TakeYouToTasker

What's your point? And, why/how does that make it a good idea, or even workable or desirable in a country as large and as non-homogenous as America? Also, can you please respond to my reply to you about the invasion of Iraq?

That has to be the most intentionally obtuse thing I've ever read here. First of all, not all crimes are equally violent in their commission, which greatly changes the appropriateness of law enforcement using lethal force. Someone violently resisting arrest, someone actively shooting at law enforcement or civilians, or someone currently in the act of committing a violent crime in most cases would justify the use of lethal force by responding officers. Someone peacefully resisting arrest, or committing a non-violent crime do not justify the use of lethal force. To wit: Michael Brown had just finished wrestling with a police officer for his weapon when he was fatally shot. That is not unreasonable. Laquan McDonald, however, was not menacing officers or civilians when he was fatally shot, and that shooting was unjustified; hence the shooting officer being tried for murder. In regards to the Oregon shooting, we don't yet know what happened, and I'm not willing to speculate. However if Mr. Finicum was not menacing officers with a weapon, was in in the act of committing a violent crime, and was instead compliant; then his shooting is completely abhorrent and unjustified. As I said earlier, your only purpose here was to pipe up and justify the shooting of a conservative protester, because you don't value their lives. You can't hide from that.

No, her point is that it's not only OK, but a moral good, for federal agents to act as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to protesting conservatives.

Sanders didn't vote against Iraq because he divined something from the pertinent intelligence that others didn't, or out of some special wisdom that uniquely qualifies him to be President. He voted against the war because he's a pacifist who doesn't believe in going to war, period. As to your "Pandora's box" claptrap, as others have mentioned, the Middle East has been at war with it self pretty much forever. The rational for going to war when and where we did was that the powder keg was going to explode in the near future because of economic conditions and a lack of opportunities for young men, and a growing vein of Islamo-facism that was recruiting them by giving their otherwise empty and wasted lives meaning and purpose, and that by entering that theater, and carving out a western enclave we could a) choose the time table for our entry rather than have it thrust upon us which would give us a strategic upper hand, b) would give us a military foothold to influence the developments in the region, and c) to create a land of opportunity in the region which, over time, would give those young men a purpose by changing the economy and culture of the region, hopefully snuffing out the fire around the powder keg as the long game. The mess of IS, and the associated refugee issue were created by the hasty exit for the theater which created a power vacuum in the region. Had we not left Iraq, none of that would have happened.

As long as you keep feeding the bull, the bull will keep taking *****. It's cyclical.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/chelsea-clinton-gearing-white-house-bid-article-1.2510390 I, for one, have zero appetite for this sort of political dynasty. It absolutely reeks of royalty.

Of course it's flawed, you dope. My point wasn't that that specific website was the end-all be-all. I was using it as an example of the x/y axis political spectrum, and how it accounts for all political leanings; and explaining why a simple left-right linear spectrum model was useless.

Again, making college education more accessible isn't going to make it cheaper. It will make it more expensive, as having the government make the payment for even more educations makes colleges even less accountable for controlling costs, as it works to further eliminate the market forces which would otherwise drive costs down. Costs will continue to rise under this model, and will simply always be passed along, nearly unaccountably, to the tax payer. Additionally, this creates an environment where students are completely unaccountable to the costs they are creating for tax payers. When students and their families don't bear the burden of the costs of education, they are more likely to not complete their education as they have no financial stake in what they have purchased, so it's easier to walk away. This also doesn't address that saturation of the college degree market, which reduces it's value to employers, and drives down salaries. When everyone has a degree, a degree has no value. It also serves to create minimum hiring standards, where immigrants and high school dropouts have zero access to the economy, creating a permanent underclass. Can you address those problems please?

