Willie71

Here's some info on water in early civilizations. http://webworld.unesco.org/water/wwap/pccp/cd/pdf/history_future_shared_water_resources/water_management_early.pdf It's a bit dry of a read in places, but the info is good.

35 million people not in poverty is a huge deal. I don't understand this thinking that unless you eliminate the problem, a reduction isn't worth much. 35 million people. Let that sink in.

From 1965 to 1980. Look at those numbers. The new Deal and Great Society were working. Then came Reagan and repealing those gains. You can see it right there in the numbers what happened. Clinton came in, with neoliberal policies, and poverty goes down a bit, but not like true liberalism. Bush II and rise in poverty. Economy rebounds for the wealthiest in Obama's term, but the global crash, a product of right wing ideology, created massive poverty. Obama was too right wing to really help the poorest people.

Hmmmm, another originalist interpretation.

The only parallel I see in both parties is that they are corporatists who are bought by their donors. Democrats are less likely to be batshit crazy because they are tied to academia and science. The republicans are made up of people who reject academia and science. The modern Democratic Party has moved away from the New deal. I just got the book being described on this video: There are a couple more videos of the interview with Thom Hartman and Frank. The Democrats have to take Sanders' message seriously if they want to remain relevant. If not, they become the republicans and the republicans implode. A new center left party will have to rise. This trend back to the left is being seen worldwide. Modern conservatism is a failure, and people are tired of it.

Yes, it was intentional. There are objective facts. One side may distort them a bit, but one side has faith based economics and immigration policy. Dems and Repubs are both corporatist shills, but Dems accept evidence in their policy decisions.

The flag in the background is appealing to the nationalism. It's a dog whistle racism strategy, and has been for a long time.

From politicalcompass.org:

I've posted this before. Clinton is diverging from her record a bit this campaign. The above image shows her historical policy votes. Reagan was more authoritarian, but economically he was quite similar to where Clinton is now. The party has moved right a bit, and the Dems now occupy the same place the republicans used to. Clinton has no plan to increase bank regulations, and has no plan to break them up. They have continued the subprime mortgage scam under a different name. Clinton was for TPP. She campaigns against it, but it benefits her donors. Clinton is supported by for profit prisons, yet she has campaigned against them, while historically voting for them. Clinton thought negotiating with Iran was foolish. She is more hawkish than Obama. I'm not glossing over Reagan, but stripping the gloss off of Hillaries rhetoric to look at where she is really at.

I think a better analogy is that Ckinton offers a 100% chance of losing $50.00, Republicans offer a 100% chance of losing $100.00, but Sanders offers a 50% chance of making $100.00. I agree with you. The only candidate close to the center is Sanders. Clinton is where Reagan was in the 80's.

This really puzzles me, the American populace. They say they would rather have a rebranded Reagan in the White House because it's more likely to get those policies passed, than elect someone who actually shares their ideals. I just can't wrap my brain around how that makes sense, beyond having blind faith in her temporary shift to the left to debate sanders. Let's vote for someone we dislike a lot, because they won't screw it up as bad as Cruz or Trump, but we won't vote for someone offering what we want, with an outlined path to get those things done.

I'm still watching the race closely. I love rooting for the underdog. 👍😜

Civilizations in Central America, Africa, and the Middle East have all been tied to population growth, then a change in climate such as drought, or rerouting of rivers left a population that could not feed itself. A parallel to current California was shown in a documentary I watched on this a couple years ago. Nixonland was a great read. He was an outsider, never accepted by the stablishment. He used a lot of Reagan's strategy from his California run, to beat the establishment. It ushered in the era that now brings us trump. Policy wise, I don't know much about Nixon, so I can't comment on his actual presidency.

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. "Is it really as improbable as it seems?" Clinton is now out of her highest support states. We'll see how Bernie does now. Nate Silver thinks he has a good chance of winning the next nine states. Bernie did not concede anything in his speech last night either. I did not see any indication of hopelessness. It was business as usual, and move on to the next states. Maybe his campaign knows something we don't. It might just be good showmanship, but I did see worry in Clinton last week. I'm not counting Bernie out, but it will be a hell of an upset if he's successful.

