People aren't willing to make their politicians accountable. It's always the other person's fault, the other side's extremes; never their own.
You've got Clinton running an email server exposed to the world as secretary of state, ignoring warnings about it and then lying about it. Yet she will probably end up getting elected because it's all a "Republican conspiracy". Meanwhile, Trump is calling a judge's ruling into question about his if not fraudulent, largely worthless "university" due to their race. Then there's Bernie who refuses to acknowledge any extremes of socialism. Oh, yes, and then there's the Lt. Gov. from my state Tweeting a statement like this after the worst mass shooting in US history. It's either sick or incredibly tone deaf:
"A man reaps what he sows." [0]
Knowing his stances on Muslims and the LGBT community, it's not clear what he's referring to.
This is a sickness and the modern tech industry is directly responsible. We are creating echo chambers. There is endemic corruption and misinformation at all levels. Will we do something? We used to have big dreams, even if the reality on the ground didn't live up to them. Now we just Tweet.
I agree with what you say, expect what you say about the tech industry being directly responsible.
Could you expand a little more on that? I don't really see the connection between the tech industry and the US electorate..
We've created tools that allow people to become more and more politically polarized along the Republican/Democratic spectrum, and even self radicalized as terrorists. Without stomping on freedom of speech I don't know what we as an industry can do. Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"
Talk radio and our universities have been doing a much more effective job of this than the tech industry ever could. If anything, tech has created platforms that allow for some questioning of the status quo. Sanders was largely a social media driven phenomena. Same with Trump (who's views I don't agree with). He's at least taking a hammer to the broken and corrupt 2 party system with all their institutionalized backing and coordinated mainstream media messaging.
It is difficult to say if the media has any responsibility for informing the public of both viewpoints, rather than just a polarized version of one side. Media makes money when they get viewers / ad-clickers, and appealing to people's viewpoints, rather than making them uncomfortable by challenging those viewpoints, is the best way to engage users. Isn't it sad that very talented software developers are being used to find out ways to get people to click ads? Is this the world we envisioned as children when we were so captivated by computers and what we could do with them to make the world a better place?
I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse.
I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own?
With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views.
>Are we like gun manufacturers who can simply say "it's not our fault that our tools are used for evil?"
It's not their fault. You'd have to be an idiot to now understand what guns are for: they're weapons designed to kill people efficiently. They can be used for good or evil, just like cars. Some guy in a pickup just murdered 5 bicyclists in Michigan; should we ban pickups because of this?
The whole thing about suing gun manufacturers is incredibly stupid. They're producing a product that is a tool for a certain purpose; if that product is used successfully for that purpose, but for killing someone who's innocent, that's not the manufacturer's fault, it's the user's fault. If you don't like that, then you need to enact laws to limit who's allowed to buy guns, instead of holding manufacturers responsible for improper usage. Using the court system to bankrupt gunmakers is nothing more than abuse of the legal system because some people couldn't achieve a political victory and get a legislative solution. If you really don't want people to have guns at all, then you need to ban guns from being sold to civilians, not allow it willy-nilly and then allow them to get sued. It's asinine. It's like allowing liquor store owners to sell to minors and then allowing them to be sued when those minors get drunk and do stupid stuff. If you don't want kids drinking, then pass a law forbidding it; don't muddy up the court system with BS cases because you couldn't figure out how to pass a law fixing the problem.
Personally, I do think we have done a poor job in limiting who has access to guns, but abusing the court system is not the answer. The answer is to pass better laws, get better background checks, etc. If you can't do that, you need to find some better candidates that people actually want to vote for.
In a vacuum I would agree with you that simply manufacturing guns does not in itself lead to gun violence. The person buying the gun is ultimately responsible for its use.
However, gun manufacturers don't operate in a vacuum. Gun manufacturers, through marketing and sponsorships, have intentionally worked to create a culture where people feel that they need to have a gun to feel safe. The NRA, working in concert with firearm manufacturers, has for decades pushed the idea that a home with guns in it is safer than a home without- this sells guns, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
Enthusiast magazines, blogs, and radio shows, sponsored by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, espouse the idea that the end of the world is coming in the form of Islamic terror, and to be prepared you must buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you can. Politicians, lobbied by the NRA, preach that Obama and Clinton are going to take your guns away, so you need to buy more.
