There are some things I disagree with in this video that are debatable, and things I agree with, but the fact about how Sanders polls against Trump or Cruz compared to Clinton is ridiculous.

He's completely ignoring the fact that most voters don't even know Sanders is a socialist yet, or generally much about any of the candidates. Most know that Hillary is Bill's wife, Bill got head when he was president, there are controversies surrounding them (most cooked up, a few have some legitimacy, not that the average voter knows the difference), and she was Secretary of State under Obama. If they know who Sanders is, he's that old guy who has some good points about how government and Wall Street are corrupt.

The poll numbers provided won't matter in a general election by the time that occurs. They could be more in Sanders' favor, against him, or what they are now, but what they currently are now won't have much to do with that. Polls change this far out from the general election.

If you want the chance at a more impactful significant economic and political revolution at the cost of an increased chance that Trump, Rubio, or Cruz will win, support Sanders. If you want to decrease the chances of Trump, Rubio, or Cruz winning the general election, but you understand it's going to be more of maintaining the status quo by doing so, support Clinton.

Call a space a spade at least.

I wonder how the USA would fare if every tax eligible citizen did as thorough job at tax avoidance as many multi-nationals that are happy to lobby to keep the status-quo?

Ask Italy, UK, Australia, and many other progressive countries what they think their shifting profits strategy.

Some people may look up to their valid strategy, but they are in fact thieving from the regular citizen who does not have their accounting capability. The government who also equally supports the multinational needs to make up their shortfall, and therefore the regular citizen suffers.

I own plenty of Apple stock, but they are also not citizen friendly in any way.

I don't represent the entire left, but as a member of the left I think you're misrepresenting our (at least my) concerns. It's not that we don't care about the unborn, it is that this is a complex situation that involves more than one person in an unusual circumstance.

On the one hand, the mother (and others involved) who for whatever reason don't want to bring a child into the world and look after it (yes I know about adoption and yes, it is a very good solution for some women/situations). On the other hand, the foetus. It may be little more than a collection of cells. It might have a heartbeat. It might be thinking/dreaming/hearing/feeling. You could even consider it to be a person at certain stages of development (or even from the very first cell division, if you want). It could even be considered killing a person to kill the foetus. I can accept all of that and yet I can accept the need for abortion. Just like we accept killing and/or not helping (so that they die) poor people, old people, disabled people, sick people, refugees, soldiers from other countries, people on deathrow, animals, etc. We accept justified killing in many circumstances. Making abortion legal simple means that in this circumstance, we accept that the killing is justified.

If you kill a pregnant woman, you may not be charged with murder. You will only be charged if the state does not consider the killing to be justified. I think that is where you're struggling with this issue. In the US, on a basic level, the state and populace consider the killing of an unborn child to be justified killing. You need to make an argument for why it isn't. (I don't really need to make an argument for why it is justified because I'm with the status quo on this one.)

@RedSky
Does he really glorify it any more than we already glorify drinking or smoking (smoking to a lesser extent). Advertising still tells us that it's not really a party unless you're getting hammered, depending on what you're drinking you are hipper, sexier, or just plain more fun. I see most glorification of pot as just a response to the over the top demonization of pot, so just decriminalize it already and eventually it will all reach equilibrium.
@VoodooV
Like he said, it's the corporate interests that will make the difference. They might pay lip service to social conservative causes like abortion, gay rights, etc but the only thing they really care about is the bottom line.
Gay marriage was a total non issue to them, but big pharma, law enforcement, the military industrial complex, tobacco, the prison industrial complex, and many others have a vested interest in keeping pot illegal. They will spend millions or even billions to keep the status quo. Once people saw gay marriage as an issue of civil rights it got a huge boost, but the legalization of marijuana is still seen by many as just a cause for stoners, pot heads and junkies, so nobody is really going to care.

I'm legitimately going to miss this guy. And his role is not one easily replaceable; I cannot think of any other person who is so selfless yet inspired to continue to research the cold hard facts and saying it how it is. The status quo will be happy that he goes, but for millions - this guy remained a real inspiration. Someone who found the calling of anarchism at a very young age and never let go. He is someone who knows the historic truths as well as understanding the fabric of the mind to a somewhat tangible degree above others and without much personal infliction. The guy looks at facts and could care less about your opinion, or his own "opinion" or emotions on topics. He is an incredibly rare and crucial resource.

