So can we get medicare for all then

Also, I've been sniping with my family over just this question recently so I decided I need to get educated! — StreetlightX

lol I'm just imagining your father pounding the table with his fist, his eyebrows furrowed, and his face red with anger, and yelling, "Dammit, Streetlight, you honestly think the Australian aboriginals somehow bypassed a nomadic adaptation for living, despite nearly all humanity across societies and continents experienced it as the initial social structure, instead experiencing some sort of localized Neolithic revolution ex nihilo?"

Bruce Pascoe - Dark Emu — StreetlightX

Dude, my friends make fun of me for reading the most tedious of books, but you surely take the cake.

The Interface Effect sounds interesting though.

Not surprised that in less than 10 years the renewed hype among conservatives around Ayn Rand has been replaced by hype around Julius Evola.

Yeah I mean who would have thought 63 million Americans would be that stupid.

Besides, plenty of conservative pundits didn't think he would win; he, his wife and many members of his campaign team doubted he would win.

Election was almost 2 years ago bud

Not sure why some of y'all are still wasting your time with Raza when he is literally a pigeon.

Yes, I admire Ayn Rand and what she's done for mankind in this day in age — TS Phillis

Yeah environmental devastation and global warming, Paul Ryan tax cuts, worker exploitation and wage stagnation, etc. etc. have totally been a blessing for the world.

Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky

He's Eastern European, not French. Not sure which country precisely.

I still want to know if @Agustino was being sarcastic or not.

To my knowledge, Agustino has never stepped foot in America, and yet he thinks it's a bacchanalian cesspool of sex and left-wing demagoguery.

You're being...sarcastic, right?

There have been a few commentators here who've stated that the Left is stiffing free speech, particularly for those on the Right, on college campuses, but data suggests otherwise, and in fact, members of the Left are targeted more.

Step one is done, as I already live in NY

God, no, I loved her why did she leave me, God the pain!

THEN
WHERE
IS
MY
PHOTO?

Ma'am I am a Doctor! I have saved LIVES! I have helped birth babies and held the withering hands of the moribund. Pray tell, what you YOU done?! What. Have. You. Done!?

I think if people are going to take the names of actually living professors, verification is required @Baden @StreetlightX @fdrake

Finished V1 of Capital

Those tweets are clearly written by a dumb person trying to sound like a smart person.

Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself. — Agustino

You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. Review the thread and read the responses to your despotic opinions, the only person humiliating themselves here is you.

Eating McDonald's hamburgers increases the likelihood of developing a variety of health issues. We should throw McDonald's employees in jail for four months to five years, depending on calories sold.

Dammit was just about to post the same thing

This is fucking hilarious

Previously undisclosed evidence in the possession of Special Counsel Robert Mueller—including highly confidential White House records and testimony by some of President Trump’s own top aides—provides some of the strongest evidence to date implicating the president of the United States in an obstruction of justice. Several people who have reviewed a portion of this evidence say that, based on what they know, they believe it is now all but inevitable that the special counsel will complete a confidential report presenting evidence that President Trump violated the law.

NYBooks Daily

It will be spun as a "good thing" that Trump colluded with Russia, because the alternative would have been a Hillary Clinton presidency.

GDP growth in 2017 was 2.3%, and I'm somewhat skeptical that it will hit 3% this year.

But even if Trump does manage to hit 3% for this year and others (a number he vacillates on from time to time), it means very little for the average American if the benefits mostly end up in the pockets of a very small class.

I'll join this bet. If the average GDP hits 4% or higher for the year then I'll do something I dunno

Look guys, I found Agustino's twitter account

Despite the mathematical rigor that the argument requires (i.e. the Universe needs a specific set of constants, each of which need to "tweaked" to a specific number), the argument rests on the probabilistic absurdity of using a sample size of one.

Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc. — Agustino

Why is the primary "point" of the economy to offer opportunities for entrepreneurs? Instead of, say, to ensure that people have affordable access to basic needs and wants. Why do you assume that economic inequality and financial uncertainty provide greater opportunity to start a business despite greater risks? When you say you want to create a society in which people takes chances that are "worth the risk", what would the alternative be to not taking a risk? This seems like veiled socio-economic Darwinism.

May I ask what your working definition of a "socialist" is? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I've been thinking lately that this may deserve its own thread.

If the GDP, productivity, stock value, unemployment etc. continue to do better alongside stagnant or falling wages, and increased wealth inequality, then lo and behold, we have a pretty compelling argument for socialism.

Monogamy, it seems, is increasingly being thought of as oppressive, destructive, irrational, and probably plenty of other adjectives I could think of. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A Gallup poll from 2013 showed that 14% of Americans considered polygamy as "morally acceptable". 2x the increase from 7% in 2001. This does not mean, of course, that monogamy is increasingly viewed as "oppressive, destructive, irrational", and "other adjectives" that you admit you made up. On the contrary, it shows that 86% of Americans do not view polygamy as morally acceptable.

But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy. — Relativist

And here is an good article showing how, contrary to the national conversation between Republicans and moderate Democrats, the sudden and recent political ascendance of the radical left has not hindered the Democrats, but (and the correlation here is admittedly more debatable) has helped the Democrats in the last month since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the primary.

My guess is that he has to run it though his supervisor before getting approval to post. — Jeremiah

I think it's more likely that he's just a pigeon walking on a keyboard.

But his progressive agenda resulted in the conservative backlash that led to Trump getting elected. A moderate Democrat has a better chance of having a lasting, positive, and beneficial legacy. — Relativist

I think this is crap, to be honest. As long as a politician is of the Democratic Party, conservatives have demonstrated that they will label them a socialist, anti-American, etc., regardless of their actual policies. The GOP have made it clear that they will not work with the Democrats, who should, for the sake of the nation, embrace more radical leftist positions, including a livable wage, public healthcare, affordable/free education, and a more equitable economy. The rising Democratic star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated in an interview that there is "nothing radical about moral clarity", and I think that's a vital stance the Dems need to take, in particular, to contrast themselves with Trumpist Republicans and their enablers.

I don't think Clinton lost because she was a moderate, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think so. — Relativist

Clinton lost for many reasons, one of which was that she was a moderate in a time when being a moderate, run-of-the-mill politician has become a liability when it comes to presidential aspirations. A lot of people are looking for alternatives to our current system. That's in part how Obama was able to beat out Clinton and eventually win the presidency. He was, at the time, somewhat of an outsider and a novel voice within the political landscape.

Also, Brett assumes in this piece that Trump will win every state he won in 2016. However, recent polling in three key states that Trump narrowly won in 2016 (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan) currently, by a wide-margin, do not think he deserves reelection.