - 86%

Trump - 13%

Very Similar to the Upshot

https://www.bing.com/search?q=election+predictions

This quote of his from earlier in the week should immediately disqualify him regardless of your political views.

>“But there’s a point where no corruption can be a bad thing. It can mean that things are too boring.”

My understanding is this: when you sign up to be a delegate you have to give your name and address etc (I believe this is done at the county convention). If there is an error in that info, or the info is incomplete, or doesn't match voter registration rolls, they send out mail in advance to you asking you to clear things up or provide the necessary info. The Credentials Committee looks into the rolls in advance and removes anyone who doesn't meet the criteria or didn't respond to requests for information. That's the 64 number. ~~8~~ 14 of those 64 showed up, and 6 of those were able to clear things up in person. ~~2~~ 8 were unable to do so.

It's worth noting that the Credentials Committee was made up of both Sanders and Clinton supporters. Edit: and further worth noting that the Credentials Committee forwarded information about the ineligible delegates to the Sanders campaign before the convention, but got no response. Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312952650/nsdp

I find it rather hard to believe your insurance went from 7K to 21K. However, if true: Holy crap! Shop around, man!

What state do you live in and how much do you make? Surely there's a plan on the exchange that's cheaper.

Edit: I'm about the same age as you, I suspect. I found it was possible to find plans on the Exchange for my family of 3 as high as $1300/month (~$16,000/year) most of the plans were much much less! Some were less than $5000 year. Absolutely nothing as high as $20k or more! What gives?

You need to be careful with the anecdotes, my wife had that abdominal surgery here in the US, they used the big cut, stapled it shut, and it got infected. In any specific case, socialized countries may be better or worse, but on average the data is pretty overwhelming.

So a few things here:

Last year about 6.5 million Americans paid the tax fine for not getting insurance. That was down 20% from 2015, but still 6.5 million Americans not getting insurance was a pretty hefty portion.

Additionally, one of Trumps first EO's was directed at the IRS to basically stop collecting the uninsured tax. So now the government's revenue to bolster the individual market place is severly limited already.

just a small nitpick....it's not called "The Ukraine." In 1993 the Ukrainian government requested that the "The" be dropped, since then, it largely has.

His whole gimmick is about how terrible liberals are. He even wrote this book about it. I have no doubt that he has nothing for disdain for people like me.

Ben Shapiro embodies everything I am trying to say in this thread. He has no respect for liberals and he only wants to prove himself right. Conservatives need better representatives for their movement. Even Antonin Scalia, as you mentioned, had at least a modicum of respect for the other side.

But when the conservatives that come to universities are like Ben Shapiro, I am not remotely interested in hearing their ideas.

Also, a large part of the appeal of Trump is that you can work with him. He is a deal maker. He will make deals between Republicans and Democrats...and that also includes making deals with the establishment.

This is okay with Trump supporters, as they are pragmatic.

"When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

1) Tort reform- Currently, the average doctor pays greater than $100K a year for malpractice insurance alone in America. This is in large part due to punitive damage potential.

2) Do YOU work for a guy in the bottom tax bracket?

3) It happens

4) This is not for the super rich. This is to encourage the middle class to invest. A lower return rate on already-taxed income discourages investment.

> Not having enough proof for a conviction is a far far cry from "exonerated".

I'm a little confused by that statement. People are exonerated precisely when there isn't enough proof for a conviction. That's what the word exonerated means - that you are no longer considered guilty. It doesn't mean there's undeniable proof of your innocence - it just means you've been cleared of an accusation.

However, you should know Pence is very strongly backed by (and serves) the Koch brothers and corporate interests.

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/18/558525943/understanding-mike-pence-and-his-relationship-to-trump-his-public-role-is-fawnin

Most people would be surprised to know how much Pence is a tool of corporate interests.

> with a simple google search you can educate yourself

not only have I been formally educated on the subject, I literally do this for a living (albeit on a smaller scale).

>The fact is polls are consistently inaccurate

Polling, by its very nature, will never be 100% accurate. Like /u/hogtrough said, the results of the competitions so far have been within the margins of error. Here's a sample size calculator so you can better understand the reasoning behind sample sizes and margins of error because based on what you've posted, it doesn't seem that you really get it. For example, if we wanted to predict how all registered voters in this country would vote (a situation that will never happen) with 99% confidence and a 5% MOE, we'd need a sample size of at least 666.

Granted, there is no limit to how deep your conspiracy will go, so you might just throw out all this information because "statisticians and pollsters are biased and wrong."

The most recent New York poll actually had 12% of Democratic primary voters saying that they might change their mind, with another 2% saying they weren't at all committed to their choice.

Oh, here's the poll. https://www.scribd.com/doc/307072107/MS-Pres-Mason-Dixon-March-2016

It has Kasich + 15 and Cruz +11 over Clinton, despite the fact that Trump won the state's primary by 11%. Just an absolute nightmare for the GOP.

According to this article, Walmart takes in 18% of all food stamp spending in the US, or $13 Billion, and according to this market report, Walmart did $476 Billion in sales in 2014. So 2.7% of their revenue isn't much, and that's ALL snap revenue. The portion of that which is only Walmart employees who are on food stamps is probably much, much smaller.

Edit: $276 Billion of which is US revenues, 4.7% of which is revenue from snap.

What you mean you don't? How can you call yourself an american then?

But seriously millions of americans do carry guns as often as iphones, and it isn't a big issue. I carry a concealed firearm everywhere I go, still haven't injured or killed anyone. Plus I'm an android user, I never carry an iphone.

Ideally I would want to be the only person carrying a gun, but I would rather everyone be allowed to carry guns than the government telling me I'm not allowed to carry a gun. I believe it is a fundamental and inalienable right.

And "gun related deaths" are a bad metric. That includes suicides (about 2/3 of them), accidents (less than 1%), justified homicides by civilians and law enforcement (less than 1%), and murders (less than 1/3). These are very different things with very different causes.

The more important question is what will happen to the murder rate and violent crime rate, and studies have shown that concealed carry laws have little if any impact on those rates, and the impact tends to be in decreasing those rates when it is observed. https://archive.org/details/MoreGunsLessCrime

Back in 2010, the NYT published this interactive module as an exercise for readers.

Basically I chose to expire the Bush tax cuts exactly as planned, cut government spending with the exception of foreign aid, make immense cuts to the military and cap medicare growth.

So basically 70% spending cuts, 30% tax increases. The deficit would be eliminated by 2015 and we'd be seeing surpluses (to pay down the debt) forecast to 2030.

http://www.scoop.it/t/concentration-of-wealth-existential-risk

Nonsense.

And I am certainly no luddite. I am radically pro-progress and an active Transhumanist.

But I guarantee you, the current employment model is dead. Yes society collectively will generate a lot more affluence (by whatever metric you define affluence..) but this affluence will emerge with patent, investment and resource owners.

Everyone else will face considerable hardship, until we collectively decide we had enough and we take it back.

Well, here's an example why people don't even want to call 911 https://medium.com/p/9f53ef6a1c10

Tl;DR Woman calls 911 for an accident, gets tackled, thrown in jail and solitary for the night because she's "crazy". Charges are dismissed the next day.

From the author himself:

>“We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately prove the links between the money they took in and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates,” Schweizer writes in the book’s conclusion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/05/clinton-cash-bill-hillary-scandal-book

Here's another long article taking a bunch of points

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480