Now it's not so easy.

Even TX recognizes women can terminate a pregnancy. They just decided to game the system to make it difficult to obtain in TX.

It's not murder.

But - in your mind - if mother and daughter drive to another state, one of them have the procedure, then returned, the daughter and mother, are now murderers. TX can execute them. If the doctor and staff that performed the termination are known and enter TX they are murderers also. They can be killed by the state, too.

Nope. Not that easy.

Because it is not murder.

Let this guy make that case: https://tinyurl.com/ma4sjz3v

Thanks for your honesty. And responding. So many just spout and run out.

Interesting that Maher thanked / congratulated Jillette for voting for Hillary, but didn't note that he outspokenly did so as a "vote swap" thing where he (in an "important state" re Electoral College) voted for Hillary in return for a friend (in a meaningless / foregone conclusion state) voting for Gary Johnson.

I think that is a fine way to mildly game the system, which is more than mildly broken with the idiotic Electoral College. On the other hand, I think it is fine (honorable even?) to vote your conscious and vote for a third party candidate that has no actual chance of winning, even if you're in a tightly contested swing state.

But my favorite bit is Jillette talking about potential benefits of the Trump presidency. "Trump as a cautionary tale" is actually a very real thing, that will actually have long-term benefits. Whether or not those long-term benefits outweigh the short-term disaster definitely remains to be seen.

@Diogenes

You're kind of unfairly painting it as a choice between division by "largest" or division by 7 billion complicated individual plans. What i was talking about was division by number of people that live there. That way you're not unfairly giving US citizens a "god" given right to pollute the Earth more. Maybe that's why China is gaming the system, if the system was gaming them.

Your best argument would be to say it's by size of economy and presumably you need the industry and manufacture and all the pollution that goes along with it, so US gets #1 spot. I would argue that the effect is counteracted by two things.

First, China is a less developed nation than the US. Some Chinese cities obviously pollute far, far too much but in rural areas there may not be the skills/infrastructure for higher technology energy production. America having a larger economy and being more developed is better placed to invest, update and pollute less per person.

Second, America is a modern democracy and can be held to account by its citizens, whereas China is relatively oppressive, far more likely to imprison protesters, and not strictly subject to election. You guys can do something, so do it. Or at least let a Chinese guy count as much as an American

It could also be that China doesn't give a shit, of course, and would go off on a fertility drive or something.. Or then again maybe they'd improve their mortality rates. Who knows.

@noims China is not "gaming the system". They are putting their money where their mouth is, and making real changes given the constraints and realities of their developing economy (see what I wrote above). They will stick to their targets because they realize that limiting global warming is in their own best interests of maintaining order and stability.

I unblocked ads on YouTube for a while. It didn't last long. The annoying and insulting and unskippable ads finally forced me to block ads again. If there is a long, unskippable ad you used to be able to refresh until you got a shorter or skippable ad or no ad at all.

I didn't mind letting an ad play out for a creator I watched regularly if it was a "good" ad (see below). Long ads, especially if the it played at the end of the video, I would just mute the volume and switch to another tab until it was finished (although I have read that they have a way of knowing if the window/tab is in focus and don't pay if that happens). There was one that I used to get all the time. The "ad" part was 10 seconds long, then it was literally 7 more minutes of a guy eating a sandwich. Apparently advertisers tried to game the system because Google wouldn't count the ad as viewed unless a certain percentage was watched, but they put a stop to that eventually.

I 100% agree that not only is Bernie the better candidate and would make a better President than either Clinton or Trump, he would also have a better chance of beating Trump.

Republicans might not like Sanders on a political level ("ermahgerd, teh socialism is coming!", etc), but they DESPISE Clinton on a personal level.

And let's be honest, most of that has nothing to do with her real or perceived failings.. it's because
a) she's a woman and
b) she was married to Bill.

But that is irrelevant because Clinton is the candidate.

Addressing your other points:
"Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill)"

Sorry, I missed the part where Bill Clinton was the nominee. Leaving aside the dubious nature of the allegations against him, the point is that he's not the candidate, Hillary is.

The email thing was bad, but as has been gone over many times, it was stupid rather than malicious.

"Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?"

Easy, Trump is worse. When did we all decide that being able to make deals was a bad thing? That's what politics is. If you don't know the system, you will get railroaded.

Now, my preference would have been for someone who knows the system and wants to change it, but as that's not going to happen, I'll take someone who can get shit done over an inexperienced buffon any day.

