Its false because liberals morals and values differ from conservatives morals and values, and therefore what is right for us isnt right for them. We take a stance based on our feelings and then create a rationale to explain it, like on sexuality we liberals support gay marriage because everyone should have the same rights but conservatives would say that we should have religious liberty. So at the end of the day its just that liberals moral feelings value that people should be free from harm or discrimination, more than republicans which would balances this moral value with a number of other things, such as e.g the value of bodily Sanctity or Purity which emphasize that we shouldnt be out of line with what we do to our bodies. People will wary alot in how their morals are tuned so thats why ppl line up behind alot of different presidential candidates and some are libertarians etc.

So i think that even if our liberal policies would make society "better", people arent going to step on their own values or "realize" that their values are "wrong", because this is just built into our heads and it goes both ways. There is even studies showing that conservatives and liberals tend to be more happy when the overall political climate is according to their belief. So our liberal policies doesnt necessarily help both sides even if we would think so, although that would be a debatable topic ofc. So i think its an idea to take a step back and recognize that change will take time and is done by exposing those groups that need more rights in the media and in the public so that newer generations growing up will be more used to the new normal, and then the political change can come.

I think there is going to be a worlds first head transplant in the UK this year, and when i hear this i certainly do feel that i can be a bit conservative myself.

^^^^^ I believe this addresses your main point:

You also seem to be arguing from the view of what GOP promises, not what GOP delivers. They're vastly different, even opposite in some cases.

Don't the Nazis of the "alt-right" deserve scorn and social backlash despite their 1A right to spew racism? Or are you saying it's a different kind of scorn given to Kaepernick?

Yeah, Democrats in the grave are confirmed FURRYOUS. Fast forward to 2017, and which party's living followers are still mad that the South lost? You should probably give up at Chess. I hear Tic-Tac-Toe is fun!

This is often stated as speculation to justify what amounts to wage slavery, but is there any evidence of this? From what I heard about Seattle, businesses aren't struggling after the $15/hr wage, despite the predictions of its opponents. My own naive speculation is this - if you can't stay in business without your employees living on food stamps, your business probably isn't successful anyway. There are plenty of businesses that would fail even if they had full-on slave labor (the GOP's wet dream). For instance, see any bar/restaurant featured on Bar Rescue or Kitchen Nightmares (pre intervention).

Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50 https://t.co/PqV1l4CmBY

Ok, the new Trump silver lining is that his incompetence makes him more like a vaccine than an actual disease, and reforms will be put in place that will strengthen the system against someone similarly malevolent but who also happens to have minimal or above competence.

95mill have used prescription painkillers in the last year? seems high

that's like 30% of the country

For example, all candidates should undergo a basic neurological screening and be required to list all prescription drugs used in last decade. Also, make the 25th amendment easier to implement.

I've not used many, but some after dental work.

How are these two sentences even related?

Oh, I get it. Both are about stopping the pain.

I assume 'prescription painkillers' includes the 800mg Advil or whatever that some docs prescribe, which you can get over the counter by taking 4 200mg pills

Going back to things Republicans are better than democrats at. I think I will add privatization in general to that list. I haven't read into air traffic control privatization, but I do think privately run companies are far more efficient and provided that externalities aren't too significant then more often than not it's better for society to cut costs so government spending can be used elsewhere. Republicans tend to like privatization a whole lot more.

I think the last thing we want is to turn air safety into a for-profit game where we maximize profits by stretching safety measures to the limit.

Maybe you'd change your mind after an exhausted double-shift worker accidentally lets two planes collide, killing everyone. Maybe not.

In health care privatization is clearly far more inefficient and also leads to far worse outcomes.

Hence, the whole "generally" part of my worded statement. Two tiered systems tend to work the best I think.

I actually agree with that. But it seems like the systems they are usually trying to privatize are ones that should remain public, like our public education system, social safety net, and others. There's also the fact that they push privatization on everything more and more, while they have been dismantling labor unions and labor laws for the past forty+ years. This makes privatization have worse outcomes in general and leads to some pretty horrible living situations where people are considered "temp employees" for years on end and the like.

In Canada, it's privately run, but not for profit. Not sure exactly how it works, but apparently (after 5 minutes of googling) it's more effective than in the US (Trump said something correct-stop the presses, that's a story in and of itself).
The previously debated subject in the US looked to the Canadian non profit model rather than the for profit British model.
I'm sure heavy regulation in the newly privatized industry would be needed, I'm not sure the Republicans are competent enough to do this themselves though.

One reason a privatization scheme might work very well in Canada but totally fail in the U.S.: Canada has a pretty strong culture of labor unions and labor laws that protect people from being exploited too badly. In the U.S., we had those laws at one point, but we totally dismantled them over the last forty years.

Actually it's pretty damn remarkable because the dismantling of labor unions + labor laws is in my opinion one of the main things that actually ended up leading to Trump, yet there has been ZERO mainstream media attention on this issue. People become more prone to fascism or other forms of authoritarianism when the middle class is collapsing.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

I'm unsure on labour unions, on one hand you absolutely need the threat of them to keep employers from taking advantage of their employees.

On the other side, they are a deadweight loss on the economy, making employers pay a fair amount more for their employees than the employee receives in compensation. Often when employees join a union they end up making less and the employer ends up paying more. Job security increases which can be very good, but that can be a negative as well as incompetence gets very difficult to remove.
Also, for employees to try and get out of a union is a seemingly impossible task (in Canada) even if the vast majority of workers regret the decision, where as entering one is easy. The other point that was brought up previously, was the issue where you are forced to join the union if that job is unionized which limits personal freedom.

Unions in China or SE Asia would be very beneficial where the workers essentially have 0 rights or power, and they were needed greatly at one point in North America although I feel they have outlived their usefulness to a degree. Strong federal legislation on employees' rights could perhaps save the economy a lot of money and help make unions more redundant.

Yeah well we tried that whole "destroy the unions" thing and it doesn't work. It's laughable that you still think it does. We got insane amounts of income inequality as a result. The economy depends on workers having money to spend as well, that money workers make doesn't just "go to nothing." It also allows people to save up and start their own businesses which increases entrepreneurship and competition.

Republicans don't want strong federal legislation on employees' rights. They've spent the last forty years tearing down everything they can.

Without it you need unions, with it you could potentially remove much of the deadweight loss on the economy that unions create.

Unions don't create deadweight loss on the economy. I just explained that to you. 22% of black households in this country live on under $15,000 per year. If you don't think the labor and class struggles are directly tied to the issues that are destroying us as a country, you don't have a clue what's going on right now.

The labor union issue is one where I get the arguments against. The problem is, looking at the results from decline in union membership, and its obvious the decline in unions has been a negative on everyone, whether in a union or not.

Name one place in the US where you can live on minimum wage. That's $1160/month working 40 hrs a week before taxes. Rural Texas? Montana?

Even if you live in Bum****, Idaho, you can't survive on that. It costs money to get to and from work. Unless you are lucky enough to live within walking distance. But chances are, if you live that close to work, your rent will be high.

Even if you just take the very basic necessities like food, water, and shelter, the cost is going to eat the majority of that sweet paycheck. Add in pesky things like heat, electric, personal grooming things like toothpaste, soap, etc. and it starts adding up.

And good luck if you happen to have kids.