Read some non-political analysis of Sanders' support and you'll see that he's not as popular as it seems. (I suggest FiveThirtyEight as one) He's got a very specific demographic and has mostly won Caucus states where white elitists are the norm. He doesn't get very broad support from a greater America and certainly doesn't speak for most demographics. Sanders isn't electable at all. Plus, it's not like he's new.. he has been around for a long time. He's every bit the ego-maniac Trump is.
He's afraid of Muslims and he's concerned about a border that really needs some retooling. Reserve bigot for someone that actually believes a race is inferior. Ignore people's concerns about those subjects at your own risk. I don't think we need a wall and I don't think Muslims should be banned from the United States, but I can see how some Americans have been negatively impacted by the border and I can see how terrorism in Europe has been the result of not so great immigration policies (vetting) and I can empathize that some people are afraid of that happening here. Simply labeling Trump a bigot is politically useless. You need to discuss the issues on hand and bring "better" and rational ideas to the front if you want his supporters to come into a rational way of thinking. Trump represents some of our neighbors that we shouldn't simply ignore off hand.
People quit talking about issues & ideas and started talking up/down people. Politics has become more about rooting for "your people" like a sports team, rather blindly I might add, instead of actually talking about issues and ideas.
He's just not of Washington. A lot of Libertarians (if not many independents) simply don't trust this giant Federal Monster. They have seen the middle class destroyed by Democrats and Republicans alike. Trump isn't either of those. Plus, most people bash the man rather than discuss ideas. He's throwing stuff out there and I'll give him credit for that. It may be crazy most of the time, but he's gone out on a limb, politically correct, be damned.
Our election system isn't a free market. It's a market with only two sellers that control all the voting districts, funding & campaign spending rules. We need a voting system that lets us reject who is on the ballot rather than be forced to choose from two political monopolies.
My father was heavily involved in the Tea Party movement in his State. They very much were anti-federal government and sought to return to local control. You can choose the State you want to live in, you can't choose the Federal Government. In certain industries, like agriculture, the Federal government has idiotic programs like forced taxes to pay for marketing programs that aren't needed (i.e. Got Milk?) and there are uneven subsidies given to States that happen to have a powerful Senator. People vote on issues and much of the Tea Party movement was based on local issues where the Federal Government overstepped their bounds in the people's eyes. It's kind of mindless to write that off with a blanket insult.
I've spent time in Sweden. Their unemployment rate is pretty high compared to our historical average. Their taxes are absolutely brutal with a lot of consumption taxes collected versus income taxes. They also have a State church that you have to do work to opt out of funding, which is funny. One thing about those countries is they don't have the natural resources to exist on their own. They are forced to do a lot of international trade to keep their economy afloat. This as the side effect of forcing people to adapt to that, which happened FAR earlier than international trade (global economy) happened here. Our corporate tax rates are far too high to be competitive globally and we tax income way too much versus consumption in the US.
The same people that build the roads now and be paid for by the people that use them. (Be it a community or State). I know it can be a difficult concept for people to understand - paying for what you use. God forbid our infrastructure be paid for by sensible fees & taxes on those that use it most (Corporations) rather than on the backs of the middle class' income. Oh wait, our infrastructure is crumbling anyway, so I guess the government isn't even doing that right. But at least we have corn subsidies and are forced to buy health insurance.
You are mixing up Libertarians and Anarchists. Libertarians aren't anti-government as much as they are for a moral and limited government. If you can convince 90% of people to agree on a law, Libertarians are going to be for it too. Laws by consensus benefit nearly everyone and will be widely supported. It's the ridiculous government intrusions put into place by people elected with a slim majority and a corrupt Congress in the pocket of lobbyists that need to stop. I don't know how a rational person can believe the government that can barely keep our infrastructure intact and can't manage letter delivery without losing tons of money should be responsible for anything important in our lives.
They don't solve economic problems as much as problems with currency. One could argue that depressions and recessions are the result of too much financial control by governments that are fiscally irresponsible. People don't stop working and producing because they don't want to, they stop when they can't have control of their wealth because the government forces some idiotic currency scheme on them.
"Successful" by what standard? There is no "control" for Libertarianism and what it could/would have done it its place. "Better" is never the point, morally right is. Just because government can do something better by rule of force and taking wealth doesn't mean that is a moral way to run society. That is the point non-Libertarians often miss.
"Against the public will" is the basis of freedom. What Rights are violated by a business not doing background checks? Who is the victim? This is bad law run amok. If you don't like their policies don't use it, don't cry to the government to be a goon and bully. Absurd.
