Ten oz

Unfortunately we live in a world where violent anti semantic hate groups do exist. Those groups do propagate conspiracies about Jewish influence over govts and industry. Because of that it is important for public figures to make a clear differentiation between their criticisms of Israeli or Jewish entities and the hateful propaganda out there. Hate groups will attempt to use loose remarks, regardless of the intent, to justify their own extreme positions. Consider the way White Nationalist celebrated Trump's response to Charlottesville. Failing to pointedly Condemn the white nationalists specifically and instead choosing to blame "both sides" enabled white nationalist to claim Trump supported them. Things like that can be powerful propaganda tools. So public figures need to be mindful of their language. One simply cannot casually disparage the way Jewish affiliated groups use money as they might other groups. There is significantly subtext involved with regards to Jewish communities. *Let's not forget they were chanting "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville. Omar already apologized and in her apology acknowledge the anti-Semitic trope. If you are unclear with what was wrong about her comment I recommend reading her apology, Link. As for my opinion about what she said it is contained in the above reply to Zapatos. Israeli can be criticized. However simplifying that criticism down to "it is all about the Benjamins" is insensitive considering the numerous financial related tropes and history of Jewish people. One should avoid potentially playing into existing biases or conspiracies when criticizing Israel.

I agree. From claiming Jewish people control Hollywood to owning all the Banks there is a lot of anti semitism prevalent in society. Globally there are Nationalist groups and Religious Extremists who actively seeking to harm Jewish people. So in my opinion it was important Omar acknowledge the trope associated with her comment and apologize. The comment may have been (I give her the benefit of the doubt) about influence of lobbyist in general but give the history of Jewish persecution the remark was still insensitive. Right, Omar will receive far more scrutiny moving forward regarding any number of things related to Israel and Jewish communities in general.

As that applies to this thread are you implying Omar's apology was disingenuous?

@ALine unfortunately businesses exist to make money. Helping to develop ideas is admirable but it is not a tried and true business model. If you are truly interested in doing this as a business and not philanthropy I recommend identifying how you'd make money and extrapolate on that. I assume when you say provide the space and resources you mean a workshop facility stocked with tools? If so it seems your business would be to rent out such a facility? It isn't a terrible idea. From food trucks renting commercial kitchens for food prep to Airbnb sharing is a growing business segment. I recommend identifying what tools people need they might not other wise have easy access to. Obvious stuff that comes to my mind are pneumatic tools, sandblaster, laser engravers, welding stations, hazmat waste storage and disposal, and etc. Then you need to figure out whether you are charging by the hour, day, week, or etc.

She has already apologized for the post. I used the same type of language she used in her apology. Omar acknowledge the history and used "anti-Semitic Tropes" to describe her own post. I did not render an opinion in the OP. I explained what she said and used her own words to describe the context of what she said. This is the legal standard for the govt to prosecute. It is not a catch-all for every manner of disagreement. When my wife and I argue about the placement of the toilet seat envoking innocence until proven guilty would just be a good way to guarantee I'll be sleeping on the couch.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently made an anti-Semitic remark on Twitter, Link. In response to a tweet critical of pro-Israeli positions among various U.S. Politicians she posted "it's all about the Benjamins baby". The association between Jewish people and money is a well known hateful trope. Should there be consequences for this, if so what should they be and if not why not?

Too bad all the energy going into Border Security currently isn't going into other issues like Healthcare, education, or etc. It is really sad. Illegal immigration is lower than it's been for decades. It has been declining year after year. There is not a crisis and absolutely nothing additional to what we've been doing needs to be done, NOTHING. Meanwhile any number of other critical issues are going ignored or pushed off. I understand Trump promised his base a wall but he promised them healthcare too. We all remember the GOP voting to repeal the ACA over 50 times. Suddenly that just doesn't matter anymore. What the f*ck is wrong with people in Montana and West VA (non-border states) they rather have there elected Representatives tackle a wall they'll never see and won't be effected by than tackle healthcare. Forget shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic this situation is like the Titanic crew seeing the Iceberg and ignoring it in favor of getting the first class passengers their dessert.

