Ten oz

It is a fantasy is the present day Congress and realistically Democrats aren't going to back in control of both houses of Congress for a while. Meanwhile there are some deadlines looming. The continuing budget resolution is only good till December. Democrats have the rest of Sept and then Oct and Nov to secure ACA subsides for the rest of 2018's budget. Failure to do so will damage state markets and cause many to lose coverage. I understand the benefits of pursuing the long game with Medicare for all but in the short term (next 2 and a half months) Dems need to be talking about the ACA. Especially when the ACA has never been more popular. I agree with everything Sanders promotes. I voted for Sanders in the primary. That said, in retrospect, I don't think anything Sanders has done over the last 2 years have been helpful to achieving any of the policies he promotes. Rather his efforts have arguably moved those goals further away. End of the day we would be much closer to Medicare for all and be able to discuss it in a climate where the White House would support it had Clinton won and she nearly did and might have had Sanders himself done somethings different. That isn't to say all is his fault; it isn't. Russia, DNC, Clinton herself, voter supression, and etc all contributed. That said Sanders and his supporters should perform some deep introspection and analyze whether or not they are helping solve any of the problems they want to have National conversations about. I personally don't think they are.

My fear is that participating in a "National Conversation" about policy which can't currently happen replaces the harder work of protecting ACA subsides in the budget battle currently underway. If the left base is willing to award brownie points for politicians who support legislative ideas which aren't actually policy they may not feel pressured to fight for the less understood and harder to get applauded for nuanced ACA battles. The GOP plan to kill the ACA. A national conversation about Medicare for all while the GOP drowned the policy we currently have in the bathtub doesn't stroke me as immediately useful. It argues for the fantasy world perfect to the detriment of the real world good.

We can argue all the theoretical economic tax strategies out there but most have been tried. We have had numerous rounds of federal tax cuts and numerous states have gone through tax overhauls; it doesn't help. One cannot point to a country which thrived and blossomed into a top economy in the world by cutting govt services and protections or taxes individually. In the U.S. those states with lower taxes have no economic advantage over those with higher taxes despite all the rhetoric. Business thrives in high taxes of San Francisco and New York City. Which isn't to say taxes are singularly responsible for NYC's or San Fran's success but they serve as clear examples that disprove the cries about business being choked by taxes. There is no state tax in Neveda, Wyoming, and other states so why aren't businesses moving to those states? If lower lower taxes, less regulation, and less govt were truly integral to a successful economy South Dakota and Tennessee should eclipse California and New York in the numbers successful businesses.

Democrats do not have the votes to pass a Medicare for all bill. The federal budget is currently on continuing resolution but Dems have an up hill battle ahead of them to protect ACA subsides for 2018's budget when those negotiations heat up in ahead of December. Dems also will need all hands on deck to battle Republicans on taxes and spending on numerous agencies like NASA, EPA, and and etc. Then there are also sensitive negotiations going on regarding DACA and border protection spending. With everything Dems need to protect and attempt to get done in the coming months I think Sanders bill is a selfish stunt aimed at ensuring his base, a base which is a subgroup of the Democratic base, stays energized in him specifically above the party itself. It is a way to demand a leadership position in a party he refuses to even declared himself a member of. I would love Medicare for all. However we are not starting from scratch and those who support Medicare for all are in the minority of Congress. We shouldn't argue for the perfect to the detriment of the good. Protecting the ACA will help the millions who were able to obtain healthcare under it. We should not leave those millions SOL while attempting to score Political theater points arguing for what we can't deliver. Protecting ACA subsidies isn't sexy as Medicare for all but protecting subsidies can be accomplished and would make a tangible and immediate difference in people's lives. Sanders is adding a dimension to the healthcare debate which potentially distracts from what matters and leads to a place where some Democrats won't feel the have to protect the ACA. Why go to the mat and fight for the ACA if their are easy Political points to be scored supporting the idea of Medicare for while the reality of the ACA is burned to the ground.

Trump didn't win a majority or even a plurality of votes. You are suggesting a popular view towards Obama and the economy which wasn't. Many Trump supporters/voters like those in burning torches in Charlottesville voted for Trump based on things totally unrelated to economic policy. Everyone agrees tax money should be spent only after careful consideration and with restraint but what that actually looks like varies considerably based on one's political beliefs. Some wish the govt would close the EPA while others wish the govt would reduce military spending. No one is entirely satisfied but that has been the case throughout history. Every dollar spent which an individual doesn't agree with can be debated as wasteful by that individual. Democracy forces a modicum of compromise and shared responsibility to each others positions. Where is it better? Which nation in the world serves as the model for the U.S. regarding tax policy. A country which thrives on limited govt and limited taxation?

