Ten oz

Our legal system should function to keep society safe. It should not function to avenge our losses. We have the largest prison population in the world despite always beating our chest about being the freest country in the world because we misuse or legal system. If keeping society safe were the goal we would not incarcerate someone unless they posed a tangible danger to society by being free to walk our streets. Instead we lock people up for punitive reason and then ensure any future contributions to society will be great reduced by giving them criminal records. We use our legal system to pinish rather than prevent, to seek retribution rather than protect. It doesn't work. The Gov't saying that they will not kill people who are totally detained and under their control should be easy. It should be easy for society to accept that its Gov't doesn't kill people that it doesn't have to. That revenge isn't official policy. It speak to the violent mindset of our (USA) country that honest people have honest debates about whether our not killing people who are already completely pacified is a pro or con. Killing to save a life is one thing but the death penalty doesn't do that. The death penalty kills to satisfy feelings and imo that is a little scary. It is scary that so many in society have feelings that are best satisfied by killing a person(s).

We we subtract away all minorities killed by police the U.S. still has more people killed by police overall and per capita than the UK, Germany, France, and etc. The statistics do not lie. Police in this country kill citizens at a rate significantly higher than the rest of the western world. Teaching black children to be "extra careful" is not useful. It is akin to telling girls to not dress pretty if they fear being raped. It is absurd and does nothing to address the real problem.

This is true but I believe too much is made of it. We have not nearly come far as we should. We (USA) took longer than our European counterparts to end slavery and then continued segregation until the 60's. We only have 2 black senators, one black Governor, and etc. We are one of the only western nations to have never elected a female head of Gov't. We only have 20 females in the senate and 6 female governors. The overwhelming majority of our governement is white male. We have made progress but are still far behind the nations we consider our peers. So I don't personally think we should congratulate ourselves too much for electing Obama. He was clearly the superior choice. 8yrs of republican leadership had collasped our economy and destablized several countries in the Middle East. Even still the majority of whites voted against him. Now here we are 8yrs after that tolerating a blatant out and out bigot as the presumptive nominee for a major party and he will most likely win the majority of white votes, sadly. We have a very long way to go. Too long of a way to go for us to congragulate how far we have come. Not when we have the highest prison population in the world and overwhelming it is minorities incarcerated in those prisons. Not when we still don't have wage equality. I am more focused how much further we still need to go. I do not think the "if blacks are afraid of the police than they should just do as they are told" argument is an effective one. Blacks in the south would still be sitting in the back of the bus and drinking out of separate fountians today had they followed such trains of thought. In a free society citizens should not have to expend mental energy figuring out how best not to be detained or killed by their gov't while going about their day.

I think you misread my post. The majority of whites voted against Obama and the majority of non-whites voted for him.

If the demographics of our electorate were the same as it was 20yrs ago references to the significants of electing our first black president would mean a whole lot more. Romney won 60% of the white vote with a majority of both white males and white females voting for Romney. In 08' McCain received 56% of the white vote win a majority amongst white females and white males. White voters only made up 74% of the electorate in 08' and 72% in 12'. Had the electorate still been over 80% white as if had been in every election up to 04' Obama would have lost. So it was less about a shift in hearts than it was a shift in the demographics.

I disagree. As a country we are just violent. Police are just people and in the U.S. people at all levels are proving themselves to be more violent then people in other similar countries. For example we argue that police shouldn't kill citizens but at the same time the majority of this country supports the death penalty. That may not seem to have an connection but the death penalty is not used in other similar western countries. It is used on more violent countries. Punishment and retribution are not requirements for successful prevention of anything yet seem to make it into the U.S. narrative for everything. Terrorist; we will kill them, defeat them, capture them, torture them, blow up their caves, drone bomb their leaders, and etc. For a political leader to merely speak of prevention is seen as cowardly. Stopping terrorist isn't strong enough we must kill them. We do the same thing with law enforcement. Criminals must be punished, made to behave, subdued, captured, and etc. Simply talking about making things safer is too weak. And our civilian citizens do it to. People have arsenals in their homes an brag that if own tries to break into their homes they will kill them. We have a violent state of mind from the top down.

