I am so deeply buried in my own opinion that I can't even imagine what things look like from the outside. For that reason, you have no chance to ever convince my from outside the echo chamber of my beliefs.
There, FTFY.
As I was saying, the idea that a welfare state or progressive state can be implemented based on only sales tax plus basic income, like you suggested, is ludicrous: such a program is both economically and fiscally impossible, and it is contrary to what both progressives stand for.
And your idea that Bismarck, the Catholic church, the Social Gospel, or Woodrow Wilson don't "touch on authoritarianism" or aren't concerned with "digging into the minutia of people's lives", you really don't know any history.
You just keep demonstrating that you are a blithering idiot.
Researchers at MIT have just completed the most comprehensive study yet to address whether or not existing electric vehicles could bring about a meaningful reduction in the greenhouse-gas emissions that are causing global climate change. Yes, they can
There wouldn't be a "meaningful reduction in the greenhouse-gas emissions" even if we eliminated all emissions from personal transportation in the US. Anything that is supposed to affect climate change meaningfully would have to result in eliminating a large percentage of worldwide emissions.
Of course, eliminating all emissions from personal transportation is not in the cards: electric cars still produce plenty of greenhouse gas emissions, from the fossil fuels required to produce electricity to the fossil fuels required to produce the batteries and any solar cells. Mass transit is also not all that much more efficient than personal cars.
Literally nothing in your link even touches on authoritarianism or on your surrounding claim of digging into the minutia of people's lives
Oh, it touches on plenty of it, you are simply too ignorant of history and contemporary policy to see it.
In any case, you are welcome to try to come up with an actual feasible policy that implements progressivism; sales taxes plus basic income isn't it since it is neither economically feasible nor a progressivist policy.
Suggesting conditions or modifications that would make something no-longer true is not redefining.
It isn't necessarily redefining, but it often is. When you "modify" an automobile by changing the number of wheels from four to two and replacing the internal combustion engine by pedals, you no longer have an automobile, you have a bicycle.
Improving society and providing opportunities for all does not at all need details about any particular individual. Information in aggregate is suffiocient.
You seem to live under the misconception that progressivism and/or the social welfare state are synonymous with the goal of "Improving society and providing opportunities for all". In fact, those are the goals of many political ideologies, and progressivism and the social welfare state are actually pretty poor at accomplishing those goals.
Don't confuse the closet authoritarians for people with an actually progressive approach.
The progressive approachis authoritarian. That is, if you want society to make progress, to improve and to provide opportunities for al, then adopting "progressivism" is the wrong ideology because it doesn't actually work very well.
The actual source of Twitter's abuse problem is that it is all about identity and popularity, rather than content or discussion. You can't make much of an argument in 140 characters, but you can engage in social signalling and trolling. The most successful Twitter users are those with the most followers, and narcissists and minor celebrities want to increase that number; and the easiest way of increasing those number is through self-righteous indignation and trolling.
The solution to Twitter's problem is simple: discourage the use of real names. You'd find that most Twitter users with many followers would drop in popularity to nothing, and they would be discouraged from trolling people.
No, you keep redefining terms to suit your argument. If you eliminate the reasons for sales taxes to be regressive, they are no longer regressive. For example, if you don't tax staple foods and other basics and give everyone a basic income, then it need not be regressive.
Sales taxes already exclude staple foods and other basics; if you restrict them any further, they turn into luxury taxes. But be that as it may, of course they are still regressive, for the simple reason that people with higher incomes tend to only spend a smaller fraction of their incomes. It also doesn't work out fiscally. Germany collects a VAT, not just a sales tax, and has few exemptions, yet it raises only 20% of their total taxes, $140 billion. If you distributed that across all Germans as a basic income, you end up with $2000-3000/year/person, nowhere near enough to live on, and you're proposing to reduce the tax base even further.
And, I would say at a guess most of the Libertarians I run across would rather rip out their own livers with a spoon than implement a basic income.
Hayek supported it, and the Cato institute published an article favoring it. Many libertarians would view a no-strings-attached basic income as far preferable to the current massive system of government benefits, for reasons of privacy, self-determination, and efficiency.
The government would need a great deal of information in aggregate, but not so much personally identifiable.
You are making the erroneous assumption that progressivism and the welfare state are only about handing out money to people with low incomes; that is simply false. Both ideologies are about government helping people and improving society, and that requires attention to the details of every individual's life.