Maybe, just maybe, things aren't that bad. The standard of living is the highest it has been in history. A wealthy person 100 years ago would envy how our middle class lives today. The world is actually pretty peaceful in a historical context. We have more entertainment choices than ever, which indicates we have a lot of extra time & wealth. Violent crime has been trending down for decades. Cultural awareness of discrimination has never been better. Do we really need radical economic change? I think it's important we take a step back and make sure the powers that be aren't simply telling us how terrible it is because it suits their ends.
It would be far more efficient for a government to assign mates and marriages. To test us early and often to determine exactly what our talents are and of what use we would be to "Society", but that's a monstrous infringement on freedom and free will. Whether a government could run our lives better or worse is irrelevant. It's MY life and only mine and there is not argument you can make to take possession of it.
It IS trickling down to consumers in ways that are difficult to measure. The standard of living of an unemployed person in a country such as the United States is FAR better than an unemployed person in a poverty-stricken nation. (often better than an employed individual). There is a lot of wealth we all have simply by existing in such a country. There are also a lot of opportunity to grow in a wealthy nation because you are safe to pursue an education without fear of starvation, warlords, or an oppressive government. Looking at the problem of wealth purely by income is a huge miscalculation. This is why Basic Income is a bit of a magic bullet that won't work by itself. Money is a tool, it isn't a cause of anything by itself. Economic change starts with cultural change.
With a basic income, you'll eventually get to a situation where too few people actually run the machine of society. That makes society extremely unstable in the long run. In the short term, it will feel okay and seem okay, but it will only take one of many possible calamities to tear down such a society into nothing. What we are seeing in this "information age" is that brains are more valuable than brawn. A basic income makes sense only if coupled with mandatory education. Paying people simply for existing is an economic and cultural time bomb. Those who are able did not commit some form of "Original Sin" to those that are unable. Money spent needs to be an investment for the economics to make any sense.
Plenty of reasonable doubt here that the drone was making a threatening posture. We lock up way too many people to consider locking up people for shooting down some idiot's drone that was flying in an incredibly dumb situation. If a plane flew over at 5,000 feet and posted photographs of a minor on a sexually suggested site, you bet they would get prosecuted. A plane at 5,000 feet away is not imminently physically threatening either.
The type of language used in the summary doesn't help at all. The jabs about e-mail knowledge are akin to a non-techie saying "technical people don't know anything about people." It's adolescent and completely unproductive. It's okay to disagree, but do it with some intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Read some non-political analysis of Sanders' support and you'll see that he's not as popular as it seems. (I suggest FiveThirtyEight as one) He's got a very specific demographic and has mostly won Caucus states where white elitists are the norm. He doesn't get very broad support from a greater America and certainly doesn't speak for most demographics. Sanders isn't electable at all. Plus, it's not like he's new.. he has been around for a long time. He's every bit the ego-maniac Trump is.
He's afraid of Muslims and he's concerned about a border that really needs some retooling. Reserve bigot for someone that actually believes a race is inferior. Ignore people's concerns about those subjects at your own risk. I don't think we need a wall and I don't think Muslims should be banned from the United States, but I can see how some Americans have been negatively impacted by the border and I can see how terrorism in Europe has been the result of not so great immigration policies (vetting) and I can empathize that some people are afraid of that happening here. Simply labeling Trump a bigot is politically useless. You need to discuss the issues on hand and bring "better" and rational ideas to the front if you want his supporters to come into a rational way of thinking. Trump represents some of our neighbors that we shouldn't simply ignore off hand.
People quit talking about issues & ideas and started talking up/down people. Politics has become more about rooting for "your people" like a sports team, rather blindly I might add, instead of actually talking about issues and ideas.
He's just not of Washington. A lot of Libertarians (if not many independents) simply don't trust this giant Federal Monster. They have seen the middle class destroyed by Democrats and Republicans alike. Trump isn't either of those. Plus, most people bash the man rather than discuss ideas. He's throwing stuff out there and I'll give him credit for that. It may be crazy most of the time, but he's gone out on a limb, politically correct, be damned.
Our election system isn't a free market. It's a market with only two sellers that control all the voting districts, funding & campaign spending rules. We need a voting system that lets us reject who is on the ballot rather than be forced to choose from two political monopolies.
My father was heavily involved in the Tea Party movement in his State. They very much were anti-federal government and sought to return to local control. You can choose the State you want to live in, you can't choose the Federal Government. In certain industries, like agriculture, the Federal government has idiotic programs like forced taxes to pay for marketing programs that aren't needed (i.e. Got Milk?) and there are uneven subsidies given to States that happen to have a powerful Senator. People vote on issues and much of the Tea Party movement was based on local issues where the Federal Government overstepped their bounds in the people's eyes. It's kind of mindless to write that off with a blanket insult.