Free college education is a terrible idea. The reason costs have been rising so steeply is because government subsidizes it's costs. The costs won't go away, they'll continue to rise as they have, only the true costs will be masked because 100% of the funding will come through taxes. Additional problems that will be created by this will be the continuing devaluation of a college degree through saturation. The more degrees in the hiring pool, the less value they have as a differentiator. As it stands today, an Associates degree puts you on roughly the same footing as a high school dropout in 1965. A Bachelors is the equivalent of high school diploma, and a Masters is the new Bachelors. This drives down salaries as relates to degrees. And on the other hand, we see that we still have a massive pool of citizens who don't complete high school, plus a massive influx of immigrants from third world countries who lack any education. The new job market created by the saturation of the college degree market becomes inaccessible to them, and places them into a permanent dependent underclass.

They aren't perfect, but they do a reasonable job.

If you strongly agree, it's the inverse.

Economic Left/Right: 8.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82

Any political spectrum not based on the intended purpose of government is bunk. The concept of left and right is absolutely meaningless, because it doesn't speak to the proper role of government involvement, and therefore is open to vaguery. It also doesn't account for many political ideologies, and leaves them undefinable within the model. The axis model accounts for all ideologies and viewpoints, and plots them based on their beliefs about the proper role of government in society. As an example, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler all fall in the upper left of the frame, Hitler being closest to the axis. They all believed in powerful authoritarian regimes which placed strict controls on both the economic and social aspects of their nations. Conversely, I fall into the lower right box. https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

There is so much stupid in this post. First of all, the political spectrum is not linear, it's an x/y axis of economic and social preferences. As far as the rest of it goes, it's amazing to me that you attribute political leanings to DNA as sorted by race; rather than examining the history of the world, and understanding that America's classically liberal cultural history is due to the meeting of several sets of highly unlikely circumstances which divorced it from the rest of the world in terms of national politics. America was settled by highly adventurous frontiersmen, who were essentially gifted the continent by the prior residents whom were largely agrarian nomads offering little in terms of defending the overwhelming majority of their land from conquest. Around these settlers a rugged individualism grew as a natural culture, given the geographic distance from the ruling class, the protestant religious leanings of the settlers, as well as the budding philosophy of the day. Winning the Revolutionary War secured these ideals as uniquely American in practice. European and Asian nations still found themselves under the rule of their various monarchies and empires, and other colonial states did not reap the benefits of throwing of the yoke of their rulers. As history progressed, the Oceans insulated America from much of the tidal wave of authoritarianism that swept over all of Europe and Asia. Were not here because of our DNA metering out racial superiority. We're here because of geography and good fortune.

On a political compass the far left and far right sit directly next to each other.

As you're the one making the positive assertion, the burden of proof falls to you, as is required by formal logic. You said this: So, you can stand there, making an illogical argument and thereby forfeit; or you can prove your claims. I'll save you the time though. The polling data demonstrating the complete wrongness of your position has already been posted on the sub-forum many times.

Bare assertion fallacy. The truth is that all polling data suggests otherwise, and does so in no uncertain terms.

There are plenty of angry stupid people and xenophobic nativists in the Republican party, just as there are in the Democratic Party, just as there are amongst Independents; which is why Trumps supports comes in large percentages from all three of those groups. As to the rest, it would serve you well to stop being intellectually dishonest abut the differences between "conservatives" and republicans" as well as taxation stances.

Wrong as usual. Donald Trump has espoused big government liberal policy preference for years. The Trump phenomenon is nothing more the the Ven overlapping of "angry stupid people" and "xenophobic nativists", support coming from those who identify with not just Republicans, but also Democrats, and Independents.

The thing is, an indictment of Clinton, who served as SoS under Obama, taints the Obama legacy in the short term; and the long term harm it would do to the Democrat Party would likely serve to aid in the complete dismantling of his legacy over the next 16-24 years. She won't be indicted.

The FBI will recommend prosecution on multiple counts. The Loretta Lynch Justice Department will use it's discretion to not indict.

Any time you need a liberal to commit to a perfect energy source, just offer up incinerated aborted babies.