These are all calculated actions designed to increase the fear and panic in the public, and to convince them that the only solution to this fear is to buy more guns. This results in scared, afraid people with deadly weapons and frequently little-to-no training.
The form of these lawsuits would not be "you made this gun so you are responsible for how it's used", they would be "to sell your product, you generated endless reams of propaganda to intentionally create the circumstances which led to" whatever specific thing, be it an intentional or accidental shooting.
I'm not saying that this is definitely true, or that there is strong enough evidence that this is true to win what would be a very contentious lawsuit- but I think you're wrong to suggest it's a completely frivolous question.
You can't sue someone for speaking or advertising ideas you don't agree with. The NRA could start printing copies of Mein Kampf and cause the rise of a new Nazi movement, and I'd still defend their right to free speech.
I also don't agree with your assumption that conservatives and readers of gun magazines are responsible for most of the homicide rate. If you banned gun magazines and blogs or whatever you think is responsible, I doubt gun ownership would go down. And even if it did, I doubt the homicide rate would go down due to it. Gun collectors are not more likely to be involved in crime.
I believe that if you control for drug violence and poverty and other factors, the US homicide rate isn't that much worse than countries with gun control. And gun manufacturers certainly aren't responsible for those things.
I'm not saying this is the cause of gun-related death but there are some cases where it may be a factor, and those are the cases where it might be reasonable to pursue a lawsuit.
I don't know why you think I'm trying to surpress free speech. It's widely agreed that free speech is not freedom from consequence of that speech.
Yes it is. Otherwise you could sue almost anyone for anything. Sue the car manufacturers which encourage people to buy automobiles which kill far more than guns.
> People aren't willing to make their party accountable.
Consider the possibility that party politics and bureaucracy are set up to perpetuate their internal power structures and make outside interference costly. It's "their" party in the sense that constituents are blamed for the failure of the political system but the system is set up so that no individual can constructively engage with the system without incredible sacrifice.
I think this is a crucial criticism of liberal democracy. All political systems proscribe action taken outside of their logic, but their logic is set up to preserve the power structures that define that logic.
> Then there's Bernie who refuses to aknowledge any extremes of socialism.
One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.
The economy is not the only, or even the main, measure of a nation's success. Even if it were, the US is not at the top in many important economic measures, so the evidence seems to go against your thesis.
Germany, really?! Germany is an export oriented economy (45% of GDP) and had to hold Greece hostage to Euro. If Greeks had drachma, they could have devalued and probably would be able to wrest some industry away from Central and Western Europe.
Germany is a bad bad example, one thing automation will do, is bring back manufacturing locally, since the labor costs will diminish, so export oriented economies like Germany are for misery in next decade.
I would take 'Murican economy over German any time from on set of 1900s to today and way into future.
edit: also Germany 'really' did not pay off money that was injected during Marshall plan.
Germany finally figured out that European domination didn't require war. Centuries of bloodshed taught them that that it's better to control via politics than the barrel.
The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. We encourage critical historical research, and stand against political correctness. The institute serves students, academics, business leaders, and anyone seeking better understanding of the Austrian school of economics and libertarian political theory.
EDIT: Source: https://mises.org/about-mises
They are based here: 518 West Magnolia Avenue
Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501
Interesting. First that article compares GDP per capita, then explains why it is wrong and adjusts for cost of living. Then it compares those adjusted numbers to the still unadjusted numbers from europe and calls it a day.
This would be a really nice comparison, if the cost of living in any random european country happened to be exactly the median cost of living over all US states. As it stands, that article is prettified data garbage.
None of these European countries uses centralized planning, but instead they rely on pretty standard market economies.
The problem with the cited statistics is that even PPP-adjusted equivalized disposable household income that accounts for both cash and in-kind transfers still provides only a limited basis for comparison.
For example, observe that the average American person works 30% more than the average German or Dutch person [1]. It should not be surprising that shorter working hours are reflected in lower wages and lower household income.
