Ten oz

In 2017 those are partisan issues. Pro choice Republicans no longer exist on the nationa levell. I didn't make it that way and identifying it for what it is so doesn't encourage it. The current Republican Party is not what it once was. As a party they havetaken a hardline on abortion, guns, taxes, immigration, and etc. It has been swinging that way for somtime. It isn't Trump who pushed it there. GOP has had 3 waves prior to Trumpism which pushed them further and further: Reagan revolution, Newt Gingrich's contract with America, and the Tea Party. It is sort of off topic though to discuss why politics are so partisan. The topic is more about why people tolerate it. Why voters accept lies and don't think the truth matters. I think it is has a lot to do with the way people are educated. For a long time I have felt education in the country was going in the wrong direction. Too much is geared around multiple choice tests. To often I see people create flashcard or study guides for a singular test which focus entirely on key words but lack any actual definition or information. People pass their testes and move on often having learned nothing. The tests themselves serving as something akin to a game one must beat. The process in different in STEM fields as knowledge is compounding and one must actually know the prerequisite material which is one of the reasons why society struggles to get more young people into STEM despite all the associated great paying careers. STEM is too difficult to get into once one has conditioned themselves to pass tests of keywords rather than knowing things. The way people are getting educated, broadly, these days doesn't build a solid knowledge base. It is easy for politicians to lie about things like the Civil War, for example, because such a large portion of the population only ever memorized dates to pass a multiple choice test and didn't really learn/think about it any further. The Civil War is just something that happened and knowing that it happened is all one needed to know to pass. Developing a childs mind into adulthood this way establishes a type of apathy towards facts. They (facts) are just key words on a flashcard without context. Something to brain dump after a test; disposable formalities. Listening to a civics discuss in a classroom today is a cringeworthy experience.

There are significantly more people employed in solar than there is employed in coal. I feel like you are proving the point that fear of losing what one has isn't actually behind climate denial. Coal only accounts for les than 8% of the total number of people working in energy. That isn'[t enough inidividual people to move the needle on public opinion and yet coal miners and their concerns is a centeral topic of national conversation. Clearly tens of millions of more people than those actually associated with the coal industy are taking up strong positions and denying facts. Fear isn't their reason; they don't work in the industry. Their jobs are not on the line and they are not being asked to be retrained. The 50yrs men who worked in coal their whole life are a very small group. Their individual fears don't explain the national obsession with their plight. Far more people work in the retail industry and major retailers like JC Penny, Kmart, Mervyn's, Sears, Radioshack, and etc have been closing store fronts in mass all over the country. We doesn't fear of lossing jobs created a backlash against Amazon if fear of losing what one has had or known is really what the motivating factors are? "Between 2001 and 2016, jobs at traditional department stores fell 46%, according to Labor Department data.That's a much steeper drop than other troubled industries. For example, coal mining jobs dropped 32% during the same 15 years. Factory employment fell 25%. About 60% of department store employees are female, compared to 47% of workers overall. Minorities, the elderly and teenagers are also far more likely to find jobs in department and discount stores than they are elsewhere. Teenagers hold 8% of department store jobs, compared to 3% of jobs overall. " http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/12/news/companies/retailers-dying/index.html

In the OP waitforufo's link included a line saying something to the effect that while laws were not broken it was somehow unethical. Everyone has understand from the beginning of this thread that Clinton hadn't substantively done anything wrong. It is all just mud throwing.

Flynn was the National Security Advisor. Trump has tried to distance himself from Manafort and the rest but Flynn was put into a position with immense access to Intelligence and policy influence. Barrack Obama personally warned Trump in private about Flynn so this whole situation can't be dismissed as something Trump wasn't aware. It reflects a level of deliberateness in the way Trump disrespects this country's institutions.

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators have gathered enough evidence to bring charges in their investigation of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser and his son as part of the probe into Russia's intervention in the 2016 election, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-has-enough-evidence-bring-charges-flynn-investigation-n817666

