So the US has to provide 100% free trade to China and guarantee prices for not just their own country but *every* "western" country before we can talk about imbalanced barriers to entry? That's ridiculous. The US shouldn't have any say over how a different countries tax products sold in their jurisdiction. Even given states should be allowed to establish different tax rates. Both of those things will result in fluctuating prices. Hell different western world countries use different currencies and those will fluctuate in comparison to each other which will also change real price in different countries. And why should the US be required to remove all barriers from its side before discussing if barriers in China are unfairly high compared to the barriers the US currently has against Chinese companies operating in the US? Your options are not only ridiculous they are infeasible.

Well... Reagan was the source of implementation of Voodoo Economics (trickle-down economics, supply-side economics, choose your name) and started the destruction of the strength of unions so yeah some of the blame for the poor and working class economic woes really can be laid appropriately at his feet.

If I do something to try and get someone elected do I need to wait for them to give me permission or ask before I do it? Or is it possible I may do something I believe will lead to support of a candidate or a drop in support for an opposing candidate? I haven't heard anyone claim that Trump asked the Russians to do the initial hack. I have heard rumors that they did it to support him, but I'm not sure if that's their primary intent. I do know that Putin has spoken in support of Trump, so it would not be unbelievable someone in Russia would do this with that motivation except the timeline does make that unlikely since no one considered him a contender last year. Maybe the hack was done with a different intent and the release of the emails was done with that intent?

My point of view is that the original leaks being exposed is fine. Reporting on them is a good thing, and we should look for maleficence in the emails that have been exposed. But calling upon a foreign power to attack someone is over the line. Does he really think they will go find those emails and nothing else? And I "hope" is an invitation to action. When your mom says "I hope you clean this basement soon." She isn't really making a meaningless statement. She wants you to do it.

One of the funniest ironies in video games to me was a line from Star Ocean on PS2. The main character is a HUGE game fanatic. And that's why he is incredibly fit. Because in that world all the video games were developed for a system that's like a holodeck. I did not consider that an implausible future.

All it takes is one country to decide that it is worth the risk and the world is over. That's insane. Nukes don't threaten a single country. They threaten all countries and are a force that should never be used. Owning nukes would force countries to grow up? Why? Does giving a kid a gun make the kid grow up or make the kid think he's invincible and get people hurt? If the US having nukes doesn't discourage other countries from attacking us or our citizens why would them suddenly having nukes discourage them? If every country in the world starts building nuclear arsenals it puts us (all humans) into a more precarious position. Escalating tension does not lead to peace. If you think nukes make people able to negotiate from a position of strength it would be at best the position of a bully. I don't consider that a good position. (And it is the position of the United States often and I don't think that is good either.)

That said. I'm against nuclear proliferation, but I'm not really for complete nuclear disarmament. Decreasing the world's stockpile would probably be good and I'm glad that research into making more powerful bombs has pretty much stopped, but I can agree that nukes have had a great impact on countries willingness to go to war for the countries that have nukes currently.

By this logic there's no problem with North Korea getting nukes. A line needs to be drawn somewhere and nukes is a pretty damn good line. Ideally NO ONE should have nukes. Being OK with any country getting them, ally or foe, shows a lack of understanding about these weapons and think they are just big bombs. Saying Japan or South Korea should grow their military so we don't budget for their defense is an understandable argument and a case can be made for it, though increased world militarization might lead to another world war so I personally don't agree with that stance, but a case can be made for it. But nukes are far too dangerous to allow them to proliferate.

I like that last definition. Killing plants is WAY too easy.

I never had cavities either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth or problems of that nature either until a dentist ran a laser over my teeth and detected what he called microcavities and drilled like 1/3rd of my teeth. Now I have problems with cavities -.- Just a warning for if you ever change dentists.

I have no data about University of Texas standing to clarify my point.

Just to clarify a point... the University of Pennsylvania is an Ivy League school... so 2/3 of the schools on this list are Ivy League. She has taught at 25% of the 8 Ivy League schools. Pennsylvania state system of higher education indeed is inferior to Ivy league, but University of Pennsylvania is not part of the state sytem of higher education. It's a private school. I have no data about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I think you are underestimating how devastating invalid parking tickets can be. I like John Oliver's take https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Personally I think the issue is that a $600 fine could cause poorer people to become homeless. I know people where that is their monthly income. Running a red light (where you didn't kill anyone) shouldn't result in destroying someone's life. I do not think that level of fining is correct for the level of misdemeanor. Sure if you make 100,000 a year you can probably afford it, but if you make $20,000 a year that's 3% of your yearly income, a significant portion. Society should tolerate mistakes because mistakes happen. And then police departments are incentivized to issue tickets like this despite the consequences because their budgets account for X tickets issued per month and Y% of people not even showing up to court to argue it. Oh and cops don't lie.

I don't doubt you are wrong and all, but just want to quible one logic point. Most of the this then thats you present makes sense except the people wanting to live there but unable to leading to more people wanting to visit. I'm not sure how that works? Or are you implying the visitors are not really visitors but are those people unable to live there posing as visitors?

Mexico already has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...