However, while the reason for that is not always good – too many stay-at-home moms in Germany who'd rather pursue a career, for example – in general, this tends to express a voluntary trade-off of better work-life balance in lieu of higher income. This trade-off generally works because both income and expenses are less volatile; you may not need to save up as much for a rainy day, a huge coinsurance or deductible payment from a medical bill, for your kids' college funds, for the disruption of your income by a pregnancy, or figuring out how to pay for childcare. While few of these things have zero impact on your income situation, that impact tends to be greatly reduced. The modern European social democracy is less characterized by transfering cash from the rich to the poor, but by ensuring affordable essential services for everybody (which also tend to benefit the poor more than the rich and thus are typically redistributive).
In addition, even trying to normalize household income does not account for all the actual differences between the economies; for example, the effects on urban planning (suburban sprawl with a built-in dependence on cars vs. hybrid zones that are walkable, bikable, and have good public transport) can have a major impact on how you live. Likewise, the rise of helicopter parenting in some places comes with increasing demands on time and household budgets.
And while the Western European social democracies are not some magical paradise with both riches and year-long vacations (contrary to what some people seriously seem to believe), they are not socialist hellholes, either.
His economic plan would require all the wealth produced by the top 100 U.S. companies. He also previously and openly called for nationalization of U.S. companies. Oh and if you look at his past votes they're almost all opposite of his campaign.
Bernie isn't a moderate (by U.S. standards anyways) he's far left.
I'll give it to you Hillery and Trump are also awful, but they are all pretty distasteful.
Of course, in "capitalism" that doesn't happen - instead banks and other "too large to fail" companies are just given money, or they are sort-of nationalized - but without actually doing so (GM, Chrysler for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_...).
If you can't find something bad to say about everyone, it ruins the rhythm of the "plague on both your houses" argument. I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President.
Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.
Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad.
Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now.
When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to.
I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that.
JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career.
Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
> Or, you may believe that extremism in all forms is bad.
I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism.
I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after the State Department says that it didn't. You can accept the falseness of both of those claims while still agreeing with Trump and Clinton on policy.
Well, yeah, seeing as how it's my opinion. I don't know what other scale I should follow...I certainly don't expect you to follow mine, but it doesn't mean we can't discuss them.
Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves.
I'm not asking for much. We've had brilliant politicians who have handled much worse crisis. Is Sanders up to the challenge? How so?
We probably aren't going to get anywhere. All I'm asking is that we are willing to question our most deeply held political beliefs. Sometimes we (me, you, everyone else) are wrong.
> Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump
I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
> Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions.
...which seems unfair to anyone who might criticize him on any other grounds.
> A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
> I also am very troubled with Sanders continued associated with groups that are violent [towards people I like]
Unless you're a 100% pacifist you believe in the use of some violence in some situations. The question then is just how much, and with what standards of proof / need.
Hillary associates with many of the people involved in faking evidence of WMDs. And has refused many calls to label them war criminals. That should make her unacceptable.
Trump associates with many hate groups. That should make him unacceptable.
> If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
You do realize that there can be only one president and most of the game isn't picking the one you want, but the one you think can beat the one the other guys elect?
There's no way the USA would elect someone like Bernie because he doesn't look like he'd push the button. Especially when he has to go up against Trump who is itching to.
> Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better?
America needs voting reform. The Trump/Hillary nonsense taking over the country for two years of every four is most of the problem.
But no, a minority candidate will never win. The system is very good at assuring that, so ultimately any nuanced political discussion is meaningless.
I read an editorial the other day about how the three remaining presidential candidates were disrespecting the voting public; Trump was cited for saying racist things, but insisting that they weren't racist, Clinton cited for saying things about her email server that contradicted what the State Department had found, and Sanders cited for insisting that he could possibly be the President.
And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor.
OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system.
Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage.
I feel like the Twelfth Amendment hampers this. I don't know anyone that wants the House to choose the next president. I can't even imagine what a fiasco that would be.
"If no candidate for President has a majority of the total votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses the President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure.
"[0]
Obama couldn't get anything done for 8 years becuase of massive obstructionism, fueled by a persecution complex on both sides.
Trump and Cruz are ideologues which have valid criticisms of some things but take those to extremes. Cruz acts like Christians are getting beheaded on American streets in his complaints about religious liberty.
It's just more of the same in different packaging. The other party is "the enemy" instead of people with valid complaints to be engaged.