As I was saying, a society in which the function of the state is reduced to that of collecting sales taxes and turning them into a basic income guarantee is a libertarian state. Many libertarians (myself included) simply believe that that is not fiscally feasible; that's also the conclusion reached by governments that have looked into it. Furthermore, we fear that attempts to push it through politically would simply result in a basic income in addition to the current massive and intrusive welfare system.
This is, of course, ignorant and stupid and wrong. For instance, drug testing for welfare recipients.... Or, welfare in general.
No, what is "stupid and wrong" is that you keep confusing the "social welfare state" with the US welfare system. The term "welfare" in the "welfare state" and the "welfare system" are largely unrelated.
If you move to a minimum guaranteed income then the only fraud cases you'll have are people collecting benefits for people who are dead. It greatly simplifies the problem and makes enforcement comparatively cost-free.
A state that only provides a minimum guaranteed income and otherwise doesn't keep track of the health and welfare of its citizens is not a "welfare state", it's a form of libertarian state.
building inspections, etc.
Oh, you want your house to burn down every other week because someone else didn't do theirs properly?
Not at all; I simply don't want the state to have the power to perform such inspections; there are many alternatives.
Actually, if income tax is replaced by sales tax, that kills a lot of tracking.
Sales taxes are highly regressive; one of the major tenets of progressivism and social welfare states is the reduction of inequalities, and that requires progressive income taxation.
But that isn't INTRINSIC.
Yes, these features are INTRINSIC for progressive welfare states because the premise of such states is that the government makes rational, science-based decisions that maximize the welfare of society and protects individuals against their own ignorance and mistakes. Government can only fulfill that function if it has massive amounts of information on both society and on individuals.
A state that is financed by sales taxes, redistributes that money as basic income, and otherwise leaves citizens alone is not a progressive state or a social welfare state, it is essentially a libertarian state.
Non of the disasters you mention are extinction events, but extinction events do happen
"Extinction events" are a rapid die-off of many species. An extinction event is not, per se, a threat to humans or even civilization. In fact, humans may well be causing an extinction event, just like other, previously successful species.
Nonsense. Unless you insist on means testing and demand a zillion measures to prevent 'cheating' (that cost more than the cheating), the whole thing can be more or less anonymous.
The social welfare state isn't just "welfare", it includes public health care, public education, public utilities, public retirement programs, gun control, tax breaks for desired behavior, sin taxes, financial regulation, strict income tax enforcement, etc. Those cannot be "more or less anonymous", they require government to keep track of your entire life, from cradle to grave.
You can get off the grid: become a homeless bum, move to a third world country, etc. But there are obvious disadvantages associated with that. If you own a house, have a salary, drive a car, take a plane, see a doctor, own a gun, use a credit card, etc. you are being tracked. NSA surveillance is really the least of your worries. And the thing to recognize that most of that tracking has nothing to do with terrorism, but with financial regulations, taxes, mandatory insurance and retirement plans, gun control, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, equal opportunity enforcement, zoning, building inspections, etc.
That is, the progressive social welfare state is inextricably linked with government tracking and surveillance: government can't right the supposed wrongs in society, manage the economy, and help everybody to become healthy and smart without detailed information about what people do and want. So, if you don't like that level of surveillance and tracking, the only way is to turn back the progressive welfare state.
Because the police are part of the system and they fucked it up royally.
Really? How? They were probably right that the guy would have erased the recordings. They took a gamble on something that was legally not completely clear-cut, and they lost in court. That isn't a "royal fuck up".
My family and friends. Colleagues. People I meet in London, Paris, and Berlin. You know, that sort of thing.
I'm not going to even begin to attempt to disentangle the rest of your economic nonsense and bullshit. Suffice it to say that, yes, Obama has been misrepresenting the economy, and, yes, the US economy is far worse than it should be doing with better government. But the US is still doing much better than Europe. You can see that by looking at basic economic data (growth, incomes, long term unemployment, youth unemployment, spending patterns, etc.). Or you can also simply listen to people with first hand experience, like me.
that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
And that was entirely proper: evidence that was obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
In Silicon Valley, critics have argued that Chahal's case and the lack of serious consequences he faced highlight the way in which privileged and wealthy businessmen can get away with serious misconduct
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly for "privileged and wealthy businessmen" (although it is difficult to see in what way a minority high school drop-out was privileged). If the legal system doesn't work like that for someone less "privileged and wealthy", then the solution is to make it work correctly for them too.