Do you think people in FL, GA, and TX won't be receiving a great amount of public investment in their communities in the coming months than they pay out in taxes? Keeping all your money and having a limited govt sounds great until one needs govt assistance.

It is also an example of how short sighted many industries are. Many people idolize the wealthy and assume the best of them. We assume it is their intellectual brilliance which empowered them to become successful yet many actually have a very limited imaginations which is why so many businesses fail and are replaced over time as technology changes. From the music industry to major retailers we've seen wildly successful companies fail to adapt to online sales. Industries benefit from federally provided infastruture (roads, fire dept, subsidizes utilities, schools, parks, etc). It enables their employees to get to and from work. Without communities to live in where child can attend school and families can feel safe numerous industries wouldn't exist. Without tax money keeping NYC's infastruture up Trump's real estate properties throughout the city would be worthless. NYC would be a flooded marsh without constant up keep. Private companies don't float the bill for that. Less taxes and less services in the long run lead to less business. It is a fallacy to believe that private investigator put their longer term Interests over short term gains. Even Allen Greenspan acknowledged this after the economic collaspe in 2008.

I am all for states that need it receiving federal dollars. It just makes me sick to my stomach knowing that the representatives of these states will be screaming and stomping their feet for tax cuts in the next couple months.

"These places that got flooded, like Texas, okay, they have a low tax base," Maher said on his show "Real Time" on Friday. "So, the federal government bails them out. Their governors, their legislators they don't believe in climate science. "It seems like the responsible folks in this country, the people who pay a little more taxes and the people who believe in climate change are bailing out the people who hate government, except when they need government when they're in trouble," he continued. "That seems a little unfair. - Bill Maher I am all for federal assistance for Texas and Florida. I am pleased Democrats cut a deal with Trump to get the debt ceiling raised and money immediately available for federal relief in areas impacted by storms. That said Bill Maher makes a good point. Places like TX and FL have representatives who are against taxation. It is a bit ridiculous that states like TX and FL accept tens of billions in tax money while supporting policies to reduce taxes. Both states receive more than they contribute. Additionally their Representatives seek to cut funding for organizations like the EPA which will play a vital role in ensuring their safety moving forward during clean up. Not just taxes but Republicans also tend to be against mandated requirements for insurance, strict building codes, and industry practices. All things which protect tens of millions in TX and FL over these last few weeks.

As perviously stated society decides and society doesn't speak with a unified or often times even an experienced voice. In a society morals and accepted standards of behavior change. That is how we go from women not being able to vote to women candidates or child labor to no child labor. That requires a society which is able to assess and reassess at will. Often the more firmly some is put into law or argued to be law the more collateral Political visceral contempt it creates. Just look at the 2nd admendment.

They are drawn on a case by case basis by society at large. In Democracies that is how it works. Enough a strong enough contingency of the population feels a certain those feelings typically are get treated with respect whether they are correct or not. It is not a perfect solution but the alternatives tend to come with more opportunity for abuse. Ultimately we need society to be as well educated as possible.

Medical malpractice is a real thing and people are prosecuted. The diet/sport supplement industry gets a bit of a pass but there are still avenues to take them to court and what not. So to an extent there are already safe guards in place one simple must be determined to pursue them. I think part of the problem is that the intentions are dishonest most of the time. People know when they are thinking or feeling something that would not broadly be accepted or popular so they knowingly dress up their language and play with messaging in an attempt to get what they want. Those who argue against Climate Change and Evolution don't do so because they have considered the facts and are legitimately convienced the evidence isn't sufficient. Rather they simply don't care. So what if the weather changes and so what humans all came from Africa. They know their cynical apathy toward facts won't win an argument so they make stuff up and treat it like sport. In my opinion at the tops of the anti vaccine movement there are a bunch of selfish sociopathic people who are simply enriching themselves and growing a brand off of what they know to be public manipulation. Religious ministers/pastors/preachers are a perfect model of how it works. No Preacher ever grows their church into a wealthy mega church by saying all is good in the world. No, they all point made up evils in society and speak of looming armageddon. They say the economy is bad because homsexuals are allowed to marry or that crime is up because of abortion. dissatisfaction and anger is easier to sell than contemptment. For every market there is a counter market. People look to fill a niche. Educating people is all that can be done. In a free country the Govt represents the people and as such generally is no more educated or knowledgeable than the average person. So I personally wouldn't trust Govt to have the final say when it comes to science. We just have to hoope society continues to improve and logic wins the day.