It was 23% in July of 2015 and 2014. Trump was even running in 2014. Over the last few years the numbers has been in the mid 20's. Polls have MOE's associated with them. The differences aren't particularly significant and pre-date Trump. The difference between 25 & 27 doesn't tell us anything. It was 24 in October 2007. What we are see under Trump isn't different than what we saw in the few years before Trump. The big shift happened under Bush. Prior to 2008 the numbers of people who identified as Republican swim from the mid 30's to the high 20's. After about 2008 that number consistently stayed in the mid 20's. Of course despite the slip in people indentifying as Republican Romney got more votes than any Republican candidate ever and then Trump topped that number. So there doesn't appear to be a direct correlation anyways.

Trump literally campaigned that his healthcare would cover everyone and the Govt would pay it. Trump also campaigned that the rich should by more taxes. When a Democrat talks about govt provided healthcare or taxing the rich it is labelled as leftist extremism. When a Republican does the same it is casually forgotten about. The reason Trump said the govt would provide healthcare and tax the rich is because those are popular ideas supported across the country by a vast majority of the population. Which poll is being used matters too. The Huffington Post link you provided is using a Gallup Poll which looks only Republican and Democrat. In the Gallup Polling which includes Independent as an option, Link Here there is no change. That Gallop Poll shows that as of January of this year 25% of the population identify as Republican. That number is unchanged from the summer before the 2016 election or even from the 2012 election. So the poll you cited most likely reflects less of a clear leaning among a small percent of those who identify as independent. However that group isn't Trump's base. So while it is possible that Trump's overall pool of potential 2020 voters might be smaller it is also still accurate to say his base hasn't gone anyway.

Seems the size of the tent and how many views are welcome within it are irrelevant to his concept of moderate politics.

"The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology." The definition of moderate isn't singular. It is relative to the Political Spectrum one seeks to define it in. "A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions." and "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes.". So political spectrums are larger than just left and right. For example Clinton won 71% of the Jewish vote and 67% of the Hispanic Catholics vote in 2016, Link. Those 2 groups are independent political axes and not merely left to right. Likewise Clinton won 90% of the Black vote and 65% of the Asian vote, different axes. As we look at different individual axes it is the Democratic Party which houses the most axes. If we draw a venn diagram with each demographic (religion, age, gender, education, income, race, etc) is represented by a circle the Democratic party exists at the intersection of the most circle. It is an indisputable fact. The Democratic party crosses the most axes which means Democrats are the more moderate party per definitions wiki (you brought wiki into this) give us. It is the Republican party who do not cross axes. If you are interested in see more moderate politicians in the U.S. it's the Republican party who is housing the least axes.

Far as I can tell from Wikipedia the notion of a moderate position is relative to ones own views which is something I have been saying throughout this thread.

I think refunds are a bit different that regular income though. I think a lot of people plan on having a return and use it to pay big ticket items all at once like credit cards, vacations, or etc. It isn't smart but lots of people do it. I suspect there will be less new home appliances, cars, and etc bought to kick the year off than average. I do agree that the GOP will spin it as a justification to cut programs they don't like.

This is an opinion piece written by a Conservative. No polling data, stats, historical context, or etc. Just Elaina Plott's opinion about Democrats. Elaina Plott's other works include "I was a Teenage Ann Coulter Fangirl!" If you are getting your opinions about centrist U.S. policies from Conservative columnist who grew up idolizing to Hannity, O'Reilly, and etc it is no surprise you don't believe there are moderates in the Democratic Party. Have I once insulted your intelligence or wasted your time by linking an op-ed written by a partisan staff writer? I have linked data with sourced research not B.S. written by partisan idiots. I assume you are smart enough to know the difference between opinion pieces and population data. I would appreciate it if you paid me the same respect and not link fluff conservative propaganda. Based on what? Trump currently enjoys an 88% approval among those who identify as Republican. That is a better approval among Republicans than Reagan or H.W Bush had 2yrs in. It is also a better approval than Obama or Clinton had among Democrats, Gallup Poll . I don't see a single sign that Trump base will collapse. Trump was at 89% among Republicans when inaugurated and now 2yrs later he is still right there.