Once again, I completely agree that Bernie would have stood a better chance than Hillary of being elected, but it pretty much doesn't matter anymore. Everyday that passes Trump slips further behind, giving me some small hope for humanity.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Yeah, Trump is a complete tool. Guilty of all the stuff Maher said about him. Given that kind of "competition", what would the Democrats have to do to get those 20 states to flip their direction?

I can take a stab that that one, Bill -- he's sitting right next to you. If the Democrats had chosen Sanders as their candidate, I guarantee that at least some of those states would have gone blue on election day.

Firm, registered Democrats? They'd all happily vote for Bernie in the general, just like they will vote for Hillary.

Undecideds, moderates, and young people? Drastically more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary. A huge segment of the voting population is disgusted with the two major choices, and would happily flock to a candidate that has a proven track record of honesty and integrity, instead of the dog and pony show that we have now.

Firm, die-hard Republicans? Maher is right; there is a certain percentage of people that would never vote Democrat. But, I don't think that number is above 50% of the population even in the reddest of red states. But even for many of those people that are completely dissatisfied by Trump, from their perspective Hillary is NOT a better option.


Let's consider how all the arguments against Trump play to that specific audience: (note that the responses are what *they* think, not necessarily what *I* think)

Trump is a womanizer / misogynist / predator. Yeah, and Clinton is married to a worse one who disgraced the Presidency while he was in office.

Trump lies constantly. As opposed to the Clintons, who would never lie. For example, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" (Bill), "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" (Bill), and "I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time" (Hillary).

Trump has no experience with government and would make an incompetent president. What's worse: a crooked / corrupt Washington insider that knows how to game the system, or someone with no experience?

etc. etc.

Hillary goddamn Clinton is NOT going to be seen as a reasonable alternative to Trump to those people. No matter how much he goes off the rails. No matter what crazy, foul, contemptible shit he says or does. No matter how many skeletons you dig out of his closet. Why? Because they are convinced (reasonably or not) that the Clintons have done just as much questionable shit and more, they are perhaps just better at covering it up.

But if the Democrat candidate was Bernie Sanders, I'm sure a lot more of those hard-line Republicans would be way more tempted to vote blue in November.

There's no discussion here. Clinton has played fast and loose with the rules for her own gain, she's gamed the system, she's taken the expedient position far more times than she's taken the good, honorable, or right positions. She's not a very good choice for president.

Donald Trump is bankrupt. He claims to be a great businessman, but in reality it certainly appears he owes more than he has right now. In any case, at the very LEAST, even if you take his own over-inflated assessment of his net worth he'd have been further ahead putting his money in indexed mutual funds than trusting his own business acumen. He'd have been farther ahead still if he'd just held on to all the real estate daddy left him. The best you can say about him, business wise, is that after stiffing contractors for their pay, paying NO taxes for decades, and arranging at least six bankruptcies in such a way that he took minimum damage and his investors bore the brunt.... after all that, he's only BEHIND a few billion dollars from where he'd be if he'd just invested it and left it alone.

On top of that, it certainly appears he's a rapist, or at the very least guilty of sexual assault. He's so weak and afraid he has to constantly bully and puff himself up (this is not how strong people act). He appears to have little to no grasp of international affairs, tax policy, the environment, the economy. Worse still, he doesn't care that he knows nothing and makes no attempt to educate himself.

So... rapist-psychopath-egomaniac-moron, or lady who's a bit shifty. Hmm, tough choice.

I'll save you all the pain of watching that.

Independent fact checkers found 55% of Trump's statements were false as opposed to 13% of Clinton's.

Obviously Clinton gamed the system to arrange for an 'unlucky' number, so you must vote Trump!

Need to copy / learn from EA Dice BF game server system.

Finding/ joining / game play is crap.

So you can't possibly live on less than $15/hr? I feel like maybe that's more an issue of your money management skills then.

Sure, $6/hr is probably not enough. But it wasn't too long ago when 15 was a pretty decent wage. And kids living with mommy don't exactly require the same kind of "living wage" as they don't have any real expenses. So now, you raise the bottom to 15, and these kids now make more money. What about those who were making 15 before? Suddenly they're making minimum wage. I'm sure that makes them feel swell! Everyone should get a boost, not just those at the bottom. Probably a combination of that and a bit of a sliding scale to a certain maximum, along with tax reforms to close loop holes for those gaming the system.