Apparently, people advocating for minorities and social justice these days are simply out for blood instead of actually working towards improving society.
FBI and American court system is trying hard to protect the last remnants of a failed economy that USA is running.
Silk Road would be just as illegal in Europe, and Europe is doing economically far worse than the US. And the more the US adopts European-style policies (most of the stuff both Trump and Hillary are running on), the more anemic the US economy will become.
Are there ever people extradited from the US because their online activities broke the law in other countries?
That is not sufficient; people can only be extradited if the activity is a felony in both countries. Since US laws restricting online activities are generally more liberal than those found elsewhere, that is fairly unlikely. Furthermore, the US is a prime target for foreign hackers, while other countries rarely are.
The idea that countries, mainly America, can now extradite people all over the world sticks two fingers up at the idea of sovereign states.
No, it doesn't. Extradition requires a treaty and needs to meet certain conditions. These treaties are generally symmetric (the Irish-US treaty is). Such treaties have been around for a long time.
Ireland can cancel its extradition treaty with the US any time it likes.
But states generally like these treaties because there is little point in country A spending money on the investigation, prosecution, and imprisonment for a crime committed in country B.
Okay, I know your ability with logic, if anyone who makes money on speaker fees have obviously abused political office.
No, I didn't say "if anyone". You said that "since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office", and I agreed. For the Clintons and their particular circumstance, the audiences they spoke to, the topics they spoke about, and the kinds of fees they received, it is clear that they have abused their political offices for personal gain. And it isn't just speaker fees either, it's influence peddling and other offenses.
If you disagree, please find an example of someone who has done what one of the Clintons has, without exacerbating circumstances that don't exist in the Clintons' cases, and show the jail time.
Bill Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice, offenses that ordinary people frequently go to jail for. Politicians and government officials are frequently shielded from legal consequences of their actions because of separation of powers; instead of the judiciary judging the executive, the judiciary prefers leaving decisions up to voters. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases. But it means that you cannot reason as you do: "he/she wasn't convicted, therefore he/she isn't guilty"; the judiciary defers to us as voters, so we need to look at the facts ourselves and make our own decisions at the ballot box.
I don't think either Hillary or Bill should go to jail. What I do think is that voters should make sure they never hold public office. The Clintons are the most egregious examples of how money corrupts politics in a long time. That not only means that Hillary is an utter hypocrite when she runs on a platform of getting money out of politics, it also means that she is utterly unsuitable for the job of POTUS.
90% of the time its not a home made gun... Almost all the time sounds like a fair description of 90%. so that other 10% fits nicely in almost never
Let's disregard your misuse of the term "almost all the time", the simple fact is that 10% home made guns shows that making guns is easy. The only reason the percentage isn't higher is because manufactured guns are easy to get, even illegally. If any government tries to crack down more, it won't reduce the number of guns, it will simply increase the percentage of home made guns.
In other words, since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office?
Correct.
The fact that they have weaseled out of accusations that don't have actual evidence behind them isn't real impressive either. Bill got in legal trouble over a lawsuit that didn't actually allege he broke the law, so I'd think they're not nearly as slick as some people claim.
Are you kidding? If Bill or Hillary had been ordinary citizens, they'd be rotting in jail given the evidence we have. That's true for Bill's lies and cover-ups of his sexual escapades, and Hillary's use of her E-mail server alone. The evidence on those is crystal clear.
Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term [ballotpedia.org]. Speaking fees, legal stock market trading on confidential information, there's all kinds of things congress has decided to allow themselves because they "don't amount to corruption," in a quid-pro-quo sense. Not saying it's good; just saying it's normal.
A net worth of $120 million and control of a foundation worth billions, all acquired during active government employment, isn't "normal" even for Congress. The Clintons are in a category all of their own when it comes to political corruption. And this is particularly noteworthy given that Hillary is running on a platform of "limiting money in politics", which would continue to let her amass the kinds of fortunes she has amassed while silencing her critics.
But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
The Trumps have made their money by selling their name and managing mob-controlled construction projects and has kept his finances strictly private.
Again, so what? Neither being hassled by the mob nor being a celebrity amount to political corruption or are indicative of a propensity for political corruption. I mean, there are plenty of things wrong with Trump, but a track record of turning public office into personal gain isn't one of them.