Trump is a divisive politician. With him it isn't even always partisan. Trump attacks anyone he views as an obstacle to what he wants. He accused Ted Cruz's father of being involved in the Kennedy assassination, mocked John McCain for being a prisoner of war, has repeated called Romney a loser, and etc. Trump is very divisive and him being in the White House has made politics uglier than they have ever been in our lifetimes. Rather than addressing the Trump in the room head on Conservatives skirt the issue. Understand that going after Trump or the Republicans who support Trump would help Democrats they launch into vague generalized attacks on politics as a whole. Trump isn't the problem they say, politics have been broken since long before Trump. They ask us to never mind the guy in the White House who retweets white nationalist videos and focus on the lack of centrists on the left. Partisanship was bad during Obama's tenure but everything still worked within the normal margins. There were zero indictments of Obama's admin, unemployment went from 10% down to 4.5% , GDP from negative 2.5% to a positive 2.9% (+5.4% swing), annual deficit went from 1.6 Trillion down to 580 billion, millions of people got healthcare who previously didn't have any, Stock Market sustained growth every year Obama was in office, and etc, etc, etc. No govt is perfect but for Obama's 8yrs govt did worked. Dysfunction wasn't the order of the day. In 8yrs there was one shutdown, in 2013 which lasted 16 days. Under Trump there has already been about a hundred indictments, countless cabinet members have already been fire or quit, the annual deficit is up to a trillion dollars and rising, the stock market just had its first Bear Market in a decade, the number of uninsured people has increased by millions, and dysfunction is the order of the day. In 2yrs of Trump there have already by 2 shutdowns lasting a combined 38 days and a 3rd shutdown is looming. Discussing all the different ways Democrats or a 3rd party candidate can fix partisanship while ignoring the Trump/Republican contribution is sort of like ignoring a hole in a ships hull and instead critiquing water bailing methods.

Can you elaborate of your distinction between the Parties center and moderate positions? Also there are currently only 3 candidates running who legitimately might win the nomination:Harris, Booker, and Warren. You think 3 candidates are too many? There is a 99.9% chance a 3rd party candidate will not win the 2020 general election. I think everyone involved in this conversation, including yourself, knows that. In theory I guess. I can attach an "if" to anything and dare you to disprove it. Where are the real world examples? We know and have already discussed that the majority of voters vote Democrat. That Democrats have a significantly more diverse voting base. More diversity in religion, gender, race, education, income, and age. Yet you label that as fringe. Definition of fringe is "a group with marginal or extremist views" link. It is simply inaccurate the party with the broadest appeal and supported by the majority of voters fringe. If you like Schultz's policies that is fine. We can discuss Schultz policies. I how no problem with Schultz running and feel he has every right to do so if that's his choice. However I don't think the way you are attempting to characterize Democrats as a fringe as a mean of propping up Schultz as moderate. Fringe is an inaccurate label to place on the majority and which positions are moderate are relative to ones own preference.

True, the changes impact different people differently. Do you think the reduction in returns will negatively impact spending during the first and second quarter?

Manafort didn't plead guilty. Manafort was found guilty by a jury on 8 felony counts. If you are claiming that neither being found guilty by a jury or pleading guilty is proof one committed a crime you are basically saying a crime cannot be proved. What else is there besides guilty pleas and guilty verdicts? Also the Mueller investigation has a grand jury which reviews each indictment prior to it being issued. That is an additional step which doesn't exist in most criminal cases. We are also talking about very wealthy people who can afforded the best possible defense teams in the world. These aren't disenfranchised people being taken advantage of by prosecutors with a back log of thousands of other cases to get to. Let's take Michael Cohen's guilty plea to Federal Campaign Law violations for example. Cohen started a company, used company funds to pay an Adult film star $130,000, and Trump then reimbursed that company. All of that is indisputable. The adult star did receive the money, Cohen did start the company and make the payment, and even Trump's own attorney's admit he reimbursed the money. Per Federal Campaign Finance that is a crime. Everyone involves admits it happened and the money can be traced through the company. Where is the coercion by prosecutors you are alluding to?