Stupidity is not unique to the USA yet the violence is. Whether it is cops killing citizens, citizens killing cops, or citizens engaging in acts of mass shooting there is clearly something different happening in the USA. Even if we subtract all minorities killed by police from the total killed by police per year that total is still greater per capitia than what we see in the UK, Germany, France, and etc. Same goes for mass shootings. Subtract away all the mass shootings done by minorities and the USA still has a serious mass shooting problem. The problem crosses racial lines, religious lines, economic lines, and etc. A look around the country at basically every state in isolation regardless of demographic or population density shows a higher rate of gun deaths and police use of deadly force than other western countries. backgorund checks when buying guns, people not behaving after being pulled over, racial discrimination, terrorism, etc; none of these talking points account for what we are experiencing. We (U.S. citizens) need to stop arguing the merrits of this stuff incident by incident and acknowledge we that all of it is part of the same trend of violence.

That is exactly what I was referencing.

I am hopeful. I actually think all this violence is the death throes of various idealogies that have been dividing society over the last few decades. Political loses this year will force evolution within our major parties.

I think a lot of progress can be made with just some changes in the way our leaders talk about issues. Over the last 30yrs we have increasingly spooled our rhetoric up. It isn't enough for a politician to say there want to stop terrorism all politicians feel compelled to say they will "capture of kill" terrorists. It isn't enough for a Law Enforcement official to say they want to reduce or stop crime they all feel compelled to say "arrest and punish criminals to the full extend of the law". The difference is subtle yet substantial. Killing terrorist rather than stopping them and punishing criminals rather than stopping them are two simple examples where our (USA) leadership invokes retribution. Human nature matters and obviously we won't achieve a society with zero violence. However I do not feel achieving a society with less violence than we currently have is that tall an order. I honestly believe that just being a little more care in how we discuss issues would change things. It would shift the focus from that of retribution towards prevention. What we focus on has an impact on our national consciousness. While race, religion, economics, and etc seem like they are the issues driving violence they are not necessarily. A person can be racist, poor, and religious without being violent. While I would love to see racism, sexism, and etc driven out of our society I do not think that lofty is required in order to reduce violence. I am biased about men who style their hair in man buns yet I am not violent towards them. Disliking things, hold different opinions, and being violent are not equals. I think the violent issue can be addressed without changing or evolving the nature of every human on earth. There will always be violence but it can be reduced.

Virginia Tech shooter was Asian, Sandy Hook shooter White, Orlando shooter Arab, Dallas shooter Black, and etc, etc, etc. Abortion clinics has been attacked by radical Christians and Radical Muslims shot up San Bernardino. We have had militia standoffs with law enforcement in Neveda and Oregon that have led to fatalities and on and on and on. What is the common denominator? When it is an Arab shooter we debate Islam and ISIS, when it is a White shooter we debate mental health, Black shooter we debate class warfare, are those things truly the common denominator??? Canada, UK, France, and etc have Arabs, Blacks, rich people, poor people, mentally ill people, but they don't have mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting. Their police don't kill thousands of their citizens. I think debating econimcs, religion, and etc is failing to see the forrest threw the trees. We (USA) are violent and awash in guns. As a society we have a bllod lust. Execution is legal here and popular amongst the general population. We invest more more into our military than anything else: education, healthcare, welfare, etc. We invade other countries, openly discuss over throwing Gov't we don't like, and have to debate the ethics of torture as if we honestly don't understand it is wrong to torture. Violence is part of the national consciousness. We must reject violence at all levels to change that national consciousness rather than continuing to compartmentalize it. That means we acknowledge that it is wrong to drone bomb, wrong to execute, wrong to torture, wrong to for police to beat and kill people, and etc. We must start with an open public acknowledgement that killing is wrong and violence only leads to more violence. That should always be the baseline. Stop arguing that violence and killing people is often a needed evil. Micah Johnson thought killing cops was a needed evil and he was wrong!!

Brexit seems like a good example but I do not believe it is. Brexit polled strong. Brexit was polling within a percent with 8-10% of those polled as undecided through most of June. The result was unexpected because people just couldn't believe the level of stupidity on display. But a look at polling shows that Brexit had a strong chance for success. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-watch/ In the Case of the general election here in the U.S. of A. Trump is not polling strong. Pew Research, Reuters, Gravis, PPP, USA Today, Quinnipac, YouGov, NBC, ABC, Foxnews, CNN, Monmouth, and etc all have Clinton beating Trump. The only poll that has show Trump as winning in over a month now is rasmussuen and it can't even get Trump above its margin of error. Brexit and Trump are not the same.