Why does this need to be explained. Are you implying that hurricanes must strike the United States to count? And what do you consider a "major hurricane" to be? In the Pacific Ocean there have been 15 recorded Category 5 hurricanes. Of those 8 have formed since 2002 and 13 since 1994. In the Atlantic Ocean were strong Hurricanes are more common, the decade with the most Category 5 hurricanes is 2000–2009, with eight Category 5 hurricanes having occurred: Isabel (2003), Ivan (2004), Emily (2005), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Wilma (2005), Dean (2007), and Felix (2007).

It is easy for those looking for holes and errors to find whataboutism to complain about because global climate change is asymmetric. Warming ocean temps does mean more moisture in the atmosphere yet that doesn't mean droughts are a thing of the past. Land ice is receding yet some places still have record levels of sea ice during certian periods of winter. 2016 may have been the warmest year on record but that doesn't mean there wasn't still winter or that every community was noticeably warmer. Because climate change is asymmetric in that it doesn't impact all localities the same one must invest mental time and energy to understand all the dynamics. It isn't something that all fits onto a single graph, meme, 140 character limit, or prediction. The whataboutism opportunities are abundant. Storms are worse but what does worse mean; more frequent, more rainfall, stronger surges, faster wind, longer sustaining, more direct landfalls????? "Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year -- from January through September, with the exception of June -- were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record -- in all three cases, behind records set in 2015." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118112554.htm

No doubt! I understand here in the U.S. there are people who consider themselves conservative and support Republicans out of fiscal, military, perceived constitutional, and etc policy positions but things have gotten to a point where none of that is current a viable excuse for supporting what is going on. It really doesn't matter one darn bit how great a parent is 99% of the time if they molest their child 1% of the time. Come on already!!!

In 2016 Whites made up 51% of all tickets sold. Latinos made up 21% and Blacks and Asians both accounted for 14% of all movie tickets sold. Of that group collectively 52% (of all movie goers) were female. From those numbers it can be assumed white males acount for roughly 24% of the industries business domestically. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) stats for 2016 Lists the nations demographics as 62% white, 18% latino, 12% black, and 8% Asian/other. http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_Final.pdf The above link lists the top 25 movies on 2016 per domestic gross. Of those 25 movies the only 2 starred minority leads Disney's live action version of "Jungle Book" at #5 and Dwanye Johnson & Kevin Hart led action comedy "Central Intelligence" and it came in at #22. "Ghostbusters" and "Bad Moms" were the only 2 which were led by women finishing #21 and #25. Not a single female led and just 1 minority led film in the entire top 20. The MPAA compared the audience for the top 5 films. Ignoring the Animation films the top 3 live actions films of 2016 were "Star Wars: Rogue One", "Captian America Civil War", and "Jungle Book". - StarWars:Rogue One had an audience which was 62% white, 15% latino, 11% black, and 8% Asian, 4% Native. The audience was also 59% male to 41% female. - Captian America Civil War audience was 48% white, 22% latino, 18% black, and 9% Asian, 4% Native The audience was also 59% male to 41% female. - Jungle Book's audience which was 43% white, 22% latino, 18% black, and 10% Asian, 7% native. The audience was also 48% male to 52% female. I understand the films were all marketed to different groups of people and what not but it does seem that white audiences, a little more specifically male, at the wildcard. Minority support appears to be at or above it demographic representation across the board for all films.

@ Raider5678, The Help and The Butler were movies pointedly about race so having people of color in those films was essential to the plot. After Earth....hahaha....was one of Will Smith's worst performing films. Smith himself called it the "most painful failure of my career" in a 2015 interview with variety. No one here has argued people of color are never in films. There is a rather healthy genre of black films starring all black casts. The recent box office hit Girls Trip comes to mind or the many Tyler Perry films. What I was saying is that white audiences won't watch films full of people of color while people of color will films full of white actors. There is a bit of a double standard there. White Males are massively over represented on film compared to what percentage of the audience they represent. Demographics on audiences are released for the industry annually. I will link some stats when I have more time.

William Lau, a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, concluded in a 2012 paper that rainfall totals from tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic have risen at a rate of 24 percent per decade since 1988. The increase in precipitation doesn’t just apply to rain. NOAA scientists have examined 120 years of data and found that there were twice as many extreme regional snowstorms between 1961 and 2010 as there were from 1900 to 1960. But measuring a storm’s maximum size, heaviest rains, or top winds does not capture the full scope of its power. Kerry Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed a method to measure the total energy expended by tropical cyclones over their lifetimes. In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. (Subsequent research has shown that the intensification may be related to differences between the temperature of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.) https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php

For the last couple decades here in the U.S. Republicans and Conservatives broadly have refuted with great offense the suggestion that they placated and or supported Political ends favorable to bigots. It is now laid bare and plain to see. What do the honest non-bigots amongst them do now? In my opinion it is a test of all their characters. Are tax cuts so important that they'll stand shoulder to shoulder with Nazis at the ballot box? At this point support for GOP candidates/Politicians empowers hate groups whether by accident or intentionally.

Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka are white supremacist (Gorka is a Nazi). Have known and for the most part out in the open white supremacist as policy advisors to the President in the White House is stunning. So much so most people blow it off as not true because it confounds our general apathetic view towards government and race relations to think it is even possible for open and out white supremacist to be in the White House and the president pay such little political price for it.There is definately a movement or upwing in these groups obtaining power. PolitiFact looked into it: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/15/are-there-white-nationalists-white-house/

Will Smith, Samuel Jackson, Denzel Washington, and etc are successful but they also tend to be the only main characters of color in the movie they star in. The explain I used was "Standby me", a movie populated 100% by white characters all the leads male yet enjoyed by nearly everyone who grows up in the U.S.. I can think on no equivalent to it where a film populated 100% by minorities and or all the primary leads are females yet the film attracts broad viewership and support. It simply doesn't exist. White male audiences will not watch films that are dominated by minority or female characters. It is plainly obviously. As for cartoons you are totally deaf to the reality than many are offended. This isn't my pet position but an ongoing thing: http://time.com/4378119/disney-princess-effect-on-girls/ http://www.academia.edu/5748790/Race_and_Ethnicity_in_Walt_Disneys_Animated_Movies : @ Waitforufo, evolution with regards to modern patterns of behavior can't be applied linearly. One shouldn't assume that because people bahaved a certian way for a long time it is by default natural and appropriate to do so. If we take that perspective tham it is okay to kill jews, forcibly make young girls marry older men for trade, and enslave people. All have long stored historys. Humans have killed, raped, enslaved, and etc each other since before migrating out of Africa. It doesn't mean those things should be treated as favorable behaviors in modern films or that studios deserve a pass if they choose to show those things as favorable. The fact that the British enslaved the Irish for a period of time doesn't mean that Irish people are somehow genetically predisposed to be slaves. Just as the fact the men has assualted women throughout history doesn't mean it is a woman's place to be assualted. Saying women are more cooperative and men are more competitive is all relative. Different men in different societies are and have been more and less competive to extreme degrees. That variable isn't constent. Neither is the cooperativeness of women. Many women in modern society have the reputation of being ball busters, ice queens , divas, and etc.

Classism is a form of bigotry and has nothing to do with race. People have found many ways to segregate themselves into tribes. This thread is asking about the value of accepting different cultures and groups. So in context culture shock isn't an issue but rather cultural preference is. If one moves from Utah to Washington and is treating poorly because of their culture or vice versa than it is a problem and totally equivalent to bigotry. My point about culture shock was that different cultures exist free from race or national origin.

Nazis chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville Virginia and a President that ran his campaign on a platform of building a wall and banning Muslims are strong indications that people seriously struggle with matters of culture. Wars have been and are currently being fought over it. From Hilter's gas chambers to ISIS executing those who practice Islam differently than they do the unwillingness to accept people of different cultures has been and continues to be one of the greater problems humans face.

My parents weren't the type to watch cartoons with their kids. We watched what they wanted to watch and not vice versa. Add to that I am a few years younger than my siblings and they (siblings) weren't watching cartoons, So growing up I never saw Alladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and etc. Obviously I heard me peers carry on about them but never sat down and watched one. As an adult I have caught large segments of those cartoons while baby sitting and what not and it jumps out at me how classist, misogynistic, and racist they all are. Female characters are all drawn thin and ultra feminine to inhuman proportions while being valued by other characters purely based on either their position in society or their beauty/cuteness. Talking pets and inanimate objects (lamps, tea pots, etc) have cringeworthy stereotypical personalities that appear to mock minorities. Meanwhile the approval of wealthy males born into status often seems to be the primary goal of all characters. I find them to be in poor taste yet here in the U.S. our children watch each one a hundred times over per week. I have only seen the advertisements for Disney's Moana but those ads are an example of what I am referencing; the male has an exaggerated large heavy frame with enthnic features while the female has a thin petite frame with etremely fair features. Basically I am saying, to an extent, audiences are conditioned from a young age to identify certian looks and relationships a certian way. Women leads must be atractive, males must be strong, and minorities are secondary characters. Obviously there are more layers to the issue but I think cartoons play a small role. They are the first look at film many people getand conditions certian expectations.

That is the popular view however in places where there are few differences in national origin people still develop different cultural norms. Here in the United States a person raised Sant George Utah would be in for a culture shock if they moved to Seattle Washington.