You would be more believable if you had practiced what you preach and picked one of your favorite politicians to criticize, not one from the other side. Seem hypocritical.
If Clinton wins, it won't be because her email stuff is dismissed as a conspiracy, it will be because we only have two choices and the other one is vastly worse. (Don't try to tell me about other choices. Third party candidates are the frictionless pulleys of American politics.)
Trump might talk a lot, but we know what Clinton has done with her voting record and her interactions behind the scenes interactions with Obama as Secretary of State. It's surprising /frustrating to me so many Democrats on my Facebook glaze over this when considering her over Trump or even Sanders. Yeah, she has experience. But she also has some very poor choices in her voting record (including Iraq) and is simply part of the traditional American foreign-policy establishment.
Yes, we know what to expect from Clinton, and I don't particularly like it, but it's still way, way, way, way better than Trump. If she wins it'll be because a lot of people share that opinion, not because the masses actually like her.
If I have to listen to her speak for four years on the nightly news, I might bail and move to Canada. My ears can't take that kind of prolonged shrieking.
You're projecting. I simply said I cannot tolerate the frequencies of her speaking voice. There are men whose voices are profoundly unpleasant to listen to also - it has no bearing on which variety of wedding tackle they are packing. It's like nails on a chalkboard.
Your "criticism" is the lowest of the low. What can anybody do about the "frequency" of their voice? YOU are unpleasant to READ. Consider that - unlike the "problem" you invent this is one that you are actually 100% responsible for.
Voice actors tend to disagree with you about the control. And even if it is shit level - still does not make her voice more pleasant to listen to the (grand)grandparent obviously.
So should be a voice actor? Are you completely insane? What idiotic nonsense is your cognitive dissonance "I cannot possibly be wrong regardless how stupid what I said is" going to produce next?
>So should be a voice actor? Are you completely insane? What idiotic nonsense is your cognitive dissonance "I cannot possibly be wrong regardless how stupid what I said is" going to produce next?
I don't mind being insulted, but don't try that approach with other people on HN.
Insulting HRC for her voice is not misogyny. The same way insulting Donald Trump for his baldness is not misandry. End of story. If I interact with 10 women today and insult only one of them and I am respectful towards the other 9 - I may be a jerk, but I am not misogynist.
And anyway being a politician is about the presentation - acting, voice, walking, hitting the gym, looking the look.
I, for one, am glad that the person in charge of secret prisons and rendition flights, as well as torture, drone killings, the panopticon of surveillance, and the further erosion of our civil rights will finally have a vagina this time.
Unless you live in a swing state you can totally vote third party without cost. Even if you do, it's unlikely your vote will be the tiebreaker. Don't feel compelled to vote for someone you don't believe in. It's not like your vote matters!
That's fine until a bunch of people all have the same idea, then you might end up with 2000 again. I voted on that principle that year, and never again.
You would have only made a difference in 2000 if you lived in Florida. And even then I would argue that if you really didn't believe in Al Gore, you shouldn't feel compelled to vote for him. The president should be the candidate the most people really believe is best. Not someone who wins through tactical voting and crushing better third parties.
A lot of states in 2000 had more votes for third parties than the gap between the two major candidates. I happened to vote in one, although it went for Gore anyway.
A decent number of people had the idea that they should vote for who they liked rather than voting for the least bad major candidate. And the result of this idea was a major disaster for the country.
I agree, the president should be the candidate most people believe is best. Voters should be able to cast their vote in good conscience without tactical considerations. Third parties should be more than a joke.
But so what? A bunch of shoulds and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. The system is built such that third parties are not viable. You can either use this knowledge to cast your vote productively, or you can ignore it and waste your time. I'd be all for electoral reform that gives third parties a chance by eliminating the ridiculous first-past-the-post system we have now, but that's a separate question. Casting a pointless vote for a third party does nothing to change the system. Indeed, it basically takes you and your views out of play for the major parties. If people who think that we need electoral reform reliably vote for third parties, then the people who actually wield power will know that they can ignore electoral reform as an issue, because that demographic is unavailable to them regardless.
The system sucks, but it's what we have. Pretending it doesn't work the way it does is not the same as reforming it.