I would agree with this if my previous "overwhelmingly incorrect assessments" had been based on polling data. Rather they were based on the delegates acting against Trump. They didn't, I was wrong. You follow 538, Nate Silver's take away from his wrong predictions was that polls were a better forecaster than the other variables being considered throughout the primary. Okay, what do polls tell us now? Clinton has a sizable lead nationally and a sizable lead in swing states. And while Trump is the presumptive nominee it is worth pointing out that he did worse that previous nominees. His 44% of the popular primary vote is worse than Romney 12', McCain 08', Bush 00', Dole 96', Bush 88', Reagan 80' and Ford 76'. So while Trump did pull it off he did so by weak margins.

But you are advocating I reflect and possible adjust my mental model. What data is there to indicate Trump is formidable in the general?

I agree, it is a matter of opinion and matters of opinion should never justification enough to kill a person.

You are saying that anecdotally without providing substantive information. Low probabilities do not increase each other. What does the multiplacation rule of probabilities tell us? The likelihood of any 2 events happening in order or together is lower that than likelihood of either single event happening in isolation. So while it is surprising that the GOP has allowed Trump to be their presumptive nominee his probability of become POTUS in the toilet. He surprised us once so he can surprise us again is just an anecdotal statement. I am looking at the data. I will not stop trusting the data because Trump managed to become the presumptive nominee. Trump's victories actually reinforced the accuracy of polling for this election cycle and where are the polls today for Trump? Trump is a bully. He bullied Jeb, Cruz and the rest. His supporters, many of whom I work with sadly, thrive on the notion that Trump intimidates. Trump's tough guy facade is only bolstered by nervous progressive lossing confidence because Trump won a partisan GOP primary where over 90% of his supporters were white and over 60% male. Those demographics won't cut it in the general.

I said Tournament and not match. Predicting the outcome of a tournament is different than that of a single match. A single match is much easier to predict than a whole tournament. That was my point. The general is one vote on one day; one match. A primary is a series of votes that happen over time; multiple matches like a tournament Trump always statistically looked good in the primary. My position was nuanced and based on what I thought delegates would do. You are simplifying my position greatly by saying I underestimated him. 538 was wrong about the primaries; the general election is not the primaries. For starters everyone will vote on the same day. Momentum from previous races has no impact. There is not 17 candidates running allowing individuals to carry states with only a third of the vote, the electorate itself is different and not merely partisan, the electorate is much larger, and etc, etc, etc. 538's track record for predicting the general elections is the best one out there. If you insist on comparing the primaries to the general Clinton got nearly 25% more votes than did Trump. No Republican since Nixon has won the White House without winning at least 60% of the vote in the GOP primary and Trump only got 44%. Meanwhile Clinton's 55% is better than Obama did in 08' or Bill Clinton did in 92'. And as you are aware polling shows Deomocrats are more satisfied with their nominee than are republicans. So even a comparison of primaries reflects poorly for Trump.

You releaze that primaries and the general election are apple and oranges don't you? Not just that but if you read my arguments they mostly centered around delegates acting and Trump only receiving 40% of the vote. When Cruz dropped out Trump was only at 39% of the vote and finished with 44%. I think you are conflating expectation here. There is ZERO indication statistically that Trump has a anything but a unusually low chance of winning the general election So you are using his primary wins as an example but the two are different. Not only that but Trump statistically always had a polling advantage in the Primary. I just didn't believe the PARTY would allow him to be there nominee. So the arguments then and now have no relationship and I think you are aware of that. The race is different, the data is different, the electorate is different. You are trying to say I was wrong about who would win a Tennis tournament so perhaps I am wrong about who will win a boxing match. It doesn't work that way. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

IMO, constantly fretting about how Trump may win only bolsters his chances. His followers are macho, emotional, and very low information voters. Trump failed to get but 44% of Republican votes in the primary. That is worse than Romeny, McCain, Bush, Dole, and etc, etc. Yet Trump is able to incite dread in progressive which his supporters see as strength. It feeds his image and allows him to beat his chest. When the truth is Trump is doing historically bad. His numbers are some of the worst ever seen. Nixon is the last Republican to win the White House after only managing a little only 40% oin the primary and that was the year RFK was killed and the Democrats have a contested convention. The sooner we progressives get our emotions under control (emotions about Sanders & Trump) to sooner we can deflate the emotions of low information conservatives we are currently wildly spun up. We can't be the adults in the room by allowing ourselves to join in on tantrum. Time to de-escalate some.

