When was the last time you saw a poll where 95% of the country agreed on anything?
Most polls only ask about controversial things. I bet you could easily get 95% agreement on:
Murder, theft, fraud, etc... should be illegal. (Basic criminal law)
We shouldn't allow Syria/Iran to conquer us (military defense)
and I'm sure you'd see a few other essential items getting broad agreement.
For the rest... well, that's a feature of the system, not a bug.
A few of the "expert" ones I frequent:
Volokh Conspiracy (Now tied into the Washington Post)
Thank you for making my day with your comment. Provided a good laugh at just the right time. Way too much of a kernel of truth in there...
Would it have superfish and other viruses on there? Because I don't really remember IBM doing that. Lenovo might want to leave the Communist malware off. Or maybe they don't want to.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. - Various Economists and Heinlein
Same types of things happened after the regulations around credit and debit card fees. The money comes from somewhere and ultimately you aren't punishing the big players in the industry with the regulations, but their customers and their smaller competitors.
Another case of people who don't understand regulatory history being doomed to repeat it.
Who makes more money off of cigarettes, the tobacco companies or the government?
When the government (State+Federal) makes 6x as much per pack than the manufacturer does, where's the incentive?
P.S. See also Gasoline taxes vs Oil company profits.
Do they? Seems like owning this place would be a bit of a gamble.
Huh. I thought Hot Topic owned us. What's Dice?
There likely are specific laws, likely related to holocaust and Armenian genocide denial and such, that would allow a group like the Sikhs to sue a US firm that aids and abets such calumnies.
Considering the 1980s attack on the Sikh ethnic group by Hindis was a well organized and deliberate attempt at genocide, I would suggest that they have a good case.
More personally - Zuckerberg you goddamn moral coward, if Facebook doesn't support groups like this, it serves no useful purpose other than data mining and privacy undermining.
Yeah, everyone knows Google is a bastion of right-wing lobbying and giving. Why, you can just look at all their strictly traditional holiday search page images and their complete lack of focus on left-wing causes in their news releases, promotional materials and spending.
Good thing we have groups like these "investors" who are concerned not that they're making money, but that Google isn't contributing anything to any group which may in some way not agree with progressives to keep Google "correct" politically.
Being right isn't enough. You have to be popular to effect change.
The original comparison (lost in the threading somewhere above) was about poverty rate comparisons between countries, not the US census definition (which is more based on an absolute), nor the World Bank international absolute definition (which is more like $1.25/day, which no on in the US really fits without really trying hard) so I was using the definition used in the original comparison. See Poverty in France: "were below the poverty line (which, according to INSEE's criteria, is half of the median income)." INSEE is the French equivalent of the US Census for economic statistics. INSEE has recently moved to a 60% of median income measurement.
The original stats I was responding to also don't take into account in-kind benefits (not income), which makes them even worse.
My post in response to the stats previously cited was that "It's really a dumb way to compare poverty across countries.", so don't expect me to be defending the measurements used. They certainly aren't the ones I'd pick to do an actual comparison.
a poor person in the U.S. won't have access to healthcare
I realize you may be not in the U.S. and so are speaking out of ignorance based on the false impressions given by some news media, but anyone in the U.S. within 133% of the poverty line we've been discussing is eligible for medicaid, which covers their health care costs, even retroactively.
or third level education
Also, generally speaking, anyone who can't afford college in the U.S. is eligible for grants which will cover virtually 100% of costs at most public universities. It won't cover more expensive universities (some people take out low interest loans to help cover that), but higher education costs in the U.S. are very much needs based. Basically, they take whatever money you have, then cover the rest.