People enjoy echo chambers and they like intuitive morality -- where their intuitions naturally judge themselves moral.
People have the prerogative to associate with whomever they want in real life and on Facebook, and people have the prerogative to engage in mutual communications with those they wish. That means people have the prerogative to create their own bubbles, which exists as much online as it does offline. This is the product of the sum of free choices, not the people who work on the iPhone or Instagram.
The tech industry simply made it possible for people to communicate cheaply and easily, but technology workers do not own the tech industry, and they do not own the media industry.
The technology community is numerically tiny and disorganized as a voting bloc. They don't even have a union, or a professional association like the APA or AMA, which are known for their lobbying power and organization. And most importantly, they are not owners. They do not own the handful of American media empires. It is not their prerogative to select which talking heads will show up to which distribution channel. That is the prerogative of Rupert Murdoch and friends.
So when is there going to be the American Technology Association to build consensus and look for channels of influence?
The article you cite disputes your claim, stating the quote was an unfortunate pre-scheduled pre-designed (it was an image with text) tweet that made no mention of the event whatsoever:
"The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."
"Regarding this morning's scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night's tragedy," the statement said. "The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday...We regret the unfortunate timing of these posts and ask everyone to join us in praying for the people of Orlando in this awful time."
Gerrymandering has outrageous results [0] and voter suppression of minorities is right out of a novel [1]. It's so screwed up that votes almost don't matter, depending on who last classified what voting district you're in.
Would you mind expanding the thought a bit? Many states have closed primaries (so participating in one primary precludes participating in others) and the delegate allocation rules are pretty complicated. Lots of delegates are awarded at the state level, where Gerrymandering won't have much impact.
Please see my reply to "nitwit005". Basically, we're doing a terrible job electing people in all our races, but gerrymandering only affects US House races. Therefore, even if we completely fixed gerrymandering, it's not going to have much effect.
The congressional districts are what get gerrymandered. They're completely irrelevant to the Democrats or Republicans picking their presidential candidates.
Gerrymandering only affects Congressional districts, which only affects the House of Representatives. That's it. It does NOT affect: 1) gubernatorial races, 2) Senate races, 3) Presidential races. It is a problem, but it's not the huge problem that some people make it out to be. As we can see, our political system is totally broken at all levels: our Presidential races are a total farce, and we don't do much better electing Senators than we do House members. We elect some lousy governors too. Therefore, it's obvious that fixing gerrymandering is not going to fix our political problems, not by a long shot.
I am not sure the term elections accurately describes what goes on.
I don't want to make this political, but the candidate I voted for, and which I know many voted for, in the 2012 election, received 0 votes in my district.
You probably have 5 or 6 completely different USG models so far - from the very limited initially to the current situation where states are mostly afterthought and it is driven by the imperial bureaucracy in Washington. Each vastly bigger than the previous.
This doesn't even mention the very troubling questions that have been raised about the security of the electronic voting machines that some states are using [0].
The US is not a democracy, it wasn't even founded as a democracy. You'll find pockets of it in certain state and local governments, but the US is a federal republic. Given the historical restrictions on who could vote and participate in government and more modern corporate influence, it's always been an oligarchy in practice. This is probably a problem intrinsic to the lack of democracy on a federal level.
86 comments
[ 5.5 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadYou've got Clinton running an email server exposed to the world as secretary of state, ignoring warnings about it and then lying about it. Yet she will probably end up getting elected because it's all a "Republican conspiracy". Meanwhile, Trump is calling a judge's ruling into question about his if not fraudulent, largely worthless "university" due to their race. Then there's Bernie who refuses to acknowledge any extremes of socialism. Oh, yes, and then there's the Lt. Gov. from my state Tweeting a statement like this after the worst mass shooting in US history. It's either sick or incredibly tone deaf:
"A man reaps what he sows." [0]
Knowing his stances on Muslims and the LGBT community, it's not clear what he's referring to.
This is a sickness and the modern tech industry is directly responsible. We are creating echo chambers. There is endemic corruption and misinformation at all levels. Will we do something? We used to have big dreams, even if the reality on the ground didn't live up to them. Now we just Tweet.
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patr...
I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse.
I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own?
With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views.
