Cdl,

The entire Equal Opportunity vs. Equal outcome is a garbage false dichotomy. Neither are worthwhile goals nor are they remotely achievable.

It's the degree of the inequality that is the problem, not the inequality itself. And tackling that is much more realistic and worthwhile.

Meh, it's just a normal, human reaction I think. People tend to think they're bad when they or someone they know are adversely affected by them. Just because something may be a net positive for society does not mean there aren't winners and losers. I mean, low gas and oil prices are a net benefit to the economy but the guy who sold all his **** and moved to North Dakota seven years ago to drill baby drill isn't thrilled about those right now. The people complaining (resulting in politicians pandering to them) are the losers in these scenarios.

I'm not saying the current system is providing equal opportunity. I don't even think equal opportunity is theoretically possible in a society of any scale at all. Actual equal opportunity is and always will be unobtainable given the different family and personal circumstances everyone will experience.

I even agree that the most efficient path toward equal opportunity is through equality of wealth, but I do not believe this is fair to those who have grown their own wealth and it is least fair to those who have diverged upwards in wealth from the average of their opportunity.

My argument against wealth redistribution relies on my personal preference to react to historical inequality with fair and equal current policies, but not to harm those who succeeded under the system of unequal opportunity.

This is a fair point. There is still no reason for tiers rather than dynamic percentages if that is your goal. You also have a bit of an issue with the fact that every individual will have somewhat different curves. I guess the fairness of taxing it based on dollars vs. utility is all a framing and perspective issue. I could see myself considering both fair and equal in their own ways.

How do we determine where the correct place to draw the line is then? If some inequality is fine then what is too much and what is too little?

I am not convinced that the rich are too rich though I do agree the poor are too poor. Thus, I prefer to close the gap by lifting the floor and not lowering the ceiling. We are and have been raising the standard of living for the poor pretty consistently for the entire history of the United States.

If Koch is hated because he has money and tries to influence politics, soros should be hated too. Soros isn't simply hated less. He's liked and/or loved. Therefore, your assertion that Koch is hated because of his money and influence is bull****. He's hated because he isn't on your side, which isn't nearly as principled as you made it seem.

I don't think I've ever heard Soros' name except as a counterpoint to the Kochs. So I honestly don't know about liked/loved.

He's been mentioned in about thirty headlines in the last 24 hours.

https://www.google.com/search?q=geor...t=0&sa=N&dpr=1

We don't need to draw a line. There is no cut and dry exact answer to these issues. What we're doing by discussing it is part of the process. Electing officials to argue it for us is part of the process. And right now the wealthiest people influencing those officials with enormous contributions is part of the process.

Bernie supporters feel that fixing that broken part of the process is going to automatically start to improve things.

Bernie is really weird on Israel, open borders, and reparations. And he has no reason to depart from typical socialist lines on those issues. Just seems like old white man stuff. Kind of like Ron Paul on abortion and gay marriage.

Captain, send me your payment info plz

new poll in Iowa

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politi...inkId=20561411

Trump 37
Cruz 26
Rubio 14
Carson 6
Bush 3
Huckabee 3
Paul 2

Bernie 51
Hillary 43
O'rrelevant 4

538 had hildawg has has a pretty huge favorite in Iowa so that's interesting

Seriously though just huge loooooool hilwoat if she loses this

________ 1.5 months ago _ now
Sanders ______ 36 _______ 51
Clinton _______ 54 _______ 43

Hillary is winning with ages 55+ 63 to 34.

That makes sense since they're old enough to remember that communism is a complete ****ing disaster.

In terms of "Which candidate best represents the values of Democrats like yourself?" Bernie is leading that 57-38.

The question of electability Hillary is leading 60-38.

This leads me to believe that ~5% of voters are picking Hillary because they believe she is more electable.

Feel free to actually educate yourself:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

Bigger story is Trump once again effortlessly alphaing his closest rival. And it can't be said enough: lol at Nate Silver, political data guru. But hey, Lindsey Graham endorsed Jeb Bush, so Jeb continues to clean up in the all-important and highly predictive endorsement primary.

Some of the most depressing conversations of my entire life were rooted in Boomers/Gen Xers having anti-communist propaganda beat into their heads as a kid and misapplying that to all sorts of situations.

i'm a total newb to this whole "primary" thing, so can anyone explain why people obsess over iowa/new hampshire so much?

according to this page, there were 4,417 total delegates at the end of the 2008 primary for the Dems, and Iowa/NH had a combined total of 87. Unless I'm misreading this, why do people care so much about 0.02% of delegates?

It'd be extra sweet if Bern breaks 538.

Because Iowa and New Hampshire are first and the traditional thinking is that good/poor showings in these states has momentum going forward.

Because they get to go first.

The money tends to dry up for candidates that do poorly in both Iowa and NH. Once that starts it usually avalanches into all their endorsements and backers switching to other candidates.