An independent shouldn't expect to be the nominee of a party to which they do not belong. Sanders exploited a loophole in my opinion. Primaries are not open and "fair" contests. Some states hold caucuses, some have closed voting, and the process is staggered with different states get more premium polling dates. Super delegates also are tossed into the mix and have no obligation to support a candidate who gets the most votes in their home states. The whole process is designed to ensure the party has positive control. It is not meant to be fair and equal. It is meant to boost the profile of the nominee and get the whole party bought in. If anything the GOP should consider changing their rules in the future to be more like the DNC was in 16' so that someone like a Trump who isn't a typical or loyal party member can't hijack the nomination. Had the GOP had superdelegates Trump probably doesn't win the nomination. Donna Brazile isn't saying the Primary was rigged but rather Clinton had influence because of a connection between her campiagn's and the DNC's money raising apparatus. It is also worth acknowledging that Brazile also claims she was pressure to put a plan together to potentially replace Clinton and give the nomination to Biden. Doesn't seem the DNC was overly loyal to Clinto per se. Tom Perez also made a good point, one I had forgotten, about the way primaries are structure; states manage the voting in primariesraces while theDNC manages the caucauses. Sanders did better in caucuses than he did in election voting were Clinton beat him by 4 million. "The comments came as Brazile details the fundraising agreement in her new book, writing that it was “a cancer” that disadvantaged Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) because it gave Clinton's campaign a measure of influence over some DNC operations in exchange for helping the party raise money. Still, asked Sunday on ABC's “This Week” whether the primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton, Brazile told anchor George Stephanopoulos, “I found no evidence, none whatsoever.”" "Brazile writes in her book, “Hacks,” that she had settled on Vice President Joe Biden as the best replacement and had serious doubts during that period about the direction of Clinton's campaign but did not initiate the process. As party chair, she did not have the power to unilaterally replace the nominee. “I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a 'Plan B,' " Brazile said on ABC. “I didn't want a Plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary, and I wanted her to win. But we were under pressure.” Brazile said she kept her own counsel during this period and did not talk about it with Biden. “This was something you play out in your mind,” she said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/05/brazile-says-she-found-no-evidence-that-democratic-primaries-were-rigged-for-clinton/?utm_term=.7adb3890fac4

Trump regularly doubles, triples, and quadruples down on his statements. Implying his remarks are just off the top of his head errors is disingenuous. I challenge you to name a SINGLE time Trump has ever indicated that he misspoke or didn't mean what he had said or tweeted.

So you think people who deny truth do so out of fear of losing what they have? It is possible but if the case finding middle ground should be very easy considering recognition of the truth leads to better decision making and outcomes. True. They may not be ignorant in terms of education and experience but ultimately supporting an ideology which is counter productive to ones goals is ignorant. It isn't done out of ignorance though. No one is really taking on the second part of the question; can/should middle ground be reached with those who deny the truth? Something has to give.

I don't follow. Many of the people in this country who vote against the truth are poor.

I don't follow. Many of the people in this country who vote against the truth are poor.

England is in a similar position currently or at least tracking that direction?

I my opinion the party made it clear a year before the first vote was cast that Hillary Clinton was the nominee. Sanders ran merely to increase his brand; never expected to be successful as he was. Democrats cleared the field for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. Others who could have ran like Biden, Kerry, Warren, Booker, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Dean, and etc stayed home knowing Clinton was the nominee. It created an opportunity for someone to come in and make noise by riding the wave of negative Clinton media on the right. Shame on Sanders for taking advantage. No way Sanders would have been even 10% as successful had others not all deferred for Clinton. Lets not forget that Clinton actually won more votes in the 08' primary than did Obama but it was the super delegates than gave Obama the nomination. Many Clinton Democrats wanted Clinton to fight on the floor at the DNC for the nomination. Instead she became one of Obama's strongest cheerleaders. Sanders got 13 million votes in 16'. Back in 08' Clinton received 18 million votes (many more than Sanders). Similar to the DNC in 16' the party was split with Clinton supporters crying foul and demanding at the very least she get the VP slot. Ultimately Clinton did concede, wasn't made VP. but still unified the party by fervently supporting Obama. Inmy opinion Sanders only begrundingly endorsed Clinton and accepted the role victim bycontinuing to complain about the DNC straight through. Bernie Sanders refusal to be a team (Party) player is exactly one of the reasons why it is and needs to be a party nomination. NEW YORK — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Tuesday refused to bow out of the Democratic race Tuesday, hoping to maintain leverage as Barack Obama clinched the delegates needed to secure the party's nomination. Clinton told supporters in a rally at Baruch College that she would consult party leaders in coming days on how to move forward, but that, "I will be making no decisions tonight." "A lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want?'" Clinton said. "I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard." Clinton told the crowd she would consult in the coming days with advisers about the fate of her moribund candidacy. But her remarks came hours after she told congressional colleagues she would be open to joining Obama as his running mate. Top supporters see her as V.P. Many of her top supporters spoke openly of Clinton's potential vice presidential prospects. Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel under President Clinton, said he told the former first lady Tuesday that he was initiating a petition to press Obama to select her for the second spot on the ticket. He said Clinton did not encourage or discourage the step." http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24953561/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-refuses-concede-nomination/#.Wf8LGjtrzIU "Leading up to her address, there was a lot of speculation about what she would say and whether she would make a strong enough call for unity. But she made a very strident case for Obama's candidacy. "No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president," Clinton said." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html

Bernie Sanders is an independent. Why do his supporters have a "right" to be angry at the DNC? Sanders didn't need the DNC to get elected to the Senate and didn't/ doesn't need the DNC to run for POTUS

Yes!!!! I want my government and those serving in it to be strategic. The President of the United States represents, is suppose to be serving, everyone in the country and not merely his own sloppy thoughts.