[0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org
It's not their fault. You'd have to be an idiot to now understand what guns are for: they're weapons designed to kill people efficiently. They can be used for good or evil, just like cars. Some guy in a pickup just murdered 5 bicyclists in Michigan; should we ban pickups because of this?
The whole thing about suing gun manufacturers is incredibly stupid. They're producing a product that is a tool for a certain purpose; if that product is used successfully for that purpose, but for killing someone who's innocent, that's not the manufacturer's fault, it's the user's fault. If you don't like that, then you need to enact laws to limit who's allowed to buy guns, instead of holding manufacturers responsible for improper usage. Using the court system to bankrupt gunmakers is nothing more than abuse of the legal system because some people couldn't achieve a political victory and get a legislative solution. If you really don't want people to have guns at all, then you need to ban guns from being sold to civilians, not allow it willy-nilly and then allow them to get sued. It's asinine. It's like allowing liquor store owners to sell to minors and then allowing them to be sued when those minors get drunk and do stupid stuff. If you don't want kids drinking, then pass a law forbidding it; don't muddy up the court system with BS cases because you couldn't figure out how to pass a law fixing the problem.
Personally, I do think we have done a poor job in limiting who has access to guns, but abusing the court system is not the answer. The answer is to pass better laws, get better background checks, etc. If you can't do that, you need to find some better candidates that people actually want to vote for.
However, gun manufacturers don't operate in a vacuum. Gun manufacturers, through marketing and sponsorships, have intentionally worked to create a culture where people feel that they need to have a gun to feel safe. The NRA, working in concert with firearm manufacturers, has for decades pushed the idea that a home with guns in it is safer than a home without- this sells guns, but it couldn't be further from the truth.
Enthusiast magazines, blogs, and radio shows, sponsored by firearm and ammunition manufacturers, espouse the idea that the end of the world is coming in the form of Islamic terror, and to be prepared you must buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you can. Politicians, lobbied by the NRA, preach that Obama and Clinton are going to take your guns away, so you need to buy more.
These are all calculated actions designed to increase the fear and panic in the public, and to convince them that the only solution to this fear is to buy more guns. This results in scared, afraid people with deadly weapons and frequently little-to-no training.
The form of these lawsuits would not be "you made this gun so you are responsible for how it's used", they would be "to sell your product, you generated endless reams of propaganda to intentionally create the circumstances which led to" whatever specific thing, be it an intentional or accidental shooting.
I'm not saying that this is definitely true, or that there is strong enough evidence that this is true to win what would be a very contentious lawsuit- but I think you're wrong to suggest it's a completely frivolous question.
I also don't agree with your assumption that conservatives and readers of gun magazines are responsible for most of the homicide rate. If you banned gun magazines and blogs or whatever you think is responsible, I doubt gun ownership would go down. And even if it did, I doubt the homicide rate would go down due to it. Gun collectors are not more likely to be involved in crime.
I believe that if you control for drug violence and poverty and other factors, the US homicide rate isn't that much worse than countries with gun control. And gun manufacturers certainly aren't responsible for those things.
I don't know why you think I'm trying to surpress free speech. It's widely agreed that free speech is not freedom from consequence of that speech.
Consider the possibility that party politics and bureaucracy are set up to perpetuate their internal power structures and make outside interference costly. It's "their" party in the sense that constituents are blamed for the failure of the political system but the system is set up so that no individual can constructively engage with the system without incredible sacrifice.
I think this is a crucial criticism of liberal democracy. All political systems proscribe action taken outside of their logic, but their logic is set up to preserve the power structures that define that logic.
Basically Both American political parties are still 18th century alliances with no strong party discipline.
One of these criticisms is not like the others. Sanders is a moderate democratic socialist - in any other industrialized country, he'd be considered mildly left of centre. Let's not equate his slightly out-of-step politics with the actual abuses and mendacities of the other candidates.
https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-state...
Germany is a bad bad example, one thing automation will do, is bring back manufacturing locally, since the labor costs will diminish, so export oriented economies like Germany are for misery in next decade.
I would take 'Murican economy over German any time from on set of 1900s to today and way into future.
edit: also Germany 'really' did not pay off money that was injected during Marshall plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvl9N9GdraQ
(warning: NSFW language, loud)
The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. We encourage critical historical research, and stand against political correctness. The institute serves students, academics, business leaders, and anyone seeking better understanding of the Austrian school of economics and libertarian political theory.
