RedDenver

Would you like to retract that statement or provide evidence? Not supporting Trump is not at all the same as being a Democrat or being a liberal.

That was and still is one of the flimsiest legal arguments I've ever heard. Between the 8th Amendment and the Geneva Convention, torture is illegal both nationally and internationally. Regardless, the "only following orders" defense will almost certainly win IMO, but Team Trump members are unlikely to ever even be charged. You have far, far more optimism in the justive system than I if you think they'll ever be tried let alone convicted.

I don't think Yang's UBI is going to work well for a few reasons: 1) It's touted as being a way to overcome job loss due to automation, but it's only $12,000/year, which isn't enough for someone to support themselves. How does that solve job loss? 2) It's used as a replacement for traditional welfare programs, which means that poor people don't actually benefit since it's just replacing one funding source with another one. It is more flexible than food stamps for example, but getting $12k from UBI or from food stamps isn't going to help anyone out of poverty or even improve their condition. 3) It's partially funded through a value-added tax (VAT), which is a way to tax goods. VAT is a regressive tax which will be borne more heavily by the poor and middle-class. So not only does UBI not help the poor, but funding it with a VAT hurts the poor. So what problem is UBI actually solving? 4) The US population is about 330 million with 76% being 18+ years old, which means that UBI will be an outlay of $3 trillion/year. Even using the highest numbers from Yang's figures of $600 billion in reduced welfare spending, $800 billion is VAT revenue, $600 billion in additional income revenue from new jobs, and $200 billion in reduced ancillary spending (homelessness, reduced crime, etc.) that's $2.2 trillion. For those that want balanced budgets, that's a yearly increase in the deficit of $800 billion.

Yang has a really interesting idea of Human-centered Capitalism: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/human-capitalism/ I'm not sure if that's practical and what the unintended consequences are though.

It almost certainly will work. People who committed torture were given a Presidential pardon under Obama. I expect we'll see more of the same for the Trump Team, especially since many of them are wealthy.

This is a longer article but worth the read: A Tale of Two Suburbs

I agree with that experience shouldn't be worse than no experience, but we should judge candidates both on their words and their actions. What Kamala Harris says now is less relevant to me than her actions when she held power. But she's more credible than Howard Schultz or Beto on these issues. And the same applies to Bernie's experience over decades in office, but he's been consistent on his stances, which tends to help him instead of him having to defend his change in stance. The one issue Bernie did change on over the years was gun regulation, which unsurprisingly is the issue the Clinton camp went after him on.

This.

Holy mother of conspiracy theories! I've often wondered how people could have been so completely duped by authoritarians in the past. Watching it play out in the US it makes so much more sense - they simply stopped thinking critically and only accepted stories that matched their biases and beliefs.

Darn

Maybe today?

Do you read your own links? That's not what that article says at all. Here's the conclusion: Trump is saying that Mexico is stopping emigrants, but where's the evidence? According to this, the only thing Mexico has done is their President saying he'd act with prudence: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/02/border-closing-donald-trump-mexico-immigrants-crossing/3341457002/

"So they sold the baby and went on vacation again."

That's a really big assumption that the "middle" is bigger. Also remember that a candidate needs 270+ electoral votes to win the Presidency - not just the largest number of votes or electors. And if none of the candidates reach that threshold, then this happens:

yep

That is of course not at all what I'm talking about.

I was thinking the same thing. Best company name ever.

That's one of the more insane and oppressive things I've heard. So you'd be ok with our government banning you from leaving the country? If that had been the case, many of our ancestors wouldn't have been allowed to emigrate, and we wouldn't be here.

There aren't Sharia law courts in Britain. https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/ This is common misinformation spread like the "Muslim no-go" zones, which is also false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zones/ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/world/europe/fox-news-apologizes-for-false-claims-of-muslim-only-areas-in-england-and-france.html

What rumors?

Is that a "Trump 14,000" or the actual number?

Just saying it's legitimate doesn't mean it's legitimate, as evidenced by how quickly the British public changed their minds about immigration: Immigration worries drove the Brexit vote. Then attitudes changed. Also, this summarizes Brexit pretty well:

Can any of the resident Trump supporters explain this? @MNBigRedNorth @Dewiz @45timesbetterthanemptysuit others?

What the what? Do you want countries to try to imprison their people within their own borders? Isn't that against the entire idea of freedom? "Mr. Gorbachev, build up this wall!" -Ronald Reagan (or at least how the 2019 GOP remember him)