Muda69

Because you remove a large reason why we have geographical/social entities know as 'States'. As the opinion piece states:

The War on Red Caps Roars On: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/violence-against-trump-supporters-make-america-great-again-hats/

So you are contending there would be significantly less starving people under socialism?

https://www.gobankingrates.com/making-money/jobs/jobs-that-arent-worth-education-requirements/ Note: These jobs are presented in the stupid slideshow format, probably to increase the number of clicks: Learn a trade like electrician, automobile mechanic, plumber, etc. If you really want a college education these days go for something related to robotics.

Showed this to my spouse. She just rolled her eyes then let loose with a good loud crackler. I was impressed.

ewkvvzt53sft1yueuzsf.mp4

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/theres-a-partisan-fiction-at-the-heart-of-the-case-against-the-electoral-college/ If anyone thinks the American republic would remain stable if political power is consolidated in coastal urban enclaves, then they lack understanding of American history, American culture, and human nature. The founders struck a balance between state and federal power for good reasons — reasons that remain valid today. But can we get real for a moment? While there are some constitutional scholars who carry on this debate based on high-minded concerns about the nature of American democracy, the real energy behind the Democratic anger at the Electoral College (and behind the Republican defense of it, for that matter) is purely partisan. They look at the national popular vote since 1992 and see exactly one Republican win but three Republican presidencies. Since George H. W. Bush’s rout of Michael Dukakis, only his son has managed a popular-vote victory. So, if we abolish the Electoral College, the Democrats win, right? Not so fast. The Democrats are basing their optimism in part on “success” in a political race that no one is actually running. There is not a single sensible political strategist who has ever plotted out a presidential race for the purpose of winning the popular vote. That’s like game-planning to run the most total yards or to shoot the most free throws. The bottom line is that no one can state with confidence who would have won the 2016 race if the national popular vote determined the outcome. The strategy would be completely different. Candidates would message differently, campaign in different states, and engage in radically different ad buys. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would have won. Perhaps not. We simply don’t know. In fact, outside of the true blowout elections, we don’t really know who would have won any of the close national contests since 1992. And let’s not pretend that a national popular vote elevates every citizen’s vote in a way that the Electoral College does not. Your vote counts in each state, and the fact that your state is overwhelmingly red or blue is no more or less demoralizing than the popular-vote idea that your single vote is thrown into a pool of 130 million others. Besides, if we want to talk about antidemocratic institutions — and the vastly disproportionate impact of a few, small states on national elections — the real culprit isn’t the Electoral College. It’s a primary system that places extraordinary emphasis on the power of winning the first three primaries. We live in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina’s America, and that’s far more troubling than perpetuating an electoral system that our founders wisely determined was helpful for maintaining national unity. Agreed. If we get rid of the Electoral College we might as well drop the "United States" from the name United States of America.

So food want, aka starvation, is better than food waste. Got it.

Andrew Yang, Upstart Democratic Presidential Candidate, Comes Out Against Circumcision: https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-yang-the-upstart-democratic-presidential-candidate-comes-out-against-circumcision

NZ declares massacre video “objectionable,” arrests people who shared it: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/new-zealand-men-could-get-14-years-for-sharing-massacre-video/ I haven't seen the video in question, nor do I have any desire to watch it. But this is a slippery slope that I do not like. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

I'm wondering exactly what advantages I, a Caucasian male, receive when I visit government entities like the local BMV branch, county courthouse, or post office.

Life isn't fair. Get used to it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/southern-poverty-law-center-weaponized-political-correctness/ Ironic to see the SPLC on SPLC's list.

Caveat Emptor. And as one of the commentators to this story puts it:

https://mises.org/wire/forget-guaranteed-income-—-governments-need-stop-prohibiting-income Agreed. The regulatory state need to be abolished.

Correct, but it is just one part of the equation.

You truly are a Renaissance Man.

Do you ever suffer from analysis paralysis?

But once all driving is handled by computers does that mean I will no longer have to carry as much car insurance, since any accident now has to be the fault of the manufacturer, aka a defect? Although I suppose one may decide to carry car insurance for non-vehicle accident damage, like from a hail storm or a tree limb.

I'll take that as a yes. Enjoy.

? Please elaborate.