Tax returns are lower on average this year which is catching a lot of people by surprise. The tax cut meant less money was taken throughout the year which means there is less money to be returned. Unfortunately it seems the increases in net pay were small enough or undercut by other types of increases like healthcare to go unnoticed by many. The annual return drop is large enough to be noticed. Millions of people rely on their tax returns each year to pay off credit cards, fund education, and etc. It will be interesting to see what impact smaller returns have on first and second quarter GDP. Link

@Sensei there have already been more criminal indictments of Trump associates than there were of Nixon. Trump's former campaign manager was already been proven guilty in a court and Trump's personal attorney already pled guilty to multiple felonies. The Investigation into Trump's affairs by the House is only now starting in earnest as the previous majority in the House sought to protect Trump. Obama was POTUS for 8yrs and there were ZERO indictments. Trump has been in office 2yrs and there's been nearly a hundred. More people have been indicted under Trump than the last 5 Presidents combined. Trump's campaign broke the law. That is a fact which courts have already proven. That may or may not lead to a resignation or impeachment but both are possible. Neither a certainty but both possible.

1 - Your unwillingness to discuss individuals running for the Democratic ticket subverts discussion which might answer that question. 2 - We all agree they don't 3 - Schultz claims to be a Fiscally Conservative and Social Liberal. I provided you a link to a statistical analyse of the size of that self identifying group how they vote. The of them majority voted for Trump. 4 - This view implies there are not currently any moderates running???

The problem isn't a lack of good solutions. The problem exists intentionally and not as an accidental artifact of our electoral system. For example one small change Democrats proposed was to make election day a federal holiday to give more people the opportunity to vote. Never mind compulsory voting like in Australia. Democrats just wanted to give people the day off to vote in the event they choose to vote. In 2016 voter turnout was just 55% of eligible voters after all. Republicans pushed back calling a federal voting holiday a "power grab" and labeled it the "Democratic Political Protection Act". It is well understood by Republicans that if more people vote Democrats will win more elections. I did quote anything leading into that post. It was directed @ you specifically and not attached to any previous exchange we had. So I have no idea which one of the numerous points I have made you are even referencing when you say "your point". iNow brought up the 2.1%, not me. So I thought by referencing it I was making clear what you had laughed at. It isn't an overreach in my opinion because Democrats are winning the popular vote at levels Republicans cannot. Relative to Republicans it is big. Winning the popular vote by 2.1% would be a massive win for a Republican. I have no idea if Trump will be on the ballot in 2020 or wins re-election if he is but I am willing to say it's damn near an absolute certainty Trump won't win the popular vote by 2.1% or better. It is highly unlikely he'd win the popular period.

To my understanding "LOL" means Laughing Out Loud. Please correct me if you meant something else. There are candidates running. This conversation doesn't need to be about hypothetical or mythical candidates. We could discuss their positions and evaluate whether or not they meet your definition of moderate. I have already asked you directly, and been ignored, if you think any of the current candidates running for the Democratic nomination are moderate. So I will broaden the question for you. Do you think anyone who is even speculated to possibly run in 2020 as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent is a moderate? If so who and if not what specifically about Booker, Harris, and Castro makes them something other than moderate?

Right, yet J.C.'s position seems to be that the right Charismatic Centrist can overcome the inequality of the system. It misrepresents the nature of partisanship in the U.S. as being a honest disagreement between equally supported parties.

@J.C.MacSwell Republicans have only won the popular vote by 2.1% once since 1988, over thirty years worth of Presidential elections. The 9.6% popular vote margin House Democrats just experienced has never been accomplished by Republicans. You laugh at the suggestion these number are significant yet they are out of reach for Republicans. The average margins for Democrats is beyond the best Republicans have been able to do over the last few decades. If it were just one election and each different election swung back and forth you'd have a point. It is every election though. Democrats just won the popular vote for the House by 9.8 million votes. Democrats win the majority of votes time after time after time. Democrats are clearly the party preferred by the majority of voters. Despite Democrats being preferred by the Majority of voters and representing more voters even in the Senate where they are the minority you are still questioning whether or not a moderate could win the Democratic nomination. It is odd. What seems logical to me is that the party with the broadest appeal and most diverse base is obviously also the more moderate one. In 2018 Democrats won women by a margin of 59-40 (+19), Asians 77-23 (+54), Blacks 90-9 (+81), and Hispanics 69-29 (+40). The only group Republicans won were white men. Republicans didn't win white women. White women were evenly split 49-49. White men voted Republican 60-39 (+21). Link Democrats appeal to a much broader group of people than Republican. It is Republicans who need to shift towards the center and broaden their appeal. They are the ones who only appeal to a singular group of people.