I think the opposite is true. It is dangerous to assume popular sentiment should always be accepted. Any number of outrageous abuses and mistakes have accorded with the majorities consent. Sometime it is important for those in power to slow the wheels and provide time for the mood of a nation to select. Despite majority support in the U.S. to invade Iraq it was a mistake. Emotions were high after 9/11 we made a lot of mistakes. The Admin we had at the time exploited the mood of the country rather than encouraging us to take time. The result was torture, patriot act, 2 wars, and etc. In the case of Brexit the Parliament should delay, there can be another vote, prudence is not contrary to democracy. Saying "we voted so give it to us now" isn't how democracy works. Once people vote the the gov't is compelled to act towards the goal which was voted for. However if the goal is to run the country off the cliff the gov't would be smart to double check that running off a cliff is truly the will of the people. If it is such a good idea and the majority truly support it than support will still be there in 3 months, a year, 2 years, etc.

I think fear is making those concerns seem far more legitimate than they are. There is not a single poll out there amongst the nurmerous polls taken weekly showing Trump with an advantage. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html Clinton currenly is up an average of 6.7 points over Trump. That is double where Obama was over Romeny at this same time in 12'. Not just that but 6.7 points is a larger lead than Obama had over Romeny at any point after Romney became the presumptive nominee. * the graph in the link allows for a week by week look. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html Add to Trump's problems is that he doesn't have the support of traditional Republican donors. So his campaign doesn't have anywhere near the money that a presumptive nominee normally would at this stage. Voting ID laws and pother messures meant to manipulate the vote/turnout require staff on the ground petitioning courts, researching communities to isolate favorable neighbors, investing in local races to earn support of city and county boards who arrange polling stations, and etc. Trump does not have the money or staff to out perform Clinton at that level. Having Trump close as he already is, the presumptive nominee, is shocking and scary but let not allow that fear to make of ignore the facts. Trump is currently doing poorly. Beyond the polling and money issues Trump has divided his own party. Is there any statistical information indicating Trump is doing well? If not than the concerns you listed are not currently showing themselves to be relevant. In my opinion treating Trump's chances of winning as being better than they are statistically showing to be only helps Trump. It adds legitimacy to his campaign. Bullies often succeed on reputation alone. Trump doesn't intimidate me. I believe the statistic information. It hasn't been wrong yet so why should I flip now? What I am saying isn't a message. I do not work for a campaign or a specific party. I am not encouraging complacency. I am just saying what I believe. We can agree people still need to turn out. We can agree complacency is a terrible thing without boosting the bully up to be bigger and stronger than he is.

I could be wrong but it seems as though many were just looking to make a statement but didn't expect to actually win the vote. They were looking to have their feelings of fustration validated as substantive so that in the future they be taken more serious but did not expect to win. They assumed they could be reckless because cooler heads would be there to ensure all ended well. It didn't work out that way, the designated drivers simply didn't have enough seats for all the drunks, and now millions are asking for a due over. It is a shame that so many voted against their own self interest just to win a game of chicken. Hard to know where this goes now.

We (USA) are demographically different. Blacks make up 13%, Latinos 17% and Asians 6% of our population. Trump racist talking points ensures large majorities of all minority groups with be voting against him. Mitt Romney won 61% of the white vote in 2012 and lost the election by a few points. Due to how much worse Trump will do with minorities than even Romney did Trump will need to win something like 70% of the white vote which is something that simply hasn't been done and he currently isn't polling anywhere close to doing.

Right and wrong are not concepts that exclusively exist within humans. All animals that function in groups have basic standards of behavior that are either positive or negative to the group; members are held to those standards. All discussion of sin, immorality, choice, and etc as being uniquely human are ones of perspective. In my opinion concepts like right and wrong shouldn't be part of these types of discussions. Via evolution a species either continues or it perishes. No right or wrong just contuned and not continued. As for God there either is one or there is not. Moses brought down tablets or he did not. Valuing either outcome with subjective emotional terms like good vs evil lends no truth or confirmation.

Doesn't matter what we (humans) call ourselves. There willalways be competition for resources. Groups will always from large partnership to ensure they get all the resources can. That will always create conflict which will perpetuate the want for weapons and forces to protect resources.