What about the 2nd part; how do we find middle ground? It seems to me that the 2 major parties are far part as they have been in sometime. Culture warfare has replace legitimate policy disputes. it is John F. Kennedy who coined "a rising tide lifts all boats" is championing tax cuts. There use to be a lot of overlap betweens parties and a lot of things everyone agreed on. Everyone had the same truth. Today parties are defined by different truths. By today's strandards Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush 41 were all Democrats: Eisenhower - Pro NATO, Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was billions in govt infastructure spending, supported the Civil Rights Act of 57' & 60', placed National Guard members unnder federal control to enforce Brown vsthe board of education, made Earl Warren the Chief Justice of the supreme court, made HI a state, and coined "military industrial complex". Nixon - Pro China, sought Vietnam withdraw, created the EPA, supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, supported the Philadelphia plan (affirmitive action), and expanded medicare in 72'. Ford - endoresedan Amnesty program for those who had refuse to fight in Vietnam, WIN program sought tax increases to combat inflation, signed the Education For All Handicapped Children Act, and was openly pro choice. Bush 43 - Raised taxes, endorsed the Americans with Disabilities Act, reauthorized the Clean Air Act, increased legal immigration by 40%, resigned his NRA membership, pro NATO, and signed the Strategic Arms Reduction, Treaty.

This may explain why the top 1% deny truth but not all the other 10 of millions who do. It isn't just stupidity either. There are educated people on this site who work in engineering fields that buy into various denials about things which are known to be true.

All who deny climate change are not old and all have access to the truth. Particularly those running agencies doing the research. This isn't limited to climate change though. It exists in nearly every Political discussion in the U.S.. We don't debate policy anymore; we debate reality. It makes finding common ground next to impossible. Philosophically you have a point but I don't see it as applicable here. The millions of people out there denying the truth are getting nothing in return for it.

"The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, a conclusion at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from a key international climate accord, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/03/trump-administration-releases-report-finds-no-convincing-alternative-explanation-for-climate-change/?utm_term=.da10d08a57ef " Since 1980, the cost of extreme events for the United States has exceeded $1.1 trillion; therefore, better understanding of the frequency and severity of these events in the context of a changing climate is warranted. " https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ I started with climate change because it is one of the most black and white examples of what appears to be a troubling trend in U.S. politics where the truth doesn't matter even when it is unambiguously known. The President and his picks to head the Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Energy are climate change deniers. The President's picks to head the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration both hedge on the issue saying humans have an effect on the climate but the degree isn't understood. Yet these Agencies and the gov't broadly puts out unequivocal heavily peer reviewed work idicating that claimte change we are experiencing is absolutely man made. The President and his administration openly deny the work of thier own agencies. Trump himself does this often with other examples including but not being limited to him insisting crime is at an all time high while the FBI and DOJ stats prove oftherwise, illegal immigration increased during Obama's terms despite CBP and USCIS stats prove otherwise, tax cuts will pay for themselve despite the CBO assessment statingthe opposite, and etc.This of course if not limited to Trump. Many politicians flat out ignore known facts in favor are arguing their preference. I see many smart people argue that compromise and middle ground is critical in our current divisive political climate. I fear it is false pragmatism. Being pragmatic doesn't merely mean compromising; it means to soberly assess truth and practical applications. I don't see a pragmatic middle ground to be reached with those who disavow the truth. So my question is two part: why doesn't truth matter and can there be middle ground with truth deniers? I understand that there can be honest disagreements about the best way to address issues. Smart people can have different priorities with regards taxes, healthcare, climate, criminal justice system, and etc. That isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about provable facts which not only get ignored but are straight up denied.