At this point, the Seth Rich case is just an unsolved murder.
However, to people who say that this is highly implausible, I'd say: why do you think that? Even disregarding general military action, Hillary Clinton (like other top-level officials) clearly has approved the killing of dozens of people, knowing full well that innocent family members and children would likely get killed as well. Obviously, Clinton, like some other politicians, believes that killing for a higher purpose is justified. It is hardly a stretch to assume that she would order someone killed in order to prevent political chaos at home (like, for example, a Trump election).
I'm not sure Trump has what it takes to order the direct killing of another human being; Hillary has already demonstrated that she does. Whether you consider that a good thing in a presidential candidate you have to decide for yourself.
Snopes simply says (in so many words) that it is not an established fact that Rich was assassinated, which is true. In fact, nobody knows at this point why Seth Rich was killed. The case is weird, but at this point it is just an unsolved murder.
However, if I ask myself whether Hillary Clinton would order a murder if it served her interests and she thought she could get away with it, I have little doubt that she would. After all, Hillary Clinton clearly has approved drone killings against foreign targets, including the killing of families and children, as part of her job. Do you seriously think that after having ordered the killing of dozens of people, she is going to make fine moral distinctions when it comes to someone threatening her glorious ascension to the presidency?
I don't see why you think that political assassinations are "improbable"; look around the world. Why do you think high level politicians run around with secret service and security guards?
Slashdot Mirror
There, FTFY.
As I was saying, the idea that a welfare state or progressive state can be implemented based on only sales tax plus basic income, like you suggested, is ludicrous: such a program is both economically and fiscally impossible, and it is contrary to what both progressives stand for.
And your idea that Bismarck, the Catholic church, the Social Gospel, or Woodrow Wilson don't "touch on authoritarianism" or aren't concerned with "digging into the minutia of people's lives", you really don't know any history.
You just keep demonstrating that you are a blithering idiot.
There wouldn't be a "meaningful reduction in the greenhouse-gas emissions" even if we eliminated all emissions from personal transportation in the US. Anything that is supposed to affect climate change meaningfully would have to result in eliminating a large percentage of worldwide emissions.
Of course, eliminating all emissions from personal transportation is not in the cards: electric cars still produce plenty of greenhouse gas emissions, from the fossil fuels required to produce electricity to the fossil fuels required to produce the batteries and any solar cells. Mass transit is also not all that much more efficient than personal cars.
Oh, it touches on plenty of it, you are simply too ignorant of history and contemporary policy to see it.
In any case, you are welcome to try to come up with an actual feasible policy that implements progressivism; sales taxes plus basic income isn't it since it is neither economically feasible nor a progressivist policy.
It isn't necessarily redefining, but it often is. When you "modify" an automobile by changing the number of wheels from four to two and replacing the internal combustion engine by pedals, you no longer have an automobile, you have a bicycle.
You seem to live under the misconception that progressivism and/or the social welfare state are synonymous with the goal of "Improving society and providing opportunities for all". In fact, those are the goals of many political ideologies, and progressivism and the social welfare state are actually pretty poor at accomplishing those goals.
The progressive approach is authoritarian. That is, if you want society to make progress, to improve and to provide opportunities for al, then adopting "progressivism" is the wrong ideology because it doesn't actually work very well.
The actual source of Twitter's abuse problem is that it is all about identity and popularity, rather than content or discussion. You can't make much of an argument in 140 characters, but you can engage in social signalling and trolling. The most successful Twitter users are those with the most followers, and narcissists and minor celebrities want to increase that number; and the easiest way of increasing those number is through self-righteous indignation and trolling.
The solution to Twitter's problem is simple: discourage the use of real names. You'd find that most Twitter users with many followers would drop in popularity to nothing, and they would be discouraged from trolling people.
No, you keep redefining terms to suit your argument. If you eliminate the reasons for sales taxes to be regressive, they are no longer regressive. For example, if you don't tax staple foods and other basics and give everyone a basic income, then it need not be regressive.
Sales taxes already exclude staple foods and other basics; if you restrict them any further, they turn into luxury taxes. But be that as it may, of course they are still regressive, for the simple reason that people with higher incomes tend to only spend a smaller fraction of their incomes. It also doesn't work out fiscally. Germany collects a VAT, not just a sales tax, and has few exemptions, yet it raises only 20% of their total taxes, $140 billion. If you distributed that across all Germans as a basic income, you end up with $2000-3000/year/person, nowhere near enough to live on, and you're proposing to reduce the tax base even further.