Well, that's a better stance to take than most right wing people take, I'll applaud that. I would suggest that cutting assistance for all people would leave many in desperate situations, and desperate people have a tendency to ignore the law and societal norms, raising crime rates (and so costing more money). Desperate corporations have less of a track record getting away with that (although some still do).
I thought most right wing people blamed the poor for 'taking advantage' of the system, but corporations are seen as being smart to accept funding. I feel it's misinformation that makes them believe that most people availing themselves of the assistance are 'taking advantage of the system', and most corporations are simply properly following the law/rules to get any advantage possible, as they should. I can't understand the disconnect.
I blame anyone/anything 'taking advantage of the system', which does not mean anyone making use of it, only those gaming the system for advantage. My opinion is that more corporations fall into that category than individuals, or at least they get more out of the system.
Why labor in the fields instead of being a leach that requires illegal help? I think you answer your own question (perhaps you forgot the sarcasm button?). If field labor was paid appropriately they would need no government cheese or illegals to get it done. That would solve 2 issues for the right, I can't understand the resistance.
I think we actually agree that the system is set up to incentivize immoral behavior in an effort to create a safety net. (Perhaps we only disagree with the levels of immorality between people and corporations on this topic.) I think rational people could easily fix that problem without erasing the safety net with just a few reasonable requirements to qualify for assistance...too bad reasonable people are so few and far between.

"as an anarchist i believe all systems of authority and power to be illegitimate until proven otherwise."

I have a different take, in my preferred anarchism. The only one I see as functional, all voluntary hierarchies and authorities are perfectly legitimate. I am free to submit or not to any authority I choose to for my benefit and that is my legitimate right. Also private property owners have a legitimate authority over their property. I can do whatever I want with my property (without violating anyone else's self-ownership and property rights). And under the same conditions, I can legitimately enter into any agreements I want with anyone I want. That would be legitimate private property anarchy.

As of now, the government makes what is naturally legitimate, into something arbitrarily illegitimate, based on the whims of legislators and bureaucrats.

"the burden is on those who profess authority."

I understand what you are saying. And don't think the burden is on anyone. Do not initiate violence on anyone's person of property. Simple. That's it. There's nothing else to prove or not. If anything it is the "burden" to prove you own what you own, in cases of ownership disputes. For that, there is legal precedent on who has the burden of ownership proof etc.

"because even as an anarchist i have to recognize that there needs to be a system which keeps the hands on the scales that keeps the playing field even and the kids playing nice."

The only thing that can interfere and wreck a private property anarchy is aggression, i.e., the initiation of violence against anyone's person and/or property. To prevent that you have legal enforcement and arbitration services (courts). Just like now. Except that there wouldn't be a state monopoly over these. A private law society can work just as well or better than having a monopoly of law enforcement and courts. Monopolies are always inefficient and costly. Always. For any and all goods and services. No exceptions.

"these systems are for the people,by the people and run by the people."

There is not such thing as "the people," in any practical sense. Show me "the people" and I'll show you an abstraction. There are only individuals. "The people" cannot run anything. Even you and I disagree. How are we "the people?" (Furthermore, to have a truly non-violent society, individuals would have the choice as to whether or not to engage in agreements with other individuals. Unlike now, where people are forced into agreements by which "majorities" -- whether actual or rigged -- impose their will upon the minorities. That's what you call "democracy.")

"BUT..you stop there. are you implying that we have a free market now?"

No, we don't have a free market now. We have pockets in which free markets function, however.

"did you actually infer that america begot its wealth and power purely through free market exchanges?"

Yes, mostly it did.

"have you even been paying attention?"

What the fuck does that mean?

"corporate america has been exploiting third world countries for over a century!"

No, some corporations with the help of the US and/or foreign governments have been exploiting some people in third world countries, enriching those corporations and government officials in the US and mostly in third world countries. But this is what made these corporations and government officials wealthy, not what made America as a whole a wealthy nation. America is no longer a wealthy nation as a whole (particular companies are not "America"), but an indebted nation, because of things like these, which go hand in hand with military expenditures too. The average person profits nothing from these corporations and politicians exploiting third world (or any) countries. So no, this does not make America wealthy.

The free market, however (which this exploitation is not), did make America a wealthy nation with rapid economic improvement for the average person (with the regrettable exceptions of African and Native Americans).

"and our government has been the fist that punched the:exploitation,ruination and demise of those countries.hell thats the reason WHY they are third world!"

If you are arguing that the government has been responsible for all this evil, then you are preaching to the choir. Although I take issue with the idea that it is "our government." I don't own it, nor would I want to.

"its shameful and if thats your idea of a free market.
well..you can fucking keep it."

I don't think you have been paying attention, @enoch. No, I don't think we have a free market and you cannot have a free market if there is a government interfering with it. So I don't know what your, "you can fucking keep it," bullshit is about.