I've spent time in Sweden. Their unemployment rate is pretty high compared to our historical average. Their taxes are absolutely brutal with a lot of consumption taxes collected versus income taxes. They also have a State church that you have to do work to opt out of funding, which is funny. One thing about those countries is they don't have the natural resources to exist on their own. They are forced to do a lot of international trade to keep their economy afloat. This as the side effect of forcing people to adapt to that, which happened FAR earlier than international trade (global economy) happened here. Our corporate tax rates are far too high to be competitive globally and we tax income way too much versus consumption in the US.
The same people that build the roads now and be paid for by the people that use them. (Be it a community or State). I know it can be a difficult concept for people to understand - paying for what you use. God forbid our infrastructure be paid for by sensible fees & taxes on those that use it most (Corporations) rather than on the backs of the middle class' income. Oh wait, our infrastructure is crumbling anyway, so I guess the government isn't even doing that right. But at least we have corn subsidies and are forced to buy health insurance.
You are mixing up Libertarians and Anarchists. Libertarians aren't anti-government as much as they are for a moral and limited government. If you can convince 90% of people to agree on a law, Libertarians are going to be for it too. Laws by consensus benefit nearly everyone and will be widely supported. It's the ridiculous government intrusions put into place by people elected with a slim majority and a corrupt Congress in the pocket of lobbyists that need to stop. I don't know how a rational person can believe the government that can barely keep our infrastructure intact and can't manage letter delivery without losing tons of money should be responsible for anything important in our lives.
They don't solve economic problems as much as problems with currency. One could argue that depressions and recessions are the result of too much financial control by governments that are fiscally irresponsible. People don't stop working and producing because they don't want to, they stop when they can't have control of their wealth because the government forces some idiotic currency scheme on them.
"Successful" by what standard? There is no "control" for Libertarianism and what it could/would have done it its place. "Better" is never the point, morally right is. Just because government can do something better by rule of force and taking wealth doesn't mean that is a moral way to run society. That is the point non-Libertarians often miss.
"Against the public will" is the basis of freedom. What Rights are violated by a business not doing background checks? Who is the victim? This is bad law run amok. If you don't like their policies don't use it, don't cry to the government to be a goon and bully. Absurd.
Maybe, just maybe, things aren't that bad. The standard of living is the highest it has been in history. A wealthy person 100 years ago would envy how our middle class lives today. The world is actually pretty peaceful in a historical context. We have more entertainment choices than ever, which indicates we have a lot of extra time & wealth. Violent crime has been trending down for decades. Cultural awareness of discrimination has never been better. Do we really need radical economic change? I think it's important we take a step back and make sure the powers that be aren't simply telling us how terrible it is because it suits their ends.
It would be far more efficient for a government to assign mates and marriages. To test us early and often to determine exactly what our talents are and of what use we would be to "Society", but that's a monstrous infringement on freedom and free will. Whether a government could run our lives better or worse is irrelevant. It's MY life and only mine and there is not argument you can make to take possession of it.
It IS trickling down to consumers in ways that are difficult to measure. The standard of living of an unemployed person in a country such as the United States is FAR better than an unemployed person in a poverty-stricken nation. (often better than an employed individual). There is a lot of wealth we all have simply by existing in such a country. There are also a lot of opportunity to grow in a wealthy nation because you are safe to pursue an education without fear of starvation, warlords, or an oppressive government. Looking at the problem of wealth purely by income is a huge miscalculation. This is why Basic Income is a bit of a magic bullet that won't work by itself. Money is a tool, it isn't a cause of anything by itself. Economic change starts with cultural change.
With a basic income, you'll eventually get to a situation where too few people actually run the machine of society. That makes society extremely unstable in the long run. In the short term, it will feel okay and seem okay, but it will only take one of many possible calamities to tear down such a society into nothing. What we are seeing in this "information age" is that brains are more valuable than brawn. A basic income makes sense only if coupled with mandatory education. Paying people simply for existing is an economic and cultural time bomb. Those who are able did not commit some form of "Original Sin" to those that are unable. Money spent needs to be an investment for the economics to make any sense.
Plenty of reasonable doubt here that the drone was making a threatening posture. We lock up way too many people to consider locking up people for shooting down some idiot's drone that was flying in an incredibly dumb situation. If a plane flew over at 5,000 feet and posted photographs of a minor on a sexually suggested site, you bet they would get prosecuted. A plane at 5,000 feet away is not imminently physically threatening either.
The type of language used in the summary doesn't help at all. The jabs about e-mail knowledge are akin to a non-techie saying "technical people don't know anything about people." It's adolescent and completely unproductive. It's okay to disagree, but do it with some intelligence.