EDIT: Source: https://mises.org/about-mises They are based here: 518 West Magnolia Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501
This would be a really nice comparison, if the cost of living in any random european country happened to be exactly the median cost of living over all US states. As it stands, that article is prettified data garbage.
The problem with the cited statistics is that even PPP-adjusted equivalized disposable household income that accounts for both cash and in-kind transfers still provides only a limited basis for comparison.
For example, observe that the average American person works 30% more than the average German or Dutch person [1]. It should not be surprising that shorter working hours are reflected in lower wages and lower household income.
However, while the reason for that is not always good – too many stay-at-home moms in Germany who'd rather pursue a career, for example – in general, this tends to express a voluntary trade-off of better work-life balance in lieu of higher income. This trade-off generally works because both income and expenses are less volatile; you may not need to save up as much for a rainy day, a huge coinsurance or deductible payment from a medical bill, for your kids' college funds, for the disruption of your income by a pregnancy, or figuring out how to pay for childcare. While few of these things have zero impact on your income situation, that impact tends to be greatly reduced. The modern European social democracy is less characterized by transfering cash from the rich to the poor, but by ensuring affordable essential services for everybody (which also tend to benefit the poor more than the rich and thus are typically redistributive).
In addition, even trying to normalize household income does not account for all the actual differences between the economies; for example, the effects on urban planning (suburban sprawl with a built-in dependence on cars vs. hybrid zones that are walkable, bikable, and have good public transport) can have a major impact on how you live. Likewise, the rise of helicopter parenting in some places comes with increasing demands on time and household budgets.
And while the Western European social democracies are not some magical paradise with both riches and year-long vacations (contrary to what some people seriously seem to believe), they are not socialist hellholes, either.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time
Bernie isn't a moderate (by U.S. standards anyways) he's far left.
I'll give it to you Hillery and Trump are also awful, but they are all pretty distasteful.
Holy crap, really!? Source, please, I need more reasons to love Bernie.
Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions. Somehow the WaPo finds those two things both contemptible and endlessly interesting.
Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now.
When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to.
I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that.
JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career.
Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
I assume you're using the "aaron-lebo" scale of extremism.
I'm not saying you should support Sanders, I'm saying that disagreement with his positions is substantially different then denying that Trump has said racist things, or insisting that the State Department allowed Clinton to do business on a privately administered email server located in her home after the State Department says that it didn't. You can accept the falseness of both of those claims while still agreeing with Trump and Clinton on policy.
Sanders' actions may not put him in the same category as Clinton and Trump, but corruption can only exist within a system where decent people are either not competent at fighting them or...not that different themselves.
I'm not asking for much. We've had brilliant politicians who have handled much worse crisis. Is Sanders up to the challenge? How so?
We probably aren't going to get anywhere. All I'm asking is that we are willing to question our most deeply held political beliefs. Sometimes we (me, you, everyone else) are wrong.
I'm pretty sure that's all I said. Please stop insisting that I defend Sanders' policies, or assuming that I support him. A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
> Criticism of Sanders seems to be limited to his existence and his belief in his own positions.
...which seems unfair to anyone who might criticize him on any other grounds.
> A major problem with spectator politics is listening to people only to the extent that it takes to place them in or out of the tribe, and then responding in a reflexive way.
We are in agreement then.
Unless you're a 100% pacifist you believe in the use of some violence in some situations. The question then is just how much, and with what standards of proof / need.
Hillary associates with many of the people involved in faking evidence of WMDs. And has refused many calls to label them war criminals. That should make her unacceptable.
Trump associates with many hate groups. That should make him unacceptable.
> If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?
You do realize that there can be only one president and most of the game isn't picking the one you want, but the one you think can beat the one the other guys elect?
There's no way the USA would elect someone like Bernie because he doesn't look like he'd push the button. Especially when he has to go up against Trump who is itching to.
> Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better?
America needs voting reform. The Trump/Hillary nonsense taking over the country for two years of every four is most of the problem.
But no, a minority candidate will never win. The system is very good at assuring that, so ultimately any nuanced political discussion is meaningless.