"you only seem to address one part of the equation.
or are you oblivious to the harm that corporate america has wrought for the past century?"

Corporate American is a corporatist system, kind of fascist if you want to get technical. It is a mix of private business with government-granted privilege. That is not a free market. Let me say it again, in case you missed it, a truly free market cannot exist while a government monopoly grants privilege to some businesses. That is crony-corporatism, fascism. A free market can only exist as market anarchy. Corporations exploit because of government privilege, be it granted by the US government/state or third world governments/states.

"who or what will keep that behemoth in check?"

Private law based on the rights to contracts and the right of freedom from aggression to person and/or property, enforced by a private legal enforcement system.

The state has not and will not "keep that behemoth in check" as you call it. In fact, the state is the "behemoth." It is absurd to expect the state to police itself. It has not and it will not. That plan is a failure. But "good luck with that."

(btw, I you want to know the real reasons third world countries are third world, particularly Latin America, I suggest you read Alvaro Vargas Llosa's well researched book, "Liberty For Latin America," and see how 500 of state intervention/abuse has led to the current situation. If you want to lecture me about why Latin America is "third world," you'd better do some more research first and really know your stuff. I am quite familiar with the situation there.)

"what do you think will happen when you take regulation off the table?"

When you take government-granted privilege off the table, things get better and corporations and (more importantly) governments cannot abuse individuals, as some corporations and virtually all governments now do. And you replace those privileges (euphemistically called "regulations") with laws based on non-aggression and enforcement of rights to self-ownership and property.

All "exploitation" comes from aggression. All of it.

Aggression means initiating violence. Without government support, no one can initiate violence without becoming a criminal. And criminals shall be dealt with accordingly. But as long as governments/states grant aggression privileges, then you have legalized crime.

"do you understand what feudalism actually is?"

Perhaps you'd like to restate this in a non-condescending way. If you have something to say about feudalism, then say it. Explain whatever you want to explain...

"we are living in what is now being called a "neo-feudalism" state."

I don't care to have a state, so you can take this complaint to the statists. (Good luck with that.)

"you point to the government but not to the invisible hand that owns it.which is corporate america"

"Corporate America" could do little harm if any, if it weren't for some corporations' use of government. Government serves no purpose other than to allow those who control it take from those who don't. The only solution to this is to not have that tool/weapon available to whomever takes control of it. Corporations don't own it. They just use it as much as possible (just like unions do, just like all sorts of special interest groups do, just like voting blocks do, and mostly just like politicians and bureaucrats do, and even citizens who "game" the system in one way or another).

"then again.i am a pretty crappy capitalist."

That likely makes you a "pretty crappy anarchist" too.
No offense intended.
Libertarian socialist kind of contradicts itself, does it not?
Take what you want from this message or not.
Good luck.

@Trancecoach
ok.
i always agree with you to a point and then you lose me.
i agree that commerce and free markets (with non-aggression) can be a good thing.
i agree that a bloated and corrupted government,bought by those who wish to game the system,a bad thing.
i also agree that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing.

but as @newtboy pointed out.history is a great teacher.
so while inequality is not really my main issue.fairness and justice IS a main issue.

the new global mafia principle only serves the powerful.
and while it may create prosperity for some,it emiserates far more than it helps.
so we both agree that this plutocracy HAS to go,what do we put in its place to keep the scales of fairness and justice equal? giving ALL an even playing field?

we both agree on the problem.
what do you suggest is a fair a just solution?

i know what mine would be but i curious what you envision the solution to be.

It seems that my votes only count if I am logged in, most of the time anyway. I've tried voting before at different computers without logging in and most of the time it shows the vote as working, but if I open a different browser to the video link (firefox to chrome, for example) it shows that the vote did not register.

I first noticed it when I was on my Nexus 7 and didn't feel like typing in my password, later I noticed the video had not went up in votes. Then I figured it might be because it was on the same router as my computer and it was to prevent people from 'gaming the system' and doing multiple votes for themselves. I then tried it on some of my friend's computers at different times and it was repeated there. It seems to be hit or miss, sometimes the vote counts and verifies in another browser, sometimes it doesn't.

For instance, today I tried to vote on http://videosift.com/video/How-did-the-car-appear without logging in. It showed the upvote in firefox, but in chrome it showed that it still had 9 votes. I logged in and voted and it went to 10, which chrome verified. I don't think it is a time delay either, because as soon as I am logged in and vote it goes through immediately.

Anyway, I thought you might want to investigate it. If someone has already pointed it out or I am just seeing issues that are not there, ignore this.