Campaign finance reform IS a major political issue of the day, not a personal attack.
Hillary can't defend her actions on this issue, so she's attempting to deflect the focus back at Bernie for simply bringing up her public record/actions as related to this serious political issue.
That Hillary wants to characterize it as a personal attack shows clearly which side of the issue she's on and how deeply she's invested in that side, and it's the wrong side. There's absolutely no way to think she'll do anything meaningful about campaign finance reform when she benefits so much from the status quo.
If addressing this issue, one that dramatically effects ALL other issues and candidates, is meaningful to you, there's only one candidate for you, and it's certainly not Hillary or any Republican.

I guess the question is then are we going to be like the grasshopper or the ant? Will we prepare for the eventuality that automation and political corruptness (based on the demands of cheap employment pools and the money they receive from corporations desperate to keep that status quo) will merge together for the perfect storm? My problem is the attrition has been slow, just compounding the problem...

+1 for youthful optimism. He is bright enough and still young enough to change peoples minds on the status quo of police protection. This has to be the most encouraging video since that one of the brave policeman who didn't shoot, despite the person ignoring orders of "show you hands" .

@Asmo
i get what you are saying but i think you are missing the insidious implications that this new system of indoctrination represents.

i think @ChaosEngine's term 'stealth totalitarianism" is rather clever..and apt.

i agree with you on the points of peer pressure and how people can easily be manipulated.we are all,to varying degrees,subjected to a plethora of propaganda and targeted rhetoric,all meant to mold and shape our opinions in order to sustain the status quo while giving the impression that somehow our conclusions are an organic and natural response,when in reality we have been duped.

on that point we agree that this is not actually something new or novel but an old,tried and true method of social control.

what is new about this 'gaming" system,is that it is not taking the more subtle and passive approach of what current and supposedly "free" societies now implement to control public opinions and attitudes in order to either remain in power,sway the public into policies against their own interest,or create an atmosphere of fear to foment opposition.

this new system is actually aggressive.
this system will actively use its own population to do the oppressing,manipulating and controlling FOR them.

it is brilliant in it's simplicity.
it will use very human attributes we all possess in order to enact a better system of control,all the while having the appearance of being a harmless and innocuous social media competition.

but it is anything but harmless.
nor innocuous.
it will and can affect every facet of someones life.from their job to where they will be able to live,to even HOW they live.

think back to the times of east germany and the stasi,or the weimar republic,or even the soviet union of the 80's.

all used elements this new gaming system is representing,but those systems of control,while relying on the public to do much of its surveilling,all had one thing in common that they ALL relied heavily on:fear.

fear of reprisal.
fear of exposure.
fear and suspicion were the driving forces that kept those systems in power and the people in a perpetual state of paranoia.

the dread of the midnight knock.
of jackboots and black bags.

but those systems of control were fragile and once even a little resistance was exerted those systems crumbled incredibly fast.

this new system is far more subtle and devious in my opinion,because it removes the spectre of an imposing and oppressive government that will respond with violence and replaces it with the citizen to do the work for them.

the government does not have to do anything.
your neighbor will,and not because of some fear-based reason but rather for points to propel their own ambitions.their own selfish desires.

the wholesale implications are absolutely terrifying if you really think about it.

i would speculate that within a very short amount of time dissent and criticism of the chinese government will all but have vanished.replaced by a obedient and compliant population.

not because they are afraid of reprisal from the government but rather fueled by their own selfish desires for a better job,better living quarters,more privileges etc etc.

so a seemingly benign system utilizing social media will become of a self-propelled system,where those who do not tow the party line soon face joblessness,homelessness and ostracization.

not because the government strong armed them into submission,but rather their own neighbors.

so you are right.
there is nothing new here,but this system has taken the old forms of social control and brilliantly utilized one of humanities greatest weaknesses:selfishness.

it is the simplicity that makes this so brilliant and yet so horrifying at the same time.

How is this different to any other social pressure pushing bullshit in other countries (US, Aus, UK).

Vocal people apply pressure to change the status quo. Look at the treatment of integrated and peaceful Muslims around the world at the moment...