Empires fail when they can no longer support the populace. Lack of water is historically a major driver in this. Doesn't look good to me.

I think after last night, Sanders needs some major upsets. The states most strongly favouring Clinton are done. If Sanders won three states last night with greater than a 5 point margin, and was within 15 points in Florida, Sanders would be the favorite to win in my mind. Reality is they basically tied two states, and Clinton won by good margins in the other three. It's a pretty big deficit to overcome. It's not impossible. A new scandal, major injury, or God forbid an assassination could change things instantly though. The dirty politics Clinton and the media have been playing work against them for the general, and they will be competing with a group much more experienced in dirty politics whether it is Cruz or Trump. Sanders should stay in the race for sure, especially with New York and California having enough delegates to swing it back of there is a surge in momentum. A lot of things have to go right for Sanders for that to happen. I'm hoping, but am only cautiously pessimistic.

This is the issue isn't it? Putting limits on what can be changed in a democracy results in problems like the gun violence in the states. If climate change was handled with a constitutional amendment, for example, changing it would be harder, but Republicans could kill social security in the same way. If there was a way to respect scientific or economic advisers who are evidence based, it would help, but there is the problem of corruption, people who could be paid to say anything. There aren't any perfect solutions. I'm open to suggestions.

We unfortunately deal with 10 year, 20 year, and hundred year problems with four year plans and solutions. Democracy doesn't have a safeguard to deal with the really big problems.

Extreme socialism allows less than 1/3 of people to underachieve. It also allows 1/3 of people to use their creativity and drive to innovate without having to worry about keeping a crappy job to pay bills. That is the idealistic way of seeing it. The problem is people. We are competitive by nature, and we are severely flawed by our cognitive shortcuts. We tend to screw up everything we touch for really stupid reasons.

Monks are overachievers. Hermits are overachieving libertarians. We equate money with hard work and success, incorrectly. Artists are a good example. Many are extremely devoted, and incredibly skilled, yet they don't often get a monetary reward. People say they don't produce necessary things. In that vein, a trader on a computer doesn't either. It's all just numbers and abstractions, but that person deserves wealth. Why do top athletes make more money than top surgeons or teachers? Surely their value is higher to society than an athlete? I am an overachiever. I have to WORK hard at having boundaries and taking time to relax. It's sad I have to work at relaxing.

A very smart prof in 1992 told me a little bit of wisdom. He called it the rule of thirds. One third of people will work hard at whatever they do. They strive for excellence. One third of people will work to be competent. They do what needs to be done. One third of people do the minimum they can to get by. This will never change. Whether we have socialism, capitalism, communism, or whatever, it won't change. Conservatives worry so much about the button 2% that are scammers they will prevent the numerous people who are the hardest workers, who grew up in the least supportive homes from having a chance, so they won't have to pay for the 2%.

Yes, it's better than corporate profit driven services. I have worked in the Canadian health care system for over two decades, and making the assumption that Medicare works similarity, there is a lot of room to improve efficiency. I am a strong supporter of single payer, just so I'm clear.

The US has public infrastructure, health care, police/corrections, social security etc, but those programs are run inefficiently and underfunded. Social wellbeing is seen as based in character for many, where people struggle because of poor character, not the social and genetic lottery. Not allowing for profit corporations be responsible for core social programs such as health care. There is always the risk of excessive beurocracy in government programs which need checks and balances. There are ways to do this. There is always a balance between freedom and oversight. Banking should be regulated to prevent financial crashes. The energy sector benefits from centralized investments in infrastructure, especially now that the switch to renewables is critical. Lowest cost with highest short term profits doesn't allow for large infrastructure investments for long term gains. We know from game theory that people don't play fair, making any system prone to cheating, whether socialist, or capitalist. The problem isn't in the system itself, but that the system relies on people.

The free market is a republican faith based ideology. Supposedly the consumers would choose not to buy unsafe products forcing the market to correct itself. They don't consider the effects of monopolies, corporate welfare, and limited power of individuals to claim damages. They believe in the idea, but pretend reality doesn't differ from that idealism.

Sanders is advocating social democracy, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy rather than socialism. Democratic socialism is different still. The US is a social democracy already, but a lousy expression of it.