Hayek supported it, and the Cato institute published an article favoring it. Many libertarians would view a no-strings-attached basic income as far preferable to the current massive system of government benefits, for reasons of privacy, self-determination, and efficiency.
You are making the erroneous assumption that progressivism and the welfare state are only about handing out money to people with low incomes; that is simply false. Both ideologies are about government helping people and improving society, and that requires attention to the details of every individual's life.
As I was saying, a society in which the function of the state is reduced to that of collecting sales taxes and turning them into a basic income guarantee is a libertarian state. Many libertarians (myself included) simply believe that that is not fiscally feasible; that's also the conclusion reached by governments that have looked into it. Furthermore, we fear that attempts to push it through politically would simply result in a basic income in addition to the current massive and intrusive welfare system.
No, what is "stupid and wrong" is that you keep confusing the "social welfare state" with the US welfare system. The term "welfare" in the "welfare state" and the "welfare system" are largely unrelated.
A state that only provides a minimum guaranteed income and otherwise doesn't keep track of the health and welfare of its citizens is not a "welfare state", it's a form of libertarian state.
Not at all; I simply don't want the state to have the power to perform such inspections; there are many alternatives.
Sales taxes are highly regressive; one of the major tenets of progressivism and social welfare states is the reduction of inequalities, and that requires progressive income taxation.
Yes, these features are INTRINSIC for progressive welfare states because the premise of such states is that the government makes rational, science-based decisions that maximize the welfare of society and protects individuals against their own ignorance and mistakes. Government can only fulfill that function if it has massive amounts of information on both society and on individuals.
A state that is financed by sales taxes, redistributes that money as basic income, and otherwise leaves citizens alone is not a progressive state or a social welfare state, it is essentially a libertarian state.
"Extinction events" are a rapid die-off of many species. An extinction event is not, per se, a threat to humans or even civilization. In fact, humans may well be causing an extinction event, just like other, previously successful species.
ExCAPE is a research program and grant, not a single finished piece of software. The output from such programs is mainly publications and ideas:
https://excape.cis.upenn.edu/p...
Automated programming, program synthesis, and similar projects have a long, long history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The social welfare state isn't just "welfare", it includes public health care, public education, public utilities, public retirement programs, gun control, tax breaks for desired behavior, sin taxes, financial regulation, strict income tax enforcement, etc. Those cannot be "more or less anonymous", they require government to keep track of your entire life, from cradle to grave.
You can get off the grid: become a homeless bum, move to a third world country, etc. But there are obvious disadvantages associated with that. If you own a house, have a salary, drive a car, take a plane, see a doctor, own a gun, use a credit card, etc. you are being tracked. NSA surveillance is really the least of your worries. And the thing to recognize that most of that tracking has nothing to do with terrorism, but with financial regulations, taxes, mandatory insurance and retirement plans, gun control, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, equal opportunity enforcement, zoning, building inspections, etc.
That is, the progressive social welfare state is inextricably linked with government tracking and surveillance: government can't right the supposed wrongs in society, manage the economy, and help everybody to become healthy and smart without detailed information about what people do and want. So, if you don't like that level of surveillance and tracking, the only way is to turn back the progressive welfare state.
Really? How? They were probably right that the guy would have erased the recordings. They took a gamble on something that was legally not completely clear-cut, and they lost in court. That isn't a "royal fuck up".
My family and friends. Colleagues. People I meet in London, Paris, and Berlin. You know, that sort of thing.
I'm not going to even begin to attempt to disentangle the rest of your economic nonsense and bullshit. Suffice it to say that, yes, Obama has been misrepresenting the economy, and, yes, the US economy is far worse than it should be doing with better government. But the US is still doing much better than Europe. You can see that by looking at basic economic data (growth, incomes, long term unemployment, youth unemployment, spending patterns, etc.). Or you can also simply listen to people with first hand experience, like me.
And that was entirely proper: evidence that was obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly for "privileged and wealthy businessmen" (although it is difficult to see in what way a minority high school drop-out was privileged). If the legal system doesn't work like that for someone less "privileged and wealthy", then the solution is to make it work correctly for them too.
Apparently, people advocating for minorities and social justice these days are simply out for blood instead of actually working towards improving society.