And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor.
OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system.
Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
"If no candidate for President has a majority of the total votes, the House of Representatives, voting by states and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses the President. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three highest receivers of electoral votes, compared to five under the original procedure. "[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
Trump's and Cruz's victories say otherwise.
Trump and Cruz are ideologues which have valid criticisms of some things but take those to extremes. Cruz acts like Christians are getting beheaded on American streets in his complaints about religious liberty.
It's just more of the same in different packaging. The other party is "the enemy" instead of people with valid complaints to be engaged.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You've taken a criticism of our political system as a whole and turned it into targeting your person. How?
Eh, what???
I don't mind being insulted, but don't try that approach with other people on HN.
Insulting HRC for her voice is not misogyny. The same way insulting Donald Trump for his baldness is not misandry. End of story. If I interact with 10 women today and insult only one of them and I am respectful towards the other 9 - I may be a jerk, but I am not misogynist.
And anyway being a politician is about the presentation - acting, voice, walking, hitting the gym, looking the look.
A decent number of people had the idea that they should vote for who they liked rather than voting for the least bad major candidate. And the result of this idea was a major disaster for the country.
I agree, the president should be the candidate most people believe is best. Voters should be able to cast their vote in good conscience without tactical considerations. Third parties should be more than a joke.
But so what? A bunch of shoulds and $5 will get you a Starbucks latte. The system is built such that third parties are not viable. You can either use this knowledge to cast your vote productively, or you can ignore it and waste your time. I'd be all for electoral reform that gives third parties a chance by eliminating the ridiculous first-past-the-post system we have now, but that's a separate question. Casting a pointless vote for a third party does nothing to change the system. Indeed, it basically takes you and your views out of play for the major parties. If people who think that we need electoral reform reliably vote for third parties, then the people who actually wield power will know that they can ignore electoral reform as an issue, because that demographic is unavailable to them regardless.
The system sucks, but it's what we have. Pretending it doesn't work the way it does is not the same as reforming it.
People have the prerogative to associate with whomever they want in real life and on Facebook, and people have the prerogative to engage in mutual communications with those they wish. That means people have the prerogative to create their own bubbles, which exists as much online as it does offline. This is the product of the sum of free choices, not the people who work on the iPhone or Instagram.
The tech industry simply made it possible for people to communicate cheaply and easily, but technology workers do not own the tech industry, and they do not own the media industry.
The technology community is numerically tiny and disorganized as a voting bloc. They don't even have a union, or a professional association like the APA or AMA, which are known for their lobbying power and organization. And most importantly, they are not owners. They do not own the handful of American media empires. It is not their prerogative to select which talking heads will show up to which distribution channel. That is the prerogative of Rupert Murdoch and friends.
So when is there going to be the American Technology Association to build consensus and look for channels of influence?
"The post was not done in response to last night's tragedy. The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday."
"Regarding this morning's scripture posting on social media, be assured that the post was not done in response to last night's tragedy," the statement said. "The post was designed and scheduled last Thursday...We regret the unfortunate timing of these posts and ask everyone to join us in praying for the people of Orlando in this awful time."
http://www.people.com/article/texas-dan-patrick-tweets-bible...
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-...
[1] http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/02/3745296/major-vo...
Right out of history, that is.
Proof: the 2016 Presidential primaries.
Gerrymandering only affects Congressional districts, which only affects the House of Representatives. That's it. It does NOT affect: 1) gubernatorial races, 2) Senate races, 3) Presidential races. It is a problem, but it's not the huge problem that some people make it out to be. As we can see, our political system is totally broken at all levels: our Presidential races are a total farce, and we don't do much better electing Senators than we do House members. We elect some lousy governors too. Therefore, it's obvious that fixing gerrymandering is not going to fix our political problems, not by a long shot.
I don't want to make this political, but the candidate I voted for, and which I know many voted for, in the 2012 election, received 0 votes in my district.
Ranking Brazilian government above the US is a joke.
From your comment history, I can see you have an axe to grind in Brazilian politics. Please keep it to relevant discussions.
The sentence is specific about election process, not all the government. If you want to discredit the research, do it properly.
[0] https://www.verifiedvoting.org/resources/voting-equipment/