Perhaps I misunderstand Elite Engineer's post but it seems that they're saying that Hollywood both promotes casual and quid pro qou sex while aslo attempting to be social justice warriors for sexual assualt victims. The highlighted line from Elite Engineer's post implies an association or likeness between "Hollywood" (which I assume U.S. film industry) and "progressives" (which I assume means U.S. Democrats). The way progressives would "make sex out to be" comes in the form of political debate and policy pushes. The way Hollywood would "make sex out to be" comes in the form of filmmaking and advertising (?). I think Elite Engineer is implies that Hollywood pushes sex on society in film and as such is somehow in contradiction with itself when it responds with shock and anger over something like Harvey Weinstein's situation. My response to that implication is that Hollywood, like any industry, pushes out whatever will make them the most money. There is nothing ideological about Hollywood; there is no contradiction. *there is not a contradiction.

He said that Mrs. Clinton “stole the Democratic Primary” from Mr. Sanders and asserted there was “Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering.” Mr. Trump on Thursday acknowledged that presidents are not supposed to interfere with Justice Department investigations, but he weighed in anyway with a series of Twitter posts early Friday morning and said the department should investigate the Democrats’ activity during the 2016 campaign. The American public, he said, “deserves it.” “At some point the Justice Department, and the F.B.I., must do what is right and proper,” Mr. Trump said in a series of early morning Twitter posts that echoed some of the president’s comments late Thursday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/trump-says-justice-dept-and-fbi-must-do-what-is-right-and-investigate-democrats.html Trump can't even get his own hand picked people at the Department of Juustice to take serious the notion that Hillary Clinton committed any crimes during the election or with regards to the Dossier yet waitforufo has different threads up pushing these things as if there is plainly something there. Trump has professed many times that heis a counter puncher. All of this is just him and his media lackeys trying to turn the narrative after the damaging indicts of two of Trump's campaign advisors. They are desperate to get people to look away.

Yes you did.

I think Bernie was treated fairly and has been handled with kiddie gloves since. Democrats walk on egg shells over Sanders. It is a party nomination and Sanders is NOT a Democratic party member. He ran for Senate as an independent. He can't even be bothered to register as a Democrat yet expects a leadership role in the party; it isn't how it works. If the argument is that primaries should be open to everyone and everyone treated the same why aren't people opposed to closed primaries? Why must millions be registered party members to vote in a primary? Why the slow bleed where specific states vote first? Why no calls to open all primaries and hold a national vote in all 50 states for Democrats and Republicans on the same day like the general? It seems to me that those complaining aren't really interested is ensuring equal treatment for all much as they just like having something to complain about. A loaded "whatabout" in their back pocket to toss out whenever convenient.

It is a party nomination. It is not an open national democratic progress. The rules very by state with many having closed primaries where only party members can vote. The winner of a primary holds no specific office; they are merely a party nominee. No one is obligated to vote for or be a member of the Democratic party. It is silly to compare "rigging" a party nomination to what people are upset at Trump for. Also let's not forget that party Primaries weren't even national events allowing all 50 state participation until 1976 and unlike the General Election they are not outlined in the Constitution. Moreover people don't even need a party nomination to run for President. Sanders didn't need the Democratic nomination to run. He could have ran as an independent just has he did for the Senate.

Movies have ratings. There isn't casual sex in G or PG rated films. As with any industry filmmakers are looking to turn a profit. They turnout whatever audiences willingly pay to see. They react to societies appetite and not vice versa.

Every society in history has failed; economic model notwithstanding. How the success of a economic model is measured is purely relative. Hundreds of years from now people might look back at present day with dusgust over our unsustainable use of resources and destruction of the environment. The Rapa Nui probably thought they had a good system in place at one point. What we see as an economic model promoting compitetion, ownership, and growth most certainly will be viewed differently in the future just as all things are: manifest destiny, slavery, etc. I believe any economic system can work. I don't think a specific type of model can promote happiness or satisfaction in a society. People must want it to work. Communism, Socialism, Captialism, even a barter system could all work if society embraced it. Ultimately the amount of time, resources, and brain power are equal within any system. The challange is motivating people to be productive. Thoroughout history that motivation has come in a lot of different forms. War has been a very productive motivator. In many ways the economic model of a nation during war most closely resembles communism inthat resources are devoted to the state. In the U.S. we call those who fought WW2 the Greatest Generation. During WW2 factories where turned our to the govt to build military equipment, people were drafted, resources rationed, and etc. Things we wouldn't accpet today. We do not look back on that time period as negative at all. As a society we (U.S.) wanted to make it work. Commitment serving as the most important factor. Fast forward to Vietnam and society wasn't committed. The sacrificed of a daft and govt spending weren't embraced and as a result the time periof is veiwed negatively. How a society feels about what is happening matters nearly much as what is actually happening.