Silk Road would be just as illegal in Europe, and Europe is doing economically far worse than the US. And the more the US adopts European-style policies (most of the stuff both Trump and Hillary are running on), the more anemic the US economy will become.
That is not sufficient; people can only be extradited if the activity is a felony in both countries. Since US laws restricting online activities are generally more liberal than those found elsewhere, that is fairly unlikely. Furthermore, the US is a prime target for foreign hackers, while other countries rarely are.
No, it doesn't. Extradition requires a treaty and needs to meet certain conditions. These treaties are generally symmetric (the Irish-US treaty is). Such treaties have been around for a long time.
http://www.citizensinformation...
Ireland can cancel its extradition treaty with the US any time it likes.
But states generally like these treaties because there is little point in country A spending money on the investigation, prosecution, and imprisonment for a crime committed in country B.
No, I didn't say "if anyone". You said that "since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office", and I agreed. For the Clintons and their particular circumstance, the audiences they spoke to, the topics they spoke about, and the kinds of fees they received, it is clear that they have abused their political offices for personal gain. And it isn't just speaker fees either, it's influence peddling and other offenses.
Bill Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice, offenses that ordinary people frequently go to jail for. Politicians and government officials are frequently shielded from legal consequences of their actions because of separation of powers; instead of the judiciary judging the executive, the judiciary prefers leaving decisions up to voters. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases. But it means that you cannot reason as you do: "he/she wasn't convicted, therefore he/she isn't guilty"; the judiciary defers to us as voters, so we need to look at the facts ourselves and make our own decisions at the ballot box.
I don't think either Hillary or Bill should go to jail. What I do think is that voters should make sure they never hold public office. The Clintons are the most egregious examples of how money corrupts politics in a long time. That not only means that Hillary is an utter hypocrite when she runs on a platform of getting money out of politics, it also means that she is utterly unsuitable for the job of POTUS.
Let's disregard your misuse of the term "almost all the time", the simple fact is that 10% home made guns shows that making guns is easy. The only reason the percentage isn't higher is because manufactured guns are easy to get, even illegally. If any government tries to crack down more, it won't reduce the number of guns, it will simply increase the percentage of home made guns.
Correct.
Are you kidding? If Bill or Hillary had been ordinary citizens, they'd be rotting in jail given the evidence we have. That's true for Bill's lies and cover-ups of his sexual escapades, and Hillary's use of her E-mail server alone. The evidence on those is crystal clear.
A net worth of $120 million and control of a foundation worth billions, all acquired during active government employment, isn't "normal" even for Congress. The Clintons are in a category all of their own when it comes to political corruption. And this is particularly noteworthy given that Hillary is running on a platform of "limiting money in politics", which would continue to let her amass the kinds of fortunes she has amassed while silencing her critics.
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
Again, so what? Neither being hassled by the mob nor being a celebrity amount to political corruption or are indicative of a propensity for political corruption. I mean, there are plenty of things wrong with Trump, but a track record of turning public office into personal gain isn't one of them.
At this point, the Seth Rich case is just an unsolved murder.
However, to people who say that this is highly implausible, I'd say: why do you think that? Even disregarding general military action, Hillary Clinton (like other top-level officials) clearly has approved the killing of dozens of people, knowing full well that innocent family members and children would likely get killed as well. Obviously, Clinton, like some other politicians, believes that killing for a higher purpose is justified. It is hardly a stretch to assume that she would order someone killed in order to prevent political chaos at home (like, for example, a Trump election).
I'm not sure Trump has what it takes to order the direct killing of another human being; Hillary has already demonstrated that she does. Whether you consider that a good thing in a presidential candidate you have to decide for yourself.
Snopes simply says (in so many words) that it is not an established fact that Rich was assassinated, which is true. In fact, nobody knows at this point why Seth Rich was killed. The case is weird, but at this point it is just an unsolved murder.
However, if I ask myself whether Hillary Clinton would order a murder if it served her interests and she thought she could get away with it, I have little doubt that she would. After all, Hillary Clinton clearly has approved drone killings against foreign targets, including the killing of families and children, as part of her job. Do you seriously think that after having ordered the killing of dozens of people, she is going to make fine moral distinctions when it comes to someone threatening her glorious ascension to the presidency?
I don't see why you think that political assassinations are "improbable"; look around the world. Why do you think high level politicians run around with secret service and security guards?