It's not the Chinese gov. you have to worry about, it's Facebook, Google etc... Where the fuck do people think this evil ass data mining and social pressure started? Monetising your preferences and forcing people to bow to social (peer) pressure or face shaming. Tencent and Ali Baba are the real motivators behind this and even if China went full capitalist tomorrow, those companies would continue to promote this system and it would still work in exactly the same way.

The real horror is that we look at China and think that they are getting the short end of the stick. We need to look at ourselves. We're not free, we're consumers. We accumulate stuff and we think that equates to having choice. China is just following the sterling example set by others...

I feel like you might have made the point better by comparing our treatment of terrorism, which is more outrageous laws and regulations over far less danger....but really you didn't need to compare it to anything.
I agree with your sentiment about religion (except the part where you imply that NO ONE is questioning religious communities' activities, I have done so my entire life with all religions), but I also read your comment as a slap at gun control, whether you meant it that way or not.

Also, please note, not everyone is fine talking about guns...there's one party that wishes we would never mention them again and just keep the status quo, and another party that wishes we would have SOME real regulations about who can purchase them and where one can take them. That makes almost 1/2 of us that don't want to talk guns, and almost 1/2 that insist we must talk guns.

A big part of it is the thin blue line bullcrap where cops will stand around watching this shit going down and not report it. Yes, it's probably a minority of bad apples, but then there are the silent witnesses who don't speak out, or the bastards that take revenge on the whistleblowers.

If the law, and the people that enforce it, is to have any meaning, it must be even handed. That is such a joke these days that anyone seriously believing it would be ridiculed as hopelessly naive. If the status quo = everyone understands that there are two sets of rules and the people that should be held to a higher level of responsibility are often given a pass, then the system is broken, and even the good cops are holding up a corrupt institution.

What I can't figure is how the good cops keep going to work, trying to serve the public etc when they see this shit. Talk about morale destroying.

It doesn't seem to me that these fringe scenarios of yours are any the more likely to occur in the realisation of my carefully considered reforms. Indeed, there's no apparent mechanism by which they would increase.

Cops are no less free today to engage in extortion than they might be under even the sloppiest implementation of my proposal. Whereas, I claim that the enhanced oversight and incentive structure of this enlightened, progressive model does more to counter bad baviour and encourage good baviour than your own rather lazy and hidebound adherence to the status quo.

My arguments were only about what the argument of legal rights, nothing else. I actually have three friends in Guam and I feel I'm more educated about the situation there than most Americans on the mainland. So thank you for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments, and keep in mind that I wasn't touching the socio-economic aspects of the situation, just John Oliver's misguided presentation of the facts.

Personally I'd love to see PR and Guam join. As for "why"... there are two main camps that I think might be right.

1)They honestly don't care. This mixes somewhat with the "they prefer the benefits of living in a Territory over what they'd gain by becoming a state." For example, if you live in PR and all of your income is made within the bounds of PR, then you don't have to pay US Federal Income Taxes. To me that doesn't really seem like a big deal. I think the people in this group would lean towards statehood if they weren't given the option to remain a territory (i.e. statehood or independence only).

2)They seem the fact that the US is still there as a remnant of military imperialism and they don't want to reward the US. In 1899 Samoa was carved up between Germany and the US during the stupid Kaiser's chest-pounding Imperialism phase that led up to WW1. Puerto Rico and Guam were both taken from the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. Cuba and the Philippines were as well, and those two chose independence and are now independent nations (Cuba was a special situation). The Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark during WW1 and the Marianas were taken from Japan during WW2. So... maybe these places feel like they aren't fully American. But honestly, I think that (with a possible exception of a large portion of Puerto Rico) this isn't the case. Or maybe they simply don't think they'd be an economically viable nation if they left. Look to Nauru as a great example of how fragile a small island's economy can be.

Puerto Rico had a really weird vote in 2012 that seemed to indicate statehood... but the ballot was horribly illegal (you can't have multiple, dependent questions of differing types on the same ballot)... so we'll have to wait til they redo it again with competence to see if they really mean it.

Add to all of this the comfort of the status quo. There's a certain philosophy of finding the sucky stuff that you're used to more palatable than the unknown.

But honestly... I don't know.

I'd guess that the main problem is the electoral college, and being too lazy to mess with the status quo of how many electoral votes each state gets and how many are required to become president, etc.

Which makes it just another flaw in that already pretty shitty system.